ISLAMABAD: A parliamentary sub-committee meeting yesterday held at the IBCC, Islamabad saw lawmakers sharply reject Cambridge International Education’s claim that recent exam leaks were “partial,” insisting any breach undermines full exam integrity.
Chaired by convener of the Committee Member National Assembly, (MNA) Ms. Sabheen Ghoury, the session addressed public anger over leaked Cambridge papers, particularly affecting A2-level students with looming university deadlines. Cambridge’s offer of full marks for affected questions and a November retake was deemed inadequate for final-year students, with some lawmakers suggesting automatic ‘A’ grades—a proposal Cambridge opposed, citing risks to credibility.
Further scrutiny revealed the Ministry of Federal Education & Professional Trainings has no formal agreement (MoU) with either Cambridge or the British Council. The lack of regulatory framework and overlapping authority between the IBCC and National Curriculum Council were identified as key issues. Lawmakers demanded all foreign exam boards be brought under IBCC’s oversight and that future investigations be handled by independent third parties.
Private schools serving as exam centers were also questioned on their security protocols, while the British Council confirmed it is not fully tax-exempt and is negotiating sales tax with provincial authorities.
The committee concluded with orders for regulatory reform, formal MoUs, and third-party problems—placing responsibility on the Education Ministry to restore public trust.
The British Council’s tax obligations in Pakistan were brought into sharp focus during a parliamentary subcommittee session, where lawmakers questioned whether the organization contributes its fair share to the national tax system.
The inquiry, held by the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Federal Education, Professional Training, National Heritage and Culture, was part of a broader review of the legal and regulatory oversight of international education providers, including the British Council and Cambridge International Education.
Responding to a direct query, the British Council’s Country Director, James Hampson, stated: “The simple answer is we pay tax.” However, he acknowledged the issue is not straightforward, noting that the Council is currently engaged in discussions with provincial tax authorities, including the Sindh Revenue Board, to resolve its tax status.
At the core of the debate is a contradiction between a government-to-government agreement and domestic tax law. While the agreement—signed via the Economic Affairs Division—declares the British Council exempt from all customs duties and taxes in Pakistan, local tax laws require the application of sales tax to specific services.
“Our position is that we are liable for sales tax on some things,” Hampson explained, “but in their view, they are exempt from taxation for most things.” He confirmed the Council is not fully tax-exempt and cited IELTS exams as an example of a service on which applicable sales tax is paid.
When pressed further, Hampson clarified, “No, we are not fully exempt. So the answer is, it depends.” He emphasized the Council’s not-for-profit model, stating that all revenue generated in Pakistan is reinvested into educational programs like teacher training.
The tax discussion took place amid revelations that the Ministry of Federal Education has no formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on file with the British Council. Lawmakers linked this gap in legal documentation to broader regulatory ambiguities and called for immediate steps to formalize the operational framework governing foreign education institutions in Pakistan.
