Specialist Work Programme providers should get more funding for new services, say MPs
21 May 2013
The Department for Work and Pensions should use some of the money it has saved on outcome payments in...
Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you wish to restrict or block web browser cookies which are set on your device then you can do this through your browser settings, the Help function within your browser will tell you how.
Gift aid should be withdrawn from charities which have not filed their accounts, according to the Charity Commission's submission to Lord Hodgson's Charities Act review.
The measure is the favoured sanction by the Commission out of a number of possible punishments for charities which do not take their responsibility to submit their accounts for public viewing on the register seriously.
The Commission said that the tax relief withdrawal would be a preferred alternative to the existing sanction of criminal prosecution, which it says is "disproportionate except in the most extreme cases of default or where linked with other serious criminal behaviour".
However the Commission was keen to express that the act of filing accounts is a compulsory and necessary measure: "We consider that complying with this filing requirement is a key trustee duty. We would like to see a climate in which failure to comply is unacceptable both legally and culturally in the charitable sector."
The Charity Commission recently 'named and shamed' the charity set up by MP George Galloway, Viva Palenstina, a common route taken when accounts have not been filed on time. However it said that this approach, designed both as a nudge to the perpetrating charity and as a warning to fellow charities, "has its limitations":
"For charities with an active stakeholder community or seeking new funding then ‘naming and shaming’ can be a powerful sanction. But for those with a limited or distant relationship with the public are less influenced by it," it said in its submission to Lord Hodgson.
Suspension from the register would be similarly dependent on its relationship with stakeholders, the Commission said.
A sliding scale of fines dependant on income, however, would prove an effective incentive to charities to file their accounts, accepted the Commission. It pointed to the example that some charitable companies had submitted their accounts to Companies House, which sets fines for lateness, but not to the Commission in the past.
But gift aid withdrawal, in combination with a suspension from the register, was mooted as the "strongest option" for an appropriate sanction, providing taxpayers with a clear response to failure to be transparent. Although it was noted that it would require a change to tax law and would not be an appropriate sanction for charities which do not rely on charitable donations.
The Charity Commission response is one of 150 to Lord Hodgson's Charities Act review which asks key questions relating to the legislation and regulations affecting the charity sector. The public consultation closed for responses on Monday, with 110 organisational and 40 individual responses.
The Commission answered a number of questions laid down by Lord Hodgson, including those regarding the effectiveness of the Commission itself. The Commission pointed in the main to its recent strategic review conducted following the coalition government's cost cutting measures, which have seen the Commission's statutory budget reduced by around one third, to answer the review's questions.
The Commission underlined that its independence from government "underpins the nature of charity and the presence of a regulator which is independent of government as well as being independent of the sector supports this". Because of this, the Commission is not in support of a system of sub-regulation, as mooted by the likes of the FRSB and IoF in response to the review.
"Our view is that there is insufficient evidence that a different model would work better," the Commission concluded.
21 May 2013
The Department for Work and Pensions should use some of the money it has saved on outcome payments in...
21 May 2013
The Charity Commission has reissued an alert for charities about the risks of entering tenancy agreements...
21 May 2013
The Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice plan to develop a tool which will help charities and social...
21 May 2013
Cancer Research UK has signed up 16 high-flying philanthropists to the development board to lead its £100m...
20 May 2013
The Information Tribunal has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions must publish the names of...
20 May 2013
An impressive array of sector leaders turned out in all their finery on Saturday to attend the wedding...
20 May 2013
Your CivilSociety rounds-up the most read stories from the previous week.
17 May 2013
The voluntary sector should create a “data manifesto” that identifies who holds data about the sector...
16 May 2013
While management in the charity sector has changed significantly in the past few decades, a reluctance...
Corporate Partnerships Survey 2012
from £35.00
BUY NOW
2012 Charity Shops Survey
from £75.00
BUY NOW
Fundraising (with optional website)
from £89.00
BUY NOW
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
29 Oct 2013
Barbara
20 Apr 2012
Papers are filed to the Commission late, in some cases never (why some charities are still registered if have never filed anything for last 5 years - can anybody explain? some sort of a legal loophole or something?). Also, reports and accounts don't meet SORP criteria, for example charities massively omit duty to report on average number of employees (full time equivalents) so the question is: why does a taxpayer pay for the Commission in the first place? Clean the mess, tighten regulations, remove those charities who are having a laugh for years or scrap the whole scheme altogether to stop wasting people's time and money. Having said that, I really hope thatthe review will allow CC to actually perform duties, accountability and transparency are big words that need more action and fast.
[Reply]