Why do people use Food Banks?

A new report jointly published by Oxfam, the CofE, the Trussell Trust and Child Poverty Action Group busts some of the myths about why people use food banks. Some of the findings are very troubling: they point to a welfare state which no longer works as a safety net, relying on charities to plug the holes. We appear to be heading back to pre-Beveridge days. Here's part of the main summary:

Key findings from the research showed:

• Food banks were predominantly a last-resort, short-term measure, prompted by an 'acute income crisis' - something which had happened to completely stop or dramatically reduce their income
• Income crisis could be caused by sudden loss of earnings, change in family circumstances or housing problems. However, for between half and two thirds of the users from whom additional data was collected, the immediate trigger for food bank use was linked to problems with benefits (including waiting for benefits to be paid, sanctions, problems with ESA*) or missing tax credits
• Many food bank users were also not made aware of the various crisis payments available in different circumstances, and even fewer were receiving them
• 19-28% of users for whom additional data was collected had recently had household benefits stopped or reduced because of a sanction* and 28-34% were waiting for a benefit claim which had not been decided*
• Many food bank users faced multiple challenges, including ill-health, relationship breakdown, mental health problems or substantial caring responsibilities.  Many were unable to work or had recently lost their job.  The frequency of bereavement among food bank users was also a striking feature of this research
• Use of emergency food aid in the UK, particularly in the form of food banks, has dramatically increased over the last decade. Figures from The Trussell Trust show that numbers receiving three days' food from their food banks rose from 128,697 in 2011-12 to 913,138 in 2013-14.

Most food bank users interviewed spoke of how severe personal financial crises were often the last straw that had brought them there, only turning to food banks as a last resort when other coping strategies had failed. Deciding to accept help from a food bank was frequently described as 'embarrassing' and 'shameful' but users reported that they would have been completely bereft without it. Considerable personal strength and dignity was also shown by participants, with many displaying great resilience in spite of their circumstances.

The research showed that the very real challenges people face are too often being compounded - rather than assisted - by their experience of the social security system*.

One mum**, who had to give up work to care for her son with serious medical conditions and required intensive support, spoke about her experience when her Child Tax Credits were halved without notice and was horrified by how she was treated. "When our money was stopped, there was no compassion, there was no way to get support," she said, adding "we got behind on all our bills; everything just got swallowed up, and my direct debits were bouncing.

"I thought the system would protect me. I never thought I would be completely ignored. I feel I was let down hugely. My benefits are my safety net - if they're removed, how are families like ours meant to survive?"

The research is based on 40 in depth interviews, and data collected from another 900 users at selected food banks. Over half were there in part because of problems with state benefits.

Food banks vie with gambling as one of the boom areas of the austerity economy. (Remember how we only got hit with that EU levy after drug addiction and prostitution were counted into the GDP figures). It's all pretty depressing. This is where we need our politicians, but it's the charities and the churches who are putting the spotlight on it. Good job we don't stick to our knitting and stay out of politics.

update: links to some of the media coverage of this here, scroll down a little bit.

Inquiry into Charities Commission: Public Benefit and the gospel

A Parliamentary Committee is currently looking into the working of the 2006 Charities Act, and specifically the work of the Charities Commission. This has been ongoing for several months, but hit the headlines earlier this week after evidence from the Plymouth Brethren was published. 

Here's some of it:

the Commission recently refused to register the Preston Down Trust (the Trust), a Plymouth Brethren gospel hall, as a charity. The decision stands to have wider ramifications; out of the blue, the gospel halls, including registered charities, are suddenly facing an uncertain future. The decision arises directly from the Act (and the Commission’s interpretation of it).

10 The decision was the more surprising as it came without warning. For over a year the Commission had been considering a reference to the tribunal to help it interpret the law regarding the Trust’s status. Then, without notice or consultation, the Trust was informed that the Commission had decided not to refer the matter and had refused registration. There was no offer of dialogue with the Commission; the Trust was given no opportunity to respond other than to appeal to the tribunal.

11 This volte-face raises serious concerns over the way the Commission administers its statutory functions and objectives. Does it now see it as its duty to drive to the tribunal any question of public benefit which, following the Act, it (perhaps alone) perceives to be in doubt, for hard won clarification at charities’ expense?

the rest is here, starting at p100. The point at issue is whether the church satisfies the 'public benefit' criterion for charitable status. This is despite earlier assurances about the Act that there'd be no problem for faith groups with this. The Brethren are now having to use the courts to appeal the decision, so some money that could have been used for the public benefit is being spent on court fees. 

There's also the question of tactics: it's no accident that the National Secular Society picked a relatively small and poorly resourced council to begin its legal campaign against local council prayers. The Charity Commission appears to have done the same:

Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex and chairman of the committee, said that the commission appeared to have picked out the brethren as a test case to find out exactly what was covered by the public benefit laws.

Jenkin said he felt that this method of establishing exactly what the law meant was not satisfactory.

"Picking a relatively vulnerable organisation and putting you through huge time and expense is a rotten way to decide what charity law means," he said

The 2006 Act left up to the Charity Commissioners what 'for the public benefit' means, and removed a presumption that this covered religious activity, along with assurances that it wouldn't really have much effect. I must admit that the more 'closed' Christian groups like the Brethren night find it harder to demonstrate public benefit than most other churches. Scientology has previously been refused charity status because, as a cult, it didn't have a sufficiently public element, and I'm sure Mr Qatada's advancement of Islam has no public benefit element either. 

MPs on the parliamentary group are claiming that this is the thin end of the wedge, and asking whether the Charity Commissioners have an agenda that will end up with all churches being excluded from charitable status. The Commissioners have certainly left the door wide open to extending their judgement against the Brethren to other churches. 

I've recently been involved in setting up a couple of local Christian charities, and there's a requirement to prove 'advancement of religion for the public benefit', i.e. to show how your form of Christian mission and service is going to help people beyond the church. I think its probably good for us to have to think about in what ways the gospel and the church is 'for the public benefit', and we only have to read our history to know that, whilst Jesus is always for public benefit, the same can't always be said of his followers. 

It's good that the Charities Commission is being held to account over this, but if it makes the church look to its laurels too, then that's not a bad thing. 

Should I Quit and Become a Banker?

An Oxford ethicist is arguing that graduates who want to make a difference should look at a career in banking, rather than in aid work. With Ian Hislop's programme on ethical banking in the 19th century showing this evening, Will Crouch argues that an investment bank with a policy of philanthropy could make a bigger positive impact than an aid agency.

Mr Crouch says that when looking at careers choices, young people are missing the point if they see banking as a less ethical option.

He argues that someone becoming an investment banker could create sufficient wealth to make philanthropic donations that could make a bigger difference than someone choosing to work in a "moral" career such as an aid charity.

"The direct benefit a single aid worker can produce is limited, whereas the philanthropic banker's donations might indirectly help 10 times as many people," says Mr Crouch.

Looking at typical incomes in investment banking and the cost of treating tuberculosis in the developing world, he calculates that an ethically inclined banker who donated half their income could save 10,000 lives.

At time of writing there isn't much detail about this at the 'Uheiro Centre', the ethics institute where Will Crouch is based, but there is a bit more background here. Crouch is part of Eighty Thousand Hours, an ethical career advice service. It's a great concept - deliberatly pick a high earning career so you can give most money away. Or as John Wesley put it "make all you can, save all you can, give all you can."


eightythousandhours.org from Philip Panchenko on Vimeo.

Alternative Advent: Top 10

A few of the slightly more creative ways to get from here to December 25th. Yes, you may have seen some of these mentioned here before!

1. Beach Hut Advent Calendar, every day from 1-24th December on Hove seafront. An Advent calendar with real doors. A calendar based on last years huts is available, and Bridlington has taken up the idea too.

2. Whywearewaiting online advent calendar, the current introductory vid features the International Development Secretary encouraging us to have a Fair Trade advent. New video reflection each day of Advent, with a focus on slowing down and thinking about our lifestyle.

3. Hubble Space Telescope Advent Calendar, stunning images online, the link is for last years version, and hopefully they’ll repeat it this year. Update they have.

4. Charity Unleashed my favourite Christmas present, even though it was launched for
September. In Sheffield, someone has got several local businesses to pledge freebies towards a ‘chequebook’ of vouchers, each of which is sold for £50 in aid of a local cancer charity. The total value of the vouchers is over £1000, including live sport, meals out, spa treatments etc. Brilliant idea, wouldn’t be surprised if this catches on elsewhere.

5. Present Aid buy ducks, goats, worms or a toilet for your dearly beloved. Actually, your dearly beloved just gets a card, and the knowledge that the presents have gone to the developing world. The ideal present for the family which has everything.

6. Nine Comedians and Carols (Facebook link) tour, a stand-up take on the Christmas story.

7. Blue Christmas – quite a few people find the forced jollity of December hard to cope with, not least for the bereaved. Several churches (here’s one example) now host a ‘Blue Christmas’ service for people who don’t find Christmas a season of ‘good cheer’.

8. Advent Conspiracy: challenging people to buy 1 less present than usual, spend a bit more time with one another, and give the money saved to provide clean drinking water in the developing world.

9. Highlights from the ‘12 Days of Kitschmas’, Ship of Fools’ tribute to the most ‘interesting’ seasonal items. Featuring a nativity set complete with the present-day wall of Bethlehem (fair point) and a set of ‘Christmas’ lights featuring Jesus being flogged (Hmmmm, if you see these in your street, time to move house).

10. For something community-building, there’s a tradition elsewhere on December 6th of making biscuits and taking them round the neighbours (for St. Nicholas Day). Great way to get to know your neighbours. You never know, it might be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Charity Unleashed

Great idea for a Christmas present if you have any relatives/friends in or near Sheffield. Charity Unleashed have put together a book of vouchers for free/discount stuff in the Sheffield area up to a value of £1000. The book costs £50, and £15 of it goes to a local cancer charity. I don't know if there are other examples in other cities, but this is the kind of great idea that deserves to become a franchise.

Full details of the offers here.

Charity Begins at the Checkout

Update: different angle at RobinsonS, worth a look, and not so much to read!

By Saturday morning, Children in Need had raised over £20m from Friday night’s fundraising, with more to come from sales of the CiN single (great work by Peter Kay)



There were lots of donations from workplaces and high street stores, with a giant ASDA cheque seemingly in the background of every shot*. Plenty more will come from the merchandise, with Peter Kay appealing for the brilliant poster for the single above to be taken on by a high street name and distributed. The annual accounts for 2007-8 shows ‘corporate partnerships’ contributing nearly £5m to 2007’s total, whilst direct donations amount to £12m, and the rest is accounted for by fundraising (some of it organised and branded by corporates) and legacies.

Pudsey in Perspective
Children in Need, along with Comic Relief and the like, keeps the fun in fundraising, and it’s fantastic to see the generosity and compassion of thousands of people in action. At the same time I wonder what would happen if someone gatecrashed the stage and said ‘ladies and gentlemen, the war in Afghanistan is costing us £48m a week’. Raising over £500m over the last 20+ years is a wonderful achievement, but a few bonus-donating bankers would double that money.

That was Friday evening. Friday morning I was in a local shop buying Christmas cards, treading the line between staying within budget, and buying cards which gave more to charity. £4 for a pack which gives 25p per card sold, or £2.99 for a pack which ’supports the following charities’, but probably by not as much? Was I shopping, or giving to charity? Or both? Why was I finding 2 sets of values arguing with each other in my head over a few cartoon pictures of a stable?

The commercialisation of charity is an interesting one: ‘Give as You Spend’ is replacing Give as You Earn. For the businesses, it’s a chance to promote positive brand awareness (did you see those folks on CiN holding their jam up to the camera?) as well as raising money, for us it’s a chance to do what we like best – shop – and get a warm glow thrown in. From Fair Trade to charity Christmas cards, charities have worked out that we’re not going to start spending less and giving more, so it might just be easier to get us to spend differently. At the same time, the trend towards Gift Aiding entrance fees seems to have taken off – the chance to ‘donate’ your entrance fee (?) so that the National Trust, or whoever, can claim the tax back.

Homeopathic Giving
At the same time, the timing may be significant. We can now enter the Christmas shopping frenzy with a clear conscience: we’ve done our bit. Give the Children in Need CD to someone for Christmas, and everyone wins.

Perspective again: we’re forecast to spend an average of £358 each on presents this year. Even if Children in Need ends up with double last nights total, that will be roughly 65p per person in the UK. Of course, people will be giving in other ways too, not least through those Christmas cards, but there’s a sense of spiritual homeopathy: a small amount of giving diluted in a swimming pool of consumption equals ok.

The best solution, though it may disappoint the relatives, is Present Aid, where you send something useful to the developing world as a present, and your dearly beloved gets a card saying ‘you have sent a goat/toilet/water pump’, and is saved the bother of disposing of the wrapping paper, or working out where to put yet another ornament.

Giving Up?
Earlier this year, the Charities Aid Foundation reported that UK giving had fallen faster than the contraction in incomes – by 11% year on year. The number of people giving has stayed roughly the same – around 55% of the adult population – and on average they gave £31 each. Half of overall giving comes from just 2 million adults.

Even during a recession, most of the folk who still have jobs have got money to burn. If you can afford a Nintendo Wii, you’ve got money to burn. If you can afford a ticket to a Premiership match, or a bottle of wine with your meal out, or a Sky subscription, ditto. The charities folks calculate that £750m per year is lost to charity because taxpayers don’t Gift Aid all their donations. There is plenty of slack in the system. We have the weapons. We have motive. We have opportunity. So what’s missing?

*we used to live in an area where the ASDA Events Manager was the nearest thing we had to a community worker – she organised loads of events around the ASDA calendar (which was basically a series of opportunities to sell stuff to people, based on events like St. Patricks day, or a movie release), and in the absence of any community meeting space, helped to make the supermarket a good place for charitable work and a community focus.

This piece originally appeared on the Wardman Wire at the weekend. Recycling and all that.

Operation Christmas Child - a picture of joy

This is doing the rounds on Facebook, fantastic. If you've ever sent one of those shoeboxes, this is what happens when it gets to the other end. It almost doesn't matter what's inside it! (though I guess a mouldy half-eaten bap might be a bit of a let-down).



According to their Facebook page, Operation Christmas Child sent 1.2 million shoeboxes last year. Brilliant.

Charity Commissioners clear the SPCK Smokescreen

Phil Groom has just published an official Charity Commissioners notice, now appearing on the doors of former SPCK bookshops around the country.

The CC are acting to recover the assets of the St. Stephen the Great Trust (SSG), an 'Orthodox' charity which took the bookshops over from SPCK a few years back. To escape having to pay suppliers and former staff, the SSG owners (Mark and Phil Brewer) moved all the shops overnight in June 2008 to ENC Shop Management, a limited company. They then tried to get SSG declared bankrupt in the USA - even though it was a UK charity - and were quite rightly thrown out of the courtroom. The Charity Commissioners moved in on SSG at the end of April this year after a formal investigation.

The CC have clearly seen through the Brewers fancy footwork, and so the ENC shops seem to have been seized as SSG assets. That just leaves, I think, Durham and Chichester shops, which are both on church premises and are operated by their own shop management companies, set up at the same time as ENC. Though they recently gave 12 months notice of eviction to the Brewers, it would be hugely embarassing for Durham Cathedral to have the CC changing the locks within their own precincts.

There is a deafening silence at the moment from the Brewers, who seem to have stopped throwing around legal threats (in 11 days it's a year since they jumped on Dave Walker, something which will be marked on this site).

Teenagers 'contribute £300m to economy' through voluntary work

A new report out from the Evangelical Alliance, reported here on the Beeb, is a useful corrective to the stereotypes many folk have of teenagers. It reports that nearly half do voluntary work at least once a month, and the vast majority give regularly to charity.

The report has an intro from Prince Charles, and is based on (yet another!!) survey, this time of 700 14-18's, also notes that faith is a significant motivating factor in people offering time as volunteers. Though 40% of young people volunteer regularly, this figure rises sharply with those who are more committed in their faith. The report notes that it could be because being part of a church offers young people more opportunities to volunteer, as well as being motivated to do so by their faith in the first place.

The top three reasons for volunteering were 'contribute to society', 'like helping people' and 'looks good on CV' (!)

The report also finds that among teenagers 50% buy fair trade where available, and 85% try to reduce their carbon footprint.

It would be great to hear this story about our young people more often, alongside the ones we more regularly hear about crime, violence, sex and consumerism.

Full report here
EA statement and links here.

Nominate the SPCK/SSG Campaign for the Christian Web Awards

The 'Bloggies' - Christian Web and New Media awards, are now open for nominations. I've taken the liberty of nominating Phil Grooms blog for 'best use of new media in a Christian campaign'.

Of course, there's more to the SPCK/SSG campaign than Phil's blog, though that's very much the hub of it. Many of us who are involved have never met face to face, but through blogs, email, Facebook, online petitions, Google Groups, and even Twitter we've built a network of supporters from several countries, and in the last 2 weeks there has been a mini-avalanche of remarkable results from the pressure that the campaign has brought to bear:

- Durham Cathedral have served notice on the Brewers to leave the premises
- The Charity Commissioners have taken control of the assets of the Society of St. Stephen the Great
- as a result of which an out of court settlement with all the unfairly dismissed staff may be possible without all the wasted time and money of legal proceedings
- and Dave Walker is back to blogging about the SPCK story. Bet the Brewers wish now they'd never tried to shut him up in the first place, a tactic which backfired spectacularly.

I have a slight quibble about the Bloggies, in that anyone using new media well will, quite probably, be using more than one website to do it. The SPCK campaign - which effectively began as a recurring theme on Dave Walkers cartoon blog, has diversified into several 'new media' as it's evolved. Any campaign simply using one platform probably shouldn't get past first base!

If you'd like to nominate the SPCK/SSG campaign too, please do! Here's what I put in the 'additional information' box:

A campaign to scrutinise and hold to account the new owners of SPCK bookshops, which recently resulted in decisive action by both the Charity Commissioners and Durham Cathedral. The campaign provides a discussion space, as well as a focus for scrutiny and lobbying.

Use of new media includes
- several blogs, of which the named blog is the key one. With the censorship of Dave Walkers blog, it's been important to have several blogs reporting the story, so that 'divide and rule' through legal threats won't work.
- online petitions
- Facebook: there are two related groups on Facebook, which give the campaign an online mailing list of around 600 people, as well as a forum for spreading information.
- Google groups, as a forum for the leaders of the campaign to communicate and share information.
- more recently, Twitter.

Many of those involved in the campaign haven't met face to face, but new media has enabled us to network, co-ordinate our efforts, and spread information to a wide group of people.

Faith in public: Blair and Blears, Nurses and Curses

Tony Blairs speech at the Obama prayer breakfast makes interesting reading:

Today, religion is under attack from without and from within. From within, it is corroded by extremists who use their faith as a means of excluding the other. I am what I am in opposition to you. If you do not believe as I believe, you are a lesser human being.

From without, religious faith is assailed by an increasingly aggressive secularism, which derides faith as contrary to reason and defines faith by conflict. Thus do the extreme believers and the aggressive non-believers come together in unholy alliance.

And yet, faith will not be so easily cast. For billions of people, faith motivates, galvanises, compels and inspires, not to exclude but to embrace; not to provoke conflict but to try to do good. This is faith in action. You can see it in countless local communities where those from churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, tend the sick, care for the afflicted, work long hours in bad conditions to bring hope to the despairing and salvation to the lost. You can see it in the arousing of the world’s conscience to the plight of Africa.

There are a million good deeds done every day by people of faith. These are those for whom, in the parable of the sower, the seed fell on good soil and yielded sixty or a hundredfold.
What inspires such people?

Ritual or doctrine or the finer points of theology? No.

it's a speech that could be delivered in America without apology, but Blair hints at the difficulties with faith and public life in the UK

I do not mean by this to blur the correct distinction between the realms of religious and political authority. In Britain we are especially mindful of this. I recall giving an address to the country at a time of crisis. I wanted to end my words with “God bless the British people”. This caused complete consternation. Emergency meetings were convened. The system was aghast. Finally, as I sat trying to defend my words, a senior civil servant said, with utter distain: “Really, Prime Minister, this is not America you know.”

do read the whole thing, very good.


Hazel Blears spoke to a new Debt initiative set up by the Evangelical Alliance, aiming to co-ordinate and resource Christian responses to the debt crunch/recession. She quoted the Bible a bit, and promised to listen more to Christian groups. A new 'charter' is promised to give local authorities/funding sources more encouragement to fund welfare work offered by Christian groups, but there's concern that it might restrict what we can actually do.


Anglican leaders, including African bishops have called for Robert Mugabe to step down. If only political leaders in Africa were just as forthright.


It's utterly bizarre that using the word 'golliwog' in a private conversation gets you the sack, whilst abusing the Prime Minister for his race and disability at a public event doesn't.


The Somerset nurse suspended after offering to pray with a patient has been reinstated. The statement from her NHS trust makes it clear that they weren't happy with what she did, but recognises that spiritual support is part of patient care:

"We feel we were right to investigate the concerns from people about Caroline’s actions...

However, we are keenly aware of the importance of an individual’s spiritual belief, and we recognise that Caroline felt that she was acting in the best interests of her patients. For some people of faith, prayer is seen as an integral part of health care and the healing process....

It is acceptable to offer spiritual support as part of care when the patient asks for it.
But for nurses, whose principal role is giving nursing care, the initiative lies with the patient and not with the nurse."

New NHS Guidelines, published at the beginning of January, state that attempting to 'preach' your religion, or expressing particular points of view consistent with your faith, could be interpreted as harassment. The guidlines are worryingly vague. There is no distinction drawn between 'preaching' faith and simply telling folk what's good about it.


The Good Childhood Report, featured in the media earlier this week, has now been published, summary here. Dave Walker has put together a good collection of links on this today.


Worth Abbey is now holding Monastic Taster Weekends, for people interested in exploring a calling to be a monk.

More on most of these in my latest Touching Base column at the Wardman Wire.

Charity Commission: Mission is consistent with charity status

The Charity Commission published new guidance this week on religious charities, with a clear statement that mission activity is consistent with charity status. (Church Times report here, also reported at Religious Intelligence). New charity legislation has, since 2006, required charities to prove 'public benefit', and the guidance spells out how the 'advancement of religion' can qualify for this.

Here is the key section, in Annex B 'Examples of ways in which charities can advance religion'

Seeking new followers or adherents
Proselytising (seeking to convert someone to a faith or religion) is used by many charities advancing religion as an established and accepted means of attracting new followers or adherents. In some religions proselytising is seen as an essential part of the outworking of the religion.

For example, Christians regard evangelising as a central part of their religion.

In the majority of cases, proselytising is carried out sensitively and without coercion and does not present any public benefit difficulties.

However, there are circumstances in which the way in which proselytising is carried out, or the effects of proselytising, can affect public benefit, such as where it involves:

• exerting improper pressure on people in distress or need; or
• activities that entail the use of violence or brainwashing; or
• activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members of the religion.

Which all seems very sensible, and recognises that mission is part of the character of Christian faith, rather than trying to chop off the missionary arms and legs of Christian groups to turn them into social charities. However, the guidance also provides a fairly broad-brush definition of what 'public benefit' might look like:

the following are examples of the ways in which advancing religion has the potential to be for the public benefit:

• the provision of sacred spaces, churches and worship services;
• the provision of public rituals and ceremonies;
• contributing to the spiritual and moral education of children;
• contributing towards a better society for example by promoting social cohesion and social capital;
• carrying out, as a practical expression of religious beliefs, other activities (such as advancing education or conflict resolution, or relieving poverty), which may also be charitable;
• contributing to followers’ or adherents’ good mental and physical health; aiding the prevention of ill health, speeding recovery and fostering composure in the face of ill health;
• providing comfort to the bereaved;
• healthcare and social care.

It is not necessary for a charity advancing religion to have to demonstrate all of the types of benefit listed above. It may be sufficient to demonstrate just one benefit.

It also puts the ball squarely in the court of those who don't think religious groups should have charitable status, to produce the evidence.

The need for evidence: as with other charities, in the same way that public benefit must be capable of being demonstrated, so must detriment or harm where this is an issue. In assessing the public benefit of charities whose aims include advancing religion we will consider any evidence of significant detrimental or harmful effects of that organisation carrying out its aims in its particular circumstances.

General disagreement with the beliefs, activities or practices of a particular religion does not constitute evidence of the existence of detriment or harm.

It'll be interesting to see what the likes of the National Secular Society do with that one. They're clearly a bit cheesed off that the CC didn't accept their arguments. It really is fascinating to play 'spot the narrative' on their website: with one cluster of stories (e.g. abolition of the blasphemy law) it's a 'woohoo, Britain is becoming a secular society and we're leading the charge', but with unfavourable stories it's all about special pleading and collusion between church and state. And (as usual), no attempt whatsoever to be balanced and accept that faith groups do generate public benefits.

On a lighter note, I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

However, not all charities whose aims include advancing religion have a governing document which sets out its aims in this way.

For example, in the Church of England, Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) are governed by an ecclesiastical measure which sets out some of the ‘functions’ of a PCC which form the basis of the aims.

In other words, the CofE doesn't define itself as a missionary church in its governing documents. Oops. But it looks like the CC will let us share our faith anyway, so that's ok.

The Big Give - Double your Donation, while stocks last.

Just heard from Care for the Family about 'Double Your Donation', which opened this morning. It's financed by the Reed foundation, who have offered to match, pound for pound, donations of up to £5,000 to any charity. It looks like they've been inundated with requests today, but it's still worth getting your request in. Unfortunately they only have £1m to give away, so it may have all gone already. But, in the words of Coldplay, if you never try you'll never know....

Wouldn't it be great if there was 1 philanthropist a day doing this through Advent?

Charity Commissioners letter re: St. Stephen the Great

Here's the reply I had from the Charity Commissioners after enquiring about the various charities run by the new owners of SPCK bookshops. I've left out a couple of short paragraphs, but here are the relevant sections, my explanatory notes in blue:

"Thankyou for your letter about the above charities.

It may be useful if I explain concerns have been raised with the Charity Commission relating to the governance and internal financial controls at the Trust and the Company (explanation: there are 2 charities called 'St. Stephen the Great' registered with the CC, one is the Charitable Trust, the other is a trading company which runs the bookshops. Or at least used to)

We have contacted the trustees to clarify the situation with regard to some of the points raised. On the basis both of the inital concenrs raised with the Commission, and of the information provided by the charity in response, on 26 September 2008 we opened a formal inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993. Because this inquiry remains open and ongoing we will not be in a position to go into further detail at this time, but we would normally look to make a report available once the inquiry was concluded...

I note your concerns regarding the Annual Return and accounts for the Trust and the Company (no accounts submitted since March 2006) however these are not due until January 2009. It may be of interest to you that we do have processes in place to deal with charities which have an income of over £10,000 and who default on the submission of their accounts to the Commission.

With regard to the relationship between the ENC management companies and the Trust as well as the relationship with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK) this is a matter for the Trustees of the Trust and the Company (i.e. there's no issue with assets being passed from SSG to ENC)."

A few thoughts:
- I've emailed the CC back because I'm very surprised that, with no accounts submitted since March 2006, nothing is due until January next year. In August '07 one of the SSG charities was closed down and reopened as a subsidiary of the other, I don't know if this evaded the need for accounts for another 12 months, but it's now nearly 20 months from the end of tax 2006-7. If I'd left it this long to get my tax affairs in order, I'd be in prison.

- the CC website says that you have 10 months to send in your accounts. SSG aren't listed as a defaulting charity (there are thousands of them!). It's basically an online naughty step, but its a very crowded one. The CC then send you lots of reminders and offer to help, and if accounts don't appear after 22 months, then you are removed from the register of charities. So it all depends on whether the little shimmy in August 07 has given SSG 12 months grace, otherwise they have 2 months to file 2006-7 accounts (the year they took ownership of the bookshops) or cease to be a charity.

- The launch of the inquiry after recieving a response from SSG. This suggests that SSG's response wasn't satisfactory. Oh to be a fly on the wall....

Charity Commissioners and SSG: previous history

A quick Google unearths the following:

From the Bookseller, 13.6.08: reports that the CC is to investigate St. Stephen the Great following the filing for bankruptcy in the US: A spokesman for the Charity Commission said: “We are currently considering whether this raises any issues for the Charity Commission to take forward.” Haven't heard any more about this since. I don't know if the Bookseller followed it up - there doesn't seem to be any more about this in their other articles on the saga, though the comment on this one is very interesting for other reasons.

(The Bookseller article was reported by Dave Walker on June 13th 2008, and there were 11 comments but I don't think these are accessible any more. This is one of the many sites that have reposted some of Daves stuff, if you scroll down you can find the relevant post, but it doesn't add any more information. )

A comment on Ruth Gledhills blog roughly 12 months ago noted that the Charity Commission had also investigated the sale of the bookshops to SSG by SPCK, and found it to be within the rules. It also explains why there is both an SSG and an SSG Charitable Trust registered with the Charity Commissioners - the commenter says that this was at the CC's insistence, one charity to run the bookshops, the other to purchase churches. Though if they are 2 separate charities, the storage of bookshop fittings in an SSG church seems to blur the boundaries somewhat.

So the CC already have a small file on SSG, but there's no mention in these reports of investigations into Gift Aid, filing of accounts, the relation of SSG to ENC etc., so at least Mondays letter won't be wasting their time.

Letter to Charity Commissioners about the Society of St. Stephen the Great, and the former SPCK bookshops

With no reply from Mark Brewer after 2 weeks, I have re-sent the original letter from the 498 'We Support Dave Walker' Facebookers. I will also be putting the following letter in the post later today. I'm not really interested in who gets back to me first, I just want justice.


Re: St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (charity no. 1109008, registered 12/4/05, removed 8/8/07)
St. Stephen the Great (charity no 1119839, registered 27/6/07)
St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (subsidiary of St. Stephen the Great, registered 19.8.07)

Dear Charity Commissioners,

I have a number of concerns about the charities listed above, and would be grateful if you could look into them.

The St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (SSGCT) has not filed any accounts with you since March 2006, either in its original incarnation as a registered charity, or as a subsidiary of ‘St. Stephen the Great’ (SSG) SSGCT was removed from registration on 8.8.07 and re-registered as a subsidiary of SSG on 19.8.07. It is now over 30 months since any financial records have been submitted. In the meantime the company has attempted to file for bankruptcy in the USA, is subject to 30 claims through employment tribunals in the UK, and employees are reporting that pension contributions have not been kept up to date.

The claim for bankruptcy itself was thrown out by the US courts, on the basis that the main creditors were in the UK, and legal action was promptly begun against the principal SSG trustee for attempting to use the US courts to evade their responsibilities elsewhere.

Saint Stephen the Great is also the name of a trading company, registered at Companies House (Company No. 061105190), whose Directors are the same as the SSG charity Trustees. It was incorporated on 16.2.07 and as yet has filed no accounts, their last return was due in March 2008 and is now more than 7 months overdue.

SSGCT ran a chain of bookshops, which it acquired from the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK) in 2006. In June 2008 the Chairman of SSG and SSGCT emailed shop staff to inform them that:
"SSG (St Stephen the Great - limited liability company) has been terminated as the trading company to operate the bookshops formerly known as SPCK Bookshops…. The bookshops will now be operated by ENC Management Company"
ENC is listed on the Companies House website as Company Number FC028292, and it’s Directors and Secretary are the same 3 people as the St. Stephen the Great charity trustees, and the directors of the St. Stephen the Great trading company.

My concerns are as follows:
1. Your website states: Trustees of charities with income exceeding £10,000 in their last financial year are required to complete and submit an Annual Return and a copy of the trustees’ annual report and accounts. This must be done within 10 months of the end of the charity’s financial year.

SSG/SSGCT has not done this. In view of the financial situation detailed above, financial transparency would seem to be vital, yet the latest accounts only cover 2005-6. As a private citizen I would be fined if my tax return was submitted more than 9 months after the end of the tax year, but this has now been 30 months and rising. What is happening, and what processes are being followed to make SSG/SSGCT publish its accounts? Many suppliers and staff remain unpaid, and there seem to be pension payments missing as well. It is vital that up to date accounts are published to enable these claims to be properly processed.

2. If the bookshops are now being run by ENC Management Company, which has no formal relationship with any of the SSG charities, then is there a proper process for the transfer of assets from a charity to a private company, and has this been followed?

3. A memo from one of the ENC Directors, Mr Phil Brewer, to shop staff in August 2008 stated: “ On all purchases of 10 GBP or more, offer a 2 GBP discount if a donation of 1 GBP or more is made. They must also fill out a gift aid form.” A scanned copy of this memo is attached, retrieved from http://spckssg.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/philip-brewer-says-immediately-post-this/

However, given that the chain is now being run by ENC Management Company (a registered company) and not SSG (a charity), then is it legitimate to claim gift aid on purchases? If not, what is the legal position of staff who are being asked to do this?

4. The memo also instructs staff (no.5) inform customers that ‘thirdspacebooks’ – a website set up to support the bookshops - ‘supports charity’. However, ordering books through the site (http://thirdspacebooks.com/) merely takes you to Amazon, and there is no indication on the site of which charities it supports.

5. The confusion of names does not help, nor does the fact that Third Space Books, in its photographs of the shops, shows them still trading under the name 'SPCK', a name SSG is not entitled to use.

My concern in this is as someone who has used these bookshops, and has become concerned about various aspects of the way this business is run. If you are not already looking into these irregularities, can I please ask you to do so as a matter of urgency. There are 30 former staff, and many more suppliers, who remain unpaid by this organisation, and financial transparency is essential to make sure that people receive what they are owed.

Yours sincerely
Rev David Keen