Next time someone rattles a tin, and you reach for a couple of quid to help rough sleepers, starving donkeys or sick children, think twice. It’s long been clear that major charities are run like businesses; less well known is that they receive vast sums of taxpayers’ money. And while it might be understandable that big charities try to influence government policy to further their aims, some stretch this role to campaign on issues far removed from the cause they claim to support.
Take immigration. This week, home secretary Shabana Mahmood backed down on her plan to extend the amount of time immigrants must work in the care sector before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. By her own admission, this decision will cost the British public billions of pounds. So what brought about her u-turn? Mahmood was obviously under pressure to appease Labour left-wingers offended by the mere suggestion of border controls. Then there was the government’s sham ‘consultation’, in which almost three-quarters of respondents were immigrants themselves. Alongside this came the voice of the charity sector.
In total, 560 charities either responded to the government’s consultation or petitioned members of parliament. Two-thirds of them argued that not just care workers, but all migrants – including those who arrive in the UK illegally – should be allowed to settle in Britain permanently without having to meet any conditions. This would effectively leave the UK with open borders – a position that no party has ever dared put before the British public.
Some of these charities receive vast sums of taxpayer money. Collectively, 38 of the charities that responded to the government consultation received an astonishing £1 billion from taxpayer-funded contracts or grants in the last financial year. One charity that received almost £1million from the British government is Praxis, an organisation that supports migrants and refugees. It argues for all immigrants to be allowed to live permanently in the UK, with full access to our generous benefits system. In March, Praxis, along with other charities, helped bring more than 500 people to parliament to lobby around 100 MPs against proposals to tighten restrictions on who qualifies for indefinite leave to remain.
Of course, political activists are perfectly entitled to make a case for open borders. They should be free, like anyone else, to present their arguments to the public and win people over to their cause. Campaigning might mean lobbying politicians, and it will almost certainly require raising money. Fair enough. But charitable work and political activism should be quite distinct activities, especially when taxpayers’ money is involved. Donors to migrant charities might think they are paying towards the cost of feeding and housing refugees from war-torn countries, not for political lobbying. Instead, they are contributing to a pot that includes public money, yet is used to fund campaigns the public does not support.
The law is clear: charities must work only to further their charitable purposes, and must not use taxpayer money for lobbying or political activity. But it seems that only a tenuous interest in migration or the care sector was enough to justify charities contributing to the government’s consultation. Mencap, for example, helps people with learning disabilities. In the financial year ending March 2025, it received more than £200million from government contracts and grants. In the recent consultation, Mencap told government ministers they should ‘retain the five-year pathway’ to indefinite leave to remain for social-care workers. Likewise, Barnardo’s, a charity supporting children growing up in poverty, received £192million in contracts and grants. It chimed in with the suggestion that it ‘does not support the principles of earned settlement… as a basis for determining whether children can live safely and securely in the UK’.
The British public is being betrayed. Generous citizens might assume that the tenner they bung to someone raising money for Barnardo’s will help children growing up in poverty, only to discover it is used to pay for people to lobby government ministers on a very different issue. And taxpayers who have repeatedly rejected mass migration at the ballot box find that their hard-earned income is being used to back precisely this cause.
Two clear winners emerge from this underhanded process. Directors of major charities earn huge salaries, often running well into six figures. Their pay packets let them espouse luxury beliefs, safe in the knowledge that their encounters with migrants are far more likely to be with a cheap nanny or cleaner than young men living next door in a house in multiple occupation. Politicians also win. Rather than being held accountable for their decisions, they can point to support from charities and lobbyists to justify their actions.
The fact that our money is being used to pay charity chief executives to tell government ministers what they want to hear is a gross betrayal of the British public. It’s time the sector was brought into line.