TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 1999

MR MARK BYFORD, MS CAROLINE THOMSON and MR ANDREW HIND

  60.  It may be about development and it may be about the future, but the reality is that we are dealing with cuts, job losses, cutting language services, moving people around who are not happy and do not believe that it is in the best interests of better programme making. At the end of the day, there is a worry that there is no longer a clear distinction between the funder and the BBC's own editorial independence. That leads me back to the question of cuts, not in terms of the individuals who will be losing their jobs, but do you believe that the cuts that you are making in language services, in certain kinds of programmes—albeit with certain kinds of expansion elsewhere on the Internet and so on—that those cuts are in the interests of those who will be listening and watching the World Service? Will they get a better service as a result of those cuts or will they get as good a service as you can provide under the circumstances?
  (Mr Byford)  We believe that the overall audience for the World Service will receive a stronger service.

  61.  We had better give you some more cuts.
  (Mr Byford)  No. You need to understand, as we do, that we are in a world that is changing and that we need to adapt and change, but with care.

  62.  You can do that with less money?
  (Mr Byford)  No, of course we cannot.

Mr Woodward:  That is what I am asking you.

Chairman:  We must move on.

  63.  I had hoped to come in with a supplementary in relation to Ted Rowlands question. You can confirm that you were headhunted for the post that you have?
  (Mr Byford)  No, I cannot. Headhunted in what context?

  64.  Was the post advertised? Were you one of several people on the short list?
  (Mr Byford)  No, I was invited to meet the Board of Governors.

  65.  Some people would say that is a classic example of headhunting. The new relationship to which you referred in response to a question from Mr Woodward, has it not in any way diminished your editorial independence?
  (Mr Byford)  Absolutely not.

  66.  Perhaps I can ask Ms Thomson and your other colleague as they probably have slightly more experience of the World Service. There has been no diminution of your autonomy over the past two years?
  (Ms Thomson)  I can absolutely confirm that that is the case. Indeed, if anything, the shaping of the new broadcast agreement will give us greater freedom. For example, when John Tusa ran the World Service—to go back to Sir Peter's question about hours of broadcasting—the World Service had to go to the Foreign Office every time it wanted to change the hours of broadcasting. We do not have to do that now in terms of our language services. Besides that, we are now looking to the Foreign Office to give us the freedom to decide which means of delivery we should best use. Should we use shortwave, FM, the Internet or even television under the new arrangements? In fact, we shall have greater freedom under the new arrangements.

  67.  There are no threats hovering on the horizon?
  (Ms Thomson)  I think that the editorial independence and the success of the World Service owes much to the Foreign Office's relationship with us and its position with us—and I have experienced that over four years under two Governments. Governments realise the success of the World Service is about not interfering with our editorial autonomy. We are not constantly having to fight them off.

  68.  That is reassuring. I hear more grumbles about autonomy in Queen Margaret Drive in Glasgow. In paragraph 3.7 of your document, you talk of aiming to maintain "the current level of 138 million users", but here you are talking about 5 million fewer users.
  (Mr Byford)  Our best estimate of the present audience level is 138 million in 1998, when that plan was being compiled. We believe that with the competition exploding all around us, new stations in different areas of the world and new delivery mechanisms it is quite an ambitious target to set to say that we shall retain the figure that we have today in five years' time. We want it to be more and all our drive will be to increase our audience. However, as was suggested earlier, and knowing that the audience had been slightly declining in the previous year, we recognise that we shall be reaching that audience with different delivery mechanisms, as we explain on that same page.

  69.  A figure of 5 million is quite substantial.
  (Mr Byford)  That is what we have already lost.

  70.  You have no plans to get that back?
  (Mr Byford)  Of course. Indeed, we would hope that within the next year we shall be trying to regain that audience. We recognise that the picture for the future is more and more competition around us and more and more delivery mechanisms. We think that it is an ambitious target to retain that which we have today when competition has been less. Do we have as a goal that we would love even more audience than that? Of course. The key is that we want to be the best known and most respected broadcaster in the world. To be the best known we have to have a very substantial reach.

  71.  Five million people is the size of population of Scotland. That is a substantial figure. What intelligence have you concerning some of this competition? Has Deutsche Welle, for example, suffered similar losses? I understand that Deutsche Welle has much more money than the World Service.
  (Mr Byford)  Yes.

  72.  Has it suffered a similar loss of customers in the same period of time?
  (Mr Byford)  I would have to investigate that and come back to you with precision later.[2]

  73.  You could do that for Mr Godman?
  (Mr Byford)  I can confirm that its level of funding is substantially more. Of course, they get less audience than the World Service. Voice of America has almost half what we reach in terms of radio audience and the Deutsche Welle audience across the world is very much less than that.

  74.  I understand that the Voice of America receives far more money?
  (Mr Byford)  It does.

  75.  Is it not the case that where those countries that are seeking membership of the European Union are concerned, that Deutsche Welle is in fact targeting those countries? Are you targeting those countries in central and eastern Europe, such as Poland, as well?
  (Mr Byford)  Absolutely. In Poland we have seen that in the early 1990s there were very few FM stations—I believe under ten—whereas now there are over 180. Therefore, it has been absolutely critical for the World Service to have a presence in FM there as well as short wave in order to retain our audiences there. It is exactly the same with Czech, Romania and Hungary. In eastern Europe our commitment to a strong service remains, but in terms of delivery mechanisms we have to recognise that a single short wave proposition would be a weakened offer and it has to be complemented by FM and by the Net too.

  76.  Is it the case that Deutsche Welle is outpacing you in African countries? What evidence do you have?
  (Ms Thomson)  Perhaps I could answer that. Deutsche Welle has adopted a different strategy from ours in that it has invested in television. Their activities are not directly comparable to ours. Until next year, as we have not been able to do things outside radio, we have been investing in FM. Poland is a very good example of how effective that can be. The audience has gone up from about five per cent of the population to 15 per cent thanks to the growth of our FM network. You can find similar figures in Romania, where we have 90 partner stations and a network throughout Romania. That has worked in a very effective way and it is one of the reasons why investments in FM are a key ingredient to ensuring language success.

  77.  Is there a similar story in central Asia? I understand that Deutsche Welle is keen to expand its services into central Asia.
  (Mr Byford)  We recognise that that is an important area for us as well.

  78.  What are you doing about it?
  (Mr Byford)  We have developed new language services during the 1990s in central Asia. We also want to expand our FM and mediumwave presence there in order to reach crucial audiences in a crucial area. We have introduced new language services there in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and other areas. We have also wanted to expand our FM presence in other areas, and that will be continuing. We recognise that that is an important area for us.

  79.  When did you last conduct customer surveys in some of those republics that you have just mentioned?
  (Ms Thomson)  Quite recently we conducted one in Uzbekistan. I can come back to you with the details. We have had problems with our transmissions in Uzbekistan. We were on a local transmitter but we have been taken off by the government there. We have plans to assess the position.