Disability Charities Forced To Sign Non-Disparagement Clauses

[Kromovaracun]

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/charities-delivering-dwps-work-programme-must-promise-not-to-attack-mcvey/

Leading disability charities involved in the 'Work and Health' programme have been obliged to sign contracts in which they are prevented from "harming the reputation" or "undermining public confidence" in the DWP or indeed from "attracting adverse publicity."

Is this a bad thing for government accountability? Or indeed freedom of speech?

[youngmafbog]

If they are involved in the Work for Health program then they need to be on side.

If they wish to snipe at the DWP then dont participate in the program.

This is no different to policies most private companies operate.

[Kromovaracun]

Governments are not private companies, ymb. They are accountable in ways that companies are not, and they have fundamentally different responsibilities.

What do you mean "on side"? These clauses are sufficiently vaguely worded ("harming the reputation" "undermining public confidence") as to essentially function like gag orders.

I think you're making excuses for some very sinister behaviour.

[Mamyalynne]

The Charities concerned can surely take dissatisfaction to those higher up rather than burdening those they are trying to help within the scheme.

[douglas9401]

If the department behaves in a fair, humane and civilised manner there will be no need for adverse publicity.

Good luck with that though.

[bednobs]

essentially the govt are paying them and the govt are their "boss" i think it's reasonable to expect employees not to badmouth their bosses (in public at least)

[Kromovaracun]

Again, though, the government is not a company and should not be expected to act like one. Not least in a policy area dealing with extremely vulnerable people where this particular government has a very bad record. Imagine (for the sake of argument) if Labour hired a bunch antisemitism charities to assist in a new policy to combat it, but forced them to sign vague clauses like this which prevented anyone from exposing wrongdoing.

I actually find it concerning that people seem to think it's acceptable to sacrifice accountability of the state and freedom of speech for political reasons.

[woofgang]

I am in two minds about this. Actually I think its a bit of a redundant move.....I mean if a charity was to find out something explosive, what is to stop them just leaving the program and going public anyway? I can see that if the DWP are going to work with charities, they may consider its a good idea to try to protect themselves against loose cannon activity....we are back to volunteers again....and having the organisations sign such an undertaking may focus the thoughts of the charities bosses on controlling any dissident element within the charity.

[Old_Geezer]

Whilst involving themselves in attacks are not charity work, it seems an abuse of power to put a clause in like that. Seems to me there is a difference between legitimate criticism and attack, and I suspect this will be used/abused, as in some other countries, to ensure no speaking out against government/authority whatever they say/do.

[youngmafbog]

I disagree with you Krom.

An yes I know Governments are not private companies - I didnt say they were did I?

If they wish to undermine initiatives then certainly that is their prerogative, but not from within. Leave and then do whatever they want.

Otherwise you end up with politically driven charities(like most big ones are) bleating because they dont get their own way.

[jno]

it's not just about undermining initiatives. They are specifically not to say anything against Esther McVey. That's extraordinary.

[THECORBYLOON]

Is Esther McVey mentioned by name? I can't see her name but I could be mistaken.

If International Widgets PLC sponsored a major singer for example, I'm sure they would include a reputational damage clause as a reason for terminating the deal.

[Kromovaracun]

//If International Widgets PLC sponsored a major singer for example//

How many times must this be repeated?

Governments.
Are not.
Companies.

They are fundamentally different entities. They have different responsibilities, and one is accountable where the other is not.

I do not understand why people keep bringing up the private sector as though it has some kind of validating effect on this. We are not supposed to be governed by businesses, so "standard practice" there does not and should not apply when it comes to the state.

It's also naive in the extreme to be satisfied with charities being able to make complaints within the department. The DWP does not have a strong record when it comes to dealing with the disabled, as I've posted about on here many times. Until recently the [b]only[/b] people who have been exposing them have been charities like these. This looks very much like a political move to get rid of bad PR.

[THECORBYLOON]

Does the contract mention McVey by name?

[jno]

TCL, no, she's a moveable feast, but she's the one currently beyond criticism (you could, I suppose, replace the designation with the phrase "Dear Leader")

///the contractor “shall pay the utmost regard to the standing and reputation” of DWP and ensure it does nothing to bring it “into disrepute, damages the reputation of the Contracting Body or harms the confidence of the public in the Contracting Body”.

The contract defines the “Contracting Body” as the work and pensions secretary, a position currently occupied by the much-criticised Esther McVey///

[THECORBYLOON]

If a government-funded organisation did something that was not unlawful but was morally wrong and there was a public backlash, would you expect the government to just accept it?

[Kromovaracun]

The article says so, yes.

//isability charities that sign up to help deliver the government’s new Work and Health Programme must promise to “pay the utmost regard to the standing and reputation” of work and pensions secretary Esther McVey, official documents suggest.

The charities, and other organisations, must also promise never to do anything that harms the public’s confidence in McVey (pictured) or her Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Disability charities like RNIB, the Royal Association for Deaf People and Turning Point have agreed to act as key providers of services under the Work and Health Programme – which focuses on supporting disabled people and other disadvantaged groups into work – and so appear to be caught by the clause in the contract.

At least one of them – RNIB – has also signed contracts with one of the five main WHP contractors that contain a similar clause, which explicitly states that the charity must not “attract adverse publicity” to DWP and McVey.

The £398 million, seven-year Work and Health Programme is replacing the Work Programme and the specialist Work Choice disability employment scheme across England and Wales, with contractors paid mostly by results.//

The article then goes on to list charities that confirmed/did not confirm that they had signed the clauses. All of the responses seem to insist that it (somehow) wouldn't affect their ability to criticise the government. Which is, bluntly, exactly what such a clause forces them to say anyway, because saying the opposite would count as harming the DWP's reputation.

[THECORBYLOON]

JNO, exactly, it is the S of S and not McVey in particular.

Social Security legislation refers to the Secretary of State carrying out or requesting specific actions or things but no-one expects the S of S, as an indivual, to perform those functions.

[jno]

even so, it is now, with McVey in office, that the contracts are being imposed.