DCH 36 Swindon Borough Council
Swindon Borough Council comments
on the Charities Bill
Submitted 11 June 2004
contact
Lionel Starling Licensing Officer
licensing@swindon.gov.uk
01793 466109
Premier House Station
Road Swindon SN1 1TZ
1) Confusion has arisen
in existing legislation, over the status of direct debit collections.
No doubt there will be determined lobbying to leave the definitions
vague, so that face-to-face collections slip through the net.
It is essential though that the new Act says explicitly that direct
debit fund raising is covered. [Definition of 'charitable appeal'
in Clause 37.]
2) Existing house to house
legislation contains the enforcement obstacle that only a series
of visits to premises to solicit support trigger the need for
an authorisation. A visit made by appointment ought properly to
be exempt from regulation but if a collector turns up unannounced
at just one address (which might be as big as the Honda plant),
there should be a requirement for proper authorisation. [Use of
the word 'visits' in Clause 37]
3) Our town centre is
plagued by highly questionable companies selling prize competition
cards, generally at £2 each. The standard patter used by
the rather thuggish young men who sell them involves asking potential
purchasers "would you like to nominate a organisation to
receive a specially converted minibus". The words "in
association with a representation that the whole or any part of
its proceeds is to be applied for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic
purposes" are not sufficient to defeat these semantic tricks.
Some reference to "or implied representation" would
solve the problem. Second hand dealers who make reference to the
"Third World" and that all garments "are to be
worn again" would be similarly thwarted. [Again, Clause 37]
4) There should be a deregulation
of collections, where they are conducted outside the premises
of an out of town retailer, with their permission. [Clause 37
again]
5) The loose use of the
term "purpose that is local in character" will lead
to abuse. We have long experience of this since we have something
similar in our local policy. The questionable applicant at once
says "we are quite happy to undertake that one of our wheelchairs
/ holidays etc. will go to someone who lives in your area",
in order to establish an alleged 'local' aspect. It should be
stated explicitly that the fact that there will be some local
beneficiary does not make the purpose "local in character"
and that the purpose taken as a whole must be 'local'. [Clause
39]
6) Traditionally, local
authorities have sought to schedule charitable collections so
that the tolerance of givers is not stretched too far and so that
charities do not plan for months to carry out a collection, only
to find that their intended prime site has been taken by another
charity. In either scenario, charities would suffer if the local
authority was unable to act as 'referee'. The draft seems to imply
that we must grant whatever is asked. [Clause 41 includes no grounds
for refusal on the grounds that the high street will be swamped
with competing collectors or that 'pro life' and 'pro choice'
groups have chosen the same day to collect.]
7) Following on from the
above, the argument in the Explanatory Notes to the effect that
capacity is not an issue with house to house is quite wrong. When
the third collector in an evening knocks on someone's door, tempers
are likely to become frayed and all of the charities concerned
will suffer damage to their reputation. Aggressive, blanket collecting
by face to face agencies is already making things difficult for
small or more restrained organisations. In addition, the practice
of plying householders with multiple options can be very intrusive.
The 'mix and match' approach (i.e. failing to convince with an
animal welfare charity, so trying a cancer charity instead) smacks
of pressure selling. An appeal should be for one thing at a time.
A new provision is needed for that.
Thank you for the opportunity
to comment.
|
