Where our Money Goes

Kabul Bank was apparently hailed as proof of progress and modernisation in Afghanistan and held the salaries of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, policemen and government staff paid by international donors. However, following its near collapse in 2010, a forensic audit has revealed that it make huge fraudulent loans totalling some £540 million to a small circle of shareholders, political figures and their companies, with little expectation they would be repaid. Those receiving the money included the brothers of both the president and-vice president.

This money came from international donors, which is the politically correct way of saying the taxpayers in Britain, America and Japan. There is no hope of recovering it as it would seem that the Afghan police and justice systems are just as corrupt as the bank. No doubt the donors have written it off and decided that their taxpayers must cough up some more.

Massive corruption is a way of life not only in Afghanistan but in most so-called third world countries and nowhere more so than in their neighbour Pakistan. What always staggers me is that the donors are so naive as to hand out cash to these countries; in this case there was so much cash that it needed ten Pamir Airways pilots to be on the payroll in order to fly the loot to Dubai.

I am broadly against foreign aid as most appears to be given for political purposes rather than actual need. This country gives aid to countries such as India, Pakistan and China, all of which seemingly can afford huge military expenditure, way in excess of our own. I feel that aid should only be in response to natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods and not handed out as on a routine basis.

But if we are to give aid, in my view it should comply with the following conditions

• It should never be cash, only goods or services
• Wherever possible goods should be of a type that are difficult to re-sell and should be made in Britain, thus helping ourselves as we help others.
• No luxury goods of any type,
• No armaments or military supplies.
• Any services (eg road building, etc) to be carried out by British companies, using directly employed local labour as necessary.
• Where ever possible, the goods should be marked to indicate they were aid.

Some 45 or more years ago I worked for a short while as a technical assistant for the Australian government in London, and one of the jobs that I was involved in concerned the purchase of some airport radio equipment which was to be given as aid. The specification required that the main panels of the equipment were engraved with words to the effect that:
"This equipment  has been given by the people of Australia to the people of XXXX to assist in  the modernisation of their airport"
I think that this was the right approach to aid, it wasn't cash, it couldn't easily be re-sold, it wasn't luxury goods, and it was marked as aid. I wonder if the Australians still do the same in these politically correct times.

Meanwhile, I'm sure that everyone reading this will be pleased to know that while we are struggling to make ends meet, we have helped the government to make millionaires of twelve or so Afghans.

Further details in the Daily Telegraph

Immigration Controls

I've been reading the various reports on the "easing" of immigration controls, and my instinct is to suggest that the critics are aiming at the wrong target.

When I have returned home through Heathrow or Gatwick during the past five years or so, I cannot recall one occasion when my passport was inspected by someone whom I would describe of ethnic British descent. I recall the first occasion very clearly, many years ago, when it was examined by a woman wearing  sari, who in spite of my British Passport asked me if I was normally resident in the UK. Frankly, I was quite shocked at the time.

Now I don't doubt the loyalty of 99% or more of our immigration and passport control officers, but it only needs one individual whose loyalties lie elsewhere, to let in an unknown number of unwanted undesirables. At Heathrow this would be particularly easy, an officer could advise an immigrant when he was on duty, it would be quite easy for someone to hang around in the transit lounge until the appropriate time, and then choose the queue where the contact is inspecting passports.
We have already had cases of visas being wrongfully issued, I believe someone of Nigerian descent was involved in a recent case, and before that, an employee at our Embassy in Delhi.
Some countries (amongst them Switzerland, so I am informed) require all border control personnel to have been born in  the country of parents who were also born there.

Some unwanted immigrants may have got into the country whilst controls were relaxed (but they would have needed to know that this was happening), but I am far more concerned about those being let in by corrupt or disloyal officers in the Border Control Agency and other immigration services.

Snouts in the Trough

MP's rightly got a lot of flack for abusing their expenses, but regrettably they aren't alone in this, the practice seems to be quite common these days throughout the higher levels of our public services. Now it is not as if people at these levels are not well paid, salaries in the higher echelons of public services have risen far faster, percentage-wise, that at any any other level over the past ten years. So what is going wrong?
One thing seems to be that many of those concerned don't seem to appreciate that they are doing wrong. Sir Paul Stephenson, for example, apparently considered it perfectly in order to accept free hospitality at a convalescent home, and even when resigning firmly insisted that he'd done nothing wrong.
Andrea Hill, the Chief Executive of the Suffolk County Council saw nothing wrong with accepting hospitality from various companies in spite of receiving a salary of £216,000 pa. Does she get fired for abuse of her office - no, she "resigns" and gets another year's salary.
Inspector Gadget points out that two of Wales’ police forces spent more than £1.1m on top-of -the-range cars in the past four years for the personal use of senior officers and their partners. Chief Officers at Dyfed-Powys Police and South Wales Police were given cars worth up to £45,000 each on top of their annual salaries.
And of course, the latest is that Cleveland Police’s chief constable and his deputy have been arrested in an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption.

The problem with any form of indiscreet behaviour at the top is that it becomes endemic throughout the organisation  If the Police Chief can accept a fortnight's hospitality, why shouldn't the copper on the beat accept a bottle from the local publican? Both might be perfectly innocent events without strings attached, but that is not how the public sees it. Was the provision of cars for personal use part of the salary package for the post or an extra sneaked in afterwards, as they can hardly be regarded as essential to the job where no doubt they would use a police vehicle and driver. (I wonder if the Tax Man is aware of the situation?) If its OK for a Council Chief executive to "discuss business" in exotic locations at someone else's expense, well why shouldn't a planning officer discuss the details of  a proposed extension at  our local bribing dining place.

Fortunately we have not yet reached the situation that a friend found in Brussels, where he had to pay a pourboire in addition to the fee in order to get his residential parking permit stamped at the Marie. But I just wonder how long it will be before this sort of thing becomes the norm and we accept it without question.

Of course I haven't mentioned the NHS which seems to provide a never-ending benefit package for incompetent administrators who take a pay-off from one NHS trust, only to move on to another one near-by. That would provide a whole blog in itself were I were able to find time for the necessary research!