Sector umbrellas have complained about the Commission’s intervention into the lobbying bill, saying it illustrates a lack of support for charities. Leon Ward wonders if the sector is having an identity crisis on behalf of the Charity Commission.

Yesterday, Acevo’s Alex Massey expressed consternation that the Charity Commission had, in his view, "lobbied against its own sector" after it wrote to members of the House of Lords warning that it would not have the resources to cope if a charity exemption in the lobbying bill, proposed by Lord Phillips and supported by many sector bodies, was brought forward.

This move was met with considerable resistance from some in the sector. The Directory of Social Change's Jay Kennedy slammed the Commission for "torpedoing the amendment". To me, it seems the sector is having an identity crisis on behalf of the Commission.

Firstly, let’s clarify what the Commission has been established to do. It is a non-ministerial government department that forms part of the civil service. Its website states: "The Commission is independent from the sector it regulates." It is not a registered charity and so does not belong to the third, charity, voluntary sector or civil society. It belongs firmly in the public sector.

I’m not entirely sure that we would be so outraged if the regulators of our energy, Ofgem, or communications suppliers, Ofcom, "briefed against their constituencies". In fact, people welcome this at times. While the Commission’s aims include to "build public trust in charities", its actions may not always be what charities want; and, critically, we shouldn’t expect them to be. 

In recent months, blogs and commentary about the Commission have been generally focused on how the Commission ‘lacks teeth’; that it has been too reactive rather than proactive, and that it isn’t really a regulator but more of a sit by-er and observer.

Now that the Charity Commission has been proactive, warning peers in advance about how new legislation may negatively effect its work, it is criticised. Kennedy yesterday said that its role is to "apply the law rather than make it". While this is true, I think most of us would agree that it is right for the Commission to inform lawmakers about its ability to do its job, as well as give consideration to the effects of future legislation. The Commission stated that "the point was made not as an argument against the amendment, but as a subsidiary point so that peers were aware of these implications".

And naturally, if the Commission's capacity is to be stretched even further it means it will not carry out its regulatory duties properly without a large budget increase, ie it will not do what it is set up to do; it will continue to take a more passive role in fulfilling its duties. It will do more of what most people are criticising it for. Building on this, I would support Lord Mackay’s suggestion that the government assess the claim that the Commission would not have the resources to fulfil this burden, and then have the Lords revisit the exemption amendment. 

Obviously, my preference is for the sector’s regulator to act as the sector's champion but it is difficult for the Commission, in its current form, to do both the championing and regulating. Part of the blame lies with the Commission; it says it does not have a duty to regulate pay (and it doesn’t) yet its chair has waded in to that debate and that blurs the boundaries of its remit.

The complaints that are swirling around the Commission do not inspire confidence in its abilities but that is a debate already happening; recently Margaret Hodge MP mooted its destruction. The Charity Commission may not be winning any popularity contests just now, but we should be careful what we wish for.