Ian Allsop takes issue with some hardy perennials that seem to keep cropping up in the charity garden.

I've said it before and – appropriately, given what is about to follow – I will say it again. There are some debates that seem to be eternal, prompting a sense that we have heard it all before.

Even the now-former Charity Commission head, Sam Younger, picked up on this last month when he said there was too much duplication in the voluntary sector, but I think he was actually talking about the number of charities rather than excessive repetition of debates about things such as duplication.

And I suppose if you have spent four years having to count how many organisations you are supposed to be regulating, with dwindling resources, you might want the Register of Charities trimmed back a bit.

Too many charities

Too many charities is certainly one of those discussions which continually crop up, although not usually from the angle I would take.

Yes, there are too many charities – because as a developed economy we really shouldn’t have to rely so heavily on them to address society’s ills. But no one wants to hear my naïve, liberal take on things when I could be getting stuck into the Justice Secretary again, which I might well do in a minute.

Other hardy perennials are high admin costs, ethical investment, CEO pay and trustee remuneration.

These are all important issues and the fact we seem to have been having the same dialogue for decades shows how complex they are to resolve. But it does mean I find myself duplicating my own previous responses when writing about stuff, not least because I cannot always remember if I have covered them before.

One thing I do know I have mused on previously is MPs (predominantly Conservative) failing to make a distinction between overt party-political campaigning and charities pointing out social problems – which it is well within their objects to do, but unfortunately it makes politicians look bad.

So it was good of Conor Burns MP to, well, duplicate the approach taken by many other fellow parliamentarians (who I highlighted in this column a couple of months back) when he complained about a tweet Oxfam sent about food poverty. One (I am sure unintended) consequence of his decision to complain was a great deal of free publicity for Oxfam’s campaign.

The other risk you take when attacking something with high public approval – like Oxfam – is that people start to dig into your own past. Now I wouldn’t dream of doing something like that (though I think you can guess what type of education Burns had) but I will just say that at least his response to campaigners he disagrees with has mellowed in the last 20 years. Writing a brusque, but measured, missive to the regulator is a great deal better than when Burns stood unsuccessfully in the 1994 Southampton council elections and is alleged to have referred to hecklers as “spastics”.

And now onto Grayling. I won’t duplicate libelling him here (again, see previous columns), but I can’t let his grandiosely-titled Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism (all terms that could be applied to Chris) Bill go unremarked on.

Doing the right thing

Aside from using the unfortunate term “slaying” in relation to health and safety, Grayling thinks that often people who are doing the right thing in society feel constrained by the fear of ending up facing a lawsuit for negligence.

He wants simple protections for those people who act in the interests of society – responsibly or heroically – and for the courts to take into account whether people have been trying to do the right thing or not. To hell with such trifling matters as the law.

While it is well-intentioned that charities and volunteers should not be sued when things go wrong – which is just as well seeing how Grayling is cutting legal aid – is it just me, or is he sending the message that it is fine to not organise things properly and safely if you are not organising them properly and safely for the right reason? It’s OK to do bad if you meant to do good.

In conclusion, I’ve said it before and, appropriately, given what I have just penned, I will say it again.

There are some debates that seem to be eternal, prompting a sense that we have heard it all before.

Ian Allsop is a freelance editor and journalist, and regular contributor to Charity Finance.