Lifestyle Economics Blog

The anti-sockpuppet clause

Having written several reports about state-funded activism for the Institute of Economic Affairs, it's pleasing to see the government acting on one of our recommendations. Two weeks ago, Matthew Hancock, the business minister, announced that government grants to external organisations, including charities, will henceforth include a clause prohibiting the funds from being used for campaigning, lobbying and advocacy. Many people will have been surprised to hear that such a basic stipulation was not already in the standard terms and conditions of government contracts, and yet parts of the third sector reacted as if this modest requirement was an existential threat.

Rob Wilson has provided a calm riposte to some of the more hysterical overreactions from state-funded charities and quangos, but a number of myths have begun to take root. A letter to David Cameron drafted by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations asserted that the new clause will ‘prohibit organisations in receipt of grant funding from influencing government or parliament’. This is simply not true. Charities will be as free as they have ever been to lobby and campaign with the money they raise from voluntary donations. It is only the money they receive from taxpayers via grants and contracts that will be restricted.

It is telling that the third sector’s trade associations have chosen to attack a straw man version of the government’s proposals rather than defend state-funded activism directly. Perhaps they are worried that the general public agrees with Matthew Hancock about ‘the farce of government lobbying government’. It doubt the average taxpayer thinks it is Orwellian to expect terms and conditions to be attached when their money is handed to private organisations. If we have learned anything from the Kids Company fiasco, it is that the government cannot carry on dishing out money to charities in the vague hope that it will be spent prudently. Money should be granted for specific services and those services should not include campaigning for pet political projects.

When government gives money to charities it is to commission specific services that the state would otherwise provide itself. It is not unreasonable to expect this money to be spent on those services, rather than on the pet political projects of the charity’s trustees. If a charity wants to run campaigns, start petitions, put up billboards or protest outside parliament, it should do what you or I would have to do and pay for it themselves.  

We have drifted into surreal territory when the refusal to subsidise a special interest group is portrayed as being tantamount to censorship. This is a sector that receives £13 billion from the state every year. If, as critics allege, the government is trying to punish or silence charities, it would simply withdraw funding from those it sees as ideological enemies. A more ruthless administration would surely have done so. Instead, it is setting a basic requirement that taxpayers’ money be spent on the public services taxpayers need, rather than on the public policies charity bosses want.

The notion that the new clause will ‘gag’ charities has already been disproven by Department for Communities and Local Government, which has had a virtually identical clause in its contracts for the last twelve months. Among the charities that have received grants under this revised contract is the homeless charity Shelter which, despite its millions of pounds of state funding, has continued to run prominent political campaigns such as its ‘Power to the Renters’ initiative.

Only in the extreme scenario of a charity that is entirely funded by the government would there be any meaningful restriction on political advocacy. In such instances, lobbying would inevitably be state-funded and would therefore be prohibited, but we might reasonably ask why such an organisation is registered as a charity if it is unable to attract any private donations at all. Such an organisation is, in practice, a government agency and should be viewed as such. In any case, charities of this kind are so rare as to be almost hypothetical. The vast majority of state-funded charities have private donations upon which to draw if they wish to campaign for a political cause.

Some of the arguments made by the big charities in the last fortnight week have been quite incoherent. On the one hand they insist that it is almost unheard of for charities to use public money for advocacy. On the other hand they claim that the new clause will be an unprecedented attack on free speech. Which is it? Each of these propositions cannot both be true. Either state-funded activism is rife, in which case it is about time the government put a stop to it, or it is extremely rare, in which case there is no reason to be concerned about an unwritten rule becoming a written rule. The ferocity of opposition coming from some quarters since the government made its announcement suggests that state-funded campaigning might be rather more common than anyone suspected.
 

Search

Christopher Snowdon
23 December 2015
The European Court of Justice has today ruled that minimum pricing for alcohol is illegal if less restrictive measures, such as tax rises, can serve the same purpose of reducing alcohol consumption....
Christopher Snowdon
17 December 2015
George Orwell defined ‘doublethink’ as the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time and to believe that both are true. For example, most of us are at least vaguely aware...
Christopher Snowdon
1 December 2015
A tax on sugar - and on sugary drinks in particular - has become a cornerstone of the campaign for tobacco-style regulation of the food supply. The arguments against such an intervention are now well...
Christopher Snowdon
24 November 2015
‘Everybody is drunk. Those who are not singing are sprawling. The sovereign people are in a beastly state.’ So reported the clergyman Sydney Smith after the 1830 Beer Act made it easier...
Christopher Snowdon
11 September 2015
Last night, I spoke by video link to Australia's 'Nanny State Enquiry'. These were my opening remarks... My hope is that the enquiry will do at least two things. Firstly, look at how much...
Christopher Snowdon
4 September 2015
It seems likelier than ever that the European Union will prevent Scotland and Ireland introducing minimum pricing for alcohol. The issue remains tied up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a...
Christopher Snowdon
3 September 2015
There is a persistent belief that drinkers are a burden on the British taxpayer. In the narrative of ‘Booze Britain’, Accident and Emergency departments do little else but patch up the...
Mark Littlewood
21 August 2015
The technological breakthrough of e-cigarettes has placed the medical establishment and taxpayer-funded public health advocates in a bit of a quandary.  The agreed strategy to date has been to...
Catherine Hakim
6 August 2015
Prostitution is often discussed as a moral issue. Social science offers another perspective. In particular the numerous sex surveys carried out around the world as a result of the AIDS scare led me...
Christopher Snowdon
20 May 2015
Do you remember the great booze scare of 2004-05? Think back, you must recall it. The prophecies of doom about ‘24 hour drinking’ were everywhere. Shortly before the Licensing Act came...
Christopher Snowdon
23 April 2015
As has been widely reported in the media today, an opinion piece in the British Journal of Sports Medicine seeks to overturn a mountain of evidence - and the laws of thermodynamics - with the claim...
Christopher Snowdon
8 April 2015
More evidence that taxes on sugary drinks are just glorified stealth taxes comes from the economist Marc L. Bellemare who has crunched the numbers and concluded that... "In the best-case...
Christopher Snowdon
12 March 2015
The Guardian reports today that 'Australians are ditching cigarettes at record levels' and says that the Australian Labour party 'attributes the decline in smoking to its plain packaging...
Christopher Snowdon
11 March 2015
There has been opposition from some charity representatives and MPs to the new clause in Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) contracts which prevents third parties using government...
Christopher Snowdon
24 February 2015
As Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles has long taken a principled stand against what he calls 'government lobbying government' and 'lobbying on the...
Christopher Snowdon
19 February 2015
This is the second in a series of blog posts analysing the results of a ComRes opinion poll, commissioned by the IEA,  looking at British attitudes towards 'public health' policies. The...
Christopher Snowdon
18 February 2015
This is the second in a series of blog posts analysing the results of a ComRes opinion poll, commissioned by the IEA,  looking at British attitudes towards 'public health' policies. The...
Christopher Snowdon
17 February 2015
ComRes recently conducted an opinion poll on behalf of the IEA to gauge British attitudes towards several ‘public health’ policies. The survey focused on economic levers such as ‘...
Christopher Snowdon
2 February 2015
Police in London have followed the lead of their counterparts in Norwich and Loughborough by forming a partnership with nightclub owners to breathalyse customers on the door. This initiative has been...
Stephanie Lis
23 January 2015
Last night we learned that the government plans to change the law to ensure that cigarettes are sold in plain packages. The ostensible goal of reducing the number of smokers may be well-intentioned,...

Invest in the IEA. We are the catalyst for changing consensus and influencing public debate.

Donate now

Thank you for
your support

Subscribe to
publications

Subscribe

eNEWSLETTER