House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs First Report

9 Public Diplomacy

209. Public diplomacy was last reviewed in 2005 by Lord Carter of Coles. One of his review's recommendations was that "public diplomacy" should no longer be defined simply in terms of creating positive perceptions of the UK but instead 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 government medium- and long-term goals.[361]

210. Following the Carter review, a new, smaller Public Diplomacy Board was established, chaired by an FCO minister, and with five other members: the Director of Communications at the FCO, the British Council, two independent members and the BBC World Service as an observer. Our 2006 Public Diplomacy Report agreed that these new oversight arrangements were appropriate, as long as there were institutional safeguards to preserve the day-to-day and short-term editorial independence of the World Service and the operational independence of the British Council.[362]

211. We asked Sir Peter Ricketts how well the Public Diplomacy Board was operating. He told us it had:

[…] developed very well as a forum where we meet at ministerial level. The BBC and the British Council can come together, with others involved, to ensure that the activities of the BBC and British Council in particular are well lined up with the strategic priorities that we in the FCO are pursuing. We do that without cutting across the World Service's editorial independence or anything like that, but while ensuring overall strategic coherence.[363]

212. In its memorandum, the British Council told us that the Public Diplomacy Board had helped to establish "closer collaboration with other public diplomacy partners" and to ensure "effective co-ordination and planning for future events and public diplomacy opportunities."[364] However, in oral evidence Martin Davidson told us that the Council wanted the Public Diplomacy Board "to focus more on the broader strategy and less on the detail of operations."[365]

213. Nigel Chapman was very positive about the Board and explained how the editorial independence of the World Service was being protected:

I do not have concerns about the way it is working, because everybody is clear about the ground rules. First, […] I am not doing campaigns, and I am not going to do them. Nobody has asked me […] to do them, so that is fine. Secondly, I am not putting money on the table for campaigns; that is also clear.

He described his role on the Board as follows:

Part of my job is to make sure […] that the World Service Trust is playing a proper part and that we are not trying to reinvent the wheel in some other place when we have expertise at hand to provide that sort of training or programme making with third parties on human rights and governance issues.[366]

214. We also asked Nigel Chapman about the BBC World Service's relations with the British Council. He told us that the two organisations were doing more work with each other than they had in the past, but argued that there were still areas where there could be greater cooperation:

I would like to push it on harder, to be honest, which means that we have to have closer liaison and more conversations about the sort of activities that it is up to and whether they are broadcastable. If they are broadcastable, you reach far more people than you could possibly reach in the flesh, if you like, in a city by doing a play or other activity, such as having a debate or discussion.[367]

215. We conclude that it appears that the BBC World Service has been able to play a positive role as an observer on the Public Diplomacy Board without affecting its editorial independence. However, the Board must also respect the operational independence of the British Council. We recommend that the Board focus on developing strategies rather than discussing the detail of operations. At the same time, the British Council must ensure that it keeps the BBC World Service aware of its activities, particularly those that have the potential to be broadcast.

GOVERNANCE OF THE BRITISH COUNCIL

216. In our Public Diplomacy Report, we also recommended that in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest arising from the position of the PUS as principal accounting officer of the British Council and member of its board, the FCO should be represented on the British Council's board by another member of the FCO's board of management.[368] In our Report on the FCO's 2005-06 Annual Report we welcomed the FCO's decision that the PUS should no longer sit on the board and that instead there should be enhanced coordination and oversight at a senior official level and directly by FCO ministers.[369]

217. We asked Lord Kinnock how this new arrangement was working. He admitted that he had had reservations about the FCO's decision, but added:

I will say, however—without withdrawing those reservations—that the increase in the number of meetings between me and Ministers and at official level between the British Council and the FCO is entirely healthy. We are not living in each other's pockets, but there is an improved flow because we cannot take the relationship for granted because the FCO's senior civil servant happens to be on the board.[370]

218. We welcome the fact that there has been an increase in contacts between the British Council and FCO ministers and senior officials since the decision was taken that the Permanent Under-Secretary should not sit on the British Council's Board and recommend that this increase in contacts should be sustained.

Public Diplomacy Pilots

219. The FCO's Annual Report reports that the Public Diplomacy Board is "testing a new approach to public diplomacy, focusing on three particular SPs - supporting UK business (SP5), climate security (SP6) and sustainable development (SP7)." These are being piloted for two years in three countries each. The aim is "to target activity effectively, to bring out what each partner can do best and to ensure that the combined impact of the pilot activity is significantly greater than could have been achieved by partners working in isolation".[371]

220. We asked Sir Peter Ricketts to explain the reasoning behind the choice of these three particular SPs for pilot activity. He replied:

We chose the three particular pilots because we wanted separate, quite different sorts of area to test whether a more targeted approach could achieve something. The ones we chose […] seemed to us to be quite different areas, where public diplomacy could work in different ways, but each of them were important tests to see whether the money that the Government were spending could actually achieve something useful. So they were chosen for their variety as test cases, really.[372]

221. Martin Davidson told us that the British Council welcomed the pilots because they were "an opportunity to see how the three organisations work together."[373] Nigel Chapman also supported the pilots:

The countries and topics that we are examining in relation to human rights and democracy, climate change and economic development seem to me to be sensible, and the piloting is starting with various activities. There is quite a good opportunity in some of those societies for the World Service Trust, which has a bit more latitude because of its role in media training and general development work, to play a part in that.[374]

222. We conclude that the decision to pilot targeted activity for public diplomacy activity is to be welcomed and support the approach of selecting three very different strategic priorities for the pilots.

Shared evaluation framework

223. The FCO told us that work was underway to develop for 2007/08 "a shared evaluation framework for public diplomacy work conducted by the FCO, British Council and BBC World Service." River Path Associate has been commissioned to develop this framework, which it will initially apply to the pilots.[375]

224. Martin Davidson explained the relationship between the new framework and the British Council's existing performance indicators (listed in paragraph 231 of the next Chapter). He told us that the Council would be unlikely to change its major measures once the new framework had been developed, as this would then make year-on-year comparisons difficult. Instead it was likely to add only some measurements, as well as finding ways to match those measures it was already taking to those of the World Service and FCO.[376]

225. The FCO stated that it was "confident" that the new framework would "deliver more coherent reporting of effectiveness in relation to the International Strategic Priorities".[377] In our last Report we noted that "any new means of measuring performance will need to be worth its cost".[378] We therefore welcome the news that the new framework will be reviewed as part of the NAO's Value-for-Money review of the British Council (discussed in the next Chapter).[379] The FCO must also ensure it is possible to compare the Council and Service's performances under any new framework with that under their current performance measures. We recommend that the FCO keeps us informed of possible proposals for the shared evaluation framework.

Chevening Scholarships and Fellowships

226. Chevening Scholarships and Fellowship schemes are administered by the British Council on behalf of the FCO. The FCO provided £37 million for the schemes last year, with 1976 new scholars and fellows in the academic year 2005/06.

227. In our Public Diplomacy Report we recommended that the FCO set out how it proposed to appraise expenditure on the Chevening scholarships and fellowships in terms of their impact in the medium and long term and that it also explain the selection process and criteria it used to identify the scholars and fellows most likely to bring benefit to the UK in the long and medium term.[380] In response the FCO told us that its evaluation methodology for Chevening would evolve in line with measures introduced following the Carter review. Chevening scholars were selected following interview in their home countries and Chevening fellows were chosen by Global Selection Panels in the UK, following nomination by Posts.[381]

228. The Annual Report states that during 2006 the FCO carried out a "thorough review of the FCO Chevening Programme", defining "a clearer purpose for the programme, with a new focus on building support for the UK among the leaders of the future in support of the SPs", as well as building in "more local flexibility at our Posts to select the scholars they think will be future leaders".[382]

229. We recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO share with us the findings of its review of the Chevening programme and explain the basis on which Posts will be able to select scholars for the Chevening Programme.

361 Lord Carter of Coles, Public Diplomacy Review, 15 December 2005, p 71, Annex F, para i Back

362 Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2005-06, Public Diplomacy, HC 903, para 29 Back

363 Ev 108 Back

364 Ev 125 Back

365 Ev 139 Back

366 Ev 154 Back

367 Ev 154 Back

368 Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2005-06, Public Diplomacy, HC 903, paras 37 and 38 Back

369 Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2005-06, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2005-06, HC 903, para 130 Back

370 Ev 139 Back

371 British Council, Annual Report 2006-07, p 5 Back

372 Ev 108 Back