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.

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

Nick Hurd’s legacy

Well it’s been a busy week at ACEVO and in Downing Street. I had a good conversation with our new Minister for Civil Society on Wednesday. He has a strong record on finance and in charity – having founded his own charity in 2010. He is particularly interested in the power of social finance, and he will be speaking at an ACEVO fringe event on this topic at the Conservative Party Conference. At ACEVO we are keen to see progress on the role of civil society in public service delivery and I look forward to working with him on this in future.

But that said, it is sad to see Nick Hurd leave the post. He leaves OCS as the longest-serving Minister for Civil Society, and with an excellent record behind him on National Citizen Service, the Community First Fund and much more. He was widely respected on all sides of the sector as you can see from the plaudits that have come in this week.

I was interested to read Nick’s full resignation letter to the Prime Minister which conveys the range of his achievements and of his continued interest in the power of Britain’s civil society.

The comprehensive letter – which reads more like a handover note – points particularly to the importance in the next few years of making it easier for charities and social enterprises to properly participate in public service delivery. Nick recognises the crucial importance of access to social finance – which government still must improve on. He also points to the massive untapped potential of social value-based commissioning:

“There is of course much more that can be done to make it easier for social entrepreneurs and socially responsible businesses to create social value. The Social Value Act was a useful start but cannot be the end of our efforts to encourage intelligent  commissioning from a diverse market of suppliers, including charities, public sector mutuals and social enterprises. We have yet to unlock the full value that they can add in helping us tackle some of the most stubborn social challenges that undermine the  country. It is hard to see us meeting the challenge of delivering ‘better with less’ without our social economy fully engaged.”

So here is some useful advice for our sector and for Brooks as he steps in to post. Lots to develop on social value and on financing our sector’s social ambitions. And let’s not forget the importance too of protecting our right to speak out. We have just two months now before the Lobbying Act kicks in. The chilling effect is already being felt. A good letter in the Times this week by our friends at Bond put the urgency of the matter in clear terms. Its words should speak for us all.

“We and many others call for the act to be replaced by one which regulates party-political lobbying while safeguarding civil society’s right to speak out.  As it is, the Lobbying Act is a threat to a healthy democracy.”

Ave et Vale

So it’s hail Brooks Newmark and farewell Nick Hurd.

I think the fact there has been such a strong response from sector leaders paying tribute to Nick says a lot about how well he has done his job. He cared about the health of our sector, and avoided the political extremes inhabited by some in Parliament on both sides who want to relegate us to the margins.

I always enjoyed talking to Nick. I'm sure he always thoroughly enjoyed my helpful texts of advice and occasional expletives about "developments". He was a strong supporter of social finance and did much to promote it. He should also be remembered for his acts of omission. He refused to get sucked into the nonsense of CEO pay and refused to attack charity campaigning. He lived by his mantra of "do no harm".

So his final advice to me about Brooks (he'll forgive me for repeating his text I'm sure) was "Good guy. Bright. A good listener. Nice and genuine. Business background. Think you will get on despite everything I tell him about you!"

And I also had a great intro to Brooks from Crispin Blunt MP who is on my SIB Board and who also gave him a strong write up.

He said he was, “imaginative, open minded and convinced by argument. Not a zealot".

Finally, though he is relatively unknown to us at present my Deputy, Ash Singh, knows him and some of his team and he likewise tells me good things about him. Harvard and Oxford. Involvement with various charities, including one he set up.  Work in Rwanda. Treasury whip. This bodes very well.

And I speak to him today. I shall remind him of some of his illustrious predecessors. Indeed one Party Leader began his ministerial career as the first third sector Minister, so the auguries may be good for us all hearing much more about Brooks.