The Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee today publishes its report on Public Diplomacy, and recommends inter alia that the FCO “commission an independent review of the British Council’s work which examines what the British Council does, why it is doing it, what it should be doing, and whether any of its activity would be better conducted in other ways or by different organisations”. It goes on to recommend that “the National Audit Office urgently consider conducting a further value for money report on the British Council”. Parliament is, in other words, calling for two reviews of the British Council, one independent and fundamental, and the other urgent.
It rather looks as though the organisation has been rumbled, and about time too. On the positive side, the Council is rightly commended for “determination to stay open for business where it faces extremely challenging security conditions”. Also positively, the report notes that the Council has “demonstrated an enthusiasm for working in association with other government departments and public bodies” (although we can’t help thinking that some at least of this enthusiasm might be accounted for by the very juicy contracts that these other departments drop into the Council’s lap). It is slapped on the wrist for being late with its annual report, and, when it finally did arrive, for the content of the report itself; it omitted performance targets, and was presented using different indices from the previous year’s report, “with no effort to calibrate the two”. Somebody noticed then. The Council will be no doubt be relieved that the FAC have apparently bought into the concept of “operational independence”, but concerned at the same time that the FAC is also looking for greater accountability to Parliament. Add that requirement to the prospect of an urgent value-for-money audit and an independent review of what the organisation is for and what it does, and we may be forgiven for hoping that something will at last be done to sort out this luxurious, over-indulged and unaccountable anomaly.
If, after these further investigations have been made and a structure and purpose can be identified which makes better sense, and if then the organisation can be trained in honest and ethical dealing, in the need not just to claim transparency but to actually demonstrate it, in the need for integrity in internal investigations, and in the importance of making amends when wrong has been done rather than resorting to evasion, denial, obfuscation and cover-up, they might begin to earn some of the trust to which they vainly lay claim. Meanwhile the organisation enjoys public funding, charitable status at home, diplomatic status abroad, early retirement, index-linked civil service pensions, enthusiastically embraced contracts with government departments, and the very agreeable freedom to enter into any commercial arrangement it pleases without any public accountability, ombudsman, non-executive director or external moderation or control. Quite a lot to sort out then.
Mustn't stay too long as I have to prepare a lesson; however, well done on setting up this blog.
I had a run in with the British Council last year (in Prague). There I was, happily going about my business in a company setting- teaching fairly high level people- when in waltzed the British Council and nabbed most of the business. I have nothing against competition, and I should have been better informed by people who dealt with contracts, but the British Council is not a fair player because it's subsidised so heavily and can project a completely trustworthy image without the need for any justification.
I was as well qualified as anyone to do that job. I didn't in fact lose my job or that contract, but I suffered a loss.
Anyway, it's high time the public/private charade was exposed, so good luck.
Posted by: ed | April 10, 2006 at 10:10 AM