had been taken ‘entirely on the advice of civil service officials’.27
Hancock’s proposal raised the hackles of the voluntary sector as rarely seen before. Sir Stuart Etherington, then chief executive of the NCVO, said it amounted to charities being required to “take a vow of silence”. It was potentially more damaging than the Lobbying Act, he said, because it was a matter of policy rather than legislation, and therefore more difficult to challenge.28 “That’s why you have to draw a line in the sand, because otherwise it might become more problematic – these guys aren’t going to stop on this issue,” he told a conference.
The fear among charities was that the proposal would prevent organisations in receipt of government funding from taking part in what they regarded as normal activities beneficial to all concerned, such as raising policy questions, hosting visits by MPs, presenting research findings to Parliament or contributing to the general policy debate.29 An intensive backroom struggle with the Cabinet Office went on for several months and culminated with a threat by the NCVO to initiate a judicial review of the policy.
This prompted the government to back down, to the extent that the proposal was revised and more carefully worded.30 The new guidance still prohibited paid-for lobbying and ‘undue’ attempts to influence policy using government funding, and some sector bodies, such as the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action (Navca), remained suspicious of it. Crucially, however, it allowed for what the sector regarded as ‘legitimate influencing activity’ and the change was regarded by Etherington as a victory:31
Our principal concern with the original clause was that it was counterproductive and would have meant grant-funded charities were unable to provide policy-makers with crucial insight that improves legislation, regulation and public services. This fundamental flaw has been recognised by government and the new guidance is crystal clear in saying that activities such as raising issues with ministers and civil servants, responding to consultations and contributing to the general policy debate are not only permitted but actively welcomed.
Successes despite restrictions
In summary, then, campaigning has been, and seems likely to continue to be, something of a minefield for charities. But relatively few charities choose to get deeply involved in sustained campaigning, especially on the national political stage; in the words of Gwythian Prins quoted at the start of this chapter, most of them more or less stick to their knitting, in the sense that they are involved exclusively in uncontroversial community, philanthropic or relief work in the UK and abroad. But the minority that do campaign persistently, or are involved in a mixture of relief work and campaigning, depending on current circumstances in their area of concern, are constantly under scrutiny, susceptible to challenge by politicians, censure by the regulator or legal restrictions. Governments since 2010 have, when pressed, acknowledged the importance of the campaigning role of charities in principle, but the record suggests that they were simultaneously inclined to restrict it. Some campaigning organisations, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International, have chosen over time not to be charities in order to avoid the restrictions, or have been denied charitable status by the Charity Commission. Some of them have set up subsidiary charitable arms to provide education and research, follow other permitted charitable purposes or raise funds.
Whatever the recent arguments about charity campaigning, however, the fact remains that many beneficial changes in the law in the late 20th and early 21st centuries were the result of charity campaigns – some lasting for years – in alliance with sympathetic parliamentarians. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the Consumers’ Association, for example, both campaigned successfully to make it compulsory for people to wear seatbelts in cars from 1983; RoSPA and the road safety charity Brake were also involved in the campaign to ban drivers from using mobile phones from 2003. Kidney Care UK was involved in the introduction of the kidney donor card, the precursor to modern donor cards, in 1971; a coalition of charities including the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Children’s Burns Trust were behind the change to building regulations in 2010 that made it compulsory to fit thermostatic mixer taps in new bathrooms; and a coalition of charities including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Keep Britain Tidy, the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage helped to bring in the tax on plastic bags in England in 2015.
Whether they are charities or not, campaigning organisations are the part of the wider voluntary sector that forms the awkward squad – dissenting, protesting and fighting for their beliefs by political and other means. Sir Stephen Bubb, former chief executive of Acevo and founder of the think-tank Charity Futures, argued in a lecture in 2017 that campaigning has been an essential function of charities and other voluntary organisations in the modern era:32
“The last 50 years have confirmed the role of charity and civil society in driving change and campaigning against injustice. We can all point to the campaigns that we like, or indeed don’t. The diversity of the sector is demonstrated in such crusading. The Countryside Alliance wants foxhunting back while the RSPCA and many others do not. Looking at many of the major social advances of later years, it’s been relentless and effective charity action that has delivered, from clean beaches and protected woodland, to mandatory seat belts and no smoking in public buildings, access to abortion, gay rights, disability … On a plethora of issues, charity lobbying has driven public sentiment and government reaction.”
The next four parts of this book illustrate and analyse the work of charities under four headings, including ‘Improving lives and communities’, ‘A junior partner in the welfare state?’ and ‘Preserving the past, preparing for the future’. But the first of them – ‘Changing the world’ – uses detailed case studies to amplify the subject of this chapter: campaigning.
One of the incidental effects of the coronavirus crisis was to lift obesity high up the public health agenda. Charities and medical royal colleges in the UK had been campaigning for years for measures to reduce consumption of salt, sugar and fat, especially by children, but had achieved only limited results. The biggest breakthrough had come in 2016, when the government introduced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, which taxed producers of drinks that contained more than 5 grams of sugar per 100 millilitres. When it came into effect two years later, a minister – making use of a calculation by CRUK – acknowledged that teenagers consume ‘nearly a bathtub of sugary drinks each year’.1 The campaign had been led by Sustain, a charity that runs a variety of projects to improve food and farming, backed by the chef and food writer Jamie Oliver. Once the tax came in, however, campaigners felt that any further measures were being kicked into the long grass by the government.
All that changed after the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, emerged in April 2020 from intensive care after a battle with COVID-19. Doctors were already becoming aware that obesity was a factor in the disease, and on 25 July Public Health England issued a report saying ‘people with Covid-19 who are living with overweight or obesity, compared with those of a healthy weight, are at increased risk of serious Covid-19 complications and death’.2 Two days later the government announced new measures to combat obesity, including a ban on TV and online advertising before 9 pm of foods high in fat, sugar and salt.3 The announcement was accompanied by an interview with Johnson saying he had been “way overweight … I was too fat”.
The
