Acevo has always been clear in discussions with Government that we do not believe charities should be covered by rules on Lobbyists. I'm glad this view has been listened to and we are not covered by the Lobbying Bill published yesterday.
Let's be clear; charities exist to promote the views and
interests of their beneficiaries. As part of this role we will campaign. We
will advocate on behalf of our communities. It’s core to the purpose of
charity. I do not accept that can be covered by the term “lobbying".
Clearly we need rules on lobbyists; those firms that are
hired for pay to push a view, such as Lynton Crosby's outfit. We need to know
how people like him- influential in government but making a profit out of
commercial lobbying, operate. They do so often behind closed doors. They often
pay people and do deals in an un-transparent way.
In contrast
charities are overt. Proud of their campaigns and their advocacy. You know
about them and who they are campaigning for. There is transparency about this
role. And there is a regulator to give advice and occasionally warnings if
campaigns stray into party political territory. We do not need another
regulator looking over our legitimate campaigning role.
We need to avoid being drawn into the same camp as
lobbyists. We need to avoid yet more red tape. Or worse, being drawn into a
regulatory scheme that might at some stage limit our ability to advocate on
behalf of our communities. Let's be clear; there are those who would like to
limit our ability to campaign. We must not give them tools to enable that to
happen.
1 comment:
The problem is the vast numbers of quangos and tax evading schemes allowed to masquerade as charities. You can spot them through the charity accounts listing pay over 60k and pensions statements, the scam being tax or ratepayer funded, rather than voluntary donations.
Post a Comment