Clause
53Grounds
for refusing to issue a
certificate Amendment
proposed: No. 148,
page 59, line 23, leave out from
‘inadequate,’ to end of line 24 and insert
‘having regard to all
circumstances.’.—[Martin
Horwood.] Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
10.
Division No.
9] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 53 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 59 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
60Refusal
of
permits Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Helen
Goodman: I know that my amendment No. 143 has not been put
on the selection list, but I wonder whether the Minister could clarify
how clause 60 will work. Professional fundraisers are concerned that,
because it is so tightly drafted, from time to time in some places, it
would be possible for a local authority to restrict fundraising to two
days a week. Is he aware of that, and could he and the lawyers examine
the technical drafting of the clause before it comes back on
Report?
The
Chairman: Before I call the Minister, could I point out to
the hon. Lady that her amendment was grouped with amendment No. 144? As
we have had the debate on the amendment, I would ask the Minister to
respond to the clause stand part
debate.
Edward
Miliband: I will be brief. My hon. Friend was lucky enough
to be let off at 6 o’clock on Tuesday. She will see from the
record that I spoke in some detail about the issue, but I would be
happy to discuss it with her outside the
Committee. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 60 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
63Regulations
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendmentNo. 153,
page 69, line 5, leave out
‘or
(3)’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 154, page 69, line 5, leave
out ‘or
(b)’.
Martin
Horwood: Amendment No. 153 is consequential on amendment
No. 154, which seeks to leave out the
words “or (b)” that refer to subsection (1)(b), which
deals with regulations that the Secretary of State may make
“for the purpose of regulating the
conduct of public charitable
collections”. We
do not seek to delete the paragraph—it is an important part of
the structure of the clause as a whole—but we seek to remove the
reference in subsection (4) to its generality not being restricted by
anything else in the clause. In effect, the amendment would restrict
the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations willy-nilly in
whatever way he chose.
10.15
am Although
we trust that the Secretary of State and his parliamentary colleagues
are generous souls, it seems that subsections (2) and (3) set out a
comprehensive and legitimate list of the matters that may be prescribed
by regulation, and the provisions that may be made. They refer to such
sensible things as the areas in which the appeal can be conducted, the
keeping of accounts and the prevention of annoyance to the public. I
question whether the Secretary of State needs much wider powers, as
granting them makes almost superfluous the powers granted in
subsections (2) and (3).
Edward
Miliband: Believe it or not, Donald Rumsfeld is able to
help us. He talked a few years ago about known unknowns. He said that
we know that there are some things that we do not know. The hon. Member
for Cheltenham asks a legitimate question. He wants to know what it is
that might not be contained in subsections (2) or (3) for which the
Secretary of State would want to prescribe regulations. The truth is
that we do not know. If we knew, it would be included. The question is
therefore why we need the power.
The hon. Gentleman was formerly
involved in the process of public fundraising, if not as an
“Ã1/4berchugger” as I alleged earlier. He will know
that we need the power because the way in which public fundraising
takes place is rapidly changing. For instance, direct debit fundraising
essentially did not exist 10 years ago. The only reason for these
provisions is that they provide for flexibility in the prescribed
regulations, so that if the process of public fundraising changes and
it is thought to be necessary to take action in order to preserve
public confidence on matters that fall outside subsections (2) and (3),
we will have the flexibility to do so without recourse to primary
legislation. As I
say, I cannot describe the ways in which public fundraising might
evolve, or what regulations might be necessary; if I could, they would
be defined in subsections (2) and (3). I know that that makes life
rather difficult, but even if my observations included mention of
Donald Rumsfeld, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Martin
Horwood: I cannot help thinking that hon. Members and
those in another place may have enormous fun reconstructing the
Minister’s suggestion that known unknowns should be the proper
basis for legislation, and citing Donald Rumsfeld as an authority. He
might find that lawyers will challenge the
idea that it is a proper basis for legislation. I certainly would.
However, I am somewhat reassured that his intent is benign.
Although the Minister’s
reference to fundraising being a fast-moving discipline is right,
public charitable collections are probably the least fast moving of
all. The way in which fundraising is done—whether with cash,
direct debits or standing orders—may have evolved over the past
10 or 15 years, but the nature of public collection itself has hardly
changed in 100 years. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
63 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
64 to 66 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: Opposition Front Benchers have said that they
would find it convenient to combine the debates on clauses 67 and 68
and the amendments to them accordingly.
Clause
67Statements
indicating benefits for charitable institutions and
fund-raisers
Mr.
Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 128,
page 71, line 14, at end
insert— ‘(6) After
subsection (9)
insert— “The
Charity Commission shall have power to initiate criminal proceedings in
respect of offences under subsection
(9).” ’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Clause stand
part. Amendment No.
131, in clause 68, page 73, line 22, at end
add— “60C Fundraising by
sale of products and
services (1) Save in the case
of small outlets, where the sale of any goods or service is represented
as benefiting a charity or charities, the vendor shall indicate either
the proportion or the amount of the sale price which will be passed to
the charity or charities for their unrestricted
benefit. (2) Indications under
subsection (1) above may be made in diagramatic form, and shall be made
in writing, the font-size of which shall be no smaller than the price
of the goods or service. (3)
For the purpose of this section, a “small outlet” is an
organisation which is not obliged to register for Value Added Tax
purposes.”.’. Clause
68 stand
part.
Mr.
Turner: When we arrived this morning, it was fair to say
that the sun had got his hat on and we all hoped that later on we could
come out to play. The sun has, I am afraid, taken his hat off and
hidden behind a cloud. Let us hope that he comes out again later. It is
pleasing to see you, Mrs. Humble, once more in your place, if
only for a few more
minutes. I am grateful
that the two clauses have been brought together because that will make
for a shorter debate. I give notice that I might wish to press
amendment No. 131 to a Division.
Amendment No. 128 gives the
Charity Commission the power to initiate criminal proceedings in
respect of offences under subsection (9). The reason for that is that
in the past—there are a number of specialised offences
here—the Charity Commission has had the power to take action
against charities. However, it was not necessarily the charities who
were offending. Sometimes an organisation that is not a charity
purports to be one. The provision would give the Charity Commission the
power to enforce criminal sanctions in respect of clause 60 of the
Bill. That may not be the most appropriate body for the task; it might
be appropriate for sanctions to be enforced by trading standards or a
similar organisation. That is by nature of a probing amendment and I
will welcome the Minister’s view on
that. Amendment
No. 131 is a requirement for information to be given, when goods or
services are offered for sale purportedly for the benefit of a charity,
about the amount of money that is going to that charity. It adds a new
section 60C to the 1993 Act. It exempts small outlets. I can see the
hon. Member for Bishop Auckland shaking her head. I am sure that we
will have an interesting debate on that.
Christmas cards are one example
of goods that are quite frequently offered for sale, supposedly for the
benefit of charity. I refer to a 5 November report from The
Guardian. It is relevant that it is Guy Fawkes night on this day of
all days. Hon. Members might wish to consult the Guido Fawkes blog to
find out more about why I have said that. However, The Guardian
said: “Britain’s
high street retailers are selling charity Christmas cards which give as
little as 4p in every £1 to good causes. A survey by Guardian
Money reveals that John Lewis Partnership and Fenwick as the stores
which give least, with one card on sale in Fenwick’s swanky Bond
Street store”— it
has descended to the level of The Sun in
that— “giving just
1p to an arts fund...Card Aid...names John Lewis as
‘Scrooge of the year’. Clinton Cards topped the survey by
promising to pass on 25 per cent. of the (pre-VAT) price on its charity
cards.” That is a matter
of some concern. How much money from a service or a good that is
offered for sale by a high street outlet—although not only a
high street outlet and I have specifically exempted small
outlets—goes to
charity? In 2004, the
average charity Christmas card sold for 64p of which only 5p went to
charity. Boots have a standard flat rate of
10p— It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
