FCO consular services

We welcome the elevation of consular services as a vital part of the FCO’s work that can provide unique assistance to British nationals overseas.

The Consular Contact Centres appear to be an efficient and effective innovation by the FCO that allows frontline consular officers to focus on their main work.

The FCO has rightly dedicated significant resources to improving and developing IT systems capable of meeting the demands of consular services.

Demand for online services will continue to grow, and it is right that the FCO has embraced this approach. However, the FCO’s assurances that it continued to support those who could not access digital services via phone and in person were not borne out by the feedback we received. We are concerned that the digital strategy has resulted in a service that is harder for some expatriates to reach without third-party support. This could make vulnerable people even less able to operate independently. The Contact Centres should function as a genuine resource of consular information and support for people who have made the time and effort to call, rather than simply a ‘signpost’ to the FCO’s online services especially when people are not in a position to access these easily.

It is of the utmost importance to get the FCO’s response right in a crisis. We believe that the FCO has responded to earlier serious problems in its crisis response with energy and the seriousness they deserved, and that lessons have been learned and effectively applied. By their nature, crises are often unpredictable and the FCO will require continuous vigilance to maintain and improve its crisis systems.

There appears to have been a shift from attempting to keep track of British nationals abroad in normal circumstances so that they could be contacted if a crisis occurred, which proved difficult, to making it easier for British nationals to contact the FCO at times of crisis. This may be less reassuring for long-term expatriates who enjoyed the comfort of knowing that their embassy knows their number and address, but it is a sensible response to the problems encountered by previous systems. However, we remain concerned about potential over-reliance on internet-based services to distribute information in a crisis, when internet services might not be working, or the internet is deliberately cut off by the Government in question. In its response to this report, the FCO should set out the contingency measures it has in place to mitigate the loss of internet-based communication in a crisis, such as its surge capacity on phone lines.

We conclude that there has been a net reduction in the size of the consular network on the ground, which is a concern. The closure of posts in Europe has not been replaced by the equivalent number of openings elsewhere, nor has it been accompanied by substantial increases in alternative means of consular representation, such as honorary consuls. We are concerned that vulnerable British prisoners abroad are reportedly receiving less assistance than before. The FCO should set out in its response how it intends to review allegations that the support it offers to prisoners has deteriorated as a result of the closures.

We consider Honorary Consuls to be an important and efficient part of the FCO’s consular network, enabling it to extend its reach beyond capital cities. They do important work for British nationals at very low cost to the service. We understand concerns about potential conflicts of interest, and we recommend that the FCO consider recruiting Honorary Consuls on shorter contracts and that the FCO require Honorary Consuls to declare any relevant business interests throughout their tenure, and that the FCO ensure that training and supervision of Honorary Consuls in connection with potential conflicts of interest is standardised. We further recommend that, where the FCO replaces a consular office with an Honorary Consul, it sets out in public the duties it expects the Honorary Consul to perform.

The FCO’s notarial service must take officials’ time away from more vulnerable and needy cases, so the FCO’s decision to reduce this service wherever other providers are available is a sensible one. The FCO should carefully monitor any implications of the loss of income from this service, as it would not be advisable for the FCO to increase other fees for mandatory documents to make up the shortfall.

We agree that there are circumstances in which it is not only compassionate but a most effective use of funds to help a national to return home, and prevent further problems. The FCO is right to review its debt recovery systems, and it should pursue repayment more rigorously in future. In its response to this report, the FCO should set out how it intends to improve its debt recovery systems.

Locally engaged staff are vital members of consular teams and have language skills and knowledge of local issues that are highly valuable in consular work. However, we are concerned that the reduction in UK-based overseas consular work to only 9% of overseas consular posts will have the short-term consequence of making consular work less attractive for younger FCO staff due to the lack of overseas postings, and a longer-term consequence that very few senior Ambassadors or FCO staff in leadership roles will have frontline consular experience. Such a significant change to Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 7 FCO careers should be carefully planned and reviewed, rather than an inadvertent result of a cost-cutting strategy. The FCO should make at least 20% of overseas consular positions available to UK-based staff. This would have cost implications, but it will ensure that valuable consular experience is maintained among the future leadership cadre in the Foreign Office.

We agree that the expectations of the general public about what the FCO can do for them are often too high, and welcome the measures taken by the FCO to explain its services more clearly.

The FCO’s official guidance for families who have suffered a bereavement due to murder or manslaughter is timid and cautious in comparison to its guidance on its other services. It is understandable that support is tailored to each individual case, but the guidance gives the impression of very limited support and no guarantees of assistance. The FCO should update its guidance to be clearer and more generous about what the families can expect to receive. This should include the more extensive commitments that it has agreed internally.

The submissions we received indicated that consular support for families in cases of deaths abroad is inconsistent and, at times, has left them feeling entirely let down. Many of the complaints we received were not focused on extra funding but rather on things that the FCO could and should do better, like consistently returning phone calls, and providing the clear advice set out in its own guidance, as well as responding with compassion and support.

We recommend that the FCO review its training and guidance on handling non- suspicious deaths abroad, and engage in a consultation with families to discuss what went wrong, and the measures have been implemented to ensure that it will not happen again.

We welcome the FCO’s review of its services to families who have been affected by the murder or manslaughter of a relative overseas. The evidence we have received from families with cases throughout the last ten years shows that the review is long overdue. The review should address why repeated failures of communication and compassion have occurred, and should examine whether more staff or more training are required. The FCO should inform the Committee of the conclusions reached by its review and any policy changes or action subsequently undertaken.

We understand that the FCO cannot commit to fund repatriation, legal fees, translation etc. especially where adequate insurance would have covered costs. The FCO’s policy of working with partners who can provide funding where needed is sensible. However, more needs to be done to make the criteria and availability of third party funding more clear and consistent. When families must petition third party organisations for funding, it risks a situation in which the loudest voices will get the most funding, and a very inconsistent provision of help. The FCO provides funds to these bodies, so it is right that the public understand what they can and cannot expect from these organisations.

The FCO or its partners should look to implement a mechanism by which they can provide short-term loans to families who want to repatriate the body of a loved one, or travel to attend a court case abroad, as a compassionate response in difficult times. In light of its current poor performance in recouping discretionary loans, the FCO should include more robust recovery mechanisms in this scheme. Although we sympathise with British nationals who are forced to pursue legal cases abroad, due to the length and uncertainty of court cases, FCO loans should not be provided to cover legal fees.

It is not sensible to expect bereaved family members to remember detailed information conveyed by phone. It should be standard practice for consular staff dealing with any kind of death abroad for all calls to family members to be followed by an email or letter re-stating the information provided, for reference.

The FCO’s standards for what it will provide to families coping with deaths abroad are applied inconsistently by consular desk staff and consuls in posts for whom such cases are a small part of their overall jobs. This results in some exemplary experiences and some poor ones for families who are already going through a deeply traumatic time.

We find the case for a small central unit on deaths abroad, particularly murder and manslaughter cases, to be persuasive. A central unit providing support for families in the UK would support, rather than undermine, consular work in country, and we recommend that the FCO implement this proposal.

Consular services are immensely important to British prisoners abroad. It is troubling to have such consensus among our witnesses that the quality and type of FCO services available to prisoners vary from post to post.

We welcome the FCO’s commitment to update and improve its lists of lawyers and prisoner packs, which have been the subject of many complaints to this inquiry. The FCO should also consider ways in which it can co-operate with other European and Western partners who have already produced comprehensive guides to share this information and pool resources. In its response to this report, the FCO should provide a deadline by which it expects to have updated all of these documents and placed them on its website.

We are deeply concerned about the allegations we have received that the FCO has in some instances not responded adequately to protect and support those who said that they had been the victim of torture or ill-treatment. Any failure to support vulnerable nationals in such circumstances is deplorable. We recommend that the FCO launch an investigation into the allegations that have been raised during this inquiry, including identifying and interviewing staff involved, and that it present us with its findings, which we intend to review.

We welcome the new guidance for consular staff on torture and mistreatment, which is a clear step forward. For the new guidance to be effective it should be accompanied by comprehensive training, and the FCO should set out how many staff have been trained on the new guidance so far, and in what countries. The FCO should also keep records of the number of complaints about alleged mistreatment it pursues with authorities abroad, and make these statistics available to the Committee and its NGO partners, in order to better assess the scale of the problem.

Publication of the guidance would enable victims and their families to have a more full understanding of what can be expected, but we understand that these are internal guidelines meant for FCO officers’ use. We recommend that the FCO produce a separate updated public document setting out what it can and cannot do in these cases, based on its revised internal guidance.

There is a difficult balance to be struck when considering government support for death penalty cases. We were moved by the cases we heard. On one hand, such prisoners are among the most vulnerable of British nationals abroad, on the other, funding cases could mean that large amounts of public money go to a very small number of people. We do not recommend that the FCO singles out death penalty cases, many of which take years to reach a final judgment, for an open-ended commitment of funding. The FCO’s approach of providing consular support to the family, as well as funding and working with the specialist organisation Reprieve, is the right one.

The FCO talks about the minimum services it can provide to prisoners, rather than doing the most it can to protect them. This policy does not align with its stated goal of focusing services on the most vulnerable. We recommend that the FCO prioritise fair trials rights training for its consular staff so that they can more intervene proactively, if necessary.

Press interest should not affect the FCO’s decision making, but we have repeatedly been informed that media interest generates a more active response from the FCO. If true, this is unacceptable, as decisions about protecting prisoners should be made on the needs of each case, rather than how many people are watching. If the FCO has in fact been working behind closed doors on the national’s behalf, it must improve its communication with the prisoner and their family to make them aware of this.

We do not question the security and cost efficiency rationale for the move to repatriate passports to the UK and end the process of issuing them abroad. However, it has been unpopular among expatriates, and the FCO has failed to make clear the benefits of the new system or to address its drawbacks. The reduction in the price of passports applications from overseas offers expatriates a chance to share in the benefits of the efficiency savings, and is warmly welcomed.

The Government should offer expatriates an express service option, which would attract a premium price, as in the UK, or the possibility of keeping their passport while waiting for a new one to be issued, by submitting a certified copy of the passport instead.

The transfer and subsequent problems in passport processing for overseas nationals has caused reputational damage to the FCO. The speed with which the Passport Service ran into trouble just six weeks after the final transfer of responsibility from the FCO to HM Passport Office strongly suggests that planning was not properly done. The emergency measures were well-implemented, but should not have been necessary. The FCO should request that HM Passport Office reimburse any costs resulting from the increase in Emergency Travel Documents and other measures that the FCO took this summer.

The Committee will continue to monitor consular complaints handling and the FCO should include its customer satisfaction statistics in its annual reports.

The FCO has made major improvements to its consular service over the last eight years, with sensible and effective innovations such as the call centres, the crisis centre, and the reduction in notarial services.

We consider that the organisational changes have been generally well-handled, but further changes, particularly further reductions in staff or consulates, risk damaging morale.

British nationals must share the responsibility for their own safety and security abroad. The FCO’s public messaging campaigns to improve understanding of its services, and what British nationals can legitimately expect from such services, are a sensible measure.

Setting clear core levels of service has undoubtedly brought improvement, and benefits can already be clearly seen, though the FCO should continue to ensure that inconsistencies and problems are identified and addressed. Nonetheless, as the Consular Directorate proceeds in implementing changes, it is important not to dehumanise and minimise the service in the pursuit of professionalisation or excessive cost-cutting. The FCO provides vital services with limited resources when nationals are suffering under difficult circumstances. To many, it is a lifeline and a comfort in times of great need. It should rightly be proud of its work.

According to the feedback we received, unsurprisingly, the FCO’s fees for the provision of such documents are unpopular.63 Given that the fees from such services make up around one third of the Consular Services’ income, we asked the FCO how much income it expected to lose. Mark Simmonds MP responded that the FCO’s aim was to reduce notarial services by “up to 30%” between 2013–16, and that the FCO had assessed the impact on income to be a £1 million reduction in income. This had been factored in to the annual review of consular fees, and would not have a “material impact” in the context of £90m total consular income. He added that increasing demand for legalisation services would further offset the lost income.64 The FCO’s notarial service must take officials’ time away from more vulnerable and needy cases, so the FCO’s decision to reduce this service wherever other providers are available is a sensible one. The FCO should carefully monitor any implications of the loss of income from this service, as it would not be advisable for the FCO to increase other fees for mandatory documents to make up the shortfall. Discretionary loans to British nationals

The FCO updated its policy in 2013 on providing loans to British nationals who are in difficulty abroad. As a general rule, the FCO does not provide financial assistance and focuses on facilitating funds from friends or relatives. However, when all other options have been exhausted, it can, in certain circumstances, provide a loan to enable a British national to get home. These loans are provided on a discretionary basis, to the most vulnerable cases. The recipient of a loan signs up to an Undertaking to Repay, and their passports are stopped until the loan is repaid in full. The data provided by the FCO shows that less than a third of approximately £275,000 of loans paid out since 2009 have been repaid: 63 Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Routine consular services to British citizens who live/work abroad, Jan–Feb 2014 64 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 29) Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 31 FCO lending against Undertakings to Repay, 2010-2014 Year (Sept–Aug) Amount lent Average loan Amount repaid 2009/10 £23,912 £116 £1,853 2010/11 £82,400 £340 £1,218 2011/12 £25,236 £231 £63,775 2012/13 £33,173 £286 £7,304 2013/14 £110,374 £492 £13,055 Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office65 Since the policy was relaxed in 2013, the FCO has lent £110,374 in 2013/14, more than three times its spend in the year before. However, this still accounts for only 0.13% of the Consular Service’s annual budget. The FCO said it was “currently reviewing the debt recovery mechanism”. At present, its enforcement mechanisms are limited. Aside from the confiscation of a passport, a 10% surcharge is levied at six months, then an annual letter is sent to remind nationals of their undertaking.66 We agree that there are circumstances in which it is not only compassionate but a most effective use of funds to help a national to return home, and prevent further problems. The FCO is right to review its debt recovery systems, and it should pursue repayment more rigorously in future. In its response to this report, the FCO should set out how it intends to improve its debt recovery systems. Consular staffing

The last nine years have seen substantial changes to consular staffing. There are currently 667 consular staff in the network of 230 posts and 210 staff in London.67 Consular staff in posts overseas carry out ‘frontline’ tasks supporting British nationals abroad, under the supervision of nine Regional Managers. The Consular team in London is made up of four departments, which handle the implementation of the consular strategy and modernisation; the overseas passport service; senior support to Posts on casework and the lead on specific issues such as forced marriage and human rights; and the Crisis management response.68

This compares to over 2,000 staff delivering consular services overseas and 220 staff in the consular directorate in London in 2007.69 The proportion of locally engaged and UK- based staff in consular posts has also changed dramatically. In 2005, the NAO report on consular services stated that “staff undertaking consular work overseas comprises two- thirds locally engaged staff and one third United Kingdom based career diplomats on 65 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 66 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 67 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 6 68 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 20) 69 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Services strategy 2007–10 32 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service postings which last two to three years on average”.70 In 2014, 91% of consular staff posts overseas were filled by locally engaged staff, with only 9% being UK-based.71 The proportion of UK-based staff in overseas consular roles had therefore dropped over the last nine years from approximately 33% of consular posts abroad to only 9%.

We understand that some of this change can be explained by the fact that visa and passport functions have been transferred away from the consular service. This would have substantially reduced the overall number of positions required abroad. In addition, it would have affected the UK-based staff positions particularly, as the majority of staff involved in issuing passports were UK-based staff, for security reasons.72 We also note that the overall number of consular staff, located both in London and abroad, is split at 32% UK-Based staff and 68% Locally Engaged staff.

Nonetheless, the current percentage of 91% locally engaged staff for posts abroad is startling, particularly in comparison to an FCO-wide percentage of just under 70% locally engaged staff overall. We have previously called for the FCO to cap the proportion of locally engaged staff at 70% of total staff.73 The FCO has made a concerted effort to use more locally engaged staff in positions abroad, for reasons of cost effectiveness (because the FCO does not need to pay for housing or transport, they are usually around one third the cost of a UK-based staff member);74 local knowledge of institutions and systems; and (often) native language skills.75 It appears that consular staff roles have been most heavily affected by this strategy, with approximately 607 of the 667 overseas consular roles now going to locally engaged staff. Only 7% of UK-based staff now work on consular issues, which is half the amount of those working on each of the other two FCO priorities of prosperity (14%) and security (16%).76

We have noted before that locally engaged staff are a major strength of the FCO, and that they provide impressive and dedicated service in their roles as consular officers. We also recognise that consular work may be particularly suited to locally engaged staff, who can bring networks of contacts and who can also stay in the roles in the long term and build up valuable experience. We are nonetheless concerned about the consequences of making so few frontline consular roles available to UK-based staff for the career path of a UK-based FCO diplomat, as well as the long-term consequences for the FCO of such limited experience of frontline consular experience in senior roles. We asked former 70 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Session 2005–2006, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Consular Services to British Nationals, HC 594, November 2005 71 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 72 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Session 2005–2006, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Consular Services to British Nationals, HC 594, November 2005 73 Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2013–14, FCO performance and finances 2012–13, HC 696, paras 30–32 74 Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2013–14, FCO performance and finances 2012–13, HC 696, para 31 75 Ibid. 76 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mid Year Report to Parliament: 1 April to 30 September 2013, p.15. The remaining 63% is made up of 29% working on ‘Management and Support’ and 34% working on ‘Our purpose’. Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 33 Ambassadors Giles Paxman and Sir Michael Arthur about this reduction in consular roles abroad. Giles Paxman said: One of the slightly paradoxical situations that we are in at the moment is that although consular work has a higher profile and there are some extremely rewarding and challenging jobs to be done in the consular field, the number of those jobs for UK-based officers is considerably less now than it was in the past, and we are finding that it is becoming quite difficult to get some of those jobs. Meanwhile, we have a big cadre of locally engaged staff, who are taking more and more senior jobs.77 He added that in Spain, there were 55 consular officers, only one of whom was UK-based. Sir Michael Arthur cautioned that “one of the big motivators for people who come into the foreign service is the possibility of going overseas”, and expressed concern about the effect on future leadership: I would try to make as many as possible of the people who are going to become ambassadors learn consular young—do some consular on the ground—and get that experience. Quite often, the first time you really come face to face with real life consular problems is when you are an ambassador. That is not right as a preparation.78

We asked FCO officials whether they were concerned that the reduced overseas consular opportunities for UK-based diplomats to gain first-hand experience of overseas consular work risked creating a parallel track of consular and political careers, in which senior leaders were unlikely to have consular experience. Joanna Roper, Director of Consular Services, argued that, in fact, increasing numbers of senior staff were getting some form of consular experience, even if not on the frontline: We have people who have gone through, for example, fast track or more political work coming in. They do a stint in consular, because they want the experience of leading big teams, of public service delivery, which is a big piece of what we do, and understanding what it means, when you go into more senior roles, to help people— British nationals—overseas. If you look at some of our more senior roles these days, people will have had more experience and exposure to consular-type roles even if they have not played a consular role themselves, and I think that that can only be to the good.79

Both former ambassadors noted that having such large cadres of locally engaged consular officers created management challenges. Giles Paxman said the locally engaged officers were very highly qualified and highly trained, and had “perfectly legitimate career aspirations”, adding that two main challenges to the system were keeping locally engaged consular staff motivated and securing mobility and opportunity for advancement.80 The 77 Q99 78 Q102-103 79 Q215 80 Q99 34 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service FCO appears to have recognised this in its 2010–13 consular strategy, which said the FCO would look for ways to maximise the capabilities of local staff, including “opportunities for greater career and geographical mobility.”81 However, there has been limited progress in this area so far. The FCO told us that in the last two years only one locally engaged consular staff member had transferred into the central diplomatic service, and this was as a result of external recruitment rather than internal transfer. There is slightly more movement between locally engaged roles in different posts: in the same period, one locally engaged staff member had transferred, while 15 had successfully applied for roles in different posts.82

Locally engaged staff are vital members of consular teams and have language skills and knowledge of local issues that are highly valuable in consular work. However, we are concerned that the reduction in UK-based overseas consular work to only 9% of overseas consular posts will have the short-term consequence of making consular work less attractive for younger FCO staff due to the lack of overseas postings, and a longer- term consequence that very few senior Ambassadors or FCO staff in leadership roles will have frontline consular experience. Such a significant change to FCO careers should be carefully planned and reviewed, rather than an inadvertent result of a cost- cutting strategy. The FCO should make at least 20% of overseas consular positions available to UK-based staff. This would have cost implications, but it will ensure that valuable consular experience is maintained among the future leadership cadre in the Foreign Office. Public messaging and managing expectations

The FCO has battled over the last eight years to lower public expectations and clarify its core tasks. In 2006, the FCO for the first time published a guide which set out for the public a general statement of what it could and could not provide: Support for British Nationals Abroad: A Guide. This was seen by the FCO as a “turning point” that let the public know what they could expect from the FCO, and it was anticipated and welcomed by the PAC in its report. 83 The Guide (most recently updated in June 2014) continues to provide a framework for consular work. The FCO has also published various documents outlining their services with respect to different issues (such as ‘In prison abroad’; ‘Abduction’; and ‘Deaths abroad’).

To put its services in context, the FCO has occasionally released lists of “ludicrous requests” that were made to consular staff (such as help with booking a restaurant for Christmas, or translating a love note), in an attempt to make clear that it is not, in the words of then-Minister Jeremy Browne, “a concierge service”.84 We agree that the 81 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Services strategy 2010–13, p.20 82 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 83 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Services strategy 2007–10, p.19 84 “British Consulate: We're not directory enquiries”, Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release, 10 November 2011 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 35 expectations of the general public about what the FCO can do for them are often too high, and welcome the measures taken by the FCO to explain its services more clearly. 36 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 4 Deaths abroad

The death of a loved one is always distressing, but when the death takes place abroad then the need to navigate unfamiliar and often foreign–language institutions and bureaucracy can make the experience feel overwhelming. In 2012–13, 6,193 British nationals died abroad;85 and on average, more than one hundred British nationals die abroad each week.86 This is in part due to high numbers of elderly expatriates abroad, although crime plays a role: at least 10% of all the murders of Britons in the last two years took place overseas.87 Non-suspicious deaths abroad

In 2013–14, consular assistance was required in 4,110 cases of deaths abroad.88 In its Guide to Support for British Nationals, the FCO sets out the assistance that it can provide to the partners or relatives of a British national who has died abroad. This includes: doing “everything it can” to ensure that the next of kin is informed before the media (including informing them by phone, if necessary); trying to ensure that the family’s wishes about handling the body are communicated to the local authorities and carried out; advising on how to register the death with the local authorities, as well as the cost of burial or cremation; providing lists of local lawyers, interpreters and funeral directors; and helping with the transfer of money from the UK, if necessary, though it will not contribute to costs.89 The FCO also provides a 24-page Guide for Bereaved Families, which provides more detailed information for families both in the immediate aftermath of a death and longer-term issues such as investigation and court cases. Complaints about the FCO’s handling of cases

It was hard to reconcile the FCO’s accounts of its provision of services and support in the case of deaths abroad with the submissions we received from the general public. The vast majority of complaints about FCO services submitted to our inquiry have come from family members of victims of accidental or violent deaths abroad. Many of the comments suggest that the poor service from the FCO actually added to their trauma and distress. Some common themes emerged among the submissions, including: • A lack of compassion from staff • Failure to communicate reliably and effectively 85 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Behaviour Abroad Report 2013, August 2013 86 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 4 87 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 4 88 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Behaviour Abroad Report 2014, July 2014, p.1. It is not possible to calculate this number as a percentage of the total because the FCO no longer records death notifications (where it has had no other involvement) as consular cases. 89 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Support for British Nationals Abroad: A Guide, updated June 2014 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 37 • Failure to provide clear advice on how to handle the foreign state’s institutions / bureaucracy • Reluctance to challenge the authorities of another state, for diplomatic or political reasons90 The full web forum complaints can be found on the Committee’s web pages, but some samples can be found below. This evidence is, by its very nature, anecdotal, and we cannot extrapolate or infer wider FCO failure from it. It is also from a self-selecting group of people who had particular experiences that motivated them to respond, so it may not be representative of all experiences of the FCO’s services. Yet the stories submitted to us via our web forum, roundtable, and written evidence, are of sufficient number and gravity that they give cause for concern and cannot be dismissed. Some comments about FCO handling of deaths abroad “When my son was found dead in Tenerife, we had no contact with the British Police, no contact was allowed with the Spanish Police, no Liaison Officer, there was no framework, no one to take responsibility for care of a broken hearted family trying to muddle through a chaotic system whilst in terrible grief and confusion. The FCO say in their statements that they are helping the family when someone dies abroad, but most of what they do can be found on internet information websites.”—Karen Walchester I was really disappointed with the consular support I received when my partner of over 8 years was killed in a plane crash in Nepal on 28 September 2012. I experienced several errors of communication/ incompetence that adding to my distress in the most traumatic of circumstance anyone can ever find themselves in. Examples are as follows: (1) In the first instance I heard about the accident on the radio. I rang up the FCO and gave [***]’s contact details, DOB and passport details. I was told that they did not yet know the names of the passengers on the flight but that they would call me as soon as they had any information. I never received a follow up call confirming [***] was indeed one of the passengers. Neither did [***]’s parents. We both found out [***] was a victim via journalists campaigning at our doors. (2) I actually went out to Nepal to visit the crash site—an event I think must be quite rare in these situations. The Ambassador did not meet me (despite having said on TV that they would do everything to help). One of his juniors did. They arrived in shorts and T-shirts. They hadn’t even been to visit the crash site. When I asked why not they explained that it was because of “staff cuts”. (3) He had made no effort to make any research to answer my questions and was very flippant in his responses when he was dealing with a bereaved widow. (4) We have had no property returned from the crash despite the fact that we have seen photos of the plane with bags of luggage undamaged outside. We have repeatedly been told by Sita Air that all the property was destroyed even though we know that is not the case. The FCO has done nothing to help us. This may just seem like property to them but to us it is personal items that are all we have left from our loved ones. We were not allowed to see their bodies and so this is the only connection we have. I also saw several credit cards and personal photos at the crash site (I was there 6 weeks after the accident) that still had not be cleared up. In fact several victims suffered from fraud on their accounts. (5) [***]’s bag which had been locked in the hotel was returned to me with writing all over it. This was a bag that had travelled round the world with us that I wanted to keep. The FCO would not help me find who was accountable. 90 See, f or exam p le, SA M M Abroad (C ON 23), Julie Love (C ON 37), a nd comments on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Assistance for individuals who encounter difficulties abroad, Jan–Feb 2014 38 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service [continued] In summary I found them completely without empathy at a time in my life when I really needed them. As a British citizen I had faith that the FCO was one of the strongest in the world and it used to resonate a sense of pride with me. In reality I was completely let down and made to feel I was a complete inconvenience to them.- Anonymous “My 28 year old son was living and working in Guangzhou in PR China. Whilst my wife and I were on a Baltic cruise, he contacted us to say he had gone into hospital with a chest infection. Unfortunately whilst there he suffered a fatal heart attack. The ship we were on docked in Amsterdam and we were informed by relatives via text messages. Although distraught we attempted to contact the local consulate office by telephone from the ship. The response was awful. Eventually we decided to take a taxi to the office to seek assistance. Initially we were met with a cold attitude, but once the staff became aware of our problem they were extremely helpful. My wife and I simply wanted to get to China as soon as possible. Obviously with Visa issues we were unable to do this. Eventually after returning home and obtaining the appropriate visa we were able to get to Guangzhou, where we were assisted via the consulate there, particularly by a member of staff who had been flown in from Beijing specifically to help us. This had been organised by the contact in Amsterdam contacting the FCO in anticipation of our visit. I can only say a big thank you to this individual he was by our side for the majority of our time in Guangzhou and can only be described as our rock, without him the repatriation process would have been made more difficult than it actually was.” Wesley M “My mother was found dead in France. I feel that at times that certain diplomats I have dealt with were rude. I felt like a nuisance calling to ask for information. I felt that certain diplomats did not do their job to the full potential, they didn't chase up the French authorities on a regular basis. At times I was waiting weeks for replies to my questions which caused me a massive amount of stress on top of my loss. I also feel that the British government do not do enough to help victims’ families. There is no financial assistance, yet someone stuck in a foreign country with no means of getting home can be given an interest free loan to get home, so what makes my mum any different.”—Jeanette Rooney “I have not met one family who feel that they want another family to go through what they have, and it is not only about the circumstances of the death, it is the treatment in the aftermath and how families are made to feel, as if their loved one's death is insignificant, as if their feelings are immaterial, as if their rights are not important, their grief and heartache is exhausting and sometimes debilitating yet they still battle to ensure changes are made and that other families are not left feeling like they do, Many speak of being treated as neurotic or made to feel like a nuisance when all they are trying to do is get answers.”—Julie Love Suspicious deaths abroad

It was notable that many complaints came from family members of people who had died in violent or suspicious deaths abroad. Such cases are particularly traumatic, and also place additional burden on family members, who may face a long fight for justice in a country whose legal systems are very different from those of the UK. In cases of suspicious circumstances, such as murder or manslaughter abroad, the FCO states in its guide that it can offer further assistance, including: advice on raising concerns with local authorities; “basic information” on the local police and legal system, lists of local lawyers and interpreters, and details of support groups; and consular staff in London can meet family members and contact them to pass on any information received from local authorities. The Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 39 Guide also suggests that the FCO might help in more active ways, though this is addressed in more cautious and conditional language: We will consider making appropriate representations to the local authorities if there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures; if there are justified complaints about discrimination against the person who has died or their family; or where we judge that a local delay or decision creates significant distress to the bereaved, ensuring that we do not interfere in the investigation or judicial processes of that country. […] Where possible, if you visit the country during the early stages of the investigation and initial court hearings related to the death, our staff there may be able to meet you. […] Where legal systems differ significantly from the UK, or proceedings are conducted in a language you do not understand, we may help to arrange, or attend, an initial round of meetings with the authorities. And we may accompany you to certain days of a trial and verdict where it is appropriate. [emphasis added] The FCO also strongly recommends that the family get professional legal advice, and supplies lists of lawyers in the relevant country, though it does not specifically recommend any.

The FCO has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2012 with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales, to “ensure that a minimum standard of assistance is provided by UK authorities”. The MOU, which is publicly available but not included in the FCO’s public guidance, “sets out how the FCO, UK Police and Coroners will work together to provide assistance to families when a British national dies as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad.”91 This includes how families will be notified of the death, and how the three organisations will communicate. The responsibilities of the FCO set out in the Memorandum go further than those in any of the Guides, including, for example, that the FCO will ensure that families are not misinformed due to translation errors; that next of kin are “clearly informed that if the body does not get repatriated to England or Wales there will be no Coronial inquest”; and that FCO posts abroad will hold a “bereavement pack” containing information about local procedures and customs, police and legal procedures, and much more, and that this will be available on the Embassy Website; the FCO will hold “regular communication with the family[…] regardless of how long the investigation has been going on, at a frequency as agreed with the next of kin”; and that it will provide, if the family requests it, of a chronology of what the FCO has done in cases running for longer than 12 months. In return, the ACPO states that it will, in certain circumstances, provide a Senior Investigating Officer and Family Liaison Officer to 91 ‘Murder, manslaughter and infanticide of British Nationals Abroad’, Memorandum of Understanding between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Coroners’ Society of England and Wales, 2011, para 1.1–1.2 40 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service support the families and the investigation.92 The FCO’s official guidance for families who have suffered a bereavement due to murder or manslaughter is timid and cautious in comparison to its guidance on its other services. It is understandable that support is tailored to each individual case, but the guidance gives the impression of very limited support and no guarantees of assistance. The FCO should update its guidance to be clearer and more generous about what the families can expect to receive. This should include the more extensive commitments that it has agreed internally. Complaints about FCO services in cases of murder or manslaughter abroad

Many of the submissions echoed the same complaints as in any case of death abroad regarding a lack of compassion and failures in communication, and added the following problems specific to murder and manslaughter cases: • Failure to appoint a suitable person to help (i.e. a caseworker or Family Liaison Officer), or • Failure to provide services set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (even, in some cases, FCO staff having no knowledge of the MOU) • Failure to inform families that if the body is not repatriated then there will be no inquest in the UK (and in some cases actively recommending cremation as an easier alternative to repatriation) • Refusal or failure to provide long-term assistance in the case of lengthy investigations or trials • Failure to keep useable, updated lists of lawyers/interpreters93 92 ‘Murder, manslaughter and infanticide of British Nationals Abroad’, Memorandum of Understanding between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and Coroners’ Society of England and Wales, 2011, paras 3.7, 3.8 and 3.12 93 See, for example, SAMM Abroad (CON 23), and comments on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Assistance for individuals who encounter difficulties abroad, Jan–Feb 2014 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 41 A selection of complaints can be found below: Some comments about FCO services in cases of suspicious deaths abroad “We are the family of [***], a talented teacher, loyal friend, beloved daughter and sister. [***] was murdered in March 2012 in Havana, Cuba. In the aftermath that followed, the FCO were at best wholly incompetent. • They provided untimely and inaccurate advice a direct consequence of which was our family being unable to appoint a lawyer or attend the trial. • They sat on reports from the Cuban authorities, a direct consequence of which was delay of vital information for the UK Coroner’s Office. • They were indiscreet, a direct consequence of which was press attention. We had an expectation that in such a time of crisis there would be an infrastructure of solid support, with efficient robust consular assistance. This was not the case. The FCO added significantly to the trauma and confusion following [***] death. By contrast, the consular assistance we received in Cuba and the Cuban authorities were extremely helpful, transparent and sensitive.”—Anonymous “When my nephew and niece were murdered by their mother in Turkey in December of 2011, the British consular staff, particularly "Willi" went out of their way to be helpful. The whole family is very grateful for the kindness, understanding and practical, unbureaucratic help my brother received from them. We have a direct comparison with the German consular staff (the kids were bi-national) who not only did nothing, but even withheld information.”—Lucy Mellersh My 43-year old sister, Lianne (Lee) Burns, a British citizen, was murdered in Marigot on the French side of the Caribbean island of St. Martin on 27 April 2011. The murder trial took place in 28 February and 1 March 2013 in Guadeloupe. Below is a summary of our dealings with the FCO:

The FCO provided copies of several emails and letters that it has received from other members of the public which described much more positive experiences of consular support, including in cases of deaths abroad, and expressed thanks for the assistance provided. The then Minister Mark Simmonds MP told us: There may well be instances where, as we said earlier, the level of consular support was not as we would all wish and expect. But I think generally the level of support Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 43 that is provided to those whose families suffer bereavement abroad is very efficient, effective, and very supportive[…].94 The Minister said that there was often “misunderstanding”, adding “There is sometimes an expectation that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will pay, and of course that is not part of the consular service that we provide.” He added that the FCO was good at “signposting” external organisations that provide “support mechanisms”, such as Brake, an NGO that provides support to victims of road traffic accidents.95 However, many of the submissions called only for the services set out as standard by the FCO’s own guide. Some families reported not even receiving the FCO’s useful Guide for Bereaved Families.96

The FCO assists in over 4,000 cases of deaths abroad each year, but for each individual family it is one of the most traumatic experiences they may have. We acknowledge that the evidence we received is unlikely to be representative of the FCO’s overall level of service, and we note that we also received some positive feedback, which we have included in the examples above, and the FCO also provided substantial evidence of positive feedback it had received. However, the submissions we received indicated that consular support for families in cases of deaths abroad is inconsistent and, at times, has left them feeling entirely let down. Many of the complaints we received were not focused on extra funding but rather on things that the FCO could and should do better, like consistently returning phone calls, and providing the clear advice set out in its own guidance, as well as responding with compassion and support. Mistakes and failures do happen, but it was notable that many of those who submitted comments or evidence to us felt that the FCO not only had made mistakes, but had since ignored their complaints. We recommend that the FCO review its training and guidance on handling non-suspicious deaths abroad, and engage in a consultation with families to discuss what went wrong, and the measures have been implemented to ensure that it will not happen again.

With regard to murder and manslaughter cases, the FCO was more forthcoming about problems. In its submission, the FCO stated that “murder/manslaughter cases remain some of the most distressing and long-running cases. In recognition of this, support to victims and their families has been prioritised in recent years in order to ensure access to appropriate emotional and practical support.” The FCO’s written submission confirmed that it was planning to provide “better and clearer information for customers on local services, such as lawyers and legal aid”, as well as trying to identify pro bono legal advice providers overseas.97

In January 2014, during a Parliamentary debate on services offered to people involved in cases of murder or manslaughter abroad (as victim or accused), the Minister announced that there would be a review of the services the FCO offered in such cases, and in July, Joanna Roper, Director of Consular Services, told the Committee that the FCO recognised 94 Q198 95 Q198 96 See, for example, SAMM Abroad (CON 23), and comments on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Assistance for individuals who encounter difficulties abroad, Jan–Feb 2014 97 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) paras 79–83 44 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service that this “actually might be an area where we could be doing more” and that the review would report in autumn on “what we will be able to offer families in these particularly awful circumstances.”98 Ms Roper confirmed that the MOU and its implementation would be considered as part of this review. The consultation period for the review has now closed and it was expected to be completed by the end of October 2014. We welcome the FCO’s review of its services to families who have been affected by the murder or manslaughter of a relative overseas. The evidence we have received from families with cases throughout the last ten years shows that the review is long overdue. The review should address why repeated failures of communication and compassion have occurred, and should examine whether more staff or more training are required. The FCO should inform the Committee of the conclusions reached by its review and any policy changes or action subsequently undertaken. Victim Support National Homicide Service

In addition to the services the FCO provides itself, it has also established partnerships with NGOs and charities that can offer specialised support in the case of deaths abroad. One of the most substantial of these relationships is with Victim Support, to which the FCO provided £110,000 in funding this year. The FCO has an arrangement with Victim Support by which it refers families of British nationals who have been the victim of murder and manslaughter abroad, and Victim Support allocates them a named caseworker to give free, confidential help and practical support. The FCO told us that Victim Support’s help can including “travel costs, translation and interpreting services and repatriation costs.”99 FCO officials also said that Victim Support could help arrange discount or even free air fares in some cases. This arrangement has only been in place since 2010, so some of the people who submitted evidence to us have not benefited from the NGO’s services.

We received limited and varied reports of the Victim Support service: some families told us it had been helpful, while others said that there had been inconsistent service and “serious deficiencies…that are wasting the FCO’s budget”100, while others were not referred to them at all. During the roundtable, a number of our invitees said that it was an inconsistent and opaque service, from which some people received significant financial help for services such as translation while others paid their own way, and questioned how the FCO monitored the service. The FCO later told us that Victim Support report both quarterly and annually on the way that they had spent FCO funding.101 Assistance with funds

Many families struggle with the financial burden caused by the death of a loved one overseas. Repatriation of the body is usually covered by insurance, if the deceased had it. The FCO has taken steps to encourage British nationals to take out comprehensive travel 98 Q199 99 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 80 100 Kim Spooner (CON 18) para 12 101 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 45 insurance, such as its ‘Know Before You Go’ travel campaign. Research conducted for the FCO in June 2014 showed that 84% of British nationals travel with insurance.102 However, if the traveller did not have sufficient insurance, families are left with potential bills of thousands of pounds, and must make a swift decision about how best to handle the body. In more complex cases, funds for translation, investigation, legal fees, medical fees, and travel costs for attending trial often fall to the remaining family, who will not necessarily have the resources to cope.

Although it was not a focus of submissions or web forum comments, several commenters did call for the FCO to meet some of the costs for families that cannot afford to pay for repatriation or legal costs themselves.103 Others have suggested that the FCO might provide loans.104 The FCO has rejected these proposals, stating that it does not have the funding to do so. It has emphasised that its partners such as Victim Support and Missing Abroad are in a better position to assist with funding and can also secure travel deals or even free flights. These NGOs can also provide videoconference facilities to allow families to see and participate in trials without the need for travel, though we have received no evidence on whether families consider this to be an effective or adequate means of observing trials.105 The FCO also told us that it was working to produce better information on the legal aid available in other countries.

We understand that the FCO cannot commit to fund repatriation, legal fees, translation etc. especially where adequate insurance would have covered costs. The FCO’s policy of working with partners who can provide funding where needed is sensible. However, more needs to be done to make the criteria and availability of third party funding more clear and consistent. When families must petition third party organisations for funding, it risks a situation in which the loudest voices will get the most funding, and a very inconsistent provision of help. The FCO provides funds to these bodies, so it is right that the public understand what they can and cannot expect from these organisations.

The FCO or its partners should look to implement a mechanism by which they can provide short-term loans to families who want to repatriate the body of a loved one, or travel to attend a court case abroad, as a compassionate response in difficult times. In light of its current poor performance in recouping discretionary loans, the FCO should include more robust recovery mechanisms in this scheme. Although we sympathise with British nationals who are forced to pursue legal cases abroad, due to the length and uncertainty of court cases, FCO loans should not be provided to cover legal fees. 102 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 36) 103 Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Assistance for individuals who encounter difficulties abroad 104 HC Deb, 22 July 2014, Col 1237 105 HC Deb, 22 July 2014, Col 1237 46 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service Communication

Several submissions commented on the FCO’s practice of conveying detailed information over the phone, which they said was not a reliable or helpful method when families are coping with bereavement. One commenter explained: When members are recently bereaved many suffer from post-traumatic stress. They may call and ask a question but unless they write the question and answer down they may not remember what has been said when they put the phone down. They will also not know which questions they need to ask and many say the FCO will only give information related to questions asked. It would therefore be helpful if desk clerks could record questions asked and offer to e mail the questions and answers back to the caller so both have a record of what has been said. If they say they will find out information and call back it is vital for the victims’ well-being the desk clerks do so at the time stated even if they have not managed to obtain the information needed.106 It is not sensible to expect bereaved family members to remember detailed information conveyed by phone. It should be standard practice for consular staff dealing with any kind of death abroad for all calls to family members to be followed by an email or letter re-stating the information provided, for reference. This will have the added benefit for both FCO staff and families of ensuring that there is an accurate record of the contact and information given on each side. A new central unit for murder and manslaughter cases

SAMM Abroad, a charity that provides telephone advice and peer support to people bereaved by homicide overseas, attributed many of the problems to the organisation of the FCO, and suggested that a specialised central unit for Murder and Manslaughter cases be created in the FCO. It stated: Families bereaved by homicide whether it is in the UK or abroad need the following: a) accurate and timely information, b) delivered by well trained staff, c) who understand the needs of traumatically bereaved families. The current FCO practice of putting families in contact with Desk Officers is failing. Whilst there are notable exceptions they are precisely that, exceptions. Desk Officers lack proper training in dealing with traumatised families. This can lead to families feeling a greater level of trauma after their contact with the FCO than before. There are frequent complaints that Desk Officers fail to keep families informed of developments or mishandle important information.107 106 Foreign Affairs Committee, Consular Services Web Forum: Assistance for individuals who encounter difficulties abroad, Jan–Feb 2014, p 1 107 SAMM Abroad (CON 23) para 9-10 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 47 It added that the consular desk officers move frequently, leading to extra burden for families who have to once again explain their case to the new officer, which it said “causes frustration, distress and leads to poor case management”, as well as a lack of institutional expertise and a disruption in key relationships with other agencies or governments.

SAMM Abroad’s proposed solution is: A small, centralised unit within the FCO with specially trained staff to act as the principal point of contact for families. They would be responsible for dealing with Desk Officers and extracting the information for families. This would have the following advantages - families would not be disrupted or traumatised by the movement of Desk Officers. - liaison with other agencies would be more effective as staff would have immediate access to case files and other information. - Developing FCO policy would be more effective as the unit would be able to observe recurrent issues and spot failings more immediately. - The FCO’s institutional memory would be vastly increased. If information regarding local practices and services was captured in a central location it would provide immense benefit to families requiring support in the future.108 This proposal was supported by a number of other submissions, including Kim Spooner, who wrote: A dedicated FCO Homicide Unit would overcome many of the difficulties I have raised. A Desk Officer cannot be expected to be an expert in their country’s legal system and they cannot be “murder-ready” when this is after all a fairly rare occurrence. A small, central, expert, trained taskforce which is convened at the time of an overseas murder and which utilizes in-country connections would be a more efficient deployment of resources and would be more useful to families.109

In January, the then Minister Mark Simmonds confirmed that the review would consider the proposal for a dedicated unit to provide support to bereaved families of British nationals murdered abroad.110 He was open-minded, but he did not make a commitment to the idea: we shouldn’t rule anything out. We should certainly look at whether any central unit would provide a better service than is currently being provided. Having said that, we should not undermine the consular work in country, and the expertise that is developed there specifically by locally employed staff, as well as the important link to the consular experts back in the Foreign Office in London. There is sometimes—I have had individual constituent cases as well—a belief that we should and could 108 SAMM Abroad (CON 23) para 16 109 Kim Spooner (CON 18) para 12 110 HC Deb, 27 Jan 2014, Col 427W 48 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service interfere in other countries’ judicial processes. Of course, we can’t and shouldn’t do that.111 The FCO’s standards for what it will provide to families coping with deaths abroad are applied inconsistently by consular desk staff and consuls in posts for whom such cases are a small part of their overall jobs. This results in some exemplary experiences and some poor ones for families who are already going through a deeply traumatic time. We do not suggest that this is the fault of uncaring staff, but rather inexperience in handling cases of bereavement, time pressures, other competing priorities, and potentially a lack of training. We find the case for a small central unit on deaths abroad, particularly murder and manslaughter cases, to be persuasive. A central unit providing support for families in the UK would support, rather than undermine, consular work in country, and we recommend that the FCO implement this proposal. 111 Q200 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 49 5 Detention abroad

Approximately 6,000 Britons are arrested each year, and at any one time more than 3,250 British nationals are in prison around the world.112 Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, states which detain British nationals should notify the British Embassy or consulate, and if requested, consular officers must be given access to those detainees “without delay”. In 2013, consular officers contacted 87% of British detainees within 24 hours of being notified of their detention.113 This places high demands on the Consular Service; the FCO states that arrests and detention of British nationals overseas constitute the greatest number of consular cases each year, and take up a substantial amount of consular time.114 The Consular Service also provides Prisoners Abroad, a charity that provides practical help to British prisoners overseas, with its largest amount of funding to one single organisation, amounting to £257,500 in 2013/14.

All of those who submitted evidence on detention abroad considered consular services to be crucial for British prisoners detained overseas. Fair Trials International (FTI) told us that prisoners abroad “are particularly vulnerable to violations of their basic rights, given the disadvantages they face as criminal defendants of foreign nationality.” It added that non-nationals were regularly disadvantaged because they often had no knowledge of the local language and legal system, no local support system, and “as a result, even tasks that may seem relatively straightforward for locals, such as finding a lawyer to assist with their cases, can be enormously challenging.” Consular services can therefore be a “lifeline”, helping British nationals overcome these disadvantages and protecting them from violations of their rights.115 The FCO told us that there have been infrequent “challenges” with regard to access to detainees, and where delays have been experienced, “we have made diplomatic representations to secure access”.116 Managing expectations

The support that the FCO can offer prisoners abroad is set out in ‘Support for British Nationals Abroad: A Guide’, as well as FCO booklets focused specifically on prisoners, titled: ‘In Prison Abroad’. A summary of the services that the FCO sets out in these guides is below. 112 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 4 113 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report and Accounts 2013–14, July 2014, p.19 114 Information provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, October 2014. See also Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Services Strategy 2010–13 115 Fair Trials International (CON 15) paras 7–8. See also Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 6. 116 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 36) 50 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service • After an arrest the FCO can: Contact the detainee in prison and visit, if he or she wants o Provide information about the local legal system, legal aid schemes, o prosecution, remand, bail and appeal procedures Provide lists of local lawyers and interpreters o Explain the local prison or remand system o Put the prisoner in touch with the prisoners welfare charity Prisoners o Abroad Tell the prisoner’s family and friends, if he or she wants, and pass o messages • In the longer term, the FCO can: Visit in prison and keep in touch by telephone or letter. o Consider approaching local authorities if the prisoner is not treated in o line with internationally accepted standards Take up “any justified complaint” about ill-treatment, personal safety or o discrimination, and ensure medical or dental problems are brought to the attention of the police or doctor Pass money from family or friends o Explain how to transfer to prison in the UK. o

Once again, despite the guides, the FCO reports that many prisoners have unrealistic expectations about what the FCO can do.117 A number of the other submissions we received supported this: Bruno Min, of the charity Fair Trials International (FTI), told us that many individuals who contacted his organisation did indeed have unrealistic expectations: “Many say they simply expect the Foreign Office to intervene in their case and to take on the role of their lawyers.”118

Several submissions put this down to a need for better public communication by the FCO. Both FTI and Prisoners Abroad called for the FCO to provide better public information about its services.119 Prisoners Abroad added that families often did not know what the FCO was and how it was different from other government departments, and that the new Gov.uk website is difficult to navigate to find information about prisoners in detention overseas. FTI and Prisoners Abroad also both told us that the FCO’s public messaging was too negative, and needed to be “clearer about what it can do, rather than focusing on what it cannot do.”120 117 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Services Strategy 2010–13, p.14 118 Q38 119 Fair Trials International (CON 15) paras 2 and 5; Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 6 120 Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 4 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 51

However, FTI was clear that while unrealistic expectations played a part in levels of dissatisfaction with the consular service for prisoners, the service itself was variable between posts and it had “in certain cases fallen below the legitimate expectations of British defendants.”121 The other submissions from major charities, including REDRESS, Reprieve and Prisoners Abroad, all voiced similar criticism about a lack of consistency, and said that the services provided by different consular offices and individual consular officials varied widely.122 Prisoners Abroad said when it had pointed out good examples to the FCO, “it has been suggested that staff are “over-servicing”.”123 Bruno Min, of FTI, agreed that it was partly about personnel, but also “the politics and the foreign policy of the particular country—whether it is an ally, and so on. It is not consistent.”124 Consular services are immensely important to British prisoners abroad. It is troubling to have such consensus among our witnesses that the quality and type of FCO services available to prisoners vary from post to post. Visiting prisoners

According to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the consulate has unique and defined rights to visit and provide assistance to their nationals when they are detained abroad. FTI described such visits as “the main form of consular assistance desired and expected by British citizens arrested abroad”. Much of the evidence we received was strongly in favour of prison visits, which were considered to be an important visible demonstration of support that could provide prisoners with protection. With over 6,000 Britons arrested each year, this is a significant challenge. In 2009, the UK changed its policy on visiting prisoners in the EU to limit its commitments. In the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand, the FCO’s consular officers only visit British prisoners once before sentencing, and thereafter only if there is a need.125 FTI said that a 2009 FTI review “found the UK to be more reserving of direct contact with detainees than other countries.”126

Several of our witnesses disagreed with the FCO’s approach. Both FTI and Prisoners Abroad questioned the FCO’s assumption that prisoners were not vulnerable in the EU. FTI said that it had “identified over 500 violations of the right to liberty and fair trial rights between 2007 and 2012, [which] demonstrates that these assumptions may be misplaced.” Prisoners Abroad was deeply concerned about deterioration of conditions, even in European countries,127 and that the closures of consulates had “already resulted in a loss of support to prisoners, for example reduced visits or increased complications in receiving funds.” Reprieve complained that the service was inconsistent even outside the 121 Fair Trials International (CON 15), para 3 122 See, for example, Reprieve (CON 17) para 1.4; REDRESS (CON 21) para 47; and Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) paras 8–12. See also (CON 05). 123 Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 4 124 Q56 125 Fair Trials International (CON 15), para 22 126 Fair Trials International (CON 15) para 24 127 Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 5 52 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service EU, in countries where there were known to be problems. For example, it found that in the UAE “most prisoners were visited fairly promptly” by a consular official after they were detained, while in Pakistan “months can go by without contact.”128 However, when we asked Bruno Min, of FTI, and Kevin Laue, of REDRESS, if there should be a defined, obligatory minimum frequency of prison visits (for example, twice a year) for detainees, they both preferred a more flexible, needs-based approach.129 Lawyers lists and legal information

Finding a lawyer can be immensely challenging for British nationals in foreign, and especially foreign language, legal systems. The FCO provides lists of local lawyers in each country, but FTI and Reprieve both told us that they had received complaints from prisoners and their families that the information on the lists was “out of date, inaccurate and unhelpful”.130 We have heard the same from families in the UK as part of this inquiry. The FCO has recognised the problem and has begun to take steps to address it: FTI was asked by the FCO to produce recommendations for improving the lists, and the FCO is now in the process of updating and improving its lists.

FTI, and Prisoners Abroad were also both critical of the FCO’s prisoner packs, which are distributed by the FCO to prisoners and which should provide basic information about the relevant county’s legal system and contain useful contacts such as local legal associations or prisoner welfare groups. FTI told us that the standard of these packs was variable: there are some which contain little to no helpful information, even in countries there many British citizens are arrested every year. For example, the FCO does not at this time provide an adequate prisoner pack for persons arrested in the United States or Canada. The current pack, which serves both countries together, provides only an abridged version of the general FCO ‘In prison abroad’ publication without offering any specific information about the legal or prison systems of either country.131 FTI compares this with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which produces “commendable” country-specific, standardised and comprehensive prisoner packs.132 FTI told us that the FCO was reviewing its prisoner packs and moving toward using a standardised template. We welcome the FCO’s commitment to update and improve its lists of lawyers and prisoner packs, which have been the subject of many complaints to this inquiry. The FCO should also consider ways in which it can co-operate with other European and Western partners who have already produced comprehensive guides to share this information and pool resources. In its response to this report, the FCO 128 Reprieve (CON 17) para 3.1 129 Q52 130 Fair Trials International (CON 15) para 15 131 Fair Trials International (CON 15) para 19 132 Fair Trials International (CON 15) para 20 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 53 should provide a deadline by which it expects to have updated all of these documents and placed them on its website. Torture allegations and FCO guidance

British nationals in detention abroad may be vulnerable to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (CIDT), which is prohibited in international law and criminal under British law. For victims, UK consulate staff who have privileged access to visit detainees may be their only recourse to appeal for protection and assistance. In its written submission, REDRESS stated that the number of reports of alleged ill-treatment of British nationals abroad is increasing “rather sharply”, going from an average of 50 reports a year in 2005–10, to over 100 reports per year in 2012 (the latest available). It notes that this increase could be a function of improved record keeping, but states that “the scale of the problem is of continued concern.”133 The FCO provided updated data showing that there were 142 reported allegations of mistreatment in 2012 and 95 reported allegations in 2013 by British detainees. It said that when detainees ask the FCO to raise their allegations with the authorities, the FCO does so, requesting a full and transparent investigation.134

REDRESS, FTI and Reprieve all raised serious concerns about the FCO’s level of consular assistance toward its nationals who are at risk of, or who allege that they have experienced, mistreatment or torture. For example, FTI told us: Despite the FCO’s commitment to work towards the prevention of torture , and to ‘take all allegations and/or concerns of torture and CIDT very seriously’ , Fair Trials is aware of several reports of the FCO’s failure to take appropriate action in response to allegations of torture or CIDT made by British citizens. [...] We have also encountered various complaints from British citizens who reported that they were disappointed with the level of support they received when trying to seek assistance for torture and mistreatment. One individual who was arrested in Turkey complained to us that the only advice given by consular officials after making complaints about his treatment was that he should not seek to have them raised formally, in case he is subject to repercussions.135 REDRESS in particular had concerns about the FCO’s shortcomings in providing assistance, which it said had amounted to “systemic failures” in the past. In its 2012 report on consular support for terrorism suspects, REDRESS concluded that: when consular assistance was most urgently required, it was frequently lacking, delayed or not provided. If and when there is a thorough and independent public inquiry into complicity allegations, it should also examine the role of UK consular officers who either willingly or at the behest of the security agencies failed in their duties.136 133 REDRESS (CON 21) para 5 134 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 36) 135 Fair Trials International (CON 15) paras 27–28 136 REDRESS, Tortured Abroad: The UK's obligations to British Nationals and Residents, September 2012 54 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service

These are certainly grave allegations, made by organisations that the FCO considers to be partners in providing support. We also received detailed submissions from two groups of three individuals who had been held in Dubai in 2012–13 and Pakistan in 2004–11 respectively, and who alleged that FCO officials had been aware of their allegations of torture but had not taken appropriate action. We invited one of those individuals, Karl Williams, to a roundtable to speak about his experiences in greater detail. He described how the consular officials in Dubai had failed to take a proper record of his friend’s injuries, had not been sympathetic or compassionate, did not vigorously pursue their complaint with the Dubai authorities, and did not apply diplomatic pressure until the group went to the press.

When we questioned the Minister about the FCO’s record on handling torture allegations, he told us that the FCO took every allegation “extremely seriously” and added: we have recently strengthened the processes for handling mistreatment and torture cases of British nationals reported overseas. We also focus on the three particular priority countries where there have been high numbers of reports, with some more serious than others. So we take a strategic approach that depends on the specifics of each individual case.137 The FCO told us that it had repeatedly offered to meet Mr Williams following his return from the UAE, and it provided dates of its contact both directly and via Reprieve.138

Despite its criticism, REDRESS was positive about the FCO’s recognition of the problem, if not its past record: Consular assistance for UK nationals in danger of torture/mistreatment abroad, or who are actually suffering such torture/mistreatment, is an aspect of consular services which requires special attention; the FCO has recognised this for several years and its revised Guidelines are but the latest effort it is making in these regards, which we welcome.139 We are deeply concerned about the allegations we have received that the FCO has in some instances not responded adequately to protect and support those who said that they had been the victim of torture or ill-treatment. Any failure to support vulnerable nationals in such circumstances is deplorable. We recommend that the FCO launch an investigation into the allegations that have been raised during this inquiry, including identifying and interviewing staff involved, and that it present us with its findings, which we intend to review. 137 Q210 138 Information provided by the FCO [not published] 139 REDRESS (CON 21) para 3 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 55 New guidance

The FCO states that new guidelines were produced in December 2013 for FCO staff on “how to handle mistreatment and torture cases in order to help improve the awareness of our staff of how to respond to such cases.” These revised guidelines were welcomed by both REDRESS and FTI as a step forward (REDRESS contributed to their formulation). However, REDRESS argued that they should be published, and that “they must be properly and consistently implemented in practice in an accountable manner.” FTI agreed, and says that the FCO should “Review its current policies on torture allegations by consulting experts and civil society, and provide further training to consular staff”.

At our request, the FCO supplied both the old and new guidance to the Committee. The new guidance is considerably more detailed, and provides more nuanced advice for staff on what to do (and what not to do) when a British national shows signs of ill- treatment, or makes direct allegations of ill treatment. It places greater demands on the consular officer to do more to try to ensure that the prisoner is safe (for example, through a transfer to another prison, or to medical facilities); and to make more detailed records of injuries and meetings. The note also sets out a significantly wider range of action that can be taken to protest about the alleged mistreatment. The Guidance states that training is available on request, and the FCO told us that it had introduced workshops and was developing new e-learning on Torture and Mistreatment (among other issues). We welcome the new guidance for consular staff on torture and mistreatment, which is a clear step forward. For the new guidance to be effective it should be accompanied by comprehensive training, and the FCO should set out how many staff have been trained on the new guidance so far, and in what countries. The FCO should also keep records of the number of complaints about alleged mistreatment it pursues with authorities abroad, and make these statistics available to the Committee and its NGO partners, in order to better assess the scale of the problem.

Publication of the guidance would enable victims and their families to have a more full understanding of what can be expected, but we understand that these are internal guidelines meant for FCO officers’ use. We recommend that the FCO produce a separate updated public document setting out what it can and cannot do in these cases, based on its revised internal guidance. Death penalty

As at February 2014, there were 13 British nationals under sentence of death, and more than 60 facing trial for offences that could attract the death penalty.140 The FCO states that it makes representations and raise cases “at the appropriate level, including prime ministerial level”. It also refers cases to UK-based NGOs with which it has a working partnership, such as Reprieve. Reprieve told us that the last 20 years had seen “substantial improvements” in the delivery of consular services to British nationals facing execution.141 140 HC Deb, 11 February 2014, col 532W 141 Reprieve (CON 17) para 1.2 56 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service In particular, Reprieve welcomed the fact that consular officers attended the sentencing of any death penalty trial for their nationals, which it considered to be “extremely helpful”, though it encouraged consular officials to attend at an earlier stage in proceedings as well. Reprieve also encouraged greater intervention by consular staff at an early stage in proceedings. It noted that Mexico had achieved impressive results by energetically intervening on behalf of its nationals: in the 800 cases in which Mexico intervened, only 23 resulted in death sentences. Reprieve said the UK intervened to a lesser degree, but had secured significant success when it had done so, as Reprieve recorded that the UK had made written representations in over 15 cases and filed Amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in ten cases. It considered that these interventions were “very welcome and can be extremely powerful”.142

The FCO has been criticised and challenged in court because of its refusal to provide financial assistance for the legal costs of British nationals who have been sentenced to death (or who are at risk of it). During our roundtable, we heard from one family member of a Briton who had been charged with the death penalty abroad, who powerfully expressed their acutely painful situation and feelings of helplessness. FTI argued that the FCO should reconsider its position, and argues that assistance provided by the FCO to death penalty cases falls below those of several other countries143 which recognise that capital punishment is incompatible with international human rights standards.144 Reprieve suggested that, given the very limited number of death penalty cases abroad, providing funding would be “a drop in the ocean compared to other issues of legal aid”145 and that the UK’s refusal to provide funding contrasted with its international efforts to abolish the death penalty. It added that where funds were not available Reprieve made efforts to secure pro bono local counsel, but “this level of service is, of course, not adequate when an individual’s life is at stake.”146 Reprieve strongly urged that the UK provide funding, and it also suggested that an alternative to direct UK funding would be to establish a mechanism within the EU or Council of Europe that would provide funding for legal counsel in death penalty cases. There is a difficult balance to be struck when considering government support for death penalty cases. We were moved by the cases we heard. On one hand, such prisoners are among the most vulnerable of British nationals abroad, on the other, funding cases could mean that large amounts of public money go to a very small number of people. We do not recommend that the FCO singles out death penalty cases, many of which take years to reach a final judgment, for an open-ended commitment of funding. The FCO’s approach of providing consular support to the family, as well as funding and working with the specialist organisation Reprieve, is the right one. 142 Reprieve (CON 17) para 3.12 143 Including Mexico, Germany and Spain 144 Fair Trials International (CON 15) paras 30–32 145 Correspondence from Reprieve, 28 July 2014 [not published] 146 Reprieve (CON 17) para 3.6 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 57 A “lack of proactivity”

All of those who contributed to our inquiry on detention issues called for a more proactive response by the FCO as it looks after the interests of its nationals in prisons around the world. Several organisations considered that the FCO was too concerned with limiting expectations147 and did not take the initiative to help or protect prisoners.148 Fair Trials international was particularly eager that the FCO should commit to identifying and intervening in cases where serious fair trial abuses are taking place. FTI acknowledges that, while the FCO cannot interfere in foreign legal proceedings, circumstances can sometimes call for an intervention: Many British citizens each year are arrested in countries where even the most basic internationally recognised fair trial rights are routinely violated. Despite the FCO’s commitment to ensuring that British defendants are treated in line with international fair trial standards, the FCO only rarely raises concerns about individual cases, and this is normally attributable to pressure from MPs, civil society and the media, even where such breaches are very serious.149

FTI told us that the FCO usually argued that its consular officials did not have the legal expertise to identify serious breaches, and that nationals were being treated in accordance with local laws. FTI questioned both of these arguments, proposing that the FCO should prioritise training for its officers, and that in many places even if nationals were being treated in accordance with local standards, these were still below internationally recognised rights, with which the FCO should encourage them to comply. The FCO talks about the minimum services it can provide to prisoners, rather than doing the most it can to protect them. This policy does not align with its stated goal of focusing services on the most vulnerable. We recommend that the FCO prioritise fair trials rights training for its consular staff so that they can more intervene proactively, if necessary.

Several submissions, including that of Reprieve and FTI, noted that the FCO was more likely to become proactive in a case if there was media coverage. Bruno Min, of FTI, told us: At the moment, we find the approach being taken is rather inconsistent, in the sense that the Foreign Office will be more likely to make representations to foreign Governments where there is political backing and where there is some media coverage in a particular case. It should not really be like that. The level of assistance that the FCO provides should not depend on these factors. They should be in a position to be able to decide for themselves, where serious violations have taken place, what the appropriate action should be.150 147 See, for example, REDRESS (CON 21) 148 Prisoners Abroad (CON 07) para 11 149 Fair Trials International (CON 15) para 34 150 Q46 58 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service This point was echoed by Karl Williams, who told us that the FCO changed its approach once they had taken their case to the media. In some cases the FCO may have made a reasonable policy decision to pursue cases by private, diplomatic means, in the interest of the prisoner’s welfare. We asked the FCO about allegations that there were political or diplomatic factors behind its decisions about when to apply diplomatic pressure, and asked how it made a judgment between individual cases and overall UK interests. The Minister responded that: I do not think that those two things are incompatible. As I said a moment ago, I do not think we should be interfering in other countries’ judicial processes, but we need to provide the relevant consular support to that individual who has been detained and signpost them to access the necessary legal advice to ensure that they get a free trial in the country they happen to be detained in. That is exactly what we do.151

Press interest should not affect the FCO’s decision making, but we have repeatedly been informed that media interest generates a more active response from the FCO. If true, this is unacceptable, as decisions about protecting prisoners should be made on the needs of each case, rather than how many people are watching. If the FCO has in fact been working behind closed doors on the national’s behalf, it must improve its communication with the prisoner and their family to make them aware of this. 151 Q209 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 59 6 Passport transfer and crisis 2014 Background

This year saw the end of a five-year transition in which the FCO passed all responsibility for issuing UK passports to Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO), an agency of the Home Office. Prior to 2009, almost all FCO posts overseas issued UK passports to UK nationals resident overseas. Between 2009 and 2011 this was consolidated into just seven Regional Passport Processing Centres, plus an office in Dublin. Responsibility for printing all passports then passed back to the UK, and the regional centres just processed applications, followed by a final stage from December 2012–2014 which saw a staged repatriation of all processing and decision-making to the UK. All seven of the regional centres are now closed and all overseas nationals now apply directly to HMPO for passports. The whole process was initially meant to be completed by March 2013 but was extended to March 2014.

The decision to consolidate and repatriate passport services flowed directly from reports by the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee in 2006 that recommended that passport services be consolidated under the Home Office to save the Government and passport holders money, as well as to improve security. In its written evidence to this inquiry, the FCO stated: One of the key drivers for the transition of passport processing was to maintain and enhance the security of the passport process. Moving to print in the UK has removed the physical security risk of transporting and safekeeping blank passport stocks around the world.152

By January 2014, HMPO processed 5.5 million passports a year. Overseas passport applications were expected to add an extra 350,000. The FCO remains responsible for emergency travel documents (ETDs), which are issued for limited periods (often single journeys) to enable travellers who have not got a passport to travel. Completion of transfer and implications for overseas nationals

In its written evidence to this inquiry, submitted in January 2014, the FCO said that one of its “key aims” of its 2013–16 consular strategy was: “Transferring overseas passport production to HMPO in the UK by March 2014, establishing a consistent, secure, efficient and cost-effective service.”153 The FCO achieved the handover around the time of the amended deadline. The FCO explained: For most overseas customers, the timescales for passport applications remain the same: 4 weeks for renewals and 6 weeks for first time applicants. In some countries, this may take longer owing to the need for additional time required to complete 152 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 166 153 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 16 60 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service checking procedures. An indication of delivery times on a country-by-country basis is available to applicants via the gov.uk website.154 Also in March, the Government announced that, as a result of efficiency savings from the transfer to the Passport Office, the passport fee for customers applying for a UK passport from overseas would be reduced by 35%.155 Prior to this, the fee for an adult passport application from overseas was £128, plus courier fees, compared to the fee for a customer in the UK, which was £72.50.

The transfer has also coincided with a new online application process by HMPO, launched in December 2013, in which the majority of customers can apply and pay for passports online. They then print off and sign a declaration form which they send along with photos and supporting documents to the UK.

The changes to the passport service were the focus of dozens of comments on our web forum. The overwhelming majority of comments were negative and considered that the service had deteriorated, with complaints focused on a major increase in the length of time it took to obtain a new passport, which left nationals without identification documents or the ability to travel for 4–6 weeks; the fact that it could no longer be submitted, checked and paid for at an FCO post; the expense and limitations to the courier system; the fact that consular staff were no longer able to provide help or advice; the difficulty for some older people in navigating the online system; and the extra expense (since addressed—see paragraph 97). Several also regretted the impression that a connection between expatriate nationals and the Embassy or Consulate had been lost, and that an important service that was highly valued by the expatriate community had been withdrawn.156 154 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 161 155 Fees for an adult passport dropped from £128 to £84; fees for a child’s passport dropped from £81.50 to £53.00. See “Reduction in passport fees for UK citizens overseas”, Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release, 17 March

We asked former Ambassadors Sir Michael Arthur and Giles Paxman about the transfer. Sir Michael Arthur acknowledged that it was “unpopular” in Germany, where he had been ambassador, because the “gut reaction” of people used to renewing passports in Dusseldorf felt it was more difficult to do so by post. He commented: “Logically, it is not hugely different to do it in the UK than overseas, but it is not popular.” Giles Paxman, former Ambassador to Spain, agreed that people do not like change, but was optimistic: I think what we have found, since we closed the regional passport issuing office in Madrid last June, is that people have adapted quite easily to the change. Indeed, quite a lot of the comments that we have had on the “Brits living in Spain” Facebook forum suggest that people are happy. The idea of doing something in a more online, electronic way is not something that shocks people once they sit down to think about it.157 Giles Paxman also indicated that people had perhaps become used to unusually fast responses, telling us that when passports were previously processed in Madrid, his team “performed to very high standards; in some ways, they probably exceeded the standards that had been laid down.”158

Issuing passports was one of the most visible aspects of the FCO’s work, and our predecessor Committees scrutinised the arrangements for the repatriation of passports and warned repeatedly of the reputational risks for the FCO if the service was to deteriorate. In 2009, the Committee called for the transfer to be “carefully managed to ensure that neither the quality nor the scope of the existing services are compromised and that the FCO’s reputation is not damaged.”159 In 2010, the FCO told the Committee that it anticipated “substantial long-term savings as a result of rationalisation, as well as improved customer service and greater consistency across the network.”160 The Committee again raised concerns about the potential risk to the level of service provided to British nationals and the reputational risk for the FCO. It also noted that the transfer was taking place at a time when stricter security requirements could make obtaining passports slower and more difficult. It said that the situation would require provision of clear information to the public.161

We do not question the security and cost efficiency rationale for the move to repatriate passports to the UK and end the process of issuing them abroad. However, it has been unpopular among expatriates, and the FCO has failed to make clear the benefits of the new system or to address its drawbacks. The reduction in the price of passports applications from overseas offers expatriates a chance to share in the benefits of the efficiency savings, and is warmly welcomed. 157 Q121 158 Q123 159 Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2007–08, HC 195, para 109 160 Foreign Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2008- 09, HC 145, para 312 161 Foreign Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2008- 09, HC 145, para 313 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 63

The length of time expatriates abroad must wait for passports may not have increased significantly in comparison to last year, but in many places it has substantially increased in comparison to five or ten years ago, when expatriates could apply at the embassy and have their passports renewed within days. The 4-6 week wait is also very long in comparison to the 72 hour service offered in the UK. Greater flexibility in offering Emergency Travel Documents does not wholly compensate for this. We agree that 4–6 weeks is a long time to be without a passport or identification while living in a foreign country. The Government should offer expatriates an express service option, which would attract a premium price, as in the UK, or the possibility of keeping their passport while waiting for a new one to be issued, by submitting a certified copy of the passport instead. Passport crisis

In May 2014, just six weeks after the completion of the transfer from FCO to HMPO, reports emerged that passport applications were experiencing long delays. The problems peaked in June, when HMPO had nearly 550,000 applications in process, and lengthy delays continued throughout much of the summer. The delays were blamed on “unprecedented” levels of demand. There was public outrage at the problems, which came at a time when many Brits were preparing to travel.162

The Home Affairs Committee published a report in September 2014 that found that delays for processing passports from overseas, a function that had previously been done by the FCO, were “particularly poor”, noting that “More than 17 of every 20 overseas applications had been delayed since the beginning of April 2014”. The report showed data from one week in June that showed only 11.4% of straightforward passport applications from overseas had been processed within 15 days, compared with a target of 99.75%.163 It stated that since the start of the current financial year, only 13% of applications from overseas were dealt with within the three week target. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that it had been a mistake to repatriate the issuing of overseas passports, and called on the Government to bring HM Passport Office under the direct authority of the Home Office, which it has since done. The Home Affairs Committee also concluded that the management of the transfer had been poorly handled, noting that the FCO and HMPO provided contradictory answers about the need for further improvement. It also considered that the transfer was poorly-timed, being completed in April, at the start of the busiest travel season.164

At the height of the problems, the FCO and Home Office agreed measures to manage demand and delays. The FCO began to provide a 12-month extension to passports overseas, as well as issuing emergency travel documents to children for the first time. Data 162 See, for example, “Passport delays: 'We've been held to ransom'”, BBC News Online, 11 June 2014; “Passport backlog: photographs of stacked application files stoke row over delays”, Guardian, 11 June 2014; “30,000 passport backlog hits first-time applicants”, The Times, 14 June 2014 163 Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of session 2014–15, Her Majesty’s Passport Office: delays in processing applications, , HC 238 164 Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of session 2014–15, Her Majesty’s Passport Office: delays in processing applications, , HC 238, para 77 64 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service from that time shows that the provision of Emergency Travel Documents (ETDs) rocketed by over 3,000: Total ETDs issued May-June 2013 & 2014 2013 2014 May 2565 3932 June 2895 5235 Totals 5460 9166 Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office165 ETDs issued to overseas residents with full validity passport applications pending, May-June 2013 & 2014 2013 2014 May 293 1354 June 250 1964 Totals 543 3318 Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office166 Since the cost of producing ETDs is greater than the price nationals pay, there is a case for the FCO to reclaim the cost of Emergency Travel Documents issued as a substitute for replacement passports from the HM Passport Office.

We asked the Minister and officials about the passport delays, and were told that “The response to the backlog is for HMPO to answer on.” The Minister explained that: “at no point during the handover did HMPO fail to meet the targets. Therefore, no alarm bells went off in the FCO before the handover took place.” When we asked if they felt there had been reputational damage to the FCO, the Minister said: No. I think that the effective way that the FCO responded in providing the additional measures to assist HMPO puts the FCO in a very positive light. We were not saying it was nothing to do with us any more, but rolling our sleeves up, getting stuck in and helping HMPO deliver what everybody who is applying for a new passport wants to see.167 Joanna Roper added that within days of the Home Office’s announcement of the delays and special measures, the FCO was taking 2,000 extra calls a day arranging appointments, and had distributed the extension stamps and trained staff to use them, which she said as “pretty fast moving”.168 The transfer and subsequent problems in passport processing for 165 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 29) 166 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 29) 167 Q166 168 Ibid. Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 65 overseas nationals has caused reputational damage to the FCO. The speed with which the Passport Service ran into trouble just six weeks after the final transfer of responsibility from the FCO to HM Passport Office strongly suggests that planning was not properly done. The emergency measures were well-implemented, but should not have been necessary. The FCO should request that HM Passport Office reimburse any costs resulting from the increase in Emergency Travel Documents and other measures that the FCO took this summer. 66 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 7 Complaints handling

Of the submissions received from the public on their personal experience of consular services, approximately 90% were negative or complaints. We acknowledge that this does not reflect broad experience of consular services as it is from a self-selecting group. However, we note that a number of them refer to dissatisfaction not only with the service received, but the response they received when they tried to lodge a complaint. One individual spoke of a “culture of closing ranks” while another said that complaints about a particular staff member were ignored by senior personnel.

The FCO has a high satisfaction rate of 80% based on its surveys, but acknowledges that this is not a reliable number as the response rate to those surveys is so low (2%). This is because users of FCO services must be motivated enough to go online to find the response form. The FCO told us it is moving toward a model that would use an external provider to automatically email users a feedback form, which should give a more accurate result. Based only on the number of complaints and ‘compliments’, the FCO also does well, this table (provided by the FCO) shows positive reviews far outweighing negative ones since 2012:169 Complaints and Compliments received by the FCO 2010-2014 Year Compliments Complaints 2010 693 1165 (of which 1005 related to passport, visa, nationality or non-consular issues) 2011 346 395 2012 683 248 2013 771 206 2014 (up to July)* 704 166 Total 3197 2180 *Centralised recording of complaints and compliments was introduced in February 2014 Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office170 A further positive sign is that the FCO has rarely been the subject of investigation by the Ombudsman. However, in a recent and unusual case, the FCO was strongly criticised for its response to a British national who had been the victim of a sexual assault in Egypt in 2011 during the revolution. The Ombudsman found that the FCO had failed to provide adequate consular support at the time, and had failed to handle her complaint in an open and accountable way. The Ombudsman particularly highlighted the FCO’s “defensive approach to complaint handling”. The FCO told us that the case had led to “structural changes” to its complaints handling procedures: 169 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 170 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 67 guidance has been re-written and expanded to ensure consistency, improved quality assurance and better management information. This includes continuing to establish a culture where our response to complaints demonstrates that we have carefully considered the impact on the customer, takes responsibility where services could have been delivered better and includes actions which results in improvements.171

Since December 2013, the FCO has employed “an expert within the customer insight field” to develop a more comprehensive programme for gathering data, and has also centralised its complaint handling from February 2014, to ensure more consistency of reporting and follow up, and so themes and repetitions in complaints are identified by management.172 It has committed “to achieving a customer satisfaction rating of at least 80% in financial year 2014/15 that is statistically valid based on a representative sample of customers.”173 The Committee will continue to monitor consular complaints handling and the FCO should include its customer satisfaction statistics in its annual reports. 171 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 19) para 188 172 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 173 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CON 35) 68 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 8 Overall approach to consular services Consular work is a very personal business. It touches the lives of British citizens in difficult and sometimes extreme circumstances. It is the only way most people come into contact with the Foreign Office, and it is one of our main responsibilities as a Department. — William Hague, then Foreign Secretary, 4 April 2012.174 Conclusion

We are satisfied that the Consular Service is one of the FCO’s top priorities in reality, as well as on paper, and that considerable thought and creativity has gone into the delivery of improved consular services. The FCO has made major improvements to its consular service over the last eight years, with sensible and effective innovations such as the call centres, the crisis centre, and the reduction in notarial services.

In making these improvements, consular staff have experienced major changes to the way in which they work and significant reductions to the consular team, which can have an effect on morale. The officials we met in Spain and London were impressive and dedicated professionals, and it is important to ensure that both locally engaged and UK-based staff are engaged with the process and see benefits for themselves in their own work. We consider that the organisational changes have been generally well-handled, but further changes, particularly further reductions in staff or consulates, risk damaging morale.

The general public often has unrealistic expectations about the FCO’s services, as demonstrated by the examples of trivial and ludicrous requests made to the Consular Service.175 It is understandable and right that the FCO wants to lower expectations and ensure British nationals understand what it can and cannot do for them, and to ask British nationals to be responsible and well-prepared. As the Foreign Secretary observed in 2012, “An effective consular service does not mean a nanny state.”176 British nationals must share the responsibility for their own safety and security abroad. The FCO’s public messaging campaigns to improve understanding of its services, and what British nationals can legitimately expect from such services, are a sensible measure.

The FCO’s aspiration to be the ‘best consular service in the world’ by 2016 is ultimately an impossible goal to measure, but it is fine as an expression of commitment to improve. The consular management team engaged with our inquiry fully and were clearly seeking ways to improve the delivery of the consular service. The succession of consular strategies since 2007 indicates that considerable resources are directed toward strategic 174 Speech by the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Looking after our own: strengthening Britain's consular diplomacy, 4 April 2012, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London 175 See, for example, “British Consulate: We're not directory enquiries”, Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release, 10 November 2011 176 Speech by the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Looking after our own: strengthening Britain's consular diplomacy, 4 April 2012, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service 69 change and professionalization of the service. This is important, given that our evidence shows that there is still inconsistency in practice from post to post and individual to individual. It was disappointing to hear that what one charity considered to be good practice was dismissed as ‘over-delivery’. In the same light, we sympathise with Reprieve and Prisoners Abroad, who regretted that the FCO no longer uses the term ‘protection’, and instead offers ‘assistance’. In this, the FCO risks going too far away from its unique role: it is not an organisation like any other that offers assistance to its customers: it is the Government’s consular service that provides support and protection to British nationals abroad. Setting clear core levels of service has undoubtedly brought improvement, and benefits can already be clearly seen, though the FCO should continue to ensure that inconsistencies and problems are identified and addressed. Nonetheless, as the Consular Directorate proceeds in implementing changes, it is important not to dehumanise and minimise the service in the pursuit of professionalisation or excessive cost-cutting. The FCO provides vital services with limited resources when nationals are suffering under difficult circumstances. To many, it is a lifeline and a comfort in times of great need. It should rightly be proud of its work. 70 Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service