THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE 1997-2000
CONCLUSION
103. In concluding we wish to emphasise again the
cooperative and productive relationship which has been established
with the Department for International Development. Both in the
United Kingdom and, in particular, overseas we have been struck
by the repeated praise for DFID's work and initiatives. We have
seen our work both as ensuring that DFID maintains and improves
its standards of development assistance, but also as an advocate,
alongside DFID, of the needs of the poor. In this Parliament DFID
has been transformed from an aid agency into a development agency,
with a mandate to press for a developmental perspective across
Whitehall. The Committee has attempted also to pursue "cross-cutting"
issues which bear on the work of other government departments,
and has thus engaged with a number of government departments in
addition to DFID.
104. There are areas of work which we hope in the
future to develop. One is a closer examination of some of DFID's
programmes. A way to do this might be to take evidence on the
independent evaluations of DFID's work which are occasionally
published by the Department. These often take a thematic look
at a number of related programmes, for example in reproductive
health, and it could well be possible to organise some evidence
sessions around such a professional evaluation.
105. We consider that the significant number of Reports
produced, the debates on those Reports in the House, the regular
taking of oral evidence on development issues, and the calling
for information and opinion from DFID, have resulted in development
being far more consistently and fully considered by Parliament
than has ever been the case previously. On a number of occasions,
for example with reference to HIV/AIDS, DFID procurement practice,
and disability, the Department has acknowledged that the Committee
has made the Department consider issues afresh or for the first
time. The Committee's work has thus been an important exercise
in accountability — not only for DFID, which received only
limited scrutiny as the Overseas Development Agency in previous
Parliaments, but also for the multilateral agencies to which DFID
contributes and which have until now not been used to such parliamentary
examination.
|
