Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
LORD CARTER
OF COLES
8 FEBRUARY 2006
Q200 Ms Stuart: In relation to the role
of the Permanent Secretary, what do you think would be the ideal
role, because you raised the issue of conflict of interest?
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
it is a conflict of interest, yes. I have a sense from that that
would probably be better—it is a difficult position to adopt.
I think the board should represent itself and not have conflicts.
Q201 Ms Stuart: A board completely appointed
by the Foreign Secretary—
Lord Carter of Coles: At the moment
the board has twelve members. There would be a case for the Foreign
Secretary appointing some additional, or some of the retiring
members. On the other hand, as in most other organisations, there
should be a nominations committee that brings some independent
people. To our earlier point, you 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
of alignment and accountability; and it is getting the alignment
of all these activities focused on something.
Q202 Sir John Stanley: Lord Carter, did
you form any view as to the balance of the staffing within the
British Council between the number based in the UK and the numbers
overseas; and did you form any view as to whether the British
Council might be, rather surprisingly, overstaffed as far as its
UK staff was concerned?
Lord Carter of Coles: I did not
look at that; I was not looking at the economics in that sense.
I was surprised, I should say, when I read Lord Kinnock's evidence
to you of 1,500 people in the UK, or a larger number than I had
thought.
Q203 Sandra Osborne: To go back to the
appointment of the board members, I can appreciate what you are
saying about seeking alignment, but is there not a danger that
that would result in obvious political interference at an unacceptable
level?
Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, and
that is the thing we have to be really mindful of. I would not
like to see either of these organisations criticised because that
would be wrong. On the other hand, I think you need the appointment
of people who—how can I put it; you need a bit more of a
challenging board. I think you get that with some appointed in
one way and some appointed in another way; that might be a useful
mechanism.
Q204 Sandra Osborne: You have identified
the need for a greater sense of urgency amongst public diplomacy
partners, and more evidence that they are capable of responding
and shifting resources according to priorities and changing circumstances.
How successful did the review team find the Council to be at shifting
resources according to priorities and changing circumstances?
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
historically more so, but it still needs attention. There is a
slowness to realign services. I am trying to think of an example
to give you. We found a number of times where we could have been
quicker off the mark in doing that. The abiding one is the World
Service in the sense of coming out of eastern Europe. It is just
realising where things are going and getting on it quickly and
redeploying the money that is the critical thing.
Chairman: Can we move on to some questions
about the BBC World Service and then we will come back to the
structural issues later on.
Q205 Mr Hamilton: Can I follow up some
points made by John Maples and Gisela Stuart. John Maples mentioned
the desire, and in fact intention, of the BBC World Service to
set up its Arab television satellite service. When Nigel Chapman
gave evidence to this Committee late last year, we followed that
through and asked him about other possible satellite services,
for example one in Persia, which would be quite appropriate right
now. In response, Nigel Chapman told the Committee that there
was a limit to how far the World Service can go in re-prioritising
its existing budget in order to meet new ambitious challenges
that it has to face if it is going to be effective. Lord Carter,
how do you think the FCO could better ensure that the World Service's
strategic objectives and priorities are compatible with the policies
and priorities of the Foreign Office; and indeed should they be;
should there not be some divergence? What is your view on this?
Lord Carter of Coles: I return
to that re-prioritisation from eastern Europe, which has let us
finance Arab TV, and the fact that we probably should have done
it sooner—the Americans were 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 Persia, and Urdu services, which the Americans have introduced,
are things that should be looked at because of the changing emphasis.
Should the BBC be totally aligned? No; I think there will always
be some slight difference of interpretation in these things. Fundamentally,
in the broad thrust of things they have to be aligned because
it is a question of the government choosing where it wants to
take policy, and this is a tool of public diplomacy—"public"
being the word. Therefore government has to have some say in that,
I believe.
Q206 Mr Hamilton: In that case, why do
you think that the FCO did not persuade the BBC World Service
to take these steps sooner? Was that a lack of proper dialogue
between the FCO and the World Service? Are the mechanisms for
oversight and dialogue good enough?
Lord Carter of Coles: Pursuing
the example I gave, probably were not. One of the recommendations
obviously is to get that better, to get things to happen quicker.
Q207 Mr Hamilton: Do you believe the
suggestions you have put forward will do that?
Lord Carter of Coles: Yes, because
we will start to get information and evidence about what is happening.
Once that is there, it makes it easier to have the debate.
Q208 Mr Hamilton: Do you think that the
BBC World Service should pull out of more local language services
in order to fund further TV ventures, like the Persian and Urdu
services? Is radio a dying medium?
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 critical. The
issue for the BBC is to get FM Drivetime radio into the right
countries. Other foreign language TV services—it is one
step at a time; let us get Arab TV working and prove that it can
meet its projections; let us see if we get the audience. Then
we can see how the Americans got on with the Urdu service. I think
they have done two hours of Persian, and we will see how those
things evolved. Then a decision can be taken.
Q209 Sir John Stanley: Do you think that
in the balance of advantage it was right to slash the vernacular
services in the way that has happened in order to be able to accommodate
the Arabic television service?
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
it was right to slash the vernacular services, yes, because the
world has moved on. The listing figures were no longer there and
reaching the target audiences, and I think that was right. Separately,
I think Arab TV probably stands on its own as a case anyway, given
everything that is happening in the world; so I would not necessarily
want to link those two. I think it was a good decision to stop
that. They could have done anything with the money, and I think
it is a good decision to invest in Arab TV.
Q210 Sir John Stanley: Do you think that
we should continue the system whereby the BBC World Service remains
a grant-funded body through the FCO? Given the strategic importance
to us of the World Service, would it be better off in direct receipt
of a direct government grant and not be put into a position where
there may be tension within the FCO, which is that the more given
in grant to the World Service means less for the FCO to spend
on its own opening up of embassies and running its own department?
Lord Carter of Coles: Within the
review we did think about other homes for these various organisations,
but given the need to align it—because we are spending the
money in pursuit of the wider government aims of having a good
image in these countries—probably the only place it can
rest is the FCO.
Q211 Sir John Stanley: It could be funded
directly and not be dependent on the grant it receives from a
specific government department, and obviate the inherent tension
in the present situation, as I have expressed it, that the more
given to the World Service is less for the rest of the FCO.
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
the ring-fence attempts to deal with that, and it has removed
some of that. Everybody thinks they can spend everybody else's
money better, do they not? That is a fact of life. My sense, looking
around, is that that is the most practical sponsoring department
for it.
Q212 Chairman: Can I take you back to
the report and your recommendations. I am unclear as to why, although
you are recommending establishment of a new public diplomacy strategy
management board, there is still continuation of the previous
public diplomacy strategy board. Your report states on page 5,
paragraph 10: "The review team found that the various members
of the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board made valuable contributions
to the overall public diplomacy effort." Is this a face-saver
for people who have been there and served for a long time and
who would be unhappy to have their role taken away from them,
or does it mean you are creating a really unusual structure whereby
you are keeping in existence something that was only established
in 2002 but bringing in alongside it a completely new organisation?
I am unclear as to why you have not just said, "this body
is abolished; this is the new one".
Lord Carter of Coles: It is manageability
really. The existing Public Strategy Diplomacy Board is large
and is representative; it has people involved with administrations
and people from a huge range of government departments. It does
not conduct business. It actually seeks to inform and to share,
and do those things. That does have a valuable role. We wondered
whether that same body could take on the tighter strategy performance
management role we envisaged, and concluded not; but we thought
that had a value. Therefore, with the two structures one feeds
into the other; but to drive the change it is the board we are
proposing that we seek doing that. I would be reluctant to recommend
not getting people together.
Q213 Chairman: The previous body, which
continues, has been chaired by the Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael
Jay; the new body will be chaired by an independent figure.
Lord Carter of Coles: By a minister.
Q214 Chairman: Are we now moving, in
a sense, to a more detailed political control of the public diplomacy
as opposed to a bureaucratic control to make sure that your money
is spent properly and, as an accounting officer he is content
with procedures and can ensure that the Treasury boxes have all
been ticked and are all green and not red? Is this an attempt
to say, "we are not entirely happy that we have sufficient
things joined up, and therefore there is going to be a political
lead from the top"?
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
it is to get an ownership of it, to see that there is a strategy.
There is a series of silos sitting there; it is to get a strategy
that says, "this is generally where we want to go and this
is what we are getting back for it". To the accounting officer
point, it is a different matter; that the money is accounted for
correctly and the boxes are ticked. That is not quite the same
as driving something to meet government targets.
Q215 Chairman: Do you think the Foreign
Secretary has time to spend on doing this, given all the other
commitments he has?
Lord Carter of Coles: I do not
think it was envisaged that the Foreign Secretary would do this;
I think it would be another minister.
Q216 Chairman: So the number 4 in the
department who is also trade minister or who at the moment deals
with some areas of this kind—is that what you are thinking;
or the minister for Latin America and—
Lord Carter of Coles: It is obviously
up to the department to determine that. Perhaps I can put it the
other way. When you are spending £600 million in a very important
time, on balance of responsibility—and I happen to believe
public diplomacy is effective—you want to make sure that
that is as important as some other things and send that message.
Q217 Chairman: How will the new Public
Diplomacy Board relate to the British Council's own board?
Lord Carter of Coles: I suppose
I would summarise it by saying: what, where and how, in the sense
of who does what. The things that the board, in my view, should
concentrate on are where things are done, i.e., which countries
in these priority times, and how they are done in those countries.
It is the question of the different channels and how we do this,
what should be emphasised and what is working. However, what should
be done, how it should be operated, or, in the case of the BBC,
what the editorial independence is, should be a matter for the
board and the British Council and indeed the BBC. It is that separation.
One is strategic—"this is where we are going to go
and we are making sure in measurement terms that we are going
there".
Q218 Mr Keetch: You say in your report
that in relation to the public diplomacy strategy there is a gap
and that we need a comprehensive mid-term plan over a three to
five-year period. Can you explain how you envisage creating that
and how that would tie not just into the British Council and the
BBC but to all the other bodies that are involved in public diplomacy—the
Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Executive now even?
Lord Carter of Coles: There seemed
to us to be two things happening. There are the very long-term
steady committed things—we are broadcasting in this language
to that country on FM, or trying to do this or that. On the other
hand, there are various initiatives the whole time, which appear—"we
are going to have a campaign here or do something there".
There did not appear to be anything in the middle; in other words,
what would our commitment to this country look like in three or
five years' time, and what would we expect that to be doing for
us in terms of our ratings? It was that really, saying that while
we all like initiatives, are they paying off, and what are they
really designed to do in this country—we have done this
and we have done that but where has it led us? It is a matter
of joining that up. That then gives the other players an opportunity
to build into that; so if DCMS is proposing something and active
in that area, or the Scottish Executive, one can say, "this
is where we really think this is going over five years; what do
you feel your input could be?" as opposed to somebody saying,
"we think we are going to sponsor a fair here; let's have
a quick phone-round". It is about getting a measured view
of what should be done in each country.
Q219 Mr Keetch: Do you think those other
players, like DCMS or the Scottish Executive, will take this on
board; or do they increasingly have their own agendas to pursue
overseas?
Lord Carter of Coles: I think
they will take it on board if the organisation, the FCO and the
British Council and World Service are effective partners in helping
them do it. If this becomes effective, they will use it as a delivery
chain to help them meet their objectives, but if it is ineffectual
they will by-pass it and pursue their own ends.
| 
