Memorandum from Centrepoint (DCH 85)
1. CENTREPOINT
Centrepoint is the national charity working
to improve the lives of socially excluded, homeless young people.
It provides a range of accommodation based services that provide
the foundations from which young people can start addressing some
of the issues that lead to them becoming homeless, and developing
the skills they need for a sustainable future.
Centrepoint works with young people to enable
their personal, social, educational and vocational development.
To this end, each service offers employment, training, education,
lifeskills and specialist support for young people with mental
health, drug and alcohol issues.
Centrepoint is both a registered charity and
a registered social landlord regulated by the Housing Corporation.
As such we have a particular perspective on the regulation of
the not for profit sector as a whole. Further information is at
www.centrepoint.org
2. CONSIDERATION
OF THE
DRAFT CLAUSES
2.1 Role of the Charity Commission
Centrepoint believes that there should be an
effective and rigorous regulator for the charitable sector in
order to maintain and enhance public trust and confidence. There
is a need to strengthen the Charity Commission's regulatory focus,
but to do so without expanding the regulatory burden on charities.
For this reason Centrepoint believes that the role of the regulator
should be more clearly defined, with a stronger focus on its regulatory
function.
Centrepoint's experience of being regulated
by both the Charity Commission and the Housing Corporation gives
us an unusual perspective on the balance that should be struck
between the regulatory and advisory roles of such bodies. Our
experience is that "advice" from a regulator not infrequently
becomes de facto regulation. A widening of the Commission's advisory
role in matters not solely concerned with regulation is likely
to lead to an effective and probably unintended increase in the
burden of regulation for charities.
2.2 Registration of Charities
Centrepoint believes that all charities that
receive the benefits of charitable status should be treated the
same: that is they should be subject to the same reporting and
accounting requirements, proportionate to their size. Therefore
whilst welcoming the changes to the status of excepted and exempt
charities, we would like to see these clauses strengthened:
— there should be a schedule setting
out a timetable for the registration of excepted charities; and
— the principal regulator of an exempt
charity must ensure compliance with charity law.
2.3 Powers of entry
Clause 21 extends the Commission's powers to
a considerable degree, following the institution of an enquiry.
There must be clear and explicit guidance as to when and why this
would be necessary and it would have to be the last in a long
list of measures.
2.4 Charitable Incorporated Organisations
It will be useful for charities to be able
to become incorporated by adopting this new legal form. We also
welcome the fact that it will be relatively easy for those organisations
that have incorporated as a company to change to this form if
they so wish. However, the aim should be to add to the range of
legal forms available to charities, not to make this the only
option available.
2.5 Power to spend capital
We would like the Committee to consider carefully
the implications of this measure and whether it should be modified
in relation to larger charities.
2.6 Mergers
Decisions about mergers are properly the responsibility
of trustees; the Charity Commission should not direct trustees
to merge, eg because the Commission believes it would maximise
social and economic impact.
2.7 Regulation of fundraising
Centrepoint considers that charitable fundraising
should be subject to self-regulation by the sector, not regulated
by government. We note that the Secretary of State is committed
to consulting with the sector and those involved in raising funds
on its behalf before activating the reserved powers described
in this draft Bill, but we would like to see a clear statement
of the criteria on which the decision to invoke reserve powers
would be based.
2.8 Charitable Collections
Centrepoint welcomes the broad thrust of the
proposals on public collections but believes that a number of
detailed amendments to the Bill are required to ensure that its
objectives are achieved in practice. These are:
— Clarification should be given as
to whether a promoter is considered to be any or all of an organisation,
individuals or an individual in order to be issued with a certificate
of fitness. We believe that in most instances organisations should
be issued with a certificate of fitness, rather than an individual.
(para 2.2)
— We believe that all activities on
the street should be subject to a requirement for a permit, even
if a Certificate of Fitness is not required because the collection
will be small and local. (para 3.1)
— Further consultation should be carried
out on the criteria for assessing capacity and mapping sites between
Home Office, Local Authorities and collecting organisations to
achieve a universally agreed outcome. We recommend that the PFRA
is consulted with a view to the universal adoption of its site
management system (MapIT) for this purpose.
— We are concerned that the adoption
of the Lead Authority principle for issuing Certificates of Fitness
will place an undue burden on a small proportion of (predominantly
London) Local Authorities. We believe that there is a danger that
this approach, without the proper level of resourcing, will lead
to delays in issuing Certificates and thus act as an impediment
to fundraising.
— We believe that the Bill should include
a requirement on Local Authorities for a minimum notice period
within which charities must be notified of a decision to disallow
a collection. (para 7.0)
— We seek clarification that payroll
giving and other workplace fundraising activities are not caught
in the definition of "business premises" by 65 (2) (a)
(ii).
— We recognise that the Bill gives
powers to the Secretary of State to make grants to the sector
to defray costs; we believe that the development of an on-line
applications procedure would be a suitable object of those grants.
The Scottish Bill allows grants to be made to any person "enabling
institutions generally better to implement their purposes".
We believe that similar provision should be made in the Bill for
England and Wales. (para 11.2)
— We believe that guidance, developed
through consultation, should have a statutory basis. (para 11.3)
Tobin Aldrich
June 2004
| 
