Case for legal clampdown on 'chuggers' compelling, say MPs Large organisations should also be forced to disclose how much money they receive from taxpayers through grants to improve transparency, it says. The recommendations come in a wide ranging report by the Public Administration Select Committee into the operation of the 2006 Charities Act which governs the work of the charity watchdog the Charity Commission. Drawing attention to an undercover investigation by The Sunday Telegraph into on-street fundraising agencies, the committee said the issue was now a serious public concern. It said that the case for state regulation - potentially including requiring on-street charity collectors to be licensed - was now "compelling." But, because of the likely cost, it said charities should be given a last chance to introduce self-regulation. "We appreciate the very significant levels of public concern about face-to-face fundraising, or 'chugging'," they said. Many members of the public report that they feel pressured by chuggers and businesses warn of the nuisance caused to their customers and obstruction on the streets. It is clear that self-regulation has failed so far to generate the level of public confidence which is essential to the success of the system and the reputation of the charitable sector. They added: "There should be no complacency from the charity sector about the need to rebuild public confidence in charity fundraising. Should statutory regulation become necessary, the cost should be borne by the charities themselves, and should focus on the solicitation of direct debit collections. A requirement in the Act for charities to show that they serve a "public benefit" was at the centre of a long running legal dispute between the Charity Commission and 1,260 private schools. The Commission was eventually ordered to tear up guidelines which forced schools to do more to justify their charitable status - and the resulting tax breaks. The Commission ran up legal costs of £185,000 for the hearing itself but amassed a much larger sum in legal advice and staff time. The same controversial clause is currently at the centre of a separate legal dispute over whether the Plymouth Brethren can be classed as a charity because they hold some private worship meetings. The report highlighted concerns from the Board of Deputies that some Jewish groups could also fall foul of the interpretation. "In this respect the Charities Act 2006 has been an administrative and financial disaster for the Charity Commission and for the charities involved, absorbing vast amounts of energy and commitment, as well as money," the committee said. Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the committee, said: "We are not happy about the way that the Charity Commission has interpreted the law they were asked to interpret, but they are not entirely to blame for becoming embroiled in costly litigation, because the 2006 Act created ambiguity, which ministers at the time were clear that they did not intend. We are today launching this report on the floor of the House and we will call for Parliament to repeal the public benefit provisions in the Charities Act 2006. It must be for Parliament, not the Charity Commission, to determine the criteria for charitable status.