The renewed Compact is vague and retracts commitments from the previous government to communicate and support the sector, according to the Commission for the Compact’s review of the document published yesterday.

The 'renewed' Compact, due for publication in November, is currently out for consultation and is a redrafting of the previous government's 'revised' Compact which was published in December 2009.

It was drawn up by Compact Voice together with the new coalition government and the Commission for the Compact was not involved.

In its submission, the Commission notes that the renewed Compact is “significantly weakened” by changes in several areas and that just 12 out of the 37 key principles are able to be complied with and monitored without amendment.

Six of the listed arrangements “cannot be complied with or monitored” and a further 19 require additional guidance or re-drafting for clarity, according to the Commission’s recommendations.

Speaking to Civil Society, the Commission for the Compact's head of policy Andy Forster outlined its three major concerns: no protection being offered to the sector from the spending review; the absence of commitments to small organisations, and a "complete lack of any mention of the Big Society".

Big Society absent from Compact

“One of the things we might have expected is a commitment to localism but the document as it stands makes no reference whatsoever to this and that seems a bit odd,” he said.

The Commission's analysis points to the removal of “some commitments which are significant and material". It reads:

"The renewed Compact removes all reference to supportive sector infrastructure. The new Compact simply commits government to ‘support’ the sector, with no indication of what that ‘support’ might be.

“We believe that this significantly weakens the commitments contained in the current Compact.”

‘Support’ is not the only term considered too vague by the Commission. It also notes that phrases such as ‘social value’ and ‘responsible campaigning’ are highly subjective and require further clarification.

Other key areas of collaboration between the government and the sector have been dropped entirely from the renewed Compact. A commitment to “inform the sector of progress in developing policy” and another to “remove barriers to consultation” have been removed.

Key removals from current Compact:

• Ensure third sector organisations likely to have a view are involved from the beginning
• Commitments to support the development of third sector infrastructure
• Any mention of sector infrastructure
• Accept cost recovery associated with volunteering
• Inform organisations of funding decisions at least 3 months in advance
• Make payments within ten days of invoice

Financial commitments have also been significantly rearranged under the renewed Compact. The Commission notes that while a commitment to a funding mix including grants and loans still remains, these commitments "seem to be exclusively focused on the delivery of contracted services". 

The Commission also notes that "it is difficult to see why a new Compact is needed" given that one of the main goals in the renewal was to limit the effects on civil society of funding cuts and the section dealing with this draws entirely from the existing Compact commitments in the previous draft. 

Commission for the Compact facing the axe

The Commission's comments are published following a recent story in the Telegraph which revealed the Commission for the Compact could itself be scrapped as one of 177 public service organisations facing the axe under government cuts. The Telegraph cited a leaked document listing all of the organisations set to be cut in a quango cull, due to be published tomorrow. 

Commenting on this possibility ahead of the document's release, Forster said: 

“Implementation and accountability mechanisms are the most important part of the Compact. We have to have clarity over who will ensure these mechanisms and accountability.

“We need an independent body for oversight and operation and this body must be charged with accountability and implementation.”