Last
July more than 200,000 protesters marched on Edinburgh to
demonstrate their concern about global poverty in front of
the leaders of the world’s eight richest nations, resulting
in one of the most visible displays of political lobbying
in a decade.
The huge turnout and level of public support meant that the
Make Poverty History campaign, the leading force behind the
event, became a truly powerful coalition in lobbying governments.
The campaign produced tangible results in the form of genuine
promises by governments which could be followed up on, and
for which those governments could be held to account.
As the turnout in Scotland anecdotally suggests, new figures
from third sector think tank nfpSynergy show that three in
five people support charities spending money on lobbying government,
with half ranking it the most cost effective charitable activity.
But unlike the Make Poverty History coalition, not all charities
have the same pulling power to lobby Parliament. Medium-sized
organisations do not always have a department dedicated to
lobbying, and struggle with a smaller budget.
In today’s media-driven political climate of sound bites
and podcasting, money spent on ineffective lobbying is money
wasted. Charities must target the right people and say the
right things to have a tangible impact on policy.
Rachael Christophedes, public affairs manager at disability
charity John Grooms, says there are common pitfalls to avoid
when engaging with politicians. Firstly, it is important to
be clear about what you want from an MP or policy maker.
“Charities generally want a touchy feely meeting and
want to build relationships. MPs find that very frustrating.
They want a one-sided brief,” she says. “You need
to be specific about exactly what it is you’re asking
a politician to do, rather than going in and presenting them
with a problem and no real solution.”
Comprehensive research is a must. If a charity cannot support
its assertions with evidence, its argument will hold little
weight when presented to MPs in the Commons. “It’s
very much down to the charity to thoroughly research the issue
and to have the statistics to back it up. That makes it very
easy for the politician to go and take the case on,”
Christophedes says.
An often missed opportunity is the party conference season,
she adds. Working with other charities fighting for the same
policy and legislative changes can help curb spiralling costs
and build new profitable relationships. Groups of organisations
can block-book rooms at the conference hotels, collaborating
to bring together a programme of themed events that have a
greater impact on time-poor MPs.
John Grooms and RADAR set up a coalition of disability organisations
called New Spirit to present a united front when the Disability
Discrimination Bill was drawn up. The organisations involved
came to a joint decision about the changes they wanted to
see made through the bill, and then lobbied MPs as a single
body representing the rights of disabled people.
Rather than ministers having to meet 20 groups, they instead
heard one coherent message from the disability sector. It
also created the opportunity for smaller charities within
the coalition that would not normally have direct access to
ministers to use their expertise to influence government.
Top
A direct approach
But perhaps the most effective way for a charity to make
its voice heard within Parliament is to work directly with
constituency MPs, identifying those problems or concerns
of constituents in line with the charity’s aims, and
finding ways to solve them.
Volunteering England teamed up with Diane Abbott, MP for
Hackney North and Stoke Newington, to lobby the government
over clearer guidelines on the payment of lunch expenses
for benefit recipients entering volunteering. Following
her intervention, the campaign was picked up by communities
minister Ed Miliband. Combined pressure forced the Department
for Work and Pensions to change their guidance, allowing
volunteers on benefit to claim back their lunch expenses.
Abbott, who tabled an early day motion on the matter, admits
it was the involvement of one of her constituents that encouraged
her to take up the issue. “I was approached by a constituent
and I think that’s a key thing – MPs usually
respond quicker and more positively to a constituent than
to a national organisation.”
She also emphasised the importance of thorough research
in lobbying, saying that charities were more likely to find
a political ally if they targeted the right people. “MPs
are attracted to causes that they have some personal experience
of. [They] are more responsive to being approached by the
public, including the voluntary sector.”
Abbott also says when MPs take up a cause they are keen
to see it through, so therefore cannot be expected to stand
as a figurehead for every charity’s lobbying campaign.
Best practice in lobbying is often set by the larger, better
resourced charities. Following their example is not always
helpful for organisations working within more restrained
parameters. “I wouldn’t encourage smaller charities
to bite off more than they can chew,” warns Dan Vale,
head of social policy at Citizens Advice. He says the political
climate has changed since 1997, and lobbying time is now
best spent putting together well researched evidence to
support argument.
“This government is the first to make a big deal out
of evidence-based policy,” Vale says. “There
is no turning back. What we saw for the previous 18 years
was a bourgeoning of rights-based campaigning and interest
group campaigning. The people who were our key targets were
often in opposition and had a rights-based agenda, and now
they’re in government.” The Media Trust now
advises charities to echo the language of the government,
using its own voice to press for change.
Vale says membership organisations find it easier to argue
their case because they can legitimately claim to represent
those that have signed up to their cause. But smaller charities,
often without diverse governance structures, must show an
“audit trail of representation” to prove they
know what they are talking about.
“If you can give a statistic, even if it’s extrapolated
from something that’s academically robust, then a
backbencher can ask a parliamentary question, which is something
they like to do all the time,” Vale confirms.
Occasionally, however, soft tactics yield unsatisfactory
results and a more robust approach is required. Age charities
have lobbied the government on mandatory retirement age
regulations for years, with minimal impact. Now, as the
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations go through Parliament,
Heyday is taking the government to the High Court.
Heyday is a new membership organisation supported by Age
Concern representing the over 50s. Spokesperson Michelle
Mitchell said Age Concern had been involved in the policy
discussions over retirement age since the regulations were
in their infancy, helping to shape the debate and responding
through the usual channels. “When a decision has been
made, if you’re in disagreement, you put a response
to the formal consultation and you lobby parliament,”
she affirms. “This issue has been running for many
years. Now the government have heard all the cases that
have been made but they still refuse to abolish the mandatory
retirement age.”
As all other lobbying methods have been exhausted, Mitchell
says, Heyday must step up the pressure by turning to the
legal system. Heyday is now waiting for a response from
the government, but warns it is not making empty threats
to raise the profile of both the new charity and its cause.
“The driver isn’t the headlines, the driver
is that it’s a key issue that affects people,”
Mitchell says. “They have got it wrong and they are
completely out of step with what people over 50 want.”
As a membership organisation, it has the voice of the public
on its side. But
as the government develops a tougher attitude towards policy
it may also suffer the consequences. Charities too are toughening
up, learning from one another which tactics work best, and
will use all the resources available to them to get their
message across. An organised gathering of 200,000 likeminded
people could soon be the least of the government’s
concerns when it comes to lobbying.
Case
study: the petition
Cancer Research UK is using the most simple
of lobbying tools to encourage ministers to think again
about provision of cancer care in the future – the
petition. The charity’s campaign, Cancer 2020, aims
to persuade the government that, without careful planning,
demand will outstrip supply for cancer care in the coming
years.
“It’s widely recognised that ministers urgently
need to start planning now if the progress achieved under
the NHS Cancer Plan is to be sustained. MPs, as well as
cancer charities, have been calling for a revised, updated
plan for some time now,” says campaigns manager Kevin
Shinkwin. “The missing piece of the jigsaw, which
our Cancer 2020 petition is already beginning to
provide, is the clear evidence that the public feels as
strongly as we do.”
Unlike a membership organisation, Cancer Research UK has
to prove that its arguments are supported by the public.
Shinkwin says the beauty of the simple petition is that
it enables campaigners to demonstrate this support quickly
and easily, especially through the charity’s website.
“Charities with a membership or supporter base can
find public campaigning a very effective tool for influencing
policy. For Cancer Research UK, this relatively new addition
to our lobbying activities has been enormously successful,”
he says.
Top
|
