The sector's representative bodies must be bolder in telling the Charity Commission what they think of the proposed annual return reforms, says Dan Corry.
Charities might well feel under siege right now.
The justice minister took to the pages of The Sunday Telegraph this weekend to conjure up images of charity campaigners as a new enemy-within, complete with "a mentality that would do real damage to our country". The Lobbying Bill has wound its way into law, while The Daily Mail publishes regular fresh headlines about how much charities pay their staff. The sector finds itself in the crosshairs.
Then along came the Charity Commission and its latest consultation - which closed last week - asking about the information organisations should provide in their annual return to the regulator. It sounds dry as dust, but it turned out to be incendiary.
The Commission looked at three main questions: should it request more information on how much charities spend on campaigning; on where they get their money from; and on how trustee boards make decisions about executive pay? In other words, please could charities answer to the regulator on the three issues on which politicians and press are already mounting a concerted attack?
Evidently, it is a time for clear heads and political savvy. Unfortunately for charities, what they got instead was a rather tin-eared response from the groups set up to represent them, from Acevo to the Charity Finance Group.
NCVO came out against the proposals with all guns blazing. A spokesperson told Civil Society News:
“I haven’t spoken to anyone in favour of introducing the question on [how much is spent on] campaigning. It’s far from clear what information would have to be included, and that’s setting aside the fact that it’s not really a regulatory matter anyway. Whether charities spend their money on campaigning is not a question for the Charity Commission.”
NCVO’s response is easy to understand. Its members are being put under unholy pressure, and one of its roles is to defend them. Nonetheless, turning away from the problem with fingers in ears - essentially arguing that the data is too difficult to identify and isn’t really the Commission’s concern anyway - isn’t good enough. We need a stronger response than this.
This is a chance for charities to get on the front foot, and take on their detractors. There should be more transparency, not less: the public deserve no less. The sector can propose to open up itself up further and prove that there is nothing to hide. Charities have a big job ahead to rally public support behind them, and it’ll be hard to achieve that from a prickly, defensive, ‘leave us alone’ stance.
Of course we should be wary of political shenanigans. The Commission’s motives aren’t suspect because they want greater transparency, they’re suspect because they chose now to single out campaigning, public sector funding and pay.
So rather than resist transparency, charities should welcome it, but insist on five principles that any additional requests must satisfy. These are outlined in NPC’s consultation response: broadly, that the data must be useful, comparable and cause no excessive burdens; that changes should be piloted first; and that there must be absolutely no ‘slippery slope’ towards questioning the charitable status of some organisations. Neither should charities arbitrarily be expected to provide information not demanded of the private and public sector.
Charities and their umbrella bodies are right to be nervous, but there is a chance here to baffle the critics by opening the lid on the sector, rather than slamming it shut. It’s a chance that they’d be wise to take.
Dan Corry is CEO of NPC
