The Charity Commission could lead the charge in a collaborative self-regulation system for fundraising, according to the Institute of Fundraising's submission to Lord Hodgson's Charities Act review.
A "unified system of self-regulation" would work to simplify regulation of fundraising in the UK, said Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute after consulting with its members:
"We believe that Lord Hodgson has an excellent opportunity to simplify and clarify arrangements in order to boost giving and benefit charities," he said.
"For example, when it comes to the rules around public collections, our members tell us that the current system is fragmented and inconsistent. This has led to a situation which is difficult to enforce, hard to police and confusing for both the general public and collecting organisations alike."
The Institute said that the current heavy reliance on individual local authorities' judgment and implementation of restrictions limits the efforts of fundraisers.
"The inconsistency of the application of current licensing laws is costly for both the charities who have to jump through a variety of hoops, and the local authorities who 're-invent the wheel' to respond to perceived problems," the submission advises.
'Reducing the burden' on local authorities
A recent survey of the Institute's members revealed that 93 per cent favoured the implementation of a unified regime, which would combine legislation of house-to-house, face-to-face, charity collections and other fundraising methods. The Institute therefore proposes licensing is delegated to a sector-led body, "reducing the burden" of enforcement from local authorities. In addition, this body would take responsibility for negotiating site management agreements - which the PFRA currently oversees - and confirming diary slots for fundraising activities.
"This could remove much of the unfairness inherent in the current system, and would mean that the sector itself is seen to be taking responsibility for ensuring public charitable collections continue to be successful and to provide a valuable income source for charities," the report advises.
Responding to Lord Hodgson's question of whether self-regulation under the FRSB has been a success, the IoF advised that its success has been limited due to poor take-up of membership. This prevents the system from being universal, it said, as the organisation is only able to implement regulatory measures over its own members, currently standing at 1394 organisations.
It also advised that membership expectations for charities are burdensome, with some of the largest charities reporting fees to membership bodies and regulators in excess of £150,000 a year. "Whatever system is put in place should ideally be cheaper and as a minimum be no more expensive for a charity than it is at present," it said.
Charity Commission as leader
The Institute said that it did not believe that statutory legislation was necessary to regulate the fundraising sector, but instead advised that utilising the Charity Commission to oversee regulation may be an option:
"One way of achieving universality might be to introduce a system of co-regulation. In this way, the official regulator might be the Charity Commission, which would then delegate power to one or more bodies to develop and maintain the Codes and then enforce as necessary. It is envisaged that such a system would retain a Codes compiler (with ownership of the Codes) and an adjudicator."
Putting the Charity Commission at the head of the regulation system could provide greater clarity to the public, the Institute said, as it is already well-known.
PFRA response
The PFRA too submitted its response to the Charities Act Review, which closed for consultation today. It agreed that there needs to be a more unified approach to regulation, applying the logic to street fundraising in particular, where face-to-face fundraisers collecting cash have to apply for a council licence, but those collecting direct debits do not.
This is outlined in the Police, Factories etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, which the PFRA requests is repealled in order for existing provisions within the Charities Act which would unify licensing for cash and direct debit donations to now be implemented.
The organisation also requests that door-to-door fundraising is brought into the licensing regime. Dr Toby Ganley, PFRA head of policy who authored the recommendations said: "The House to House Collections Act 1939 requires charities to obtain a licence or hold an exemption certificate if they want to conduct doorstep charitable collections for money, goods or direct debits, but the Charities Act 2006 would have removed this requirement completely, effectively deregulating doorstep fundraising."
He suggests that councils work collaboratively with a self-regulatory body to establish capacity and allocations for such collections. But he added that councils should not have the power to refuse a licence because they don't think a big enough return will be made, as is currently the case:
"It is the business of the charity, its staff and trustees, to make decisions about what is or is not an adequate return, not the business of local authority officials," Ganley said.
