Memorandum from the Royal National Institute
for Deaf People (RNID) (DCH 5)
RNID
RNID is the largest charity representing the
nine million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK. As a membership
charity we aim to achieve a radically better quality of life for
deaf and hard of hearing people. We are involved in a wide range
of activities including direct service provision, campaigning,
information services and legal casework. We have pioneered innovative
and highly successful partnerships with Government reforming,
delivering and adding value to public services as well as using
Impact Reporting to improve transparency, accountability and communication
with members and stakeholders.
THE DRAFT
CHARITIES BILL
RNID welcomes the publication of the Draft Charities
Bill and particularly Government recognition of the importance
of the voluntary sector in society, and the enormous potential
for charities to make a strong and positive contribution. The
growing and vibrant voluntary sector needs and deserves a modernised
legal framework, which serves and supports it well. It is vital
to build public confidence and trust through a well-regulated,
open and accountable sector whilst at the same time reducing the
burden of regulation. Strategic, proportionate and targeted regulation
can square this circle. We are pleased that a public benefit test
will form the bedrock of the new legislation, and welcome the
12 charitable purposes outlines in the Draft Bill, which have
been validated through thorough and wide-ranging consultation.
The Draft Bill presents an excellent opportunity to create the
right legislative and regulatory environment for charities, which
will encourage them to thrive and in turn ensure the best possible
benefit to society.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
IN THE
DRAFT BILL
1. The Charity Commission
RNID feels strongly that the legal status of
the Commission is key—it must be a body independent of Government.
As such we are unhappy with the proposal to that the functions
of the Commission shall be performed on behalf of the Crown: we
do not consider it appropriate for the Charity Commission to report
to Ministers. We would also recommend that the social and economic
impact objective be replaced with a public benefit objective since
charities exist to maximise public benefit rather than economic
impact.
There should be clarity between the primary
Charity Commission role of regulation and any specialist advice
which might be given. We would wish to see the Commission have
a clear remit to operate as a strategic regulator and not become
embroiled in the minutiae of charity administration, setting a
clear framework within which the sector can be accountable and
deliver high quality services, support, advice and advocacy.
2. Mergers
RNID welcomes the intention of the Draft Bill
to make mergers between charities easier. If the public benefit
from the work of two charities would be increased by the amalgamation
of those two organisations, there ought to be a mechanism to facilitate
such a move. The new legal form of Charitable Incorporated Organisations
has the potential to simplify mergers. However, the present stipulation
for the CIOs to satisfy the Commission that the resultant CIO
would be able to carry out its purposes properly may well create
a greater barrier than those which already exist. This limits
the value of this provision and possibly the CIO itself. RNID
would also recognise the need a charity to be wound up if it is
not delivering public benefit rather than the current assumption
that a charity should always be sustained whatever the current
performance or need for its independent continuance.
3. Trading
The notable exclusion of the trading provisions
recommended in "Private Action, Public Benefit" could
be particularly onerous for small charities and RNID recommends
that this be revisited.
4. Fundraising
RNID welcomes proposals for both the new definitions
of public charitable collections and the simplification of the
licensing of such collections. We also welcome the proposed requirements
for disclosure of the basis of the relationships between professional
fundraisers, commercial partners and charities, as we believe
that this greater transparency will increase public confidence
in these fundraising methods. Similarly, the proposals for self-regulation
of the sector, especially face-to-face fundraising, will further
serve to maintain public support for charitable giving. We believe
that work and discussions ongoing in the sector around the Buse
report will provide a suitable basis for self-regulation.
5. Trustees
RNID welcomes the proposals to make arrangements
for charities to pay Trustees who provide them with specific services.
However we would ask the Government to go further and make provision
for the remuneration of Trustees under certain circumstances purely
in return for their fulfilling the capacity of Trustee. Being
on the board of a multimillion-pound charity demands skill, and
commitment of both time and energy. As a subsidiary point, current
restrictions on Access to Work mean that organisations cannot
recoup the costs of adjustments for disabled Board members—an
absurd situation, which can only discourage them from appointing
disabled Trustees. Charities are becoming more and more professional—their
Governance arrangements ought to follow suit. Allowing charities
to offer reasonable remuneration at their own discretion will
give another option to ensure that Boards are of the very best
calibre and as diverse as possible.
Although no mention is made of the issue in
the Draft Bill, RNID would, where appropriate, propose that provision
be made for executives, particularly Chief Executives, to join
charity Boards. Again, we suggest that in this respect, the commercial
sector sets a sensible and practical example.
RNID welcomes the proposal to allow the Charity
Commission power to relieve Trustees of liability for breach of
trust or duty, if they have acted honestly and reasonably and
ought fairly to be excused. We believe that the safeguard of honest
and reasonable behaviour is sufficient to protect this laudable
proposal against abuse, and hope that this power will encourage
more people to take on the role of Trustee.
ISSUES NOT
COVERED BY
THE DRAFT
BILL
1. Impact Reporting
RNID believes that more needs to be done to
strengthen accountability and transparency within the sector.
This will build the confidence of the public when supporting charities,
as well as allowing organisations to explain more clearly where
they have added value. This is key to successful partnership,
be they with the commercial firms or indeed Government. We welcome
the Government's proposals regarding a Standard Information Return,
although we would warn against the use of information gathered
in this way to produce crude comparisons between charities. RNID
has pioneered Impact Reporting as a method of presenting key information:
what our aims were and whether we met them, what our aims are
for the future and how we will tackle them. This gives stakeholders
a clear picture of our activities, successes and failures, and
provides a model for the sector to follow.
2. Risk
Liability/risk impacts negatively on a charity's
ability to secure contracts for the delivery of public services.
At present there is no partnership of risk—all the risk
is transferred from Government to the charity providing the service.
If the sector is to have an ever greater in the delivery of public
services, mechanisms for sharing the risk and public liability
involved need to be introduced.
3. Campaigning
Although not covered by this draft Bill, RNID
welcomes the Charity Commission review of the regulations on campaigning
by charities and welcomes the broad thrust of the current consultation
document. We continue to have concerns that the guidance positions
the evaluation of campaigning activity within a risk management
framework which may continue to give trustee the message that
this area of activity is inherently more risky that other areas
of charitable activity. This could have the effect of continuing
to discourage organisations to take legitimate actions on behalf
of their supporters and beneficiaries. We look forward to a less
restrictive interpretation of the law in this area.
June 2004
| 
