Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2004
MR ANDREW
WATT, MR
OWEN WATKINS,
COUNCILLOR IAN
GREEN AND
MS PIPPA
COOMBES
Q300 Bob Russell: Mr Watkins, do
I detect that you are opposed to the diversity that local authorities
currently operate under?
Mr Watkins: I am not opposed to
diversity based on the different local circumstances relating
to how fundraising should take place. What does give our members
considerable difficulty is the diversity of requirement from local
authorities in terms of how one gains access to fundraising in
the first place and it is that area that we would like to see
addressed.
Q301 Bob Russell: Should not local
councils though have that local discretion? Increasingly local
councils are little more than branch offices of central government
anyway, so why cannot local councils decide what fundraising goes
on on the streets of their town?
Mr Watkins: There is a role obviously
for local authorities to do precisely that. Where I become nervous
of that is where they are discriminating in their decisions, when
they are choosing perhaps to allow animal charities but not international
development organisations to fundraise, where they are saying
that they will let the local children's hospice fundraise but
they will not let an organisation that deals with refugees or
asylum seekers fundraise.
Q302 Chairman: Is this an argument
for nationalising that? You can make it. I am not saying that
we will agree with it. Should we nationalise responsibility? Should
we have one great super central department somewhere?
Mr Watkins: Certainly when we
made our original submission when this process started we did
argue for a central licensing authority in terms of—
Q303 Chairman: God help us!
Mr Watkins:— the certificate
of fitness that is now being talked about.
Chairman: I am speaking in a personal
capacity, for the avoidance of doubt.
Bob Russell: No doubt administered by
a tsar.
Chairman: Are you offering?
Bob Russell: I might need a job.
Q304 Chairman: What do you think,
Councillor Green?
Councillor Green: I do have a
few comments to make on the exchange that has just taken place.
My view is that locally elected councillors generally know their
communities far more effectively than others and have an indication
of the environment in which fundraising takes place. By and large
local authorities want to positively encourage fundraising but
in a responsible way. There is evidence, and I know that Pippa
has got some examples, where certainly face-to-face fundraising
on the street has caused considerable problems in some communities
and therefore the discretion should be given to local authorities
to determine, with charitable organisations, in consultation,
what is the most appropriate form of fundraising to take place
within that local authority area. I think that is something that
local councillors are very capable of doing. The thought of a
national policy fills me with dread.
Q305 Lord Campbell-Savours: Owen,
what do you see as the new main burdens on local authorities?
Councillor Green: Local authorities
have significant experience of regulatory responsibilities. A
whole range of regulatory responsibilities have fallen upon local
authorities. Some of that has come incrementally over a long period
of time. One of the key issues that you know I am going to raise
is that the burdens come but the resources do not come with them
and local councils, as you know, Chairman, are strapped for cash
and the responsibilities that go with this sort of regulation
are going to need some resources to go with them. It is difficult
to say at this stage, and this may be a question you are going
to ask, what is the cost.
Q306 Lord Campbell-Savours: But it
is the new burdens that you believe is going to come. What are
they?
Councillor Green: In terms of
the burden of issuing licences, of regulation, of enforcement,
and if you are going to have these regulations you need to have
enforcement that goes alongside it, and that is obviously going
to cost local authorities money in order to have that enforcement
in place. It is difficult to say, Chairman, what the cost will
be but I am sure that if you would like the Local Government Association
with colleagues can do some further work on that and submit that
to the committee for your consideration.
Q307 Lord Campbell-Savours: Do you
think you have got the expertise and the resources to cope with
what you have not yet defined as something you can cost?
Councillor Green: I think we have
got the expertise. We license a huge amount of different activities
within the local authority area. Resources are another issue in
that the staffing resources may be there but the costs of additional
staffing to enforce that make it difficult. Another burden is
of course local policy and the development of that local policy.
Local compacts that are working well with the voluntary sector
are something that we can build upon but that is an additional
burden placed upon local authorities to develop that policy.
Q308 Chairman: In sum, although you
say you cannot cost it you are clear that the Home Office's costings
are wrong?
Councillor Green: The cost neutral
element that the Home Office has put in the draft Bill we think
is incorrect. We are quite prepared to do some further work and,
to be fair to the Home Office, they have agreed to do some further
work with us to identify what the real costs are and we are quite
happy to ensure that the committee get a copy of that.
Q309 Chairman: That would be very
helpful and frankly would be a more powerful argument. It is a
fair enough argument saying there is not enough money but it would
be a better argument if you could say by how much, not that you
should treat this as a bidding process but it would be sensible
to do that. Andrew, I think you have a view which is broadly sympathetic
to Councillor Green's point of view; is that right?
Mr Watt: Absolutely. We believe
that most of the costs in this, if an appropriate on-line type
system is development, will be the up-front developmental costs
in supporting local authorities in terms of implementing the process.
Enforcement is a very important point that Ian made because under
the current regulation enforcement is pretty much not carried
out at all. It is getting new structures in place and ensuring
that they are properly funded. If that does not happen then the
benefit of the universal application of the proposals simply will
not be felt because it will not be enforceable.
Q310 Lord Campbell-Savours: The Home
Office say that currently processing a licensing application takes
a local authority between 15 minutes and three hours to do. Is
that enough time to ensure that applications are properly checked?
Councillor Green: That is a very
difficult question, Chairman. It depends on which local authorities
they have canvassed. I think you have to ensure that if you are
going to do something well you spend the time on doing it so that
the regulations are put in place and enforced.
Q311 Lord Campbell-Savours: But do
you think you will need more time under the new system?
Councillor Green: It is difficult
to say. I do not think I can answer that at this stage. Certainly
the experience in London where the local authorities do not have
the responsibility at the moment—it is the responsibility
of the Metropolitan Police—is the time commitment on the
police, and the police are often concerned about the resource
that they are required to put in place for issuing licences, and
so therefore that burden will fall on local authorities, so there
will be a time commitment in place. I think it is too soon to
say what the time commitment will be.
Ms Coombes: Could I comment please,
Chairman, on enforcement costs and the burden put on local authorities
at the moment? From my perspective from 2003 to 2004 the total
enforcement costs for house-to-house street collections and prosecution
work came to £32,000 and that was for three officers involved.
That was purely on enforcement and regulation of the current legislation.
Q312 Lord Campbell-Savours: For whom
is that cost?
Ms Coombes: I work for Leeds City
Council. That is purely, of course, for the Leeds metropolitan
district but we are a proactive council. Not all local authorities
would take on that kind of enforcement action. There is a large
problem with bogus fundraising and predominantly that is where
the costs arise. There seems to be some experience that bogus
fundraising does not arise but I do have examples of it.
Q313 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
Could we ask Ms Coombes to go back over that? She said there is
a large problem with bogus fundraising. Is that the case?
Ms Coombes: These costs are predominantly
from bogus fundraising, yes, that is correct.
Q314 Lord Phillips of Sudbury: How
many prosecutions did you bring?
Ms Coombes: Forty-eight to date
with regard to predominantly fraud and deception. The police are
not interested in taking these cases forward but they should be
taken out of the local authority hands. We are left with the 1916
Act which is a level two fine for mass fraud.
Q315 Chairman: Is this in particular
in relation to door-to-door collections that you outline in your
evidence?
Ms Coombes: I have outlined particularly
clothing collections.
Q316 Chairman: Do you want to describe
that for the benefit of the committee?
Ms Coombes: I certainly can.
Q317 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
Over what period of time are the 48?
Ms Coombes: The 48 prosecutions
are from 2002. These have accelerated this year but they have
not been taken into consideration yet.
Q318 Chairman: Essentially in your
evidence you are suggesting that there is almost an industry which
is about door-to-door collections of largely clothing?
Ms Coombes: Yes; street collections,
collections of money from pub to pub, as Andrew has already indicated,
with flower collections. We are also talking about clothing banks
which are placed indiscriminately in car parks which I have highlighted.
We are talking about mass fraud across the country.
Q319 Chairman: Are these purporting
to be on behalf of charities?
Ms Coombes: They are purporting
to be on behalf of charities. They obtain headed notepaper from
charities and use that to legitimise their collections throughout
not just Leeds. One collection that I found that we enforced in
Leeds we tracked back to Portsmouth and worked with Portsmouth
local authority to undertake a joint prosecution on the specific
company involved. It is on every part of the legislation—the
house-to-house collections, the street collections; we also have
the Lottery and Amusement Act 1976, abuse of that with charitable
collections.
| 
