In a nation full of enormous inequalities, the decision by the Government to subsume the website for the Charity Commission into GOV.UK is hardly a significant act. There will be no fewer people queuing at food banks, no more homeless people housed. Equally this change won’t make poverty greater or ignorance deeper. With a Chairman like William Shawcross who I have written about previously, the Commission is almost bound to do the bidding of its paymaster, bearing in mind how deeply embedded he is in the establishment of this country.

The problem for you and I is that we need a commission that is as willing to challenge the poor behaviour of a small number of charities that do misbehave as it is to challenge rather incoherent and dishonest statements by a small number of our elected representatives. Thankfully Brooks Newmark MP, the Government Minister responsible for the Governments relationship with charities has rowed back from his own intemperate and provocative comments about charities needing to return to their knitting. I wrote about his comments here. However in a debate in Parliament on Wednesday, the Conservative hawk when it comes to attacking charities, Charlie Elphicke MP for Dover asked about the policy regarding charities. Mr Newmark explained carefully that charities cannot involve themselves in party politics. It is of no surprise to any of us that the rules prevent this and as Mr Newmark has suggested, at least 162,837 of the registered charities do not get involved in Party Politics. He has not to my knowledge named the 160 or so charities that he believes are so involved! Mr Elphicke was not finished and so he returned to the subject with this statement

“Does the Minister nevertheless agree that it would be right to return to the Charity Commission guidance of 2004, which ensured that charities focused on social justice and helping people in need on the front line, not on big marketing budgets and playing party politics?”

The phrase used by Mr Elphicke ‘big marketing budgets’ is understood by himself and Mr Newmark to be code for lobbying activity. The response from Mr Newmark makes this clear. This is Parliamentary hyperbole and it forms part of Mr Elphickes ongoing insidious attack on charities, intended for the few non politicians listening or reading. Few charities have marketing budgets and any expenditure by charities is tested first by the Trustees and then examined by the regulator. However many charities are responsible for lobbying in their work. Most of it is not something that takes place at a national level or involves politicians at all. Examples include when housing charities support tenants to get an improvement to their homes, or food related charities try to reduce waste and increase the supply of food to people on low incomes. Politicians may never need the services of a charity personally, and men of power and influence will never need the advocacy of a charity. They may however find charitable activity uncomfortable if they would prefer a world in which they, and they alone choose what should change and when. Charities must be allowed to raise questions about why injured ex-servicemen are not supported in an appropriate manner by the Governments that send them to war, they need to be encouraged to challenge Governments over decisions taken regarding the Chagos Islands and the need to house the evicted Chagossions. I could go on and on!

We need a charitable sector which is regulated in a fair and non party political way. It is vital that the charitable sector has a regulator that is well funded and fit for its purpose. Various consultations have explored if the funding for the Commission should come from the sector itself. I don’t believe that is sustainable or indeed what donors expect from their funds, any more than most of them would tolerate incursions into the Party Political area. The decisions by this Government to substantially cut the funding and capacity of our regulator, at a time when charities are seen to be more vital due to budget cuts is perverse. Putting the Charity Commission website into the Government web portal is a mistake and I am fundementally opposed to it.