Supplementary memorandum from the Myasthenia
Gravis Association (DCH 339)
INTRODUCTION
This evidence is submitted as requested by the
Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee sitting on 14 July
2004. It enlarges on some issues raised verbally, and also discusses
some other issues of interest to the Myasthenia Gravis Association
SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT
OBJECTIVE
The MGA supports the position taken by the AMRC
in its written evidence to the committee. The social and economic
impact objective can only be interpreted subjectively, and is
likely to be difficult to reconcile with the objectives of many
existing charities. We consider it should be removed from the
draft bill.
BALANCE OF
CHARITY COMMISSION
FUNCTIONS
The activities of the Charity Commission are
likely to be resource-limited. In this respect both quality and
quantity of resources are important. The CC should give priority
to the proper discharge of its regulatory function. While the
advisory function is important, and can be of help to charities,
the proper exercise of the regulatory function is vital to maintaining
public confidence in charities.
Where the CC can devote resources to the advisory
function, it should always ensure that the receiving charity is
in no doubt of the distinction between advice, and direction stemming
from the regulatory function. The mechanism for achieving that
should be left to the CC.
I consider that it would be wrong completely
to separate the two functions within the CC, since experience
of exercising the regulatory function will be valuable when giving
advice to charities. However I believe it to be undesirable for
the same individual or team with the CC simultaneously to be giving
direction and advice to a charity. This means that a charity should
have separate points of contact within the CC for each function.
The CC should be left to devise a mechanism for achieving this—but
some kind of team-based organisation would appear to be appropriate.
I support the position of AMRC concerning the
role of "umbrella" organisations in supporting their
member charities—particularly in the advisory role. If the
CC were to be encouraged to work with such organisations to develop
their advisory capability, the resourcing difficulties faced by
the CC could be eased.
APPEALS TRIBUNAL
The Bill needs to be strengthened to ensure
that the Appeals Tribunal Rules achieve low-cost and rapid access
to the Tribunal.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal needs to be
widened to include all actions of the CC, both regulatory and
advisory. It should be open to a charity to recover its costs,
and damages for any loss caused by misdirection, advice or other
actions of the CC.
PUBLIC BENEFIT
The CC should review continuously the activities
of charities, to ensure that Public Benefit is being achieved.
This is essential to the maintenance of public confidence in charities.
I recognise that this has severe implications
for the resourcing of the CC—this should be taken in the
context of my remarks on priorities (above).
TRADING
MGA welcomes the proposal to make it easier
to trade without the need for a separate charitable trading company
subsidiary. The decision on whether to set up a trading company
should be left to the trustees of the charity. However, it is
likely that the risk involved will lead most charities to resort
to a subsidiary—as at present.
PAYMENT OF
TRUSTEES
The MGA sees no need to pay trustees for services
to the charity. We feel that the honorary appointment of our trustees
is essential for the maintenance of confidence in the charity,
and for ensuring the continuing support of our members, who are
responsible for a major part of our fund-raising activities. I
believe that many similar charities would support this view.
July 2004
| 
