NCVO and Stone King partner for Governance Forum: supporting charities on governance

Good governance is essential to the success and integrity of charities. At Stone King, we are passionate about supporting charities with guidance on best practice and compliance. That’s why we were delighted to partner with NCVO for a recent Governance Forum webinar, bringing together governance professionals from a wide range of charities and providing expert insights from two key organisations, the Charity Commission and Companies House, on the latest developments that will impact on the sector.

The session opened with a warm welcome from Rosamund McCarthy Etherington, Stone King’s Head of Charity Sector, and Sally Stephens, NCVO’s Lead Governance Coordinator. Both highlighted the vital role of governance in the charity sector. Rosamund shared how Stone King is delighted to support charities of all shapes and sizes, celebrating the pluralism and vibrancy of the sector. She noted that governance professionals – sometimes sung heroes, but more often than not unsung – work extremely hard to ensure compliance and prepare essential documentation which are important for trust and accountability.

The session began with an interactive poll asking attendees: Do you feel confident in your charity’s compliance? Encouragingly, most respondents expressed confidence, though a small number were less certain – something we hoped this session would help address.

Key speakers and insights:

1. Holly Riley, Head of Strategic Policy at the Charity Commission

Governance remains central to everything the Commission does, from publishing guidance to enforcing compliance. Holly provided an overview of the Commission’s work and upcoming priorities, including:

• SORP changes effective from 1 January.
• Charity thresholds changing from November 2026.
• Updated guidance (CC30) – clearer language and new legal duties.
• New Chair appointment in the new year.
• Campaigning ahead of May 2026 Senedd elections.
• Digital transformation – including how charities can embrace technology and AI while maintaining strong governance.

Holly also addressed trustee diversity, stressing the importance of understanding your trustee body, conducting skills audits, and ensuring a mix of skills and backgrounds – not just protected characteristics – for better decision-making. Only 6% of trustees respond to roles via adverts, so the Commission is working on improving recruitment reach and options.

Another area of focus for the Charity Commission is board behaviour. Holly noted that creating a safe space for discussion and preventing dominant voices from overshadowing others is essential. While these may seem like micro-challenges, they can escalate if not managed. The Commission is collaborating with sector bodies and a working group of trustees to develop guidance on this topic.

This part of the webinar concluded with a Q&A with the Charity Commission:

The role of AI: A key question during the session was whether the Charity Commission provides guidance on the use of AI in decision-making. Holly explained that while there isn’t a standalone piece of guidance on AI, the topic is embedded within existing guidance. However, given the growing interest and increasing calls for clarity, it is looking very likely that the Commission will issue specific guidance on AI in the future. Ultimately, AI should be used as a governance tool, not a substitute for trustee judgment.

Skills audits: The Commission does not publish its own detailed guidance on this topic. Instead, it focuses on signposting to existing high-quality resources from trusted sector bodies. 

Board behaviours and Governance Code: The Charity Governance Code is central to the Charity Commission’s approach, and is signposted throughout the Commission’s own guidance. The Commission sits on the steering group for the Code, and thought goes into making sure the two are aligned in their approaches and thinking. Board behaviour is often nuanced, and such human factors can lead to regulatory challenges, so guidance leans heavily on the Governance Code, which provides the framework for any guidance the Commission produces. 

Impact and public benefit requirement: This focus stems from challenges highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic, when government asked where charitable impact would make the most difference – a question that proved difficult to answer, i.e. a hospice centre has massive impact but does the Commission convey its impact adequately? The Commission recognised that there is a real need to tell the story better: to show the value, skills, and contribution that charities deliver. To support this, the Commission is exploring ways to help charities demonstrate their impact more effectively, for example offering data, tools, and guidance to help charities “tell their story” more clearly and meaningfully. The aim is to make it easier for charities to demonstrate how they serve the public interest while meeting legal requirements.

Updated guidance on grant making and fundraising: The Charity Commission doesn’t consult on these updates in the same way as formal consultations, instead it carries out user testing with real trustees and key sector bodies. The core principles of governance remain unchanged. The main focus of the update is on making the guidance shorter, easier to navigate, and written in plain English so charities can quickly find what they need without wading through unnecessary detail. 

Best approach to strengthened ESG elements of the new SORP: Charities should focus on meaningful reporting of impact and data. The new SORP is challenging as it has come through in a really quick way. The recommendation is that charities really take time to consider and focus on the meaningful reporting of impact and data. This approach is important not only for compliance but also for transparency with trustees and donors across the board.

Paying trustees: The Charity Commission’s view is that trusteeship should remain an unpaid position. While paying trustees might seem like an easy solution, there are other steps charities can take, such as improving recruitment or conducting skills audits. It’s also important to distinguish between payment and reasonable expenses – not all charities cover expenses properly, and this should be addressed first. Ultimately, paying trustees is not a magic solution; building a diverse and effective board requires a more strategic approach.

Election guidance ahead of May 2026 Senedd elections: The Charity Commission emphasised that good governance is at the heart of this, particularly when charities invite candidates or engage with political parties. Existing guidance stresses the importance of recording decisions so that charities can demonstrate compliance if challenged. The changing political landscape and evolving party structures make this more complex than in previous election cycles. The Commission confirmed that, as during the last general election, it will provide updated guidance and host webinars to support charities in operating safely and confidently. The Commission also plans to launch a new landing page with resources and supplement this with events and outreach to sector bodies.

2. Companies House update

The session then moved to Rebecca Brown, Senior Partnership Manager at Companies House, who reminded attendees that not all charities are registered companies – echoing an earlier point made by Rosamund McCarthy-Etherington in her introduction. However, it was hoped that Rebecca’s talk which outlined some of the biggest changes in Companies House’s history would still be of relevance for attendees. The key changes introduced included:

• Mandatory identity verification (live from 18 November).
• Migration of WebFiling accounts to GOV.UK OneLogin.
• Fee changes from 1 February 2026.

Rebecca reported a positive rollout so far, with thousands of individuals successfully registering. This was followed by a practical video from Andrew Williams, Identity Verification Implementation Lead, providing a step-by-step guide to completing identity verification.

The Companies House section of the Forum ended with a Q&A session, answered by Esme Turner, Head of Campaigns External Communications at Companies House, who addressed key concerns including:

Name mismatches: One concern was around names that differ slightly between Companies House records and ID documents – for example, Rosamund McCarthy Etherington registered as Rosamund McCarthy. Companies House confirmed that new guidance will be issued to help address these issues. In the meantime, charities should ensure that names on Companies House match those on official ID documents. When filing confirmation statements, if there is a mismatch, the system will prompt you to select a reason from five options (e.g. legal name change, preferred name, different naming convention, error, or prefer not to disclose). These mismatches will not prevent filing, but they will be flagged for review. However it is important to note, a date of birth mismatch will block filing, so accuracy in this case is critical.

Single or multiple identity verification codes: All directors must complete identity verification – not just PSCs (People with Significant Control)^[1]. Each individual will receive one unique code that links all their roles across different companies. If someone currently has multiple codes, Companies House will introduce a process to merge them in the future. There is a 12-month transition period for existing officers, and this change will affect approximately 6–7 million individuals. The verification process may include “knowledge-based questions,” but there is no direct link – users are guided through a series of steps that may lead to these questions.

PSC requirements: For PSCs that are companies themselves, an officer may need to verify their identity. Companies House is working on clear timelines and guidance for these scenarios.

Confirmation statements: If there are issues with names or multiple codes when filing confirmation statements, the system will allow you to provide an explanation for name mismatches. This will not stop you from filing, but DOB mismatches will prevent submission. Companies House is committed to making this process as smooth as possible.

Photo ID concerns: Charities raised concerns about directors who do not have photo ID. Companies House has addressed this by introducing a Post Office verification route and setting up a Support Plus team to assist on a case-by-case basis. This team will help identify accessible alternatives and ensure that no one is excluded from compliance.

The session concluded with attendees and NCVO representatives being split into breakout groups to have open and practical discussions on a number of relevant topics including:

• Barriers to compliance.
• How regulators can better support charities.
• How the updated Governance Code can help embed best practice.

Looking ahead

Rosamund McCarthy Etherington from Stone King wrapped up the session by thanking all speakers and participants, highlighting how valuable these insights are for charities navigating an evolving regulatory and governance landscape.

It has been a real pleasure to partner with NCVO for this Governance Forum, and we are immensely grateful to our speakers from Companies House and the Charity Commission for providing practical tips and direct updates on issues that matter most to governance professionals. The information shared today will be essential for supporting attendees both in their day-to-day roles and in shaping long-term governance strategies.

At Stone King, we remain committed to helping trustees and governance professionals tackle these challenges with confidence.

If you would like to learn more about how Stone King can support your charity, please get in touch with us.