Charity Commission Apologise For Misleading Statement - Still Refuse Investigation

The Charity Commission have apologised to Social Investigations, following a complaint made about the free market think tank, Reform.

The complaint, which centred around Reform's links to the Conservative party, was met with the extraordinary response that ‘there is no evidence to support the allegations that the Reform Research Trust has links with or promotes the aims and objectives of any political party.’

I replied saying that ‘I must admit, I am rather baffled by this part of the response because the links to the Conservative party are extensive and as far as their powerbase goes, is almost total. I attach the full list of their connections to the Conservative party.’

The Charity Commission has responded and admitted this statement was false: ‘I should first apologise that my earlier response was perhaps misleading.  By saying “the Commission’s findings were that there is no evidence to support the allegations the Reform Research Trust has links with or promotes the aims and objectives of any political party”

I might have suggested that the Commission would be concerned if such links exist.  I apologise that my comments might have been confusing.’

Instead I would refer you to the Commission’s conclusions on page 2 of the report under the heading “Allegations of political bias”.  You will see that the Commission concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegations of political bias.’

It may well be that the charity has an association with a particular political perspective.  However, provided the charity is not promoting a particular political point of view, there are no grounds for the Commission to intervene.’

The apology has been made, but the fact remains that an organisation with clear links to one political party, whose purpose to promote privitisation should not be a charity. The fact that the Commission' rules prevent it from taking action, means their rules are not fit for purpose.

The full links to the Conservative party are here. 

For a full list of research looking into Refom, please see here.

Reform: A Full Account of a Free Market Think Tank

This is a roundup of all the research carried out by Social Investigations on the free market think tank, Reform. They are increasingly influential, listened to by the neo cons and promote the dismantling of public service into the hands of corporations that fund them and so many of our parlimentarians. This has been the most indepth look at the think tank thus far with some more to come in the future.

1. The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business: Click "And the whole sequence of Telegraph articles and editorials on the importance of the Government not going soft on public service reform, including some strong pieces on health, is something I have been orchestrating and working with Reform to bring about.’

2. Reform - Setting the Agenda with Unknown Others  - Click - Chatham House Rules are a useful tool for discussions that hide the attendees. Reform, regularly use it for meetings that should be in the public domain.

3. Reform - a voice for corporations (series) - Reform has many corporations who are partners. They pay Reforn, and in return get to be in the same room as our lawmakers, lobby, contribute papers policy ideas that aim to persuade MPs. Policies that will benefit big business. Aviva, BMI Healthcare, G4S, Bupa.

4. Reform: A Charity or a conduit for privatisation? Click - Reform were at the conferences with sponsored corporations in tow, providing access to decision-makers.

5. MPs and Lord's Financial Links to Free Market Think Tank - Click - A well connected think tank, with multiple companies who also pay our Lords and MPs

6. Privatising Probation: What Reform says – Government does - Click - If you want to know what future government policy is going to be, don’t bother asking your government because they won’t tell you until it’s too late. Instead, turn your eyes to a right-wing think tank masquerading as a charity.

7. Reform think tank and their links to the Conservative Party - Click - they are a charity yet they have a clear bias towards the Conservative party - here are all their links to the right.

8. Complaint Over Think Tank 'Charity' Sent to Charity Commission - Click - based on the evidence, Reform appear to be in breach of the Charity Commission rules, so Social Investigations sent in a complaint.

9. Charity Commission Refuses to Investigate Complaint Regarding Charity's Links to the Conservative Party - Click The Charity Commission said there was 'no evidence to support the allegations that the Reform Research Trust has links with or promotes the aims and objectives of any political party.' They clearly are not bothering to look, despite being sent the clear links. Another organisation with a set of rules that are not fit for purpose. 

10. Charity Commission apologises for misleading statement on Reform's connections to the Conservative party - Click

The case of Baroness Cumberlege: Why the Lords Rules Need Changing

‘Disappointingly since joining the alliance Cumberlege Connections has not earned any income through the alliance.’ Baroness Cumberlege  26th November 2012

Rules that fail to prevent our Peers from voting when they have a financial interest are not fit for purpose. There were many such culprits who helped pass the Health and Social bill into Act, however, there was one Baroness in particular, who exploited this deficiency in democracy more than most.

On 26 June 2012, I made a complaint against Baroness Cumberlege, to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, Sir Paul Kernaghan. Research had revealed that while debating, voting and making amendments on the Health and Social Care bill, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Health, moved her company into an alliance led by PricewaterhouseCoopers that were tendering for and winning contracts for commissioning the new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).

The rules are such that my complaint had to follow the narrow remit of the non-declaration of her interests in the alliance during the debate, an alleged breach under paragraph 10(b) of the Code of Conduct.

Baroness Cumberlege is the sole owner, chairman and managing director of a company called Cumberlege Connections. The company runs training programmes across the NHS spectrum for consultants, GPs, NHS managers, Directors and chief executives. In addition to this service, part of their training programme covers 'Politics, Power and Persuasion', a tailored two-day programme which includes topics such as: 'Managing the markets, the challenges of commissioning', 'who's who', and 'brokering deals with other independent sector providers'.

Mr Kernaghan wrote in the privileges Committee Second Report: 

'I am clear that Baroness Cumberlege has properly registered her interest in Cumberlege Communications in the Register of Lords' Interests. Anyone reading the Register would see that she has an interest in Cumberlege Connections.’  

However:  

‘She has not registered the involvement of that company with a wider "alliance" led by PwC and I see no reason why she should do so.’

In addition, his investigation did reveal that on occasions he could ’find no evidence that she declared her (company’s) interest during the report or third reading debates on the Bill’, though she participated in them…However, these omissions were not the subject of the complaint so ‘I am not required to make a ruling on them.’

In other words, Baroness Cumberlege or any other Peer for that matter can work for or own a company that can move itself into a position that can make money from a bill they are able to vote on. They do not have to declare any alliance or group that that company has joined, just that their company itself is registered and declared during debates.

Baroness Cumberlege, responded to Mr Kernaghan with this:

‘In my case the complainant Mr. Andrew Robertson (of whom I have no knowledge), alleges that I should have declared an interest in joining an alliance for work commissioned by the NHS. The alliance in question is formed by a number of companies PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the Kings Fund, Common Purpose, Practive, Wragge and Co and my company Cumberlege Connections. Mr. Robertson does not complain about four of the five companies involved, only PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Disappointingly since joining the alliance Cumberlege Connections has not earned any income through the alliance.’

They do not care, or at least the Baroness is less concerned at her manipulation of the democratic system for a potential personal gain than the fact that she failed to make money from it.

If we are to prevent the blatant abuse of position that takes place in the House of Lords, then we must prevent behaviour like that of Baroness Cumberlege in the future. They themselves will not change their behaviour and so we must change it for them. The Lords are an Open House for corporations to sit in the chamber and vote on bills that they will benefit from. Indeed, over 140 Peershave recent or present financial connections to companies that are involved in private healthcare. They were all able to vote on the Heath an Social Care bill.

A petition has been set up to stop Lords from voting when they have a financial interest to a company that will potentially benefit from the bill.

Sign the petition here.

Further reading:

Read Baroness Cumberlege’s full report here.

Background article on Baroness Cumberlege here.

Spinwatch – previous complaint on Baroness Cumberlege here.