Charities should not pay for their own regulation, says Chapman 2

Governance | Tania Mason | 9 Dec 2011

The former policy chief of the Charity Commission has declared her opinion that requiring charities to fund the work of the Charity Commission is not a viable option.

Lord Hodgson’s review of the Charities Act 2006, and the parallel reviews being undertaken by the NCVO and the Charity Law Association, are all expected to examine the Commission’s funding model, to see if it is still fit for purpose or whether other options might be possible.

One such option that has been mooted in the past by various people, including the Charity Commission’s own chair, is a “unit cost” on charities with income above a certain threshold. Dame Suzi Leather told the Public Administration Select Committee last month that this was a more attractive option than charging charities to file their annual accounts, because the latter would disincentivise filing.

“Many regulators are funded by the sectors they regulate,” Dame Suzi said.

But Rosie Chapman, who for ten years was director of policy and effectiveness at the Commission, told a Charity Law Association meeting recently that her personal view was that a unit cost was not feasible.

She said: “If the regulator costs, say, £24m a year, by the time you’ve excluded smaller charities with less than £100,000 income, you are probably looking at larger charities - those with income of more than £5m - having to pay about £5,000 a year. That feels like an awful lot of money for what charities would be getting in return.

“I’m of the view that if you want a regulator to regulate charities in the public interest, it should be funded independently. But I’m aware that others will no doubt wish to explore different views.”

Chapman is a member of the NCVO panel reviewing the Act, but because of her past connection to the regulator, will not be involved in examining the Commission’s role and funding. Nor will John Stoker, former chief Charity Commissioner, who is also on the NCVO review panel.

Another funding option for the Commission, suggested recently by PASC chair Bernard Jenkin MP, was to levy a charge on charities with large trading arms.

Directory: Charity Commission
Who's Who: Suzi Leather | Rosie Chapman

Place a comment

Barbara
9 Dec 2011

In principle, the idea sounds like a serious attempt to create as many conflicts of interest as possible. Even now big boys press for limiting CC registrations by raising income threshold and that's not funny for small groups wishing to register - can you imagine how influence of these big boys will grow once in actual charge of 'be or not to be' of CC? And what sorts of strange ideas they can start to introduce? It's very important to keep CC out of power games for the sake of civic society - nobody should tell people whether they can associate (and then register) or not, it's people's liberty that has to be protected at all costs. The sector is not all about delivering relief of poverty, it's also about voice, freedom and justice for all. Income and eliminating competition for scarce resource shouldn't have anything to do with it. Stamp duty to file reports sounds more just, and if reports are not filed - well, give fines, people will maybe eventually learn that duty is duty - but don't let selected elite run a regulator.

[Reply]

Stephen Lulsley
Independent Commentator and Consultant
14 Dec 2011
Response to [Barbara]

Hoorah for Rosie Chapman and for Barbara's comments!

The Charity Commission should be government funded in the same way as any other regulatory body.

A question I have asked before,"When IS Dame Suzi Leather going to retire or stand down?"

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.