DCH 325 SAVO
Suffolk Association of
Voluntary Organisations
This response has been prepared by Jonathan
Moore, Chief Executive of Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations.
SAVO works with over 2000 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 £3000pa 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 (£3000
- £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 £5000 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.
- It's 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
Prepared by:
Jonathan Moore,
Chief Executive
Suffolk
Association of Voluntary Organisations
Supporting, Informing, Representing
and
Developing Voluntary Action in
Suffolk
Dickson House,
43a Woodbridge Road East,
Ipswich Suffolk 1P4 5QN
Jonathan. moore@savo.co. uk
|
