Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2016-01-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): I completely share my hon. Friend’s view and am grateful for his supportive intervention Charities themselves have set out their concerns, including the fact that the scope of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is very broad. They are concerned that the legitimate day-to-day activities of charities and voluntary organisations that engage with public policy will be caught by the rules and that a number of regulated charities, voluntary organisations and other groups will be substantially affected. They feel that the Act is incredibly complex and unclear, and that it will be difficult for charities and other voluntary groups to understand whether any of their activities will be caught, giving rise to the risk that campaigning activity will be discouraged Charities also feel that the 2014 Act gives substantial discretion to the Electoral Commission, creating an unnecessary and burdensome regulatory regime and possibly leaving charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission open to legal challenge. The legal opinion provided to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations by election law experts suggested that the rules were so complex and unclear that they were "likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, putting small organisations and their trustees and directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern" The 2014 Act stopped charities campaigning—they say so themselves—and caused unnecessary cost and confusion, according to a report by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which looked at its effect on last year’s general election. Drawing on evidence from UK charities and campaign groups, the commission found that charities were faced with confusion about "the ambiguity of the definition of regulated activity." The commission states that as a result of that, "many activities aimed at raising awareness and generating discussion ahead of the election have not taken place." A representative of the World Wide Fund for Nature told the commission: "I think the Act has created an atmosphere of caution within parts of our sector. It has also wasted time in terms of analysis of it, explaining it to Trustees, staff etc. It is not…a piece of legislation we need." Greenpeace told the commission: "We were meant to be participating in a huge cross-NGO campaign, but all apart from a couple of the organisations ended up not campaigning during the general election period leaving us with not enough partners to run the campaign." The Salvation Army stated: "As we are not traditionally a campaigning charity we were not in danger of exceeding the top limit. However, we were wary of supporting causes that could be considered coalition campaigning because we felt the administrative cost would be excessive and we couldn’t control the level of spending." The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement also found that voluntary groups undertaking Government contracts regularly faced threats to remain silent on key Government policies. Many neglect to speak out on issues that are plaguing society, for fear of losing funding or inviting other unwelcome sanctions.