There has been a great deal of publicity within the sector lately about the 'Lobbying Bill' and how it could affect the campaigning work of charities. In the run up to the Second Reading of the Bill the, Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons put out a call for evidence. I sent in the following email below.
To the members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
I write to you as the Chief Executive of Macc, the local support and development organisation which works with the 3000 voluntary and community sector groups in the city of Manchester.
Macc fully supports the representations made to the Committee by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). We believe strongly that the campaigning role of charities and community groups must not be eroded as a side effect of increasing transparency over corporate influence.,
To take up the smoking campaign example used by NCVO, suppose a political party agrees with the position of the charity and says so in its manifesto – must the charity then stop campaigning and potentially breach its charitable objects? Suppose the party manifesto actually names the charity as an influence? Would that not actually be a good thing from a democratic point of view? This bill would seem to regard it as something which requires close scrutiny but surely it is just part of the democratic process. The charity concerned will already be required by charity law to report on its expenditure so what is to be gained by placing further reporting requirements which can only create additional costs?
Community organisations from informal voluntary groups to large national and international charities need to be able to challenge politicians, ask difficult questions and say what they are seeing happening in communities around them. The ambiguities in this bill will leave many organisations uncertain over what they are allowed to say and when. There is already difficulty for the sector in establishing clear boundaries concerning campaigning on “political” issues. This bill does nothing to address them, rather it makes matters considerably more complex – again, for no discernible benefit. This will serve only to suppress the voices of organisations working to support some of the most marginalised and voiceless people in society. I cannot believe this is an intended consequence of the Bill.
I should also like to draw your attention to the local implications of these proposals: in areas where there is a virtually unshakeable party majority, it is only by influencing political processes that any kind of campaigning can be done. The learning and insight from community groups and charities needs to be able to influence the formation of policy, not just the implementation. All of this can and should be done openly and transparently and there is surely sufficient weight in the current body of charity law to enforce this.
I urge you to consider carefully, the history of charitable influence upon policymaking in this country: think of all the legislation and change which has been initiated as a result of the campaigning work of charities and this must be valued, not stifled. Some years ago, I was involved in supporting the patients and families of the older people who suffered mental and physical abuse on Rowan Ward. What change came about as a result of that was due to the campaigning approach taken by the relatives support group who banded together to air their concerns and demand answers at local, regional and national level. Their cause was taken up by politicians and issues of elder abuse subsequently appeared in party manifestos. Imagine having to tell that group that they were not allowed to spend more than a fixed amount of money before being accused of breaching the laws on lobbying. Could you do it?
I would ask you to reflect on the overlap with the Charities Act and find ways to protect the democratic right to challenge any institution (political or otherwise) of groups working on a not-for-profit basis for statutorily defined charitable objectives.
One final point: we have recently been meeting with groups to discuss democratic engagement of young people. What hope do we have of persuading them that political involvement is part of being an active member of society the Government is at the same time implementing legislation which stifles a key means of public debate? These campaigning groups are signs that democracy is alive and kicking and not just something we do on a Thursday every five years or so.
With best wishes
Mike Wild
I also sent this to all the Manchester MPs and a copy to NCVO to use in their briefings for MPs. This briefing and NCVO’s work on this issue is recorded on their website here: www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/news/ncvo/ncvo-takes-action-over-campaigning-rules
Macc will keep pressing on this as we believe it’s fundamental to the work of charities that we bear witness to what is happening in our communities. As well as taking action to drive social change, it’s our duty to speak out about what we’re seeing and try to influence decision makers.