The 2012 Budget, announced the 'ambition' to double the value of exports by 2020 to £1 trillion a year. However current performance has been flat over the last two years and, to meet the Government's ambition, exports will have to grow by 10 per cent year on year. Many factors which affect export performance are outside the control of the FCO and UKTI, such as exchange rates and political and economic changes overseas. While the UK outperforms Germany, France and Italy in the Gulf, it has not traditionally performed as well in many other emerging markets, such as Russia, Brazil, Turkey and China. Success here is essential if the Government is to meet its target. There is a joint UKTI-FCO Board to oversee coordination of their work overseas but currently there is no further joint accountability for planning, monitoring and delivery against their goal. Their initial responses to the government's objectives have not been sufficiently coordinated. UKTI is now increasingly looking to measure actual business outcomes rather than volume of activity. Among the NAO's recommendations is that the FCO improve how it measures and monitors the impact of its activities supporting exports so that it can demonstrate that its spending of some £420 million a year yields tangible results. UKTI is piloting the use of external business partners to provide some of its services, and needs to implement lessons from the evaluation of its pilot initiative to use external partners if it decides to roll it out
The Foreign Affairs Committee believes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) will not be back at the centre of Government and able to lead UK foreign policy, in line with the Foreign Secretary's ambitions, unless it can provide deep foreign policy expertise and judgement to underpin and implement Government decision-making. The FCO must have the resources and skills required to fulfil this role, especially specialist geographical expertise and knowledge of foreign languages. The FCO has a vital role to play for the Government, namely the timely provision of world-class foreign policy information, analysis, judgement and execution. Finances, people and buildings must be well-managed, but managerial requirements must not divert time and focus disproportionately from the FCO's core foreign policy functions. Given the resource constraints facing the FCO, however, there is doubt whether the department can achieve the Government's ambitions for enhanced commercial work while maintaining its core foreign policy functions at the required standard. The committee regards the FCO's network of overseas posts as integral to the department's ability to discharge its functions, and recommends that the FCO should seek to maintain a global UK presence. The committee also called "confusing" the fact that under the current Government the FCO has three sets of priorities: the Foreign Secretary's, the Cabinet Office's Business Plan for the department, and the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Eighteen months since the Arab Spring began, there has been extraordinary progress in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Yet many challenges still lie ahead, not least the need to support and reform the economies of these Arab Spring states. In 2011, the G8 Deauville Partnership identified $38 billion of funding available to support reform. The UK must use its leadership in the EU and G8 to ensure that we deliver on our promises. The Government needs to learn lessons from its experience in anticipating and handling the Arab Spring. Questions arose about the FCO's staffing levels, linguistic expertise and information gathering in the Middle East and North Africa region, although diplomats understood well the long-term problems in the region. The report welcomes the Government's recent moves to establish contacts with Islamist parties in the region and calls for deeper engagement to demonstrate at an early stage the UK's support and assistance for democratically elected leaders who respect human rights and democratic reforms. The BBC's Arabic Service further highlighted the importance of the BBC World Service in providing an independent news service and enhancing the UK's standing in the region. The Committee welcomes the Government's decision to reverse planned cuts to the Arabic Service last year, expresses concerns that cuts made elsewhere in the World Service will prove detrimental to the national interest, and urges that there be a sustained investment in the World Service
The Foreign Affairs Committee believes the events of the 'Arab Spring' should stand as a reminder to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) that failing to take a stronger and more consistent stance against human rights violations by overseas regimes can carry risks for the UK. Any suggestion that the FCO downplays criticism of human rights abuses in countries with which the UK has close political and commercial links is damaging to the UK's reputation and undermines the department's overall work in promoting human rights overseas. The Committee is less confident than the FCO that there is little conflict between its simultaneous pursuit of both UK commercial interests and improved human rights standards overseas. The Committee heard concerns on this front with respect to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in particular. There should be a more robust and significantly more consistent position on human rights violations in the Middle East and North Africa. On China, the Committee finds it difficult to support the Government's approach to human rights engagement with China in the continuing absence of any evidence that it is yielding results, and when the human rights situation in China appears to be deteriorating. The Government should engage in more explicit, hard-hitting and consistent public criticisms of human rights abuses in China. The Committee welcomes the FCO's continued production of an annual human rights report and the Government's recognition that the UK's own human rights practices affect its international reputation and ability to pursue improvements in human rights standards overseas.
Response to HCP 594, session 2005-06 (ISBN 9780102936179). The report by the Committee of Public Accounts on the topic was published as HCP 813, session 2005-06 (ISBN 9780215028389)
Despite the impressive performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in representing the UK's interests across the globe with what is, in Governmental terms, a particularly small budget, the Foreign Affairs Committee believes that the FCO is under-funded. This situation has been exacerbated by the Spending Review 2010 and the lack of detail provided by the FCO and the BBC World Service as to exactly how the spending reductions target will be met is disappointing. There are concerns about the steps taken by the FCO to adjust to its reduced budget: reductions in the deployment of UK-based staff overseas and the optimistic planned programme of property sales will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the UK to protect its interests overseas. The establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) will place a further strain on the FCO's resources. The Committee welcomes the appointment of Lord Williams of Baglan to the post of "International Trustee" with responsibility for the BBC World Service, but reiterates its belief that a formal concordat governing the World Service's budget and output should be drawn up setting out the World Service's independence from budgetary pressures elsewhere in the BBC. The budget cuts faced by the British Council will lead to the Council becoming a substantially different organisation by the end of the Spending Review period. The greater emphasis that the British Council will place on commercial activity risks a diminution of the UK's influence and soft power.
The Consular Service of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides vital support to British nationals overseas. It offers a wide range of services, handling anything from lost passports to kidnap, a major crisis evacuation or verification of a document. It is the FCO's public face, and it is central to its reputation at home. Britons undertaking more adventurous travel, large expatriate populations and a series of major overseas crises have tested the Consular Service in recent years. In 2013, the FCO dealt with over 450,000 consular customers, over 17,000 of whom received personal assistance. The Consular Service has responded with a "strategic shift" to provide a more standardised and professional service. However, the strategic shift to a "smaller and better" consular service has also meant that some services have been limited or withdrawn, and standardisation has meant the end of so-called "over-service" as well as under-service. The FCO has consequently put great emphasis on encouraging self-help, managing expectations and explaining the limits of its assistance to British nationals. Despite these efforts to explain to the public what the FCO can and cannot do, there was still a significant gap between the high expectations of the public and the reality of what the FCO could provide.
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain remain key partners for the UK but relations are complicated by the differences between our societies and the pressing need for reform in the Gulf. Historic warm relations between the UK government and the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are not mirrored in public opinion in Saudi Arabia and the UK, and the UK's reputation in Bahrain has also suffered since 2011. The Government must make its public profile and reputation a more central part of its work in the Gulf, consider how it can best support much-needed economic and political reforms, and how it can explain its policies and point to specific achievements when speaking to the public at home and in the Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, the Government must convert its promising steps so far in providing assistance on legal and judicial reform into solid and reportable programmes. In Bahrain, it must work to secure access for NGOs and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and press more strongly for swifter implementation of reforms. Saudi Arabia's role as a key buyer for the UK defence industry is controversial but the report finds little to suggest that ending defence sales from the UK would have any positive effect. The aggressive way in which the Bahraini security forces handled events in 2011 has deeply damaged Bahrain's reputation. The recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) were sensible and the Bahraini government's failure fully to implement them is inexplicable.
It is inevitable that the UK will have strategic, commercial or security-related interests overseas which have the potential to conflict with its human rights work, says the Foreign Affairs Committee in a report published today. The Government should not be trying to assert that the two can co-exist freely: it should instead be explaining publicly its judgments on how to balance them in particular cases. The Committee's recommendation comes in the light of the FCO's decision not to designate Bahrain as a "country of concern" in its 2011 report on its human rights work, despite the repression of demonstrations in Bahrain in 2011. The Committee recommends that the criteria for designation should be based purely on assessments of human rights standards and should not be coloured by strategic or other considerations. The Committee also challenges the Government for being inconsistent in not taking a public stance on the Bahrain Grand Prix but boycotting group stage games at Euro 2012 in Ukraine. On rendition, the Committee finds that the protracted police investigations had an unacceptable impact on the work of the Gibson Inquiry and of relevant committees. The Government should explain why current investigations into claims of rendition made by two Libyans are expected to take so long. The Committee accepts that enough progress has been made in Burma to justify some relaxation of the EU's sanctions regime, but it says that Burma's human rights record remains seriously blemished. It recommends that the UK should call for better access to those still detained as political prisoners, and should press the Burmese authorities to allow independent observers to visit Rakhine state, to assess the extent to which the rights of the Rohingya minority are being respected.
The Foreign Affairs Committee publishes a wide-ranging report on the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and two of its sponsored bodies, the BBC World Service and the British Council. It makes key recommendations on language skills for top diplomats, BBC World service funding and priorities, and funding for the British Council. For the FCO, the exclusion of foreign language skills and reliance purely on general management competencies creates the risk of credibility in respect of key diplomatic postings. The Committee finds it unacceptable that the World Service will not know its budget, priorities or objectives before the transition to licence fee funding and the new arrangements for oversight by the BBC Trust from April 2014. The British Council will struggle to deliver the UK's foreign policy objectives if cuts to grant funding from the FCO continue at a similar rate. The Committee recommends that the FCO should shield the British Council from the effect of any further cuts to the FCO budget in 2015-16.
This report focusses on the FCO's financial situation and the implications of the Spending Review 2010 for its work and performance, and that of its associated body, the British Council. The FCO is one of the major departmental 'losers' in the Spending Review. Reductions in spending on the FCO, if they result in shortfalls in skilled personnel and technical support in key countries and regions, can have a serious effect in terms of the UK's relations with foreign countries, out of all proportion to the amounts of money involved, especially in relation to the UK's security and that of its Overseas Territories. Cuts to the core FCO budget of even 10% may have a damaging effect on the Department's ability to promote UK interests overseas. The FCO will also face cuts of 55% to its capital budget. The target of raising £50 million per year through selling existing buildings may be difficult to achieve, and may not secure savings in the long-term. A further reduction in the opportunities for more junior UK-based staff to serve in overseas posts, and a consequent diminishing of experience and morale among FCO employees, could over time have a damaging effect on the quality of British diplomacy and the effectiveness of the FCO. The British Council, facing a 25% cut in spending, should give detailed information on its strategy for implementing the cut, which may well trigger fundamental rethinking of the role and work of the Council.
This document sets out the Government's reply to the Committee's sixth report (HCP 36-I, session 2004-05; ISBN 0215023730) in a series of reports on the threat of international terrorism. Responses are given under the following headings: the ongoing threat from terrorism; the multilateral framework (UN and EU); human rights (including Guantânamo Bay, and use of evidence obtained through torture); Iraq; the Maghreb (specifically, Algeria, Morocco and Libya); the Middle East peace process; Afghanistan; and non-proliferation.
In this report the Foreign Affairs Committee calls on the British Government to use its influence to persuade the US to engage more fully, and swiftly, with the process of political reconciliation in Afghanistan if the US wishes to disengage its forces there. Although the current international emphasis favours intense military pressure, aimed at defeating the insurgency, it is clear that military pressure alone is not enough to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. The evidence presented to the Committee has suggested that the current full-scale and highly-intensive ISAF counter-insurgency campaign is not succeeding. The Committee question the fundamental assumption that success in Afghanistan can be 'bought' through a strategy of 'clear, hold and build'. The distinction between al-Qaeda and the Taliban is crucial to generating appropriate policy responses in Afghanistan. The Committee says that despite the significant resources that have been invested in Afghanistan, and the enduring, wholehearted and admirable commitment and sacrifices of British personnel, the UK has not yet achieved its stated goals. There is also evidence that the core foreign policy justification for the UK's continued presence in Afghanistan, namely that it is necessary in the interests of UK national security, may have been achieved some time ago, given the apparently limited strength of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The security rationale behind the UK Government's decision to announce the 2015 deadline for the unconditional withdrawal of UK combat forces remains unclear and there are a number of potential risks inherent in such an approach.
The Commonwealth is working for the UK however if the organisation is to reach its potential and influence events, the Commonwealth Secretariat needs to "sharpen, strengthen and promote its diplomatic performance". Recently the Commonwealth has appeared less active and less publicly visible. The Government does not appear to have a clear and co-ordinated strategy for its relations with the Commonwealth. The moral authority of the Commonwealth has "too often been undermined by the repressive actions of member governments". The Committee is "disturbed to note the ineffectiveness of the mechanisms for upholding the Commonwealth's values", and expresses support for the Eminent Persons Group's proposal for a Commonwealth Charter. The Committee also says that it is not convinced that member states are making the most of the economic and trading opportunities offered by the Commonwealth. The report welcomes the fact that the Commonwealth continues to attract interest from potential new members, and the report says that there are advantages in greater diversity and an extended global reach for the Commonwealth however the application process should be rigorous. There is also concern at the continuing evidence of serious human rights abuses in Sri Lanka and the Committee urges the Prime Minister to state publicly his unwillingness to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo meeting unless he receives "convincing and independently-verified evidence of substantial and sustainable improvements in human and political rights in Sri Lanka.
With just over sixteen months to go before the Scottish referendum there are still significant gaps in the Scottish Government's proposed foreign policy, according to a report published today by the Foreign Affairs Committee. There has not been enough analysis on what sort of overseas diplomatic network and external security and intelligence provision Scotland would have to set up. There needs to be a more realistic assessment of the extent to which Scotland could expect the rest of the UK (RUK) to co-operate with, and support it, on security and intelligence. There is a pressing need for official legal advice on a wide range of international legal issues including EU accession, EU opt-outs and membership of international organisations. The Report says that the overwhelming body of law, evidence, practice and precedent supports the view that the RUK would inherit the vast majority of the UK's international rights and obligations whereas Scotland would start anew internationally if it became independent. Having two co-equal states could lead to a level of legal and political insecurity that would not be tolerated by other states. The report disputes the view that Scotland's journey towards membership of the EU and NATO would be straightforward. It is for the EU itself to determine in accordance with its regulations whether and how Scotland would become a member. Scotland may have to make trade-offs to secure the unanimous support it would need from within the EU.
In 2003 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) published its first white paper on the UK's international priorities, and has reviewed that paper every two years to ensure it remained relevant. This paper updates the analysis and establishes a new range of strategic priorities. Chapter 1 considers the trends driving global change over the next decade and how they will affect the UK: economics; demography and migration; resource pressures; climate change; religion and identity; poverty and governance; security and conflict; science and innovation. The next chapter looks at the UK's role in the international system and the key partnerships. This covers the United Nations, multilateral economic institutions such as the World Bank, the G8 and OECD, the Commonwealth and the European Union (EU), and relationships with the United States, China, India, Japan and Russia, and countries with important regional roles such as Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. Chapter 3 outlines the nine strategic international priorities identified: (1) making the world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; (2) reducing the harm from international crime, including drug and people trafficking, and money laundering; (3) preventing and resolving conflict through a strong international system; (4) building an effective and globally competitive EU; (5) supporting the UK economy through the global economy, science and innovation, and secure energy supplies; (6) promoting sustainable development and poverty reduction, underpinned by human rights, democracy, good governance and protection of the environment; (7) managing migration and combating illegal immigration; (8) delivering high-quality support for British nationals abroad; (9) ensuring the security and good governance of the UK's overseas territories. Chapter 4 sets out the role of the FCO in pursuing these priorities, and an annex gives specific aims for each strategic priority.
This seventh annual report covers the 12 month period until the end of July 2004. The human rights report is designed to provide detailed information for Parliament and for other interested parties on the FCO's activities to promote human rights, democracy and good governance abroad. These activities cost over £12 million in 2003-04. The key human rights issues in some 20 countries, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq and Zimbabwe, are described. The report also covers the course of international debate on human rights. Specific chapters deal with: human rights and conflict; economic, social and cultural rights; human rights and the rule of law; democracy, equality and freedom; women's rights and child rights.
This document sets out the United Kingdom's strategy, known as CONTEST, for countering the threat from international terrorism. The aim of CONTEST is to reduce the risk to the United Kingdom (UK) and its interests overseas from international terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. This is a revised and more detailed version of the strategy contained in "The national security strategy of the United Kingdom" (Cm. 7291, 2008, ISBN 9780101729123). The first part sets the context with a brief history of the changing threat to the United Kingdom and to UK interests overseas from international terrorism, examines the present threat, the factors which are shaping it and the assumptions about how it may develop. The second part sets out the principles which will govern the strategy, including a commitment to human rights and the rule of law, recognition of the need to address the causes as well as the symptoms of terrorism and the need to co-operate with other countries. The four main streams of the CONTEST strategy are: (1) pursue - to stop terrorist attacks; (2) prevent - to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism; (3) protect - to strengthen our protection against terrorist attack; (4) prepare - where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its impact. The third part of the document outlines who will deliver the strategy and how its impact will be measured. The document concludes with a section explaining the importance of communications as a part of the counter-terrorism strategy.
The cuts imposed on the FCO since 2010 have been severe and have gone beyond just trimming fat: capacity now appears to be being damaged. If further cuts are imposed, the UK's diplomatic imprint and influence would probably reduce, and the Government would need to roll back some of its foreign policy objectives. The FCO's budget is a tiny element of Government expenditure, but the FCO makes disproportionate contribution to policy making at the highest level, including decisions on whether to commit to military action. The next Government needs to protect future FCO budgets under the next Spending Review.
This is the 10th Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual report on human rights. Publishing just a few weeks after the FCO's new strategic framework and mission statement this report shows how human rights will remain fully integrated with the their four new policy goals. These goals cover: counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation & their causes; promotion of a low-carbon, high-growth global economy; prevention & resolution of conflict and development of effective international institutions, particularly the UN & EU. The report also covers human rights in the overseas territories & of British nationals abroad; and key human rights themes including equality, democracy & rule of law. It also gives indepth reports on 25 countries of particular concern, setting out the main human rights problems and how they have been, and will continue to be, addressed.
The Government, in consultation with the Territories and other stakeholders, has developed a strategy of re-engagement: strengthening links between the Territories and the UK; strengthening governance; and enhancing support to the Territories. This White Paper sets out priorities for action in terms of defending the Territories; supporting successful economic development; preserving the Territories' rich environmental heritage and addressing the challenges of climate change; making government work better; community issues; and strengthening links with international and regional organisations or other countries. Taking this forward will require a partnership between the UK Government and Territory Governments. The UK wants to strengthen political engagement between Ministers in the UK and the Territories, particularly through the proposed Joint Ministerial Council, and is determined to live up to its responsibilities to the Territories
A lack of strategic thinking at the heart of Government threatens the UK's national interests, the Public Administration Committee warns. The MPs note Whitehall's tendency to 'muddle through' and point to the UK's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, as examples where there has been a lack of overarching strategy. The report says clear strategic leadership is indispensible to advance British interests in an increasingly fast changing world. But it raises serious concerns about Whitehall's capacity to support the Foreign Secretary's aspiration to extend the UK's 'global reach and influence' with the necessary strategic analysis and assessment. This applies particularly to the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review and the MPs question how far this can actually be 'strategic'? The Committee calls for: ministers to invest more time and energy into strategic leadership; the creation of a 'community of strategic thinkers' across Whitehall, to provide ministers with the capacity for strategic analysis and assessment; the National Security Council's remit to encompass national strategy; greater emphasis to be placed on strategic studies and training both within Whitehall and in academia; Parliament's Joint Committee on National Security Strategy to extend its remit to include national strategy; a small central budget to be established to fund central coordination of departmental contributions to national strategy.
The International Development Committee believes the Government is right to increase aid to fragile and conflict-affected states, such as Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) , but it must prepared suspend or even cancel a programme if a Government flouts agreements or refuses to engage in efforts to increase transparency and accountability. The MPs urge DFID to set out specific governance conditions under which it will provide direct budget support to fragile states, and any under which it will be withdrawn and apply these consistently. They also recommend that DFID invest more in community-led local initiatives which respond to community priorities and give communities more confidence to hold their governments to account. Two case studies of Rwanda and the DRC highlight areas of concern. Rwanda is heavily dependent on aid which provides 45% of government expenditure. The UK will provide £90 million to Rwanda in 2014-15. While Rwanda has made progress in reducing poverty, concerns have been expressed about its human rights record and the lack of political pluralism. The Committee urges the UK Government to use its position as the largest bilateral donor to Rwanda to insist on improvements to the country's governance. In the DRC there is concern about high levels of violence against women and girls. DFID should give greater priority to tackling this in its programme and include the reduction of violence against women in its results framework for the DRC.
The FCO was timid and inconsistent in the discussions which led to the decision to award to Sri Lanka the right to host the 2013 CHOGM. It should have taken a more robust approach since, in the light of continuing human rights abuses in the country. In 2009 the FCO objected to Sri Lanka hosting the 2011 CHOGM but did not obstruct a proposal that it might do so in 2013, nor did it insist that Sri Lanka's right to host in 2013 should be conditional on improvements in human rights. The Committee took evidence from the BBC World Service on jamming and denial of access to its broadcast and internet services, particularly in Iran and China. The Committee calls on the BBC to recognise in future funding plans the need to provide the resources necessary to afford protection. All providers of satellite services have a commercial interest in defeating jamming. The report considers Government policy on human rights in Burma and concludes that the EU's decision to lift economic sanctions in April 2013 was the right one, given the remarkable progress made in Burma. But it warns that the UK should be prepared to advocate re-imposition of sanctions if undertakings on human rights are not followed through. The Government should also urge condemnation of those responsible for violence in Rakhine State in 2012. The Committee does not support suggestions that the 2014 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games should be boycotted in protest against human rights abuses in Russia
The FCO designated 28 countries of concern in its 2013 report, where it judged the gravity of the human rights abuses to be so severe that a particular focus should be applied. The Committee concentrated attention on three of these countries: Sri Lanka, Burma, and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Favourable trade concessions to the EU market should be removed from Sri Lanka if the Government of Sri Lanka continues to deny the OHCHR investigation team access into the country. The Government should advocate re-imposition of sanctions by the EU if there is no improvement in the human rights situation in Burma. The human rights of Israeli, Palestinian and Bedouin citizens living in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue to be of serious concern to the UK.
In this report, published on the last day that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has funding responsibility for the World Service, the Foreign Affairs Committee says that it has "clear differences" with the BBC on new arrangements for governance of the World Service. It specifically has reservations about the move to licence fee funding for the World Service and what that would mean for the World Service's budget, and its ability to be heard amongst all the other competing voices within the BBC. The Committee regrets that the World Service now has no direct voice on either the BBC Executive Board or the Management Board, and it says that it "remains to be seen" whether representation of the World Service's interests at Board level by the Director of News and Current Affairs will indeed safeguard the distinct nature of the World Service. The Committee welcomes the assurance given in evidence by James Harding, the BBC's Director of News and Current Affairs, that the £245 million budget for the World Service in 2014-15 will be used as a baseline for the following two years. But what is really needed is longer-term protection at institutional level, and we continue to be concerned about the absence of a direct voice for the World Service on either the BBC's Executive Board or the Management Board
This report is the Committee's annual review of how the FCO is managing its resources, examining the departmental annual report for 2007-08 (Cm. 7398, ISBN 9780101739825). Chapters cover: new strategic framework; performance measurement; global network; essential services; FCO Services; personnel issues; transparency and openness; financial management; public diplomacy and communication; the British Council; the BBC World Service. The Committee is concerned that the FCO is facing serious financial pressures in this financial year due to the Treasury's withdrawal of its support for the Overseas Pricing Mechanism (OPM) which used to protect departments from the weakening of sterling. There is a risk that the FCO may not be able to meet higher international subscriptions over the next two financial years, causing its performance against Public Service Agreement targets to suffer. The likely increase in the UN Regular Budget and other international subscriptions will push this figure even higher. The FCO should have to shoulder the financial burden from within its already tight budget to pay for subscriptions which also benefit other Government departments. The Committee recommends that additional nondiscretionary costs should properly be met by the Treasury.
From the environment to eating habits, and from the economy to equestrianism, this handbook combines material and detail with coverage of recent policy developments in Britain. Tables, maps, diagrams and colour photographs are used to illuminate a wide range of topics, and to mark the 50th anniversary of the Central Office of Information, there is a section of photographs reflecting life in Britain over the past five decades.
The 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games is likely to be a 'once in a generation' opportunity for the UK to attract the attention and interest of the entire global community. The report reviews other countries' experience of using major sporting events for public diplomacy purposes. The Games offer an unparalleled opportunity to promote UK business, trade and inward investment. The Committee recommends holding a major trade event close to or during the Games to secure the maximum commercial benefit to the national economy. The FCO should also make more of the claim that the 2012 Games will be "the world's first sustainable Games", publicising around the world the many examples of environmental good practice in the planning and building of the event. And it should continue to use the Games to promote British culture and values at home and abroad, emphasising that London is an open and welcoming city, and that the UK is a diverse, inclusive and friendly country. The Committee is worried that budget cuts may result in the FCO's work related to the Olympics becoming a matter solely of individual initiatives by embassies and High Commissions, without adequate central co-ordination. The Committee recommends that the FCO should form a 'rapid response unit', set up well before the Games, which can rebut or challenge negative stories appearing in the world media.
This report is the Committee's annual review of how the FCO is managing its resources. This year a key area off interest has been the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review because the Committee think it is one of the tightest in Whitehall and it risks jeopardising some of the FCO's important work. Apart from this the other subjects covered are: measuring performance; operational efficiency; management and leadership; FCO services; diplomatic representation overseas; transparency and openness; public diplomacy; British council; BBC World Service.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.