Umbrella bodies have agreed with the Public Accounts Committee's verdict that the Charity Commission needs reform, but have hit out at its “unhelpful” and “irresponsible” language.
The Public Accounts Commitee (PAC) report, published today, is heavily critical of the Charity Commission, concluding it has little confidence in the Commission's ability to regulate or its leadership.
Charity sector bodies have conceded that the PAC report rightly highlights some areas in need of improvement at the regulator.
Acevo’s director of public policy, Asheem Singh said the report was a “wake-up call” for the Commission and for the government.
“At Acevo, we have argued time and again that the Charity Commission has been crippled by cuts to its budget. These have undoubtedly had an impact on its ability to do its job,” he said.
But Singh also said that the regulator had “been its own worst enemy” and that too often it loses sight of its own core mandate, citing its intervention in the lobbying bill as an example.
NCVO chief executive Sir Stuart Etherington was also critical of the Commission. “The approach the Charity Commission took to regulation in recent years risked harming the reputation of charitable status," he said. "Although cases of abuse are rare, in the past the Commission has been too slow to act when they do arise.”
‘Irresponsible’ and ‘unhelpful’ message from MPs
However CFG's chief, Caron Bradshaw, said the PAC had gone too far in its criticism.
“While there are certainly areas of the Commission’s work that need urgent improvement, such as how it registers and investigates charities, it is too easy to make sweeping criticism and declare wholesale failure," she said.
Bradshaw added that the report threatens to create public mistrust in charities, "and ultimately push the Commission in an unhelpful direction".
She said the regulator has been successful in helping charities become more professional and comply with their obligations. Today's report, however, gives the impression that the “sector could be awash with rogue charities and cases of mismanagement” and was “unhelpful”.
Further defence of the Commission came from the Directory of Social Change. Policy director Jay Kennedy blamed the regulator's lack of resources for its shortcomings, but too conceded that some changes are necessary.
“The Commission clearly needs to improve in some areas and is taking action, which is made increasingly difficult by the fact that its budget has been halved. That’s not its fault – that’s the utter failure of the government to value the function they provide to the public and charities," he said.
"These kinds of brickbat statements from politicians like ‘not fit for purpose’ are totally irresponsible. Frankly I expect better from the PAC.”
'A stinker for the Charity Commission'
Bradshaw said she was concerned that the requirement to report back to the PAC in one year will result in “knee-jerk reaction” from the Commission’s leadership.
But Etherington welcomed it. He said he was pleased that government was now taking firmer action.
Navca’s chief executive, Joe Irvin, described the PAC report as “a stinker for the Charity Commission” and urged the Commission to appoint a new chief executive swiftly.
“I hope the emphasis is now on supporting the Commission rather than ‘kicking it when it’s down’.” he said.
However, he argued against replacing the Commission. “Charities need a strong and supportive regulator so if the Commission cannot reform itself then maybe a wider task force is called for,” he said.
