Memorandum from Swindon Borough Council
(DCH 36)
1. Confusion has arisen in existing legislation,
over the status of direct debit collections. No doubt there will
be determined lobbying to leave the definitions vague, so that
face-to-face collections slip through the net. It is essential
though that the new Act says explicitly that direct debit fund
raising is covered. [Definition of "charitable appeal"
in Clause 37.]
2. Existing house to house legislation contains
the enforcement obstacle that only a series of visits to premises
to solicit support trigger the need for an authorisation. A visit
made by appointment ought properly to be exempt from regulation
but if a collector turns up unannounced at just one address (which
might be as big as the Honda plant), there should be a requirement
for proper authorisation. [Use of the word "visits"
in Clause 37]
3. Our town centre is plagued by highly
questionable companies selling prize competition cards, generally
at £2 each. The standard patter used by the rather thuggish
young men who sell them involves asking potential purchasers "would
you like to nominate a organisation to receive a specially converted
minibus". The words "in association with a representation
that the whole or any part of its proceeds is to be applied for
charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes" are not
sufficient to defeat these semantic tricks. Some reference to
"or implied representation" would solve the problem.
Second-hand dealers who make reference to the "Third World"
and that all garments "are to be worn again" would be
similarly thwarted. [Again, Clause 37]
4. There should be a deregulation of collections,
where they are conducted outside the premises of an out of town
retailer, with their permission. [Clause 37 again]
5. The loose use of the term "purpose
that is local in character" will lead to abuse. We have long
experience of this since we have something similar in our local
policy. The questionable applicant at once says "we are quite
happy to undertake that one of our wheelchairs/holidays etc will
go to someone who lives in your area", in order to establish
an alleged "local" aspect. It should be stated explicitly
that the fact that there will be some local beneficiary does not
make the purpose "local in character" and that the purpose
taken as a whole must be "local". [Clause 39]
6. Traditionally, local authorities have
sought to schedule charitable collections so that the tolerance
of givers is not stretched too far and so that charities do not
plan for months to carry out a collection, only to find that their
intended prime site has been taken by another charity. In either
scenario, charities would suffer if the local authority was unable
to act as "referee". The draft seems to imply that we
must grant whatever is asked. [Clause 41 includes no grounds for
refusal on the grounds that the high street will be swamped with
competing collectors or that "pro life" and "pro
choice" groups have chosen the same day to collect.]
7. Following on from the above, the argument
in the Explanatory Notes to the effect that capacity is not an
issue with house to house is quite wrong. When the third collector
in an evening knocks on someone's door, tempers are likely to
become frayed and all of the charities concerned will suffer damage
to their reputation. Aggressive, blanket collecting by face to
face agencies is already making things difficult for small or
more restrained organisations. In addition, the practice of plying
householders with multiple options can be very intrusive. The
"mix and match" approach (ie failing to convince with
an animal welfare charity, so trying a cancer charity instead)
smacks of pressure selling. An appeal should be for one thing
at a time. A new provision is needed for that.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
June 2004
| 
