Following recent criticism of charities' campaigning activity by of politicians Andrew Hind argues that charities should be independent, but not neutral.
Meetings of the Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector are not usually occasions where national headlines are made, but all that changed at the Panel’s public evidence-gathering session last month.
For the last couple of years, the Panel – of which I am a member – has been charting the increasing difficulty many charities are experiencing in protecting their independence.
Gagging clauses in public service delivery contracts, a failure in many cases to follow the terms of the Compact, and growing criticism of the right of charities to campaign within the law, led the Panel to conclude in its most recent report that “the independence of the voluntary sector is undervalued and under threat”.
Graphic evidence of the pressure some charities are put under, when they voice truths which politicians find uncomfortable, was provided at the Panel’s June meeting by Chris Mould, chair of the Trussell Trust.
Last year his charity published research which showed that demand for the food banks it provides had tripled in 2012. Mould said that, as a consequence, he had been warned by an unnamed minister that his Trust would have to be very careful about what it said in future, otherwise “the government might try to shut you down”.
My colleague Alice Sharman covered the story for Civil Society News. It really resonated with our readers, being viewed by an unprecedented number of people within a couple of days. And our story was headlined by the national press the next day.
Coincidentally, Mould’s evidence was given on the same day as a new political attack on charity campaigning broke – this time involving a Conservative MP complaining to the Charity Commission about the temerity of Oxfam pointing out in its ‘Perfect Storm’ campaign that levels of food poverty in the UK are on the rise.
Most rational observers would conclude that a charity, like Oxfam, established to help “overcome poverty and suffering” should be doing exactly that. But to Conor Burns MP the campaign is “overtly political and aimed at the policies of the current government”.
It is tempting to dismiss Burns’ complaints as the actions of a publicity-hungry backbencher spying a chance for some easy profile. But the truth is that these attempts to bully and harass the Trussell Trust and Oxfam are part of a trend that has been apparent for some time.
Duty to speak out
Sector leaders, led by Sir Stephen Bubb, have defended charities’ right “to speak out on behalf of the people they serve” – indeed Bubb says, rightly, that they have a “duty” to do so.
It would be good to see the Charity Commission doing the same thing. After all, its guidance on campaigning (CC 9) is crystal clear.
It says: “It is right that charities should have a strong and assertive voice. Often they speak for those who are powerless, and cannot make their case themselves.” CC 9 goes on to confirm that: “Charities may undertake campaigning and political activity as a positive way of furthering their purposes.”
Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – one of the most effective campaigning organisations down the years – succinctly described the role charities should play in our society, when she wrote in this magazine a couple of years ago about her own charity’s mission: “We are independent, but we are not neutral: we are on the side of people in poverty.”
A civil society that is independent, but not neutral, is one of the keys to preserving any healthy democracy.
It’s about time that sensible politicians from all parties acknowledged that, by making it clear they support, and value, the right of charities to campaign for change. This bullying has to stop.
