HAS THE TIME ARRIVED FOR CHARITY TO BEGIN AT HOME?

As we look forward to endless years of austerity that will be inflicted on us by the Government's severe public spending cuts, there is a growing consensus that believes the time has come for charity to begin at home. Our political leaders, while some still seem content to line their own pockets despite jail sentences handed to the few of their colleagues that were brought to task, the rest of us are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Contrary to what politicians tell us, we are certainly not all in this together. The divide between the highest and lowest paid continues to increase leaving the lowliest members of society to take the brunt of the suffering. 

But while the steady hike in the cost of living hits the majority, it is the elderly, the sick and the lowest paid who are punished. Residential care homes are closing through lack of funding, terminally ill patients are being refused life prolonging drugs on cost grounds, thousands are losing their jobs and too many also their homes. None of this accounts for the appalling treatment being dished out by several NHS hospitals and the worst care homes.  I could continue ranting about so much that is wrong with our country but this will be in the book I am writing. 

If the fat cats opened their eyes and bothered to visit some of the most deprived parts of Britain they would see the vast inequalities that exist between the poorest living standards and their own. We have become a nation that fails to take care of its own, but the Government prefers to give billions of pounds of taxpayers' money in overseas aid without too many questions being asked. It is time we started taking notice of the needy in our own country before assisting overseas nations that are unable to help themselves. Although it may be commendable for Britain to be seen as a generous nation - in these difficult times is it inappropriate to help our own citizens first?

Public anger, particularly amongst the lowest paid, the unemployed and those living in appalling social housing is rife over the massive increases the Government has made to the international aid budget. This is currently set at 0.7 per cent of GDP that according to the Daily Mail will cost every household £479; money many could use to keep pace with spiralling domestic fuel bills! Many feel it is morally wrong for the Government to lavish billions of pounds of our money to aid other countries when unprecedented budget cuts will reduce the standards of almost every public service. David Cameron maintains he is correct to be more generous in the nation's support of other countries but there is widespread disagreement from MPs who are angered by the prime minister remark that the total devoted to foreign aid is "not a huge amount". Try telling that to those that have nowhere to shelter apart from in the cardboard cities and shop doorways on Britain's shabby streets and to those that live in filth and unbelievable poverty in decaying social housing on gang ridden inner city estates. 

We knew it would be tough after the mess Labour got us into, but we are still spending money by sending our depleted armed forces to assist the Libyan rebels opposing Gaddafi. This action has already exceeded £250m, small change in military terms. And then there is the cost - in lives and money - of maintaining our military forces in Afghanistan. Think how this could have been used to provide adequate care for the elderly! When will the penny drop and for the Government to come to terms with the fact that we are no longer  a major military and that our participation in the Middle East, could be fuelling terrorism rather than working to defeat it according to some political experts? 

In October George Osborne announced that the budget assigned to the Dept for International Development would be raised by 34.2 per cent. Economists claim this will increase foreign aid in real terms by 50 per cent from £8.4billion in 2010 to £12.6billion by 2014. This is more than the Home Office budget used to fund the police, Border Agency and anti-terrorism measures. Their budget is to be cut by 25 per cent from £10.1bn to £8.3bn by 2014/15. Despite this, 17 DfID bureaucrats are reported to be receiving salaries ranging from £90,000 to £170,000 including Richard Calvert (£125,000), Nemat Shafik (£170,000) and Mark Lowcock (£135,000). It seems particularly hypocritical for executives devoted to reducing poverty in other countries to be paid this much.

Officials insist that foreign aid is well spent. As an example they tell us that it will reduce the numbers that die from malaria by around 50 per cent but what is the justification behind the money given to India (£295m) and Pakistan (£140m) when both have nuclear programmes that are shrouded in secrecy? It is thought each has between 70-90 warheads capable of destroying the other. China and Russia were also recipients of UK aid until recently despite their growing economies and the former's disregard for human rights.

 Defence Secretary Liam Fox has spoken out against the increase in foreign aid but Barbara Stocking of Oxfam believes Britain's contribution offers great value to the taxpayer, although I doubt many will agree with her assumption. She claims that "For little more than a penny in the tax pound we not only help those in need but also boost our standing in the world and increase our influence in the global corridors of power".  So, does this mean that those in need in Britain are being neglected to favour our standing in the world? It has long been suspected that much of the money provided in foreign aid is misdirected to finance the lifestyles of corrupt governments.  One of the poorest countries on earth, Malawi, was one of those singled out when it was thought aid money was being diverted to the nation's government officials. After a diplomatic dispute with President Bingu wa Mutharika when he expelled the British Ambassador, it is believed £47m in aid given to Malawi could now be cut. Afghanistan is also high on the Government's priority list and is set to receive an additional £200m in aid over the next four years to help stabilize the government and economy. But it is doubtful whether British taxpayers feel their money is being well spent.  Channel 4 News reported that Stuart Gordon, a research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, stated that "in such situation aid may have as many negative, unintended effects as positive ones, and at the very least, it is not a panacea".  In a country where Taliban intimidation of the civilian population is rife, it is doubtful whether any amount of aid will succeed in stabilising the situation and the efforts of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams that are meant to be 'winning hearts and minds' is not working for the Afghans. 

The 10 countries receiving the most aid in 2009/10:

1	INDIA	£295m	6	PAKISTAN	£140m
2	ETHIOPIA	£214m	7	AFGHANISTAN	£133m
3	BANGLADESH	£149m	8	NIGERIA	£114m
4	SUDAN	£146M	9	Dem Rep of CONGO	£109m
5	TANZANIA	£144M	10	GHANA	£90m

Part of Britain's foreign aid budget is also being spent by a little known BBC run charity, the World Charity Trust that is said to be 'changing lives through media'. This employs 600 staff in London and abroad but receives £800,000 a year from the BBC. This has financed sex education films, Hindi dramas, a radio soap opera for Myanmar about health care and aids and has paid for a radio station start up in Iraq. It has been reported that £15m of taxpayers' money goes to this charity although the spend last year was reported to have been £28m with money coming from official departments such as The British Council which is part of the Foreign Office. 

Charity certainly seems to begin at home when it comes to the rewards that the UK's leading charities are paying their chief executives. Despite a concerted effort I have been unable to find latest figures of the salaries major charities are paying their chief executives although I believe this information should be in the public domain. The latest information I could locate was published in The Independent in November 2009. This makes some astonishing reading that may cause some donors to think again before handing their hard earned cash to some of their favourite causes. Top of the list was Deborah Shackleton of the Riverside Housing Group who was paid a salary of £231,000 in 2008/09. Other high-fliers include Martin Narey of Barnado's (£166,532); Fiona Reynolds of the National Trust (said to be between £160,000 and £169,000); Peter Hollins of the British Heart Foundation (£153,000); Bridget Warr of Guide Dogs for the Blind (between £120,000 and £130,000) and Gordon Lishman of Age Concern (£117,488 in 2007/08) to name just a few.  Justin Byworth, CEO of World Vision, who has lavish offices in Milton Keynes, was paid £99,994 in pay and perks in 2008. There is no denying that these figureheads work hard and are highly influential in the success of the charities they represent, but salaries of this magnitude tends to grate. Charities are not slow to defend this by telling critics that they have no option but to pay high salaries in order to attract the right people. As I recall the same excuse was used by the banks before they shafted the country! 

Nobody is naive to think that large charities handling tens of millions of pounds in donations can work from a rundown shed. Nevertheless their lavish offices, often in prime locations and kitted out expensively, and CEO salaries and perks appears hypocritical when they are appealing for donations from a public who are far less affluent. It leaves a sour taste to know that buildings and salaries take so much from the overall sums that are donated. It also adds insult to injury that David Cameron now believes that the public should 'round up' their credit card transactions so that the extra money can be paid directly to charities as part of his 'big society' theory. What planet is the prime minister now living on?

Finally there are the issues concerning the controversy that surrounds the charity status of 1200 or so independent schools including Eton, Harrow and Wellington. The latter collectively are granted £100m tax relief every year despite charging rich parents hefty fees. Some believe such tax benefits has been made possible because thousands of former students now hold key positions in high places and can influence decisions. To be granted charity status an organisation has to show that it operates for the benefit of the public - but come on - how much benefit has the general public ever received from public schools? Currently a Charity Trust tribunal is evaluating whether these schools can continue to pay no taxes on their income. State educators anxiously await their verdict with crossed fingers.