Sections:

• Home
• ABOUT DFID
  • History
  • Mission statement
  • Ministers & organisation
  • Millennium Development Goals
  • How DFID works in the UK
  • Who DFID works with
  • Development activities
  • Performance & expenditure
  • Key achievements
  • Evaluation
  • Diversity & equality
  • Expenditure statistics
• FIGHTING POVERTY
• COUNTRY PROFILES
• NEWSROOM
• PUBLICATIONS
• CASE STUDIES
• PROCUREMENT
• CONSULTATIONS
• POLICY AND RESEARCH
• FUNDING SCHEMES
• RECRUITMENT
• DISCOVERY ZONE
• GET INVOLVED

Management Board | Development Committee | Audit Committee | Human Resources Committee

DFID Management Board

Membership | Terms of Reference | Minutes of Meetings

Minutes of the Management Board Meeting - November 2004

In working towards the delivery of the Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement, the Management Board will aim to:

A. communicate the vision, role, direction and priorities of DFID to staff and other stakeholders;
B. ensure DFID's financial resources and staff are allocated and managed effectively;
C. monitor and improve DFID's performance;
D. protect and enhance DFID’s reputation as a highly effective international development organisation.

Corporate Governance Assessment

1. Richard Calvert introduced the draft Code of Good Practice on Corporate Governance in Central Government, which had been developed by a review led by Andrew Likierman. Departments had been invited to comment on the final consultation draft before it was submitted to the Civil Service Management Board in December for approval.

2. Aside from a small number of requirements which were mandatory from a legislative point of view, the Code was intended to provide good practice guidance only. It focused on five main areas - Parliamentary accountability; the Management Board; skills; non-Executives; and internal controls.

3. The paper raised few issues for DFID, since our practice is largely in line with, or ahead of, best practice around Whitehall. However, there were two issues on the financial side where DFID's current practice risked diverging from the Code. The Board was asked for views on these, and on the potential longer-term issues in relation to corporate governance, set out in the Annex to the Code.

4. In discussion, the Board:

a. noted DFID's comparatively good performance against the guidance;
b. agreed with the recommendations on handling of the two financial issues outlined in Richard's paper. The current arrangements for financial monitoring and quarterly reporting were sufficient for the Board. Likewise, the Board remained unpersuaded of the need for the Finance Director to be a member of the Board. The current arrangement worked well, and ensured a level of accountability of Directors to the Board, and we should aim to retain this;
c. disagreed with some of the proposals for the role of the non-executive Directors, which were probably drawn up with the different requirements of some other Departments and the private sector in mind. However, the Board agreed that remit of non-executive Directors gave them a distinct role and relationship with Ministers. Helen and Bill would meet with Ministers quarterly.

5. In conclusion, the Board:

a. thanked Richard for his clear assessment of the draft Guidance, and asked him feed back to HMT the Board's comments on the draft;
b. agreed two further examples of good practice which DFID could offer up to the review were the opening of Board meetings to observers, which had helped to increase the Board's transparency and was unknown elsewhere in Whitehall. Similarly, allowing all of the executive members of the Board to appear together before the International Development Select Committee's Departmental Report hearing, rather than just the Permanent Secretary, had been welcomed as a good example of how to increase accountability without diminishing the role of the Accounting Officer;
c. agreed that DFID's performance was strong overall, although some work in progress may be required on corporate governance structures - Richard Calvert and the Board Secretary would take this on.

MB Forward Look Agenda

6. Rebecca Goddard ran through the summary forward look agenda, and gave an outline of the background issues considered when putting it together. The Board were reminded of the conclusions from its Self-Assessment in March 2004, which had summarised that the Board needed to give greater focus to its first and last objectives for the remainder of the year.

7. In discussion the Board:

a. noted the importance of addressing the conclusions from the self-assessment in the forward look agenda;
b. made the following specific comments on the content of the forward look agenda:

i. Communication - asked for more focus on DFID's internal and external communications. The Board nominated Joy Hutcheon to present a paper on DFID's strategy (including its purpose, rationale, baseline performance, targets, areas of strengths and challenges, and linkages to the Board's work) to the Board around April 2005. This would be followed up after six months with a review of progress, and then regular updates after that;
ii. 2005 Presidencies - more time should be given throughout the year to allow for review of progress, and identify areas that require further attention;
iii. N3Y - the agenda should include a quarterly update to help the Board to analyse progress on this agenda. Each session would include different sub-sets of focus. The Board would need to keep in mind the importance of putting across the positive aspects of the agenda;
iv. Vision for 2005 - building on the above, Mark would work with some Directors on a vision for the Department in 2005. This would be discussed with the Leadership Group and Ministers once the DDP process had been completed;
v. DDP discussions - the model from last year should be broadly followed. Directors should be encouraged to observe each other's sessions. Although they could be accompanied, Directors would be expected to take ownership of their DDP and respond to the Board's questions personally. Further guidance would be issued by Richard Calvert;
vi. Joint FCO/DFID Board Meeting - this should be a business discussion focused on policy issues on the horizon, for which a sub-set of the two Boards would attend. MOD could also be invited. Masood would lead on arrangements, supported by the Board Secretary;
vii. People strategy - the Board agreed the handling proposed by HR for a workshop on N3Y: People Strategy;
viii. Autumn Performance Review - the Board agreed that the APR had improved significantly and were happy with the product. Richard Calvert would give some thought to the handling and nature of discussions;
ix. Leadership Group meeting - the Board would be advised by Directors how often the Group (comprising Board members and Directors) should meet;
x. Location - the Board agreed broadly the balance of meetings in PS and AH.

8. In conclusion the Board:

a. thanked Rebecca Goddard for the forward look agenda and background paper;
b. asked for the agenda to be revised in line with comments and circulated to Board members for final approval.

Resource Allocation Round

9. On headcount Richard Calvert and Liz Davis described proposals for validating baselines and revised ceilings, the overall HR management approach to reducing numbers, and the approach to managing emerging pressures in the Policy/International Division area. The figures, which were based on corrected data, had been amended from those used in September to set provisional headcount ceilings. The strategic directions and percentage reductions had been agreed with Directors.

10. In discussion the Board:

a. noted that the vacancy rate in Information Division included temporary staff who were currently doing the job;
b. questioned the impact the cuts were having on Divisions' work and how DFID was equipped if the vacancies were not filled;
c. welcomed the efforts Directors had already been making in managing the headcount reductions.

11. In conclusion the Board:

a. thanked Richard and Liz for their paper;
b. on headcount:

i. endorsed the revised table of headcount figures, which would form the basis for DDP planning, with the agreement that the figures would be tested again in January and further adjustments made if necessary;
ii. agreed that a key issue for DDP discussions would be how Directors intended to reach the April 2008 numbers. Whilst Directors could be flexible in how they would achieve their targets, the proposals should be consistent with the overall direction set out in the trajectories;
iii. noted the limited degree of flexibility in the HCS/SAIC balance, which would enable Regional Directors in particular to be able to consider marginal changes in the balance in this area;
iv. noted also there were some areas that it may wish to return to once all the DDPs had been submitted;

c. on programme resources:

i. agreed that emerging pressures in policy/international areas would be managed by considering them in a joined up way across the two Divisions, in line with the SR04 and IDA14 commitments;
ii. agreed that Knowledge and Communications Division should prepare the research element of its DDP (including the horizon scanning budget for the Chief Scientific Adviser) on the basis of the existing provisional ceiling for research funding.