DCH 196 Institute of Fundraising (Additional
Memoranda)
ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM FOR JOINT PARLIAMENTARY
COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT CHARITIES BILL: ARBITRATION AND APPEAL,
RESERVE POWERS FOR STATUTORY REGULATION AND PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISERS'
STATEMENT
1.0 DEVELOPING A PROCESS OF ARBITRATION FOR
CHARITIES DISPUTING LOCAL AUTHORITY RULINGS ON PUBLIC COLLECTIONS
The Institute of Fundraising welcomes the provision
in the draft Bill at 40 66H to allow a right of appeal
to a magistrates' court against a decision of a local authority
to withdraw a certificate. We believe that this provision, in
conjunction with clear guidance interpreting regulation, should
ensure that local authorities apply new regulations consistently
and fairly.
1.1 Permits to conduct collections in a public place
and notified door to door collections
We believe that the right of appeal, set out at 40
66H, should also apply in respect of decisions taken by local
authorities relating to permits to collect and notified collections.
The draft Bill is not clear that the right of appeal against local
authorities decisions extends beyond refusal to issue a certificate
of fitness.
1.2 Notification periods for larger charities
Where the draft Bill sets out the restrictions on
conducting door to door collections, 38 66A, it states
that charities must hold a certificate of fitness and must have
notified the authority "not later than one month before the
day on which the collection commences (but not more than six months
before that day)."
We believe that where larger charities, conducting
national collections, are concerned, the minimum period of notification
should be two months (see the Institute of Fundraising's submission
to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Collections 4.3).
This is to allow sufficient time for appeals to be made against
local authority rulings so that national campaigns are not disrupted.
1.3 Notification for collections of goods
As we stated in the above submission (6.0),
the Institute believes that collections of goods should be subject
to a notification requirement. This is to ensure that local authorities
can readily distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent activity.
The evidence put to the Committee by Pippa Coombes of the Institute
of Licensing demonstrated the need for this. We believe that notification
should be given sufficiently regularly (a standard six-monthly
basis) to allow local authorities to monitor legitimate collecting
activity. A major collector of donated goods in Scotland has suggested
that they would not find it onerous to provide samples of collecting
materials (sacks, flyers) to local authorities on a six monthly
basis; we believe that this could also be of assistance in distinguishing
legitimate from fraudulent collections.
1.4 Arbitration
The Committee requested that we supply them with
further evidence relating to the potential for an arbitration
process for charities and local authorities. It was felt that
invoking the right of appeal could prove onerous, particularly
for smaller charities and that an arbitration process might prove
more flexible and less expensive.
1.4.1 Magistrates' Courts
The current process of appeal through magistrates'
courts is applied to other licensing processes, liquor and public
entertainments. The process of an appeal in these areas generally
allows for a first hearing within four weeks, although an appeal
can take up to six months to be resolved.
The cost of a summons is currently set at seven pounds.
Clearly, any legal costs incurred would be born by the loser of
an appeal.
1.4.2 The Charity Appeal Tribunal and Local Government
Ombudsmen (LGO)
The outline in the draft Bill (6 2A B C D)
for the Charity Appeal Tribunal establishes a model process of
appeal that could be applied to arbitration. It highlights the
need for a specialist body, versed in the likely nature of appeals,
and for funding to be made available to support the process.
Local Government Ombudsmen provide a route to channel
complaints, if authorities' own complaints handling procedures
have not proved satisfactory. The process is not swift and does
not currently provide an arbitration service.
We believe, therefore, that a process of arbitration
would require the establishment and funding of a new specialist
structure, although that structure might sit within the LGO.
1.4.3 Conclusion
We believe that the right of appeal to magistrates'
courts is the most appropriate route to challenge local authority
rulings. Local authorities are reluctant to take decisions that
they think might be subject to appeal. Magistrates already have
experience in hearing a wide range of appeals against licensing
decisions. The process is reasonably swift and cost-effective.
Charities would require specialist legal support for an appeal
of any nature, which will inevitably be the principal source of
cost. This new provision within the draft Bill will be effective
provided that the guidance written in support of new regulation
is clear and unambiguous, allowing magistrates to reach a judgement
on a local authorities' decision. Charities and local authorities
will be working within tight timescales, so the process of appeal
should be simple and immediate, something that magistrates' courts
can provide.
2.0 RESERVE POWERS FOR STATUTORY REGULATION
The Institute of Fundraising would reiterate its
view that while the draft Bill sets out (36 (3) (4) (5))
areas that might be subject to regulation if reserve powers to
control fundraising are invoked, it does not set out
a) what the criteria are that might lead the
Home Secretary to invoke those powers
b) what consultation process the Home Secretary
would follow before invoking those powers
2.1 Further consultation
We believe that the draft Bill should include
a) a commitment to consult in order to establish
the criteria for success or failure of self regulation
b) a commitment to consultation before powers
are invoked
c) an outline of the form that the consultation
at b) would take.
3.0 PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISERS' STATEMENT
We believe that the amendment at 35 (2) of
the draft Bill will not serve the purpose of transparency that
is intended. There are three classes of individual who collect
from the public, volunteers, paid members of a charity's staff
and sub-contractors of the charity (professional fundraisers).
The principal distinction made by the public is between volunteers
and paid fundraisers.
The proposal made in the Institute's submission on
Public Collections to the Joint Parliamentary Committee at 9.2
suggests that all fundraisers should be required to make a statement
establishing their status. We would like to develop that point
by proposing that the professional fundraiser should support their
statement with a document setting out the nature of the agreement
that they hold with the charity. This would allow the charity
to set out the terms of the agreement in the appropriate context
in a way that a brief verbal statement could never achieve. It
would also ensure that information would be presented consistently
in a way that was subject to the charities, rather than the fundraisers,
control.
| 
