Volunteering an opinion

Charity Finance

March 2008

Back to Press coverage

The early part of the year has seen a strong focus on volunteering. Joe Saxton’s nfpSynergy recently published research confirming that despite much government activity to boost volunteering, levels have been flat since 2003. Aware of this, 18 months ago the government responded in the way it does best by forming a commission – for which there never seems to be a problem recruiting volunteers.

I have always had a negative view of the value of such commissions, probably stemming from GCSE history, where when studying the Kennedy assassination we learnt about the Warren Commission, which in the face of all reasonable evidence concluded that the President was killed by a lone volunteer taking direct action. Therefore I set off to an event announcing the findings of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering in the Jubilee Room at the House of Commons hoping it wasn’t going to be such a whitewash but would actually have some positive answers.

I remember the excitement I got as a young lad, visiting London and going to the houses of parliament, where the sheer weight of the history of the place was overwhelming.That has been slightly tempered since by the realisation that not all of that history has been positive, but it is still an impressive place. I imagine taking my own children there one day and explaining in hushed tones: “It’s over there that the tortured question of public benefit was debated during the passage of the Charities Bill through parliament in 2006. Of course, back then Chancellor Miliband was just a humble third sector minister.” Upon arrival at the packed room, it was clear that the commission had not been idle, producing six publications totalling over 300 pages, so the half an hour allocated for speeches was only ever going to scratch the surface. The meatiest comments came from the commission’s chair and government volunteering champion, Baroness Julia Neuberger – the kind of woman that the word formidable was invented for. She talked about volunteering being part of the DNA of society, but lamented that while many are willing and able to volunteer, they are stifled by red tape.

This problem was best illustrated last month when the press gleefully picked up the story of the pancake race in Ripon that was cancelled due to onerous health and safety requirements, and a lack of volunteers to carry out the necessary procedures. And sub-editors everywhere rubbed their hands excitedly at the prospect of “pancake race falls flat” headlines.

There might be another more basic reason why some people don’t volunteer. I had a conversation with someone recently who said they had always meant to get more involved with charities but were too lazy. Mind you, they also admitted that despite wanting to be a journalist since the age of ten they were too lazy to read a daily newspaper. And unfortunately for them, these comments were made during a job interview.

Neuberger urged the government to resist developing any more new initiatives, but to support volunteering by adopting a position of non-interference. Instead, she said it should do all it can to remove barriers, provide additional financial support, and address training needs. Or to put it another way, interfere.

A variety of other speakers gave their tuppenorth, including a well intentioned example of utopian whimsy from Justin Davis Smith, newly appointed chief executive of Volunteering England. He recalled the words of social activist Michael young, who described the first half of the twentieth century as the age of mass production, and the second half the age of mass consumption. Wouldn it be great, mused Justin, if the first half of the present century came to be known as the “age of volunteering”. While it’s a nice idea, I’ll volunteer an opinion here. It won’t.

The slick format left no time for any direct questioning though networking was encouraged over refreshments that included some functional canapés. I had a fascinating chat with an Arabic translator representing a Cornish swimming club, beset by the sort of bureaucracy and risk obsession referred to earlier. He was there, he said, to ensure the views of the little man were heard. As chief executive of the Charity Commission Andrew Hind passed us, this chap seized his opportunity to buttonhole the regulator. “What are you doing to help the little man?” he boomed, towering over both of us. Hind diplomatically said the right things and escaped soon after. The little man looked down at me quizzically, hope shining in his eyes. “Do you suppose he will do anything to help us? Do you think he will listen?”

While clearly the powers that be cannot intervene in each individual case, it was refreshing that this gentleman had made the trip to London to be involved, and testament to the fact that while more could be done, there is a wealth of volunteering already. If the commission’s hard work is to achieve more than just six dust-gathering reports, then the little men – and women – need to be heard.

Back to Press coverage