Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I can’t think of a better place to make one of my last speeches as Chair of the Charity Commission than at a registered charity. I’m also delighted you’ve invited me, because the Social Market Foundation has distinguished itself over the years as a meeting place where those of all political persuasions and none can debate freely and productively. I will do my best to honour that tradition today.

I certainly want to reflect on what I’ve learned in my three years as Commission Chair, to talk about what I and the whole organisation have achieved in that time to help increase the benefit of charity to society – and also to outline the work still to do which will fall to my successor.

But more than that I want to explain the thinking that has lain behind what we have been trying to do, which I believe is fundamental not just to the future viability and prosperity of the charitable sector, but also to the broader health of our society.

It can be summed up briefly as this. That if charities – or indeed any other institution, and anybody else operating in the public eye – are to survive and thrive, we are all going to have to be far more respectful of other people’s points of view. We are all relying on each other.

But before I get on to charities more specifically, let me take a step back by examining the intense world in which we live and operate today. The levels of scrutiny we all face are immense. The speed with which we can pass judgement on others is unprecedented, as is the ability to seek out those who agree with us, often to the exclusion of anyone else.

All of this makes outrage at scale much easier and, sometimes, the entire object of the exercise: all the better to make yourself heard in the current cacophony. Of course, that approach often comes at a cost. Nuanced disagreements descend into polarised divisions, motives are impugned, guilt by association becomes the order of the day. People parody others and in so doing become parodies of themselves.

In this environment a better understanding of the differences between us and the actual reasons behind them has never been more difficult or more essential. The current pandemic may have frozen all of us in place for the time being, but the places we find ourselves in reflect the fact that we are perhaps more segregated than we have been in living memory – whether that is by choice or by a lack of it.

Most, perhaps all of us on this call, have been to places and experienced things that people within living memory couldn’t even begin to comprehend. These experiences help to shape who we are, what we think, and how we feel. They are part of us. We have these things in common, but we also live alongside people who’ve had other experiences, who haven’t had the same opportunities or who’ve had different ones. And yet we have seldom had less contact with those people than at any time in the modern era.

However far we travel when we can safely do so again, we really do need to get out more closer to home.

That need to understand and respect experiences and values different from our own was important before the recent political shocks of the past five years. And I think it’s even more important now.

Either we acknowledge what has gone on around us, learn from it and adapt, or we ignore it as a momentary aberration, seek to learn nothing at all and just hope it won’t happen again. I think that would be both wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice.

Let me say why – and I’ll draw on my own personal experience.

Over my career I have been fortunate to work in some of Britain’s finest public institutions – from the civil service to the BBC; and I have served Prime Ministers, whether working as a member of staff inside No 10 or as a member of the Cabinet.

In all of these roles the values that have mattered most are those that I share with the people I was born and brought up with in the East Midlands – close to blue-wall/red-wall territory.

And what are those beliefs? That rules matter and should be applied equally to everyone, that people in power have a particular responsibility to lead by example, and that knowledge – while important – counts for little without understanding. These are not outlandish values – they’re held by millions of decent, respectable people up and down the country – and nor are the opinions they give rise to fringe or extreme.

Ignoring these voices or losing touch with the values that underpin them seems to me an act of monumental hubris. For too long, too many of us in positions of authority have allowed moral certitude, reinforced by over-confidence, to harden into disdain for other people’s points of view and a reluctance to be held accountable by wider public opinion.

Over the past 15 years we’ve seen the consequences of that kind of attitude from the financial crisis, to the scandal over MPs’ expenses, and the loss in trust in news media.

I applied and was appointed Chair of the Charity Commission because I could see that erosion in public trust and confidence had begun to reach parts of the charity world too. Household names not behaving as they should; putting their own reputations ahead of doing the right thing and not recognising their broader responsibility to Charity as a whole. At that time, public trust and confidence in charity was at its lowest level ever.

Some organised voices opposed my appointment because of my lack of experience and understanding when it came to the charity world. But that was a feature not a bug. I wasn’t there to plead the case for charities to the public, but to make sure that a broader range of voices from the public were taken seriously by charities, especially the large and more established. And to do so because Charity matters – and it relies on everyone’s support.

So, from the very start of my term as Chair, I led the Board and worked with Helen Stephenson and the rest of the Executive team to place regulating in the public interest at the heart of the Commission’s work. This meant making us more responsive and inclusive in the way we listen and respond to different parts of the public, including volunteers and charity supporters up and down the country.

We moved to reassure people that their legitimate concerns over, often quite small things, would not be trivialised or ignored. We also emphasised that charities needed to be driven by their purposes in the way they go about their business not just in the difference they make. This means being respectful of basic public expectations and behaving in a way that is distinctive from other types of organisations. And over the last couple of years we have begun to see a modest recovery in public trust and confidence. This is not just a nice objective if you can achieve it, it is a statutory responsibility of the Charity Commission written into law, and for good reason.

Covid has brought home both the power of Charity and its essential fragility. The power it has to harness our generosity and goodwill for the benefit of others; but also how much Charity relies on the support it is given, in small and myriad ways, as people go about our daily lives – and how vulnerable it is to any disruption in those routines.

As a nation our charitable impulse runs as deep as it ever has. Over the last twelve months people have found new and ingenious ways to demonstrate kindness, salute courage and lend practical help to one another. From clapping for carers and NHS workers, organising mutual support via WhatsApp, to supporting the inspiring exploits of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore – whose loss this week is mourned by us all. And right now, people like St John Ambulance and the RVS enrolling local volunteers throughout the UK to help distribute the Covid vaccine in their own communities. Indeed, many charities are having to work harder than ever, adapting to a dramatic loss of income at a time of increased demand: they are having to attract new supporters or find new ways of providing support to the people who rely on them irrespective of the pandemic.

Charities remain the most effective way of bringing people together in the name of something bigger, more important or more urgent than those things which sometimes keep us apart.

This power that Charity has derives from the feeling that it belongs to all of us in one form or another, wherever we come from. That sense of genuine common ownership is rare and precious in our current world; and we should not give it up deliberately or through neglect. Charities can challenge things, charities can shake things up, they can even change the world, but they can’t, and they shouldn’t go out of their way to divide people.

If Charity is to remain at the forefront of our national life it cannot afford to be captured by those who want to advance or defend their own view of the world to the exclusion of all others. Charities can adapt to the latest social and cultural trends but there is a real risk of generating unnecessary controversy and division by picking sides in a battle some have no wish to fight.

Many seek out charities as an antidote to politics and division not as another front on which to wage a war against political enemies, and they have the right to be respected. Telling these people that they’ll get a fair hearing if they object to the politicisation of their favourite charities or if they take a different view is not in itself a political act; it is the role of a responsible regulator.

Hard as it may be to believe sometimes, away from Westminster or beyond the reach of Twitter, there are people who do not have definitive opinions, ready for instant expression about Brexit, the root causes of inequality, the exercise and limits of free speech, or how best to tell the story of Britain. They are the backbone of so many of our charities. They let their donations, their volunteering, their fundraising do the talking. Just because these people do not shout doesn’t mean they have no right to be heard. I have tried to make their views count more during my time at the Charity Commission, I hope and believe my successor will do the same.

They will of course inherit other challenges facing the sector and its regulator. Public expectations matter. When it comes to charities this means seeing motives translated into action and the job being gone about in the right way. Standards in terms of behaviour, efficiency and effectiveness are more important than structures and the public feels entitled to make certain assumptions about registered charity status that go beyond recipients simply sticking to the letter of the law. And that doesn’t change even during a pandemic and when many charities are under immense pressure.

Ensuring these expectations are met even as the range of bodies trying to become charities and the scope of things we ask charities to do keep on growing is incredibly important if the legal and financial benefits of charitable status are to continue enjoying public support.

Then there’s the challenge of registered charity status itself keeping pace with the times. Charities themselves aren’t the only outlet for people who want to be charitable. The charity sector needs to embrace a new generation of organisations with their own ideas for strengthening their communities and wider society.

In my view the charity register should not be like a private members’ club; difficult to join but offering a place for life once you get in. Instead it should be a snapshot that captures the vast array of efforts being made in this country to improve lives and strengthen society at any given time. The Charity Commission would be better equipped to do this if it could make registration more straightforward in some cases, combined with more power and greater freedom to remove moribund charities or those involved in wrongdoing from the register.

Finally, there’s what to do when things go wrong. The reason why the Charity Commission has placed such importance on the public interest during my time as Chair is that the way charities go about their business matters as much as the difference they make. How do we know this? Because the public tells us so.

It’s important to be able to draw broader lessons from cases where it is appropriate to do so, to show that there is an underlying purpose to how the Commission discharges its statutory responsibilities. We began to do this while I was Chair and I hope that as a practice it continues. More people are becoming aware of what the Charity Commission is trying to do on their behalf, and that can only help charities up and down the country who need all the support they can get to recover from the pandemic and to play their full part in helping the country to do the same.

The reason Charity matters is because it is a reflection of us at our best. Encapsulating our generosity of spirit, our impulse to give what we can and to do what we can to improve and enrich the lives of others, whether they are on our own doorstep or thousands of miles away. And like us charities come in all shapes and sizes; large and small, volunteer-led and professionally run, service-providers funded by local and national government, and the essential but often unglamorous gap-fillers fiercely independent of the state.

Some find this lack of coherence frustrating. They would like a much more focused, organised and coordinated sector speaking to the government and the outside world with one voice, usually their own. But looking back with the advantage of my three years at the Charity Commission I think it is that very variation which is the source of Charity’s strength.

There are charities which bring like-minded people together, charities who unite unlike minds, different charities who want diametrically different things. Together they can all help to improve lives and strengthen society within the legal framework of charitable status.

With so much aiding and abetting polarisation these days, it has been a privilege to oversee one of the few unifying forces that stand for more pluralism in our lives. So, to the 168,000 charities on our register and the 700,000 trustees who are legally responsible for them and are custodians of something which is precious to all of us, I would just like to end by saying to them: “thank you”.

The company launched the A303 Stonehenge business directory in December, extending an invite for small and medium-sized businesses to get involved in the transformational dualling scheme and tunnel project, and in less than two months a total of 161 companies are now registered – half of those from the Wiltshire locality.

A virtual Meet the Buyer event was held on 21 January, in which more than 130 people heard from Highways England’s project team and preliminary works contractors Wessex Archaeology Ltd and Osborne Ltd, about upcoming opportunities to play a part in the scheme.

The virtual event was the first in a series of engagement activities planned with local and regional SMEs ahead of fieldwork and preliminary works starting later this year.

David Bullock, Highways England Project Manager for the A303 Stonehenge scheme, said:

We’re delighted by the response so far, and we’d like to see that number double again in the coming weeks to enable local and regional SMEs to gain access to business opportunities within the scheme.

We need businesses large and small to help build the scheme, but we understand that small and medium-sized enterprises face challenges in getting a foot in the door on projects of this scale, so we want to break down any barriers by standardising terms and conditions, minimising requirements and applying a fair and prompt payment initiative.

The project has numerous benefits, not only in improving journey reliability and enhancing the World Heritage Site landscape, but also in unlocking economic growth in the South West.

The preliminary work will provide initial opportunities within the next six months or so with greater potential for SMEs ahead, once Highways England appoints its main contractor later this year, or early 2022.

Highways England is already working closely with the Swindon and Wiltshire Local Enterprise Partnership, Business West, the Federation of Small Businesses, Salisbury and District Chamber of Commerce and Salisbury BID, and has also partnered nationally with the Supply Chain Sustainability School to provide free online training.

This helps smaller companies to upskill and places them in a better position to tender for work on larger infrastructure projects, such as the A303 Stonehenge upgrade.

Deborah Fraser, South West Director of the CBI (Confederation of British Industry), said:

Upgrades to the full A303/A30/A358 corridor will drastically improve connectivity between the South West and the rest of the country, and open new doors for businesses in advanced manufacturing, low carbon and digital technologies, and tourism and hospitality.

Those new opportunities begin with the construction phase, and it’s encouraging to see so many local SMEs expressing an interest in lending their expertise to this transformative project.

At a time when so many businesses are worried about their future, these works can inject fresh optimism in the South West and boost regional productivity, while delivering tangible proof that the government is serious about fulfilling its levelling up pledges across the country.

Of the companies registered so far, a large percentage are involved in civil engineering, building and civil works, security, facilities management and landscaping, together with other professional services such as business supply, catering, cleaning, environmental and waste management.

Robin Trevett of Salisbury and District Chamber of Commerce said:

A project such as this presents a host of opportunities for local business, something both the Salisbury and District Chamber of Commerce and Salisbury Business Improvement District fully support.

We look forward to seeing future events as the project develops and ultimately, the opportunity for our members to play their part in this major project.

Businesses interested in being a part of the A303 Stonehenge project are urged to register their details. Information will then be passed to the relevant contractors.

Highways England has recently unveiled its ambition for the A303 Stonehenge project through the voices of the people it touches most, including businesses and local communities. The visionary video can be seen here:

visionary video

For more details and updates on the A303 Stonehenge scheme website, people can log on to the scheme website, and for any further queries, companies can email info@a303stonehenge.co.uk

General enquiries

Members of the public should contact the Highways England customer contact centre on 0300 123 5000.

Media enquiries

Journalists should contact the Highways England press office on 0844 693 1448 and use the menu to speak to the most appropriate press officer.

The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), the UK government’s advisory body on the responsible use of AI and data-driven technology, has published new analysis on the use of data in local government during the COVID-19 crisis. It draws on findings from a forum attended by local authorities across the country, in which they explored changes to data use during the pandemic and discussed barriers to data-driven innovation, as well as new research into public attitudes towards local data use. Key findings include:

• The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the innovative use of data at a local level, with a range of data-driven interventions launched or repurposed during the pandemic. Examples include: the use of the ‘VIPER’ tool by local authorities in Essex, which has enabled emergency services to share data in real time; Argyll and Bute Council’s trial of drone technology to deliver vital medical supplies across its islands; Glasgow City Council’s online platform to promote social distancing; and Hackney Council’s analysis of internal and external datasets to help them identify residents who are vulnerable to COVID-19.
• Health data has been shared with local authorities in new ways. For example, local authorities have received access to the NHS shielding patients database, allowing authorities to better target support, including food parcels and pharmacy deliveries, to vulnerable individuals.
• Authorities have had more success in changing how they deploy existing datasets than in acquiring or sharing data with central government or local service providers.
• For sustainable adoption, the governance of new technologies needs to be informed by engagement with local citizens to ensure that it is trustworthy. New polling shows that 50% of people want to engage with their local authority on how data is used to make decisions.

Representatives convened by the CDEI expressed concerns that progress would not be sustained, with data use practices reverting to the pre-pandemic status quo. Reasons for this include: uncertainty around whether emergency access to datasets will be repealed; enthusiasm for data-driven interventions among decision-makers waning; fear of misjudging the public mood on what is an acceptable use of data; and reluctance among local authorities to be a “first mover” in what is perceived to be a high risk environment. Local authorities are also grappling with long-standing barriers to data-driven innovation, including skills gaps, poor data quality, lack of legal clarity and funding challenges.

The CDEI warns that progress is unlikely to be made without dedicated action from central and local government. Whilst encouraging, recent steps forward, such as the publication of the Local Government Association’s guide to predictive analytics, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s COVID-19 challenge fund, are unlikely to move the needle on their own. Without increased investment and an improvement in data skills, local authorities will struggle to retain and build on recent progress. In its National Data Strategy, the government has outlined an ambition to strengthen skills, improve access to data, and offer greater regulatory clarity, and has committed to working to better support local government in maximising the benefits of data.

While conversations have already started on what practices should be retained post-pandemic, the CDEI’s forum pushed thinking further by focusing on the importance of good data governance in enabling trustworthy data use. While responsible data governance was top of mind for data leads, they commented on the difficulty of translating theoretical frameworks into practical steps.

The CDEI has also researched public attitudes towards the use of data in local government, and the results suggest that citizens want a stake in how their data is used. In the representative sample of 2,025 people, conducted with Deltapoll, 50% reported interest in engaging with their local authority on how data is used to make decisions. Levels of understanding around how local authorities use data is extremely varied: 39% said that they did not know if their personal data is being collected or how it is being used.

The results suggest that the public are more comfortable with data collection and use by their local authority if context is provided. When given specific scenarios, such as the use of data to identify children who might be at risk of domestic violence, the proportion of people who felt comfortable was higher than when asked about the collection and use of raw data (e.g. education data). Those polled felt that the greatest benefit of data use would be improvements to their local community (31%). When asked about measures that would enable trust in local council use of data, the two most popular responses were data anonymisation (24%) and strict access and use controls (23%).

The CDEI is now working in partnership with local authorities, including Bristol City Council, to help them maximise the benefits of data and data-driven technologies, by building trustworthy governance that earns the confidence of citizens over the long-term.

Edwina Dunn, Board member for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, said : “Almost every aspect of local government has required at least temporary reform during the pandemic. Data and data-driven technologies have played an important part in enabling local authorities to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, helping to inform public health measures, protect the most vulnerable in local communities, and keep public services running. With the right support, councils can retain and build on efforts to utilise data effectively, in a way that is in keeping with the expectations of their residents, to provide local services communities can rely on. The CDEI is looking forward to continuing to work with the government, as well as with local authorities and other relevant stakeholders, on this important agenda.”

John Whittingdale, Minister of State for Media and Data at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said: “Local authorities have gone above and beyond in supporting their communities during the pandemic, and data has been at the heart of some key interventions that have helped the most vulnerable. This government is committed to maintaining the high watermark of data use set during the pandemic, and we recognise the opportunities that data presents to drive better delivery of public services. Through our National Data Strategy, we are committed to working with local government partners to better understand the barriers they face in utilising data to its fullest potential, and this report will be a useful input in identifying how to do so effectively.”

Luke Hall, Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, said: “Councils and council workers have been at the forefront of the response to the pandemic, helping to keep their communities safe, while ensuring essential services have continued throughout. From delivering food parcels, medicines and support to clinically extremely vulnerable individuals to housing rough sleepers quickly, the use of data has been critical. Councils have adapted their services from in-person to online, using technology and data to do so lawfully and securely, and I am determined we continue to use everything we have learned to make services better for residents so that local communities keep benefitting from more efficient public services.”

James Jamieson, Chair of the Local Government Association, said: “The use of data is one of many factors that councils may consider as part of their decision-making processes. We’re pleased to be working with the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation to bring together councils from across the country so they can share best practice in this area and be as transparent as possible. The good and ethical use of data will help councils support their communities through the pandemic and into the future.”

Ends

Contacts

Pippa Hardingham 07827 802 325 pippa.hardingham@cdei.gov.uk

Jessica Bancroft 07831 166 111 jessica.bancroft@cdei.gov.uk

Notes to Editor

• The CDEI was set up in 2018 to advise on the governance of AI and data-driven technology. The Centre is overseen by an independent Board, made up of experts from across industry, civil society, academia and government.
• The report draws together the findings of a forum discussion hosted with data and information governance leads from local authorities, and is supplemented by individual interviews and desk research, as well as new research into public attitudes towards local data use.
• The discussion is one of a series of AI Forums hosted by the CDEI, in which a range of experts are invited to discuss the most pressing issues relating to data-driven technology.
• The CDEI has been collating examples of novel use-cases of AI and data specifically being used to counter and mitigate the effects of the pandemic in its COVID-19 repository. The CDEI produced a local government edition of this repository, which revealed an eclectic range of interventions by local authorities.
• The CDEI published a report on public sector data sharing in 2020. It involved a detailed analysis of projects where data had been shared between government departments, and with commercial organisations, identifying recurring barriers, and the steps that were taken to address them. The report focused on citizen trust, arguing that it needs to be addressed if we are to maximise the value of data held. It included a framework to drive forward trustworthy data sharing in the public interest. The CDEI is working in partnership with other organisations, including Bristol City Council, to apply, test and revise the framework in different contexts.
• As part of the CDEI’s review into bias in algorithmic decision-making, the CDEI considered the use of algorithms in local government. It argued that data-driven tools present opportunities for local government, but cautioned that they should not be considered a silver bullet for funding challenges. Moreover, it found that data infrastructure and data quality were significant barriers to developing and deploying data-driven tools effectively and responsibly, arguing that investment in this area is needed before developing more advanced systems.
• Engaging with the public has been a core component of the CDEI’s work since formation. It recently announced that it is stepping up its public engagement efforts to ensure that its advice is grounded in a deep understanding of public attitudes towards data-driven technologies, as well as of the values that citizens want reflected in new models of data governance.
• On behalf of the CDEI, Deltapoll interviewed 2,025 UK adults online between 10th-17th December 2020. The data have been weighted to be representative of the UK adult population as a whole.
• As part of the UK government’s consultation on the National Data Strategy, which ran from 9th September 2020-9th December 2020, DCMS consulted on the CDEI’s proposed future functions, as well as whether a statutory status would help the CDEI to deliver its remit. DCMS is currently analysing the feedback it received and will publish the outcome in due course.