Challenging notions of a “Big Society”
CSM’s Chair, Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, wrote the Labour Party’s policy for building a new relationship between Government and the Voluntary Sector in advance of the 1997 election, and as Deputy Home Secretary after Labour came to power he started the ‘Compact’ process, which continues to this day. Here he challenges David Cameron’s attempt to nationalise Civil Society.
David Cameron has been spending a lot of time defending his ideas about how individuals and communities should volunteer to fill the gaps created by the present round of spending cuts. It's an interesting response to two criticisms - that the "Big Society" idea is vague and imprecise, and that it's a bit cheeky to be calling for more from voluntary organisations when they appear to be taking a disproportionate “hit” from local spending cuts across the country.
Both of these criticisms are valid, but I have three more fundamental objections to Cameron’s approach.
First, in his speech introducing his concept of the “Big Society”, he muddled the idea of “voluntarism” with the idea of “localism”. I’ve worked at empowering local communities for decades – but Cameron’s idea of localism has nothing to do with that. In particular, his idea that planning decisions could be taken by people right down at street level is simply “delegation of blame”. I've had enough experience of local planning disputes to know that there is a real need for independent and objective decision-making. These are often very difficult decisions and passions run very high at times so this approach looks to me like abrogating them responsibility of government to make sure that decisions are made fairly and objectively – and that the weak are heard as well as the strong. It has nothing to do with the need to strengthen local communities or the need to persuade people to volunteer in their local community.
Second, it looks very odd for a prime minister who claims to be against “big government” to be dictating from the centre how people ought to get engaged at a local community level. In fact it makes Cameron’s “Big Society” look very much like “Big Government”. Rather than putting faith in local people in local communities, Cameron is trying to tell them what to do. And his savage cuts in expenditure have already led to Liverpool City Council saying that they could no longer join in the Big Society initiative. Cuts that are implemented too fast and which are going to deep are not just economically illiterate – in particular they threaten the fragile recovery which we started to see as a result of Labour’s more balanced approach – but they put an enormous burden on local and community organisations.
But my third objection to Cameron’s approach goes far deeper. He simply does not understand the real nature of the voluntary and community sector – or “Civil Society” as it is often referred to – which is that it is not driven by profit and financial considerations. It is driven by values signed up to personally and independently by individuals, not by values dictated by any government – whatever its colour.
This isn’t a partisan point. When the Labour Government came up with the concept of the “Third Sector” I agreed with the approach but I didn’t like the name and I thought it was important for the sector make its own (collective) mind up about the new approach. So I accepted an invitation to chair a conference of all the leading organisations to ask “what is the Third Sector ?” After two days it turned out that the response to the question “what do we have in common?” was that “we are all value-driven organisations”.
That sounds a bit trite – but then we went on to ask whether the organisations are driven by the same values - or are there a variety of values, held at random by different groups ? We decided to ask whether there are values that are held in common across the whole sector, and to be honest I thought this might turn out to be a waste of time. I feared that we might – at best - merely agree on “motherhood and apple pie”. In fact we identified some very powerful values which are held in common across organisations from community groups to major charities, from cooperatives to faith groups, and from housing associations to trades unions. These are principles such as independence, respect, social justice, empowerment and so on. What made our statement so powerful was the extent of agreement across the sector and the equally powerful statement that “it’s for us to define our values and our purposes – that’s not the job of government.”
And that is the absolutely crucial point of principle : The sector is independent so while the Labour Government took an important initiative in starting to talk about a “Third Sector”, it was for that sector itself to define itself. That was respected by a series of Third Sector Ministers – including Ed Miliband, Phil Hope, Kevin Brennan and Angela Smith.
So my advice to David Cameron is that he shouldn’t react to criticism by making even more speeches and hectoring “civil society” about what they should be doing or demanding that they accept his ideas. Listening is the best way to find out how Government and Civil Society can work together – and he might find the experience quite exciting. I say that as someone who has worked for and with the voluntary sector almost all my adult life. On a personal level I have done what I can to further causes that are close to my heart, and as an MP I have actively worked to support charities that can have a wonderful impact on society. But it is not enough for the Government to simply declare its belief in the voluntary sector : There must be structures in place to facilitate the relationship and to nurture the sector, and it is vital for an understanding of the sector to be embedded in Whitehall.
For example, there are services that charities can provide far better than the Government. Citizen’s Advice is probably the best example. Giving people advice on their problems before their need ‘help’, to make a very subtle distinction, is one of the most efficient ways a Government can spend money. And it is one of the things that is being cut so savagely at present just when it is sorely needed. Frankly, people need help to deal with the current round of cuts, and we won’t make any real savings by getting rid of that help.
But there are hundreds of other examples too. Services for children and families are not just better delivered by many voluntary organisations such as Barnardo’s and Action for Children. Their community workers are often closer to families and more trusted precisely because they are not “The Authority” – people who are sometimes feared by those who need help most because they might swoop in and take the children away. A voluntary organisation isn’t better or worse than a local authority team, but it does often have a totally different role.
The set of values identified by that powerful group from across the sector a few years ago wasn’t just an academic exercise : It was tested and endorsed by the membership of each of the constituent bodies. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) took the draft through its policy-making process. So did Co-operatives UK. And NAVCA (the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which represents a myriad of local support organisations across England and Wales) staged a major debate at its AGM to test out the “values statement”. It was formally endorsed by the TUC and other organisations.
And for me the sector as a whole is the communal answer to the question “Who is my neighbour?”. And you can’t get a more important question than that.........................
So I attach below the full statement together with the powerful list or organisations that endorsed it as a statement.
Another problem with is that David Cameron’s concept of a “Big Society” is that he appears to want to own it. His concept looks increasingly like a quick headline and smells like a curate’s egg. He has said some things with which few would disagree and others with which many would disagree passionately. And that makes it vitally important to emphasise the independence of the sector and to use different language to describe it. Personally I think that “Civil Society” is the most attractive and practical title. Ministers can hardly object since that’s the title they have given to their team in the Cabinet Office. And we should all stick to our endorsement of “volunteering” as crucial to a healthy society. Indeed in 1997 I said that “Volunteering is the essential act of citizenship” and I stand by that statement now.
The job of Government is to respect and nurture the sector, to respect its independence, and to listen both to the sector’s experience of communities and individuals up and down the country and to its own explanation of its value and priorities. And I am pleased that the Government has decided to keep the “Compact” which I established in 1997 and which seeks to balance the power of the Government’s machinery with the more fragile and under-resourced representation of the sector.
Ministers of all Governments tend to lose sight of the importance of respect for the Voluntary Sector – and in fairness some voluntary organisations need to refresh their organisation and to be aware of the danger of forgetting that the price of independence is to maintain a laser-like focus on delivering high-quality services, constant attention to core ideals and charitable objects, and being open and accountable in the public’s gaze.
None of this is easy but it certainly is important. The problem with the title “Third Sector” is that it measures Civil Society only in comparison with the Private Sector and the Public Sector .............. but it’s not merely the third largest section of the economy it is also the glue that binds society together. That makes the focus on values and independence absolutely central, and that’s what is reflected by calling it “Civil Society”.
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP
18th February 2011
Third sector values and principles
The following document, drawn up by a range of Civil Society’ organisations and endorsed through their separate governance structures, was a response to Labour’s creation of the Office of the Third Sector, whose first Minister was Ed Miliband – and is in effect the Sector’s own definition of its ‘mission’.
The third sector encompasses a wide range of organisations, undertaking different types of activity, but sharing a common desire to make a positive difference to society. Characteristic of the sector is a commitment to the following values and principles:
Independence: embodying people's right to associate and organise to help themselves and others, independently of the state.
Social justice: making a difference and promoting lasting social, environmental and economic change, for example through: different ways of doing business; campaigning; giving people a voice in the community and in the workplace; and through valuing volunteers and the paid workforce by striving towards best practice terms and conditions, good HR and training and development.
Diversity, dignity and respect: recognising and celebrating diversity and viewing this as a strength, both in relation to society and to the sector; promoting social inclusion and equality of opportunity by reaching out to, and engaging with, the most disadvantaged and excluded communities.
Participation and empowerment: enabling people to participate in their community and places of work; give their time and money to causes they care about; have a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives, collectively and individually; and greater control over their local economy.
Collective wealth creation and social entrepreneurship: using surpluses to further social objectives; investing in human and social capital.
Responsiveness: providing quality goods and services (including support and advocacy) in response to people's needs.
Accountability: achieving our mission; being transparent and accountable to our users, members and/or beneficiaries.
Sustainability: working towards sustainable economic and community development, for example through economic regeneration; developing people's skills and capacities; and building social capital within and between communities.
It is these principles and values that drive the work of third sector organisations, not government and not shareholder value or personal profit. Therefore whilst other sectors may share these values, they are not the driving force that they are for the third sector.
Signed on behalf of the Third Sector Network by:
- Stuart Etherington, NCVO
- Pauline Green, Co-operatives UK
- Peter Hunt, Mutuo
- Jane Greenoak, National Housing Federation
- Jonathan Bland, Social Enterprise Coalition
- Brendan Barber, Trades Union Congress
- Stephen Bubb, acevo
- Jeremy Crook, Black Training and Enterprise Group
- Lindsay Boswell, Institute of Fundraising
- Kevin Curley, NAVCA
- Christopher Spence, Volunteering England
- Alun Michael MP, Chair of Third Sector Network
|
