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
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.
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 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.
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 Office". 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 effective 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
| 
