WE live in an age of austerity that is threatening to get even tougher on the UK population. Against this background, many charities are likely to be finding demands upon their services increasing rapidly when the problems in fundraising are also increasing significantly.

It is one of the prime responsibilities of the trustees of charities to keep income and expenditure in balance with each other or, preferably to have income exceeding expenditure. It is also the duty of those managing a charity to ensure that when charitable funds are granted to a worthy cause, value for money is obtained.

I have first-hand experience of these demands upon charity trustees, having served on the board of trustees of the Fire Fighters Charity and been privileged to chair the board as we entered the new millennium.

It was therefore with incredulity and amazement that I have followed in the media the sad account of the demise of the charity Kids Company. This appears to be a situation that started out with very good intentions (what is it they say paves the road to hell?) but then lost its way and needed handouts amounting to £46m of taxpayers’ money to make the books balance.

Grants amounting to this huge sum were authorised at very high level in Downing Street, despite warnings from civil servants. I have seen reported the theory that it was the personal charisma of the chief executive and founder of the charity, Camila Batmanghelidjh, that led to her begging bowl for government funding being filled by David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

It now seems that a number of organisations that monitor the way charities are managed are queuing up to investigate what went wrong at Kids Company. The National Audit Office has already proclaimed concern that the massive sums paid out to young people in London by the charity was not money well spent.

The Charity Commission is now engaged in a statutory investigation into Kids Company. My view is that their action is somewhat late in the day. The phrase “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”, springs to mind!

The use of the word 'charisma' when attached to a high-profile personality engaged in charity work also interests me. Wasn’t it the power of his celebrity status and charisma that enabled the late Sir Jimmy Savile to acquire multiple honours, including a knighthood for his charity work, when allegedly living the life of a serial paedophile?

If the Charity Commission was on top of its job and was granted more powers to extend its role, I believe our society would be better protected against the many examples now coming to public notice of a multitude of sins being hidden behind a cloak of 'good works'.

In my opinion it is not sufficient for the Charity Commission to limit most of its activities to examining the annual accounts of charities. Even in this role they must surely have failed to identify early things going very wrong at Kids Company.

The Commissioners need to delve more deeply into how charities are using their funds. When I make a gift to a charity I do so in the hope that my money will go to relieve suffering and make the world a better place. However, it annoys me to see the massive salaries some charities pay their top managers and the way that others use some of their funds for what I would describe as propaganda. I hope that the Kids Company debacle is a wake-up call to the Charity Commission.