Labour’s shadow minister for civil society has questioned whether Charity Commission chair William Shawcross is far enough removed from the Conservative Party agenda, the right of which, he argued, is becoming increasingly anti-charity.
Speaking to civilsociety.co.uk, Gareth Thomas MP said he was surprised by Shawcross’ comments within a Telegraph article last week about high executive salaries at international aid charities. Shawcross did not criticise specific charities or salaries, although the article was highly critical of both. The Charity Commission chair did warn that disproportionate and high salaries endanger the reputation of the charity sector as a whole.
“It may just have been cack-handed, but he has been interpreted as attacking the pay of the most senior people in the charity world and I think he needs to explain quite clearly whether that was his intention – or to apologise if it wasn’t, to those charity chief executives,” said Thomas. He said he suspected that the inferences drawn from Shawcross’ comments were as he intended.
Shawcross has been on leave since the initial story landed last Tuesday and was not able to be reached for comment. A Charity Commission spokeswoman pointed out, however, that Shawcross did not single out any individuals in his comments to The Telegraph.
On Monday, the Commission and NCVO indicated they will work together to develop guidance for trustees on best practice in setting executive pay.
Anti-charity agenda within right of government
The shadow minister suggested that certain members of the Tory right were working to discredit charities as the sector has become increasingly vocal in campaigning against some government policies.
He said it “looks as though there is now an increasingly anti-charity agenda being developed as charities have begun to articulate criticisms of the Coalition [regarding] the loss of funding and of the way public sector contracts are increasingly excluding charities, be it the Work Programme etcetera.
“I wonder whether there’s an attempt to create an atmosphere around charities that prevents the concerns of charities being taken seriously by the media,” he added.
“I think there is certainly a number of Conservative MPs on the right who think that charities should go back to a Victorian model of dispensing welfare and not criticising government or getting involved in policy issues.”
Thomas said that Shawcross’ comments fell loosely into line with those espoused by the right of the Conservative party, and when asked whether he felt Shawcross was far enough removed from the Tories, Thomas reply was candid:
“Shawcross and the vast majority of his board are Conservative appointees and were picked as much because of senior figures in government’s comfort with them, as for any issue of competence,” he said.
A Charity Commission spokeswoman said: “The Commission takes its independence and neutrality very seriously.”
Thomas went on that there is an agenda among those on the political right – from BNP to Ukip and the right of the Tories – against spending on international development. The original Telegraph article had focused specifically on international aid charities, and quoted Conservative MP Priti Patel arguing that money to these charities should not “line the pockets of unaccountable charity executives”.
The same day in a piece for the Telegraph, International Development Secretary Justine Greening issued a “clarion call for charities to be more open about value for money”. And the following day footage was released showing Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom criticising aid to “bongo bongo land” as misused by its recipients and a waste in light of tough times within Britain.
Patel told civilsociety.co.uk: “There are many charities in my constituency and across the country who do great work on a shoestring, but many of the larger charities spend vast sums of money on large lobbying and press operations and are headed by individuals who seem more interested in pursuing a political agenda than investing on the frontline.
"This is why there needs to be more transparency over how charities are spending the money their donors and taxpayers’ give to them.”
On Patel’s own website the MP features a small selection of charities she supports which includes the Royal British Legion – a charity which employs six staff on salaries north of £100,000. Asked to comment on this, Patel said: “I am proud to support a number of local charities in my constituency, including the local branch of the Royal British Legion, Home Start and Brainwave. All charities – and particularly those that are funded by the taxpayer - should reflect on the corporate-sized salaries paid out to some senior staff.”
Charities must pay all staff appropriately
However, Thomas did echo the statements made by Shawcross in the original article that charity pay is an issue for individual charities and their boards to decide.
He added, though, that charities should ensure that all staff are properly remunerated, not only those at leadership level.
“What I would hope the trustees would do is to look at the balance of pay and conditions for all staff, and to make sure that they were being fair not only to the aspirations of the charity, to the chief executive, but importantly as well to the other staff that work for charities,” he said.
“It would be a concern if there are huge numbers of people in charities on very low pay or on zero-hours contracts when chief executives are very well remunerated. But these are questions that I think are for the boards of trustees at individual charities.”
