This report is the International Development Committee's annual review of UK aid programmes and the administration of the Department for International Development (DFID). The Committee finds that field work overseas should be given greater priority and Ministers must explain UK spending on humanitarian projects more clearly. DFID should not provide funds to support disasters in middle income countries by raiding bilateral development programmes in low income countries. Other wealthy OECD countries must play their part in providing humanitarian assistance. DFID should set out annually its provisional budget for humanitarian relief, what is held as contingencies for unpredictable events and how it will be deployed if not called upon. There has also been a decline in DFID's spending on budget support, the consequences of which should be assessed. £1,075 million of DFID's bilateral expenditure is spent through multilaterals and private contractors. DFID has put in place a number of changes to improve the value for money provided by spending through and should report on their effectiveness. The Committee is also worried that the Department actually spends 40% of its budget in the last two months of the year, which raises questions about the smooth running of management and planning processes. DFID staff should have longer postings overseas (normally a minimum of four years) so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the culture and politics of the country they are working in and engage more effectively with the country's politicians.

As the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament approaches, the Committee has taken the opportunity to look back on their work. This Report outlines some of the Committee's work, progress and effectiveness during this Parliament and sets out areas that may be of interest to their successor committee. It has also provided the opportunity to scrutinise what actions the Government has taken with regard to issues and recommendations raised in our reports.

Government response to HC 693, 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215071750). DFID's annual report for 2012-13 published as HC 12, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780102983241)

The Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI) is an independent commission which reports to the House of Commons International Development Committee, not to the Department for International Development (DFID). The Committee ensures its accountability to Parliament in two main ways: through a sub-Committee, which takes evidence on the reports published by ICAI; and through an inquiry each year carried out by the full Committee into ICAI's Annual Report. 2013-14 has been a busy year for ICAI, with 12 reports published on a wide range of DFID's activities. ICAI's Annual Report contained three headline findings for DFID this year. Firstly, tighter management of multilateral partners is needed. Secondly, DFID needs to continue to improve its aid programme management capacity, especially where contractors are implementing programmes. Thirdly, DFID's corporate results agenda - and in particular its use of 'reach indicators' - is distorting programming choices. The Committee shares ICAI's concerns on these issues and intend to follow up its recommendations in two forthcoming inquiries this autumn: Beyond Aid; and DFID's Departmental Annual Report 2013-14. DFID spends a large amount of money - at least £200 million - on self-evaluation. However, it cannot provide an exact total. The Committee question this large expenditure, especially given that an ICAI evaluation recently found that DFID staff struggle to use self-evaluation material in their work. The contracts of the current ICAI commissioners, contractor consortium and staff all end in May 2015. While staff contracts may be renewed, new commissioners and contractors must be recruited. Planning is underway for the transition to the next phase of ICAI: all possible efforts must be made to ensure this goes as smoothly as possible.

The number of low income countries is falling. At the same time, the importance of global issues - conflict, climate, migration, trade, tax, financial stability, youth unemployment, urbanisation economic development, and infectious disease - is rising. The Committee argues that aid remains vital for addressing poverty in poor countries, for encouraging economic development, for providing global goods such as tackling climate change, combating diseases such as Ebola and providing humanitarian assistance, but new forms of co-operation have to be developed in order to meet these challenges. This will include new financial mechanisms and facilitating links with UK institutions in a wide range of areas, including health, education, culture, law, culture and science. This will require the Department for International Development (DFID) to put more emphasis on working with small organisations and less on programme management.As the focus moves away from aid, policy coherence for development must be at the heart of a new approach. This means working across Government in the UK, and with global partners in the multilateral system, to maximise the impact on development of all the UK's actions. This approach and changes will require DFID staff to develop different skills.

The Ebola outbreak that has stricken Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea since March 2014 has had a devastating effect on the region. By 2 December 2014, more than 17,500 cases and 6,000 deaths had been reported. Ebola has had wider damaging consequences for local economies, food security, institutional stability and the broader health system. The House of Commons International Development Committee says DfID and the World Health Organisation initially failed to recognise the scale and severity of the Ebola crisis and were too slow to respond. This is in part due the WHO's member states, who have cut its funding and failed to emphasise building sustainable health systems in developing countries, leaving the global health system "dangerously inadequate" for responding to health emergencies. It recommends that DfID press for a review of the international approach to health emergencies, incorporating the function, structure and funding of the World Health Organisation and the role and expectations of major donors.

Sierra Leone and Liberia have made remarkable recoveries since their civil wars. Ban Ki Moon was in Freetown this month to bring an end to the UN Security mission and set the UN presence on a conventional development footing from 1st April 2014. In Liberia there has been a gradual drawdown of the peacekeeping mission which will approximately halve the UN military presence by 2015. However both countries remain fragile with high unemployment and concerns about corruption. The devastating Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and Liberia demonstrates the dangers of ignoring the least developed countries in the world. The weak state of the health system in both countries has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the response to Ebola. There is an alarming lack of capacity in the health system, including a shortage of skilled clinicians.The Committee have determined that the scale of the Ebola crisis now unfolding in Sierra Leone and Liberia, may well be connected to declining levels of international support for health system improvements in what remain two of the poorest and least developed countries in the world.

The Chief Commissioner of ICAI has a crucial role in scrutinising aid spending by the UK Government and reporting to Parliament through the International Development Committee. The Committee are pleased to endorse the appointment of Dr Alison Evans to this post, but recommend that at least one of the existing Commissioners be reappointed for a further term to ensure continuity, and that one of the Commissioners be an audit professional. The selection process used resulted in an unranked list of four candidates deemed "appointable" being presented to the Secretary of State for consideration. This puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State for an independent scrutiny post and threatens to undermine the candidate in the eyes of the public who may assume that the candidate most sympathetic to DFID was chosen. The Committee recommend that panels for ICAI Commissioner appointments should be invited to rank candidates or otherwise advise the Secretary of State as they see fit. In the longer term, it is recommended that the Committee be able to choose the Chief Commissioner from the list of candidates.

Humanitarian relief to the Middle East is critical to long term stability in the region so the UK can be proud that it has already committed £600 million in humanitarian assistance to the grave refugee crisis that has arisen from the Syrian civil war and is currently the second-largest bilateral donor to that relief effort. It is lamentable that some other European nations have so manifestly failed to pull their weight in the Syrian refugee crisis and the UK should do more to secure significant contributions from other large EU nations. The overwhelming emphasis of UK funded humanitarian relief should be to help refugees remain in their own region, so that they have the potential to return home when this becomes possible. The bulk of humanitarian effort in the region should shift away from a focus on refugee camps to providing support for the majority of Syrian refugees who are currently residing in towns and villages in Lebanon or Jordan. This is something many donors remain reluctant to do; the UK must lead the way. To that end the DFID should use national plans as the basis for its assistance to Lebanon and Jordan, as well as launching a medium-term development programme in Jordan. A clear priority must be given to the urgent provision of education for Syrian refugee children to avoid the risk of a lost generation. The Committee also calls on DFID to become far more transparent about how much contingency funding it sets aside for responses to new humanitarian crises going forward.

Scores of talented and dedicated people serve the forensic science community, performing vitally important work. However, they are often constrained by lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear that change and advancements, both systematic and scientific, are needed in a number of forensic science disciplines to ensure the reliability of work, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices with consistent application. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward provides a detailed plan for addressing these needs and suggests the creation of a new government entity, the National Institute of Forensic Science, to establish and enforce standards within the forensic science community. The benefits of improving and regulating the forensic science disciplines are clear: assisting law enforcement officials, enhancing homeland security, and reducing the risk of wrongful conviction and exoneration. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States gives a full account of what is needed to advance the forensic science disciplines, including upgrading of systems and organizational structures, better training, widespread adoption of uniform and enforceable best practices, and mandatory certification and accreditation programs. While this book provides an essential call-to-action for congress and policy makers, it also serves as a vital tool for law enforcement agencies, criminal prosecutors and attorneys, and forensic science educators.