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.

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

Dolly Parton and the English countryside.

Driving up to Charlbury on Friday we had the latest Dolly Parton CD "Blue Water" on. Did you see her at Glastonbury?  I did - or at least virtually via the dear old BBC (too old to actually go to these things now!). She is not just a good singer but a source of wisdom. I remember wanting to use one of her homely homilies in a lecture I was writing but my then Director, one Ralph Michell, was disapproving. He's now at the Cabinet Office where I'm sure they don't do Dolly.

Here are some of my favourites.

"The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain".

"Storms make trees take deeper roots".

"We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails".

It was a pretty glorious weekend in Charlbury. It's such a delight to move from the pollution of London  to the purer air of the Cotswolds. Walking the Hound down the Mill Stream I was reminded of just how beautiful our English countryside is; the bird song was joined by the bells of Spelsbury Parish Church  and the sounds of the cricket over the fields. Of course we must never take this great inheritance for granted and so the work of bodies like the National Trust, the CPRE or the many environmental campaigning charities is crucial in stopping the depredations of over development. It's another reason why we must resist any attempt to curtail or silence our independent voice or any move by the Charity Commission to make us delineate our so called "campaigning" spend. After all, what are the "Campaign to Protect Rural England" to do in their accounts but say they spend 100% of their income on campaigning. Their official objective is to "campaign for a sustainable future for the English countryside [and to] highlight threats and promote positive solutions". It's what they do William!

And last week we had our annual Charlbury Beer Festival, quite an event these days with a vast array of boutique beers from around the Cotswolds. The proceeds go to international development charities - and no nonsense about  "every penny" as Charlburians are a sophisticated lot and understand the need for "overheads" in charities. You get an idea of the size from this photo. 

Progress is often good but sometimes bad. Our vicar in Charlbury has recently departed for the Archdeaconry of Dorchester. We have been told we are not to have a new vicar but a "priest in charge"; the Bishop of Oxford seems to be into control-freakery. The succession of Vicars and Rectors of Charlbury dates back to the 11th century. Unbroken till now. There have been some distinguished Vicars; notably one of the translators of the King James Bible. I'm afraid in such matters I'm a decided reactionary. When they do appoint a "priest in charge" I shall continue to call them Vicar. This is probably just part of a future plan to amalgamate us or turn the Church over to Carphone Warehouse.

Anyway, enough rant. I'm off to Cardiff.

Islamic Charities. Support them, don't wreck them.

It’s the start of the Holy month of Ramadan and this is the key time for Muslim charities to fundraise. Yesterday I met the CEOs of Islamic Relief and Muslim Aid, the 2 biggest Islamic charities in the UK, together with the head of the Muslim Charities Forum. The issues they raised disturbed me.

This is the time when Muslims obey the injunctions of the Koran to give.

"O you who believe, you shall give to charity from the good things you earnt and from what we have produced for you from the earth."

Indeed there is a more formal injunction on a Muslim to pay what is termed as "obligatory charity" in the Koran, know as the zakat. Although the exact amount is not defined in the Koran, the Muslim practice is to give 2.5% of income. 

It’s exactly like the idea of the Government's giving pledge but set at a higher level; not 1% but 2.5%. An example to us all.

The Islamic charitable tradition is a noble one, and around the Islamic world one sees ancient institutions of learning and healing, refuges for the poor and disposed.

One of the greatest of the mosques of Istanbul is the Suleymaniye, the foundation of Suleyman the Magnificent. This has a hospital, primary school, madrasa, a medical college and public kitchens serving food for the poor, which  surround the Mosque.

Similarly one of my favourite smaller mosques in Istanbul, the Rustem Pasha (the interior is covered with fabulous Iznik tiles), has a small stone pillar; on which believers are commanded to leave gifts of food and clothes for the poor, which must be left anonymously.

Of course the current media debate hardly dwells on this tradition. We must not forget the Muslim community in the UK now numbers 3 million.

They are a settled and valuable part of community life in many parts of our country.

They came to talk about their real fears on the recent actions by the Charity Commission, happening against the background of a worsening of community cohesion for Muslims who feel under threat from the rhetoric of some  politicians and parts of the media.

Of course the Commission must be able to examine and deal with complaints; it’s their role to do so. And in the turbulent world we live in, we are aware of terrorist threats from many parts of the globe. But if that raises perceptions of a bias then that is in itself a problem. A perception is neither true or false - it's a perception, but damage can be done to charitable giving through bad perceptions.

So let's recall that noble Islamic  tradition of charitable giving and support it . The Koran makes clear the duty of all believers to support the poor, particularly during Ramadan.

How worrying therefore that the Charity Commission announces publicly that it has launched a Statutory Inquiry into Muslim Aid. An Inquiry launched after they themselves had informed the Commission of 2 instances of problems. This has had a devastating effect on their potential for fundraising now. Before even the results of the Inquiry are known, they are now under a cloud of suspicion. This also has ramifications for their day-to-day business in making charitable payments around the world. How ironic that against the background of the most terrible suffering of the civilian population in Syria, it has become so difficult for Muslim charities to provide humanitarian aid. 

But the problem goes wider than this. I'm told by my colleagues there is a perception that the Charity Commission are targeting Muslim charities in a disproportionate way. It certainly appears that way. It is an issue I will now be taking up with the Commission.

I know from my council experience in Brixton that if a community builds up a perception that they are unfairly targeted and discriminated against, this in itself can lead to alienation which then drives people away from civic participation. And worse.

As my colleagues pointed out, they have been working hard to develop a sense of civic duty and community cohesion in the Muslim community. It would be perverse if the actions of the Commission were seen to undermine that.

The public still trusts charities - but the Commission should pull its socks up

Today the Charity Commission published new research looking at the public’s trust in charities, carried out by Ipsos MORI. It’s more positive than this week’s similar polling from nfpSynergy  In both cases, despite the warning signs, I think it’s important to credit charity leaders, trustees and volunteers for maintaining such high, continued public trust.

The new research found once again that charities are very highly trusted by the general public - only doctors and the police are trusted more. 

It raised important questions over the importance of good financial management by charities - more people picked this out as important to their reputation. It also showed fewer people trust charities to work independently (62%, compared to 68% in 2010).

And perhaps more worryingly, the proportion who would be more confident in a charity providing a public service than another type of service provider fell from 25% in 2012 to 20% this year.

But let us remember that charities are working in the most difficult operating environment for many years, under pressure on all sides from funders, local and national government and from rising frontline demand. All things considered, I think it is surprising that the level of public trust is so resilient. We must not be complacent but it is encouraging all the same. I recall the findings of another Ipsos MORI survey from January this year which pointed not only to high public trust in our sector, but also to the fact that 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.

The survey poses tough questions, too, for the Charity Commission itself. They will have new powers and new energy at the top with the appointment of Paula Sussex as their Chief Executive. It will be her job to ensure that the Commission improves its performance, defends our sector’s integrity and avoids oppressive over-regulation. The Commission needs to pull its socks up and become the effective regulator and support that our sector needs - and the public demands. Let’s see what happens...

Wrong way for Charity Commission.

The Charity Commission's new consultation, released last week, includes a proposal from MPs that will increase the administrative burden on charities and increase what many think is over-regulation in our sector.

In September the Government accepted "in principle" a recommendation from the Public Administration Select Committee that charities' annual returns to the Commission should state how much they spend on campaigning. It said it would first ask charities to take the initiative themselves in being more transparent about their political activities, and then explore with the Commission the possibility for extra information "to be captured and disclosed in a proportionate way through existing processes."

But now the Charity Commission – with its announcement this week of the proposal, subject to consultation, that charities should indeed from next year have to say in their returns how much they spend on campaigning (and how much they receive from government sources) – has ignored this and gone ahead with a blunderbuss approach. What happened to the "first step" and the use of existing processes? Clearly the Commission are not interested in that.

The Commission is pushing ahead with the Select Committee’s recommendation more forcefully than the Cabinet Office envisaged or is desirable.

Looking at the Public Administration Select Committee’s minutes it is clear this recommendation may have stemmed more from the opinions of some of its own members than from the evidence presented to it by witnesses. It goes further even than Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs, hardly the greatest supporter of charity campaigning. He concedes that it is ‘fairly arbitrary’ to distinguish campaigning from other charity activities.

The Committee’s report also seems to confuse ‘campaigning’ and ‘political and communications work’, which suggests that they treat the terms as interchangeable.

Let's be very clear as a sector about what is going on here. There is a clear element in the Commission who believe that we need to 'stick to the knitting'. The fact that the campaigning and advocacy work of charities is inextricably linked to our work at the front line appears to escape them. To take one obvious example, look at RNIB's fantastic work for almost 150 years, both supplying a wide range of services for people with sight loss and agitating for numerous government policies to make their lives better. It is illogical and unnecessary to separate the two functions.

And what is worse is that this intervention into a political debate detracts from the work the Commission should be doing on sector regulation. With Paula Sussex starting as their new Chief Executive next week they have an excellent opportunity for new energy in pursuing this goal.

But for now, perhaps the Commission themselves should stick to the knitting, and avoid clamping down on the historic role and duty of charities to speak truth to power.

The Queen and I.

Well, such is the power of modern communications I was able to watch the Gracious Speech on my iPad!  It seems the most interesting part of it all was the page boy fainting and the horse bolting. A lacklustre set of bills, of which only two are of direct importance to the third sector.

ACEVO has welcomed the potential of the new Charity Commission powers Bill, but we must be careful about the details. Many of us puzzle over the behaviour of the Commission. Often over legalistic and inconsistent decisions, which seem odd on common sense grounds. Many of us wonder why certain complaints get taken up whilst others are ignored. Recently there have been a raft of investigations into Muslim charities. Whilst I clearly don't know the details, I do worry that the perception may grow that the Commission has fallen prey to the current government paranoia on 'Trojan schools'. The last thing we need is the perception amongst the Muslim community that the Commission is taking an anti-Islamic stance, when they often fail to investigate similar allegations with other charities. As with the whole of society, we need active volunteers and trustees from the Muslim community. We must ensure they are encouraged, not discouraged from actively volunteering. And if people wish to have Muslim-led charities that work in Muslim communities, we should welcome and support them just as we would those from any other faith. We must not instinctively think it suspicious, or give that impression.

We also need a clear understanding of when and why the Charity Commission take up cases, and whether they have effective methods for whistleblowing.

I was very disturbed at the decision on the Human Dignity Trust, which fights in the courts to end discrimination against homosexuals in other countries. This could not possibly be for the public benefit, the Commission has ruled, because changing these laws is contrary to public policy and could prejudice our relations with states that put gay men in jail. For these reasons, the Commission has denied the Human Dignity Trust registration as a charity, a decision that will be challenged in court today I'm glad to say. What a perverse ruling. It risks adding to the impression of a reactionary Commission, which is unhelpful both to them and to the sector.

We all want an effective regulator. We need them to have strong powers. But we also need to ensure their resources are wisely used and carefully targeted. So ACEVO and our members will work with the Cabinet Office on the new Bill provisions, to ensure just that.

It is often said that our sector is over-regulated. Let's ensure that we combine light-touch regulation with effective oversight and, most importantly, that we do not allow the Commission to forget that a part of its role is to build trust and confidence in our sector. That, after all, is a large part of what effective regulation will achieve.

And so, that's enough of the Queen. I have moved from Hall to Castle! From Union Hall to Castle Townshend to be precise. And we are staying at the Castle:

The Castle.

Castle Townshend

The castle.

My Great Grandfather x 5, the Rev. Thomas Somerville, was brought by his father to Ireland in 1690. His father was the Rector of Leswalt in Co. Galloway, in SW Scotland. They were fleeing persecution as the Rev. William had been deposed from his living for being an Episcopalian, still praying for the Jacobites. He fled with his young family (his son Thomas was only one) in an open boat to Ulster, together with one Rev. James Cameron (no relation I'm sure!) and his family. 

Anyway the Rev. Thomas became a successful clergyman for Castle Townshend and Union Hall, and his son Thomas II built the magical house, Drishane, which you see here. The Somervilles still live here and we popped in to see distant cousin Tom Somerville the 8th.

At Drishane

 

At Drishane

Tom’s great aunt was the magnificent Edith Somerville, the author and painter.

Castlehaven

 I shan’t mention the evening of dancing and singing with a number of cousins in Skibereen on Wednesday night, and certainly no photos of that! Needless to say it was all very Irish.