What are the Charity Commission up to now?

Had anyone noticed – before last week – that the Charity Commission this year produced a new ‎‘Statement of Regulatory Practice’?‎ Certainly it hadn’t been much discussed. It appeared in its 2013-14 Annual Report, published in July, and was mentioned by Paula Sussex in a speech last Tuesday. Stephen Cook’s excellent editorial in Third Sector on Friday was timely in drawing attention to it and the surrounding debate. At ACEVO we’ve been investigating the new statement for a few weeks; it is important and concerning.

The new Statement of Regulatory Practice has added an interesting regulatory area that seems not to have appeared before in this form; the regulation of ‘‎improper politicisation’. No mention is made of this point in previous reports.

The full statement reads:

‘We will be alert in particular to fraud, terrorist activities, the abuse of vulnerable beneficiaries and to improper politicisation.’

The closest equivalent line in the previous Annual Report instead focuses on:

‘Issues of fraud, financial abuse, terrorism and concerns about the safeguarding of vulnerable beneficiaries are among the most serious of abuses and we will continue to concentrate on tackling these problems.’

No word on ‘politicisation’ there.

Of course charities need to avoid being partisan and party political. The Commission has the job, as regulator, to enforce the law on this matter. But how exactly will the Commission – whose role is explicitly non-political and in fact quasi-judicial – properly determine what is ‘politicisation’ let alone when it might be deemed ‘improper’? The Commission’s own guidance document CC9 states specifically that ‘campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake’. Indeed if you invert the phrase this would mean that ‘proper’ politicisation is fine. What does all this mean in practice? And who is to judge?

This might all be discarded as merely a clarification of existing practice as set out in CC9 (in its latest post-2008 version). But given the tone the Commission has set over the past year or so charities might be right to wonder whether the definition of what political work is deemed ‘proper’ might vary according to political whim. Either the Commission is subject to political influence and so it shouldn’t be allowed to make judgments like this, or it is indeed a quasi-judicial body and thus the independence of its regulatory activity should be closely guarded.

Further down in the Statement of Regulatory Practice comes an assurance that ‘we will respect and protect charities’ independence’. How do these two statements add together?

I’m concerned that in the current debate around charities’ duty to speak out and to campaign, the focus on preventing ‘politicisation’ might curb our right to independent voice as long established in law – and as is laid out in CC9. In the recent debate about the Oxfam ‘perfect storm’ advert it would have been good to see the Commission more clearly defending our right of free speech from the outset. I’m sure they will be clear in their views that the advert fell well within their Guidance and will protect our independence from political attack. 

At worst this addition to the regulatory list may signal the Commission is prey to ideological winds, as exemplified by the recent choice of Frank Prochaska to speak at their Annual Public Meeting, comments from its Chairman or the failure of the Commission to argue for charity exemption from the Lobbying Act. If, as Stephen Cook suggests, a wider review of CC9 and charity campaigning guidance will soon be afoot, if not before the election then later in 2015 or 2016, it would be worrying to begin the review with the Commission already having set out a clear, hostile view that says charity campaigning and political activity should be curtailed.

We saw in our Red, Blue and Yellow Books of the Voluntary Sector that the big political parties are all thinking seriously about charities, the regulator and civil society’s relationship with politics. Let’s hope that the run-up to the General Election gives us a serious debate on this issue, and that MPs take their seats next May better informed about charity political activity and ready to carefully defend us against any efforts to curb our campaigning. Our independent speech must be protected!

The public still trusts charities - but the Commission should pull its socks up

Today the Charity Commission published new research looking at the public’s trust in charities, carried out by Ipsos MORI. It’s more positive than this week’s similar polling from nfpSynergy  In both cases, despite the warning signs, I think it’s important to credit charity leaders, trustees and volunteers for maintaining such high, continued public trust.

The new research found once again that charities are very highly trusted by the general public - only doctors and the police are trusted more. 

It raised important questions over the importance of good financial management by charities - more people picked this out as important to their reputation. It also showed fewer people trust charities to work independently (62%, compared to 68% in 2010).

And perhaps more worryingly, the proportion who would be more confident in a charity providing a public service than another type of service provider fell from 25% in 2012 to 20% this year.

But let us remember that charities are working in the most difficult operating environment for many years, under pressure on all sides from funders, local and national government and from rising frontline demand. All things considered, I think it is surprising that the level of public trust is so resilient. We must not be complacent but it is encouraging all the same. I recall the findings of another Ipsos MORI survey from January this year which pointed not only to high public trust in our sector, but also to the fact that more people thought we ought to be campaigning to change public policy (32%) than thought we currently are doing so (24%). So in fact we should be expanding our advocacy role rather than merely defending it against those who disagree with what we say.

The survey poses tough questions, too, for the Charity Commission itself. They will have new powers and new energy at the top with the appointment of Paula Sussex as their Chief Executive. It will be her job to ensure that the Commission improves its performance, defends our sector’s integrity and avoids oppressive over-regulation. The Commission needs to pull its socks up and become the effective regulator and support that our sector needs - and the public demands. Let’s see what happens...

Wrong way for Charity Commission.

The Charity Commission's new consultation, released last week, includes a proposal from MPs that will increase the administrative burden on charities and increase what many think is over-regulation in our sector.

In September the Government accepted "in principle" a recommendation from the Public Administration Select Committee that charities' annual returns to the Commission should state how much they spend on campaigning. It said it would first ask charities to take the initiative themselves in being more transparent about their political activities, and then explore with the Commission the possibility for extra information "to be captured and disclosed in a proportionate way through existing processes."

But now the Charity Commission – with its announcement this week of the proposal, subject to consultation, that charities should indeed from next year have to say in their returns how much they spend on campaigning (and how much they receive from government sources) – has ignored this and gone ahead with a blunderbuss approach. What happened to the "first step" and the use of existing processes? Clearly the Commission are not interested in that.

The Commission is pushing ahead with the Select Committee’s recommendation more forcefully than the Cabinet Office envisaged or is desirable.

Looking at the Public Administration Select Committee’s minutes it is clear this recommendation may have stemmed more from the opinions of some of its own members than from the evidence presented to it by witnesses. It goes further even than Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs, hardly the greatest supporter of charity campaigning. He concedes that it is ‘fairly arbitrary’ to distinguish campaigning from other charity activities.

The Committee’s report also seems to confuse ‘campaigning’ and ‘political and communications work’, which suggests that they treat the terms as interchangeable.

Let's be very clear as a sector about what is going on here. There is a clear element in the Commission who believe that we need to 'stick to the knitting'. The fact that the campaigning and advocacy work of charities is inextricably linked to our work at the front line appears to escape them. To take one obvious example, look at RNIB's fantastic work for almost 150 years, both supplying a wide range of services for people with sight loss and agitating for numerous government policies to make their lives better. It is illogical and unnecessary to separate the two functions.

And what is worse is that this intervention into a political debate detracts from the work the Commission should be doing on sector regulation. With Paula Sussex starting as their new Chief Executive next week they have an excellent opportunity for new energy in pursuing this goal.

But for now, perhaps the Commission themselves should stick to the knitting, and avoid clamping down on the historic role and duty of charities to speak truth to power.