Response to follow-up questions from oral evidence session

Transcription

1 Stephen Twigg MP Chair, International Development Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Secretary of State 11 October 2016 Response to follow-up questions from oral evidence session I welcomed my time with the Committee, and I look forward to working closely with it in the future. As I said, my vision is to use Britain s global leadership to challenge, change and reform the global development system so that it delivers both for the world s poorest and UK taxpayers. I will be relentless in driving even greater value for money across DFID s work and I look forward to the important role that the Committee will play in ensuring that DFID delivers on this objective. The Department is committed to providing a high level of support to the Committee so that it can do its job most effectively. The responses to your follow up questions are attached to this letter. Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Secretary of State

2 Q1. The Secretary of State referred to cases and examples of wasted aid spending which had been highlighted to her, as well as to a number of cases where she has made the decision to stop payments. Can you give the specific details of the cases being referred to? Where DFID identifies issues relating to fraud it takes them seriously and investigates them thoroughly. The department does not comment on investigations into individual fraud cases. However, I can let the Committee know that I recently suspended payments to a charity in Malawi after concerns were raised that donor funding was being syphoned off to a cult-like organisation, our dedicated counter fraud team carried out an immediate in country investigation and will follow up subsequent leads. I was also alerted to an incident where a consultant travelled to Brazil to attend a conference on behalf of a DFID programme in Nigeria. On learning about this, I stopped UK payments to this and tasked my department to investigate these allegations, as I was not convinced this represented good value for money for the UK taxpayer. New controls are in place to ensure that such requests in the future are not authorised, safeguarding taxpayers money against abuse. DFID will continue to root out inappropriate projects to ensure aid is used effectively and delivers for the world s poorest and our national interests. I will also make sure do all we can to identify and recover funds that are lost, including through an international corruption unit at the National Crime Agency, a dedicated investigation team at DFID and a whistleblower hotline. The Permanent Secretary referred to additional assurances being provided regarding the risk framework, in response to one or two problems that he had drawn to the Secretary of State s attention. Can you give specific details of the problems being referred to? DFID does not comment on investigations into individual fraud cases. Over the summer, the Department strengthened its due diligence framework which includes a stronger emphasis on understanding downstream partners and the potential risks in delivering aid. Q2. In the Secretary of State s article in the Daily Mail she referred to insisting on much greater transparency. What are the specific details of her plans to do so? DFID is one of the most transparent development agencies in the world, including being the first organisation to publish information to the International Aid Transparency Initiative s (IATI) open data standard in However, while there has been some improvement internationally, transparency is still lacking in the international aid system overall. In particular, it is not yet possible to track aid resources all the way through the delivery chain from taxpayer to beneficiaries. This is an area that I would like to make progress on, and recognise the strong shared interest of the International Development Committee in this area. Progress on this issue will not be instantaneous. But working with people in likeminded institutions we can make real progress in scrutiny of aid and fiscal flows including, crucially, with partners from developing countries, and use it to strengthen governance and accountability and to empower poor people. The Department will have specific plans on this in due course.

3 Q3. In the Department s assessment so far, is it possible for non-eu member states to continue to take part in and contribute to the European Development Fund? At present it is not possible for non-eu member states to take part in and contribute to the European Development Fund (EDF). Under the EDF 11 internal agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union there is no provision for non EU Member States to contribute to the EDF. Q4. The Secretary of State stated that the Cabinet Office is leading on domestic implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, however, the Department s response to the Committee s Report states that the Secretary of State has leadership of Agenda 2030, supported by the Cabinet Office. Can you clarify who is leading on domestic implementation? The Government is firmly committed to driving forward progress on the Goals both internationally and domestically. DFID has responsibility for this issue internationally. Departments across Government have a responsibility for delivering on their existing commitments, including ones relevant to the Goals. Specifically, DFID and the Cabinet Office work closely to engage other government departments to ensure the UK fulfills its obligations and leads on helping other countries implement the Goals. Maintaining effective coordination across Government is critically important to delivering the Goals. I meet the Minister for Cabinet Office routinely, and his predecessor set out the position to the International Development Committee in April. Q5. The Multilateral and Bilateral Aid Reviews and the Civil Society Partnership Review have all been delayed multiple times, with the Committee initially told they would be published early this year. What have been the specific reasons for each delay? The referendum on the UK s membership of the European Union, and subsequent changes in UK Government and partners, and the global context, have altered the original timetable for the publication of the Multilateral and Bilateral Aid Reviews and the Civil Society Partnership Review. On appointment as Secretary of State I decided it was right to take stock of the Reviews to reflect this new situation. I very much appreciate that the Committee, and others, are keen to see tham and I intend to publish the Reviews soon. The Secretary of State referred to multilaterals being very much part of the process, with an open discussion. Can you give more specific details of how multilaterals are involved in each stage of the process? My predecessor wrote to all agencies at the outset of the MAR setting out the process. The MAR assessment framework was then shared and discussed with all 38 MAR agencies. An early draft and a pre-moderation version of the assessment was made available to the agencies; each was given the opportunity to fact check their assessment and contribute further evidence. DFID will continue to work closely with multilateral organisations in the run-up to publishing the MAR. Q6. What are the current plans for new funding mechanisms to replace Programme Partnership Arrangements?

4 I will set this out clearly as part of the publication of the Civil Society Partnership Review. The Secretary of State referred to civil society organisations being given a year s notice about some of the changes and processes that were going to take place around the Civil Society Partnership Review. What level of detail did that notice involve? In launching the CSPR during her speech at ODI on 2 July 2015 my predecessor, Justine Greening, announced a nine month extension to Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) grants. This announcement extended the duration of the grants from the planned end date of March 2016 to December 2016 and provided 18 months notice of the revised end date. In early September 2015 the announcement was confirmed in writing to the Chief Executive Officers of organisations with PPAs. At this time they were told that DFID expected the extension period and additional financing to be used to support organisations to consolidate their achievements to date and enhance sustainability. Q7. The Permanent Secretary referred to legislation around lobbying for organisations receiving Government funding. What is the latest situation regarding plans revealed earlier this year for a non legislative clause in grant agreements to restrict lobbying and advocacy activities? In October 2015, the Cabinet Office, who lead on this issue, set out proposals to set tighter guidelines on the use of grants for the purposes for which they are intended. This has now been incorporated into wider reforms on improving the way that government departments administer grants to third parties. Revisions to DFID grants will reflect the Government's broader changes and the Cabinet Office will set out the cross-government approach on this issue in due course. Q8. The Permanent Secretary referred to the fact that 32% of the Department s contracts have gone to SMEs in the last year. How is that figure calculated? This figure is based on the proportion of Financial Year 2015/16 actual contractual (direct) spend by suppliers that have a SME business classification, as a proportion of total contractual (direct) spend. In Financial Year 2015/16 total contractual (direct) spend with suppliers was 1.34 billion. The SME portion of that spend was 431 million, or 32%. Q9. What is the Department s assessment of the situation of people trapped in the berm area along the Jordanian-Syrian border, and what is the Department doing to get access there? There are approximately 70,000 people on the eastern section of the Syria/Jordan border. DFID s assessment is that a major proportion of the people are there because they want to seek asylum in Jordan, but are not permitted to do so (the Jordanian authorities are concerned that some of them may pose a security threat). Some are there because it is less unsafe than their place of origin, but they do not want to cross the border into Jordan. Some are there to trade. There is a criminal element and armed groups are present there too. On 21 June 2016 Daesh attacked a Jordanian army camp two kilometres from people camped at the border, killing and injuring 20 Jordanian personnel. Prior to the attack aid agencies were providing ad hoc support to the population at the berm. After the

5 attack the Government of Jordan ceased all aid to the camp, but has since permitted humanitarian water supply to resume. Only one food distribution has taken place in the two month period, and no medical services. Anecdotal reports suggest that mortality has increased, partly due to deaths in childbirth, hepatitis, and malnutrition. Limited water supply, poor sanitation and lack of vaccination increase risks. The UK has been raising the broad issue of people stranded on the border with the authorities in Jordan for two years, but with increased urgency following the drastic reduction of aid after 21 June. DFID is working alongside the FCO to find a way by which the security concerns of the Jordanian Government can be sufficiently addressed to allow them to permit humanitarian aid to resume, without exposing people on the border to greater risk. These discussions are progressing and I am hopeful that humanitarian access will be able to resume. Since this issue is progressing quickly, my officials are happy to brief the committee with further details if they would like.