Letter: Charities: dangers of separating campaigning from providing services
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Independent is right to regard the report produced by the Centre for Research and Innovation in Social Policy and Practice as posing a considerable threat to charities in Britain (leading article, 'Uncharitable proposals from the state', 13 October). The 'fingerprints of government' are all over it. But while the report suggests changes that pose a massive threat to the whole voluntary sector, the trend itself is not new; the Government has already moved a considerable way towards creating a 'contract culture'.
The idea of separating charitable work from 'campaigning' is itself a pernicious misreading of the role of the voluntary sector. It would be bad in principle and dangerous in practice. The creation of the contract culture has already led to a situation where too many charitable and voluntary groups are dependent on government money for their survival. In the last few years we have seen too many signs that ministers want to control and direct the voluntary sector.
In many cases, a voluntary organisation or charity is uniquely placed to comment on public and social policy because of the experience gained through providing a service. Examples are legion, but I would highlight three from my own experience.
Citizens Advice Bureaux see enormous numbers of people who come to them for advice because they are independent and staffed by dedicated volunteers. That gives them unique access to people with problems whose experience is rightly publicised under the second objective of the service, to inform public policy.
Disabled people, particularly those with a specific form of disability that affects small numbers of people, need vocal advocates as their needs are so often overlooked. A charity whose very existence is focused on their needs is best able to provide a service and to campaign on their behalf.
Carers and victims are just two groups whose needs are easily overlooked. Those who provide a service for them in the voluntary sector should not be prevented from campaigning on their behalf and highlighting their needs.
Labour's plea is that the Government recognises that, while campaigning from the voluntary sector will be uncomfortable when it focuses on the shortcomings of the approach of government, it should be welcomed as part of the price of living in a democracy and not stifled by the bureacruacy on grounds of cost-cutting.
Yours sincerely,
ALUN MICHAEL
MP for Cardiff South
and Penarth (Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
13 October
The writer is opposition spokesman on home affairs.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments