Over several decades I have had the privilege of being involved in a range of charities from small neighbourhood based organisations to large regional charities and even a few national charities. Throughout that time there has been a significant level of interest and support from law makers and civil servants at both a local and national level. The way in which this has been expressed has varied from occasional donations from MPs in the form of a bottle of House of Commons wine or whisky, signed and offered for a raffle, to invitations to receptions and meetings in Parliament and opportunities for charities to visit a Mayors Parlour or even No 10! Some MPs and Councillors and officers have also offered to become Trustees. The chance to bring supporters to Parliament helps to raise the profile of the charity which can attract support from potential donors and at the same time the opportunity to speak to law makers means that the work of the charities concerned can help reform the laws which have been created in a way that damages society. However it is not all good news. The news last week of the Presidents Club shows how sometimes big business leaders and MPs and even Ministers have used the good work of 21^st Century charities as a shield for their 18^th Century behaviour. This creates a dilemma for the charities concerned, as they are in a tough position to turn down funds that have been raised in a way that few people support, yet which would ultimately be used to do good for needy people and families. Whilst the charities concerned are grappling with these decisions and the Government is seeking to address the behaviour of the people who attended the last ever event organised by the Presidents Club which is itself currently a charity, there are other challenges impacting the charitable sector as they seek to walk a fine line in their objectives of serving good causes, but in a way that is not damaging to other people.

This is true in the work of Students Unions who the Government obliged to become charities due to the charity legislation. In calling on all charities to ensure that their work does not favour particular political causes, the recent demand placed on student unions to provide freedom of speech platforms is a very tough ask. It displays a total ignorance of the mess that various ‘unconnected’ laws are having on certain groups of people. One could argue that groups such as the Bullingdon Club in Oxford University which one assumes falls under the jurisdiction of their students union is deeply party political as is the existence of groups such as Socialist Societies and Conservative Clubs.

However returning to a the wider world of charities in general, in recent weeks the demands placed on the small number of very large charities to be taxed to generate £7.5m each year to help fund the Charity Commission is deeply troubling. The Government has chosen to let this pass this year, by providing an additional £5m from public funds for the work of the Commission. The Commission which is a Government Department currently has a budget of around £20m which is a drop of nearly a half from its running costs prior to the austerity cuts introduced nearly a decade ago. The idea that charities, albeit ones with an income of £5m upwards should have to shell out such sums has many disturbing connotations as does asking charities to fund Government departments. I recall a decision taken by the Labour Government in the period prior to the Olympics to ‘borrow’ £425m from the Big Lottery fund designed to fund charities. The Government was justifiably criticised by the Conservative opposition and as part of their response promised to repay this sum at the close of the games, believing that at that point they would have raised sums from the sale of some of the venues that the £425m paid for. To date the sums have not been repaid and if interest had been levied, the current Government would now owe the Big Lottery over £600m. Many charities now suspect that the Big Lottery will never see the £425m, let alone £600m but perhaps backbench MPs from all parties could point out what feels like a double theft. The interest on the £425m would cover around 25 years of the sum being called for by the Government to pay for its department! Occasionally the media profiles a thief stealing a charity box from a pub or shop and the response from readers is understandably one of anger. Perhaps the Government stealing such large sums from charities deserves an even tougher response!