TNAG-1851-FCO40-2626-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1989 — Page 49

58

3 May 1989]

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE

Sir PATRICK WRIGHT, KCMG, Mr D BLATHERWICK, OBE, Mr D Moss, CMG, Miss C PESTELL, CMG, Mr G GRIFFITHS AND Mr AR PAUL

[Mr Taylor Conid

to six months including of course the head of research department, the director of research, and I have regularly made a point of reminding political and functional departments of the need to keep closely in touch with their opposite numbers in research department so that research department is to a certain extent operating as a member of its opposite number department. I think it is very important-I fully take Mr Taylor's point-that research department is regarded, as indeed it is, as a fully integrated member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is working very closely with the operational offices.

Mr Wells

159. The provision of grant to the institute is £2.5 million in 1989-90. Can you say what the institute requested?

(Sir Patrick Wright) I think the institute bid for £2.833 million, £2.6 million of which was for the Commonwealth Institute in London and £0.222 million for the Commonwealth Institute in Edinburgh.

160. Who will take the decisions on whether to accept the findings of the professional consultants who are expected to report later this year? In the questions that you asked the consultants to answer, did you ask whether we needed a Commonwealth Institute at all?

(Sir Patrick Wright) I should need notice of the second part of that question although I think it is inherent in the decision to have a Commonwealth Institute that we are constantly assessing its value and its use, but I do not know whether the question, "Do we need a Commonwealth Institute at all?” was in the remit. I will be glad to find out. To take the first question, decisions on the consultants' recommendations will involve the chairman, the board and the management of the institute and the trustees and, in view of his statutory responsibility for the institute, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

161. Do you think you could keep the Commit- tee informed as to what goes on when you receive the report?

(Sir Patrick Wright) If I may, I will certainly report the Committee's interest in this to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr Temple-Morris

162. On the UK/Iran compensation agreement, I want to ask about progress. You recollect the agreement on compensation which we pay for hav- ing rescued a rather objectionable charge d'affaires from 16 Princes Gate and the compensation they will pay for having burned down our office block in the course of a riot. How far advanced were we in the implementation of the agreement before diplomatic relations were broken off?

(Sir Patrick Wright) The agreement was concluded and the arrangements under the agree- ment for successive payments were settled between us and are regarded as acquit: that is an agreement

[Continued

between our two governments. No payments have yet been made either to or by the Iranians.

163. So you were satisfied therefore prior to the break off of diplomatic relations that the agreement was an agreement and indeed had things been nor- mal between our two countries it would have been implemented?

(Sir Patrick Wright) Indeed, and I hope very much that the agreement will be implemented. We have ourselves already settled Westminster City Council's claim of £200,000 for costs incurred in making and keeping the premises safe. I hope very much that in spite of the break in diplomatic rela- tions the agreement can go forward.

164. That was my last question: do you think we will be able to get somewhere with the implementation of the agreement despite the fact that we have broken off diplomatic relations?

(Sir Patrick Wright) I hope so.

165. And you are making efforts to that end? (Sir Patrick Wright) Indeed. Both governments are of course represented in each other's capitals through protecting powers, the Swedes in our case in Tehran and the Pakistanis in the Iranian case in London.

Chairman: We have three issues left. May we go straight on to the World Service.

Mr Temple-Morris

166. Sir Patrick, you will recollect that I asked you a number of questions about this last year. I was asking you then and what I ask now is the flexibility within the triennium-should extra costs for the World Service be revealed-for you to alter the financial arrangements. To remind you, I believe you said that during three years of the these sort of things were taken into account and if triennium at each year there was a review when

there was an obvious downturn you would have to take account of that downturn. Is that a fair summary of where we have got to so far?

(Sir Patrick Wright) The ten-year programme, as you know, ran from 1981 and the programme is intact and more or less on course. The major outstanding element is improvement for Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which are due for completion in 1991 and 1992. We still attach importance to further audibility improvements where needed to keep the BBC up with competition consistent with our foreign policies priorities and in particular Southern Africa and the sub-conti- nent. The capital costs are high and within the sums agreed in the triennium we have to look at certain flexibility for the BBC themselves within that sum. I am not aware of any major problems at present in meeting the requirements from within the sums agreed.

167. Let me give a small example of what I would submit is a problem. We have heard a great deal about Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and, indeed, in the context of the remarkable things