110. Our inquiry has given a unique insight into the working, or lack of working in this case, of the FCO machine. It has exposed even further a story which the FCO would have preferred not to have had besmirch its reputation. It has been an uncomfortable period for the Department. We hope that the experience will have been therapeutic. As the Permanent Secretary put it:[345]

"The revelation of this mess, which is not a pretty sight, has not been a very enjoyable experience. I think that those concerned will not make these mistakes again. I think that the office as a whole will perform better, given that it has learned from some really rather serious mistakes that it made. That is the point."

111. Our inquiry has served three principal purposes. It has allowed us to examine what went wrong, to establish new information not previously known to Parliament and to make a number of recommendations for action. But it has also demonstrated to the FCO that the Committee will pursue objectively and vigorously cases of poor administration in the Department. That, we hope, will be a stimulus for improvement. It is certainly one of the principal justifications for the departmental select committee system: that officials and Ministers are aware that the beam of the select committee searchlight may one day swing in their direction, and that they may have to justify their action—or inaction—when subject to intense scrutiny by a committee such as ours, acting on behalf of Parliament and, beyond that, on behalf of a wider public interest.