Summary
Charity in the UK is big business. There are over 165,000 charities registered with the Charity Commission, and the total annual income of the sector is more than £100 billion. But what should they be allowed to spend their money on? The government has just announced that charities which receive state grants will not be allowed to spend any of that tax payers cash on political campaigning. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has described the change as "draconian" and will amount to "gagging" them. There is a lot at stake. Charities get £13 billion pounds a year from national or local government. Figures from the National Audit Office show that that money makes up well over a half of the annual income of many well-known charities. Being a prophetic witness has always been a key aspect of what charities do. Campaigning and political activity is a vital part of that, but should it be funded by us the taxpayer, whether by direct grants or via the tax breaks that are part of charitable status. Or do we need to rethink our definition of what is and isn't a charity? If public schools can qualify for charitable status, why not campaigning groups like "Liberty"? With headlines about aggressive fund raising tactics of some organisations, the charity halo has become somewhat tarnished in recent times. But do we have an outdated "Lady Bountiful" view of what charities are for? If we want our charities to make a difference is it time to accept that they need to apply all the modern commercial tools you'd expect from such a large industry. Or, in their rush for influence and impact, have charities lost site of the personal relationships, responsibilities and trust that lie at the heart of altruism? What should charity be for? Chaired by Michael Buerk with Michael Portillo, Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses are Andy Benson, Debra Allcock-Tyler, Christopher Snowdon and Craig Bennett.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | You're listening to a programme from BBC Radio 4. |
| 0:03.7 | Good evening. Not so long ago, Britain's charities could do no wrong, widely admired and morally impregnable. |
| 0:09.2 | But their sanctity has slipped lately. In rapid succession, they've been criticised for aggressive and expensive fundraising, |
| 0:15.3 | for doing dodgy deals with big business, for selling their donors' data and paying paying their executive six-figure salaries. |
| 0:21.7 | This week, it's for playing politics with taxpayers' money. The government said that it's going |
| 0:26.1 | to stop them using government grants for political lobbying and campaigning. Some charities say |
| 0:31.2 | they're being silenced. The charity sector's huge. 165,000 registered charities in England and Wales. Most are small and |
| 0:39.3 | rely on voluntary contributions, but many of the big ones, Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian |
| 0:43.7 | Aid, for instance, get big chunks of government money. It adds up to £13 billion a year. |
| 0:50.0 | And many of those charities have been spending part of their income on campaigns. Oxfam's perfect storm ads attacking austerity policies, cancer research on junk food, tobacco packaging and the price of alcohol, for instance. |
| 1:02.1 | They say they should take on cause as well as consequence. |
| 1:05.6 | Critics say they've become politicised. |
| 1:08.0 | Ministers say government money shouldn't be used to lobby government. It all raises |
| 1:13.0 | fundamental questions about charity. What conditions should there be on how they use their money, |
| 1:17.7 | particularly government grants? Is lobbying and campaigning central to their purpose or a distraction |
| 1:23.1 | from it? Has selfless altruism turned into just another business, complete with dubious practices, |
| 1:29.3 | corrosive competition and fat cat executive pay? Above all, what should a charity be and what is it for? |
| 1:36.9 | That's our moral maze tonight. Our panel, Anne McElvoy, senior editor at The Economist, |
| 1:40.7 | the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo, Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA, and the Anglican Priest and Poremesist, Charles Fraser. |
| 1:48.8 | Matthew Taylor, the RSA is a charity, isn't it? |
| 1:50.9 | Should you be declaring an interest? |
| 1:53.2 | Well, I'm interested in the topic, and I think the RSA is fiercely politically independent, |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of BBC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.