Shawcross reappointed - my letter to Jeremy Heywood

Last Thursday morning I was surprised to read of William Shawcross’s reappointment as chair of the Charity Commission, which was announced without prior warning or consultation. His three-year term was to end in October, and the reappointment process would usually begin in a few months’ time.

The Commission is an important public body, and not the Cabinet Office’s personal fiefdom. At a time when it has been under sustained and severe criticism - and when as the National Audit Office acknowledge, they are starting to turn things around - this is not what they need. It will only add fuel to the fire of those who accuse the Commission of being a plaything of government patronage, rather than a forceful, independent regulator.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to clarify a number of points about the reappointment process, as was reported by Saturday’s Times.

Here’s a copy of my letter, which is also on the ACEVO website:

29 January 2015

Dear Sir Jeremy,

I am writing to you to express my concern at the process behind today’s appointment of William Shawcross as Chair of the Charity Commission. I would like to seek your assurance that due process has been followed. 

As you know, the position was due for renewal in October 2015. Shawcross’ initial appointment followed a period of advertisement, shortlisting and a pre-appointment hearing from May 2012. I and many of my colleagues in the charity sector, our supporters, donors and beneficiaries are therefore surprised to learn that the appointment has been made already.

The fact that this appointment has taken place less than three months before a general election will serve only to raise those concerns in the mind of the public. They deserve and require assurance as to the absolute propriety of the processes that have been followed to make this appointment. As such I am writing to seek your assurances on the following points of information.

1.    Was recruitment conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies? According to this code, reappointments can only be made once evidence of a satisfactory performance has been made.

2.    Who was on the committee that made the appointment? The previous committee was chaired by Mark Addison, a Public Appointments Assessor representing the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who is independent of the Government. It also included Sue Gray, Head of Propriety and Ethics in the Cabinet Office. Given the public nature of this role a committee for reappointment would have been appropriate.

3.    Were other persons considered by the committee and did they meet the requirements stipulated by equalities legislation and in accordance with suitable non-discrimination policies appropriate to the position?

4.    What representations were sought from Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team about the process and what notice was taken by the appointments committee of those representations?

5.    Given the crucial public nature of this role, how will the process behind the appointment and the fact of the appointment itself be disseminated and communicated to the charity sector and the wider public?

The charity sector is vital to the health and wealth of our nation. Charities must be independent and free to speak truth to power and to deliver in the public good. To do both they depend upon the trust and confidence of the public. Trust and confidence are fragile. While trust in charities remains high, it would be unacceptable for questions over the regulator to compromise trust and confidence in the charitable sector.

I look forward to receiving your reply. In the interests of transparency I am placing this letter in the public domain.

Yours ever,

Sir Stephen Bubb

Under attack?

Well, seems a bit like open season this week. The Mail on their hobby horse anti-charity campaign on pay, an excruciating Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on the Charity Commission, and then the ludicrous outpourings of the “Institute of Economic Affairs".

The Mail was particularly poor and biased. It could have referred to the ACEVO "Good Pay Guide" which makes all the points needed about transparency and shows how our sector is responsive and alive to concerns on top pay. If I thought it would go anywhere I'd ask for a Right of Reply.

The PAC report was, frankly, expected. The criticisms were fair but needed to be balanced by a recognition of funding cuts which limit ability to act. My worry is that this undermines our regulator when we need to have a strong Charity Commission. We also do not want a knee-jerk reaction from the Commission that forgets their role in maintaining trust and confidence because they are too busy being the sector police.

The fuss recently about Public Appointments has been fascinating. Dame Sally Morgan was criticising too many political place people being put on quangos and referenced the Chair of the Commission. She could have also referenced the composition of the new CC board. Only one person from our sector. The rest not. And far too many with political links on the right. This does not enhance the credibility of the Commission and if they are wise they will appoint more independent folk from our sector when vacancies occur. We will watch with interest who is appointed CEO. It's been made clear that they do not want to appoint someone from the third sector. We will be watching to see exactly who is appointed and their experience and knowledge of our sector. And I don't just mean giving at the Christmas appeal or a few quid in a raffle.

Then, whilst on my hobby horse, there is the IEA returning to their insultingly termed "sock puppets" diatribe. Of course what they want is for us to shut up. They want us running soup kitchens and keeping stum about the causes of poverty. I have news for them. We shan't.

And how do they square the need to diversify public service provision through more delivery through contracts with the third sector with their diatribe on "taxpayer" funded charities. I look forward to their pamphlet on sock puppet private sector companies like SERCO, A4E or Capita who also have taxpayer money for their contracts to deliver services.

Lastly, a letter my Director of Public Policy sent to 'City AM' after their article on the latest IEA publication. They printed one letter that strongly supported the "sock puppet" people, but seemingly not this one. It is efficient and makes the point well. So I reproduce it here:

Sir,

The Institute of Economic Affairs’ ‘sock doctrine’ theory of charity lobbying [‘How charities lavish millions of taxpayer money on left-wing campaigns’, City AM, 5 February 2014] is fundamentally flawed. Policy-makers should welcome the input of charities. They bring unparalleled expertise and experience to the policy-making process, not to mention experience of issues on the ground.

Charities have always been instrumental in improving public policy. The charitable Anti-Slavery Society led the successful campaign for slavery’s abolition in the 1830s. Each charity must decide how best to use its resources to fulfil its public benefit mission. If a charity concludes that advocating policy change would be an effective means to advance its charitable aims, they have not only a right but a duty to do so.

The IEA has got it exactly wrong: a true ‘sock puppet’ charity would abandon its voice – and therefore its mission – after receiving government funding. It would seek to quell criticism of government action. That thousands of charities are speaking out against the Government on issues ranging from homelessness to the lobbying act - and not the IEA - should lead anyone to question who the real ‘sock puppets’ are.

Asheem Singh

Director of Public Policy

ACEVO – the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

Indeed! ‎