Supplementary note from the British Council
QUESTIONS RELATING
TO THE
ANNUAL REPORT
1. Can you confirm all the Key Performance
Indicators that the Council agreed with the FCO for 2004-05 and
demonstrate how performance has fared against them?
All the Key Performance Indicators as set out
on p42 and 423 of our annual report were agreed by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office as part of Strategy 2010. We are either
maintaining or increasing our impact compared with 2003-04 and
against larger samples of respondents.
Please see questions 2 and 3 which cover exceptions
to this.
2. In relation to the measure "Reporting
strengthening of ties with the UK resulting from new or continuing
engagement with the British Council" the score has decreased
from 1.1 to 0.9. Can you explain why performance decreased and
tell us what action the Council is taking to reverse this decline?
This result is generated from data collected
in a sample of countries which are surveyed on a three year rolling
basis. We have reported this data in the annual report for the
sake of completeness however this data will only make real sense
after a period of three years. Therefore this result does not
necessarily represent a decline.
3. Why did the number of participants last
year in library and information services, knowledge and learning
centres, and education counselling services halve from 2.8 million
to 1.4 million? What is the Council doing to address this?
There has not in fact been a halving of numbers
of participants in library and information services, knowledge
and learning centres, and education counselling services. This
result is an anomaly arising from a change in categorisation between
2003-04 and 2004-05. Due to data being applied differently to
the two categories (1. face to face services: information services,
knowledge and learning centres, education counselling services
and 2. electronic media: participatory virtual services) a clearer
picture emerges when we consider the total of these two areas
together.
This gives results of:
2003-04 2.9 million
2004-05 3.3 million
We are addressing the question of categorisation
through reissuing of guidance on recording corporate performance
scorecard results.
4. The objective "Relationships brokered
by the British Council broaden the international view of young
people in the UK and other countries" is not currently measured.
How is the Council able to assess performance against this objective?
What plan is there to measure progress in this area?
This objective was not measured in 04/05 as
it was introduced as part of the 2010 strategy. Measures and mechanisms
for collecting data are being put in place and piloted in the
current financial year. Data collection will focus on certain
programmes, for example, the Dreams and Teams Project. Having
tested the methodology, we will roll this out across the global
network in 2006-07.
5. What attempt has been made to scale the
FCO survey results so that comparisons can be made between 2003-04
and 2004-05? Have results improved?
Below is a table comparing the results from
the FCO survey in the same format using the original 7 point scale*.
As can be seen from this table, the results have shown improvements
in all areas.
| The UK is increasingly recognised as the country of choice for creative ideas and achievements
| The UK is increasingly recognised as a country able to satisfy aspirations for self-development
| The UK is increasingly recognised as the country of choice for partnering positive social change
|
| FCO survey:
(a) building appreciation of the UK's creativity.
(b) building appreciation of the UK's scientific innovation
(c) strengthening people's engagement overseas with the diversity of UK culture
| FCO survey:
(a) increasing recognition of the range and quality of learning opportunities.
(b) promoting the learning of English.
| FCO survey:
(a) enhancing awareness of the UK's democratic values and processes.
(b) working in partnership to strengthen good governancec) strengthening people's engagement overseas with the diversity of UK culture.
|
| 2003-4 result | (a) 5.4
(b) 5.0
(c) 5.1
| (a) 6.0
(b) 5.9
| (a) 4.9
(b) 4.9
(c) 5.1
|
2004-05 result
| (a) 5.8
(b) 5.5
(c) 5.6
| (a) 6.5
(b) 5.9
| (a) 5.3
(b) 5.5
(c) 5.6
|
|
| | |
* The FCO survey invited Heads of Mission to rate the effectiveness
of the British Council's performance.
Please rate the effectiveness of the British Council in your
country in the last 12 months
1. Had a negative effect
2. Very ineffective
3. Ineffective overall
4. Neither effective nor ineffective
5. Effective overall
6. Very effective
7. Outstanding in its effectiveness
ACCOUNTS FOR
THE YEAR
ENDED 31 MARCH
2005
6. The accounts disclose a write-off of £360,000
relating to over-payment of staff remuneration going back 10 years.
What is the background to this and why was it is not discovered
for so long? What actions has the Council taken to ensure this
type of control failure does not reoccur?
The British Embassy in Israel discovered a fraud relating
to the statutory Rest Home allowance. The paperwork had been altered
to increase the rate at which the Embassy paid these annual payments
to all qualifying locally engaged staff.
The British Council was affected because the allowance was
paid to locally engaged staff based on the falsified rates in
documentation supplied by the Embassy. The British Council had
no reason to challenge the authenticity of the rates it received.
The fraud was perpetrated over a 10 year period from 1994
through to 2004 resulting in an over payment of allowances of
approximately £360,000. No evidence was found of any complicity
from British Council staff.
The British Council control systems were working in line
with corporate principles and practices. However in this instance
the controls were undermined through the acceptance of externally
verified documentation on which we placed assurance.
NEW FINANCE
AND BUSINESS
SYSTEM
7. Is the Council still on course for the global roll-out
of its new finance and business system? When is the global roll-out
of FABS scheduled to be completed?
The Council remains on course for the global roll-out of
FABS. The system has been live in the UK for just over one year
and was successfully implemented in India in October 2005. In
order to ensure that the overall level of change within the British
Council remains manageable and to ensure the stability of our
accounting services we have decided to extend the deadline for
the global roll-out and expect completion by March 2009.
8. What discussions has the Council had with the FCO about
its experience in rolling out its new systems overseas?
There has been regular contact and sharing of experience
between senior managers of the Council's FABS team and the FCO's
PRISM team including staff from Cap Gemini. Recent discussions
have centred on how to use the respective systems to optimise
efficiency savings and benefits.
9. What plans does the Council have to ensure that the
global roll-out does not affect its ability to sign its 2005-06
accounts?
Top priority has been given to achieving optimum operational
stability of the system in the UK to ensure that the 2005-06 accounts
are not compromised in any way. We are confident that this will
be achieved. The 2004-05 accounts, produced for the first time
using the SAP system, were signed off in September 2005.
10. In 2004-05 only 84.6% of invoices were paid on time.
What action has the Council taken to improve payment performance?
The payment of invoices last financial year was adversely
affected by the introduction of FABS in January 2005. There was
an anticipated period of system closure during which only emergency
payments were made, and once the new system went live there was
a period where staff had to become familiar with the new processes.
This led to delays in processing payments.
Considerable effort was put into training staff prior to
go-live and additional training and workshops organised afterwards
to ensure the processes were being operated efficiently and effectively.
The percentage paid on time during the first nine months of this
financial year has improved to 88%. This is close to the 89.1%
achieved in 2003-04, however our aim is to pay 100% of invoices
on time. We will monitor this closely with the aim of achieving
100%.
NEW PREMISES
IN NAIROBI
11. Was the construction of the new British Council premises
in Nairobi completed on time and to budget?
Yes, the FCO approved a budget of £2.3 million for work
to be completed in 2004-05. Final expenditure for the project
is £2.1 million and the Council occupied the new building
on 1 November 2004.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
PURSUANT TO
ORAL EVIDENCE
Staff numbers
12. The Committee asked the Council to provide data on
its staffing figures in the UK. The Council provided figures for
the current year. Can you provide the Committee with staffing
figures for the last five years and projected staffing numbers
for future years?
The number of staff at 31 March 2004 was the same as that
at 31 March 2001. It rose in March 2005, with an increase in project
posts associated with change programmes, and in grant funded posts—reflecting
increased grant funding. Posts supporting paid services decreased—reflecting
a reduction in paid development services. Since March 2005 there
has been a decrease in UK posts—and an increase in the proportion
of vacant posts, in preparation for the Change programmes.
We are undertaking a major UK Operations Change programme
and review of Corporate Services in the UK: projected staff numbers
will be finalised subject to discussions with trade unions and
an approved business case.
| 31 Mar 2001
| 31 Mar 2002
| 31 Mar 2003
| 31 Mar 2004
| 31 Mar 2005
| 31 Sep 2005
|
UK total | 1,336 | 100%
| 1,340 | 100% | 1,319
| 100% | 1,304 | 100%
| 1,391 | 100% | 1,375
| 100% |
| (of which FABS) | 1
| 0% | 13 | 1%
| 14 | 1% | 56
| 4% | 107 | 8%
| 112 | 8% |
| Consultants/ contractors | 104
| 8% | 87 | 7% |
87 | 7% | 65 | 5%
| 129 | 9% | 120
| 9% |
| Vacant | 91 | 7%
| 127 | 9% | 60
| 5% | 103 | 8%
| 90 | 6% | 126
| 9% |
| Net | 1,140 | 85%
| 1,125 | 84% | 1,172
| 89% | 1,136 | 87%
| 1,172 | 84% | 1,129
| 82% |
13. Can you breakdown further by role/function the 366 mainstream central services staff?
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
Central services breakdown, in same format as material already
given on 31 October 2005.
The break down of the 366 for Central Services is as follows:
Central services | Total
| | London | Manchester
| Belfast | Cardiff
| Edinburgh | Elsewhere
|
Senior management team and secretariat
| 16 | 1% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 |
| Corporate Planning, Commissioning Support, Programme Support, Procurement, Diversity and Legal Services
| 19 | 2% | 13 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 |
| Communications and Business Relations | 40
| 3% | 28 | 12 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1
|
| Finance, audit and decision support | 95
| 8% | 78 | 17 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
|
| IT | 71 | 6% |
53 | 18 | |
| | |
| Estates and procurement | 57 |
5% | 40 | 20 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HR | 69 | 6% |
50 | 19 | |
| | |
| FABS | 68 | 6%
| 43 | 25 | |
| | |
| Total | 434 | 37%
| 321 | 111 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
| |
| | | |
| | |
The Central Services review, aimed at streamlining the provision
of central services, is likely to lead to a reduction in posts
in departments.
14. What decisions has the Council reached on the locating
of its UK-based staff following the Lyons review?
In the 1990s the British Council moved substantial numbers
of posts from London to Manchester; since then we have moved further
posts to Edinburgh, Belfast and Oxford. Between 2002 and 2005
we reduced our UK floorspace by 15% and the number of UK locations
from 23 to 16. Accommodation in London is now contained within
one administrative building (which we are leasing on advantageous
terms) plus a specialist fine-art workshop. We have introduced
flexible working patterns and set caps on space-per-desk which
has a resulted in 40% better space utilisation in many parts of
headquarters. Our review of UK operations and central services
will lead to an assessment of the optimum use of our estate.
COMPARISONS WITH
INTERNATIONAL ANALOGUES
15. The Council provided information on the amount of
floor space it occupies domestically and overseas and data for
comparable organisations in France and Germany. Can the Council
provide comparisons for its analogues in terms of spend per head
of population and numbers of staff employed split by the function
they perform?
The Goethe Institut and the Alliance Française are
the nearest comparable organisations. Direct comparison is not
possible as their precise functions are different, as are the
methods for channelling central funding. If the FAC wishes to
pursue this in more detail it may wish to contact these organisations
directly. With this proviso, here are the `comparable figures'
requested to the extent that they exist. These figures provided
below were obtained through contacts at the respective organisations
and from data available in their annual reports:
Goethe-Institut:
Staff | Some 3,000 employees, of whom 720 work in Germany, 320 are Munich appointed working overseas and 2,000 locally engaged overseas.
|
| Revenue | In 2004 the Goethe Institut had a total income of Euros 204 million, some £1.80 per head. Of this Euros 163 million (£1.40 per head) was Government grant.
|
Alliance Française:
| |
Staff | Some 11,000 salaried employees. individuals, of whom 8,000 are teachers. 240 management posts are funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
|
| Finance | The Alliance Française does not exist as a single financial entity. Each institute publishes its own report, and there are no consolidated financial figures. The Alliance Française receives a Government grant of some Euros 41 million, some 47p per head.
|
| |
EFFICIENCY SAVINGS
16. The Council told the Committee in its supplementary
note that 62 per cent of its projected efficiency savings (for
the period to 2007-08) are reliant on IT. Can you detail where
these savings will be made? For example, what proportion will
be derived from staff reductions?
Of total projected savings 51% are estimated staff reductions
and 41% due to savings in procurement and other non-staff areas.
The staff reduction relates to staff both across our overseas
network and in the UK.
TAX LIABILITIES
OVERSEAS
17. The Council informed the Committee in October that
it has about £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg,
an amount that was "currently being processed". When
does the Council expect to settle this bill?
The £100,000 of tax outstanding in St Petersburg, reported
as "being processed" to the FAC in October, has been
paid. The Federal Tax Service has given the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs written confirmation that the British Council has met
its obligations to pay back-taxes.
18. Is it possible that the Council will face similar
tax problems in other countries? What is the current position
in Turkey? What contingencies or provisions has the Council for
such eventualities?
We are reviewing tax positions in all high risk countries.
We are in discussion with Turkish authorities. We have a reserve
from our income generating activities which can be drawn upon
to cover contingencies.
| 
