Memorandum from John Grooms (registered
charity number 212463) (DCH 125)
BACKGROUND
John Grooms is a specialist disability charity
and housing association. We are committed to supporting disabled
people to be as independent as possible and to realise their full
potential. We operate nationally providing:
— Wheelchair accessible homes and supported
housing solutions for people who are wheelchair users,
— Residential, respite and nursing
care services,
— Rehabilitation for people with brain
injuries,
— Accessible holidays for disabled
people and their families
— Education and training.
With all our work we aim to treat everyone as
an individual. John Grooms believes that people are not disabled
by their individual impairments but by physical barriers and those
created by people's attitudes. We support the goal of the Disability
Rights Commission "of a society where all disabled people
can participate fully as equal citizens."
1. Are the proposals to regulate fund-raising
workable?
1.1 Whilst we appreciate the intention behind
section 35, to increase transparency for prospective donors, we
are concerned that its implementation will lead to a significant
decrease in funds donated in this way. In particular, the recruitment
of committed givers face-to-face can appear superficially very
expensive and it is highly likely that lay people will fail to
understand that charities view the return on such investment over
three, or even five, year periods.
When the donation is viewed over such a period,
it becomes apparent that the return is very profitable indeed.
However, if the investment is viewed on a short-term basis, it
can appear to be a very expensive method of fundraising. Accordingly,
there is a very real risk that that the requirement to state the
exact amount paid to the professional fundraiser will act as a
disincentive to prospective donors.
1.2 We believe that the first step towards
greater transparency in this area is to educate the public about
fundraising. A starting point would be an understanding of the
reality that it costs money to raise funds in any significant
way.
In the current climate, we believe that efforts
should be targeted at improving understanding of the various methods
of fundraising and their effectiveness. There is a real danger
that, if fundraisers are required to disclose the exact figures
before the public has been properly informed in this way, the
Government's stated aims of increasing trust and building confidence
in the sector will not be achieved.
1.3 We maintain that private land to which
the public has unrestricted access should not be included in the
definition of "public place". We refute the Government's
assertion that the owners of properties such as railway and underground
stations, and shopping malls, are not capable of easily controlling
such collections.
It is our experience that the management in such
organisations are not only fully able to control unauthorised
activity, but are assiduous in enforcing such control. John Grooms
would not entertain attempting any collection activity at such
locations without the express permission of the owner. Adding
the burden of local authority approval would simply create a layer
of redundant bureaucracy.
1.4 Whilst the proposal for lead authorities
may appear good in theory, we are concerned that in practice it
may not work. There are a number issues we feel are particularly
pertinent:
(a) When applying for a Certificate of Fitness
(COF) from the lead authority, the charity must specify the areas
in respect of which the certificate is sought. This demonstrates
a lack of understanding of the day-to-day operations of charities
and ignores the realities involved in this type of fundraising
activity. Fundraising plans often require Trustee approval and,
as such, the details may change during the period covered by a
COF. It is therefore not always possible to specify with certainty
the areas in which collections will take place.
(b) The proposed scheme would not ensure
consistent application of regulation.
(c) Whilst face-to-face campaigns may have
preferred target areas, often charities only know the precise
locations where recruiters will be working one week in advance.
(d) These concerns are of particular importance
when one considers that a COF can be sought for a 5-year period.
It will be virtually impossible for most charities to stipulate
which areas they will focus their efforts on so far in advance.
This is certainly the case for John Grooms
As a practical way forward, John Grooms would
suggest that once a COF has been secured, a council is simply
notified. If the council has any concerns about the charity, raised
either by the Charity Commission or locally, then the onus will
be on the council to act.
1.5 As a London based charity, we are concerned
that certain local authorities within the capital will be inundated
with applications for COFs to the extent that the process could
become unworkable.
Our head office is based in Hackney, where a
number of other charities are located, and we believe that the
new system will place an unfair burden on that council. Other
London boroughs such as Camden, Islington, Westminster, Southwark
and Lambeth would also incur a disproportionate responsibility
as a significant number of charities have their head offices in
these areas.
The initial application for a COF is likely
to cause a great bureaucratic log-jam in these local authorities,
particularly since they must also consult with the Chief Office
of Police for the area. Accordingly, there is a very real chance
of significant delays in processing such applications. This is
compounded by the fact that, whilst promoters must submit their
application at least one month before the initial collection commences,
the local authority is not subject to any specific timetable in
terms of issuing COFs.
Finally, London Boroughs currently have no responsibility
for charitable collections and, as such, the new regime is likely
to present them with significant management challenges in the
early stages of implementation.
2. Does the draft Bill strike the right balance
between flexibility and accountability? How can the danger of
over-regulation be avoided?
2.1 We are concerned regarding the measures
contained in the bill to extend regulation to exempt charities
via their principal regulator. These measures will impact on John
Grooms Housing Association, currently regulated by the Audit Commission
and the Housing Corporation, and may threaten the light touch
approach taken by those bodies at present.
2.2 Whilst we appreciate that a Charity
Commission inquiry can only be triggered by a request from the
principal regulator, we are concerned that such referrals are
not made lightly. This is particularly important in view of the
fairly extensive powers conferred upon the Commission in respect
of exempt charities in Schedule 2.
Accordingly, we believe it is vital to ensure
that the Housing Corporation has the requisite experience and
expertise needed to monitor compliance with charity law without
unnecessary recourse to the Commission.
Additionally, we hope that the Housing Corporation
will adopt the same light touch approach when monitoring charity
law as it does with its current responsibilities. In this way,
high performing exempt charities will not be subject to over-regulation
and efforts can be concentrated on those which require closer
monitoring.
2.3 A related concern is the conspicuous
absence of any statement explicitly requiring the Commission to
act with regard to proper principles of substantive and procedural
fairness. More specifically, there is no requirement to act in
accordance with the Human Rights Act and the general rules of
natural justice. This is particularly important given the increased
regulation of exempt charities discussed above, and the new powers
available to Commission in respect of them.
June 2004
| 
