Barnado’s was not trying to be “awakened” when the charity published the guide to white benefits for parents and grandparents last month, the group’s leader has claimed.
Javed Khan said the children’s charity wanted to help families understand the term white welfare and if you happen to be “non-white there is one more disadvantage against you”.
Mr Khan also admitted that the charity’s governor is now investigating whether Barnado violated his charitable aims when he issued his white welfare guidelines.
The online document – published by the Sunday Telegraph – was described as a “helpful guide to talking to children about the topic of ‘white welfare'” and was suitable whether it was “a parent or a person. you are a carer, grandparent or guardian “.
The charity said: “Teaching your child about the world – who they are, what they can achieve, how they should treat others, what is right and what is wrong is a key part of nutrition. .
“We think educating children about white benefits is part of that, so we’re talking to them about how they can actively take action against racism.”
In evidence to a committee of MPs, Mr Khan defended his decision to issue the guidance stating: “We are learning from experience. Our intention was not to be political, not to be awakened, not to accept any kind of political ideology from anywhere else, just to help parents as best we could. we can.
“We just gave advice on our website to help families get involved in that debate – that’s what it was. We support disadvantaged children, no matter what race, color or credit. “
He said: “White welfare is for us … simply means that many more children and adults are disadvantaged, poor. But if you happen to be non-white there is one additional disadvantage for you.
“All the data shows that you can be extra disadvantaged just because of the color of your skin. And that can show in a number of ways throughout your life. That’s what we were talking about. “
Charity Commission now “involved” with Barnado’s
Mr Khan confirmed that the Charity Commission had now “engaged” with Barnado, saying: “Our trustees are absolutely clear that the charity has been behaving within the objects his, what we stand for, supporting vulnerable children, in terms of helping families to understand the issue of white welfare. “
However, Robert Halfon, a Conservative chairman of the Education select committee, said the guide was “inappropriate” and that it was a “grave mistake” to be “disgraceful to poor white people”.
Mr Halfon, Harlow’s MP in Essex, said: “I think you made a big mistake in doing this the way you did. It was more than a blog.”
Reading out part of the blog, Mr Halfon said: “This is unacceptable. People reading this will think they have a white privilege. … This is a big mistake you made for presented in a way that you did.
“It’s wrong, I think it’s a disgrace to poor white people in my constituency … I urge you when you talk about future racism don’t do it like this. You do it a different way. “
Conservative MP Tom Hunt told Mr Khan that the decision to issue the guide had created “a great deal of anger and many children and families who are struggling and find it ironic to issue guidance.” about their own welfare “.
Barnado’s should focus on “those most in need” and “be wary of trying to engage in controversial political debates”.
Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis said the white welfare blog had created more division, saying: “I am concerned that we are telling people that skin color should determine their life chances – something I don’t think that’s fair. “
A spokesman for the Charities Commission said The Sunday Telegraph: “We have recently met with Barnardo’s trustees to discuss their blog. The charity has co-operated fully and provided relevant information to the Commission. We take all complaints seriously even if they do not. they are a regulatory action. “
A commission source added: “We are assessing information about this charity as part of a compliance issue.
“The Commission opens a compliance case where concerns are raised to assess information and find out if there is any reason to become more involved with a charity.
“It doesn’t mean it’s wrong and we haven’t made any decisions against the charity at this time.”