Try listening...

I have to admit to a soft spot for John Major. Perhaps because he was a Brixton boy - he lived in a house just 10 minutes from my own on Brixton Hill - or because he, like me, was a local councillor. His widely quoted comments in Parliament on Tuesday were fascinating. A very clear passage that contains an important message deserves wider dissemination. 

He said:

 “Iain Duncan Smith is trying to reform benefits. I truly wish him well. But it is enormously complicated and unless he is very lucky, which he may not be, or a genius, which the last time I looked was unproven, he may get some of it wrong. I hope Iain is wise enough to listen to a wide range of opinion because some of his critics will be right. If he listens only to the bean-counters and to cheerleaders concerned only with abuse of the system then he will fail.”

And a brilliant example of what Major was talking about was illustrated this week. 

The Chartered Institute for Housing have undertaken a major review of how the cap on benefits is working in one of the pilot areas; Haringey. It suggests serious problems in the rationale underpinning the reform proposals. Instead of looking carefully at the research, and considering the potential lessons, DWP dismiss the report out of hand. Indeed worse, a shocking interview on "Today" by Mike Penning MP included the suggestion by him that the BBC were showing bias by even reporting the research.

Politicians of all parties do the democratic process huge damage when they are not prepared to engage in proper debate, and show they are open to the "range of opinions" that John Major was talking about. Likewise Departments must avoid acquiring a track record of dismissing alternative views and attacking critics. We need evidence-based policy making. 

Charities' role, when working on the front line, is to bring those alternative views and the evidence of the impact of policies to politicians' attention. Politicians ignore them at their - and the country's - peril.

Just look at the recent ATOS experience.  Charities have continued to highlight abuse and poor decision-making by this company. Government and the DWP should listen - and act. Not deny the evidence and castigate the organisations collecting it to highlight abuse . 

This is yet another reason why the sector must be on guard. Not just on the well publicised damage promised by the Lobbying Bill, but on attacks on our 'professional' campaigning role. Someone must stand up for evidence.

Lobbying Bill: the noble Lords speak sense

Lobbying Bill: the noble Lords speak sense

At last, we have it. Some sense being spoken on all sides of the House about the Lobbying Bill. It's just a shame that I'm talking about the House of Lords - which we know will always have the time and sense to discuss legislation properly - and not the Commons. The Government must see from yesterday's debate that their Transparency Bill is fundamentally opposed by Peers of all parties, plus the Crossbenchers. It remains a solution in search of a problem to solve.

Of 40 speeches made in the debate, a mere 3 were in support. Two from the Ministers proposing the Bill, and one from Lord Tyler who has been a consistent supporter ever since it appeared in the Commons this summer.

A few highlights from the debate:

The Bishop of Derby: "Very few people are members of political parties or of the professional lobbying groups that pursue political lobbying in a smart way, but millions of people are involved in charities and faith groups. ... Politics needs this political energy for the common good and all the signals—as we can tell from our e-mail inboxes —are that this source of political energy is being closed down and discouraged at the very time we are wringing our hands because the great public are not interested in political parties, elections or the democratic process.”

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour): “This is not emergency legislation or law that requires fast-tracking. … we are concerned that lack of understanding about any new rules and arrangements might dissuade charities and campaigning groups within our communities from participating in campaigns, with the potential chilling effect on free speech and freedom of association. Reform of non-party campaigning regulation requires careful consideration and we need time for that. That is why we are recommending a pause in the legislative process, as has been suggested by other Members of this House. We are asking for more time to be allowed for further consideration of the measures.”

Lord Horam (Conservative): "It is important not to damage civil society or freedom of speech. In my view, the original Bill cast its net too wide as regards Part 2. ... I remain concerned about Clause 27 and the lowering of the threshold for registration. This seems unnecessary. The big spenders—the Bill is about them—already register and are caught by the reduced cap and the wider scope of what is to be controlled, but why go so far down the route to seek to register groups that are spending £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench): "This Bill has been driven by two engines, self-absorption and self-regard—self-absorption because it wilfully misunderstands and ignores both the way in which campaigning works and its meaning to society, and self-regard because it assumes that government and party politicians are more important than public discussion. I fear that the Bill will put Westminster further into a bubble."

I could quote the whole debate, which was excellent, but these comments give a good idea. They speak for themselves.

The debate made clear, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Bill must be paused. I hope Peers will not only keep up the pressure for this, but also listen to the Report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement (www.civilsocietycommission.info), which will be published next Tuesday. It will take a detached and constructive view of the debates that should have been had before this Bill was introduced to Parliament. It will advise the Government as to how to improve our democracy rather than curtail it. Let's hope they listen.

And on a happier note, I had coffee at the Commons with our new shadow third sector Minister (or civil society if you prefer) Lisa Nandy MP. Always good to see someone who has had a career in our sector taking up this role. Lisa worked in Centre Point and the Children's Society so has a clear view on the role our sector can play campaigning and providing. We talked about the origin of the role and the fact that Ed Miliband was the very first Third Sector Minister (as he reminded her when she was appointed, she told me).

She clearly relishes the opportunity to get stuck in and good luck to her. Its been a strength that there is strong cross party support for our sector, and we have a Minister in Nick Hurd MP who also understands and supports us - even when some colleagues on the backbenches would like a more combative approach. I enjoyed lunch last week with Chris White MP, conservative and the promoter of the great Social Value Act and we were discussing how to maintain that support . We have always enjoyed a strong consensus across the parties about the role of our sector. We must hope that arguments about pay , campaigning or lobbying do not undermine that.

Silencing society: The dangers of the lobbying bill

An article by my new Policy Officer - George Bangham

Adversity makes strange bedfellows. The old proverb isn’t wrong. In the ongoing debate on the lobbying bill which continues in the House of Lords today, the alliances formed to defend civil society’s free speech have ranged from the strange to the downright improbable.

What else would cause the Lancashire Badger Group and the Countryside Alliance, or the Christian Institute and National Secular Society, to work together in public? Where else would the TUC join with lobbying industry bodies in mutual outrage?

This scale of opposition is rare. This week, the Lords should seize their opportunity to make the bill fit for purpose.

When the lobbying bill entered parliament, one day before summer recess, it was expected just to regulate corporate lobbying, as the public wanted. Lobbying is by no means intrinsically bad, but as David Cameron himself admitted in February 2010, it was ‘the next big scandal’ that promised to weaken the public’s trust in politics.

Cameron’s response at the time was sensible enough. He called it “absurd that a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to one hundred per cent of the population. Instead of locking people out of this process… we need to invite them in.” Many were pleased at the time, thinking ideas like a public reading stage for bills might actually improve the public’s view of politics. How far we have come since the election.

Far from being the grand restorer of public trust in politicians and lobbyists, the lobbying bill has been decried by MPs as not worthy even of a ‘dog’s breakfast’. It has swept any meaningful action on lobbying under the carpet, and further privileges the voices of political parties and the media in pre-election debates. This is particularly short-sighted at a time when some charities count members in their millions, while no political party has more than 200,000.

The bill’s second part profoundly threatens the freedom of speech of charities and campaigners in the year before a general election. Clause 26, which decides whether part 2 covers a given organisation, widens the type of spending civil society groups must register with the Electoral Commission in the year before an election. Unlike the equivalent registration threshold for political parties – who spent over ten times more than civil society in 2010 – it includes all staff costs and many conferences and public events.  The rest of part 2 then heavily reduces the national allowance by 60%, and only 2% of this may be spent in one constituency.
Baroness Jay concluded last week, for the Constitutional Reform Committee, that these spending limits leave them “concerned about the restrictions on [civil society’s] right to freedom of political speech”. She added that “this constitutional right should only be interfered with where there is clear justification for doing so.” The only evidence offered for part 2 was “a perception of a lack of transparency” in non-party campaigning – this is not enough justification.

However outrageous the Bill may seem, however, I hope it will open up several long-overdue debates about our country’s democracy in the coming century.

First, we cannot allow even popular governments to force through constitutional legislation without even trying to consult the public or carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. Graham Allen MP was right to point out that “parliament has been disrespected; parliament has been abused.” Groups like 38 Degrees greatly increase the number of politically-engaged voters, who government must keep onside for laws to be credible.

This week, this principle means the Lords must listen to the report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democracy, an alliance of over 50 civil society groups chaired by Lord Harries (former Bishop of Oxford). It will publish the findings of its national consultation next week, which has been an excellent replacement for public consultation in such limited time.

Second, our country needs to ask how we enable charities and campaigners to speak for their beneficiaries – who usually have little other democratic voice – without being marginalised by political parties and the media. It is telling that even the Commission on Civil Society, whose signatories represent millions of UK voters, has received little media coverage. This week, peers should oppose lowering the spending threshold for civil society groups.

Lastly,  we must still argue the case to truly ‘keep big money out of politics’. The government has not demonstrated why they should limit the voice of civil society – where millions of people donate a few pounds each to a cause – while leaving areas like party funding and corporate lobbying untouched. These areas are where unaccountable millions of pounds influence our politics, not charities.

This leaves the lobbying bill both a grave threat and an opportunity. In the short term, part 2 must be properly amended to disarm its attack on civil society, by rewriting clause 26 and increasing the spending thresholds in clause 27. This is also a good time to start debating other, important questions of democratic representation.

In the run-up to 2015, the bill offers a golden opportunity to any party which offers to repeal it and write a proper one in its place. That, at least, shouldn’t be too hard.

The challenge of Age!

 Chairing a conference today on the effects of demographic change and austerity on our health and care systems. It rather echoed the speech by Jeremy Hunt on Friday about how we care for our old people.

Jeremy has made the care of the frail elderly a theme for his time as Secretary of State for Health. He is right to do so. We know that one of the major failings of the health service is that too many old people are in hospital beds when they could be better cared for at home or in the community. We know that the impending crisis in A&E over winter will be largely driven by our inability to care effectively for older people at home and when they get to hospital ensuring early discharge. Part of the answer to the winter crisis lies with the many excellent national charities that work in hospitals and the community such as The Red Cross, RVS and Age UK.

The statistics about age are interesting.

Those currently 65 will live to 84. (So I reckon I might make 90; lots more time to give the third sector the benefit of my views!).

And the current population of  65s will grow from 9m in 1995 to 19m by 2050.

In terms of the Public Spending demands, state pension/social care & health for older people will rise from 14% of national  income to almost 25 % in a decade.

But let's not think of this in terms of the apocalypse. Our debates on the elderly are usually couched in terms of problems and burdens. We forget the majority of people who volunteer are over 60. Its a huge cohort of largely active and engaged people. People who vote (unlike youth!). People who contribute to civic life and debate.

However we do need to change the way we provide many of our public services, especially in health and social care.

Many of my regular blog readers will have missed my Blog for the last week. I'm afraid it has been particularly manic and I managed a week of breakfast meetings and evening events as well as the usual round of meetings (not to mention our Board away-day on Friday).

We are also gearing up for the Lobbying Bill debate in the Lords tomorrow. So a week of chatting up Lords and Baronesses; tough job but someone has to do it. A superb article by Polly Toynbee in Friday'sGuardian summed up the importance of the issue for charities and our broader civil society. It's at times like this that ACEVO as an umbrella organisation for third sector CEOs comes into its own.

Polly Toynbee, Sefton, Liverpool and PA of the Year.

One of the delights of the ACEVO job is the leadership lunches we arrange for members to hear from politicians, civil servants and other opinion formers. On Tuesday we had that formidable journalist, Polly Toynbee, to a lunch at our friends CCLA (ethical investors for the sector). Not only is she an intrepid commentator, but she has written extensively about income inequality. So she had some very topical comments about recent news stories on chief executive pay in charities.

She was keen to remind us of our strength. Our sector is vital for its beneficial impact on the lives of many of Britain's and the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. And when we speak our on their behalf, people listen to us. We are a strong force, particularly when we present a united front. And a great example of that is our current campaign by over 70 charities to challenge people's attitudes to people on benefits. In a case like this administration costs are not just a negative; they're an essential component to ensure we have maximal social impact. Though I admit we have yet to properly communicate this to the public.

So income inequality remains a defining public debate for our time. But when we look at average salaries in our sector relative to their social impact - and compared to the social impact of CEOs in the public and private sector - we see they offer tremendous social value for their money. That is key, even if it won't make a Daily Telegraph headline.And that's not to even mention the fact that the average salary of a FTSE chief executive is £4.3m as Polly reminded us! 

   

Yesterday I was in Sefton to speak at the Sefton CVS annual meeting. Packed out audience sitting in the Balliol St Methodist Chapel, a magnificent Edwardian building of great architectural note. Angela White is the dynamic CEO and a strong ACEVO member active in our regional forum. She runs a thrusting CVS who help support the local sector to deliver.

I gave them a barnstorming speech; an overview of our challenges and opportunities. "Hard Times and Great Expectations" was the Dickensian theme. Of course I was warning of the difficult climate ahead. The major cuts in funding still to come: 25 billion in the next 2 years; 43 billion in the 3 years after. Don't think these hard times for our third sector are over yet!

Then there are the attacks on our civil society rights to speak truth to power and our legitimate right and indeed duty to campaign. Wisely I'm sure (in case I got criticism), I told the audience that I have 6 dead relatives buried in Sefton. Limricks; descendants of my Anglo-Irish 3-times great-grandfather. Indeed my cousin of some degree is commemorated on the Crosby War Memorial!

I apologised for not having any living relatives there...

But its difficult to be in our sector and not be relentlessly optimistic. It's in our bones as CEOs. There are opportunities; for more work with government in delivery of services like rehabilitation and health and social care. The Government wants this alongside an expansion of social finance. It is not all doom and gloom. And our sector is often at its most magnificent when our leadership is tested. 

It was very gratifying to be told by a lady in the audience that it was the best speech she had heard for decades. And as she reminded me, at 90 she has heard many!  But I must not be immodest...

I spoke about the need for reform in health and social care.  And used the examples of dementia care. I was desperately hoping no one would notice that I had come to Liverpool wearing odd shoes. One black loafer and one brown one.....oh dear. A senior moment as they say.

I also facilitated a workshop!  Haven't done that sort of thing for years. One of my ACEVO team were very worried that I wouldn't be able to run a session where I let everyone else speak. What a cheek. 

But I was not finished and hot footed it to Liverpool 8 where I was meeting Clare Dove in her lair. Clare is the CEO of a famous social enterprise that is 30 years old. Situated in the grand former home of the Lord Mayor of Liverpool it became the first girls school in Britain. Much written about by Dickens; a theme there eh! Edwina Currie was educated there too. Now, Blackburn House is a multi-purpose further education and training centre, cafe and well-being spa amongst other activities. It's pretty impressive. 

Clare is also Chair of Social Enterprise UK and a new member of the Charity Commission. As you can imagine we touched on recent developments over our lattes in her cafe!

Well, while I've been away the ACEVO office has been in celebratory mood. My PA, Leeanne Graham (who has the pleasure of posting my Blogs amongst many other lovely tasks) was awarded the prestigious "PA of the Year 2013" at the Executive PA Magazine /Hays Awards on Wednesday at a glittering ceremony in the City. Beating off rivals in the private sector, this is a triumph for Lee and for our sector. What a great honour and well deserved. Of course as I said to her that means she has to stay with me for a long time. So no poaching. You have been warned!