Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Eighth Report

BRITISH COUNCIL

Work in 2003-04

174. Like the BBC World Service, the British Council provided us with a comprehensive memorandum for our inquiry, in addition to the section of the FCO's Departmental Report that deals with its work.[241] This highlighted a number of areas of the Council's work, including:

• the 'Connecting Futures' programme, launched in 2002, which seeks to link young people in the UK and other countries;
• the Council's developing work in Iraq;
• its role in the FCO's Public Diplomacy Strategy Board and in the formulation of the 'UK International Priorities' document;
• the 'Strategy 2010' document, which sets out the Council's priorities for the next five years;
• its contribution to the increase in the number of overseas students now studying in the United Kingdom (270,000 at present); and
• its work in a broad range of human rights, education and health projects, one of which won the UN Prize in the Field of Human Rights.

It stressed that: "the key to increasing global influence for the UK lies in working to maintain, and to build additional, levels of trust with both current and likely future influencers of opinion in other countries."[242] The Council also recently published its own very informative Annual Report, along with a colourful publication celebrating the 70^th anniversary of its creation.[243]

Public Diplomacy Strategy Board

175. In November 2002, the Foreign Office established a Public Diplomacy Strategy Board to provide a, "framework for collective efforts overseas aimed at projecting and promoting the UK."[244] This Board is chaired by Sir Michael Jay, as Permanent Under-Secretary, and includes representatives from the FCO, the BBC World Service (in an observer capacity),[245] the British Council, the Department for International Development, UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), VisitBritain, the devolved administrations and the private sector. We commented upon the Board's establishment in our Report last year.[246]

176. The British Council described itself as a "key player" on the Board.[247] When giving oral evidence to us, though, Sir David Green, Director General of the British Council, was keen to stress the role of the individual components of the Board:

We think it is important, in order to help to co-ordinate the work of all the public diplomacy agencies working on behalf of the UK, but it is very important that it is about co-ordinating and making sure that you get complementarity from the different players and not trying to get an homogenous approach to public diplomacy, but recognising the strengths of different players and working to those strengths.[248]

We agree with this view.

177. The FCO's 2003-04 Annual Report provided an update on the Board's work.[249] It now has two new funds to draw upon: the Public Diplomacy Challenge Fund (£2.4m in 2003-04), which offers posts overseas the opportunity to bid for funds for small projects working with local partners; and the Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund. The latter fund provides finance for major initiatives in countries identified as 'top priorities'.

178. In 2003, the Public Diplomacy Campaign Fund was used for a major campaign in the People's Republic of China entitled 'Think UK' that sought to raise the profile of Britain's cultural, scientific and commercial links to China. The campaign was initially hindered by the outbreak of the SARS virus in China, but eventually a large number of events were hosted, including a visit by the Prime Minister.[250] In its memorandum, the British Council commented positively on the 'Think UK' campaign in China. However, it did note that:

Lessons need to be learned from the campaign's approach, and any future campaigns on the same scale would need to assess the capacity of public diplomacy players to sustain new relationships and manage partner expectations after the additional sums of funding fall away.[251]

We questioned Sir David Green further on this matter when he gave oral evidence to the Committee. He told us that:

Another lesson was that these campaigns have to be planned a long time in advance. You cannot expect to mount an effective campaign unless you have a lead time of probably 18 months to two years. A third lesson was that you have to be realistic in terms of your expectations. In fact the evaluation has not shown that there has been a significant change in perceptions within China as to the creativity and the innovation which is the UK, which was the purpose of the campaign.[252]

However, he did note that those who actually attended events as part of the campaign had had their awareness raised.[253] We were pleased to be told that an extensive evaluation exercise had been undertaken following this campaign and valuable lessons learned for future ones.[254]

179. We conclude that the Public Diplomacy Strategy Board appears to have made a positive start in co-ordinating the activities of the United Kingdom's key public diplomacy players. We recommend that the Board take the lessons learned from the evaluation of the Think UK campaign in China fully on board when planning future events, and that it recognise the British Council's valuable experience and skills in this field.

UK International Priorities and By 2010

180. As noted above, the Foreign Office published its UK International Priorities: A Strategy for the FCO earlier this year (see para 35 above).[255] The British Council assisted in the formulation of these priorities and has responded to the challenges they create for the whole of the FCO. In its memorandum to us, the Council noted that it was concentrating resources in key areas, such as the Middle East, North Africa and regions with large Muslim populations.[256]

181. The British Council also launched its own strategy document this year—Strategy 2010: our vision for the future.[257] This sets out how the Council aims to develop over the period 2005-10. The Council's memorandum stated that the strategy:

will ensure we reach millions more people worldwide, respond flexibly to emerging global priorities, improve the efficiency of our delivery and ensure we become outcome-focused in our work.[258]

The box below sets out the Council's vision for itself in 2010, which, as can be seen, is an ambitious one.

182. We conclude that the By 2010 document sets out ambitious and challenging targets for the British Council, and we broadly commend its vision. We shall monitor the Council's progress towards these goals with interest.

Figure 15: British Council's By 2010 Strategy

Source: British Council[259]

Spending Review

183. Like the FCO and the BBC World Service, 2004 was a crucial year for the British Council in determining its financial future, with the latest Spending Review. SR 2002 was generally regarded as a positive outcome for the British Council, with its grant-in-aid increasing from £156.5m in 2002-03, to £184.7m in 2005-06; an increase in cash terms of £35m over the triennium. This figure is supplemented by the Council's earnings from some of its services, including English language teaching and exam fees. The Council's memorandum noted that this gives the Council an overall turnover of around £485 million per annum.[260]

184. In his oral evidence to us, Sir David Green told us that the British Council was bidding for extra funds in SR 2004 for five key areas: the USA; the Middle East (specifically educational reform); international student recruitment (in the last four years, the Council has helped increase the number of overseas students at higher education institutions and universities by 50,000 and by 25,000 at further education level); sport; and India.[261] There was also a separate bid for security matters, which we discussed earlier in this Report (see para 65 above).

185. In the end, the Council, like the BBC World Service, did not receive all for which it had hoped. By 2007-08, its total Grant-in-Aid will have risen to £204m, from the figure of £181m in the current financial year. In its supplementary memorandum, the Council told us that:

As the uplift for 2006/07 and 2007/08 covers little more than risen costs caused by inflation, the scope for undertaking new areas outlined in the Spending Review submission will in practice be limited to re-prioritisation of existing funding (and the move of efficiency savings into activity, once security requirements have been budgeted for). We are looking at scope for more resources to be committed to engaging with reform in the Middle East, India, Sport and supporting a new strategy for UK Education in the global marketplace.[262]

Securing such funding from efficiency savings will not be an easy task.

186. We conclude that the settlement for the British Council in the Spending Review 2004 was a disappointing one, which may adversely affect the good work it is doing across the globe.

187. We were concerned to note in the Spending Review that part of the British Council's efficiency savings will be realised by, "reductions in the size of their overseas estate".[263] The Council noted to us in its supplementary memorandum that it would develop a new strategy to reduce, "the Council's footprint in estates by 15 per cent by 2007/08".[264] We have previously noted our concern about the sale of valuable, appreciating properties, for short-term gain.

188. We conclude that the reductions in the size of the British Council's overseas estate proposed in the latest Spending Review give rise to considerable concern. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the British Council set out the consequences of these cuts for the level and range of its operations around the world.

Chevening Scholarships

189. In January this year, the Foreign Secretary wrote to inform the Committee that, following the findings of a commissioned report from a group of external consultants, he proposed to instigate changes in the structure of the Chevening Scholarships scheme.[265] The Chevening Scholarships are administered by the British Council on behalf of the FCO. In 2002-03, there were 2,390 Chevening scholars studying in the UK from over 150 different countries. The Review (The FCO Scholarship Review) reported on the three main scholarships schemes funded by the UK Government for overseas students: the Marshall Scholarships, which funds 40 US scholars to study in the United Kingdom each year; the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan (CSFP), which is mainly funded by the DfID but to which the FCO makes a contribution of £2.4m per annum; and the Chevening Scholarships.

190. On Chevening, it found that while the Scholarships were highly regarded, there was little formal evidence of the impact the expenditure on Chevening had for the United Kingdom. There was no significant effort to link expenditure on the scholarships to the FCO's strategic priorities or show their impact in the short-/medium term. It made a number of recommendations:

a)  Expenditure on Chevening should be focused much more according to FCO objectives; this should include targeting both specific countries of, "long-term importance," to the United Kingdom and specific skills/courses.

b)  The splitting of the Chevening programme into two streams:

i.  scholarships—these would be academic awards for the, "most talented and promising young people", as currently in place;

ii.  fellowships—professional awards aimed at, "mid-career and senior professionals," which should have, "an immediate and ongoing impact on specific policy objectives at Post."

c)  There should be greater co-ordination between the three scholarship schemes, with a greater consistency of standards and application procedures.

d)  The Scholarships should be overseen by a cross-Whitehall committee to ensure that the long-term strategic needs of the United Kingdom are taken into account.[266]

In his letter to the Committee, the Foreign Secretary indicated that the FCO Board intended to implement most of these recommendations.[267]

191. When we took evidence from Sir David Green, we questioned him as to which nationalities would be the main 'winners and losers' as a result of the re-prioritisation of the scholarships.[268] He refused to be drawn, but as the graph below illustrates (figure 16), there are already some clear trends in the allocation of scholarships. The number of South American students is falling, for example, while the number from the PR China has increased by over 60% in the last three years (from 177 in 2000 to 290 in 2003).[269]

Figure 16: Regional background of Chevening scholars

Source: FCO[270]

192. Sir David did, however, give a broad welcome to the report's findings. He told us that the proposed combination of the year-long programmes of scholarships, combined with greater flexibility in providing fellowships for tailor-made shorter courses, made, "good sense".[271] It would allow the scheme to cater for those who could not afford to take a year out of their careers. It would also allow the FCO to focus more closely on its priorities:

The fellowship scheme would be more by invitation, so it does enable the Foreign Office to identify a number of people who it thinks would benefit from attending such a course. It gives greater flexibility and by and large we are very much in favour of it.[272]

193. As a Committee we have seen during our overseas visits the valuable life-long friendships that Chevening can create and the good it reflects on this country. We have often commented on their importance to strengthening bilateral relations.[273]

194. We conclude that the revitalisation of the Chevening Scholarships proposed by the Foreign Office is a welcome one, which will give it greater flexibility and allow it be more responsive to the United Kingdom's wider diplomatic needs. We recommend, however, that the review should not be used as an excuse to scale down the scholarships in any way, nor, if possible, to reduce their geographical reach to students from across the world.

British Council in Russia

195. On 21 May officials from the Russian Interior Ministry raided several of the British Council's offices in the country.[274] They alleged that this was in response to the Council's non-payment of tax, accusing the Council of making, "big money on Russian territory". There were concerns that these raids indicated a hardening of Russian attitudes towards foreign organisations such as the Council.

196. In its memorandum to the Committee, the Council drew specific attention to its work with the Russian Ministry of Education, helping it to draw up a new secondary school curriculum and it seems perverse that the Russian authorities should be acting in this manner.[275] We raised this matter with the Russian authorities when we visited Moscow in June,[276] and we put questions both to Sir David Green and Sir Michael Jay.[277] The latter told us that:

We are still in negotiations with the Russian authorities. We have not yet resolved the issue; I hope it will be resolved satisfactorily so that the British Council can continue to do what I believe is excellent work throughout their many posts in Russia[278]

There was some hope that the matter would be taken forward during the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow in the following week.

197. We conclude that the current attitude of the Russian authorities towards the British Council, seeking to impose a tax charge on its operations, is neither conducive to good bilateral relations nor to encouraging the valuable work the Council is doing in Russia. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Foreign Office set out what progress has been made to resolve this situation.

Role in accreditation of EFL schools

198. In addition to its wider responsibilities overseas, the Council also has an important role in overseeing the 'English in Britain Accreditation Scheme' (EiBAS). This scheme aims to protect international students who are studying or planning to study English as a foreign language (EFL) in the United Kingdom. Language schools may apply to the Council for such accreditation and are subsequently visited by inspectors who examine their management, resources, teaching and welfare facilities. Such accreditation, while wholly voluntary, is widely seen as important for attracting foreign students by reputable schools.

199. However, concerns have been expressed about the voluntary nature of the scheme. While many schools strive for excellence, there have been a number of cases where foreign students, often with little grasp of English, have found themselves at schools with poor quality teaching, and little opportunity for redress, owing to the lack of regulation. Some schools have also been the subject of police investigations, following claims that they were merely 'visa shops': bogus schools that support fraudulent claims for student entry visas from people who, once in the country, subsequently 'disappear'. This has both wider immigration and security implications. Concerns have existed for decades about such schools but the Government response has been tardy.

200. These issues were raised in a recent report commissioned by the British Council from the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies: Regulation of Private English Language Teaching Institutions.[279] It noted that, while such schools are subject to the same consumer protection laws that regulate all companies' activities:

the profile of most ELT students (young, transient, unaccompanied and not fluent in English) means that it is unlikely that they will be able to take advantage of these consumer protection laws in the event that an ELT institution fails to meet its obligations.[280]

It also noted that the number of institutions accredited by the Council is thought to be only a small proportion of the total number. This report, and the issue of EFL school registration was discussed at a recent oral evidence session with the Education and Skills Committee, looking at 'International Education', and at which the Director General also appeared.[281]

201. Following the publication of this report, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, announced the establishment of a new Register of education providers, with the aim of tackling immigration abuse in the education sector.[282] Once established the Home Office proposes to refuse a visa to any student applying to a college not on the register. All schools accredited by the British Council will automatically be included in the register.

202. In his oral evidence to us, Sir David Green welcomed this announcement, and responded to our concerns that the Council's oversight role sat well within the rest of its remit:

We think this is an important step forward and will help reduce both the number of bogus institutions and also bogus students coming to the UK. ... Certainly the English language teaching community very much welcomes our involvement as a neutral broker and partner in that. Given the role we play in English language teaching and the promotion of good practice in English language teaching across the world, I think that it fits well with our remit overall.[283]

203. We welcome the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the registration of EFL schools in the United Kingdom. Although the majority of such schools are well-run and managed, the actions of some such institutions have not only damaged students' perceptions of this country, but also pose a serious security threat by aiding illegal entry in the United Kingdom. We conclude that the British Council plays a crucial role in superintending the work of EFL schools in the United Kingdom and we praise the work it has done in raising standards. We recommend that the Council work together with the other relevant Government bodies to ensure more effective regulation of such institutions.

Flying the flag?

204. When it was founded in the 1930s, the purpose of the British Council was: "to make the life and thought of the British peoples more widely known; and to promote a mutual interchange of knowledge and ideas."[284] In 2004, the purpose is expressed differently, but remains essentially unchanged: "to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK's creative ideas and achievements."[285]

205. Both on a recent visit to Moscow, and when British Council witnesses appeared before us, we discussed whether its branding properly reflects these aims. In 2002, the Council replaced its longstanding logo, in the form of 49 dots arranged in a stylised version of the Union Flag, with a new logo of just four dots. These dots are supposed to symbolise the four countries of the United Kingdom. According to Sir David Green:

Actually the previous logo was very tired, it did not give a dynamic impression or image of the British Council. … You may have noticed that we also dropped the 'The'; it is British Council and four dots and actually it has gone down extremely well across the world, both in terms of perceptions of staff and also of the people who use the buildings. They do think it projects a very dynamic and modern image of the UK, in so far as the logo and brand can. I can tell you that we went through many hundreds of different options and this was the best.[286]

We have reproduced below the old and new images (see figure 17).

Figure 17: Old and new logos of the British Council

206. We are concerned that the British Council may be making the same mistake as British Airways, in underplaying its 'Britishness'. The Union Flag is the most well-known and widely recognised symbol of Britain and, as British Airways belatedly realised, it can be presented as part of a modern and dynamic corporate image, but we did not see it displayed prominently in the offices of the British Council in Moscow. We would be very surprised if the people of Moscow or elsewhere understood the symbolism of the four dots, which in our view completely fail to reflect the Council's mission, "to increase appreciation of the UK's creative ideas and achievements".

207. We conclude that the British Council's new branding fails to project its purpose and its identity. We recommend that the British Council provide us with detailed information on the full cost of its rebranding and that it reconsider its reluctance to use the Union Flag.

Ring-fencing

208. Since the Spending Review 2000, it has been accepted practice that the budgets for the BBC World Service and the British Council, which form part of the total allocation to the FCO, should be 'ring-fenced'.[287] This arrangement has given the two bodies much greater financial security and independence, and helped them to plan better their future activities.

209. We were disturbed to hear, therefore, of suggestions that this ring-fencing arrangement was at least partly, if not wholly, to be dismantled as part of the Spending Review 2004. We raised this issue with Sir David Green during his oral evidence session with us, and he confirmed the importance of the ring-fencing arrangement.[288] In a subsequent memorandum to the Committee, he commented in detail upon a proposal to 'top-slice' some of the Council's funding before allocation, in order to finance a common public diplomacy fund.[289]

210. We were pleased to receive a reassurance from Sir Michael Jay, therefore, that this proposal would not be coming to fruition.[290] He subsequently stated in a written submission that:

we know of no extant proposals to remove the British Council ringfence. The FCO's settlement letter from 2004 Spending Round emphasises the need to maximise the value from the UK's spending on public diplomacy, including through joint projects between stakeholders such as the FCO and British Council, but makes clear that the existing ring fence remains in place.[291]

The Spending Review, when published, confirmed what Sir Michael had told us.

211. We conclude that the ring-fencing of the BBC World Service and British Council's budgets is vital for the operational effectiveness of both bodies. We welcome the continuation of the current arrangements in the latest Spending Review and strongly recommend their future retention.

---

241   Ev 117 and Departmental Report 2003-04, pp 32-33 Back

242   Ev 117 Back

243   British Council, Annual Report 2003-04: 70 Years of Cultural Relations, July 2004 Back

244   Foreign Affairs Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2002-03, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003, HC 859, para 15 Back

245   Q 1 [Chapman] Back

246   Ibid. Back

247   Q 60 [Green] Back

248   Ibid. Back

249   Departmental Report 2003-04, pp 21-24 Back

250   For further details, see: Departmental Report 2003-04, p 34. Back

251   Ev 118 Back

252   Q 68 Back

253   Ibid. Back

254   FCO/British Council, Think UK Final Report, February 2004 Back

255   Op. cit. Back

256   Ev 118 Back

257   British Council, Strategy 2010: Our vision for the future, April 2004 (www.britishcouncil.org/home.htm) Back

258   Ev 119 Back

259   British Council, Strategy 2010: Our vision for the future, April 2004 Back

260   Ev 117 and Q 81 [Green] Back

261   QQ 86-7 [Green] Back

262   Ev 121, para 4 Back

263   2004 Spending Review, p 133, box 14.2 Back

264   Ev 122, para 12 Back

265   Ev 116 and Departmental Report 2003-04, pp 25-6 Back

266   River Path Associates, The FCO Scholarships Review: Final Report, November 2003 Back

267   Ev 116 Back

268   Q 99 Back

269   HC Deb, 18 Mar 2004, col 415W Back

270   HC Deb, 18 Mar 2004, col 415W Back

271   Q 96 Back

272   Q 98 Back

273   For example, see: Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2001-02, Turkey, HC 606, para 122 Back

274   For example, see: "British Council finds language lessons taxing", Financial Times, 8 June 2004; and "Tax police crack down on British Council", The Times, 9 June 2004. Back

275   Ev 119 Back

276   Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2003-04, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism, HC 441, para 2 Back

277   Q 100 [Green] Back

278   QQ 201-2 Back

279   British Council, Regulation of Private English Language Teaching Institutions, March 2004 (produced by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies) Back

280   Ibid., para 1.5 Back

281   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence, taken before the Education and Skills Committee, as part of its inquiry into 'International Education', from Mr David Green CMG, Director-General, Dr Neil Kemp, Director, Education UK Marketing Division, and Mr Nick Butler, Education Exports Manager, British Council, Q 103 Back

282   "New register of education providers-Clarke", Department for Education and Skills press release 2004/0120, 18 June 2004 (www.dfes.gov.uk) Back

283   Q 101 Back

284   British Council, Annual Report 2003-04: 70 Years of Cultural Relations, July 2004, p 1 Back

285   Ibid. Back

286   QQ 103-4 Back

287   Ev 120 Back

288   Q 108 Back

289   Ev 120 Back

290   QQ 195-6 Back

291   Ev 64 Back

---

Prepared 23 September 2004