Development and Co-operation
Results Framework
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Campbell, Mr Gregory (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Cunningham, Sir Tony (Workington) (Lab)
† Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Heath, Mr David (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
† Hilling, Julie (Bolton West) (Lab)
† Phillips, Stephen (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
† Shuker, Gavin (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
† Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)
† Swayne, Mr Desmond (Minister of State, Department for International Development)
† Watson, Mr Tom (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Eliot Wilson, Clementine Brown, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
European Committee B
Thursday 6 November 2014
[Miss Anne McIntosh in the Chair]
Development and Co-operation Results Framework
11.30 am
The Chair: Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the relevant documents to this Committee?
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Miss McIntosh. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain some of the background to the document before us and why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended the debate.
The Commission says that its planned results framework will track results aggregated from EU-funded development and co-operation projects and programmes, and that it will have two main purposes: first, as an accountability tool to communicate results to stakeholders; and, secondly, as a management tool to provide performance data to inform management decisions, thus ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently. The Commission begins its working paper by quoting three world-renowned economists:
“In an increasingly performance-oriented society, metrics matter. What we measure affects what we do. If we have the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things.”
Back in April, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), seemed to agree, saying:
“Better, timelier results data is vital if we are to secure good value for money in our development programmes and demonstrate this to UK taxpayers. This is something the UK has been consistently calling for since DFID’s Multilateral Aid Review…was first published in 2011.”
She pointed out that the proposal was not something new and that, on the contrary, it would do no more than bring the EU in line with other multilateral and bilateral development actors, including her own Department. She also pointed out that the costs of implementing a results framework would be
“more than offset in the long run by increased value for money from Commission aid programmes.”
However, all she had to say then was that she and her officials would
“continue to look for opportunities to influence the design of the framework”
“to press that the Commission delivers against its proposed timetable for finalising the framework and rolling it out.”
The European Scrutiny Committee recognised that the then Minister’s endeavours were perhaps made more difficult by those member states that seemed to be grateful for small mercies. However, it also noted that the UK is in a different position, as it is contributing nearly 15% of
some €31 billion of projected EU development assistance expenditure in this financial perspective. The Committee saw no real sign of, as the Minister put it,“the Commission’s drive to implement a results framework”.
On the contrary, the Commission appeared to set out working at its own pace, arguing that having “over 100 delegations” made devising and running a system that would demonstrate whether EU taxpayers’ money was being spent effectively all too difficult, rather than the key priority that we believed it should be. The Minister appeared to regard commitments to “look again” at annual reporting and
“further examine the option of setting targets for indicators”
Systems for data collection and measurement at both delegation and headquarters level would no doubt need to be improved, but other development actors, including DFID, had already achieved that. Without a real drive both by delegations in the field and by headquarters in Brussels, of which we could see no evidence, the Committee queried whether the Commission’s proposed results framework would amount to more than window-dressing and whether UK taxpayers would be any the wiser as to whether EU development programmes were indeed good value for money. It therefore recommended that these issues be further examined and debated after the 19 May Foreign Affairs Council meeting on development, and thus with the benefit of the Council conclusions.
If we fast-forward to last month, the then Minister, commenting on the 2013 report on EU development and external assistance policies and their implementation, said about the customary wide-ranging narrative:
“Until a fully functioning results monitoring and reporting system is set up, the Commission will not be able to measure the impact of the aid programme. Work is well underway to design a results system and it will be piloted during 2015. It will be important that future annual reports capture results to give a much clearer sense of impact achieved.”
Perhaps a real impetus has been given to this long-overdue work in the intervening seven months. As well as addressing the issues arising, can the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, perhaps explain why it has taken those seven months to arrange this debate, notwithstanding the European Scrutiny Committee’s clear intention that these matters should be debated very soon after the May Council.
The Chair: I call the Minister to make an opening statement.
11.34 am
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne): When the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) resigned, my suspicion was that that would be of little consequence to anyone. I had no idea that it would proceed to land me in front of this Committee for my first appearance in some 17 years.
On my hon. and learned Friend’s stricture about the tardiness of holding our proceedings, my conscience is clear, as I discovered about this sitting only yesterday, or perhaps the day before—I have lost all track of time—but I will inquire as to why it is has taken so long. I understand that these proceedings are secret and that I can therefore say whatever I like with impunity, notwithstanding—[ Interruption. ].
The Chair: Order. The meeting is a matter of record. Indeed, it is being broadcast as we speak.
Mr Swayne: I was going to say: notwithstanding the fact that I am sitting next to the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. However, it is too late to change track now, so I will proceed as planned by quoting the former Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, who said in 2000—this was cited during the sitting of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Public Bill Committee on 4 November—
“Anyone who knows anything about development knows that the EU is the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the least poverty focused, the slowest, flinging money around for political gestures rather than promoting real development”.
I am tempted to say that my conscience is clear, as I voted no in 1975, so I can hardly be blamed, but I shall be fair and proportionate.
Since 2000, there have been significant changes. The EU has been on a path that has taken it to a position of respect among development organisations in the council of the world. It is a major player that has a useful effect. I have certainly prayed it in aid on several occasions, not least yesterday at DFID questions in the Chamber. When colleagues ask for programmes in particular countries that simply do not meet our criteria for overseas development aid, such as some of those in the middle east after the Arab spring, even though they have important priorities that need to be attended to, I can say, “Although we don’t have a country programme in that respect, the EU is spending significant sums there.”
In our own multilateral aid review in 2010, the European Union scored highly in terms of its anti-fraud and corruption and audit functions. We had reservations about its agenda, in that it did not give gender issues—women and girls—the same priority as we do, and we had significant reservations about its results, which are the focus of today’s proceedings. Let us be clear: in the past, the EU measured its impact not by results at all, but by inputs. The amount spent on a programme was a measure of what it was doing and of its success. As we have discussed during our consideration of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which deals with the 0.7% aid target, when one ticks a box and meets a target, there is always a danger of thinking, “We’ve done it.” We must be alive to that concern.
The agenda is evidence that the European Union is changing, however. It is a major step in the right direction, and we have a big opportunity, given our influence in the Council, because we stump up 15% of the costs, as my hon. and learned Friend said. We are relatively confident that the new framework will effectively mirror that which we have implemented here, which we believe is the DFID gold standard.
We have a number of reservations, which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to. When there is such a step in the right direction, there is always a temptation to believe that things are on a roll and therefore going for broke, but our experience of the European Union is that progress will be incremental, and going for the absolute gold standard in one jump would tax that institution beyond its endurance.
The Chair: We now have until 12.30 pm for questions to the Minister which, I remind Members, should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss McIntosh.
Obviously we welcome the Government’s commitments in this area, but I wish to ask a few questions about the implementation of the report. The Minister will be fully up to speed with the Busan high-level forum, which is the standardised framework for global reporting. The report highlights the importance of developing countries taking the lead in the elaboration of their frameworks, including indicators and targets, but omits to detail how that would be achieved in a standardised global framework of results. Will the Minister explain how developing nations are expected to take a lead on this work, and how the EU stepping in and laying out its framework will be married with the Busan high-level forum?
Mr Swayne: As we understand it, there will be high-level goals in the same way that we have eight high-level goals linked to the millennium development goals, underneath which we have 26 targets. We do not know how many targets there will be under the framework. We have been pushing for a manageable set, as with the 26, and our expectation is that things will come through in that ballpark.
With respect to the countries where the programme works, there is a difficulty, which was alluded to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in his opening statement. In the UK, we have 27 country relationships, so it is possible to have a reasonable dialogue with those countries about what they perceive to be the most important things to pursue. I have been involved in that with our recent commitment to programmes in Lebanon and Jordan. With 100 “delegations”, as they are called, that becomes a much more difficult process. The hon. Member for Luton South expressed confidence that I would know exactly how that was to be done, but I am afraid that I have to disabuse him: I am not entirely sure how account will be taken of the influence of the countries being assisted, other than through consultation among the 100 delegations involved.
Gavin Shuker: In the document and the structure envisaged for the EU development and co-operation results framework, there are four different levels. I am confident that the Minister is aware of those, particularly level 1 and level 2, which are “Development progress” and “Outputs and Outcomes”. Level 1 includes long-term, internationally agreed development outcomes that will require the collective action of partner countries with support from donors. At level 2 are development outputs that can be more directly linked to the donors’ assistance, examples of which would be the number of people with access to a basic package of health, the number of children vaccinated and the number of kilometres of road built or upgraded. My question is about the relationship between levels 1 and 2. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the transition between those two levels does not mean that a focus on outcomes is lost? It would be understandable if a results framework focused on broader outcomes, rather than the specifics.
Mr Swayne: It is precisely in that field that our influence has been deployed. We are determined that through the chain, as with DFID, we can see how a project is performing and what it is delivering, so it is essential, as the hon. Gentleman points out, that there should be a clear relationship between the high-level goal and the measured metrics below. That has been our focus. I cannot speak for the outcome, because I have not seen it yet—as I said, we do not know—but we hope that we will end up with 26 measurable targets, rather than a plethora of things that become confused and difficult to follow.
Gavin Shuker: What is the Minister’s view of data disaggregation? Data and the ability to measure outcomes are hugely influential in development policy, and I note that the report includes a commitment
“to get to a relevant level of sex disaggregation for indicators where this is relevant”,
which is a convoluted pledge. If we are truly to tackle inequality, we need to go beyond only sex or gender disaggregation and measure, for example, race, caste, class, disability and income. What measures will DFID take in the adoption of the framework to push for greater levels of disaggregation, an area in which it historically has been quite good?
Mr Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Getting gender on the agenda has been a particular achievement, because in the past it was not one of the principal focuses of EU aid. I am glad about that, as effects on women and girls is one of our top priorities.
We are, in effect, in the process of disaggregating with respect to disability. Only a couple of weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green attended a conference to drive forward data requirements across the development world so that we can get that disaggregation. One of our priorities is to drive that forward in the EU, and we want it to be one of the EU’s priorities, but it is not delivered yet. As I say, we have not seen what the metrics will be, but we are pushing.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, we will proceed to debate the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 17709/13, a Commission Staff Working Document: Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework; and welcomes the document as an important step towards putting in place a results framework which will help drive improvements in the impact of the European Commission’s development programmes by reporting results achieved and providing performance information for the Commission and others to act on.—(Mr Swayne.)
11.48 am
Gavin Shuker: The Opposition welcome the progress that has been made in recent months on a common results framework for the EU. It is worth noting for those who have an interest in the area that the aim is not a standard framework for each member state, but simply a way of measuring more effectively how EU development aid and assistance is being spent.
In the future, much of what we do will be achieved through multilateral institutions such as the EU. The “UK aid” brand is taking root, and it is notable in regions of the world to which the Minister and I have the joyous pleasure of being able to travel. In many of those places, there is also a clear focus for the many inhabitants on EU aid and assistance—its logos are everywhere—and although we are a major donor to that programme, the British people sometimes do not get the credit that we should for the money that is spent.
We need to be positive, engaged and pro-internationalist in our approach—to be present at the table. DFID has been good in that area by trying to move the framework forward, and the Minister mentioned some of the difficulties of taking other member states with us.
I was pleased to hear that there is greater action on data disaggregation, and I hope that that will be a starting point, not a finishing point. If we are to achieve the outcomes the Department has talked about and to leave no one behind in the post-2015 sustainable development framework, we will need to go further and understand groups that are much harder to reach.
I remain concerned that the document reflects a disconnect between the different levels, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how actively we are seeking to engage in shaping the framework, rather than just allowing it to go ahead, as, in many other areas, we withdraw from action at EU level. A recent International Development Committee report examining UK aid projects in Sierra Leone found that there was evidence of a disconnect between the in-country DFID office and multilateral donor-led activities. I would therefore like the Minister to reflect on how we can more deeply ally DFID’s work in country with the EU aid we support and fund.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue of attribution against contribution is also critical? If we have disconnected schemes, and we claim, without any direct attribution, that an outcome is the result of one of them, there is a danger of completely misinterpreting the results and claiming outcomes that are, in fact, nothing to do with certain inputs, which may be considerable.
Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman makes the case much more articulately than I do. In terms of the disconnect between the different levels, the outcome for an individual nation—the level 1 question—and the outcome from our particular input need to be clearly disaggregated, so that we do not make assumptions that a certain development input will necessarily result in the same effect at country level. It is not just the EU that is spending in many of these nations, but DFID and other agencies. The framework is therefore a major step in the right direction and allows us, perhaps for the first time, to work out which interventions are most effective in regions where a number of donor countries are working at the same time.
Mr Heath: I am sorry to delay the hon. Gentleman again, but as we pursue the prosperity agenda and look to invest in developing countries so that they can develop their own prosperity, the issue is further clouded by the contribution made by commercial activity in country.
Disentangling those different strands will become increasingly difficult, which is why it is important for the tools that are available to work well.Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that brings us to the broader issue of how we in the UK maintain a focus on monitoring progress and outcomes from our own development assistance. I note that we live in slightly different times from those in 2000, which the Minister cited earlier. It is incumbent on us to make the positive case for aid and development—not just spending, but actually changing those institutions that reinforce inequality. If we are to do that, we need decent data on what we are spending not just here, but overseas.
We fully welcome the EU’s approach, and we are encouraged by DFID’s intervention to try to shape the framework, but a further piece of work needs to be done. We need to make a positive case for how we invest at an EU level. The Minister’s multilateral aid review pointed to the fact that EU aid is, by and large, a pretty effective way for DFID to spend its money, certainly in regions where we do not have major in-country offices. I detect a reticence to talk about the issue—obviously, it is at a European level—but we should be proud of the fact that we are a major donor to this programme. We should be able clearly to show the results that the UK and other countries get from it, and today’s documents are a step in the right direction.
11.54 am
Mr Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the positive way in which he has addressed the issue. I entirely endorse and agree with everything he said. I always question proposals when they are put to me, and my personal preference is that we should have discrete projects that are badged, “UK aid from the British people”. I want to see that sign wherever I go. I want us to be confident that we have done this for precisely the larger agenda to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. We have to persuade a sometimes sceptical public that this money is worth spending overseas and that development aid is justified. That logo is part of the attempt to market what I think is essential and in our national interest.
Although I am always reluctant, clearly we have to invest in multilateral programmes. We are not going to cure malaria on our own. We have to make these
commitments, so it is important that we are vigilant about results and how every pound is spent with respect to our own country’s expenditure, because we have a duty, by extension, to the British taxpayer when we deal with multilaterals. What we are considering today is part of that agenda.I have two principal reservations about what is proposed, one of which has been drawn to our attention. In my view, the EU still has a mindset of saying, “We have contributed to this project, so its results are measurable results that we have achieved.” The fact is that if DFID is contributing 10% to a multilateral project, when measuring our results, we will claim only 10% of that project’s outputs, whereas the EU will claim them all, which is not an effective way of measuring outcomes. We need to work steadily to ensure that the EU measures things properly. We are not going to get there in one bound, but we will do so.
The other thing that is remiss is that while the EU views a project’s output at its end, not nearly enough management information is generated. As a Minister, I constantly grill the country teams for which I am responsible about how projects are going. It is like being a project manager, as sometimes the plug has to be pulled on a project if it is not performing, or radical action must be taken to ensure that it does perform. If management information is not obtained, money will undoubtedly be wasted, so we have to push forward that agenda.
I recognise the point about Sierra Leone, as I do encounter such difficulty now and again. When I ask, “So, how much are we spending in country x?” the answer is often, “Well, our best estimate, Minister, is y”. That is a best estimate because, although we know what we have spent and what we have contributed to the multilateral organisation—we have a website that can tell people everything that has been spent, down to £500—the EU is not able to account for spending in the way that we do, but we need that information.
This is an important agenda. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: we are alive to these concerns. We attend all the meetings and, because of the quality of our aid and of what we have done at DFID, we have the authority to speak and persuade on such issues, which remains our objective.