Society and government are growing more reliant on charities, so why don't they do more to support its regulator, asks Tom Murdoch.

The Charity Commission has come under constant attack from politicians and others, including those within the sector, who fail to appreciate the vital role it plays. But the Commission is vital to the sector, and the charity sector must be prepared to lobby to ensure its regulator is strong enough to do what is needed.

Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, considers the Charity Commission should be done away with – that we should “throw a little quango on the bonfire”. But the Commission is much more than a quango.  Much of its most valuable work is judicial, rather than governmental. The Commission exercises a vital regulatory role for the benefit of charities and the general public, in many ways more akin to that of the courts.  Both charities and the general public have a continuing need for it to do so.

The Charity Commission was given its duty to increase public confidence in the sector in 1992 (when it was also given accompanying legal duties and powers in the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993 to assist it fulfil the role).  Since then, its funding has reduced slightly in real terms. Over the longer term, its income has hovered around the £20m mark, despite 40 per cent cuts since 2008.

Over the same period, sector turnover roughly doubled in real terms and has almost quadrupled in cash terms, from £17bn in 1992 to £60bn today. Society as a whole and government in particular have grown more and more reliant on charities.

But instead of crediting the Commission with facilitating the growing size and importance of the sector (in which the Commission’s regulatory work must surely have played a part), the government now spends just 0.033 per cent of the sector’s income on the Commission. Considering current funding levels, it is inevitable that the Commission’s capacity to fully scrutinise the activities of charities is limited.

There are some signs that the government had realised this: recently, government whip Lord Wallace of Saltaire said the government would be prepared to “look carefully” at more funding for the Commission. This is encouraging, but it is important that the government turns its careful examination into action.

The Commission suffers from conflicting government priorities, in particular, Big Society versus light-touch regulation.  If we want a sector we can continue to be proud of and rely upon, we need a regulator which is funded to reflect the sector’s importance to society.  It must be right to seek improvements and increased efficiency, but we also need a Commission which is not bullied by politicians with conflicting priorities.

Tom Murdoch is a senior associate at Stone King