The test of whether the UK should continue to give aid to India is whether that aid makes a distinctive contribution to poverty reduction. The Government of India has primary responsibility for this and has already reduced poverty levels from 60 percent in 1981 to 42 percent in 2005. But whilst the economy is growing there are large pockets of poverty that still remain. The DFID plans to change some of its programme, focusing primarily on three of the poorest states, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, also changing the sectors it prioritises and putting 50 percent of its budget through the private sector by 2015.The Committee supports the focus on the poorest states but provided it is supported by the Government of India. They recommend supporting in particular sanitation, malnutrition, maternal and child health and social exclusion. The Committee supports the Government's aim to forge a new enhanced partnership with India with its mutual benefits from cooperation in trade and investment but the DFID must ensure UK Government policies help protect the poorest and reduce inequalities. The Committee assuming that over the next four years as India continues to grow at current rates it will have increased its capacity to tackle poverty and meet the millennium development goals. DFID should continue to provide technical assistance where requested but the funding mechanism should change by 2015.

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 Department for International Development (DFID) has decided to close its bilateral aid programme in Burundi in 2012. Burundi is a fragile country which has experienced decades of civil war. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and is unlikely to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals. DFID's states that despite such closure, it will: continue funding Burundi both through a regional programme Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA) and multilateral donors (the EU, the World Bank, African Development Bank) to which DFID is a major contributor; that, other donors will take over bilateral programmes which it has been funding and that the cost of the office in Burundi is too high in relation to the size of the programme. The Committee believes though that the Government should reinstate a bilateral aid programme to Burundi for the following reasons, including: that the UK currently has bilateral programmes with all the countries in the Eastern Africa and Great Lakes Region and that the UK's engagement continues to be critical throughout this region both in perception and reality; that Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA), has already helped to increase Burundi's collection of tax revenues; that there are funding gaps in many sectors in Burundi; that there is a regional dimension to conflicts in the Great Lakes area and Burundi is particularly fragile. The Committee states if DFID does cease bilateral aid to Burundi, a responsible exit strategy is the least it can do to minimise the negative consequences.

In 2010 the Department for International Development (DFID) undertook reviews of both its support for multilateral organisations in its Multilateral Aid Review (the MAR) and of its bilateral aid programmes in a Bilateral Aid Review (the BAR). As a result of the BAR, DFID decided to close a number of country programmes following criteria set out in the review. The Department published, in March 2011, the priorities and expected results for the countries where bilateral programmes were to continue. Yet 18 months and two years after that publication, the Department announced that bilateral programmes with India and South Africa would come to an end in 2015. The Secretary of State has not convinced the 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. Concerns remain about the timing of the decisions and, in particular, that they are neither methodical nor transparent, but related to short term political pressures.

This book provides an Asian perspective on the timely, urgent questions of how international education aid and development should move forward and what development roles Asia should play, especially following the end of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All (EFA) in 2015. To answer these questions, four separate but interwoven parts, which analyze and anchor education MDGs and EFA policies and practices by means of diverse case studies of donor states, recipient states, and states with a dual and transitional role in Asia, are addressed. On the basis of the analyses, a clearer and concrete direction for effectively and sustainably extending international education aid and development beyond 2015 can be derived.

In the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review the Coalition Government announced its decision to achieve the internationally agreed target of providing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income as ODA from 2013. This will involve spending an additional 2.5 billion pounds in 2013-14 to make the total DFID budget 11.3 billion pounds in that year. There will be a large increase in spending on fragile and conflict affected states and it will be difficult to ensure that every pound is well spent in such war-torn environments. When scrutinising DFID's accounts the MPs were also surprised to discover that the Pope's visit was paid for in part by money supposed to be for overseas development aid (ODA). The Committee expects a response from the Government as to what the £1.85 million, transferred to the Foreign Office for the papal visit, was spent on and an explanation as to how this was ODA compliant. The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announced reductions in DFID's running costs to 2% of the total budget. If achieved, this would make DFID the most cost-efficient development organisation in the world.This is to be achieved by a large reduction in back office administration costs (which excludes front-line staff) of £34 million over the CSR period. The International Development Committee supports the proposals to make savings in back office staff, but the MPs are warning that Ministers must ensure that reduced administration budgets do not affect the ability to deliver aid programmes on the ground. While declining as a share of total costs, running costs will increase in real terms over the next four years because the total budget will rise so much.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees