'Women' dropped from WRVS in re-brand
20 May 2013
The WRVS, which mobilised women on the home front during World War II, has today dropped the reference...
Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you wish to restrict or block web browser cookies which are set on your device then you can do this through your browser settings, the Help function within your browser will tell you how.
Charities that rely on statutory funding should be listed as separate organisations to those that don’t, and should not be able to lobby against cuts, according to Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke.
Contributing to yesterday’s NCVO and Acevo panel discussion at the Conservative Party Conference, ‘Going quiet? Are charities being co-opted by the state’, Elphicke said: “I feel uncomfortable when a charity which is effectively outsourcing complains that they don’t want their business to be cut back. All they want is more public money. It is business protection campaigning. It would be better if the outsourcing side of charities was separate to the rest. The two have become too mixed and muddled. I don’t think it helps the third sector.”
Elphicke drew reference to news from Action for Children that it is to publish a list of cuts and their impact on young people to back up his point, saying: “The question this raises is why are they doing this? Is it because they want that money to be flowing to the voluntary sector?”
His comments rattled Dame Clare Tickell, chief executive of Action for Children, who was also on the panel. She responded: “There is a distinction between a self-interested campaign and between speaking out on young people and families. The [research] work we have done is on the impact of cuts on families. This is not about Action for Children, it’s about our families. I find it offensive that this would be seen as self-serving.
“Our mission is to meet the needs of disadvantaged people. I don’t believe anyone sits in government and thinks ‘we’re going to do terrible things to children’. But it is important we understand the consequences of decisions as they go down the chain. If we didn’t speak out about that we would not be an independent charity.”
The impact of funding cuts, both positive and negative, has been tracked by Action for Children since the Comprehensive Spending Review. The findings will be published on the anniversary of the CSR on 21 October.
Also speaking on the panel was leftwing commentator Polly Toynbee who accused charities of being “muzzled” and of not being vocal enough about the impact of government policies on vulnerable people.
She said the sector has a duty to speak up when the government does something that will have a negative impact or says something that isn’t true. Despite this she is “not hearing enough” from charities whose press releases on cuts and the impact of cuts seem “nervous” for fear of losing funding.
“If you don’t speak up, who else will? You have the evidence to say what is true and the trust to be believed. If core services that make a difference are being ripped out you need to say so instead of hoping you might hang onto what little bit of money you get. It is very often that it is charities that see most clearly what is happening. The public needs that voice.”
Carl Allen
5 Oct 2011
The underlying thrust of Elphicke question may that charities need to be more like business and less like civic/union bodies in their campaigning approaches e.g. engage in favours/gifts/donation to individual politicians and political parties.
Robert Beard
Policy Adviser, Improving Local Partnerships
NAVCA
4 Oct 2011
Prevention is better than cure. The work of Action for Children and many other charities is to improve the lives of disadvantaged and vulnerable people. While meeting immediate needs is essential, ultimately our aims are better achieved by addressing the causes of poverty and suffering. Establishing evidence of need must necessarily include informing decision makers (and the public) through the publication of research findings. Where presentation of the evidence fails to influence decision makers to change policies and practices that perpetuate unnecessary suffering, campaigning is entirely appropriate.
Ed
4 Oct 2011
All charities should be allowed to campaign on behalf of their clients.
However, those charities that do receive significant statutory funding shouldn't be too surprised if their independence is questioned - particularly when their campaigns happen to coincide with their funder's political outlook.
20 May 2013
The WRVS, which mobilised women on the home front during World War II, has today dropped the reference...
20 May 2013
Your CivilSociety rounds-up the most read stories from the previous week.
17 May 2013
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has called on the Department for International Development to...
20 May 2013
The Information Tribunal has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions must publish the names of...
20 May 2013
An impressive array of sector leaders turned out in all their finery on Saturday to attend the wedding...
20 May 2013
Peter Bennett-Jones has decided to step down as chairman of Comic Relief after 15 years at the helm.
20 May 2013
Your CivilSociety rounds-up the most read stories from the previous week.
17 May 2013
The voluntary sector should create a “data manifesto” that identifies who holds data about the sector...
16 May 2013
While management in the charity sector has changed significantly in the past few decades, a reluctance...
Carl Allen
5 Oct 2011
Elphicke's colleagues add injury to insult since DWP confirms that charities delivering DWP contracts may not release contract data i.e. they may neither campaign or contribute to campaigns.
[Reply]