The 'Pickles gag'

That was the way Paul Burstow MP described the news about the DCLG grant condition to prevent the third sector's advocacy role, when he spoke at our health and social care conference today. The Times carried this story front page today.

It’s clear that the idea of banning charities from campaigning, if they get government grants, offends the principle of the independence of the sector. But it is also bad for Government in developing evidence-based policy. Bad laws are made when governments fail to take account of the evidence from the front line of public services - whoever is delivering them. For several centuries charities have brought their lived experience to policy making and campaigned for change. Take smoking, seat belts in cars, sugar and salt in food as just four examples.

Simon Stevens made a similar point in his keynote address to our health conference. The 'creative tension' that our sector brings is very important to them as they develop better services.

Let's hope this is just a Pickles one-off. I'm a fan of Eric so I'm relying on him to see that this is silly idea and drop it. It's a problem we will increasingly face as the election campaign continues and gets more frenetic - the charity sector being seen as a political punchbag. But, if that’s to be the case, then we’ll be robust in our repose. I’ll certainly continue to be so. Speaking truth to power is not just a pretty slogan. It's how we achieve what we do. 

Charities speak for their beneficiaries, never for political parties.

A recent story in the Times, and picked up by the Daily Mail, highlights the attempts by the Charity Commission to make us declare spend on political campaigning.

It has been roundly criticised across the sector and I trust the Commission will now drop these proposals. We would be very happy to discuss with the Commission how we , as a sector,  can make our accounting more transparent and work with them on the trend towards impact reporting which demonstrates to the public the impact of their donations.

It's impact that matters , not the sterile reporting of where money is spent. This is where we can tell the story of what we do with the money we receive , whether from government contracts or from the public or corporate donors. We should have a common position with the regulator on how we tell that story – but unfortunately we have got divisive proposals that add more red tape at best and at worst make us suspicious that the real purpose of the Commission is ideological not regulatory.

When prominent members of the Commission are publicly quoted criticising our essential role in campaigning then it is hardly surprising we suspect the intentions of these proposals. Let’s hope that the many submissions that have been made to them will bear fruit and a rethink in how we do this.

Meanwhile let me reproduce the letter I wrote to the Times yesterday which makes our case concisely.

Sir, Stephen Pollard (Aug 26) suggests that charities’ campaigning is partisan, and that they are not transparent. For centuries charities have spoken out against injustice and suffering. In law, charities have a duty to work to alleviate the problems they tackle, and to try to prevent them arising at all. Charity law reflects this by allowing them to speak out on “political” issues in line with their mission.

The Charity Commission recently proposed requiring charities to declare how much they spend on “political campaigning”. A drive toward greater transparency is good for charities and good for society — and most if not all are working to be highly transparent.

However, the attempt to separate “political” campaigning from their other work is at best illogical. At worst, it panders to an infantilised debate that gives the false impression that campaigning is an optional extra to a charity’s work with beneficiaries.

Charity campaigning may be political but this does not make it partisan. Those in power are entitled to object to what is said, but not to charities’ right to say it. Charities speak for their beneficiaries, never for political parties.

The commission’s proposals must be seen in the context of the government’s Lobbying Act and of other attacks on civil society’s right to speak truth to power. It is no surprise that charity leaders speak out in defence of their beneficiaries. We should be glad of it. Society and our democracy would certainly be poorer if charities were muzzled.

Sir Stephen Bubb

Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

The public still trusts charities - but the Commission should pull its socks up

Today the Charity Commission published new research looking at the public’s trust in charities, carried out by Ipsos MORI. It’s more positive than this week’s similar polling from nfpSynergy  In both cases, despite the warning signs, I think it’s important to credit charity leaders, trustees and volunteers for maintaining such high, continued public trust.

The new research found once again that charities are very highly trusted by the general public - only doctors and the police are trusted more. 

It raised important questions over the importance of good financial management by charities - more people picked this out as important to their reputation. It also showed fewer people trust charities to work independently (62%, compared to 68% in 2010).

And perhaps more worryingly, the proportion who would be more confident in a charity providing a public service than another type of service provider fell from 25% in 2012 to 20% this year.

But let us remember that charities are working in the most difficult operating environment for many years, under pressure on all sides from funders, local and national government and from rising frontline demand. All things considered, I think it is surprising that the level of public trust is so resilient. We must not be complacent but it is encouraging all the same. I recall the findings of another Ipsos MORI survey from January this year which pointed not only to high public trust in our sector, but also to the fact that more people thought we ought to be campaigning to change public policy (32%) than thought we currently are doing so (24%). So in fact we should be expanding our advocacy role rather than merely defending it against those who disagree with what we say.

The survey poses tough questions, too, for the Charity Commission itself. They will have new powers and new energy at the top with the appointment of Paula Sussex as their Chief Executive. It will be her job to ensure that the Commission improves its performance, defends our sector’s integrity and avoids oppressive over-regulation. The Commission needs to pull its socks up and become the effective regulator and support that our sector needs - and the public demands. Let’s see what happens...