Escalating fundraising costs at The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust

1. Fundraising costs are escalating at an international development charity chaired by Lord Geidt, the crossbench peer who succeeded Sir Alex Allan as the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests. Lord Geidt, the Queen’s former private secretary, is the founding chair, having been in post since November 2016.
2. Formally launched in April 2018, The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (“QCT”) was set up “in recognition of Her Majesty The Queen’s lifetime of service to others and her love for the Commonwealth and its young people”, says the website. QCT “champions, funds and connects young leaders who are working hard to change the world”, according to the public register of charities.
3. On 10 September 2021, QCT, whose patron is the Queen, filed its fourth set of accounts at the Charity Commission, those made up to 31 March 2021. The latest accounts show that the charity continues to spend more each year raising funds: £90.78k (2018); £175.78k (2019); £259.60k (2020); and £304.08k (2021).
4. The increase in fundraising costs by year needs to be interpreted in relation to the corresponding income from donations and grants: £2 792.48k (2018); £3 645.75k (2019); £782.53k (2020); and £761.82 (2021).
5. So what are fundraising costs as a proportion (per cent) of income from donations and grants? 3.3 (2018); 4.8 (2019); 33.2 (2020); and 40.0 (2021). In other words, the former account for more and more of the latter each year, which is obviously a concern.
6. Meanwhile, the number of employees with total benefits over £60k has also increased over time, according to the accounts: 1 (2018); 1 (2019); 3 (2020); and 5 (2021). The fundraising director is identified as a member of the “key management personnel” each year other than the first.
7. The highest paid employee last year, presumably ex-chief executive Nicola Brentnall, trousered £120k-£130k. Not an insignificant sum.
8. Ms Brentnall resigned on 31 March 2021, to be replaced by Christopher Kelly.
9. Ms Brentnall’s departure was preceded by that of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who stepped down as president and vice-president of QCT respectively in February 2021. This followed Buckingham Palace’s announcement that the couple would not be returning as working members of The Royal Family.
10. On Harry and Meghan, Lord Geidt says in his introduction to the latest accounts: “We were so glad to have had the support of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in our early years. They helped us establish the brand and the cause internationally, getting us off to a flying start.” This is the only time the couple are mentioned in the latest accounts. What’s more, they only resigned a few weeks before the financial year-end!
11. QCT has just unveiled model Naomi Campbell as its first “global ambassador”, part of whose role is to “raise the profile of the charity’s ambitious fundraising campaign” for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in 2022.
12. In 2019, QCT received a final grant of £3 122.29k from The Queen’s Trust to establish the new charity. In subsequent years QCT has actively sought new funders, “to ensure its ongoing sustainability”.
13. In 2021, three of the 12 employees of the charity were engaged in fundraising (cf. two of the 11 employees in 2020).
14. The latest accounts (p.17) say: “Despite the hard work of the fundraising team throughout 2020, QCT’s plans to attract new donors took a major blow from COVID-19. It was an exceptionally hard year for fundraising, with many donors restricting their giving to organisations they already supported or which were frontline in the fight against COVID-19 in the UK.”
15. Despite the “exceptionally hard year for fundraising”, then, the charity managed to maintain the level of income from donations and grants – a commendable achievement. QCT aims to do at least the same in 2021-2022.
16. Yet, in “an exceptionally hard year for fundraising”, we might reasonably expect a drop in income from donations and grants. This didn’t occur – but fundraising costs jumped, something not referred to, let alone explained, in the latest accounts.
17. The escalating fundraising costs deserve scrutiny. What, if anything, is QCT doing to mitigate the upward trend?
18. When asked for comment, a spokesperson at QCT said in an email: “The former CEO led a restructure of the organisation and an extensive cost reduction exercise in early 2021, to reflect the challenging environment arising from COVID-19 and to ensure QCT was on the strongest footing moving forward. QCT continues to drive efficiency wherever possible. On fundraising costs, QCT keeps these under review, and employs just 2 full-time fundraisers working with volunteers and the Board to achieve an ambitious target this year.”

Private Eye reports Stiliyan Petrov Foundation exposé

1. The current issue of Private Eye (1556) reports my Stiliyan Petrov Foundation exposé (see 6 April 2021 post).
2. Private Eye is the UK’s number one best-selling news and current affairs magazine.
3. You won’t find the report – or much else from the magazine – on the Eye website because the online presence is minimal. Here’s a scanned copy of the page from my subscription copy – see article headed “Eye off ball”: https://dralexmay.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/private-eye-1556.pdf.

ASA issues “ad alert” against Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws

1. On 17 August 2021, the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) issued an “ad alert” against Prime Star Shop Ltd t/a Branshaws, after the company persisted in running an unacceptable ad for a magnetic copper bracelet (https://www.asa.org.uk/resource/ad-alert-prime-star-shop-ltd.html).
2. I last wrote about the case on 17 August 2021, following a complaint to the ASA. For the avoidance of doubt, I was unaware at the time of that day’s “ad alert”.
3. Meanwhile, on 6 May 2021, the ASA issued an “ad alert” against Health Broadcast, a fake limited company flogging dubious “health products” (see 11 May 2021 post). The advertising watchdog acted after my repeated complaints. That post explains the significance of “ad alerts”.
4. Back to the Branshaws ad for a magnetic copper bracelet. As I say, the firm continues to run the unacceptable ad in national newspapers. It appeared in the Daily Mirror on 14 August 2021; and the Daily Mail on 17 August 2021, for example.
5. Still unaware of the “ad alert”, I complained again to the ASA on 25 August 2021. It was back a third time to the regulator a few days later, when the ad turned up in The Mail on Sunday newspaper on 29 August 2021 (screen shot in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Ad for Branshaws in The Mail on Sunday (29 August 2021, p.118)

6. By reply, the ASA informed me of its “ad alert”. It added that the ad’s appearance on 29 August 2021 was particularly disappointing, given this was weeks after publication of the “ad alert”. For this reason, the ASA referred my latest complaint to its Compliance team “for further action”.

“Lord Vaizey does not appear on the PRCA Public Affairs Register”

1. On 6 August 2021, I revealed that former culture minister Ed Vaizey (Lord Vaizey) and lobbying firm FTI Consulting appear to have breached at least two paragraphs in the Public Affairs Code: 9 and 15.
2. The PRCA Public Affairs Board (PAB), which styles itself “the voice of the public affairs and lobbying industry”, claims to “enforce high standards through a unified Public Affairs Code”. Yes, this is self-regulation: the lobbying sector regulates itself via the PAB.
3. When I complained to the PAB about the conduct of Lord Vaizey and FTI Consulting, Neha Khatwani, secretary of the PAB, simply said in an email, without explanation: “Lord Vaizey does not appear on the PRCA Public Affairs Register.”
4. I checked: sure enough, the peer had suddenly disappeared from the then current register. So I sought an explanation from Ms Khatwani for the ex-minister’s vanishing act.
5. By reply, the secretary of the PAB said in an email: “We have spoken to FTI and they have confirmed that Ed Vaizey ceased all work with UK PA [public affairs] clients before he took his seat in the Lords. He continued to carry out some non-public affairs work for FTI which ended on January 28th 2021. Ed was paid for the remainder of his contract which came to an end on 31st March without undertaking any further work in this final period.”
6. Ms Khatwani continued: “Ed should have never appeared on the register as his contract came to an end on 31st March and he ceased all work for FTI in January 2021. Therefore, he was removed from the register.”
7. “The PRCA Public Affairs Board Chairman and PRCA Director General are satisfied that FTI acted in accordance with the PRCA Public Affairs Code. As a result, we will not be accepting your complaint against FTI.”
8. As I said in my 6 August 2021 post, both FTI Consulting and Lord Vaizey didn’t respond to requests for comment prior to publication of that post. Their non-response is disappointing.
9. Previously I’ve received responses from several members of the PAB in relation to their disclosures on the register: Cicero/AMO, for example (see 16 November 2020 post).
10. I refer to the preamble of the Public Affairs Code: “The Public Affairs Code applies the principles that public affairs practitioners should be open and transparent in their dealings…” The preamble also states: “Members are determined to act at all times with the highest standards of integrity and in a professional and ethical manner reflecting the principles applied by this Code.”
11. Meanwhile, the final paragraph of the Public Affairs Code says: “In all their activities and dealings, members must be aware at all times of the importance of observing the principles and duties set out in this Public Affairs Code to protect and maintain their own reputation, the good name and success of their business, and the standing of the profession as a whole.”
12. Which brings me back to the non-response of both FTI Consulting and Lord Vaizey. It’s not just disappointing.
13. Their non-response shows they failed to be “open and transparent in their dealings”. It also means they didn’t act “with the highest standards of integrity and in a professional and ethical manner reflecting the principles applied by this Code”.
14. The final paragraph of the Public Affairs Code stipulates “all” the “activities and dealings” of members. Again, here their non-response represents a failure to comply with this requirement.
15. Then there’s a separate concern, if, as Ms Khatwani says, “Ed should have never appeared on the register as his contract came to an end on 31st March and he ceased all work for FTI in January 2021.” Why did FTI Consulting fail to remove the peer from the register until I started asking questions about the disclosure?
16. It is self-evident that inaccuracies only undermine the usefulness of the register. Members of the PAB are responsible for ensuring their entries on the register are kept accurate and up to date. Therefore, the alleged registration failure of FTI Consulting not only calls into question the credibility of the company, but also the sector’s efforts at self-regulation.
17. I put the above points to Ms Khatwani in a final email.
18. The secretary of the PAB replied: “I cannot compel FTI consulting to respond to your requests. They responded to the PRCA’s requests for information immediately and we are satisfied they have acted in accordance with the Code.”
19. Ms Khatwani finished: “As I have mentioned before, we will not be accepting your complaint or investigating FTI consulting [sic]. Therefore, the matter is closed.”
20. No wonder Lord Vaizey and his former employer are unaccountable. It is not difficult to understand why the lobbying sector is so keen on self-regulation. Another time when “the voice of the public affairs and lobbying industry” showed self-regulation is no regulation is the PAB’s unsatisfactory handling of my complaint about the conduct of ex-lobbyist Paul Bristow MP (see 5 November 2020 post).

Philip Davies MP continues to be a racehorse owner

1. Philip Davies MP continues to be a racehorse owner (see previous post), according to the Racehorse Owners Association press release dated 1 July 2021 announcing his appointment to its board.
2. The Tory MP “is an owner with Oliver Greenall, Jo Foster and Mick and David Easterby” (screen shot in Figure 1), says the press release.

Figure 1. Philip Davies MP continues to be a racehorse owner

How many MPs own or have owned racehorses?

1. Congratulations to Philip Davies MP: the latest register of MPs’ financial interests shows the Tory MP for Shipley has just become a member of the board of the Racehorse Owners Association (“ROA”). This is an unpaid role.
2. Mr Davies has been or was an owner for 18 years, according to the ROA website (screen shot in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Philip Davies MP: Racehorse Owners Association board member

3. The MP is well-known for his pro-gambling stance – as well as his enjoyment of high-profile sports events and attendant hospitality as the guest of gambling firms. Now married to fellow Tory MP Esther McVey, the register reveals Mr Davies has recently been accompanied by his wife on several such jollies with the bookies.
4. Mr Davies discloses his new role with the ROA under the “miscellaneous” category (category 8) of the register. There, though, he has hitherto omitted to disclose the fact that he is or was a racehorse owner. Such an interest should surely be registered there.
5. The MP is vice-chair of the racing and bloodstock all-party parliamentary group (APPG). How many other members of the APPG, let alone MPs, own or have owned racehorses?