The Association for Charities, the self-appointed watchdog of the Charity Commission, has called on the Public Administration Select Committee to formally request annual evidence from the Commission about how it has discharged its regulatory powers.

In a written submission to the Committee’s inquiry into charity regulation and the Charities Act review, the Association said that despite improvements at the Commission in recent years, the regulator remains “insufficiently accountable” for the exercise of its “extensive array” of regulatory powers in relation to charity beneficiaries, trustees and volunteers.

It said that evidence had been presented over a number of years to Parliament, various public bodies and the sector, which demonstrated the “disgraceful way” that a number of service-users, trustees and volunteers have been treated through the exercise of these powers.  

The submission explicitly referenced the case of David Orbison, the former Charity Commission compliance officer who used Whistleblowing Act provisions to protest at the regulator’s decisions in relation to a particular investigation, and later won a case for constructive unfair dismissal against the Commission – though the Commission is to appeal.

Thus, the Association submitted, “our proposal and plea to your Committee is that you request information and evidence from the Commission which will demonstrate how the Commission has exercised its regulatory powers, taken from internal and external sources readily available”.

Such information could include:

• A record of the number and type of cases of disciplinary investigations and the action taken by the Commission, such as warnings, suspensions and dismissals;
• The number and amount of any compensation or consolatory payments made by the Commission during the year; and
• The number and nature of complaints or appeals to external bodies, including any independent complaints reviewer, the Charity Tribunal, the High Court and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the results of these.

The Association said that all this information would be publicly accessible under the Freedom of Information Act, but it should not be necessary for the Act to be invoked for the information to be made available.

It added that if a counter argument was put forward that other public and private-sector bodies are not required to provide such a high level of information, the Association’s response would be that “to our knowledge no other organisation possess and exercises concurrent High Court powers of the nature of those enjoyed by the Commission”.

The Association’s chairman, John Weth, has written to the Charity Commission’s CEO Sam Younger to tell him of the proposal.

The PASC submission concluded: “We recognise that the proposal may not command universal approval within the Commission, but we believe it would constitute a further important step in securing greater accountability on the part of the Commission, to the benefit of those it exists to serve.”

The Charity Commission declined to comment, though a spokeswoman said its chair and chief executive would be appearing before the PASC committee next week and could answer any questions from members then.