The roles played by the three bodies involved in the self-regulation of face-to-face fundraising have been set out in an evidence session to the review of the Charities Act 2006 being run by Parliament’s Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) this week [23 October].
Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, explained that the different functions performed by the IoF, PFRA and Fundraising Standards Board were akin to the ‘separation of powers’ governmental model.
“You as MPs would understand the system we have here,” Lewis (pictured left) said in responding to concerns from Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland, echoing Lord Hodgson, about whether the three bodies were working sufficiently closely.
“The Institute of Fundraising brings charities together to write laws, so we are the legislature. The PFRA are the police in relation to face-to-face fundraising going out checking practice and the FRSB are the judges.
“Is is absolutely right we split these three roles because you don’t want to be judge and jury in the same place so its absolutely key that we get those relationships right. We have been discussing that over the last six months. The FRSB is now seen as the public facing complaints body, we write the codes, there should be a distinction between us and them [FRSB] and the PFRA is making sure that people are complying on the street.”
In his own review of the Charities Act, Lord Hodgson called for a greater clarity of roles and, giving evidence last week to the committee, Lord Hodgson said that the three bodies needed to co-ordinate sufficiently to present a “united front” to the public within six months.
In response PFRA, IoF and FRSB issued a statement in September setting out these distinct roles and Greg Mulholland said that all three bodies appeared to be making progress.
Also giving evidence alongside Peter Lewis were PFRA’s ceo Sally de la Bedoyere and chief executive of the Fundraising Standards Board Alistair McLean.Tweet