UK

7° London Hi 13°C / Lo 4°C

Taxpayers' money given to corrupt charities

Government will not say where cash obtained by fraudulent means has gone

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter

Children in a famine-stricken village depend on British taxpayers for food aid. Campaigners fear taxpayers' support could be undermined by corruption

PA

Children in a famine-stricken village depend on British taxpayers for food aid. Campaigners fear taxpayers' support could be undermined by corruption

The Government department in charge of Britain's £5.6bn aid budget has been accused of "unjustifiable secrecy" because it is refusing to disclose the names of charities and developing countries found to have fraudulently obtained money donated on behalf of UK taxpayers.

Figures obtained by The Independent under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Department for International Development has lost nearly £720,000 over the past five years as a result of "fraud, corruption and abuse" by governments in the developing world or NGOs using British funds.

But DfID has refused to release a detailed list of the projects and countries where fraud has been uncovered, saying that to do so would jeopardise the UK's relationship with foreign governments and risk further abuse by detailing the nature of the offence. And it has also refused to give details of exactly how much money has been misused

The decision to protect the identity of corrupt charities and governments was greeted with anger by campaigners and opposition politicians, who said the policy ran contrary to pledges of transparency in the aid system and risked undermining public confidence in Britain's strong stance on supporting the developing world.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: "This is information that should be unquestionably put in the public domain. In the context of DfID's overall budget, these are the sort of sums that would have been misappropriated by junior officials or an NGO and it is difficult to see how disclosure would be capable of harming international relations. It may well be true that the details of certain claims cannot be disclosed, in particular if they relate to as yet unproven allegations. But to insist on blanket anonymity smacks of unjustifiable secrecy."

DfID took five months to reply to the FOI request from The Independent for details of anti-corruption investigations conducted by its Counter Fraud Unit. But it said it had recovered, via investigations, £719,000 since 2005 relating to "budgetary support" or direct funding of developing world governments and money supplied to charities, including thousands of local NGOs.

The department said the list identifying specific fraud cases was being withheld to protect Britain's "good working relationships" with foreign governments and international organisations.

In its FOI response, DfID said: "Disclosing sensitive information relating to them would be likely to damage these relationships; harm DfID's ability to work with and influence other donors in eradicating poverty and undermine the UK's ability to respond to international development needs."

The department has adopted a robust stance on investigating allegations of fraud or corruption. In December last year, the Government announced it had frozen funding to the Ministry of Education in Kenya and issued visa bans against 20 Kenyan officials after $1.3m (£850,000) to buy learning materials went missing. The Nigerian authorities are also trying to trace £165,000 of DfID funding for training teachers which has disappeared. Over the past three years, DfID has also given funding of £4.7m to specialist units in the City of London and Metropolitan Police forces dedicated to investigating fraud. Scotland Yard's Proceeds of Corruption Unit has seized or frozen assets of more than £140m since 2006. But DfID said it was "not aware" that any of the recoveries or seizures by the two police forces included money that it had donated abroad.

Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative spokesman on international development, told The Independent that while the naming and shaming of foreign governments or charities found to have acted fraudulently should be considered on a case-by-case basis, there was no justification for blanket anonymity.

He said: "Taxpayers will be rightly angered that their money appears to have been misspent."

A DfID spokesman said: "We do not tolerate corruption and actively pursue those who misuse resources meant for the poor. Every one of DfID's programmes is subject to rigorous safeguards and careful monitoring to minimise the risk of fraud or misuse of UK funds. DfID's counter-fraud unit has recovered £719,000 relating to budgetary support or NGO funding over the past five years, which is a clear signal of DfID's commitment to fighting fraud and corruption wherever we find it."

£720,000

British funding lost through fraud, corruption and abuse by governments in developing countries and NGOs.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

What do you expect!!!!!
[info]toronto68 wrote:
Wednesday, 7 April 2010 at 11:16 pm (UTC)
Let's face it there should be no need for charities at all. Socially responsible government should eradicate charity in all its forms and higher taxation of the haves to supplement the needy is the answer. It's no surprise that the non profit execs earning huge sums misappropriate the cash cow that guilty giving supplies.
Re: What do you expect!!!!!
[info]normanfoster wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
A somewhat warped view which, thank heavens, is not shared by the great majority of the population!
No surprise there..
[info]trobase wrote:
Wednesday, 7 April 2010 at 11:34 pm (UTC)
This is typical, they let taxpayers' money slip into fraudsters' hands - then refuse to disclose where or how it's disappeared. This is transparent labour for you.

The Danish govt have a very interesting approach to international aid - they administer it themselves locally via their embassy and they don't have this type of fraud occurr. Then again, the Danish, and probably everyone else has more accountability to their citizens than the UK will ever have.
just more zanulabour incompetence
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 12:19 am (UTC)
most foreign aid is p1ssed away on graft and guns , so it's a total waste of money and does more harm than good

it probably will turn out that the relevant civil servants were getting a cut of the frauds.

zanulabour could not manage a sweet shop let alone a budget
Charity is sexy.
[info]1fontana wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 06:10 am (UTC)
Charity makes humans sexy and that is disasterous.
Giving blindly
[info]joeturner wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 07:11 am (UTC)

I receive at least three requests for money per day from charities in Africa and the UK. I have no idea which ones are legit. We are giving blindly.

I have been trying to find out which charities are legitimate. Is there a web site that provides this info? It would also be a good idea if the charities would indicate the amt of donated money that is NOT used for administration.
Re: Giving blindly
[info]ananda27 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 12:24 pm (UTC)
Check out any UK charities on the Charity Commission website. Charities are bound by pretty strict rules and have to file accounts and annual reports, so you can make a more informed choice about which ones you support (or don't!) I work in the voluntary sector, so tend to support those where I know one or more of the people involved and trust their integrity. I tend to support smaller charities where the overheads are lower and more of the money goes to the frontline work. Hope that helps!
Give democracy not charity
[info]alexweir1949 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 07:37 am (UTC)
Give third world countries fraud proof voting systems. They will vote out their corrupt presidents who collaborate with western and chinese governments and companies to steal from their people and perpetuate poverty. Simple. But britain america and china dont want. Wake up british voters. Exercise your power before you lose it. Alex weir. Harare
Re: Give democracy not charity
[info]keymoosaabee wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 08:10 am (UTC)
I completely agree with you Alex: However, anybody in the UK can walk into your local polling station and say they are you and cast your vote. (There are no checks on ID!) When you attend to vote, you will simply be informed that you have already voted!
Re: Give democracy not charity
[info]alexweir1949 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 08:48 am (UTC)
I agree keymoosaabee. Uk voting systems are not fraud proof. Find my fraud proof system at cd3wd.Com/seev . Alex weir
Aid is inherently inefficient
[info]barncactus wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 08:37 am (UTC)
Any cash given out to third parties in developing countries is at risk of 'diversion'. This almost always happens, you have to keep the people in power sweet before you can get anything done, and possibly powerful intermediaries too. We have to rely on the honesty of our civil service to prevent the same thing happening in the UK end of the payments chain.
It's very hard to know how much reaches the really needy and unless we are prepared to upset the local power base (and that usually brings loud shrieks of of ex-colonial power reverting to type), we just have to put up with it. It's really inefficient, but that's life. Charities on the ground doing their own distribution can help, but they are far from immune to the pressures of local corruption.
What would really help would be total transparency in Switzerland, land of confidential numbered accounts beloved of developing countries' leaders and administrators. Pigs will be flying first, though.
Britain's �5.6bn aid budget Voted for by Labour to increase to 10bn
[info]timsmith31 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 09:01 am (UTC)
It is ALL fraud.

The money just leavse Britain, and is cleaned and dlibvered into various hands. Gov. Now, How can we cut services in Britain to SAVE MONEY. Wise up folks... Do your own research online !
Your being ripped off !
[info]hippiewizard wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 09:07 am (UTC)
The problem here seems to be the fact that DfID is involved. Government aid is ALWAYS tied to attitudes on geopolitical issues. Governments time and again prove willing to (a) ignore starving people for economic and political reasons, and (b) consistently exploit workers in developing countries, and perpetuate the exploitation of big business. It is essential that as much charity as possible is NOT channelled through government, as government's only function is to perpetuate itself. By that logic, all government aid is corrupt.

In respectful response to Toronto68: Aside from the corruption, is charity and voluntary giving not a beautiful thing? If given the opportunity, it is my belief that most people will give without being forced to by taxation, especially when such forced giving is misappropriated thus. What makes government executives any less corrupt than big business or NGO execs? I would say surely that NGOs are the most trustworthy as their sole aim is the appropriation of funds for aid purposes, as opposed to business (to make profit and NOTHING ELSE) and government (to become re-elected/to serve their top echelon's whim).




newhttp://www.infowars.com/
[info]timsmith31 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 09:12 am (UTC)
lack of transparency and control
[info]rcrcmonfort wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 10:25 am (UTC)
Having worked for over 20 years in international relief and development, I have come to the conclusion that the whole system of aid is unworkable. My own experience is that DFID does not require minimum accountability and relies on the good but untested reputations of British charities. PHDs abound in the aid business but there is little or no practical field experience valued or utilised by the major decision makers resulting in little money reaching the poor or those in need. The business is full of the jargon of; project cylcle management, needs and risk assessments, monitoring, etc and thats where the money is increasing spent on costly professionals rather than in direct assistance. There is no attempt by DFID to ensure that programmes have an acceptable level of admin and management costs v direct benefit and cost benefit analysis or other methods which would value the outputs and outcomes are not used. Charity accounting is a joke.
What is 'international development'?
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 01:56 pm (UTC)

All we're really told in this article is that there is a Freedom Of Information issue, which the only commenting politician, shadow international development secretary Andrew Mitchell, attempts to make some political hay from - while then backing the Government / DfID's stance on the matter of disclosure.

You could argue that the figures given actually flatter the DfID, the Government and the Proceeds Of Corruption Unit for taking decisive action to tackle corruption - �144 000 lost p.a but a Kenyan education budget of �850k p.a. frozen. Kenyan pupils and teachers will no doubt be delighted that somebody cleaned up in Nairobi, and now the DfID's cleaning up even more in Whitehall.

All of this misses the much bigger scandal, that of the changing, I'd say corrupting, of what we actually mean by 'international development' as practised by the DfID. The clearest example of this is the rarely reported-on CDC, still under the Dfid's control, still taxpayer funded.

The onetime Commonwealth Development Corporation, which in 1998 was providing assistance to commercial enterprises in some 54 developing countries around the world, announced a programme for its own privatization by the end of early 1999. The privatisation was designed to expand its capital base and broaden its range of operations.

Privatization enabled the CDC to borrow from capital markets. The UK government sold a majority share of the CDC to its own board at a bargain basement price, guaranteeing fortunes for them, but retained a "golden share". This helped preserve the CDC's "unique character and development goals as an ethical and responsible investor." [CDC's country manager for Zimbabwe, Mr. Christopher Brain, 1998]

What happened next?
I'll leave it to War On Want to explain.

http://www.waronwant.org/news/press-releases/12968-uk-anti-poverty-ministry-hits-poor

Why does the Independent so often miss the *real* story?
Assessing charities
[info]katabaticwind wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 02:23 pm (UTC)
If you want to find out which charities are de facto arms of the state, I'd highly recommend using 'Fake Charities':

http://www.fakecharities.org/
Only mugs give to charities.
[info]bbb_iii wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 02:51 pm (UTC)
If a Government cannot get cooperation they want from a Foreign Power then they have to undermine it. This has happened throughout history on a repetative basis.

How do the 'western' governments do this? ...through charity's!

How else are these 'subversive' and 'terrorist' organisations getting their funding?

If any one wans to know about the 'Charitable' organisation that is subverting and undermining this country on behalf of the Bankster Globalists then look up 'Common Purpose'. Totally supported by the treacherous LibLabCon and is currently undermining a Council, Police Service, NHS Trust and Education Authority near you.

Simple message... STOP GIVING TO CHARITIES.
That's because ....
[info]h0rat1us wrote:
Thursday, 8 April 2010 at 03:27 pm (UTC)
.... the Government is corrupt!

What happened to the "open and transparent government" Brown was lying about only yesterday?
Don't conflate state aid with charity aid
[info]gulliver055 wrote:
Friday, 9 April 2010 at 01:34 am (UTC)

h0rat1us there will be another government - Whitehall doesn't stop. Do you want an international development programme? If so, of what kind?

bbbiii governments may well be corrupt but the DfID is not the same as major established charities, not the same money, not the same causes. To conflate the two is to become a footsoldier for dictators.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date