A country which is useful at this time might suddenly be a place receiving 20,000 refugees in three days or Something Like that. One of the things that we are already doing and have to do more of is theable to surge staff between posts and also between functions within the Foreign Office in london so that we have a more flexible structure is that can respond to reseissly sh reseissly the reality that priorities can change and change rapidly and we need to respond in a way that is appropriately agile. Can i ask you about another area of your budget. At the present there is still an fco grant to the British Council. Is that one of the areas that you may well be getting rid of, and what are the implications to you do, for the branding of the British Council and the sense of its identity with the soft power of our country. Well the British Council plays a vitally Important Role in projecting the u. K. Soft power. But it has been generating an increasing proportion of the resources it needs to do that. I should i should have said earlier on, that of course the exercise that the treasury has asked us to do is in relation to nonorder deposital resource budget. The ota resource budget is in a different category because of the amount of oda will increase as the economy grows in size because of the gdp. [ inaudible question ]. Well some will be spent in support of refugees rehoused in the u. K. In the first year in accordance with the rules. But what this means is that what i am talking to the British Council about is a further reduction in nonodo funding, granting aid, and looking at the options for the British Council to spend more odda funding. And i think where well end up, and i dont know if it is in this spending preview or in a future spending review, in a British Council that does not receive nonoda aid but which receives more grant in total from the Foreign Office but with a much larger proportion or more of it being oda. And that will mean that the British Council will need to generation its nonoda spending from its own recyclable resources while using grant and aid and work in oda eligible countries. Would you sense a danger of relying on overprotected funds such as oda and that steers the direction rather than having a strategic comprehensive view which you would have done if you had the resources that werent targeted or protected in that way . I think what we have to recognize is that by making a decision to spend a percent of our gdp on oda, we have made a decision to focus on oda rellithible countries. But that affects but im not talking about the department for international spent, im talking about xeo spent. If the fco is relying on oda funding to fund certain things, does that not then shift the focus and the priorities of your department . Well it clearly means we can only bid for oda funding to do things in oda eligible countries. It is a new stream of funding available to the Foreign Office to address priorities that we find in oda eligible countries. And many of the challenges that were dealing with, mainly conflict and stability type challenges do present themselves in oda eligible countries. Can i finally ask you about the bbc World Service. From 2014, the funding of the World Service was taken away from your budget and was given to the responsibility of the bbc. As a result of that, the license fee payer is now responsible for funding the World Service. As you know, the bbc is going through a very difficult, longterm review. And i was struck that the new director general of the bbc, on monday, implied that he might be seeking public funding to support new services, including a korean land, north korea, russia, some arabic services. Have you had any zwudiscussions with the treasury about whether or not the Foreign Office might go back into questioning the funding of the World Service and so reversing the decision that was taken two years ago . No. Is that likely . Um, i dont think that that would be a discussion that we would be likely to have. It may be a discussion that the director general has had with the bbc with the culture secretary, i dont know. But i suspect that would be the correct channel such a so you wouldnt envision that part of the funding for the World Service might come from the bbc and some come Language Services from a grant in aid from the fco as was the previous arrangeme arrangement. It is not inconceivable. But facing the challenges in the spending review, were not exactly looking for new bids for grant in aid funding from the Foreign Office right at the moment. But it may be that the bbc has ideas to work up bids or proposals. It is certainly entitled to do so. But i think the way in which the World Service is funding and perhaps as important the scope and extent and direction and alignment of the World Service agenda is an important subject that we need to consider, and the bbc needs to consider. And i think the director generals intervention on monday was a helpful step in that, ahead of the renewal process next year. Weve had evidence in the last parliament, we asked your predecessor about question of a Korean Language Service to north korea and at that time we the view that we got was not a very positive one. There was thought to be comm committal cal problems or whether it wouldnt beective. Do you have a view about whether the bbc should be broadcasting into north korea. If there was no resource, constraint, i think that the bbc, is generally speaking, around the world, a very highly valued resource. It is maintained the reputation impartiality in a way that has made it a very, very strong brand. And i would prefer to see a bbc service in a country, in a local language, rather than not be such so that is a yes, then. But in a resource constrained environment, if you thought whether i thought broadcasting to north korea was a top priority. Would have some doubts because i suspect there are other channels of information being broadcast into north korea, including, im told, having just come back from there, widespread availability of south korean Domestic Broadcasting material, albeit it is illegal to receive it in north korea. I understand it is not unknown for people to illegally receive such broadcasts. Thank you very much. Thank you. Just a quick question on my great favorite subject which is ukti. And i wrote a report in 2002 having interviewed literally hundreds of british smes to get their perception of the service, the level of the service they are getting from the ukti and i will send you a copy of the report because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst them about the traction they are getting from the ukti. With all of the issues of budget for the Foreign Office can i ask you for your evaluation of what changes, if any, will be made to ukti in terms of funding. Its structure and its accountability. Im very much hoping youre going to be the foreign sect that will make the tough decisions needed to get an effective ukti going. Well ukti now has a separate budget allocation. Its a body that answers to both the foreign secretary and the business secretary. The new trade ministers lord mort is conducting a review of how ukti operates and will be making recommendations for reform in the way ukti operates and well look at those and consider them across government. We recognize that there is a need to change the way that ukti operates. We look, i think it is properly fair to say that we look enviously of the models that some of our competitors have for supporting smaller businesses in foreign markets, which are often based not on Central Government machinery, but on chambers of commerce. Exactly. This is a different model. We dont have statutory changes of commerce in the u. K. , in the way for example that germany does, and therefore we dont have the level of affiliation. I think i was told Something Like only 10 of British Businesses belong to a chamber of commerce, where of course 100 of german businesses belong to a chamber of commerce by necessity. But looking part at the work that lord mort has commissioned is a comparative study of how our competitors support their businesses, including small and Medium Enterprises and were very much we very much recognize there needs to be a reform to make ukti work. In all its phases. In upstream, as we call it, in terms of encouraging u. K. Enterprises to export and encouraging them to take the plunge into the market and downstream working effectively on the Foreign Office platforms around the world to roll the pitch for British Business and to identify specific Market Opportunities that British Companies can exploit. We encourage lord mortgage on his expertise. Im sure hes aware of your report. And moving on to migrant and the refugee crisis. Well ask steven gejis to lead us on this. Im sure you would agree that the refugee crisis over the last days, weeks and even years is a european problem. Ive been working with the European Partners on these issues. In the coming days the European Commission is holding a meeting to distribute 160,000 refugees. I think that builds on well it is 120,040,000 from previously. Will the u. K. Be taking part in that meeting and will you be traveling to that meeting . We will not we will not take part in the quota system that is being proposed. Weve got the justice and home affairs this is more properly a question for the home secretary but ill do my best to answer it. Weve made clear that we, because of our justice and affairs, we will not take part in this quota allocation system. We have doubts about whether its the best response. And we have, however, as you know, made a separate commitment to take a significant number of syrian refugees, 20,000. And to take them directly from the place where the most vulnerable are, the camps in and around syria. We are not convinced that simply reallocating the fit and the able who get through what is a pretty brutal filter of making their way from syria to europe, is the best way to deliver a humanitarian response. What we are proposing to do is to take 20,000 of the most vulnerable, those who perhaps are not able to make that highly risky journey to europe and to take them in and offer them a place of safety here. We still believe that for the majority of syrians and for the sake of the future of syria, the best response in most cases is to provide generously for the support and the security of those people as close to their homes as possible. And i think, if i may, i just take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary generosity of the turks, the lebanese, the jordans, who have taken in literally hundreds of thousands of refugees and have bourne this burden for for actually many years now. And i think we should be proud of what we have done to support them. We are the second largest donor after the United States. Weve just increased the level of our spending by another billion pounds to 100 billion pounds and we continue to believe that these points close to the point of origin in the hope and belief we will resolve the problem in syria in the new course, that there will be a new syria to rebuild and we should encourage the people to be part of the syrias future, not to simply disburse into the comfortable of europe, and leaving them of the most capable citizens. Im sure i speak for other colleagues, not very much, but the extraordinary generosity of the people of jordan, lebanon and turkey and taking people into their homes and im glad that you mention that, foreign secretary. But let me focus in on the european issue for a moment. Are you saying that if we have 160 refugees in europe, that is not our problem, that we should take them from source rather than work with our European Partners than to deal with those already here. We want to work with our europe around partners here, we do. But it is about how we can best contribute. But the 130,000, already in europe, are by definition safe. They are in the European Union and they are protected in the europe an union. And we want to take those not able to make their way under their own steam to the European Union and that does two things, we think it is a humanitarian response to get to the most vulnerable and avoids creating a pull factor. You see as well as i did, articles in the newspapers this morning subjecting that the announcements that have been made about reallocating people around europe are already generating a new wave of immigration towards europe. A message that the door is open, will inevitably drive the traffickers to more and we have to be careful to act in a way that is responsible and delivers echkt to those who need it most, rather than to those who perhaps need it less because their already in a place of relative safety. But i mean, people arent going to stop coming to europe. Isnt there a question of european solidarity. The United Kingdom is in relative terms a rich and big europe yarn country. Are we leaving our colleagues in hungary and poland and elsewhere, to bear the brunt of this crisis rather than showing solidarity with them. And actually foreign secretary, dare i say it, building some friends and and of course we want to work with our europe an colleagues. Our friends in pole and are re poland are resistant to take any migrants. Refugees. The mang ort will end up in germany because they have made an offer towards them. And we want to work to try to ensure an orderly process in europe where if we can help with support to Border Security arrangements, of course we will. If we can work with european colleagues, we will work with european colleagues on addressing the upstream problems. Clearly in syria. Weve rehearsed the upstream problem and it is upstream from there. But they are not only coming from syria. A majority are arriving from germany are from the western balkans and we can Work Together with European Union to address the drivers of european migration in upstream countries. And on the issue of the 20,000 yeah, on the issue of the 20,000, you mentioned last week, it is welcome, but it looks like it is just a start. The u. K. Could take more. Is it just a start. Could there be more taken . I would say simon mcdodd, who has the benefit of me, of having just ceased to be the British Ambassador in germany tells me it is 40 of refugees coming from the western balkan. So i will correct the record there. And the Prime Minister said very clearly on monday, although he was challenged many times from in the house, that he thought that the number of 20,000 was about right. He thought that we got it about right. But that over five years. [ overlapping speakers ] that was the Prime Ministers response on monday. I tend to agree with him. So you think 20,000 is an appropriate response over five years. If i may say so, youre falling into the trap of only looking at part of our response and i said earlier and i spent some time elap or ating the view, that what were doing in supporting refugees in the region is equally important. And i think a response that said well be the largest european donor by far of providing safety and support and sucker in the region and take 20,000 of the most vulnerable, these are women, children, people who are sick, and people who have suffered particular trauma and we will deal here with their needs which could be complex. I have to say i think that is a more measured and generous response than simply saying well take a quota of ablebodied young men, Something Like half of whom who have graduate level education. We are dealing with the real humanitarian crisis here. And let me just finish up. I know you want to move on and other colleagues want to come in on this. You say it is equally important and i think foreign secretary, i did acknowledge the work that your department has done and also the people of jordan and lebanon and turkey who have a huge burden to bear. But you say equally important. This is still an important part of it. And at the moment, there is a huge amount of criticism, i dont think it is unfair, that the u. K. Is not playing its full reel from the european context. 20,000 represents over the next five years. Where is that criticism coming from . Everywhere. Humanitarian groups. You havent seen my post bag yet. Humanitarian organizations and other groups who want the u. K. To do more. I think working with our europeeurop European Partners and showing them solidarity would be a good place to start. All right. Thank you. And i totally see where people like steven are coming from, that the good will that it is based upon. But as a tori rebel, i always fought the government, but i think on this, Prime Minister, and yourself, you are completely spot on. Presumably your effort is to help the many rather than the few, by helping people in that area. Is that what your yeah, well we can certainly we can certainly help a lot more people by helping them in the region, in europe. And there are some people, and this is the u. K. s position, there some people who need to be brought here because they are particularly vulnerable and that is what weve committed to. There are eithers that