Politicising the Charity Commission

It's part of the Sunday morning ritual in Charlbury. I go to the 8am Holy Communion at the Parish Church, then pop up to our friendly newsagents for the morning papers. On this Sunday my pack contained the Sunday Telegraph, as I had heard it might mention the row over the Charity Commission Chair reappointment. I do like the weekend Telegraphs – their news coverage is always rather good even if its tone is true to type – and the travel /reviews etc. are very good. And their assistant editor Philip Johnston is like me an Old Anchorian!

But I digress. Back to the Charity Commission. The recent report of the Independence Panel had some stringent criticisms of the regulator. As they reported , "our concerns about the leadership of the Charity Commission on the independence of the sector have deepened over the last year."

They charge that "the Commission is giving the impression of being politically driven. Its focus seems to be an agenda determined by Government, despite its statutory independence."

This is strong criticism but a view that is now widely shared across our sector. Of course a regulator cannot become too cosy with the sector it regulates. But a regulator following agendas that have little to do with the priorities of that sector or the public, and a lot to do with government politics, is a very dangerous place to be.

That is why I felt it important to raise the issue of the reappointment of the Chair. In his reply to my letter the Cabinet Secretary makes it very clear this was a Ministerial decision by Francis Maude. It is unclear what exactly the civil service advice on this was. The Cabinet Office have a Director of Ethics who I assume was consulted, given this reappointment did not need to happen till after the election. I wonder what she said?

I also noted that there was an appraisal of Mr Shawcross by the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary Richard Heaton, as required by the OCPA Code. Strange that this appraisal ignored the views of the sector, indeed as far as I know no one (and certainly not me as the charity leaders network head) was asked to input into that appraisal. And given that the NAO had specifically highlighted the blurring of the executive and non executive roles at the Commission I wonder what account was taken of that? It would be useful in the interests of transparency if this appraisal was published.

However the key point here is much broader. It is how we secure an appointment process that is free from political patronage. This role, and indeed the appointment of commissioners, needs to be established free from government.

This will be one of the issues reviewed by the Lord Low Commission on better regulation. We need a new government to urgently review the appointments process and establish it above politics.

If the key task of a Charity Commission is to maintain trust in charities then we need to see an independent regulator. Independent in people's perceptions as well as in reality.

A real test for the Commission is on the horizon. Will they reinforce and support our role as advocates and champions or will they follow yet another government bug bear and try and water down our right to campaign as established by CC9? They have said they will review and somehow I don't think anyone in our sector thinks they plan on strengthening it.

As observers have noted, there was a strange logic in their comments on the Oxfam ‘Perfect Storm’ advert which implied that because someone might think it’s party political campaigning then it could well be. That's a green light to the green ink brigade.

Charity Commission and Oxfam

The Charity Commission have issued their long-awaited opinion on Oxfam. Two issues were investigated: Oxfam's work in Palestine, and their ‘Perfect Storm’ Twitter campaign about poverty in the UK.

On the first point, Oxfam were exonerated completely. On the latter, I think, things got silly. The Commission concluded that “the tweet could have affected the views of those who received it and could be misconstrued by some as party political campaigning”.

Clearly, charities must stick to the rules. The public trust and value charities as independent organisations. The Charity Commission issues clear guidelines - its document ‘CC9’. They say charities may campaign politically, so long as they are not party political. This can be demonstrated by good governance and a transparent approach to decision making. So far, so good.

But there’s a serious problem when regulators start trying to rein in Twitter. 140 characters isn’t usually enough to make your meaning totally clear, even if there’s a picture attached. Hostages to fortune are commonplace. You have only to look at Emily Thornberry MP’s recent fate to see what harm can result. 

In most such controversies on Twitter, much of the meaning is in the eye of the beholder. It’s anachronistic and unworkable for a regulator to control every Tweet people make. We’ve been here before when the Electoral Commission suggested the Lobbying Act should apply to Twitter, earlier in the Autumn.

The Charity Commission’s comments on Oxfam simply won’t work on a practical level. It is all very well to argue, as they do, that Tweets need proper context. But let’s be realistic about what is possible in our world of instant messaging. Its impact is quick and charities are rightly seizing this new medium as a way to reach supporters, spread their messages and carry out campaigns - to ignore it would be to neglect their duty. Its nature means we can’t “ensure there is written authorisation and sign-off procedures”, as the Commission propose. Twitter is too quick and non-hierarchical for that to work.

So what lessons for the future? It’s increasingly clear that 20th-century regulation and 21st-century campaigning very often don’t match. The best campaigning is often provocative and derives its power from shocking people from their complacency. This drives social change, and draws attention to charities’ work for their beneficiaries. It would be irresponsible to try to smother it, under a new layer of bureaucracy. As ACEVO’s General Election Manifesto says, we need a ‘free society’ where social organisations are free to speak truth to power.

The General Election ‘long campaign' started yesterday and it’s a good time to debate the future of our ‘Free Society’. ACEVO’s Commission on Civil Society Regulation, chaired by lawyer Lord Low of Dalston, will consider how government can help secure charities’ and voluntary organisations’ place in the 21st century through good regulation. It’ll report in early March, and advise charities and government on a new generation of legal oversight.

But in the immediate future, let’s be robust in defending charities’ right to speak out. They have a duty to follow their mission. That may mean being ‘political’. They aren’t being ‘partisan’, even if politicians disagree with them and accuse them of taking sides.

I’m tempted to ask what the general public would rather see. On the one hand, a lively online democracy with charities campaigning to draw attention to neglected causes, bringing to bear the weight of their expertise and evidence-gathering. And on the other, a heavily-policed, hierarchically-controlled Twitter space, with all institutional voices too timid to speak their minds for fear of prosecution. We already have the former, and in my mind it works very well. Charities are an independent, non-party, political force, unafraid to speak the truth to power. Long may that last.

Noisy Leadership

Are you a quiet or noisy leader? What works best? I was at one of our ACEVO regional meetings in Oxford last week, and we had a fascinating debate on this in the wake of recent controversies.

A key role for any social leader is 'speaking truth to power'. But how do you do this? There are some CEOs who believe you must never speak out in public and do all your lobbying behind closed doors. They fear that if they are publicly critical they will be cut off from access or 'got at' in some way. 

This is wrong. No politician or senior official will pay you much attention if they think you will never speak out. That would mean they can safely ignore you. They will pay attention if they think you might speak out publicly, and if they think that what they are proposing is going to be criticised in the public domain. We social leaders hold a vital weapon in our hands. The media love us and we are trusted. When a politician or government official is interviewed the public are inclined to be skeptical. When we appear, there is trust in what we say and claim. Ipsos MORI’s trust surveys (like this one usually indicate that around 15-20% of the public trust politicians, while more like 60-70% trust charities.

Being quiet, then, will not achieve what you want. Of course, the power to speak out must be used judiciously. You should be careful to modulate your criticisms with praise when it is due. Always slamming everything just doesn't work. But on occasion you must be noisy.

I'm certainly not regarded as a shrinking violet. On the Oxfam issue I have been very outspoken. Indeed my views featured in opposition to some backbench government MPs on Friday's BBC Radio 4 World at One. But I have tempered this with lots of work with government when there are issues we care about as a sector. I doubt I was asked by David Cameron to write the choice and competition report in the listening exercise because I'm a quiet leader, or to speak with him when he launched the Open Public Services White Paper because I was seen as docile.

An independent and robust civil society must not whisper but make itself heard. That is why we must avoid the temptation to keep quiet over the election period. CEOs and their trustees must determine to speak out when that is needed, and tell people if they feel they are being gagged. Lord Finkelstein, for one, as he said in Parliament last Thursday would like to hear if charities and campaigners feel gagged by the provisions of the Lobbying Act.

This may sometimes get uncomfortable. I didn't exactly enjoy the dirt heaped over me after my robust defence of professional salaries for CEOs or the sarcasm of Daily Mail columnists. But leadership is often uncomfortable. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen - as they say. And good leaders are able to juggle when backdoor diplomacy is best and when it isn't.

There are many leadership styles. As many as there are leaders I suspect. But being noisy has its place!

And on the subject of noisy leadership I guess you could add the recent example of the Prime Minister in Europe. I was interested in the interview with Jeremy Hunt MP on Today this morning. He made the point that "leadership can be lonely" and he is right. Leadership is not always about seeking or getting a consensus. Sometimes a decision needs to be taken that may not be universally popular - as we saw with the row over Junker. That may be a decision you have taken that may not be universally popular with your Board or your staff, and that's a lonely position.

I remember one of the early ACEVO posters which said (over the picture of a mountain) "it’s lonely at the top". That is exactly why an organisation like ACEVO exists; to support and advise CEOs and to provide a peer network that gives that support when difficult decisions have to be taken.

World at One and free speech

The debate on charities’ right to speak out lumbers on. It was a hot topic of conversation last night at three receptions I was at, not least the launch of the smart new Third Sector magazine which will now be published monthly.

I was pleased to be able to defend our historic right to campaign on issues of public concern on the BBC’s World at One this afternoon. One of the MPs interviewed is arguing that if charities have contracts for services we should not be allowed to speak out. This would drive a coach and horse through the governments attempts to reform public services, and would undermine good policy making and better legislation. Fundamentally, the whole argument is based on an impossible premise. Charities’ work to help the lives of the beneficiaries is inseparable from their work to speak out on their behalf.

This point was made far more eloquently in the House of Lords yesterday, in a debate on a motion moved by Baroness Scott of Needham Market noting the contribution of the voluntary and community sector. Speaking movingly about sector independence, Lord Judd said:

“I do not think that I am oversimplifying in saying—it was particularly during my time as director of Oxfam that this thought began to crystallise very clearly with me—that advocacy is not something that charities do in addition to their voluntary work; I became convinced that advocacy was an essential and inherent part of the voluntary service.”

And even better, statistics consistently show that the public are on our side too. They want us to speak out. The most revealing statistic here was from Ipsos MORI polling that Ben Page quoted at ACEVO’s Gathering of Social Leaders last month; more people thought we ought to be campaigning to change public policy (32%) than thought we currently are doing so (24%). So in fact we should be expanding our advocacy role rather than merely defending it against those who disagree with what we say.

And we shall carry on doing so. What I find surprising in all this coverage is that these anti-democratic views in fact come from a tiny minority of parliamentarians. The vast majority of MPs and Peers on all sides recognise that our advocacy role is vital to better law-making, and contributes to a vibrant democracy. Long may that last.

That was the week that was!

And a full on week it was. Ranging from a garden Party at Buckingham Palace to celebrate the Red Cross's 150 years to a stout defence of Oxfam's right to campaign

Its June so the sector "season" is in full swing. It was the Saxton Bampfylde annual reception at the Victoria and Albert Museum and the great and the good (and less so) of the sector were in fine fettle surrounded by the finest sculptures of the renaissance. Good to bump into old pal and former ACEVO Director Ralph Michell and we, probably unwisely, continued the celebrations afterwards. However I had also been to the Brompton Oratory for Latin Mass beforehand, so can be forgiven.

Thursday was the annual Civil Society Charity Awards; always a great time to catch up with colleague CEOs. Much talk of the attack on Oxfam and a particularly viscous piece in the Mail by Col Max Hastings fulminating about charity campaigning. A rather useful reminder that we are getting things right.  And letters in the Times today from me and from others demonstrate our sector is firm in defence of our right to campaign.

And mentioning the Palace Garden Party, it was nice to see in the Birthday Honours a particular Honour for my youngest ACEVO member Gary Buxton.

My ACEVO Director Jenny Berry tells me she was with Gary Buxton - CEO of Young Advisors (he founded it) Friday evening - on a friend's canal barge for drinks. Then at midnight he announced he'd been awarded an MBE, he was excited as you would expect- as was his partner.

Gary also thanked Jenny for ACEVO’s support and help over the past few years. He joined ACEVO the week we started in the north and has been active with us ever since.

One of his senior team, Ed Moss, who is also an ACEVO Associate member (and again one of our youngest members) was awarded an ACEVO Fellowship last year as an outstanding emerging leader.

Great organisation, great leaders and one to watch.

And finally, the roses are in full swing in Charlbury. Here is a picture from my cottage.