TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 1999

MR MARK BYFORD, MS CAROLINE THOMSON and MR ANDREW HIND

  1.  Mr Byford, I welcome you to your first appearance before the Committee. Perhaps you would introduce your colleagues?
  (Mr Byford)  Thank you very much, Chairman. On my right is Caroline Thomson, Deputy Chief Executive of the World Service and on my left is Andrew Hind, the Finance and Commercial Director of the World Service.

  2.  Mr Byford, you know that the Committee is conducting an inquiry into the resources available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with particular reference to the World Service and to the British Council—two jewels in the Crown. We shall be meeting the British Council representatives later this morning in respect of the resources available to them. We noticed, initially, that they complained a little more than you in respect of the current level of resources after the Comprehensive Spending Review. Does that mean that you are satisfied with the deal that you have received from the FCO?
  (Mr Byford)  I think we recognise that we have a settlement, Chairman. The settlement has reversed the decline in funding that the World Service experienced in the early 1990s, and has given us a real term increase. In that context, we welcome it. It has enabled us, within our three year plan, to be able to use the investment money to plan ahead to develop new investments and secure the long-term future of the World Service. It would be fair to state that it is still a very challenging financial framework, both in the competitive framework and in relation to the challenge in the digital age. Clearly, finance is critical to the success of the World Service, but because it reversed the decline in funding we welcomed it.

  3.  Tactically you did not think it wise to do the Oliver Twist line and ask for more or to give one or two cheers?
  (Mr Byford)  We recognise that it is a settlement with which we have to work for three years. It is a settlement that is ring-fenced, and, as I say, it is a settlement that reversed the decline in funding. However, we recognise that for the long-term future of the World Service, so that it can retain its position as the world's leading international broadcaster, we face a very challenging time in front of us, both in terms of competition, in terms of technology and in terms of our own strategy. Finance will always be critical to us in the future.

  4.  Finance is critical, but prior to the latest settlement, John Tusa, who should know what he is talking about, wrote an article in The Observer under the headline "A dismal volte-face. In making unprecedented cuts to the World Service, the BBC is surrendering to its old foe, the Foreign Office. John Tusa on a shocking capitulation." How to you respond to what John Tusa has charged?
  (Mr Byford)  I do not accept it. When I read that article in The Observer I believed that it was misleading and inaccurate because it talked of a £21 million cut in the budget, when, in reality, that was identifying the difference between what the World Service had bid for as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement and the reality of the settlement itself. Rather than a cut in our budget, we were actually getting £44 million extra. In that sense it was misleading. It was not a cut in the budget; it was the difference between what originally the World Service had bid for and what we got.

Chairman:  Colleagues will come on to the details.

  5.  Mr Byford, it is the first time that you have appeared before the Committee. What involvement before this appointment had you had with the World Service?
  (Mr Byford)  None directly. I had been in the BBC for nearly 20 years, primarily, in regional broadcasting in the BBC and with News. So I had been a journalist for all of that period and an editorial leader, but with no direct experience within the World Service itself.

  6.  Why were you appointed?
  (Mr Byford)  I was appointed by the Board of Governors to take over as Chief Executive of the World Service.

  7.  Was it because the previous management had shown a curious sort of independence and had not bowed down to the pressures from on high in the BBC?
  (Mr Byford)  No, I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. My knowledge is that the previous managing director had been in discussions and had wished to leave. In September I had an interview with the Board of Governors and I was appointed as Chief Executive, a job, may I say, that I was absolutely thrilled and privileged to get.

  8.  I am sure it is a thrill and a privilege, but what are your qualifications for doing it?
  (Mr Byford)  My qualifications are, I hope, that I have been rooted in public service; I have been a very experienced editorial leader; in my previous role I ran more than 40 radio services; I ran television services across the whole of the United Kingdom; indeed 80 per cent of the BBC's output in terms of volume came under my tenure; I hope I was a proven manager as well, in that I had a large number of staff and an annual budget of over £400 million, but I have not had international experience. That is absolutely fair.

  9.  Do you think, therefore, on the basis of your reply that the World Service is, in some senses, no different from delivering any other kind of broadcasting and is the same as the kind you have been involved in?
  (Mr Byford)  No, I think it is different. It is absolutely part of the BBC. It is within its Charter and Agreement. But its funding is different, obviously, in that it has grant-in-aid rather than a licence fee. It is special and distinctive in its remit. Its reputation and indeed its success make it truly distinctive. I work with a team. Obviously, I am the Chief Executive, but I do not just work with Caroline and Andrew, but with the whole of the World Service team that has a lot of experience of the World Service and international broadcasting. It is for me to help to shape that team and shape the plan with them.

  10.  One of the contentious issues—those of us who have served on this Committee for some time have followed this argument quite closely—has been the moving of the English language service out of Bush House into the mainstream BBC news service. If you have no world news experience, could you tell me of those editing the programmes within the BBC, in the mainstream, do they have World Service experience?
  (Mr Byford)  The important thing to say is that they have not moved out of Bush House. The newsroom is still in Bush House. The staff are managed by BBC News and are commissioned by World Service staff. The person who commissions on behalf of the World Service management team, Bob Jobbins, is a highly experienced World Service team member. It is for the World Service to ensure that we get from BBC News the programming that we require. We have the budgets and we determine the commission. In terms of physical location they are still within Bush House.

  11.  You say that the newsroom is based in Bush House, but where are the programme makers based? Are the programme makers based at Bush House?
  (Mr Byford)  We have two main internal suppliers under the new restructuring arrangements. The news supply is from BBC News in Bush House itself. The newsroom people are based there and our daily news coverage comes from there. In terms of our general programming, some is based within Bush House and some is based in other areas of the BBC.

  12.  On a point of clarification because it is important to get this right: the charge levied against you on this one is that the programme makers have fundamentally been moved out and into Shepherd's Bush. You have rightly given us one form of clarification, but some would say that you have also slightly muddied the distinction. If one were to ask you, where are the bulk of the programme makers now based——
  (Mr Byford)  Bush House.

  13.  They are based at Bush House?
  (Mr Byford)  Yes.

  14.  Therefore, you would reject entirely the terms of Mr Tusa's article in this respect when he says, "It was not enough to subordinate them"—that is the Bush House World Service—"to editors with no knowledge of the world audience". Are the editors of the programmes rooted in the World Service or in the service in general? Your roots are entirely outside the World Service. Are the editors also like you?
  (Mr Byford)  No. The editors obviously have wide experience of the World Service's needs and the agenda for the World Service. As I stressed before, the commissioners of that programming as well are members of the World Service staff. They ensure, through our review mechanisms, that we are getting what we ask for.

Chairman:  I ask colleagues to focus on the resources.

  15.  Mr Byford, you are closing the German language service, are you not, under your three year plan?
  (Mr Byford)  We are, yes.

  16.  Does that not reach a very influential audience?
  (Mr Byford)  We have looked at it very closely and clearly it is not a decision that is based on the quality of the service. It is based on the fact that Germany, being part of the developed world, has a rich, mature media environment and our latest research from Berlin shows that three times as many of the audience there are listening in English than in German. The key target audiences that we would wish to reach in the developed world are opinion-formers and decision-makers and we know that more are listening in English than in German. So the key thing to stress is that the World Service's commitment to Germany is high, but we believe that by closing that service in German, funding will be released which we can invest in the future key investments of the Internet and in expanding our FMs around the world, so that the money that is released stays within the World Service.

  17.  Is there any other language services that will be lost altogether over the next three years?
  (Mr Byford)  There is nothing on the agenda.

  18.  Are there any language services under your plans that will be reduced over the next three years?
  (Mr Byford)  Yes, we have announced, as part of the three year plan, that certain other language services will reap better value. In Hungarian we are ending some of the weekend feature programming, but focusing very much on news and current affairs. There are some reductions in Thai, and, as part of our general efficiency savings programme, we are always reviewing the best possible offers that we can do in programming. There will always be some dynamic there, but overall the key is that there is only one language service closure, which, as you identify, is German.

  19.  On the other side of the coin, are there any entirely new language services that you will create over the next three years?
  (Mr Byford)  We will always look at that. The history of the World Service is that it is a dynamic in its language portfolio brief. We extended the language portfolio during the 1990s and we shall continuously examine that, based on the geopolitical need and the audiences that we want to capture. There is no specific language service that we have within the three year plan to introduce yet, but that does not mean to say that that dynamic that I have identified will not be taking place.