| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I welcome that, and I am sure they will be delighted by the generous way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has expressed her congratulations to them, which I, wholeheartedly and without reservation, endorse.
As to whether ID cards are the most cost effective way of tackling the problem they seek to address, many of the costs of introducing biometric identity cards will be needed in any event, with the move to introduce biometric passports. The Government remain confident that the benefits of the ID card scheme will outweigh its cost.
We do not believe that ID cards will pose a threat to civil liberties. The Identity Cards Bill will allow ID cards to be used by any service, public or private, to establish identity with the consent of the holder.
I believe that I have now covered all the issues. I regret that it has taken me 22 minutes to do so. I thank anyone who has to transcribe what I have said with such rapidity.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness has skated over lots of things, all in a great hurry. Some of her points have been a little difficult to absorb. She seemed to imply that there was no need for her to read the LSE report because the Home Office had already considered matters in it. Did I hear her correctly? Will she explain why other government departments came to meetings when they were invited to by the LSE but the Home Office was either too busy or had other things to do and could not come?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, as I made absolutely clear, we will read the report and consider its findings as everyone has suggested. Secondly, throughout the passage of the Bill it has been clear that the Home Office has been assiduous in trying to ensure that, wherever possible, we or our officials have attended meetings, engaged in consultation and given briefings. I do not know the history regarding the LSE but I can assure the noble Baroness that consultation is one thing on which we seem to have excelled on this Bill, as on so many.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.
21 Mar 2005 : Column 105
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Charities Bill [HL]
(Eighth Day) Monday, 21 March 2005.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Regulation of public charitable collections]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Welcome to the eighth and, we hope, last day of the Charities Bill. There will be a Division in the Chamber, so whoever is speaking when it occurs will have to stop. We shall then return and play it by ear. If there is another Division, we will go off again.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 183AA:
The noble Lord said: Once more into the breach, dear friends. We now come to Part 3, which concerns collections and funding. The amendment concerns Clause 42. The Explanatory Notes state:
"This clause and the following 21 clauses . . . provide for the regulation of public charitable, philanthropic and benevolent collections. They build on provisions in Part 3 of the 1992 Act . . . [which] was never brought into effect, and will be replaced by these provisions".
We have already commented on the fact that Part 3 of the 1992 Act was insufficiently scrutinised before being passed in the wash-up period before the 1992 general election. Let us hope that we do not make the same mistake again.
We have tabled this amendment because it seems rather odd to have a further definition of "public charitable collection" given in subsection (4) when other definitions exist earlier in the clause. Subsection (1) gives the two definitions of public charitable collections, being,
in paragraphs (a) and (b), with subsection (2)(a) defining when it is a public charitable collection as opposed to a charitable appeal and subsection (2)(b) defining charitable appeal.
Considering that those definitions are given, it seems confusing then to provide in subsection (4) a further definition of when an appeal to members of the public is a public charitable collection. Could not the definition of an appeal as given in subsection (4)(a) be transferred to the definition of charitable appeal in subsection (2)(b)? Subsection (4)(b) seems to be
21 Mar 2005 : Column GC2
superfluous, as it simply refers to subsection (2) and mirrors its wording. Surely the drafting could be more economic or succinct, so that there is not such confusion about the exact whereabouts in the Bill of the precise definition of public charitable collection.
We have said many times that simplicity and clarity should be our watchwords in providing the regulatory framework for the charitable sector. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for moving an amendment that may—we have yet to hear—achieve clarity, and so on. I find the drafting of Clauses 42 to 44 very difficult, and I say that as an old and battered lawyer. I hate to think what members of the public—I am thinking of the charities—may make of that when trying to find their way round this extremely convoluted wording and definition. I note that public charitable collection is the same as charitable appeal, which is defined as,
There is no definition anywhere in the Bill of what are philanthropic or benevolent purposes. If there is no unforeseen objection to the amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I am right behind him.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, this is an important part of the Bill dealing with the regulation of public charitable collections. It will replace the current legislation, which is outdated, fragmented and has been somewhat inconsistently applied. The current arrangements in place for street collections derive from a law of 1916, and the arrangements for house-to-house collections from a law of 1939. The Bill creates a new unified licensing scheme for public collections that removes the inconsistencies and ensures what we believe to be proportionate regulation. I look forward to explaining the Government's policy as we debate the various amendments.
Clause 42 defines the two types of public charitable collections: collections in a public place—often referred to as street collections; and door-to-door collections. t also provides a number of definitions for the purposes of this chapter, including that a charitable appeal includes giving to philanthropic and benevolent purposes; the definition of what constitutes a public place; and that giving includes giving by whatever means, which would include by direct debit—thus ensuring that face-to-face fundraising is properly regulated.
Under existing legislation, commercial participators who sell products house-to-house or in a public place, where a proportion of the profits go to a charity, would in most cases require a licence from the relevant local authority in whose area they were operating, as the activity would be considered to be a charitable appeal.
The Bill does not change that. Under subsection (4), the sale of goods in a public place where part of the proceeds were to be applied to charitable, philanthropic or benevolent purposes would be considered to be a
21 Mar 2005 : Column GC3
charitable appeal, and therefore the licensing provisions of the Bill would apply. We believe that that is the right approach.
The Bill is deregulatory for door-to-door collections. Organisations proposing to undertake door-to-door collections would require a public collections certificate from the Charity Commission to demonstrate their eligibility to collect, which could be in force for a period of up to five years. They would be required only to notify local authorities for the areas in which they proposed to collect and the details of their proposed collections, rather than apply for individual licences for each collection from local authorities, as is currently the case. Some commercial participators would be able to operate under a public collections certificate that had been granted to the charity for which they were raising funds in the public collection, rather than requiring their own public collections certificate.
The amendment would remove the requirement on commercial participators undertaking charitable appeals in a public place, or door-to-door, to be bound by the licensing scheme for public charitable collections. We do not believe that that is desirable. Local authorities want to know what legitimate collecting activity is taking place within their areas, either door-to-door or in public places. By being aware of all the legitimate collections that are taking place, local authorities will be able quickly to identify any unlicensed activity that is occurring and take action. If this amendment were to be accepted, it would create a loophole that could be exploited as a means of avoiding the licensing requirements.
In response to the consultation on those proposals the point was made by a number of respondents, including local authorities and charities, that commercial participators should be properly covered by the licensing scheme to ensure that local authorities know what legitimate collection activities are being carried out. We do not therefore intend to amend the Bill further to deregulate door-to-door collections or collections in a public place for commercial participators, although in preparing regulations and guidance we will be happy to consider what scope there would be for a different approach with regard to the conduct of those collections—for example, in relation to the wearing of badges or the keeping of accounts. We also propose to produce a plain English guide to the Bill, which would be for charities, members of the public and hard-pressed lawyers.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |