House of Commons International Development Committee The Future of CDC Fifth Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/indcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed Tuesday 15 February 2011 HC 607 Published on 3 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The International Development Committee Rt Hon. Malcolm Bruce MP, (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) (Chairman) Hugh Bayley MP, (Labour, City of York) Richard Burden MP, (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield) Sam Gyimah MP (Conservative, East Surrey) Richard Harrington MP, (Conservative, Watford) Pauline Latham MP, (Conservative, Mid Derbyshire) Jeremy Lefroy (Conservative, Stafford) Mr Michael McCann MP, (Labour, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) Alison McGovern MP, (Labour, Wirral South) Anas Sarwar MP, (Labour, Glasgow Central) Chris White MP, (Conservative, Warwick and Leamington) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Mr Russell Brown MP, (Labour, Dumfries, Galloway) Mr James Clappison MP, (Conservative, Hertsmere) Ann McKechin MP, (Labour, Glasgow North) Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/indcom Committee staff The staff of the Committee are David Harrison (Clerk), Mick Hillyard (Second Clerk), Anna Dickson (Committee Specialist), Chlöe Challender (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Susan Monaghan (Senior Committee Assistant), Vanessa Hallinan (Committee Assistant), Emily Harrisson (Inquiry Manager) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer) Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the International Development Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 1223; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] The Future of CDC 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 The development rationale for CDC 6 The importance of private sector development 6 Development finance institutions 7 CDC 7 History of CDC 7 ‘Fund of funds’ model 8 Comparative position of CDC 9 DFID’s oversight of CDC 9 3 Development impact of CDC 10 CDC’s development impact 10 Investment model 10 CDC’s ability to leverage additional finance 12 Is CDC’s funding additional to private capital? 13 The composition of CDC’s portfolio 14 Geography 14 Sector 15 4 Remaining challenges 19 Implementation of CDC’s Investment Code 19 Measuring development impact 20 Transparency 22 Use of tax havens 23 Remuneration 24 Actis 25 5 Reforming CDC 26 New investment model for CDC 26 Investment methods 28 Sectoral mandate 30 Geographical mandate 31 Improving CDC’s development focus 32 DFID oversight of CDC 32 The new CDC 33 Conclusion 33 Conclusions and recommendations 39 2 The Future of CDC Annex 1 34 Annex 2 36 Annex 3 37 Formal Minutes 44 Witnesses 45 List of printed written evidence 45 List of additional written evidence 46 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 47 The Future of CDC 3 Summary CDC was created in 1948 as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Its current mandate is to boost economic growth by investing in businesses in developing countries. Since restructuring in 2004, CDC almost exclusively relies on the ‘fund of funds’ investment model, thereby making almost all of its investments indirectly via fund managers. There has been mounting criticism that CDC does not have sufficient development impact. In October 2010, the Secretary of State for International Development announced that reforms to CDC were required and we decided to undertake an inquiry. We found that although CDC has increased its net assets by £1.5 billion since 2004 and has contributed to employment and the tax base of developing countries, its development impact has been insufficient for a Government-owned company whose net investments count as Official Development Assistance. We are concerned that some of the investments CDC has made are ones the private sector would have made anyway. Over half of its investments are concentrated in four middle-income countries. Too few of its investments have been in sectors which most benefit the poor such as agriculture, infrastructure and small and medium enterprises. In order radically to increase CDC’s development impact we recommend that CDC be split into two parts. The first part would primarily use the ‘fund of funds’ method and co- investment (through equity), and other financial instruments as appropriate, to make investments in developing countries. The new second part would have a mandate to make innovative investments in ‘pro-poor’ sectors. The profit from the first part of the business would fund or subsidise the second. CDC should be more transparent to facilitate greater accountability and public oversight. We believe the remuneration of CDC’s executives is excessive and that high quality staff could be secured for lower salaries. CDC has an important role to play. However, CDC’s mandate should be changed from economic growth to incorporate a specific focus on poverty alleviation. DFID should become a more active shareholder of CDC and undertake closer oversight of CDC in future. CDC should retain its expert status and should remain complementary to the other DFIs, whilst sharpening its development impact and poverty alleviation focus. The Future of CDC 5 1 Introduction 1. CDC Group plc (formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation) is a public limited company wholly owned by the UK Government. It is the UK’s Development Finance Institution (DFI) and aims to help fill a shortage of finance for investment that is a major constraint to economic growth and poverty reduction. CDC is a major element of the support provided by the Department for International Development (DFID) for the private sector in developing countries. CDC’s objective is to invest in the creation and growth of viable private businesses in poorer developing countries to contribute to economic growth for the benefit of the poor; and to mobilise private investment in these markets both directly and by demonstrating profitable investments as part of the mission of the DFID to fight world poverty.1 2. CDC has been self-financing since 1995 and has had some significant successes. Since 2004, CDC has generated substantial growth in its assets from £1.2 billion to £2.7 billion.2 However, concerns have been growing regarding CDC’s development impact, its ‘fund of funds’ model3 and operational practices. These mounting concerns led the Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt. Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, to announce a review of CDC on 12 October 2010, “in order radically to increase its development impact.” He stated that he wanted CDC to be “more pro-poor focused than any other DFI, doing the hardest things in the hardest places.”4 3. Following the Secretary of State’s announcement of a review of CDC, we decided to carry out an inquiry into the future of CDC. We aimed to consider CDC’s development impact and how this could be maximised in the future. We also wanted to evaluate the implications of potential reforms. In parallel to our inquiry, DFID has held a consultation regarding the future of CDC, prior to the publication of CDC’s new business plan. This inquiry follows on from our predecessor Committee’s report on Private Sector Development and the Public Accounts Committee’s report on DFID’s oversight of CDC.5 4. We received 27 written submissions of evidence from a variety of sources ranging from non-governmental organisations to CDC’s fund managers. We have also received a briefing from the National Audit Office (NAO). We held three evidence sessions, during December 2010 and January 2011, with: the Secretary of State for International Development, CDC executives, academics, fund managers, non-governmental organisations and journalists. We are grateful to all those who provided oral and written evidence for their valuable contributions. We would like to thank our specialist adviser Dr Dirk Willem te Velde of the Overseas Development Institute. 1 CDC, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Online, www.bis.gov.uk 2 Ev 65 3 For description see Chapter 2 4 HC Deb, 12 October 2010, col14-15WS 5 International Development Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Private Sector Development, HC 921-I and Public Accounts Committee, Eighteenth Report of Session 2008-09, Investing for Development: the Department for International Development's oversight of CDC Group plc, HC 94 6 The Future of CDC 2 The development rationale for CDC The importance of private sector development 5. The private sector is increasingly recognised as a vital component of sustainable development and ‘pro-poor’ growth.6 In his speech on 12 October 2010, the Secretary of State said that it was the private sector which “promotes new jobs, new opportunities, new markets and new prosperity.”7 The private sector has the capacity to create employment, increase trade, provide goods and services and generate substantial tax revenues. These tax revenues can be used to provide basic public services such as healthcare and education. 6. The NAO found that research demonstrated that growth was “an essential, although not always sufficient, precondition for poverty reduction.”8 It is also clear that strong growth is contingent on high rates of investment.9 However, there is still a considerable lack of capital available for some sectors and regions in developing countries.10 Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to Sub-Saharan Africa remain persistently low; it receives only 5% of global FDI.11 Almost 50% of African companies identify a lack of finance as a major constraint to doing business.12 The lack of capital is further illustrated by the fact that nearly three-quarters of the funds in which CDC invested during 2009 and 2010 received funding from other DFIs and 36% of these funds failed to reach their target size.13 7.