UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 551

house of commons

oral evidence

taken before the

International Development Committee

PRE-APPOINTMENT HEARING WITH THE Government’S PREFERRED CANDIDATE FOR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON AID IMPACT (ICAI)

TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 2010

GRAHAM WARD

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 64

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the International Development Committee

on Tuesday 26 October 2010

Members present:

Malcolm Bruce (Chair)

Mr Russell Brown

Richard Burden

Mr James Clappison

Jeremy Lefroy

Pauline Latham

Anas Sarwar

Chris White

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Graham Ward, the Government’s preferred candidate for Chief Commissioner of the ICAI, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Mr Ward, good morning and welcome to our Committee. It is a unique experience for this Committee to have a confirmation hearing, and one that is therefore a learning curve for us as well as you. We obviously have a number of questions we want to test you through. We have your CV and know what your background experience and qualifications are, but the obvious question is why you put yourself forward for this new position that the Government has created. Secondly, from your point of view, what has been involved in getting to this point where you have been put forward as the first Commissioner?

Graham Ward: Thank you for your welcome. It’s a unique experience for me as well. The reason that I wish to do the job is that I really believe in the value of UK aid. I think it’s the right thing to do morally, politically and economically. I also believe that it is right to carry it out efficiently and effectively to deliver the very best in terms of the UK taxpayer and also to deliver the best in terms of the recipient partner countries. So this role was an opportunity for me to be able to put those beliefs into practice. That is why I welcome the opportunity.

Q2 Chair: We might explore that in a bit more detail and some of my colleagues will come in on that. Also in this context, because of the timescale, it hasn’t followed the normal pattern. As I understand it, after the short-listing process you were interviewed by the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary. That was the final interview. That’s correct, is it?

Graham Ward: That’s right, Chairman. Yes.

Q3 Chair: In that context, did you or have you known them in the past? Have you had any dealings with either of them before?

Graham Ward: No dealings with either of them before.

Q4 Chair: So they didn’t know you and you didn’t them at that point?

Graham Ward: That’s absolutely right.

Q5 Chair: So in the same situation that the Committee is in?

Graham Ward: Absolutely right.

Q6 Chair: I hope we might find more difficult ones, but what would you say was the most difficult question that they put to you? We’ve asked you why you’ve done it, but what did they ask you? We’re interested really in what they were looking for in you as the head of the department and what tested you the most.

Graham Ward: They started off in the same way that you did: why was I interested in doing the job. They asked why was the experience that I had relevant to carrying out the job and then they asked some questions in terms of what was my vision of how I would start in terms of going about being the Chief Commissioner. So that really was the tone of the conversation.

Q7 Chair: You can’t identify a question that caused you any particular difficulty?

Graham Ward: Not really, Chairman. No.

Q8 Chair: This is not a highly paid job. For people on the average wage of course, it is a highly paid job. However, the reality is that you’re talking about £600 a day for 30 days, which is what? Three days a month. This is not going to be your sole means of support. How is it going to fit in with the other things that you do, how are you going to give it enough time and are there any conflicts in the other areas of activity that you have?

Graham Ward: Okay. I have retirement annuities from my former firm and I’ve been able to save money from my career to date, so on the financial side, that’s where I sit. In terms of time, I looked very carefully at the other things that I’m doing and my diary, and I’m confident that I’ve got enough time to be able to give those days to this role.

Q9 Chair: Do the other things that you’re doing have any relevance or provide either conflict or support to the job?

Graham Ward: I don’t believe that the other things that I’m doing now have any conflict. Being a member and vice-chairman of the UK India Business Council means that I’ve had some experience of visiting India and some understanding of what life is like there and the needs of that country. During my time as the world utilities leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers and also as the president of IFAC, I was able to visit many countries around the world. I have visited 61 different countries over that time, including a number of developing countries such as Malawi, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Morocco to name a few. I have also visited places like Sri Lanka and Pakistan and so those things have given me some feel as to what life is like in those countries as well. I have had the experience of dealing with interaction with ministers and regulators in those countries.

Q10 Anas Sarwar: Do you feel that three days a month is enough in terms of the scope of the job? For example, the Committee meets almost as regularly as three times a month, and we find it difficult to get our head around everything DFID is doing at any one time. Do you think three days a month is enough for the job?

Graham Ward: I think it’s going to be tight. When I met the Secretary of State, I was told 45 days a year, with a possible extension to 50 days a year. There is a large scope to this. Of course, it’s not going to be a one-man band as there will be other commissioners, a secretariat and a firm of contractors who will be doing the work. I must admit that there is a certain amount of free time being put in already in terms of familiarisation with the territory. So I think it is going to be tight. If I believe that it’s too tight to be able to do the job properly, then clearly I would take that up with this Committee and the Secretary of State.

Q11 Anas Sarwar: You mentioned some of the backroom staff. Is there any indication of how many staff you would have and whether they’d be on a full-time basis––basically, people doing the homework for you and supporting you in the role?

Graham Ward: At the moment, we’ve got two staff that have been identified, one to be the head of the secretariat, a man called Tom McDonald, who comes from the National Audit Office and has a lot of experience in carrying out value for money studies. He has a lot of experience with the MoD and he has also been involved with the United Nations, so I think he is going to be a strong head of the secretariat. We have also identified somebody to deal with research and communications called Clare Robathan. I have seen her CV, although I haven’t met her yet. I have met Tom. We will need to see whether that’s enough. I’m already beginning to feel that we might need somebody else to help with the detailed management of the service providers.

Q12 Anas Sarwar: Were they your appointments or were they DF I D- led appointments to support you?

Graham Ward: Those two were DFID-led appointments. I’ve been told that they’re on contracts with break clauses, so if the commission is unhappy with their performance after nine months, I think, then we would have the option of looking for somebody else.

Q13 Anas Sarwar: Obviously, with any appointments that involve political parties there’s always the independence question that comes around. Do you have any affiliation with any political parties that you feel doesn’t put you in an independent role? Either an affiliation with a direct political party or affiliation with any non-governmental organisations that may represent a conflict of interest?

Graham Ward: I’m not a member of any political party. I am a member of the Carlton Club, which clearly has affiliations with the Conservative Party, but I haven’t done any direct party campaigning or anything like that, with one exception, which was in 1983 when I was helping somebody who was a friend essentially. I don’t believe that represents-

Q14 Anas Sarwar: I’ll forgive you for that because that was the year I was born. So you’re quite confident that there’s nothing there that could conflict with the independence of the role?

Graham Ward: Yes I am.

Q15 Pauline Latham: You’ve obviously got a very impressive CV, but what’s less evident to us is your direct experience with international development. Can you tell us what direct experience you have had? I know that you’ve been a president of two professional organisations, which I assume will have led you round the world to do different things, visiting various organisations that are probably promoting accountancy. Can you also tell us what your work in India involved, and how much of that was actually related to development as opposed to just purely business, and how many times overall have you actually visited India, or indeed any other part of the world?

Graham Ward: As I mentioned before, I’ve visited some 61 different countries over my career, some developed, some developing. I have not actually worked directly on international development within the firm. In a personal sense, I have just finished being the master of the chartered accountants’ livery company, and my choice for the master’s charitable project of the year was to build a school in rural India in a village called Dakha in the Ludhiana district of Punjab. We’ve managed to raise funds from the trustees of the livery charity. We got money to pay for the capital costs of the school and then I went out and appealed to other members and contacts and we’ve so far raised enough money to pay for two years’ running expenses of the school. So that’s a measurable personal involvement.

Q16 Chair: Does the two years’ running costs include the employment of the teachers at the school?

Graham Ward: Yes it does. It picks up the cost of the teachers. I haven’t been personally involved in making the appointments. We’re working in conjunction with the Prince’s British Asian Trust and with something called the Bharti Foundation in India. That was important in the context of this project because it means that, if we’re not able to raise continual funds from the livery company, the Bharti Foundation has undertaken to meet the running costs, so we’ll have a sustainable project in terms of this school. In India I’ve also seen a microfinance scheme in a village just outside Delhi. That was a very, very educational experience in terms of seeing what village life was like, seeing the way in which they went about that project and the importance of women in terms of making the microfinance work. So they weren’t providing finance to the village men; they were providing the finance to the village women. The way in which they secured the repayment of the finance was essentially from peer pressure from among the group of women. It was very interesting how they managed to grow the economy of the village with relatively small sums of money, and how the entrepreneurial spirit was unleashed among the villagers. It was very inspiring. On one of your other questions, I can’t remember how many times I’ve visited India. It’s quite a lot. I’ve been in India for five or six weeks a year probably on average since the mid-1990s, so quite a lot.

Q17 Chris White: Mine is a very similar question to Pauline’s, but is with regard to your knowledge and experience of Africa.

Graham Ward: I did a secondment with the firm to South Africa in 1982. Subsequently, I’ve been in Kenya, Malawi, Tunisia, Egypt, Senegal, Morocco and Zimbabwe. So a reasonable range of countries in Africa, I think.

Q18 Chris White: This is very much off topic. With your background at PwC, I just wondered about a vision of looking forward with aid: private sector, public sector. What’s your view?

Graham Ward: In terms of the…?

Q19 Chris White: In terms of the delivery of aid, and perhaps the role that the private sector will play.

Graham Ward: I think the private sector role has got a role in terms of aid. I think the public sector has a very clear role in terms of aid––it’s acting on behalf of the population as a whole in terms of assisting those who are less well off than ourselves. I think it’s important from a public sector point of view in terms of stability. The political stability that can come from people in a country being more prosperous, healthier and having more self-respect is less likely to lead to armed conflict than where those circumstances don’t exist. From the economic point of view, and from the point of view of the recipient country, you are building up people’s standards of living and self-respect by helping the economy to grow. It helps the UK as well, because if we have a stronger economy in developing countries then that creates the potential for trading partners for the UK itself. The private sector has an interest then in investing in developing countries in order to grow their own businesses and to grow markets. So I think yes, there is a role there for the private sector.

Q20 Richard Burden: When you were talking about where you have visited and where you worked, you said you did a secondment in South Africa in 1982. What lessons did that leave you with?

Graham Ward: The abiding lesson from that was the huge problems that the apartheid regime was creating. At that stage, the economic division among the races was very stark and the way in which parts of the population were essentially being suppressed in every sense was something that was very difficult to experience and to live with. One shouldn’t underestimate the huge difficulty that was faced by the South African politicians when they dismantled that process or the progress that has been made since then. I’ve been back several times since and seen the development of people and have had more inspiring experiences as a result.

Q21 Jeremy Lefroy: As somebody who has been involved in business for many years in Africa, I find the development world sometimes a little bit of a mystery in terms of the language and jargon used. I think I’m getting a little bit more into it now, but how do you think you’ll be able to deal with that coming from a business and chartered accountancy background?

Graham Ward: I’ve started trying to learn in terms of reading around the subject. The Department has provided me with a lexicon of the different terms that are used and that clearly is going to be helpful. In the early days of the shadow commission, I want to get a real grip on the landscape, and I’ve already said to Tom McDonald that this needs to be one of the first things that we do: to familiarise ourselves with the projects that are being carried out and finding out what objectives and outcomes they look to generate as a result of carrying out these projects. What are the strong points and weak points that have been identified in work that’s been done both by the Department and on the Department by people like the NAO, to date? I would also very much like to see a project on the ground in terms of the evidence that one needs to gather in order to get a real sense of what is being done and what is being delivered to the populations of recipient countries. One does need to see it on the ground and experience it. We are looking to identify a suitable opportunity to be able to go and do that. What we are looking at is a sort of immersion therapy, in a sense.

Q22 Jeremy Lefroy: If I can just ask a follow up, again slightly off that subject? You’re obviously well aware of the public controversy over the Government’s decision, supported by all the parties, to increase the aid budget at a time of financial stringency. Given that your role is absolutely essential in ensuring that the monitoring of the aid budget is tight and that aid is spent where it should it be, it’s inevitable that some of your reports are going to arouse controversy. There is no way that if you produce 20 reports a year, they are all going to be glowing in their description of what DFID and the multilateral agencies are doing. How are you going to be able to deal with that, given what I imagine will be quite an intense public spotlight thrown on your work? What experience do you have of that kind of scrutiny?

Graham Ward: As president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, I appeared before the then DTI Select Committee and before the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States. There was a lot of interest from the media around the programmes that we were carrying out. Similarly with IFAC, there was a lot of media interest in terms of the structure and governance of IFAC. One of the things I did when I was president was to implement a fundamental and far-reaching reform of that structure and governance and there was a lot of interaction with press, not only in the UK but also in many other countries, to deal with that. First of all I think it’s a question of having confidence in the quality of the work that the Commission is carrying out and in the quality of the reports, and then being able to deal with these things and call upon past experience.

Q23 Pauline Latham: You just raised the media there, and it occurs to me to ask how many media staff will you have. If you don’t have any, how are you going to handle the media?

Graham Ward: At the moment, we have one, so Clare Robathan will be there to look at dealing with the media. How many we would need in the long term, frankly I don’t know at the moment.

Q24 Pauline Latham: Is she full-time?

Graham Ward: She will be full-time, yes.

Q25 Chair: You said that you’ve been given all kinds of reading material by the Department. Is there anything that particularly stands out or struck you as particularly informative or particularly challenging?

Graham Ward: The things in there that are challenging are how the objectives are set in the first place. I think there’s been some comment that that could be improved, for instance on how the projects are selected as there’s clearly many competing potential projects, so there are challenges there.

Q26 Chair: Perhaps I had better make it clear. This Committee has a lot of people who give us evidence, be they academics, specialists, NGOs and so forth. Is there anything that has been written from outside the Department in terms of books or articles that have particularly struck you in the context of the development agenda?

Graham Ward: I’ve started reading the Philip Miller, is it, who wrote about the one billion people who are the most disadvantaged in the world. Certainly that has a big effect in terms of the different traps that are faced by countries that are looking to develop.

Q27 Anas Sarwar: PwC are obviously likely to be one of the consortia bidding to do evaluations. Is that something that you would take an involvement in or, because of the previous or current links that you have with PwC, is it something that you would step back from and allow others to take the lead on, in terms of deciding who gets the contract?

Graham Ward: As a precursor to the answer to that question, I should say that PwC was then. I retired from the partnership at the end of January. The role of Chief Commissioner would be now. I would be bound both morally and contractually to act in the best interests of the Commission and that I would do. The selection of the contractors is not the personal gift of the Chief Commissioner. In fact a panel and a process are already in place to go through a selection. I’ve been asked to sit as a member of the panel, not to chair it. Clearly I want to know that we’ve got the best possible contractor and I think that’s my responsibility to this Committee. If I felt at any point that my clarity of thought and independence were being impeded then I would recuse myself from that discussion.

Q28 Anas Sarwar: What do you see as being your key tasks and roles over the first nine months in the position?

Graham Ward: The first thing is to get a grip on the landscape-as I mentioned before, there’s a lot of learning to be done-then to make sure that we’ve got the other commissioners recruited and in place and properly briefed; that we have the staff recruited and in place and properly briefed; that we do a study of what’s been written on the Department, what examinations have been done on the Department to date; look for the lessons that should be learned from that; to have discussions with this Committee and with ministers and to go out and to start to consult with the stakeholders in the development world. We’re going to look to draft up a work plan, which I think we would plan to discuss together, Chairman, with this Committee, but also to make available publically. I think the way in which the Commission works needs to be very transparent. I would also look to set up processes to make sure that the Commission was operating in a way that delivered value for money, because I’m a great believer in practice what you preach, so our role is to deliver and comment on value for money and others. We should be delivering that ourselves. We would look at that. I am sure Chairman, you would wish to look at that, and I’ve also been told that the National Audit Office would wish to look at it as well, so we’ve got plenty of incentives to get that right.

Q29 Anas Sarwar: My understanding is that the other Commissioners will be appointed by yourself or perhaps a process that obviously includes you in a leadership role?

Graham Ward: That’s my understanding too, yes.

Q30 Anas Sarwar: What will you be looking for in your other commissioners? Are you looking for people with accounting backgrounds, development backgrounds or a mixture of both? What are the key elements that you are looking for in terms of the other commissioners to complement yourself as the Chief Commissioner?

Graham Ward: I wouldn’t specifically be looking for anybody else with an accounting background. I’ve got that. There’s only four of us. I’d be looking for somebody who’d got really deep experience of value for money and evaluation studies. I would be looking for somebody who could provide the academic input and perspective and the depth of experience in the context of the academic world. I would also be looking for somebody who came from a partner country, because I think it’s really important to have the viewpoint of the recipients of the aid if we’re going to deliver what’s necessary.

Q31 Anas Sarwar: Would they be in a part-time role like yourself or would you envisage them being full-time?

Graham Ward: The commissioners would have a part-time role, as I understand it. The other commissioners have been asked to look at 20 days each during the course of the year.

Q32 Anas Sarwar: Lastly, you mentioned value for money, and obviously that is the whole point of the watchdog being set up in the first place. Have you got a clear budget in terms of what your budget would be for the commission, with regard to staffing level, admin, PR staff and also in terms of actually doing its work? Is there any idea of budgetary constraints that you have at the moment or is that still being negotiated?

Graham Ward: There’s certainly an idea of budgetary constraint. I’m not sure what the eventual budget is going to be. Of course, this is a new operation and during the shadow period one of the really important things to do is to identify which staff we need, how much of the contractors’ time we need and the selection process for the contractor-clearly we’ll be aiming to get value for money out of that contractor. So my approach would be to look at it from the point of view of what is necessary and then to look at the cash budget that was necessary in order to support that, as well as the staff budget as necessary.

Q33 Anas Sarwar: What element of freedom will you get with the Department in doing that?

Graham Ward: I’m sure they’ve got a number in mind as to what the appropriate sum would be. I think I would have freedom up to a budgetary limit.

Q34 Chair: I think the Secretary of State has indicated that the Evaluation Department within DFID would effectively have its budget transferred. His argument was that in other words, there was already expenditure on this; it’s going to be spent differently. I don’t know whether that’s what he said to you, but that’s what he’s indicated.

Graham Ward: Yes.

Q35 Pauline Latham: On value for money: you placed great emphasis on value for money which one would expect an accountant to do, but how do you see that as a balance with seeing that what is being spent is being delivered and that we’re not just getting value for money, but we’re getting delivery of what we say we’re going to do? How do you ensure that the people in these countries are getting the benefit from the aid? Where do you see the balance between these two demands?

Graham Ward: There are two ways in which I would approach that. One is to carry out not only what traditionally would be thought of as value for money studies, but also evaluations of the effectiveness of the aid programmes. Secondly, I would say that the effectiveness of what is delivered is a key component of value. One of the early things that I want to do is to get a clear picture of how the Department defines value and to assess that definition. I absolutely agree this is not simply about cutting costs. Value for money is not about cutting costs. Value for money is about delivering the maximum benefit to the recipients in the most efficient and effective manner. So I don’t see that the role of the Commission is to slash and burn in terms of budgets at all. I think it’s about getting the maximum amount of benefit to recipient countries in a way that is efficient for the UK taxpayer.

Q36 Richard Burden: In order to have effective evaluations you have to note that the projects that you’re evaluating can be either relatively easy or relatively difficult to evaluate. The way that programmes are designed could affect your ability to evaluate them. Do you see a role for the Commission in getting involved with the evaluation process earlier, in order to make sure that in the project that you are evaluating, that evaluation is built in at the start? And if so, how?

Graham Ward: Within the shadow period, one of the things that I want to do is to look at the way in which the Department does design the programmes. What I would want to see is a design process that is designed to deliver value, to assess how that is carried out and to make any recommendations that were considered appropriate. I really want to get into the Department’s decision-making processes and to understand those as part of the initial work that’s carried out by the shadow commission. I think that then will give us a good base for being able to make the sort of assessments to which you refer.

Q37 Richard Burden: I’d appreciate your comments about how you think you might approach this, because in order to ensure effective evaluation, it’s quite important that you have fairly common baseline data as what you’re evaluating differs from place to place. That means that it’s probably quite important that programmes don’t creep and don’t change too much over time so that what you start off thinking you’re evaluating ends up as something else at the end. Am I right about that? If so, how would the commission interact with that? Where do you see the boundaries between the role of the commission in ensuring that effective evaluation takes place on the one hand, and in a sense the role of the Department on the other? If circumstances are changing then major programmes have to change, even if it messes up your job in evaluating it. Where do you see the balance in all of that?

Graham Ward: I think the most important thing is that effective benefits are delivered to the recipients and that shouldn’t be sacrificed for the convenience of the working methods of the commission. What we would look to see is that where the scope or the work carried out within a project has changed, we would establish what the change criteria are and whether there is a clear tracking from where the project started to where the project is now intended to go. It should be perfectly possible to track through that change, provided it’s adequately recorded and carried out, in order to make our assessment of the effectiveness of the project at the end of the day. I don’t think it would be right to say that every project must be cast in stone for the convenience of the commission and to the detriment of the recipients.

Q38 Richard Burden: Could I just follow up something that Pauline Latham mentioned to you about effectiveness, rather than simply a narrow view of value for money? There are certain parts of the world-in fact parts of the world where DFID will probably be concentrating more of its efforts rather than less-where that is hugely, hugely difficult. Fragile states and conflict situations are notoriously difficult to evaluate and say, "What is being effective there? What are the outputs?" The outputs or outcomes might be five years down the line or 10 years down the line, rather than tomorrow. How are you going to deal with that one?

Graham Ward: Sitting where I am at the moment, frankly, I am not absolutely certain how that will be dealt with. The first thing I would do would be to look at ways in which this type of evaluation has been carried out within the Department to date. I would look to see how that sort of evaluation has been carried out by other evaluators in other parts of the world in order to learn from their experience and then look to synthesise the best of what I have seen into a methodology that would work for us. I don’t underestimate the difficulty of it. I do understand what you’re saying, especially with regard to fragile states, in terms of just how difficult it is to assess effectiveness and to obtain sustainability of projects and the outcome of projects, as well as the very real risk that, shall we say, wells that are being dug today being blown up tomorrow.

Q39 Richard Burden: Regarding multilateral institutions, do you see any particular difficulties in monitoring and evaluating the UK’s contribution and involvement with multilateral institutions? If so, how would you do that? In a sense, you’re keeping an eye on DFID and DFID’s effectiveness and the value for money of DFID spending, but there are also bodies that monitor the international institutions themselves, the World Bank being one that has its own independent evaluation group. So how do you see your relationship with those other evaluators so that you’re not duplicating each other, but equally you are keeping focused on what you’re doing and not just saying, "Well, that’s their job"?

Graham Ward: I think it’s very important and certainly it’s in my plans to establish relationships with these other evaluators, meet them at an early stage and understand what they do, so that we can establish how we can go about approaching this task together. If a number of countries or international aid institutions have an interest in a particular project, then clearly everybody is going to have an interest in the effectiveness of the project and in the value being delivered. I think we should be looking at ways in which we can work together. I understand there is a body being created, something called the International Institute on Impact Evaluation. I’d look to see what that’s doing, see what I can learn from that and whether and how the commission should participate in the activities of that body. So my general approach to these things where I don’t already know which option to choose-which is going to be most-is to look and see what is available, to learn and to establish relationships with the other participants, and then to work with them so that we can see these groups working together. I don’t underestimate the difficulty of creating those sorts of working relationships. I had to do that particularly in the context of the International Federation of Accountants, which had member bodies from 120 different countries. It also dealt with supranational organisations such as IOSCO, the World Bank and the European Commission. There is a lot of work that needs to go into developing those relationships and to make them right. So, the experience is there but yes, it’s going to be tough.

Q40 Jeremy Lefroy: Following on from what Richard was asking, a substantial amount of bilateral aid is delivered through direct budgetary support to governments. Do you think you’re going to be asked to evaluate that, because that’s a fairly high-level method of delivery of aid? If so, how would you do it, given that you are talking about money being given directly to governments, which they then spend in their own way?

Graham Ward: I do expect it to be in the scope of the Commission. As far as I’m aware, scope covers all aspects of ODA. The way in which we go about that is that I would start from the point of view of looking at when the decision was taken to provide aid in that way. There should have been a system in place to anticipate the need to have the benefit of it evaluated. So the starting point is to look at the system that was anticipated. Then I think there is a need to see the extent to which that system has been put into operation and then to look at the results of the application of it. Clearly it would involve interaction with the recipient governments. I think it would also involve understanding what benefits, in their view, the populations of the recipient countries are seeing out of these programmes. I don’t simply see the commission’s work in respect of a partner country as just going to the capital city of that country and having discussions with a relatively narrow group of people. I think it’s also going to be necessary to gather evidence from where the work is being done, in a sense of where the wells are being dug, the power stations put, or the schools built, or where the hospitals are being built or supplied with mosquito nets, for example. This is necessary to really see what the benefits are that are being delivered.

Q41 Jeremy Lefroy: Are there any particular organisations or institutions within those countries that you would look to for assistance with that work?

Graham Ward: Yes. I would certainly be looking for the equivalent of the National Audit Office in those countries as a partner in that.

Q42 Chair: Given that quite a lot of those countries say that their capacity is very limited and that they are already overburdened by donor countries investigating different aspects, are you confident that you’ll get the co-operation you need to be able to evaluate?

Graham Ward: There is going to be a certain amount of diplomacy required, Chairman, there is no doubt about that. I think if we can’t get the co-operation to be enable that to happen, then that must raise some questions about whether that is the right country for the UK to be supporting.

Q43 Anas Sarwar: It’s a lot easier to evaluate bilateral programmes. It’s a lot more difficult to evaluate our multilateral programmes. An example would be the EU. We give a block grant to the EU and we rely on the EU to spend it appropriately. How do you see evaluating our multilateral commitments? What difficulties does that bring in terms of really evaluating where British money is going with these organisations?

Graham Ward: There are clear potential difficulties about access and tracing the money through from the Exchequer here to the ultimate recipient of the benefit. Again, my approach would be to look and see what was planned upfront in terms of these things. I’d be very disappointed if the need for evaluation of the multilateral multinational programmes hadn’t been anticipated. So I would look at what was anticipated, look to see if that is working and look to get access from the Court of Auditors as far as the European Commission is concerned. I would start with trying to gain as deep an understanding as possible of the way in which it’s done, and then try and form a view on that and make recommendations on changes if necessary.

Q44 Anas Sarwar: What if they counter that by saying that they are already their own evaluations as EU member countries or as the European Parliament, so they don’t need another evaluation from the Department? Is that something you’re going to take head-on and make sure that you are still evaluating our multilateral programmes?

Graham Ward: I would start by asking for access to the evaluations that have been carried out by others. I would look at who has carried out those evaluations, look at the independence of the group that is carrying out the evaluations, look at the qualifications of the people who are carrying out the evaluations and, if possible, look to receive copies of the work that they’ve done so that I can understand what they’ve done. Then I would form a view as to how much I believe the commission could rely on the work that’s already been done, before setting the scope of any other work programme that we felt was necessary.

Q45 Mr Clappison: You are aware that quite a large amount of our aid is delivered through the EU? I think it is about £1.3 million through the EU aid budget itself. I think it’s another £600 million or £700 million through the European Development Fund. What would be your criteria in evaluating the work that is being done by the EU and the way in which it spends that money?

Graham Ward: I don’t see immediately why the criteria for looking at the effectiveness of the work done through the EU should be any different from the criteria that we would use here. The methodology would be more complex because we’re relying on others. We’re relying on other people’s systems and we’re relying on other people. I think the assessment of the outcomes and the effectiveness of delivering the outcomes should fundamentally be the same as we would use for the bilateral aid.

Q46 Mr Clappison: Would you see it as part of your work not just to look at whether the aid is going where it is supposed to be going and whether it is being delivered on the ground but whether or not it should be delivered in that particular place at all, whether it’s going to something which is genuinely seen as aid, or comparatively seen as aid?

Graham Ward: I would certainly look at the way in which the projects were selected. I’m hesitating slightly because I’m not certain where, if you like, the cut-off point between Government policy to support particular types of things and the implementation of the policy would be. As I understand it, the role of the commission is not to question Government policy but to examine the way in which the policy is implemented.

Q47 Mr Clappison: We visited Brussels and we were told that quite a lot of the money that is being spent by the EU is being classified as aid, but is actually going on other objectives of the European Union, such as spending on its neighbourhood policy, for example in countries such as Turkey or even EU candidate countries such as Croatia. Would you see it as part of your remit to say, "This money is being spent on, say, roads in Croatia or bridges in Turkey, but should it really be being spent that way?"

Graham Ward: I think if we are giving money to be used for aid as defined in a particular way, then I think it would be part of our role to satisfy ourselves that it was being so spent.

Q48 Mr Clappison: May I take you back to the point that Mr Lefroy was asking you about? Looking at the way in which money is being spent by governments through government budget support, would you see it as part of your role to bring to light anything that you found that was amiss? What would your reaction be if you found that money wasn’t being delivered in the way it should have been by government?

Graham Ward: Then I think it must be brought to light. It can’t be the role of an independent commission to hide the facts.

Q49 Mr Clappison: You’d have no hesitation about bringing that to light if you found that to be the case?

Graham Ward: No. It has to be done. It has to be shared with this Committee and it has to shared with the Secretary of State or other relevant ministers.

Q50 Mr Clappison: Finally, taking it forward, how will you ensure that DFID takes into account the evaluations that you’ve made and learns the lessons from what you’ve done? Will you be looking at that?

Graham Ward: Oh yes, definitely. I would first of all want to make sure that our own recommendations were very clear. I would look to have a prompt response from the Department in terms of the recommendations as to whether they were accepted or not, and I would clearly have discussions if they felt they didn’t want to accept them. I would be looking for a timetable for the implementation of recommendations, and I would be looking to know who within the Department was going to be responsible for the implementation of those recommendations. After a suitable interval, depending on the nature of the recommendation, part of the Commission’s work programme would be to go in and see whether the implementation had taken place as promised. So absolutely, yes.

Q51 Richard Burden: I’d just like to press you a little more. It is a really difficult question, but you’ve talked about the boundary between the fact that you are not evaluating Government policy, you are evaluating the impact, effectiveness and implementation of that policy. Where do you think those boundaries are? Let me just give you an example. It’s something that came to me yesterday. It’s an area interest I’ve got and I’m not asking you to comment on the particular issues, but just if you like, the dilemma of what’s policy and what isn’t. I’ve got a particular interest in the Middle East and a set of people came to see me yesterday who were looking at the question of Palestinian children and the situation that they have to live in. Essentially. the thesis of this report that has been presented round the place was that actually what a number of international institutions are doing, including to some extent what DFID is doing, is a sticking plaster job that doesn’t really change anything. Arguably, in terms of effectiveness it sets things back the other way. What is needed, this report says, is something that is much, much clearer to say that these kids’ rights are just being undermined, and that needs to be said loudly if we are going to be effective in protecting their rights. Now, I’m not asking you to comment on whether you agree with that or whether you don’t agree with that because that would be inappropriate but I’m not sure whether comment on that would be evaluation of effectiveness-saying it’s a sticking plaster job-or whether it’s questioning the policy. What do you think?

Graham Ward: To be frank, at the moment I don’t know because I haven’t got the practical experience of making those judgments. What I do plan to do at an early stage is to have a good discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General, who I think has to make these sort of judgments, and to help myself by learning from his experience. That would be a good starting point in this, but I can see that it’s going to be very difficult. The choice as to whether to go for what we might call long-term aid on the one hand or humanitarian relief on the other is clearly quite a difficult choice. Perhaps a combination of those factors may be necessary in particular states, especially fragile states. Sorry, I don’t see a magic bullet in terms of that.

Q52 Richard Burden: It would be lovely if there was one.

Graham Ward: It would.

Q53 Mr Brown: My colleague Jeremy indicated that the decision by the coalition Government to actually maintain DFID’s budget has caused some consternation. If you’ve seen the Daily Express in recent days, you will have seen that they’ve quite clearly pinned their colours to the mast as to what they believe should be happening. May I ask you a couple of questions? Obviously, the very naming of the Commission brings that degree of independence. Back in 2006, a Private Member’s Bill was passed which was called the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act. Apart from the independence, what do you think the Commission can bring that’s additional to that piece of legislation, which brings the workings of the Department out into the open?

Graham Ward: As I understand it, the Department has got a transparency initiative that it plans to roll from 1 January next year. The commission would publish its work plans and publish its reports directly to its website without getting them cleared in any sense by the Department, so there would be a particular strand of transparency that comes through from that. I think the way to get good public focus is to make sure that the Department sticks by its commitments and that the commission sticks by its commitments in terms of open publication of what they’re doing.

Q54 Mr Brown: How will you manage the performance of the consortium that is undertaking the evaluations? Do you have powers? What powers do you have if the performance is inadequate?

Graham Ward: We would examine the way in which the consortium carried out its work. The commission will have a role to quality assure the work that’s being done by the consortium. Of course, the consortium hasn’t yet been appointed and we do not have a contract yet, but we would need to make sure that the contract was drawn up in such a way that, if the consortium wasn’t performing as we believed it should be, after first of all trying to get them to perform better, if remedial action didn’t work then we’d have to replace them. We need to make sure the contract is drawn up in such a way as to enable that to happen.

Q55 Chair: The mechanism that has been set up is a triangular one, in the sense that you’re appointed by the Secretary of State but he wants you to effectively report to Parliament through this Committee. Specifically, he stated that the Chief Commissioner should act on the recommendation of the International Development Committee when developing the work programme; that this Committee would call the Chief Commissioner to give evidence on performance once or twice a year; and that the Chief Commissioner would send this Committee all the reports immediately prior to their publication and that we can determine whether or not we wish to take evidence on the reports that you produce. That’s quite a structure. I would be frank with you to say that this Committee prides itself on the fact that it’s part of our job to evaluate the work of the Department and hold it to account. Indeed, that is what we’re set up by Parliament to do. Clearly, we would want the relationship to add value to what we do and vice versa, but how would you envisage that working? In particular, to what extent do you think that the discussion of the work programme would ensure that what we did was complementary rather than duplicating or competitive?

Graham Ward: I think your last comment, Chairman, is the key to the question in terms of sharing our work programmes with each other. I would hope to have the opportunity to meet with you informally as well as the formal meetings of your Committee, in order to make sure that each of us was fully in the picture of what the other was doing and that we could reinforce each other’s actions and make sure that the programmes dovetailed together. I think it’s a question of openness and freedom of communication between the two of us, which is very important.

Q56 Chair: The issue for us is that if you’re producing 10, 12, or however many reports a year, the Committee would not wish to be effectively hijacked in as much as we could spend all our time evaluating your evaluations, which wouldn’t seem to be a very good use of resource. At the same time, we might want to follow one or two of them up in more detail, or we might wish to ask you to undertake a report where we have come up with something which we feel we don’t have the capacity, the resources or the right approach to deal with. Is that something that you’ve thought through as to how that dynamic would work?

Graham Ward: I certainly welcome the sort of guidance that you’re talking about where you’ve identified an issue that needs following through, so that we can get that built into our work programme. The extent to which I’ve thought it through is just the importance of us keeping each other in touch from the very earliest of stages as to what we each plan to do, and that will enable us to avoid duplication.

Q57 Chair: Regarding the actual process of your reports being prepared and published, if you are an independent body can I assume you will prepare and publish them without reference-as you are an independent body I don’t see why you should have any reference-either to the Secretary of State or to us? Or will the Secretary of State have any kind of editorial input or sight? That is important, I would argue.

Graham Ward: I’m certainly not planning for the Secretary of State to have editorial input and from my discussion with him, Chairman, neither is he.

Q58 Chair: So we would see the reports, as produced by you, simultaneously with the Secretary of State? That would be your intention?

Graham Ward: Yes it would.

Q59 Chair: When we were having an informal briefing a couple of weeks ago, it was put to us that at some point in the past USAID had set up some kind of independent evaluation process. It was also put to us that it had led to a huge upsurge of bureaucracy; in other words, responding to the evaluation became almost a distraction from actually delivering aid. Now of course, you can argue that people in the Department would say that, wouldn’t they? To what extent do you feel that you would be able to approach this in a way that is challenging, clearly, to people working within the Department, but at the same time does not undermine their ability to deliver?

Graham Ward: I think the recommendations that we make in our reports should focus on the things that are important. I don’t believe that the merit of the report should be judged by the number of recommendations and I don’t think we should get too involved in micro issues. At the end of the day, the plan is to enable the Department to learn from these reports, to reinforce and learn from its successes as well as being able to learn from any shortcomings that are identified. We have to be careful in terms of balancing the content of our report to make sure that we don’t overburden. The Department has to be well organised in terms of responding to them, but I agree with the point. We shouldn’t be impeding the efficient delivery of international aid by building up a large bureaucracy here in London.

Q60 Chair: You are an accountant. We have a Public Accounts Committee that does investigate aspects of DFID’s programmes from time to time, so how will your approach be different from the PAC approach? Is it just a question of doing the same sort of thing as the PAC, but doing it more often in more detail or will the approach be different?

Graham Ward: I don’t have the detailed knowledge of what the PAC does to be able to give a full answer to your question. I anticipate that we would be going into issues in a lot of depth. We would be able to be wider ranging because of the additional resource we have and the number of reports that we would be issuing. Understanding what the PAC programme is and what work is being done by the NAO in terms of its investigations into the Department is important as it’s having these open working relationships with other people that I think is the key to it. I’ve already agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General that should my appointment be confirmed, he and I would be exchanging work programmes and making sure that there was complementarity and not overlap in respect of what we did on the Department.

Q61 Jeremy Lefroy: Very briefly, it’s quite possible that some of your reports may end up with foreign relations/foreign policy implications. I can think of a recent one done by the United Nations on Rwanda which caused a great stir. If, for instance, an investigation into direct budgetary support produced evidence of large-scale corruption, that might have far reaching implications for relations with that particular country. How would you handle that?

Graham Ward: Corruption in this whole area is going to be one of the big challenges that we face. There are of course protocols and processes in terms of informing the police and other agencies in respect of corruption. First of all, I’d need to fully understand that landscape and what the proper process is in relation to those things. In the United Kingdom, for example, one wouldn’t publish necessarily straight off information about corrupt practices. In the United Kingdom, there’s a requirement to inform the National Criminal Intelligence Service of what has been found out, and not to tip off the alleged or potential perpetrators of the crime in advance. This is an area where first of all I’d have to become familiar with the law and the international protocols and practice. Yes, there is potential embarrassment in relation to these things and we would have to address that at the time. I’m sorry, I’m running out of magic bullets but I haven’t got a magic bullet for it. I would be determined that, once we identified it, this Committee and the Secretary of State would be aware of the issues and we would be able to decide whether to continue in that particular country or not. Yes, it is sensitive.

Q62 Chair: This is slightly tangential to that, but there has been quite a lot controversy over CDC, possibly stirred up from one particular source. The Government in any case is proposing to review, fairly radically, the operation of the CDC. Clearly, it’s a quite proper role for you to evaluate, but would you regard that as something you would do on an early basis or something you would want to just fit into the programme? Bearing in mind, the Committee have already agreed that we are going to do a report on CDC fairly early on.

Graham Ward: I think that given that you’re going to do a report and given that I know that the Department is going through a process of new plans of how CDC will operate, which I understand is likely to be issued around March, I think I would want to see what you were planning to do, Chairman. I’d want to see what the new plans were and then to decide what the timing was. We’ve got to look at the materiality of the sums involved here as well.

Q63 Chair: When would you expect your first programme of work to be in place for us to see? You’ve indicated that you and I will have an informal discussion, but you have a fairly short time horizon to get started really, so when would you envisage actually setting out a programme and starting?

Graham Ward: We have. I’d be looking to get a draft programme out for consultation certainly no later than the end of the first quarter of next year. As I understand it, the plan is that the shadow commission runs through until about June next year and then, if the necessary approvals are obtained, a formal permanent commission is formed at that stage. I’d be looking to get formal plans published for public consultation by no later than the end of the first quarter of next year, the plan being that we could be up and running and ready to go in terms of implementing that plan from the time the permanent commission is approved.

Q64 Chair: On my mechanical point about delivering your reports 10 or 12 times a year, do you see them being published in a public format as we discussed-simultaneously with the Department and this Committee-or launched by press conference? Just how do you think the media delivery would be? As I say, it could be contentious. Or do you publish them and wait and see what the reaction is?

Graham Ward: I think we publish them and we plan for communications around the publication of the report. So, you would get it first, the Secretary of State would get it, it would go up on the public website and we would plan to have something that was a discussion, such as a press conference, probably later on that day.

Chair: I think my colleagues have asked all the questions they wanted to. Thank you very much for coming in. As a Committee, we have to confirm your appointment, and we need to discuss that. We will do that as promptly as possible. I don’t want to delay things. To enable us to do that, I would be grateful if we could clear the room and go into private session.