Fewer people think charities are regulated effectively, says report

Published by the Charity Commission today, the paper says the proportion of respondents who think charities in England and Wales are effectively or fairly effectively regulated has fallen six points in two years

The proportion of people who think that charities are regulated effectively has fallen over the past two years, research published by the Charity Commission has found.

Research carried out for the regulator by the polling company Populus discovered that the proportion of people who thought charities in England and Wales are regulated very effectively or fairly effectively was down from 64 per cent in 2015 to 58 per cent this year.

Although the proportion of people who felt charities were regulated fairly increased, in effect, from 44 per cent in 2015 to 51 per cent this year, the proportion who felt the sector was regulated very effectively dropped sharply from 20 per cent in 2015 to only 7 per cent this year.

The research, published by the commission today, found that the proportion of people who said charities were not regulated very effectively increased from 8 per cent in 2015 to 16 per cent this year.

The proportion who said they felt charities were regulated “not at all effectively” rose by one percentage point on 2015 to 5 per cent this year. The remainder said they did not know.

The findings are based on 1,002 telephone interviews with a representative sample of members of the public, a further 1,015 online interviews with senior staff or trustees from charities in England and Wales, plus 26 in-depth telephone interviews with charities, government officials, umbrella bodies and professional advisers. All the research was carried out between February and April.

Despite a fall in public confidence in charity regulation, stakeholders interviewed for the study said that charities in England and Wales were regulated effectively overall.

“They think it compares favourably on an international scale, arguing that the England and Wales system is an example for other countries to follow,” the report on the findings says. “They have an awareness of and sympathy for the environment that the Charity Commission operates within, referring to a lack of resources and the large number of charities under its remit.”

The survey found that awareness of the Charity Commission had risen: 61 per cent of respondents this year said they had heard of the regulator, compared with 47 per cent in 2015.

Researchers found what they called a “significant increase” in the proportion of people who said they or their close family or friends had benefited or used the services of a charity, or received support from one.

The proportion of people who said they or their close family or friends had used a charity’s services went up from 19 per cent in 2015 to 31 per cent this year, and the percentage who said they or their close family or friends had received money, support or help from a charity was up by six percentage points to 16 per cent over the course of two years.

The report says that 17 per cent of the public had a concern about a charity in the past year, but more than half – 58 per cent – did not take any action.

Source link

Regulated period for an election ‘might have begun already’, warns lawyer

Simon Steeden of Bates Wells Braithwaite points out that if there is another election this year the regulated period is already with us, and describes the lobbying act as Orwellian

The next period of regulated campaigning might have already begun, a partner at the law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite has warned.

Simon Steeden said that if a second election were to be called before the end of the year, the period of regulated campaigning would already have started because it covers the year leading up to a vote.

Last week’s election was called with just two months’ notice, leaving many charities concerned that they could be penalised for activities that took place before they knew an election would happen.

And the failure of the Conservatives to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons means another election could take place before the end of year, said Steeden.

He said the snap general election had demonstrated the unfairness of the lobbying act, which requires all campaigning bodies, including charities, to register if they intend to spend more than £20,000 in the year before an election on campaigning activities that could reasonably be regarded as intending to influence the outcome of the vote.

In an email to charities sent out this morning, Steeden described the lobbying act as “Orwellian”.

He said: “This election has raised further questions as to whether the current rules governing non-party election campaigning are fit for purpose.”

He pointed to the 50 charities that wrote to all of the political parties during the campaign expressing concern about what he described as “retrospective regulation”.

“The hung parliament means that the spectre of another vote will be ever-present, and campaigners will be assumed to be on constant election footing,” he said.

“For example, this could mean that the regulated period for the next election begins today, meaning that campaign groups potentially have to start counting expenditure today.”

He said this would “supercharge” the debate around the lobbying act and would make its reform “an urgent priority”.

“The snap election campaign clearly highlighted the unfair nature of rules regulating non-party election campaigning and their chilling effect on civil society engagement in policy debates during an election campaign,” he said.

In the run-up to the snap election, he said, many charities had relied on the assumption that their previous expenditure could not be “reasonably regarded” as intended to influence the election because they did not know it would happen.

But he warned it might be harder to rely on that assumption if a second election was called, because charities might reasonably be regarded as being “on constant election footing” in preparation for the possibility of an election.

Source link