The department responsible for the disbursal of international aid and other areas of international development policy is the Department for International Development (DFID), sometimes subject to specific Treasury approval; and always subject to the Treasury making funds available. As well as the Treasury the Foreign and Commonwealth Office plays a role in determining policy.

Broadly just over half of the UK's international development aid is dispensed bilaterally (53 per cent in 1999-2000) and the remainder through the European Union and other multinational bodies.

Of the other institutions the World Bank is of particular significance. Established along with the International Monetary Fund by the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, it is not a bank in the traditional sense of the term but five linked organisations with a combined mission to "fight poverty and improve the living standards of people in the developing world". Responsibility for the UK's dealings with the World Bank rests within the International Financial Institutions Department of DFID.

In 2005 DFID produced for the first time an annual report on its activity at the World Bank. But at only 22 pages long, it lacked detail and analytical thrust.

In addition to the World Bank a number of other international organisations consider international development as part of their remit.  This includes the G8 which in recent years has moved beyond its traditional remit of geopolitics and global finance to consider international development and poverty issues.  It is a highly powerful grouping which can help set the global agenda.  Growing out of the informal G6 brought together in 1975, its members are France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, US, Canada and Russia. Tony Blair attempted to use the UK presidency in 2005 create a focus upon relieving property in Africa (and the reduction of global warming).

Without any formal operational role, the G8's power comes from the position that its various members have within other international organisations.

Another important area for international development is international trade policy. This is governed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).  The WTO developed out of the 1948 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and negotiates, establishes and enforces international agreements that govern trade between nations. These occur in phases or "rounds", the most recent being the "Doha round", which began in 2001, with an emphasis on development.

Britain is a member of the WTO, but does not negotiate on its own account within the WTO. The EU trade commissioner takes responsibility in the WTO negotiations on behalf of all member states, though UK representatives attend in force.  Although the Doha round recently collapsed,  international trade remains important to international development, both as a means of allowing a country to develop economically but also to ensure that developing countries are not disadvantaged through unfair subsidies in richer countries.

Unlike most foreign policy, the delivery of aid is subject at least in part to statutory regulation. As part of Labour's manifesto commitment to a more ethical foreign policy in 1997, the government introduced the International Development Act 2002 (replacing the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980).

The then Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, told Parliament that the 2002 Act was intended to entrench the concept of poverty reduction, to prevent the use of aid for political or commercial purposes and to eliminate "tied aid" (which is not specifically banned under the Act, supposedly because of drafting difficulties).

The Act is loosely framed and the only pre-requisite for making most decisions on aid is that the Secretary of State is "satisfied" that it will contribute to a reduction in poverty (except in British overseas territories, where even that goal is not necessary). The Act does not define "poverty". There is also scope for humanitarian responses to disasters and emergencies, the commissioning of research and other activities, and support for organisations and programmes promoting awareness of global poverty.

Further, the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 was introduced to improve the reporting to Parliament on international development and aid expenditure. It requires the UK Government to report progress made against the Millennium Development Goals, and also on policy coherence.

The International Development Act is narrowly drawn. It only governs 30 per cent of the UK aid budget that is dispensed by the EU - the rest can legally be spent by the EU on other political or administrative considerations. Nor does it set rules for the policies with a bearing upon aid and development that British ministers and officials pursue in organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation.

Thus multilateral organisations, which are responsible for dispensing almost half of UK aid, and of which the EU receives the largest share, escape parliamentary oversight almost entirely. Despite the criticism that the EU spends much of the aid money on administration this issue is not considered properly by Parliament.

During the committee stage of the Bill, an amendment was tabled - then withdrawn - calling for all multilateral humanitarian assistance to meet the same standards as the UK's own bilateral aid. A similar amendment was debated at report stage. MPs were also concerned that the EU may pursue objectives that differed from the Act's emphasis upon poverty reduction, such as political stabilisation at its borders. The government's response was that the Secretary of State for International Development passed on funds to the EU Development Fund, the UN and other organisations "if he [sic] is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty". In other words, this was a matter for ministerial discretion.

There is some limited parliamentary oversight of the Secretary of State's power under the 2002 Act to lay orders for contributions to be made to multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and the regional development banks. The drafts of such orders must be laid before the House of Commons for approval - requiring a formal vote.

Provision can also be made by Order in Council to introduce privileges and immunities for various international financial institutions, subject to approval by resolution in each House. All other orders relating to payments made under the 2002 Act come into effect automatically unless a "negative resolution" is passed within the 40 days during which it is laid before Parliament. Negative resolutions in respect of any measure, not just under this Act, are very rare. In theory an MP can put down a motion to such effect, as an Early Day Motion, but no time will be made available to discuss it unless there is an extremely large number of signatories. If the official opposition puts down a motion, a debate may be organised, but even then not necessarily.

The main Commons select committee in this area is the International Development Committee. It has made radical innovations in recent years in the way it oversees the work of the UK government at the World Bank. The committee now holds annual evidence sessions following the autumn meetings of the Bank board of governors, at which the Secretary of State (who is an ex officio Governor of the World Bank) gives evidence on the issues discussed at the meetings and answers questions on other World Bank topics. This evidence session is usually immediately followed by evidence from representatives of NGOs working on the relevant issues who provide both further evidence on the substantive issues and a commentary on the evidence of the Secretary of State.

This is a limited form of oversight because it is, by definition, carried out after the fact. However, it has created a continuing dialogue between the committee and the Secretary of State over a number of years. Having occurred regularly since 2000 with two Secretaries of State this annual evidence session is becoming entrenched in the procedures of the House and is establishing an effective model for other committees to consider.

In addition to this regular session the Secretary of State has committed to seeking, along with the committee, an annual debate on the floor of the House on Britain's engagement with the World Bank.  This would be on the basis of the new annual report that DFID has begun to issue.  So far nothing has come of this.

In 2003 the International Development Committee held an evidence session with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unfortunately this event has not been repeated, even though the Chancellor of the Exchequer chairs the "Development Committee" at the World Bank and IMF meetings.

In contrast with the World Bank, parliamentary oversight of G8 by committee is problematic. Ministers act under the royal prerogative and the Prime Minister may take a lead role in negotiations - meaning, since there is no select committee specifically covering the Prime Minister's office, no committee has a remit to scrutinise his activities at the G8. 

The Commons Liaison Committee has six-monthly sessions with the premier. This however is through an informal arrangement and there is no requirement that it will continue under a new Prime Minister. 

Furthermore, although the Liaison Committee has asked question in the past on the Prime Minister's work at the G8, the there are too many competing issues at each meeting for there to be continuing scrutiny. Without questions from the Liaison Committee. the role of the UK in one of the world's most powerful organisations would not be scrutinised at all in Parliament.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the WTO is problematic partly because it is carried out at two stages removed - through ministers participating in EU bargaining leading in turn to the WTO negotiations. Ministers provide written statements to the House on the WTO and have received more than 500 parliamentary questions regarding it over the past decade.

In the Commons the Trade and Industry Select Committee has responsibility for the WTO but has not carried out any inquiry into it since it took evidence from the then Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, in 2003. The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee pays no attention to the WTO. The International Development Committee has produced reports on it in 1999] and 2003. The House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee A: Economic and Financial Affairs, Trade and International Relations reports on the work of the EU at the WTO.

1. The International Development Committee's sessions with the Secretary of State should be built upon as an example of best practice in other areas. A similar system should be entrenched within parliamentary procedure for the work of the Prime Minister at G8. This would be a step towards the establishment of the 'soft-mandating' we advocate, making a reality of the accountability of ministers to Parliament for their participation in international negotiations.

2. The International Development Committee and other relevant committees must continue to review negotiations at the WTO.  As various committees have a potential interest in these negotiations, they should create a joint sub-committee for regular inquiries. This would assist the "mainstreaming" of external policy, ensuring every committee integrated external policy into its general work.