Skip the primary navigation if you do not want to read it as the next section.
Skip the main content if you do not want to read it as the next section.
by Jay Kennedy, Policy Officer, Directory of Social Change
At the recent Third Sector Excellence Awards, Geraldine Peacock, former Chair of the Charity Commission, received the Luke FitzHerbert Lifetime Achievement Award, one which she thoroughly deserves.
In her acceptance speech, Geraldine reportedly said, “You could get rid of 90,000 charities from the register. Less is more. Having that many confuses the public”.
The great irony, of course, is that Luke FitzHerbert passionately believed in having more charities, not less.
Geraldine’s statement would have been anaethema to his whole ethos. But I think he would have enjoyed the irony, and of course, he was always up for a good old debate where strongly held views were vigorously expressed. I think he respected those who were opinionated, like himself, above those who occupied the cautious and uncontroversial middle ground.
But let’s consider the matter – if there are a few thousand charities that are simply inactive and need a nudge from the Commission in order to be wound up, then OK, fine. But dumping half the register?
The public is not confused. The reason there are so many charities is that ‘the public’ – whatever that is – wants them to be there. Individual citizens set them up and support them. Voluntary effort is a personal thing – people are often attached to causes and organisations that are close to them or to people they know.
So what if there are charities that do similar things, or the same things in different areas? The point of having a voluntary sector is not economy of scale. Resources that support different organisations doing similar things are not necessarily wasted or inefficient.
I’m not “confused” if I support a children’s play group for my kids in my own town and I don’t support one in the next town. I don’t necessarily want them to merge and pool resources to save a few pennies. I want to see the fruits of my voluntary labour and donations directly and know that my organisation is tied into the needs of my community. If I think the play group in my town doesn’t suit my children’s needs and want to set up another one, I should be able to.
The regulator’s role should not be about ensuring that civil society operates in a way that is perceived by government or market-gurus as rational. If it wants to help facilitate the development of networks and connections between groups then that would be no bad thing – but that shouldn’t extend to refusing to register a charity because something similar already exists, or to making the application process more onerous as a deterrent.
It is our right as citizens to set up such organisations, as long as they meet the legal requirements. These requirements, after all, are our law not the Charity Commission’s law. The regulator regulates on our behalf. Charities are of the people, by the people and for the people. It’s not the business of powerful institutions to tell us otherwise.
For more about our views on this topic, see the article by DSC’s Director of Policy and Research Ben Wittenberg which appeared in Charity Times in July 2007. Visit http://www.dsc.org.uk/NewsandInformation/PolicyandCampaigning/Policypositions/Morecharitiesnotless