Select committee inquiry
The UK decision to end Bilateral Aid to South Africa
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Secretary of State for International Development was asked about the decision to end bilateral aid to South Africa. The Committee Report concluded and criticised DFID for ending bilateral aid programmes without robust review. The Secretary of State did not convince the International Development Committee that the announcement to end the programmes in India and South Africa were in accordance with the principles and process established by the BAR. Such decisions to end a bilateral programme or to start a new one should be made only following a Bilateral Aid Review, except in exceptional cases. Terms of Reference”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 28 February 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The Government welcomes the Committee's report, agrees with Recommendation 1 on security and stability spending, and disagrees with Recommendation 2 on when bilateral programmes should end or start.
- On Recommendation 1, it says it agrees: DFID "is already making informed, realistic assessments of what it is possible to deliver" in fragile and conflict-affected states, including on security and stability.
- It says resource allocation decisions "will take into account security and stability objectives", as part of a cross-HMG effort, and that DFID is looking at its future business model following the 2013 Spending Review.
- On Recommendation 2, it disagrees. It says decisions to end or start a bilateral programme are "based on detailed reviews of need and likely effectiveness", which may focus on one country or form part of a wider portfolio review.
- It says bilateral programmes are "kept constantly under review" and that decisions are taken "in close consultation and agreement with the country concerned". In South Africa, the UK will continue working with the country for development results elsewhere on the continent.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 19 September 2013 to 28 February 2014.
- Oral evidence 9 Oct 2013
- Report 8 Jan 2014
- Government response 28 Feb 2014
What it recommended 2 recommendations · 0 conclusions
1However, it is important to ensure clarity about these objectives in future.
Recommended (the committee's words)
However, it is important to ensure clarity about these objectives in future. We recommend that, in any future BAR, DFID spending reflect what it is able to achieve in increasing security. Large sums should not be spent just in the hope of increasing security and stability, but be based on what it is possible to deliver.
2We do not dispute that the BAR was a robust process, but the Secretary of...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We do not dispute that the BAR was a robust process, but the Secretary of State has not convinced us that the announcements to end bilateral programmes in India and South Africa were in accordance with the principles and process established by the BAR. They were made just 18 months and two years respectively after the publication of the BAR country summaries and appear ad hoc. We reiterate our recent recommendation: decisions to end a bilateral programme or to start a new one should be made only following a Bilateral Aid Review, except in exceptional cases such as South Sudan where an existing recipient country became two states after a referendum on independence for South Sudan.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 9 Oct 2013No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗