POLITICIANS probing a £1 billion anti-war fund are “working in the dark” because of government secrecy, a parliamentary report says.
Spending and strategy details for the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), set up under David Cameron, were kept from a parliamentary inquiry by ministers on the grounds of security concerns.
The government has now said it will give private briefings on its work to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS).
But MPs and peers say they are “sceptical” about the move and warned they “cannot work in the dark” when assessing how taxpayers’ cash is being spent.
In the last financial year, £484 million of the body’s total £1.127bn budget went to official development assistance.
No single minister is accountable for the CSSF and, in an evidence session last month, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said it is backing almost 100 initiatives in 40 countries.
Rudd said this includes Syria’s White Helmets, but declined to give any further details.
Meanwhile, the government has refused to reveal the names of the countries in which the money is spent or reveal how the fund works or even which projects it supports.
Dame Margaret Beckett, who chairs the committee of MPs and Lords, said: “During our inquiry, the government failed to provide the committee with sufficient evidence to judge whether the fund was reaching its potential.
“We cannot work in the dark.
“Without access to the National Security Council strategies for the fund, information about all the programmes and projects it has funded and a comprehensive breakdown of expenditure, we could not be expected to provide parliamentary accountability for taxpayers’ money spent via the conflict, stability and security fund.
“Such information could be provided in private to the committee.
“The government does seem persuaded of the need for more transparency and has given assurances to publish information where possible. However, this conversation will continue into the next parliament.
“JCNSS will not be rubber-stamping any government responses until the committee is satisfied we can meet our responsibilities to the public.”
The government says it will release further details at the end of June, when the CSSF reaches the end of its second year of operation.
This includes breakdowns of expenditure, plus information about the countries and projects the fund works with.
However, a statement noted: “While we are committed to transparency, there will be some details that cannot be published due to security sensitivities, the impact on international relations and our duty of care to our implementers.”
On the work of the body, it continued: “The UK continues to play a leading role globally. The UK is helping to tackle insecurity and instability around the world.
“The CSSF plays an important role in supporting this wider work as directed by the National Security Council.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel