DCH 125 John Grooms Housing Association
The Draft Charities Bill
Response from
John Grooms (registered charity number 212463)
Background
John Grooms is a specialist
disability charity and housing association. We are committed to
supporting disabled people to be as independent as possible and
to realise their full potential. We operate nationally providing:
- Wheelchair accessible
homes and supported housing solutions for people who are wheelchair
users,
- Residential, respite
and nursing care services,
- Rehabilitation for
people with brain injuries,
- Accessible holidays
for disabled people and their families
- Education and training.
With all our work we aim
to treat everyone as an individual. John Grooms believes that
people are not disabled by their individual impairments but by
physical barriers and those created by people's attitudes. We
support the goal of the Disability Rights Commission "of
a society where all disabled people can participate fully as equal
citizens."
1 Are the proposals
to regulate fund-raising workable?
1.1 Whilst we appreciate
the intention behind section 35, to increase transparency for
prospective donors, we are concerned that its implementation will
lead to a significant decrease in funds donated in this way. In
particular, the recruitment of committed givers face-to-face can
appear superficially very expensive and it is highly likely that
lay people will fail to understand that charities view the return
on such investment over three, or even five, year periods.
When the donation is viewed
over such a period, it becomes apparent that the return is very
profitable indeed. However, if the investment is viewed on a short-term
basis, it can appear to be a very expensive method of fundraising.
Accordingly, there is a very real risk that that the requirement
to state the exact amount paid to the professional fundraiser
will act as a disincentive to prospective donors.
1.2 We believe that the
first step towards greater transparency in this area is to educate
the public about fundraising. A starting point would be an understanding
of the reality that it costs money to raise funds in any significant
way.
In the current climate,
we believe that efforts should be targeted at improving understanding
of the various methods of fundraising and their effectiveness.
There is a real danger that, if fundraisers are required to disclose
the exact figures before the public has been properly informed
in this way, the Government's stated aims of increasing trust
and building confidence in the sector will not be achieved.
1.3 We maintain that private
land to which the public has unrestricted access should not be
included in the definition of "public place". We refute
the Government's assertion that the owners of properties such
as railway and underground stations, and shopping malls, are not
capable of easily controlling such collections.
It is our experience that
the management in such organisations are not only fully able to
control unauthorised activity, but are assiduous in enforcing
such control. John Grooms would not entertain attempting any collection
activity at such locations without the express permission of the
owner. Adding the burden of local authority approval would simply
create a layer of redundant bureaucracy.
1.4 Whilst the proposal
for lead authorities may appear good in theory, we are concerned
that in practice it may not work. There are a number issues we
feel are particularly pertinent:
(a) When applying for
a Certificate of Fitness (COF) from the lead authority, the charity
must specify the areas in respect of which the certificate is
sought. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the day-to-day
operations of charities and ignores the realities involved in
this type of fundraising activity. Fundraising plans often require
trustee approval and, as such, the details may change during the
period covered by a COF. It is therefore not always possible to
specify with certainty the areas in which collections will take
place.
(b) The proposed scheme
would not ensure consistent application of regulation.
(c) Whilst face to face
campaigns may have preferred target areas, often charities' only
know the precise locations where recruiters will be working one
week in advance.
(d) These concerns are
of particular importance when one considers that a COF can be
sought for a 5-year period. It will be virtually impossible for
most charities to stipulate which areas they will focus their
efforts on so far in advance. This is certainly the case for John
Grooms
As a practical way forward,
John Grooms would suggest that once a COF has been secured, a
council is simply notified. If the council has any concerns about
the charity, raised either by the Charity Commission or locally,
then the onus will be on the council to act.
1.5 As a London based
charity, we are concerned that certain local authorities within
the capital will be inundated with applications for COFs to the
extent that the process could become unworkable.
Our head office is based
in Hackney, where a number of other charities are located, and
we believe that the new system will place an unfair burden on
that council. Other London boroughs such as Camden, Islington,
Westminster, Southwark and Lambeth would also incur a disproportionate
responsibility as a significant number of charities have their
head offices in these areas.
The initial application
for a COF is likely to cause a great bureaucratic log-jam in these
local authorities, particularly since they must also consult with
the Chief Office of Police for the area. Accordingly, there is
a very real chance of significant delays in processing such applications.
This is compounded by the fact that, whilst promoters must submit
their application at least one month before the initial collection
commences, the local authority is not subject to any specific
timetable in terms of issuing COFs.
Finally, London Boroughs
currently have no responsibility for charitable collections and,
as such, the new regime is likely to present them with significant
management challenges in the early stages of implementation.
2 Does the draft
Bill strike the right balance between flexibility and accountability?
How can the danger of over-regulation be avoided?
2.1 We are concerned regarding
the measures contained in the bill to extend regulation to exempt
charities via their principal regulator. These measures will impact
on John Grooms Housing Association, currently regulated by the
Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation, and may threaten
the light touch approach taken by those bodies at present.
2.2 Whilst we appreciate
that a Charity Commission inquiry can only be triggered by a request
from the principal regulator, we are concerned that such referrals
are not made lightly. This is particularly important in view of
the fairly extensive powers conferred upon the Commission in respect
of exempt charities in Schedule 2.
Accordingly, we believe
it is vital to ensure that the Housing Corporation has the requisite
experience and expertise needed to monitor compliance with charity
law without unnecessary recourse to the Commission.
Additionally, we hope
that the Housing Corporation will adopt the same light touch approach
when monitoring charity law as it does with its current responsibilities.
In this way, high performing exempt charities will not be subject
to over-regulation and efforts can be concentrated on those which
require closer monitoring.
2.3 A related concern
is the conspicuous absence of any statement explicitly requiring
the Commission to act with regard to proper principles of substantive
and procedural fairness. More specifically, there is no requirement
to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act and the general
rules of natural justice. This is particularly important given
the increased regulation of exempt charities discussed above,
and the new powers available to Commission in respect of them.
|
