Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 25
25
Accepted
Paragraph: 98
The Committee recognises that there remain gaps in impartial oversight led by donor organisations.
Recommendation
The Committee recognises that there remain gaps in impartial oversight led by donor organisations. In its response to this report the Government should set out how the CBCM model will provide an independent avenue to survivors to seek justice when the regular reporting mechanisms fail. It should also outline any other avenues it is exploring to ensure that proper oversight is introduced.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government states that the existing Supply Partner Code of Conduct already provides an independent avenue for survivors to seek justice. It also indicates that it will look to strengthen the language on expectations in future updates.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
98
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government · verbatim extract
Accepted
A well-functioning Community-Based Complaints Mechanism (CBCM) can provide an avenue to survivors to seek justice and to improve accountability and support to survivors and victims at local and national level, including by linking survivors to support services. CBCMs are designed to be both culturally and gender-sensitive and to play a prevention function through training and awareness raising. The inter-agency CBCM model sits within broader country level structures in humanitarian contexts, including formal SEAH Networks and Coordinators. As the inter-agency CBCM guidance referred to in footnote 128 of the Committee’s report says, “independent review and referral of complaints is one of the most important functions of the CBCM.” The guidance also highlights the benefit to beneficiaries of having the option of reporting to an agency which does not itself employ the alleged perpetrator of the misconduct, reducing the fear of reprisal. CBCMs cannot decide if a ‘failure’ has occurred. They can offer a view on whether good practice has been followed and provide an individual with an avenue to an organisation whose remit includes making such judgements and so alternative routes to report the incident and any concerns about the handling of the case. Alternative routes or avenues that we have in mind include: the relevant National Human Rights Institution; legal service providers; a donor whose funding is involved in the project in question; a relevant oversight or ombuds body such as the Charity Commission if an NGO from England or Wales is involved; and relevant appeals bodies within the UN. We are also engaging with Dutch colleagues on a project which is looking in depth at the operation of community complaints systems in three countries. It will identify what it takes to build robust accountability systems that are survivor-centred, enable safe reporting, investigate thoroughly, and hold perpetrators to account. It will look at what works well and identify what needs to be improved.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗