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 deadliest outbreak of Ebola virus disease in history, and the first to hit epidemic levels, struck the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone in 2014, killing 11,315 people. Despite being diagnosed in March 2014, there was a slow initial response to the epidemic. This was attributed by many witnesses to our inquiry to delays in WHO sounding the alarm and declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), something which WHO must carry primary responsibility for. As a result, the international community did not fully mobilise until September, in the wake of the World Health Organization's designation of the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in August. We praise those who risked their lives to bring the epidemic under control and pay tribute to all those who lost their lives in the fight against Ebola.

The shortage of full time jobs and the difficulty in earning a livelihood are one of the greatest global problems. Increasing population, especially in Africa, looks much less likely to stabilise than experts complacently believed until recently. World-wide 600 million young people will enter the job market in the next decade with only 200 million jobs awaiting them. The failure to address the issue will have serious consequences and threatens widespread social and political unrest. The situation is recognised by donors, but there seems to be a lack of passion in attempts to address it. As DFID notes, the private sector is the driver of economic growth and will produce 90% of new jobs. DFID's approach to economic development is centred on its Economic Development Strategic Framework, which consists of a series of wide-ranging interventions, listed under five pillars, including international trade; improving the "enabling" environment in countries; catalysing capital flows; engaging with businesses to help their investments contribute to development; and ensuring growth is inclusive and benefits marginalised groups. The choice and balance of interventions depends on the particular circumstances of each country. This basic approach was supported by many witnesses. However, there are several concerns. DFID plans to spend £1.8 billion on economic development by 2015-16 - more than doubling the amount spent in 2012-13; is DFID geared up to spend the extra money cost-effectively? The Committee have seen examples of successful work on theirr visits, and urge DFID to publish lists of achievements under these programmes.

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.

Government response to (HC 247, session 2014-15, ISBN 9780215078209)

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.

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.