British Council's response to questions about fair competition

Jonn Elledge’s article assembles complaints from some disgruntled language and education providers to argue that the British Council competes unfairly and does not adequately represent the UK sector abroad (The British Council: friend or foe?, 9 October).
However, it fails to communicate the charitable purpose of the British Council and misrepresents our role in flying the flag for the UK.

The British Council is a registered charity, governed by Royal Charter, and all our income is used to deliver our charitable purposes. Over 75% of the British Council’s turnover is earned through teaching and exams, tendered contracts and partnerships. Less than 25% is UK Government grant-in-aid, and all of it delivers for the UK. To say, as one quoted business leader does, that “the British Council doesn’t really enable British education exports, it inhibits them,” does not fit with the evidence. We play an important role in promoting UK education exports – worth an estimated £14bn in 2008-9.

Our raison d’ệtre is to build trust between, and create opportunities for, people of the UK and other countries. We do this through our work in the arts, English language, and education. Independent research indicates that international trade is more likely to flourish under conditions of trust.  Whenever UK companies succeed in overseas markets, it proves what we do is working.

The global market for English language and education provision is vast and growing. The British Council reaches around 11 million people. But while over a billion people are currently learning English, we are working with less than 1% of them – hardly the “monopoly” Patrick Watson suggests in your article.

Neil McIntosh, chief executive of another charity, the CfBT Education Trust, asserts that the British Council’s income-generating activities make it “more difficult for us to compete” as compared to countries “whose diplomatic missions represent their education systems more comprehensively”. Ironically we are often asked by these same countries to share our ‘mixed-economy’ approach, as they seek to emulate the British Council model which provides value for money to the taxpayer.

The article claims that our ‘commercial goals’ could affect our advice to the sector, and states: “Its Education UK website is intended to be the front first port of call for international students looking to study in the UK. But the most visible listings are those schools and colleges that have paid for the privilege.” From the days of the first phonebooks to present day websites, users have paid for prominent positioning of their entries. This helps us fund the website, which we nevertheless still invest in over £1m in.

By generating income we are ensuring the long-term sustainability of the UK’s cultural relations. Currently we generate £3 for every £1 we receive in public investment and we intend to extend this ratio. So, yes, we are “an increasingly ambitious player in the global market” because it makes us a more effective public service, doing more for the UK.  We do not use grant money to subsidise our teaching work or commercial contract work. We also have a clear policy on fair trading and if there are complaints we will address them.

We believe the global education and English market is big enough for all UK providers and that we should be concerned about growing competition from the US, Australia and others rather than scrapping amongst ourselves. The British Council will continue to operate alongside other UK providers, enhancing the reputation of the UK as a whole.