Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
TSO
(Mail, telephone and fax orders only) THIRD REPORT FROM THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: SESSION 2005–06: HC 903 PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders 0870 600 5533 Email [email protected] Internet http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
TSO Shops House of Commons 123 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 68-69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD Foreign Affairs Committee 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS 0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 18-19 High Street, Cardiff CF10 1PT Public Diplomacy 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588 The Parliamentary Bookshop Third Report of Session 2005–06 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders 020 7219 3890 General enquiries 020 7219 3890 Fax orders 020 7219 3866
Accredited Agents (See Yellow Pages) and through good booksellers
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2006 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ – Fax 01603 723000
ISBN 0 215 02832 5
HC 903
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
Public Diplomacy
Third Report of Session 2005–06
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 29 March 2006
HC 903 Incorporating HC 522–i/iii Published on 7 April 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50
Foreign Affairs Committee
The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies.
Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)
The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament.
Rt Hon Mr Andrew Mackay (Conservative, Bracknell)
Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Steve Priestley (Clerk), Sarah Ioannou (Second Clerk), Ann Snow (Committee Specialist), Kit Dawnay, (Committee Specialist), Kevin Candy (Committee Assistant), Catherine Jackson (Secretary) and Chintan Makwana (Senior Office Clerk).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6394; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]
Contents
Report Page
Conclusions and recommendations 7
1 Introduction 12
2 Public Diplomacy 12 Wilton review of public diplomacy 13 Lord Carter’s review of public diplomacy 13 A new definition of public diplomacy 15 A new public diplomacy strategy 16 Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board 17 British Council and public diplomacy 20 FCO relationship with the British Council 20 Governance of the British Council 21 BBC World Service and public diplomacy 24 Responsiveness to change 26 Governance of the World Service 27 Financial independence and stability 27 Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund and Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund 28 Public diplomacy measurement and evaluation 29
3 British Council 30 Work in 2004–2005 30 Annual Report for 2004–05 31 British Council’s raison d’être 31 Working with government departments 33 Staffing and efficiency savings 34 Value for money? 35 Middle East, Afghanistan and North Africa 37 British Council’s tax status in Russia 38 Chevening scholarships and fellowships 40
4 BBC World Service 42 Annual Report 42 Work in 2004–05 43 Audience figures and audibility 43 World Service’s three-year plan and vision to 2010 44 Reduction in vernacular services 46 English-language output 48 Arabic satellite television news service 50 Expansion into other television services 56 Nepali radio service 59 Closure of the BBC World Service in Uzbekistan 61 Online services and new digital interactive services 62
6 Public Diplomacy
Formal minutes 64
List of written evidence 69
Conclusions and recommendations
Lord Carter’s review of public diplomacy 1. We conclude that while it is appropriate for arm’s-length bodies to follow a public diplomacy strategy in line with government medium- and long-term goals, given that funding is provided through grant-in-aid, this must be counterbalanced by institutional safeguards to preserve the day-to-day and short-term editorial and operational independence of the BBC World Service and the British Council respectively. (Paragraph 15)
2. We recommend that the Government’s public diplomacy strategy be aligned with the FCO’s strategic global priorities. We conclude that the strategy should both provide direction to the public diplomacy organisations and be informed by their individual contributions. (Paragraph 18)
3. We conclude that it is appropriate for an FCO Minister to chair the new Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board and to be accountable to Parliament for its decisions. However, this must not be allowed to compromise the BBC World Service’s editorial independence or the British Council’s operational independence. We support the Carter review’s proposal for the establishment of an advisory panel and recommend that the new board maintain good links with the panel’s membership. (Paragraph 29)
4. We conclude that any changes made to the arrangement for oversight of the British Council must not jeopardise its operational independence and effectiveness. (Paragraph 34)
5. We recommend that the Foreign Secretary should appoint half the British Council’s board members, including the chair and vice-chair. We conclude that this should increase accountability to Parliament whilst guaranteeing the Council’s separation from Government and ensuring that a wider group of interests are represented on it. (Paragraph 37)
6. We recommend that in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest arising from the position of the Permanent Under-Secretary as principal accounting officer of the British Council and his membership of its board, the Foreign Office should be represented on the British Council’s board by another member of the FCO’s board of management. (Paragraph 38)
7. We recommend that the FCO, in the light of Lord Carter’s review on public diplomacy, describe what changes it believes are necessary in relation to its oversight of the British Council as well as any changes it proposes to make to enhance its mechanisms of dialogue with the Council. We further recommend that the FCO indicate how these changes would be likely to affect the British Council’s operational independence and the perceptions of its partners and clients of its distance from Government. (Paragraph 44)
8 Public Diplomacy
8. We conclude that Lord Carter’s review was right to recognise the BBC World Service’s unique contribution to the United Kingdom’s public diplomacy as a world class international broadcaster and to understand the significance of its editorial independence to its reputation and ability to deliver an unbiased trustworthy news service. We conclude that making decisions on priority markets and new investment in a manner consistent with governmental medium- and long-term goals, in consultation with the Foreign Office, need not be detrimental to the BBC World Service’s editorial impartiality. (Paragraph 51)
9. We recommend that the BBC World Service, together with the Foreign Office, carry out regular reviews of its services to ensure that resources are being utilised to achieve a maximum impact, with overall audience figures increased through appropriate reinvestment of resources into new media opportunities. (Paragraph 55)
10. We agree with Lord Carter that there remain considerable advantages for the BBC World Service remaining structurally bound into the overall BBC operation. (Paragraph 56)
11. We conclude that the ring-fenced funding for the BBC World Service and the British Council should remain in place. (Paragraph 58)
12. We recommend that in its response to our Report the Foreign Office outline how it plans to assess the impact of the Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund and the Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund and what plans or modifications it has in mind for them. (Paragraph 62)
13. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office provide us with a breakdown of how the BBC World Service and British Council allocate their resources in the financial year 2005-06. In the case of the British Council we recommend that data be given on a country-by-country and on a regional basis, and in the case of the BBC World Service by country, by language service and by region. We further recommend that in future the Foreign Office furnish this Committee with such data on an annual basis. (Paragraph 65)
British Council 14. We regret that the British Council was late in publishing its annual report for 2004- 05 and recommend that in future it publish its annual report more speedily so that Parliament may carry out effective and timely scrutiny of its performance. (Paragraph 67)
15. We recommend that for the 2005-06 annual report the British Council present its performance results against targets in a format that demonstrates clearly successes or failures. (Paragraph 68)
16. We recommend that the Foreign Office, as part of the 2007 comprehensive spending review, commission an independent review of the British Council’s work which examines what the British Council does, why it is doing it, what it should be doing, and whether any of its activity would be better conducted in other ways or by different organisations. (Paragraph 72)
Public Diplomacy 9
17. We conclude that over the past year the British Council has demonstrated an enthusiasm for working in association with other government departments and public bodies. (Paragraph 74)
18. We conclude that it is the British Council’s international network that allows it to run English language teaching centres where conditions are challenging and where there are limited business opportunities. We further conclude that it is the British Council’s independence from Government that helps to broaden the range of organisations in these difficult environments with which it is able to engage. (Paragraph 80)
19. We recommend that the National Audit Office urgently consider conducting a further value for money report on the British Council. (Paragraph 83)
20. We commend the British Council’s determination to stay open for business in countries where it faces extremely challenging security conditions and for the progress it has made in improving security at its premises for staff and customers alike and recommend the Council continues these policies where appropriate and necessary. (Paragraph 90)
21. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office update us on the latest position of the British Council in Russia regarding outstanding tax issues and detail what actions it is taking to prevent further interference with the Council’s operations by the Russian authorities. We further recommend that the Foreign Office inform us of any tax problems in other countries which relate to the British Council and what it is doing to resolve them. (Paragraph 97)
22. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office set out how it proposes to appraise expenditure on the Chevening scholarships and fellowships in terms of their impact in the medium and long terms. We further recommend that the Foreign Office explain what selection process and criteria it uses to identify those scholars and fellows most likely to bring benefit to the United Kingdom in the short, medium and long term. (Paragraph 103)
BBC World Service 23. We conclude that 2004–2005 proved to be another successful year for the BBC World Service, which saw a significant growth in the size of its audience. We particularly commend the Service on the success it had in Iraq where it was the biggest speech radio station. (Paragraph 112)
24. We conclude that the Government’s vision that the BBC World Service should remain a service publicly funded through grant-in-aid is wholly right. We commend the BBC World Service for carrying out such an extensive review and reprioritisation of its resources ahead of the next spending review. This will enable it, among other achievements, to realise its proposal for an Arabic television news channel in 2007. (Paragraph 118)
25. We conclude that the reduction in the BBC World Service’s language range, which mirrored the direction given by Government, was regrettable. We recommend that
10 Public Diplomacy
the BBC World Service in consultation with the Foreign Office review regularly its language services for impact and financial value but do its utmost to preserve and extend its language services upon which so many depend for its trustworthy news and information. We conclude that this is particularly important in those countries where there is no properly functioning parliamentary democracy, inadequate freedom of the media and significant violation of human rights, and we recommend that the BBC World Service is funded accordingly. (Paragraph 126)
26. We conclude that it is important that the BBC World Service’s English output continues to include a significant proportion of programmes which promote British culture and Britain’s creativity to overseas audiences as well as the first-rate, impartial news and information programmes. It is this mixture of programming which is the World Service’s attraction and a characteristic of its success. We recommend that under no circumstances should the World Service’s English language programming be allowed to evolve into just a news and information service. (Paragraph 130)
27. We commend the BBC World Service for its achievement in funding the new Arabic television news service from a combination of efficiency savings and a reprioritisation of resources from the 2004 spending review provision. We conclude that the new service will be an important means of balancing the output of other Arabic language services. We further conclude that the BBC’s impartiality and objectivity will be of paramount importance if it is to succeed. We recommend that the BBC World Service together with the Foreign Office review the new channel’s funding and performance in the period leading up to its first anniversary to ensure it is adequately resourced and to determine whether extra funding should be provided by the Government to enable the channel to become a 24-hour service. We also recommend that the BBC World Service explore the potential for subsidising the costs of the new Arabic television service through generating income via advertising and syndication. (Paragraph 153)
28. We recommend that in the run up to the next spending round the Foreign Office argue the case with HM Treasury for an increase in grant-in-aid funding for the BBC World Service so that it can introduce further priority vernacular television services in addition to its new Arabic service without being forced to make excessive cuts in its radio and media services. (Paragraph 165)
29. We recommend that the Foreign Office set out in response to this Report the latest position regarding the disruption of the BBC World Service’s Nepali service and its assessment of the likely impact on the World Service’s broadcasts in both Nepali and in English in Nepal if the government’s proposed new media ordinance comes into effect. (Paragraph 174)
30. We conclude that the security and safety of staff must always be a top priority for the BBC World Service and we believe that it was right for the BBC World Service to close its bureau in Tashkent owing to the attacks and intimidation reported by its journalists last year. We commend the actions taken so far by the Foreign Office on behalf of the BBC and the World Service and recommend that the FCO continue to make strong representations to the Government of Uzbekistan. We further
Public Diplomacy 11
recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO indicate whether there is any near-term prospect of the World Service’s bureau reopening in Uzbekistan. (Paragraph 179)
31. We conclude that if the BBC World Service is to sustain its position as the best known and most respected international broadcaster it must take every opportunity to exploit new technology in order to keep pace with changing consumer preferences. We commend the BBC World Service’s vision for new investment in digital services and believe that extra investment in new media will be vital in the future if the Service is to see a growth in audiences. (Paragraph 183)
12 Public Diplomacy
1 Introduction
1. In recent years the Foreign Affairs Committee’s examination of the BBC World Service and the British Council has been covered in its Reports on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual reports, both organisations being sponsored by the FCO. This year we decided to produce a separate report, following the late publication of Lord Carter of Coles’ review of the Government’s public diplomacy (PD) work.1 In part, this Report focuses on the review’s recommendations for the BBC World Service and the British Council. We also consider both organisations’ annual reports for 2004–2005.
2. Last autumn, during the course of our inquiry into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report for 2004–2005, we heard oral evidence from the Rt Hon. Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, chairman, and Sir David Green KCMG, director-general, of the British Council, Mr Nigel Chapman, director of the BBC World Service, and Sir Michael Jay KCMG, Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.2 In February of this year, Lord Carter of Coles gave evidence to us.3
2 Public Diplomacy
3. Public diplomacy was defined in 2003 by the then Public Diplomacy Strategy Board (PDSB)4 as “work which aims at influencing in a positive way, including through the creation of relationships and partnerships, the perceptions of individuals and organisations overseas about the UK and their engagement with the UK, in support of HMG’s overseas objectives.”5 The BBC World Service and the British Council are the two principal government-funded bodies involved in public diplomacy activity. In 2004–05, they received £225 million6 and £172 million7 of grant-in-aid respectively. The Foreign Office’s PD expenditure in 2004–05 (excluding British Council, World Service or Chevening scholarship funding) was around £165 million.8 The total UK grant-funded PD expenditure in 2005–06 is £617 million.9
1 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, available at www.fco.gov.uk 2 Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2005–06, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2004–05, HC 522 3 Ev 74–82 4 The definition agreed by the original Public Diplomacy Strategy Board (PSDB) 5 Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, Terms of Reference, as agreed in 2002, available at www.fco.gov.uk 6 see: BBC Annual Review 2004/05, Financial Statements, p 37, available at www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice 7 see: British Council, Making a world of difference, Annual Report and accounts 2005–05, December 2005, p 65, available at www.britishcouncil.org 8 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 17, para 51.4 9 See: Ev 42
Public Diplomacy 13
Wilton review of public diplomacy 4. During the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee took a close interest in the Wilton review of public diplomacy which followed the 2002 spending round.10 The Wilton review, named after the Foreign Office official who headed it, concluded that PD activity was uncoordinated and recommended the introduction of “an overarching public diplomacy strategy” be introduced to improve the direction of the Government’s public diplomacy work by those partners involved in delivery.11 It also found that there was no real effort made to measure the overall effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s PD activity. It concluded that a single system for monitoring perceptions of the United Kingdom overseas was required.
5. In line with the review’s findings, a new Public Diplomacy Strategy Board was established in 2002 “to improve the cohesion, effectiveness and impact of the overall UK public diplomacy effort.”12 Our predecessors considered this “a welcome development in ensuring a consistency of approach and ambition among all those involved in the promotion of the United Kingdom’s interests and image overseas.”13 More recently, Lord Kinnock told us that improved co-ordination between public diplomacy partners and improved measurements of outputs were things that the British Council “strongly favoured”.14
Lord Carter’s review of public diplomacy 6. In December 2004, following the 2004 comprehensive spending review, the Foreign Secretary again agreed with the Treasury to a review of public diplomacy. He invited Lord Carter of Coles to conduct the review and to report his findings by the end of summer 2005.15 We questioned Lord Carter why a further a review was necessary only two years after the last. He explained that he had been asked to assess whether further alignment of interests among public diplomacy partners was necessary.16
10 Changing Perceptions – Review of Public Diplomacy, March 2002, available at www.fco.gov.uk 11 Ibid, p 4, recommendation 14 12 Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, Terms of Reference, as agreed in 2002, see www.fco.gov.uk 13 Foreign Affairs Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2002–03, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003, HC 859, para 17 14 Q 15 15 Foreign Affairs Committee, Written and oral evidence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2004-05, Session 2004–05, HC 436, Ev 40 16 Qq 168–69
14 Public Diplomacy
The terms of reference for the Carter review were as follows:
x To examine the effectiveness of current Public Diplomacy (PD) activities in delivering outcomes which contribute to the achievement of HMG objectives;
x To take stock of progress in implementing the Wilton Review (2002) through the work of the PD Strategy Board;
x To consider the scope for improving PD activities, both in London and overseas, to maximise their effectiveness and value for money;
x And to that end to consider the scope for increased joint PD activity and enhanced co-ordination taking account of experience with the PD Campaigns Fund and the PD Challenge Fund; and
x To make recommendations as appropriate.
7. Lord Carter’s report, Public Diplomacy Review, was finally published on 14 December 2005.17 We asked Lord Carter why his review was delayed from its original publication.18 He told us that in “dealing with some very powerful players with very strong positions and very clear views … Trying to get agreement was not the easiest thing all the time.”19 On the manner in which the review was conducted, Lord Kinnock commented, it was “a democratic process and democracy almost invariably takes longer than the alternative…”20
8. Overall, Lord Carter found that the United Kingdom’s public diplomacy efforts had improved since the Wilton review, but that more still needed to be done.21 The review concluded that “public diplomacy partners must be able to demonstrate a greater sense of urgency and more evidence of responding and shifting resources according to priorities and changing circumstances.”22 Likewise, it found that the FCO needed to take the lead in setting a clear and focussed strategy.23 The review commented that “there was a sense that the FCO was not always able to exercise a degree of influence commensurate with [its] level of accountability.”24 When the Foreign Secretary presented us with the review’s findings he noted that Lord Carter had recommended that “future decisions on the funding of public diplomacy take into account [the FCO’s] success in implementing [his]
17 FCO Press Notice, “Foreign Office welcomes review of Public Diplomacy”, 15 December 2005, available at www.fco.gov.uk 18 Q 170 19 Q 171 20 Q 16 21 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, Executive Summary, p 4, para ii 22 Ibid, Conclusions, p 58, para 9.2 23 Ibid, Conclusions, p 58, para 9.2 24 Ibid, p 18, para 5.1.5
Public Diplomacy 15
recommendations.”25 In December 2005, the Foreign Secretary told us that he would write again with details of how the Government would implement the review’s recommendations once decisions had been taken. We look forward to receiving the Foreign Secretary’s further letter.
9. We questioned Lord Carter on his conclusions. He emphasised to us that it was not a case of the FCO gaining more control over the BBC World Service and the British Council, but there being a need for better coordination of public diplomacy resources.26 On parliamentary accountability, he said that he wanted to be “clearer on the hard wiring” which runs from the Foreign Secretary to the British Council and BBC World Service as he believed some of these linkages historically were not as clear as they needed to be.27 We examine below some of Lord Carter’s key findings and recommendations in relation to the BBC World Service and the British Council. First, we consider some of the wider issues.
A new definition of public diplomacy 10. The Carter review proposed a new definition for public diplomacy which picks up on the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board’s definition originally formulated in 2003 which made a linkage between public diplomacy work and government goals. However, Lord Carter recommended that public diplomacy should no longer be defined simply in terms of creating positive perceptions but intended it should be defined as:
work aiming to inform and engage individuals and organisations overseas, in order to improve understanding of and influence for the United Kingdom in a manner consistent with governmental medium and long term goals28
He stipulated that this definition must be understood “within the context of the continuing guarantee of complete editorial independence for the BBC World Service and day-to-day operational independence for the British Council.”29 We realise that such independence is held dear by both the BBC World Service and the British Council. The British Council has explained that its arm’s length relationship with government is the primary factor which allows it to “stay open for business at times when official channels may be constrained by political considerations.”30 Similarly, Nigel Chapman, director of the BBC World Service, told us that “Nothing must be allowed to happen in any public diplomacy strategy … which undermines the editorial independence of the World Service.”31
11. The importance of the BBC World Service’s and the British Council’s independence is also understood clearly by Government. Lord Triesman, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, commenting on the FCO’s relationship with the World Service and the Council, told the House of Lords’ Select Committee on the
25 Ev 86 26 Q 185 27 Q 234 28 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 71, Annex F, para i 29 Ibid 30 British Council submission to the Carter Review, The British Council and Public Diplomacy, March 2005, p 40 31 Q 100
16 Public Diplomacy
Review of the BBC Charter, “they have to have a real sense of independence, because if they do not have that people do not trust them and it is critical that they are trusted.”32
12. However, in its report, the Lords Committee is highly critical of Lord Carter’s new definition of public diplomacy with its explicit linkage of public diplomacy work to government goals. It describes the definition as being “neither convincing nor compatible with the BBC’s well established independent role.”33 The Committee continues:
…if the BBC World Service were to carry a by-line stating ‘Working in a manner consistent with governmental medium and long term goals’ then its international credibility would be fatally undermined.34
13. During the preparation of Lord Carter’s report, Sir Andrew Burns, International Governor at the BBC, wrote to Lord Carter and touched upon the review’s new definition of public diplomacy. He wrote, “We view this definition in the light of your report’s stance on the World Service’s editorial independence as essentially being about the where and the how of broadcasting rather than the what. The latter of course remains a matter of editorial judgement.”35
14. We do not entirely share the Lords Committee’s anxiety over the new public diplomacy definition. It does not follow that just because a broad strategic direction set for the BBC World Service and the British Council is consistent with governmental medium and long- term goals that the editorial independence or operational management of these organisations is compromised. We examine below in sections on the British Council (paragraphs 30–44) and the BBC World Service (paragraphs 45–56) some of the institutional arrangements in place which, if maintained, should protect their independence and provide for their accountability to Parliament.
15. We conclude that while it is appropriate for arm’s-length bodies to follow a public diplomacy strategy in line with government medium- and long-term goals, given that funding is provided through grant-in-aid, this must be counterbalanced by institutional safeguards to preserve the day-to-day and short-term editorial and operational independence of the BBC World Service and the British Council respectively.
A new public diplomacy strategy 16. The range and diversity of function and activity of the various partners historically active in public diplomacy have made it difficult to formulate one coherent strategy suitable to all. Lord Carter found that there remains “a gap for a comprehensive mid-term plan (3–5 years) … based on the FCO’s Strategic Priorities.”36 We agree with him that the
32 House of Lords, Select Committee on Review of the BBC Charter, Second Report of Session 2005–06, Further issues for BBC Charter Review, HL 128–II, Q 986 33 HL (2005–06) 128–I, para 59 34 Ibid, para 62 35 Letter to Lord Carter of Coles from Sir Andrew Burns, BBC International Governor, dated 24 November 2005, Ev 73 36 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 14, para 4.4
Public Diplomacy 17
new strategy needs to include “clear and measurable objectives for public diplomacy, details of target audiences and geographical priorities” if it is to be fit for purpose.37
17. In November 2005 Lord Triesman told the Lords Committee that the public diplomacy partners needed to face a general strategic direction “that is useful to the United Kingdom, because they are heavily dependent upon public finance and we [the Government] are answerable in Parliament, and should be.”38 We agree.
18. We recommend that the Government’s public diplomacy strategy be aligned with the FCO’s strategic global priorities. We conclude that the strategy should both provide direction to the public diplomacy organisations and be informed by their individual contributions.
Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board 19. Lord Carter found that public diplomacy efforts could be more effective with stronger leadership and clearer objectives.39 The original Public Diplomacy Strategy Board (PDSB) established in November 2002 has been chaired by Sir Michael Jay, as the Permanent Under-Secretary, and has included representatives from the FCO, the BBC World Service (in an observer capacity), the British Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Department for International Development (DFID), UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), VisitBritain, the devolved administrations and the private sector.40 Lord Carter recommended instead a new, smaller Public Diplomacy Strategy Board be formed, to be called the Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board, comprising only the primary FCO-funded public diplomacy institutions.41 The new board would be responsible for agreeing a public diplomacy strategy and for performance measurement, management and monitoring of overall activity. Lord Carter saw the new board’s role as directing and tracking PD resources, deciding which countries should be priorities and how resources should be channelled within them, and, through performance management, checking whether PD objectives were being met. However, he stressed that the way an activity was done or operated, and editorial judgments in the case of the BBC, should be for the British Council and the World Service to determine independently.42
20. The review’s proposal to reduce the size of the existing Public Diplomacy Strategy Board appears to us very sensible especially in the light of Lord Carter’s recommendation that the other members of the previous board are retained as an advisory panel. However, it is apparent that not all PD partners are wholly satisfied with the new arrangement. While VisitBritain supports Lord Carter’s recommendation for a smaller strategy board, it
37 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 15, para 4.4 38 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 986 39 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 58, Conclusions, 9.2 40 For information on the composition of the original Public Diplomacy Strategy Board see www.fco.gov.uk 41 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 15, para 4.7 42 Q 217
18 Public Diplomacy
believed that the new panel should do much more than offer advice to the main board.43 Similarly, DCMS believed that the panel would need teeth to make things happen.44
21. In January 2006, the PDSB endorsed Lord Carter’s recommendations for a new Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board and for an advisory panel, though it would seem that the exact name and function of the panel are yet to be resolved.45 The PDSB further agreed that there should be a close working relationship between the new board and the advisory panel with a joint meeting being held once a year. One of the virtues of the original board was that it provided a forum for exchange of ideas and information.46 We believe it will be important for the new Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board to establish good links with the new advisory panel and to consider its advice carefully, as this may be the only opportunity for some of the minor partners to make an input on thinking.
22. Lord Carter recommended that the new Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board should be chaired by an FCO Minister, accountable to Parliament, supported by a “strong independent vice chair who could challenge and help give direction to public diplomacy efforts,” and who has suitable authority to make an impact.47 The board would also comprise representatives from the FCO, the British Council and the BBC World Service, and, in addition, a further independent member “to advise on process, performance measurement and evaluation.”48 The World Service would attend the board as an observer only, in recognition of its independent status.
23. The World Service sitting with observer status on the new board was patently a ‘red- line’ issue for the BBC and a matter that appears to have been challenged by the review team. In a letter to Lord Carter, Sir Andrew Burns wrote:
My colleagues were pleased that you felt able to reflect our concern that nothing in your conclusions should undermine the editorial independence of the World Service. Its effectiveness over the past 70 years had been founded in its reputation for impartiality and editorial independence, and I know you recognise that is why we have been so concerned to ensure that we do nothing to endanger that situation. That is why we believe that Observer status is the correct outcome for the World Service in relation to the new Public Diplomacy Board. Whilst of course the World Service will bring its experience to the table and be accountable for its performance against agreements with the FCO, it would not be in anyone’s best interests for the World Service to be making decisions about the government’s wider public policy aims.49
43 Public Diplomacy Strategy Board Minutes for 30 January 2006, available at www.fco.gov.uk 44 Ibid 45 Ibid 46 see for example: Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2003–04, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, HC 745, Q 60 47 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, Executive Summary, p 5 48 Ibid, p 4 49 Ev 74
Public Diplomacy 19
24. The British Council wrote to us to say that it believed the board being chaired by an FCO Minister should give it a higher profile for public diplomacy inside Whitehall. The Council did not, however, believe that the board should “duplicate or take over the functions of oversight or parliamentary accountability.”50
25. The new arrangement for chairmanship of the Public Diplomacy Board is another matter with which the Lords Committee [on the Review of the BBC Charter] took issue. Its report concluded, “We do not believe it is appropriate for a member of the BBC World Service to serve either as a member or as an observer on a board chaired by an FCO minister under the proposed [Carter review] definition of public diplomacy… The independence of the BBC World Service could be compromised by the closeness of the relationship proposed by Lord Carter’s review.”51
26. We do not share the Lords Committee’s concern over an FCO minister taking the chair of the PD board, given the World Service’s observer status. Lord Carter explained that as an observer the World Service would “share and discuss” ideas but not be “in any way bound by the board.”52 We concur with this approach.
27. In 2004, when our predecessor Committee took evidence from the BBC World Service, it explored in some detail the World Service’s observer status on the board. At that time Nigel Chapman, director of the BBC World Service, confirmed that he was satisfied that the BBC’s independence was maintained and he implied that the BBC’s presence on the board was mutually advantageous.53 Nigel Chapman said:
From my objective [with] observer status, there is a ‘joined-upness’ going on now which was not possible before. There is some deep thought going on about exactly where limited resources should be spent and in which countries. From my understanding of the way media is being used, we can add perspective to that discussion.54
He went on to say:
One of the things the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board does need to think very hard about is how it can make the maximum impact with limited resources. To make the maximum impact, you need to understand how media is used in certain countries. You have to understand whether it is worth investing in radio promotion campaigns, in television or a mixture of both, in print and understand how people use media. I think that is a perspective we can bring and we share our audience research, which throws up all these different forces and trends, with the group and I think that is helpful and valuable.55
50 Ev 43 51 HL (2005–06) 128–I, para 65 52 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 1690 53 Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, see Qq 1–5 54 Ibid, Q 4 55 Ibid, Q 5
20 Public Diplomacy
28. On balance, we support Lord Carter’s proposal for a new, more focused Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board. This smaller board should make it easier to formulate strategy. We agree that an FCO minister chairing the board should raise its profile and ensure accountability to Parliament. Nonetheless, the special position of the BBC World Service and the British Council needs to be recognised and respected.
29. We conclude that it is appropriate for an FCO Minister to chair the new Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board and to be accountable to Parliament for its decisions. However, this must not be allowed to compromise the BBC World Service’s editorial independence or the British Council’s operational independence. We support the Carter review’s proposal for the establishment of an advisory panel and recommend that the new board maintain good links with the panel’s membership.
British Council and public diplomacy 30. As one of the main contributors to public diplomacy the British Council told us that it was committed to continued improvements in the United Kingdom’s public diplomacy efforts. In its memorandum it states, “Our objective is to ensure maximum synergy, clarity of roles, and increased impact for public diplomacy on the one hand, while ensuring that the reach of the British Council and its ability to continue to generate trust among its partners, customers and users is nurtured.”56
FCO relationship with the British Council 31. We received from the British Council a copy of its submission to the Carter review. 57 In it the Council emphasised persuasively the importance of the perception by its partners and clients, both international and domestic, of its independent status. It saw this as “a pragmatic recognition [by its partners] of the need for a different type of engagement from traditional diplomacy.”58
32. Lord Carter recognised and accepted the importance and significance of the Council’s operational independence from Government. Nonetheless, the extent to which the Foreign Office is in practice able to exercise effective oversight over the Council is questioned, as is the degree of autonomy the Council is given. The review says:
While respecting the arm’s length relationship, this [accountability] must be reflected in the arrangements for oversight and powers to scrutinise the Council, and must be taken into account when considering the appropriate distance at which the Council should operate from Government.59
56 Ev 4 57 British Council’s submission to the Carter Review, The British Council and public diplomacy, March 2005 58 Ibid 59 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 25, para 5.2.15
Public Diplomacy 21
In evidence before us Lord Carter drew attention to the significance of the Council’s “arm’s length position.”60 He told us that the Council’s status as a non-departmental public body gave it the necessary distance to operate at “difficult times in certain countries” and he went on to say that there would be no benefit in removing the Council’s status.61
33. The British Council has stressed forcefully that its international reputation and standing derive in part from its remove and separation from government.62 As we have previously noted, the Council’s relative distance from government creates a dynamic which broadens the range of people and partners with whom it is able to engage. During oral evidence Lord Kinnock referred to the Council’s relationship to government as being “independence with alliance” and considered this characteristic was of “direct value to the United Kingdom.”63
34. Lord Kinnock told us that “any shift in direction or attempted micromanagement would not achieve objectives of efficiency or sustain the essential characteristic of the British Council.”64 We concur with Lord Kinnock’s view. We conclude that any changes made to the arrangement for oversight of the British Council must not jeopardise its operational independence and effectiveness.
Governance of the British Council 35. The present rules for appointment of members to the British Council’s board of trustees are given in its royal charter.65 Currently, the Council’s board appoints its own members with the exception of two: the positions of chair and vice-chair are nominated by the Secretary of State. The Carter review asked whether allowing the Foreign Secretary to appoint all the Council’s board members would help “demonstrate transparency and accountability.”66 It said such a step could “lay down a helpful marker about autonomy and arm’s length.”67 Conversely, it went on to say it should “not lead to a politicisation” of the board’s membership and should not “give any undue influence to the FCO.”68 We note that the board members of several other non-departmental public bodies including the Westminster Foundation for Democracy are already appointed by the Secretary of State.
36. During oral evidence Lord Carter suggested that what is required on the board are individuals who might be more challenging. He believed that different mechanisms for appointing some of its membership might achieve this aim.69 We agree, and believe that this objective could be achieved by increasing the number of board members appointed by
60 Q 198 61 Q 198 62 Ev 3 63 Q 15 64 Q 15 65 See: British Council Royal Charter and Bye-laws 1993, available at www.britishcouncil.org 66 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 23, para 5.2.9 67 Ibid 68 Ibid 69 Q 203
22 Public Diplomacy
the Foreign Secretary. Allowing the board itself to continue to appoint half of its membership would, in our opinion, preserve the Council’s independence. Lord Carter concluded that the FCO and the British Council should together establish whatever arrangements would offer the greatest deal of transparency and accountability, with the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Charities Commission being sought.70 We look forward to learning of the outcome of discussions between the British Council and the Government on this point.
37. We recommend that the Foreign Secretary should appoint half the British Council’s board members, including the chair and vice-chair. We conclude that this should increase accountability to Parliament whilst guaranteeing the Council’s separation from Government and ensuring that a wider group of interests are represented on it. All appointments made by the Foreign Secretary should continue to be made in a manner consistent with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice for ministerial appointments to NDPBs and our Committee will, of course, be able to scrutinise all appointments made.
38. Lord Carter also raised the question of whether the FCO Permanent Under-Secretary being the principal accounting officer of the British Council and sitting ex officio on the British Council’s board created a potential conflict of interest. The Carter review stated, “[the Permanent Under-Secretary’s] role as a Board member may remove the layer of scrutiny he is afforded by his position as accounting officer.”71 Should the Permanent Under-Secretary’s position as principal accounting officer preclude him from sitting on the Council’s board, then we see no reason why he could not be represented on it by another member of the FCO’s senior management team. We recommend that in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest arising from the position of the Permanent Under-Secretary as principal accounting officer of the British Council and his membership of its board, the Foreign Office should be represented on the British Council’s board by another member of the FCO’s board of management.
39. We asked the British Council to describe its accountability to the British public.72 In response, Sir David Green wrote to us detailing very thoroughly the mechanisms of departmental and parliamentary scrutiny that are in place.73 The Council’s relationship with the Foreign Office is regulated by a memorandum of understanding which makes clear that the Foreign Secretary is answerable to Parliament for the policies, operations and performance of the British Council. Under this agreement, the Council is obliged to consult the Foreign Office over its annual corporate three-year plan. The Council must also ensure that its strategic objectives and priorities are compatible with the policies and priorities of the Foreign Office and provide output measures which show how the Council’s work contributes to the FCO’s own objectives. The memorandum sets out the mechanisms for communication between the director-general of the Council and senior officials at the FCO.
70 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 23, para 5.2.10 71 Ibid, p 24, para 5.2.11 72 Qq 11–12 73 Ev 22–25
Public Diplomacy 23
40. Lord Carter asked whether the current arrangements in place for dialogue between the FCO and the British Council are effective.74 Presently, the Council and FCO hold quarterly business meetings to discuss performance and agree targets and hold an annual ministerial meeting. The Carter review argued that the effectiveness of these meetings relied to some degree on the relationship between the two parties and the understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.75 This of course is true for any contractual relationship.
41. In relation to Parliament, the Permanent Under-Secretary and the director-general, as accounting officers for the British Council, may be summoned to give evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, while they or members of the Council’s board may be called upon to appear before any other relevant parliamentary committee, principally before this Committee. When we discussed accountability of the British Council and the BBC World Service with Sir Michael Jay, he emphasised that ministers must be able to demonstrate to Parliament that the money spent on non-departmental public bodies was spent consistently with government objectives.76 We agree.
42. Lord Carter recommended that “the FCO and Council should together develop proposals for an appropriate degree of oversight [of the Council’s operation], and for how the FCO-British Council dialogue might better operate in practice.”77 He went on to say that these proposals should be developed in time for agreement by FCO ministers by April 2006.
43. We asked Lord Carter why he had not signalled a more definite proposal for a way forward for the relationship between the two organisations. Lord Carter told us that his aim had been to publish a report that was widely supported by those it concerned.78 However, revealingly, on this particular issue, he told us that rather than delay publication any longer he had had to leave it to both parties to forge subsequently an agreement for a new model for dialogue and oversight.79 Lord Carter went on to explain that he believed that this dialogue should be on issues such as which countries should feature as priorities for the Council, and on which public diplomacy channels should be used to reach into particular countries. He also thought that there should be discussions on the effectiveness of public diplomacy activity in the light of evaluation.80
44. We recommend that the FCO, in the light of Lord Carter’s review on public diplomacy, describe what changes it believes are necessary in relation to its oversight of the British Council as well as any changes it proposes to make to enhance its mechanisms of dialogue with the Council. We further recommend that the FCO indicate how these changes would be likely to affect the British Council’s operational
74 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 25, paras 5.2.14 & 5.2.15 75 Ibid, p 24, para 5.2.13 76 Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2005–06, Foreign and Commonwealth Annual Report 2004–05, HC 522, Q 85 77 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 25, para 5.2.15 78 Q 178 79 Q 187 80 Q 189
24 Public Diplomacy
independence and the perceptions of its partners and clients of its distance from Government.
BBC World Service and public diplomacy 45. In March 2004, in its Green Paper81 on the review of the BBC’s royal charter the Government affirmed that “the World Service should remain a government-funded arm of the BBC, providing high quality, impartial international news to audiences who might otherwise not receive it.”82 This comment highlights the unique position of the World Service in effectively having two masters. While the FCO is its sponsoring department, the World Service is also a constituent part of the BBC. The Foreign Secretary is responsible for agreeing the Service’s objectives, performance measures and target audiences, while the director-general and board of governors of the BBC are responsible for the Service in terms of editorial policy and standards, managerial competence and the delivery of a value for money service.83 This role will be taken over by the BBC’s new trust and executive board.84
46. This year the BBC World Service told us that it had “consolidated [its] position as the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting.”85 In the context of public diplomacy the World Service’s contribution is clearly very different from that of others. As Lord Carter implied, public diplomacy is not the World Service’s primary objective but its reputation for providing trustworthy impartial news gains it international respect and indeed “public diplomacy gains for the country associated with the brand.”86 This is the Service’s opinion too. Nigel Chapman, director of the BBC World Service, told us that he saw the World Service’s contribution as a “great asset to Britain” as it reflects well on Britain owing to “the values it evinces in the way it covers journalism.”87 He went on to describe the Service’s editorial independence as the force that enables it to gain dividends for the United Kingdom.
47. We discussed with Mr Chapman the World Service’s approach to strategic planning, which he said was based on a broadcasting logic.
People try and paint [the World Service’s strategy] as a foreign policy initiative. I am a broadcaster. I understand broadcasting. I know what we need to do to have impact in markets. I know what the mix should be between television, radio and new media. That is where I come from. Therefore, when I decide to close a service or open a new one that is the logic on which I am basing the argument, if you like, because I know how people consume and use information in modern times88
81 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, A Strong BBC, Independent of Government, March 2005, available at www.bbccharterreview.org.uk 82 Ibid, p 45 83 FCO/World Service Broadcasting Agreement, available at www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice 84 See: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age, 14 March 2006,Cm 6763, available at www.bbccharterreview.org.uk 85 Ev 46 86 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 25, para 5.3.2 87 Q 100 88 Q 125
Public Diplomacy 25
48. In evidence to the Lords Committee [on Review of the BBC Charter], Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC’s Global News Division, spoke of the way the relationship between the FCO and World Service is insulated against political interference of its editorial output. He said:
…in the ways we are structured and the way we operate, there is a separation and a Chinese wall between the daily editorial decisions and those people having debates and discussion and regular meetings with the Foreign Office. I think that is something that has existed across the BBC for many years and is rather effective insulation …against the kind of pressure that you are talking about.89
49. The Lords Committee asked the BBC whether it was the FCO or the World Service which normally took the initiative over strategy of the Service, for example over the setting up of new services. Mr Sambrook said that in his experience it was always the World Service which approached the FCO. 90 He went on to say:
I take the view we [the BBC] are best equipped to go to the FCO and say we understand the problems of the market place, …therefore we on balance think it is better to invest money here…91
50. The Lords Committee believed that “under no circumstances” should the BBC World Service “be allowed to be treated or seen as a ‘tool’ of public diplomacy or of government goals.92 We take a different view. The Lords Committee concluded that “Everything should be done to protect the editorial independence on which [the World Service’s] reputation depends.”93
51. We agree entirely with Lord Carter’s explicit recognition of the importance of the World Service’s editorial and managerial independence.94 We consider that the World Service’s worldwide reputation brings considerable public diplomacy gains for the United Kingdom. We conclude that Lord Carter’s review was right to recognise the BBC World Service’s unique contribution to the United Kingdom’s public diplomacy as a world class international broadcaster and to understand the significance of its editorial independence to its reputation and ability to deliver an unbiased trustworthy news service. We conclude that making decisions on priority markets and new investment in a manner consistent with governmental medium- and long-term goals, in consultation with the Foreign Office, need not be detrimental to the BBC World Service’s editorial impartiality. When funding is being provided through grant-in-aid it is right that the Government should have a say in where, by which means and to whom future services are directed.
89 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 912 90 Ibid, Q 846 91 Ibid, Q 846 92 HL (2005–06) 128–I, para 63 93 Ibid, para 63 94 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, Executive Summary, p 4, point 2
26 Public Diplomacy
Responsiveness to change 52. It has been apparent for some time that, in order to enable it to remain a relevant broadcaster in the Arab world, the BBC World Service needed to launch its own Arabic television service.95 In the 2004 spending review, following discussions with the FCO, the World Service submitted a bid to the Treasury for additional funds specifically for an Arabic television service.96 Ultimately, although the Treasury supported the concept, it did not grant the extra funds requested, but instead asked the World Service to develop a new business case for the television service from its 2004 spending review allocation.97
53. The Carter review remarked that although this move by the BBC World Service was a demonstration of its ability to respond to changing circumstances, it had “lagged behind” its competitors in terms of allocating resources.98 However, Lord Triesman appearing before the Lords Committee said:
One of the things which I hope the BBC itself will continue to do, and arguably could have done a little earlier if they were realistic about it, is continue to review its output and ensure that it is using the resources that it has as effectively as it should. I am not, in that, hinting at other language closures, the plan we have got needs to bed down and we have got to be confident that it is working but, rather than encourage anybody’s thinking, including the BBC, that the first recourse will be to go back and knock on the Chancellor’s door, I think there is a key recourse, which is to make sure that, as they were, I believe, they are using all the resources they can, we have in that a sum just under £250 million next year, that they are using every penny of that wisely.99
54. Nigel Chapman did not accept that it was due to the BBC World Service’s tardiness that its decision to reprioritise and redirect funds into the Arabic television service was not made earlier. He said it was case of priorities.100 The BBC World Service could have found much of the funding for Arabic television from its 2002 and 2004 spending review settlements but the opportunity cost would have been that other improvements would not have been affordable: for example, investment in radio distribution, in marketing and in new media services.101
55. We consider that the BBC World Service could have moved faster to conduct a review of its language portfolio. We do, however, commend the Service in the formulation of a reprioritisation programme which will see reinvestment of up to 20 per cent of its total budget by 2008 and the achievement of its ambition to create an Arabic-language television satellite station from 2007, albeit initially a 12-hour service.102 We recommend that the
95 see: Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, paras 158–61 96 see: Ibid, Ev 110 97 Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Foreign Affairs Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2003–04, Cm 6415, p13 98 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 28 para 5.3.14 99 HL (2005–06) 128-I, Q1007 100 Q 68 101 Q 68 102 See: Ev 50–53
Public Diplomacy 27
BBC World Service, together with the Foreign Office, carry out regular reviews of its services to ensure that resources are being utilised to achieve a maximum impact, with overall audience figures increased through appropriate reinvestment of resources into new media opportunities. We consider the World Service’s plans for an Arabic television service in greater detail in a later section of the report [paragraphs 130-151].
Governance of the World Service 56. On governance and accountability, Lord Carter found the mechanisms in place between the Foreign Office and the BBC World Service to be “fairly effective” in terms of the dialogue between the BBC World Service and the FCO and the public service agreement framework that is in place.103 Furthermore, the Carter review concluded that the World Service is held to account well by the BBC’s board of governors for reach, quality, impact and value for money of its services. The review considered whether the World Service would be better served by the BBC with a dedicated board of international governors, but it concluded that this “could create an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy and run the risk of creating a divide between core BBC activity and the BBC World Service.104 We agree with Lord Carter that there remain considerable advantages for the BBC World Service remaining structurally bound into the overall BBC operation.
Financial independence and stability 57. Lord Carter identified that the Foreign Office does not link the British Council’s or World Service’s performance with future funding. This was considered unusual, as other government departments have “greater power to allocate funding within an overall budget dependent on the achievement of goals.”105 On this point Sir Andrew Burns, BBC international governor, wrote to Lord Carter.
We [at the BBC] continue to believe that the perception of genuine editorial independence is underpinned by medium term financial certainty. Of course, we fully recognise that changes in funding and issues such as ring fencing remain within the gift of Ministers as you have outlined, and that they may wish to look for more radical options in the future. For our part, the Governors continue to believe financial certainty is an essential factor in the ultimate effectiveness of the World Service. However, in the short term, the key point I should make is that we are committed as a board to working with the new public diplomacy arrangements in order to make them a success.106
58. The Carter review also considered removing the ‘ring-fence’ around the World Service’s and British Council’s funding “in order to facilitate improved public diplomacy efforts,” but concluded that a better approach was to make “an attempt to improve matters
103 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 28, para 5.3.15 104 Ibid, p 29, para 5.3.17 105 Ibid, p 18, paras 5.1.7– 5.1.8 106 Ev 72
28 Public Diplomacy
through improved collective arrangements.”107 Our predecessor Committee strongly advocated and defended the retention of ring-fenced funding for both organisations. It concluded that “the ring-fencing of the BBC World Service and British Council’s budgets is vital for the operational effectiveness of both bodies.”108 We agree. We conclude that the ring-fenced funding for the BBC World Service and the British Council should remain in place.
Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund and Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund 59. Following the Wilton review, the FCO redirected monies from all centrally produced public diplomacy output into two discrete funds exclusively for PD activity: the Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund and the Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund. The effectiveness and value for money given by these funds were examined by Lord Carter.
60. The Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund is funded primarily by the FCO and the British Council. Its purpose is to fund major initiatives in countries that the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board identifies as “top priorities”. Its introduction was meant to foster joined-up working among public diplomacy partners. During the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee examined the “Think UK” campaign, the first major campaign to be supported from the Fund. The campaign had sought to raise the profile of Britain’s cultural, scientific and commercial links to China. At that time the Committee signalled its approval of the evaluation exercise that had been undertaken following the completion of this campaign in order that lessons could be learned for future ones.109 Nevertheless, despite the consideration and attention given to the Council’s experience from that campaign, it is disappointing to learn from the Carter review that a year later similar problems and concerns arose in the ‘Crossroads for Ideas Campaign’,110 another large campaign funded from the Campaign Fund. However, the recurrence of problems could in part be due to the fact that the planning for one would have been concurrent with the operation of the other.
61. More generally, Lord Carter casts doubt over whether campaigns run in this way “deliver a good return on investment in terms of effort and resources.”111 In 2004, in respect of the “Think UK” campaign, Sir David Green, director-general of the British Council, told our predecessors that evaluation had not shown that there had been a significant change in perceptions within China as to the creativity and the innovation of the UK, which had been the purpose of the campaign.112 Similarly, the Carter review stated that “While we support the principle of co-ordinated activity in support of government objectives, we do not feel that campaigns of initiatives as they are currently planned and delivered are the most effective way of achieving this.”113
107 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, Executive Summary, p 6, para xiv 108 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 211 109 Ibid, para 178 110 The ‘Crossroads for ideas’ campaign was a project to build relationships in the central European member states 111 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 38, para 7.1.5 112 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, Ev 11 113 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 38, para 7.1.5
Public Diplomacy 29
62. The Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund enables FCO Posts overseas to undertake “imaginative and innovative” public diplomacy activity in support of their local public diplomacy objectives and FCO strategic priorities.114 The Challenge Fund supports individual Post, country or regional projects, generated by Posts themselves. In 2004–05 some 70 projects were supported from the fund with a total spend of nearly £2.3 million.115 Lord Carter commented that with the fund being open to all Posts worldwide there is no strategic link to priority locations. However, we recognise that this may well be a deliberate feature of the fund as there will be instances where Posts, especially smaller ones, which are not in priority countries, will be able to demonstrate a reasonable case for monies for a project in line with departmental objectives. We note that Lord Carter recommended that the FCO re-assesses the impact of the Campaign Fund and the Challenge Fund in light of a new Public Diplomacy Strategy. We recommend that in its response to our Report the Foreign Office outline how it plans to assess the impact of the Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund and the Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund and what plans or modifications it has in mind for them.
Public diplomacy measurement and evaluation 63. Lord Carter’s review raised the importance of monitoring and evaluation of public diplomacy activity vis-à-vis effective accountability of PD expenditure. It found that there was no standardised system in place.116 Consequently, the review recommended the establishment of a central unit within the FCO for this purpose so that information could be made available to the Public Diplomacy Strategy and Performance Management Board.117 It proposed that a survey of between 10–30 core countries be completed annually to attempt to identify moves in impact and influence in public diplomacy.118 In addition, there would be continuous monitoring of specific PD-related initiatives.119
64. Lord Carter told us part of designing performance measurements systems for public diplomacy activity was to allow a dialogue on PD performance that “is based less on assertion and more on fact.”120 The British Council broadly supports the review’s proposals and believes that the new evaluation system should be “light touch” in its nature and focus on PD impact.121 The Council also stresses that common PD performance indicators should be compatible with existing evaluation systems run by public diplomacy bodies and believes that these common measurements should complement its own scorecard survey and the FCO’s heads of mission survey which are currently in use.
65. In line with Lord Carter’s proposals for enhanced measurement and monitoring of public diplomacy we believe it would be useful for this Committee to see how the BBC World Service’s and the British Council’s resources are allocated on a geographical basis.
114 Report on the Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund 2004–2005, available at www.fco.gov.uk 115 Ibid 116 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 55, para 8.1 117 Ibid, p 56, para 8.6 118 Ibid, p 56, para 8.7 119 Ibid, p 55, para 8.8 120 Q 192 121 Ev 43
30 Public Diplomacy
We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office provide us with a breakdown of how the BBC World Service and British Council allocate their resources in the financial year 2005-06. In the case of the British Council we recommend that data be given on a country-by-country and on a regional basis, and in the case of the BBC World Service by country, by language service and by region. We further recommend that in future the Foreign Office furnish this Committee with such data on an annual basis.
3 British Council
Work in 2004–2005 66. As part of our inquiry into Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2004– 2005, we held our first oral evidence session of the new Parliament with the British Council, meeting for the first time the Rt Hon. Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty in his role as chairman of the British Council. He was accompanied by Sir David Green KCMG, director-general and Mr Martin Davidson, the then newly appointed deputy director- general.122 In preparation for this session, the Council sent us a memorandum which catalogued and described its activities in the last year.123 Programmes and initiatives were listed under the FCO priority to which they related. Areas of its work highlighted included: x the Council’s developing work in Afghanistan and Iraq and the wider Islamic world; x the Global Gateway, which has established 2,000 school link projects between the United Kingdom and 35 other countries; x expanding the ‘Connecting Futures’ programme to 42 countries; x the ‘Crossroads for Ideas’ campaign, which is building networks and partnerships with new EU accession states; x the launching of the United Kingdom and South-East Europe forum; x in partnership with the Open Society Institute, launching the Independent Commission on Turkey; x an increase in priority for India and China; x the launching of the Zero Carbon City initiative, which aims to increase awareness of global warming and, through a rolling exhibition, reach 8 million people over two years;
122 Ev 10–22 123 Ev 1–5
Public Diplomacy 31
x the ‘Dreams and Teams’ programme, run in partnership with the Youth Sports Trust and the DfES, which will have trained 40,000 young sports leaders internationally by the end of 2006; and x its work in a broad range of human rights, education and governance projects.
Annual Report for 2004–05 67. The British Council published its annual report and accounts for 2004–05 in December 2005 which was somewhat later than most government departments.124 The style and design of the 2004–05 report is very impressive and conveys an innovative, artistic image suitable to such an organisation as the British Council. Pictures and graphics are juxtaposed creatively with brief narratives of the Council’s work and achievements. Nonetheless, we believe it would be valuable if next year the Council were to provide more information on areas where it believes it can make improvements or on where it sees its challenges lying ahead, similar to the ‘Lessons Learned’ sections adopted by the Foreign Office for its departmental reports. We found the Council’s 2005 three-year corporate plan more helpful in this respect.125 We regret that the British Council was late in publishing its annual report for 2004-05 and recommend that in future it publish its annual report more speedily so that Parliament may carry out effective and timely scrutiny of its performance.
68. The annual report gives the British Council’s performance against its objectives.126 In 2003, the Council developed a ‘scorecard’ for measuring its performance against five main objectives from the five-year strategy. The scorecard is calculated on the results of surveys of the British Council’s customers, clients and staff. Additionally, some factual statistical data are collected. However, this year, the annual report’s failure to provide performance targets means that it is impossible to work out from this document alone the degree of the British Council’s success or failure against its objectives. A further criticism is that the results for 2003–04 and those for 2004–05 are not easily comparable as they have been presented using different indices, with no effort made to calibrate the two. We wrote to the Council about this and in a supplementary note it provided clarity.127 We recommend that for the 2005–06 annual report the British Council present its performance results against targets in a format that demonstrates clearly successes or failures.
British Council’s raison d’être 69. The Foreign Office describes the British Council’s purpose as one of building long-term influence for the UK by developing relationships with other countries and by increasing appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas, values and achievements.128 The rationale for the
124 British Council, Making a world of difference, Annual report and accounts 2005–05, December 2005, available at www.britishcouncil.org 125 British Council, Corporate Plan 2005–06, available at www.britishcouncil.org 126 British Council, Making a world of difference, Annual report and accounts 2004–05, December 2005, pp 42–43 127 Ev 33 128 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Departmental Report 1 April 2004–31 March 2005, June 2005, Cm 6533, p154–55
32 Public Diplomacy
Council’s work has remained fundamentally the same ever since its advent in 1934 as our predecessor Committee noted:
When it was founded in the 1930s, the purpose of the British Council was: “to make the life and thought of the British peoples more widely known; and to promote a mutual interchange of knowledge and ideas”. In 2004, the purpose is expressed differently, but remains essentially unchanged: to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements.129
70. The British Council recently published “Making a world of difference” a pamphlet which follows up its By 2010 strategy document.130 The Council says it will continue to focus on education and training, sport, English language teaching and learning, the arts, science, governance and human rights.131 The Council’s goals for 2010 are that: x 50 million people a year will be experiencing creative ideas from the UK with its support—up from 24 million a year in 2006; x 10,000 influential young people in the UK and a range of other countries will have the skills and relationships to take the world community into a new era of intercultural exchange and understanding; x 20 million young professionals worldwide will have chosen the UK for their self- development with lasting benefits for relationships between their countries; x Every teacher and learner of English in the world will have access to the skills, ideas and materials they need from the UK; and x The UK will deliver—for the first time in the history of the Olympic games—a legacy of intercultural understandings and relationships for millions of young people in the UK and worldwide.
71. When we met Lord Carter we asked him what he considered was the British Council’s raison d’être.132 He highlighted three things. First, he told us that he believed that the Council’s greatest contribution was its role in attracting foreign students to come to study at British universities and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. He considered that if the British Council was not performing its educational role then some other organisation would have to instead.133 Second, he believed English language teaching was a “big value-added” service.134 Third, in terms of culture, he pointed to an annual spend of £25 million on the arts which he believed was very useful in “positioning” the
129 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 204 130 British Council, Making a world of Difference: Cultural relations in 2010, March 2006 131 Ibid, p 9 132 Q 197 133 Q 197 134 Q 193
Public Diplomacy 33
United Kingdom overseas.135 He went on to say that a marked cultural positioning helps drive industries like tourism.136
72. In the course of our consideration of the Carter review we became convinced that the purpose of the British Council needs to be reassessed. We recognise that the British Council currently draws into a relationship with the United Kingdom very large numbers of people around the world, especially through its English-language teaching and administration of examinations. Nevertheless, we believe that a re-appraisal of the British Council’s core purpose is overdue in the light of the changed world in which it now operates. We recommend that the Foreign Office, as part of the 2007 comprehensive spending review, commission an independent review of the British Council’s work which examines what the British Council does, why it is doing it, what it should be doing, and whether any of its activity would be better conducted in other ways or by different organisations.
Working with government departments 73. The Carter review called on the British Council to “continue to look for ways in which it can work with other government departments to ensure a complementary approach to international responsibilities and challenges.”137 In its memorandum, the Council stated its aim is “to provide access and open doors internationally to [its] UK partners.”138 The Council told us how it extended its reach through partnerships with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), Sport England, Universities UK and the Arts Council for England.139 We were impressed to learn that in a survey over 87 per cent of the British Council’s stakeholders indicated that the Council opened doors for them overseas that no other institution could.140
74. The British Council’s annual report for 2004–05 describes a substantial amount of joint activity with other government departments. In respect of the DfES, the Council manages two major projects associated with the Department’s international strategy for education and children’s services.141 Last year, the Prime Minister’s target for the number of overseas students coming to study in the United Kingdom was met; we commend the Council for its part in this achievement. We also note that the Council managed on behalf of DFID its ‘political participation fund’ in Iraq.142 We conclude that over the past year the British Council has demonstrated an enthusiasm for working in association with other government departments and public bodies.
135 Q 197 136 Q 197 137 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 22, para 5.2.3 138 Ev 1 139 Ev 1 140 Ev 1 141 British Council, Making a difference, Annual report and accounts 2004–05, December 2005, p 32 142 Ev 2
34 Public Diplomacy
Staffing and efficiency savings 75. We asked the British Council to provide us with details of its staff showing the balance between those based in the United Kingdom and those overseas. They provided us with the following information:143
British Council staff including overseas locally-engaged staff (average monthly figures for 2004–05)
Number
United Kingdom 1,159
Overseas 4,754
Teachers 1,700
Total 7,613
Note: Figures are for the entirety of British Council work and activity and not solely for grant-funded activity.
Of the total UK-based staff half are serving grant-funded work, with the other half serving client-funded services.144 The Council was keen to explain that the UK staff were not “purely composed of grant-funded staff undertaking administrative duties.”145
76. We note that the British Council’s work in English teaching and examinations is self- financing.146 All the fees paid by the Council’s teaching centre and examination clients cover all their associated costs, both at a local level (for example, teachers’ salaries and a proportion of premises costs) and at a corporate level (for headquarter support services, teaching material and premises).147
77. Sir David Green told us that in the 2002 spending review, in the period up to 2004, the Council had been committed to reducing its staff headcount within the United Kingdom by 5 per cent.148 It had set itself a target of reducing its UK headquarters’ headcount by 8 per cent, a target it achieved.149 We asked the Council whether it considered a 5 per cent reduction in its staff was an ambitious target. Lord Kinnock remarked that a policy of reducing staff by five per cent over a three-year period should be seen in the context of growth of demand for the Council’s services.150 He considered that over a three-year period
143 Ev 43 144 Ev 43 145 Ev 44 146 Ev 44 147 Ev 44 148 Q 30 149 Ev 26 150 Q 38 [Lord Kinnock]
Public Diplomacy 35
it was not unreasonable to assume growth of between 10 to 12 per cent in services like English language teaching and administration of examinations.
78. Over the past five years, the overall number of the Council’s UK-based staff has remained fairly static, with the percentage of vacant positions increasing slightly. In the 2004 spending review round, the Council was not set a specific headcount reduction but instead agreed to make efficiency savings of 2.5 per cent per annum up to 2007–08. We were told that 62 per cent of the Council’s £13 million projected savings for the triennium to 2008 are reliant on the introduction of new IT systems.151 Of the total projected savings, 51 per cent is estimated to derive from staff reductions and 41 per cent from savings in procurement and other non-staff areas.152 We intend to monitor closely the Council’s progress during the triennium period towards meeting its annual efficiency targets.
Value for money? 79. The last value for money investigation by the National Audit Office into the British Council was completed in 1991.153 At that time the then Public Accounts Committee concluded that it considered “that the English language is one of Britain’s major assets” and said it was “glad to see that the Council seeks to exploit it by promoting and improving the teaching of English abroad.”154 In 2004–05 the £172 million of grant-in-aid funding the British Council received represented approximately one-third of its overall turnover of £473 million.155 As Lord Kinnock told us, roughly 60 per cent of the Council’s total income is self-generated.156 In 2004-05, the British Council generated £1.76 for every £1 it received in grant-in-aid.157 Lord Kinnock went on to say “where there are feasible possibilities of securing revenue returns [the Council] exploit[s] those opportunities.”158
80. The British Council uses the surpluses it raises from its revenue-earning operations to fund the teaching of English in countries with more difficult environments. The Council acknowledges that it has been argued that the private sector might undertake English teaching and administration of exams overseas.159 It points out that few private sector schools could undertake teaching in more difficult operating environments where there are “severely limited business prospects and serious security risks.”160 We conclude that it is the British Council’s international network that allows it to run English language teaching centres where conditions are challenging and where there are limited business opportunities. We further conclude that it is the British Council’s independence from
151 Ev 28 152 Ev 36 153 Public Accounts Committee, Management of the British Council, HC (1991–92) 52 154 Ibid 155 Ev 1 156 Q 1 157 Q 2 158 Q 8 159 Ev 44 160 Ev 44
36 Public Diplomacy
Government that helps to broaden the range of organisations in these difficult environments with which it is able to engage.
81. We asked Lord Carter whether he considered the British Council represented good value for money. He believed “generally” it did and said that he had found other countries to be “envious” of both the British Council and the BBC World Service.161 Lord Carter told us that measurement of good value in the case of the British Council and the World Service “is the thing that I was exercised by.162 He pointed to two ways of measuring value in the case of the Council: by surveying people’s opinions, along the lines suggested in his review, to discover if, over time, interventions by the British Council had a positive effect; and by the collection of quantitative data. For example, in relation to education it is possible to record the number of foreign students seeking advice from the British Council offices and number of ‘hits’ to its website.
82. We also asked the British Council to provide us with international comparisons of the Council with its closest analogues in Germany and France in terms of spend per head of population. The Council told us that the Goethe Institut163 and Alliance Française164 were its nearest comparable organisations but that direct comparisons were not possible as their precise functions differ from that of the Council, as do their methods of funding.165 In the case of France, the cultural section of the Foreign Ministry, the Institutes Francaises166 and parts of the Department for International co-operation and Development, carried out some of the functions performed by the British Council. And, in the case of Germany, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) had some similar responsibilities to the British Council as Germany’s educational exchange agency. The British Council also emphasised that it would be necessary to examine the varying scope, reach and impact of the institutions concerned. In 2004–05, the British Council’s grant-in-aid funding per head of the UK population amounted to £2.96. The Goethe Institut had a total income of €204 million, which represented £1.80 per head. Of this, €163 million was government grant which was £1.40 per head.167 The Alliance Française does not exist as a single financial entity but in total its institutes collectively receive a government grant of €41 million, equivalent to 47 pence per head.168
83. While Lord Carter’s review examined the effectiveness of the mechanisms in place which hold the British Council and Foreign Office to account, ultimately to Parliament, for its expenditure of grant-in-aid his review did not as part of its remit have a value-for- money focus. Lord Carter agreed that a value for money review of the British Council was “something that needs looking at”.169 As the National Audit Office has the power and
161 Q 190 162 Q 190 163 The Goethe-Institut is a non-profit-making, publicly funded organisation. It has over 140 centres in over seventy countries serving approximately 108,000 students 164 Alliance Française is a French teaching association with over 1,000 schools across 130 countries 165 Ev 36; Ev 43 166 A network of 150 official French government centres for French language and culture 167 Ev 36 168 Ev 36 169 Q 192
Public Diplomacy 37
resources to conduct a thorough examination of the British Council in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and economy, we believe that it would prudent for it to complete another investigation. We recommend that the National Audit Office urgently consider conducting a further value for money report on the British Council.
Middle East, Afghanistan and North Africa 84. In its memorandum, the Council told us that in the Middle East and North Africa it sees its role as “to build trust and mutual respect” with a range of partners and relevant audience groups.170 For the Near East and North Africa and the Middle East the Council has increased the priority of these regions in line with its Strategy 2010 by expanding grant- in-aid funding from £7.9 million in 2003–04 to £14.2 million in 2006–07.171
85. The British Council is involved in an impressive range of work in Iraq, where its activity is increasing. Lord Kinnock told us:
In Iraq we have been making a significant contribution to rebuild the country's capacity in education and in fostering free reporting media, where obviously we have collaborated closely with the BBC World Service. We have provided training for hundreds of senior university managers, education ministry staff, teachers, media technicians and journalists. We have delivered more than 50 tonnes of books to universities and set up educational resource centres in universities in Baghdad and Basra. We have worked with women’s groups and excluded minorities in projects that are particularly geared to increasing electoral participation. Obviously, all of these activities continue to flourish.172
We commend the British Council’s staff in Iraq who are patently working in an extremely difficult operating environment.
86. We were pleased to discover that the operating situation in Afghanistan had improved slightly this year and to hear that that there is great demand on the ground for the Council’s services. Sir David Green told us, “I have to say that the thirst for English language in Afghanistan is extraordinary and these English language resource centres are just packed and it is impossible for people to move.”173
87. Security of the British Council offices overseas is an issue our predecessor Committee covered extensively in its last Report.174 In addition to increases in its baseline funding, the Council was granted in full a reserve claim for security improvements of £4 million in 2004–05 and £6 million in 2005–06. Sir David Green told us that the extra money secured had enabled security improvements to take place at 75 of its premises so far and that all the
170 Ev 4 171 Ev 4 172 Q 1 173 Q 54 174 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 64
38 Public Diplomacy
money for 2004–05 had been spent. Work was still in progress on 2005–06 programme of improvements.175
88. Following an unstable period in Pakistan, in the wake of bombings in Afghanistan, and the spate of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, the British Council closed its offices throughout those countries. We asked the Council what effect the existing security situations were having on public access to its premises in these volatile counties and on its ability to generate income. Sir David told us:
What we have done is a very careful and thorough review of all our premises cross the world. In some places, sadly, we have had to close our centres to public access. If you take a country such as Pakistan, there is no public access in any of the five centres that we have across Pakistan. That is not to say that we are not able to operate in Pakistan, we have a very thriving operation and we administer 200,000 examinations each year, for instance. This does not require people to come to our offices, we have made an arrangement through Standard Chartered Bank and they can go to any branch of Standard Chartered Bank and register for examination…176
89. We were disappointed to hear that there is no near-term prospect of the British Council re-opening its offices in Pakistan. We were however pleased that over the last year in Saudi Arabia four of its six offices have moved into new secure premises and that all six are now open to the public.177
90. As a Committee we value the opportunities we have when we are overseas to visit the British Council’s offices and to meet its staff to learn more about their work. In November 2005, some of us visited the British Council’s office in Ramallah in the Palestinian Territories and we were impressed there by the range of work in which it was involved. We were therefore very concerned to learn of the attacks on 14 March on two of the British Council offices in the Palestinian Territories, those in Gaza and in Ramallah. Both offices were set alight by demonstrators. During our visit, we met the British Council staff in Gaza and gained a direct impression of the dangers in carrying out their duties. We recognise the great value of the work being carrying out by the British Council in the Palestinian Territories and we hope that its offices there may re-open as soon as it is practical and safe to do. We commend the British Council’s determination to stay open for business in countries where it faces extremely challenging security conditions and for the progress it has made in improving security at its premises for staff and customers alike and recommend the Council continues these policies where appropriate and necessary.
British Council’s tax status in Russia 91. In the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee raised its concern over the British Council’s tax status in Russia. In May 2004, the Russian Interior Ministry raided several British Council offices over claims of non-payment of tax. At that time the Committee asked the Foreign Office to set out what progress it and the Council had made in resolving
175 Ev 5; Qq 46–47 176 Q 48 177 Q 50
Public Diplomacy 39
the situation.178 In response, the Foreign Office said that it had frequently lobbied the Russian authorities at all levels about their treatment of the Council.179
92. In a note to the Committee, the Council outlined the background to the Council’s tax position in Russia.180 In 1994, when the Council first went to Russia, the Russian and British foreign ministries signed a cultural agreement which encouraged both countries to open information centres and language teaching operations in each other’s countries. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) told the British Council that it would be able begin negotiations over its tax status with tax authorities as soon as a new cultural centres agreement was signed. The Council told us that in 2001, the United Kingdom signalled approval to the draft agreement. However no approval was given by the Russian side. Despite their repeated assurances that an agreement was forthcoming, the last assurance being in May 2004, the Russian authorities carried out unannounced raids on the Council’s premises.
93. In October 2005, on the eve of a EU-Russian summit, a new criminal investigation by Russian authorities was opened against the British Council office in St Petersburg.181 We were concerned that this matter was still live and we raised our concerns with the British Council during oral evidence. Lord Kinnock explained:
We are given to understand that we have had tax obligations in respect of our operations in Moscow, St Petersburg and the other centres in which we operate in Russia. The tax liabilities stipulated by the Russian authorities were paid in full in respect of Moscow in September. They were paid in full in respect of St Petersburg last week. We are led to believe that we can reasonably anticipate that by the end of this month the remaining tax issues will be cleared…. So far as the status is concerned, we have heard of an explicit assurance that immediately after these tax obligations are resolved… there will be rapid movement towards the conclusion of the agreement.182
94. In a supplementary note to us, the British Council told us that the Russian MFA’s position was that the signing of a new cultural centres agreement could now only take place once all due tax has been paid.183 In October 2005, the Council reported to us that it had about £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, an amount that was “being processed”.184 The total amount of tax paid, including both ‘back’ tax and tax due for the current year, was £1.4 million.185 On 27 January 2006 the Council reported that the Russian
178 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 197 179 Cm 6415, p 15, para 47 180 Ev 29 181 For example see: ‘Putin’s visit is overshadowed by British Council tax investigation’, The Times, 4 October 2005; also ‘Claim that British Council evaded tax sours summit’, The Independent, 4 October 2005 182 Q 60 183 Ev 29 184 Ev 29 185 Ev 29
40 Public Diplomacy
Federal Tax Service had given the Ministry of Foreign Affairs written confirmation that the British Council had met its obligations to pay back-taxes.186
95. Lord Carter’s review picked up on the British Council’s tax problems overseas. It called for the Council to be “more proactive in resolving the growing number of tax issues” arising, and went on to suggest that disputes could “present reputation risks to the UK, and consequently to its public diplomacy efforts, if not appropriately addressed.”187
96. The dispute between Russian tax authorities and the British Council is set in a context of the Council’s services being used by over half a million Russians last year.188 We asked Lord Kinnock if he thought the ongoing dispute was politically motivated and whether in fact the British Council was being used as a “political pawn.”189 The Council did not feel that it was in an “authoritative” position to comment; we respect its position.
97. It was with great concern, following the recent allegation that British diplomats were involved in a spying operation in Moscow, that we read once again reports in the press that prosecutors in St Petersburg had reopened an investigation into the British Council owing to their suspicion that the Council was undertaking “illegal commercial activity.”190 It seems quite evident that the Russian authorities are targeting the British Council deliberately in line with the Russian government’s hostility to the presence of foreign Non- Governmental Organisations in Russia. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office update us on the latest position of the British Council in Russia regarding outstanding tax issues and detail what actions it is taking to prevent further interference with the Council’s operations by the Russian authorities. We further recommend that the Foreign Office inform us of any tax problems in other countries which relate to the British Council and what it is doing to resolve them.
Chevening scholarships and fellowships 98. Chevening scholarships and fellowships schemes are administered by the British Council on behalf of the Foreign Office. In 2004–05, there were 2,124 Chevening scholars studying in the United Kingdom from over 150 different countries.191
186 Ev 36 187 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 23, para 5.2.8 188 Q 1 189 Q 62 190 ‘Russian MPs to discuss “spying”’, The Times, 25 January 2006 191 Ev 5–10
Public Diplomacy 41
Regional background of Chevening scholars and fellows—2000 to 2005
700 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 600 2004-05
500
400
300 Number of scholars of Number
200
100
0 North South Caribbean European Wider Middle East North Africa Sub-Saharan Oceania CIS Far East South Asia America America Union Europe Africa
99. In 2002, a review of the Chevening scheme found that, while the Chevening scholarships were highly regarded, there was no significant effort made to link expenditure on scholarships to the FCO’s strategic priorities or show their impact in the short to medium term.192 The review recommended the introduction of fellowships, in addition to scholarships, which would offer professional awards aimed at “mid-career and senior professionals.” As the fellowship placements would be shorter, and consequently cheaper to run, the review envisaged that they would have a more immediate impact on specific FCO policy objectives at Posts. We learn from the Carter review that ministers have agreed, following a pilot exercise, funding for fellowships of £5 million a year from 2006–07 and beyond as part of the overall Chevening programme.193
100. Our predecessor Committee welcomed the “revitalisation” of the Chevening scholarships and believed that the proposals given in the River Path Review194 should allow the scheme to be more “responsive to the United Kingdom’s wider diplomatic needs.”195 The Carter review considered the Chevening scheme and its association with the FCO’s public diplomacy aims in some detail. It found that generally there was insufficient effort made to track and maintain ongoing relationships with alumni and recommended that tracking and engaging alumni should be incorporated into the next service level agreement between the FCO and the Council for the administration of scholarships.196
192 A review conducted by River Path Associates of Chevening scheme in 2004 on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 193 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 41, para 7.4.4 194 Review conducted by River Path Associates 195 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 194 196 Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 41, para 7.4.6
42 Public Diplomacy
101. When the provenance of Chevening scholarships awards distributed for 2004–05 is examined, there appears to be no clear relationship between the FCO’s geographic priorities and the beneficiaries of scholarships. Several nations with a relatively high allocation of scholarships were not identifiable as FCO strategic or public diplomacy priority countries.197 It is noted by Lord Carter that this is likely to be due to the fact that up to last year geographical directorates were responsible for allocating scholarships. They were therefore accordingly apportioned on a regional basis and so were often in line with regional rather than global priorities. Scholarship budgets will transfer to the Public Diplomacy Group in the FCO for future rounds of distribution.
102. This year in its annual report a lesson learned by the FCO was that it underestimated the combined effect of focusing scholarships on priority countries and of developing the Chevening fellowship programme.198 The FCO decided that it should have communicated the reasons for the changes of the Chevening scheme more carefully to the FCO as whole.
103. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Foreign Office set out how it proposes to appraise expenditure on the Chevening scholarships and fellowships in terms of their impact in the medium and long terms. We further recommend that the Foreign Office explain what selection process and criteria it uses to identify those scholars and fellows most likely to bring benefit to the United Kingdom in the short, medium and long term.
4 BBC World Service
Annual Report 104. The BBC World Service published its annual review for 2004–05 in June 2005.199 The report, with the picture on its front-cover showing some of the devastation caused by the Indian Ocean tsunami, provides an extensive account of the Service’s activity and performance during 2004–05. We found the report to be well structured; chapters are ordered by market sector or activity, with one given over wholly to the Service’s coverage of the tsunami. While annual reports are, of course, generally retrospective in nature, we found the inclusion of a chapter on future priorities a very valuable addition.
105. In its report, the World Service sets out its performance against public service agreements (PSAs) in a clear, straightforward manner. The Service’s performance is measured by the FCO against five PSA targets: three of these have five regional sub-targets and one has two sub-targets. Three of the PSA targets were fully met. Its target for the amount revenue earned was met over-all but one associated sub-target was missed.200 The
197 Ev 5–10 198 Cm 6533, p 154–55 199 BBC World Service, Annual Review 2004–05, June 2005, available at www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice 200 Ibid, pp 28–31
Public Diplomacy 43
Service missed its overall weekly audience target and its shortwave audibility target, which we discuss below.
Work in 2004–05 106. In its annual report the World Service describes how it has consolidated its position as the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting.201 Independent research conducted on behalf of the BBC Governors’ World Service and Global News Consultative Group showed that the Service’s reputation for trust and objectivity was higher than that for any other international broadcaster in virtually all markets surveyed. In addition to its reporting of events in Iraq and the Middle East, the Service provided extensive coverage of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Darfur crisis, the Beslan school siege, the Afghan, Iraqi, Ukraine and US elections and the enlargement of the European Union. It won the News Output Award at the Sony Radio Academy Awards for its coverage of the Beslan crisis.
Audience figures and audibility 107. We were pleased to note that the World Service’s audience, taken as a whole, grew in 2004–05. Its size rose by three million to 149 million weekly listeners in 2004–05, although it missed its target of 153 million weekly listeners. This was mainly due to lower than expected audiences in Europe. We examine below the Service’s closure of some of its vernacular services in central and eastern Europe.
108. The World Service reports that in 2004–05 audiences fell in 22 countries and that the global audience in English was down by six million to 39 million listeners. Nevertheless, the Service achieved an increase in its overall audience despite tough competition from domestic FM broadcasters and satellite television stations. As Nigel Chapman points out, the Service had over 50 per cent more listeners than any comparable international broadcaster.202 In 2004, the Service was the biggest speech radio service in Iraq and had 2.8 million listeners in Afghanistan.203 It also saw rises in audiences in India, Indonesia and the USA.
109. One country where the World Service has had less success is Russia, where it reached only 0.8 per cent of the Russian adult population.204 While awareness of the World Service had increased there, perceptions of its objectivity remained static and relevance declined slightly.205 Given that the World Service identifies Russia as one of its key target areas we find its performance there rather disappointing. Nigel Chapman told us that the Service’s performance in Russia was of concern to him but explained that as well as facing a very
201 Ev 46 202 BBC World Service, Annual Review 2004–05, June 2005, p 4, available at www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice 203 Ev 47 204 BBC World Service, Annual Review 2004–05, June 2005, pp 28–29 205 The BBC measures relevance by conducting national surveys in different countries to find out the percentage of listeners who say that the BBC World Service provides news that is relevant to them
44 Public Diplomacy
competitive market place there in terms of radio, the Russian audience was not “demonstrating a great appetite for international radio services.”206 He went on to say:
one of the ironies about this you could argue now, under the way media has been restricted in Russia increasingly under Putin, is that the case for having the BBC there is greater that it was five years ago.207
We discuss the case for the World Service’s move into local language television markets and video investment below [paragraphs 152–63 and 178–81].
110. A medium where the World Service has seen remarkable growth over the last three years is the usage of its online services. Its PSA target for the international site was worked out using a 2002 baseline, but while this 2005 target was exceeded by a wide margin, the BBC accepts that this target was set too low. However, that said, we believe that the BBC’s international news website receiving 324 millions hits in March 2005 alone is a clear mark of success. 208
111. The World Service has continued in the last year to invest in Frequency Modulation (FM) delivery and reports to us that by March 2005 programmes were broadcast on FM in 146 capital cities (77 per cent of the world’s capitals). This is a real success. The Service beat its target in 2004–05 for an FM distribution in 142 capital cities.209 Conversely, the Service has failed to meet its target for the quality of its shortwave audibility. However, it needs to be borne in mind that long distance transmissions are affected by many different factors, some of which are environmental and entirely out of the Service’s control. We discuss below the disruptions late last year to the World Service’s Nepali FM service and how its Nepalese audience could continue to listen to its programmes on short wave even though its FM service was effectively switched off by the Government of Nepal.210
112. We conclude that 2004–2005 proved to be another successful year for the BBC World Service, which saw a significant growth in the size of its audience. We particularly commend the Service on the success it had in Iraq where it was the biggest speech radio station.
World Service’s three-year plan and vision to 2010 113. In the run-up to the 2004 spending review the BBC World Service proposed the creation of a new Arabic-language satellite television channel and submitted a discrete bid to HM Treasury for extra funds specifically for such a news service. It sought an extra £28.5 million per annum to fund a 24-hour, seven-day a week, Arabic-spoken television news service.211 However, the Treasury did not grant the extra funding requested but instead
206 Q 161 207 Q 161 208 Ev 48 209 BBC World Service, Annual Review 2004–05, June 2005, p 31 210 See paragraphs 173 211 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, Ev 110
Public Diplomacy 45
asked the BBC World Service to develop a new business case for an Arabic television service from its current resource allocation.212
114. Last year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in its Green Paper, Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter, A strong BBC, Independent of Government, affirmed that “the World Service should remain a Government-funded arm of the BBC, providing high quality, impartial international news to audiences who might otherwise not receive it.”213 It recommended that the World Service should explore how it could face up to the global ascendance of satellite television and proposed that the Service consider reducing its portfolio of languages, particularly in central and eastern Europe.
115. The Green Paper signposted to the World Service a need to shift its focus “eastwards and southwards” in particular to the Middle East, the Far East and parts of Africa.214 This was a position that on the one hand backed up the World Service’s ambition for an Arabic television service and, on the other, the Treasury’s implicit call for a reallocation of its resources for this purpose. Accordingly, in October 2005, the World Service wrote to inform us that it was to make a major transformation to the shape of its services over the next five years. 215 We found the World Service’s submission to our inquiry this year very useful and it was helpful to receive an outline of the World Service’s reprioritisation plans following their endorsement by the Foreign Secretary and the BBC board of governors.
116. The proposals to 2007–08 consist of efficiency savings and a reprioritisation of resources representing 20 per cent of the Service’s entire annual budget, equivalent to £30 million. Over a three-year period the Service will aim to reinvest these resources into new high-priority activities. When Nigel Chapman gave oral evidence before us we questioned him on his reinvestment strategy. He stressed what an enormous challenge lay ahead for the BBC World Service but seemed confident his plans to 2007 were achievable. On the feasibility of even further changes, he explained:
For any organisation that is a challenge, that is a tough call. We can do it, but I cannot keep on doing it. I cannot keep on doing 20 per cent, 20 per cent, 20 percent. You will end up then with no services left over, and that would not be appropriate.216
117. The headline changes announced were the closure of radio services in ten languages and a plan to launch an Arabic-language free-to-air satellite television news service from 2007. Other key features of the World Service’s strategy highlighted in the announcement were: 217 x A commitment to be the world’s best known, most creative and most respected voice in international news;
212 Cm 6415, p13 213 Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter, A strong BBC, Independent of Government, DCMS, March 2005, available at www.bbccharterreview.org.uk 214 Ibid, p 45 215 “BBC World Service announces ‘biggest transformation in 70 years’”, BBC Press Release, 25 October 2005, available at www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/ 216 Q 126 217 Ev 49–53
46 Public Diplomacy
x A continued wish to target influencers—opinion formers and decision makers—in every market and, in less developed markets, to target audiences who have a wider need for basic news and information; x An aspiration to offer “lifeline” services to audiences in areas of conflict or in failed states; x An aim to utilise further new media to deliver news reports in vernacular languages; x An aim to invest in the acquisition and management of distribution partners on FM and other emerging audio platforms; x Over three years to make over £33 million of investment in marketing the World Service; x An ambition to reach significant new audiences through vernacular television by 2010, and x By 2010, a joint aim with the wider BBC, to increase the global reach of its international news services around the world from over 190 million to over 250 million weekly users.
The World Service also confirmed to us that it would continue to achieve further efficiency savings of at least 2.5 per cent of it baseline funding each year up to the end of 2006–07.218 Last year, the Service hit its efficiency target of £4.4 million.219
118. We conclude that the Government’s vision that the BBC World Service should remain a service publicly funded through grant-in-aid is wholly right. We commend the BBC World Service for carrying out such an extensive review and reprioritisation of its resources ahead of the next spending review. This will enable it, among other achievements, to realise its proposal for an Arabic television news channel in 2007.
Reduction in vernacular services 119. From March 2006, the BBC World Service reduced its 42 language portfolio to 32 services.220 It has stopped broadcasting on radio in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Kazakh, Polish, Slovak, Slovene and Thai. These closures followed the direction given by the Government made in its Green Paper on the Review of the BBC’s royal charter.221 The World Service has also reduced investment in Portuguese for Brazil, with its presence there becoming mainly internet-based. There has in addition been a continuing tendency to move broadcasts from short-wave to FM frequencies. However, it is not clear to what extent this has affected individual vernacular services, for example whether it has involved a net reduction in broadcasts. We recommend that the BBC World Service publish full details of the effects on each vernacular service of changes in the broadcast frequency or medium of those services in the past twelve months,
218 Ev 53, para 3.4 219 Q 159 220 Ev 52, para 3.3.1 221 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, A Strong BBC, Independent of Government, March 2005, p 45
Public Diplomacy 47
together with the anticipated effects of any further changes scheduled to take place in the coming twelve months.
120. The BBC World Service told us that broadcasts in English will remain its core “global offer” but, having assessed its existing services, other priority markets will be the Arab and wider Islamic world (including Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia), China, Russia, India and Spanish-speaking Latin America.222 The World Service will also continue to serve less developed markets in Africa and Asia, such as Nigeria and Bangladesh, as well as a number of “information poor” markets.223
121. Strategic analysis which had been conducted by the World Service showed that the 10 language services which it cut no longer fulfilled its key criteria for investment. The radio services closed attracted fewer than four million weekly listeners for an annual spend of approximately £12 million.224 In evidence before us, Nigel Chapman outlined the criteria he had used to evaluate the value and importance of the languages offered. He told us:
We did a very thorough review lasting about 12 months of all the 42 vernacular language services in the World Service against three criteria really; first of all, what you could broadly describe as geo-political importance; secondly the extent to which there is a free and independent media available already in those societies and how far that has changed over the last ten years; and thirdly the level of impact that those services currently have.225
122. Eight of the languages that were cut were in central and eastern European countries where there had been significant changes in the political and media environment over the last 15 years, following the end of the ‘Cold War’. Despite reductions in services in central and eastern Europe, the World Service assured us that it will continue to serve a number of audiences in the Balkans and Turkey, but said that the strategic importance of these markets will be reviewed regularly.226
123. Referring to these eight radio services closed, Nigel Chapman told us that the press freedom index for those countries where closures had occurred showed a “very steady position” in terms of press freedom and choice.”227 He went on to comment, “In fact, some of those countries have a press freedom level which is as good as the United Kingdom if not better.”228 On the Thai and Kazakh services the World Service had assessed these services as being of “lower impact.”229 There are only about 40,000 listeners to the Kazakh service, this in part being due to the lack of FM distribution there owing to restrictions and to the fact that many Kazakh listeners tune into the Russian service instead. Nevertheless,
222 Ev 50, para 3.1.3 223 Ibid 224 Ibid 225 Q 66 226 Ev 51, para 3.1.3 227 Q 67 228 Q 67 229 Ev 52, para 3.3.1
48 Public Diplomacy
there was opposition to its closure. The National Union of Journalists’ general secretary expressed concern saying:
Does Jack Straw really believe that countries like Kazakhstan where intimidation of political opponents remains common and there is significant international concern that recent elections were rigged no longer needs the type of public service broadcasting offered by the World Service?230
124. In respect of the Thai service, we have received representations opposed to its closure.231 The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand wrote that its closure would “mean that the Thai people will lose one of the few remaining independent sources of news.”232 We also note with some concern that in the last three years Thailand has slipped from 65th place to 107th in the press freedom index,233 just above Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda and Bahrain.234 In response to an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the Thai service, Dr Kim Howells, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said that a key factor in the service’s closure had been its small audience. However, the Minister confirmed that Thailand will continue to receive the World Service’s English language radio service and the BBC’s international online services.235 Ideally, if there were not significant financial constraints on the Service’s operations, there would be strong reasons for continuing with the provision of the Kazakh and Thai language services.
125. Nigel Chapman remarked, “if you have a sum of money to invest in international broadcasting you have to make difficult choices and you are making a judgment about it all the time … because in a fixed budget that is the reality of the position that broadcasters have to face up to.”236
126. We conclude that the reduction in the BBC World Service’s language range, which mirrored the direction given by Government, was regrettable. We recommend that the BBC World Service in consultation with the Foreign Office review regularly its language services for impact and financial value but do its utmost to preserve and extend its language services upon which so many depend for its trustworthy news and information. We conclude that this is particularly important in those countries where there is no properly functioning parliamentary democracy, inadequate freedom of the media and significant violation of human rights, and we recommend that the BBC World Service is funded accordingly.
English-language output 127. English language programming has also experienced recent change, with an increased focus on the provision of news and information. Last year the BBC World Service ended
230 “NUJ slams plan to silence 10 BBC language services”, National Union for Journalists, available at: www.nuj.org.uk/i 231 See: Ev 82; Ev 85 232 Ev 85 233 The Press freedom index is produced by Reporters Without Borders, see www.rsf.org 234 HC Deb, 7 March 2006, col. 248WH 235 Ibid 236 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 842
Public Diplomacy 49
some of its non-news programmes, including some factual and music productions. Several popular cultural, drama and entertainment shows were removed from its schedule. The Service was portrayed by some of the press as evolving into principally a news and information only service.237
128. Nigel Chapman argued that the “death of the variety of the content” of the World Service had been much exaggerated.238 He said that there would be no “philistinic dumbing” down by the World Service.239 We were told that the Service had reacted to feedback from its overseas audiences who were largely coming to the Service for news and information.
129. The schedule was reorganised so that on weekdays there would be a greater emphasis on news but on weekends there would continue to be a wide mix of cultural programming.240 The aim was to achieve “a wide range of speech-based programming of news and information which covers arts, culture, sport, business, religion, science, history.” We were assured that the Service would not evolve into “a rolling news service”, or a “CNN on the radio.” Mr Chapman said:
Some of the things we have been putting out … just do not fit within that overall mix of what audiences now want. That is the reality. It is a very short-sighted director of the World Service facing that research who ignores it and ploughs on as if nothing is happening.241
In correspondence forwarded to us by Mr David Laws MP, Mr Michael Fox, a BBC journalist commented:
While BBC management speaks of maintaining the quality, breadth and depth of news coverage, including documentary programming, in-depth programmes such as Analysis are being cut in length, the Outlook programme is being scrapped altogether, and the idea of regular “slots” of British news is being abandoned— despite a regulatory requirement on the World Service to reflect the broad range of British life and opinion. In a rare outbreak of candour, the department’s editor recently acknowledged that more material was likely to be repeated as a result of these cuts.242
130. We conclude that it is important that the BBC World Service’s English output continues to include a significant proportion of programmes which promote British culture and Britain’s creativity to overseas audiences as well as the first-rate, impartial news and information programmes. It is this mixture of programming which is the World Service’s attraction and a characteristic of its success. We recommend that
237 “Shrinking World”, Sunday Times, 16 October 2005 and “World Service cuts to fund BBC’s Arab TV”, Sunday Telegraph, 16 October 2005 238 Q 140 239 Q 140 240 Q 140 241 Q 140 242 Ev 83
50 Public Diplomacy
under no circumstances should the World Service’s English language programming be allowed to evolve into just a news and information service.
Arabic satellite television news service 131. Developing a free-to-air Arabic-language satellite television service has been one of the World Service’s highest priorities ever since television became the dominant news medium in the Arab world.243 Following its review of priorities and resources, the Service is launching an Arabic television channel in early 2007, initially as a 12-hour service, supported by a text and audio service for the remaining part of the day, with the aim of going to a full 24-hour broadcasts if funds become available.244
132. After the failure of the World Service’s bid for extra funds in 2004 for such a service, our predecessor Committee believed that it was a “missed opportunity” and that other international broadcasters would “take advantage of British inaction” to the detriment of the BBC World Service and the United Kingdom.245
133. The BBC’s first attempt to set up an Arabic television news service, in 1994, was a commercial operation in partnership with a company linked to the Saudi royal family. The service was cancelled two years later, owing to disputes between the BBC and its partner, Orbit Communications, over editorial content.246 Nigel Chapman did not consider the venture had been a complete failure:
We [the BBC] did not fail in one sense in 1996. We actually had quite a significant audience arising from the services in 1994 to 1996. We failed in 1994 to 1996, if you want to call it failure, because we defended our editorial principles and values.247
Following the station’s closure, many of the BBC journalists who lost their jobs went to work for the fledgling al-Jazeera.248
134. The World Service told us that the lesson learnt from the 1994 venture was that it was not appropriate to fund an Arabic television service through a commercial partnership, particularly not for the BBC, and that the such a service was best funded through public money.249 Mr Chapman told us:
if you want the sorts of stories that we feel we ought to do without fear or favour, if you have commercial partners you cannot do that because they then threaten you with pulling the plug on your funds and say that is not what you want us to cover, and that then undermines the whole basis of your operation.250
243 See: Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, Ev 109 244 Ev 51, para 3.2.1 245 Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003–2004, para 161 246 Qq 127–28 247 Q 127 248 “In shift, BBC to start Arabic TV Channel”, International Herald Tribune, 26 October 2005 249 Q 131 250 Q 131
Public Diplomacy 51
135. We asked Mr Chapman whether broadcasting through such a potentially volatile medium as television, in Arabic, in a region as politically sensitive as the Middle East, he had any fear of political interference by incumbent British governments. Mr Chapman pointed out that the Arabic television service, like the Service’s long-established Arabic radio service and all other services fall under the broadcasting agreement that is in place with the Foreign Office. He believed that this agreement made absolutely clear that editorial independence of the BBC World Service’s output was guaranteed.251
This service falls fairly and squarely within that [the broadcasting agreement] and, therefore, it will have to subscribe to our relationship with the Foreign Office in exactly the same way as the radio services do now. There is no different set of relationships here. That is why I have confidence that the Foreign Office, our funders, will respect that editorial independence, as they have done in relation to radio for many years, and new media as well.252
136. The new service will compete for viewers against commercial satellite broadcasters such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, as well as the US government-funded al-Hurrah. The increasing influence of al-Jazeera and its rivals in recent years and the dominance of satellite television in the Middle East mean that the World Service’s Arabic radio service risks being outflanked.253 BBC Arabic currently has approximately 12 million listeners per week. However, the radio service faces stiff competition from satellite television channels, especially in countries where FM broadcasting is not available to the BBC for its news output, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and the rest of North Africa.
137. The BBC World Service openly identifies the strong competition it will face in the Middle East from al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya but believes that there is an opportunity for it “to occupy a genuine ‘high ground’ in the market, away from the pro-US offer of al- Hurra.”254 Nigel Chapman told us that al-Jazeera is perceived to be a “regionally-based” Arabic news station concentrating heavily upon Middle East news affairs. It is not, he argued, a “genuine international station” and “definitively does not bring an international perspective” to world news.255 We asked whether the BBC was going to be considered by audiences in the Middle East as propagating a western view. In reply, Nigel Chapman told us:
If you look at all the audience research… particularly in relation to radio, even in a society like Iraq where you would expect people to be very concerned about the point of view you have just expressed, they compartmentalise, if you like, the BBC’s services in radio and television and new media from the World Service and other people in a different box from British foreign policy. They see British foreign policy as one thing and the BBC’s activities as another. When we ask them do you trust the BBC, do you think it is independent, do you think it is independent of government, they give it very high marks repeatedly throughout the Arab world for this. Even in a
251 Q 132 252 Q 132 253 see: “BBC goes head-to-head with al-Jazeera”, The Guardian, 26 October 2005 254 Ev 51, para 3.2.1 255 Q 180
52 Public Diplomacy
society like Iraq, we get the highest ratings for independence and for trustworthiness against any other international competitor, despite the fact that British forces are involved in action every day in Iraq. I think that says something about the subtle understanding of Arab audiences…256
138. In five years’ time, the BBC World Service expects to have at least 25 million viewers per week; this would be double the number of listeners its Arabic radio service routinely receives.257 And, as part of an overall BBC tri-media portfolio (television, radio and internet), it aspires to be the largest international Arabic-language television news channel in terms of reach after Al-Jazeera.258 It should be noted that the Arabic radio service went from a 12-hour service to 24-hours only three years ago.259
139. When Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, gave evidence before us last autumn he indicated that the World Service may well be entering the Arabic television news market too late as the likes of al-Jazeera were already well established.260 Mr Gardner told us that it was a “pity” that the BBC could not have “got this right 10 years ago” when it first set up an Arabic television service.261 He said since then others have “filled the vacuum”, in particular al-Jazeera which had become a “major force” in broadcasting and international affairs.262 On a new BBC Arabic television service he remarked:
[the World Service] has really got its work cut out for it. It’s coming late to the party. It will be interesting to see if it works”263
On the question of whether the World Service was in fact entering the Arab news market too late, Nigel Chapman told the Lords Committee [on Review of the BBC Charter] that:
what people are telling us is that there may be more choice in the Middle East now— and Al-Jazeera is an example of that choice—but there is still a place for a television service which has the BBC values running through it, its accuracy, fairness, impartiality, covering a range of views, and there is a high ground, if you like, to be obtained and gained in this market. That is a very strong feeling that comes from the audience research, it is not just that people are likely to use it, they are likely to use it for those reasons, they see there is that gap and they want to use it, they want the BBC to do it.264
140. Following the announcement that the World Service was launching an Arabic television service, Nigel Chapman drew particular attention to the fact that the news in the Arab press of the BBC’s planned arrival was universally welcomed. He commented, “If [the
256 Q 181 257 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 878 258 Ev 51, para 3.2.1 259 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 883 260 Foreign Affairs Committee, corrected transcript of oral evidence, Session 2005–06, HC 573–iii, Q 160, available at www.publications.parliament.uk 261 HC (2005–06) 573–iii, Q 161 262 Ibid, Q 160 263 Ibid, Q 160 264 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 855
Public Diplomacy 53
BBC’s arrival] was too little too late, a lot of people would be writing that, they would be saying it and they would be criticising us for doing it. We have hardly had any criticism whatsoever…”265
141. The World Service has calculated that in 2007 a 12-hour television service will cost £19 million per annum to produce.266 Nigel Chapman told the Lords Committee, “we are talking about around £6 million extra to move from a 12 to 24 hour service because once you have got the infrastructure and you have got quite a lot of content already it is not double the money… you are doing a top-up in effect.”267 In addition to the £19 million, there will also be an initial start-up cost of between £5 million to £6 million, which will be largely capital expenditure. The Service plans to reinvest the £12 million of savings made from the reductions in its radio services into the television channel and it intends to make up the £7 million shortfall from the efficiency savings in line with its 2004 spending review commitment. In written evidence, the Service said that it will bid for additional funding in the 2007 spending review to upgrade the 12-hour Arabic television offer to a full 24 hour service.268
142. Nigel Chapman told us that the station will need to employ up to 150 people to run the 12-hour service, the majority of whom we understand will be based in London where the production of programmes will take place. 269 As FCO Minister Lord Triesman has noted, the BBC World Service will be able to draw on considerable synergies and resources in terms of the wider BBC’s newsgathering network.270 The BBC already has a substantial presence in Cairo but the Service told us that it will need to expand its presence in Washington and Moscow and other key places which are really critical to the international agenda.271 Referring to the costs of the new television channel Mr Chapman told us, “…if you draw upon the BBC’s resources and you draw upon all that news reporting that is going on already, if you put the new investment alongside that, then I think we can do it.”272
143. Nevertheless, we questioned the adequacy of the £19 million budget with the World Service. We were told by Nigel Chapman that al-Hurra’s annual budget was in the region of $30 million to $35 million, an amount not “unadjacent” to that which the World Service was proposing.273 We also asked whether a 12-hour service would be sufficient to allow the new station to establish itself in a market which was already fairly saturated and where some stations had been in operation for a number of years. Nigel Chapman argued that the World Service’s strength would be its tri-media approach (radio, television and online services), which would at some point offer a “good platform” on which to build a 24-hour
265 Q 78 266 Q 76 267 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 858 268 Ev 53, para 53 269 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 895 270 HL (2005–06) 128–I, para 71 271 Q 92 272 Q 92 273 Q 197
54 Public Diplomacy
service.274 Al-Jazeera, on the other hand, we were told, did not have a radio service nor did it have a particularly good web presence. Mr Chapman remarked:
I take some reassurance from the fact that we asked people about the 12 hours a day issue and they said, ‘Of course we tend to consume television more in the evening and so if you are going to be there in the evenings when it is peak viewing time, and you are going to be there from the afternoon through the evenings early into the night, that is fine.’ We still have a very strong radio service, which people tend to listen to in the mornings…”275
144. On costs, the World Service also pointed out that its programming for the Arabic television service would be on a rolling format whereby once a sufficient amount of material is collected it is repeated throughout a day. The schedule would not be like that of BBC2 where lots of “bespoke” programmes are produced.276 Nevertheless, as well as news, Mr Chapman foresaw that:
There will be studio discussions, live link-ups with bureaux in the Middle East, there will be a lot of reporting on the ground, not just reporting on the ground from the Middle East—and this is very, very important—but reporting on the ground from the world as a whole. The BBC has a tremendous amount of material coming into London every day from those places, as I am sure you are aware, so you have got a good base on which to build.”277
145. Mr Ian Richardson, the former editor of the BBC’s first Arabic television service in the 1990s, has expressed concerns about the World Service’s estimation of costs for the Arabic channel. In evidence to the Lords Committee he said that he had “great reservations” about the World Service’s plans and thought it would be “seriously under funded.”278 He went on to say that an Arabic service would be at least a third more expensive to produce that an English television rolling news channel owing to translation costs. Mr Richardson was of the view that if the new service could not be done well, owing to insufficient funding, then it should not be done at all.279
146. The BBC is expecting to make significant savings in the way BBC News produces its output for the World Service.280 This, the Service said, will involve a re-organisation in the way the news teams are set up and result in a number of job losses within BBC News. Mr Michael Fox, a BBC journalist, expresses concern at “scarce resources” being diverted to the Arabic television service from the World Service News and Current Affairs budget. Mr Fox indicates the BBC’s plans to reduce the News and Current Affairs department’s staff by
274 Q 80 275 Q 80 276 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 897 277 Q 87 278 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 931 279 Ibid, Q 967 280 Ev 52, para 3.3.2
Public Diplomacy 55
10 per cent could “undermine the quality” of news and programmes produced for the World Service.281
147. The Lords Committee recently concluded that the World Service’s plans to launch an Arabic news channel were “ambitious and worthwhile” but believed that a limited 12-hour service would lessen its chances of success in the region. The Lords Committee concluded, “a 12 hour limit on the Arabic language channel’s broadcasting time will mean the BBC competing for audiences with one hand tied behind its back.”282 The Committee recommend that the Government immediately provide the £6 million so that a 24-hour Arabic channel may proceed. Lord Triesman on the other hand told the Lords Committee that the Government believed the World Service was right to start with 12-hour programming in order to discover how that worked out in practice.283
148. BBC World, BBC’s commercial 24-hour news and information television channel, is funded by advertising and subscription.284 Although the channel is yet to operate at a profit the BBC forecasts that it will break even around the end of the decade.285 Al- Jazeera is funded through a grant from the Emir of Qatar but it also receives income from advertising and through syndication of news and film footage to other news agencies.286 We believe that there may also be a financial case for the World Service covering part of the new Arabic station’s costs through generating income from advertising and selling its output to other channels in the region. Such commercial activity should not, however, be allowed to compromise the World Service’s impartiality and independence.
149. In evidence to the Lords Committee, Mr Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC’s Global News Division, explained that satellite television transmission gave broadcasters access to markets where FM distribution was extremely difficult.287 There are many countries in the Middle East which will not allow the BBC to broadcast on FM, Saudi Arabia being a case in point. The BBC does not have a single FM transmitter from Morocco to Egypt. Mr Sambrook said that free-to-air satellite television would reach many people in these countries as the prevalence of satellite dishes regionally was very high.288
150. Nigel Chapman explained that because television had become the firm medium of choice for news consumption in the Middle East, the importance of World Service radio in the region would diminish in a number of ways. He said,
It will diminish in the pure number of users, so our reach will go down, and if our reach goes down then our reputation will tend to follow behind because if we have
281 Ev 83 282 HL (2005–06) 128–I, para 74 283 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 999 284 Ev 70 285 Ev 70 286 “BBC goes head-to-head with al-Jazeera”, The Guardian, 26 October 2005 287 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 917 288 Ibid, Q 917
56 Public Diplomacy
fewer people to listen, it will be less salient, less important and people will give you less credit for it.”289
151. We believe that the importance of the BBC World Service’s work in the Middle East and in the wider Islamic world is crucial in the current international situation. As Lord Triesman put it:
If we are to try, not by propaganda but by honest coverage, to offset some of the more extreme propositions that broadcast, every hour of the day, in the Arab- speaking world then we ought to get on with [launching the Arabic television service].290
152. During oral evidence before us Frank Gardner emphasised the need for the British Government to get more Arabic speaking representatives on to Islamic television channels in order to make the case for Western policy.291
153. We commend the BBC World Service for its achievement in funding the new Arabic television news service from a combination of efficiency savings and a reprioritisation of resources from the 2004 spending review provision. We conclude that the new service will be an important means of balancing the output of other Arabic language services. We further conclude that the BBC’s impartiality and objectivity will be of paramount importance if it is to succeed. We recommend that the BBC World Service together with the Foreign Office review the new channel’s funding and performance in the period leading up to its first anniversary to ensure it is adequately resourced and to determine whether extra funding should be provided by the Government to enable the channel to become a 24-hour service. We also recommend that the BBC World Service explore the potential for subsidising the costs of the new Arabic television service through generating income via advertising and syndication.
Expansion into other television services 154. The World Service acknowledged that it is evitable that it will experience a decline in its radio audiences owing to the evolution of television markets and media consumer habits around the globe.292 In written evidence, the Service told us that it plans to examine the viability of priority television services in other languages, focusing on Russia, Latin America, and India, and will place an emphasis on leveraging partnerships with local and regional players, given the difficult financial climate.
155. However, we are reassured that Nigel Chapman told us that as long as he is director of the World Service, radio will continue to be the main means of reaching out to people.
I think in large parts of Africa, large parts of Asia, somewhere like Nepal, which we were talking about earlier on, it would be not a clever and strategic move to start off
289 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 855 290 Ibid, Q 995 291 HC (2005–06) 573–iii 292 Ev 53, para 53
Public Diplomacy 57
with multi-media services in that environment. Even at the end of this budget process, if you like, taking us to 2007–08, the World Service will still be spending 75 per cent of its grant-in-aid income on radio and related distribution; so radio is still going to be the vast majority of the expenditure.293
156. Beyond 2007, the World Service states it would like to provide a vernacular multimedia service in priority markets in the wider Islamic world including Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia; and also in China, Russia, India, and Spanish-speaking Latin America. One specific language service referred to is a Persian television service funded through grant in aid.294 During oral evidence, Nigel Chapman told us:
In [the World Service’s written evidence to the Committee] there is a mixture of a hard-costed proposal, which is going to become fact, if you like, as a result of the 30 million investment plan… and then aspirations, gleams in the eye, which need to be part of the discussions with Government in the 2007 spending round, and Persian television is in the latter category, not the former.295
He continued:
As a broadcaster, if we believe that it is really important that people have access to free and independent media in societies, then, looking at it objectively, the position of Iran at the moment, you make out a very strong case for Britain improving what it can offer in that regard. You also then have to look at the role of radio and new media, and, as I explained earlier on, one of the difficulties about Iran is that the access the BBC can get, both in news-gathering terms but also in terms of transmitting its radio properly to Iran, is extremely difficult. The notion that I can get an FM transmitter for the BBC Persian service into Iran is a non-starter at the moment. One of the ways you would be able to reach into that society would be through satellite television, because many people in Iran, increasing numbers, have access to satellite television. It would be one of the ways of making sure they were able to access the BBC’s material and services. That is the broadcasting logic.296
157. It would appear that there is real appetite among Iranians for the news and information produced by the BBC. Nigel Chapman told us that Persian online services were “galloping away” in terms of audience impact.297 BBC Persian.com has become the most popular of the BBC’s non-English language news websites.298 It is estimated that Iran has seven million internet users and BBC Persian.com attracts around one third of all users in the country.299 It us frustrating to read reports that access to BBC Persian.com was recently blocked within Iran at the request of the Iranian authorities.
293 Q 141 294 Ev 50, para 3.1.3 295 Q 124 296 Q 125 297 Q 142 298 “BBC Persian.com online news site blocked”, BBC Press Notices, 24 January 2006, available at www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases 299 Ibid
58 Public Diplomacy
158. The Foreign Secretary in a speech highlighted the need to help Iranians make “informed choices … by helping improve the flow of information into the country”. He continued:
we in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe need to think about whether there is more we can do to ensure that reliable and trusted news services are able to broadcast in all media, in Persian, to Iranians.300
159. The emergence of television was also considered by the Lords Committee on Review of the BBC Charter. The Committee argued that given the popularity of television in the developed world, and its increasing popularity in the developing world, the World Service will struggle to continue influencing world opinion unless it launches a television service in a range of languages. We concur with this view.
160. The World Service has had particular difficulty accessing key markets in India and China. In the last few year’s the Service saw a dramatic drop in overall radio listening in India in part due to a ban by Indian regulators on local FM stations carrying news from foreign broadcasters.301 This resulted in a drop of over 12 million World Service listeners between 1995 and 2002. The World Service told us that China is a critical market but that it saw no likelihood of better access to the television market there in the timeframe up to 2010. The Service will continue to lobby the Chinese authorities for better access.302
161. Lord Carter’s review recommended that “the FCO should explore options for developing a television service arm of the World Service”. He believed that consideration should be given to the potential role of BBC World. BBC World,303 BBC’s commercial global television outlet, has so far failed to generate sufficient revenue from advertising to cover its costs and continues to experience difficulty in competing with its larger competitors.304 The Lords Committee recommended that the BBC should review all its international activities and that a strategy outlining the future of its public and commercial television, radio and online services should be published.305
162. As we discussed above [paragraph 134] the World Service believes that it is inappropriate to fund services such as its Arabic television service by commercial partnerships as this arrangement could be potentially threatening to its editorial independence and impartial reputation. We concur with this view. Nonetheless, we believe that World Service consider where appropriate the potential for generating extra income through advertising and syndication.
163. There remains in many of the priority markets identified by the World Service in its 2010 strategy a gulf of mistrust and misinformation among people owing to the lack of free and responsible press in those countries. We believe that it is vitally important and
300 Iran: The path ahead, speech by the Foreign Secretary at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 13 March 2006 301 Ev 47 302 Ev 50, para 3.1.3 303 BBC World is primarily an English-language news service 304 Ev 70 305 HL (2005–06) 128-I, para 75
Public Diplomacy 59
mutually beneficial to provide them with a source of reliable and trustworthy information through a non-government mechanism. We are convinced that increasingly in many countries the medium of choice is television and this should become in some markets the World Service’s chosen means of delivery. Also, by using satellite transmission it is possible to step over to a large degree the problems encountered in delivery of radio and online services such as the blocking and censorship of programmes and the restrictions faced in FM distribution.
164. On 14 March 2006, the Government in its White Paper, A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age, said that the World Service should consider developing new “successful services” in television.306 Nevertheless, the Government did not signal any new funding for the BBC World Service for further television services. It said, “it will be for the World Service, in discussion with the FCO, to decide its priorities and how expenditure could be prioritised to allow for the development of new services in priority countries.”307 Similarly, when we asked the Foreign Secretary about funding a new television channel in Farsi he said, “I would be delighted to fund it but I don't have the chequebook which is held in the Treasury.”308
165. We recommend that in the run up to the next spending round the Foreign Office argue the case with HM Treasury for an increase in grant-in-aid funding for the BBC World Service so that it can introduce further priority vernacular television services in addition to its new Arabic service without being forced to make excessive cuts in its radio and media services.
Nepali radio service 166. Last October we were concerned to learn that following the assumption of executive power by King Gyanendra, the government of Nepal had barred FM stations from broadcasting news. This affected all private radio stations which the World Service used to re-broadcast its Nepali programmes. In November 2005, the Service wrote to us to reassure us that its Nepali service was “in no way affected” by the changes which has been announced in its reprioritisation plans. 309
167. The World Service also leased a frequency on an FM waveband from the state-owned Radio Nepal, which transmitted its English language programmes.310 It operated during the parts of the day when the state radio was off the air. We understand that all the World Service’s English language programmes continue to be re-broadcast by Radio Nepal.
168. In October 2005, in a parliamentary written answer, Dr Kim Howells stated,
306 Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age, March 2006, Cm 6763 307 Ibid 308 Foreign Affairs Committee, uncorrected transcript of oral evidence, Session 2005–06, HC 573–v, Q 219, available at www.publications.parliament.uk 309 Ev 54 310 Ev 54
60 Public Diplomacy
…The UK is deeply concerned about the restrictions imposed by the Government of Nepal on the media. We believe that these restrictions, including the new Media Ordinance, infringe unacceptably upon freedom of expression.
The British Government and the BBC have formally requested the government of Nepal to allow the BBC to broadcast unhindered. The British Ambassador in Kathmandu has also raised our concerns about media censorship directly with the King, in the context of our wider concerns about the erosion of democratic processes, institutions and civil liberties. 311
169. The Nepali service clearly remains very important to the World Service. Nigel Chapman said, “The last thing on my mind is to cut [the Nepali service] back, if anything I want to strengthen [it]. 312 Mr Chapman went on to say, “The Nepali service… is an ever important service for the people of Nepal in a society which is deprived of free and independent information, it is close to my heart and I am going to make sure it remains a strong service.”313
170. The World Service broadcasts its Nepali-language service in Kathmandu on FM through Radio Sagarmatha. But on 27 November 2005 BBC Nepali broadcasts were suspended. This came after the trailing of a BBC Nepali Service interview with Nepalese Maoist party leader Prachanda, despite the government ban on broadcasting news on local stations. In a note to us, the Service described how five Radio Sagarmatha staff were also arrested and their equipment confiscated.314 The staff were later released. BBC World Service has expressed concern at this development.
171. There has also been censorship of the English output. Radio Nepal engineers were instructed by the Ministry to play local classical music to block out main news bulletins. The Service told us that Radio Nepal has been powerless to object or take on the Palace on this issue.315
172. On 7 December 2005, the World Service wrote again to tell us that the Nepali Service transmissions had resumed on Radio Sagarmatha FM.316 This we understand came about after a petition was filed by the Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists, a non- governmental group that runs Radio Sagarmatha FM. It had challenged the government’s order prohibiting re-broadcast of BBC Nepali over the FM station. The Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the government to lift its ban on BBC Nepali pending a final verdict.
173. During the disruption to the BBC Nepali service through FM distribution all shortwave broadcasts in English and Nepali remained unaffected. Audience measurement undertaken in Nepal at the end 2004 (before the ban was introduced) indicated that the vast majority of listeners to the Nepali Service (719,000 out of 759,000) tune in to shortwave broadcasts, which have not been affected by the ordinance by the Nepalese government. Furthermore, the World Service stated that the reduced availability of news
311 HC Deb, 31 October 2005, col 752W 312 Q 136 313 Q 136 314 Ev 72 315 Ev 72 316 Ev 72
Public Diplomacy 61
from domestic Nepali radio stations may have increased listeners’ reliance on shortwave broadcasts.317
174. We recommend that the Foreign Office set out in response to this Report the latest position regarding the disruption of the BBC World Service’s Nepali service and its assessment of the likely impact on the World Service’s broadcasts in both Nepali and in English in Nepal if the government’s proposed new media ordinance comes into effect.
Closure of the BBC World Service in Uzbekistan 175. In November last year the World Service had to suspend its operations in Uzbekistan owing to security concerns and the “harassment” of its Uzbek staff.318 It closed its office in Tashkent and withdrew seven staff because of intimidation by the Uzbek authorities. The Uzbek Government had been cracking down on foreign journalists ever since their reporting of government troops’ suppression of an uprising in Andizhan in May 2005.319
176. The World Service bureau in Tashkent handles material for the Russian, Kyrgyz and Kazakh services as well as for the domestic service. In a written note, the Service told us that it remained committed to covering events in Uzbekistan, and stated that the BBC English language correspondents would continue to seek access to the country and to report on events there as and when they are granted visas.320 During oral evidence, Nigel Chapman told us that all his Uzbek staff had had to leave or resign from their positions for reasons of personal safety.321 He said that the Service had raised the matter with Uzbek ambassador in London, who had denied there was any problem.322
177. Nigel Chapman explained that the World Service continued to provide radio services in Uzbek to the people of Uzbekistan through short wave and medium wave distribution, but that the degree to which the BBC could report events inside that country was severely restricted. In November, Mr Chapman had no confidence that the situation was going to get better quickly.323
178. We asked the World Service what pressure the Foreign Office and FCO Ministers were putting on their opposite numbers in Tashkent to ensure that the matter was righted as quickly as possible.324 The BBC World Service believed that the British Embassy and Ambassador in Tashkent had been “particularly helpful and supportive since the start of the troubles.”325
317 Ev 54 318 Q 138 319 “'Harassed' BBC shuts Uzbek office”, BBC news online, available at:www.news.bbc.co.uk/ 320 Ev 71 321 Q 138 322 Q 138 323 Q 138 324 Ev 71 325 Ev 71
62 Public Diplomacy
179. We conclude that the security and safety of staff must always be a top priority for the BBC World Service and we believe that it was right for the BBC World Service to close its bureau in Tashkent owing to the attacks and intimidation reported by its journalists last year. We commend the actions taken so far by the Foreign Office on behalf of the BBC and the World Service and recommend that the FCO continue to make strong representations to the Government of Uzbekistan. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO indicate whether there is any near-term prospect of the World Service’s bureau reopening in Uzbekistan.
Online services and new digital interactive services 180. In its submission to our inquiry, the World Service indicates a sizeable shift towards distribution via new technology platforms.326 It wants to deliver broadband video news reports in vernacular languages and make them available as downloads on PCs, mobiles and other platforms.327 Its high priorities for video investment will be in Arabic, Persian (Farsi), Portuguese (for Brazil), Russian and Spanish.
181. The World Service currently provides eight online language services in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Persian (Farsi), Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Urdu. Last year, approximately six and half million people a week used its online services.328 Monthly page impressions to the BBC’s international news site, including bbcnews.com, increased to 351 million in August 2005 from 284 million a year previously, an increase of 67 million.329 Nonetheless, in his statement in the 2004–05 annual report Nigel Chapman noted that:
International traffic to the BBC’s online services grew to 324 million page impressions in March 2005, up from 279 million a year earlier. Although the annual increase was lower than expected, the rise in the number of individual users was higher, growing 29% from 16.6 million to 21.5 million.330
182. We were told that some of the BBC’s international internet services have found it more difficult to make an impact, for example in China, where the Mandarin and English- language services are routinely blocked by the Chinese authorities.331 On the other hand, in Brazil online services now attract larger audiences than radio. Consequently, the Portuguese service in Brazil will become internet-only.332 Nigel Chapman explained to the Lords Committee on Review of the BBC Charter that:
Our minimum position about audience … is that we want to reach out to decision- makers and opinion-formers, people who are actually going to influence … the future of that society, so we are definitely getting to a younger group of these people by new media investment. Obviously, we have withdrawn some funds from radio to
326 Ev 51, para 3.2.2 327 Ibid 328 Q 142 329 Ev 48 330 BBC World Service Annual Review 2004/05, June 2005, p 5 331 Q 152 332 Ev 51, para 3.1.3
Public Diplomacy 63
do it, as in the Brazilian service, and there is a risk that some older listeners to the BBC’s Portuguese service will no longer be able to access it. There is definitely a down side to that, but in the end this is the sort of juggling act that one has to do in making our priorities.333
In January 2005, the BBC’s Brazilian website registered 14.3 million page impressions, up more than 120 per cent in a year. The World Service is also pioneering the introduction of video content in Brazil.334
183. We conclude that if the BBC World Service is to sustain its position as the best known and most respected international broadcaster it must take every opportunity to exploit new technology in order to keep pace with changing consumer preferences. We commend the BBC World Service’s vision for new investment in digital services and believe that extra investment in new media will be vital in the future if the Service is to see a growth in audiences.
333 HL (2005–06) 128–II, Q 854 334 Ev 48
64 Public Diplomacy
Formal minutes
Wednesday 29 March 2006
Members present:
Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr Greg Pope Mr David Heathcoat- Mr Ken Purchase Amory Sir John Stanley Mr John Horam Gisela Stuart Mr Eric Illsley Richard Younger-Ross Andrew Mackinlay Sandra Osborne
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Public Diplomacy), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 34 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 35 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 36 to 38 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 39 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 40 to 45 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 46 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 47 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 48 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 49 and 50 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 51 to 56 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 57 to 61 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 62 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 63 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 64 read, amended and agreed to.
Public Diplomacy 65
Paragraphs 65 and 66 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 and 68 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 69 to 73 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 74 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 75 and 76 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 77 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 78 and 79 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 80 to 83 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 84 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 85 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 86 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 87 to 90 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 91 to 100 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 101 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 102 to 104 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 105 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 106 to 111 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 112 and 113 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 114 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 115 to 117 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 118 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 119 and 120 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 121 to 123 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 124 and 125 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 126 read, as follows:
We conclude that the reduction in the World Service’s language range, which mirrored the direction given by Government, was regrettable but broadly the right decision on a cost-benefit basis and in the light of the need to invest resources in a new Arabic television service. We recommend that the World Service in consultation with the Foreign Office review regularly
66 Public Diplomacy
its language services for impact and financial value but do its utmost to preserve its language services upon which so many depend for trustworthy news and information.
An Amendment made.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from the word “regrettable” to the word “We” in line 4.—(Sir John Stanley.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 6 Noes, 2
Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr Eric Illsley Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Mr Greg Pope Mr John Horam Andrew Mackinlay Mr Ken Purchase Sir John Stanley
Other Amendments made.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 127 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 128 and 129 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 130 and 131 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 132 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 133 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 134 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 135 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 136 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 137 to 139 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 140 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 141 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 142 to 144 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 145 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 146 read and agreed to.
Public Diplomacy 67
Paragraph 147 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 148 to 160 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 161 and 162 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 163 and 164 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 165 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 166 to 173 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 174 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 175 to 177 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 178 and 179 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 180 to 182 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 183 read, amended and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No.134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.
Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.—(The Chairman.)
[Adjourned till Wednesday 19 April at 9.30am.
68 Public Diplomacy
List of witnesses
Wednesday 12 October 2005 Page
Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, a Member of the House of Lords, Chairman, Sir David Green KCMG, Director-General, and Mr Martin Davidson, Deputy Director-General, British Council Ev 10
Wednesday 9 November 2005
Mr Nigel Chapman, Director, and Ms Alison Woodhams, Chief Operating Officer and Director of Finance, BBC World Service Ev 54
Wednesday 8 February 2006
Lord Carter of Coles, a Member of the House of Lords Ev 74
Public Diplomacy 69
List of written evidence
British Council
Memorandum Ev 1 Chevening scheme Ev 5 Accountability Ev 22 Supplementary evidence following oral evidence session Ev 25 Counterpoint website Ev 30 Annual Report 2004-05 Ev 30 Activity in Iraq Ev 37 Activity in Afghanistan Ev 39 Activity in Russia Ev 41 Public Diplomacy Board Ev 42 Staffing Ev 43 Revenue-earning and grant-funded activity Ev 44
BBC World Service
Memorandum Ev 46 Nepali service Ev 54, 72 Hindi service Ev 54 Supplementary note following oral evidence Ev 70 Letter for Sir Andrew Burns to Lord Carter of Coles Ev 72
Letter from Mr Ramen Roy Ev 82 Letter from the Anglo-Thai Society Ev 82 Correspondence from Mr David Laws MP Ev 83, 84 Letter from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand Ev 85 Letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman Ev 86 Further letter from the Secretary of State to the Chairman Ev 87
3302621018 Page Type [SO] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence
Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee
on Wednesday 12 October 2005
Members present:
Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr Greg Pope Mr John Horam Mr Ken Purchase Mr Eric Illsley Sir John Stanley Mr Paul Keetch Ms Gisela Stuart Mr Andrew Mackay Richard Younger-Ross Andrew Mackinlay
Written evidence submitted by the British Council
Introduction The British Council’s work engages tens of millions of mostly young people in 109 countries around the world every year. Its purpose in doing so is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements.
In a world of continued instability, this international engagement makes the British Council one of the main instruments for securing the United Kingdom’s reputation abroad. It plays a fundamental role in the country’s public diplomacy by building mutually beneficial relationships, improving perceptions of the UK overseas, working for greater mutual understanding and building stronger, and more sustainable ties. The UK’s interests lie in attracting young high-achievers, who are likely to become future leaders in their own societies, into life-long contact with what the United Kingdom has to oVer in their selected professional field. We therefore work to give them access to the UK’s creativity and innovation, and provide them with opportunities to satisfy their aspirations for self-development. We also aim to ensure that the UK is recognised as the country of choice for partnering positive social change, ensuring the UK’s experience in areas such as governance and democracy, education reform, human rights and citizenship, is shared with practitioners in other countries. Our work aims to broaden the international view of the millions of young people we work with. In 2004–05, the Global Gateway for international education, which we designed and implemented, and currently run for the Department for Education and Skills, enabled 2,000 school links projects to be brokered, with agreements between the UK and 35 other countries. Our aim is also to provide access and open doors internationally to our UK partners. In a recent independent survey, 87% of our stakeholders said we opened doors for them overseas that no other institution could. The Grant-in-Aid provided to the British Council amounted to £172 million in 2004–05, and represented for approximately one third of the organisation’s turnover of £473 million. The Council’s impact is extended by drawing its target audiences into contact with the UK through the teaching of English, the administration of UK examinations, and the management of contract work on behalf of clients such as the Department for International Development, the Department for Education and Science, the devolved administrations and governments, and European Union institutions.
Issues Raised by the FCO’s Departmental Report for 2004–05
Assisting the FCO in meeting its strategic priorities We contribute to the strategic objectives of the FCO as our sponsoring department as well as by extending the reach of the UK’s public diplomacy through partnerships with a range of bodies including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, DfES (from which we also receive a grant for specific work), Sport England, Universities UK and the Arts Council for England. We do so under a Memorandum of Understanding with the FCO which encapsulates systems of consultation about planning and performance at corporate and country level, and which sets mechanisms and standards of assurance and accountability. 3302621001 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 2 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
In the FCO’s strategy, we are cited as a principal partner in meeting their objectives of a world safer from global terrorism, an eVective EU in a stable neighbourhood and sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights. But we also contribute to other objectives, namely work towards achieving an international system based on the rule of law, and the promotion of UK economic interests in an open and expanding global economy. The following lists examples of how we assisted the FCO in meeting its strategic objectives in 2004–05:
A world safer from global terrorism and WMD: In the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world, our work contributing to this objective is focused on developing ties and building understanding with young people and those who influence them. In Iraq, we gave top priority to building partnerships to end the country’s isolation in higher education, technical education and English language teaching. We gave training to more than 200 university presidents, lecturers, senior managers and ministry staV. We opened on-line information resource centres in four universities in Baghdad and Basra. We worked with 14 partner organisations in assisting women and marginalised groups in Iraqi society to participate in elections, through our management of DFID’s Political Participation Fund. We worked with the BBC World Service Trust in providing training for Iraqi journalists. We expanded our Connecting Futures programme building mutual understanding between young people in the UK and countries with large Muslim populations to 42 countries. 27,000 young people have now directly taken part in face-to-face projects on inter-cultural understanding, with millions more involved indirectly.
An international system based on the rule of law: Our governance work continued to use UK resources to assist in capacity building to protect and promote human rights and access to justice, combating corruption and supporting open and accountable government. We completed our four-year Socius programme building networks and capacity for governance in Latin America. We hosted a high-level delegation from Georgia to Northern Ireland which examined issues relating to policing and independent oversight mechanisms for policing. We continued working on a legal and judicial project in China using barristers from the UK to lead on advocacy skills training for Chinese prosecutors as the country moves towards introducing adversarial elements to its criminal justice system.
An eVective EU in a secure neighbourhood: Our work demonstrates the engagement of the UK in building partnerships and relationships for positive social change and modernisation in EU countries and in neighbouring states. We completed training programmes for senior civil servants from accession countries in understanding how to work within EU institutions, and collaborated with the FCO in the Crossroads for Ideas campaign welcoming accession states to membership. We launched the UK/South-East Europe forum, a three-year project to build ties between leading young professionals and decision-makers in eight countries in the region with their UK counterparts. We expanded our funding for work in the next group of applicants countries. In partnership with the Open Society Institute, we launched the Independent Commission on Turkey, under which prominent European figures broadened the debate about Turkey’s application by providing the foundations for an objective and impartial analysis of the surrounding issues.
Promotion of UK economic interests in an open and expanding global economy: We worked with the UK education sector to achieve the PSAtargets of 50,000 a dditional Higher Education and 25,000 Further Education students from non-EU countries by March 2005. We continued our work with the UK creative sector to build links for young high achievers and decision-makers and influencers in transitional countries for the development of creative industries, focusing on digital industries, design, fashion, music and the performing arts. In partnership with the DfES and HSBC, we expanded educational co-operation with China, increasing the school links and Mandarin teaching projects in UK schools and colleges.
Sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights: We launched the InterAction programme for transformational leadership in Africa and providing greater access for to up to 40,000 civil society leaders to international agencies through tailor-made English learning resources. The Access to Justice programme in Northern Nigeria, which we manage on behalf of DFID, is promoting women’s rights through the Sharia law system, changing attitudes to children’s rights, abuse, divorce, economic rights, inheritance and political participation. 3302621001 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3
Security of UK and global energy supplies: We launched Zero Carbon City, a two-year initiative designed to encourage people and institutions of the world’s large cities to work together and increase awareness about global warming and the steps that can be taken by urban citizens to reduce pollution. In 2004–05, our work reflected the international themes selected by the United Kingdom for the year of its presidencies of the European Union and the G8. The Zero Carbon City exhibition, which we anticipate will reach eight million people over two years, was shown at the Gleneagles summit, and will also be used at the EU summit at the end of the UK presidency, to raise awareness amongst leaders and oYcials of the UK’s commitment on climate change. We worked closely with the Commission for Africa, attaching staV as it prepared its report. We strongly welcome its emphasis on the importance of global recognition for Africa’s creativity and are reassessing our work in science in the region as a consequence of its recommendations.
Greater flexibility to move resources We recognise that in a globalised world where change happens rapidly and across national frontiers, we need the ability to move resources quickly to meet the UK’s international priorities. 2004–05 was the penultimate year of five-year 2005 strategy which has moved Grant-in-Aid resources from western Europe and other developed countries into transitional countries (particularly in central and eastern Europe) and to Russia and China. Since 2001–02, we have been churning Grant-funded resources further to meet new priorities, such as the Middle East (including Iraq), sub-Saharan Africa, EU borderland countries, Afghanistan, India and China, and will continue to do so in the 2005–06 to 2007–08 triennium. To achieve this flexibility, we have launched a new five-year strategy, called Strategy 2010, which will enable us to move resources more rapidly to where priorities dictate, and to where there is relevant demand from those target audiences we seek to engage with.
EYciency Our 2010 strategy is at the heart of our drive for increased eYciency, and for ensuring that we can shift resources into front-line services. We have presented our plans for achieving 2.5% eYciencies for each year in the 2005–06 to 2007–08 triennium to the OYce of Government. The latest OGC moderation panel assessment has described delivery of the plans as at amber/green, showing strong evidence of project management of the eYciency programme. The eYciency gains are taking place in reduced administration costs. Anew globa l integrated Finance and Business System (FABS), will remove the need for more than twenty diVerent finance platforms. The first phase was successfully rolled out in the UK earlier this year, and international implementation will continue up to 2007. Grouping up the management of our 109 overseas country operations into 13 regional structures will increase eYciency of programme and services delivery. At the same time, the strategy will sharpen the focus of our work by ensuring that activity contributes towards the three defined outcomes we have set ourselves, of improved perceptions of the UK in other countries; greater mutual understanding between the UK and other countries, and stronger ties between the UK and other countries.
Co-ordination of public diplomacy In July 2004, the Treasury and the FCO jointly commissioned a review into the co-ordination of public diplomacy under Lord Carter of Coles. We made a detailed submission to the review in March 2005 called “The British Council and Public Diplomacy”, which was sent to the committee before the dissolution of Parliament and the General Election. We have argued that editorial and managerial independence, within a framework of strategic direction by the sponsoring department, the FCO, is central to the UK’s public diplomacy institutions being able to build trust with audiences internationally. The ability of the British Council to be able to work with a range of Government departments, non-Governmental partners such as the higher and further education sector, and with wider civil society are central to its purpose of building long-term sustainable relationships between the UK and other countries. Overseas publics value the objectivity and non-political nature of the engagement of the UK’s public diplomacy. Operating at arm’s length broadens the scope and range of people and partners we engage with. Ring-fencing of funding underpins the ability of the British Council to deliver on its objectives in an eYcient and eVective manner. These central principles should in our view be maintained in any new structures for co-ordination which arise from recommendations from the review. Since 2002, the UK’s public diplomacy has worked under a public diplomacy strategy which has aimed to understand and improve foreign perceptions of the UK. We believe that this should be extended to acknowledge the importance of relationship-building between the UK and other countries. We also believe 3302621001 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 4 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
it is fundamental for operating overseas that the UK’s public diplomacy institutions are seen as encompassing a broad canvass of the UK’s interests and partnerships overseas. We therefore believe that the definition of public diplomacy recommended by the Wilton review of 2002, which states that public diplomacy is “work which aims at influencing in a positive way the perceptions of individuals and organisations overseas about the UK, and their engagement with the UK”, rightly acknowledges the role public diplomacy plays for all UK institutions and broader society. As one of the main contributors to public diplomacy activity and as a member of the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, we are committed to continued improvements in co-ordination of the UK’s public diplomacy eVort. Our objective is to ensure maximum synergy, clarity of roles, and increased impact for public diplomacy on the one hand, while ensuring that the reach of the British Council and its ability to continue to generate trust among its partners, customers and users is nurtured. We also demonstrated that, in our 70th anniversary year, we were still very much at the forefront of developing thinking and best practice in public diplomacy. We mounted the world’s first international conference on cultural relations, called Eye to Eye, at which 10 collections of essays by UK and international specialists in subjects such as faith and secularism, public trust in science, and intercultural dialogue, were launched. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, delivered our second annual lecture, choosing “Britishness” as his theme.
Additional work in the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan Our role in the Middle East and North Africa is to build trust and mutual respect with a range of partners and relevant audience groups. Our Connecting Futures programme has directly involved tens of thousands of young people in face-to-face projects exploring issues of identity, expression and inter-cultural understanding, with wider activities reaching millions. While building long-term sustainable relationships, we also engage in dialogue with a broad constituency of influencers who are attracting increasing numbers of young people to more radical religious or nationalist ideologies. We have increased the priority of both the Near East and North Africa, and the Middle East regions, by expanding Grant-in-Aid funding from £7.9 million in 2003–04 to £14.2 million in 2006–07. We also work to provide increased educational opportunity to a region where the average age of many countries’ populations is as low as 17. In 2004–05, we continued our work with Governments in the region in encouraging education reform, an essential prerequisite to longer-term economic development. With increased connectivity taking place, we launched the first site to oVer on-line free-of-charge service supporting the learning of English for learners with Arabic as their main language. The British Council has joined the cross-Whitehall group co-ordinating the UK’s education initiatives in the Broader Middle East and North Africa region. We believe there is considerable scope for undertaking reform to education systems, but this needs the full endorsement of host governments and participation by civil society partners. This can only be achieved by proposed programmes being sensitive to the cultural and social contexts of the countries concerned, with working taking place within a framework of mutual benefit. Despite the diYcult operating environments in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have expanded the number of university resource centres to provide a greater flow of international information for the higher education sector. We have improved access to English for civil servants and school children, brokered international links for academics, provided training for journalists (in collaboration with the BBC World Service Trust) and assisted NGOs aiming to empower women in civil society. In Iraq, our priority has been to re-build international links for the country’s education system after years of enforced isolation. More than 200 university presidents, college lecturers, senior managers and ministry staV participated in British Council-supported training and development. We also managed the DFID’s political participation fund, running projects aimed at enabling women, the poor and other marginalised groups to take part more eVectively in elections.
Increased priorities in China and India The economic growth of both China and India provides new challenges for our work in these two countries. China is now the largest and fastest-growing international education market in the world. China will remain a top priority for the British Council in terms of building further educational and cultural links with the UK. In five years, we have achieved a ten-fold increase in students to 30,000 by 2004. There is some evidence this year, however, of a US recovery in the China market, and the UK will need to refine its marketing approach to ensure students are attracted to appropriate institutions and courses. On his recent visit to Beijing, the Prime Minister signed a new cultural agreement with the Chinese Government, which extends cultural co-operation through to 2009, beyond the Beijing Olympics. The British Council has assisted the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert museums to sign co-operation agreements with Chinese institutions. Both the Olympics of 2008 and the Shanghai Expo of 2010 provide opportunities for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to building additional ties with China. 3302621001 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5
In India, our 11 public access centres are already used by 15,000 people every day. But we believe that India’s economic prospects and the objective of increasing ties between the UK and India justify further increases in funding up to 2007–08. After a period in which young Indians looked towards the United States for post-graduate and other educational opportunities, we are now working closely with the British High Commission on an initiative which will strengthen educational ties at all levels between the UK and India. Anew educational agreement was signed by the Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart on his recent visit to New Delhi. We have identified further groups of young professionals in 22 medium-sized Indian cities who our research shows see the UK as a reliable provider of educational opportunities for self-development. Our goal is to provide access to good quality, aVordable, educational opportunities sourced from the UK to this extensive group.
Sport—Olympics We view the successful bid by London to host the 2012 Olympics as an excellent opportunity to build increased international understanding amongst young people in the UK and other participating countries, not just during the Games themselves, but in the years building up to the event. We will be co-operating closely with the London Olympics Governing Committee to ensure this takes place not just in sport, but also in education and culture as well. Our Dreams and Teams programme, run in partnership with the Youth Sports Trust and the DfES, will have trained 40,000 young sports leaders internationally by the end of 2006. This will provide an excellent platform for ensuring that the building of sports leadership forms a major part of the international dimension of activities surrounding the Games themselves.
Improving security for staV, premises and users of our public-access centres Following increased concern about terrorist attacks overseas against British interests, including those on the British Consulate-General and HSBC in Istanbul, the Treasury awarded the British Council additional funding to improve security of £4 million and 2004–05 and £6 million in 2005–06. This has enabled security improvements to take place at 75 locations so far, including five moves to more secure premises. Work is still in progress on the current year’s programme of improvements. 6 October 2005
Further written evidence submitted by the British Council
2003–04 NEW CHEVENING SCHOLARS BY COUNTRY
Central Jointly Country Main Funded Total
Afghanistan 15 5 20 Albania 8 5 13 Angola 3 0 3 Argentina 16 7 23 Armenia 5 1 6 Australia 17 14 31 Azerbaijan 6 3 9 Bahamas 2 1 3 Bahrain 21 0 21 Bangladesh 13 2 15 Barbados 2 1 3 Belarus 3 8 11 Belize 3 0 3 Bhutan 0 1 1 Bolivia 3 3 6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 8 5 13 Botswana 5 2 7 Brazil 66 6 72 British Virgin Islands 1 0 1 Brunei 6 0 6 Bulgaria 11 14 25 Burma 16 0 16 Cambodia 3 0 3 Cameroon 7 3 10 Canada 16 11 27 3302621002 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 6 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Central Jointly Country Main Funded Total
Cayman Islands 3 0 3 Chile 12 1 13 China (including Hong Kong) 215 96 311 Colombia 18 2 20 Costa Rica 4 0 4 Croatia 9 22 31 Cuba 3 0 3 Cyprus 15 0 15 Czech Republic 10 4 14 Dominica 1 0 1 Dominican Republic 8 0 8 East Timor 2 0 2 Ecuador 2 0 2 Egypt 38 2 40 Eritrea 0 1 1 Estonia 8 1 9 Ethiopia 12 0 12 Fiji 6 0 6 Gambia 3 0 3 Georgia 6 4 10 Ghana 12 4 16 Grenada 1 0 1 Guatemala 3 0 3 Guyana 5 1 6 Honduras 1 0 1 Hungary 28 7 35 Iceland 7 0 7 India 100 21 121 Indonesia 70 4 74 Iran 11 3 14 Iraq 8 0 8 Israel 14 1 15 Ivory Coast 3 0 3 Jamaica 6 2 8 Japan 13 1 14 Jordan 18 9 27 Kazakhstan 10 6 16 Kenya 12 8 20 Kiribati 0 1 1 Korea, South 68 3 71 Kosovo 5 8 13 Kuwait 1 0 1 Kyrgyzstan 3 2 5 Latvia 6 5 11 Lebanon 5 4 9 Lesotho 4 1 5 Libya 5 0 5 Lithuania 6 3 9 Luxembourg 10 0 10 Madagascar 4 0 4 Malawi 7 6 13 Malaysia 48 8 56 Maldives 1 0 1 Mali 1 0 1 Malta 10 0 10 Mauritius 4 1 5 Mexico 67 1 68 Moldova 2 4 6 Mongolia 6 1 7 Montserrat 2 0 2 Morocco 6 0 6 Mozambique 5 0 5 Namibia 3 0 3 Nepal 7 3 10 New Zealand 4 8 12 3302621002 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7
Central Jointly Country Main Funded Total
Nicaragua 2 0 2 Nigeria 28 11 39 Norway 5 0 5 Oman 11 0 11 Pakistan 50 12 62 Panama 1 0 1 Papua New Guinea 3 0 3 Paraguay 4 0 4 Peru 6 1 7 Philippines 12 1 13 Poland 26 3 29 Qatar 3 0 3 Romania 15 14 29 Russia 48 32 80 Rwanda 4 0 4 Saudi Arabia 12 1 13 Senegal 4 0 4 Serbia and Montenegro 7 14 21 Seychelles 4 2 6 Sierra Leone 3 1 4 Singapore 13 1 14 Slovakia 5 7 12 Slovenia 7 0 7 Solomon Islands 2 0 2 South Africa 19 15 34 Sri Lanka 6 2 8 St. Helena 1 0 1 St. Lucia 1 1 2 Sudan 8 5 13 Swaziland 6 1 7 Switzerland 5 0 5 Syria 22 2 24 Taiwan 18 1 19 Tajikistan 3 4 7 Tanzania 5 4 9 Thailand 23 2 25 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9 5 14 Tonga 2 0 2 Trinidad and Tobago 5 5 10 Tunisia 9 1 10 Turkey 44 5 49 Turkmenistan 6 0 6 Uganda 8 14 22 Ukraine 13 25 38 United Arab Emirates 2 0 2 United States 0 2 2 Uruguay 4 1 5 Uzbekistan 3 9 12 Vanuatu 2 0 2 Venezuela 17 4 21 Vietnam 15 5 20 West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip 9 1 10 Yemen 6 0 6 Zambia 10 2 12 Zimbabwe 15 20 35 Total 1,814 587 2,401
Note: This table does not include the 65 main scheme or the 12 Central Jointly-Funded Chevening scholars (from 2002–03) continuing their studies in the UK in 2003–04. 3302621003 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 8 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
2004–05 NEW CHEVENING SCHOLARS AND FELLOWS BY COUNTRY
Country Central Main Jointly-Funded Fellows Total
Afghanistan 10 3 4 17 Albania 8 5 0 13 Algeria 1 0 0 1 Angola 3 0 0 3 Antigua 1 1 0 2 Argentina 14 3 0 17 Armenia 3 5 2 10 Australia 11 13 0 24 Azerbaijan 4 3 0 7 Bahamas 1 1 0 2 Bahrain 16 0 2 18 Bangladesh 6 4 2 12 Barbados 1 2 0 3 Belarus 2 9 0 11 Belize 3 0 0 3 Bhutan 0 1 0 1 Bolivia 3 4 0 7 Bosnia and Herzegovina 7 5 0 12 Botswana 4 1 0 5 Brazil 51 12 0 63 British Virgin Islands 1 0 0 1 Brunei 2 0 0 2 Bulgaria 8 12 1 21 Burma 2 0 0 2 Cambodia 3 0 0 3 Cameroon 5 4 0 9 Canada 17 9 0 26 Cayman Islands 1 0 0 1 Chile 10 3 0 13 China (including Hong Kong) 175 102 0 277 Colombia 13 5 0 18 Costa Rica 2 0 0 2 Croatia 7 25 1 33 Cuba 4 0 0 4 Cyprus 17 0 0 17 Czech Republic 13 5 0 18 Dominica 0 1 0 1 Dominican Republic 5 0 0 5 East Timor 3 0 1 4 Ecuador 2 0 0 2 Egypt 35 1 3 39 El Salvador 1 0 0 1 Estonia 5 2 0 7 Ethiopia 8 0 2 10 Fiji 3 1 0 4 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9 3 0 12 Gambia 3 0 1 4 Georgia 7 6 2 15 Ghana 13 6 1 20 Guatemala 5 0 0 5 Guyana 5 5 0 10 Hungary 10 5 0 15 Iceland 8 0 0 8 India 87 43 1 131 Indonesia 54 5 1 60 Iran 8 2 2 12 Iraq 43 5 0 48 Israel 12 0 0 12 Ivory Coast 2 0 0 2 Jamaica 5 4 0 9 Japan 5 0 0 5 3302621003 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9
Country Central Main Jointly-Funded Fellows Total
Jordan 12 7 3 22 Kazakhstan 6 8 0 14 Kenya 10 6 5 21 Kiribati 0 0 1 1 Korea, South 59 8 0 67 Kosovo 6 8 0 14 Kuwait 2 0 2 4 Kyrgyzstan 4 2 0 6 Latvia 8 2 0 10 Lebanon 5 4 3 12 Lesotho 4 0 0 4 Libya 5 0 2 7 Lithuania 5 2 0 7 Luxembourg 5 0 0 5 Madagascar 4 0 0 4 Malawi 7 5 0 12 Malaysia 30 6 6 42 Malta 17 0 0 17 Mauritius 4 2 0 6 Mexico 54 2 1 57 Moldova 2 5 1 8 Mongolia 4 2 1 7 Montserrat 2 0 0 2 Morocco 5 0 1 6 Mozambique 5 1 0 6 Namibia 4 0 0 4 Nepal 3 0 2 5 New Zealand 3 5 0 8 Nicaragua 2 0 0 2 Nigeria 27 8 5 40 Oman 14 0 0 14 Pakistan 39 13 3 55 Panama 1 0 0 1 Papua New Guinea 4 2 0 6 Paraguay 2 0 0 2 Peru 5 1 0 6 Philippines 10 3 3 16 Poland 21 2 0 23 Romania 11 15 0 26 Russia 36 17 1 54 Rwanda 3 0 0 3 Saudi Arabia 15 1 1 17 Senegal 5 0 0 5 Serbia and Montenegro 6 9 0 15 Seychelles 2 0 0 2 Sierra Leone 0 1 0 1 Singapore 9 2 1 12 Slovakia 8 1 0 9 Slovenia 12 2 0 14 Solomon Islands 1 0 1 2 South Africa 22 10 0 32 Sri Lanka 1 3 0 4 St. Vincent 1 0 0 1 Sudan 4 1 6 11 Swaziland 4 0 1 5 Syria 20 5 1 26 Taiwan 11 1 0 12 Tajikistan 2 4 0 6 Tanzania 3 3 2 8 Thailand 17 3 0 20 Tonga 1 1 0 2 Trinidad and Tobago 3 3 0 6 Tunisia 6 0 0 6 Turkey 47 4 4 55 Turkmenistan 5 1 0 6 3302621003 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 10 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Country Central Main Jointly-Funded Fellows Total
Uganda 6 9 0 15 Ukraine 11 16 0 27 United Arab Emirates 2 0 1 3 United States 0 1 0 1 Uruguay 5 0 0 5 Uzbekistan 4 12 1 17 Vanuatu 1 0 0 1 Venezuela 11 1 0 12 Vietnam 17 5 1 23 West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and 9 6 0 15 Gaza Strip Yemen 7 0 1 8 Zambia 6 7 0 13 Zimbabwe 17 32 0 49 Total 1,518 606 87 2,211
Note: This table does not include the 54 main scheme or the 13 Central Jointly-Funded Cheveni.
Witnesses: Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, a Member of the House of Lords, Chairman, Sir David Green KCMG, Director-General, and Mr Martin Davidson, Deputy Director-General, British Council, examined.
Q1 Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you for coming have collaborated closely with the BBC World today. I would like to welcome you to the first public Service. We have provided training for hundreds of evidence session of the new Foreign AVairs Select senior university managers, education ministry staV, Committee, and my first as well. I am very pleased teachers, media technicians and journalists. We have that we have got the British Council here today and delivered more than 50 tonnes of books to we have got a large agenda to cover with lots of universities and set up educational resource centres interesting areas to explore. Perhaps we could begin, in universities in Baghdad and Basra. We have Lord Kinnock, with an introduction to your worked with women’s groups and excluded colleagues and you could set out to us what you see minorities in projects that are particularly geared to as the priorities for yourself and the British Council, increasing electoral participation. Obviously, all of as its Chairman, and the main challenges that you these activities continue to flourish. In China we are facing at this time. have helped to make the United Kingdom become a Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: Thank you, Chairman. major competitor to the United States of America as Can I first say that we are grateful to you and to your the destination of choice for international students, Committee colleagues for the invitation to appear and there are currently 48,000 Chinese students and, of course, I think it is fitting, as you indicated, studying in our country, most at under-graduate to add that we celebrate with you your assumption level. In Russia around 300,000 people use our of the Chair and your first public session of this centres every year, so we are a vital source of Committee—the first, I trust, of many. I suppose dependable information about the United Kingdom you are living evidence of the fact that in politics it and educational opportunities. Afurther 200,000 is possible to lose your maidenhood twice, and so I Russian citizens take part in our various congratulate you on that too. With me are Sir David programmes. We are having a major impact on Green, the Director-General of the British Council, educational reform, with 50% of Russian who several of you will know, and Mr Martin schoolchildren learning English from British Davidson, who has recently been appointed as the Council textbooks and about 35,000 teachers have Deputy Director-General of the British Council so far taken part in our education workshops. In after several years and extensive experience working sub-Saharan Africa our interaction leadership for the Council both at home and abroad. The programmes are providing essential opportunities Committee, Chairman, has seen our submission for young, potential leaders in 19 countries, to dealing with issues raised in the FCO’s annual report develop their skills. These are brief samples of our and, obviously, we are very happy to take any activities and, of course, they are undertaken at a questions from Committee Members on that. time in several places where there are great Perhaps I could begin, as you indicate, Chairman, by challenges. For instance, challenges that come from briefly outlining some of our current priority the need for greater inter-cultural understanding, activities against the background, I must say, of a particularly with countries with large Muslim further year of substantial achievements. In Iraq we populations, including those in Asia. The challenges have been making a significant contribution to come from capacity in relationship-building in the rebuild the country’s capacity in education and in EU candidate countries, as we did in the last of the fostering free reporting media, where obviously we accession states between 1989 and 2004. Challenges 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson also come from the need to ensure that the United there are some students from some countries that do Kingdom continues to be a favoured destination for not actually integrate all that much with British overseas students despite increasingly tough society, and I think that is something we should competition. We are fully committed in these and in tackle, but it would require resources to do that. A many other areas where we provide the tangibles of second area where we are—and I think in common educational enablement, of broadly manifested with many organisations—trying to work out better cultural access and opportunity and of governance ways of engagement is between the United Kingdom training in a variety of forms in order to develop and young people in countries with large Muslim mutually productive understanding and to earn a populations, and we have had a successful sustained high regard for the United Kingdom. programme called Connecting Futures which is Finally, Chairman, if I can say, as the Committee engaged with young Muslims across the world and might expect, we now experience some diYculties in interacting them with young people in the United undertaking our work in countries where security Kingdom. There has been a huge increase in mutual has become more problematic, but to their great understanding as a result of that engagement, but I credit our staV resolutely feel that we must keep faith still think there is a lot more that we can do and we with the people of those nations and we, therefore, are beginning to develop ideas based on the learning continue with eVorts to help people build their that we have had from various experiences through futures. In doing that, of course, we contribute bringing young people together in forums, through directly to generating durable trust internationally volunteer exchange programmes, through seminars for the United Kingdom with all of the advantages and workshops and a whole range of diVerent that flow from it. As you will see from our accounts, activities. However, there is more we can do and we Chairman, over 60% of our total resources are self- have begun to develop ideas in that area. So I think generated and the rest comes from grant-in-aid. those are two areas where I would like to see more That is around 3p per head of the population of our emphasis given. country per year. Our modernised systems of management ensure that the money is properly and accountably spent. We welcome your questions, Q3 Chairman: Can I ask you about your programme Chairman. for EU accession countries? You referred to that. Do you think that that is likely to be reduced as you change your emphasis? Are there some areas where Q2 Chairman: You have listed some of the areas there will be a reduction in your activity as a result where, clearly, you regard the Council’s work as of trying to deal with other areas? being very successful. Are there any areas where you Sir David Green: I think this is one for Martin, have been less successful than expected? Have you actually, seeing as he had responsibility for Europe any thoughts, apart from the security issue you have until very recently. touched on, on the reasons why that might be? Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: I would like my Mr Davidson: We put a substantial amount of new colleagues to come in on this. One point I would resource into our work in the new accession make is the obvious point: as an organisation that countries about five years ago and I think over the generates £1.76 for every £1 we get in public next two years we would expect to see the level of support—absolutely vital and highly valued public resource in those countries remain broadly steady, support and grant-in-aid—it is clear that there are but after that I think we would expect to begin to see areas in which we could beneficially extend our money coming out of those parts of the operations activities if we were not as resource-constrained as and moving into other parts. I think likely shifts in we are. We understand the reasons for that and we resource over the next period are likely to be in the do not protest about that—it would be unreasonable amount of money we put into Western Europe, and to do so—but if we identify areas in which we the amount of money we put into the new accession encounter some frustration most of it relates to the countries in Central Europe in preference for fact that we could and would like to do more to meet moving those resources into higher priority parts of rising demand in many areas, educational, cultural the world, in particular the Middle East and parts of and particularly in the area of governance training, Africa. One part of Europe where I think we are much in demand across the world. likely to maintain our resourcing for the immediate Sir David Green: If I could mention two areas where future will be in South East Europe, particularly in I think there is scope for increased engagement by the Balkans and Romania and Bulgaria, as those the British Council and, indeed, other organisations, countries again move into accession status. one is the experience that international students Sir David Green: Can I add on that, Chairman, that have when they come to this country. We are talking we have been running a United Kingdom South East of some 300,000 students studying at higher Europe forum over the last couple of years, which education level in the United Kingdom. I have some has engaged with a number of young politicians, concerns that their experience beyond their particularly, through our People and Politics academic experience is not as positive as it might be, programme; some 150 young politicians, including and I think there is more we could do to enhance from the United Kingdom, have been exploring their experience and make sure that they go away issues around people and politics, and there is from the United Kingdom not just having had a very another thread on youth action and a third thread good academic experience but, also, feeling very on creative cities. I think that has had a strong positive about the United Kingdom. We know that impact. 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 12 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson
Q4 Mr Mackay: Can I pick up two points? One Sir fees for those activities for which we charge fees, David has just made, which was about the British including a substantial part of English language Council spending funds ensuring that some foreign teaching; sponsorships and other forms of financial students that he feels do not completely gain the support that come from the private sector frequently British experience. Should that not really be done by because of our provision of vocational training and the universities and colleges of further education education for them at a level which is so satisfactory rather than you? Is there not a duplication? Is there that they repeat the contracts, and some any need for you to be spending money in this area? sponsorships (I think it was £11 million last year), Sir David Green: I think it is a joint responsibility. which collectively accounts for the remainder of our Some universities are extremely good at it and take total budget of just over £470 million. a lot of care over the social aspects of the university students’ engagement, but I think it is fair to say that that is not as consistent as it might be. I think if we, Q8 Mr Mackay: Do you anticipate that could be as the United Kingdom’s cultural relations improved further so that the British taxpayer and, organisation—and bearing in mind what we want is perhaps more significantly, the Foreign OYce, for those 300,000 students to go back to their which is having to close down embassies around the countries as ambassadors for the United Kingdom world, no longer have to? and we want to maintain that contact over the Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: No, we strive for years—want to make sure it is an extremely good maximum eYciency and where there are feasible experience, therefore, I think we do have some possibilities of securing revenue returns we exploit responsibility. those opportunities. We think it is a business-like way to approach things. Actually, the British Q5 Mr Mackay: But you would consider duplication Council greatly values the fact that it is only partially would be a bad use of public funds? dependent on grant-in-aid finance. We think it is a useful stimulus and discipline. The fact remains that Sir David Green: I think there are ways in which we Y can help in terms of helping the sharing of good even working at our maximum e ciency and even if practice and encouraging organisations like Host, we were able to engage in more revenue generating which is an NGO that we partially fund, which activities, there would be no case for diminishing the provides opportunities for students to stay and grant-in-aid, on two grounds: first of all, it directly spend time with United Kingdom families whilst relates to and is fire walled against any expenditure they are in the United Kingdom, so there are a that does not fall into the allowable categories for number of ways in which we can support them. I expenditure from grant-in-aid. So every penny of take your point, but I think this is about public that is spent on the basis of objectives agreed and diplomacy and about building good relations for the patterns of provision agreed with the Foreign and long term. The universities’ interest is obviously in Commonwealth OYce, which is highly agreeable giving them a good academic experience and and very beneficial. The second reason why a enriching the experience of other students within reduction would not be justified is the very one that their campus, and of course there is an issue of the we started the question with: the fact that we income that they bring. As I say, the best experience leverage the resource that is utterly dependable from that students have in the United Kingdom at many grant-in-aid resources so that we are an organisation universities is a positive one, but it is not as that can generate that additional value and those consistent as it could be. additional resources. So we would argue that very Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: As David indicated, it is good value for money is obtained from the public more a matter of universalisation of the best, and support that is provided. That value would probably there are some excellent models, than any possibility be reduced if the public support was reduced. of duplication. Q9 Mr Purchase: On this question of eYciency, I am Q6 Mr Mackay: May I now turn, Chairman, to enormously impressed, Lord Kinnock, with the idea Lord Kinnock’s remarks at the beginning? If I may of a 60% return on investment. I think that is quite say so, I thought the most significant point was extraordinary. Can I buy shares? that—and correct me if I misheard—for every Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: You have, you are a pound of public money put into the British Council British taxpayer. the British Council returns in kind £1.76. Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: An additional £1.76. Q10 Mr Purchase: In the meantime, because Q7 Mr Mackay: Can you explain that? eYciency is important and we do expect to get a Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: Yes. It is simply the proper return on money invested, what criteria does balance of our total budget. This year, for instance, the Council use to determine whether or not its we will receive £182 million from grant-in-aid presence is continuing to be worthwhile? What provided by Her Majesty’s Treasury on the FCO indicators do you look at? I take the view that you account, and we will generate roughly 60% more cannot trade with people you are not friends with, so than that by our own eVorts in an assortment of the work of the Council is enormously valuable to activities: acting as contract agents both for British British exports, but I wonder what range of ministries and for the European Commission and indicators you look at to determine continuing other international organisations; the collection of presence. 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson
Sir David Green: That is a very important area and go abroad and deal with the British Council, how we have done a good deal of work looking at what can I tell it is the British Council and not just the the indicators should be in order to measure our provider of English language teaching? impact, which is notoriously diYcult in an area like Sir David Green: Could you remind me of the first ours because, by definition, what we are seeking is a part of your question? long-term impact; we are about building long-term relationships and sometimes you do not see the Q12 Ms Stuart: Given that you describe yourself as benefits of the work that you are doing for several independent, what is your accountability in defining years. What we have done within the British Council what these beneficial relationships are? is to develop what we call a balance scorecard, so we Sir David Green: Our status is as a non-departmental look at a range of diVerent factors in terms of our public body (NDPB). We are also a charity set up by impact. I should just go back a stage: we have to Royal Charter. We have a board of trustees with a obviously base it all on what we are seeking to Chairman whose appointment is ratified by the achieve, and what we have done is to set the purpose Foreign Secretary, as is the Deputy Chairman. The of the British Council to build mutually beneficial board of trustees is the board that determines policy. relationships over the long term between people in We work to FCO strategic priorities because the the United Kingdom and people in other countries, Foreign and Commonwealth OYce is our and an increasing appreciation of the United sponsoring department—the department that we, as Kingdom’s ideas created by those achievements. We an NDPB relate to. So our work is in line with FCO have then split that down into a series of outcomes strategic priorities and we demonstrate how we work and then those outcomes are split further into a towards those. It has been generally acknowledged series of outputs. The first purpose is pretty that our eVectiveness is enhanced by what we call immeasurable but as you get down to the outputs this arms-length relationship with government, and you go to the level below that to the key which enables us to work in a number of countries in performance indicators then you are getting more areas of work which it would be much more diYcult and more measurable. Some aspects are very easy to for embassies and high commissioners to become measure. If, for instance, we are charged with engaged in. Therefore, in terms of the overall increasing the number of students coming into this contribution to public diplomacy it is very helpful country, which we were, through the Prime that we have this arms-length relationship with Minister’s initiative, and increasing them by 50,000 government and operate not independently but with at higher education and 25,000 at further that light relationship. There are lots of examples I education—you can easily measure whether or not could give which demonstrate why that has been that is done. So there are a number of quantitative very important, and in terms of building measures that we are able to use. We also want to use relationships between the United Kingdom and qualitative data as well, so we encourage our countries within the Middle East that has been programme staV and country directors to collect particularly important over recent years. One of the stories about what the impact has been. The fact that strengths of the British Council is that it has built up the President of Sierra Leone came on a scholarship trust over a period of 70 years, and the country benefits from that, and where there are diYculties in to the United Kingdom some 20 years ago is the short term, in terms of perhaps government something that we want to know and, obviously, is relations, then the fact that the British Council has relevant in terms of measuring our impact. So that very good relationships with people in those the balance scorecard looks at a whole range of countries is beneficial to the United Kingdom in the indicators from management indicators and long term. eYciency to factors related to our impacts and the extent to which we can change people’s perceptions about the United Kingdom. Q13 Chairman: I am conscious we have a number of other, rather important points, so I would like to bring in questions about the public diplomacy review which is ongoing. Q11 Ms Stuart: Sir David, you talk about beneficial Sir David Green: Chairman, I have not answered the relationships between the United Kingdom and second part. They are complex questions and it is other countries. By way of declaring an interest, I quite diYcult to be brief, but the second one is how was a trustee of other organisations like the would we know it was the British Council? Westminster Foundation and the British Association for East and Central Europe with grant- Q14 Ms Stuart: And not just an English language in-aid from the Foreign OYce. In those provider, which could be anybody. It is actually the organisations the determinator as to what this British Council. relationship should be works in close relationship Sir David Green: Because the English language part with the people who give us grant-in-aid. When we, is only one element of the work that we do. It is an as a Committee, go abroad the British Council important element but it is only a small part of it; it always appears terribly proud of being not an arm of is about a quarter to a third of our total business government. I would be really grateful if you could activity. More and more when you go into a British explain to me how you see your political Council premises you will see that there is a very accountability to the British taxpayer. The second wide range of activity on oVer and a whole host of thing is, if you could briefly touch on this, when we diVerent ways in which we want to engage with the 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 14 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson public in that country in order to make those flattery but for reasons of necessary public relationships that I have talked about. English reassurance. As Ms Stuart says, we are accountable language is one, the arts, science, governance, to the British taxpayer and part of our British examinations—a whole range would also be accountability is the result of an examination of the on oVer. More and more people coming to the kind undertaken by Lord Carter. Secondly, I would British Council get a wider view than a sort of one- like, on the basis of the examination that has now dimensional view which you might get in one or two been conducted over about 14 months, there to be countries where English language is more recognition that the degree of what I call predominant than other activities. independence with alliance that is a characteristic of Chairman: I suggest we come back to this point later the British Council is of direct value to the United on. We have got some other questions on our list Kingdom and the interests of the United Kingdom, that we want to ask, but I wanted to get in early on and therefore any shift in direction or attempted the Carter Review, and issues related to it. micromanagement would not achieve objectives of eYciency or sustain the essential characteristic of the British Council. I would also like to see it made Q15 Mr Keetch: On this public diplomacy point, you evident that improved co-ordination is not only an make the point that you are at arms length from the objective of the review but is something that we Government, and you represent Britain overseas; it strongly favour, as is improved measurement of Y is the job of the Foreign O ce to represent the outputs of public diplomacy by the various bodies, Government; you represent Britain, our culture and including government departments, engaged in that our history. Certainly I have seen you do that in this country. The Carter Review had those excellently in many countries that I have visited, and characteristics, and I will say, because of the I am sure Lord Kinnock, as a former Leader of the generous amount of time that Patrick Carter has Opposition in this place, would cherish that given to all people in all organisations aVected by it, distinction between the government-of-the day and that I think at least some of what I suggest will whatever political party and representing Britain. So feature (not in the same words, patently, or maybe can I ask about the Carter Review? You say in your with the same inflection) in the Carter Review. I memorandum that you have accepted the Wilton hope I am not misrepresenting at all. Those are the Review of 2002. We were expecting the Carter basic feelings that I have as a consequence of the Review to be published by now; we are told that in contact that we have had and the very strong eVorts fact the Government have asked for there to be a that Lord Carter and his colleagues have put into redraft. I wondered if you happen to know what the eVective consultation. I do not know if my redraft was about, what you hope would actually colleagues want to add anything. come from the Carter Review and where it will place you in the whole aspect of British diplomacy abroad. Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: We are, Chairman, Q16 Mr Keetch: Just to be specific on that, Lord slightly constrained in the response that we can Kinnock, the delay is not because of any redraft, the make for the very reason Mr Keetch says, that we delay is simply because the very excellent review is also had anticipated that by this auspicious date taking slightly longer than one anticipated, and you Patrick Carter would have produced his review. certainly, from your point of view or the British Certainly if hard work on his part and that of his Council’s point of view, have no concerns about the team could have guaranteed it, it would have been structure of how the review is being concluded and done. However, I have no news or knowledge of a how the process is moving on? Government-required redraft. What I am certain Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: I am certain that Lord has been taking place is that the whole approach Carter, who I think has appeared before this adopted by Lord Carter and his colleagues has been Committee and certainly has appeared before other characterised by consultation, and that can be a Committees of the House, will be happy if invited to time-consuming and painstaking activity not come and speak to the Committee to fill in the because there is an adversarial relationship but background. What would be a reasonable process in because simply to try to ensure that a review whose this review, obviously—because it is in no sense function it is, stated from the outset, to improve the adversarial, as I said—is that Lord Carter and his co-ordination of public diplomacy eVorts across the colleagues compile the initial conclusions and then piece involving government and the associated discuss the operational impact and receive the bodies, like ourselves and the World Service—with responses, digest them and then decide what they are that objective in mind—consultation is obviously going to recommend. As I say, this is a democratic reasonable. What we would like to see coming out of process and democracy almost invariably takes the review is, first, a recognition of the quality, and longer than the alternative, but thank God for that! I am actually pretty confident that that will be forthcoming in relation to the, I would say, Q17 Chairman: Do you have any indications as to incomparable quality, in the spheres in which we when the final version is going to be made public? operate, of the British Council. Certainly if we make Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: Not really, no, because a comparison between ourselves and our functions on the basis of assumptions, not because there was and the way we discharge them and comparable any deadline, we made assumptions that you and the bodies from other Western countries, they will general public would have possession of the report acknowledge the quality of our achievement. I before we actually turned up here. That has not would like to see that endorsed, not for reasons of occurred. I doubt we will have to wait much longer. 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson
I am sure a call from a body like this to Pat Carter specialisms who can then actually work with those would produce a much more precise response than sector specialisms in order to make sure that the any one that I am capable of giving. people we serve overseas get the best possible advice.
Q18 Chairman: Are you worried about any of the Q23 Mr Horam: I raise this question because I am recommendations that might be in this? sure you have seen this anonymous article in The Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: None that we can Daily Mail by an ex-employee who said: “One of my anticipate, actually. There has been a discussion line managers regarded typing an e-mail in a day as over a couple of months about the adequacy of what an achievement”, and abuse of the oYce time-oV-in- I will call the Wilton definition of public diplomacy, lieu system was widespread. but it is not a discussion about how many saints Sir David Green: I can respond quite firmly to that dance on the eye of a needle. Nevertheless, it does because actually I think that the staV in the British have significance, and that is understood by Lord Council work extraordinarily hard. There are bound Carter; he is totally aware of that. To profess to be, as in any organisation, one or two who, concerns or anxieties in that area would not be right perhaps, do not do as well as they might— because that is not what we feel as a Council, and Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: The reason for being the certainly I do not feel it and neither do my colleagues ex-employee. on the board of trustees feel it. Q24 Mr Horam: It could have been a whistle-blower. Q19 Mr Horam: Lord Kinnock, you said you want Sir David Green: By and large, the commitment that to do more and I would want you to do more we get from staV in the British Council is second to because I think the work you do is very important. I none. So you have all that sectoral experience that is am surprised, therefore, that you deploy 1,000 of required and engagement with diVerent sectors. We your employees, of 5,5001 employees in total, in the also obviously have all the administration, all the United Kingdom. finance, and we have to have a finance team covering Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: It is actually more than finances worth nearly half a billion pounds. 1,000; it is nearer to 1,5002 in total. Q25 Mr Horam: Do you think the balance is right Q20 Mr Horam: In the United Kingdom? between overseas staV and United Kingdom staV? Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: In the United Kingdom Sir David Green: Six thousand to one thousand?
Q21 Mr Horam: Why so many? Q26 Mr Horam: No, Lord Kinnock said 1,500. Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: There are a couple of Sir David Green: OK. I think it is, although it is reasons. First of all, and my colleagues will go into something that we are looking at. the actual deployment, we have several oYces necessarily in the United Kingdom, most Q27 Mr Horam: Do you think it would be advisable particularly, for obvious reasons, in Edinburgh, in V V to reduce the number of sta in the United Belfast and in Cardi . This is in addition to the Kingdom? substantial oYce that we have got in Manchester, 3 Sir David Green: We will be reducing the number of with I think 600 people still there (my colleagues staV through eYciencies, through the Finance and will go into their functions in a moment).The Business Systems. remainder, somewhat under 1,0004, are in Spring Gardens where we have now concentrated all our Q28 Mr Horam: Have you reduced it? London staV. In previous decades they have been a Sir David Green: Yes. bit more scattered in the London area.
Q22 Mr Horam: Why do you need all those people? Q29 Mr Horam: Can you let us have some figures Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: My colleagues will go on that? into the detail of their function. Sir David Green: Yes, I can send you a note of those. Certainly in the last year we have reduced the Sir David Green: The primary reason we need people V in the United Kingdom is to make sure that the number of finance sta by around 40, and the connections between all the sectoral specialists in the Finance and Business System will over time enable United Kingdom and overseas are of the highest us to reduce further. However, it is a very complex quality. So we need to have contact and we need to organisation to run in terms of the interaction with the United Kingdom. Also, within those numbers access scientists, artists, musicians and English V language specialists, and people involved in are sta who run contracts for other government governance work, etc. So we have to have a body of departments, namely DFID and the Department for people within the United Kingdom in those Education and Skills. So, for instance, we run the Global Schools Partnership Scheme on behalf of V 1 Note by witness: The actual total number of British Council DFID, which requires sta in the United Kingdom employees is 7,377, of which 1,167 are UK-based. to administer it. Anumber of the sta V based in 2 Note by witness: Lord Kinnock was including UK appointed Manchester are responsible for the development of staV whose place of work is overseas. services contract which our Chairman referred to in 3 Correction by witness: there are 390 staV based in Manchester. terms of part of the income that we receive. We also 4 Note by witness: there are 659 staV based in the Spring have a network of staV in universities supporting Garden premises. students, particularly the Chevening students, to 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 16 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson make sure that they have as good an experience as Director-General said, within the United Kingdom possible. In total, we have 23 diVerent locations in we are looking to move resources out of the routine the United Kingdom. So what I would like to do is administration of the organisation, particularly write a letter to you, Chairman, which sets out the around the finance side and the IT side, and again position of staV and what their functions are. move more of our resource into the professional side of the organisation, and the management of the Q30 Mr Horam: Can you let us know what has inward flows. I think what is particularly important happened, over the last few years, to the total about the staV that we have in the United Kingdom number of staV and what your projections are? is that we are bringing very large numbers of people Sir David Green: Yes. Just to add, we did in the into the United Kingdom each year, and the spending review up to 2004 make a commitment to management of that process and ensuring that those reducing our headcount within the United Kingdom people coming here have really eVective experiences by 5%. is a critical aspect of the work.
Q31 Mr Horam: Ayear? Q37 Mr Illsley: For 2006 you have set diversity Sir David Green: Over the period. targets in senior management, for ethnic minority staV and disabled staV. Are you likely to meet those Q32 Mr Horam: Five years? targets? What action are you taking to try and Sir David Green: Over the period of the Spending ensure that you do that? Review. Mr Davidson: Within the diversity targets we have met and exceeded our gender targets. Within the Q33 Mr Horam: Which is what? area of ethnic minority representation, we are well Sir David Green: Three years. on our way to meeting them. I think the one area where we still do have issues is over the disability Q34 Mr Horam: So 5% over three years? That is targets, where perhaps we are further away from pretty unambitious, is it not? meeting those targets than we are in the other areas, Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: It depends where you and we will be having to take additional action to try start from. and meet those.
Q35 Mr Horam: Not really. It is unambitious. Five Q38 Chairman: Perhaps you could send us a note on per cent over three years is an unambitious target. where exactly you are in relation to the targets. It Sir David Green: Can we write you a note about would be helpful for us to have an idea. that? It is not unambitious in the context of a Sir David Green: If I could just add, in terms of the growing organisation, and in the spending review up earlier question about how we are going to get these to 2004 we received an increase in our grant of 9%. skills, it will be a combination of bringing people So if you take into account the growth within the from outside the organisation into the organisation organisation, it is not unambitious. If I can send a through external recruitment, but also we have a note to you, I will. very strong training and development programme of Chairman: That would be helpful. Then, if increasing the skills base within the organisation by necessary, we can get back in touch with you for growing people from within the organisation. That further information. is something that we have got a strategy to do. We do have to increase our skills set in order to implement Q36 Mr Illsley: Lord Kinnock, gentlemen, I want to strategy 2010. ask you questions about your existing staV and Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: Chairman, in order to recruitment rather than your downsizing through try and further serve Mr Horam with an answer and, eYciencies. I know that in your strategy for 2010 you indeed, related to the last question, if you take, for are talking about moving from administrative example, the fact that in a less than propitious year overheads to new products. Bearing in mind what because of the value of the pound and because of the my colleague has just asked you, how are you aftermath of the SARS epidemic, the war in Iraq and recruiting staV to meet those new products—staV an assortment of other factors that are bound to with professional experience in areas such as IT, aVect our demand curve to some extent, we project management, finance and human resources? nevertheless expanded—just to take one example, in Given your most recent answers, how is that made the education area—in the number of examinations more complicated by the fact that you are looking to that we handled and in English language teaching by create these eYciencies? 4%. If we go over the three year period, it is not Mr Davidson: I think there are a number of areas unreasonable to assume something like a 10–12% where we are seeking to move the skill base of our growth rate in those areas, at the same time as we are staV into new areas, particularly overseas moving implementing the policy for securing a 5% reduction into staYng which has much higher levels of in overall staYng, which is what I meant when I said, professional skills, particularly in the key sectors in “It depends where you start from”. As Sir David which we operate around education, the arts, etc, said, we are talking about a continuing growth and moving ourselves away from routine curve, maybe not as steep as it was two years ago but administrative work and more into professional and still pretty satisfactory, and it is in that context that partnership management, so that our whole staV we are raising productivity by further rationalising profile becomes a more professional one. As our our staV, but not in a way that would inflict any 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson harm on the quality of our programme. The only the figure of £96 million that you quoted. We have other thing I would say is if the person referred to in already made £3.4 million in savings this financial the anonymous article (and I am grateful to you for year, even though it has only been going a relatively phrasing it in that way) was a whistle-blower then short period of time, which if you extrapolate one would hope that the whistle would be blown so through to the end of the period is around 30% of that the causes for that person’s concern could be that £96 million. So, so far so good. I am not so identified and the eVective management action optimistic or unrealistic as to not appreciate that taken, because that is what the British Council does. there will be a number of problems along the way; it is a very complex system and even though it went Q39 Mr Keetch: Just to compare, though, with well in the United Kingdom it has taken sometime to similar organisations from other nations—France bed down and it did mean that we were later in presenting our annual accounts than I had hoped and Germany, for example—what is the equivalent Y size of those organisations compared to what you because of some technical di culties. However, we have now resolved those and the National Audit do, in terms both of their footprint overseas, their Y eVectiveness, and indeed their footprint back in their O ce gave us a clean bill of health and thought that, host nation? I would suspect that you probably do actually, the introduction of the Finance and rather better per person over there than perhaps they Business System was one of the best introductions would do. they had seen. The fact that it was to time and to Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: We can certainly send budget was something which is not the norm within you a list of figures, but oV the top of my head, US the public sector. So, so far so good. expenditure only on public diplomacy will this year be $740 million. The state department is willing to Q41 Mr Hamilton: It is very rare, is it not, that it is acknowledge, as it has indeed to Lord Carter, that to time and to budget? So, obviously, from what you they envy the British Council in the quality of its say, you are pretty satisfied with the new system and performance in public diplomacy and other areas. If it is delivering what you expected. Have there been you look at the Goethe Institute, their commitment any major glitches or problems, apart from making from the Federal Government in Germany is you late with your accounts? substantially greater than the £180 million we will be Sir David Green: No, we did learn, though, from our getting this year. Obviously their terms of reference initial experience of going live in the United are diVerent, though you will find people in the Kingdom that investment in prior training is the key Goethe Institute who wish that they had the breadth to it. I think it is fair to say that the introduction in of obligations and eVective activity as that India has gone more smoothly than it went at this undertaken by the British Council. The same could comparative point with the United Kingdom be said for the Institut Francais. We will more than introduction. That is because we learnt the lessons happily provide the figures. I think they may be a and we have a team of people who have been matter of public record in our public diplomacy working on the FABS project who are now in centres document, the submission to Carter, but it will in India supporting staV. I think we will get better as provide you with a full (I hesitate to use the term) we go through. The other thing, of course, is that it league table. is very dependent on high-quality connectivity, and Sir David Green: We did send copies of it to the we have signed a large contract with Global previous Committee. Crossing (?) to provide connectivity for us across the Chairman: We do have that, I think, in our oYce. world, and it is entirely dependent on that.
Q40 Mr Hamilton: Lord Kinnock, may I come back Q42 Mr Hamilton: Finally, may I ask what to the point about eYciency savings with regard to proportion of your total savings is dependent on the information technology? I understand you have this IT systems, in terms of eYciencies? wonderful, global integrated, Finance and Business Sir David Green: The eYciency savings that we are System, or FABS for short (some people call me committed to are very much in line with Gershon Fabs for short). Ninety-six million pounds over 10 targets, and that is 2.5% per annum between years is what you are expected to spend. I wondered 2005–06 and 2007–08, and what that commitment what sort of savings in back-oYce operations and will mean is us finding £30 million and moving that staYng you were likely to make during that period. from savings into frontline services. So the actual Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: For a blow-by-blow proportion that is reliant on FABS I am not entirely account with all the decimal points, Sir David. sure. Can you give us a figure, Martin? Can we come Sir David Green: First of all, the reason why we have back to you on that? embarked on this massive programme is that we had some 20 diVerent independent IT systems which in Q43 Mr Hamilton: Do come back. the modern age had to be brought together. So what Sir David Green: I think we would need to come back we will have with the Finance and Business Systems to tell you what proportion it is, but it is significant. is an integrated system. We went live in the United Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty: There is a further, Kingdom in January, very successfully, and we have additional point that gives the Committee some just gone live, a week ago, in India and our next wave figures that Martin has got. is in China, followed by South Africa. It will result Mr Davidson: We are committed this year to £5 in savings of around 300 staV by the end of the 10- million of eYciency savings. Of that we expect to year period. It will also result in savings of around find slightly over the full amount—about 102%.We 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 18 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson are committed to a further nearly £9 million next Q48 Chairman: You said there were 75 locations, year and we have identified about 50% of those presumably a large number of those will be locations figures already, and we are committed to a further where there is public access. Does the need to £13 million in the year out from that, of which we improve security actually reduce public access and have identified about 30% to date. does that have a knock-on consequence on your ability to generate income from the use of your facilities and your services? Q44 Mr Hamilton: When you say “identified”, are Sir David Green: Yes. As both American embassies these identified within the new IT system? and UK embassies and High Commissions have Mr Davidson: The year-out figures will be largely become more fortified, we have become a possible identified through the IT system, yes. displacement target and we have to take very carefully and very seriously the issue of security and Q45 Mr Hamilton: Finally, Lord Kinnock, or your safety of our staV and people who use our buildings. colleagues, can I ask you about your estate abroad? What we have done is a very careful and thorough Last year the British Council told this Committee review of all our premises across the world. In some that it was developing a fresh strategy for reducing places, sadly, we have had to close our centres to the Council’s footprint (terrible word) in estates by public access. If you take a country such as Pakistan, about 15% by 2007–08. I wondered what proportion there is no public access in any of the five centres that is likely to be as a result of sales of property owned we have across Pakistan. That is not to say that we by the British Council. are not able to operate in Pakistan, we have a very Mr Davidson: We do have a sales programme for the thriving operation and we administer 200,000 British Council. We are looking this year for sales of examinations each year, for instance. This does not about half a million pounds within our budget, but require people to come to our oYces, we have made we have already identified and have already made at an arrangement through Standard Chartered Bank least one sale and there are two more in the pipeline and they can go to any branch of Standard which will substantially exceed that. We would Chartered Bank and register for examination, we tell expect to see a continuing sales programme of them where to turn up and then notify them by post around the £1 million mark for the next couple of or by email. It is forcing us to think of new ways of years, which is against a total fixed asset estate of working. That is an extreme case. There are other about £65 million. countries where we have more limited public access and in some countries, such as Cairo, where the Chairman and I were earlier this year, we have Q46 Chairman: Can I ask you a few questions about increased security and people coming into the security? Last year you claimed £10 million from the building have to go through an x-ray machine which contingency fund to upgrade the security of your would not have been the case five years ago. estate. Has all that money now been allocated and Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: There is still a huge use of do you foresee you will require any further money the Cairo building—huge. for security from the contingency fund? Sir David Green: Yes. In terms of numbers that we Sir David Green: It was awarded to us in two are reaching both face-to-face and virtually, the tranches: £4 million in the previous financial year numbers are growing very substantially each year. and £6 million in this financial year that we are in. We spent the £4 million last year on upgrading our security in the high priority areas and we have Q49 Chairman: You mentioned Pakistan, is there committed to spending more than £6 million this any near term prospect of the reopening of your year, so the rest we will find from within our own public oYces there? resources. There is no question that we will need all Sir David Green: Not near term, no. of that.
Q50 Chairman: What about Saudi Arabia, which I Q47 Chairman: The last spending review allowed also understand has been closed? Y you to retain all your e ciency savings that were Mr Davidson: Over the last year we have moved two- anticipated for reinvestment in security. What is thirds of our six oYces into new premises in Saudi going to happen to your planned savings which you Arabia but all of them do have public access. In one have referred to already? Is that all going to be centre in Dammam in eastern Saudi Arabia we have reinvested in security or not? closed the teaching centre because it was becoming Sir David Green: Some of it will have to be. What I impossible to maintain an eVective teaching have just explained covers some 75 locations around operation in the environment. In Riyadh and in the world but, given the increasing security problems Jeddah, we have both men’s and women’s teaching that we face as an organisation, I am quite certain centres which are open to the public and which are that we will have to invest more in security. The beginning to increase the throughput of people as commitment we made to Treasury was that we well, I am glad to say. would not go back to ask them for more if we were allowed to keep the eYciency savings and could spend at least part of those on upgrading security Q51 Chairman: This Committee visited Algiers and and the balance of that would be put into reinvesting found that there was disappointment in the fact that and investing in products and services for the future. the British Council had closed its presence there over 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson
10 years ago and some other European countries do for us in areas of pressure, like Iraq, are not have facilities there. Is there any possibility of a unconscious of their own safety but, nevertheless, return to Algeria in the near future? are so utterly committed they just want to get on Sir David Green: That is something we are looking with the job. They are very impressive people. at at the moment. I think there is a possibility. I do Sir David Green: We had a member of our staV from not want to be more positive than that but certainly Iraq here earlier this week accompanying the it is something that we are exploring. Minister of Education for Iraq who is here on a visit Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: Just to emphasise, I am with his senior staV to look at how the UK can sure the Committee will understand that our support him in rebuilding his education system. One approach to security is substantially based on the of the things that he is most interested in is English analysis provided to us by the Foreign and language teaching and how we can support the Commonwealth OYce and also substantially development of English language teaching through determined by our determination to provide the teacher training and through the provision of maximum degree of security and protection to the textbooks. I asked our UK-based member of staV people who use us as well as the people who work how she was finding the security situation and it is for us. very tough. It is a requirement that she has to travel Chairman: Thank you. I think Fabian Hamilton has in an armoured vehicle and is accompanied by a a question to do with the Middle East. security oYcer. It is very diYcult to get out or beyond Baghdad. The operating situation is not Q52 Mr Hamilton: I just wanted to ask you about easy. Having said that, you gave a catalogue of some Iraq and Pakistan. I know that you have been pretty of the things that we have been involved in and I successful in re-establishing the British Council in think we have managed to work very successfully in Iraq. For example, I understand that you have got bringing Iraqis out, often to Jordan, sometimes to five resource centres now in Basra and you are the UK, to work with them on teacher training and opening two more during the course of this year; I do curriculum development. We brought a number of not know if they are already opened. You have vice-chancellors here to the UK to look at what their brought 200 university and ministry staV to the UK needs were and to explore that with them through a for training and networking. You have trained 50 management development programme organised managers and teachers from technical colleges. I with Birmingham and Nottingham Universities. We understand you have trained 140 media workers and also distributed 50 tonnes of books to universities 120 media technicians as well in partnerships with very soon after the war ended. There is a number of the BBC World Service Trust. I wanted to ask you things we are able to do but it is constrained on the what the problems are, apart from the obvious ones, ground in terms of our UK staV in terms of their of operating in Baghdad, Basra and other parts of movement, so we have to be imaginative in terms of Iraq and whether your staV are facing undue security how we can provide a service. As the Chairman was problems and are uncomfortable, or whether the saying, in Afghanistan the picture is brighter. We situation is relatively normal apart from the dreadful have now got English resource centres both in Kabul suicide bombings that we know about from the University and in Balkh University, Mazar e Sharif. news? We have also appointed an ELT consultant to Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: I will let my colleagues go develop the English language curriculum of Kabul into the detail in relation to the locations. I met a University. I have to say that the thirst for English substantial part of our Iraqi staV during the course language in Afghanistan is extraordinary and these of one of their orientation visits to London. They are English language resource centres are just packed conscious and grateful for the fact that we are and it is impossible for people to move. Working acutely aware of realistic concerns about their with the BBC we have also produced self-study security. It has to be said, however, that they are English language textbooks in Dari Pashto, which absolutely determined to sustain and, if possible, have now been distributed, and we have provided advance the service that they are providing in a English language training for 70 members of the new variety of forms. That will never make us careless parliament in English language using our British about their safety but that is a factor to insert. These Council resource centres. It is easier to operate now are people who have got experience of what existed in Afghanistan than it was, and certainly in Iraq, but before, in several cases are victims of what existed it is not that easy. before. Mr Purchase: On the question of Iraq and safety, is it reasonable for management to actually allow work to go on in these circumstances of extreme danger, Q53 Mr Hamilton: So there is quite a number of notwithstanding the staV’s willingness, courage and local engaged staV then in Iraq? so on and so forth? Is it reasonable for management Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: Absolutely. to continue to put staV in this position? Q54 Mr Hamilton: In Afghanistan as well? Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: We will go into detail on Q55 Andrew Mackinlay: You withdrew them from Afghanistan where the picture in the last 12 months Minsk on safety grounds, I remember. substantially and happily has shown considerable Sir David Green: No, that was not the case. We improvement. The point I am making is our withdrew them from Minsk because we could not watchword is the security of the people who work for operate in that country; it just was not possible to us and who use us. Several of the people who work operate there. Obviously we think about this very 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 20 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson hard and if anything keeps me awake at night it is the Mr Davidson: I think the point I would like to make security of our staV and the people who use our is that English language teaching has never been a services. The other thing I did not mention about hidden area of work, it has always been completely Iraq was we administer and manage two very large open and— DFID funded programmes, one on political participation and one on civil society engagement Q58 Sir John Stanley: I would be grateful if you and capacity building within civil society. In could answer my question. I asked a specific discussions with DFID and obviously with the question. If you have not got the answer here we will Foreign and Commonwealth OYce, taking advice, completely understand if you give it to us in writing. we think we are being responsible and if I ever felt Mr Davidson: We have taken tax advice from an that we were placing our staV in an impossible international accountancy firm. From time to time position then I would withdraw them. we have also sought to engage with the Russian tax Chairman: Sir John Stanley has been very patient; he authorities but because the status of the British has been waiting to ask about Russia. It is now Council was not settled under Russian law it was not your turn. possible for us to engage with them.
Q56 Sir John Stanley: Thank you, Chairman. Lord Q59 Sir John Stanley: It would be helpful if you Kinnock, when the Members of this Committee in could just fill that out a little bit and let us have a note the last Parliament visited Moscow in June 2004 we of the attempts the British Council made to get had a very detailed briefing discussion with your clarification of its tax position in relation to its senior management there about the imploding tax commercial English language courses and what dispute between the British Council and the Russian response you had from the Russian tax authorities. tax authorities. It appears since our visit the Mr Davidson: Certainly. situation, if anything, has got worse and we Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: The note will show over understand that a criminal investigation, as long years, maybe as many as a dozen years, eVorts described by the Russian authorities, has now by the British Council to conclusively resolve its commenced against the British Council in the St status with regard to Russian law. For reasons that Petersburg area. The Independent on 4 October I think everyone will understand it can reasonably be reported: “St Petersburg’s main investigation said that in parts of the regulatory regime in Russia directorate told the Interfax news agency ‘Acriminal there is a continuing state of evolution. case regarding illegal entrepreneurship is being V pursued in connection with the o ering of Q60 Sir John Stanley: Thank you very much. I am commercial English language courses.’ Also over the just coming to the wider question of British Council past four years the British Council has not paid a status, if I may. When the Committee reported on single kopeck in tax from its commercial activities.” this in our last annual report to the Foreign OYce we Lord Kinnock, I will of course give you every received the following response from the Foreign opportunity to respond to the wider issues here but OYce when they replied to our recommendation. I I would be grateful if we could have one or two facts quote from paragraph 47 of their response: “We on the table. Could I ask you, first of all, members of have also made it clear that any discussions on the the British Council, both the expatriate members specific tax issues must go hand in hand with and locally engaged members, do they or do they not agreement at a political level between foreign have immunity from criminal prosecution under ministries on the overall future status of the Council diplomatic immunity in Russia? in a Cultural Centres Agreement (CCA)”. Could Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: I think it is best for the you tell us what is the current situation on case of the oral record for the response to come from negotiating and concluding this Cultural Centres the Chief Executive. Agreement with the Russian Government? Sir David Green: I am going to ask Martin. I want Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: Yes, readily. We are to give you absolutely the right answer and I think given to understand that we have had tax obligations Martin knows. in respect of our operations in Moscow, St Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: That is perfectly correct. V Petersburg and the other centres in which we operate Mr Davidson: All our UK based members of sta in Russia. The tax liabilities stipulated by the working in Russia are there with diplomatic Russian authorities were paid in full in respect of immunity and, therefore, have immunity from V V Moscow in September. They were paid in full in prosecution; our local sta do not. Local sta are respect of St Petersburg last week. We are led to normal members of the Russian public who are believe that we can reasonably anticipate that by the employed under normal circumstances as are our V end of this month the remaining tax issues will be local sta elsewhere in the world and are subject to cleared. They form a minute part of the overall tax the laws of the country, of course. picture and that is why we have got reason to believe that those who communicated to us in those terms Q57 Sir John Stanley: Thank you. The next question are being accurate. So far as the status is concerned, I would like to ask you is did the British Council we have heard of an explicit assurance that before engaging in the commercial provision of immediately after these tax obligations are resolved, English language courses take tax advice not only and as I say this is at most now weeks away, so we from UK based tax advisers but also from the are led to believe, there will be rapid movement Russian tax authority? towards the conclusion of the agreement. We have 3302621004 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson long sought that agreement for the very Chechnya. I would be grateful if you would just like straightforward reason that in replacing the 1994 to respond to the suggestion that the British Council existing agreement, that will give stability to our may have been subjected to this tax action as a result status which will be beneficial both to the Russian of a degree of political motivation by the Russian authorities and to ourselves. The more rapidly we Government. can arrive at that, the better it will be for the British Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: I am sure you will Council, for the United Kingdom, for the Russian understand, Chairman, if the British Council are not authorities and for those people in their hundreds of in an authoritative position to comment on what thousands who plainly have an appetite for using attitudes may exist in Russia towards the granting of British Council services in Russia. I hope that long asylum to Russian citizens, and it would not be before we next come before this Committee, appropriate for us to explore the matter further. provided we are invited, we will be able to relate the Plainly, this Committee, with its powers of resolution of this issue. Certainly if what we have investigation, is in an appropriate position to secure been told about the conclusion of the outstanding any additional facts on the matter. Part of me regrets tax matters is the key, the very, very rapid action key, that I will have to leave it there but I think that is the to the conclusion of the agreement, we will be able to wise thing to do, although I understand the report that news. propriety and the eVectiveness of the question. So Sir David Green: Can I just add that we have been far as North Caucasus is concerned, it has to be working very closely, as you would expect, with the emphasised very strongly that the British Council’s Foreign and Commonwealth OYce in helping to engagement in the education initiative in that part of resolve this matter both in London and in Russia. Russia is as a part of the United Kingdom’s response Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: I am aware of the time to the Beslam tragedy, the anniversary of which has but for reasons that Sir John above all others will just been sadly marked. Consequently, therefore, we understand, this is a critical issue. In the are not simply consistent with government policy on introduction to your question you said that it this, which we are very happy to be, we are eVectively appeared the situation now is worse than it was when the executives of government policy. The discussion, you last gave attention to it. Given the fact that we if it continues, should continue in that context. We are well on the way to the final resolution of the tax have no wish to evade, we accept every responsibility issue, it is necessary to give attention to what a that is ours, but that is the situation in which we find Russian agency, as you correctly quoted, reported as ourselves and are ready agents of the execution of an impending criminal prosecution. We have got no government policy in that sadly aZicted area. reason to believe that this will add additional Chairman: Let us not move away from Russia. In the complexities to what has been a complex situation, four minutes that are left, if Andrew Mackinlay given that we and our embassy in Moscow and our comes in very briefly and then Andrew Mackay and consulate in St Petersburg diligently work with our if we have any other outstanding issues we will have counterparts in the Russian Ministry of Foreign to write to you. AVairs for a stable and mutually agreeable outcome. Andrew Mackinlay: The first is Kyrgyzstan and the related countries there. There is no United Kingdom Q61 Sir John Stanley: I have just one final question political mission or embassy in Kyrgyzstan and that to put to you, if you just add it to the factual is a matter for another occasion, but if you could information you are going to give us. Could you give amplify on that. The other one is if you might touch us an indication of the size of the tax payments which upon the relationship with the Scottish Executive, the British Council are going to make so that we and it would be true if Northern Ireland was up and have got that in front of us? running and also the cultural side of the Irish Sir David Green: Certainly. Republic’s cultural ministry. If you have a moment, could you just touch upon how we are going to convey these nations within the UK, particularly Q62 Sir John Stanley: There have been two lines of whether they have got some money, energies and an suggestion as to how the British Council got into this agenda legitimately of their own. particular situation. It has been suggested that the Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: If I could respond very British Council have been less than diligent in briefly to the last part of the question and simply use examining their tax status, and you are going to Scotland as an instance. We now have a substantial answer that in the note you are going to provide. The oYce in Edinburgh and it works in very close other motivation that has also been ascribed here is harmony across the political spectrum with the the suggestion that the British Council have become, Scottish Parliament and with the Executive. The unhappily for themselves and through no fault of Presiding OYcer of the Parliament is actually a their own, something of a political pawn in some member of our advisory council in Edinburgh and outstanding issues between the Russian the co-operation is universal, we believe to the Government and the British Government, in benefit of Scotland and its Parliament, yes, and to particular in relation to the British Government’s the benefit of the British Council but, most of all, refusal to allow the extraction of Mr Akhmed people in Scotland and elsewhere in the world who Zakayev and also Mr Boris Berezovsky, and also the are deriving direct advantage as a consequence of Russian Government’s alleged displeasure that the this reinforced eVort. British Government has decided to make a Sir David Green: On Kyrgyzstan, we do not have substantial financial contribution to educational plans to open an oYce in the foreseeable future. We projects in the North Caucasus region, including did a major review of our network some years back 3302621004 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 22 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
12 October 2005 Rt Hon Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty, Sir David Green KCMG and Mr Martin Davidson which, as you remember, resulted in the closure of highly eVective, and that was by expats as well as by our programmes in four countries: Belarus, the recipient audiences. There was one image out of Swaziland, Lesotho and Ecuador. We have since 130 photographs that provided the opportunity for then opened in Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. one or maybe two British newspapers to produce From that previous experience we knew that there sensationalist coverage little informed by the facts. was no point diluting our eVort and it is very Apart from that context, it is the reality that if the important that we keep the quality of our work here British Council were exclusively to focus on and, therefore, we cannot keep opening new celebrating the undoubted virtues and values and operations. Sadly, whilst we would like to, there is greatness of our country, and sought to obscure the no opportunity for us to do so in the foreseeable more diYcult and challenging features of our future. society, we would lose the credibility which is fundamental to the development of understanding and trust internationally. I know that Mr Mackay is Q63 Mr Mackay: You will recall that those of us on entirely responsible in his view but I would ask him the previous Committee when we reported were very to put that into context. critical of your new logo and did ask you to reconsider the use of the Union Jack. Since then, I Q64 Mr Mackay: The Union Jack? think we have all been dismayed about the Common Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: I think the logo is very Ground exhibition and the distortion of this eVective. Again, it has had a great reception around country. It was hugely regrettable and it was clearly the world representing, as it does, the four a mistake. Linking the two together does not give constituent parts of the United Kingdom and I am you many friends. I would like you to briefly damned if I am going to spend any more money on comment on both points. that. Lord Kinnock of Bedwelty: The photographic Chairman: I am afraid the Division bell has stopped exhibition, Common Ground, shown in dozens of us. Thank you for coming, gentlemen. Thank you countries across the world, was universally hailed as for your answers.
Letter from Sir David Green KCMG, Director-General of the British Council to the Chairman of the Committee Thank you for the opportunity to appear in front of the Foreign AVairs Committee last week. We have now received the list of supplementary questions from the Clerk and will provide detailed replies shortly. I would also like to take this opportunity to give a note to the committee to expand on the answer I gave in response to Gisela Stuart’s question on how parliamentary accountability functions for an organisation which operates at arm’s length from the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce. The accompanying note sets out the agreements between the British Council and the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce which establish the mechanisms under which parliamentary accountability is achieved. I hope that this can be added to the record and taken into consideration should the Committee wish to pursue this issue further. 19 October 2005
British Council—note to Foreign AVairs Committee on accountability
Introduction The issue of how arm’s length operation of the British Council is reconciled with the duty of accountability of the Foreign Secretary to Parliament was raised by a member of committee, Gisela Stuart, during the evidence session of 12 October 2005. This note amplifies the Director-General’s answer and clarifies, in detail, how accountability and appropriate levels of editorial and managerial independence are exercised under existing instruments and under agreements between the British Council and its sponsoring department, the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce. The British Council takes the definition of an arm’s length body (ALB) from the guidance issued by HM Treasury in the Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments (July 2005), which clearly states that departmental agreements with ALBs “should be drawn up to suit the ALB’s legal standing and the environment in which it operates” (paragraph 6.2, p 15). The analysis below of the terms and conditions under which Grant-in-Aid is given demonstrates the clear compatibility between the function of the Council’s Board (and its executive management) in managing its programmes and activities, and the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. These terms and conditions establish a range of mechanisms which facilitate departmental scrutiny of the British Council. They provide 3302621005 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23
the means for FCO-to-BC guidance and consultation to take place at various levels. They ensure the essential upward flows of information, reporting and accountancy assurance which permit both active and reactive accountability to take place. The purpose of operational and, indeed, structural, distance between the FCO and the Council was deliberately established by the Foreign OYce in the 1930s and early 1940s and serves a two-fold purpose. First, it was designed to enable the Council to draw in a wider reach of users of its services overseas and a broader range of potential (and existing partners) amongst those who in their own countries may not wish to engage directly with overseas governments. Second, given the natural tendency of audiences to discount oYcial information and activities, particularly when mounted by other governments, the structures were set up to ensure the programmes and services of the Council carried credibility with their audiences and were not perceived overseas as being partisan or propagandistic in their purpose. The existence of diVerent organisations with distinct functions, though operating in a co-ordinated framework, extends the UK’s public diplomacy reach. It provides diVerent styles and means of appealing to those with whom the UK wishes to build up long-term relationships. The ability to manage and devise the Council’s programmes separately from Whitehall departments is central to that. It complements “government-to-society” activity undertaken by our Embassies, and “independent broadcaster-to-society” information and news provided by the BBC World Service, with brokered “society-to-society” public diplomacy links undertaken by the Council. This is an important attribute for a country whose appeal internationally is based on its reputation for a commitment to objectivity, free academic inquiry based on empirical evidence and accountable high-quality public institutions based on the rule of law.
Governance Structures and Memoranda of Understanding
As the Director-General indicated in his reply to the committee, the cornerstones of the British Council’s constitution are our Royal Charter (last updated in 1993), our status as a charity (registered in England as No 209131) and our formal classification as a Non-Governmental Departmental Body (NDPB) and a public corporation. Our relationship with the sponsoring department, the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce, is regulated by a Memorandum of Understanding (1999) and an accompanying Financial Memorandum of Understanding (1993)—arrangements similar to those for the BBC World Service with the same sponsoring department. The British Council has been in active discussion with the FCO over updating these two agreements. These two documents set out the lines both of parliamentary accountability, which accompany the principal Grant-in-Aid received by the Board, and the obligations of consultation over planning, and of reporting and assurance, which are central to accountability of the use of public funds by the organisation. The Memorandum of Understanding with the FCO makes clear the Foreign Secretary is answerable to Parliament for the policies, operations and performance of the Council (paragraph 2). How this is achieved is set out in the remainder of the MoU, which states that in carrying out its objectives, the Council “sets its own professional standards and devises and manages its own programmes” (paragraph 5). This paragraph, combined with the objects established under the Royal Charter which define the purpose of the British Council,1 provides the underpinning for its ability to contribute to the UK’s public diplomacy by operating at arm’s length from the Government. Together they provide the guarantee that the organisation’s work is able to represent a broad range of UK interests and is not directly political in the way it meets its strategic objectives. The Financial MoU acknowledges that there are respective responsibilities of the non-executive Board of the Council, and of those parts of the FCO which are associated with the Council’s work: indeed, its sets out the responsibilities of the Secretary of State in ensuring that these are clearly defined within the Financial Memorandum. The document also sets out terms and conditions under which the FCO provides Grant-in-Aid to the British Council. It lays out (section 6) how the non-executive Board of the Council, in addition to having ultimate responsibility for discharging the duties set out in the Council’s Charter and under charity law, has a duty to ensure that the organisation does its utmost to achieve the strategic objectives and performance targets set by the FCO, and to ensure the Council complies with the terms of the MoU. This obligation is underlined in the code of practice for Board members. Section 8 sets out, among other corporate responsibilities of Board members, the duty of establishing the overall strategic direction of the Council within the policy and resources framework agreed with the responsible Minister.
1 The objects for which the Council was established are to advance any purpose which is exclusively charitable and which shall: promote a wider knowledge of the United Kingdom; develop a wider knowledge of the English language; encourage cultural, scientific technological and other educational co-operation between the UK and other countries; or otherwise promote the advancement of education. 3302621005 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 24 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Lines of Accountability Within this framework, there are clear lines of accountability which are designed to enable Government Ministers to exercise their duty of being answerable for the British Council to Parliament.
These can be summarised as follows:
Financial accountability: Under section 8 of the Financial MoU, the Permanent-Under Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs appoints the Director-General as Accounting OYcer of the Council in accordance with the requirements set out in Government Accounting. The PUS is responsible for ensuring that the conditions attached to the Grant-in-aid conform with the terms of the FCO’s vote. The PUS is empowered under the Financial MoU to monitor compliance with the above-mentioned conditions and satisfies himself that the financial and management controls employed by the Council are appropriate and conform with the requirements of propriety and good financial management, and also ensures that the FCO is allowed appropriate access to the Council’s records and personnel to enable it to satisfy itself that the Council is complying with the terms of the Financial MoU. Conversely, under section 9 of the Financial MoU, the Director-General has the duty to ensure the Council meets the relevant requirements of Government Accounting, particularly those set out in the Accounting OYcer memorandum issued by the FCO, and has to ensure the Council has eVective systems for operational, financial and personnel management in order to deliver the strategy and targets agreed by the Board.
Appointments: Under the bye-laws of the Royal Charter, the oYcers of the Board (the Chair and Deputy Chair) are elected by the Board after previously being approved by the Secretary of State, who may also nominate one additional person to be a Board member. The Secretary of State’s nominee, the Permanent Under-Secretary, currently sits on the Board, the remuneration committee and the nominations committee. Under the MoU (paragraph 2) the Secretary of State approves the appointment of the Director-General.
Strategic guidance: Under paragraph 8 of the MoU, the FCO provides strategic guidance to the Council for each funding cycle, which informs the preparation of the corporate plan and which includes an indication of the FCO’s geographical priorities. Under this section, the FCO accepts that the Council priorities need not be identical but should take account of the Council’s particular assets and capabilities.
Planning and performance: Under Paragraph 9 of the MoU, the Council is obliged to consult the FCO as its prepares its annual corporate plan (projecting forward planning for a three-year cycle). It also places the responsibility on the Council to ensure its strategic objectives and priorities are compatible with the policies and priorities of the FCO, flow from the FCO’s objectives, and incorporate output measures which show the Council’s contribution to those objectives. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the MoU set out the mechanisms between the FCO and the Council for ensuring the deployment of the Council’s grant-funded resources are discussed regularly by senior oYcials, and geographical directors. These include provision for an annual meeting with the responsible Minister; meetings between geographical directors on an at least six-monthly basis; and aims, policies and operational objectives set within four-year plans for each country. They also set out how objectives and target audiences are discussed between country directors and Heads of FCO missions, and how annual reporting on the contribution of the Council to the mission’s overall objectives is undertaken.
Accounting systems and assurance The operating principles laid out in the Financial MoU (section 11) describe the managing accounting systems which the Council must maintain. Section 19 outlines the information which the Council must provide to the FCO for the appropriate supply estimates to Parliament; section 22 places an obligation on the Council to agree what work and income of the Council’s work and income flows fall within the expression “Grant-in-aid related activities”. Similar provisions stipulate controls for levels of personnel (section 33 to 35), management and disposal of assets (section 36 to 41), assessment of risks and liabilities (section 45 to 48), and establish the right of the FCO to information about non-Grant-in-aid activities (paragraph 52). 3302621005 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25
Additional forms of accountability:
Comptroller and Auditor-General: Article 15 of the Royal Charter establishes that the accounts of the Council are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is empowered to examine and certify each statement of account and lay them before Parliament with a copy of any C&AG reports on the statements.
Parliamentary scrutiny: Both the departmental Accounting OYcer and the Director-General as accounting oYcer for the British Council may be summoned to give evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, while the Board or any person nominated by it may be required to give written or oral evidence to parliamentary select committees, principally the Foreign AVairs Committee.
Charitable status The British Council and its Board are required, under guidance from the Charity Commission, to meet duties set out under charity law aimed at fulfilling transparency and public accountability.
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the British Council
Staff Numbers
Q27 to Q30. Mr Horam asked for figures on staV numbers in the UK, which illustrate the reductions achieved by eYciency savings in recent years and he also asked for forward projections. Data requested for years up to 2010 and also data for staV overseas. The British Council’s work in building ties between the UK and the 109 countries it works in involves programmes not only overseas, but also in the UK particularly in handling inward-bound missions and exchanges and undertaking care of specific groups such as Chevening scholars. The UK staV support both Grant-funded work overseas and in the UK, and the international revenue- earning operations in development services and in English language teaching and examinations administration. Information sector figures include staV producing global web-sites and other e-based products. Figures under the “Supporting” column include: staV administering and managing contract work on behalf of clients; staV working as part of the Council’s role the EU national agency for European programmes such as Leonardo, Socrates, etc; and staV administering inward-bound scholarship schemes, courses and seminars held in the UK but targeted at specialists from other countries. Advisory and professional staV, listed sector-by-sector, are UK-based but serve the following specific functions: liaising with UK sector specialists engaged by the British Council in its international work; providing up-to-date resources and information for use overseas; working with locally-engaged staV overseas to provide products, services and events designed to engage target audiences. Central services staV include: finance and audit, human resources, communications, corporate aVairs, central management, global facilities and estates management, central IT services, change programme managers. Figures in the following table exclude consultants, contractors and vacant posts. Corporate services figures include 68 members of staV taken on to implement the Finance and Business Platform (FABS) IT programme currently being rolled out globally, which would be reduced significantly once the roll-out has been completed.
Total London Manchester Belfast CardiV Edinburgh Elsewhere
Advisory professional Arts 80 7% 79 1 ELT 14 1% 10 4 Education and Training 60 5% 13 46 1 Information Sector 80 7% 8 71 1 Governance 12 1% 12 Science 8 1% 1 7 Total 254 22% 111 140 2 1 Supporting Development contracts 116 10% 116 English teaching schools in UK 6 0% 6 Educational contracts 165 14% 121 7 21 1 16 3302621006 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 26 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Total London Manchester Belfast CardiV Edinburgh Elsewhere
Overseas Network 28 2% 27 1 Teaching Centre Network 44 4% 43 1 UK network, courses, and visitors to UK 126 11% 35 8 10 7 26 40 Total 485 41% 226 139 31 8 41 40
Central services Mainstream CS staV 366 31% FABS implementation staV 68 6% Total 434 37% 322 111 1 Grand Total 1,173 100% 659 390 31 8 43 42
As part of the Spending Review triennium ending 31 March 2004, the British Council set itself a target of reducing the UK headquarters headcount by 8% over the period of the review (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2004). This reduction, from 800 to 734, was met.
In the Spending Review 2004 round, the British Council was not set specific headcount reduction targets. EYciency savings are being achieved under OGC guidelines, which lays an emphasis on eYciency overall. This will result in savings of 2.5% per annum up to 2007–08.
The Council is, however, embarking on a significant UK change programme which will provide a more eYcient staYng framework for meeting the needs of target audiences overseas and matching these to the requirements of UK stakeholders. Additionally, a separate review has recently been completed which will lead to the streamlining the Council’s central services. We expect staV reductions and increased eYciencies to flow from these processes.
Diversity Targets
Q37 and 38. Mr Illsley asked whether the Council would meet its 2006 targets for ethnic minority and disabled staV as a whole and specifically for staV on the senior management team and disabled staV in the higher pay bands. He asked what actions were being taken to ensure targets were met, and whether the Council had set diversity targets for its overseas staV, and to outline the current position.
The table below (which covers both UK-based staV and UK contracted staV working overseas) sets out the overall progress made against British Council equality targets.
Minority ethnic staV forms 13.4% of the Council’s UK staV. As there is no under representation in this area, the Council has not set itself a target for UK minority ethnic staV.
The Council has already exceeded its 2006 minority ethnic target for Payband level 10 (its top level management band), and may succeed in achieving the target set for Payband 9 (senior middle management). It may also achieve its target for the Senior Management Team, though this unlikely.
Discussions regarding overseas equality targets are currently taking place at senior management level, and these are expected to be concluded by the end of the year.
The Council did not achieve its overall UK disability target for 2004 of 3% of staV and it is therefore very unlikely it will achieve its 2006 target of 5%. In common with many employers, the Council faces problems in achieving higher levels of representation of disabled people in its workforce, including low levels of disclosure by those eligible to do so. The Council will be launching an organisational framework to support the inclusion of disabled people in all areas of its work worldwide, as well as providing guidance on mainstreaming disability and achieving benchmarking against other organisations.
Progress Against British Council Equality Targets
Further progress has been made in relation to the targets set by the British Council, notably in relation to the payband 9 targets, where minority ethnic staV are now 4.9% and the percentage of women at this payband has risen to 37.6%. Progress against the payband 10 targets for minority ethnic staV is steady and this target should now be revised upwards. However, little progress has been made towards the disabled staV reporting target, with one additional person since March 2004 declaring a disability. 3302621006 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27
Staff profile and progression Of the British Council UK-contracted staV, 13.4% (194 people) are of minority ethnic origin, 53.6% (777) are women, and 1.8% (26) identify themselves as disabled. The table below compares this with previous years:
Category 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05
%%%% Minority ethnic people 11.9 12.1 13.6 13.4 Women 55.4 53.4 53.4 53.6 People with a disability 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8
Progress Against Targets set in October 2003
Area Percentage and Percentage and Percentage and Targets number in post number in post number in post 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2004 2006 2008 10 Years (2013)
Total number 1442 1467 1450 of staV in post Disabled staV 1.7% (24) 1.7% (25) 1.8% (26) 3% (38) 5% (64) Minority ethnic staV Payband 9 4.6% (9) 3.8% (8) 4.9% (10) No target 6% (11) 8% (15) 9% (17) Payband 10 4.9% (2) 9.3% (4) 7.5% (3) No target 5% (2) 7% (3) 10% (4) SMT None None None No target 11% (1) Review target Women Payband 9 35.7% (70) 36.7% (77) 37.6% (77) No target 37% (72) 37% (74) 40% (78) Review target Payband 10 24.4% (10) 25.6% (11) 22.5% (9) No target 27% (11) 29% (12) 29% (12) SMT 22.2% (2) 33.3% (3) 30.0% (3) No target 33.3% (3) 33.3% (3) 40% (4)
Estates
Q39. Lord Kinnock promised Mr Keetch a note which compares the British Council to similar organisations with other countries in terms of their “footprint” overseas and in their host nation. The British Council’s aim is to have a smaller, more secure viable and sustainable global estate which meets standards and requirements under its 2010 strategy and provides an eVective operating platform which assists the organisation to deliver its operational targets eYciently. The following tables chart the reduction of size of BC estate in recent years, and provides data for the Goethe Institut and the Alliance Francaise. The Goethe Institut have told us they have no specific policy for reducing the size of their oYces at the moment.
British Council Global Estate;Comparison with Goethe Institut and Alliance Francaise
British Council UK No of locations Floor space (sq m) 2002 23 20,000 approx 2005 16 17,000 approx
Notes: 1. In London, we have moved out of additional London premises in Portland Place and temporary accommodation in Northumberland Avenue and consolidated use of space at our Spring Gardens headquarters. We have also closed several smaller regional oYces: Loughborough, Glasgow, Southampton, Warwick and Brighton (in Dec 05) 2. In the UK only the Oxford premises are owned by BC 3. Floor space occupied in the UK has been reduced by approx 15% between 2002 and 2005 4. Representation in UK centres outside London is required for scholarship liaison, events organisation, and engagement with partners involved in international work in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. 3302621006 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 28 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Overseas No of countries Floor space (sq m) 2000 109 210,000 sq m approx 2005 109 185,000 sq m approx
Notes: 1. Floor space occupied overseas has been reduced by approx 12% between 2000 and 2005. 2. New country openings have been balanced by agreed country closures. 3. We own 32 oYce premises overseas and lease the remainder.
Goethe Institut
Germany HQ in Germany comprises buildings in Munich (2) and small oYces in Bonn and Berlin. There are a further 13 language school premises in Germany (The Goethe has historically had a remit of work inside Germany, including in the new Laender after 1989.) Total floor space in Germany 19,127 sq m (all rented)
Overseas 138 oYces worldwide plus an additional 51 “country societies”, 58 reading rooms, and 11 “dialogue points”. Total floor space overseas: 142,739 sq m
Alliance Franc¸aise
France HQ in Paris and 26 branches throughout France Floor space in Paris 11,000 sq m
Overseas Represented in 136 countries overseas in 1,074 diVerent locations Total floor space overseas not known
Notes: 1. Alliance Franc¸aise owns 206 buildings, rent 428, and occupy 182 rent free in non-owned buildings; the remainder are very small presences within other organisations. 2. Figures for the Goethe Institut and the Alliance Franc¸aise do not provide exact comparators. For example, the British Council also undertakes many of the equivalent functions of the German academic exchange organisation, DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst), PAD (Pedagogischer Austausch Dienst) and ifa (Institut fuer Auslandsbezeihungen). The British Council also undertakes a number of functions which in the case of France would be covered by cultural attaches.
Efficiency Savings
Q42. Sir David promised Mr Hamilton a note showing the actual proportion of the Council’s total eYcient savings dependent on IT systems. By 2007–08, the percentage of eYciency savings that will be dependent on IT systems will be 62%— £8.1 million of £13 million. 3302621006 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29
Russia
Q59 and Q61. Sir John Stanley asked for a note detailing the action taken by the British Council to get clarification from the Russian authorities of its tax position. He also asked for an indication of the size of the tax payments which the British Council has outstanding with the Russian tax authorities.
In 1994, Russia and the United Kingdom signed a new UK-Russia cultural agreement which designated the British Council as the implementing agency on the UK side. The agreement encouraged both sides, inter alia, to open information centres and language teaching operations.
Issues of taxation were raised in several discussions between the Russian Ministry of Foreign AVairs (MFA), the Embassy and the Director of the British Council and which informed the initial negotiations on the Cultural Centres Agreement which began in 1997.
The British Council informed the Ministry of Culture and the MFAof the inte ntion to start English language teaching under the terms of existing agreements: the position of the MFAwas that was viewed as an integral part of British Council activities. The Council’s intention was re-confirmed to the MFAwhen the Council was urged to undertake such teaching by the Mayor of St Petersburg to assist with the important Russian Resettlement Programme. Approval by local authorities is required for this activity.
The MFAstated that the Council would be able to enter into negotiation with the each branch of the tax authorities, but only after the Cultural Centres Agreement was signed. The Council was encouraged to discuss separately with the tax authorities what the law was, in order to prepare its position. The Council raised the issue of the sequencing diYculty this posed but was informed by the MFAthat that a gap between ratification on the Russian side and ratification by Parliament on the British side (which would take longer) should be used by the Council to prepare for compliance.
In practice, while agreement on the UK side to the draft was reached in 2001, and assurances were received regularly from the Russian side that agreement from them would be forthcoming with the last such assurance being received in early May 2004. The Russian tax authorities then carried out unannounced tax raids on BC premises at the end of May 2004 and the MFAnow states that the sign ing of the CCAwill only take place once all due tax has been paid.
The British Council has about £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, an amount that is currently being processed. The total amount of tax paid, including both back tax and tax due for the current year, is £1.4 million.
Letter to Hannah McConnell, the Parliamentary OYcer at the British Council from the Clerk of the Committee
British Council’s Commissioning Policy and Chevening Scheme
Thank you for the note which follows-up the British Council’s oral evidence of 12 October. Following the Council’s appearance, the Committee would like to raise two further matters.
First, the Committee would the British Council to respond to a press report that appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 25 September 2005 headed “Paid for by the British Council, claim that UK tested cluster bombs on Iraqi civilians”. The Committee seeks an explanation as to how this material got on to the British Council’s website. The Telegraph article is attached to this letter.
Second, the Committee had intended to put several questions to the Council on the Chevening scheme during the oral evidence session but unfortunately time did not allow it to do so. I would therefore be grateful if would arrange written answers to the following questions:
1. Following the introduction of Chevening fellowships in 2004, what, if any, have been the advantages of fellowships over scholarships?
2. In 2004–05, why were there so few fellowship opportunities relative to scholarships?
3. Can you tell us how Chevening placements are linked to the FCO’s strategic priorities and explain how their impact is measured in the short and medium terms? 3302621007 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 30 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
The Committee also proposes to send the Council questions relating to its Annual Report for 2004–05. It will do so as soon as the Annual Report is published. Please could the Committee have your response to the above no later than Monday, 21 November. Steve Priestley Clerk of the Committee 3 November 2005
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from the Parliamentary OYcer at the British Council The article refers to a project managed by the British Council’s cultural relations think tank, Counterpoint. The objective of Counterpoint is to stimulate debate about cultural relations. The project, Keeping in Touch, involved hosting an online community of 17 young journalists from the UK and overseas who shared their ideas about their society and the world in general. The launch of the project coincided with the outbreak of war in Iraq, which was inevitably a subject of concern to those involved. The Keeping in Touch participants were selected by British Council oYces on the basis of their proven ability as outstanding young journalists. We believe it is vital to engage with young journalists as people who play a critical role in influencing how other countries are perceived by their audiences. The journalists came from Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Turkey, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Nigeria, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Sunday Telegraph quotes from some of the postings to the site. One Jordanian writer described Israel as a “fascist Jewish state.” The site was moderated by a respected Afghan scholar and broadcaster. Our policy on moderation is to screen out extremism whilst keeping open a space for opinions which some people might find uncomfortable. We accept that as a non-political organisation we should not have allowed this particular description to have been published on a website managed by the British Council. In the light of this incident we are undertaking a full review of our policy and guidelines on the pre- and post-moderation of websites run by the British Council, using the extensive and thorough guidelines used by the BBC as a starting point. The draft policy is due to be presented to the Senior Management Team in January and will then be implemented across all our websites globally. The contributions made by the journalists explored many aspects of life in their societies that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, such as cinema, gender relations, the Anglican church, consumerism, Mariah Carey, globalization, female genital mutilation, race, alcohol and Roma. Some of them voiced their feelings about the international political environment in ways which some people in the UK would find challenging but which were widely discussed in the British and international press. We believe that it was appropriate to allow these views to be aired in the context of a much wider discussion of contemporary cultural issues because it is impossible to explore cultural relations without being seen to be prepared to listen to other people’s points of view. This is particularly the case when dealing with independent minded and well educated young people whose perceptions of the UK may be significant for the future of our international standing and who would not participate in an activity which constrained their freedom of speech in ways which they regarded as unacceptable. Publication of these views did not imply that the British Council endorsed them. Nor do we accept that publication “fuelled anti-British extremism.” The project should also be seen in the overall context of the British Council’s global commitment to building greater intercultural trust and understanding. This has included our Connecting Futures initiative which has involved more than 4 million people in its activities in 40 countries since 2002, with some 27,000 taking part in more detailed and intensive engagement. The Keeping in Touch pages were removed from the Counterpoint website in June 2005 because the project had finished. Some of the articles remained in the archive and these were the ones quoted from in the Sunday Telegraph. All articles relating to this project have now been removed.
Chevening Scholarships Chevening scholarships are an FCO programme. The British Council administer many elements of the programme to FCO specifications under a Service Level Agreement. It is therefore appropriate that questions relating to Chevening should be directed to the Public Diplomacy Policy Department of the FCO. Kate Buxton Parliamentary OYcer 17 November 2005 3302621009 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31
Letter to Kate Buxton, Parliamentary OYcer at the British Council, from the Clerk of the Committee
British Council’s Annual Report and Follow-up Questions The Committee noted the Foreign Secretary’s Written Statement of 20 December which announced the publication of the British Council’s Annual Report for 2004–05. I would be grateful if you could arrange for 20 copies to be sent to the FAC Secretariat so that we may circulate these to members of the Committee. As you will remember, the Council sent the Committee a draft copy of its Annual Report just before the oral evidence session back in October. Having considered this draft, and now that the Annual Report has been published, the Committee wishes to raise several questions. (The questions are attached.) The Committee also wishes to seek clarification and some further information on a few points which relate to the supplementary answers that the Council provided in follow-up to the oral evidence session. I would be grateful if you could arrange a response to these questions to be sent to the Committee no later than Monday, 23 January. Steve Priestley Clerk of the Committee 3 January 2006
Questions relating to the Annual Report
Questions 1 to 5 relate to pages 42 and 43 of the Annual Report and to the Council’s corporate scorecard for 2004–05 1. Can you confirm all the Key Performance Indicators that the Council agreed with the FCO for 2004–05 and demonstrate how performance has fared against them? 2. In relation to the measure “Reporting strengthening of ties with the UK resulting from new or continuing engagement with the British Council” the score has decreased from 1.1 to 0.9. Can you explain why performance decreased and tell us what action the Council is taking to reverse this decline? 3. Why did the number of participants last year in library and information services, knowledge and learning centres, and education counselling services halve from 2.8 million to 1.4 million? What is the Council doing to address this? 4. The objective “Relationships brokered by the British Council broaden the international view of young people in the UK and other countries” is not currently measured. How is the Council able to assess performance against this objective? What plan is there to measure progress in this area? 5. What attempt has been made to scale the FCO survey results so that comparisons can be made between 2003–04 and 2004–05? Have results improved?
Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2005 6. The accounts disclose a write-oV of £360,000 relating to over-payment of staV remuneration going back 10 years. What is the background to this and why was it is not discovered for so long? What actions has the Council taken to ensure this type of control failure does not reoccur?
New finance and business system 7. Is the Council still on course for the global roll-out of its new finance and business system? When is the global roll-out of FABS scheduled to be completed? 8. What discussions has the Council had with the FCO about its experience in rolling out its new systems overseas? 9. What plans does the Council have to ensure that the global roll-out does not aVect its ability to sign its 2005–06 accounts? 10. In 2004–05 only 84.6 per cent of invoices were paid on time. What action has the Council taken to improve payment performance? New premises in Nairobi 11. Was the construction of the new British Council premises in Nairobi completed on time and to budget? 3302621009 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 32 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Further Questions Regarding Oral Evidence
StaV numbers 12. The Committee asked the Council to provide data on its staYng figures in the UK. The Council provided figures for the current year. Can you provide the Committee with staYng figures for the last five years and projected staYng numbers for future years? 13. Can you breakdown further by role/function the 366 mainstream central services staV? 14. What decisions has the Council reached on the locating of its UK-based staV following the Lyons review?
Comparisons with international analogues 15. The Council provided information on the amount of floor space it occupies domestically and overseas and data for comparable organisations in France and Germany. Can the Council provide comparisons for its analogues in terms of spend per head of population and numbers of staV employed split by the function they perform?
EYciency savings 16. The Council told the Committee in its supplementary note that 62 per cent of its eYciency savings (for the period to 2007–08) were reliant on IT. Can you detail where these savings will be made? For example, what percentage will be derived from staV reductions?
Tax liabilities overseas 17. The Council informed the Committee in October that it has about £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, an amount that was “currently being processed”. When does the Council expect to settle this bill? 18. Is it possible that the Council will face similar tax problems in other countries? What is the current position in Turkey? What contingencies or provisions has the Council for such eventualities?
Supplementary note from the British Council
Questions Relating to the Annual Report
1. Can you confirm all the Key Performance Indicators that the Council agreed with the FCO for 2004–05 and demonstrate how performance has fared against them? All the Key Performance Indicators as set out on p42 and 423 of our annual report were agreed by the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce as part of Strategy 2010. We are either maintaining or increasing our impact compared with 2003–04 and against larger samples of respondents. Please see questions 2 and 3 which cover exceptions to this.
2. In relation to the measure “Reporting strengthening of ties with the UK resulting from new or continuing engagement with the British Council” the score has decreased from 1.1 to 0.9. Can you explain why performance decreased and tell us what action the Council is taking to reverse this decline? This result is generated from data collected in a sample of countries which are surveyed on a three year rolling basis. We have reported this data in the annual report for the sake of completeness however this data will only make real sense after a period of three years. Therefore this result does not necessarily represent a decline.
3. Why did the number of participants last year in library and information services, knowledge and learning centres, and education counselling services halve from 2.8 million to 1.4 million? What is the Council doing to address this? There has not in fact been a halving of numbers of participants in library and information services, knowledge and learning centres, and education counselling services. This result is an anomaly arising from a change in categorisation between 2003–04 and 2004–05. Due to data being applied diVerently to the two categories (1. face to face services: information services, knowledge and learning centres, education counselling services and 2. electronic media: participatory virtual services) a clearer picture emerges when we consider the total of these two areas together. 3302621010 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33
This gives results of: 2003–04 2.9 million 2004–05 3.3 million We are addressing the question of categorisation through reissuing of guidance on recording corporate performance scorecard results.
4. The objective “Relationships brokered by the British Council broaden the international view of young people in the UK and other countries” is not currently measured. How is the Council able to assess performance against this objective? What plan is there to measure progress in this area?
This objective was not measured in 04/05 as it was introduced as part of the 2010 strategy. Measures and mechanisms for collecting data are being put in place and piloted in the current financial year. Data collection will focus on certain programmes, for example, the Dreams and Teams Project. Having tested the methodology, we will roll this out across the global network in 2006–07.
5. What attempt has been made to scale the FCO survey results so that comparisons can be made between 2003–04 and 2004–05? Have results improved?
Below is a table comparing the results from the FCO survey in the same format using the original 7 point scale*. As can be seen from this table, the results have shown improvements in all areas.
The UK is increasingly The UK is increasingly The UK is increasingly recognised as the country of recognised as a country able recognised as the country of choice for creative ideas and to satisfy aspirations for choice for partnering achievements self-development positive social change
FCO survey: FCO survey: FCO survey: (a)building appreciation (a) increasing (a) enhancing awareness of the UK’s creativity. recognition of the of the UK’s (b)building appreciation range and quality of democratic values and of the UK’s scientific learning opportunities. processes. innovation (b) promoting the (b) working in partnership (c)strengthening people’s learning of English. to strengthen good engagement overseas governancec) with the diversity of strengthening people’s UK culture engagement overseas with the diversity of UK culture. 2003–4 result (a)5.4 (a) 6.0 (a) 4.9 (b)5.0 (b) 5.9 (b) 4.9 (c)5.1 (c) 5.1 2004–05 result (a)5.8 (a) 6.5 (a) 5.3 (b)5.5 (b) 5.9 (b) 5.5 (c)5.6 (c) 5.6
* The FCO survey invited Heads of Mission to rate the eVectiveness of the British Council’s performance. Please rate the eVectiveness of the British Council in your country in the last 12 months 1. Had a negative eVect 2. Very ineVective 3. IneVective overall 4. Neither eVective nor ineVective 5. EVective overall 6. Very eVective
7. Outstanding in its eVectiveness 3302621010 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 34 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2005
6. The accounts disclose a write-oV of £360,000 relating to over-payment of staV remuneration going back 10 years. What is the background to this and why was it is not discovered for so long? What actions has the Council taken to ensure this type of control failure does not reoccur?
The British Embassy in Israel discovered a fraud relating to the statutory Rest Home allowance. The paperwork had been altered to increase the rate at which the Embassy paid these annual payments to all qualifying locally engaged staV. The British Council was aVected because the allowance was paid to locally engaged staV based on the falsified rates in documentation supplied by the Embassy. The British Council had no reason to challenge the authenticity of the rates it received. The fraud was perpetrated over a 10 year period from 1994 through to 2004 resulting in an over payment of allowances of approximately £360,000. No evidence was found of any complicity from British Council staV. The British Council control systems were working in line with corporate principles and practices. However in this instance the controls were undermined through the acceptance of externally verified documentation on which we placed assurance.
New Finance and Business System
7. Is the Council still on course for the global roll-out of its new finance and business system? When is the global roll-out of FABS scheduled to be completed?
The Council remains on course for the global roll-out of FABS. The system has been live in the UK for just over one year and was successfully implemented in India in October 2005. In order to ensure that the overall level of change within the British Council remains manageable and to ensure the stability of our accounting services we have decided to extend the deadline for the global roll-out and expect completion by March 2009.
8. What discussions has the Council had with the FCO about its experience in rolling out its new systems overseas?
There has been regular contact and sharing of experience between senior managers of the Council’s FABS team and the FCO’s PRISM team including staV from Cap Gemini. Recent discussions have centred on how to use the respective systems to optimise eYciency savings and benefits.
9. What plans does the Council have to ensure that the global roll-out does not aVect its ability to sign its 2005–06 accounts?
Top priority has been given to achieving optimum operational stability of the system in the UK to ensure that the 2005–06 accounts are not compromised in any way. We are confident that this will be achieved. The 2004–05 accounts, produced for the first time using the SAP system, were signed oV in September 2005.
10. In 2004–05 only 84.6% of invoices were paid on time. What action has the Council taken to improve payment performance?
The payment of invoices last financial year was adversely aVected by the introduction of FABS in January 2005. There was an anticipated period of system closure during which only emergency payments were made, and once the new system went live there was a period where staV had to become familiar with the new processes. This led to delays in processing payments. Considerable eVort was put into training staV prior to go-live and additional training and workshops organised afterwards to ensure the processes were being operated eYciently and eVectively. The percentage paid on time during the first nine months of this financial year has improved to 88%. This is close to the 89.1% achieved in 2003–04, however our aim is to pay 100% of invoices on time. We will monitor this closely with the aim of achieving 100%. 3302621010 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35
New Premises in Nairobi
11. Was the construction of the new British Council premises in Nairobi completed on time and to budget?
Yes, the FCO approved a budget of £2.3 million for work to be completed in 2004–05. Final expenditure for the project is £2.1 million and the Council occupied the new building on 1 November 2004.
Further Questions Pursuant to Oral Evidence
StaV numbers
12. The Committee asked the Council to provide data on its staYng figures in the UK. The Council provided figures for the current year. Can you provide the Committee with staYng figures for the last five years and projected staYng numbers for future years?
The number of staV at 31 March 2004 was the same as that at 31 March 2001. It rose in March 2005, with an increase in project posts associated with change programmes, and in grant funded posts—reflecting increased grant funding. Posts supporting paid services decreased—reflecting a reduction in paid development services. Since March 2005 there has been a decrease in UK posts—and an increase in the proportion of vacant posts, in preparation for the Change programmes. We are undertaking a major UK Operations Change programme and review of Corporate Services in the UK: projected staV numbers will be finalised subject to discussions with trade unions and an approved business case.
31 Mar 2001 31 Mar 2002 31 Mar 2003 31 Mar 2004 31 Mar 2005 31 Sep 2005
UK total 1,336 100% 1,340 100% 1,319 100% 1,304 100% 1,391 100% 1,375 100% (of which FABS) 1 0% 13 1% 14 1% 56 4% 107 8% 112 8% Consultants/ 104 8% 87 7% 87 7% 65 5% 129 9% 120 9% contractors Vacant 91 7% 127 9% 60 5% 103 8% 90 6% 126 9% Net 1,140 85% 1,125 84% 1,172 89% 1,136 87% 1,172 84% 1,129 82%
13. Can you breakdown further by role/function the 366 mainstream central services staV?
Central services breakdown, in same format as material already given on 31 October 2005. The break down of the 366 for Central Services is as follows:
Central services Total London Manchester Belfast CardiV Edinburgh Elsewhere
Senior management team 16 1% 16 0 0 0 0 0 and secretariat Corporate Planning, 19 2% 13 0 0 0 0 0 Commissioning Support, Programme Support, Procurement, Diversity and Legal Services Communications and 40 3% 28 12 0 0 0 1 Business Relations Finance, audit and 95 8% 78 17 0 0 0 0 decision support IT 71 6% 53 18 Estates and procurement 57 5% 40 20 0 0 0 0 HR 69 6% 50 19 FABS 68 6% 43 25 Total 434 37% 321 111 0 0 0 1
The Central Services review, aimed at streamlining the provision of central services, is likely to lead to a reduction in posts in departments. 3302621010 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 36 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
14. What decisions has the Council reached on the locating of its UK-based staV following the Lyons review? In the 1990s the British Council moved substantial numbers of posts from London to Manchester; since then we have moved further posts to Edinburgh, Belfast and Oxford. Between 2002 and 2005 we reduced our UK floorspace by 15% and the number of UK locations from 23 to 16. Accommodation in London is now contained within one administrative building (which we are leasing on advantageous terms) plus a specialist fine-art workshop. We have introduced flexible working patterns and set caps on space-per-desk which has a resulted in 40% better space utilisation in many parts of headquarters. Our review of UK operations and central services will lead to an assessment of the optimum use of our estate.
Comparisons with International Analogues
15. The Council provided information on the amount of floor space it occupies domestically and overseas and data for comparable organisations in France and Germany. Can the Council provide comparisons for its analogues in terms of spend per head of population and numbers of staV employed split by the function they perform? The Goethe Institut and the Alliance Franc¸aise are the nearest comparable organisations. Direct comparison is not possible as their precise functions are diVerent, as are the methods for channelling central funding. If the FAC wishes to pursue this in more detail it may wish to contact these organisations directly. With this proviso, here are the ‘comparable figures’ requested to the extent that they exist. These figures provided below were obtained through contacts at the respective organisations and from data available in their annual reports:
Goethe-Institut: StaV Some 3,000 employees, of whom 720 work in Germany, 320 are Munich appointed working overseas and 2,000 locally engaged overseas. Revenue In 2004 the Goethe Institut had a total income of Euros 204 million, some £1.80 per head. Of this Euros 163 million (£1.40 per head) was Government grant.
Alliance Franc¸aise: StaV Some 11,000 salaried employees. individuals, of whom 8,000 are teachers. 240 management posts are funded by the Ministry of Foreign AVairs. Finance The Alliance Franc¸aise does not exist as a single financial entity. Each institute publishes its own report, and there are no consolidated financial figures. The Alliance Franc¸aise receives a Government grant of some Euros 41 million, some 47p per head.
Efficiency Savings
16. The Council told the Committee in its supplementary note that 62 per cent of its projected eYciency savings (for the period to 2007–08) are reliant on IT. Can you detail where these savings will be made? For example, what proportion will be derived from staV reductions? Of total projected savings 51% are estimated staV reductions and 41% due to savings in procurement and other non-staV areas. The staV reduction relates to staV both across our overseas network and in the UK.
Tax Liabilities Overseas
17. The Council informed the Committee in October that it has about £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, an amount that was “currently being processed”. When does the Council expect to settle this bill? The £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, reported as “being processed” to the FAC in October, has been paid. The Federal Tax Service has given the Ministry of Foreign AVairs written confirmation that the British Council has met its obligations to pay back-taxes.
18. Is it possible that the Council will face similar tax problems in other countries? What is the current position in Turkey? What contingencies or provisions has the Council for such eventualities? We are reviewing tax positions in all high risk countries. We are in discussion with Turkish authorities. We have a reserve from our income generating activities which can be drawn upon to cover contingencies. 3302621011 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37
Supplementary note from the British Council on Iraq
Key Facts about British Council Iraq — Established in 1952. Closed in 1990 and re-opened in 2003. —OYces in Baghdad (in British Embassy) and Basra (in British Consulate-General). Resource Centres in universities of Baghdad and Basra. Public access Information Centre in the International Zone in Baghdad. — Director: Rajiv Bendre and Deputy Director: Reem Shafiq — 11 country-appointed staV and two UK-appointed staV. We employ two international consultants on UK contracts. — We manage two major contracts funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) and administer around 24 Chevening awards on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (FCO). — Total turnover for this year is £6.4 million. This is made up of £1.3 million in grant in aid from the FCO and £5.1 million in agency (DFID contract) funding.
Regional Context (Middle East) — Israel-Palestine conflict and Iraq war are major factors in terms of relations between the region and the west — Birth rates amongst highest in the world. Over 70% of the region’s population is under 30. — Governments seeking to diversify economies away from dependence on oil and create job opportunities for young nationals. — Political situation across the region likely to remain brittle as a consequence of Iraq. Security remains an issue across region—especially Iraq, Saudi and Yemen. — With the exception of Yemen and Iraq the region is wealthy and oil prices are likely to remain high — There are signs of growing political participation and limited moves to more democratic processes
Operating Context — Political: Establishment of security is the key issue. Elections of Dec 2005 are seen as critical to Iraq’s stabilisation. In the medium to long term Iraq has the potential to serve as a model in the region’s social and political development, and to provide leadership within the region. The political situation in Iraq is likely to remain brittle for the foreseeable future. — Economic: Iraq is potentially a rich country, with strong human capital, oil and water resources. Promised foreign debt reduction and the high oil price are positive. However, lack of security frustrates economic development and foreign investment, and disrupts oil exports. Recent history has devastated infrastructure and public services, and means that the international community’s finance and leadership in improving security and reconstruction is expected to be required for many years to come — Social. Human rights are an important but sensitive issue. Birth rates are high and over 50% of the population is under 25. New ideas filtering through now-free media have a direct impact on political and social development, raising debate for example on the role of women. Iraq faces a significant challenge blending the diVerent religious, ethnic, regional and political groups into a cohesive tolerant nation. Science and education are respected and in strong demand; but there are doubts about the quality of education received by those who graduated after 1990. — Other: limited telephone and mobile coverage in many areas, very restricted Internet access. No postal service, travel within Iraq very diYcult, almost no secure travel into or out of Iraq for non-Iraqis.
Highlights — 200! university senior managers, ministry staV, academics and media and health professional have attended Council supported training and networking events in 2004-05. Particularly successful have been six Management Development Programmes for Presidents and Deans from Iraqi universities, run in partnership with Birmingham and Nottingham universities, as part of our engagement in Iraq’s higher education reform programme. 3302621011 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 38 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
— ELT: More than 100 oil ministry, education ministry, and school teachers have taken part in British Council supported training workshops and networking events. We have supported the establishment and training of an English Language Teachers’ Development Team attached to the Ministry of Education, which acts as a steering committee for the reform of ELT in schools and is revitalising the teaching of English. — More than 60 managers and teachers from technical colleges and institutes around Iraq have attended British Council supported training and networking events. This has resulted in a capacity building project which twins nine UK Further Education Colleges with Iraqi technical colleges and institutes in six regions around Iraq.
Overview of the Sectors in which we Operate — Education is the most eVective channel for the Council’s re-engagement with Iraq, and the key to Iraq’s increased prosperity and re-engagement with the world. Our strategy develops educational links and programmes re-building ties with the UK. This includes working at the policy level in the ministries of Higher Education and Education, connecting Ministers and senior staV to UK counterparts and institutions by our sponsored visits to the UK, as well as supporting participation at key education reform workshops. — Work in education also includes practitioners—university academics through a very popular Higher Education Links programme; vocational educators through an innovative, UK Association of Colleges partnered scheme, and school heads through a regional School Leadership project. — English is a second key sector for us, and Iraq’s “window on the world”. We have supported the establishment and training of an English Language Teachers’ Development Team attached to the Ministry of Education, which acts as a steering committee for the reform of ELT in schools and is revitalising the teaching of English. This year we will train specially selected staV from the Ministry of Higher Education to help train Iraqi university students in preparing for the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS) exam—essential in enabling these young Iraqis to study in the UK and other western universities. — Governance: We manage a DFID-funded £3 million Political Participation Fund to increase political awareness, representation and participation in the political process in Iraq, particularly amongst the poor, marginalised and vulnerable in society. Specially focused on women & gender, the project also supports development of legitimate and inclusive political institutions in Iraq. The PPF supported Iraqi organisations on electoral awareness raising, and monitoring activities during the Oct 2005 referendum and the Dec 2005 election. — Social Development: We manage the DFID-funded Civil Society Fund, a £5 million project to strengthen the capacity of Iraqi Civil Society Organisations to better address the needs of vulnerable groups. Includes enabling CSOs to prioritise and implement community project initiatives, increasing their access to information, funding and networking opportunities. Project also carries out activities that help central and local government to better understand the role of CSOs. Much of the work is carried out in partnership with international NGOs, which are supported in mentoring and developing local counterparts.
Examples of Our Work
1. Improved perceptions of the UK in other countries. Westminster Symposium September 2005— Re-engaging with Higher Education “This event has done more than any other to foster a partnership with the UK for the development of higher education in Iraq . . .” Dr Abbas Al-Hussaini, Secretary-General, Iraq Higher Education Organising Committee. We have worked with ministers and senior academics in Iraq and the UK, on two major Higher Education symposia on Iraq at the University of Westminster, with Iraqi Higher Education Ministerial representation and attended by senior Iraqi academics from over 15 universities and institutes and 60! key members from UK higher & further education sector, UK education suppliers and publishers. These events brought the Iraqi higher education sector back into the network of international academic interest and support, with its locus in the UK. 2. Greater mutual understanding between the UK and other countries—School Leadership and Links “As we see, hear and understand school life in England we see we have the same problems and dreams” Sitt Basma, school head, Baghdad. 3302621011 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39
British Council has launched an innovative regional school leadership programme which brings together school heads from several Middle eastern countries with UK counterparts, in a series of video and tele- conferences and visits. Common problems, challenges and aspirations are discussed and learning and action points taken away. Excitingly, the work done by Sitt Basma and other Iraqi school heads will underpin a new School Links programme between Iraqi and British schools, to be launched in 2006. 3. Stronger ties between the UK and other countries—Refreshing Doctors “Our medical profession always looked first to Britain for training, and now that we can travel again, we come back to you for help . . .” Participant, Norman Rowe Education Trust head & neck specialists’ study visit. British Council has partnered the Royal Colleges in UK and the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the medical profession is supporting a series of short update and best practice programmes for Iraqi doctors. Held either in Amman or UK, these have provided vital current knowledge to paediatricians, gynaecologists, head & neck specialists and general physicians. The programme, started in 2004, is expected to continue until 2008.
Key Sponsors,Clients and Partners — Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (implementation of Chevening, shared public diplomacy agenda); — Department for International Development (management of governance and social development projects) — Department for Education and Skills ( policy visits from Iraqi Ministry of Education; school links); — UK universities and colleges (Higher Education links, Rawabit college partnership initiative) — UK Trade & Investment re. education export sector (eg publishers, education equipment suppliers & universities and colleges looking to increasing placement of Iraqi students) — Royal Colleges of medicine (for short-term training programmes for Iraqi medical profession)
Target Audiences — Ministers and senior oYcials in key sectors of Education, Governance (including Women and Human Rights) Culture & Information, Health — University and Technical College Presidents & senior administrators, academic staV — Key staV of international organisations participating in Iraq’s reconstruction — NGO and CSO (Civil Society Organisation) leaders concerned with participation issues — Networks of English teachers and teacher trainers — Senior journalists and professional staV in print & broadcast media — Senior arts practitioners, in Iraq and the diaspora Young, educated Iraqis with an international outlook and an interest in opportunities for self development
Supplementary note from the British Council on Afghanistan
Key facts about BC Afghanistan — Reopened in June 2004. — Centre in Kabul. Contact point in Balkh (Mazar El Sharif). — Director: Malcolm Jardine — There are four country-appointed staV, two UK-appointed staV. — We manage one client-funded contract (amounting to £84,285 in value) and administer seven Chevening awards on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (FCO). — Total turnover for this year is £692,098. This was made up of £635,000 in grant in aid from the FCO and £57,098 in contract and customer income.
Regional Context (Central and South Asia Region) — Steady increase in investment in volatile, strategically important region where security likely to remain priority concern with need to react quickly to changed circumstances. — Central Asian countries adapting economically and socially to post-Soviet era 3302621012 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 40 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
— Region to remain key for counter-terrorism, energy security and engagement with moderate Islam. — Education and English Language to remain priorities as economies develop and youth seek opportunities. — Increased funding for arts to meet increasing desire for exposure to international creativity.
Our Vision — To make a significant contribution to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, particularly through English language support and education
Statistics — 243 students have taken exams with us since we reopened — 16 students have studied in the UK since we reopened (including Chevening) — 12 visitors were sent from here to the UK through the British Council — 260 people have attended British Council taught English Language courses — 19,500 BC/BBC English Language coursebooks have been distributed nationwide
Operating Context — Avery positive attitude towards the UK — Strong and positive Afghan memories of the British Council presence here before 1979. — Overwhelming demand for BC services. — Poor educational infrastructure, very low literacy (esp. among females), lack of teachers — Most young people have not completed schooling making academic studies extremely diYcult — Overwhelming demand for education generally but particularly English Language both at an individual and institutional level (eg universities, ministries) — Civil Service reform still key task — Security concerns limit ability to capitalise on these opportunities — Security situation, primarily the problem of finding secure accommodation, makes attracting UK staV, consultants and visitors diYcult — Travel beyond Kabul/North also constrained —EVorts must consequently be carefully targeted with greatest emphasis on reaching enablers and multipliers. — Moving to new premises and expanding our staV will allow us to operate more eVectively with greater impact.
Overview of the Sectors We Operate In — We are working to build Afghan capacity through English Language Training. To date this has involved providing classes to Counter Narcotics oYcials, staV of the new Parliament and staV of an NGO supporting Human Rights. This work will continue to be our focus in the future as we expand our activities (see below for future plans) — We support Afghan governance and reform through sending key Afghans abroad to attend BC sponsored seminars (most latterly a senior oYcial of the Ministry of Women’s AVairs and a newly elected female MP) and by bringing in UK consultants (Civil Service Reform) — We support Afghan Arts through sponsorship of UK-related theatre productions (two Shakespeare plays in Dari) and through showing of UK documentaries. Over the next year we will work to expand this work by oVering workshops from UK artists/performers — We provide an examinations service administering not only IELTS exams but also exams from a range of UK institutions.
Past and Future Highlights — The English Resource Centres in Kabul University and Balkh University continue to be supported by the British Council providing an invaluable resource to the students and staV of those universities. The Chancellor of Kabul University has described the ERC as a “centre of excellence” 3302621012 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41
— The British Council, through its provision of an English Language consultant and funding for teacher training, is the lead player in an internationally backed project to establish an English Language Unit at Kabul University. The Unit will teach English to university staV and students with the ultimate aim of the university becoming an English-medium university. During this pilot year, it is projected that a total of 50 teachers and over 2,000 staV and students will be taught. — Afull-time Teacher of English will shortly be appointed to respond to the huge demand for English from ministries and other institutions. Negotiations are underway with UNDP for the use of the teacher to give classes to the new Parliament. — Books and other materials are being provided to the Universities of Education (Teacher Training) in Kabul and other cities so that they can establish reference centres for teacher trainers. Appointment of a UK-appointed Teacher Trainer is planned for the summer. This will allow us to reach out to schools and teachers. In a recent conversation the Minister of Education told me that his ministry “has no English teachers” This is not accurate but reveals the depth of training and assistance required. — An initial distribution to schools of 5,000 English/Farsi CD-ROMs of the cached British Council website “Go4English” will shortly be carried out the Ministry of Education. Later next year the website will add Pashto and Farsi to its online languages. — ABritish Council sponsored Shakespeare play, Love’s Labours Lost, perf ormed in Dari was a major success. During its five day run it attracted an audience of several hundred from all classes of Afghan society and attracted widespread media attention not only in Afghanistan but worldwide. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Not only was it the first professional production of Shakespeare for almost 25 years but was one of the few occasions when men and women have acted together on stage. — The British Council Afghanistan will continue to support the Arts over the coming year through involvement in regional theatre and film projects and material support for the Faculty of Fine Arts at Kabul University
Key Sponsors,Clients and Partners — Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (Chevening, Counter Narcotics Project) — UNDP (English for Parliamentarians) — EU (Civil Service Reform) — UK Examination Boards — US Government (Kabul University English Language Unit Project)
Target Audiences — Senior oYcials and ministers in key sectors — Members of parliament and their staV — Civil servants — University oYcials & lecturers — Teacher Trainers (English Language) — Teachers of English — Key players in the Arts community — University students — Young, educated Afghans with an interest in opportunities for self-development
Letter to Mr John Maples MP from Sir David Green KCMG, Director-General, British Council
Having read the transcript of the Hansard report of the recent evidence session on public diplomacy with Lord Carter of Coles I thought it might be useful if I clarified some points, particularly in relation to your question about British Council work in Russia. Your question raises an important issue about the relative value of face-to-face engagement in comparison to the reach of Internet and broadcasting services in a post-Cold War world. I too would be concerned if the British Council was running plays no-one was watching, or running libraries no-one was using. 3302621013 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 42 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Every aspect of our work must prove its value in terms of impact, or we would stop doing it and achieve our objectives by other means. In Russia, however, I am convinced that our public access centres and face- to-face contact continue to be critical to drawing in the right target audiences to a longer-term relationship with the United Kingdom. An average of 46,000 people a month use our information resources (2004–05 figures) in Russia. For many young aspirational people in developing and transitional countries, on-line resources cannot supplant books and written materials—while for us, the opportunity to draw people into face-to-face contact is invaluable. Worldwide, libraries (increasingly equipped with on-line and video-conferencing facilities) are still an important means of drawing in younger, educated people: last year 2.8 million used these facilities worldwide. I agree that modern communications may increasingly facilitate the provision of information by Internet: and indeed, our on-line services are used by 1.5 million each month. Our EducationUK site was used by 6.1 million last year and contains a database of 450,000 courses. The Global Gateway, which we manage on behalf of the DfES, now has 50 partnership agreements with other countries, providing twinning for schools, teachers and education administrators. The way forward for public diplomacy reach therefore must be a blend between face-to-face activity, on- line engagement and wider communication through selected media. Our ambition is to increase our internet reach to 5 million a month by 2010, an achievable goal given the likely increase in connectivity internationally. Overall, our arts work last year attracted audiences of 3.7 million (leaving aside work undertaken in partnership with or through media organisations). In Russia, our arts work has focused on building partnerships with more than 100 arts institutions or organisations. This produces much greater long-term impact and stronger relationships for the UK than one-oV productions. The purpose of creating common metrics and measurement systems across public diplomacy, as we have readily agreed we should do following the Carter report, is to ensure that we place resources where they achieve the most impact in building longer term ties for the UK and improving perceptions overseas of our country. With kind regards, Sir David Green KCMG Director-General 24 February 2006
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the British Council The Carter report provides a clear framework for the overall co-ordination of the UK’s public diplomacy, a revised definition of public diplomacy for partners to work to and, for the first time, a definitive figure of the UK’s grant-funded expenditure in this area (£617 million) between the FCO, the British Council and the BBC World Service.
Establishment of the Public Diplomacy Board We believe the advent of the Public Diplomacy Board oVers a major opportunity to provide strategic direction for all public diplomacy work. We welcome the conclusion of the Carter report that it should be responsible for agreeing the strategy, advising on resource allocation and responsible for performance measurement and monitoring. The decision to have the Board chaired by an FCO Minister will ensure a higher profile for public diplomacy inside Whitehall, while the inclusion of an independent Vice-Chair and an independent member with experience of evaluation and monitoring will provide welcome additional expertise and broader experience. The Director-General of the British Council will play a full part as a full member of the Board. We also welcome the finding in the Carter report that the UK benefits from the existence of the British Council and the BBC World Service as two world-class institutions with strong brands, and the recognition by the review team of the importance of appropriate editorial and managerial independence in maintaining that reputation internationally. We believe the key to success for the Public Diplomacy Board will be to ensure that its role is set at a strategic level, with members able to assess the outputs and results through clearly-defined and measurable indicators, while public diplomacy partners remain responsible for operational activity under their own clear brands. There will, as now, be co-operation and joint activity where this will increase impact, through cross-Whitehall initiatives such as the India-UK Education Initiative, or through the Prime Minister’s Initiative on international students. 3302621014 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43
We are working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce in developing a comprehensive public diplomacy strategy for the new Public Diplomacy Board to consider, and are seconding staV to the new strategy and performance management unit, including the head of the new unit.
Measurement and Evaluation We agree with the finding that the overall impact of public diplomacy work should be measured through the development of a commonly-agreed measurement system. This will assist the Board in assessing the relative value of each individual institution’s contribution to the objectives of public diplomacy. The British Council brings practical experience of measurement and evaluation systems to this process. We believe that the new evaluation system should be light touch in its nature and focus on public diplomacy impact. Where possible, measurement indicators should be compatible with existing evaluation systems run the public diplomacy partners. We do not believe it is the intention either of the report or of public diplomacy partners that the PD Board metrics should supplant the current scorecard and Heads of Mission surveys, as these provide important measurement information for the British Council across all its work. Our current evaluation systems are already extensive and a summary of their findings has been published in our annual report for 2005–06.
Accountability of the British Council We provided a note to the FAC in October 2005 outlining the range of accountability mechanisms under which the British Council is held to account to Parliament through its sponsoring department, the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce. We believe that these mechanisms provide full and substantial accountability in terms of strategic direction, performance reporting, and assurance in terms of audit. We do not believe it will be the function of the Public Diplomacy Board to duplicate or take over these functions of oversight or parliamentary accountability. We believe that care needs to be taken to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication or overlap through the new systems now being established.
Taxation and Status Issues The Carter report called on the British Council to be pro-active in resolving tax and status issues. We have undertaken a review of this area. While it is not practical for there to be uniform status across all the countries we work in, (given that the terms we operate under vary according to diVerent legal systems and whether we operate under memoranda of Understanding, Cultural Centres Agreements, or other forms of government-to-government agreements), we are now adopting a pro-active policy of regularising our status across our network. Martin Dowle Head, Director-General’s oYce 8 March 2006
Supplementary note submitted by the British Council The Committee has asked for clarification of two points: 1. Number of staV including overseas locally engaged (average monthly figures for 2004–05): United Kingdom 1,159 Overseas 4,754 Teachers 1,700 Total 7,613 The committee should be aware these figures are for the totality of British Council work and activity and not solely for grant-funded activity. 2. The British Council spend from both FCO and DfES grant in terms per head of the UK population amounted to £2.96 in 2004–05. It should be noted that no direct comparison can be drawn with analogues in France and Germany without (i) including (in the case of France) the cultural section of the Foreign Ministry, the Instituts Francaises and parts of the DGCID, Department for International co-operation and Development; and (in the case of Germany) DAAD, the educational exchange agency; and (ii) studying the varying scope, reach and impact of the institutions concerned. 8 March 2006 3302621016 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 44 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Letter to Rt Hon Sir John Stanley MP from Sir David Green KCMG, Director-General of the British Council I thought it might be useful to clarify some points concerning British Council staYng in the United Kingdom, given that you raised the issue in the evidence session with Lord Carter of Coles earlier this month. There may be a perception that the UK staV levels are purely composed of grant-funded staV undertaking administrative tasks. If that were the case, I would agree with the view that the 1,173 figure which we provided the committee with last October would be unduly high. In fact, only half that number work on the grant-funded side of our activity and inside that number a large proportion are operational rather than administrative. The business and client-funded side include staV working on development contracts, our teaching centre network and examinations, and staV dealing with visitors and scholars coming to the UK. The figures also include staV working on EU contracted programmes, such as Socrates, which have a large UK participatory element. Many UK-based staV are working directly on operational activity overseas and on involving UK partners in work abroad. For example, our advisory specialist teams, amounting to 254 members of staV, are giving essential professional input to events and projects overseas to ensure that the quality of activities in-country is high and relevant to objectives. For the record, the division of staV between those working on activities funded by the Grant-in-Aid, and those working on business and client-funded activity, is as follows: UK posts serving grant-funded work 584 UK posts serving client-funded services 589 UK total 1,173 I strongly agree with the view that we should maintain a downward pressure on staYng levels in the UK. For this reason we have launched a UK change programme which will see further reductions in UK staYng, while ensuring a higher profession standard amongst our sector advisers. We are similarly undertaking reductions amongst our corporate services staV which will include some post suppressions. With kind regards, Sir David Green KCMG Director-General 13 March 2006
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the British Council
Relationship of Revenue-Earning and Grant-Funded Activity The British Council’s work in English teaching and examinations to more than 1.2 million people worldwide is self-financing. There are clear financial firewalls between our revenue-earning activities and our grant-funded work, with our accounts being regularly audited by the National Audit OYce. The fees paid by our teaching centre and examination customers cover all our costs, both at local level (for example, teachers, proportion of premises costs) and at the corporate level (for example, headquarter support services, investment in teaching materials, equipment and premises, and protecting against adverse risk). Our teaching centres and other paid services enable us to run a genuinely global network in 110 countries. Indeed, without our teaching centres and paid services operations, we would be present in fewer countries and thus less able to provide impact for the UK abroad. Our work in this sector is an integral part of our public diplomacy work. By drawing in 300,000 people into English classes, and 900,000 into sitting British Council-administered examinations on behalf of a number of examination bodies, we are able to funnel relevant target audiences into a deeper relationship with the United Kingdom, cross-marketing UK educational opportunities and grant-funded activities in areas such as the arts, science, governance, etc. The surpluses we earn from our revenue-earning operations are used to fund the teaching of English in countries with more diYcult environments where this provides public diplomacy benefit. For example, in Saudi Arabia, we are the only western organisation able to have direct engagement with young men and women through our teaching operations. It has been argued that the private sector could undertake the same work. However, few private sector operators undertake teaching in more diYcult environments where there are severely limited business prospects and serious security risks. Equally, there would be little or no likelihood of private sector providers 3302621017 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45
(who may be international companies, or Australian, Canadian, Irish or American in origin) being able to draw English language learners or those taking examinations into broader grant-funded work of the kind undertaken by the British Council. We agree with the Carter report’s observation that we should not be complacent about our ability to generate income, and note the acknowledgement of the review in paragraph 5.2.8 that this income supports our global presence. We keep the contribution of English teaching and examinations to our stated outcomes of improving perceptions of the UK, greater mutual understanding and stronger ties with other countries constantly under review. We note the reference in the Carter report to the advent of new technologies and new means of delivering English, and would point out that the British Council is recognised as an innovative leader in complementing its face-to-face engagement with on-line resources (for example through our go4english for learners from Arabic and in2english on-line resources in China, the latter in partnership with the BBC World Service). As stated in our note of 8 March 2006 we have undertaken a review of taxation and status issues and are pro-actively working to resolve these across our network. Martin Dowle Head, Director-General’s oYce 8 March 2006 3302621018 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 46 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 9 November 2005
Members present:
Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr John Maples Mr John Horam Sandra Osborne Mr Eric Illsley Mr Ken Purchase Mr Paul Keetch Sir John Stanley Mr Andrew Mackay Ms Gisela Stuart Andrew Mackinlay
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from the Director of the BBC World Service
I enclose BBC World Service’s written evidence for the Committee’s Inquiry into the FCO Annual Report. It is in two parts: the first part is a summary of BBC World Service activity over the year, and the second part is a summary of BBC World Service’s strategy and vision to 2010, which focuses on major changes to be formally announced on 25 October 2005 following full approval by the BBC Board of Governors last week. In preparation for the Committee’s hearing on the FCO Annual Report 2003–04, the World Service sent members a briefing on its SR04 submission, which included a separate bid for funding to establish an Arabic television service. The Committee will be aware that the bid for extra funds for Arabic television was unsuccessful and the World Service was asked to look at ways of funding it through re-prioritisation. This work has been ongoing throughout the year; during this period, there have been two other major public exercises which have contributed to our strategic thinking: — In March 2005, the DCMS published its Green Paper on BBC Charter renewal, A Strong BBC Independent of Government. This included the recommendations that the World Service should explore how it could face up to the arrival of satellite TV in many markets; and that it should consider reducing its portfolio of languages, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. — And, as you know, at the beginning of 2005, a Review of Public Diplomacy, led by Lord Carter of Coles, was established. BBC World Service welcomed the opportunity to provide information to the review. The review team is shortly to report, and is expected to echo the Green Paper in proposing that the language portfolio should be carefully scrutinised. It is also expected to recommend that the World Service should continue to exploit new technologies, services and platforms, and should respond more quickly to changing geopolitical circumstances. Both of these developments have reinforced the BBC’s own conviction that a far-reaching, radical strategy is needed to ensure that the World Service can retain its pre-eminence in a multimedia world. The second attached paper sets out the main elements of the BBC World Service’s strategy to 2010, with specific financial plans through 2007–08. It lays out the strategic principles and priorities that will guide the changes in activities, and details the areas of new investment. It also describes the reprioritisation of activities that will be necessary to deliver this exciting vision. The paper was endorsed by the BBC Board of Governors on 20 October. Consultations have also been held with the FCO about the proposed changes. The Foreign Secretary has given written approval, as he is obliged to do under the Broadcasting Agreement, for the proposed investment in Arabic TV and the proposed service reductions. Nigel Chapman 24 October 2005
1. BBC WORLD SERVICE: 2004–05 A YEAR IN REVIEW In 2004–05 BBC World Service consolidated its position as the best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting Independent research indicated that its reputation for trust and objectivity was higher than for any other international broadcasters in virtually all markets surveyed—including in Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, and USA. Its reputation also improved in markets in the Islamic world where it suVered a reverse during and immediately after the Iraq war. 3302621018 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47
Throughout the year, the range, intensity and geographical spread of major news stories was unprecedented. As well as developments in Iraq and the Middle East, there was extensive news coverage of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Darfur crisis, the Beslan school siege, the US and Ukrainian elections and the enlargement of the European Union. BBC World Service produced some of its strongest-ever news programmes, pioneered the use of new interactive media and provided enhanced services where most needed.
Audiences — BBC World Service’s overall audience figure rose to 149 million weekly listeners, a rise of three million listeners compared to 2004’s estimate of 146 million. This is the sixth year in succession that BBC World Service has attracted an audience over 145 million. This equates to over 50% more listeners than any comparable international broadcaster. — Listening in the USAincreased to 5 million, the highest ever level, up fro m 4.7 million last year. One in five opinion formers in New York and Washington listen each week while the figure in Boston is even higher at over one in four. — In India, weekly audiences rose 4.8 million to a total of 16.4 million weekly listeners. The increase has been due to improvements in Hindi language programming and to a high-profile series of BBC Hindi road-shows in rural areas of the country. This is the first increase in a number of years following a dramatic drop in overall radio listening in India, as well as a ban by Indian regulators on local FM stations carrying news from foreign broadcasters. This had resulted in a drop of over 12 million listeners between 1995 and 2002. — The weekly audience for the BBC Bengali Service has risen by 2.6 million to 13 million in the past year. The growth of the audience to BBC World Service is mostly driven by the increase in rural listening, and represents a strong recovery from the audience drop in 2003, particularly in Bangladesh, following the Iraq war. This latest survey reveals that the vast majority of those who have ever listened to the BBC—more than 80%—consider it to be trustworthy. — Audiences in Indonesia rose by 1.2 million to 4.4 million. — World Service audiences in the UK were measured at 1.3 million regular listeners. Programmes are now more easily available following the growth of digital and cable services. — In Nigeria, a Government ban on the rebroadcasting of foreign broadcasters’ news programmes by local FM stations, imposed in April 2004, has resulted in an overall drop of 1.5 million listeners in the country. However 20.2 million Nigerian listeners still tune in every week—17.6 million in the Hausa language, mostly on shortwave. Growth of competition had a negative impact on World Service audiences in some regions: — Listeners to the BBC Urdu service in Pakistan fell by 3.2 million to 9.4 million. — Kenyan audiences to BBC programmes fell by 2.1 million to an overall total of 4.5 million. — Listeners to the BBC Swahili service in Tanzania fell by 1.3 million to an overall total of 10.2 million.
FMs BBC World Service programmes are now available in high quality audibility on FM in 146 capital cities (77% of the world’s capitals), up from 139 last year.
Iraq Research showed that BBC World Service is the biggest speech radio station in Iraq. Weekly audiences in the country increased to 3.3 million (22%) from 1.8 million weekly listeners (13% of the radio audience) last year—an increase of 1.5 million. The independent surveys also showed that 43% of opinion formers in Iraq listen every week. The BBC’s new FM transmitter network in the country has made a crucial diVerence in ensuring the World Service remains competitive—we now have FMs in Baghdad, Mosul and Irbil, Kirkuk, Al-Nasirya, Basra, Al-Kut, Salahuddin and Al-Amara. The news bureau in Baghdad gave the organisation an important edge in reporting from a country that remains diYcult and dangerous to cover. For World Service news teams it complements the new bureau in Cairo, where a significant amount of programmes are now made for the Arabic Service. 3302621018 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 48 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Afghanistan Despite limited survey work due to safety considerations, the BBC attracted 2.8 million listeners in five provinces of Afghanistan—an increase of 2 million on last year’s Kabul only survey. That survey showed that BBC World Service programmes in Pashto and Persian had a 60% reach in the Afghan capital.
New Media Monthly page impressions to the BBC’s international news site, including bbcnews.com, increased to 351 million in August 2005 from 284 million a year previously, an increase of 67 million (for the period of this review, figures were 324 million in March 2005 from 279 million exactly a year previously—a rise of 45 million). In Brazil, online services now attract larger audiences than radio. BBC World Service is pioneering the introduction of video content and working closely with key media partners in that country. In January 2005 the BBC’s Brazilian website, bbcbrasil.com, registered 14.3 million page impressions, up more than 120% in a year. Since the period covered by this review, a BBC Persian Service programme became the first BBC language programme to be available to audiences via a podcast in August 2005. The podcast provided listeners with the flexibility to listen to a 15-minute highlight how and when they want to at bbcpersian.com.
Finance In the SR04 settlement, the Government announced an increase in funding for the World Service of £27 million over the period 2005–08. The separate bid for an Arabic television service was supported by the Government, but it said that funding would need to come from reprioritisation. BBC World Service will channel all the additional funds into expanding FM in major cities, strengthening its impact in the Islamic world, improving interactivity and partnership development. In order to maximise the value of new investments, World Service strives to cover all rising costs from eYciency gains. In this financial year, BBC World Service achieved eYciency savings of £4.4 million. The organisation also commenced a far-reaching reprioritisation exercise, the results of which are given in the second part of this paper.
General Editorial Overview BBC World Service continued to report on and from the Islamic world, including powerful coverage on Iraq—especially the elections and handover of power—enabled by a strong presence on the ground, complemented by insightful analysis and interviews. The network carried strong coverage of the Afghan and Iraqi elections, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and other key stories including developments in Saudi Arabia, the death of Yasser Arafat—the World Service began broadcasting on FM in Bethlehem on the day of his death, and the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister. Elsewhere, reporting was unparalleled, including in-depth coverage of the Beslan crisis (for which the World Service won the News Output Award at the Sony Radio Academy Awards), leveraging editorial coordination and newsgathering strength under diYcult circumstances. There was extra programming across several languages for the Tsunami disaster and comprehensive coverage of: events in Darfur; elections in Ukraine, and the USA; the death of Pope John Paul II; EU enlargement; the Davos summit.
Landmark Programming Landmark programmes included The Jigsaw in Pieces, on diplomacy after the Iraq war; The New Europe, broadcast across all European languages; and Profit and Loss: The Story of African Oil. The World Service played an important role in the BBC-wide China Week, a week of original and groundbreaking programmes. The organisation was given unprecedented access inside the country. There was a high degree of editorial collaboration across the BBC’s Global News Division. Talking Point from Tsinghua University was carried across all three media—radio, television and online. Both BBC World and BBC World Service carried the Shanghai edition of Question Time.
Global Conversations The World Service continued to expand its interactive debates on radio and online. Opportunities for users to question key decision-makers and to exchange views across nations and continents included a groundbreaking initiative to connect families separated by the Line of Control dividing Kashmir. For the first time in years Kashmiris were able to communicate through a video conference organised and webcast 3302621018 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49
by bbcurdu.com. In May 2004, the Foreign Secretary took part in Talking Point, an interactive debate covering Iraq, the wider Middle East and the future of Europe. BBC World Service interactive websites in Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Persian and Urdu won awards for excellence. The Indian Ocean tsunami prompted one of the largest news eVorts ever undertaken by the BBC, with correspondents deployed on an unprecedented scale. Within hours of the waves striking, the World Service launched notice boards for missing people. In five aVected regions—India, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia—more than two million people looked at these pages. BBC World Service received over 25,000 emails, and several families were reunited with the help of the BBC.
BBC Monitoring BBC Monitoring continued to provide highly valued material for stakeholders from areas such as the Middle East, Darfur, Russia and Ukraine. Pan Arab TV coverage was enhanced, including a supply of TV feeds to BBC World. During the Beslan siege, Monitoring helped to unravel a confused media picture of events. Our Russian teams in the UK and overseas were able to reveal the widely diVering accounts being given in newspapers and on television, and the diVerences between regional and Moscow-based media. The benefit of following events over a long period was demonstrated by the tremendous expertise and analysis applied to explaining Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”. This year also saw the conclusion of the Cabinet OYce-led Review of BBC Monitoring. The BBC welcomed the outcome of the review, and its endorsement of the role and value of BBC Monitoring as a national and international resource of information on the media. The BBC believes that the new Funding and Governance regime is a positive development, providing a framework within which Stakeholders can join with BBC Monitoring to concentrate on strategic developments, rather than on short-term funding issues. The stability aVorded by the Review outcome will enable BBC Monitoring to focus on meeting the challenges of operating in a rapidly evolving global media environment. In addition, the Review provides a firm foundation for the future of BBC Monitoring’s long term partnership with the US-based FBIS. BBC Monitoring is now working with the Cabinet OYce and others to establish the new Funding and Governance Regime. It is also examining how to remove £2 million pa from its annual costs by March 2007—a consequence of the funding settlement agreed between the Stakeholders being lower than that recommended by the Review. BBC Monitoring believes that 50–80 net job cuts (10–16%) will arise as a consequence of the funding profile in the later years of the five year settlement. There will be some changes, but BBC Monitoring estimates that coverage and services will be broadly maintained.
BBC World Service Trust The World Service Trust had a good year, with income of over £13 million in 2004–05. The Trust continues its work on various projects around the globe: Southern Iraq’s first regional broadcaster, Al Mirbad, developed from scratch by the Trust, began broadcasting in June; the Trust’s FCO- funded Media Dialogues programme in the Middle East and North Africa is addressing training needs of journalists. Amajor new TV drama—Taste of Life—is spearheading the Trust ’s mass media health campaign in Cambodia. The first Burmese-language soap opera Thabyegone Ywa (Eugenia Tree Village), addressing health issues, celebrated its 100th episode.
2. BBC WORLD SERVICE THREE YEAR PLAN 2005–08 AND VISION TO 2010
1. Introduction This paper sets out a series of significant changes in the strategic direction of the BBC World Service (BBCWS) to 2010. It includes specific developments funded by agreed Grant in Aid levels to and including 2007–08, and outlines: — The context of the changes. — The proposed strategic vision to 2010. — The proposed specific investments to the end of 2007–08, including proposed service reductions. — Aspirations beyond 2007–08. — Impact on jobs. — Success measures to 2010. 3302621018 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 50 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
2. Context 2.1 This revised strategy for the BBC World Service proposes the biggest single set of changes in its recent history. It is designed to take advantage of geopolitical change, specifically in Central and Eastern Europe, the development of independent media there, and support from the FCO for reprioritisation which will enable the BBC to shift resources to where audience need is greater and where competition is intensifying. 2.2 In the context of limited funds, and a more restrictive public spending climate by the Government, the strategy is predicated on selective and increased investment in key areas: television and video news in the most important vernacular languages complementing the global role of BBC World, increased interactivity across all three media (TV, radio and online), modernised distribution for radio and stronger marketing. 2.3 While there is a strong case a priori for the closure of some language services, funds released from this, plus a refocusing of the English network, and the benefits of a simpler management structure and savings in administration and support areas will enable us to make the new investments. In addition, over the 2005–08 period, other eYciency savings and changes in the distribution portfolio will fund rising costs. All this adds up to a demanding set of financial targets in a part of the BBC that has already made significant eYciency savings over many Spending Review periods. 2.4 The proposals have been thoroughly discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce and we have secured the written approval of the Foreign Secretary for the intended closures as well as the launch of Arabic television.
3. Proposed Strategic Framework to 2010 and Financial Plan to 2008
3.1 Strategic framework to 2010
3.1.1 Vision To be the world’s best known, most creative, and most respected voice in international news, thereby bringing benefit to the UK, the BBC and to audiences around the world. — To provide the most trusted, relevant, and highest-quality international news in the world, and an indispensable service of independent analysis and explanation, with an international perspective which promotes greater understanding of complex issues. — To connect and engage audiences by facilitating an informed and intelligent dialogue—a Global Conversation—which transcends international borders and cultural divides; and to give audiences opportunities to create, publish and share their own views and stories. — And by so doing, to enable people to make sense of their increasingly complex world and, thus empowered, lead more fulfilling lives.
3.1.2 Target audiences — We will target influencers—opinion formers and decision makers—in every market. — In less developed markets, we will also target news followers—audiences with a wider need for basic news and information. — We will oVer lifeline services to audiences in areas of conflict or failed states.
3.1.3 Priority markets We have assessed our existing services against criteria of geopolitical importance and information need, as well as prospects for continued impact. As a result we have redefined our priority markets and services: — English will continue to be our core global oVer. Alongside BBC World, the BBC World Service English radio network and the international news online site will serve audiences around the world as part of a multimedia oVer from the BBC. — We will seek to provide a vernacular multimedia service in priority markets—the Arab and wider Islamic world including Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia; and China, Russia, India, and Spanish- speaking Latin America. — China is a critical market but there is as yet no likelihood of better access to the TV market in the time frame in question. We will work with BBC Worldwide to maximise the value of our current oVer; and we will continue to lobby Chinese authorities. — We will continue to serve less developed markets in Africa and Asia, such as Nigeria and Bangladesh, as well as a number of information poor markets with clear need for independent information. 3302621019 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51
— We will also continue to serve a number of other markets such as parts of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Turkey, but review our oVers there regularly based on political, market developments and audience impact. — We will close our services in 10 languages that no longer fulfil these agreed strategic criteria: Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Polish, Slovak, Slovene, Bulgarian, Croatian, Thai and Kazakh. These currently attract under 4 million weekly listeners for a spend of ca £12 million. Portuguese for Brazil will become an Internet-only oVer, and we will reduce spend on Hindi online.
3.2 Specific investment proposals through 2007–08
3.2.1 Arabic Television
Developing an Arabic television news service is our highest priority. We would launch a 12-hour oVer in early 2007, supported by a text and audio service for the remaining part of the day, with a view to going to full 24-hour provision as funds become available. — TV is the dominant news medium in the Arab world. — Audience research commissioned in 2003, and repeated in 2005, has indicated a very strong demand for a BBC Arabic television service. Between 80–90% of those surveyed said they would be “very” or “fairly likely” to use the service—with about half in the “very likely” group. The trusted nature of the brand—its independence and strong record in news—is cited by most potential users as the reason for their strong interest. — The oVer would build on the trusted legacy of the BBC’s Arabic radio services. In surveys from the region over recent years, and in bespoke focus group research, the BBC emerges as the most trusted international news provider on radio. — Even though there are strong competitors in the region—mainly Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya—the Middle East is still relatively immature as a TV news market. There is a clear opportunity to occupy a genuine “high ground” in the market, away from the perceived pro-US oVer of Al Hurra and with a diVerent and wider perspective to the Arabic regional channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. — The establishment of an Arabic television service would mean the BBC was the only media player with a genuine tri-media oVer and all the opportunities which flow from this in terms of cross- promotion and awareness raising. — We would maximise synergies between a linear TV oVer and emerging on-demand opportunities on broadband, mobile and other platforms, especially video news reports. — The channel proposition would consist of world class news and current aVairs about international and major regional issues. This would be complemented by discussion programmes and debates mounted in conjunction with our radio and online services. — We believe the commercial impact on BBC World will be minimal as the channel propositions will be complementary rather than competitive. — In five years’ time, we would expect at least 25 million weekly viewers, as part of an overall BBC tri-media portfolio, and to be the largest international Arabic-language TV news channel in terms of reach after Al Jazeera.
3.2.2 Digital interactive services
— BBC World Service will aim to deliver broadband video news reports in vernacular languages and make them available on broadband (including as downloads), mobile, and other platforms. — High priorities for video investment will be Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese for Brazil, Persian and Russian. — We will invest in a wide range of opportunities for audiences to engage with our content and to publish and share their views and stories—the Global Conversation. 3302621019 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 52 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
3.2.3 Strengthened distribution on FM and other platforms We will invest in the acquisition and management of distribution partners on FM and other emerging audio platforms and in ensuring our product portfolio remains competitive.
3.2.4 Marketing activities We will invest further in marketing our services in the context of increasing competition. These investments will total over £33 million over three years.
3.2.5 Other television aspirations We will also move quickly to explore the viability of priority TV services outside Arabic—focusing on Russia, Latin America, and India, by leveraging partnerships with local and regional players, given the diYcult financial climate.
3.3 Funding change: 2005–06 to 2007–08 We are proposing to achieve a balance of eYciency savings and reprioritisation representing up to 20% of our total operating budget in order to enable new high-priority activities and absorb rising costs.
3.3.1 Language service reductions The strategic analysis shows that there are 10 language services that no longer fulfil the key criteria for investment. Eight of these (Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Polish, Slovak, Slovene, Bulgarian, and Croatian) are in Central and Eastern Europe, where the huge changes in the political and media environment of the last fifteen years now means that the need for BBC language services is far lower, and in many cases the trend is of audience decline. We also propose to close the Thai service and Kazakh for reasons of lower impact. Furthermore, we propose to reduce our investment in Portuguese for Brazil, retaining the online service. In addition, with the roll out of an Arabic tri media service, savings will be sought by 2007–08 on production and distribution synergies. Once Arabic TV is proven, we will also examine Arabic radio with a view to reducing investment in non-peak areas.
3.3.2 English output — The English schedule is also changing to reflect increased focus on news and information. A number of non-News programmes will be decommissioned in the area of factual and music and there will be a merging of programme titles in other areas. These changes have already been announced to the relevant staV. — There will be significant savings in the way BBC News currently produces its output for the World Service. This will involve a re-organisation in the way the teams are set up and their senior producer supervision. — Initial estimates indicate a number of job losses in BBC News which supplies the World Service with its English news and current aVairs programmes. This is in addition to 16 post closures in non-News programmes.
3.3.3 Regional structures and support areas We will reduce the number of managerial regions from five to three. This rationalisation will lead the way to further savings when we complete our review of support staV and business development which has been on hold pending the outcome of our review.
3.4 Rising costs and eYciencies — Before funds can be refocused for new investments in 2005–08, we must also meet our obligations under Spending Review 2004 in relation to rising costs. We will continue to achieve further eYciency savings of at least 2.5% on baselines throughout the 2004 Spending Review period, in order to fully fund all rising costs.
3.5 Overall financial picture The overall financial picture over the three year plan shows that: — We will absorb most of our rising costs, via eYciency savings and changes in distribution methods. 3302621019 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53
— We will invest new funds granted under SR02 and SR04 in the vital developments outlined earlier, and towards the savings generated by language service closures and other programme/ managerial changes. — Funds have been set aside to cover expenses such as increased employer pension contributions, from 2007–08.
3.6 Impact on jobs — It is currently forecast that there will be 236 overall job reductions from these restructuring proposals. However more job reductions will be announced after the impact of the restructuring on BBC News has been discussed with unions and staV. — The current forecast total is made up of 218 posts due to the closure of 10 language services (around 127 jobs in the UK and 91 overseas); and a further 18 posts lost in other reprioritisation, such as the Portuguese for Brazil service concentrating on news bulletins and online. — In all around 201 new jobs have been or will be created by the new investment. It is expected that 148 new jobs will be created by the new Arabic channel; 41 new posts for New Media and interactive initiatives; and 12 in international oYces.
3.7 Aspirations beyond 2007–08 To deliver the 2010 vision we also aspire to further initiatives beyond 2007–08. Where possible, we plan to bid for additional funding in Spending Review 2007 to fund these. — We will seek to upgrade our 12-hour Arabic television oVer to a full 24 hour service. — We will seek to launch a limited Persian television oVer funded through Grant in Aid. — Depending on the evolution of television markets elsewhere, we will continue to explore opportunities in other languages, emphasising partnerships as a cost-eVective route to market. — We will invest in further digital interactive services. — Video production in further languages: Urdu, Mandarin and Hindi. — Continuing expansion of interactive and user-generated content. — We will continue to invest in strengthening radio distribution where relevant. — We will continue to invest in strengthening marketing initiatives.
3.8 Strategic success measures by 2010 — BBC World Service aims to achieve the highest reputational ratings of any international news provider in all priority markets, overall and among target audiences. — By 2010, we aim to have increased the global reach of the BBC’s international news services— including through the World Service—around the world from over 190 million to over 250 million weekly users. While we expect radio audiences to decline somewhat, despite a migration from short wave to FM and other platforms, growth in digital media and vernacular television will more than compensate, alongside growth in BBC World. — The services operated by the BBC World Service will make a key contribution: — We are aiming to vigorously defend radio audiences, though by 2010 we expect a slight decline in radio listening. — We are aiming to reach significant new audiences through vernacular television by 2010, with about half through Arabic. The balance would come through a presence in a further range of vernacular TV markets—depending on partnerships and additional funding. — We are aiming to multiply our reach in new digital media like online, broadband, and mobile. — We aim to secure the highest reach of any international news provider in all priority markets— both overall and among target audiences. — We also aim to be recognised as providing the most innovative interactive services of any international news provider. 3302621020 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 54 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Further written evidence submitted by the BBC World Service
BBC Nepali Service The BBC Nepali Service is in no way aVected by the changes announced by the World Service last week. There has, however, been a diVerent concern this year with regards to the Nepali Service, in that following the re-assumption of executive power by King Gyanendra in February, the Government of Nepal promulgated an ordinance barring FM stations from broadcasting news. This has aVected all the private radio stations which used to re-broadcast BBC Nepali programmes on their frequencies (though recently some of these have defied the Government by carrying BBC WS regardless), and the Nepalese Supreme Court is to decide on the question of the constitutionality of the ordinance soon. BBC Nepali language output also used to be broadcast from the state-run Radio Nepal, as part of a 24-hour stream of BBC World Service, which transmitted our English language programming during the parts of the day in which the Nepali Service does not broadcast. World Service English language programmes are still being re-broadcast by Radio Nepal, with some interruptions during news bulletins, but Nepali language programming is no longer re-broadcast. It is worth noting, though, that audience measurement undertaken in Nepal at the end 2004 (before the ban was introduced) indicated that the vast majority of listeners to the Nepali Service (719,000 out of 759,000) tune in to our shortwave broadcasts, which are and have not been aVected by the ordinance. Furthermore, the reduced availability of news from domestic Nepali radio stations may have increased listeners’ reliance on shortwave broadcasts. The Nepali Service remains very important to the World Service, as well as its listeners, and will not suVer in any way as a result of the current changes being made to other services. 1 November 2005
Further written evidence submitted by the BBC World Service
BBC Hindi Service Early Day Motion (EDM 864) refers to a “downgrading” of the World Service’s Hindi Service. The Hindi language radio service is not aVected by the changes announced last week. However, a financial saving is being made by transferring four posts, publishing content on the BBCHindi.com news website, to the BBC’s Delhi bureau. The change is being made in such a way that no-one working in London will be re-located or made redundant, rather they will begin working for the Hindi radio service. The overall eVect is an increase in the amount of locally-produced content on BBCHindi.com, and a saving of £0.2 million which is to be re-invested in priority services elsewhere. At the same time, the BBC is investing several million pounds in a state-of-the-art bureau in Delhi, which is to be completed before the year-end. 2 November 2005
Witnesses: Mr Nigel Chapman, Director, and Ms Alison Woodhams, Chief Operating OYcer and Director of Finance, BBC World Service, examined.
Q65 Chairman: Can I welcome our guests from the services are being reinvested in new services BBC World Service, Mr Chapman and Miss by the World Service—Arabic television, better Woodhams. Thank you for coming today. We are distribution for radio, new media services, so it is delighted to have you with us. Obviously you are part of a rounded strategy, if you like, for the World coming after a number of very important Service to take us to 2010. I am happy to focus on the announcements about the future operation of the “cuts” issue. World Service. I would like to begin by asking you about the decisions that you have taken to change your services and to drop several central and eastern Q66 Chairman: What I would like to do is ask European vernacular services. Could you tell us questions about the Arabic television service later so what impact you think that will have, particularly if you could at this point address the services that with regard to balanced reporting and diversity of you are giving up. views within the countries concerned? Mr Chapman: We did a very thorough review lasting Mr Chapman: Chairman, if I might start by putting about 12 months of all the 42 vernacular language the context because obviously the savings that services in the World Service against three criteria are arising from the closure of those 10 language really; first of all, what you could broadly describe as 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams geo-political importance; secondly the extent to to fund a Persian television service, we would look which there is a free and independent media to fund new multi media activities in Urdu and available already in those societies and how far that Hindi and Chinese. There are lots of parts of the has changed over the last 10 years; and thirdly the world, frankly, where the case for investment is a level of impact that those services currently have. lot stronger than retaining the services we had in Those services at the moment in central Europe have central Europe. an audience of below four million. Five years ago they had an audience of seven to eight million so they Q69 Chairman: But presumably one of the have declined significantly in terms of impact. consequences of these services being cut is that you lose a number of journalists with particular Q67 Chairman: Four million in how many language skills and particular understanding of countries in total? particular countries. Does that have a wider impact Mr Chapman: In the eight central European in your general news gathering? countries—and if we put Thai and Kazakh to one Mr Chapman: It will have a marginal impact would side, I am just talking about the European language be the way I would describe it. Clearly if you have services here—obviously the audience has declined got a team of 10, 12 or 14 journalists in somewhere significantly and the evidence about the extent of like Prague that is a resource and they obviously alternative choices, which obviously has fuelled understand the society extremely well. If you do not that decline, is strong. If you look at independent have it there you are going to lose something, so it assessments, the Press Freedom Index, and other would be wrong of me to say it has no impact, but sorts of indices of that kind, they show a very you have got to remember that the BBC also have steady position in central Europe about press correspondents and a news-gathering capacity in a freedom and choice. In fact, some of those lot of these countries already. We have countries have a press freedom level which is as correspondents in Prague, in Budapest, we have good as the United Kingdom if not better. When them in other parts of Central Europe. It is not as if you look at that overall context and you visit those the BBC is not represented there when the language places, as I have done, you see a mushrooming of services no longer exist. The BBC is well media there and a mushrooming of choice. That represented there. We have got correspondents must be one of the factors why in the end if you there and they will continue to file stories and have got to make a decision about the relative analysis about those countries. importance of investment with a fixed budget you come to certain views that some parts of the world Q70 Chairman: Are there any people who are need extra investment in order for you to be double-hatted and triple-hatted within the BBC competitive and continue to have your impact and who are doing something for you and at the same other parts you can withdraw from. That was the time working for another part of the organisation? basic tenet and the philosophy behind the decisions Mr Chapman: No, the language service teams are we took. pretty separate. They are focusing on their language service output day-to-day, week-by-week Q68 Chairman: If you had not had to shift these so they are not filing lots of material for English resources into the Arabic television service would output. Alot them would find that very di Ycult to you have cut these services? do for linguistic reasons. Whilst there is a news- Mr Chapman: Yes, I would have spent the money gathering intelligence, if you like, going on here and on something else in addition, would be my answer an understanding of the society (which is obviously to that. The way the funding works is that in this shared with the wider BBC) the people who are £30 million investment package by 2007–08, of filing pieces for The World Tonight or television or which Arabic television is £19 million, there are whatever, they will still be in place to do that. They ways we could have found for funding a lot of that are not part of the language service teams, if you Arabic television through the Spending Review like. settlements we had in 2002 and 2004, but what we could not fund was all the other things we needed Q71 Chairman: But in that case then there are a to do to make sure the World Service remains number of individuals who will lose their jobs and competitive, like improve its distribution for radio, will not be employable very easily elsewhere within improve its marketing, improve its new media the BBC, from what you have just said. What is services. If you came to me and said, “Okay, here going to happen to those people? What are you is £10 million which you are going to save from doing to help them? How many actual individuals those 10 language services. You can have that are we talking about here? money. Would you like to keep these services open Mr Chapman: Let’s just distinguish if we could or would you like to spend it on something else?” between those people who are based in the UK and my answer would be that I would spend it on those who are based overseas. Let us start with the something else. There is a whole series of proposals people who are based overseas, of which about 50% in the strategy paper which sets the scene, if you of the numbers aVected by the language service like, for the Spending Review of 2007 which give closures fall into that category. One of the things an indication of where we would like to spend it. I would say about that—and I have just been to For instance, we would close the gap between 12 Prague myself and looked at the situation there and and 24 hours of Arabic television, we would look met the staV only last week—is this burgeoning 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 56 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams media scene I talked about is creating lots of Mr Chapman: Absolutely.1 opportunities both in radio and in television and in Chairman: Thank you very much. Can I now move new media, so I think a lot of people who are based on to the Arabic television service and ask Fabian in country will find other jobs as a result of those Hamilton to start on this, but I suspect all my opportunities. The BBC will compensate those colleagues will want to come in. people for loss of oYce in a way which is compatible with local law in those societies, and we Q74 Mr Hamilton: Hello Mr Chapman, nice to see have said in addition that in those cases we will you again. Can I ask you how you think that the honour the ACAS agreement which the BBC struck new BBC Arabic TV station would diVer from as a whole with the trade unions some six months existing stations like al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya? ago, and that agreement guarantees that nobody Mr Chapman: Again, it is quite interesting, Mr can be made compulsorily redundant by the BBC Hamilton, that audiences already perceive a likely until December 2006, so they will stay on the diVerence between the BBC and stations like al- payroll until December 2006 and then receive the Arabiya and al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera is perceived to appropriate redundancy sum which will flow from be (and is) a regionally based Arabic news station having worked a number of years in the concentrating pretty heavily upon Middle East organisation. In terms of staying on the payroll, we news and aVairs. It is not, I would argue, a genuine will treat staV in the United Kingdom and staV in international station. It definitely does not bring an an oYce like Prague or Budapest or wherever in international perspective to the world’s news. The exactly the same way. We cannot do that in terms BBC Arabic service will not be a regionally based of redundancy payments because the local law station. It will be based here in London and it is precludes that. There are local redundancy laws in, going to draw on all the strengths of the BBC, in say, the Czech Republic which are completely terms of its news-gathering capacity, so I would diVerent from the ones here in London. In London expect a wider range of stories, a more if you are a member of, say, the Hungarian service international feel, and an absolute determination to and you are working in Bush House you will observe the BBC’s position on impartiality and receive all the benefits from the ACAS agreement, independence. And it is interesting, again, that which include staying on the payroll until when you look at what the audience thinks they are December 2006, unless you want to go earlier and going to get from the BBC, that is what they want then there will be discussions about that. You may from the BBC; they want an independent, impartial have other job oVers and you do not want to stay service which will sit within a portfolio of services on the payroll until 2006. Of course, you will get which people will consume. They will not just one month for every year you have been on the staV consume the BBC, they will not just consume al- of the BBC in terms of redundancy, which is the Jazeera, they will consume a mixture, but it will be standard BBC redundancy payment. In that sense the high ground as they perceive it and we perceive I am doing everything I can to be as generous as I it of international television journalism that we will can within the rules which compensate people for be oVering in this market. loss of oYce. In addition, we are working very hard to try and find people alternative employment, and Q75 Mr Hamilton: Which is very laudable provided that is diYcult because some of these skills are not you can ensure that it is genuinely going to be easily transferable but some of them are balanced, which I am sure you will because it will transferable and there are people with radio skills be along the lines of the BBC’s own very high and new media skills and we will be doing our best standards. Can I ask you, though, in the light of to find those people alternative employment in the the general suspicion of Great Britain as one of the BBC and outside. I do not underestimate the allies that invaded Iraq, is that going to influence diYculty because you are talking about 125 people the way that people see this new Arabic TV station? in the United Kingdom and it is not easy for them Are they going to think that this is going to to find jobs in some of the new investment areas broadcast the western view of why Iraq was that we have agreed to do over the next five years. invaded? Mr Chapman: I am sure there will be some people in the Middle East who take that view. It would be Q72 Chairman: So 125 in the UK, how many in the naive of me to assume that everybody would follow other countries? the argument I just put earlier on. However, I can Mr Chapman: It is over 90 so the overall numbers take some succour from a number of things. First we are talking about when you look at all the of all, BBC services in Arabic are seen as language service changes as a whole, including independent of government. If you look at all the those which relate to Portuguese for Brazil and audience research about that, particularly in Hindi and so on, which are on the margins, around relation to radio, even in a society like Iraq where 230 posts will close, made up of around 120 or 130 you would expect people to be very concerned from memory in the United Kingdom and almost about the point of view you have just expressed, 100 overseas. they compartmentalise, if you like, the BBC’s services in radio and television and new media from the World Service and other people in a diVerent Q73 Chairman: Can we have a note from you setting out in detail what the actual figures are 1 Please refer to the supplementary note provided by the because that would be very helpful? BBC World Service, Ev 70 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams box from British foreign policy. They see British Q78 Mr Mackay: Mr Chapman, certainly due to no foreign policy as one thing and the BBC’s activities fault of yours, is this not all too little too late? as another. When we ask them do you trust the Mr Chapman: No, I do not accept that. Many people BBC, do you think it is independent, do you think have put that point to me, but again we would not it is independent of government, they give it very have gone down this road if we had not done some high marks repeatedly throughout the Arab world very thorough research about audience demand, and for this. Even in a society like Iraq, we get the audience demand makes clear a number of things. highest ratings for independence and for We did this research both in 2003 and then we trustworthiness against any other international followed it up with the same research in 2005 competitor, despite the fact that British forces are because I was concerned that time had gone on and involved in action every day in Iraq. I think that if we had not done it again in 2005 the story may says something about the subtle understanding of have changed. The story was equally as emphatic in Arab audiences, that they historically have been 2005 as it was in 2003 that people who have access to able to diVerentiate between foreign policy on the satellite television, or who are likely to get it, and one hand by the British Government and an who are interested in international news would be independent broadcasting force on the other. Long very keen to use the BBC, so there is clearly a may they continue to see it that way because I think demand there for the services. The second thing I one of the great strengths the World Service has is would say is that the attributes associated with those independence of government and editorial services are fairly and squarely BBC attributes. independence, and we have to keep that whether it People want to see an independent and impartial is radio, new media, and obviously increasingly service. They see that there is a gap in the market. now television. They do not see it as too little too late; they welcome it. If you look at the Arab press in particular in the Q76 Mr Hamilton: Can I ask you this about the last two weeks, and read the editorials, it has been funding of it: you are going to save about £12 million almost universally well accepted and acclaimed that from the language services that you are ceasing to the BBC is doing this. If it was too little too late, a provide on the World Service, but you reckon it is lot of people would be writing that, they would be going to cost about £19 million in its first year to set saying it and they would be criticising us for doing up the Arab TV station. How are you going to make it. We have hardly had any criticism whatsoever for up the shortfall and is that £12 million going to be doing it. ring-fenced? Mr Chapman: The £19 million figure that we are Q79 Mr Mackay: Have you not just conceded in an talking about in relation to the costs of Arabic earlier answer that it would have been much better television is an on-going revenue cost. There is then for it to have been sooner and before the a start-up cost in addition which I think will be controversial invasion of Iraq? between £5 million and £6 million which will be Mr Chapman: I do not think I did concede anything largely capital expenditure which we have the funds to do with the invasion of Iraq. Obviously the BBC to do. You have to see these figures as part of an did go down this road briefly in the 1990s and then overall package of a £30 million investment, so £19 withdrew. It would have been better, I accept, to million to Arabic television, but that is only two- have started it earlier but we have to live in the real thirds of the overall investment package. There is a world of what is practicable and what is practicable further £11 million on other investments to do with is we can aVord to do it now. I know there is demand new media, FM distribution and marketing. That for it, I know people will value it, and I look at the balance is being made up of some of the money question from the other end of the telescope, if you which was given to us in the Spending Review like, what will happen to the BBC’s impact in the settlements of 2002 and 2004 where we carefully Arab world if we do not have an Arabic television husbanded those reserves, if you like, in the service? Imagine trying to have an audience of any expectation that we would need to make an scale and size in the Middle East when the preferred investment of this kind. Clearly if we were relying medium of consumption of news is increasingly purely on the savings from the language services we television if we carry on with a radio and an on-line would not be able to fund a £30 million investment service alone. Imagine in two or three years’ time plan, but we can do so because of the other resources what I would be being asked about why has the BBC we got from the Spending Review settlements and got such a poor performance in the Arab world. Y general e ciencies but particularly the Spending That is where we would be heading. We would be Review settlements which were reasonably generous struggling to maintain the levels of impact we have particularly in 2002, arguably less so in 2004. now very seriously because in some markets radio, however good the programmes are, cannot do the Q77 Mr Hamilton: Sorry, those £12 million savings job. You cannot do the job if you do not get the sort are going to be ring-fenced so that you can use them of distribution you need. In many Arab societies the for this service; is that correct? World Service cannot get the sort of distribution it Mr Chapman: Absolutely, there is no sense of any of needs for FM partnerships and FM distribution. It the funds being saved here returning to the Foreign is very diYcult. We have been knocking on the door OYce or anybody else. They are staying fully many times, we have had some successes but without squarely inside the World Service budget, and I hope free-to-air satellite television in countries where 80 in perpetuity. or 90% of the society have access to satellite 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 58 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams television, your chances of having an audience in Mr Chapman: I understand the scenario you are 2010 are very low indeed. So in that sense you do not putting to me. All I would say about that is that the have much choice, you really need to do this in order Arabic television service has to follow the same to maintain an impact. editorial guidelines as the rest of the BBC. When al- Qaeda tapes are used in the rest of the BBC they are used on news merit and they are usually used briefly Q80 Mr Mackay: Perhaps you would concede that V V to report in the way, Mr Mackinlay, you have said. despite o ering a slightly di erent service, one of I expect the Arabic television service to behave in your big competitors is obviously al-Jazeera and al- exactly the same way. If the Arabic television service Jazeera is available, I think, 24 hours a day while strays across the line, which is what your scenario V your service is only going to be o ered 12 hours a presupposes, and uses these tapes in an day. That must be very disappointing for you? inappropriate way, then that would be wrong and it Mr Chapman: I would obviously like it to be 24 would actually be completely counter to what hours a day. You know we put forward a bid to audiences tell us they want from the service. They do government in the 2004 Spending Review so that we not want a repeat of al-Jazeera from the BBC. What could have some extra funds for it to be 24 hours a they want from the BBC is a trustworthy, day and we continue to talk to government about independent, impartial service and judging how you that. Again, I take some reassurance from the fact use material like this is part of being a trustworthy, that we asked people about the 12 hours a day issue independent service and I will make sure, and my and they said, “Of course we tend to consume team will make sure that we do not use that material television more in the evening and so if you are going ill-advisedly. to be there in the evenings when it is peak viewing time, and you are going to be there from the Q82 Andrew Mackinlay: The other question is what afternoon through the evenings early into the night, about your capacity to criticise totalitarian regimes that is fine.” We still have a very strong radio service, in the region, for instance—and you might disagree which people tend to listen to in the mornings, so if it is a totalitarian regime—Saudi Arabia? Are you you put the overall package of what the BBC is going to be constrained in criticising implicitly or doing together, plus its new media service in Arabic, explicitly in your news these governments? V you have got a pretty comprehensive tri-media o er Mr Chapman: No, we are not going to be for this market which nobody else has got. Al- constrained in criticising them. Again, this channel Jazeera is a strong television channel, I accept that, has to operate in exactly the same way as the rest of in terms of audience impact, but it does not have a the BBC on the merits of the case and if it is justified radio service and it does not have a particularly good to “criticise” or report developments in Saudi web presence. The BBC will be in a position as a Arabia which the authorities do not like then we will result of these investments to have a tri-media be reporting them. There is not a special editorial approach which I think will be very, very powerful charter for the Arabic television service which is under a single brand which is well respected and diVerent from the rest of the BBC, and it would, trusted in the Middle East. That is a pretty good frankly, be a disaster if there was a separate editorial platform on which to build. The programmes still charter for them because it would undercut and need to be very good and have to be well done to undermine the very values that I think should lie at succeed, I do not doubt that, but you are starting oV the heart of what this service is and which audiences from a strong base in terms of both audience tell us they want from us. So while I accept there are expectation and previous historical record. risks and dangers those are risks and dangers that we will be fighting very hard to avoid. Q81 Andrew Mackinlay: What concerns me is that there is a chemistry here for a big bust-up with HMG Q83 Mr Maples: What do we spend on the Arabic and your journalists and to some extent cynicism by radio service? your customer audience, if, for instance—and can I Mr Chapman: From memory, approximately £16 put the scenario to you—you get a tape from al- million. Qaeda, at the present time in our domestic television Ms Woodhams: Yes. it is reported that al-Jazeera has shown footage of an al-Qaeda spokesperson but we do not show the Q84 Mr Maples: Because it seems to me that the whole footage. It is a news item that al-Jazeera has budget for the television service, I will try and put it shown. If you are doing an Arabic service, surely you neutrally, is not very much, £19 million a year, to run are going to get occasions when some of your a television service when the radio service is already people—one can understand this professionally as costing £16 million. I do not know what it costs to journalists—say we need to show the tape. Your run BBC Two but I think it is £200 or £300 million. paymasters HMG or the Foreign and Mr Chapman: Yes but remember this is not a 24- Commonwealth OYce say, “Hang on a minute, we hour service for a start and that makes quite a are not paying you this money to broadcast the diVerence. propaganda of al-Qaeda.” It seems to me that this is something we are rushing into. This is something Q85 Mr Maples: Nor is BBC Two. where almost as sure as night turns into day is going Mr Chapman: But also the nature of news services is to come this dilemma and it might come fairly that you gather in a lot of material for the start of the frequently. What say you on that? day’s output, and although you obviously need 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams update that, we are not expecting people to sit and Q90 Mr Maples: Can you give us some idea, back to watch 12 hours of uninterrupted Arabic TV. This is this global budget figure of £19 or £20 million—what going to be on a rolling format where once a fair is the American station called al-Hurra or amount of material is already gathered it is going to something? have to be repeated across the day, and most people Mr Chapman: Al-Hurra, yes. will tune in for half an hour to an hour to get the day’s news. Q91 Mr Maples: What are they spending and what is al-Jazeera’s budget? Y Q86 Mr Maples: Like CNN? Mr Chapman: It is very di cult to know the answers Mr Chapman: Yes, so the BBC Two comparison is to those questions because they are not very not quite right because there you are talking about forthcoming about it. Al-Hurra has talked about a built programmes of a distinct 30-minute or 40- $45 million start-up cost but that includes all the minute or one hour’s duration and each one is a costs to do with setting up the station in the first special programme. This will be much more like place because they had nothing there at all, it was an CNN or BBC World, which is a better analogy, in empty shell and they had to build all the studios, all terms of bringing you news round the clock and I the technical equipment and everything, so I would think it will also be focusing very heavily on debate guess the running costs of al-Hurra would be in the and discussion along with its radio colleagues region of $30 or $35 million a year so not unadjacent because I think one of the things that people are to this. Al-Jazeera (and remember they are 24 hours really asking for from the BBC is a forum and a great and we are starting up with 12 under our proposal) chance to debate the issues that aVect both the is really impossible to know what they are spending. Middle East and the wider world. It is not a transparent process, if you put it like that.
Q92 Mr Maples: You really think you can do it for Q87 Mr Maples: So there will be studio discussions? this budget? I am just amazed that it is so small. Mr Chapman: There will be studio discussions, live Mr Chapman: It is going to employ 150 people, link-ups with bureaux in the Middle East, there will which is a fair amount of people to run the 12-hour be a lot of reporting on the ground, not just service. It is going to have a presence in key bureaux. reporting on the ground from the Middle East—and Remember, we have already got a substantial this is very, very important—but reporting on the presence in Cairo, we have not got the television ground from the world as a whole. The BBC has a facilities but we have got the staV there, we have got tremendous amount of material coming into staV who do reporting for us and file for us (provided London every day from those places, as I am sure they get the right training) in a number of Arab you are aware, so you have got a good base on which countries. We are going to have to expand our to build. bureaux and expand our presence in Washington, Moscow and places like that which are really critical Q88 Mr Maples: Will you take any of the current to the international agenda if you like, but if you BBC output of news and current aVairs and dub it or draw upon the BBC’s resources and you draw upon translate it into Arabic and use it or not? all that news reporting that is going on already, if Mr Chapman: I think what we will do in terms of you put the new investment alongside that, then I news coverage is use some of the individual pieces think we can do it. and packages. We will have a look at that but, again, I am quite wary about the extent to which dubbing Q93 Mr Keetch: I wish you well and I am sure we all is the answer here. You have got to remember that do in this venture. I think it is vitally important that you are going into a market where there is already, the BBC has a strong voice in this region, not least as we have discussed earlier, a lot of competition, so because the region has demonstrated that it is a lot of translated programmes which are made for receptive to satellite broadcasts and we see that by a UK audience, it feels to me instinctively anyway, al-Jazeera. I have two questions for you. Firstly, you does not have that much competitive edge. mention 150 staV, purely on a technical basis, is it going to be easy to find those people? Are there suYcient Arabic speakers out there? Are we going to Q89 Mr Maples: You will not have the budget to find these people to run this service in a professional make those sort of things for yourselves? way? My second and perhaps more diYcult question Mr Chapman: We will have to pick and mix a bit. Let is we all know there is one Arab street but it has lots me give an example. There is a very good series going of alleyways and side roads veering oV it and some out on BBC Two at the moment about the history of of the more interesting stories you are going to be the Middle East and the peace discussions and about reporting on will be internal stories, pressures in Clinton and Arafat and so on. If we were on the air Saudi Arabia for example for more reform, now I would be making a very strong case that we pressures in other parts for less reform. Are you should be putting that out on the Arabic television going to be able to get into those countries in a service because that is beautifully made and also of suYcient way to do justice to those internal stories in fascination to that particular audience. So I think a way that al-Jazeera, frankly, sometimes does not? there will be some material like that but a lot of it will Mr Chapman: On the issue of finding staV, I accept have to be generated as live news and current aVairs it is a challenge. This is a large number of staV and coverage. we cannot just take all the staV from the radio service 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 60 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams and put them across to television service and then audience you were just speaking about are going to have no radio service. So I have got to find a net look at the TV service as being just that or, as a increase of 150 staV as a result of this. The early counterweight to al-Jazeera which has become indications are that many people who left the BBC popular over the last three years in relation to the in the 1990s to go and work for other organisations, Iraq war, is that audience going to look at you a little not least al-Jazeera but others as well, whom we more cynically and say this is the British trained incidentally in the beginning (this is one of Government’s way of trying to get a counterweight the ironies of this whole story), would be keen to against al-Jazeera? return to us because they have some reservations Mr Chapman: I think we did cover this earlier on but about where they are working at the moment and I am happy to answer that and I repeat what I said, they have some issues about editorial freedom and which is that audiences do look to the BBC for that. independence which they would have some diYculty They look to the BBC as part of a mix or portfolio with. I am pretty confident that we can attract a high of services they are going to consume. I am not calibre of staV and the numbers we need but we want saying they are going to give up all their other to do it in a phased way. One of the reasons we viewing and just turn to the BBC. They are not going cannot get this service on air in the middle of next to do that. What they do do because we know that year is we need to recruit quite steadily and having from the radio and new media research we do is that recruited we then need to retrain. Even though they see the BBC as the gold standard against which people may have worked for us in the past and they they judge other services. So being there does a may be working for television services now, it is not number of things. It (a) draws them to us because of the same thing. I am absolutely determined that we that but (b) raises the overall standard of journalism will have a proper training programme, particularly in the Middle East from the television satellite on editorial values, as well as on the technology of operations that presently exist there, in the sense that television and all these issues, to make sure that people can see the deficiencies of other people. I people will comply and understand the BBC’s think for all those reasons I am confident we will be editorial standards. The second question is about able to provide a distinctive oVer in the market and what you call the alleyways and byways of the Arab people will use it. world. I think that is a challenge and I think it is an important part of the mix of the output. Whether it Q95 Chairman: Can I ask you about the will be easier to report aVairs in Saudi I would be memorandum you sent us. You said you hoped to surprised because the BBC generally does not report achieve a market of 25 million viewers by 2010. On aVairs in Saudi. It has had diYculty in getting access what basis do you get that figure? Is this just an in recent times, as you know I am sure. In other parts aspiration or do you have any real data that can of the Arab world it is a mixed story. Again one of back that up? the issues they will be watching us for is do we do Mr Chapman: We looked at the extent to which that and do we do it in a fair, impartial and even there was a likely satellite take-up by the year 2010 handed way. That is another reason why it is so in all the key markets that we would expect to have important that wherever our journalists come from impact with and then we took a proportion of that (and it is important also to get a mix of people, we and said that is the likely impact we expect to have, do not just want Egyptians or Lebanese staV or based on the fact that something like 70 or 80% of whatever working on this, we have got to have a mix) people said they were either “likely” or “very likely” that we go about that in a proper way. Provided we to use the service once it was established. We know do that, then I think we will be able to bring insight there is a high appetite from people who have and new perspectives, if you like, which is what the satellite television now or who are likely to get it in audience want from us. I will say one final thing the future. That is how we worked out that figure. It about the audience. The audience in this part of the is an ambition and it is a tough one but given the world is at home a) with the range of services but b) growth of the satellite Arab television market in the also the complexity of them, it sees where the BBC next five years then that would be a realistic sits in it and judges us against other people and looks ambition. for certain values and ideas and attributes there. Provided we can bring those then they do not want Q96 Chairman: And these would not be viewers that us to water those down in order to curry favour with you had, in eVect, stolen from al-Jazeera? They them. That is not what they want from the BBC. might well watch al-Jazeera as well? They do not want us to be partial to particular Mr Chapman: Yes, indeed. groups. That is not what they are coming for. Plenty of other services already do that in the Middle East. V They are coming to us for a diVerent thing. That is Q97 Chairman: But you would hope to be, in e ect, why we have got to hold fast to the values I talked the second player in the Arab world for viewers by about so passionately earlier on in my answers. then? Mr Chapman: For some people we would be the first player, for other people we would be the second Q94 Mr Illsley: Forgive me if you have covered this player. I think for the majority we may well be the already, Mr Chapman, just quickly, you have second player but that is the way people consume mentioned two or three times, the trustworthy, media in that part of the world. They are quite varied independent impartial nature of the services of the in their usage. They do not lock themselves on to one BBC. Are you absolutely convinced that the target channel and say, “Right, I am just going to stay with 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams that and believe whatever it says.” They move some of the things it would like to do up to 2010, and around the market in quite a subtle and I would hope that he would broadly take those sophisticated way, often cross-referencing and messages on board. checking one story against others to see whether the channel they often watch is actually doing it Q101 Ms Stuart: Was there any indication of areas properly. In that sense we would add something where you thought the Carter review was going or really strong because I know they will trust us. some hints you got of the approaches they were taking which you thought were misguided and Q98 Ms Stuart: We certainly have had fairly strong therefore were there any points which you hoped support for the Arabic services from other witnesses you dissuaded him from? we have had so far but I want to take you on to Mr Chapman: There were one or two areas where we diVerent territory now. Last year as part of the had robust conversations. One of those areas was the Spending Review the Foreign OYce set up the value of services in a language like Hindi to the rural Carter Review on public diplomacy. I gather you are poor of India, where I spoke very passionately about on the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board with that because I think there is a risk with the World observer status? Service that you only see it as targeting opinion Mr Chapman: That is right, I have observer status on formers and decision makers. There are many parts that board. of the world where while you could argue in terms of geo-political importance to Britain these are not the Q99 Ms Stuart: We are hoping to get your take on a highest priority countries, the World Service has a number of issues because we expected to see the unique role there, in parts of Africa and parts of Carter review at the end of September and of course Asia, and it is really important that we continue to it still has not seen the light of day, which is usually be there. If you judge the World Service only about an indication that a rewriting is going on. From your targeting opinion-formers and decision-makers, position as the BBC World Service what kind of then you would find it hard to justify that, and I do things would you hope the Carter review will be not think we should have to justify it because I think recommending? it is important that people have access to a free and Mr Chapman: I am not sure that it is my job to put independent media wherever they live whether they the recommendations of the Carter review; it is the live in Rwanda or they live in Russia or they live in Carter review’s job to come up with that. What I China or they live in richer parts of the world too, we hope it will say—and I do not know precisely what should do our best to enable that to happen where it is going to say—is that the strategy that the World appropriate. I think we had a good discussion about Service is pursuing of a multi-media range of services that and I think he understood what I was saying. fit for this century, fit for the 2010 period, is the right one -because it is the right one. In the evidence I gave Q102 Ms Stuart: When do you expect the Carter to Patrick Carter and his colleagues I was very review to see the light of day? strong about all that and said the World Service did Mr Chapman: I think that is again a matter for him need to change, it did need to prioritise, there were not for me. I would expect but could not be sure diYcult choices here but if it were to stay the same about this that it would be published in the next it would not be able to compete properly in the top couple of weeks. priority markets it has because it needs to compete Chairman: We were expecting it around the start of in a multi-media way and it needs to shift resources October so we will wait and see but that may be not in a way that can enable it to do that. That is what to do with the World Service, it may be to do with has ensued if you like and what we announced on 25 other factors. John Maples wanted to come back October was that sort of strategy. briefly.
Q100 Ms Stuart: Let me slightly rephrase the Q103 Mr Maples: It is pretty obvious to all of us why question then if you do not want to give the Government has decided it wants to fund an recommendations. When you gave evidence to Arabic television service with the political issues that Patrick Carter what were the three key points in the are at stake in that region. But of course Arabic is the evidence session which you hoped he really got and language of less than half the people, if you consider understood as a result of your evidence? Pakistan and Iran and to a lesser extent Afghanistan Mr Chapman: I hope he got that the World Service as important Muslim countries, where some sort of is the world’s pre-eminent international broadcaster, exposure to independent media and perhaps a that it is a great asset to Britain because it reflects slightly British take on things would be useful, too. well on Britain because it is about the values it Can you just tell us what you are doing particularly evinces in the way it covers journalism and therefore in Pakistan and Iran? it is very important that it remains a strong force, Mr Chapman: At the moment in terms of Iran we and that the strength of that force comes from its have a radio service in Persian which is pretty well editorial independence. Nothing must be allowed to broadcasting around the clock now, available on happen in any public diplomacy strategy or anything short wave and medium wave and having a of that kind which undermines the editorial significant audience of over two million listeners. We independence of the World Service. Also that it is an also have a substantial on-line presence eYcient place, that it is thinking very hard about its BBCPersian.com, which has got one of the highest priorities, that it will need new funds frankly to do levels of traYc for any of our language sites. It is 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 62 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams growing very fast and most of that traYc is coming do that”, and so the company, which is called “Mast from within Iran, so we are reaching the target FM”, which has a number of radio stations in all the audience we want to reach. In terms of Pakistan, we large cities, is going to eVectively test the water, if have the Urdu service. The Urdu services broadcasts you like, in a legal case about it, and obviously we for a number of hours a day. It is not as extensive as want them to win that legal case because it will the Persian service. It is well liked and respected but enable the World Service to be heard on FM quality there are issues of distribution to cope with. I think sound in the major cities in Pakistan. the market is getting more competitive in Pakistan. We have been talking to the authorities there about Q108 Sir John Stanley: Can I come to the BBC improving distribution and getting the right sort Monitoring Service, not a very well-known feature of radio partnerships with commercial partners of the BBC but the most certainly very highly valued who will retransmit the World Service Urdu by its users. Could you tell us whether the World programmes. At the moment we have a partner there Service is going to be adversely aVected by the but there are regulatory issues about his being change in funding of the BBC Monitoring Service allowed to do that and we are continuing to have and the change in sponsorship from the FCO to the those discussions with him and there is a legal case Cabinet OYce and by what we understand are going pending which has been before the Supreme Court to be quite a considerable number of redundancies at for a number of months now which will try to clarify the monitoring service. If you are going to be whether he has the right to rebroadcast the World adversely aVected, could you spell out in what way? Service or not. We would like him to do so, we think Mr Chapman: I think the impact on the he is a suitable partner, and he has done so in the World Service’s news-gathering capacity and past. I think that is a quite an important test case in understanding of what is going on in those society’s Pakistan because if we do not get on FM through a will be marginal—it will not be nothing—because, partnership (because the chances of getting on FM obviously, if you are going to reduce the monitoring through our own relays is low) then we will have a staV by 50 to 60 posts out of a staV of 500, then that battle to maintain a reasonable audience for our is a significant proportion of the staV by 2007. Urdu services in Pakistan. Therefore there will be material information, if you like, analysis and understanding, which will not be Q104 Mr Maples: For FM do you need a local as freely available as it would have been in the past. partner or can you do it from satellite transponders? In terms of the lead sponsor, I do not see any issues Mr Chapman: We either need a government to give around the fact that the Cabinet OYce is going to us a frequency in say a capital city and let us set up take on this role. I think the Cabinet OYce will do it our own transmitter there on that frequency, or we well, I think they instigated a very thorough review need a partner to be allowed, if you like . . . . of BBC Monitoring made by Sir Quentin Thomas last year, which was a very big job, and actually, for Q105 Mr Maples: But the Arabic television service the first time, put BBC Monitoring on a stable are not asking for anybody’s permission? footing in relation to its financial position, because Mr Chapman: No; that is one of the extra values of it guaranteed BBC Monitoring’s funding until the the Arabic television service, because provided you year 2010–11. BBC Monitoring is a service that has have got a satellite dish it is a free-to-air service, been reviewed to death, in my view. It needed to be providing you are pointing it in the right direction. put on a stable footing and it has been put on a stable footing now, and I think under its management it Q106 Mr Maples: But you cannot do that with a can, if you like, now start to run its business and can radio signal? change and adapt to the needs of its customers, Mr Chapman: No. I have got to get a partner who which will include the World Service. We will still be will retransmit, live—the programmes are live, they putting between six and seven million pounds of are not delayed or anything—who will take the investment every year into BBC Monitoring, along Y programmes live and put them out. In Pakistan the with contributions from the Cabinet O ce, the Y regulation is opaque about this and the partner is Ministry of Defence and the Foreign O ce. trying to get in to sort out exactly what he can do, and we are supporting him in that and we have had Q109 Sir John Stanley: What form does that conversations with the regulators there who are also, expenditure take, that six to seven million a year? I think, feeling their way round this particular Mr Chapman: It is an annual Revenue contribution. complexity because they have never done it before. Q110 Sir John Stanley: It is a Revenue contribution? Q107 Chairman: Is this a political issue between the Mr Chapman: Yes, a Revenue contribution. The British and Pakistani governments or is it just a way the new funding arrangements will work is that technical question? all the stakeholders’ contributions will eVectively be Mr Chapman: I do not think it is either, Chairman. ring-fenced now into a central pot which will I think it is a regulatory question actually. I think the guarantee Monitoring financial stability up until regulation is unclear in Pakistan about the rights of 2010–11. It does not mean that Monitoring has not a station to do this. They have never been tested in got challenges ahead; it definitely has in terms of the the courts, there is not a sort of charter or a rubric scale and scope of it services, dealing with this issue that everybody can turn to and say, “Right, well, about potentially 50 to 60 redundancies by 2007. that is quite clear. You can do this and you cannot The settlement it got put it on a stable footing. It 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams wanted more money than it got, but it managed to Q117 Mr Horam: When you say “our recover and claw back from a position which would performance”? have been very diYcult for it, I think, if it had been Mr Chapman: The BBC’s performance in the round. the situation where we were a year ago. In that sense It is not right just to look at it from a radio the last year has been a good year for Monitoring, perspective, or a new media perspective, or a and I think the stakeholders have also realised the television perspective, you have to look at what is the value to Britain of its services, and that allowing it to sum total of the impact the BBC is making. In some wither on the vine, which was a fear many of us had, societies BBC World is making an increasing would have been a very bad thing to have allowed to impact. It is, if you like, taking up the slack left by happen, and it is not now going to happen. the fact that radio is making less impact and, Sir John Stanley: It was a fear that was shared by this therefore, the BBC is still retaining a very strong Committee about a year ago. Thank you. position. That is why BBC World is so important in the mix of services that the BBC oVers, in my view. Q111 Mr Horam: Coming to your purely television It is really the central pillar of a multi-media strategy output, what sort of viewership does the World in this century. Without BBC World the BBC and Service television put out now? Britain would be fighting for influence and impact in Mr Chapman: You are referring to BBC World societies without the right weapons, if you like, television in English? because the BBC World is so important in that mix.
Q112 Mr Horam: Yes? Q118 Mr Horam: Your responsibilities are purely Mr Chapman: It has an audience of around 60 for the vernacular services, like the proposed million viewers per week across the world. Arabic service? Mr Chapman: Also for the English language services Q113 Mr Horam: That is outside the UK, is it? in radio. Mr Chapman: That is outside the UK. It is available in 270 million households. In half of those it is Q119 Mr Horam: Yes, but I am talking about available, I think, for more than 12 hours, from television now? memory, but again this not an area of my direct Mr Chapman: Yes; indeed. responsibility. Q120 Mr Horam: As of today, you do not have Q114 Mr Horam: Is it not? responsibility for any television as such? Mr Chapman: No. While I am a member of the Mr Chapman: That is correct. Global News team and understand the broad picture of BBC World, it is not a specialist area for me, but if the Committee would like more information on Q121 Mr Horam: It would be useful if we could have BBC World, its viewership—where it is doing well, a note about the BBC’s television services by what its challenges are—I am sure we would be comparison. For example, you said you thought it happy to provide it.2 had 60 million viewership? Mr Chapman: I know for a fact that is what the Q115 Mr Horam: We do. That would be useful. recorded viewership of BBC World is. Could I ask you how it fits in. You say this is not Mr Horam: By comparison, for example, with CNN your direct responsibility. What relationship do you and Sky News, that would be very useful. Obviously have to this side of things? we cannot talk to you about them, but that would be Mr Chapman: It is a commercial channel, so it is not very useful. funded by grant-in-aid, but where it is really important, I think, is that you increasingly have to Q122 Chairman: You are going to move into an see the BBC’s oVer as a tri-media oVer (ie a television Arabic television service, which is going to be funded oVer, a radio oVer and a new media oVer in some through grant-in-aid? markets). Clearly there are some parts of the world Mr Chapman: Yes. where BBC World will have to do more of a job as time goes on, and radio and perhaps new media. Q123 Chairman: I think in your memo you refer to a possible Persian television service? Q116 Mr Horam: You were saying that the future Mr Chapman: That is correct. lies with free-to-air satellite television? Mr Chapman: Yes, it does in many markets. One of the factors we took into account when we came to a Q124 Chairman: How much would it cost? judgment about the validity of closing the central Mr Chapman: We have not costed it yet. In the European services, which we talked about earlier, memo there is a mixture of a hard-costed proposal, was the extent to which BBC World was now being which is going to become fact, if you like, as a result viewed in those societies, so I see that you have to see of the 30 million investment plan I talked about our performance, if you like, in the round. It is not earlier on, and then aspirations, gleams in the eye, just about our performance. which need to be part of the discussions with Government in the 2007 spending round, and 2 Please refer to the supplementary note provided by the BBC Persian television is in the latter category, not the World Service, Ev 70 former. 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 64 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams
Q125 Chairman: Presumably, given recent events in commercial partnership backed with Saudi funds via Iran, you would hope that the Foreign OYce would the Orbit company. Avery di Verent set of look favourably upon this? circumstances. I think we learned some lessons from Mr Chapman: Looking not so much in the context what happened between 1994 and 1996 (the of British foreign policy but as a broadcaster, if we questions many of your colleagues were driving at believe that it is really important that people have earlier on) which was about editorial independence access to free and independent media in societies, and making sure we could cover the sort of stories then, looking at it objectively, the position of Iran at you want us to cover. the moment, you make out a very strong case for Britain improving what it can oVer in that regard. You also then have to look at the role of radio and Q129 Mr Horam: That was a serious problem? new media, and, as I explained earlier on, one of the Mr Chapman: It was a very serious problem. The diYculties about Iran is that the access the BBC can reason why the short-lived Arabic television get, both in news-gathering terms but also in terms experiment died in 1996 was because of a of transmitting its radio properly to Iran, is disagreement about the coverage of Saudi Arabia, extremely diYcult. The notion that I can get an FM and, as a result of that, the Orbit company decided transmitter for the BBC Persian service into Iran is to no longer fund the production/distribution costs a non-starter at the moment. One of the ways you of this service. The BBC had no alternative then but would be able to reach into that society would be to close it. We have all learned lessons from history. through satellite television, because many people in One of the lessons I think we have all learned is that Iran, increasing numbers, have access to satellite that is not an appropriate way to fund an Arabic television. It would be one of the ways of making television service for anybody, but particularly not sure they were able to access the BBC’s material and the BBC, and therefore the way you do fund it is services. That is the broadcasting logic. I must stress through public money. You distribute using a range this. The proposals I put forward for 2010 are based of satellite services where you pay for your carriage on a broadcasting logic. People try and paint them and people have free-to-air access to it if they have a as a foreign policy initiative. I am a broadcaster. I satellite dish, and then you start with the right understand broadcasting. I know what we need to building blocks to maintain a service over a long do to have impact in markets. I know what the mix period of time; and that is the very fundamental should be between television, radio and new media. diVerence between what happened between 1994 That is where I come from. Therefore, when I decide and 1996. to close a service or open a new one that is the logic on which I am basing the argument, if you like, because I know how people consume and use Q130 Mr Horam: That does, of course, constrain information in modern times. your expansion. You failed in 1996? Mr Chapman: We did not fail in one sense in 1996. Q126 Chairman: But such a service could not We actually had quite a significant audience arising happen at least for two or three years in any case. from the services in 1994 to 1996. We failed in 1994 Mr Chapman: No, it would not. It would have to be to 1996, if you want to call it failure, because we funded by new funds during a spending review defended our editorial principles and values. I think outcome. There is a limit to how far the World that was the right thing to do, and I think if we had Service can go in reprioritising its existing budget in carried on with a television service whereby we put order to meet new ambitious challenges which it has out programmes which were not true to the BBC’s to face if it is going to be eVective. I think we have editorial values, we would have failed in the long- come a long way. The 2010 proposals are a 20% term because people would not have trusted it. reprioritisation of the budget to cover both the investment plan of £30 million and also rising costs over this two to three year period. For any Q131 Mr Horam: You can only maintain your organisation that is a challenge, that is a tough call. editorial principles through grant-in-aid. Is that We can do it, but I cannot keep on doing it. I cannot what you are saying? keep on doing 20%, 20%, 20%. You will end up then Mr Chapman: Yes, that is my view, because we have with no services left over, and that would not be looked at alternatives, we have thought about appropriate. whether we could have done a commercially funded Arabic television service, but we came to the Q127 Mr Horam: One of the original reasons, as I conclusion that was not an appropriate way to go, understand it, why the first attempt to establish an for the reasons you are alluding to, which is that if Arabic service failed was that it was in partnership. you want editorial independence, if you want the Mr Chapman: That is right, with Orbit, the Saudi sorts of stories that we feel we ought to do without based distributor, between 1994 and 1996. fear or favour, if you have commercial partners you cannot do that because they then threaten you with Q128 Mr Horam: You would not go down that pulling the plug on your funds and say that is not route again? what you want us to cover, and that then Mr Chapman: No. The Arabic television service is a undermines the whole basis of your operation. publicly funded free-to-air service. The operation Chairman: I think none of us would want a BBC the BBC ran between 1994 and 1996 was a television service that was like the Fox News. 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams
Q132 Andrew Mackinlay: Can I come back, been taken by the king and his government since 1 Chairman, because I am still not comfortable with February this year to jam, most regrettably, a the reply you gave me earlier. It seems to me that number of Nepali language services, and we now whereas, quite rightly, our domestic services are have the new media ordinance, which has just been covered by the Charter and independence and so on, promulgated. The question I would like to put to there is a diVerent relationship when it comes to tax- you is this. Is the Committee correct in assuming payers’ money running this proposed organisation. that all the cuts so far in Nepali language news I have some attraction for this, but it does seem to services in Nepal are attributable to actions by the me that very early on you are going to run up against government and that there have been no actions by a situation where you have two legitimate but the BBC World Service to reduce their output? conflicting positions: one is the journalists, the Mr Chapman: Absolutely correct. editorial independents, who say, “We must report this”, and that action being not consistent with the Q136 Sir John Stanley: Can I ask you almost the interests of the United Kingdom politically, and so V reciprocal question: given the huge needs in Nepal, the relationship is di erent. This is where it is the is there anything further that you can do to increase United Kingdom politically providing the funds for access to BBC World Service news in Nepali in this service, and it seems to me you are going to particular but also possibly also in the English immediately run into conflict inevitably, but one can language in that country? see both positions. You do pump out what your Mr Chapman: We did mount some extra journalists say because they are professionals and programmes earlier this year when all the FM professionals of that region. They say, “This is news. distribution in Nepali was curtailed by the king. We This is what we should, from the point of view of our put forward extra short wave programmes in the professional journalism and transparency, push Y morning to supplement those which we put out out.” The Foreign O ce says, or the British tax- normally in the evening which are carried by the FM payer says, “What the devil. Am I paying for this?” transmitters in Kathmandu and other parts of the Mr Chapman: Mr Mackinlay, all I can say about country. We then stopped doing them because the that is that the World Service has managed to ride situation eased and we got back to the status quo, if that particular tide. you like, whereby our partners in Nepal were able to carry the traditional durations, if you like: the Q133 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes, but for television. evening programmes of our Nepali service. The Mr Chapman: Yes, but this service falls under the Nepali service is a very small service. It has four broadcasting agreement that the World Service has people. It is a tiny service. It works extremely hard with the Foreign OYce, and in the first few and eVectively and I would pay tribute to them; I paragraphs of that it is absolutely clear that the think they have done a fantastic job. The last thing editorial independence of the output is treasured and on my mind is to cut them back—if anything, I want guaranteed. This service falls fairly and squarely to strengthen them—and I am watching the within that and, therefore, it will have to subscribe situation very closely. If the situation turns to one to our relationship with the Foreign OYce in exactly where no FM rebroadcasting is possible of a Nepali the same way as the radio services do now. There is service, either by Nepal radio or by our partners in no diVerent set of relationships here. That is why I other parts of the country, I will look very hard at have confidence that the Foreign OYce, our funders, reinstigating the extra programme that we put on will respect that editorial independence, as they have earlier this year. It is a flexing position, we need to be done in relation to radio for many years, and new variable about it, but the changes in the 2010 media as well. proposals are nothing to do with the Nepali service. The Nepali service—I absolutely take your central Q134 Sir John Stanley: Can I come to Nepal. I have tenet—is a very important service for the people of a non-pecuniary interest as Chairman of the Nepal Nepal in a society which is deprived of free and Parliamentary Group. First of all, can I thank you independent information, it is close to my heart and very much for your letter, which will be circulated to I am going to make sure it remains a strong service. all members of the Committee, clarifying the exchange I had with Sir Michael Jay, when he came Q137 Sir John Stanley: Could you tell us what before the Committee, as to the extent to which the assessment you have made as to the impact on the Nepali language services were not being cut in BBC World Service both in the English language Nepal. and in the Nepali language of the Government’s Mr Chapman: That is right. media ordinance that was promulgated last month? Mr Chapman: It is hard to provide precise figures Q135 Sir John Stanley: Since then you probably will about that. I take some comfort from the fact that have seen the written answer which I had from Dr something like 700,000 of the 800,000 audience for Howells on 31 October, which is in front of the Nepali came through short wave, so that short wave Committee now. I am sure you would agree that was not interrupted by the ordinance, but I suspect Nepal, perhaps above almost all countries in the that there was a growing audience coming through world at the moment, is vitally in need of the FM distribution which has been strangled, if you independent access to news, given the huge extent of like, because people cannot hear those programmes Maoist control over a large part of the country and on FM at the moment. We have made given, in the non-Maoist areas, the action that has representations about this. The English output is 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 66 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams audible for the main in Kathmandu on FM, place in other parts of the country when the protests although there are times when bulletins are took place against the government is nonsense. They interrupted because there are certain items, were people based there going about their legitimate particularly, I suspect, reporting on Nepal, that the business. They were training staV. The reason there authorities do not like people to listen to. The Nepali were slightly more people there than normal is that service, unfortunately, is not as widely available on they were training and recruiting staV, and the FM as I would like it to be at the moment. It is authorities have added two and two and made 16, available on some stations, but not on others. We and the 16 is that they were there to ferment discord carry on the fight to make sure that it is audible, and and report matters unfairly. What the state I very much hope that our partners will win their prosecutor said about the BBC Uzbek service is battle to make sure the BBC World Service can be completely untrue and extremely unfair, and it is heard on FM right across the country. very damaging in the sense that it is personally Sir John Stanley: If you have any further damaging to both the people who came from information you want to give to the Committee as to London to report on events there and have had to the impacts of the media ordinance on the incidence come home, and, more importantly, the Uzbek staV of jamming that is continuing to take place, we 3 who are based there, whom I have a great deal of would be grateful to have a note on it. concern for their own personal safety; and one of the reasons why we cannot carry on with them doing Q138 Mr Mackay: Mr Chapman, clearly you have that reporting is because it exposes them to attack, got a very serious responsibility to protect your staV harassment and intimidation which would not be a wherever they are stationed. Nevertheless, it was fair thing to ask them to do. However much I believe obviously deeply disappointing and regrettable that, in the principles of freedom of journalism, there due to harassment (and worse) of staV in Tashkent, come a point where you cannot allow people to be in you have had to suspend your operation in that position, and, despite having raised it with the Uzbekistan. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit President—I have raised it with the ambassador here more about what happened and also give us an in written correspondence—the answer I get back is indication of when you might hope to resume service that there is not a problem with this. Well, I am in Tashkent? sorry, there is a very serious problem with this and it Mr Chapman: We continue to provide services in has meant that we are unable to carry out the extent Uzbek to the people of Uzbekistan through short of reporting that I would like to see the World wave, and medium wave distribution, so if you are a Service do in Uzbekistan. listener there, you are getting a basic service from us still, but, obviously, the degree to which we can report events inside that country is severely Q139 Mr Mackay: That was an extremely helpful restricted at the moment. I could not have response, and I hope it goes without saying that this confidence, in the light of conversations going on at Committee is hugely sympathetic to your plight in the moment, that the situation is going to get much Uzbekistan and I think we would appreciate, if it better quickly. The BBC has a correspondent from was possible, you keeping us informed of London based in Tashkent at the moment on a developments in writing. Meanwhile, as this temporary visa, and he is going about his business increasingly vile regime continues, a regime of which and reporting events there, but that is not a long- many of us have a great deal of concern, I would be term relationship necessarily. It could be, but it may interested finally to hear from you what pressure the not be, depending on the authority’s attitude. They Foreign OYce and ministers and the Foreign may decide that they do not want him to stay or they Secretary are putting on their opposite numbers in do not want to give a replacement visa to somebody Tashkent to ensure that matters are righted as else, and then, of course, we would have nobody quickly as possible? there reporting for the English output. In terms of Mr Chapman: I would have to oVer you a note on the Uzbek staV, there were in the region of 12–15 V that, because while they are clearly aware of the Uzbek sta at various times based in the country. As position, I am not precisely aware of how many a result of the harassment, which is exactly the right meetings they have had with whom about it in recent word, and the intimidation they have suVered for times, but I am confident they share our concern their reporting, we are in the position now where about it, and the matter has been raised by the BBC there will be eVectively no Uzbek staV based there and by other people. The diYculty I have is that the who can report for the BBC. They will either have to authorities there do not really recognise it as an leave for their own safety, or they have resigned, or issue. whatever. They just do not feel able to carry on, and they are having to keep an extremely low profile at Mr Mackay: I think we feel that the relationship the moment. Some of the things that have been said between our government and the vile regime in about the way our staV have behaved are a disgrace, Tashkent is not entirely satisfactory, and I do not in my view. The notion that we sent staV into mean to draw you on that and you do not need to Uzbekistan to ferment discord, or, that we had some comment, but, in that context, it is very important prior knowledge of the events that were going to take that we do have a note on that, as you have just promised, so that we can put further pressure on 3 Please refer to the supplementary note provided by the BBC ministers to act in your interests in Tashkent. World Service, Ev 72 Thank you. 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams
Q140 Ms Stuart: Could I take you back to the referred to three aspects linked together, but is it not English language output of the World Service and the reality that radio is going to be less and less some of the recent changes you have made to that important to you and you are going to be moving where some of the non-news items were removed? more and more to the new technologies? Two things would be interesting. One is how did you Mr Chapman: I would say a number of things about arrive at the decision and, with that, how you answer that. First of all, it will depend market by market on the accusation that it is just becoming a rolling news the relative importance of radio, new media, service and neglecting transmitting the cultural television. In many markets, for as long as I am aspects of that English service? The second one is director of the World Service, radio is going to be the what has been the feedback in terms of listeners? main means of reaching out to people. It would be a When you answer that could I urge you to ignore the silly thing to do to invest lots of money in television voices of people like me, who are UK based or in new media services because people would not insomniacs who like listening to the World Service at be able to access them. I think in large parts of three o’clock in the morning, because there other Africa, large parts of Asia, somewhere like Nepal, kinds of users out there for whom it was intended? which we were talking about earlier on, it would be Mr Chapman: Can I say that the death of the variety not a clever and strategic move to start oV with of the content of the World Service has been much multi-media services in that environment. Even at exaggerated. That is the first thing I would say. We the end of this budget process, if you like, taking us have obviously been listening to what audiences to 2007–08, the World Service will still be spending have been telling us and we are re-organising the 75% of its grant-in-aid income on radio and related schedule so that on week-days there will be a greater distribution; so radio is still going to be the vast emphasis on news and information, as there has majority of the expenditure. Twenty-five per cent been in the past. At weekends there will still be a will be spent on television, new media and other wide mix of cultural programming, both in terms of activities, but that gives you a sense of the balance, concerts, drama, activities of that kind, but on week Chairman, of how radio sits in the overall budget days we need to focus the English radio schedule verses the other services, which are increasing their around a broad mix of news and information. This spend proportionally because they are new services is not a rolling news service. This is not CNN on the and they need to be invested in, but radio is not being radio. What we are talking about here is a wide range given up on or losing its sense of place in the World of speech-based programming of news and Service activities. information which covers arts, culture, sport, business, religion, science, history. Those are all part of the mix. The way that some people have written Q142 Chairman: You have made quite a lot of about this, rather mischievously, I might say, is to investment in on-line services. Are you satisfied with exaggerate the extent of the changes and to typify the usage that you have got from that? this as some sort of philistinic dumbing down by the Mr Chapman: It depends on which markets you World Service, which I do not accept for a minute. mean. I think, broadly, yes, because I think our It is listening to audiences who are telling us outside investment, particularly in the English on-line the United Kingdom that they come to the World services, the news on-line services, has borne huge V Service for news and information and they want to fruit. In fact, we are able to o er an international always feel that that material is close by when they addition, if you like, of the BBC news service for tune in. That does not mean they want it every international use. This is a tremendous boon and a second of the day, but they want a speech-based very worthwhile investment. You are talking about radio service that provides that sort of output. Some 20 million users a month, six and a half million users of the things we have been putting out, including a week, who use all these services, so this is a soap-operas like Westway and things of that kind, significant take-up. The language service investment V just do not fit within that overall mix of what it is a di erent mix story. I think we have done audiences now want. That is the reality. It is a very extremely well with Persian. Persian has confounded short-sighted director of the World Service facing my expectations about the level of take-up and is that research who ignores it and ploughs on as if galloping away in terms of audience impact. Other Y nothing is happening. Our English scheduler, Phil services have found it more di cult to make an Harding, who is the director of English news and impact, sometimes because of blocking, in the case networks, has taken it and has reacted accordingly of the Chinese, similarly in the case of Hindi, because and in a sensible way, in a measured, sensible, a lot of people in India want material from the BBC incremental way, in a way that you need to do when in English, they are not particularly bothered about you evolve radio changes. Radio is very much a material in Hindi. It is horses for courses, if you like, service, I believe, of evolution not revolution, in terms of the impact, but, broadly speaking, I am broadly, and you need to do this in an incremental very pleased about it, and I think we are now at that manner. tipping point, if you like, in some societies where we need to oVer a richer oVer if we are going to remain competitive. We had a first mover advantage in the Q141 Chairman: You have already touched on this, late, I suppose, 1998, 1999 into the 2000 period when but with regard to the relationship between your on- my predecessors came before you—we saw the line and new digital interactive services and your openings; we went for it; we established ourselves— radio and television services, how do you see this but now in a broadband age and an age when people balance changing over the next few years? You are increasingly accessing the BBC media services 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 68 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams through broadband, you need to oVer a richer mix, Q152 Mr Hamilton: Just to follow up what the and that includes video, it includes audio and it Chairman has just said, the blocking on the website, includes interactivity and global discussion and is the website in Mandarin, or is it in the Chinese debate properly presented on the screen, and that is language, is it in English or is it in both? part of the investment plan that I talked about Mr Chapman: The news website in Mandarin is earlier on; so it is a very important part of the mix. comprehensively blocked. The English website, the news website that the Chairman was trying to access from Shanghai Airport, is blocked on occasions and Q143 Chairman: You referred in that answer to certain sorts of stories are comprehensively blocked “blocking in China”? from my reading. It is a fluent situation. It is not the Mr Chapman: Yes. same every week. It depends on circumstances and all sorts of internal Chinese political issues, I suspect, Q144 Chairman: I personally had experience of this which maybe allow liberality at some times and less at Shanghai Airport where I could not get onto the at others. BBC but I could, bizarrely, get onto the Guardian website. I would be interested to know, is there Q153 Mr Hamilton: I want to come back to the issue systematic blocking by the Chinese authorities of of finance. You mentioned earlier that 75% of your your on-line services? grant-in-aid was still spent on radio broadcasting? Mr Chapman: Of our news on-line services, yes. I Mr Chapman: And distribution for it. think it is less systematic in relation to other parts of the BBC website. Once you want to access as a page Q154 Mr Hamilton: And distribution. That leaves which has its origins, if you like, in the news server about £60 million in the current year of your grant- infrastructure of the BBC, the Chinese authorities in-aid spent on TV and new media. It is £239.1 have a system whereby it recognises you want to do million grant-in-aid this coming year. that and they very comprehensive block access to Mr Chapman: Yes, but you have to remember that those sites. Again, representations have been made, of that £239 million, £31 million is capital. discussions have been had, many of us have had Ms Woodhams: Thirty-one million is capital and them first-hand ourselves, and I know Foreign OYce 75% on radio is at the end of 2007–08. We are not ministers have had them, and the answer we get back spending anything on television at the moment. is there are technical issues and it is diYcult, but the reality is I am convinced that there is a systematic Q155 Mr Hamilton: Anything at all? blocking going on by the authorities of the on-line Ms Woodhams: Nothing at all. sites and also actually of short wave frequencies for the Mandarin radio services, but, less interruption Q156 Mr Hamilton: Thirty million is on capital? for access to English output in terms of radio and Ms Woodhams: Yes. on-line but not necessarily the news on-line part of it. It is a mixed story, but definitely the Chinese, Q157 Mr Hamilton: So that still leaves £30 million or particularly Mandarin, it is extremely diYcult to so, if my mathematics is right? access either in radio terms or in on-line terms in Mr Chapman: I think it is between £30 and 40 China. million on television and new media activities by the end of 2007–08. Q150 Chairman: Is there any comparator with any other website? For example, would CNN have the Q158 Mr Hamilton: So at the moment you spend same problem or is this, as far as you are aware, most of that on new media presumably? directed mainly at the BBC? Mr Chapman: Yes, we are. We are spending, I think, Mr Chapman: It is a patchy and mixed story, I think between 10 and £20 million on new media. is the answer to that. I think there are occasions where other news websites from Western companies Q159 Mr Hamilton: Can you tell us what your Y are blocked, but they are not always blocked all the e ciency savings target was for the last financial time; it is intermittent. With the BBC the blocking is year and whether you achieved it? more comprehensive and the sensitivities if you run Mr Chapman: We did achieve it. The target certain sorts of stories—you can imagine what they formally—I am sure my colleague would like to talk might be—which have those sorts of words on them more about this—is two and a half per cent, but the or those sorts of phrases really the blanket comes BBC’s real inflation pressures lead you to need a down very tightly against people being allowed bigger saving than that. access to that sort of material. Ms Woodhams: The target was £4.4 million last year and, yes, we did hit it.
Q151 Chairman: It would be interesting to know Q160 Mr Hamilton: Is there any other form of what coverage is going on at the moment in China income that you receive? You do not get any and what is getting through? advertising? Mr Chapman: We are doing a very comprehensive Ms Woodhams: No. We get a small amount of job, Chairman, of the coverage of the President’s external income. Some of our rebroadcasters visit, but I am not sure how much people are actually pay us for our programmes, but that is in the accessing it at the moment. minority. We get about three-quarters of a million 3302621022 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 69
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams pounds a year from rebroadcasters. With the one hand and a very strong case to maintain a strong majority of rebroadcasters we have to pay them to BBC presence in Russia, and I just think they are not take our programmes, or there is some kind of comparable situations. bartering arrangement sometimes, but, aside of that, we do not have any substantial external income. Q163 Ms Stuart: What are you doing in Belarus? Mr Chapman: We do not have any specific special Q161 Chairman: We have talked about the services for Belarus. The Russian service is audible Pakistan’s Urdu service and you have talked about in Belarus through short wave. There is no means of various other services. Can you tell us what you are distribution inside Belarus other than through old doing in Russia and what you are doing to increase short wave. your audience share there? I understand from what you have told us that you only reach 0.8% of the Q164 Ms Stuart: Do you have any idea whether that Russian adult population at the moment, which is has been picked up at all? I tell you why I am asking. very low. I have just come back from a security conference in Mr Chapman: It is low, and it is a cause of concern to Moscow and I was struck by the Russian colleagues me. One of the reasons why it has been low is because telling us that Belarus is not as bad as you think it is. Russia is now a very competitive market place in It has got higher GDP than the Ukraine. I thought, terms of radio. There are plenty of FM stations “Hold on, what is going on here?” established there now and the World Service has Mr Chapman: In broadcasting terms one of the struggled to get distribution on FM in any of the diYculties we would have (and we have considered major cities in Russia, most notably St Petersburg whether we should do special services for Belarus) is and Moscow. Since last year we have made progress. that the only way we could get those services into We are finding suitable partners in St Petersburg, Belarus would be on short wave, and what people and to some extent in Moscow, which will enable us are telling us about the radio market in Belarus is to be heard on FM for the first time in those two that, because of the economic indicators you have cities. Obviously we will measure our audience just talked about, that is not the right way to deliver performance in the next six months and I will get a a radio service to Belarus. You would have to be able better idea of whether that strategy is working. We to he heard on FM, and, there is no way the are also trying to strengthen our medium wave authorities there are going to give the World Service distribution, but that figure of 0.8% is not that access to an FM frequency or partnership in a dissimilar from the performance of other country like Belarus at the moment. In a way we international radio services in Russia. It seems to me would be wasting our money, if you think about it, that one of the issues here is that the Russian by putting out a service that nobody can actually audience is not at this moment demonstrating a hear. great appetite for international radio from external sources. My feeling, having been there and talked to Q165 Chairman: One final question. Could you give people, is that it is a society that in a way in media us an update on your plan to join BBC news and terms is turning in on itself to some extent. It has got radio at Broadcasting House? When is that going to more national television and radio services than it happen and what does it mean for your staV?Are used to have, it is consuming them in a greater way you going to lose jobs as a result and how much is it and its appetite for services like the BBC is not as going to cost? great as it used to be when you compare with the V Ms Woodhams: It is three questions really. The Cold War years and a very di erent sort of political current plan is to move there by the end of 2010, climate. I think one of the ironies about this you which is slightly later than we had previously said could argue now about the way media has been because of some slight delays on the project and the restricted in Russia increasingly under Putin is that building of what is called “phase one”, which is the the case for having the BBC there is greater than it rebuilding of Egdon House and the refurbishment of was perhaps five years ago and, therefore, we do the old grade one listed part of Broadcasting House. want to make sure that we get an audience for our We should be in by the end of 2010. The only honest services. answer is we do not know how much it is going to cost at the moment. It is still five years until we go. Q162 Chairman: You are not going to use the same We do not know what kind of technology we are argument as you have done in Poland and the Czech going to put in there, and that is one of the big services and elsewhere, “The audience so is small debates at the moment. We do not know how much that therefore we might as well close it down and floor space we are going to occupy. We are looking concentrate on somewhere else”? at plans to see how much floor space we would need Mr Chapman: I do not think they are comparable and how that would aVect our costs. I think it would cases, Chairman. I think one of the issues that does be fair to say it will cost us more than what we are arise is what is the appropriate medium to reach out currently having to pay in Bush, but you have to to people in Russia? If at the end of the day you bear in mind that if we stayed in Bush House we persevere with radio but you do not get an audience would have to pay more, because Bush House, if we for radio, would you be better oV having another stayed there, would be in need of some serious sort of service? That gets us into a whole new refurbishment, and you have to take that as a territory, but I see a distinction between the case of comparator. We are obviously working on the cost, closing a Polish service or a Hungarian service on the and that will be part of our discussion in the 2007 3302621022 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 70 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
9 November 2005 Mr Nigel Chapman and Ms Alison Woodhams
Spending Review, because we will start to incur costs recently, to what extent are people going to buy sets towards the end of that spending review period. In that have access to those sorts of frequencies? At the terms of people, we are expecting to give them a moment they are expensive, they are not widespread. better working environment, more flexible, more We would need to have a break-through in terms of designed for the kind of multi-media environment customer take-up, audience take-up, to make it that we are working in now, but we are not expecting worthwhile investing any more funds in that. We to say we are going to move less people there. Our have got our bets on various horses here. DRM is current plans are to move everybody who will be in one of them, but the bet is modest, and we have to Bush House over to Broadcasting House. wait and see what happens. Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr Hamilton wants to come in very briefly. Q167 Chairman: Mr Chapman, Ms Woodhams, thank you very much for coming. We look forward to seeing you at Bush House at least for the next five Q166 Mr Hamilton: Do you do any digital audio years or wherever else in future. I think we have broadcasting (DAB) outside the UK? covered a very wide area. We may have to write to Mr Chapman: We do digital radio Mondial (ie you on a couple of areas to get further information. digital short wave) to parts of Europe at the moment We are very grateful to you. as an experiment. That is the equivalent of DAB. We Mr Chapman: You are always welcome to come for do not have the equivalent of DAB; we have DRM. a visit to Bush House. We will be happy to The issue there will be, rather like it was here until entertain you.
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the BBC World Service
Redundancy Figures The forecast figure given in the World Service’s written evidence of 236 job reductions in the language services, due to language service closures and reprioritisation plans, is unchanged. This is made up of 127 posts in the UK and 91 overseas—as a result of language service closures, plus 18 posts due to other reprioritisation, such as the Portuguese for Brazil Service concentrating on news bulletins and online. As predicted in the earlier written evidence, since these figures were announced on 25 October, further discussions with staV and the Unions have taken place on the impact of the restructuring on BBC News. This will mean there will be an extra 46 job cuts in BBC News. Around 201 new jobs have been, or will be, created by the new investment plans, mainly for the new Arabic TV channel, but also in New Media and international oYces.
BBC World—Funding Status and Viewing Figures
BBC World Funding Status BBC World, the BBC’s commercial 24-hour news and information television channel, launched in its present format in 1995 and is funded by advertising and subscription. It is owned and operated by BBC World Ltd, a subsidiary of BBC Commercial Holdings Limited. In addition, BBC World forms part of the BBC’s Global News Division. As is common with pan-regional news channels, the BBC recognises that a substantial period of investment is to be expected before a global news channel like BBC World reaches profitability, and the channel is currently making losses. Its business plan forecasts that it should reach break-even around the end of the decade and BBC World is currently operating in line with plan. Investment in the channel is provided through long-term loans at market rates of interest which will be repayable once the channel reaches profitability. The loans are sourced from other commercial profits of the BBC group and there is no use of licence fee funding.
Comparative View Figures The BBC World weekly viewership figure of around 60 million (actual 58.6 million) is compiled from multiple surveys (specifically commissioned, syndicated and omnibus) across many countries and overall competitor channel figures are not available from these. 3302621023 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 71
Regional syndicated surveys, commissioned by a number of media owners and carried out by independent research companies, do oVer comparative figures, and listed below, are recent comparative viewership statistics for weekly reach from these surveys.
Western Europe (EMS 2005 study—chief income earner from top 20% of households—40 million) BBC World 11.4% CNN Int’l 19.0% Sky News 14.2%
Western Europe excluding UK/Ireland (EMS 2005 study—chief income earner from top 20% of households—33 million) BBC World 11.4% CNN Int’l 19.5% Sky News 8.3%
Asia-Pacific (PAX 11 market study—aZuent adults and business decision-makers in 11 cities 13.5 million) BBC World 9.5% CNN Int’l 17.6% Sky News 0%
India (National peoplemeter panel—TAM—85 million people with TV covered by panel) BBC World 3.7% CNN Int’l 1.7% Sky News 0%
Latin America (TGI—136 million people aged 12! half continent) BBC World 1.0% CNN Int’l 3.3% Sky News 0%
Middle East (five country omnibus survey 2003—6 million) BBC World 7.9% CNN Int’l 14.4% Sky News 1.1%
International air travellers (interviewed in 26 airports globally—travellers on scheduled int’l flights) BBC World 18.3% CNN Int’l 22.5% Sky News 5.9%
Uzbekistan—FCO Representations to the Government
The British Embassy in Tashkent made specific representations in relation to the diYculties experienced by the BBC immediately after the events in Andizhan on 12–13 May which led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, and at the time of Monica Whitlock’s departure in June 2005. The FCO kept in close and active touch with the BBC in the period following Andizhan, both in Tashkent and London.
The British Ambassador in Tashkent, David Moran, recently reassured the head of the BBC Monitoring oYce, which remains in Tashkent, that the FCO continue to consider the welfare of remaining BBC Monitoring staV to be a high priority.
David Moran discussed the closure of the BBC World Service oYce in Tashkent with Foreign Minister, Ganiev, on 3 November. He has made regular representations on freedom of expression and the treatment of local and international journalists with the Ministry of Foreign AVairs at ministerial and oYcial level.
As far as BBC World Service is concerned, the Embassy has been particularly helpful and supportive since the start of the troubles. 3302621023 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 72 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Nepali Service Update Since the previous note to the Committee on 1 November (and the World Service’s oral evidence session) on the Government of Nepal’s barring of FM stations to broadcast news, and its eVect on the BBC Nepali Service, there have been further developments. Kathmandu FM rebroadcaster, Radio Sagarmatha, has had its broadcasts suspended since 27 November 2005. This came after the trailing of a BBC Nepali Service rebroadcast interview with Nepalese Maoist party leader Prachanda, despite the Government ban on broadcasting news on local stations. Five Radio Sagarmatha staV were also arrested and equipment confiscated. The staV were later released. BBC World Service has expressed concern at this development. The country’s Supreme Court has now ordered the return of the equipment to Radio Sagarmatha. However, away from Kathmandu, in Surkhet, an FM partner station is now carrying BBC Nepali output. Since the state of emergency, the BBC 24 hour relay via state broadcaster, Radio Nepal, has only broadcast BBC programmes in English, and not in Nepali. Between March and 1 September, censorship of the English output of 15 minutes at the top of the hour, was also apparent—the Radio Nepal engineers having been instructed by the Ministry to play local classical music. From 1 September, following discussions between BBC and RN, the music was cut down from 15 to 6 minutes, covering only the news bulletins at the top of the hour between 0600 and 2200 daily. All of the regular current aVairs programmes remain on the air, including all headlines on the half hour. Radio Nepal are unable to object or take on the Palace on this issue. Shortwave broadcasts in English and Nepali remain unaVected. 2 December 2005
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the BBC World Service
Nepali Service Update Further to the Supplementary Note sent to the Committee on 2 December, BBC Nepali Service transmissions on local rebroadcaster, Radio Sagarmatha FM, are back on air as at 7 December 2005. This came about after a petition was filed by the Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ)— a non-governmental group that runs Radio Sagarmatha FM, challenging the Government’s order prohibiting re-broadcast of BBC Nepali over the FM station. The Supreme Court of Nepal then ordered the Government to lift its ban on BBC Nepali rebroadcasting on Radio Sagarmatha FM, pending the final verdict. 7 December 2005
Copy of a letter from Sir Andrew Burns, International Governor of the BBC, to Lord Carter of Coles
Review of Public Diplomacy Further to my letter yesterday and our conversation, I presented the outcome of our discussions to the Board of Governors earlier today. I am pleased to report that the Governors were able to agree to the text as proposed, subject to my setting out of our understanding of public diplomacy for the record as we agreed. My colleagues were pleased that you felt able to reflect our concern that nothing in your conclusions should undermine the editorial independence of the World Service. Its eVectiveness over the past 70 years had been founded in its reputation for impartiality and editorial independence, and I know you recognise that is why we have been so concerned to ensure that we do nothing to endanger that situation. That is why we believe that Observer status is the correct outcome for the World Service in relation to the new Public Diplomacy Board. Whilst of course the World Service will bring its experience to the table and be accountable for its performance against agreements with the FCO, it would not be in anyone’s best interests for the World Service to be making decisions about the government’s wider public policy aims. Indeed, Governors welcomed moves towards greater accountability for public money as being fully consistent with their own agenda in relation to accountability to licence fee payers for the BBC as a whole. Similarly, we continue to believe that the perception of genuine editorial independence is underpinned by medium term financial certainty. Of course, we fully recognise that changes in funding and issues such as ring fencing remain within the gift of Ministers as you have outlined, and that they may wish to look for more radical options in the future. For our part, the Governors continue to believe financial certainty is an 3302621024 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73
essential factor in the ultimate eVectiveness of the World Service. However, in the short term, the key point I should make is that we are committed as a board to working with the new public diplomacy arrangements in order to make them a success. We have spoken at length about your proposed definition of public diplomacy. We view this definition in the light of your report’s stance on the World Service’s editorial independence as essentially being about the where and the how of broadcasting rather than the what. The latter of course remains a matter of editorial judgement. Proper accountability for the objectives agreed between the FCO and World Service as provided for in your Report would be wholly consistent with the BBC’s current mission as set out in the Charter and Agreement that the World Service shall, act “in accordance with the objectives, priorities and targets which may from time to time be agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce”. Thus as the World Service does now, we will of course work closely with the FCO about the locations where the World Service broadcasts and the means by which it does so. We will be accountable against robust and eVective measures for the spending of public money in line with those objectives, priorities and targets. Sir Andrew Burns International Governor of the BBC 24 November 2005 3302621025 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 74 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Wednesday 8 February 2006
Members present:
Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton Sandra Osborne Mr John Horam Mr Ken Purchase Mr Eric Illsley Sir John Stanley Mr Paul Keetch Ms Gisela Stuart Mr John Maples
Witness: Lord Carter of Coles, a Member of the House of Lords, gave evidence.
Q168 Chairman: Welcome. Lord Carter, thank you discussing those with the key players we managed very much for coming along this afternoon. We to get something that had a wider body of support, asked you to come because some time ago we took so it did take some more time. evidence from the British Council and the BBC World Service, as part of our general review of the Q171 Chairman: Was that a diYcult process? Is FCO’s Annual Report and its funding of various that why it took so long? organisations. At that time we were told that your Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, because I think we are report on the Review of Public Diplomacy was dealing with some very powerful players, with very imminent; and, clearly, in October, when we were strong positions and very clear views. Trying to get taking that evidence we had hoped that we would agreement was not the easiest thing all the time— be able to deal with it at that time; but we are now that is right. doing it at the moment because the report was published towards the end of last year. There was a review of public diplomacy called the Wilton Q172 Chairman: Is there a real agreement now or Review in 2002. Why was it necessary to have is this a kind of holding position for continuation another review so soon afterwards? of the debate? Lord Carter of Coles: The Wilton Review took Lord Carter of Coles: I like to think, of course, but things a certain way forward, in the sense that prior you will form your own view, that there was to that review the activities of the FCO, the British agreement. What I really was not prepared to go Council and the World Service, were not as joined forward with was a sense that this is a “we generally up as people thought they should be. The Wilton all accept this; thank you very much”. I wanted a Review pointed the way to the formation of the little more assurance that people accepted some of Public Diplomacy Strategy Board. As that went on, the detail, or a reason why I should withdraw that people began to wonder whether even more detailed recommendation. alignment of interests were necessary. That is what I was asked to look at; it was really building on Q173 Chairman: When you were asked to do this progress made from the Wilton Report. job were you given a clear sense of what the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce wanted and Q169 Chairman: How did you see your role as what the Treasury wanted—or maybe they wanted chairman of this review? exactly the same—out of this? Lord Carter of Coles: Really trying to look at what Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, I think they wanted was happening first of all, trying to get an greater clarity; that was my sense of it. Here was understanding of what the issues were and to see something we were spending a lot of money on, whether the system could be made to work better £600 million, and we were in this post 9/11 world and see whether we get any improvements. where things were changing. Was the organisation that had been put in place suYciently agile to respond, and was the money being spent in the Q170 Chairman: I have already referred to the fact most eVective way? that we were expecting a report around the September, as I was told at one point, and then October. Why was there a delay in publication? Q174 Mr Horam: Why are you so suspicious of the Lord Carter of Coles: I suppose there are always British Council? two types of these sorts of reports. There are those Lord Carter of Coles: I hate to answer a question with a question, but why would you think? which are quite elegant but do not often get people to agree to what to do, and they seem to find their way on to the shelves of Whitehall; and there are Q175 Mr Horam: From your recommendation that those which are trying to be more helpful and take the FCO and the Council should together develop a bit of perseverance to get people to agree to work proposals with an appropriate degree of oversight. in a way which may get an outcome; and I think It already had one institution put in place by the we chose the latter route, and inevitably there were Wilton Review; so you want even more. It must be strong views at various parts of the process. By that you are very suspicious of the British Council. 3302621025 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles
Lord Carter of Coles: With respect, I do not think dialogue about what was going on in a country and that follows, no. This was, if you like, an evolution the eVect of the combined eVorts of a large amount saying that what people needed to do was to be of money being spent; how that impacted on the much more co-ordinated in what they did in each country and what was each partner bringing to country and get those activities co-ordinated. I that? would not like to leave that impression. Q182 Mr Horam: Can you give me an example? All Q176 Mr Horam: Would that imply they are not this is rather general, and something was going co-ordinated and they are not doing what the wrong. Do you have some examples in mind of Foreign OYce wants them to do? Lord Carter of Coles: No, I think it would be a where things were going wrong? matter of both sides understanding what the other Lord Carter of Coles: I can think of examples where thought. I do not think it was that way round. The things change rapidly. Pakistan would be an British Council has a huge amount of experience in interesting example. The British Council, with the the field, which could interact with the Foreign security issues in Pakistan, had to shut its shop OYce as well. I do not think this is a one-way thing front; it could not be there for security reasons. at all. That was a transitional thing. Its main activity in Pakistan after 9/11 was in running exams. That is educationally a very valuable thing, but it was Q177 Mr Horam: Let me put it another way: why constrained to some degree in what it could do in has the British Council system as we have had it, its ordinary communication. One would say, “we with what the Wilton Review recommended on top, not working? would like to get it down the Internet and things Lord Carter of Coles: If you look on a country-by- like that”—in a situation like that, would it be more country basis, as we did at expenditure and appropriate for money to have been spent by the commitment in various things, the question is: do BBC in that market where there was a constraint. these things operate in self-defining silos, or is there It is those sorts of discussions that are interesting, some means of joining them up? If you look back, and it is the whole-country impact of this total historically there was often a historical definition of endeavour. why each of those organisations may have behaved in the way they did, but often without reference to Q183 Mr Horam: The Treasury had a role in all of each other. this. Was there a concern about the financing of the British Council, that it was wasting money? Q178 Mr Horam: Why does the British Council not Lord Carter of Coles: No, that was not a view. join them up? You are saying they may be operating diVerently in silos in diVerent countries— the British Council, presumably, has its own Q184 Mr Horam: So it was all to do with strategy strategy and its own priorities and it does co- and not to do with the Treasury concern about ordinate, and it must do. whether you were getting value for money from the Lord Carter of Coles: It does, but the question of British Council? co-ordination of strategy from the Foreign OYce, Lord Carter of Coles: No, it was never raised with in the sense of the priority within a country—first me. The question, “Are we spending all the money of all the actual choice of countries that are eVectively?” was raised with me. It was not a prioritised is important, so in a hierarchy where specific concern about the British Council, no. public diplomacy should be practised with public money. Q185 Mr Horam: So your recommendations are all Y Y about having more Foreign O ce control over the Q179 Mr Horam: Do you think the Foreign O ce nitty-gritty, country-by-country, of what the British should have a bigger say in deciding that? Council did. Lord Carter of Coles: I think the Foreign OYce Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, absolutely, allocation of should set the strategy in discussion with its resources—not control. I think this is one point I partners, because they bring something to the table. really want to speak to: it was not control; it was about better co-ordination. Q180 Mr Horam: They were never doing that before. Lord Carter of Coles: I do not think it was done Q186 Mr Horam: Better co-ordination inside a as thoroughly as it should have been, no. That is country or between how you spend the money why I made the recommendation. between diVerent countries? Lord Carter of Coles: Both, because we are in a Q181 Mr Horam: Even though the Wilton Review very dynamic situation. It is the movement of had set up a body to do that? money from, in the case of the BBC, eastern Lord Carter of Coles: No, if you look at the Europe into Arab territories or something like that. workings of the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, There are huge rapid changes going on, and those it was very much something that was very, very do need to be co-ordinated and resources moved high level, with very broad themes. I was talking around, and within countries as in the Pakistan more about the issue country-by-country, the example. 3302621025 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 76 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles
Q187 Chairman: In your recommendations you did understand which interventions the British Council not recommend a particular model of control. You and the World Service made actually had a better said that the FCO and the British Council should eVect. One of the problems is that we do not together develop proposals for an appropriate know—in the case of the British Council we know degree of oversight, and how the FCO and British the number of people coming to British Council dialogue might better operate in practice. universities, the number of examinations, the Why did you not recommend a particular way number of visits and the numbers visiting the forward yourself? website and things like that—we need to start Lord Carter of Coles: I suppose, Chairman, going measuring those over time and then try and back to an earlier point, I wanted to publish the understand what drives them. report. This is something that— Q191 Mr Maples: Are you aware of any study that Q188 Chairman: Are you telling me then that there has been done on value for money of the British was no agreement? Council? Lord Carter of Coles: No. There was broad Lord Carter of Coles: No. agreement. Then, after that, we wanted to be pretty clear how it would work. The detail of how these Q192 Mr Maples: You seem to be suggesting that two organisations are going to sit down between some work along those lines should be done in themselves—are they going to meet once a month the future. or once a quarter and what the agenda should be, Lord Carter of Coles: It is something that needs is something they should settle. looking at. Part of designing this was to have a dialogue that was based less on assertion and more Q189 Chairman: Do you have a view yourself, on fact. though, as to how this relationship between the dialogue between the FCO and the British Council Q193 Mr Maples: Do you not think that the British should be developed? Council is a hangover from the cold war? Now, Lord Carter of Coles: I think the shape of it, yes, with modern communications and the multiplicity in the sense of establishing the priorities in terms of broadcasting channels and the availability of of, first, which countries we spend money on. That information on the Internet, do you really think it is a very important dialogue. Then, within country, is necessary to have hundreds of people working in it is a question of the relevant channels to be used, the Soviet Union in the British Council, putting on and then very, very critically, what is the eVect of rather obscure plays that a few people go to watch it. People need to sit down and look at that in any in English and a library that hardly anybody ever performance management system and say, “we seems to visit? surveyed the opinions of people in this country and Lord Carter of Coles: People did put in the Hamlet we have spent all this money, aiming oV for big in Alexandria question; it was something we events, and actually we have improved” or “our thought a lot about. If you look at the amount of rating is going down”. It is that dialogue I was keen money spent on those endeavours, they are to see people having. relatively small. The big value-added services to me of the British Council were, first of all, obviously, Q190 Mr Maples: Whenever we go anywhere we teaching the English language. try to see the British Council and sometimes we come away with an impression that a very few Q194 Mr Maples: Is that not done by commercial people are doing a fantastic job, and then enterprises? sometimes we come away wondering what the hell Lord Carter of Coles: It is, and I think that the they are sending people to do. I may have missed Council needs to continually monitor if that service it in your report, but have you formed any view of can be provided by people. If you look at markets whether, as taxpayers, we are getting good value they are withdrawing from in Japan, they have left for money out of the British Council and/or the Osaka and now that is done by the private sector. BBC World Service for that matter? I think we are If you look at the expansion of teaching English in happier, probably, with the World Service than the the world, their market share has declined because British Council. Perhaps that is not really part of the private sector providers have done that. In your . . . benchmarking terms I think there is a role, but it Lord Carter of Coles: No, it was not part of— needs to be continually reviewed. That is a question obviously, because I went to look. When we spoke that should be looked at all the time. At this to other countries, everybody was envious that we moment, in the places where they do it very well, had the British Council and World Service, and it it is self-financing and also it does help our cause was quite interesting comparing, so from that point for low cost. If it became a burden, we would have of view there was recognition. Are we getting good to suggest that people looked at it again. value? The answer is that generally we are. How you would measure good value is the thing that I Q195 Mr Maples: When the BBC World Service was exercised by. I was very keen to recommend Chief Executive appeared before us, we heard that that we did return to surveying what people they are financing their Arab television service to thought of us in those countries, and to start the tune of £20 million, which is pretty small money consistently over time to do that and to try and world TV, and they are having to cut down on 3302621025 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles services in all sorts of other countries to do that. Council’s primary function, for which the British There is an argument whether those other services taxpayer does receive benefit, is in the area of were necessary, but I also wonder whether we education, there is not in that sense the need for should not just shift £20 million from the British once-removed from government, as you could Council budget to the World Service to do it. Do argue for the World Service. What is your preferred you think the British Council would—do you think notion or model of how the British Council should it would really, really notice the absence of that £20 be accountable? million that the British Council— Lord Carter of Coles: I have asked myself a lot of Lord Carter of Coles: I think so, yes. I think they questions about the status of NDPBs and this arm’s would notice it. length question. In the case of the British Council, its arm’s length position in certain cases has proved Q196 Mr Maples: I did not say would “they” notice useful. It lets it have that necessary distance at some it; I said would “we” notice it. They would notice diYcult times in certain countries. That has stood it, I am sure. us in good stead, and I could not see any benefit Lord Carter of Coles: Whether “big” here is—you in removing that. It is a nice piece of positioning, would have to take chunks oV. If you look at where and it does contribute to the most important thing, the money goes, it is education—you would have which is for the World Service and the British to take £5 million, say, if you split it four ways— Council that trust rating, which would be very hard say 5 million on four things. I think it would just to recreate if it were too close. leave a hole in educational recruitment in this country, which would be detrimental; so I think it Q199 Ms Stuart: Do you really think it is is value-added. I think the better solution is for the comparable? The BBC is the provider of the news BBC to re-prioritise, as you suggested, and take the and therefore needs to be independent; the British 20 million out of that. Council is the conveyor of British art and language. Lord Carter of Coles: I do. My own view is Q197 Ms Stuart: Can I pursue something you probably the same thing exactly: the BBC is the started with. Whilst it was no part of your remit, same thing in a way—the airtime—it is British you must have formed an opinion during the course culture, art and language. I think they are doing the of your work. If I were to ask you now what is the same thing, and that sense of independence is very point of the British Council, what would you say? important. Lord Carter of Coles: We had quite a debate about this. I think probably its greatest contribution is in Q200 Ms Stuart: In relation to the role of the education, in getting people to come to British Permanent Secretary, what do you think would be universities and into higher education; and it is a the ideal role, because you raised the issue of V major e ort. I do not want to answer by default, conflict of interest? but if the British Council did not do it, somebody Lord Carter of Coles: I think it is a conflict of would have to do it, and I think they do it in a interest, yes. I have a sense from that that would skilful way. The teaching of English we have talked probably be better—it is a diYcult position to about: it is a valuable thing, but given alternatives adopt. I think the board should represent itself and it would not command a large public subsidy in my not have conflicts. view, so that is important. In terms of culture, it spends 25 million on the arts. There are diVering views. My own view is that it is very useful in Q201 Ms Stuart: Aboard completely appointed by positioning this country. If we look at the money the Foreign Secretary— the French spend, for instance, on their schools Lord Carter of Coles: At the moment the board has abroad and the great cultural drive in China, it twelve members. There would be a case for the costs significantly more and I think has a lesser Foreign Secretary appointing some additional, or eVect. Acultural positioning helps the country, and some of the retiring members. On the other hand, I think then it pushes through into things like as in most other organisations, there should be a tourism. If, on the other hand, someone were to nominations committee that brings some suggest spending £50 million or £60 million a year independent people. To our earlier point, you on culture, that would be a harder thing to defend. cannot have it both ways: you cannot have a board absolutely appointed by—if you wish to maintain that. What I am really trying to pursue is the sense Q198 Ms Stuart: That raises two further questions. of alignment and accountability; and it is getting If you make comparisons with the French, I do not the alignment of all these activities focused on think these are true comparisons because France is something. the only driver for the French language on the international scene, whereas we are not the only driver for English. Given that the British Council Q202 Sir John Stanley: Lord Carter, did you form even thinks displaying the Union Jack is something any view as to the balance of the staYng within the terribly retrograde, there is a problem. Much British Council between the number based in the more importantly—because part of your UK and the numbers overseas; and did you form recommendations in terms of looking at how the any view as to whether the British Council might board is appointed, the roles of the Permanent be, rather surprisingly, overstaVed as far as its UK Secretary and the Foreign OYce—if the British staV was concerned? 3302621025 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 78 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles
Lord Carter of Coles: I did not look at that; I was Lord Carter of Coles: I return to that re- not looking at the economics in that sense. I was prioritisation from eastern Europe, which has let us surprised, I should say, when I read Lord finance Arab TV, and the fact that we probably Kinnock’s evidence to you of 1,500 people in the should have done it sooner—the Americans were UK, or a larger number than I had thought. out of eastern Europe three years before us, which I think is significant! In relation to the question of priorities as set by the FCO, clearly Arab TV and Q203 Sandra Osborne: To go back to the Persia, and Urdu services, which the Americans appointment of the board members, I can have introduced, are things that should be looked appreciate what you are saying about seeking at because of the changing emphasis. Should the alignment, but is there not a danger that that would BBC be totally aligned? No; I think there will result in obvious political interference at an always be some slight diVerence of interpretation in unacceptable level? these things. Fundamentally, in the broad thrust of Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, and that is the thing we things they have to be aligned because it is a have to be really mindful of. I would not like to see question of the government choosing where it either of these organisations criticised because that wants to take policy, and this is a tool of public would be wrong. On the other hand, I think you diplomacy—“public” being the word. Therefore need the appointment of people who—how can I government has to have some say in that, I believe. put it; you need a bit more of a challenging board. I think you get that with some appointed in one Q206 Mr Hamilton: In that case, why do you think way and some appointed in another way; that that the FCO did not persuade the BBC World might be a useful mechanism. Service to take these steps sooner? Was that a lack of proper dialogue between the FCO and the World Q204 Sandra Osborne: You have identified the need Service? Are the mechanisms for oversight and for a greater sense of urgency amongst public dialogue good enough? diplomacy partners, and more evidence that they Lord Carter of Coles: Pursuing the example I gave, are capable of responding and shifting resources probably were not. One of the recommendations according to priorities and changing circumstances. obviously is to get that better, to get things to How successful did the review team find the happen quicker. Council to be at shifting resources according to priorities and changing circumstances? Q207 Mr Hamilton: Do you believe the suggestions Lord Carter of Coles: I think historically more so, you have put forward will do that? but it still needs attention. There is a slowness to Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, because we will start to realign services. I am trying to think of an example get information and evidence about what is to give you. We found a number of times where we happening. Once that is there, it makes it easier to could have been quicker oV the mark in doing that. have the debate. The abiding one is the World Service in the sense of coming out of eastern Europe. It is just realising Q208 Mr Hamilton: Do you think that the BBC where things are going and getting on it quickly World Service should pull out of more local and redeploying the money that is the critical thing. language services in order to fund further TV Chairman: Can we move on to some questions ventures, like the Persian and Urdu services? Is about the BBC World Service and then we will radio a dying medium? come back to the structural issues later on. Lord Carter of Coles: No, not at all; on the contrary. It is the right sort of radio of course! I think short wave is dying, but FM is absolutely Q205 Mr Hamilton: Can I follow up some points critical. The issue for the BBC is to get FM made by John Maples and Gisela Stuart. John Drivetime radio into the right countries. Other Maples mentioned the desire, and in fact intention, foreign language TV services—it is one step at a of the BBC World Service to set up its Arab time; let us get Arab TV working and prove that television satellite service. When Nigel Chapman it can meet its projections; let us see if we get the gave evidence to this Committee late last year, we audience. Then we can see how the Americans got followed that through and asked him about other on with the Urdu service. I think they have done possible satellite services, for example one in Persia, two hours of Persian, and we will see how those which would be quite appropriate right now. In things evolved. Then a decision can be taken. response, Nigel Chapman told the Committee that there was a limit to how far the World Service can Q209 Sir John Stanley: Do you think that in the go in re-prioritising its existing budget in order to balance of advantage it was right to slash the meet new ambitious challenges that it has to face vernacular services in the way that has happened if it is going to be eVective. Lord Carter, how do in order to be able to accommodate the Arabic you think the FCO could better ensure that the television service? World Service’s strategic objectives and priorities Lord Carter of Coles: I think it was right to slash are compatible with the policies and priorities of the vernacular services, yes, because the world has the Foreign OYce; and indeed should they be; moved on. The listing figures were no longer there should there not be some divergence? What is your and reaching the target audiences, and I think that view on this? was right. Separately, I think Arab TV probably 3302621025 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles stands on its own as a case anyway, given business. It actually seeks to inform and to share, everything that is happening in the world; so I and do those things. That does have a valuable would not necessarily want to link those two. I role. We wondered whether that same body could think it was a good decision to stop that. They take on the tighter strategy performance could have done anything with the money, and I management role we envisaged, and concluded not; think it is a good decision to invest in Arab TV. but we thought that had a value. Therefore, with the two structures one feeds into the other; but to Q210 Sir John Stanley: Do you think that we drive the change it is the board we are proposing should continue the system whereby the BBC that we seek doing that. I would be reluctant to World Service remains a grant-funded body recommend not getting people together. through the FCO? Given the strategic importance to us of the World Service, would it be better oV Q213 Chairman: The previous body, which in direct receipt of a direct government grant and continues, has been chaired by the Permanent not be put into a position where there may be Secretary, Sir Michael Jay; the new body will be tension within the FCO, which is that the more chaired by an independent figure. given in grant to the World Service means less for Lord Carter of Coles: By a minister. the FCO to spend on its own opening up of embassies and running its own department? Q214 Chairman: Are we now moving, in a sense, Lord Carter of Coles: Within the review we did to a more detailed political control of the public think about other homes for these various diplomacy as opposed to a bureaucratic control to organisations, but given the need to align it— make sure that your money is spent properly and, because we are spending the money in pursuit of as an accounting oYcer he is content with the wider government aims of having a good image procedures and can ensure that the Treasury boxes in these countries—probably the only place it can have all been ticked and are all green and not red? rest is the FCO. Is this an attempt to say, “we are not entirely happy that we have suYcient things joined up, and Q211 Sir John Stanley: It could be funded directly therefore there is going to be a political lead from and not be dependent on the grant it receives from the top”? a specific government department, and obviate the Lord Carter of Coles: I think it is to get an inherent tension in the present situation, as I have ownership of it, to see that there is a strategy. There expressed it, that the more given to the World is a series of silos sitting there; it is to get a strategy Service is less for the rest of the FCO. that says, “this is generally where we want to go Lord Carter of Coles: I think the ring-fence and this is what we are getting back for it”. To the attempts to deal with that, and it has removed some accounting oYcer point, it is a diVerent matter; that of that. Everybody thinks they can spend the money is accounted for correctly and the boxes everybody else’s money better, do they not? That are ticked. That is not quite the same as driving is a fact of life. My sense, looking around, is that something to meet government targets. that is the most practical sponsoring department for it. Q215 Chairman: Do you think the Foreign Secretary has time to spend on doing this, given all Q212 Chairman: Can I take you back to the report the other commitments he has? and your recommendations. I am unclear as Lord Carter of Coles: I do not think it was to why, although you are recommending envisaged that the Foreign Secretary would do this; establishment of a new public diplomacy strategy I think it would be another minister. management board, there is still continuation of the previous public diplomacy strategy board. Q216 Chairman: So the number 4 in the Your report states on page 5, paragraph 10: “The department who is also trade minister or who at the review team found that the various members of the moment deals with some areas of this kind—is that Public Diplomacy Strategy Board made valuable what you are thinking; or the minister for Latin contributions to the overall public diplomacy America and— eVort.” Is this a face-saver for people who have Lord Carter of Coles: It is obviously up to the been there and served for a long time and who department to determine that. Perhaps I can put it would be unhappy to have their role taken away the other way. When you are spending £600 million from them, or does it mean you are creating a really in a very important time, on balance of unusual structure whereby you are keeping in responsibility—and I happen to believe public existence something that was only established in diplomacy is eVective—you want to make sure that 2002 but bringing in alongside it a completely new that is as important as some other things and send organisation? I am unclear as to why you have not that message. just said, “this body is abolished; this is the new one”. Q217 Chairman: How will the new Public Lord Carter of Coles: It is manageability really. The Diplomacy Board relate to the British Council’s existing Public Strategy Diplomacy Board is large own board? and is representative; it has people involved with Lord Carter of Coles: I suppose I would summarise administrations and people from a huge range of it by saying: what, where and how, in the sense of government departments. It does not conduct who does what. The things that the board, in my 3302621025 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 80 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles view, should concentrate on are where things are Lord Carter of Coles: You get fragmentation, and done, i.e., which countries in these priority times, then it is government money going in lots of and how they are done in those countries. It is the diVerent ways; and probably it needs to be focused question of the diVerent channels and how we do and brigaded. this, what should be emphasised and what is working. However, what should be done, how it Q221 Mr Keetch: Do you think there is a waste of should be operated, or, in the case of the BBC, resources across UK plc generally, because we what the editorial independence is, should be a certainly see, as we travel around the world, the matter for the board and the British Council and Scottish Executive doing things, trying to promote indeed the BBC. It is that separation. One is Scotland—which I have no objection to at all, but strategic—“this is where we are going to go and we nevertheless in a way that does not seem to be are making sure in measurement terms that we are beneficial to UK plc generally? going there”. Lord Carter of Coles: I think a little more co- ordination would not be out of order. Q218 Mr Keetch: You say in your report that in relation to the public diplomacy strategy there is a Q222 Mr Keetch: Would you like to elaborate as gap and that we need a comprehensive mid-term to what you think might be— plan over a three to five-year period. Can you Lord Carter of Coles: No, I would not. That is the explain how you envisage creating that and how point. Why people do not do it is because they that would tie not just into the British Council and think that is not going to work for them. You have the BBC but to all the other bodies that are got to make these things work for them, and then involved in public diplomacy—the Ministry of people will use it. Defence, the Scottish Executive now even? Lord Carter of Coles: There seemed to us to be two Q223 Mr Horam: You propose, Lord Carter, a new things happening. There are the very long-term unit to measure performance and monitoring. You steady committed things—we are broadcasting in say you want this because the existing measures are this language to that country on FM, or trying to very standardised. Would it not have been easier to do this or that. On the other hand, there are various say to the British Council, “get your act together; initiatives the whole time, which appear—“we are get some standardised things, and we will be going to have a campaign here or do something watching you do that”, rather than proposing a there”. There did not appear to be anything in the new unit. I worry again that it will be just top- middle; in other words, what would our heavy bureaucracy. commitment to this country look like in three or Lord Carter of Coles: I certainly did not want to five years’ time, and what would we expect that to create a bureaucracy. I hope it is going to be a very be doing for us in terms of our ratings? It was that small unit. really, saying that while we all like initiatives, are they paying oV, and what are they really designed Q224 Mr Horam: It will still be a unit— to do in this country—we have done this and we Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, but the alternative was— have done that but where has it led us? It is a matter there has to be somewhere where the information is of joining that up. That then gives the other players obtained; where they make sure the information is an opportunity to build into that; so if DCMS is coming and presents it in a codified form, and has proposing something and active in that area, or the the information from diVering sources. Whilst the Scottish Executive, one can say, “this is where we British Council is standardising its stuV, as is the really think this is going over five years; what do World Service, and we know what the FCO and you feel your input could be?” as opposed to other departments spend, it is getting it into a format somebody saying, “we think we are going to on a country-by-country basis. sponsor a fair here; let’s have a quick phone- round”. It is about getting a measured view of what Q225 Mr Horam: Can the British Council not do should be done in each country. that? Is it incapable because they have accountants and people— Lord Carter of Coles: It can do it for the British Q219 Mr Keetch: Do you think those other players, Council, but I do not think it could do it for the BBC like DCMS or the Scottish Executive, will take this World Service. on board; or do they increasingly have their own agendas to pursue overseas? Q226 Mr Horam: You would expect them to do it as Lord Carter of Coles: I think they will take it on well and have two lots of people doing it. board if the organisation, the FCO and the British Lord Carter of Coles: That is right, and so all this Council and World Service are eVective partners in unit does is co-ordinate all those and put them helping them do it. If this becomes eVective, they together. will use it as a delivery chain to help them meet their objectives, but if it is ineVectual they will by- pass it and pursue their own ends. Q227 Mr Horam: It sounds like an extra piece of bureaucracy to me, taking more money— Lord Carter of Coles: No, because if you believe, as Q220 Mr Keetch: Where the danger comes is if they I do, in performance management, they have got to start to go down their own— get the information somewhere in a format that 3302621025 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles those who can influence it can read it and interrogate Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, I think so. As I say, the it. I think that for £600 million, four people probably Americans have been a lot faster in and out of things pulling some information together. and being more responsive. If you look at other players, though, the French do spend quite a lot of money but spend it diVerently, and I do not think to Q228 Mr Horam: I do not know about four! as great eVect as we spend our money. The Germans Lord Carter of Coles: I am saying four—I do not spend some money but nothing like the same want to tie people’s hands, but I would hope it would amount. There are not a lot of people that are big in not be too many more than that. Actually getting public diplomacy. that information together for the size of the spend, placing it before the decision-makers in a format that is useful and which can be gone back to time Q232 Chairman: To pull it altogether, your report after time to hold them accountable, I hope will recommends that your strategy and performance prove useful. monitoring arrangements should be introduced as part of the budgeting exercise for 2006–07; that full data collection should begin from April 2007; and Q229 Mr Keetch: On page 17 you have come up with that arrangements should be reviewed in 2008 with this lovely expression “dumping code” for allocating consideration of more radical options if necessary. resources. Do you think the FCO manage that in a You also leave open the future of Wilton Park. financial structure way very well or do you think Clearly, there are certain intangibles and question there are improvements that could be made there to marks in the next two or three years. Do you think ensure hat this money is well spent? As you say, a lot it is likely that you are going to be called back to of money is being spent out there. We do not always carry out another review, or a review of a review, or see the direct results and direct benefits of that. somebody else is going to be called in to do Lord Carter of Coles: No, I think one should start something more radical with this area? measurement and asking for these things. People Lord Carter of Coles: Chairman, I would hope that pay more attention to it, and that is hopefully what the information that starts to come up to the people will happen, as people say, “you have these many responsible for this will let them take those decisions people working on this country and we are spending now. One of the problems with this was actually this much money”, just as one would say to the getting information, and getting in a format that you British Council or the World Service, “We are could come to—how many people were engaged in spending this money; what are we getting?” I would the FCO; exactly how much money was spent in hope that the same unit would say to the FCO, “you Pakistan and how much money was spent in this have got these people; what are they actually country. Getting that together and building in doing?” information system—I would hope that the way forward becomes much more obvious to those who Q230 Mr Keetch: You mentioned earlier that Britain are responsible for us. I would hope not to be is the envy of other countries because of the World asked back— Service and the British Council. Do you get the impression that the money we spend on public Q233 Chairman: But who is responsible? diplomacy across the board is regarded by our Lord Carter of Coles: I suppose the Foreign partners as money well spent for Britain, and do you Secretary is responsible to Parliament. get the impression that other countries appear to be able to spend their money more precisely and better than we do? Q234 Chairman: Ultimately therefore this is not a Lord Carter of Coles: I think other countries think matter for the British Council or the Public we have a good buy. The trust rating of the BBC is Diplomacy Strategy Board or all these other a real national resource, and that is invaluable. On structures that are going to be established or are the diVerentiation point, the council is regarded as— presently in existence. Is that what you are saying? the “of Britain but not in the government” point is Lord Carter of Coles: I wanted to be a bit clearer on well positioned. There are interesting diVerences. the hard wiring which ran from the Foreign The Americans take the view that it is broadcasting Secretary to these organisations when he can be and scholarships is how you should conduct public called to Parliament to account for this, and I think diplomacy, because they feel they can measure them some of the linkages historically have not been as much better. There are diVerent ways of coming at clear as they needed to be. this, but I think on balance ours has the right mixture. Q235 Mr Horam: Having done all this work and made some interesting international comparisons in Q231 Mr Keetch: Would that be something that we relation to the French, the Germans and the could learn from the Americans, and are there other Americans, did you come away with the view, “if I countries that we could look at? Ms Stuart pointed had my way, I would double the money on this sort out earlier that we have the benefit of the English of thing because it is so valuable”. We know that in language, which other people are promoting as well the modern world the brand image of a country is as us, even the Americans. Are there things that we very important. Did you think that, or did you think could learn from other countries? that this is about right, or whatever? 3302621025 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 82 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
8 February 2006Lord Carter of Coles
Lord Carter of Coles: Actually, I did think about Chairman: Thank you very much. We are very that. I thought this was well-resourced. If you look grateful to you for coming along and helping us to at the United States expenditure on broadcasting, it begin to understand a little bit better the is about $560 million or $600 million. Relatively, complexities of the area. We will be producing our also it being a world power, they spend per capita report in the near future on the Annual Report of less. We are well resourced in this area, but we get the FCO, and no doubt we will touch on this in good value for it. that process.
Written evidence submitted by Mr Ramen Roy
BBC WORLD SERVICE
I think there is a general patronising attitude on behalf of the BBC Bengali service towards the Bangladesh government. On several occasions, many listeners raised the issue in communication with the service. But on every occasion, the usual response has been that they decide their agenda on the basis of news value and at the same time it was mentioned that 90% of the listeners of the service are from Bangladesh. I am not sure whether this justifies the editorial policy of a global news organisation like the BBC. For a specific instance, very recently, maybe in August or September, the Bengali service has broadcast a report which allowed Tarek Rahman, son of the Bangladeshi prime minister, Khaleda Zia, to state that the BBC has admitted its mistake in reporting a statement made by Mr Rahman on the terrorist activities in the country. It seemed that the Bengali service was intimidated by the ire it faced from the Bangladesh government. The Bengali service also didn’t broadcast, at least I didn’t hear, any report when some US congressmen censored Bangladesh’s prime minister for the attacks carried out in her country. 30 October 2005
Written evidence submitted by the Anglo-Thai Society
It is with considerable anger that we have learned of the proposed closure of the BBC World Service’s Thai language section as part of the latest round of “public service” cost-cutting. Such a move would be extremely disturbing for the people of Thailand, but also for all who, like the Anglo-Thai Society, strive to maintain and develop strong relations between our two countries. In geopolitical terms, the proposal seems to be shockingly ill-judged. At a time when we share with Thailand the burgeoning threats of terrorism, of pandemics, and of natural disasters, such as the terrible 2004 tsunami, it is cavalier and undiplomatic in the extreme to remove from the people of Thailand the most highly regarded source of balanced reporting in the world. And we should not need to have to remind you that it would be equally disastrous for the UK, when the British Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok has grown to be second only to that of the USAand the countries of the Pacific Rim a re rising in economic and political influence, Thailand among them. Furthermore, the small Thai section at the BBC is highly cost eVective, and we question the basis on which this decision is being taken. Nation shall speak peace unto nation: no longer, it appears, even when the costs are small and the consequences deeply regrettable. We are therefore requesting an urgent re-appraisal of so insulting a proposal on behalf of the 60 million people of Thailand and of those in the UK who work to sustain a warm friendship between our two great monarchies. Emeritus Professor Philip Stott Chair The Anglo-Thai Society 16 November 2005 3302621028 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 83
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr David Laws MP Dear Mike, Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence I have received from Mr Michael Fox regarding the BBC World Service. I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to make representations, or cover this in a hearing with the FCO, in your role as Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee. I have also written to the Secretary of State, asking for his comments. Yours sincerely, David Laws MP Member for Yeovil 23 November 2005
Email to Mr David Laws MP from Mr Michael Fox Dear Mr Laws, I’m writing to you as one of your constituents to draw your attention to worrying developments at the BBC World Service, where I work as a journalist. I hope you will find opportunities to raise my concerns, which are shared by many colleagues. As you may know, the BBC World Service, which is funded by a Foreign and Commonwealth OYce grant-in-aid voted by parliament, has recently announced plans to launch an Arabic television service to the Middle East, and various other changes, at the price of cuts in radio services. The headline cuts mainly aVect foreign language services to central and eastern Europe, but the damage goes much deeper. What you may not know is that scarce resources are to be diverted to this television project, which is the brainchild of the Foreign OYce, from the budget of the World Service News and Current AVairs. This has a long-established record of providing much greater value for money, as a sustaining service of foreign news and expertise, not only for World Service radio, but for BBC Online and BBC World TV and other parts of the BBC. Radio is very cheap by comparison with television. Many people fear it is being sacrificed to the Arabic TV project, costs of which are likely to soar. Others feel this initiative is much too late. Some years ago when the FCO denied funding for such a venture, the BBC “went it alone” with funding from Middle East sources. But the service closed when funding ended, and many of the BBC-trained Arab journalists went on to set up al Jazeera TV, against which the new station is now intended to compete. The BBC’s management talks about “re-prioritising” its spending. In doing so it intends to divert £2.6 million to Marketing, at the same time as cutting £2.3 million from News and Current AVairs (figures from the BBC staV newspaper Ariel). More than 230 jobs are to go, plus 45 posts—or 10%—in the News and Current AVairs department, where I work. I have no quarrel with spending more on marketing, but it mustn’t be at the expense of cuts that will undermine the quality of what we do. My department really is at the heart of what the World Service is all about, and as part of coping with the cuts managers here are proposing a reorganisation which will undermine the integrity of the senior editorial desk which shapes the hour-by-hour direction of our news output. But beyond jobs cuts, my concern is that the quality of World Service radio will inevitably suVer both here and elsewhere. While BBC management speaks of maintaining the quality, breadth and depth of news coverage, including documentary programming, in-depth programmes such as Analysis are being cut in length, the Outlook programme is being scrapped altogether, and the idea of regular “slots” of British news is being abandoned—despite a regulatory requirement on the World Service to reflect the broad range of British life and opinion. In a rare outbreak of candour, the department’s editor recently acknowledged that more material was likely to be repeated as a result of these cuts. Swingeing cuts in “cultural” programmes, including music and drama, have already been widely publicised, leading to an increasingly straightened News and Information service to listeners, which unfortunately is the management’s avowed intention. I would be grateful for your help in curbing these ill-considered plans before it is too late. Please express your concern to the FCO and the Select Committee on Foreign AVairs. Yours sincerely, Michael Fox 22 November 2005 3302621028 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 84 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Letter to Mr David Laws MP from the Chairman of the Committee Dear David, Thank you for your letter of 23 November, enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr Michael Fox . . . The Foreign AVairs Committee has taken a close interest in the BBC World Service’s plans to restructure its services. Last month, I and my colleagues questioned the Director of the World Service, Nigel Chapman, in great detail about these plans. We also put questions to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the FCO, Sir Michael Jay, when he appeared before us in October. Full transcripts of both sessions may be seen at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfaV.htm The Committee is now preparing its Report on these and other matters relating to FCO-funded expenditure. We will consider the Report in the New Year. I cannot, therefore, pre-empt that Report by commenting on the substance of your constituent’s representations, but I can promise that what he says will be noted and I will ensure that his comments are fed into the process of writing the Report. Mike Gapes MP Chairman of the Committee 8 December 2005
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr David Laws MP
Further to my letter of the 23 November, please find enclosed a copy of further correspondence I have received from Michael Fox . . . regarding the BBC World Service. I also enclose a copy of Lord Triesman’s reply referred to in the email.I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to make representations in your role as Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee. Yours ever, David Laws MP Member for Yeovil
Email to Mr David Laws MP from Mr Michael Fox Dear Mr Laws, Thank you for forwarding the two letters you received following my original letter concerning the cuts at the World Service, and I apologise for the delay in replying. Here are my observations. Lord Triesman says in his third paragraph that he’s been assured that the changes will not aVect the quality of the output. I can reiterate what I said originally—that the cuts as currently proposed in the newsroom will aVect the quality of the output, because the senior news editor and their deputy will be overburdened. However the National Union of Journalists is involved in negotiations with managers at the moment, and I’m hoping this may change somewhat, although I am not optimistic. The wider point remains the same. The more I read and think about this, the more I return to the basic question—if the World Service wants to oVer a completely new service such as Arabic television, one that it rightly feels is vital, it is surely only appropriate to ask for new money to do this, whether to cover the whole or part of the entire cost. The World Service has never been awash with cash, and the principle of cutting in order to expand elsewhere is the wrong approach. In wider terms, even in relation to modest Foreign OYce spending, we are not talking about large sums of money. I think MPs should ask the World Service to reconsider its plans, and I hope the Select Committee will do so. Yours sincerely, Michael Fox
Letter to Mr David Laws MP from Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce Thank you for your letter of 23 November to Jack Straw on behalf of your constituent, Michael Fox . . . expressing concern about the BBC World Service. I am replying as Minister responsible for Public Diplomacy. 3302621029 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 85
The BBC World Service has recently carried out a significant re-structuring exercise. This involved re- examination of the reach and impact of all 43 of its language services. This resulted in a decision, announced on 25 October, to close 11 low impact radio services. The resources freed will be reinvested on new priorities, including online services and Arabic TV. I attach a World Service press release that provides further information.1 Mr Fox expresses concern about the internal impact of these changes. Although BBC World Service is funded by grant-in-aid, I should stress that it does have complete editorial and managerial independence from the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce. However, I can confirm that the World Service is confident that the changes, including some job losses, will not aVect the quality of its output. Mr Fox also refers to Arabic TV. As the Director of the World Service has made clear, Arabic TV is the result of recommendations made by the World Service itself. Arabic is the World Service’s “senior” service. Arabic was the first non-English oVering on radio and, many years later, the first non-English online service. The Middle East market has always been a high priority for the World Service. The World Service is confident that it can launch a high quality 12-hour TV service, as part of a tri-media oVering in Arabic by utilising the resources at its disposal. Polling evidence has suggested that a 12-hour service would attract a significant audience. I believe that reprioritisation announced by the World Service is the right move at the right time. David Triesman The Lord Triesman of Tottenham
Letter to Mr David Laws MP from the Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 24 January, enclosing one from your constituent Michael Fox about the BBC World Service. As I explained in my letter of last month, the Committee is in the process of considering draft Reports on these and related matters. I am unable, therefore, to pre-empt its conclusions by commenting on the substance of your constituent’s letter, or by making representations to Ministers. I expect the Committee’s Report to be published in March. Mike Gapes MP Chairman of the Committee 1 February 2006
Letter from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand to the Chairman of the Committee I am writing to you regarding the decision by the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce to close the Thai- language version of the BBC World Service with eVect from 2006. The media in Thailand has in the recent years been facing problems in working independently. Media personnel that have criticised the government have been subjected to verbal and legal attacks. In July this year the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee expressed concern about this development, which is severely aVecting the freedom of expression in Thailand. Closing the Thai-language service of BBC World Service now will mean that the Thai people will lose one of the few remaining independent sources of news. Though it is only a small percentage of the 63 million Thais who regularly listen to the Thai-language service of BBC World Service people from all social groups are benefiting from the news service. The Thai-language service of BBC World Service has for the last 40 years been a valuable source of information for me, especially during the non-democratic times when it was the only way of getting independent and reliable information. Unfortunately—as explained above—the freedom of expression in Thailand is at the moment under pressure and I therefore ask you please to re-consider the future of the Thai-language service of BBC World Service. Professor Jaran Ditapichai Commissioner 30 November 2005
1 Not Printed. 3302621032 Page Type [E] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 86 Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence
Letter to Professor Jaran Ditapichai, The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, from the Chairman of the Committee Thank you for your letter of 30 November, about the decision of the BBC World Service to close its vernacular broadcasts to Thailand. The Foreign AVairs Committee has taken a close interest in the BBC World Service’s plans to restructure its services. Last month, I and my colleagues questioned the Director of the World Service, Nigel Chapman, in great detail about these plans. We also put questions to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the FCO, Sir Michael Jay, when he appeared before us in October. Full transcripts of both sessions may be seen at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfaV.htm The Committee is now preparing its Report on these and other matters relating to FCO-funded expenditure. We will consider the Report in the New Year. I cannot, therefore, pre-empt that Report by commenting on the substance of the matters you raise, but I can promise that what you say will be noted and I will ensure that your comments are fed into the process of writing the Report. Mike Gapes MP Chairman of the Committee 8 December 2005
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs
Review of Public Diplomacy I enclose a copy of Lord Carter of Coles’ Review of Public Diplomacy which he presented to me and the Chief Secretary on 13 December. We both welcome his findings. He makes two key recommendations—that we adopt a more strategic approach to public diplomacy, and that we develop a rigorous and transparent method of measuring impact. He further recommends that future decisions on the funding of public diplomacy take into account our success in implementing these recommendations. I will write again in due course with details of how we will implement Lord Carter’s recommendations once decisions have been taken. Last year the Chief Secretary and I asked Lord Carter of Coles to assess the impact of publicly funded public diplomacy activities. He reported last week. His key recommendation is that public diplomacy partners (primarily the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce, British Council and BBC World Service) work together to develop a new, more focused three-to-five year public diplomacy strategy which supports the Government’s medium-and long-term priorities. There are also recommendations for improved monitoring and evaluation of our activities, better support for foreign press based in London, and further reflection in the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce,Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and BBC World Service on the role of broadcasting—radio and television—in public diplomacy. Lord Carter recommends that a new Public Diplomacy Board be established to develop and monitor implementation of a new strategy, with the current Public Diplomacy Strategy Board moving to an advisory role. As the report makes clear, the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board served an important function in bringing together for the first time the wide range of public diplomacy partners to agree the first cross- Government public diplomacy strategy. Some of that function should continue in slightly modified form. I accept nevertheless that we now require a smaller, more operational Board which oversees and monitors the development of a more strategic approach to public diplomacy delivery focused on the three main players. I hope you will agree that this Review maps out a sensible new direction for publicly funded public diplomacy which will allow Ministers to account more eVectively to Parliament for the aims and the impact of what amounts to a considerable investment of public money. The Foreign and Commonwealth OYce will begin discussions immediately with public diplomacy partners on the detail of implementation. Jack Straw
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs I am delighted to send you a copy of the Written Ministerial Statement I am making today to bring to a close the River Path Review process and to reaYrm the confidence the Government has in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the foundation in promoting democracy worldwide. 3302621034 Page Type [O] 31-03-06 21:45:15 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Foreign Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 87
May I say once again how grateful I was for your leadership and commitment as Chairman of the Board of Governors during such as challenging period in the Foundation’s history. You can be proud to have handed over Hugh Bayley a much strengthened and reinvigorated organisation, one that is able to deliver a uniquely valuable contribution to democracy-building around the world. Jack Straw MP
Draft Written Statement to the House of Commons about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy On 4 April 2005 my Honourable Friend, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce with responsibility for human rights (Mr Bill Rammell), announced to the House the beginning of a consultation exercise on the future of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). The consultation exercise followed a review of the WFD by River Path Associates, commissioned jointly by the FCO and WFD, and conducted in accordance with Government guidelines on reviewing Non- Departmental Public bodies. Many hon Members from all sides of the House, through their own commitment to work with and on behalf of the WFD, were already aware of the contribution that the Foundation has made since 1992 to promoting democracy and human rights—essential themes in promoting the UK’s national interest in a safe, just and prosperous world. I am pleased to report that the overwhelming majority of responses received during the consultation, both from hon Members of this House and specialists in democracy promotion in the UK and from overseas, confirmed our view that the WFD continues to fulfil a uniquely valuable role in promoting democracy through party-to-party links and through its non-political work in supporting institutional and parliamentary capacity building. The arms-length approach brings value-added benefit that could not be achieved by Government. In light of these responses, and our own analysis, I am pleased to announce that the Government has concluded that it should continue to support the WFD through a grant in aid by the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce, and to retain its current structures unchanged. At the same time, in light of some of the Review’s observations, the Government and WFD agreed last year to make some changes to the Foundation’s operating methods to enhance accountability and transparency. This has resulted in the introduction of stronger mechanisms for appraising, monitoring and evaluating projects, reflected in new, annual contractual arrangements between the Foundation and the UK political parties. The conclusion of agreement on these new measures brings to an end the process initiated by the Review. Throughout this period, we have appreciated the constructive and co-operative approach of all the members of the Board and staV of the WFD, under the Chairmanship first of my hon Friend the Member for Ilford South, and now of my hon Friend the Member for the City of York. The Government welcomes the conclusion of the review, and looks forward to continuing to work in partnership with the WFD in our joint endeavour to promote democracy around the world.
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 4/2006 330262 19585 ISBN 0-215-02832-5
9 780215 028327
Distributed by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:
TSO
(Mail, telephone and fax orders only) THIRD REPORT FROM THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: SESSION 2005–06: HC 903 PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders 0870 600 5533 Email [email protected] Internet http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
TSO Shops House of Commons 123 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ 020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394 68-69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD Foreign Affairs Committee 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699 9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS 0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 18-19 High Street, Cardiff CF10 1PT Public Diplomacy 029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588 The Parliamentary Bookshop Third Report of Session 2005–06 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders 020 7219 3890 General enquiries 020 7219 3890 Fax orders 020 7219 3866
Accredited Agents (See Yellow Pages) and through good booksellers
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2006 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ – Fax 01603 723000
ISBN 0 215 02832 5
HC 903