This month, ahead of elections across the UK in May, David Holdsworth reiterated that he would not let the Charity Commission “be dragged into complaints that seek to weaponise the legitimate work of charities”. This reassurance from the regulator’s chief executive will be welcome to many charities – but it is only half of the picture.
In 2021, following the Runnymede Trust’s criticism of a report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, ministers and MPs were publicly slating the charity. One MP described it as pursuing a “weird, woke agenda”.
After a five-month long investigation, the Charity Commission ultimately agreed that the Runnymede Trust’s actions were in line with advancing its mission to promote racial equality, and did not amount to unlawful political activity. Even so, the episode attracted disproportionate attention, seemingly calibrated to send a clear message to the wider sector: stay in your lane and keep your head down.
We are living in an era of growing polarisation where proposals for social change are frequently dismissed as “woke” or “partisan” by their opponents – particularly in the areas most contested in the so-called culture wars. It can feel like charities risk censure if they look beyond addressing the symptoms of societal problems to advocate for more fundamental change.
Between an often hostile media narrative, stretched budgets and little appetite to bring on the need for urgent crisis management work, and the burden of regulatory scrutiny triggered by politicised complaints, people across civil society find themselves unsure how far they can go in advocacy – often effectively self-censoring.
Individual criticism
This nervousness will be exacerbated by one section of the commission’s latest blogpost, which suggests that charities must never criticise individual politicians. While personal character attacks on politicians might sometimes be perceived as revealing a party-political bias, increasing polarisation means that it could sometimes be appropriate to criticise an individual politician for taking up a policy position which runs counter to a charity’s mission.
This latest guidance does, however, offer significant reassurance that it will not allow itself to be weaponised. This commitment must continue to be implemented across the commission’s regulatory work.
The sector needs the commission not just to be an independent and impartial regulator, but also a staunch defender of its ability to speak up – and prompt and public resolution to misguided or even baseless complaints will be welcome.
Focus on your mission
Despite its perceived restrictions, the law provides a lot of scope for speaking outside of charities’ operational or strategic “bread and butter”, provided that they are grounded in their charitable purposes. Charity law requires that all assets – including staff time, social media feeds, and branding – must be used solely to further the organisation’s constitutional mission.
The Charity Commission generally defers to trustees to determine how best to further their mission, but it’s helpful for them to document this rationale to protect their organisation in the event of a challenge. This is particularly important in areas that might become controversial, or where the link between a charity’s work and its mission might not be immediately obvious to those not working in its space.
A charity with an environmental mission can of course comment on economic or foreign policies if it considers that they impact the environment. Meanwhile, a charity with a racial justice mission might have a domestic focus in its work, but still find it appropriate to comment on the climate crisis, and its impact on racial minorities. A health charity might well comment on the impact of fiscal policy on communities affected by poverty, and the intersection health and financial stability. In each case, the charity might go further, committing significant resource to developing policy in these areas, and campaigning for a change in law or public policy. To make the link between a charity’s objects clear to the public – and the regulator – you can use inclusive narratives, drawing a line between the charity’s purposes and the content in your public-facing communications, as well as internal decision-making records.
An organisation may also choose to speak out on issues where the link is less direct, such as posting about LGBT Pride, Black History Month, a national sporting event, or national or international current affairs – as long as it is confident that doing so furthers its mission. This could be as part of fostering a positive environment for staff and volunteers, or engaging with the public and wider stakeholders through social media platforms. These uses of a charity’s voice will often engage minimal amounts of a charity’s resources – a post on social media, or attaching the charity’s name to an open letter – and are less likely to warrant inclusion of a political ask.
But charities must maintain their independence by never publicly supporting or opposing a specific political party or candidate, and take care to consider how their actions might be perceived. While charities may choose not to commit any meaningful resources to working with parties whose policies are fundamentally opposed to their mission, they should generally aim for balanced engagement across the spectrum.
Joint responsibility
When a charity is attacked merely for speaking up, others can stand with them on the basis that the right to campaign for the public good must be protected for everyone. This happened when more than 90 sector leaders spoke out defending the Runnymede Trust’s actions, and again when 150 lawyers and refugee charities reported being “pressured into silence” late last year.
Ultimately, it is our joint responsibility to keep the space for advocacy open. By grounding work in evidence, documenting decisions, and standing together when one organisation is targeted, the sector can ensure that the voices of those it stands for and with can continue to be heard. Showing solidarity is not just a moral choice; it is a strategic necessity to protect the future of the UK’s thriving civil society.
Suhan Rajkumar is a partner specialising in charity and campaigning law at Bates Wells and a charity trustee
Related articles
