Memorandum from Suffolk Association of
Voluntary Organisations (DCH 325)
This response has been prepared by Jonathan
Moore, Chief Executive of Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations.
SAVO works with over 2,000 of Suffolk's Voluntary and Community
Groups, providing support, advice, guidance, development and information
services.
Given the short notice in being called to give
evidence, the views expressed in this response are personal, but
based on previous discussions, existing research data and feedback
from generic training events, seminars and conferences facilitated
by SAVO over the past couple of years.
Views of local organisations:
— Locally most small voluntary groups
and charities (approx £3,000pa or less) are indifferent to
Charity Law. Many operate outside the scope of the current law
and would also outside the new. Therefore no groundswell demand
for change.
— Medium sized groups (£3,000-£50,000)
would typically view the current law as a manageable burden—a
large number probably not meeting the full legislative requirements.
Simplification would be welcomed.
— Larger groups can manage the current
framework, but would welcome clarification.
— New groups seem to invariably run
into extended discussions with Charity Commission and would welcome
simplicity and clarity.
QUESTION 1
Flexibility/Accountability Balance:
— The bill strikes a reasonable balance
between—the Charity Commission will have to be able to deliver
on its requirements with a firm hand on the tiller—but neither
light nor too tight!
Over-regulation could be avoided by:
— Ensuring a light regime for £25,000
and less turnover charities.
— Better publicity of "Must dos"
for Trustees/Managers (Build on Government's CBIF investment in
infrastructure groups).
— Wider and broader publicity of Charity
Commission and Charities Appeal Tribunal decisions.
— Mergers— The measures to support
mergers are welcome, but should go further with positive encouragement
of different forms and extents of merger. This will allow better
use of available resources.
Effect on smaller voluntary run charities:
— Probably fairly minimal, unless more
investment in communication "blissful ignorance" is
likely to continue.
QUESTION 2
Improve public confidence in Charities:
— The local public attitude towards
charities is probably that they distinguish between "local
and community" organisations and the bigger nationally linked
charities. Their trust and confidence in the former is stable,
for the latter there is increasing scepticism.
— In the long term, the Bill's effect
on public confidence will depend on the implementation of the
law. Diligent, but fair and reasonable, implementation will probably
stop the rot, possibly even improve confidence.
— More important is how Charities individually
and collectively respond to the perceptions.
Encourage more giving and volunteering:
— The key area of volunteering that
could be affected is Trusteeship. Clarity and simplification,
limitation of personal liability and remuneration could knock
down a lot of barriers.
— For this reason the new rules on
Trusteeship remuneration are welcomed, but need to be well publicised,
clear and unambiguous.
— The Charity Commission's power to
relieve personal liability for honest and reasonable Trustees
is useful, but needs to be exercised and clearly understood and
promoted.
— Giving is very much in the hands
of Charities themselves.
QUESTION 3
Charitable Purposes:
— The 12 charitable purposes are welcomed.
— Many would have liked "Culture"
left in as part of one of the purpose's definitions.
— Future flexibility is needed to develop
new charitable purposes to reflect changes in society.
Definition of Public Benefit:
— Public Benefit a fair test—but
clarity is needed on how much previous precedents will feed into
the interpretation of new law.
Fee paying schools and public benefit:
— Most would agree that all charities
should undergo the "Public Benefit" test however long
they have been established.
— The most practical comment received
was: "Fee-paying schools are subsidising State schools; imagine
the cost to the state sector if these schools closed down—thousands
more pulling down on the already stretched budgets." Perhaps
this saving should be seen as charity?
— Greater access by local communities
to facilities of fee-paying schools would be welcomed and should
be encouraged. The extension and accessibility of scholarships
has not been raised as a benefit locally.
QUESTION 4
Charities and Public Services:
— The new forms of charity should help
engagement of the VCS in public service delivery: Specifically:
Charitable Incorporated Organisations are an important development
that will be of great assistance in formation of sound, business-like
new charities; Community Interest Companies (as part of another
bill) will allow greater flexibility.
— The regulation, if implemented appropriately,
will "oil the wheels" of engagement.
QUESTION 5
Likely Benefits and Costs of Draft Bill:
— Most groups would support clearer,
simpler, better regulation, for the Charity Commission to improve
its performance and responsiveness to the needs of smaller voluntary
organisations—including a simple, low cost appeals process.
— Re-establishing full confidence in
the Charity Commission should therefore be a clear benefit. The
extension of Charity Commission powers are reasonable, but need
to be: subject to rigorous accountability; proportionate; and
open to appeal. Local groups perceive—and their interactions
often confirm—the Charity Commission as a bureaucratic Gormenghast.
Therefore they will welcome a more accountable and open Commission.
The Appeals tribunal will be a key part of this acceptance and
this needs to have as wide a remit as possible.
— Regulation of Commission—must
act within accepted understanding of procedural fairness eg Human
Rights Act.
— Costs of meeting regulation need
to be monitored as potentially could become burdensome to small
groups, if not implemented appropriately.
— Funding for Charity Commission—difficult
to comment as costs are not widely publicised—the low level
of pay for many of the officers may reflect some of the problems
of the existing regime.
QUESTION 6
Trading:
— The inclusion of ability to trade
within thresholds would considerably enhance the Charities Bill.
Would have liked relaxing of trading regulations—it keeps
many local treasurers awake at night!
QUESTION 7
Regulating fundraising:
— Support for self-regulation is needed—particularly
at a very local level. Proportionality is important.
— Licensing for collections is a good
idea, if local authorities are able to gear up and process these
better than currently. There is much criticism locally of Chuggers
from national charities mopping up funding for local groups, without
offering local benefits and services.
— Promotional Ventures—This practice
is not currently prevalent at a local level.
QUESTION 8
Are specific proposals workable?
— Registration—The lifting of
the threshold to £5,000 is to be welcomed, as is maintenance
of voluntary registration if wanted.
— Whistleblowing for Auditors this
is a good provision.
— The new legal forms should be workable.
— Cy Pres Schemes—extending the
ability to extend defunct purpose is to be welcomed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
— The Charities Bill is overwhelmingly
welcomed locally, by those that have a view on the matter.
— Its success will be measured by improvements
in the Charity Commission—its clarity, its communication,
its proportionality.
— Therefore, the launch of a properly
funded and financially accessible Charities Appeal Tribunal is
important.
— There needs to be much better publicity
and communication of practical implications of Charity Law.
— It would be helpful to have a better
whistle-blowing process for small charities.
— Greater freedoms of trading should
be built into the Bill.
July 2004
|
