Dumping political bias is one step towards Oxfam putting its house in order

Regarding your front page story “More than a quarter of Scots ‘don’t place trust in charities’,” (21 February), we can all agree in principle not to penalise whole organisations for the actions of what we hope are a few bad apples but it is too early to exonerate Oxfam’s whole organisation – just as even ten years after the RBS debacle we obviously cannot exonerate its whole organisation.

One clear criticism of Oxfam is its blatant political bias and campaigning over the past few years which the Charities Commission rightly investigated, but which continues.

Also, an important distinction is blurred between our voluntary support for our preferred charities and the government’s use of our public money paid in part through certain charities to meet its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on international aid.

Is it healthy for charities that a large part of their income comes directly from the government (in addition to Gift Aid)? Is it wise or ethical stewardship of public funds for the government to increase its borrowings to meet that commitment, particularly when our official (ie understated) national debt approaches £2,000 billion and our domestic needs are underfunded?

A report this week by think tank the Springfield Centre casts doubt on the effectiveness of the current aid programme, as “optimistic, veering to disingenuous”. We need a credible, comprehensive analysis of the long-term sustained results of our aid over the past 40-50 years, not excluding, as many experts argue, its probable encouragement and prolongation of a colonial-type dependency culture. Trade is the way forward.

JOHN BIRKETT Horseleys Park, St Andrews The Oxfam sex scandal has pushed Harvey Weinstein off the front pages but calls for more than the current chief executive saying “Sorry!” The publicity has been distastefully hinted at as an indirect attack on International Aid funding when what is evident is a betrayal of many dedicated staff and volunteers who do good work, and also the way public money is both used and misused.

There are now almost 200,000 registered charities and not a few doing similar types of work and with some, very highly paid chief executives whose salaries are met before one penny goes to their cause. Charities enjoy tax concessions. Other taxpayers therefore indirectly contribute to causes which they may not agree with or would never contribute to directly.

Let charities get on with their work but stand on their own feet without benefit of tax relief and have a Charities Commission seen to be more effective in its role than a chocolate fireguard.

JIM CRAIGEN Downie Grove, Edinburgh