The "Cap Doffing Charity" and the Public Administration Select Committee

I have now read the full transcript of the oral evidence session held by the PASC.

It is deeply depressing. On pretty much every issue which for our sector has been fighting over the last few years in order for us to modernise and better reach those who need us, MPs are saying shocking things campaigning is wrong, taking public money makes you an arm of the State, social investment is a gimmick/wrong, charity CEOs are Fat Cats, bla bla)

The depth of the prejudice and the length of the stereotype would be laughable if these MPs were not conducting a serious study into sector funding at a time when we face a rising storm of cuts, more cost and higher demand.

I have dealt with the absurd argument that taking money for contracts means you are nationalised in previous blogs. Now let me turn to campaigning.

Apparently a number of the MPs on the Committee think that good charities don't campaign. The fact is that this view simply ignores the fundamentals of charity history.

The academic Robert Puttnam (a favourite of David Cameron) in his superb studies of civil society makes the important point that it is the role of civil society in advocacy and campaigning that marks a truly democratic society. In countries where there is a weak civil society despots rule. Look at what is happening to NGOs in Russia.

Our glorious charity history in the UK is marked out by campaigns against injustice. Look at the campaign against slavery. The thousands of citizens who campaigned for change against a corrupt and immoral establishment involvement in a disgusting trade in humans. It was the work of civil society, ably corralled by William Wilberforce that secured the change in law to prohibit slavery in the British Empire.

Look at the brilliant work of the RSPCA (founded by an enlightened Tory MP) to root out cruelty to animals and campaign for law change. And those good folks then went on to found the NSPCC. A marvellous organisation, but one singled out by one Tory MP as a bad charity because it campaigns.

And here their logic gets chopped. They think you should not take too much money from the State but are unaware that NSPCC is very largely supported by voluntary donation. People who abhor child abuse and so support the "Full Stop campaign". Thanks goodness for charities like the NSPCC and their vigorous advocacy. Over the last century and a half their campaigns have led to law change that makes Britain a better place. That role must continue. And must be supported.

The MPs single out Shelter. This is a campaigning charity founded by that fiery Notting Hill Priest, the Rev Kendrick. Appalled by the behaviour of Rackman he decided to do something practical about it; found a housing trust to provide homes and set up Shelter to campaign for law change to prevent landlord abuse. They succeeded; they roused the conscience of the nation. But their continuing work in highlighting the consequences of homelessness remains as important as ever. As homelessness rises thank goodness for Shelter and our many homeless charities in fighting to highlight the scandal of homelessness and in campaigning for change.

Christian Aid comes in for criticism from certain MPs. The major crime here appears to be the 21st century CEO using a digital signature, rather than, presumably her quill pen.

It is core to our charitable function that we campaign. We must speak truth to power. Never be content to provide soup for the poor without demanding changes to the conditions that lead to poverty. It is a role we cherish and have used to success over the centuries. Charity in this country has its roots in our Christian heritage. It is a tradition rooted in Christ's own teaching and actions. He campaigned; turfing the money changers from the Temple, castigating the rich, championing excluded minorities. It is a tradition mirrored in Islam. Good job he was not in front of the PASC!

It is why we are never content to simply alleviate the consequences of poverty but demand legislative change. To deplore that tradition as a number of MPs did at that evidence session is to challenge our charity legacy and to undermine our democratic traditions. Robert Halfon MP asked if they thought it fair that NSPCC, Barnardos and Shelter receive money, "when they don't actually do anything"!! They "spend most of their huge budgets on campaigning"!! Warming to this theme, Mr Elphike MP talked of charities "just advertising and talking about it". He went on to complain about "charities living off the fat of the land". And not content with this slander he goes on to complain about charity CEOs getting paid. "Some CEOs earn more than £120,000 and some even more and people think, well that is not really volunteering, that's like an industry and a business "!

Oh dear, oh dear.

I don’t think we should go to far out of our way to try to explain how the views of these MPs could be so far away from an understanding of the modern enterprising third sector. However it is worth thinking about whether the sector has something of a role itself to correct some of these misconceptions. A couple of years ago ACEVO with the ImpACT coalition undertook some research with YouGov which showed that the public’s knowledge and understanding of the sector is a long way away from how the modern sector is operating. Part of the cause we attributed to this was that charities are often not telling the public what they are really doing but continuing to fuel myths such as we give all out money to the front line and don’t spend anything on administration. I am not sure that the sector’s own contributions to the debate in PASC helped to dispel any myths.

It would appear from the session that what a number of MPs actually want is a "cap doffing charity". One that does not take money from the State, knows its place in society and never criticises, never complains (and certainly doesn't write letters that are not signed with a fountain pen), but meekly accepts the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table. Essentially a non national, non campaigning charity, preferably where the CEO is a volunteer.

I have now written to Bernard Jenkin MP, the Chair of the Committee to ask for a session to put the record straight. And I shall be writing to said named MPs asking them to meet with our modern day, enterprising third sector CEOs for a spot of debate and exchange of views.

And if you think I'm exaggerating all this just read the transcript of oral evidence yourself and be appalled. And be warned; this is a sign of the attacks we will face when we continue to highlight the consequences of spending cuts.

Arms and Church

Thursday morning saw a rather different type of meeting; at the College of Arms! I was there to meet Clarenceux King of Arms to discuss what might be appropriate as a newly knighted coat of arms. As it happens Patric Dickinson, who holds this illustrious post, is an old friend from Oxford. He suggests that though some people like to incorporate a play on their name in their Arms he was not sure a champagne bottle was on their approved list(though appropriate as it was as he recalled!).



Patric Dickinson, Clarenceux King of Arms at the College of Arms

In fact I am going for historic connections, particularly with the Limrick name. My ancestor Sir Edward Neville, knighted by Henry V111 and then beheaded for his adherence to the Catholic faith, seems a rather good role model. Speaking truth to power!

My Open Letter to the Prime Minister in The Times today is a good example of that "truth speaking" role that I continue. Here it is;

Dear Prime Minister,

I salute the concept of "Big Society". It has focused attention on the work of charities and community organisations; our role in supporting the poor and vulnerable and in building a better society and a country at ease with itself. This is a noble aim. But I am worried that your great ideal is about to be swamped by a growing tidal wave of growing needs and rising cuts.

Do you realise the perfect storm that confronts our country's charities? Rising costs, higher tax bills because you have raised VAT and are removing gift aid transitional reliefs, on top of swinging cuts in funding. This is impairing our ability to support those most in need. As we face cuts, we also face increased demand for our services. Every cut has a consequence. And those consequences are being played out in the lives of individuals and on the streets of our communities. You saw this yourself recently in the tragic case of the disabled child denied caring support. That was but the tip of the iceberg to confront our sector.

Big Society has for too long been promoted as a Utopian ideal with calls for more giving and more volunteering. But the reality is the hard grind of charities trying to provide services for more, against cuts in their funding.

So is it a surprise that people now see "Big Society" as more a soundbite than Programme for Government? The rising tide of cynicism in our charity and voluntary sector may overwhelm what ought to mark a renaissance for civil society, unless you act.

What should you do? First you must halt the rising tide of cuts. Indeed reverse it; invest more in our sectors' brilliant ability to provide more cost effective and citizen focused public services. Take a bold step in establishing a Big Society Bank with billions of pounds, not pennies, to build a resilient charity sector. Work with our established sector instead of bypassing and ignoring us.

My challenge for you would be to spend a week running one of the countries top charities; confronting the reality of the demands we face in the face of swinging cuts. In Barnardos or Shelter, for example; see the reality of trying to provide for a better society,when the State is withdrawing it's funding. Big Society is hitting the buffers. Rescue it!

As you see my "open letter" suggests the PM should spend a week running a charity like Shelter or Barnardo's. The joke round the office is that Cameron has agreed - but wants to do it at ACEVO. And it's a full on job swap. I'll run the country for a week. Good idea me thinks!!!

I managed to produce this after a rather splendid Sunday lunch I has laid on for two old friends, John Rafferty and Stephen Shields. I had met them for Mass at St Marys's Church, Clapham. John, a distinguished organist was playing and Stephen was singing.

John Rafferty was a colleague from the Charities Board days; he was the Scotland Director. Stephen was the guy who ran the brilliant "Awards for all" scheme which was based on a quick and simple process to get money out to charities pronto and without fuss. Stephen now runs that superb charity, "Shine". SHINE is a dynamic young charity set up to fund educational support programmes for children and young people from the most disadvantaged parts of London and Manchester. It works by funding best practice educational support projects to ensure that the participants can have choice and control in their lives. (John is now more widely known for his walking guides to pilgrimages, particularly to Santiago de Compostela.)



St Mary's Clapham, which is in the very Ward I used to represent when I was on Lambeth Council many a moon ago, is a splendid Redemptorist Church and Monastery. It has various charitable activities attached, like a great charity shop and work with the homeless. The Redemptorists are known for their outreach into the community and their down to earth, no nonsense approach to accepting people as they are and on their own terms. A very third sector style, I think.

And it proved useful having them at lunch in Clinks as I get the call from that marvellous journalist, Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor of The Times, asking me to consider an article on the problems that the "Big Society" concept faces in the storm of cuts. Glad we had demolished the Boeuf Bourguignon before I got cracking writing it!

An irritating PAC !

The Public Administration Committee have had an un-illuminating session on funding the sector. What seriously irritated was the usual nostrums about proportions of state funding meaning we are no longer charities . There was one MP who even made the clearly illogical statement that charities who get most of their funding from the state have been nationalised. And I won't even go into the usual canards being trotted around the committee room on administration , advertising ( shock horror ) and , perish the thought , campaigning! Let's deal with what I see as a dangerous and pernicious argument on " state funding". It is time we stopped the sneering about this and worried about where these arguments can lead.

Could said MP who thinks some charities have been nationalised also explain to me if he thinks that major private sector companies like Capita , Serco or A4E have been nationalised because they too get most of their funding from state contracts?

It is time this argument was dealt with by us , rather than appearing apologetic . I regret that we can sometimes be complicit in a train of thought that leads us backwards to Victorian concepts of charity and away from our modern day enterprising third sector.

So let us be clear . Our sector has been delivering services to the homeless , to children , to the poor and unemployed for centuries. Indeed charities were the public service for hundreds of years. We now accept that the State should provide welfare services to all , often at the point of need and not for those who can afford to pay. We believe as a country that our children deserve support and succour. The old should not suffer the deprivations of age simply because they cannot afford to pay . We believe that many of these services should be paid for by us all through taxation. We also believe that often these services cam ne better provided through charities and social enterprises. Our role in delivering good services , on contract , has grown. Rightly so. Receiving money for a contract to deliver services does not turn the charity into an arm of the State , anymore than it does for SERCO or the thousands of private sector companies also delivering public services.

And does the fact that Barnadoes or Action for Children or Tomorrows People or Turning Point derive most of their income from contracts turn them into limp wrested apologists of Government ? Anyone who knows those CEOs know how silly that is.

What is key is that organisations have sustainable and varied income streams. So Barnadoes have contracts across many parts of Government and local councils. They also fund raise. Trying to set artificial limits on how much a charity should receive from contracting , as opposed to Fundraising , is a dangerous path to follow. I am always astonished by those in our sector who think that getting.grants is OK but contracts not. Or that there is something inherently virtuous about not receiving state funding. When I hear the sector leader who proudly boasts they receive no money from the State, I think , why not ? We have a democratically elected Government who use tax money for the public benefit. This is not Russia or Zimbabawe where state money may be tainted. it is not yet a sin to take money from our Government in pursuit of our goal to help our beneficiaries. The idea that there is something inherently dodgy about taking a contract from Government to provide homes or jobs to those in need does a disservice to all those of our beneficiaries who rely on us to support them. If you apply this argument to it's logical conclusion then a charity that got to the point where it might have a majority of funding from contracts or grants would then have to refuse to help people unless they could replace contracts with donations.

What I find particularly worrying about these claims , is the idea that great charities should somehow withdraw from delivering , say , children's services for Government and now rely on private donations. When I read the blogs of people like Tim Mongomerie , the Tory blogger , or hear these calls from various MPs, what I suspect is they may really want is a return to Victorian philanthropy , where the State withdraws and if you are poor or oppressed you rely on the whims of private donors. Perhaps I am too harsh. Perhaps they have simply not thought this through.

Let us also remember there are services that the State funds which simply would not get funding elsewhere. Vital support for asylum seekers or excluded communities. One lesson we must all remember is that we have a richly diverse sector. One rule and approach for one charity is not right for another. We must celebrate those charities that have grown and expanded , delivering more contracts from the State to help their beneficiaries. Good luck to them. The current Government reform programme will expect this to grow. And acevo will push for that to happen.

I regret that these arguments were not as fully rehearsed in the Public Administration Committee as they deserved to be. Let me at them.........

.

Bankers and Community organisers!

Well, it was into the Lions' Den yesterday. A meeting with Angela Knight of the British Bankers Association. Proved a fruitful meeting as we talked though where things are at on the Big Society Bank. From everything she told me it looks like this important new initiative is going to be too small scale. A worry.

I'm worried that the Government, which has been placing a lot of emphasis on the Bank, does not realise it's potentially going to appear a damp squib. So unless the PM can deliver the commercial banks to put proper loan funds into the Bank it is going to just fuel cynicism in our sector.

The need for access to capital is crucial for growth. It's crucial for third sector bodies who want to grow and compete big time. Of course we need important new ways of funding like impact bonds but we also need straightforward loans. As I am tired of repeating when the Government mistakenly closed Futurebuilders applications were running at between £60-90m A MONTH. These are for loans the banks won't touch. And yet the FBE default rate is at around only 2%! The new bank will have only around £60m to start off. Is that BIG? Hardly. And I doubt the Government want jibes about the small society bank.

I could not be a stronger supporter of the new Bank but unless it gets access to a £2 billion pot it cannot make the difference we want.

My discussions with Angela rather confirmed my concern about size. But the good news is that we are planning a round table to discuss this all further.

I also had a couple of replies from the letters I had written to the big four bank CEOs. The CEO of Lloyds couldn't be bothered to reply himself so I got the usual brush off letter from the "Executive Assistant". Hardly impressive. However the CEO of RBS, Stephen Hester, did respond and took the trouble to deal with the issues I had raised. I'm following through with our good friend Hugh Biddell later today.

The banks could be really crucial lenders to the sector. The experience of the States is that social lending and loans to the third sector can be profitable for both parties. So we do need to work with the banks to see how we can make the case. Persuade them to lend to the sector. To finance our growth in the light of service delivery opportunities for the sector.

This is the big frontier for charities and social enterprises. It would be good if the banks realised there is an opportunity to work with us, not in the usual patronising CSR way but as commercial propositions. We need to move beyond being patronised.

I was delighted to see that Sir Stuart has joined with me in calling on the bankers who receive big bonuses to think about how to donate some of that to charity. We need to ramp up giving in this country. When the two sector Knights call on the banks to take arms on behalf of the poor let's hope they respond generously, as many (but not enough) have in the past.

Debra Alcock-Tyler has written a splendid article in Third Sector on how Government is reinventing the wheel with their community organisers plans. There isn't anyone in our sector who thinks these plans are sensible. Instead of building on what is there already. Building on the wisdom and experience of the community sector and its splendid umbrella bodies like the Community Alliance they go for a year zero approach. It's the problem with all new Governments. Labour was the same in '97. It's got to be new and shiny. All the century of experience of community development is consigned to the "old hat" tray. Read her article.