DCH 339 Myasthenia Gravis Association
Draft Charities Bill - Written
Evidence by MGA Chairman
Introduction
This evidence is submitted as requested
by the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee sitting on
14th 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.
Peter Finney
Chairman
Myasthenia Gravis Association
28th July 2004
|
