Row flares over charity's fag funding

Controversy has been kindled over a leading disability charity’s choice of funding partner, with disabled people raising concerns at Leonard Cheshire Disability’s (LCD’s) decision to accept money from a tobacco company to fund an IT programme.

The charity said that the money from Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which owns brands including Camel, Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut, would enable it to continue to deliver its Discover IT programme in sites throughout the UK.

The programme provides mentoring and training opportunities, as well as opportunities for disabled adults to learn and gain new skills.

But one former LCD disabled employee said that she was “disgusted” and “horrified” at LCD’s partnership with JTI.

She said: “Tobacco companies do so much harm to people’s health and well-being that it’s hypocritical for an organisation that supports disabled people, some of whom are disabled by being smokers, to do this.”

She said she was concerned that some of the most marginalised service users who live in the charity’s residential care homes would not gain any benefit from the Discover IT programme.

An LCD service user said that she was “astounded” by the move, which she said was “unethical”.

She said she appreciated that charities like LCD were coming under increasing pressure to sustain services in harsh economic circumstances. But she said that LCD ought to prioritise the needs of residents of its care homes.

Another service user added that LCD should spend money to remove the fire hazards that mean that not all residents in the charity’s care homes can smoke in their rooms.

She said: “I think it would be a good thing if the money was used to improve things for service users who live in LCD’s homes rather than for people who do not.”

Andy Rickell, the Chief Executive of the disabled people’s organisation the Vassall Centre Trust and Disability Now columnist, said he could appreciate the pressure LCD would have faced because chief executives some­times face difficult ethical decisions when deciding whether to accept money from businesses wishing to gain kudos from an association with a high profile charity.

He said: “The issue is, would you take money from anyone under any circumstances, and if the answer is no, what are the circumstances when you wouldn’t?”

He added: “They need to challenge themselves about whether what they’re doing overall advances disabled people’s equality or whether the level of impairment that’s increased by people smoking overcomes any benefit they might be doing by running this project.”

Sunil Peck