Can a regulator be held to account? Charity Commission faces rare contempt finding
It is rare that the Charity Commission finds itself under the microscope. Yet that is precisely what happened after MPs concluded that the regulator’s attempt to prevent critical ombudsman reports from being laid before the House of Commons amounted to a contempt of Parliament.
While the dispute arose from safeguarding complaints, including a claim that it had failed to respond properly to serious allegations regarding the possible concealment of child sex abuse by a charity, its significance extends far beyond the facts of the underlying case. This has reignited debate about a difficult question: who holds the regulator to account when concerns are raised about its own conduct? The link to the full report may be found here.
An unusual dispute
The controversy arose from two Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) investigations into the Charity Commission’s handling of safeguarding-related complaints brought by individuals who had raised concerns about sexual abuse. The PHSO concluded that the Charity Commission had demonstrated serious maladministration in aspects of its handling of those complaints, and that the recommended remedies had not been fully addressed. As a result, the PHSO decided to lay special reports before Parliament, a mechanism available where it considers an injustice has not been satisfactorily remedied.
The Charity Commission challenged that decision through judicial review proceedings. It argued, among other things, that the PHSO had exceeded its remit by making recommendations that went beyond its statutory powers and raised questions about the regulator’s ability to implement them, but this judicial review application was ultimately unsuccessful.
What might otherwise have been viewed as a dispute over process quickly became a test case for regulatory accountability. The focus shifted from the underlying safeguarding complaints to the Charity Commission’s response to criticism and its willingness to accept external scrutiny. The Commons Privileges Committee examined whether a public authority could seek to use legal action to prevent Parliament from receiving information, and its ultimate verdict was that it had committed a contempt of Parliament.
Parliament draws the line
Against that backdrop, the House of Commons Committee of Privileges examined the implications of the Charity Commission’s actions for parliamentary scrutiny. The committee emphasised that Parliament must be able to receive information necessary to perform its constitutional functions and concluded that attempts to interfere with that process strike at the heart of parliamentary accountability.
The committee was particularly critical of the Charity Commission’s decision to pursue litigation that would have prevented the reports from being laid before MPs. It also recommended that both the Charity Commission’s chief executive and its board apologise to the House of Commons.
An unreserved apology
In response, Charity Commission chair, Julia Unwin, stated that the regulator accepted the committee’s findings in full and apologised ‘unreservedly’; the claimants were provided with significant compensation. She acknowledged that, with hindsight, it should not have persisted in challenging the laying of the reports before Parliament and confirmed that lessons would be learned from the episode.
The apology may close this chapter, but it is unlikely to end the wider debate. Questions about governance and accountability at the Charity Commission have now been aired publicly and are difficult to ignore.
Why this matters for charities
This case serves as a stark reminder that transparency is a cornerstone of public confidence. Organisations exercising public functions, whether regulators or charities, are increasingly expected not only to make sound decisions but also to demonstrate openness when those decisions are challenged.
Further, the underlying complaints concerned safeguarding, one of the areas of greatest scrutiny within the sector, which the Charity Commission consistently highlights as being an absolute priority for charities. Trustees must continue to ensure that safeguarding concerns are properly identified, documented, and that governance processes can withstand scrutiny. Robust and regularly reviewed safeguarding policies remain fundamental to meeting these obligations.
The case also serves as a reminder that organisational culture matters. Decisions about how concerns are handled, how criticism is received and how challenges are responded to can become governance issues in their own right.
Finally, the findings are likely to prompt reflection on the Charity Commission’s own governance and decision making. As the committee’s criticism extended beyond individual actions to decisions supported at board level, the case highlights the importance of collective accountability within leadership structures at the Charity Commission.
Looking ahead
Findings of contempt of Parliament are rare, and findings against a public regulator are rarer still. While the immediate focus will be on the Charity Commission’s response and any resulting changes in approach, the case also reinforces a broader constitutional principle: effective regulation depends not only on holding others to account, but on being accountable oneself.
For charities and trustees, the message is straightforward. Transparency, good governance and a willingness to engage constructively with scrutiny remain essential ingredients of public trust. There are lessons here for the regulator and the charity sector alike.