Yesterday three fundraising regulatory bodies showed fundamental disagreements when they gave evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry into the future oversight of the sector. David Ainsworth examines the implications.

Yesterday a Parliamentary committee took evidence from the three main bodies for fundraising regulation – the Institute of Fundraising, the Fundraising Standards Board and the Public Fundraising Association.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which took the evidence, is conducting an inquiry into fundraising regulation, prompted by a number of damaging allegations in national newspapers.

The fundraising regulators’ evidence session was preceded by another, in which the chief executives of four of the largest fundraising charities gave their view on the state of fundraising regulation. Those chief executives were among 17 who had signed a letter to the Sunday Times, coordinated by the IoF, which called for a “new and independent regulator” of fundraising.

The evidence session and the letter reveal some fairly stark dividing lines between the three bodies. There was little unity on show.

Essentially, the IoF and the FRSB have to a great extent sought to suggest the other one should be relieved of all responsibility for fundraising regulation.

It is hard to fault any of the parties for defending their corner, and between them the model they put forward for fundraising regulation could well be a good one, but the committee meeting did unfortunately display a view of regulatory bodies who were divided and at odds.

What’s the current regulatory structure?

The fundraising regulatory landscape is a confusing one at present.

The IoF Standards Committee sets the Code of Fundraising Practice, the rules which fundraisers must follow. The IoF has no enforcement duties.

Until recently, the Standards Committee was comprised of eight fundraisers. The IoF has now taken steps to appoint an independent chair and three lay members, which with observer members means fundraisers now make up seven of a 15-strong committee. Several observers still believe this gives the IoF too much power.

The FRSB enforces the Code but has no power to influence its composition. It is a small organisation with limited resources. Its membership is voluntary, it is funded by membership dues, and it has no enforcement powers beyond naming and shaming and eventually expulsion.

The PFRA is not strictly a regulatory body at all, but a compliance one. It brokers agreements with local authorities to allow face-to-face and door-to-door fundraising. But because it is backed by local authorities, it has the power to issue fines, and it does so regularly. The PFRA is to a great extent an adjunct to the main discussion.

We also learned yesterday that the PFRA and the IoF are considering a merger.