Anderson on Terrorism

David Anderson QC has published a weighty report on his review of terrorism legislation. At 379 pages, it's quite a read.  But what I found fascinating is that he devotes a whole chapter to civil society. Chapter 12. It’s worth a read.

His general approach to our sector is very wise. It’s one that the Government would do well to heed, when they are wondering about the value of civil society campaigning. His words could almost have come out of ACEVO’s 2015 election manifesto, which highlighted the need for government to safeguard a ‘free society’, for the sake of informed public debate and good quality laws. He said:

“A wise legislator will proceed however on the basis that the legal framework governing investigatory powers must be sufficiently robust to satisfy not only those who are easily satisfied, but also those who are suspicious of government or who feel deeply any intrusions into their privacy.”

Or in other words, it is very dangerous if the expertise of civil society is ignored because the authorities find it unpalatable. On spying and counter-terrorism as much as on issues like homelessness and social care. When civil society speaks truth to power, as is our right and duty, it can be uncomfortable. But the law and our country is all the better for it. We must defend that right!

No, we ain’t in crisis!

The Chair of the Charity Commission said in a speech this week that the sector is in ‘crisis’. 

This is very disappointing. I would expect the charity regulator to rise above the noise of the tabloids, and make the public case for charities’ work. Their speeches should extol the importance of charities and the vital contribution we make. They should be telling people what they are doing to help us with the work we do.

Firm regulation is a part of the Charity Commission’s and its chair’s job. But just as important is their job to speak out for and support the organisations they regulate. At the very least, they should be leading the public debate, not following the lead set by lurid coverage in the press.

I certainly don’t think it is the Chair of the Charity Commission’s job to court national controversy for the sector he is mandated to support.

Yes, charities should be reviewing our fundraising practices. We are doing so right now, as is the Fundraising Standards Board. Yes, we should highlight the importance of charities’ work being done professionally. But to call the recent news reports “a crisis for the charity sector which is testing the strength and capacity of self-regulation”? That is not true. And it merely makes another lurid headline.

In another part of the speech, the Chair Mr Shawcross talked about the possibility of the Charity Commission charging charities to be regulated. I am not certain that a compulsory charge is really in the best interests of a free and fair society, especially when there are questions about the quality of that regulator’s contribution to the national debate. Even beyond this, I remain sceptical. In a recent ACEVO survey, 75% of our membership were against charging for regulation.

His speech also talked about the Commission’s continued provision of support and advice to charities, arguing that this function is continuing to be provided despite budget cuts and the Commission focusing more and more of its resources purely on ‘hard’ enforcement. Still, this isn’t enough to win the argument on paying to be regulated, if charities do not get many services in return.

The Charity Commission does have a huge task. Staff are obviously overburdened. The Chair is right to be concerned about the Commission's total reliance on government funding. But then why make work for yourself? The Commission appear determined to do a wasteful and unnecessary review of CC9, the guidance on charity campaigning, simply for declarative purposes it seems. By far the most likely outcome of such a review would be to curtail our duties to campaign on behalf of our beneficiaries. They claim this is about regulating social media, but given the difficulty of ‘regulating’ that it seems to me better to approach it through separate, short guidance that outlines good practice used by leading charities.

Charities depend on the public’s trust. I'm afraid I don't trust the current leadership not to want to undermine campaigning. Specially if they continue to be led by political and media fashions. I hope they will prove me wrong. But interventions like the those of the Chair in this now-infamous speech will certainly not help.

The Dilemma of Fundraising

The tragic story of Olivia Cooke has reopened the debate on charity fundraising. Many members of our sector have been talking about their own fundraising practice in response.

What we should do now is not apportion blame, but recognise this as the moment to take a hard look at our work, and particularly our fundraising.

Libby Purves made a good point in her Times column today:  "the nation's decent and reasonable rage at the case of Olive Cooke should be a shot across the bows of all fundraisers". Of course, charities need to raise funds. But the way we do this must be in line with our mission and purpose to do good.

ACEVO made this case in our recent report Good with Money. We argued that Chief Executives should be conscious of their organisation’s investment policy, and this policy should be embedded in the charity’s identity. Charities – and their CEOs – should be proactively transparent about these policies.

We can extend that approach to fundraising. We as CEOs need to be clear that where we have fundraising activities they are done to the highest standards.

With significant further cuts in public spending to come and a real strain on charity resources against rising demand charities do need to rely increasingly on the generosity of the public. We need to be sure that we do not damage our reputations through fundraising. And that any fundraising organisations who work on our behalf also adhere to best practice.

I was chatting to the manager of my favourite Helen and Douglas Hospice shop in Chipping Norton on Saturday and we were discussing this dilemma. Balancing the need to raise funds to support brilliant work but not hassling people to the point where they are turned off by the pressure of the fundraising effort.

Fundraising is important. Indeed it’s vital to the work we do: we need our fundraising community. But we need to make sure we’re doing it well – with the right purpose and methods. We need strong leadership in this area.  

After the election, what now for civil society?

What a night. It was strange to be watching the results rolling in, sitting in David Cameron's constituency. Indeed I even saw his car – and the accompanying helicopter – pass as he went from his house up the road to the count in Witney.

To Cameron’s credit, he was the only party leader who spoke about volunteering and the third sector during the campaign. He made a radical proposal on volunteering rights in new legislation, which we strongly supported. His support for charities and social enterprise – and specially his emphasis on volutneering – will have been noted all over the country. I look forward to seeing it take shape in government.

Andrew Marr made a perceptive remark about Labour’s stance on the voluntary and community sector, when he said the party need to fundamentally rethink their approach, to think less of public sector workers and more about the role of charities and the community. I was shocked that Ed Miliband, who was our first third sector minister, made no comment in this election about charities and social enterprise or our role in society. Labour needs a radical rethink of its stance on the third sector. They were silly to ignore civil society and its role in building stronger communities. Let's hope the  Labour leadership contenders will put this right.

So, while these are early days, I am pleased by David Cameron's pledge, made in his speech in Downing Street, to build One Nation. This must not be only about Scottish devolution but also about bridging the gulf between the haves and have-nots, accelerating the public service reform agenda to give the poorest in our society real choice and care and supporting our world-leading third sector. One Nation means working with charities, campaign groups and social enterprises that bring people together, listening to them and supporting their leaders to make change happen. Our voluntary and community organisations must be unmuzzled and unleashed, for the good of our country.

The Bishop's Manifesto

It’s been striking, in recent years, how often religious groups have led the response to the hardships of austerity. Even in the days of declining church attendance in Britain, groups like the Trussell Trust have galvanised society and led the third sector’s efforts to prevent and alleviate the worst effects of financial crisis.

So how appropriate it is to see my old friend the Rt Rev Dr Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, writing in today’s Times about the new campaign he launches this evening with Tearfund.

Tearfund is a Christian charity - in their words, “Christians passionate about ending poverty”. The Bishop writes:

“Many of today’s global challenges have been brewing for many years and we should have seen them coming. Yet we have made the mistake of concentrating only on short-term issues.

We can reasonably predict that the floods, droughts and storms already ravaging countries and wiping out families will only get worse. For many of the world’s poorest people, those threats are already a daily reality.

We must respond to natural resource constraints by living within our fair share of the world’s environmental limits. We must meet poverty with radical generosity and use our power as citizens and consumers to demand that all people are treated with dignity, wherever they are.

Often, only crises produce real change. But actions taken at moments of crisis depend on the ideas to hand.

We need bigger ideas: a passionate concern for the common good and a fuller life for everyone, whoever they are and wherever they live — both now and in future generations.”

Tonight the Bishop will launch a campaign for a ‘restorative economy’ - ‘based on a movement of people willing to change their own lives so that everyone can share in an equitable global prosperity’.

The campaign is based around the work of ‘ordinary heroes’, people who change their own lives in ‘small but significant’ ways like flying less or consuming fairtrade products. It draws on the Biblical concept of Jubilee - to work to build a rhythm of productivity, rest and community to counter debt and exploitation.

‘Ordinary heroes’ are encouraged to use their own power and to set an example to the community around them. Their actions will combine lay the building blocks for a wider movement, that changes how we think about wealth, prosperity and consumption. 

In times of deep pessimism about the role of religion in society, and when we’re getting almost immune to concerns about religious extremism and its links to terrorists, this sort of campaign is worth everyone’s support. Do read more about it, and join up, here!

Budgets, Blunkett and getting old...

So, the Budget. And the missing £40m. It’s disgraceful that the Local Sustainability Fund still hasn’t been launched, more than a year after it was first announced. This idea - promoted by ACEVO and agreed by OCS under Nick Hurd - has been quietly dropped for now. They hoped quietly but I intend to ensure there is nothing quiet about this manoeuvre. Of course we suspect why this has happened. The idea that you need a ‘sustainability fund’ implies there are many charities in danger from funding cuts and rising demand for their services. This does not fit the current narrative of the ruling coalition. I suspect the hand of Lynton Crosby in excising this particular ‘barnacle’ from the budget speech ‘boat’.

So will Rob, our civil society minister, now stand up for the sector and insist on the fund going ahead? We have only a week before purdah. I’m hoping that Rob will set the record straight at our ACEVO and CAF hustings on Tuesday. He will certainly be asked what happened!

Whatever the good aspects of the budget - raising tax allowances, moves on savers, etc., it is deeply worrying for our sector what might happen on cuts. The IFS comment about a “rollercoaster of cuts to come” will have been greeted with dismay in our sector as we and our beneficiaries will undoubtedly bear the brunt.

In fact I was in the Commons after the Budget. I was having a late lunch with Nick Hurd MP, for a catch-up and an opportunity to reflect back on the 6 years he spent in the job of civil society minister or spokesman. 

As you can imagine it was a wide-ranging discussion. But with a particular emphasis on social finance and how we promote it. And then onto a reception to mark the contribution that David Blunkett MP has made to society generally and to youth charities in particular. A great and emotional occasion as he is a towering giant of a politician and a friend for over three decades. Indeed there was a gaggle of us former local government types from the 80s reminiscing in the corner - led by the brilliant Margaret Hodge MP.

Of course the danger of getting older is the huge temptation to reminisce about the good old days. But more importantly, as the population ages, as the working life extends, as many of us get older and live longer with long-term conditions we need to look carefully at the role of our sector in working and supporting older people. 

Often this subject is approached from a negative and unhelpful position. Us oldies are a burden. We soak up resources. We get too many free perks. So it’s good that today we get the report Decision Time: will the voluntary embrace the age of opportunity? It’s the final report of the Commission on the Voluntary Sector and Ageing Ably led by Lynne Berry, former active ACEVO member when she ran WRVS. 

As they say, “longer life expectancy is opening up new possibilities for individuals and communities”. It offers the potential of an age of opportunity in which the third sector could thrive. Worth reading. Worth taking up the challenge. 

This is a good approach, and certainly for those of us in our seventh decade (me and Stuart Etherington to name but two!) this age of opportunity is something to be welcomed.

Health and care matters

ACEVO has a strong membership in charites and social enterprises in social care, health and disability, so we hold an annual national conference to debate issues of concern and hear from key people in the sector.

We had a bumper crop this year. All the main parties set out their stalls. Paul Burstow MP, Jeremy Hunt MP and Andy Burnham MP spoke, but perhaps the most interesting session was when Simon Stevens (head of NHS England) set out some of the issues he faces leading NHS England, and asked for our views.

Inevitably, since the emergence of the disgraceful new grant conditions to be imposed by DCLG to snuff out advocacy in our sector (that morning's Times) there were questions on this. Paul Burstow from the Lib Dems was quick to denounce what he called "the Pickles gag" and Jeremy Hunt, though he would not comment directly on the Pickles move, was clear about charities' right to campaign.

We launched our Alliance Contracting report at the conference. There's more details here.

Alliance Contracting is a new way to promote more collaboration in health and care settings - a post-competition approach that builds on more collaborative approaches and consortia-building. Current government procurement is so often costly and overly bureaucratic. It has favoured private sector bodies too much because we don't operate on a fair playing field. Andy Burnham was particularly supportive of this approach.

Indeed his policies of entrenched rights for the third sector in delivering services, and 5 to 20 year contracts were music to the ears of our members. In fact, as I observed to David Brindle of the Guardian, I think this is the most radical approach to the sector of any politician in any party. Much to be supported and perhaps a benchmark to encourage others to follow. We shall pursue at out forthcoming third sector hustings on 24 March - everyone very welcome!

And let me leave you with some photos of our speakers yesterday.

The 'Pickles gag'

That was the way Paul Burstow MP described the news about the DCLG grant condition to prevent the third sector's advocacy role, when he spoke at our health and social care conference today. The Times carried this story front page today.

It’s clear that the idea of banning charities from campaigning, if they get government grants, offends the principle of the independence of the sector. But it is also bad for Government in developing evidence-based policy. Bad laws are made when governments fail to take account of the evidence from the front line of public services - whoever is delivering them. For several centuries charities have brought their lived experience to policy making and campaigned for change. Take smoking, seat belts in cars, sugar and salt in food as just four examples.

Simon Stevens made a similar point in his keynote address to our health conference. The 'creative tension' that our sector brings is very important to them as they develop better services.

Let's hope this is just a Pickles one-off. I'm a fan of Eric so I'm relying on him to see that this is silly idea and drop it. It's a problem we will increasingly face as the election campaign continues and gets more frenetic - the charity sector being seen as a political punchbag. But, if that’s to be the case, then we’ll be robust in our repose. I’ll certainly continue to be so. Speaking truth to power is not just a pretty slogan. It's how we achieve what we do. 

Semolina pudding, Angela and the Charity Commission

It's a long time since I ate a semolina pudding! But Monday I was having lunch with Baroness Angela Smith in the House of Lords. Angela was the last third sector Minister before the coalition took over and appointed Nick Hurd. But she had the rank of Minister of State - the coalition demoted the role I'm afraid. Angela was also my parents' MP when she was in the Commons, so we like to keep in touch. She continues to take a huge interest in the third sector and is one the Commissioners on the Low Commission on better regulation (they have a meeting on Friday).

Last night was a fun and somewhat poignant leaving party for Anne Longfield who is leaving 4Children after 27 years to become the Children's Commissioner. Anne has been a superb CEO and a long time member of ACEVO. The distinguished guest list was a testament to her success. Why, I even bumped into Cherie Blair (literally, as I was reaching for my coat!). Harriet Harman emerged from her bus and many doyens of the children's sector were there to pay tribute.

And whilst reflecting on the Charity Commission I was pleased to see the report of the joint Commons/Lords committee on the draft Protection of Charites Bill. Some sensible points - and a clear recognition that if the Commission are given more powers to issue Statutory warnings and to disqualify people from being trustees, there must be safeguards. And a strong recommendation on the need to support humanitarian work.

Commenting to the press I said the Charity Commission must be prepared to protect, defend and champion the sector and if these powers help them in that crucial aim then we support them. However the evidence does suggest that many of the Commission’s existing powers were sufficient and indeed the Commission have not made the best use of the powers already at their disposal. That is why we welcome the recommendation of safeguards to keep the Commission to task.

Another important point was the role of charities in helping to rehabilitate former offenders by engaging them in community life. This is a key moral purpose in our work and, save for exceptional circumstances, we do not want or need government or the regulator getting in the way. We welcome the report’s call for this role to be protected.

We support the amended list of offences that may disqualify people from becoming charity trustees, but it is important that the Government are not over zealous in the application of the power to disqualify. It would be a grave error for those who have been cautioned rather than convicted of such offences to be excluded from involvement in charitable activity.

Lastly, my evidence to the Committee highlighted the unintended consequences of tough regulatory legislation when it creates difficulties for charities that provide aid in warzones. I’m pleased the Committee agree. It is absolutely right that humanitarian charities are given help and guidance to allow them to operate freely in war zones, and I have called on the Charity Commission to create such guidance without delay.

Tory Victoria sponge and the Bishops

In these times of somewhat frenetic electioneering, a charity leader needs to be even-handed on the party political front. So I was happy to support the West Oxfordshire Conservative Association coffee morning on Saturday in Charlbury. Bought a very nice Victoria sponge from Sarah Potten (her husband later sold me some of their excellent eggs!), and a jar of Seville marmalade. I even met the Chair of the Association. Sarah has an important role to play in village life as she is one of the Parish representatives for selecting our new Vicar. Interviews are on Friday. My only advice: please don't choose an evangelical!

The Bishops’ letter last week continues to stir things up. My sister Lucy sent me a copy from the Chelmsford Diocesan newsletter. All entirely reasonable and sensible. It’s a sign of the times that critics have piled in to condemn. Most of them not having read the letter. Camilla Cavendish in the Sunday Times was right to point out that these critics need to tread with care. The Bishops have made an important point, that there is a lack of discourse about society amongst the political parties.

This is a point ACEVO will address in our third sector hustings on 24 March. It’s time for civil society to have its say in the run-up to polling day. And it is certainly the role of the Church and of other faith groups to be part of the political debate, as it is for charities. Those who criticise the Bishops’ letter should address the issues they raise, not try shooting the messenger.

But I’m afraid at present the stakes are so high for the Parties that they can’t stand any criticism, and try to suppress or distort what they see as criticism of their particular line. This is not good for sensible debate. It undermines democracy and adds to the cynicism people feel for the political process – which is itself, of course, another point the Bishops were making!

Third Sector Hustings!

We are in a surfeit of party leader speeches and it is still 80 days to go before the election. Will all this debating help or hinder? I was having dinner with Andrew Barnett, the dynamic and charming (no he’s not giving me money!) CEO of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and we were both agreeing it is all a bit tedious. Even though we know it's important. 

I was interested in Ed Miliband's speech yesterday on Labour’s ‘Better Plan for Britain’s Prosperity’. The plan builds on the feedback and ideas that many  in the business community have given Labour and sets out “how the next Labour Government will chart a path to higher productivity in all parts of the economy as the basis of a renewed and inclusive prosperity. Central to Labour’s plan is an understanding that Britain only succeeds when working people succeed.”

And David Cameron spoke recently on the Tory plan for the economy. Clearly both parties are vying for the business vote and both are setting out their alternative visions for the economy. What is striking is how little they both have to say about society and the role of citizens and communities. Although we know Big Society is not a feature of the current 6 Tory themes, last election there was at least a debate on society. At present it’s completely absent. What role social action? What role the third sector in public service reform? What role in building social cohesion through volunteering or promoting giving? 

And yet when you think about it, a prosperous Britain depends on a strong society where there is social cohesion and communities are strengthened through citizens’ social action and volunteering. When society is fragmented there are serious consequences – as we have seen with past riots and social unrest. So business needs to be underpinned by a society that is at ease with itself. The role that our third sector plays in building a strong economy is usually overlooked and yet it is important. 

This is why ACEVO and the Charities Aid Foundation are holding a our 2015 Gathering: The Social Leaders’ Debate. We are challenging the main political parties, as well as those who aim to hold a balance of power, to a hustings to debate their party positions with the third sector. It will be fun. And who knows, it may even be illuminating…

The hustings are at Church House in Westminster, in the evening of Tuesday 24 March. If you fancy coming along, do book your place soon!

Dogs, Philanthropists, Independence and all

Settling down to catch up on Coronation St I was disturbed by someone at the door. It turned out to be a fundraiser from the Battersea Dogs Home. My faithful hound having also appeared at the door I felt I could hardly resist taking up the offer to give them a DD donation.

In fact I'm rather prone to signing up to fundraisers. I've done that for people who popped round from the British Heart Foundation and VSO. And I also can't resist the charms of street fundraisers, or ‘chuggers’ as some term them. So I have an eclectic list of charities I support; but then as the CEO of ACEVO I can hardly turn them down. And it’s a bit like market research for me as I get their literature through the post or the emails. Shelter are particularly assiduous in their search for funds. But then they need to be. Getting support for the homeless sector is difficult. Hedge fund managers and their ilk like something more cuddly, and we have such a long way to go before such people match the level of giving that their counterparts do in the States. Of course there are exceptions, but it is still a dismal fact that poorer people give a higher proportion of their wealth to charity than rich people do.

This is a point that people like Thomas Hughes-Hallett have been labouring for some time. I had lunch with him recently and he was outlining his plans for an Institute of Philanthropy. A much-needed innovation and one to be strongly supported. And he has managed to secure the support of a good philanthropist who is putting a substantial endowment behind this project so it can really motor in a big way, making an impact where it is needed. Thomas is one of the sector greats (I got to know him well from the infamous government ‘listening exercise’ where we laboured together on choice and competition), and it was a rather enjoyable lunch – we discovered we both have a love for the English choral tradition. He supports ‘The Sixteen’ and the choir of Westminster Abbey.

Yesterday I was speaking at the launch of the Independence Panel’s final report on ‘An Independent Mission: The Voluntary Sector in 2015’. You can read it here.

It raises some fundamental issues and concerns. It raises he concerns many of my CEO members have been raising about the politicisation of the Charity Commission. It agrees with ACEVO that the Lobbying Act must be repealed as soon as the next government takes office.  And it challenges sector leaders to continue to speak out. We will. Well, I certainly will.

At FareShare in Deptford

So, there I was. On a trading estate in Deptford (not known as the most salubrious part of South London it has to be said) in my high vis jacket. No, not doing a George Osborne on the campaign trail, but visiting FareShare, a charity run by an old colleague, Lindsay Boswell. FareShare receives food surplus (in-date) from the supermarkets that would otherwise go to waste, and redistributes it to charities. It's big business. Big charity business.

Actually I mustn't be too down on Deptford. It has a fine history. Christopher Marlowe is buried up the road in the fine old Church of St Nicholas, Deptford, and just opposite the warehouse is the spot where the first German bomb of the Second World War landed. Some dreadful council developments took the place of much of the bombed areas, so a lot of the fine old houses and spots of this ancient dock area have gone and Samuel Pepys or Peter the Great (former residents) would not recognise it now. At least it means FareShare can rent a decent sized warehouse at a reasonable rent. At least for the time being, I suspect, as London continues to expand.

Community transport: put the third sector first!

Last week Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Michael Dugher MP, made an important announcement for community transport charities. He said a future Labour government would look to not-for-profit transport operators to help communities that are poorly served by the unregulated bus markets outside London. This is a good sign for the third sector.

Community transport is an important part of the debate on devolution and local authority powers. Why shouldn’t local authorities be able to shape their local bus services in the public interest? I’m pleased to hear a front bench politician addressing this question.

Politicians often say that a broken market can be repaired by diversifying the provision of services. But they don’t so often go on to say that the third sector should be a central provider of public services. This is the key contention in ACEVO's public service reform agenda.

Since bus deregulation in 1986 the majority of bus services outside London have been run by commercial operators. If services aren’t profitable enough, they can withdraw them. Local authorities have few powers to create a better deal for their residents, other than to subsidise routes they deem to be socially necessary. So usually they will pay commercial operators to run services they had previously withdrawn. Often, it’s the most vulnerable and isolated people and communities who suffer the loss of public transport. Their chances of accessing vital public services and employment are severely curtailed.

Who is lined up to respond to this challenge? The community transport sector has always been there, working with local authorities to address gaps in services and helping people who cannot access conventional bus services.

Community transport operators provide a bridge between the transport industry and the charity sector. They have a lot in common with other charities but are often quite distinct from the rest of the transport industry, not least because of the number of women in positions of leadership. Two of these are members of ACEVO. At our annual dinner last year, Jo Beaumont (who leads a social enterprise that works across the North of England and the Midlands) was chosen to be an ACEVO fellow. Anna Whitty is CEO of the ECT Charity and has recently joined ACEVO; Anna was instrumental in leading a partnership providing accessible shuttle services for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which did wonders to raise the profile of the community transport sector.

Bill Freeman, ACEVO member and a regular at our North West CEO’s forum, is in his second year as Chief Executive of the Community Transport Association, the national body which leads and supports community transport across the UK.

Bill has argued since day one that things could be different. He says it makes no sense for policy-makers only to turn to the community transport sector once everyone else has had a go, spent the money and proved they can’t make it work. He argues that the not-for-profit model should be on the table from the start when thinking about how to meet transport needs within our communities. It is a more reliable and resilient way of addressing unmet needs.

So far in this election campaign there’s been too little debate across the board about the third sector. Community transport is a great example of the contribution we can make to public services in future. At ACEVO we’re currently reaching out to bring more Community Transport operators in to our movement, to strengthen our voice for change in the way our public services work. And let’s hope we can keep up the momentum for the third sector to be showcased in other debates in the weeks left before the polls!

Some information about Community Transport in the UK:

What is community transport?

• Community transport is about providing flexible, accessible and responsive solutions to unmet local transport needs, and often represents the only means of transport for certain user groups.
• Using everything from mopeds to minibuses, typical services include voluntary car schemes, community bus services, school transport, hospital transport, dial-a-ride, wheels to work and group hire services.
• Community transport benefits those who are otherwise isolated or excluded, enabling them to live independently, participate in their communities and access education, employment, health and other services.
• Community transport works to a particular set of regulations designed to enable not-for-profit services run for a social purpose to be able to operate within a safe and legal framework.

Regulation of CT services

• Community transport operators are required to comply with both charity law and transport law. Charity law ensures that the organisation’s activities are focused solely on providing public benefit. Within transport law there are special provisions for services that are run on a non-for-profit basis.
• The key legislation is contained within the 1985 Transport Act and its subsequent amendments.  This was the Act which denationalised the bus industry; it recognised that transport provision in some places was unlikely to be commercially viable and so provision was made to make it feasible for community groups to provide transport.
• The regulatory regime strikes a balance between placing sufficient rules on community transport services to ensure that they are safe and legal but not making them so stringent that they deter community organisations and volunteers from getting involved in operating a transport service.  Any organisation which provides transport using a minibus should have a permit, whether or not they charge a fare to their passengers.
• One type of permit (section 19) support services that take people or groups from door to door, as a taxi or coach might. The second type of permit (section 22) enables them to run scheduled services along fixed routes, like conventional bus services but with smaller vehicles.

Charities and A&E – quiz the ministers!

Well today’s been good for drawing attention to charities’ work in A&E. We’ve announced a new programme with Red Cross, Age UK and RVS, funded by the Cabinet Office. 700 charity volunteers to work in the 29 most under-pressure A&E departments around the country, and help reduce demand on A&E over the next 12 weeks. See today’s Telegraph for an excellent roundup by Chris Hope.

Naturally, this is the precursor to bigger things. I’m making sure that government collect evidence of how charities can reduce the load on A&E. It’ll be a good evidence base for a wider national intervention in future years. Charities need to be integral to A&E strategic planning in future. This programme will help make that happen.

But what of the parties’ thoughts on the third sector’s role across social care + health? At election time this is the important question.

On 3 March ACEVO’s Health and Social Care Conference is the biggest such third sector event. In central London (and in front of the BBC + other cameras!) we’ll have not only Jeremy Hunt but also Labour’s Andy Burnham and the Lib Dems’ Paul Burstow to put their respective pitches to third sector leaders. With lots of time for questions. And in the morning we have a session with Simon Stevens of NHS England – an excellent chance to discuss progress on his five year forward view.

I highly recommend you come along, whether you’re third sector leader or anyone else. Tickets here: https://www.acevo.org.uk/event/spring-health-social-care-conference-2015. See you there!

Choice and integration

The third sector leads the way in joining social care and health. My recent work on winter pressure in A&E departments has reminded me just how effective we are at reducing demand for hospital services. More news on that to come later in the week...

I've written a piece for the New Statesman today, looking at Labour's plans for a 'National Health and Care Service'. Here it is:

Government NHS reforms adviser: Burnham's plan for patient choice is the right way

Last week, the former Health Secretary Alan Milburn said it would be a "fatal mistake" for Labour to fight the election by spending on, but not reforming, the NHS. He was joined by another Labour luminary – Lord Darzi – on Friday, as a clear group appeared to line up against the shadow health secretary Andy Burnham’s agenda.

These attacks are not just unseemly, but wrong as well. Look behind the headlines and Burnham’s agenda is the right one: to reenvision the National Health Service as a National Health and Care Service. Now we need more detail on how this is to be done.

It’s clear the NHS can’t survive without fundamental reform. As an adviser to this government during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act in 2012, and more recently on care for people with learning disabilities and on winter pressures in Accident and Emergency, I’ve seen the gravity of the situation first hand.

I’ve also seen there are no easy cuts to make. Cuts without strategic thinking have fragmented not only healthcare but also social care across the country. This directly harms our most vulnerable citizens. It means more people falling through the cracks of a breaking structure. We are on borrowed time and on the cusp of a reality where crises like the one we are living through in A&E this winter will become the norm. And it is largely our legislators’ fault.

Poor social care causes more damage every day. Cuts to council budgets have trimmed care for the elderly to the bone. Charity CEOs tell me of reverse auctions for local health contracts being won by the very cheapest service, whatever form it may take. Some private operators – though they are often very effective – may bid so low that they make a loss on social care and recoup the money elsewhere.

In A&E, these cuts send more older people into hospital for preventable problems. Often 20 per cent of beds are filled by elderly people who aren't ill, but end up in hospital because no one else can help. They can't be discharged because there's no social care to help them at home. Cutting costs money; when we run out of beds it can also cost lives.

Burnham's plan is to price in these very real externalities of running a health service. The vision is to change the NHS by replacing competition with integration. When Burnham talks about integrating the work of public, private and third sector providers, he is indicating a situation in which new services are created by new kinds of collaboration.

Collaboration rather than competition becomes the driver of patient choice. This is not merely theoretical. This winter I have chaired an NHS taskforce to get charities in to 29 emergency departments that are under pressure to tackle the immediate problem. We hope to get the charities into action early next week. We will be giving vulnerable patients a choice to receive community care that the market has failed to provide.

No doubt market liberals of the left and right will sniff at this vision of a world of choice beyond how they define it. But politicians of all parties must keep their nerve. The idea of a health service rescued by cuts and efficiencies is debunked. Now they must scale up the radical approach into a sustained plan of action. 

They can build on pilots like the charity intervention into Accident and Emergency, on innovations such as the coalition’s attempts to pilot bringing together budgets for health and social care at a local level, and they can create a new, integrated plan for health and care. The Burnham plan may not be easy to digest or to do – but it is needed.

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

New blood: ACEVO leading the defence of civil society

A great AGM last week. And a decisive debate at our Parliamentary Reception. It was my departing Chair's last speech to ACEVO's annual meeting. A feisty and robust defence of our right and duty to speak truth to power. Indeed Hilary Benn MP, Shadow Communities Minister, said in his speech how ironic it is that we all pledge "Je suis Charlie" despite the fact we have a government who introduced the disgraceful "Lobbying Act" which tries to stifle our right as charities to campaign .

In my speech I said how proud I had been to support the vigorous campaign to oppose the Act and how we must continue to campaign. "Keep calm and carry on campaigning" is the rule we must follow. 

I also warned against conceding ground to the enemy and fighting battles on their terms. We must avoid the transparency trap – that we have to reveal all, and certainly more than any other sector of society. I said that was why we must reject the idea in the current NCVO consultation that, as CEOs, we ask our senior staff or our trustees to formally declare their political affiliation. No sector does this; not councils , not civil servants and, as my Chair pointed out, not even SERCO. This is where transparency comes face to face with civil liberties and the employment rights of our staff. Civil liberties must win every time. Je suis Charlie, not Je suis a member of a political party. ACEVO’s member CEOs have rightly rejected this ideas in their responses.

Charities certainly have to trumpet their impact and explain what they do. But we must also be robust in defending our right to be professional. To pay CEOs properly and not be ashamed provided – as ACEVO’s Good Pay Guide said – that trustees, donors, beneficiaries and staff agree pay is good value for money. Of course there are critics out there. But they are small in number and hard of heart. Our trust rating and standing remains extremely high. I keep in mind George Bernard Shaw’s advice: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

We had a great turn out at our AGM. Why, we even attracted Geoffrey Howe, the former Foreign Secretary, and we had kind words from our host Nick Hurd.

This was the swansong of my chair Lesley-Anne. She has been a tremendous support and guide. An individual who represents all that is fine in a charity CEO. And she was ably supported by Virginia Beardshaw, CEO of ICan, the departing Vice Chair. They have served 6 years. And now we move to a new Chair and vice Chair; Paul Farmer of MIND and Sharon Allen of Skills for Care.

We also have 4 new trustees. They are:

Jon Sparkes - Chief Executive of Crisis. Prior to joining the charity he was Chief Operating Officer of UNICEF UK, which raises money for UNICEF’s work with children around the world and campaigns to improve the rights of children in the UK and globally. Jon led the partnership between UNICEF and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow 2014 which raised £5m and played a significant role in fundraising for children affected by the conflict in Syria.

Previously Jon was Chief Executive of SCOPE, the national disability charity, delivering services for disabled people with complex support needs and campaigning for the right of disabled people to choice and control over their own lives. Jon was the Chair of the Disability Charities Consortium and worked closely in alliance with disabled people’s organisations.

He has wide-ranging experience across the charity sector, including as a trustee of SeeAbility, a charity for disabled people with a sight impairment, and through working voluntarily for charities. He has also worked on economic development projects in areas such as long-term unemployment, support services for lone parents, and employment improvement projects with black and minority ethnic communities.

Before working in the third sector, he was a Human Resources Director in the both the public and private sectors. He is a Chartered Companion of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), formerly a member of the Editorial Board of People Management magazine and Vice President of the CIPD responsible for Diversity. While leading Scope, Jon chaired an ACEVO working group bringing forward recommendations for voluntary sector chief executives for improving employee engagement.

Jehangir Malik - Director of Islamic Relief UK. Jehangir Malik graduated with a Law Degree in 1992. He first worked with IRW in 1991 as a volunteer-steward at the Islamic Relief Games and was later appointed to various roles including Development Director of IR USA and Deputy Country Director in Afghanistan. Jehangir engages with government departments by providing policy briefings & strategic engagement on international development and foreign policy issues while also often visiting field missions and disaster zones for fundraising and media purposes. He remains active at the UK community level through encouragement of civic engagement, initiatives for youth development and a passion for Muslim engagement on mainstream issues. In 2006, Jehangir was awarded an OBE in recognition of his 20 years of contribution to the humanitarian cause.

Kate MacDonald – Kate joined the sector three years ago as CEO of the Young People's Support Foundation, a smallish charity based in Manchester supporting more than 2,000 young people facing homelessness each year. Previously Kate worked in local government although her professional background is in the Probation Service. A theme throughout her career has been socially excluded young people and her current role has provided the opportunity to understand what a crucial role the VCS has in engagement.  She is involved in a range of partnerships both in the North West and nationally with the aim of improving delivery, campaigning and ensuring service sustainability. Kate's championing of the needs of young people is a primary reason for her other roles as a trustee for a local youth leadership charity and as a governor at The Manchester College

Rachel Kelly – An active ACEVO member, enthusiastic, passionate, grounded in reality about the work, challenges and role of the Third Sector, who believes in representing charities and voluntary organisations with smaller turnovers. Following university, Rachel spent 10 years in private sector management, training and quality, and 3 years in education before joining charity and social enterprise Reading Matters in 2009. She became Chief Executive in 2012, turning their finances around. Reading Matters improve reading, literacy and communication skills of children and young people and offer volunteering opportunities and training. Working predominantly across Yorkshire and increasingly across the UK, last academic year they supported 4600 children, improving reading ages by 13 months on average with 10 hours' support, and trained 1000 individuals. They are a relatively small charity with 5 employees, and manage 100 Reading Mentor volunteers.  Based in West Yorkshire, she has 2 'tweenage' daughters and is trustee of Canterbury Imagine, affiliated to Dolly Parton's Foundation.

Lastly, I hear from many members about continued plans for massive council cuts. I know times are hard. But as I saw from the work I did for Government recently on A+E, there are still great opportunities for our sector, and we should keep optimistic.

I used a quotation from Robert H. Schuller in my speech: “Never cut a tree down in the wintertime. Never make a negative decision in the low time. Never make your most important decisions when you are in your worst moods. Wait. Be patient. The storm will pass. The spring will come”.

Maybe not spring 2015. But we’ll see…

Social Justice in Church House

I’m blogging from Church House this morning (though not as a bishop). I’m at the launch of the Centre for Social Justice’s “Breakthrough Britain 2015”, and the recommendations in their “Social Solutions” report.

A major feature of this report is the urgent need for transformation of public services. There are some very good proposals which Government need to take seriously. These include recommendations on better commissioning practice - which should receive particular attention. The drive for public service reform, so strong under Blair and in the early years of Cameron, has dulled and in some cases almost disappeared. The radical proposals of the white paper on better public services have dropped into a pending tray.

Frankly, it’s hard to see how the big problems of health or social care, rehabilitation, employment and the like can be solved without a central role for the third sector. This theme has been in the news this week, for example, with ACEVO’s recommendations for reducing acute winter pressure on accident and emergency departments using third sector staff and volunteers.

The day started well with a late breakfast with Laurie Lee, CEO of CARE international, sharing perspectives on the work of NGOs and charities in the UK, and the wider policy framework for charities under the cosh of the Lobbying Act and other attacks on charities’ role in civil society.

And the day will end with our ACEVO AGM and our annual Parliamentary Reception, both in the Palace of Westminster. We officially hand over the chairship of ACEVO to Paul Farmer of Mind. And Penny Morduant MP and Hilary Benn MP, both old friends, will be speaking on the role of the third sector in the next parliament. They are both great advocates for our role. One in her ministerial role at DCLG and the other as a pretender for the throne currently occupied by Eric Pickles!

Must get round to doing my speech....

Recognise what charities can do in A+E

On the sofa at 6.45 this morning! That is, on the sofa for ITV’s ‘Good Morning Britain’, where I was talking about how charities and social enterprises can work with the NHS to relieve pressure on A+E.

Of course we often forget charities have been working in hospitals for centuries. Indeed we used to run them. Not that I want to see a return to those days, but I do think people in the NHS increasingly see the value of our sector – professional staff  and trained volunteers – working alongside medical staff to ensure the right care and treatment for the frail elderly.

It’s scandalous that so many hospital beds are occupied by people who are not sick but cannot get back to home because of social conditions. It’s scandalous that older people who attend casualty are signed off by medical staff but end up in hospital because of a transport breakdown or worries there is no one back at home and it’s bitterly cold. Hospitals are bad places for people who are not sick. And it’s a senseless use of scarce hospital resources.

Addenbrookes, a hospital ACEVO has been working with on this issue, says 20% of their beds are occupied by older people who don’t need medical care. This is not a clever way to run our NHS. And charities can help solve that problem.

Last year I worked with my CEO colleagues in 3 big national charities whose mission is to support older people in the community: the Red Cross, RVS and Age UK. We worked up a proposal for Government that would ramp up the role of our sector in hospitals and in the community. We wrote to the PM setting this out. Letter is here.

We have been working on this since and discussing with hospital CEOs etc. There is great interest, but also, frankly, huge barriers in the system to implementing this.

Yesterday, along with a range of colleagues from the sector, I went to a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary and the Department of Health Permanent Secretary to talk about how to mobilise support for the most stretched A+E departments. It was productive and helpful. I was tasked with providing a report to indicate what we might do in the short term for the highest-priority hospitals and I'm now busy talking with my CEO members on what this might mean. I have until Monday to report back. I have a round table with some of the charities most involved tomorrow morning to discuss practicalities.

Longer-term we need to grip this issue and sort it. The point I made at yesterday’s meeting was that there are 3 main barriers to change:

• Culture – the NHS doesn't generally understand the modern third sector and too often thinks of ‘do gooders’ not professionals.

• Systems – the third sector is not embedded inside hospitals at A+E, or on the wards, in planning or in early discharge teams.

• Commissioning – this is done on transactions not outcomes. There are no incentives for hospitals to work with the third sector and the current commissioning process generally ignores it.

Now we need both to help in target areas, to secure better care for our elderly citizens, and to seek organisation reform. Ultimately we need radical approaches to health and care that galvanise the third sector. Systems that move us from the margins to a partnership approach in the NHS and in councils, that does the best for the individual’s well being.

One of the earliest tasks for our charity sector, a millennium ago, was securing good health and care for the sick and old. It’s time the nation rediscovered the genius of charity.