Examination of Witnesses (Questions 800
- 806)
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY 2004
MS GERALDINE
PEACOCK, MS
ROSIE CHAPMAN
AND MR
KENNETH DIBBLE
Q800 Bob Russell: Another aspect
of the Bill is possible mergers and the Home Office say that one
important measure of the success of the Bill will be an increase
in the number of mergers between charities. How many charities
have merged in the last year and how many do you anticipate will
merge in year one of the Bill becoming an Act?
Ms Peacock: How long is a piece
of string. I do not know that numbers is necessarily the right
measure of what we are talking about here. It is actually whether
we are more effective through doing it. I think the important
thing with the Act is that we are encouraged to get people to
think about that.
Q801 Bob Russell: So are you planning
for it? Are you expecting mergers to take place? How many charities
have merged in the last year? There must be a ball-park figure
for how many merged in the last year.
Ms Peacock: Have we a ball-park
figure for how many merged in the last year?
Ms Chapman: No.
Ms Peacock: Not many I would say.
Q802 Bob Russell: Precisely, so how
does a policy of promoting mergers fit in with supporting and
encouraging small charities? What is the purpose of that being
in the Bill to start with if it is so meaningless?
Ms Peacock: I do not think it
is meaningless. I think it is fairly new to the voluntary sector
because the voluntary sector grows often by conflict rather than
collaboration. You get new charities starting up because a group
of trustees fall out and one bunch goes off and registers another
charity without resolving the problem. What I think the draft
Bill does for us is give us the power to have more up-front conversations
with people who come to register as charities in the first place
as to whether that is the best way for them to go and also to
encourage others to think of working more collaboratively together
so that you do not have this proliferation of people trying to
find a meaning for existence rather than doing themselves out
of business
Q803 Bob Russell: So you are not
expecting and you are not planning, from your answer, for a mass
merger of charities?
Ms Peacock: Not a mass merger
but I am looking for charities to stop being so competitive and
to look more to the public good of collaborating more effectively
together so we will have a project that focuses on that.
Q804 Bob Russell: I need to put on
record that I am Patron of the Colchester Continuing Education
Access Fund and the reason for that is because my final question
is to do with charities which have a final end and that charity
has a final end, which reminds me I should have declared it. Does
the Bill need to include better provision for charities to end
when they have fulfilled their purpose and there is no longer
any need for them to be there? Does the Bill need to do more to
address that?
Ms Peacock: I think we would try
and address that as we do through good practice. It might be helpful
for the Bill to strengthen that because I think some charities
do forget that they have achieved their purpose.
Bob Russell: Thank you.
Q805 Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover:
A last and broad overriding point concerning the encouragement
of charity giving and philanthropy. We have had evidence, and
Andrew Mitchell referred to some foundations (whose annual reports
I know of) that have said that because of the regulatory burden
the actual establishers of the foundation would not have done
it if they had realised that such a regulatory intrusive regime
existed. We have also had evidence that there has been a decline
in the number of new foundations despite considerable wealth in
some areas. That cannot be good for the charity sector. We all
want to encourage charity-giving. We all want to encourage philanthropy,
particularly from those most able to give money. My question is
should you not have an overriding responsibility where in considering
your work and your regulation you must always be concerned with
encouraging charity-giving and encouraging large acts of philanthropy
and try and avoid anything which discourages the public from giving
or discourages the wealthy from establishing foundations?
Ms Peacock: Yes, I think that
has got to be the answer although I would caveat that by saying
that giving is now increasingly only one part of charity in the
way non-profit organisations finance themselves because we are
in a world where you have to be self-sufficient too so you cannot
put all your eggs in one basket. You have got a donatory culture
in Britain which is moving towards a self-sufficiency culture.
Charities are looking increasingly towards mixed economies of
funding, so you need definitely to encourage philanthropy but
you also need to encourage things like social investment for instance.
That is one area where the Charity Commission were, dare I say
it, ahead of the game because they issued guidance before the
Treasury even published the report of the Social Investment Task
Force. We are trying to look at all forms of income generation
which will make charities sustainable, which is the important
point. They are no good to the public at all if they are going
to go bust.
Mr Mitchell: I came to this inquiry without
any knowledge of the charity sector, although I sit on three or
four charities. I have read as much of the evidence as I can and
I just want to leave you with this point: having started wondering
whether there was a widespread worry about the charitable sector
which meant we needed to have a Bill, I have come to the conclusion
having read this stuff that there is huge confidence and trust
in the charitable sector but there is not huge confidence and
trust in the Charity Commission. It is a good time to say to this
to you as you are about to start that I think you need to approach
your task with a much greater humility than has been the case
in the past with the Charity Commission. I think you have a reputation
to rebuild in the sector and for my part I think there are deep
and legitimate concerns at some the powers you will be given and
the way you will exercise those powers where you need to send
a very firm signal to the whole sector of the approach you are
going to take. As I say, I hope it will be one of humility.
Chairman: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you
to the witnesses. Can I just say to you that I think what would
be helpful is for you to submit two further papers to us, the
first we have already discussed which is on the issue of cost
and costing. We have discussed the burdens and the nature potentially
of legislation vis-a-vis the sector but I think we recognise
on the Committee that it does also require change within the Commission,
the point that Andrew Mitchell has made very forcefully. We look
forward to your paper on that[35].
I think the second issue that it would be helpful to have a paper
on—and this is something you raised earlier Geraldine when
you talked about the need to move on from the way the Commission
had been operating—how you intend to do that, what are the
internal structural and process changes that you intend to make
precisely in order to give the Commission a new lease of life,
in particular when drawing up that paper you might just bear in
mind the point that Andrew Mitchell and Lord Sainsbury made about
the differentiation between grant-giving and grant recipient organisations
because that is not an insignificant issue that we have heard
about on several occasions now.
Mr Foulkes: Earlier on you agreed to
submit one on how Scotland can manage on a penny farthing.
Q806 Chairman: Do not omit Scotland!
Ms Peacock: I will not.
Chairman: I think there is the response
that you are also making to Andrew Phillips in relation to McCall,
so I am afraid there are four meaty issues just when you thought
you were getting away. As you will find from tomorrow morning,
Geraldine, there is no escape! Thank you very much for your evidence.
It has been very, very helpful indeed.
35 Ev 229 (DCH 302) Back
| 
