Scandalous rot that goes far beyond this one bad apple

FOR years, there have been whispers in the aid world about the activities of Adam Smith International (ASI) as it gobbled up Government contracts to become the UK’s biggest specialist aid contractor.

Insiders talked about the firm’s remorseless focus on making money, which earned millions for the founders as they preached their anti-poverty sermons. I heard people question the dubious nature of projects, dodgy practices behind the scenes, huge spending on Western consultants, and questionable links with Whitehall. Yet still the firm sucked up contracts, with almost all earnings coming from Britain’s beleaguered taxpayers as aid budgets grew: £89.3million one year, £93.5million

the next, then £112.2million last year. As we revealed last month, one £25million project designed to improve water supplies in poverty-hit parts of Africa saw at least £17million spent on consultants.

With jaw-dropping inevitability, this scheme was renewed by Government paymasters.

Now the ASI gravy train has, temporarily at least, hit the buffers. But only because an outraged whistleblower helped my investigations that revealed the firm’s rotten core. Politicians on the International Development Committee and at DFID deserve a cheer for finally forcing this firm to clear out its top team and clean up its act.

Yet ASI should not just be seen as one bad apple. This firm stands as a symbol of a system riddled with corruption.

Other players may not behave with such stupidity but are just as focused on their own bottom lines. At least ASI paid tax in this country, for example, unlike some competitors growing fat on the British public’s enforced largesse. Meanwhile the malaise of hefty six-figure pay packages has seeped into the charity world, and it is no surprise to discover that DFID pays the highest wages in Whitehall while flying around the world on its supposed mission to help the global poor.

It also has an appalling record on rooting out corruption, which is why, for all the sudden bold talk of tackling malpractice, we must remember that officials only acted after journalistic exposure of wrongdoing.

Perhaps this would not matter so much if the floods of money were really making a difference to struggling people in poor places.

Yet mostly it makes matters worse by aiding corruption, assisting despots and diminishing hopes of democracy.

With tragic irony, former Prime Minister David Cameron stepped forward last week to mount a defence of aid on the very day that ASI disclosed its dramatic response to our investigation.

Sadly, such practices are the inevitable legacy of his Government’s policies and the wider political obsession with hitting a flawed, outdated target to give away 0.7 per cent of national income.

This sort of behaviour is what happens when spending is prioritised over results, when taxpayers are treated like fools and when Westminster politicians think they can solve complex problems in impoverished corners of the planet.

So will the lessons be learned from this scandal – or will it soon be back to business as usual in the swollen poverty industry?