This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/02/ministers-ditch-anti-lobbying-proposals-for-charities-and-universities

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ministers ditch anti-lobbying proposals for charities and universities Ministers ditch anti-lobbying proposals for charities and universities Ministers ditch anti-lobbying proposals for charities and universities
(about 2 hours later)
Ministers have dropped controversial plans to gag charities and universities as a condition of receiving public money after widespread alarm from academics and the voluntary sector.Ministers have dropped controversial plans to gag charities and universities as a condition of receiving public money after widespread alarm from academics and the voluntary sector.
The government announced the grant agreements plan without consultation in February, presenting the proposal as a ban on taxpayers’ funds being used for political lobbying. The government announced the “anti-advocacy clause” without consultation in February, presenting the proposal as a ban on taxpayers’ funds being used for political lobbying.
The move prompted a furious reaction from charities and scientists, who said it was an attempt to muzzle criticism from experts. Ministers responded by announcing a partial U-turn and now the idea has been abandoned altogether. The move prompted a furious reaction from charities and scientists, who said it was an attempt to muzzle criticism from experts on political issues from welfare reform to climate change. Ministers responded by announcing a partial U-turn and now the idea has been abandoned altogether.
Outlining its new standards on its £117bn annual grants budget, ministers said universities and charities could not use grants to pay for professional lobbyists, but they could continue to advise and inform government policy.Outlining its new standards on its £117bn annual grants budget, ministers said universities and charities could not use grants to pay for professional lobbyists, but they could continue to advise and inform government policy.
The original anti-lobbying proposals had prompted fears experts would be banned from advising ministers and MPs.The original anti-lobbying proposals had prompted fears experts would be banned from advising ministers and MPs.
The new guidance spells out that this is no longer the intention. It says: “The new approach includes clear guidance for research grant managers that activities such as responding to select committees and consultations are appropriate for inclusion in their research grant terms.” The new guidance spells out that this is no longer the intention, and reaffirms the right of charities to campaign. It says: “The new approach includes clear guidance for research grant managers that activities such as responding to select committees and consultations are appropriate for inclusion in their research grant terms.”
The original plans were “paused” in April before the universities minister, Jo Johnson, said they would not apply to academics.
A new grants advice panel will be set up to ensure grants are spent appropriately by recipients.
Charities see the latest move as the official demise of a policy that was already in tatters. In April, ministers bowed to intense pressure from scientists and academics by announcing that the clause would not be inserted into most academic research grants, effectively providing an exemption for universities.
Shortly afterwards the then cabinet office minister, Matthew Hancock, said the clause, which was due to be implemented from 1 May, was being “paused” while the government - which had not consulted on the policy beforehand - considered representations from the charity sector.
Announcing the full climbdown, Rob Wilson, minister for civil society, said the new system would “better protect the role of charities to speak out on behalf of their beneficiaries whilst ensuring taxpayers’ money is used as intended.”Announcing the full climbdown, Rob Wilson, minister for civil society, said the new system would “better protect the role of charities to speak out on behalf of their beneficiaries whilst ensuring taxpayers’ money is used as intended.”
Chris Skidmore, the minister for the constitution, said the standards had been developed “through a constructive and collaborative process”.Chris Skidmore, the minister for the constitution, said the standards had been developed “through a constructive and collaborative process”.
Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, welcomed the climbdown, which he said came after “robust” discussions with ministers.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations welcomed the climbdown as a “victory for democracy”. Its chief executive, Sir Stuart Etherington, said it came after “robust” discussions with ministers.
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who organised a petition against the original plan, said: “This looks like a promising climbdown by the Cabinet Office after several months of confusion, although I note that the details of today’s announcement have not yet been made available for scrutiny.”Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who organised a petition against the original plan, said: “This looks like a promising climbdown by the Cabinet Office after several months of confusion, although I note that the details of today’s announcement have not yet been made available for scrutiny.”
Ward called for an inquiry into how a rightwing thinktank persuaded the government to float the gagging idea. The anti-advocacy clause, which ministers claimed was introduced after extensive research, was based on three slim pamphlets published by the right-wing Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) thinktank. It argued that many charities were “sock puppets” effectively paid by government to justify the introduction of new policies.
He said: “The research community was shocked by the original proposal in February to prevent research grants from being used to inform policy-making, after the Cabinet Office was lobbied by the Institute of Economic Affairs. I am glad that the research community has petitioned and overturned the wrong-headed regulations. There should now be an inquiry into why the Cabinet Office drafted such poor regulations in response to a campaign by a group of free market fundamentalists who keep their sources of funding secret and whose research is nothing more than propaganda for their extreme ideological agenda.” But the clause was attacked and ridiculed by opposition politicians, charities and academics. The Labour MP Margaret Hodge, at the time the chair of the public accounts committee, said the clause “smelled of Stalinism”.
Ward called for an inquiry into how the thinktank persuaded the government to float the gagging idea.
He said: “The research community was shocked by the original proposal in February to prevent research grants from being used to inform policy making, after the Cabinet Office was lobbied by the IEA. I am glad that the research community has petitioned and overturned the wrong-headed regulations. There should now be an inquiry into why the Cabinet Office drafted such poor regulations in response to a campaign by a group of free market fundamentalists who keep their sources of funding secret and whose research is nothing more than propaganda for their extreme ideological agenda.”
In a blogpost on the change, Etherington said: “Our principal concern with the original clause was that it was counterproductive and would have meant grant-funded charities were unable to provide policymakers with crucial insight that improves legislation, regulation and public services. This fundamental flaw has been recognised by government and the new guidance is crystal clear in saying that activities such as raising issues with ministers and civil servants, responding to consultations and contributing to the general policy debate are not only permitted but actively welcomed.”In a blogpost on the change, Etherington said: “Our principal concern with the original clause was that it was counterproductive and would have meant grant-funded charities were unable to provide policymakers with crucial insight that improves legislation, regulation and public services. This fundamental flaw has been recognised by government and the new guidance is crystal clear in saying that activities such as raising issues with ministers and civil servants, responding to consultations and contributing to the general policy debate are not only permitted but actively welcomed.”