March 5, 2016 - 6:36 AM EST
Print Email Article Font Down Font Up
Outrage over charity chief’s ‘complicity’ in bid to limit voluntary sector lobbying

The chairman of the Charity Commission has been accused of actively helping a leading critic of charities who inspired a controversial new law curbing their activities.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that William Shawcross urged a trustee on his commission to meet Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market thinktank that receives funding from big tobacco and has taken money from at least two oil company giants in the past. Snowdon is the author of a 2012 discussion paper, Sock Puppets: How the Government Lobbies Itself and Why, which argued that government grants should not be used by charities to lobby politicians, as this meant that “government funds the lobbying of itself”.

IEA research was used by the government to justify a new “anti-advocacy clause” that will be inserted into all government grants for charities, prohibiting the money from being spent on lobbying.

Leaders of charities and voluntary organisations say Shawcross has been “active and complicit” in creating the clause, which they claim will allow corporations to influence public debate without opposition.

Emails shared with the Observer show that Shawcross asked a commission trustee, Professor Gwythian Prins, a climate change sceptic, to approach Snowdon to discuss the issue of charities lobbying the government.

In an email dated Tuesday, 7 May 2013, which carries the subject heading “Political campaigning”, Prins writes: “Dear Mr Snowdon, the chairman of the Charity Commission, upon whose board I shall shortly start to serve, has asked me to talk to you about matters of mutual interest. I shall be happy to do so … this issue is no flash in the pan.”

In subsequent emails the pair agree to meet. Snowdon shared some of his thoughts with Prins, saying that there were “some things the Charity Commission could do but I think most of the responsibility lies with the government. If you think the commission could do more, I would genuinely love to hear your suggestions.”

At his request, Snowdon sent Prins a copy of a follow-up report he wrote for the IEA about charities and lobbying. He also produced a third paper outlining further objections. The papers were crucial in determining government opinion.

The government press release announcing the new anti-advocacy clause stated: “The Institute of Economic Affairs has undertaken extensive research on so-called ‘sock puppets’, exposing the practice of taxpayers’ money given to pressure groups being diverted to fund lobbying rather than the good causes or public services.”

But in a letter to the prime minister, a number of leading charities and scientific groups warn “that the proposed guidance would prevent the use of funding to inform public policy”.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), has described the clause as “crazy”.

Health experts fear that big tobacco played a key role in lobbying for the clause’s insertion.

“We know the tobacco industry funds the IEA to do its dirty work and has been trying for years to undermine public health charities, ” said Anna Gilmore, professor of public health at the University of Bath and director of the Tobacco Control Research Group. “In other words, the IEA is the tobacco industry’s sock puppet here. This policy change will only serve to increase corporate influence while silencing those acting in the public interest.”

Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, urged Prins and Shawcross to clarify their roles “or risk having trust in the commission irreparably damaged”.

“Charity leaders, workers and volunteers will be shocked and alarmed by these revelations,” Bubb said. “The NCVO’s Sir Stuart Etherington described the anti-advocacy clause as ‘crazy’. I agree with him. Yet it is clear that Charity Commission board members, directed by the chair, William Shawcross, have been active and complicit in creating it alongside the Institute for Economic Affairs. Only those who are indifferent to, or ignorant of, the harm it will cause could have constructed such a measure; that this group appears to include those at the top of the charities regulator is a serious cause for concern.”

Labour MP Sir Kevin Barron has written to Shawcross, asking whether the commission should investigate the IEA. However, Stephanie Lis, head of communications at the IEA, which in the past has also taken money from Shell and BP, pointed out that the IEA did not receive any government funding, and nor had big tobacco firms contributed financially to the reports.

“We try to take every opportunity to impact public debate through reaching policymakers, opinion formers and the wider public, in line with our mission. There is nothing controversial about engaging with the Charity Commission regarding research on charities. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private,” she said.

A spokesman for the commission denied that it had been “involved in the development” of government policy. “As part of its duty to be a competent regulator, the Charity Commission, its staff and board members, regularly meet with interested parties who work in the same sector,” he said. “This includes charities and umbrella bodies across the spectrum. This work is a vital part of being a modern, effective, outward-looking regulator.”

Until 2012 Prins was a member of the academic advisory board at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a thinktank with charitable status that is sceptical about climate change. Following complaints about the foundation’s lobbying activities, the commission was urged to investigate. The commission spokesman said: “We have a case open into the charity and are engaging with the trustees.”

DISCLOSURE: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer


Source: Equities.com News (March 5, 2016 - 6:36 AM EST)

News by QuoteMedia
www.quotemedia.com

Legal Notice