What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Voluntary organisations claim they have endured “bullying... from senior political figures” for publicly speaking out against government policies and describe the opposition they've faced as “subtle and menacing”.

The situation is particularly difficult for charities which take government contracts to provide public services, something which has become more common under the current coalition government.

Gagging clauses included in these contracts have allegedly been used to stop organisations “speaking out or writing letters to magazines”.

A new report, produced by the National Coalition for Independent Action (NCIA), explains that voluntary organisations:

“Can be obliged to keep information or observations private even when their insights might help improve the service or conditions for local communities and individuals.”

Women’s organisations, community action groups and others say they have also received “direct threats” letting them know that if they “continue to campaign, funds would go elsewhere”.

But gagging clauses and threats to cancel contracts aren’t the only way charities say they have been intimidated into silence by people involved in politics.

Speaking anonymously, one group which does not seek government contracts claims it has experienced “bullying... on more than one occasion” from people it describes “significant political figures”:

“In private, one-to-one, [political figures] say: “be careful”. They have power... access to media organisations... they have money and connections. There were attempts to undermine people in our organisation.”

The Trussell Trust 'toned down' criticism of the benefit system after being told “the government might try to shut you down”

In March 2013, Chris Mould, chair of food bank charity the Trussell Trust, claims he was told in a face-to-face conversation with “someone in power” that he must think carefully about the organisation’s criticism of the UK benefits system, otherwise “the government might try to shut you down”.

(Image: Getty)

Mould says he has seen multiple examples of “people in power [doing] pretty inappropriate things at times to try and curb and curtail the independence of a voluntary organisation when it proves to be inconvenient to them”.

In 2011, he alleges he received a phone call from someone from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions' office in response to the publication of the Trussell Trust’s concerns about welfare benefits:

“Basically, to tell me that the boss was very angry with us because we were publishing the concerns we have over the rising number of people who were struggling as a consequence of delays and inefficiencies in the benefits system.”

Mould also spoke of “ongoing attempts to belittle the organisation” by the government, but says that a decision taken in 2005 to avoid seeking government funding means that the Trussell Trust is more able to resist government pressure than other organisations.

In 2014, Conservative MP Conor Burns reported Oxfam to the Charity Commission for tweeting about UK poverty

The charity revealed its ‘A Perfect Storm’ campaign, which was based on its ‘Below the Breadline’ report and pointed to particular government policies as contributing to poverty in the UK.

(Image: Oxfam)

It tweeted an image in the style of a movie poster, which read: “A Perfect Storm, starring: zero hour contracts, high prices, benefits cuts, unemployment childcare costs”.

Conor Burns MP argued that this was “overly political”.

The Charity Commission found that the tweet could be misconstrued as ‘party political’ but accepted that Oxfam hadn't intended to act in this way.

Oxfam, which receives a significant proportion of its income from government contracts, contended that:

“When increasing numbers of British people are surviving on food hand outs, we have a responsibility to draw attention to their plight."

Charities that were involved in campaigning against privatisation “two or three years earlier” would now find it “very difficult” to participate

An anonymous campaign group claims that certain voluntary organisations used to be more involved in its campaign against privatisation of social welfare services, even publicly so, “two or three years" ago.

It argues that involvement in tendering for government contracts has made it “very difficult” for some groups to “support a campaigning organisation” or to “oppose austerity locally”.

(Image: Getty)

A representative of the group explained:

“In our campaign [against outsourcing] - voluntary organisations were very nervous about saying anything which might compromise their ability to get funding... It has started to shift in the last few years.”

The campaigning organisation also argues that the current climate suppresses the ability of charities to get involved in policy debate even if they are not seeking government funding:

“If it’s political - it is seen as disturbing and not right - politics has replaced sex as the thing that can’t be named.”

The government's Charity Commission has declined to comment on the report, stating that the issues raised are outside of the department's remit. The Mirror has also contacted the office of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith but has not yet received a response.