Ethics, Values and Campaigning: a Reflection

Is it ethics and values that motivate campaigning for a cause? What is the difference between believing that our cause is right, and being self-righteous? What part do ethics and values play in the way in which we pursue our cause, as well as the cause itself? Should civility be a core value of civil society? Is it ethical for a charity campaign to be motivated partly by the need for money and supporters?

If these questions interest you, read on!

  1. A few days’ ago I was lucky enough to be in a group considering this topic in the appropriate surroundings of the Friends’ Meeting House, Euston. We had been brought together by the Sheila McKechnie Foundation’s excellent Social Change Project, whose contact details are given below. Here are reflections that I have taken away.
  2. Is it ethics and values that motivate campaigning for a cause? They are a precondition but not sufficient by themselves. Some people who share much the same ethics and values as activists may be into service delvery, watch a lot of TV, or be absorbed in study or family instead. Others may end up campaigning for different, even conflicting things. For example, the two sides in the dignity in dying debate may share important values but have systems of beliefs and experience built on them that lead them to contrasting views about the best path to long term human flourishing. Others again may have quite different priorities: one person who campaigns on children’s rights can have broadly the same ethics and values as another who is preoccupied with environmental degradation. So anyone who says “I campaign for this cause because of my ethics and values” is saying something partly true but incomplete. Your experience of pain and joy, role models, religion (or lack of it), beliefs about what will change the world for the better and how best to achieve it, and subjective enthusiasms, all play their part, too.
  3. Similarly, believing passionately that our cause is right is not the same as being self-righteous. Our opponents are human beings who disagree with us but may well share many of our ethics and values. They may be just as well motivated as we are. They may have more experience than we do in some ways and understand considerations that we ignore in our own ways of thinking (which may sometimes be group think). We cannot assume that they are morally inferior. Too many of us campaigners, however, do sometimes fall into self-righteousness. If we do, we help justify the hostility of our opponents.
  4. Yet a clear sense of ethics and values, explicitly defined and publicly stated, is an important anchorage for campaigning organisations, as for others.
  5. For otherwise, there is no standard of behaviour against which the organisation as a whole and individuals within it can be held accountable. The history of campaigning includes examples where an ostensibly “successful” campaigner has left a trail of humiliated or angry colleagues and supporting staff because, fixated on the moral end, he or she has behaved badly to actual human beings in the same cause. We are only too conscious of this trap in the post Harvey Weinstein era. Explicit ethics and values help to align the public cause with organisational culture and personal behaviour.
  6. Equally, they help guard against a discrepancy between means and ends. If, for example, we contravene our stated beliefs in truthfulness and fairness, our causes will be vulnerable to being discredited. If we misrepresent or dehumanise our opponents, we invite them to do the same back to us and to others. Do we manipulate statistics, oversimplify what we know to be complex, cherry pick evidence that supports our message and ignore what does not? This is particularly important in the era of fake news, alternative facts and the coarsening of public discourse in rival social media echo chambers. If we lower our ethics and values to compete like with like, we shall lose out to the most ruthless and unprincipled.
  7. This is very difficult, because we want our communications to grab attention in a crowd. We need money. We may want to motivate our supporters and recruit new ones by engaging their emotions. We cannot bury our appeals in pedantic qualifications. But there is no good alternative to working hard for impact within a robust framework of ethics and values. The charity sector has learned this the hard way through the fundraising scandals, where excellent ends were let down by unethical means.
  8. The group pondered the helpful question posed a while ago by Karl Wilding of the NCVO: should one core value of civil society be civility itself? Is it realistic to deplore and excoriate the behaviour of institutions, such as predatory Corporations that commit environmental or human rights abuses, without assuming that the human beings working in them are inhumane and unethical as individuals? Is it ever justified to abuse and curse our opponents or political leaders as individuals as part of expressing the anger that drives many of our campaigns? Is it naïve to aim to be always civil, however passionately we believe in the rightness of our cause, particularly if we feel we are fighting a “war”? These deserve careful reflection as we define the shared ethics and values underpinning our organisations and campaigns.
  9. One other issue caused us some difficulties. There are particular ethical issues surrounding the role of campaigns on the part of medium and large charities. This is because such campaigns sometimes have mixed motives. They are partly trying to do what it says on the tin, such as (for example) bring about a better deal for some oppressed group, but at the same time they are trying to recruit new supporters and raise money in order to fill the charity’s tin. It is partly about sustaining a business model for the organisation and its wider cause as well as about the specific campaign. Fundraising and brand considerations, as well as policy analysis of need and impact, will be brought to bear on the choice of campaign. And in some cases, when the fundraisers and brand experts say so, one campaign will be dropped after two or three years, because another is needed to sustain the brand and the finances even if the previous one is unfinished. This all has its good side if it makes great organisations sustainable while promoting their cause in different dimensions, but the risks of lack of transparency, or causing cynicism about the motivations of campaigns, are there, and need managing in the light of the charity’s statement of ethics and values.
  10.  Similarly, for a wider range of campaigning charities, if I make a gift aided donation to a particular urgent campaign appeal, is it transparent enough to me if the gift aid goes not to the campaign but to the general running costs of the organisation (as it sometimes does)? This is another set of issues where what is right and in the best interests of the cause is not always straightforward and where a statement of ethics and sturdy values can be an essential compass
  11. If you would like to follow or contribute to The Social Change Project’s developing thinking on these questions – and other aspects of changing the world through non-party political activity – please go to their website at http://smk.org.uk/social-change-project/ .

 

 

Andrew Purkis.                                                                  November 2017.

 

Advertisements

Should Charity Boards “reflect” or “represent” the communities they serve”?

In response to the generally excellent report Taken on Trust, about the nature and competencies of Trustees, the Charity Commission has said that “Boards are not reflective of the communities charities serve”. NCVO has said: “Trustees are drawn from a narrow cross section of society, and as such boards rarely reflect the communities they serve”. ACEVO likewise says: “civil society leaders – whether executive or non-executive – should be representative of the communities they operate in and the people they support”.

I am fortunate enough to serve on the Board of ActionAid International, the most wonderfully diverse Board led by a formidable African woman as Chair and a formidable Italian woman as Vice Chair, and I need no persuasion of the blessings of diversity. I am particularly shocked by the finding that in the Taken on Trust sample, men outnumber women as Trustees (and as Chairs and Treasurers) by two to one. But we have to recognise the difference between being having a suitably diverse range of skills and experience and being representative. They are not the same.

Part of the problem is indeed that Boards are all too reflective and representative of the deep seated patriarchy and class inequalities that unfortunately characterise their surrounding communities and society at large. I can understand why the Charity Commission et al are not proposing feminism and egalitarian reform as their chosen solutions, but let us not suppose that changing techniques of Trustee recruitment and establishing registers are likely to make a huge dent in the weaknesses of society that are in turn reflected in charity Boards.

Morevoer, each charity exists for a specific cause. The Board has a job to do to promote that particular cause as effectively as possible. So when we say they should be representative or reflective of the community they serve, we need to ask: “which community?” Remember that Taken on Trust tells us that a large majority of charities have 3-5 Board members. They all exist for the public benefit, but 3-5 people can hardly be representative of the general public. So of what should they be representative? Some charities have the purpose of conserving some sub species of nature, or promoting a recherche branch of research or learning, or advancing a particular religion. A Board that is the best for doing that may be people who are interested in the relevant sub-species, or branch of learning, or constitute the worshipping community (sometimes very small, sometimes very patriarchal) from whom the Trustees are drawn. If you like, they constitute a relevant community of enthusiasm for the purpose of those charities, but there is no way they can be reflective of the population of England and Wales nor of any geographical community. It may be that those who are saying Trustees should be reflective of the communities they serve are thinking of a typical social care organisation delivering services in a particular place, but in fact the largest percentage of the charities analysed by Taken on Trust were in the category of “culture” (about 20 per cent of the whole) and the runner up with about 15 per cent was religion.

Boards also crucially require necessary skills, as astutely analysed in Taken on Trust. The skills gap most often cited by Trustees was legal skills. But if you need to add legal skills, are you likely to choose anyone other than a qualified lawyer with time and inclination to help, perpetuating the predominance of people with higher educational qualifications and above average incomes? Some other skills gaps, not all, will tend to point in the same direction. Skills versus representation is a familiar dilemma for many charities considering the future of their Boards.

As NCVO knows from its own history, trying to make Boards “representative” has in the past caused huge headaches for itself and many other charities.  Many is the medium to large charity that has laboured with an unwieldly and ineffective Board because the Board is trying vainly to be representative of all the geographical or thematic interests of the charity, or be “democratic”. One governance review after another has concluded that the Board should be relatively small and focus on the right mix of skills to run the charity. For many medium or larger charities, the representative and reflective bit is far better achieved by a larger Council or Assembly, whether sovereign or just advisory, so that the Board can be a smaller body of do-ers with the right mix of skills. Please let us not forget all those hard-learned lessons and insist that the Board itself must be representative or reflective of a wider public. Public confidence and trust does not in my opinion depend on a Board being “representative”. It depends on whether it has the right skills and experience to do its job well.

Now when considering what is the best mix of skills to enable the Board to fulfil its functions, diversity is indeed key. An old boys’ network is unlikely to be the answer. Diversity of experience, skills and mindset, all geared to pursuing the particular cause of the charity, is a blessing on which far too many charities are losing out. More power to the elbows of all those following up Taken on Trust in this spirit.  But please can we understand that this is not at all the same as saying that Boards should try to be representative of society? Thereby hangs many a sad tale.

 

Charity Commission says IEA’s viewpoint is “relatively uncontroversial”

The Charity Commission has said in a letter to me that the economic viewpoint taken by the right wing think tank The Institute of Economic Affairs is “relatively uncontroversial”. This is part of their justification for continuing to regard the IEA’s purposes as exclusively for the charitable advancement of education.

The Commission does however acknowledge that the IEA has crossed to the wrong side of the line of what a charitable think tank may or may not do by publishing a joint Manifesto for Conservatives with the Taxpayers’Alliance during the General Election and publishing press releases associating the IEA  with a string of political proposals for changing law or policies. This is not compatible with the charitable advancement of education. The Commission undertakes to continue to monitor the IEA’s activities to ensure they don’t cross the line again.

In my reply I argue that the IEA not only fails to observe the Commission’s guidance on charitable education but has a partly political purpose (as the Commission defines it) and therefore cannot be a charity. I maintain that the Commission is wrong to maintain the charity status of the IEA in contravention of its own guidance in CC9.

Here is the correspondence:

Letter of 6 November from Charity Commission to me:

Dear Dr Purkis
The Institute of Economic Affairs (235351) I am writing further to my email of 6 September. I am sorry for the delay in letting you have a full reply to your letter of 29 April. As you will recall, we wrote to you separately on 22 May about the outcome of our enquiries in relation to the concerns you raised with us about IEA’s political activities in the run up to the general election. What we did Since I last wrote, we have been working with IEA to assure ourselves that it is fully aware of what are acceptable educational and political activities that can be undertaken in furtherance of the charity’s objects. We reviewed the three publications that you brought to our attention1, as providing useful examples of IEA’s activities. Wethen met with IEA at their London offices and further discussed the relevant issues. Advancing education As you know, the nature of education is informative, enabling the reader to draw their own conclusions. We say that where the premise or starting point is uncontroversial then education does not require a neutral starting point. Education can be pursued from a particular perspective. Such a perspective has to be relatively uncontroversial or at least a perspective which is held from an educational and social viewpoint held by informed opinion.
1. 1 Obesity and the Public Purse by Mark Tovey (23 January 2017)
2. A Rational Approach toAlcohol Taxation by Christopher Snowdon, 15 February 2017; and
3. A briefing on disability benefits of 27 December 2016 by Dr Kristian Niemitz
Dr Andrew Purkis
By email only to andrew@purkisfam.co.uk
Charity Commission PO Box 211 Bootle L20 7YX T:0300 065 2008 Your ref: Our ref: AB/C-457875-RCT Date:06 November 2017
Page 2 of 3
The starting point of the IEA is “free market or libertarian economics”. This is one of several different economic viewpoints held by informed opinion. There are many schools of economics and much argument and debate about the merits of the different perspectives. We consider IEA’s economic viewpoint to be arelatively uncontroversial perspective accepted by informed opinion. Consequently we registered IEA as a charity. Other think tanks that are charities start from different positions and provide different perspectives. However, we do acknowledge that, as you suggest, some might argue that any economic perspective is controversial.
Think tanks promote informed debate and wider public understanding of issues. In fact it is often think tanks that provide the media,and therefore the public,with the statistical and economic analysis that inform debate and enable meaningful questions to be put to politicians. Such explanation may indicate that a particular policy is, or is not, likely to work and the reasons why. Therefore we think it is legitimate for a charitable think tank to explain, through reports and articles etc, why it thinks a particular policy is likely to achieve its stated objective and/or be beneficial to the country and to do so from a particular perspective.
The purpose ofIEAis to educate the public about economics and political science from a free market perspective. We therefore consider that it is legitimate for IEA to explain the anticipated economic impact of particular policies promoted by the government or opposition from a free market perspective. Similarly, other think tanks can explain the same policies from a different perspective.
This is what the identified publicationsseek todo. Whilst we are not experts in the field, they appear to us towell-argued papers backed up with academic referencesand havesufficient educative value. IEA isessentiallyactingas a vehicle to disseminate those academic ideas and recommendationsto the public in furtherance of its purposes. Political activity As you say, a charity can engage in political activity, but only in furtherance of its objects, but may not have a political purpose. This is essentially because the courts would not be able to decide whether a proposed political or other change is for the public benefit. Given their usual area of activity, charitable think tanks in particular must be careful about supporting or opposing policies because this is likely to be political activity and such activity must promote the objects of the charity. They should make it clear that they do not support or oppose policies or political parties.
Think tanks need to take particular care when publishing research that contains recommendations of a political nature, such as advocating the introduction of a particular policy. This is because it is not generally appropriate for an educational charity to advocate changes in public policy. They should make it clear that the recommendations are those of the researcher and are not those of the organisation.This is particularlydifficult when papersare authored byemployees and may therefore appear to be the voice of the organisation.
This issue is sometimes compounded (and we have found this with IEA) in the way that think tanks issue press releases about their work. In operating for the public benefit, research should be made publically available, which is usually done by publishing it on a website. Naturally, think tanks want to achieve wide dissemination of their work and the public need to be aware of its existence.
Page 3 of 3
They therefore needtoheadline their research toget attentionfrom the media. However, education charities should generally use more neutral language which does not give the impression they are straying into party politics and have a particular opinion. There has to be a balance, which often requires a nuanced judgement to ensure that the wordingof any press releasesdoes not convey the organisation’s support for the proposals.
We have discussed these issues with IEA. In particular, we have stressed the need for ittodistance itselffrom the actual recommendationsofresearch. We haveexplained what is and is not acceptable for a charitable think tank and we are satisfied that the trustees understand this. Conclusion We are of the view that IEA continues to exist for a charitable purpose and we are now confident that IEA fully understands where the line, in terms of what is and is not acceptable, is drawn. We will, however, continue to monitor charity.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Yours sincerely
Anthony Blake
Anthony Blake Regulatory Compliance Rccorres1@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk

And here is my reply to Commission dated 8 November

Dear Mr Blake,

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Thank you for your letter of 6 November.

I appreciate the efforts you have made to discuss these issues with the IEA and satisfy yourselves that the IEA now understands what a charitable think tank for the advancement of education may or may not do.

You will remember that after your previous round of discussions with the IEA following a previous complaint, you quoted in your letter of 19 October 2016 the Trustees’ assurances that the IEA has no agenda beyond research into market economics and the dissemination of ideas. That did not last long, however, being followed soon by the publication of the joint Manifesto with the Taxpayers’ Alliance which you had to tell them to take down and the series of expressions of corporate political positions in press releases which you have now had to explain should not be repeated in future. So I am glad that you undertake in your letter to continue to monitor their activities to ensure they do not continue to stray over the legitimate line, but I think the problems are deep-seated and flow from the IEA’s partly political character.

It is also helpful that you clarify that “it is not generally appropriate for an educational charity to advocate changes in public policy”, which is precisely what the IEA has appeared to be doing for years.

There are, however, major difficulties with your arguments for continuing to regard the purposes of the IEA as exclusively charitable (for the advancement of education).

Firstly, you rest your decision on the judgement that “We consider IEA’s economic viewpoint to be a relatively uncontroversial perspective accepted by informed opinion”. Uncontroversial? As the Commission has often made clear, it is not enough to accept a general charitable objective at face value and one needs to see how the general objective is being defined in practice. Please look again at how IEA describe their mission and purpose on their website:

“It is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare, and lower levels of regulation.” All those involved in the IEA’s work, we are told, “believe that society’s problems and challenges are best dealt with by individuals, companies and voluntary associations inter-acting with each other freely without interference from politicians and the state. This means that Government action, whether through taxes, regulation or the legal system should be kept to a minimum. Our authors and speakers are therefore always on the look-out for ways of reducing the government’s role in our lives.”

On the planet where I live, this statement of purpose is indeed controversial, for the reasons that I took the trouble to spell out in my last letter. I do not fully understand what you mean by claiming that such a viewpoint is accepted by “informed opinion”, since very large numbers of informed people profoundly disagree with any such view. Since the IEA’s vision and purpose as they describe them are controversial, they contravene your guidance that the charitable advancement of education must not be promoting a controversial, predetermined viewpoint.

It is also rather hard to square the above quotation from IEA’s website – or indeed most of the IEA’s output – with the statement early in your letter that “the nature of education is informative, enabling the reader to draw their own conclusions”. On the contrary, they lead the reader, or radio and TV audience consistently to the very specific conclusion that the state must be shrunk whether in the dimensions of taxes, regulation, the legal system or public health policies.

Secondly, the IEA’s statement of purpose as quoted above is political, as you have defined it in CC9. This is not allowed in charity law. CC9 says that a charity cannot exist, either wholly or in part, for any purpose “directed at….securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions of central government, local authorities, or other public bodies”. Yet IEA’s stated purpose is directed at securing lower taxes, lower regulation and what they call “freedom” in education, health, etc; and all its contributors and partners are, explicitly, looking out for ways of shrinking the state. That falls squarely and unequivocally within CC9’s definition. It is not true that many other charitable think tanks have similarly political statements of purpose. IEA’s is more akin to the mission statements of other think tanks with partly political purposes which, quite rightly in my opinion, are not charitable, even if they have a charitable research arm.

If the IEA were truly a charity with the exclusively charitable purpose of advancing education, its statement of vision and purpose might be something like this:

“IEA believes that society’s problems and challenges are generally best dealt with by individuals, companies and voluntary associations inter-acting with each other freely. The IEA strives to increase understanding of how the operation of the free market can optimise well-being in different dimensions of our lives. All our work is designed to deepen knowledge, understanding and awareness of the potential for good of allowing the free operation of market forces, and conversely the potential for unintended ill effects resulting from unnecessary restriction or distortion of the market, whether by the state, politicians, monopolies or cartels. All our staff, authors and contributors are committed to the advancement of education and understanding from this perspective.”

The difference is that this is a made-up version arguably appropriate for an education charity, and that might stand a chance of being seen as consistent with CC9, whereas the IEA’s actual statement is partly political and therefore not charitable. The problems you have experienced with the IEA are not occasional flashes in the pan, but flow from the partly political purpose set forth on their website.

Thirdly, you argue that while it is generally inappropriate for an educational charity to advocate changes in public policy – which happens to be the major thrust of the IEA’s statement of purpose quoted above – it is OK to employ staff and sponsor individuals to produce papers and enter media debates advocating such changes, so long as the charity distances itself from the conclusions, and stops attributing the views to the IEA. But is this position tenable? If the IEA carefully selects its contributors and their research topics and chooses to publish and promote them, and they are every time promoting the IEA’s political purpose quoted above, it seems a half-truth to claim that they do not necessarily represent the views of the charity. This is even more problematical when, as you say, the authors are staff members of the charity. Moreover, the Director General of the IEA, and others such as Mr Snowdon, are familiar figures in public debates on TV and radio: are they supposed to be speaking as individuals and not representing the charity? This is most unlikely to be understood in a world where Directors are assumed to speak for the charity they lead. Are IEA tweets (I have just seen one praising a journalist’s “strong moral case for investing in tax havens”) supposed not to represent the views of the charity?

Indeed, CC9 itself says that “Trustees must not allow the charity to be used as a vehicle for the expression of the personal….views of any individual trustee or staff member.” How does this square with your position that it is OK for the IEA to allow itself to be used as a vehicle for political reports and speeches by its individual staff (so long as it “distances” the charity from them)?

Fourthly, you have not clarified whether the previous guidance that I quoted in my two previous letters on the nature of charitable education is still valid. For example, your guidance has been that educational charities “must research and present information in a neutral and balanced way that encourages awareness of different points of view where appropriate”. That is definitely not the hallmark of the IEA. Nor, according to your guidance, should they provide education with the purpose of persuading people to form specific conclusions or follow particular prescriptions – like shrinking the state in all possible dimensions?

I am aware that these issues are not straightforward. Yet the Commission is in danger in this case of appearing to defend the charitable privileges of an organisation that is not consistently advancing charitable education, and whose purpose is partly political as the Commission has defined it and cannot therefore be a charity. This is unfair, untenable and damaging to the Commission. This is unfinished business and will surely keep coming back unless the Commission seriously addresses the problems I have tried to identify.

Thank you again for the action you have taken and for your letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Purkis.

The Charity Governance Code: we should celebrate and promote it, but a few points deserve further thought.

The Charity Governance Code, launched in July, is an excellent and very useful piece of work that deserves to be widely promoted among charities of all kinds.

  1. A large majority of the difficulties into which charities sometimes fall is attributable to flaws in governance. So the Code’s dull title belies its vivid relevance to charities’ effectiveness and good reputation. I agree with all its fundamentals and its balanced coverage. It is usable and useful to real life Trustees. It is good that it has chosen to be stretching, setting the good practice bar high. I shall not go into the detail of all the things I like, as there are so many. The excellent Chair of the Group that produced the report, Rosie Chapman, and her team drawn from umbrella bodies, have done an important job for the sector well.
  2. There are nevertheless a few issues that might benefit from further reflection, adjustment or elaboration – either in the next version of the Code itself or in accompanying guidance that might be offered by umbrella bodies.
  3. Firstly, is the document sufficiently accessible and evidently relevant to those charities that do not think of themselves as charities with Boards. For example, charities for the advancement of religion (at least one in six of all charities) may often not think of themselves in this way. Is the preamble and the “marketing” of the Code sufficiently geared to overcoming this problem (The Essential Trustee takes more trouble over this)? Has there been careful consultation with networks of churches, mosques and the like to ensure that this Code is perceived to be relevant to them? Because it really is. If such consultation has not yet happened with this and other sub-sectors who are charities but may not think of themselves like that, perhaps it should take place now.
  4. Secondly, more than once I felt that the importance of putting the long term interests of beneficiaries first was under-stated. There are lists in the Code where beneficiaries are treated as if (it seemed to me) on a par with donors, the public, and other stakeholders, but they should not be on a par. Donor or public preferences should not be wagging the dog. To take just one example, the Trustees of the Council for National Parks have their work cut out trying to protect and promote the interest of all those who benefit from National Parks in particular as their fundamental priority (not just one “stakeholder” among others). The (valid) case for a wider approach where Trustees are also aware and respectful of donors, take into account public opinion more generally and the wider interests of the charity sector, surely needs to be located more clearly within that framework?
  5. Indeed, the Code or supplements to it could also add some guidance on how conflicts between the interests of a charity’s beneficiaries and the interests or views of other stakeholders should be approached? They happen.
  6. Thirdly, the Code suggests that Boards should have the possibility of merger as a specific point on their radar, but there is no mention of de-merger, or spinning off subsidiaries or new charities to focus on a particular specialism. Why not? Many excellent developments in the charity sector have resulted from de-merger: witness all the important bodies, now independent, spun off from NCVO over the years – Age Concern, YHA, CABx, BOND, and many others. Preoccupation with merger is one-eyed.
  7. Fourthly, I felt there was not enough emphasis on the familiar point that those elected to a Board by a particular constituency must put the collective interest of the charity first, not just the sectional interest which they “represent”. This mistake is the source of so much woe that it may deserve special mention in the Code?
  8. Fifthly, so much good material is included about delegation from Trustees to staff in larger charities that it seems churlish to ask for more. But I felt that the problem of Trustees (including but not restricted to Chairs) poking around in detail and getting all “hands on” in areas supposed to be delegated, thereby demoralising both staff and other Trustees, is so widespread that it might deserve a more emphatic mention. This is reinforced by the fact that finger-wagging at Trustees in the wake of the fundraising and other scandals may have unnerved Trustees and tended to encourage excessive interference.
  9. Another possible addition is how best to approach problems of interpreting the division of labour (Trustees/staff) in practice when the border lines are genuinely blurred. It is not enough to say that the borderlines should be clear when in practice they sometimes aren’t. For example, the wording of a larger charity’s public messaging, which is virtually continuous, is an operational matter, but it can (if it goes wrong) affect reputation, compromise values or have other impacts in the Trustees’ domain. And fundraising practices that seemed operational turned out to have major impacts for Trustees’ proper concerns. So should the Code or its supplements have more to say about how to cope with this dilemma?
  10. Finally, there might be a case for including, in coverage of the Board’s strategic review function, an explicit mention of reviewing the appropriate balance between practical action, service delivery, awareness-raising and advocacy/influencing, as means for securing the best long term results for the cause? (Yes, I know, thereby hangs a tale.)
  11. Those are some candidates for possible tweaking or elaboration. But the most important message is: along with the Charity Commission’s The Essential Trustee, this Charity Governance Code really can help charities do their work better. Let’s get behind it, promote and use it.

 

 

Civil Society Futures Inquiry: My suggestions on key themes, do’s and don’ts

 Introduction

  1. I have spent most of my working life in the organised part of civil society, having been Chair of 4 UK Charities and a senior or chief executive of NCVO, CPRE, Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and The Tropical Health and Education Trust. I have been a Board Member of The Charity Commission for England and Wales and a Member of the Parole Board and of its management board. I remain a Trustee of ActionAid International and of the OIA (the Higher Education Ombudsman), advise a grant-giving charitable trust and blog and lecture on charity related subjects.

Definitions and Values

  1. The wider the definition of civil society, the more difficult I believe it will be to say anything useful and interesting about it. I think you should therefore feel robust in selecting, in due course, a few key themes that seem to you really significant and explore them in some depth to make a mark, fully acknowledging that you have not tried to be comprehensive.
  2. I feel sure that you will not adopt the simplistic assumption that all civil society is a Good Thing. One could say that Breitbart and the alt right and tea party organisations are all part of the rich tapestry of civil society, and I assume that the inquiry will define some non-negotiable values and boundaries, and sometimes take sides. If the inquiry is not to be value free or neutral on points of principle, how are the values to be defined? I am sure you will want to go beyond the charity sector, but one advantage is that there are definitions of what objectives Parliament has decided are for the public benefit, so it’s not just anything that anyone feels like doing regardless of benefitting the public as defined by Parliament and the courts. I am not making points about charities, charity regulation and charity law in particular in this evidence as it is not yet clear to what extent such issues will be of interest to the inquiry with its much wider remit. Please consider issuing further guidance in due course on what evidence on those subjects might be useful.
  3. If you are not using the formal definitions of what is charitable and for the public interest, the inquiry will need to articulate its own value base. The Carnegie inquiry into the Future of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland (2010) led by Geoff Mulgan nailed its values and colours to the mast in a robust way that I commend for your consideration.
  4. Scandinavian comparisons might also be a helpful perspective on our own rhetoric about the inestimable value of civil society. The reason for choosing Scandinavians is that they come out top on many measures of contentment, happiness and relative cohesion, and yet they are not known (so far as I know) for a burgeoning civil society of the kind so enthusiastically promoted in the UK. This might help think through the limits, as well as the potential, of the role of civil society.

History and Futurology

  1. I urge a proportionate balance between distilling some of the key lessons of history, on the one hand, and futurology on the other. Futurology is the graveyard of much energy and effort. There are some trends that are already clear and must be taken into account, for instance the ageing population and demands on health and social care in this country and the very young average population in many developing countries, the threat of global warming, the shrinking of political space for democratic participation in many (but by no means all) countries as documented by CIVICUS, the growth of inequality in key dimensions and the concentration of power and wealth in very few hands in many parts of the world. There are also trends in lifestyle, opportunities and challenges related to the growth of digital technology that are already reasonably clear. I do not know enough about artificial intelligence to know what predictions are speculative and what are probable or certain. There are also some less reliable scenarios related to supposed levels of tax and spend in the future, or further digital change and automation which may be more treacherous territory and may be less fruitful than refreshing the enduring lessons from experience which will apply in shaping and responding to change whichever of the futurologists is proved correct.

Recommended themes for the inquiry

  1. I now give examples of the themes on which I hope the inquiry will decide to focus.
  2. One is the role of civil society in empowering people to have a voice and influence in shaping the world, so that change isn’t just something that happens to them. Julia Unwin is already familiar with a lecture I gave on the history of campaigning for charitable causes, accessible via this link:

 

https://andrewpurkis.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/in-our-good-old-english-fashion-englands-history-of-campaigning-for-charitable-causes-lecture-at-cass-business-school-2-september-2015/

 

  1. I hope that its documented claims for the essential advocacy and campaigning role of charities and other civil society organisations will be perhaps one useful anchorage point for your wide-ranging inquiry. For whatever the changes that time may bring, one of the core functions of civil society is to enable even the humblest and most disadvantaged people to have some agency, a sense of being able to make a difference and being part of something bigger with a purpose. I should be very happy to assist the inquiry with any further thoughts or work in this area (you will find some other case studies and thoughts around the political activity of charities on my website: andrewpurkis.wordpress.com.)
  2. Secondly, within that framework, I hope that the long struggle for women’s rights, led above all since the nineteenth century by parts of civil society, and the continuing need for the purposeful combatting of deeply entrenched patriarchy, will also be a big theme. While some parts of civil society may be strongholds of patriarchy, a more serious problem may be the widespread assumption in many other parts that in broad terms the battle is over and we can all move on to other business. The proposition that feminist ideas and models of leadership have an essential role in further phases of overcoming patriarchal assumptions and cultural behaviours will still frequently elicit bafflement, if not rolling eyeballs, even among those who regard themselves as progressive in such matters, and it would be a great gift if the inquiry illuminates both the history of this civil society struggle and how much further there is to go, offering pointers to help achieve this.
  3. Thirdly, the inquiry has an overview from which it can suggest how different parts of civil society can work together better for particular purposes, overcoming the silos that tend to split them up.
  4. Julia Unwin is already familiar with a study I did on Housing Associations in 2010, showing how the larger housing associations in particular seem to have lost their identity as part of civil society, gathered together in separate “housing” institutions and with only weak links to the wider institutions of civil society.[1]It is interesting to note the current calling out of universities by Andrew Adonis for having “forgotten” that they are supposed to be part of the charity sector, again seeing themselves as a separate HE sector for which being part of civil society is (in his view) no longer a strong part of their identity.
  5. It is good that faith communities are specifically mentioned as part of the inquiry’s call for evidence, and it will be a challenge to ensure that such a major part of civil society is truly integrated in its analysis and judgements. Quite a few organisations that use “Civil Society” or “charity” in their titles tend in practice mostly to exclude religious groups from their working definitions and interests. Religion is seen as different (which of course in some ways it is), with its own institutions and culture, and either embarrassing or divisive in a secular context, with the result that it is frequently side-lined. You would not necessarily guess, reading the literature of some civil society umbrella bodies or attending their meetings, that the advancement of religion accounts for at least one in six charities or that churches, mosques and the like are regulated as charities by the Charity Commission and have vital common interests on issues including freedom to advocate and campaign in line with their mission. Some academics, too, are prone to analyse trends in managerialism in the charity sector, for example, without reference to religious organisations, which in some cases would spoil their conclusions[2]. Will you succeed in convincing the enormous religious sector of civil society that the future of civil society is actually about them as well as secular organisations?
  6. Indeed, one of the recent trends in civil society worth exploring would be the more effective involvement of mostly (not exclusively) religious organisations and congregations in influencing current policy and power structures via Citizen Organising. The Living Wage movement is one of the most conspicuous examples of this. This is something new, crossing the boundaries between “religious” and “secular” in exciting ways, and it would be good if the inquiry were on the lookout for how the sector can innovate partly by finding more ways of getting out of its separate silos.
  7. Inevitably, a fourth theme must be the financial resources available for different kinds of civil society contributions. This in itself is an absolutely vast subject, and I shall pick out just two aspects. A significant trend over the last couple of decades has been the flourishing of many civil society organisations funded mainly by local government in recognition that such organisations can bring authenticity, local participation and empowerment, volunteer effort and, at least up to a point, a pluralism of influences on policy that comes from formal independence from the state. We all know that this model has weaknesses, especially that of excessive dependence on annual grants or contracts from local authorities, but the achievements and merits of this cadre of local voluntary partners of local government are not to be underestimated, and the demise of many such bodies as victims of cuts to local authority budgets and austerity (and in some cases preference given to bigger organisations with lower overheads and bigger capacity for risk) has been a sad loss that should be documented, and is not necessarily irreversible. There are also lessons to be learned by the sector, and by local and central government, which I hope the inquiry will consider summarising.
  8. A second funding issue to highlight relates to the apparently saturated condition of the market for recruiting donors and supporters of UK charities. It has now become so expensive to recruit an extra donor that – particularly now that more aggressive tactics have been called out – it is beyond the means of many organisations to grow in this way. The very big and rich ones can still invest heavily and scoop the pool. If something like this picture is approximately true, it has significant implications for assumptions that growth is good, for diversifying into social enterprise and new funding models, for re-thinking how best to achieve impact, and for independence, of which multiple individual donations is such a crucial condition for many organisations. I believe that the way in which the creation of a large cadre of, not very rich, but comfortably off middle class philanthropists, delegating their interest in particular broad outcomes to expert NGOs via direct debits and the like, is an underestimated, unsung aspect of the period since the 1970s, and I tried to describe them in this piece suggesting that the warm glow of “philanthropy” should not be colonised exclusively by the rich:

 

https://andrewpurkis.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/should-philanthropy-belong-to-the-rich/

 

If this phenomenon has reached its limits, it is worth noting both what it has achieved and what are the best alternative routes for achieving similar goals in future for the significant part of civil society which has benefitted from it.

  1. Do not hesitate to ask if any more material on any aspect would be useful as the focus becomes clearer. Very best of luck.

 

Andrew Purkis,

17 August 2017

 

[1] Housing Associations in England and the Future of Voluntary Organisations, Baring Foundation 2010.

[2] I can give chapter and verse if this is sufficiently interesting.

Paying for the Regulator: why the charity sector is not like all the others.

Those who favour charging charities for the Charity Commission argue that most other sectors pay for their regulator through charges or fees, even if it is principally the public interest that is served by the regulation of their activity. So why should charities object to the same treatment?

Recent indications from the Charity Commission suggest they intend to consult soon on this issue. I argued  in Civil Society News on 25 July that it is a very bad time for this (because of difficulties in funding the new Fundraising Regulator, the mixed blessings of the Shawcross era, the fact that a new Chief Executive and unknown new Chair of the Commission are about to begin an unknown new era, and the febrile political context of a hung Parliament) but I assume here that it will go ahead anyway. I personally see strong arguments on both sides, but they should be the right arguments.

The truth is that the charity sector is, in significant respects, not like other regulated sectors, and the analogies drawn with others are usually unconvincing.

It is not simply that, historically, Parliament has always accepted the regulation of charities as a proper call on public expenditure. That cultural and political acceptance is indeed significant, shaping expectations in a way that does not apply to many other regulated sectors. No doubt part of the reason for this may derive from the traditional judicial function of the Commission as part of the legal system. But another crucial reason is that Parliament has always wanted to encourage charity for the public benefit for its own sake. Charitable activity, and giving of money and time, has been seen as a Good Thing, to be nurtured and supported for the good of society. That is not special pleading, it is a political fact.

Yes, it is important that (for example) people use water, have access to energy and to media, and take part in business activities, but these regulated activities have not been understood to require encouragement and support in the same way as the relief and prevention of poverty, the advancement of education and religion, the protection of the environment, the promotion of human rights and all the other objectives approved by the Charities Act as being for the public good. That is a major difference. If you impose charges on charities, it is a charge on charity: on donors and on the efforts of Trustees and other volunteers, affecting the motivation that traditionally Parliament has been keen to nurture. It would indeed be a significant alteration in principle of the longstanding bargain between charities and the public.

It is true that bigger charities benefit from fees and contracts, and that a tiny few of them have paid Trustees, but overwhelmingly the charity sector is still run by volunteer Trustees and depends on freely given donations, and is in a different position from publicly funded services or commercial companies that are regulated in other sectors.

In some ways a better analogy for charging charities than the practice of other regulated sectors is the proposition that people should pay for NHS services. Free access to the health service is a political principle, because it is in the public interest that people should be encouraged to go to the doctor when they are unwell and this advances the sort of society that we aspire to be. Even small proposed charges are controversial because they could be the thin end of a wedge undermining the principle. Detached, technocratic arguments about financial “realism” have frequently cut little ice in this context.

So it is with the charity sector and what is likely to be seen, however small at first, as a fresh tax on charity that offends the principles on which the bargain between public and charity sector has been based. That is not a technocratic matter. It is political. There are political arguments for and against charities’ paying for their regulator, but superficial analogies with other regulated sectors are only relevant to the extent that the distinctive nature of the charity sector is kept clearly in view.

Charging Charities for the Charity Commission? Not tonight, Josephine.

The recent research by Populus published by the Charity Commission into public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission raises interesting questions about the Commission’s intention to consult on charging larger charities for aspects of regulation.

In her blog to accompany the research, the Commission’s Sarah Atkinson confirms that this is indeed the plan, alongside continuing discussions with the Treasury about the requirement for public funding.

I see strong arguments on both sides of this debate, which I have previously summarised on one page:

https://andrewpurkis.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/charge-charities-for-the-charity-commission-key-issues-on-one-page/

But the fact is that for many decades it has been accepted by Parliament that it is in the public interest (not just charities’) to have an independent regulator of the sector and that this is a proper claim on public expenditure.  Beware of putting too much weight on comparisons with other sectors where this historical assumption has not been there. The charity sector, unlike the others, is also among other things a missionary and campaigning sector. Suggest  a fresh tax on the advancement of religion (about one sixth of the whole sector) and expect a new generation of Thomas Cranmers, John Bunyans, John Wesleys, William Wilberforces, Cardinal Mannings and their equivalents in other faiths to arise and campaign against it. Suggest a fresh tax on environmental protection and conservation, on cancer care, on work to prevent and manage disabilities, on the arts, on the advancement of health and education……Please believe me, there will be the mother and father of a row. I have pondered  whether the Charity Commission might actually welcome such a row in order to convince the Treasury that they must increase public funding of the Commission, but I am not sure that Shawcross and his Board are that cynical. I think they, like all of us, want a careful, sensible debate.

That is what we shall not get if a consultation is launched any time soon.

In a hung Parliament, how many Ministers or politicians will welcome such a brouhaha or be impervious to impassioned campaigns by angry constituents? It takes a strong Government, at least, to face down many angry charities.

If the Government could find a billion for Northern Ireland and the challenge to austerity is so strong, will go the cry, it is wrong, even absurd, for the Treasury to fuss about a relative bagatelle such as an extra few million for the Charity Commission to regulate such an important and enormous sector.

Moreover, the charging of larger charities to pay for the Fundraising Regulator has not been a smooth ride, despite the far stronger case for charging in the wake of the Olive Cooke and allied fundraising scandals. Many of them have gone along with it reluctantly for strategic reasons to do with the risk of reputational damage. Not a great time to try another charge on them for regulation by the Charity Commission?

The timing in relation to the Commission itself is also all wrong. “Most stakeholders” interviewed by Populus, “(many of whom also rate the Commission positively overall and commend its work) also express concerns that the organisation has at times appeared politically driven and subjective in its treatment of particular high profile incidents”. Hmm. If you were a Trustee of a large charity, would you want to pay for that? Would it not be better to wait for a new Chair and Chief Executive to create a more reassuring climate? If charities look at the outgoing regime, many will have doubts, not least about its destabilising approaches to regulating political activity and the failure to provide an authoritative and independent voice in public debate about charities (as distinct from finger-wagging in response to newspaper headlines). If they look at the forthcoming regime, they also have doubts because they don’t yet know what sort of regime it will be. So why now?

The Commission’s own recent report into trust and confidence points the same way. The doubts of Populus’s charity respondents about whether the Commission has yet restored a good balance between compliance and support, suggest that the time is not ripe for consultation. Stakeholders (a different group) were asked by Populus about charging charities for part of the costs of the Commission’s work. These are relatively detached, sophisticated observers, unlikely to be swept up in emotional reactions to a raid on charitable resources for regulation. Yet only about a quarter were in favour, mainly on the basis that the Commission would have more resources to do its job better. The large majority were split between opposition and doubt:

” Other stakeholders were fairly evenly split between those who were ambivalent and those who were opposed to the proposals. They gave a number of similar reasons.
Some worried that smaller charities would not be able to afford the additional costs. Many who mentioned this assumed – but did not know for certain – that the proposals would include a progressive levy with large charities paying substantially more. Even so, they worried that even small amounts could adversely affect small to medium sized charities who already struggled for income.
Others were strongly concerned that the Commission’s independence would be compromised, and its ability to regulate fairly and impartially would be diminished.
A few argued that they also could not support the proposals because there was no guarantee that the government would not simply reduce state funding as charities paid more.”

This suggests to me that those stakeholders in favour of and against charging both gave insufficient weight to the effects of the current system in subjecting the Commission to pressure from the Government of the day. This is not just because of the appointment system,  which is open to party political influence by Ministers. Remember that twice the Commons Select Committee approved the appointment of William Shawcross as Chair only by splitting on party lines, Conservatives in favour, the rest against: not a great basis for confidence in neutral regulation. It is also because the Commission is dependent on Ministers for their budget, and knows that if it steps out of line with what Ministers want, its budget is at risk of further cuts. In the run up to each public expenditure round, ie most of the time, Ministers have the Commission by the short and curlies.

Some parts of the charity sector and some of the stakeholders in the Populus survey see the matter of independence primarily in terms of the threat that, over time, the Commission might be influenced by the perspectives of the larger charities that would be paying the Commission’s bills. That is a real issue, but it seems wrong to ignore the major potential threat to independence posed by the tight hold of Government over the financial lifeblood of the Commission under the present system. We need much more balanced and careful thinking about that within the sector and beyond. Yet right now, we shall not get it.

The current Chairman has made clear that in his view funding by the sector is the future, and this undermines trust that partial funding by the sector is what is really intended in the long term.  The slippery slope to full charging of the sector is in full view. The argument that sector funding is “necessary” because of continuing Treasury public expenditure constraints invites a vigorous campaigning response to pile political pressure on Ministers to come up with relatively tiny sums of  taxpayers’ money at a time when there is a hung Parliament. I sense that many infuential people in the sector who might in other circumstances be willing to see both sides of the argument (not least about independence from Government) will line up behind the “NO!” campaign.

Better to leave it a while, under a new Charity Commission Chief Executive and a new Chair, settle things down and show that the Shawcross era is well and truly over. Then we are more likely to get a balanced debate. As Napoleon put it to his mistress: “Not tonight, Josephine!”

 

“Trust and Confidence” ? A Reality Check

Whenever I hear a statement about public trust and confidence in charities, or the Charity Commission, like Herman Goering I reach for my revolver.

I argued this time last year that the bewildering ups and downs in poll results on this subject over the years have often had more to do with the dodgy thermometer than the health of the patient.

The research conducted each year by Populus for the Charity Commission, reported by Civil Society News yesterday, is more reliable than most, but still deserves a dose of scepticism. As usual, the Commission’s Sarah Atkinson spoils the fun by making sensible comments on the subject that would be persuasive even if the research had never been done. But let’s take our own detached look anyway.

The main focus this year is public trust and confidence in the Commission rather than in charities, which is potentially more meaningful. But note that of the public sample of about 1000, 39 per cent had never heard of the Charity Commission at all before the conversation with the pollsters. And of the 61 per cent who had, only 32 per cent claimed to know the Commission at least “fairly” well. So 68 per cent of the sample might know the Commission about as well as I know Ofwat or Ofgem. I assure you that my views on how well those two bodies are regulating their sectors are not worth having.

There also appear to be some contradictions in the views of this sample, since public trust in the Commission comes out the same at 6.0, whereas there is a decline in trust in charity regulation and only 47 per cent of the public say that the Commission is an effective regulator. I think what this is telling us is that these opinions probably do not add up to a row of beans. Charities have the advantage of knowing what the Commission is and having some real experience of regulation, and their opinion is more complimentary and much more worth measuring: over three quarters of the charity sample regarded the Commission as effective.

Now let us turn to what the Populus research tells us about public trust and confidence in charities. Up until last year, the level of trust in charities as measured in this series had consistently been somewhere between 6.3 and 6.7. Last year, there was a fall to 5.7 because one third of the sample who tended to know least about the charity sector said their trust had been weakened, mainly because of derogatory media coverage. Now the index has returned to 6.3. Too much was made of the fall last year, and we should not make too much of the return to grace this year. We must remember that many of those being questioned have only the haziest notion of what a charity is, and the notion of the minority who said their trust was weakened last year was hazier than of the majority whose trust was unaffected.

Members of the public who were aware that they had benefitted from the services of a charity during the year was said last year to be 19 per cent, this time 31 per cent. I am suspicious about any claim that there has been a genuine change of awareness of this dimension in such a short time (last year the level of awareness was said to have fallen by a significant percentage). But what was found last time was that, when the same people were presented with a simple list of actual charities, the 19 per cent was transformed to well over 90 per cent: the original figure was telling us, principally, that the sample knew very little about which organisations are charities and which are not. All the findings need to be interpreted with that in mind.

For example, this year’s research is said to show a 13 per cent drop in the number of the public who say they trust charities to work independently, even though trust in charities has gone up from 5.7 to 6.3. I suggest that this finding is virtually meaningless. And be careful when the public finds that charities are less trustworthy than educational institutions, many of which are…charities!

There is a danger that, despite the limitations of surveys into public trust and confidence, we set too much store by them. The stakeholders interviewed by Populus, many of whom are in positions of influence, think that trust and confidence in the charity sector is at a low point. The Independent Review of civil society led by Julia Unwin put out a piece a couple of months ago assuming that public trust and confidence had declined catastrophically. Those who challenge such assumptions for lack of solid evidence are at once suspected of complacency, but over-reaction to opinions expressed by those with a hazy knowledge of what charities are has its own dangers.

I am glad that we do not have “PUBLIC CONFIDENCE SOARS!” headlines this time. I wish we had had less “FALLS TO ALL TIME LOW”  or “TRUSTED LESS THAN THE ORDINARY MAN OR WOMAN IN THE STREET” last time.

There are some other interesting findings in the research which deserve a separate blog.

Day Surgery at St George’s: one person’s experience of the NHS

I have just undergone a second minor operation at the day surgery department of St George’s Hospital, Tooting in south west London. I want to share aspects of this experience and highlight blessings that are too easily taken for granted.

I was under the care of the Urology team, because an investigation to check for prostate cancer, leading to the all clear, had revealed a tumour in my bladder. This had been discovered by an MRI scan which, incidentally, is administered by a separate company contracted to the NHS, in a lorry in the car park outside the hospital. I had expected this to be a brief, silent, space age type experience, but in fact it lasted 30 minutes and sounded more like being in a noisy cement mixer.

The first bout of day surgery was, therefore, to have something called a TURBT (easy to remember because it is like a turbot) which is a cleaning out of the bladder by a very clever device inserted through the uretha, in my case under general anaesthetic. This is followed by analysis to see whether the tumour is of a relatively mild or serious, invasive nature. (Luckily, mine was a mild one.) The only time during this whole story when something went wrong was when the administrative organiser tried to fit me into an early appointment for my TURBT but failed to register the appointment on the system, so I turned up for my big day only to find that I was not expected. But note the response of the consultants: the consultant on duty came to apologise to me in person. He rang his colleague to see if he could fit me in to his surgery the next day. That colleague promised to try, and to ring me to let me know. He did ring and say that he could not fit me in that morning, but would work with his colleagues to find as early an alternative as possible. A day later, I received a phone call just as I was entering the cinema for an evening film; it was the second consultant, saying that he had found a gap for the next morning, and giving me personal instructions about preparing myself.

From that part of my experience I draw two conclusions: one, it underlines that the contribution of “administrative” or “backroom” NHS staff is absolutely crucial, and the politicians’ habit of talking as if they are “red tape”, far less important than doctors and nurses, is wide of the mark. Secondly, I was seriously impressed by the personal courtesy and conscientious commitment of the consultants. It may also seem a small thing that, in letters to my GP reporting on the results of their reviews of my case, it is their habit to refer to me as “this pleasant 68 year old gentleman”. It is not a small thing to me. I have never been called that before, and it sets the tone for the consistent respect and consideration with which they have communicated with me and with all the other patients I observed. Repeatedly, I have heard them talking openly, clearly, sensitively and honestly with every patient, with unfailing courtesy. Urological complaints are not very dignified, but each of those men is, in my experience, treated with complete dignity.

Arriving in the day surgery centre at 7.30 am, you are called one by one to go through a checklist of questions, change into throw-away blue paper shorts and a gown that gapes at the back, have your wedding ring taped and have two plastic bracelets attached saying who you are. You then meet the consultant and sign the consent form, and the anaesthetist. Yes, you do have to answer the same questions several times – so about five or six of them know I do not have any loose teeth – but hey, so what if they check, double and triple check so that they don’t give you the wrong operation or cause you to swallow a loose tooth under anaesthetic?

Once the day’s patients are prepared and changed, we shuffle off to the men’s waiting room, a motley procession indeed in our outsize, rustling paper shorts and flimsy gowns, some bandy kneed, one hobbling with a stick, one pretty tubby, a couple of younger men with vivid tatooes, sitting down to watch daytime TV and cracking jokes about who is going to be called to glory first and whether, since the day surgery shares the building with facial surgery, they might fix our faces at the same time as our bladders. One by one we are called, for a reprise of some of those questions and a bed to lie on for the operation. The anaesthetists also tell me exactly what is going to happen and engage me in chatting about holiday plans to help get through the slightly painful insertion of a drip into the wrist. Perhaps I should not admit it, but I quite enjoy the prospect of slipping into a deep sleep and waking up when it is all over in an orderly recovery section. As I come round a kindly nurse is calling me by name and offering me a glass of water. There is no sense of rush or pressure. When I feel wide awake, I am helped to ease myself gently off the bed and walk off to have a cup of tea and both Bourbon and squashed fly biscuits. The Consultant comes to tell me that the follow up inspection has shown everything in the bladder is all clear, subject to checking the result of a biopsy that will be through in a couple of weeks. He will then welcome me back for an annual check up next February.

I feel looked after, respected and lucky. Lucky, not least, to be in a country with a free health service that, despite all the pressures on it,  will look after the unspectacular, unedifying urological problems of many people (especially men of 60 and over) with such grace and skill. Don’t take it for granted. This pleasant 68 year old gentleman never will.

 

 

 

 

Charity Commission urged to review IEA’s charitable status

Here is my letter of 29 April to Paula Sussex of the Charity Commission challenging the charitable status of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).

I have separately asked the Commission to investigate whether IEA’s joint publication with the non-charitable Taxpayers’ Alliance of Proposals for a Conservative Manifesto is in breach of their guidance to charities’  political activity during the General Election Campaign.

 

Dear Paula,

The Institute of Economic Affairs and the Advancement of Education (IEA)

I should like to reinforce my concern that the charitable advancement of education is not the exclusive purpose of the IEA, and to request that the charitable status of the IEA should be re-considered urgently. (My last letter to you in response to yours of 19 October 2016 was sent on 31 October 2016.)

To recap, I quoted the Commission’s previous guidance on the advancement of education for the public benefit (my italics throughout):

Promoting a specific point of view may be a way of furthering another charitable aim, but it would not be education”. And again:

“If the purpose of providing information or education is to persuade people to form specific conclusions, then this is not education.”

“[Charitable education involves] researching and presenting information in a neutral and balanced way that encourages awareness of different points of view where appropriate”.

Since our exchange of letters last October, you have summarised lessons to the wider sector from one of your case reviews as being that advancement of education by a charity must not be promoting a predetermined and controversial position.

Your letter to me (19 October 2016) stated that the IEA’s work overall must present an educational, and not propagandist, perspective. It could properly pursue “a legitimate and recognised (that is non-controversial) branch or aspect of the learning of economic or political science”. But this must be “a legitimate aspect of learning” and “within the rigours required of an educational charity”.

I assume that the formulations in your letter are not intended to change and override the other guidance quoted above, but rather to interpret and apply the same charity law in this particular case. If that assumption is correct, pursuing a legitimate aspect of learning with a particular academic orientation (as in a particular school of economics) must still be aiming exclusively at education and learning. It still must not be promoting a specific point of view, persuading people to form specific conclusions, or promoting a predetermined and controversial position. And it must still observe your guidance about researching and presenting information in a neutral and balanced way that encourages awareness of different points of view where appropriate. I assume that these are part of what you call “the rigours required of an educational charity”.

The Commission often emphasises that a charity must be and remain established for exclusively charitable purposes, and your guidance CC9 makes clear that political activity is allowed in pursuance of such an objective but may not itself be a purpose. So in saying that a charity’s work “overall” must present an educational perspective, you cannot mean that some of the work can be for a non-charitable purpose such as promoting a predetermined political conclusion. The crucial question is not whether part of the IEA’s purpose is charitable, but whether it all is.

I also note that the Commission and the courts do not take at face value the wording of the charitable objects and Trustee statements, but also (as in the McGovern case) dig deeper to determine whether the way the words are interpreted and applied in practice is in fact charitable.

The rest of my letter rests on these assumptions. I am relying on my past experience and learning as a Board Member of the Commission, but I have no formal legal training, so please tell me if the assumptions are incorrect, and if so in what respect.

Believing them to be correct, I now apply them to the work of the IEA.

On its website, the IEA states that “It is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare, and lower levels of regulation.” All those involved in promoting IEA’s vision, we are told, “believe that society’s problems and challenges are best dealt with by individuals, companies and voluntary associations inter-acting with each other freely without interference from politicians and the state. This means that Government action, whether through taxes, regulation or the legal system, should be kept to a minimum. Our authors and speakers are therefore always on the look-out for ways of reducing the government’s role in our lives”. These statements imply that part of the purpose of the IEA’s work is to promote a specific set of policy outcomes and ways of ordering society. That part is not an educational purpose about learning, ideas or ways of understanding. That part of the purpose is political as the Commission has defined it. The purpose of shrinking the state does not become any less political simply because it derives from a particular way of thinking and learning about economics and politics.

These desired policy outcomes form a predetermined position. That position is controversial, because many people believe that there is an important role for the state in, for example, environmental protection, ensuring minimum standards of welfare and opportunity for every citizen, preventing discrimination, defining and promoting the public interest in planning, health and other spheres, and softening the effects of inequality. Minimizing the state is therefore held by many to be a purpose that may often be against the public interest.

The IEA claims that it “holds no corporate position” and that each author or researcher puts forward a personal view that is not that of the Institute. However, the statements already quoted do resemble a corporate position so closely that it is difficult to tell the difference. So far as I can tell, no research output or statement from any author or staff member of the Institute ever contradicts this position or seriously entertains a contrary opinion. There is no neutrality or balance on these fundamentals.

Moreover, the claim that there is no corporate position does not survive the process of digging into actual practice. Recent “Policy Proposals for a Conservative Manifesto” have been published (jointly with the non-charitable Taxpayers’ Alliance) in the name of the IEA. The common understanding must be that this is the position of the charity. Similarly, it may say in the small print of a report on “A Rational Approach to Alcohol Taxation” by Christopher Snowdon (15 February 2017) that the IEA of which he is a staff member has no corporate view, but the IEA Press Release trumpets: “IEA calls for 9p flat rate of tax on alcohol to fix illogical system”. Other typical press releases use the corporate formulation “IEA reacts to…”, to introduce IEA’s view on sundry proposals by political parties that do not accord with IEA’s clear policy positions (eg Conservative plans to cap energy prices, or Labour’s plan to increase the minimum wage). These views are not attributed to an individual, even if an individual is quoted, but to the IEA. The IEA reacted to the Chancellor’s recent U turn on National Insurance contributions by announcing in a press release that “Hammond should scrap NI contributions altogether” – another controversial political proposal presented as a collective IEA position, (and again apparently reflecting a purpose beyond advancing education alone).

In my letter to you of 31 October 2016 I questioned whether the IEA reports, policy proposals and lobbying on Sock Puppets could plausibly be seen as an expression of educational purpose exclusively, using the criteria set out in Commission guidance as recapitulated above. I should now like to apply the same criteria to other recent reports from the IEA, in case any single IEA initiative might be seen as a one-off.

“Obesity and the Public Purse” by Mark Tovey (23 January 2017) suggests that “the annual savings that overweight and obese people bring UK taxpayers by dying prematurely” (sic) should be deducted from the actual costs of treating and caring for such people before they die, before we start talking about the costs of obesity. The death of some 39,000 people per year, each losing 12 years’ on average, (as acknowledged by Mr Tovey) can in this way be seen as a financial blessing, offsetting the gross costs. It may be that the methodology of working out how much these “savings” are constitutes a contribution to education and learning, but this is then used to advance IEA’s predetermined agenda, by attacking ‘the “burden on the taxpayer” narrative propagated by public health campaigners’. The charity’s press release explains that the report counters the narrative of the “obesity epidemic” that is used to justify policies disliked by the IEA, such as a sugar tax. The Government should therefore not be focusing on this matter of obesity, we are told, but rather on the demands of the elderly who survive and the wider problems of the NHS. The IEA’s predetermined position is that they dislike state intervention to promote public health in areas such as obesity via nanny state educational programmes or taxes: and Tovey’s research is integrated with this non-educational purpose.

In “A Rational Approach to Alcohol Taxation” by Christopher Snowdon, 15 February 2017, the IEA calls for a 9p flat rate of tax on alcohol to fix an illogical system. There are serious points made about the illogicality of the present system, in line (in my view) with an educational purpose to do with coherent thinking about the purposes and effects of public policy. It is another matter, however, to propose a specific 9 pence flat rate that would make almost all alcoholic drinks (other than still cider) cheaper than at present. No serious effort is in my view made to consider possible disadvantages, or to encourage awareness that there might be different, respectable points of view about the best basis on which to pitch the optimal tax rate in the public interest, (for example) by taking into account the damage to society at large as well as Government finances, or acknowledging that different experts compute the cost to Government finances differently. This lack of balance and neutrality reflects the predetermined position, going beyond educational and learning purposes, that we need to minimise state intervention in the form of taxes.

A briefing on disability benefits of 27 December 2016 by Dr Kristian Niemitz explicitly reflects anxiety that the Ken Loach film “I, Daniel Blake” will influence opinion in favour of more generous disability benefits, and hence against the IEA’s pre-determined policies. Dr Niemitz’s survey suggests that the present system is too centralized and has grown unjustifiably over the years. The conclusion is that there should be a pluralist, diverse, localised and partly privatised system of benefits and measures to get disabled people back into work instead. So far from neutrality and balance, with a view to education rather than persuasion, no mention is made of the possible risks and downsides of such a radical upheaval, which might have encouraged readers to decide for themselves.

I have already drawn to your attention the “Policy Proposals for a Conservative Manifesto” just published jointly by IEA and The Taxpayers’ Alliance. These include greater co-payments and private sector competition in health care; capping and cutting taxes; eliminating Government borrowing by 2022, and ending political “interference” in wage setting. It is telling that the IEA has joined forces in this with a political and non-charitable organisation, reflecting the fact that this manifesto goes well beyond the borders of charitable education and learning, with its currency of ideas, into specific policy proposals to advance controversial, pre-determined political positions.

This and other evidence cited in this letter casts profound doubt on the Trustees’ assurances quoted in your letter of 19 October that the IEA has no agenda beyond research into market economics and the dissemination of “ideas”. A political proposal for a 9p flat rate on all alcohol, the recommendations of the Sock Puppets reports, and the recent Manifesto Proposals for Conservatives, are not just ideas or an aspect of advancing education and learning. They are political (as defined by the Commission) proposals designed to advance the predetermined “shrink the state” policy positions of the IEA.

You say in your letter of 19 October that a legitimate and recognised branch of learning can properly have a particular perspective that may border on a political perspective. The crucial question is how, then, a charity whose exclusive purpose is such legitimate learning can be distinguished from a charity which also has a non-charitable political purpose. After all, almost all political proposals of any sort – Marxist, socialist, liberal, statist or pro-market – can be derived from a combination of a political or economic philosophy, research and learning from experience. Yet this cannot give carte blanche to all those promoting a political agenda to claim their purpose is charitable just because their political proposals stem from such disciplines. That is why it is so important that those whose purpose is exclusively the charitable advancement of education must also pass the other tests set out in your guidance:

  1. Their positions must not be predetermined and controversial.
  2. They must not provide information or education with a purpose of persuading people to form specific conclusions or follow particular prescriptions, because that is not education as defined in charity law.
  3. They must research and present information in a neutral and balanced way that encourages awareness of different points of view where appropriate.

I have offered evidence in this letter that the IEA fails all three of these key tests. The IEA’s purpose, once one digs a la McGovern below the surface assurances, is not exclusively the charitable advancement of education. Part of the purpose of the IEA is political (as defined by the Commission), which of course is not allowed under charity law.

I request the Commission to act to correct this situation because:

  • I know the Commission wishes to uphold charity law consistently
  • It is potentially damaging to the reputation of charitable education, and unfair to all the educational charities that strive to adhere conscientiously to the charity law definition of advancing education, if another is allowed to advance a partly political purpose while claiming to be advancing education exclusively
  • It is unfair to the public and the taxpayer to be supporting, via charitable tax privileges, activities that are not exclusively charitable in nature
  • It is unfair to those think tanks whose purpose is partly political and who are therefore denied charitable status if another body with a partly political purpose retains it.

I am not dealing in this letter with the problem (raised in our previous correspondence) that the IEA is also unwilling to be transparent about the source of its donations. You have explained that you do not approve of this lack of transparency but can at present do nothing effective about it. This continuing problem does, however, interact with the issues raised in this letter to risk bringing charitable status into disrepute, since the political positions adopted by the IEA and documented here sometimes favour the interests of particular industries and individuals who, for all we know, may be paying the bills.

Thank you for considering my request for action. I am sending a copy of this letter to your colleagues Kenneth Dibble and Anthony Blake.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Purkis.