DCH 26 Home Office
Active Communities Directorate
Allington Towers, 19 Allington
Street, London SW1E 5EB
Switchboard 0870 0001585
Fax 7035 5386 Direct Line 020 7273 5345
E-mail richard.weatherill@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date 9 June 2004
Dear Andrew,
DRAFT CHARITIES BILL: THE CHARITY COMMISSION
As you will recall, the Strategy Unit's report Private Action,
Public Benefit recommended as part of a package of reforms
that the Charity Commission should become a statutory corporation
called the Charity Regulation Authority. The Strategy Unit said
that the authority should continue to operate at arms length from
Ministers, with whom its relationship would be clearly defined
in statute, and that the Regulator's name should succinctly express
its purpose (paragraph 7.63).
Out of 1087 written responses to the Strategy Unit report, 154
commented on the recommendations for changes to the Charity Commission.
Although there was strong and broad support for the overall package,
most respondents opposed, by a ratio of three to one, the recommendation
that the Commission's name should be changed to Charity Regulation
Authority. Opponents feared that the name change would position
the Commission purely as a watchdog, and that charities would
be reluctant to approach the Commission in its continuing (though
refocused) role as an adviser and supporter of charities. The
Charity Commission argued for promoting recognition of its current
name, which is very high within the charitable sector, beyond
the sector, rather than starting afresh with a name which is not
recognised anywhere.
Although the Home Secretary understands these arguments,
and has no brief for the name Charity Regulation Authority, he
nevertheless believes, on reflection, that there is a strong case
for taking the opportunity provided by the Bill for a change in
the Charity Commission's name. He believes that the reforms to
be implemented by the Charities Bill would mark a decisive change
in the development of the voluntary and community sector and the
framework of law and regulation within which the sector operates.
In his view the name "Charity Commission" seems old-fashioned
and evokes a stage in the development of the sector which the
draft Bill would bring to an end. A new name might helpfully
bring out the diversity and plurality of the sector and the breadth
of the role that is envisaged. He would be particularly interested
therefore in any consideration the Joint Committee might give
to and any recommendations it might make on this issue.
I am copying this letter to John Stoker at the Charity
Commission.
yours sincerely,
RICHARD WEATHERILL
Head, Charities Unit
| 
