---

UK Worldwide Interests

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on securing this debate and I thank him for the typically comprehensive and thoughtful way in which he opened our discussion. Perhaps I may also thank him for all the help and advice that he has given me in the past. It is one of the great strengths of your Lordships’ House that, whatever our political differences, those of us who share a common interest in a subject can and do share real and helpful exchanges on the matters of concern to us. Of course, we all look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. He is a distinguished and welcome addition to this House, is no stranger to the Foreign Office and is able to speak from experience. It is now more than 30 years since I became a civil servant. Since then, I have represented some of the most senior civil servants, some of whom often sit on the Benches in your Lordships’ House. Latterly, I have spent eight years as an FCO and MoD Minister. In all that time I have never known a government department which believed that it was resourced to do all that it was charged to do. It is the common currency of government departments—particularly their Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries—to fight tooth and nail for their departments’ budgets in the annual scrap with the Treasury. The rules of the game are very clear. Departments argue ferociously for a great deal more money, describing the dire consequences if they do not get it. The Treasury argues every bit as fiercely to save taxpayers’ money and points out that government departments can and do survive by constantly looking at their own procedures to ferret out that fat which certainly arises in all bureaucracies. That said, the Foreign Office has achieved some extraordinary results on a budget which is under more pressure now than I can recall at any time in the past eight years. According to this year’s annual report, the core budget for the FCO is £854 million—a sum which must cover all our subscriptions to international organisations and out of which the FCO pays for 233 diplomatic missions around the world. This year, the FCO has succeeded in securing the modest increase in real terms of 1.2 per cent. The FCO’s annual report sets out comprehensively what it does with those resources, but perhaps I may speak from personal experience. First, foreign policy is not a niche activity. The Foreign Office is now a global network for the whole of UK government activity. The Foreign Office’s links with DfID, the MoD and DTI are of course well established in respect of overseas development, defence and trade. But, increasingly, the Foreign Office promotes policy on domestic issues which have become globalised: for example, the Home Office on crime, immigration and asylum; the Department of Health on the diseases of poverty, malaria, tuberculosis and the scourge of HIV/AIDS; Defra on the environment and climate change; and the Department for Education and Skills on international co-operation and exchanges, and, of course, our greatest export—the English language. The mainstreaming of domestic policy into foreign policy is a real change. It is a clear and growing part of our agenda that makes new demands upon our diplomats and on their resources. The second change is an obvious one: the increase in acts of terrorism and the threat of terrorism around the world. The Foreign Office’s role in dealing with terrorism is pivotal in multinational forums and in our bilateral relationships. The resourcing implications are enormous. The FCO now has to spend a hugely increased budget to secure its people in our missions overseas. From our devastated and beautiful consulate in Istanbul to the measures we have now had to take in 167 of our posts overseas, we have a duty of care for all our staff, and the Foreign Office needs the resources to discharge that duty fully. That brings me to the third point. Preventive action is always better than dealing with the aftermath of a failure to act, not only in human terms but in terms of hard cash. Better by far to build up resources on counter-terrorism than to try to repair wrecked lives and the physical damage to buildings and infrastructure—and, yes, to our trade as well. Nowhere is this more obvious than in foreign policy. Of course, sometimes military action is inevitable, and we can all argue about the point at which such decisions are appropriate, but diplomacy can and does work, often by supporting and encouraging others to find a way to talk to each other. We can look at India and Pakistan over Kashmir; diplomacy in Macedonia; the struggles to go forward in Sudan; the E3 with Iran; and the huge and sustained efforts in the Middle East. So prevention is always better than cure, but it is not cheap. It involves people of real experience who know the history and personalities of the countries involved inside out, and building that trust and experience takes years. When the going gets bad, it takes a lot to keep going. It involves not only all those attributes, but also good judgment and a touch of wisdom. One of the most regrettable outcomes of the recent publicity generated by the memoirs of one of our former ambassadors to Washington is the reawakening of an image of our diplomatic service as an overindulged, rather self-important glitzy clique that owes more to the 1980s than to the 21st century. My experience of the diplomatic community is very different: modest, discreet, full of good judgment and not given to blowing its own trumpet. It is to these people we owe the most, particularly the, often young, people who deal with our consular services. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has said that public expectations of what the FCO should be doing for Britons abroad has changed out of all recognition. It is the benefit that most British people expect from the FCO. They may not dwell on our policies in remote parts of the world, but they want, and believe they have a right to expect, British Government help if they get into trouble overseas. FCO responses have improved, particularly in the creation of the consular rapid deployment team for when disaster strikes. The FCO continues to learn hard lessons, however, and all of us who are debating today must consider whether the resourcing in this crucial area of consular support is adequate to meet the needs and legitimate expectations of the people of this country. My last point will perhaps be thought somewhat controversial, but one of the benefits of leaving ministerial office is that it has certain compensations. I cannot understand why ambassadors no longer have the budgets they used to, to deploy in pursuance of government policy in the countries in which they serve. The FCO is fizzing with ideas and projects. In the area I know best, the Middle East, I could have spent the meagre budget I had over and over again on global outreach, including the growth of civil society, encouraging democracy, dialogue between the religions, empowering women, promoting the rule of law and human rights—and, believe you me, that was even more true of my ambassadors. Instead, the money was in DfID, much of it channelled through UN agencies and into EU funds, which—and I know this is controversial—simply did not have the expertise that we had in our own Foreign Office back yard. I think that needs looking at. Having got that off my chest, I will finish with this. We all know that the best resource is people. That is a two-way street. We have terrific people in the Foreign Office. They give us great service, and they deserve to have us invest in them.