Icelandic losses should be compensated, says Treasury Committee 3

Finance | Gareth Jones | 3 Apr 2009

Charities should be compensated for Icelandic banking losses and should have their depositor classification reviewed to prevent such problems in future, according to the Treasury Committee’s first report on the banking crisis.

The report argues that “on this occasion only” charities should be compensated, as one of the tests a charity must pass to be protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) definition of a retail depositor is “inappropriate for those charities using fixed assets in the course of their work.”

It adds that in light of this, the FSCS should “re-examine the criteria for the classification of charities as retail or wholesale depositors” to “prevent such problems arising in future”. This recommendation echoes the evidence given by CAF chief executive John Low (pictured) to a Treasury select committee inquiry into the Icelandic crisis in February, when he called for charities to have their own depositor class.

The Committee’s report also calls for further statutory guidance relating to the management of charity finances and investments, and clarification of the protection available under the FSCS.

In contrast to the assistance recommended for charities, the report argues against providing compensation to local authorities, as it would be “perverse to reward those authorities who failed to protect their investment”.

“Unanimous conclusion”

John McFall, chairman of the Treasury Committee, explained: "Our inquiry into the banking crisis has taken in a vast amount evidence in the last few months.

“The Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that it is only possible on this occasion to compensate charities and this is what we have recommended.

“At a time when more people than ever are faced with difficult economic circumstances, we believe that it is imperative that charities have access to the funds that were provided to them by the public.”

Low said he was thrilled at recommendations of “this influential committee”, adding: “They have listened sympathetically to the evidence CAF gave and recognised the injustice of the situation.

“Only this week the Prime Minister said it was the government’s duty to help charities at this time. We now need the Chancellor to act swiftly and compensate those who have lost funds.”

Professor Khalid Aziz, chairman of Naomi House and co-chair of Save our Savings, said: “I think it’s a vindication of the lobbying we’ve been doing, and it’s consistent with what we’ve been saying since all this happened 6 months ago.

“We call on the government now to put this into action without delay. It would seem churlish for the government to not take into account the recommendations of such a senior committee.”

Who's Who: Gareth Jones

Place a comment

Paul C
15 Apr 2009

And what about all the fake charities which derive most of their income from government and its agencies in the first place? Just give them more tax money to gamble with. If the gamble pays off, bonuses are paid, and if it fails, government compensates for the loss with more tax money.

[Reply]

K C Merit
4 Apr 2009

That's fine. The heads of Charities and Trusts have to get their fat pay packets. Just do not expect the British public to contribute to the begging bowls. They will be too busy trying to pay their council and other tax bills.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
4 Apr 2009

Where is this money coming from except from the money that could have gone to small charities?

Indeed in these lean times and in the best of times, small charities can claim to make as good a use of the sums being touted for compensation (is this akin to Sir Fred's performance compensation package?).

Finally, compensation as versus support by way of a grant to defend the financial sustainability of a charity in these circumstances ... comes with a full investigation.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.