Pensions in CRC

[RainyDay]

Our local private primary school, whose pupils are the children of only the wealthiest people in the area who are able to afford the fees, recently had a 'bag packing session' in Tesco's!

This private school also a registered charity although for the life of me, I can't think why. I certainly didn't donate and am scrutinizing every collector on the street or in the supermarkets before I give them anything.

It would be interesting to check to see if they publish accounts to the public domain?

OK I'll accept that, they should be a business (as service provider). So why then are they charities. To avoid tax? And why does the HSE have anything to do with how much the employees are paid? How can they dictate that, if it's a business or a charity what is it to the HSE how much people are paid.

Separately, if you are a charity, and therefor enjoy certain tax priviliges, then I guess the pay of the board etc should be open to public scrutiny as a result of the tax status. In any case if you receive public donations, people should be entitled to know how the money is being spent.

OK I'll accept that, they should be a business (as service provider). So why then are they charities. To avoid tax?

As far as I know, they become charities so that they put their hand out to the general public to collect more money. Maybe there is a tax issue too - not sure about that.

And why does the HSE have anything to do with how much the employees are paid? How can they dictate that, if it's a business or a charity what is it to the HSE how much people are paid.

Interesting question - so the HSE would obviously give lots of business to web developers, and painters, and lawyers, and wouldn't need to know the salaries of every employee in every contracting firm.

But in the case of these service providers, it is very likely that the HSE is the main provider of income to the business, possibly the only provider of commercial income to the business. So it is a much closer relationship than a traditional tendered contract. As the HSE is effectively paying the salaries, it has a legitimate right to see what it is paying, just like for public sector employees.

 

[Bronte]

As the HSE is effectively paying the salaries, it has a legitimate right to see what it is paying, just like for public sector employees.

I don't know the answer to that, but I guess if you receive state money that the state can dictate the terms.

As you probably know there was a landmark judgment yestereday in relation to a pupil and principal where it was deemed the Dept of Education were the employer because they paid the wages. Would that be the same then for the CRC and the HSE I wonder.

 

[Purple]

You're asking the right question, but heading in the wrong direction.

The real question is whether the CRC, and many other large service providers like Rehab, Brothers of Charity, Sisters of Charity, St Michael's House are really charities at all? These are very large businesses, and in many cases, they provide excellent services. There is nothing wrong with the HSE commissioning services from large businesses.

The problem arises when these large businesses masquerade as charities on the side, and put the hand out for extras from the public. There should be a division between service providers and disability lobbying or representative organisations.

If you want to be a service provider, you're a business. If you want to collect money, then by all means be a charity, collect money, commission whatever extra services you can, and publish your accounts openly and comply with the new charity Governance code.

But stop confusing the two.

Our local private primary school, whose pupils are the children of only the wealthiest people in the area who are able to afford the fees, recently had a 'bag packing session' in Tesco's!

This private school also a registered charity although for the life of me, I can't think why. I certainly didn't donate and am scrutinizing every collector on the street or in the supermarkets before I give them anything.

It should be remembered that if the services of the CRC, St Michaels House, Rehab etc., were all delivered directly by the state there would be a considerable extra financial burden on the state. Calling all of these bodies charities does muddy the waters. It would be better if the term "Not for profit organisation" was used.
The same applies to private schools; the state saves millions every year because parents choose to send their children to those schools. Remember that those parents already fund places in public schools for their children through their taxes so the net saving to the state is considerable.
Private health insurance is the same; it is a subsidy of the state by those who pay for the service.
Remove private schools, private healthcare, charities that deliver health related services etc. and the cost to the state runs into billions.