Clause 67
Charities Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
Andrew Turner (Shadow Minister (Charities), Home Affairs; Isle of Wight, Conservative)
It is a great pleasure to see you in your place, Mr. Gale. Let us hope that we will not see you there for long.
The last words I used before we broke for lunch, although lunch is only a fleeting hope in the minds of most members of the Committee, were “10 pence”. I apologise; I should have said 10 per cent. Boots has a standard rake-off—or return—to charities of 10 per cent., but that varies hugely from outlet to outlet.
I am pleased to say that during the break I was able to discuss with the Parliamentary Secretary the purport of the amendment. He has assured me that clause 67(4) has the effect of tightening the law currently set out in section 60(3) of the Charities Act 1992. The 1992 Act states that “any commercial participator”—I had not understood that that meant a shop such as Clinton Cards—that makes any representation that
“charitable contributions are to be given to or applied for the benefit of one or more particular charitable institutions,”
is obliged to make a statement, which is broadly in accordance with the effect of my amendment. I am deeply concerned by the apparent failure of even respectable outlets such as Boots, Tesco and Marks and Spencer to recognise that duty under the law, but I am pleased that the Government propose to tighten the provision.
I shall now move on to what might have been a stand part debate on clauses 67 and 68, which again has benefited from discussions over lunch. I have received representations from the Association of Fundraising Consultants that the existing law, particularly section 60(2) of the 1992 Act, is not working effectively. The association’s solution is to reduce the impact of that law and to set aside the changes that the Government propose to make to that section of the Act.
People are genuinely concerned about how much of their money is spent on fundraising. A lot of people say, “Well, it’s all charity money,” and—to revert to an earlier debate—in law, of course, it is all charity money, because it is there for the charities to dispose of in whatever way it wishes, as long as it is for the general charitable purpose. None the less, people are concerned about fundraising and the amount of money that may be devoted to it by certain charities. Some charities spend as little as £300 to raise £10,000, whereas some spend in excess of £900 to raise the same sum. On average, it is the largest charities that have the worst return on money spent on fundraising, and the smallest charities that have the best return on the money that they invest. That offers a lesson: people are entitled to know how much of the money is being spent on what might be described as a job creation scheme for professional middle classes, and how much of it will genuinely help real people at the front line, which is, after all, the purpose of most people’s charitable giving.
I have a lot of sympathy with the suggestion of the Association of Fundraising Consultants that the amendments to the 1992 Act proposed in the Bill would not have the effect that the Government desire, because they would not be sufficiently robust to stand up against the wide range of different ways in which professional fundraisers are funded. However, the principal point made by the AFC is that charities, and charity trustees in particular, should have a clear responsibility for deciding how effectively money is spent on fundraising. That is my position, also.
I am grateful to the association for the information it has provided. I fear that neither the existing provisions, nor the proposed provisions will be good enough for what the Government want to achieve and, I suspect, what most people want to achieve, which is to ensure a high rate of return on money spent on fundraising. We are not getting that from the largest charities at the moment.