I suspect things are clearer now.
The government has (a) used the word "abuse" without evidence of genuine abusive behaviour, (b) introduced the concept "safeguarding" into the discussion and (c) exhibited a Victorian disgust at the concept of sex.
It is now considering using the moral authority it thinks it has acquired to make cuts to the money it gives for overseas aid. How cynical.
I suspect that many of the people working for the charities are young and see little wrong with sexual activity with other young people. If this is so, then it is a matter of education - which is a concern for the charities employing them. Not HM government.
I both agree and disagree with this. If people who needed aid were given some (money, jobs, produce) in exchange for sex then that is abuse - it's an abuse of power and I've no problem with the word used in this context. There does need to be safeguarding in place because people in a position of power and privilege will be in contact with vulnerable and desperate people when working in the field.
This issue for me is that it is clear that Oxfam have reviewed their procedures and have far better and more robust contracts and safeguarding procedures in place.
I also don't think this is a case of young people thinking it's ok to pay for sex with other young people. It's emerged that prositutes had visited an Oxfam-rented property in Chad - at the time when Roland van Hauwermeiren worked there. He was the man in charge of the programme in Haiti too. Seems far more like a case of a bad apple.
I agree that the government are looking at ways of jettisoning Oxfam, or at least clipping their wings. This from Morduant is pretty chilling:
I am going to afford them the opportunity to speak to me tomorrow, but I want to make clear: it doesn’t matter if you’ve got a whistleblowing hotline. It doesn’t matter you’ve got good safeguarding practices in place. If the moral leadership at the top of the organisation isn’t there, we cannot have you as a partner, So she isn't going to look at the kinds of procedures accepted in any other sphere where people work with the vulnerable, but on her own judgement of what is 'moral'. I don't think the Govt can change the overseas aid budget so I don't think this is about cuts, but is rather being played as an opportunity to exercise control over charities that may be critical of government and a thorn in their side.
And of course it's a distraction from all the other shit. 'Look how on the ball we are here'. No you aren't, fuck off.
