Examination of witnesses (Questions 120-139)
DEPARTMENT FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
4 JUNE 2007
Q120 Mr Khan: All right. Then there
is the criticism that DFID does not take a consistently strong
line in monitoring funding allocations.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: We do take
a strong line in monitoring funding allocations, because it is
taxpayers' money we are dealing with.
Q121 Mr Khan: Okay. It is said that
DFID does not press governments to target rural areas.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti:
We do. Examples are given in the Report and there are many more.
Q122 Mr Khan: The problem I have
is that I read the NAO Report, which is agreed, and the custom
and practice is that it does not give us a report unless it has
been agreed. The answer that you gave to Mr Touhig threw me—I
have to be honest—because I could not ask the questions
that I was going to ask you because you do not accept that the
premise on which my questions were based.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: The Report
is agreed as a fair version of what the NAO found. There is other
evidence, which I am citing.
Q123 Mr Khan: Do you think that you
have the right level of bilateral assistance?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Overall?
Q124 Mr Khan: You talked about the
fact that the percentages of bilateral and multilateral funding
are, to some extent, outside your control, but do you think that
that is the right level of control at the moment?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Based on
effectiveness criteria, they are probably right, but the question
is whether we can improve some of the multilaterals enough in
the way that we would like to do, so that we could give them a
bit more money if they were more effective.
Q125 Mr Khan: But multilaterals?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Some of
them in a multilateral area, yes.
Q126 Mr Khan: My final question—my
time is up—is on the Report that I have read—this
may also be not correct. In previous reports, you have said that
civil society organisations are often better than state providers
at getting aid to the very poorest, yet it seems from the Report—this
may be an error on its part—that DFID has increased its
provision of budget support.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: We have
increased our provision of budget support; that is right.
Q127 Mr Khan: Directly via the civil
society organisations, or by other routes?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Most of
the support goes to government, but civil society is important
for two things. First, for service delivery in hard-to-reach areas,
in particular, so many governments use civil society to deliver
services, such as Malawi, where most of its rural health system
would be delivered through civil society.
Q128 Mr Khan: Are you sure that they
use their civil society?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Yes, they
do. I have visited a number of the clinics in rural areas that
the Malawian Government are financing in terms of civil society.
The civil society is also important for accountability in terms
of pushing government to be accountable to the rule of law. In
Tanzania, we are financing a lot of work by civil society to do
exactly that.
Mr Khan: I am afraid that my time is
up. Thank you, Chairman.
Q129 Chairman: Sir Suma, you made
an important constitutional point a moment ago. You said that
it is agreed that the Report is fair in terms of the view that
the NAO took. I rather thought that NAO reports were a fair view,
full stop. I had better ask Sir John to comment, because that
is an important point. I would like the Treasury official to listen
very carefully, so that this can be disseminated around Whitehall.
Sir John Bourn: That is right,
Chairman. In reaching agreement on the facts of the Report, it
is always open to the Permanent Secretary to draw my attention
to the form of presentation—indeed, in this case he specifically
asked me. If Sir Suma had said to me that he had reservations
about the way that we had put it, or that there was more to be
said, I would have been glad to discuss it with him, and to have
taken account of it in producing the Report. However, he agreed
to it in the form in which it comes before you.
Q130 Chairman: He did not make such
representations to you, then?
Sir John Bourn: Not of the kind
that he has mentioned this afternoon. As I said, he would have
been welcome to do so, and I would have been glad to consider
them if he had.
Q131 Chairman: I think that
that is a very important response, and I hope that the Cabinet
Secretary will make other permanent secretaries aware of the position.
Q132 Mr Davidson: May I just be clear
whether that is accepted by Sir Suma? Officials sitting behind
you are shaking their heads indicating that that is not the case.
Given that you run the Department, I want to be clear whether
you accept the fairness of what is being said at the moment.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Sir John
and I have a good relationship. If I had made a massive representation
to him, there would be no doubt. However, I felt that his staff
and my staff had worked tirelessly on this. They had tried to
iron out differences of view. At the end of the day—and
this is probably my mistake rather than anybody else's—we
felt that that was what the NAO had found and who were we to second
guess it, so we did not.
Q133 Mr Davidson: Do you accept that
that was wrong?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Now, clearly—
Mr Davidson: "Ye ken noo" as
they say.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: In future,
perhaps I should be a bit more stubborn about agreeing these Reports.
Q134 Chairman: I do not think that
it is a question of being stubborn. I think that your action has
been a bit casual.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I do not
think that we have been.
Q135 Chairman: After all, this is
the Public Accounts Committee. We are supposed to be Parliament
asking you to account for public monies. We cannot have permanent
secretaries saying, "Well, we took the view that they tried
their best but there is no point in going on arguing about it."
Mr Touhig: I have served on this Committee
for only a year, but I have never known an NAO Report to be disputed
so much by a Permanent Secretary.
Mr Khan: With respect, that is not the
point. The point is that this is the first time that many of us
have heard that there is a concern. In the past, we have known
something about reports in advance—it has been telegraphed—and
agreement has been reached. Through you, Chairman, may I say that
I had no idea until Mr Touhig asked his questions that there were
so many concerns about and caveats to the NAO Report.
Chairman: Nor did I. Is there nothing
else to say, Sir John? Is that it?
Sir John Bourn: It is. I repeat
that Sir Suma could have made his points to me and I should have
been glad to consider them.
Q136 Chairman: I think that he has
taken the point and that he has, effectively, apologised. You
have been very honest, Sir Suma.
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: Absolutely.
I do not think that it is anybody's fault but mine; not even that
of my staff. I could have come in again and made representations,
but I did not.
Chairman: That is very fair. Thank you.
It is good to clear these things up so that we can get them right
in future.
Q137 Mr Bacon: If that exchange leads
to clearer reports with less opaque language and more frequent
mention in NAO reports of occasions on which there are clear disagreements,
that will be welcome. Occasionally, the NAO says that it was unable
to find evidence of x, or that it believes the following, and
adds a sentence that says, "The Department, however, believes"
or "maintains" such and such. It helps to clarify matters
when you see that in black and white.
I should like you to clear up a couple
of points from earlier questions before I ask about the urban
bias in budget support. You mentioned an evaluation by Tony Killick
of aid to Mozambique. Was that in a published report?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I believe
so.
Q138 Mr Bacon: By whom?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: It was a
multi-donor evaluation, so many donors were involved and the Mozambique
Government led the way. We can give you a reference.
Q139 Mr Bacon: Could you send it?
Is it very long?
Sir Suma Chakrabarti: I am sure
that there is a summary.
| 
