Back in 2006 the Labour government introduced the charities act, a piece of legislation which was far from revolutionary but was both necessary and remarkable, in that it was the first comprehensive charity legislation in over 100 years. The act consolidated other smaller laws, redefined ‘public benefit’, made appeals against the Charity Commission easier and reduced red tape, especially for smaller charities. At that time the Charity Commission warned, and it has since come to pass, that several parts of the act could not be implemented because they did not, even then, have the resources to take on the work.
That the commission is now struggling to maintain even its existing services to the third sector as the cuts bite should therefore raise no eyebrows. They are due to lose £8 million of their £29 million annual budget within four years. The most prominent consequence of the cuts, according to both the commission and the unions representing its workforce, will be that allegations of minor fraud in charities will go uninvestigated. Is that what the government wants? The alternative would be to refer cases that would previously have gone to the commission to the police – another service having to do more in future with fewer resources.
You pays your money – or otherwise – and you takes your choice.
The same campaign of Cabinet Office cutbacks will decimate (almost literally) the eight black and minority ethnic regional volunteering networks. Seven are likely to close as an average of just £50,000 each is taken from them. It would be great to hear that there was no need for these networks any more, that BME communities engaged, and engaged in mixed endeavours, as much as any other. But that is not why they are being terminated: proof of outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency are not even being sought. The axe is so sharp it will slice through any defence.
In DfID the situation is no better. The department that had its total spending ringfenced has cut back hard on spending within the UK, slashing both grants to development education and to volunteering projects in developing countries. I hardly dare mention local government where, for example, total closure of London Councils’ £26 million grants programme to voluntary sector bodies is likely.
No one denies that sails have to be trimmed nor that charities and voluntary bodies should be universally protected. Infrastructure bodies may not be sexy but they are essential to the working of society, ‘big’ or otherwise. ‘Slash and burn’ is the approach of a government that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Tom is only scratching at the surface of the issue. What is happening on the ground exposes the hypocrisy of the Big Society approach in an age of austerity and cuts. Whether or not the Charity Commission is able to continue its regulatory role (and there are many who have considered that in the past, it has barely been up to the job) is vastly secondary to whether many charities are able to continue at all. Cameron’s experience of how charities actually work is probably confined to the flower-hatted brigade who still dole out largesse to the deserving poor in rich rural Oxfordshire. In the real world, local charities at the cutting edge of service provision to disadvantaged communities are already experiencing devastating cuts as local authorities, egged on by Eric Pickles, are slashing their budgets for voluntary sector organisations. Not just grants, like those to local CABx and CVSs – although those are bad enough. Far more devastating is the attack on the billions in service delivery contracts – to the elderly, to people with learning difficulties, on education projects to marginalised groups, and the rest – that the local state has increasingly outsourced to charities to deliver. Those charities are now having to face closure, as the contract income from the public sector, and particularly from local authorities, dries up. They are the very same charities that Cameron expects will deliver his Big Society vision. Well, I’ve got news for him – they won’t be around to do it. And if he expects that they’ll do it for free – forget it. They are professional organisations, in the main staffed by professional (albeit underpaid) people. Make them redundant, remove the infrastructure that supports them, and they just won’t be there. Those staff have mortgages to pay too, so no doubt they will be looking for the jobs that the Tories are telling us the private sector will be providing to lead us out of the recession. Regrettably, there seems to be a deafening silence, from the PLP or the press (honourable exception, Guardian Society) about this huge gap in the Big Society vision. Charities themselves can’t campaign about this in an openly political way, but isn’t it about time that someone else did so on their behalf? This is my contribution to doing just that. John Burnell Director Personnel Solutions UK Ltd Provider of support services to the voluntary sector
Yes, John, in 400 words I am indeed only scratching the surface – but please look at my pervious columns for more. The Big Society concept does bring opportunities but I absolutely agree that the threats may be greater. Most damaging of all are the cuts to infrastructure: unless there are frameworks to service provision, ‘supply routes’ and measures to ensure the most disadvantaged don’t fall through holes in the network then the whole idea will fail, at huge cost. The largest element of infrastructure is, as you say, the local authorities who currently partner voluntary organisations in service delivery. If they can no longer do so and they expect volunteers to ‘go it alone’ then there is no way the Big Society can work.