Kirsty Weakley argues that serious thought must be given to any reappointments or recruitments to the Charity Commission’s board, if the regulator is to regain the confidence of the sector.
Writing a critical analysis of the state of the Charity Commission's governance is not something that I, or my editors, took lightly. But an important part of a trade publication’s job is to cast a critical eye when necessary, and the recent turn of events at the Commission meant it would have been irresponsible for us not to point out some uncomfortable truths, in the expectation that these can be dealt with.
These events include the publication of the emails between board members and the executive that came to light during the Cage case at the High Court; the Commission’s ongoing focus - bordering on obsession with - terrorism; Gwythian Prins’ essay for the Institute of Economic Affairs calling for Brexit, and the recently published knee-jerk guidance on campaigning, reserves and trading which were rushed out with little or no consultation. Even more worryingly, the EU referendum guidance appeared to have been leaked to right-leaning newspapers before publication.
So I looked a bit deeper, and what I found was deeply concerning. Most alarming was that the Commission’s board does not appear to have the right mix of people with sufficient variety of skills, experiences and backgrounds. In fact a significant proportion of the board has clear connections to right-wing think tanks and the Conservative Party, as outlined in an analysis piece today.
The board does not appear to have been drawn from a wide enough pool of people - leaving the regulator open to the accusation that it is too close to the government for an institution that is supposed to be independent.
This is not a new accusation. From the beginning William Shawcross’ appointment was considered political by many and the previous chair, Dame Suzi Leather, faced a similar charge of being too close to the Labour Party. Whether they are is almost beside the point - in this case appearances are just as important as reality.
Another big concern is the lack of transparency from the Commission. It appears to have established a new committee to vet all guidance, but told no one of its existence, beyond a note at the back of the annual report.
Every time I asked about this policy guidance committee I was referred back to the annual report, which is now months out of date. The committee was set up so quietly that it took a while for anyone to notice that it existed. This leaves observers with the uncomfortable suspicion that the flavour of Commission policy is being decided on the whims of three people sat in a darkened room, instead of by an experienced team of people with frontline experience and knowledge.
A strong, independent and respected regulator is essential to uphold public trust in charities but at the moment those elements are being put at risk.
The Cabinet Office now has the opportunity to refresh the board - there are already two vacancies and five members’ terms come to an end soon. It should think very carefully about whom it appoints to the two vacancies and whether it is appropriate to reappoint all of the current board, to ensure that it is more reflective of society and the sector it serves.
Shawcross and Hancock must think seriously about whether the current board is appropriate before any reappointments are made. If they conclude that the current members of the board should be reappointed then they must use the two ‘spare’ places on the board to inject some balance. Given some of the image problems that both the regulator and the sector more widely is suffering from, maybe a communications expert would bring some valuable skills to the board.
In the long term a more fundamental reform of the Commission’s governance structure should be considered to ensure that as it becomes the stronger, more robust regulator that it promised it would become after being awarded a raft of new powers in the new Charities Act, this is mirrored by equally robust and effective governance internally.
The Commission can help itself by being more transparent. It should publish the full review of its governance and publish fuller details of its committees' activities. It has already published the terms of reference for the audit and risk committee; it should do the same for the other committees.
News Commission board 'losing the trust of those they regulate'
