Annex C
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The Government's consultation
paper on proposals for a new local authority licensing scheme,
Public Collections for Charitable, Philanthropic and Benevolent
Purposes, was published on 9 September 2003, with a closing
date for responses of 2 December 2003. Over 250 responses were
received. In addition, officials from my Department hosted a series
of 12 consultation events across the English Regions and in Wales.
I am extremely grateful to all those who contributed. A summary
of the responses received has been placed in the Library and will
also be available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comerace/active/charitylaw/index.html
The consultation exposed a wide range of views
on the issues involved. Although there was a clear consensus on
some of these issues, on others key stakeholders held different
and sometimes opposing views. The Government does not wish to
impose solutions and the proposals I am announcing today are accordingly
intended as a basis for further discussion. Provisions giving
effect to these proposals will be included in the draft Charities
Bill which was announced in The Queen's Speech, and the Government
will take account of comments on the draft Bill as well as any
recommendations of the joint Committee before taking a final decision
on the provisions to be included in the Bill when it is formally
introduced.
Against this background the Government makes
the following proposals.
First, we propose that the scope of the licensing
scheme should be extended to cover face-to-face as well as other
forms of public collection. 222 respondents commented on this
proposal and a clear majority (92%) agreed that face-to-face fundraising
should be brought within the scope of the new scheme.
Second, we propose to extend the definition
of a public place within which public charitable collections must
be authorised to cover areas such as station concourses and supermarket
forecourts. This proposal was also widely supported. As explained
in the consultation document, Part III of the 1992 Act would have
covered collections in stations, airports, shopping precincts
and other similar property, and we accordingly propose to implement
the relevant provisions as part of the new scheme. There will
be a new provision to ensure that organisations like the National
Trust are able to organise public collections on their own land
without needing to seek permission from the local authority.
Third, we propose that the granting of a permit
to collect would be subject to a two stage test. The first stage
would require the organisation which wishes to collect to satisfy
the appropriate local authority that they are fit to collect.
Fitness would focus on whether the applicant had been convicted
of a relevant offence; whether the person promoting the collection
was duly authorised to do so; whether the applicant had taken
steps to be satisfied that collectors were fit and proper persons;
and whether appropriate steps had been taken to safeguard badges
and other certificates of authority. The ratio of the costs of
undertaking the collection to the total funds raised would not
be a matter for the local authority to take into consideration.
If satisfied, the authority would issue a certificate of fitness
which would be valid for up to five years. In the case of a house
to house collection, an organisation would have to obtain only
a certificate of fitness and not satisfy the second stage of the
test. The organisation would, however, be under an obligation
to notify the local authority of their intention to collect in
the area. The reason for distinguishing between house to house
and street collections in this way is that it is believed that
house to house collections present fewer capacity problems (ie
that the collection would inconvenience members of the public
or that other collections had already been organised to take place
in the same locations or at the same times. The second stage of
the test would be to determine whether there was capacity in the
area. If there was such capacity, the local authority would issue
a permit to collect. No charge would be made for the issue of
either the certificate or the permit.
Fourth, we propose to discontinue exemption
orders which are issued by the Home Office to large organisations
conducting house to house collections in a significant area of
England and Wales. Instead a "lead authority" concept
would be introduced which would apply to both street and house
to house collections. Organisations which propose to collect cash
or direct debits in more than one local authority area would be
required to apply to a lead authority for a certificate of fitness.
In order to prevent organisations from making multiple applications
for such a certificate to more than one authority, an organisation
would be required to apply for a certificate to a designated local
authority. In the case of a registered charity, it would be the
authority in whose area the charity's address is. The address
would be the one which appears on the Charity Commission's register.
For all other organisations the application should be made to
the authority within whose boundaries the promoter's principal
address is. The holder of a certificate of fitness would still
have to apply to each local authority for permission to undertake
a street collection, but the local authority would be able to
refuse pemission only on grounds of capacity. In the case of house
to house collections, organisations which have a certificate of
fitness would be obliged to notify the relevant local authorities
of their intention to collect. Although the lead authority proposals
in the consultation paper were not widely supported, there is
support for the principle that decisions on fitness should be
separated from those on capacity, and we believe that the consultation
paper proposals have been modified to meet most of the objections
raised.
Fifth, we propose that all collections, in a
public place and by means of visits door to door, which are local
and short-term in nature should not come within the licensing
scheme, as is already the case for house to house collections
of that nature under the legislation now in force. The organisers
of any local, short-term collections would continue to be required
to give advance notification, but the notification would be given
to the local authority rather than, as is required at present,
to the police.
Sixth, in a significant measure of deregulation
we propose that house to house collections of goods should also
be completely removed from the scope of the licensing scheme.
Of the 189 respondents who commented 84% thought it was sensible
to make separate arrangements for the collection of goods. Respondents
argued that the collection of goods from house to house does not
raise any significant issues of capacity or inconvenience to householders,
and that the risk in terms of fraud and loss is significantly
smaller than for cash collections. Organisers of house to house
goods collections would accordingly be under an obligation only
to notify the local authority of their intention to collect.
Seventh, we propose that responsibility for
authorising public charitable collections in London should pass
from the Metropolitan Police to the London boroughs, except in
the City of London where responsibility already rests with the
Common Council. The 129 respondents who commented were almost
evenly split on this; 47% thought that responsibility should be
transferred to the boroughs, as Parliament agreed in 1992, and
48% thought it should stay with the police. London is the only
place in England and Wales where responsibility for licensing
public charitable collections rests with the police. The Government
does not believe this is an appropriate function for the police
service to take on, but we will discuss further with key stakeholders
in London whether any arrangements are needed over and above the
lead authority proposals described above for collections which
take place in more than one London borough (including the City).
Eighth, the right of appeal against a local
authority decision to refuse either a certificate of fitness or
a permit to collect will be to the magistrates' courts as proposed
in 1992 rather than under the legislation now in force to my Rt
Hon Friend the Home Secretary. It is not appropriate for decisions
of this kind to be taken by central Government.
Finally, we propose to set up a group to include
the local government associations, the police service, charities,
charity sector umbrella organisations and the Charity Commission
to oversee the preparation of regulations and guidance and ensure
effective implementation and delivery of the proposed arrangements.
These proposals constitute, we believe, a balanced
package which seeks to minimise the burdens on local authorities
and charities whilst ensuring effective regulation. The overall
impact in public expenditure terms is expected to be neutral.
However, in the case of the London local authorities, funding
would be made available to cover the new duties which would fall
to them under these proposals. Similarly, the transfer of the
responsibility for hearing appeals to the magistrates' court would
call for a transfer of funding to the Department of Constitutional
Affairs. A detailed regulatory impact assessment based on information
provided through the consultation period has also been prepared.
The regulatory impact assessment forms part of command paper 6199—Draft
Charities Bill. A copy has been placed in the Library and will
be available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comerace/active/charitylaw/index.html
The Government's underlying aim is to increase
public confidence in charities and the charity sector by putting
in place an up to date and effective regulatory framework. With
these changes, the Government believes it should be possible to
give effect to the provisions already passed by parliament into
law as part III of the Charities Act 1992. The draft Bill will
accordingly proceed by way of amendment to the 1992 Act rather
than the pre-war legislation still in force which the 1992 Act
would have repealed.
June 2004
| 
