Edward
Miliband: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks
would be best directed to the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who is
desperately keen for more local devolution, whereas the hon. Member for
Isle of Wight seems to want us to hem in local authorities’
discretion as much as possible. The Government have more trust in local
authorities than he does; perhaps we have more in common with the hon.
Member for Wellingborough. Reasonableness is in the clause, and that
will prevent the rather strange examples that he mentioned. I hope that
I have provided some reassurance on the
amendment. That brings
me to amendment No. 145. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham in
principle that all
door-to-door collectors should carry identity badges, but that is an
operational matter that does not need to be included in the Bill. We
propose to cover it in the regulation that will be issued by the
relevant Minister to ensure that identity badges for door-to-door
collectors are prescribed in a form applicable across England and
Wales. In preparing the regulations on such a detailed issue, we want
to consult widely and I am happy for the hon. Gentleman and other
members of the Committee to be kept up to date. Amendments Nos. 143 and 115
were tabled by my hon. Friend for Bishop Auckland. They have not been
moved, but I shall address them briefly because they raise some issues
that are relevant to the other amendments and that we shall discuss in
the context of clause 60. I think that my hon. Friend was essentially
concerned about the grounds for refusal in clause 60(2)(b). That
provision attempts to strike a balance between not allowing essentially
blanket refusal of any collecting by local authorities, while at the
same time not tying their hands. It is in same spirit as the views of
the hon. Member for Wellingborough. We are not trying to tie the hands
of the local authority to an excessive degree, though I cited the
apparently true example of local authorities that allow collections
only once a month. Subsection (2)(b) essentially says that a local
authority may refuse a street collection in a particular locality if
there has been a collection the day before or the day after. What that
will mean is that local authorities cannot simply permit one collection
a month and prevent others from collecting. We are trying to strike a
balance.
Martin
Horwood: The idea that any council would be able to reduce
face-to-face fundraising to once a month is extraordinary. It would be
a disastrous.
Edward
Miliband: They do it
now.
Martin
Horwood: I do not think they are able to do it. The
officials are shaking their heads, so I may be wrong, but very few
councils have successfully managed to restrict collecting in that way.
The PFRA is concerned that councils might take clause 60(2)(b) and
interpret it in the most restrictive way possible, so that collecting
would be restricted in effect to two days a week. The Minister shrugs
but, as I said, this is not a cost-free exercise—it means less
income and fewer resources for charities of the kind that we are trying
to support. If the strictest possible interpretation is made, we may
not be tying the hands of councils but we may be allowing them to tie
the hands of charities
unduly.
Edward
Miliband: That is the dilemma we all face in
politics—the balance between national decision making and
top-down centralisation, as the Liberal Democrats often call it, and
leaving things to the discretion of local authorities. We are providing
a degree of discretion for local authorities—not enough for the
hon. Member for Wellingborough, but too much for the hon. Member for
Cheltenham. I am not sure about the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It
is a dilemma, and perhaps in the spirit of the Quaker friends, we have
tried to reach a consensus. I was not involved in the reaching of the
consensus—it was before my time—but, as I understand it,
we have
reached a consensus with the local authorities who were concerned about
the way that the Bill would tie their hands in refusing collections. I
hope that that will satisfy the
Committee. I should
also deal with amendment No. 46, which was tabled by the hon. Member
for Isle of Wight. The Government accept that there should be different
levels of regulation for different types of collections, and that is
why the Bill proposes that certificates and permits need not be
obtained for collections that are local and short-term in nature.
However, it is essential to have some basic safeguards for the conduct
of collectors involved in all types of collections. Certain respondents
to our public consultation expressed concerns that small, local
collections were often the ones most susceptible to fraud and abuse.
Nevertheless, I can reassure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that it
will be possible to have different regulations for different types of
collection. Some requirements, such as the requirement for collectors
to have photographic identity cards, ill apply to street and
house-to-house collections that we would not expect to be met by exempt
local short-term collections. We will consult widely on the matter and
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
I hope that I have dealt with
the concerns of the Committee on a difficult subject. We should be
honest that it is a hard balance to strike, but I hope that Members
will think that we are striking the right
balance.
Martin
Horwood: I am impressed by the spirit in which the
Minister is addressing the amendments. I hope that he will take on
board many of the remarks that have been made. I am reassured by some
of the things that he has said, but not about the issues addressed by
amendment No. 144. It seems that for the law to step in and restrict
relationships between consenting charities and shopping precincts, or
even Tesco car parks, is an undue
restriction.
Alun
Michael indicated
dissent.
Martin
Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but
I speak with some experience. The Alzheimer’s Society was Tesco
charity of the year, and we know how much administration is involved in
running a large national charitable appeal. To add many burdensome
permit applications when collections are happening on private property
seems to be an undue restriction.
Alun
Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is
over-concentrating on the question of the ownership of the property
rather than on whether there is general public access? I suggest that
he is allowing his previous professional experience to stand in the way
of the expectations of the general public. We all have experience of
such issues as constituency Members.
Martin
Horwood: I hope that I am not allowing anything to stand
in my way, but that I am allowing it to inform what I am saying. The
Bill already places much greater restrictions on face-to-face and
door-to-door fundraising than previously existed. That includes
public collections in the street and door-to-door collections. I welcome
that, and I know that the Institute of Fundraising welcomes it, too. I
am dealing only with the minority of examples where collections have
been agreed between the owner of something like a shopping precinct and
a particular charity. It seems that that would be an area where the law
did not need to intrude. However, I sense that the will of the
Committee is not sympathetic, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Edward
Miliband: I beg to move amendmentNo.
175, page 53, line 21, leave out
‘to give money or other property’ and insert
‘which is— (i) an appeal to
them to give money or other property,
or (ii) an appeal falling
within subsection (4), (or
both)
and’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
Government amendments Nos. 176, 180, 183, 188 to 190, 177 and
178.
Edward
Miliband: We have tried to avoid cluttering up the
Committee with lots of Government amendments, and I apologise that
there are quite so many in this group. I shall explain them briefly,
because they are mainly technical.
Amendments
Nos. 175 and 176 are simply technical changes recommended by the
draftsperson to improve the wording of clause 45, and they do not
change the effect of the provisions. The other amendments do make a
change and I shall explain briefly why I think that that is necessary.
The Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, which
I mentioned earlier, regulates charitable collections in the street.
The provisions of the Bill will replace those provisions. However, it
has been pointed out to us that the scope of the 1916 Act is wider than
merely regulating public charitable, philanthropic or benevolent
collections. The hon. Member for Worthing, West might have raised that
point. Although no regulations are being made to regulate other types
of collections, we think it prudent to retain the power for local
authorities to regulate collections that are not charitable,
philanthropic or benevolent in nature. We are responding to requests
from local authorities on that. The circumstances that were mentioned
to us include collections that involve animal rights activists, where
the purposes of the collections were clearly not charitable,
philanthropic or benevolent.
Government amendment No. 180
will retain the provision in the 1916 Act to enable local authorities
to regulate non-charitable collections, provided that they are
consistent with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Government
amendments Nos. 178, 183, 189 and 190 are consequential amendments. I
hope that the Committee will see the value of retaining those
provisions.
7
pm
Mr.
Turner: I am concerned to hear that the Minister is
restricting the controls over collections more tightly than was the
intention. I suppose that it makes no difference to the man in the
street whether the collection is for a charitable, benevolent or
philanthropic institution or for someone else—the disturbance
may be no greater and no
less.
Edward
Miliband: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. We are not
imposing further restrictions, but we have had pointed out to us that
although the Bill will regulate charitable collections, non-charitable
collections were in danger of being left unregulated. We were replacing
the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 with
the Bill, but leaving non-charitable collections
unregulated.
Mr.
Turner: I understand what the Minister is saying. In other
words, the provisions are not a re-regulatory measure, but equally they
are not a deregulatory measure.
I apologise if I have
misunderstood, but perhaps I had better move on to my other objection
and give myself and my hon. Friends a chance to think about what the
group of amendments means for the sale of goods in the street for
non-philanthropic, non-benevolent and non-charitable purposes by animal
rights activists, for example. Exactly what regulatory mechanism is the
Minister proposing?
Edward
Miliband: Essentially, my understanding is that the
provisions restore the status quo in relation to non-charitable
collections. The problem with our drafting—and I apologise for
this—is that it did a fine job in relation to charitable
collections, but left non-charitable collections unregulated. The
Government’s amendments, which are highly technical, restore the
status quo. If the hon. Gentleman did not object to the status quo
before, I hope that he will not do so
now.
Mr.
Turner: I do not object to the status quo, but I am trying
to understand. Let me put myself into the position of an animal rights
activist for one moment—or into the position of non-animal
rights activist, because the Countryside Alliance could be affected as
well as the League Against Cruel Sports. Let us say that a group is
marching through the centre of London with about 400,000 people and
that it wants to collect money. To whom would such a body apply for
permission to collect money? If such a collection were part of a
national appeal, who would occupy the position that the charity
commissioners occupy in relation, say, to the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children when it conducts a national street
collection? Perhaps I do not know the answer to that question because I
have misread or misunderstood the Government amendments, but I would be
grateful if the Minister could assist me on
that.
Mr.
Flello: Perhaps I could give a further illustration; for
example, the far right go from door to door in my constituency
collecting money. Have I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s
point or is he suggesting that he would prefer the NSPCC to be
regulated, but for far right groups not to be
regulated?
Mr.
Turner: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood, but that is
a perfectly reasonable question. I was asking who would stand in the
place of the Charity Commission. The charity commissioners regulate the
NSPCC, but who regulates the far
right?
Edward
Miliband: It is useful to have this discussion. The
position is the status quo, which is as follows. In London, the
relevant body will be the Metropolitan police and in the rest of
country it will still be local authorities. The Charity Commission has
no involvement. The hon. Gentleman might regard the position between
the police and local authorities as anomalous, but that is a matter for
another Bill, not this
one.
Mr.
Turner: In that case, I am reasonably happy. I was
concerned that the Charity Commission regulates whether the
Conservative party could go from door to door collecting memberships.
Sadly under this Bill, that is not defined as philanthropic or
benevolent despite it obviously being both.
| 
