2 The Triennial Review of ICAI
8. NDPBs are subject to review every three years
in line with Cabinet Office (CO) guidelines.[5]
The CO carried out a Triennial
Review of ICAI last year, published on 17 December 2013. It had
three implications of relevance to us. The first was that ICAI
should focus on "in-depth thematic reviews addressing wider
development issues", alongside retaining the ability to produce
"shorter reports on topics of particular interest to stakeholders"—the
narrower, 'snapshot' reports produced by ICAI thus far.[6]
The second was that our Committee should be given a formal
role in signing off ICAI's annual workplan and any significant
changes to the workplan. The third was that members of our Committee
should be invited to be represented on the selection panel for
future Commissioners.[7]
We welcome the recommendations
made in the Cabinet Office's Triennial Review of ICAI. We are
pleased to see that ICAI has already undertaken two broader, thematic
inquiries ('How DFID Learns', and 'DFID's Private Sector Development
work'), and that a number are included in the Year 4 workplan.
However, it is important to keep IDC and ICAI
work distinct. ICAI's memorandum of understanding with DFID prevents
it from trespassing into policy areas, and whilst we currently
have no cause for concern, we will ensure that ICAI keeps to its
MOU when pursuing its new, more wide-ranging inquiries.
9. Following the Triennial Review, our sub-Committee
Chair has participated on the selection panel for ICAI's future
Chief Commissioner. We will hold a pre-appointment hearing for
the Secretary of State's preferred candidate for Chief Commissioner
in the autumn. We will continue to develop our formal role in
signing off ICAI's workplan.
INNOVATIONS FOLLOWING THE REVIEW
10. This year, our sub-Committee has begun taking
formal evidence on each ICAI report shortly after it is published,
as opposed to the informal meetings we have held previously. ICAI
has appointed a contractor to carry out work on its behalf. The
current contractor consortium (until May 2015) is led by KPMG
in partnership with Agulhas Applied Knowledge, the Centre of Evaluation
for Global Action (CEGA) and the Swedish Institute for Public
Administration (SIPU). We have taken evidence from the relevant
ICAI Commissioner and a representative from the contractor consortium
each time, as well as relevant DFID officials who have answered
questions about the implications for their work arising from the
ICAI report in question.
11. We have ensured that our respective inquiries
avoid duplication, and indeed are complementary where possible.
We have reinforced each other's work in a number of areas. ICAI's
evaluation of health programmes in Burma provided a useful basis
for our inquiry into DFID's work in Burma. We have also drawn
upon a number of other ICAI evaluations in our work, notably its
study of DFID's Health Programmes in Burma in our Burma
inquiry; DFID's support for Palestinian refugees through the
UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in our Middle East inquiry;
and its evaluation of DFID's Contribution to the Reduction
of Child Mortality in Kenya in our health systems inquiry.
12. Our new practice of taking formal evidence—as
opposed to simply holding an informal meeting—for each ICAI
report as it is published is working well. The process has helped
strengthen the collaboration between us and the Commission; and
it has enhanced our scrutiny of DFID. We plan to continue with
the model over Year 4 of ICAI's operations. We have found it
useful when ICAI has submitted evidence to our own inquiries,
and request that ICAI does this whenever it can.
5 Cabinet Office, Triennial Review of ICAI, December
2013 Back
6
Written Ministerial Statement, 17 December 2013 Back
7
Cabinet Office, Triennial Review of ICAI, recommendations 15 and
16 Back
| 
