DCH 205 Fundraising Initiatives
Ms. F. Graham
Committee Assistant to the Joint Committee on the
Draft Charities Bill
Scrutiny Unit
Room G10
7 Millbank
London
SW1P 3JA
Dear Ms Graham
Re: Draft Charities Bill
Fundraising Initiatives is a member of both
the PFRA and the Institute of Fundraising. We consider their submissions
as largely representative of our views on the possible impact
to charities by the Bill regarding Face-to-Face fundraising activities.
We refer the committee to their response on these issues. However,
there is one element in the Bill to which we feel we can add some
further insight, highlighting issues that in our view have not
been fully addressed by either submission. The addition of "public
places" that in particular, but not necessarily exclusively,
fall on privately owned land, or property.
Our concerns are detailed in the attached submission
and Appendix. We would be pleased to provide further details,
if this were to be considered useful.
Yours sincerely
DCH 205
Fundraising Initiatives Submission to
the Joint Parliamentary
Committee on the Draft Charities Bill:
Public Collections Proposals
Proposal to Include Public Places
We warmly welcome many elements of the draft Bill
and wholly endorse the submissions of the PFRA and the Institute
of Fundraising. However, the addition of "public places"
(not within the PFRA's remit) and its current definition does
give rise to some concerns and a request for further clarity.
The stated reasons for wishing to include "public
places" are to close "a potential loophole for those
who wish to avoid the checks and controls of the licensing system."
Whilst it is unclear exactly which circumstances, organisations,
or persons are envisaged we have assumed by the language used
this is primarily aimed at bogus, or potentially fraudulent activities.
However, the use of the word "control" also implies
the potential to empower local authorities to manage/control capacity
and frequency of access on all private land, beyond the simple
issuance of a fundraising Permit.
This lack of clarity is of concern for the following
reasons:
a) It does not sufficiently clarify, or indeed
define "public place", "unrestricted access",
or "checks and controls" so as to ensure
a comprehensive understanding as to the legal rights and responsibilities
of a private landowner, and/or the role of a local authority over
the use(s) of its land, in a charitable fundraising context. There
are many thousands of collections, currently not captured, already
occurring on such private land, be they for cash or Direct Debits.
Their inclusion will inevitably result in a potentially huge additional
administrative burden for organisations, including local authorities
and especially those based in London and the South Eastern, or
that include major conurbations.
b) Many such "public place" locations
are indeed already managed, usually by concession agents acting
under contract, on behalf of the land/property owner, with access
and capacity issues already well and contractually established
with fees often charged for site use. Where retailers and/or site
owners are wholly in agreement with said activities. This is distinctly
different from "open" town or "street" locations
(which may, or may not have agreements in place with the PFRA).
If this is simply an issue of appropriate public awareness there
are many ways this can and is already achieved and communicated
by such site and/or concession management.
c) Many such sites also accommodate, with no
checks and balances, various commercial sales activities, giving
rise to the very real prospect of charities being unfairly disadvantaged
when undertaking legitimate fundraising endeavours. For example,
no such controls or restrictions are sought with other "advertising"
mediums (such as press, TV, radio, or direct mail), where it is
assumed market forces
and/or corporate management are sophisticated enough
to strike an appropriate balance.
d) It is also commented, in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment (5.3 The definition of public place), that permits
should not be given in contravention of the wishes of the site
owner. An appropriate sentiment that is to all practical intent
highly unlikely to occur in "public places" located
on privately owned land. We believe the primary goal should be
to establish the legitimacy of collections on private land, where
access and capacity are already commercially controlled, illegitimate
collections, whatever their nature, constitute fraud and are covered
in law. Furthermore, it does not address the opposing situation
of permits not being granted by a local authority in contravention
of any perfectly legitimate and well managed desires of a private
site owner, assuming that proposed collections are legitimate
in all other respects.
e) There also appears to be an assumption that
without such "checks and controls" there will
be abuses. This, whilst an appropriate goal, does not acknowledge
the practical reality that it is not in the interest of legitimate
fundraisers to "over work", or indeed "over man"
locations. It negatively impacts results and the existing management
of such sites would prohibit such behaviour in any event. If over
regulated it will result, for all parties, including most importantly
the voluntary sector, in the potential loss of otherwise very
valuable fundraising locations. These "public places"
are generally much more sophisticated and "controlled"
environments, by their very nature, than the average high street
and we believe should be acknowledged as such, rather than consolidated
with other "high street" related concerns.
f) We believe it will be extremely unhelpful
for all parties to have to rely solely on issued "guidance"
to define how public collections law should be practically applied.
Unless it is clear and statutory in nature application of the
law will become open to wide interpretation and manipulation,
resulting in national inconsistencies. We believe it would be
unhelpful to assume the Bill can achieve its stated aims if it
does not provide unequivocal clarity for all parties. Without
this, administrative workloads and associated costs, especially
legal costs, will escalate. It will be left to charities, through
expensive and time-consuming case law, to fully define the act.
One of the very issues we understood the Bill sought to address.
2. If the purpose as stated
is indeed mainly to register activities and collectors, so as
to ensure no bogus, or improper activities are taking place, and
can be reported if found, then we wholly endorse this sentiment.
However, we believe that more clarity as to the purpose behind
the addition of private sites would be helpful, as well as clarity
as to the role and exercisable rights local authorities will have
when issuing Permits.
3. We believe, if the purpose is to legislate
local authority management of capacity and access to privately
owned land consultation on the likely regulatory impact upon those
holding commercially agreed contracts, already with resources
providing management and controlling functions, should be undertaken.
To ensure the achievement of a framework that really will "support
and encourage a vibrant and diverse voluntary sector (which continues
to enjoy high levels of public confidence upon which the sector
depends)."
4. For all collections, but
perhaps for face-to-face in particular, these venues also provide
a platform for much more diverse communications activities. To
add a further administrative burden with, what appear at this
time to be unclear goals for so doing, would be detrimental not
only to charitable fundraising activities but in a much broader
communications context. Whilst we agree and acknowledge a charity's
work should be open to the highest scrutiny it is also important
to recognise that any and all similar commercial activities remain
unregulated.
5. That any "promoter"
should need to gain a Certificate of Fitness and where appropriate
a Permit for "private places" we conceptually endorse.
However, we also believe, the criteria as to whom can legally
qualify as a promoter could be expanded to incorporate site management
and/or charity "agents" such as a PFO (Professional
Fundraising Organisation). This added flexibility would be particularly
helpful for long-term national campaigns, where the loss of the
National Exemption Certificate (NEC) for some, combined with the
effective opening of the national door to others, will necessitate
charities changing existing administrative systems. There are
already those who provide such administrative support on behalf
of charities and many "public places" with contractual
agreements already with effective control systems in place. It
seems a waste not to acknowledge this resource and its practical
potential to streamline administration for all parties.
6. Similarly, there will be a considerably increased
burden on local authorities, especially in London and the South
East. The net effect will be an additional workload in the licensing
and managing of many thousands of collections not currently captured,
be they for cash or Direct Debits. Whilst we wholly endorse and
agree with the motivation behind registering all activities, we
believe a simpler system can be determined for certain "public
places", especially those managed under contract and undertaken
on private land. A system acknowledging the rights of all parties
that simultaneously provides appropriate checks and balances on
legitimacy, rather than seeking to add a largely unnecessary "control"
infrastructure.
For example, it would be much more practicable if
locations with formalised commercial agreements, newly captured
by law as "public places", were simply permitted to
facilitate fundraising activities under a Certificate of Fitness.
When fundraising activities occur the recipient charity(ies),
or their agents would simply notify the relevant local authority
of their presence, as suggested for House-to-House licensing.
Capacity and access at such locations is already determined and
enshrined by contract. These locations,
unlike those not in a controlled environment, already
have an infrastructure for allocation, retailer support and public
acceptance in place.
This also parallels local authorities having no such
mandate over similar wholly commercially based marketing activities,
with exactly the same potential for public nuisance concerns attached.
If this is not adequately addressed within the Bill it will result
in unnecessary and additional burdens being placed on the voluntary
sector and other involved parties. We therefore seek clarity as
to the exact role and powers local authorities might/will enjoy
when/if issuing such "public place" Permits on privately
owned premises, and to whom Permits maybe issued.
7. As implied above, we also seek clarity that
Professional Fundraising Organisations (PFOs) can apply, in their
own name, for Certificates of Fitness and Permits on behalf of
the charities for whom they work. A service currently provided
to many charity clients, again releasing much of the administrative
burden from charities, whilst simultaneously providing one informed
contact source for local authorities. We appreciate and wholly
endorse that "street" locations may be managed in collaboration
with the PFRA. However, private land "public places"
will not be, as the PFRA does not at this time seek to incorporate
private sites, specifically because they are already managed by
concession agreements.
8. Attached as Appendix I is a letter from an
organisation that undertakes contractual concessions management
outlining their concerns, we also have similar letters from other
such organisations.
Clarity on Workplace Fundraising
The current drafting of the Bill would seek to imply
that Payroll Giving and Direct Debt activities in the workplace,
with the full endorsement of the employer, or where appropriate
land owner/manager, are also to be captured by this proposed legislation.
We would therefore ask for clarity on this. It is our understanding
this was not intentional, as the nature of such activities means
they are generally a planned part of a company's corporate social
responsibility programmes and frequently positioned, and therefore
viewed, as promoting company and government/employee benefits
provided to staff In some cases they are as a direct result of
a charity's special relationship(s) and are not ad hoc activities.
Clarity on Scottish and Northern Irish Charities
Ability to Fundraising in England and Wales
As the Bill is currently drafted charities head quartered
in Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be able to fundraise
in England and Wales. We believe this too was unintentional and
would seek further clarity.
APPENDIX I - Letter from 3W Logistics - Daryl
Tinworth
Mr Kaufman,
I write to you to express our concerns with one particular
section of the Draft
Charities Bill,
presented by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department in May
2004.
Our concerns are with regards to the proposal to
extend the definition of a public place within which public charitable
collections must be authorised [by a local authority] to cover
areas such as station concourses, supermarket forecourts and precincts
(as stated in Part 3, Clause 37, sections 1 and 5.)
In its current draft, access for face-to-face fundraising
within private sites, which are currently owned, operated and
managed by private site operators (such as shopping centre managers
or retail companies,) would have to be negotiated with the appropriate
local authority.
We do not agree with this and would like to give
you the reasons why:
- As the situation currently stands, the private
site operator enters into a commercial agreement with the company
which wants to market fundraising or commercial products on its
property. This agreement is brokered by 3w Logistics.
- Just as local authorities do not get involved
in other types of commercial agreements, we do not agree that
local authorities should get involved in agreements of this type.
- It is the private site operator's responsibility
to manage their site as they best see fit. For example, if a shopper
is injured in a shopping centre due to negligence on the part
of the shopping centre manager, the injured party takes his grievance
to the shopping centre manager, not to the local authority.
Registered Office:
La meys
1 Courtenay Park
Newton Abbot
Devon
1012 2HD
Registered in England
No. 3728913
V.A.1. Reg. G8720
6926 40
x~ f~.
- The Draft Bill proposes that fundraising organisations
obtain a certificate of fitness from appropriate local authorities.
It then proposes that for street fundraising, the fundraising
organisations negotiate and agree access with individual local
authorities. With regards to private sites, these negotiations
should be between the fundraising organisation and the private
site operators. Local authorities currently have no jurisdiction
over private sites with regards to optimum fundraising capacities
or access.
It is the private site operators who decide what
capacity they have and what access they can allow for charitable
collections. 3w Logistics believes that these operators should
be allowed to enter into whatever commercial arrangements they
feel most benefit the charity clients.
Group Account Director 3W Logistics Ltd
| 
