Five (somewhat) answered questions on the anti-advocacy clause

NCVO met Cabinet Office officials in the grants efficiency team last week to raise questions about the scope and implementation of the anti-advocacy clause. While we are still waiting on a response to our joint letter to the Prime Minister, I hope this update may be (somewhat) helpful.

Cabinet Office answers to questions about the anti-advocacy clause

March 2016

  1. Who is going to be subject to the clause? Will it include grants from local authorities?

The clause is expected to apply to all central government grants and ring-fenced funds which are delivered by LAs on behalf of a government department. Where a LA or other public body has generated its own funds, it will not be required to implement the clause – although this would still be recommended as best practice.

  1. Who will be exempt from the clause? What will be the process for granting an exemption?

Very few exemptions are expected to be made. The Secretary of State for each department will be able to make exemptions, but departments will be required to report on each exemption to the Cabinet Office.

  1. What activities specifically will be regarded as ‘influencing’? Will non-grant funded staff be able to draw on insights/evidence gleaned from a grant-funded project?

The clause is not intended to prevent any specific activities. It states that unless it is specifically authorised by the terms of the grant, organisations must have other funding sources if they are to carry out lobbying or influencing activities.

Giving evidence to parliament at parliament’s request would not be seen as lobbying – but submitting written evidence proactively may be, if such activities were not in the original grant agreement. Organisations should consult their grant manager if in doubt.

The question of using evidence from a project depends on who owns the intellectual property.

  1. What evidence will charities need to demonstrate compliance? What assessment will be made of overhead contributions or partially funded posts?

No specific record-keeping is required as a result of this clause. The organisation needs to maintain records to show that it carried out the activities specified in the grant agreement with that funding.  If an allegation is made that the organisation used grant funding for lobbying then it could provide evidence of other sources of funding for activities not specified in the grant agreement.

  1. What process would a government department take if it considered there was a breach of the clause? Would organisations have right of appeal?

Departments will manage their grants in the usual ways and can claw back funds if they were not satisfied they were used for the activities specified in the grant agreement. There is no right of appeal specifically on this clause – which is no different than other grant terms and conditions.  But departments’ decisions may be subject to Judicial Review.

What do we make of these answers?

Let’s start with the positives: it’s helpful clarification that most LA grants will not be impacted by the clause. This will be welcome, given that much of the sector’s grant funding comes via local government.

However, these responses also reflect a limited understanding of the sector and the potential impact of the clause on organisations that are subject to it. They also prompt further points for clarification (I’m waiting for more on overhead contributions, for example). Our key areas of concern remain as follows.

It’s all a matter of interpretation

It strikes us as very difficult for charities to have to rely on the interpretation of different ministers (in whose gift it will be to grant exemptions) and officials (eg ‘consult your grants officer’ before submitting evidence to parliament).

Already we’ve heard of a situation in Whitehall where officials raised the prospect of discontinuing a ministerial policy forum, because some of the charities in the room wouldn’t be allowed to participate in future. This may have been an overzealous interpretation of the clause by officials, but such vagueness lends itself to this.

Under the circumstances, we are concerned that some charities may get the go-ahead to respond to a consultation, while others don’t. This would seem, at the very least, to be patently unfair. More significantly, it could mean parliament or government is unable to draw on the full range of evidence it needs. In another sphere, researchers have similarly asked what it would mean for some scientists to be ‘approved’ by government to influence them and others not.

The chilling effect on charities is likely to remain

The overall message this clause sends to charities is a negative one. It implies that government will take a critical view of any campaigning or lobbying activity and that you could risk losing your grant funding if a minister or official believes you have crossed a very vaguely drawn line about how it was to be spent.

Hence, as we’ve already heard, charities subject to the clause already are erring on the side of caution. We continue to believe that this clause will be counterproductive to government’s own aims by deterring charities from engaging in the policy process.

There are workability issues

With exemptions needing to be approved at ministerial level and then reported to the Cabinet Office, it could cause significant delays in decision-making about grants. Such delays are already a major headache for charities who are often left waiting (sometimes with staff at risk of redundancy) for individual LA or departmental budgets to be settled before their funding can be confirmed.

Meanwhile, other questions remain

  • What is the evidence base for this policy? Beyond its very visible references to the IEA ‘research’, the government has produced no evidence to support its case. In answers to written parliamentary questions, the government has also said it does not hold information on charities influencing and does not hold information on charities acting in breach of their grant agreements. Clearly there has been no impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of this policy at all.
  • Furthermore, it’s clear that individual ministers across Whitehall do know and value the input they receive from charities. For example, DfID secretary of state Justine Greening said so in a thoughtful speech last month. So why tie their hands with a blanket rule?

dfid speech

Most ministers and parliamentarians of all stripes welcome the informed insights of those with on-the-ground experience. This clause still says the opposite and should be dropped.


This entry was posted in Policy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Like this? Read more

Charlotte Ravenscroft Charlotte Ravenscroft was formerly NCVO’s head of policy and public services. Charlotte’s main policy interests are around funding, public service delivery, and strengthening the evidence base for voluntary action. She has previously worked at the Big Lottery Fund and the Department for Education.

6 Responses to Five (somewhat) answered questions on the anti-advocacy clause

  1. Charlotte Ravenscroft Charlotte Ravenscroft says:

    Further to the 5 questions above, I have received this further answer from Cabinet Office about what regard they will have to overhead contributions.

    “Where some grant funding is allocated to overheads that charge must be appropriate in size and justifiable in use. Grant recipients must ensure they can show what the grant funds are spent on – and that would be the case whether this clause existed or not.

    If concerns were raised that grant funding was being used for lobbying contrary to the grant terms and conditions, the recipient would have to show how the grant funding had been spent, and demonstrate that any lobbying activity was undertaken with other funds.”

  2. Martin Houghton-Brown says:

    The real chilling effect will be on smaller charities who have single interest areas and rely on a singular central funding stream especially national charities that do not have a local remit. These small national charities will not have the large turnover to justify speaking out for their constituents whereas larger charities with big voluntary income streams will. The effect will be that minority health, victim and community organisations will be stifled in representing their service users.

  3. Ray Kohn says:

    Perfectly obvious piece of legislation intended to further undermine the basis of our democracy where the network of smaller organisations with coalface experience well beyond anything within reach of government departments will be forced or frightened into silence.

  4. Adrian says:

    The way I’m reading it, is that they won’t countenance grant money being spent on purposes other than that which they granted it for (presumably if the grant is explicitly for lobbying… that would be OK) – but lobbying is still OK as long as you can prove that the money which funded it is not from a central government grant.

    So do you just need to raise funds from other quarters in order to lobby, and make sure it’s accounted for?

  5. Jo Ivens says:

    I think NCVO are spot on with their analysis here, but I suspect that the impact on small charities at a local level will be much more severe than they say. In part it depends on how the answers to Q1 in this post are interpreted on the ground (and it seems like much of that may be down to personal interpretation on the part of the official), but in reality it barely matters, as charities are so under the cosh that responsible trustees will likely take the ‘least worst’ route.

    If you have a range of services in your organisation, then you can’t risk them all because you have something really important to say about one of them. And the fragility of much of the small charity part of the sector is such that losing even 10-15% of your funding might mean curtains for the rest of the organisation.

    So we may fail our clients because we’re afraid to speak out; we’re seen as less effective, not getting the results; then we struggle to show our impact in funding bids or tenders; and the service is won by an alternative provider (possibly large, national, private…?) I’m doomsday scenario-ing, but I don’t think this is too far from what will happen if this clause goes ahead.

  6. Nick says:

    Thanks to NCVO for asking the questions and analysing the answers. If you are having a further round, a useful question might be: Does this apply to private businesses that receive government grants (