While Nick Hurd is supportive of the sector, the government's lobbying bill and judicial review proposals highlight the limits of his influence, says Andrew Hind.
What are we to make of the mixed messages coming from the government in recent weeks about the role and value of the charity sector?
The Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley, introduced the lobbying bill in July and immediately unleashed universal protest from charities across the spectrum – from the Countryside Alliance to the Howard League for Penal Reform – all condemning the fact that the bill would dramatically limit their ability to speak out on issues affecting their charitable objectives.
Nick Hurd, the minister for civil society, gave only lukewarm support to the sector when he remarked, in answer to a parliamentary question, that campaigning is “an entirely legitimate activity for charities” and that the bill will not affect the sector’s ability to continue with this part of its role.
Despite concessions from Lansley following the protests, sector leaders continue to believe that more needs to be done to meet charities’ concern.
Another government proposal, which has received less publicity but which could have an even more pernicious effect on charitable activity, is Chris Grayling’s proposed changes to the judicial review process.
The Justice Secretary consulted early in the summer – for a mere six weeks, thus breaking the Compact’s minimum of 12 weeks – on proposals to withdraw funding for judicial review in many situations where charities, on behalf of service users, would previously have launched a legal challenge to a decision made by the state.
Shelter, for instance, has said that the proposed changes would severely curtail its ability to use judicial review to stop destitute families ending up on the street.
The suspicion that these proposals expose an underlying hostility to the sector among some senior figures in the government appeared to be confirmed when Chris Grayling made a remarkable attack on charities last month in the Daily Mail, while defending his proposals. “Judicial review is not a promotional tool for countless left-wing campaigners,” he stated.
Genesis of the lobbying bill?
Perhaps this helps explain where the provisions in the lobbying bill sprang from so suddenly?
Nick Hurd needs urgently to engage with the Justice Secretary before his plans are confirmed later in the autumn.
Hurd did, however, do a pretty good job last month in ensuring that the government response to Lord Hodgson’s review of the Charities Act 2006 was largely sensible and supportive of the sector’s role. Here, at last, we found real support for charity campaigning with the decision not to make any change to the current rules, in order to “protect charities’ independence and their important campaigning and advocacy roles”.
The commitment to look into a system of fines for charities that are late filing their accounts is also welcome; particularly because the government made it clear that the motivation for such a regime would be to improve compliance and build public trust, rather than to generate funds for the Charity Commission (the parlous state of the Commission’s finances needs a fundamental review, not tinkering at the margins).
It was also good to see the government confirm that the voluntary system of trusteeship remains central to the sector’s ethos.
Nick Hurd appears to me to be genuine in his intent to help build a stronger sector; but it seems that too many big beasts among his government colleagues are not hearing his message.
The current party conference season would be a good time for leading members of the government to put that right. But don’t hold your breath about it.
