benefit from £4m subsidy to the vatican by UK taxpayers

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
•What is a simple breakdown of reported £4m costs to UK taxpayers
of the embassy to the holy see? I hope for few dozen lines of cost
like staff, buildings, travel, and a breakdown of staff costs.
•What is the equivelant breakdown of costs of representation to San
Marino?
•What is the equivelant breakdown of costs of representation to
Sark?
•Please confirm that there is zero budget for representation to
other popes without micro-states attached: the two orthadox popes
and the Coptic.
•If the cost or representation to the holy see is greater than that
to San Marino or Sark, please provide a copy of the latest written
review of this arrangement that's available to you.

The reason I think this is important is that my council in Richmond
on Thames is making cuts to adult social care such as daycentres
for people with dementia that give carers a respite. I'm sure
you'll agree that the FCO should not be spending £4m a year on one
office in a tax haven without very good reason, if the money could
be transferred.

Yours faithfully,

John Robertson

Dear Foreign Commonwealth Office,

Clarifying my question - please ignore my specific mention of £4m
as I can't find a reference for it.

I see from another FOI request the figure €761,000 quoted, with a
€50,000 lower figure for the previous four years.

The rest of the question remains important I think.
regards,

John Robertson

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
€760,000 is a figure I found on Whatdotheyknow as below.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Mr Tony Kennick
02 August 2010
Dear Mr Kennick,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - REQUEST REF: 0569-10
Thank you for you email of 1 July 2010 asking for ‘the cost of
maintaining a separate Ambassador and Embassy for the Holy See
above and beyond the FCO’s existing presence in Rome...for each of
the last 5 years.’
[...]
The Chanceries (offices) of the UK's Embassies to Italy and to the
Holy See are co-located, in separate buildings, but on the same
secure compound in central Rome, in order to guarantee security.
They also share support services (for example security, drivers and
maintenance) to the maximum extent possible. However, in accordance
with the Lateran Pacts, under which it is impossible for any State
to merge its Embassies to Italy and the Holy See, the two
Ambassadors' Residences remain located in separate parts of Rome.
The British Embassy to the Holy See’s total budget spend for the
financial year 2009-2010 was approximately 761,000 Euros. This
figure includes staff salaries, maintenance and utilities costs,
estate projects, accommodation, travel and training. To put this in
perspective, this represents 4% of the total budget spend for our
Italian network of overseas posts.
In the four financial years from 2005-2009, the total budget for
the Embassy to the Holy See was approximately 710,000 Euros. The
Embassy’s budget remained the same throughout this period.
[...]
You can also find out more about the FCO and freedom of information
issues at our Access to Information website:
http://foi.fco.gov.uk/en
Yours sincerely,
Catherine Shaw
Assistant Desk Officer Papal Visit Team
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""end of quote

I have checked the FCO Publication scheme for 2009 and can't see FY
2009-10. If a copy would help me write a more useful question you
are welcome to email it and I will read it carefully.

Many thanks,

John Robertson

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
I've just understood your request:
Yes -
Financial Year 2009/10 figures are fine.
Yours,

John Robertson

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Foreign and
Commonwealth Office's handling of my FOI request 'benefit from
[...] subsidy to the vatican by UK taxpayers', and this part of the
reply ending "there is no public interest case to apply", which is
what I want reviewed:

"ii.
In posts with five staff members or fewer we do not disclose staff
costs. Although we do hold this information we consider it to be
exempt from disclosure by virtue of s.40(2) and (3) of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). This is because the requested
information constitutes personal data and to disclose it would be
unfair and therefore a breach of the first data protection
principle (Schedule 1 Data
Protection Act 1998 refers). In such circumstances s.40 confers an
absolute exemption on disclosure. There is no public interest test
to apply. "

I disagree.
I think the pay of an embassy staff to the holy see is
controversial and political, as have the last three prime
ministers.

The prime minister before last did not volunteer for many
interviews about politics but did give one, in which he shared an
anecdote about civil servants. He had suggested a candedate for
ambassedor to the holey see. His officials had told him that there
was a convention that a catholic should not hold this post. He
asked the camera to make friends with him: what could be the point
of that?

The last prime minister demonstrated the point of critical
thinking: he suggested an un-costed invite to this particular
pontiff and a previous FOI request reveals that no cost / beneft
analysis was presented to him by the highly paid ambassedor to the
holy see.

The current prime minister has listed civil servants paid more than
himself to the press. As I understand it he hopes that people power
will change the consensus about how much such folk should be paid;
that the issue should be open & public. This it the first reference
I found: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10200387
If I am right, it is his belief that the high pay of any public
sector post is political in the sense that it should be open to
question about value for money.

I think these three points of view from three prime ministers
suggest a public interest case for knowing the wages of holey see
embassy officials - particularly if catholic in some way, appointed
by a now catholic prime minister, and if they failed to suggest
ridicule as a better way of engaging than paying £15 million.

Put simply, if someone had perfect faith on Silvio Berlosconi's
morals that was a deep-held belief that was part of their
personality, would they be a good ambassedor to Italy? Not unless
Mr Berlosconi is paying is my answer. I think it is in the public
interest to know how much the public are paying for someone who is
in their own way a catholic to be ambassedor to the holy see at a
time when advice against the £15m state visit and associated
policing costs would have saved those amounts.

There is another public interest. My local council in Richmond
proposes a catholic secondary school: taxpayers pay 90% of costs;
diocis controls 50% of pupil admissions and 100% of staff jobs.
Again, I find it obvious that the respectablility, the lack of
ridicule, the attempt to curry favour with Mr Ratzinger is an
intensely political issue for councils.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/be...

regards,

John Robertson

Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

Thanks for your help.

Yours sincerely,

John Robertson