New on our blog
Email this page
Kit Patrick
- Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Poor old George Galloway. It seems that the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow cannot help but get involved with troublesome charities.
Take his recent ‘Viva Palestina’ appeal. Apparently, it raised over £1 million for an aid convoy headed for Gaza (the convoy has since reached its destination and handed over aid to Hamas).
I say ‘apparently’ because we can’t be sure: although the appeal appears charitable, the appeal was not registered with the Charity Commission (which regulates all charitable activity in England and Wales) and so wasn't required to make public its accounts, or indeed any other information. When the Commission tried to contact the appeal with its concerns, it got “no substantial response”. It has since launched an investigation.
This has a haunting resemblance to an earlier Galloway appeal, which also failed to register with the Commission. An investigation found that around 30 per cent of its income came an “improper source” involved with the Iraqi oil-for-food scandals.* And, to top it all, Galloway’s nominated charity when he appeared on Big Brother also ran into serious trouble with the Commission. The conspiracy theorists are already getting hot under the collar.
Questions have been raised about the Charity Commission itself. After all, it has significant and sweeping powers, including the right to suspend charity staff, and take over charity bank-accounts. George Galloway claims the Commission's power is being abused - it's a political weapon, he says, in the fight against a popular MP. But others have attacked the Commission for being too timid, and too fearful of political consequences to use its powers. The rhetoric is heated, and you might be forgiven for wondering why the Commission exists at all.
But before the Commission's critics get too excited, it's worth looking at one image of world without a Charity Commission:
“widespread abuse . . . by politicians and other wealthy individuals who have exploited the tax-exempt status of NGOs to set up fraudulent organizations that serve private and often corporate ends.” (NGO Accountability p94.)
That was the Philippines, where genuine charities only avoided a government clampdown by starting their own regulator. Or take Saudi Arabia, whose errant charities have caused international incidents. Or Australia, where only basic tax details have to be submitted by charities, and even these are often omitted. In general, life without a charity regulator is worse. So I’m thankful that we have a Charity Commission, even one which is attacked from all sides of the political spectrum. I’ll be watching the progress of the Viva Palestina inquiry with an open mind.
N.B. Please don’t let these antics put you off giving to Gaza. There are plenty of ways you can give and be confident that your money is well looked after. See our articles on giving to Gaza and Palestine in general.
*Please contact the Charity Commission for the full report (it's not available online). In fairness to the Charity Commission, independent reports from other organizations seem to support some of their results.
And yours is clearly a rational position not at all a predicated on a dogmatic need to believe in the impartiality of the publically funded body that regulates your sector. It was you began getting personal Chris and, conveniently, you only addressed part of my post.... A previous CC employee by any chance?
Don't shoot the messenger
"It could well be that the CC pick and choose the examples that they publish"
Yes. It could be, or you could be simply making it up to desperately try and support a viewpoint you have decided on with absolutely no facts to back it up.
It's not so much trust, as using evidence vs prejudice.
I'm a man with a very busy day job and a number of unofficial campaigning interests - it's a good while since I did my spot check, but I can assure you the proportion was a great deal higher than the figure you've arrived it.
It could well be that the CC pick and choose the examples that they publish to summarise their yearly activities. Indeed I think that must be so because they used to list around eight to ten a month and that would give an annual total far higher than 29. It could also be that you and I have different view of what could constitute a Muslim or Asian charity. Regardless, I'm not really interested in arguing save to say that the Commission clearly revelled in their role of investigating the funding of terrorism. You may be inclined to believe that this is a useful public service and a principled extension of the CC's remit . By contrast I'm of the view that this is all about the commission attempting to look relevant and sucking up to its paymasters.
I don't think it's really possible to prove that either of us are right. Rather it's a matter of trust. You trust the commission (and undoubtedly have your reasons for doing so), I don't happen to share your opinion and my view is based on personal experience as well as the reported experiences of others.
Don't shoot the messenger
I think that perhaps you're being a bit unfair. The Commission lists 16 recently concluded inquiries here http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/inqreps.asp#7, and of those 16, 2 relate to charities that could be classified as 'muslim' charities. In the 2008 archived reports, 29 are listed, of which 5 relate to 'muslim' charities.
Whilst this might still be disproportionate, it isn't 50%. Inquiries in general tend to relate to the Commission receiving information from external sources. Clearly, the Commission does not control information or complaints that it receives from third parties, but it does then have to act on that information. We aren't privy to details of how that information breaks down between different types of charities, and so cannot draw conclusions as the Commission 'picking on' a certain type of charity based on the actual published reports.
They are in a difficult position, as this article tries to explain: http://www.charityfinanceblogs.co.uk/content.php?id=238
IG seem to be keeping an open mind on the Viva Palestina investigation. The Commission don't appear to have made any particular allegations, other than to be trying to ensure that £1m of potentially charitable funds are administered properly. Reasonable, or not?
But it wouldn't be hard to find. On their website they used to put up a list of investigations (with links to the reports) by month. I got the info from there.
When they can launch an investigation into an apparent administrative slip but ignore numerous allegations of fraud then I do have to wonder.
Don't shoot the messenger
Hi Chris
Fair question. A few months ago I assessed the Charity Commission's monthly investigative burden and discovered that approximately 50% related to Muslim and Asian community groups. Now, I'm quite convinced that this isn't representative of the overall charity 'market'.
It was also interesting to see what they were being investigated for. One intervention (publicly funded) was into a very minor issue - apparently the Trustees forgot to consider a compulsary agenda item at their regular meetings. By sharp contrast I know that major accusations (backed with compelling evidence) are often dismissed by the Charity Commission as not being worthy of investigation if the charity being complained about is more, how can I put this, 'mainstream'.
My honest view is that the Charity Commission is about as objective as the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission or the Press Complaints Commission.
Don't shoot the messenger
"Recently this has involved them picking on muslim charities"
Interesting - what form has this taken?
Is this sarcasm or are you making a serious point here? If so, could you possibly explain?
Don't shoot the messenger
does a fantastic job of spending £30 million of taxpayers money...
If it weren't for them who would keep an eye on the financial standing of all the UK's scout groups?
"You might be forgiven for wondering why the Commission exists at all."
Quite Kit, quite. But, as anyone who's had any substantive dealings with the Commission knows, the reason(s) for its existance is/are to 'account for' (waste) £30m pa of tax payers money thus helping to keep the unemployment figures down and to fool the public into believing that the charity sector is effectively regulated (being tied up in red tape is not the same thing).
Occasionally the Commission departs from these honourable aims and embarks on a politically expedient crusade to please its paymasters. Recently this has involved them picking on muslim charities as they pretend to be interested in preventing the funding of religious extremism.
Don't shoot the messenger
Well - true enough. It is difficult to have absolute proof that either of us is correct.
I must stress that I don't have some kind of belief in Charity Commission infallibility. I'm also aware that you have personally seem them in action and been disappointed / angry with their lack of action in the past.
Surely though, this does not impact on all cases that they deal with in the future. Please consider: you made the statement: "the Commission clearly revelled in their role of investigating the funding of terrorism". What are we meant to take from this comment? In the context of the original article it doesn't apply, as the Commission has sent an enquiry asking for confirmation that funds raised from the public are held for charitable purposes.
The Commission have been asked by the Government, as part of their remit, to ensure that charitable funds are not used to fund terrorist activities, and they have tried and are continuing to try to ensure that they do that. I don't understand why that could be seen as a bad thing, and also how commenting that they 'revel' in the role could be seen as fair comment. This morning, my girlfriend asked me to take the rubbish out. I did it. I took all the rubbish bags out, even the one that was slightly hidden. Does that mean I 'revelled' in the role, and that I did a bad thing? I'm not trying to be personal, but the language you use implies a grudge against the Commission, and an unwillingness to consider that they are doing a job that needs to be done, or are capable of doing it correctly in any cases at all.
And I don't think that's a fair or reasonable position to take.
PS Nope, I have no links past or present to the Commission.