Aid fund told to check Palestinian partners

Charity Commission publishes Interpal Inquiry report

The Charity Commission has today published the results of its Inquiry into the charity Palestinians Relief and Development Fund (Interpal).

Interpal works in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where there is considerable instability and where organisations designated as terrorist by the UK government operate. As a result the trustees face particular challenges and should operate robust procedures proportionate to the risks and practical difficulties involved.

The Inquiry was opened following a number of allegations made in a BBC Panorama programme.[i] The Commission’s Inquiry looked at four key issues:

a) Whether particular local partners funded by the charity were promoting the ideology or the activities of terrorist organisation(s) and therefore would be inappropriate partners for the charity;
b) whether the charity’s membership of the Union for Good[ii] was appropriate;
c) whether one of the trustees had anylinks to terrorist organisations or undertook activities whichmight make him unsuitable to be a trustee of the charity, and
d) whether the trustees were fulfilling their legal duties and responsibilities, in particular by ensuring that the charity and its assets were protected from any association with terrorist or inappropriate political activities.

The Commission’s Inquiry acknowledged that charities providing humanitarian aid in high-risk situations, such as armed or civil conflict and other complex emergencies, make a vital contribution to the communities affected and support people in desperate need.

The Commission’s Inquiry confirmed that Interpal did maintain clear financial audit trails in their delivery of aid for humanitarian purposes (Paragraph 120).

The Commission concluded that it could not verify that the material it examined suggesting certain partner organisations funded by the charity may be promoting terrorist ideology or activities, so the material was of insufficient evidential value to support these allegations (Paragraphs 59-61).

However, the Inquiry concluded that the charity trustees:

· had not taken sufficiently rigorous steps to investigate allegations about some of their partner organisations (Paragraphs 49-68),

· had not put in place adequate due diligence and monitoring procedures to be satisfied that these organisations were not promoting terrorist ideologies or activities. Where procedures were in place, they were not sufficient nor fully implemented (Paragraphs 115-147)

· had not adequately managed the charity’s relationship with the organisation the Union for Good. The Inquiry concluded that the charity’s continued membership of the Union for Good was not appropriate for a number of reasons set out in the report, including the involvement of designated entities in projects co-ordinated through the Union for Good, that designated entities had been amongst the Union for Good’s membership, and that one of the charity’s trustees was closely linked to the organisation (Paragraphs 69-114).

As a result of the Inquiry, the Commission has used its statutory powers to direct Interpal’s trustees to review their due diligence and monitoring procedures relating to their partner organisations, end the charity’s relationship with the Union for Good and ensure that no trustee holds office or has a role within the Union for Good. The Commission will be reviewing with the trustees the implementation of these requirements.

Andrew Hind, Chief Executive of the Charity Commission, said,

“Charities working in high-risk situations make a hugely important contribution to communities in desperate need. The risks and challenges involved in these areas require difficult and often finely-balanced judgements by charity trustees, as well as a greater effort in the development, implementation and monitoring of their humanitarian work.

"Even in these difficult areas, trustees must discharge their duty of care to ensure the charity’s work is protected from abuse, and must avoid activities that might put the charity’s assets or reputation at risk.

"The Charity Commission’s intervention in this case has demonstrated our commitment to ensuring charity trustees act effectively to manage any potential conflicts of interest and that they do not expose their charity to any undue risk.”

The full Inquiry report is available at www.charitycommission.gov.uk

Notes

i) BBC Panorama programme Faith, Hate and Charity, broadcast 26th July 2006. See paragraphs 22-23 in the report and the transcript at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5234586.stm

ii) The Union for Good is an organisation which comprises a number of UK and foreign organisations working with Palestinians and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Union for Good was created as a continuation of a campaign called “101 Days Campaign” which was established in 2001 during the Second Intifada. Its General Secretary is also the Managing Trustee of Interpal. The Union for Good is not a registered charity in the UK and was not the subject of this Inquiry. It is the charity’s relationship with the Union for Good and the trustees’ management and supervision of this, which was an issue for the Inquiry.

1. The Charity Commission is the independent regulator for charitable activity in England and Wales. Copies of the Inquiry report and additional questions and answers are available at www.charitycommission.gov.uk.

2. Interpal was established in July 1994 and registered as a charity on 11th August 1994. Its registered charity no. is 1040094. Its objects are:

a) The provision of aid and assistance, support, guidance and comfort to poor, needy sick children and widows and those suffering or distressed as a consequence of civil or military action or national disasters within its area of benefit, including setting up and maintenance of medical and health centres.

b) To relieve the need hardship and distress of persons whose relatives or friends died or who are missing or detained as a consequence of civil or military action and to provide protection and promote good health, both mental and physical, the relief of poverty and sickness, the advancement of education in matters relating to the nature of grieving and bereavement of connected persons.

3. The Commission opened a statutory Inquiry under Section 8 of the 1993 Charities Act into the charity Interpal on 13th December 2006. The Inquiry was closed on 26th February 2009. The Charity Commission had two previous inquiries into the charity, in 1996 and 2003. Summary details are in the 2009 Inquiry report. Section 8 of the Charities Act provides the Commission with a statutory power to institute inquiries into charities. The Commission has a range of powers that are available to it when a Section 8 Inquiry is open, including the power to direct the charity, or its trustees, officers or employees to take a specific action which the Commission considers is expedient in the interests of the charity.

Additional Questions and Answers on the Charity Commission’s Inquiry into
The Palestinians Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) February 2009

Q1. What sort of charity is Interpal? (Registered Charity No. 1040094)
A: The Palestinians Relief and Development Fund, also known as Interpal (“the Charity”) is a charity registered in England and Wales delivering aid and other charitable relief to Palestinians, mainly in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Lebanon. The Charity was established in July 1994 and registered as a charity on 11 August 1994. It is governed by a Declaration of Trust dated 29 July 1994. The Charity’s objects, as set out in its Declaration of Trust, are:

a) The provision of aid and assistance, support, guidance and comfort to poor needy sick children and widows and those suffering or distressed as a consequence of civil or military action or national disasters within its area of benefit, including setting up and maintenance of medical and health centres.

b) To relieve the need hardship and distress of persons whose relatives or friends died or who are missing or detained as a consequence of civil or military action and to provide protection and promote good health, both mental and physical, the relief of poverty and sickness, the advancement of education in matters relating to the nature of grieving and bereavement of connected persons.

c) The provision in the interests of social welfare of facilities for the recreation and other leisure time occupation of those of refugee status or connected persons who may have need of such facilities by reason of their youth or age or infirmity or disablement or social and economic circumstances.

The Charity’s main areas of work are the provision of humanitarian aid, education, community development and health. Much of its aid is delivered through partners in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who are responsible for implementing the projects that the Charity supports. Many of these partners are registered locally as charities, some of which are known as “zakat committees”.

Q2. How does the Charity raise funds?
A: The Charity raises funds in the UK by way of donations, and directs those funds to its work, which is primarily in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well as Jordan and Lebanon. In 2007, the Charity collected donations of £5,064,280 and applied £2,201,365 towards its charitable purposes. Of that, £1,564,057 was spent on providing aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with £167,725 and £119,711 spent on aid for Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon respectively. The remainder went towards other charitable purposes.

Q3. What led up to this Inquiry being opened?
A: In July 2006 the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme called Faith, Hate and Charity[1], which reported allegations that the majority of the Charity’s funding was sent to local partners in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that a number of these promoted the ideology of Hamas.

Q4. What were the allegations made in the Panorama programme?
A: It appeared to the Commission that the key points reported in the programme were:

a) allegations that many of these Islamic charities are an integral part of Hamas, and are crucial to its support amongst the Palestinian people. It further alleged that many are committed to a particular concept of dawah[2], in essence forming a ‘dawah wing’ of Hamas[3]. The programme claimed: ‘for a political movement like Hamas, dawah is militant preaching, often aimed at impressionable minds’;

b) allegations that the Charity’s funds are sent to local partners which promote a ‘Jihadi ethos’. The programme claimed that militant material had been found at several of these committees’ premises during raids by the Israeli Defence Force, and that key figures in the management of certain local partners were members of Hamas;

c) allegations that a trustee of the Charity had links with Hamas by virtue of meetings with senior Hamas figures and making public expressions of support for the Second Intifada[4]. It further alleged that links were created by that trustee’s senior role in the Union for Good[5], a coalition of charities operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories which directed its funding at ‘missionary dawah’; and

d) claims that the Charity was a key member of the Union for Good, whose President appeared to have publicly supported suicide bombings directed at Israeli civilians.

Q5. When was the Inquiry opened and closed?
A: The Inquiry was opened in 13th December 2006 and was closed on 26th February 2009.

Q6. What did the Commission do in response to the programme?
A: The Commission requested the material from the BBC. The Commission did not rely on the conclusions drawn by the programme but instead, as an independent, evidence-based regulator, it conducted its own analysis of the Panorama material to assess whether it raised regulatory concerns. It established that there was evidence in the material raising concerns that required further investigation to ascertain whether the Charity’s trustees were properly fulfilling their legal duties and responsibilities.

The Commission met with the Charity following its initial analysis of the Panorama material and put the Commission’s preliminary concerns. Following that meeting and due to the serious nature of the issues raised by the Commission’s analysis of the Panorama material, the consequent risk to the Charity’s assets and reputation, and the Commission’s responsibility to safeguard public trust and confidence in the charitable sector, on 13 December 2006 the Commission decided to open an Inquiry.

Q7. What was the Inquiry specifically looking into?

A: The Commission’s Inquiry looked at four key issues:
a) Whether particular local partners funded by the Charity were promoting the ideology or the activities of terrorist organisation(s) and therefore would be inappropriate partners for the Charity;
b) whether the Charity’s membership of the Union for Good was appropriate;
c) whether one of the trustees had any links to terrorist organisations or undertook activities which might make him unsuitable to be a trustee of the Charity, and
d) whether the trustees were fulfilling their legal duties and responsibilities, in particular by ensuring that the Charity and its assets were protected from any association with terrorist or inappropriate political activities.

Q8. What did the Commission find in its Inquiry?
A: In summary, the Commission’s Inquiry confirmed that the Charity had maintained clear financial audit trails in their delivery of aid for humanitarian purposes (Paragraph 120).The Commission concluded that it could not verify that the material it examined suggesting certain partner organisations funded by the Charity may be promoting terrorist ideology or activities, so the material was of insufficient evidential value to support these allegations. (Paragraphs 59-61).

However, the Inquiry concluded that:

The trustees had not taken sufficiently rigorous steps to investigate the allegations about some of their local partners and did not put in place adequate due diligence and monitoring procedures to be satisfied that these partners were not promoting terrorist ideologies or activities (Paragraphs 49-68).

The Charity’s close association with the Union for Good cannot continue given the potential for linkage to be made between the Charity and designated entities through membership of, and association with, the Union for Good (Paragraphs 69-98).

Given the position with the Union of Good, the trustee referenced in the report cannot continue both as trustee of the Charity and General Secretary of the Union for Good (Paragraphs 99-114).

The due diligence and monitoring procedures the trustees put in place went some way to mitigating risks faced by the Charity. However, in the circumstances, these were not sufficient nor fully implemented. (Paragraphs 115-147).

Q9. What action is the Charity required to take?

A: As a result of its conclusions, the Commission, using its statutory powers, has directed the trustees to take certain steps as follows:

Carry out a review of the trustees’ due diligence and monitoring procedures.
End the Charity’s membership of, and in all other respects dissociate from, the Union for Good, including ceasing to provide it with any facilities or other resources.

Ensure that no trustee of the Charity holds any office or has any role whatsoever within the Union for Good.

Q10. What monitoring will be done to see that the required and recommended actions are taken by the trustees?
A: The Commission will be reviewing with the trustees the implementation of these requirements.

Q11. What is the Charity Commission doing to ensure aid reaches those it should?
A: It is important to clarify that in the case of Interpal, the issue was not whether aid was being misappropriated - the charity maintained clear financial audit trails in its delivery of aid for humanitarian purposes.

Under the law, it is the responsibility of charity trustees to ensure that charities’ funds are used for legitimate charitable purposes and reach their intended beneficiaries. The Charity Commission, as the regulator, enforces trustees’ responsibilities where necessary. We expect charities to: keep clear financial records and maintain accurate audit trails follow our guidance on working internationally always prepare accounts and, where legally required, submit them to us report serious incidents to us as part of our accounting and reporting requirements.

Professional auditors and accountants are also legally required to alert us to serious concerns about a charity and there are whistle-blowing provisions in place to support this. The Commission monitors charities’ accounts where we consider charities to be at risk. Looking beyond our jurisdiction of England and Wales, we also run an International Programme, with the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which aims to develop the best possible regulation of NGOs abroad, in order to increase their effectiveness and public confidence and trust.

Q12. Has the Commission suspended or removed any of the trustees?
A: No, the Commission has not suspended or removed any trustees as a result of the Inquiry. However the Commission concluded that given the position of the Union for Good, the charity trustee named in the report cannot continue both as trustee of the charity and General Secretary for the Union for Good.

Q13. Has the Commission had previous contact with Interpal?
A: Yes. The Commission had two previous inquiries into the charity, in 1996 and in 2003. Details of both of these inquiries are in the 2009 Inquiry report document.

Q14. Why have you not de-registered the charity?
A: The charity is entitled to operate and to operate specifically in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and is entitled to continue to do so.

[1] BBC Panorama programme Faith, Hate and Charity, broadcast 26th July 2006. See paragraphs 22-23 in the report and the transcript at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5234586.stm
[2] Dawah is generally considered to be an obligation to promote the Islamic faith or call others into it.

[3] Some countries take the view that there is no distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas, and that Hamas also has a ‘dawah wing’ which is an integral part of its structure. This is not the view of the UK Government (see paragraph 14 of Inquiry report).

[4] The Second Intifada refers to the Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000.

[5] See paragraph 71 of Inquiry report for further information about the Union for Good. The Union for Good is an organisation which comprises a number of UK and foreign organisations working with Palestinians and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Union for Good was created as a continuation of a campaign called “101 Days Campaign” which was established in 2001 during the Second Intifada. Its General Secretary is also the Managing Trustee of Interpal. The Union for Good is not a registered charity in the UK and was not the subject of this Inquiry. It is the charity’s relationship with the Union for Good and the trustees’ management and supervision of this, which was an issue for the Inquiry.