FCO performance and finances 2011-12: Responses from the British Council and the BBC to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2012-13 - Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


British Council response

THE BRITISH COUNCIL'S PROFILE AND "BRAND"

The British Council's Board of Trustees takes its duty of protecting the British Council's good name and integrity extremely seriously. In considering plans for further development of our work, both the Board of Trustees and the Executive Board take particular care to ensure that proposals, whether for a paid-for service or a grant funded programme, meet the charitable objectives set out in our Royal Charter.

English has been a core activity of the British Council from our foundation. The English language services for which we charge clients or undertake on a contract basis for national governments are a key pathway for delivering cultural relations. Research undertaken by IpsosMori on our behalf recently found that English is the most powerful means of building trust in the UK. Just as significantly, through our work in English we share the UK's values with learners, teachers, policy makers and opinion formers, for example by promoting freedom of expression, tolerance, justice and equality of opportunity.

The global English language teaching (ELT) market is huge, with demand far outstripping that which the British Council, UK businesses and international competitors combined might offer. The perception of a tension between our role as a promoter of the UK's ELT sector and as a provider of ELT services is understandable, but simplistic. Our brand is recognised overseas as a kite mark of quality in the provision of English language teaching. Our role as a partner for governments around the world also serves the wider UK sector. We are able to bring together government and partners to share best practice and promote opportunities for winning new business. For example, next month we are convening a meeting of UK ELT providers with representatives from Brazil to showcase market opportunities for the UK, and facilitate networking.

THE BRITISH COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE SPENDING REVIEW

The Committee's comments on the future funding of the British Council are very welcome. Our response to reductions in our Government grant over the course of the current Spending Review period has enabled us to maintain impact for the UK, while managing a 26 per cent real terms reduction in grant in aid. This cut in core funding has been offset by increases in services to paying customers, and by programmes funded by UK and commercial partners. By the end of 2014-15, the grant in aid will make up less than 20 per cent of total income, down from 33 per cent in 2010-11. We delivered efficiencies of £26m in 2011-12 alone. Our efficiency savings have included a redundancy programme which cut 400 posts in the UK, moving all UK offices to lower cost 'smart working', and downsizing and sub-letting parts of the British Council's London offices.

In its submission to the FCO for the 2015-16 spending review, the British Council has identified further reductions in its UK support services. A cut which exceeded those efficiencies would pose serious challenges to our global reach and impact. For example, there comes a point where small operations in individual countries cease to be viable, necessitating closures and the consolidation of operations at a regional level. Recent experience in North Africa has demonstrated that having a presence on the ground is crucial to being able to respond quickly to events. In Libya our established networks and local intelligence played a key role in the Government's response to the fall of the Gaddafi regime. We could not have provided that critical advice and support in-country were all our work carried out from a regional hub.

As the Committee notes, not only has our overall grant been cut significantly, but an increasing proportion is restricted for use in countries in receipt of ODA. There is significant overlap between cultural relations and international development. In many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, our cultural relations work also has a substantial development benefit. However, further restrictions on where we can spend our grant would severely restrict our capacity to operate in North America, South East Asia, Western Europe and other strategically important places where we play a key role in forging links between educational and cultural agencies, and convening international dialogues between policy makers, practitioners and opinion formers.

Relying on our self-generated income to replace grant funding can only take us so far. The bulk of the income we generate is from cost recovery work from teaching services and Government contracts. Some services generate limited surpluses which we then reinvest in cultural relations work, but it is not possible to simply substitute a £1 of grant with a £1 of self-generated income. Overall our current portfolio of services generates a surplus of £1 for every £10 we earn ? so to match a £1 reduction in grant, we would need to increase our self-generated income tenfold.

If our grant is further reduced and restricted by Government, and the British Council becomes more dependent on self-generated income, the business of raising income will inevitably become a more significant driver in decisions on where we work and what services and programmes we can offer, weakening the connection between us and the UK's strategic priorities.

THE COUNCIL'S ROLE IN RELATION TO HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION

The Committee has noted our role within the higher education sector, and our concerns over the damage to perceptions of the UK's openness to international students and of the UK's policy in relation to visas, and the communication of that policy. Following the changes in the visa regime, student numbers from India have shown a steep decline, while recent speculation of possible changes to the visa regime for Brazilians saw serious concerns registered with our staff across that country. In our view there remains a worrying lack of understanding of the impact of domestic political debates on immigration upon attitudes towards the UK overseas, and the possible consequences for the UK's economic and strategic interests.

Higher education is a key growth sector for the UK economy and has a crucial role to play in generating trust in the UK internationally. International students bring significant benefits to universities and local communities, and not just in tuition fees and local spending. International students enrich campus life, bring their expertise and fresh thinking to research projects and help forge the long term links that enable the expansion of human knowledge in the sciences and medicine. The vast majority of students who come to study in the UK return home at the end of their studies, and do so with a much better understanding of the UK and its people, and an openness to continue to engage and do business with the UK in future.

We are working with UKBA to more clearly explain the Government's visa policies and counter the negative publicity, and have had some success in China, where incoming student numbers have continued to show strong growth. We will continue to work with colleagues in Government and the higher education sector to ensure that the UK maintains its position as a market leader in the increasingly competitive international higher education sector.



 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 21 June 2013