Charities fight sovereignty ‘gag’
Watchdog is accused of stifling debate with independence rules
SCOTTISH charities have issued a tersely worded rebuke to their own regulator over their involvement in campaigning over Scotland’s constitutional future.
The umbrella body the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) accused the regulator of overstepping its remit, stifling debate and sowing confusion.
Last month the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) issued draft guidelines suggesting charities could campaign in the referendum debate, but only in areas that helped their charitable aims, and warned that charities should be careful not to compromise their reputation.
But now, in response to the guidelines, the council has called for a rethink by the regulator.
It said it was vital charities represented voices not necessarily being heard in the debate, without being stifled by undue regulation.
The council said: “Campaigning activity will inevitably carry with it a reputational risk, as it puts charities in conflict with individuals and organisations that hold a different viewpoint.
“This is normal and charity trustees make this kind of judgment on a regular basis.
“Charities often take risks to benefit their members: this is a fundamental part of what being a charity is about.”
The council said the law has always let charities campaign as long as their own rules permit it, adding that it furthers the charity’s purposes and they do not promote a particular political party, the council said.
It added: “It is our view the draft guidance produced by OSCR goes beyond this simple position in a number of places. In doing so it exceeds OSCR’s statutory remit, makes unhelpful inferences and will not provide greater clarity for charities.”
Any guidance should not move into the territory of advising charities about the type of activity they should undertake, it said. “If the guidance is published in its current format it could cause confusion among charities, dissuade them from participating in an important debate, and contribute to a more risk-averse culture in the charitable sector.”
The council also claims the regulator has drafted its guidance without providing sound reasoning or legal justification and concludes: “The document must limit itself to what is permitted by
The constitutional debate will affect poverty and inequality … the third sector should be at the heart of these debates
the Charity Act. Risk and reputation are matters for consideration by charity trustees and do not fall under OSCR’s regulatory remit.”
John Downie, director of public affairs at the council, said OSCR should listen to the concerns of the sector: “Anything to do with the reputation and standing of an organisation is not a matter for OSRC but for the third-sector organisation themselves and their trustees,” he said. “A campaigning organisation is going to upset people – that is your job.”
He added: “The constitutional debate will affect issues such as poverty and inequality and the third sector should be at the heart of these debates. We want more debate, not less.”
OSCR chief executive David Robb said: “Charities can have an important part to play in the independence debate, and we want their voices to be heard.
“As a responsive, responsible regulator we are developing guidance to promote clarity, so charity trustees can participate in that debate within the requirements of charity law.”
He said the council’s response will be considered carefully as the guidance is finalised in the next few weeks.
In April 2012, SCVO chief executive Martin Sime was at the centre of claims he had become too close to the Scottish Government when a leaked email from First Minister Alex Salmond appeared to suggest Mr Sime help formulate an option for the referendum calling for more powers short of independence.