Another state funded "charity" indulges in a political attack on the Government

By Harry Phibbs
^{Follow Harry on Twitter}

Only an hour after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, finishing his Party Conference speech, the BBC was reporting on it being attacked by charities. This is a familiar pattern. Usually the more partisan and outspoken the attack, the greater the likelihood that the "charity" involved is largely state funded:

Here is today's example:

Rhian Beynon, head of policy and campaigns at the charity Family Action says the chancellor is "scraping the barrel for cuts that do not make good economic sense". Taking away housing benefit from the under-25s "will make it even more difficult for hard pressed young people to find employment and move on", she says. "It is not the answer."

Sure enough, a look at Family Action's latest accounts shows that an overwhelming £18.2 million of their £22.1 million income comes from "statutory sources." They have 715 employees. 

Its annual report is quite brazen in stressing the priority it gives to spinning and lobbying:

Favourite for next Director-General of the BBC is a dyed-in-the-wool Labour apparatchik

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Last month, we reported on the contribution of Matthew Elliott, CEO of the TaxPayers' Alliance, to a ConHome event on how to win the next election. Elliott made the important point that Labour's long march of the institutions has not been reversed by the current government. He also said two forthcoming appointments - the Chair of the Charity Commision and the Director-General of the BBC - would test the government's willingness to act on this issue.

The Daily Mail's editorial today - after rightfully attacking the BBC's pitiful coverage of the last few days' Jubilee celebrations - gives us an idea of exactly who Lord Patten of Barnes, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, is likely to appoint to the position of Director-General, after the incumbent, Mark Thompson steps down. The Mail said:

"[I]ncredibly, the man being tipped as the front-runner for the director generalship is an unashamed Labour supporter (he even helped write the party’s manifesto) who has never made a TV programme in his life. Indeed, as head of the media regulator, Ofcom, the only aptitude Ed Richards has shown is for running a bloated quango, with nearly 1,000 staff, housed in magnificent offices by the Thames. This same Mr Richards has been roundly attacked by a Commons committee for his misleading accounting methods (perhaps learned during his time working in Tony Blair’s policy unit alongside Ed Miliband and Ed Balls), his failure to control Ofcom’s exorbitant £140million budget and the lavish salaries he paid the quango’s senior commissars (including almost £400,000 for himself)."

Greg Hands wins battle against Blair charity's 'vote Labour' emails

By Tim Montgomerie

During the General Election campaign Greg Hands MP wrote for CentreRight about how Blair's charity was sending out 'vote Labour' emails.

Today's Sunday Times (£) reports that Hands' complaints to the Charity Commission have been upheld:

"Tony Blair's charity has been rebuked by an official watchdog for trying to persuade its supporters to back Labour. The former prime minister’s Africa Governance Initiative admitted it had been wrong to allow political propaganda to be sent to people who had shown interest in its humanitarian activities."

"The Charity Commission," continued The Sunday Times, also "expressed concern about the close relationship between the charity and the office of Tony Blair, many of whose staff were seconded to Labour during the election campaign."

Which charity is seeking a judicial review of the Budget because it "discriminates against women"?

By Jonathan Isaby

The answer to the above question is Registered Charity Number 1108769, the Fawcett Society - the "campaigning charity" which claims "to have real influence right at the top of UK politics".

The latest edition of Tribune magazine reports:

"The Fawcett Society has applied to the High Court for a judicial review of Chancellor George Osborne’s “blatantly unfair” Emergency Budget because it has not taken into account the disproportionate impact on women. MPs should have been told of the impact on women when asked to vote for the Budget, it said.

"The imaginative and novel application says the coalition did not do an impact assessment and if it had, it would have shown it will increase inequality between men and women as £5.8 billion of £8 billion savings outlined in the Budget would come from women. Sixty-five per cent of public sector workers are women who will, by definition, be harder hit by job losses and pay freezes in that area just as they will be harder hit by cuts in benefits and tax credits, said the organisation in its application."

Full story here

Labour accused of breaking rules by using NHS hospital for manifesto launch

Gordon Brown has just launched Labour's 2010 election manifesto at Birmingham's about-to-be-opened new Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.

But how does this fit in with the official Cabinet Office guidelines about holding election events on NHS premises, which state:

"1. Neither Ministers, nor any other Parliamentary candidates, should involve Government establishments or offices (such as Jobcentres) in the General Election campaign by visiting them for electioneering purposes.

2. In the case of NHS property, decisions are for the relevant NHS Trust but should visits be permitted to, for example, hospitals, the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive advise that there should be no disruption to services and the same facilities should be available to other candidates. In any case, it is advised that Election meetings should not be permitted on NHS premises."

Labour claim that since the hospital is a PFI project, it remains a building in the hands of a private firm - yet Brown clearly described it as “a new acute NHS hospital" in his speech and the venue was obviously chosen for that reason.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has accused Labour of exploiting a taxpayer-funded buidling for political advantage:

“It is absolutely typical of the Labour Party to abuse the NHS for political advantage.  This is a hospital paid for by the taxpayer, which Gordon Brown described as an NHS hospital and will serve NHS patients in a matter of weeks. Labour have exploited a loophole in the law so that they can exploit the NHS, which is supposed to serve everyone in the country not serve as a prop for Gordon Brown.

“But Labour’s scaremongering won’t work.  The NHS is our number one priority.  It is the Conservative Party – not Labour - which is committed to increasing spending on the NHS.  Labour plan to cut the NHS capital budget by £700 million which will mean fewer hospitals being built if they are re-elected.”

4pm update:

Francis Maude has now written the following letter to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell:

Dear Sir Gus,

I am writing to complain about a flagrant breach of General Election guidance by the Labour Party over their cynical use of a hospital to launch their manifesto.

You will be aware that Labour today launched their manifesto at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.  As part of this launch, Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman both gave keynote speeches in a new wing of the hospital, decorated with Labour Party branding, and both made political references to it, saying it 'embodies the timeless ideal of compassion in action'.

This completely contravenes the Cabinet Office's General Election guidance which prohibits election meetings from taking place on NHS premises:

'Election meetings should not be permitted on NHS premises' (General Election Guidance 2010, Cabinet Office; emphasis their own)

This breach of the rules is completely unacceptable and I ask you to investigate how this was allowed to happen.  In particular, I would be grateful if you could provide answers to the following questions:

• What communications took place between the Labour Party and the NHS Trust regarding the use of the hospital?
• Was the Department of Health aware that the hospital was to be used in this way?
• What involvement did Sir Albert Bore, the Chairman of the NHS Trust and leader of the Labour group in Birmingham, play in organising this event?
• Were any services at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital disrupted by the presence of hundreds of party activists, journalists and politicians at the Labour Party's event?
  

Labour claim that this guidance has not been breached as the new wing is a PFI project, not an opened hospital and is therefore owned by private firm.  However, Gordon Brown described it as a 'new acute NHS hospital that will be open within weeks' in his speech.  He is therefore clearly using the fact that it is an NHS hospital for electoral gain, contrary to your guidance.  Considering the imminence of the General Election, I would also be grateful if you could deal with this request as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Francis Maude

Jonathan Isaby

Charity Commission rebukes League Against Cruel Sports for anti-Conservative political activity

The League Against Cruel Sports has been censured by the Charity Commission for abusing its charitable status to engage in party political activity.

Last summer the organisation had commissioned an opinion poll in which it asked the question:

"Do you think the Conservative pledge to hold a vote on whether to make the hunting with dogs of deer, hares and foxes legal again is more in keeping with a 'nasty party' or a 'Compassionate Conservative' party?"

Following a complaint, the Charity Commission found that both the asking of the question and then the press release issued with the results were "party political in nature in that they could be seen to be critical of a national political party, contrary to charity law and the Commission’s guidance".

In reference to the poll, the Commission stated that it "appeared to be designed to elicit a particular response for the purpose of criticising the party" and that "the wording chosen by the charity was party political in character and went beyond the sort of statement that a charity can properly make."

The full adjudication is here.

Jonathan Isaby

Misleading Home Office adverts promoting Labour policing policy to be banned

The Guardian today has a leak of the Advertising Standards Authority's adjudication on a Home Office advertising campaign, which says it must be withdrawn immediately:

The Advertising Standards Authority has told the Home Office that its television adverts highlighting the government's "policing pledge" that neighbourhood officers can now be expected to spend 80% of their time on the beat is to be banned with immediate effect.

The ASA says in an adjudication to be published next week that the television ad breaches its "legal, decent, honest, truthful" code because it is misleading on at least three counts.

"The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told the Home Office to ensure the basis of claims was made clear in future. We also told them to ensure they held adequate substantiation for future claims," says the final ASA adjudication, leaked to the Guardian.

More here.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling welcomed the ruling, saying:

"Labour will stop at nothing to mislead the country and they seem willing to spend huge sums of honest taxpayers’ money to achieve it."

1pm update:

Chris Grayling has just written the following letter to Gordon Brown:

Tories turn up heat on Lord Paul's appointment to the Privy Council

Lord Paul is a Labour peer, non-domiciled for tax purposes, who was inexplicably appointed a Privy Councillor last year. He has also donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Labour Party and to Gordon Brown's leadership campaign (Iain Dale posted a list of eight Labour big money donors who are reportedly non-dom earlier in the week).

Greg Hands, the Conservative MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, has now submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice requesting sight of documents and information relating to:

• the appointment of Lord Paul to the Privy Council in July last year;
• the number of times he has attended Privy Council meetings; and
• his swearing in into the Privy Council and the current investigation into his alleged misuse of parliamentary expenses.

Hands' letter to the Ministry of Justice sets out his concerns about Lord Paul's appointment to the Privy Council:

"It has been previously suggested that the appointment of Lord Paul to the Privy Council may have been related to his bankrolling of the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign and close friendship with Gordon Brown. Lord Paul has himself previously claimed that he would give ‘as much as I can afford’ to help Labour re-election campaign fund.

"Lord Paul does not attend Cabinet, nor has he ever attended Cabinet and the highest position he has achieved in public life was being one of 18 deputy speakers of the Lords. There is no current precedent for someone so junior to be made a Privy Councillor in this way. The only similar comparison in terms of that office is Lord Ampthill who was made a Privy Councillor in 1995. Yet he had been Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords for two years, and had been a Deputy Speaker continually since 1983 (i.e. significant length of service).

"The Government has previously stated that he was appointed because he was the first deputy speaker of the Lords from an ethnic minority. However, Keith Vaz was appointed to the Privy Council in 2006, seven years after he was made Britain’s first Asian minister."

Jonathan Isaby

Francis Maude demands apology from Harriet Harman for Labour's use of taxpayers' money to subsidise political campaigning

A couple of weeks ago shadow Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude complained about special advisers to Labour ministers using the civil service to create anti-Tory attacks.

Today he has written to Harriet Harman demanding an apology for an incident for which Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell found Labour to be in breach of the rules relating to civil service impartiality.

He writes:

"We have had many assurances that taxpayer-funded government communications will not be used for party political purposes and that the Labour Party respects the impartiality of the Civil Service. However, despite these repeated assurances, we uncovered evidence that once again the Labour Party was using taxpayers’ money to subsidise their political campaigning; in a letter to Sir Gus O’Donnell on the 27th January we highlighted the hijack of the government’s ‘Backing Young Britain’ brand and campaign for the Labour Party website.

On receipt of our letter, the Cabinet Secretary investigated the circumstances, identified a breach of Civil Service rules and forced the Labour Party to substantially change its website: “references there have now been amended to make clear [Backing Young Britain] is a government initiative”:

You will note that the website no longer claims “Only Labour believes every young person deserves the opportunity to a fair chance in life” and that the public are no longer invited to “bid for one of the 10,000 new jobs for young people” through the Labour Party website.

There is growing concern in Whitehall about the improper use of government work and resources by the Labour Party in the run-up to the general election. This latest breach of Civil Service rules by the Labour Party is completely unacceptable, yet we have had no apology. As I have constantly stressed, impartiality is the cornerstone of our much-respected Civil Service and it is imperative that the Labour government recognises this.

I am writing today to ask you for an apology for the conduct of the Labour Party in this incident and moreover, for assurances that, as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, you will personally ensure that Labour do not further breach any Civil Service rules."

Jonathan Isaby

Labour special advisers exposed for using the civil service to create anti-Tory attacks

Francis Maude has today revealed how special advisers to government ministers have been abusing their position by commissioning civil servants to produce work explicitly for the purpose of  attacking the Conservative Party.

Click here to download some of the evidence he has uncovered through the use of Freedom of Information requests.

Mr Maude has written to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, outlining what he has uncovered and demanding "swift action" with a view to initiating disciplinary proceedings against those responsible. Here is what he says in the letter:

"The Special Adviser’s Code of Conduct clearly states that Special Advisers “must not: ... ask civil servants to do anything which is inconsistent with their obligations under the Civil Service Code” and that they “should avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purpose”.

"Despite this guidance, it is apparent that Labour has once again compromised the impartiality of the Civil Service and used the taxpayer funded service for political attacks.

"On 4th January 2010, the Labour Party kicked off their general election campaign with a 148 page report on Conservative spending plans. It stated: “the Labour Party is today publishing a factual account of the cost of a Conservative government based on the Conservative Party’s own figures and analysis from publicly available figures, such as costings from HM Treasury” (Labour Party, Conservative Tax and Spending Promises). A new Freedom of Information Act request (HM Treasury, Ref: 10/03) has revealed the background to the production of these opposition costings; despite requiring independent civil servants to undertake the work, they were commissioned by Special Advisers to attack the Conservative Party. Although most of the names of the Special Advisers were removed from the Freedom of Information Act request, Treasury Special Adviser, Sam White, is named.

"Opposition costings are not new. However, crucially, the Freedom of Information Act documents show that the requests were not made to inform Ministers about the merits or demerits of a particular policy proposal, nor to help Ministers respond to an Opposition Day Debate in Parliament (where the use of the Civil Service could be justified). Instead, they were used to help the Labour with rebuttal attacks on the Conservative Party in the media. For example, the costings of the Conservative Party’s council tax freeze policy was commissioned on 20th November 2009. This is despite the policy being announced in September 2008, and there being several Parliamentary debates on council tax since. Those costings were subsequently deployed for the first time in the Labour Party dossier of 4th January 2010.

"It is absolutely essential that the integrity and impartiality of the Civil Service are not compromised and taxpayers’ money is not used for party political purposes. Public confidence in Special Advisers was severely shaken by the Damian McBride incident and it is imperative that Special Advisers adhere to the Code of Conduct clearly set out for them. I would urge you to take swift action to address this issue and ensure that these breaches of the Code of Conduct are addressed, with a view to potential disciplinary proceedings being initiated against these Special Advisers who have broken the Code."

Is it too much to hope that action will be taken?

Jonathan Isaby