William Shawcross, chair of the Charity Commission, has said that the recent guidance to charities on the EU referendum results from “our considered assessment of the law in this area” and is “undoubtedly correct in law” (Charity watchdog chair rejects EU referendum ‘gagging’ claim, 11 March).
My experience as a former board member of the commission suggests, however, that although case law creates important parameters, it leaves very wide scope for interpretation and emphasis. The commission cannot hide behind objective legalities and must bring to bear its own vision of what is in the public interest.
Nothing could demonstrate this more clearly than the contrast between the commission’s guidance and that of its Scottish sister body the OSCR, based on the same legal principles. While the commission’s guidance is negative and repressive, the OSCR’s is positive and supportive of charities’ contribution. While the commission’s is laced with threats, the OSCR’s has none. While the commission’s is poorly drafted and in tension with its own official guidance on political activity, the OSCR’s is clear and consistent with previous guidance.
Because the commission guidance reflects a flawed vision, in contrast to the prime minister’s explicit invitation to charities to contribute their expertise to the debate, it is likely to be no more effective than the commission was in the 1980s when it tried to discourage charities from campaigning about the causes of social ills or expressing views on apartheid.
Andrew Purkis
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
