Welcome to this International Development Committee evidence session. Today we will hear from Jillian Popkins, the Government’s preferred candidate for chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Jillian, can we begin by asking you to briefly introduce yourself and set out your professional background?

Thank you. First of all, let me say what a privilege it is to have been nominated, to be here and to have got this far in the process. I know the IDC to be a very expert and experienced Committee on international development, so I am looking forward to the conversation. I believe you have all seen my CV, so I will not rehearse the detail of that, but perhaps just say that the golden thread or the focus of all my work, whether it has been overseas or in the UK, in policy or programmes, in the international NGO sector with Governments or in partnerships, has been poverty and using human rights-based approaches in a practical way to reach the poorest people and to ensure that their rights are upheld to advance social justice. That has been the driving motivation of my work for three decades. Through doing that, I have seen first hand the absolute importance of learning and evidence, because it is a difficult and complex thing that we do in development, and there is always more to learn and more that can be achieved through learning, so that has also been a motivation for me. That is more important than ever at a point when we are so off track to meeting the SDGs, where there are so many barriers to the acceleration of progress towards the SDGs and where, in the global and the UK context, there is such fiscal pressure and declining public support for the very important work of aid. I am very pleased to have been nominated and would hope to really bring the breadth and depth of my experience to advance the scrutiny and aid impact agenda.

Jillian, thank you for being here. If you are appointed as chief commissioner, what will your priorities for the Independent Commission for Aid Impact be, in both the short and long term?

My overarching priority will be to set the fourth commission up for success. The first thing, therefore, would be to define exactly what success would look like over the four-year period. I would want to co-create that vision with yourselves as the IDC, and also with my fellow commissioners, the secretariat and the FCDO as the sponsoring Department. The context for our work has changed, so it is important to be really clear about what additional value ICAI is adding to the scrutiny ecosystem. That would be my overarching priority. There is a short-term imperative that lays the foundations, which is to determine a work plan to minimise the gap in scrutiny that has arisen between the two commissions and to build a pipeline of well-focused thematic reviews that can support the Committee in its inquiries and rebuild momentum for building evidence of aid impact and learning as we move forward. That would be a priority. The next foundational priority would be building the relationships. ICAI does its work in the context of different relationships, and so being visible and understanding how we add value, where we complement, rather than replicate, and where we collaborate would also be an important priority to launch, as it were. A fourth priority would be to look at operations and make sure that we, as ICAI, were getting the best possible outcomes and impact from the resources and leverage that we have at our disposal.

What thematic or geographical areas of UK ODA spending do you see as priorities for scrutiny, and why?

Goodness—there is a lot of competition. There would need to be some clear criteria for deciding where we focus in terms of geographies. One of those would be materiality—how much UK assistance is going to different parts of the world. Afghanistan will remain very important in that regard, because it is still a very large programme. We would also want to look at those geographies that are affected by prolonged crises, so that points to Sudan, Syria, again, and Gaza, where humanitarian assistance is very important. Those would be two criteria that would be used, and two sets of geographies that would be related.

Jillian, thank you for being with us and answering our questions today. Given the delays in the recruitment process, having a handover with the previous chief commissioner is not going to be possible, and it is going to be essential to hit the ground running. I am sure that you have lots of experience in this from previous roles, but what will you do specifically to make sure that you can offset against not having a handover and really get down to the job as quickly as possible?

In a sense, as you say, it is a disadvantage not to have had a handover, but it is very clear to me that the secretariat and my fellow commissioners have not been sitting waiting for a chief commissioner to arrive. There has been a lot of foundational work that has been done, and so, in that sense, the ground has been set for me to hit the ground running, should I be confirmed. When I look at the situation—and having worked, as I have recently, as a consultant—it is very important to look at what is urgent and important, and at what only the chief commissioner can do that needs to be an immediate focus in terms of getting business moving, and then to have a more structured plan around what the other things are that need to be in place to think about the fourth commission as a four-year phase. It would be a twin-track approach, where I would have some structure around that. The reason for doing that is to guard against information overload and feeling that I was being pulled in too many different directions, and to take a strategic overview right from the get-go. I seek feedback and I would ask questions and be curious about how things are done, try to use consultation to make sure that I was focused, and invite feedback if I needed to course-correct along that way.

What do you see as the biggest risk currently facing ICAI, and how will you manage it?

When I have thought about risks, I have thought about three buckets. I will start with one that is not the biggest one, but just to give you a sense of how I am thinking about that. In terms of existential risks, I do not see any immediate crisis on the horizon. The International Development Act 2002 states that there is a responsibility to evaluate independently the aid programme, so ICAI is secure. There is an immediate risk in terms of sequencing the various things that are being established in the scrutiny architecture, and so, in developing a work plan, I would want to make sure that that was agile enough to take into account the fact that the Government are setting their priorities, with the three reviews that they have commissioned, and that things might change, given that we would, of course, want to be very strategically aligned with Government priorities and to evaluate and review those things that the Government have said they will do and will contribute to. It is more of a challenge than a risk in terms of how you make sure that you have a clear, long-term set of objectives, but with agility and flexibility within that, given that other things are changing. That would include, of course, your own programme for inquiries and the public consultation that is helping to set those for the IDC at the moment. That would be the strategic bucket of risks. The third bucket of risks is operational. Again, I do not see that as acute, but I would want to get to grips particularly with making sure that we are not limited by heavy transaction costs. I would want to understand how we are working effectively and efficiently with the FCDO as the sponsoring Department, so that, as commissioners, as we commit to what ICAI will do, we are in a good position to deliver and overdeliver.

In your last point, you touched on the operational side. In the previous commission, ICAI has had some uncertainty around budget and long periods of understaffing. Could you expand a little bit on the steps that you would take to ensure that it does have the resources that it needs going forward?

In an ideal world, we would have a four-year funding commitment in advance, and the planning process would mean that we did not find ourselves in that position. That depends on the FCDO’s planning processes. During the last commission, there were some unusual factors around the merger, where ICAI fell into the crosshairs of some of those systems coming together. That is not to say that I would be complacent about needing to communicate and overcommunicate, and to make sure that we were planning and being patient and realistic, but being persistent and making sure that we had what we needed. As I understand from the conversations that I have had, it has been very important to have had the support of this Committee in unlocking some of those bottlenecks. It is about being anticipatory, based on the learning that we have had so far, not taking anything for granted, keeping on top, as a secretariat, of what needs to happen and when, and taking things up at the right level, when it is needed and when that risk becomes more acute.

In its simplest form, impact is change. It needs to be strategic, it needs to be sustainable and, in the business of international development, it needs to advance those issues that the people who are most affected care about most, in the ways that they say will make the biggest difference to them. For ICAI, defining impact is really doing its job as one piece of a more complex system, so it is putting robust, rigorous, relevant and clearly factual information objectively and independently to the Committee, to Parliament more widely to do its job, and also in the public domain, in order that we can then have an impact on future policy, programmes and practice. For ICAI to show impact, we need to be able to demonstrate that we are valued and that we are contributing to the broader processes of increasing the impact of aid, making sure it reaches the people who it is supposed to reach, and giving assurance to the UK public that the Government are doing it in a way that delivers value for money. I might have missed the second part of your question.

The one that looks at the costs of refugees in the UK is probably a very clear example of where ICAI has, alongside others, put into the public domain something that was not really known and something that needed to be understood. Most of us had not understood that the ODA budget was being used for refugee costs in the UK. It looked at the value for money of that and found that there was more than a little room for improvement. That is a really clear example of ICAI playing its part. That was then complementary to the inquiry that the IDC did, and also further work that the NAO did, so that is one good example. Another example that springs to mind is the work looking at BII in India That was more about follow-up and looking at whether the recommendations had been turned into action. That is another clear indicator of impact—not only that we are putting evidence out there to improve scrutiny, but that scrutiny turns into action, lessons and improvement in the real world.

You are touching on this already, but do you think that ICAI can increase its impact?

Any public body should always be seeking to increase its impact. I have thought about this quite a lot. I have thought about how we would know if ICAI was increasing its impact. There is a theory of change with key performance indicators that are on ICAI’s website. I would want to refresh that, but I can see that, at the moment, impact is measured through the number of reviews done and recommendations made, accepted and followed through. That is very important and a very sensible way to measure impact. I would want to be looking then at whether we could do more of that for less cost in terms of how the business model is arranged, not because there is necessarily a problem that is leaping out of there, but because there is always a duty to try to squeeze more value out of contracted services, for example, and to look at the balance of what can be done in-house and what can be done through contractors to make sure that we are getting the best combination in the business model. That would be one thing that could improve impact. I am sure that we will come on to this, but I would be really keen to think about how we are both collaborating and working in a complementary way with this Committee. Again, it is not something that I see as broken and needing to be fixed, but it is a new context, a new Committee and a new team of commissioners, so that would be a really important opportunity to see where you see the greatest impact from ICAI’s work and how we can make sure that our approach is genuinely enhancing scrutiny and supporting Parliament to do its job.

In your survey response, you also said that ICAI could look at improving the way that it communicates findings. I just wondered if you had any specific ideas around how you might do that.

I am interested in the strategic communications approach, looking at the commission as a four-year commission in terms of what would be different from now as a result of having a fourth commission, building on the legacy of the first three commissions. One thing that we could do is look at how strategic that communications approach has been, by which I mean that there is a very good drumbeat of putting review findings and activities in the public domain, and being very transparent and seeking to engage, but I wonder if there are ways of expanding some of those audiences. I am going to be keen to understand how the secretariat segments its audiences. Just to give you a concrete example, it would be understanding things like whether we are meeting the needs of the APPGs, as well as the International Development Committee, other MPs, and the Lords, of course. It is about looking at this from an audience and user perspective, in terms of whether the kinds of products that we are developing at the moment are meeting the right range of needs, at the right time and in the right way, to expand our impact through that leverage.

I appreciate that, in a lot of your answers today, there is some caution, because, quite rightly, you do not want to pre-empt anything. You also want to work collegiately and bring a lot of people on board, but do you have any personal sense of where you would like to take ICAI in achieving that?

I do. I would have a vision. You are right that that would be something that I would want to co-create, but I would definitely be coming with some ideas. If I were to think four years on, if I am confirmed and if I have been privileged enough to do this role, what would be the things that I would point to that were different and had increased impact? If I could have my wish list, it would be making sure that ICAI’s statutory footing is really firm. Where the International Development Act says that there has to be independent evaluation, I would like to see ICAI’s name in there because we had demonstrated such value that it was an obvious thing that ICAI needed to exist in the future. I would like to see ICAI on a four-year, financially secure footing, because that does just make you more efficient. It means that you can plan, you can be strategic, and you know what resources you have. That means that you can flex much more as well. That would be one area of what I would like to see. I would like to see us being able to collect more evidence of material impact. In practice, how would I do that? That would be looking at different ways of measuring the influence that we have through the reports—I am saying “we”, which is a bit presumptuous, thinking myself into the role. That would be one area. I have already mentioned expanding reach into audiences and getting the feedback, which is really valued for its objectivity, for its independence, and for turning recommendations into action, because, at the end of the day, that is what we are about. It is about being able to do more with the resource that we have, both as ICAI and as the UK in the international development sector. It is so important when one of the biggest challenges is going to be filling the funding gap for the world to do development, and also the political will that is needed to address the extent of the problems that there are.

You are doing a very good job at ignoring all the noise outside and concentrating on us, so I want to congratulate you on that. You have talked a lot about what you would do strategically and the outputs that you want to see. Is there anything about the way that ICAI operates that you would consider changing in your tenure?

It is a good question. I would look at the theory of change and say, “Can we be ambitious?” At the moment, we are reporting to the IDC at an outcome level. I am sure that previous commissioners have also sought to achieve this in different times, but it is a new context now, and so we would like to be able to say, right at the get-go, “Where do we want to be at the end of the four-year commission?” Let us be open and ambitious about that. That might mean that we look at a range of things: “We absolutely offer this, but we are striving to go beyond that offer and really push ourselves to deliver even greater impact.” One of the unintended consequences of being very open about what you are trying to achieve is that you do not want to be seen to fail. I would want to think creatively about how we push ourselves in the system, because we do have to demonstrate value, and there needs to be some material way of showing that. Having really clear metrics for being open about how we are doing, what we are delivering and what changes we are making, and then being creative about what methodologies we might use to gather compelling, engaging evidence on that, would be one area that I have thought about.

ICAI’s independence from Government is central to its existence. If, at any point, you saw that independence being eroded in any way, what would you do to bring it back and also protect it, if you were appointed?

That is one of the first tasks of the chief commissioner. You are right that the independence is there—it is the independent committee—but it is important never to be complacent about that, even though, as we were talking about risk earlier, I do not see it as an immediate risk. The way that you manage that is, “Do, not say”. Maybe I will talk about protecting first and then come back to the question about what I would do if I felt it was being eroded. In terms of protecting it, we report to you, and I would be seeking to be scrutinised and interrogated on the objectivity and the independence of the conduct and the work of the commissioners in leading the reviews. I am very conscious that a loss of independence does not necessarily spring up one day; it can be quite a process of erosion through the way that you are working. Because I have worked in Government, conducted reviews, been subject to reviews and felt the impact of ICAI’s reviews, I am quite attuned. I have been out of Government for a long time, but I have a tacit understanding of where some of those pressures come from that can lead to a dilution of review findings, and so that is something that I am very alive to. The perception of independence is as important as robust independence itself. I can imagine that there might be situations where ICAI’s independence is challenged, publicly or privately. In those cases, it would be the job of the chief commissioner to set the record straight. I would be absolutely clear that, as commissioners, we are across the facts, because the absolute non-negotiable is that we have our facts right. We need to do that for the independence. We need to do that to be shown to be trustworthy for yourselves and other Members of Parliament who would be relying on us in order to stand up and make the case for aid, as well as aid effectiveness and aid impact. Does that answer your question?

It does indeed. Thank you very much.

Can I ask you how you will seek to build and maintain a good working relationship with the FCDO and the other ODA spending Departments?

The first thing is to be really clear that we are complementary parts of the same system, with the same shared objective in terms of understanding particularly what the IDC is seeking to achieve and how we can make sure that we are aligned, but also looking at what FCDO is delivering for Government and ensuring that we are aligned with Government objectives. In terms of building the relationship, I would want to be really clear that we were adding value, not replicating, and that we were supporting those scrutiny processes and not replicating things that happen within FCDO, for example.

People sometimes do not like attention being drawn to things that have not worked out or not been cost-effective, and yet these are the people who you have to have a relationship with, so how do you manage that situation?

You seek to understand that as a reality. Of course, I have been reviewed, and it is not a comfortable process. In terms of thinking about the objectives, it is about making sure that it is very clear that, yes, review is to hold to account, but it is also about learning. You cannot improve and you cannot have the assurance that you are doing what you are supposed to be doing if you do not have the evidence that tells you that you are, and that independent evidence is a valuable thing. There will be pushback, so there will be candid conversations, where it is necessary, to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of why we are doing what we are doing. We then need to listen to understand, but that does not necessarily mean changing the approach or the recommendations. One key respectful strategy is no surprises. Government Departments that are being reviewed would see the reviews and have the opportunity to respond particularly to any factual inaccuracies, so the intention would be that they see the process as fair and that they see us as treating them even-handedly within our mandate.

You have touched on this in parts of other answers, but, overall, how can ICAI best complement the scrutiny of this Committee and its work?

We do different things. ICAI’s reviews tend to be longer and more in-depth. We have resources to do that in that way. We can align the work plans. We would be bringing a long list for the work plan to the IDC for agreement, and making sure that what we were doing had a deeper, rigorous evidence base for the IDC to use. We do not have the teeth as ICAI, so being able to review the evidence and bring Ministers and Government Departments to comment on and discuss the evidence through inquiries is a really important way in which we make sure that recommendations are followed through, taken up and turned into action.

So you will ensure that this Committee is able to sign off ICAI’s first work programme under your leadership in a timely manner?

That would definitely be the intention. We talked earlier about the risk of the transition. There are already a couple of reviews and terms of reference under way to minimise the gap in scrutiny. The public consultation has taken place, which means that there is a long list. My understanding is that the commissioners and the secretariat are ready to start that conversation, and this appointment is a key factor in that.

Jillian, is there anything that you would like to say that we have not otherwise covered in our questions?

They were very fair questions. I have enjoyed the conversation, and thank you. You have given me a good opportunity to help you see what you would get to work with.

I am certainly very positive about your succinctness in terms of us being able to ask questions and you answering them in a succinct manner, so thank you very much for that. Thank you for joining us this afternoon and for putting up with the musical backdrop.