PM2: The future of charity regulation

53
Drinks sponsors: THE FUTURE OF CHARITY REGULATION CHAIR: ELIZABETH CHAMBERLAIN POLICY MANAGER, NCVO SPEAKERS: LAWRENCE SIMANOWITZ CHARITY PARTNER, HEAD OF CULTURE + CREATIVE AND IP/TRADEMARKS, BWB SIMON STEEDEN PARTNER AND HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT, BWB Partner sponsor: Media partner:

Transcript of PM2: The future of charity regulation

Page 1: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Drinks sponsors:

THE FUTURE OF CHARITY REGULATIONCHAIR:ELIZABETH CHAMBERLAINPOLICY MANAGER, NCVOSPEAKERS:LAWRENCE SIMANOWITZCHARITY PARTNER, HEAD OF CULTURE + CREATIVE AND IP/TRADEMARKS, BWBSIMON STEEDENPARTNER AND HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT, BWB

Partner sponsor:

Media partner:

Page 2: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Introduction – the future of charity regulation

• Background• Fundraising• Changing role of the Charity Commission• Social Investment• Campaigning• Grant funding for non-charities• What’s on the horizon• Q & A

Page 3: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 4: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 5: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 6: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 7: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 8: PM2: The future of charity regulation
Page 9: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Regulation of fundraising

• Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016• Changes to the IoF Code• New Regulator• Fundraising Preference Service• Data Protection

Page 10: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charities Act 2016 – Fundraising (1)

• [Social investment and new powers for the Charity Commission]• No date yet for coming into force• Reserve power to control fundraising

Page 11: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charities Act 2016 – Fundraising (2)

• S.13 Fundraising agreement with PFs and CPs must include details of voluntary fundraising scheme/standards to which the charity

adheres details of how the commercial organisation will protect vulnerable

people and others from:- unreasonable intrusion on privacy- unreasonably persistent fundraising- under pressure to donate

arrangements to enable the charity to monitor compliance with the agreement

• Failure to comply – the CP or PF is unable to enforce – charity may be in breach

Page 12: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charities Act 2016 – Fundraising (3)

• Charities which have their annual accounts audited must include the following in trustees annual report

• The charity’s “approach” to fundraising, especially if a CP or PF was used

• Details of fundraising scheme/standard which it or its fundraisers have agreed to and any failures to comply with these

• Whether and how the charity monitored fundraising activities carried out on its behalf

• How many complaints the charity has received about fundraising• What the charity has done to protect vulnerable people and others

from unreasonable intrusion or persistence, or undue pressure• Sanctions are light touch – request to comply, but double defaulters

are investigated

Page 13: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Key changes to the IoF Code in the last year

• No knocking on doors with cold calling stickers• No calling TPS registered number without consent• Consent needed to share data with any other organisation to use it for

fundraising/marketing purposes, even if data is not sold• All fundraising communications must include clear single step opt-out

– same size font (or larger) as request for details or donation amount, if none then the minimum font size 10

• Same required for permission statement• No more than 3 asks on a phone call

Page 14: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Data Protection

EU General Data Protection Regulation • Data processors now covered by some aspects of the regulations• New rights for individuals including the right to be forgotten and to

object to processing• Changes to how consent can be obtained• Potential new permitted ways of exporting data outside of the

European Economic Area• Wider application to non-EU data controllers• Notification of some types of security breach now mandatory• Removal of requirement to register (aka “notify”) with the ICO• Higher fines• Some organisations must have a nominated Data Protection Officer

Page 15: PM2: The future of charity regulation

New types of organisation caught by the Act

• Currently the DPA only applies to data controllers which are established in the UK or which use equipment in the UK to process data

• Under GDPR: overseas based organisations caught if offer goods or services (even if

free) to individuals in the EU or if monitor their behaviour data processors must implement security measures; notify data

controller of breaches without undue delay; appoint a DPO (where threshold is reached); seek approval to appoint sub-processors and transfer data outside of the EEA; allow the data controller to audit and inspect

• Data Controller must include those obligations in contracts with Data Processors

• DPs and DCs must keep records of processing activities (Article 28)

Page 16: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Notification of security breaches

• Security breach is when data is lost or accidentally damaged or destroyed, or accessed without authority

• Currently not mandatory (but recommend if serious – i.e. major impact – quantitatively or qualitatively)

• Under GDPR must notify ICO within 72 hours if there is likely to be risk to the rights of individuals (Article 31)

• Must notify the individuals if there is likely to be a high risk to the rights of individuals (Article 32)

Page 17: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Consent (1)

• Currently consent must be freely given, specific and informed and the ICO guidance says an “active communication” is required

• GDPR adds that: the consent must be unambiguous and must be given by means of a

statement or clear affirmation action (Article 4(8)) consent may be indicated by ticking a box on a website or by a statement

which clearly indicates an individual’s acceptance, including a pre-formulated statement (recitals 25 & 32)

Page 18: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Consent (2)

• The individual must have free choice and be able to withdraw consent without detriment. Consent not freely given if mandatory to give consent in order to obtain performance of a contract when the consent relates to something else (recital 34)

• Separate consent must be given for different processing operations (e.g. fundraising, policy campaigns?)

• Children cannot consent if under 13, can consent with parental approval up to 16 (unless law says otherwise), fresh consent needed once reach 16

• Pre-ticked boxes (or silence/inactivity) does not constitute consent – see next slide

Page 19: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Other changes

• Fines will be up to the higher of 2% of worldwide turnover or £10m for less serious breaches and 4% or £20m for more serious breaches (Article 79)

• Organisations must appoint a suitably qualified data protection officer if they undertake largescale monitoring of individuals or process large amounts of sensitive personal data

• Export of data outside of the EEA is subject to the same restrictions but there are possibilities in the future of exporting in line with approved codes of conduct, certification by an experienced independent certification body or under contract clauses approved by the ICO

Page 20: PM2: The future of charity regulation

The ICO’s view

Undertakings• Fresh consent every two years for telephone fundraising• “opt-in” consent model for live telephone marketing (i.e. consent

based model)Unsettled issues• Cold calling needs to be explicitly explained in advance• Guidance on direct marketing – consent required by charities to share

data for marketing purposes

Page 21: PM2: The future of charity regulation

New Fundraising Regulator

• FRSB will be replaced• Fundraising Regulator to start operating Summer 2016, chaired by

Lord Michael Grade• Will take over the IOF Codes• Funded through levy (app £1,000 pa) on charities with more than

£100,000 annual fundraising spend (not mandatory)Sanctions• Name and shame • Require charities and fundraisers to cease and desist, including

against non members• Red flag on Charity Regulator’s website• Charity regulator may follow up with investigation

Page 22: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Fundraising Preference Service

• Still at proposal stage• Individuals will have the right to be registered, permanently, on a “do

not contact” list covering: addressed mail, telephone, texts and email• Default position – will cover all charities with income over £1 million

even when there is a pre-existing relationship• Mandatory compliance• Trustees’ duty to act in the [best] interests of their charitable purposes• Cost of using FPS uncertain

Page 23: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Increased Regulation by the Charity Commission

• Statutory Inquiries – UP: 2010-2011 – 32013-2014 – 642014-2015 –

103(main grounds were accounting issues and

misconduct/mismanagement)• Operations compliance cases – DOWN (slightly)• Compliance orders and directions issued – UP:

2010-2011 – 208

2013-2014 – 740

2014-2015 – 1,700

Page 24: PM2: The future of charity regulation

2016 Act – Charity Commission Powers• Longer list of offences leading to automatic disqualification of trustees

(formerly dishonesty offences and company law-related issues only. Now includes terrorism and sex offenders)

• Charity Commission powers to suspend and disqualify trustees, including on grounds of past or continuing conduct which may be damaging to public trust and confidence in charities

• This leads to disqualification from holding a senior management position in a charity

• Power to issue official warning to charity or trustee(s) (and to publicise it) for misconduct, mismanagement or breach of trust or duty

• No minimum notice (minister has said normally at least 14 days)• No right of appeal• Notice must say what Commission believes should be done to rectify

the position

Page 25: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charity Commission Guidance

CC3 − “The Essential Trustee” revised and published July 2015 – Trustees

expected to follow guidance: 6 key duties− Ensure charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit− Comply with the charity’s governing document and the law− Act in the charity’s [best] interests− Manage your charity’s resources responsibly− Act with reasonable skill and care− Ensure the charity is accountable

− “Must” and “should” – elevating non-compliance with good practice to breach of duty?

Page 26: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charity Commission Guidance

CC19“Charity Reserves” – reviewed in the light of KidsCo• Context of a charity with vulnerable beneficiaries where auditors’

recommendations of six months reserves was seen as low priority• Previous guidance was cautious about reserves, noting obligation on

charities to spend income within reasonable timeframe• Revised guidance warns trustees to consider the risk of unplanned

closure when preparing their reserves policyConcerns in the sector that this could lead to a diversion away from achieving charity’s purposesGuidance will be fully reviewed by the Charity Commission later

Page 27: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Regulation of social investment

• Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016

• Implements a Law Commission recommendation on social investment

• A statutory power to do social investment

• Allows charities, including incorporated and unincorporated, but not

those created by statute or Royal Charter, to invest

“with a view to both (a) directly furthering the charity’s purposes;

and (b) achieving a financial return for the charity”.

• Intention to remove uncertainty over the ability of charities to make

social investments – and particularly “mixed-motive” investments

Page 28: PM2: The future of charity regulation

How might the new power be used?

• The full spectrum of social investments is permitted

• Where trustees consider investment to be in the interests of a charity

• Primarily financial, or for primarily social, reasons

• A combination of mission benefit and financial return - no minimum

degree of mission benefit before the power is engaged

• Charity’s purposes need not be advanced on an exclusive basis

• Investments made using the power will not have to be restricted for

the investor’s objects

• To use Lord Bridges’ example from the Hansard debates…

Page 29: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Example: purposes need not be exclusively advanced

“A charity might have the care of horses as its charitable purpose. It may

wish to invest in a horse and donkey social enterprise, which provides

joint facilities for both. The social enterprise may also expect to make a

financial return, perhaps from charging visitors. Having weighed the

benefits to horses along with the expected risk-adjusted financial return,

the horse charity is able to invest in the horse and donkey social

enterprise. So long as the trustees have satisfied themselves that the

combination of expected financial return and mission benefit in relation to

horses is appropriate, this is covered under the social investment

power.”

Page 30: PM2: The future of charity regulation

How should trustees choose to use the power?

• Clause 15, s292c(2)(c) imposes duties on charity trustees

• Trustees must “satisfy themselves that it is in the interests of the

charity to make the social investment, having regard to the benefit

they expect it to achieve for the charity…”

• Balancing act for trustees between mission benefit and financial return

– but no need to quantify each in making a precise calculation

• The power can be excluded by express constitutional provision

• Does not apply to the use of assets held as permanent endowment

• Charity Commission will need to revise CC14 and HMRC to revise

guidance on approved investments

Page 31: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charities and ethical investment

• Developing area

• Settled law on ethical investment by charities– Harries v The Church Commissioners for England – 1992 – Challenge - investment policy of the Church Commissioners– Exercise of investment power - the starting point for charity trustees is to

seek the best possible financial return from an investment…– Whilst having regard to the need to manage risk– But charities are different to other fiduciaries– It is axiomatic that investment powers are used to advance objects

• Application to modern context – e.g. fossil fuel divestment?

Page 32: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Fossil fuel divestment – Divest Invest

• Divest Invest - Global grassroots movement - combat climate change

• Now more than 700 institutions/individuals

• Over $50 Billion in commitments

• Climate change - accepted understanding is rapidly changing

• The role of finance in contributing to climate risk• European Leader Divest Invest - Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts • Christopher McCall QC opinion on charity investment duties

Page 33: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Divestment – financial implications

• Climate science has changed since the Bishop of Oxford case

• Evidence carbon-intensive investments damage environment• Financial implications for carbon intensive assets

– greater risk of policy change and regulatory risk – therefore may be financial disadvantageous due to supposed element of

mispricing in market or decline in market appetite – potential financial risks – if well founded - are of such magnitude that they

should be considered by any prudent trustee/fiduciary.– Trustees and fiduciaries must seek advice – diversification

Page 34: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Divestment – ‘mission’ implications

• Trustees should also divest where conflict with the charity’s purposes,

regardless of the financial consequences

• Ultimately it is for trustees to decide if a conflict exists• It is at least arguable that investments in carbon intensive assets are

irreconcilable with charities with: – general or specific environmental purposes; – general health purposes; – general poverty purposes; and – other purposes – consequences of dangerous climate change – concern

Page 35: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Charity campaigning

• The Lobbying Act and Lord Hodgson’s review

• 2016 elections and the EU referendum

• Anti-advocacy clauses in public sector grants and contracts

Page 36: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Part 2 of The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

• “Lobbying Act” - Amended Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

• Expanded controls on third party campaigner spending ahead of elections

• Expanded categories of spending that may be regulated if (broadly) intent to influence an electoral outcome can reasonably be inferred

• Regulation includes:– Spending threshold for registration with Electoral Commission – Overall limits on controlled spending– Reporting requirements

Page 37: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Sector concern – interesting alliances …

Page 38: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Lord Hodgson’s post-election review

• Section 39 Lobbying Act required a review of the operation of Part 6 PPERA in relation to “the first relevant parliamentary general election” (May 2015)

• Reviewer to be appointed within 12 months of Royal Assent on 30 January 2014

• Lord Hodgson appointed 28 January 2015

• Report to be laid before Parliament within 18 months after the May 2015 general election.

• Report published on 17 March 2016

Page 39: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Arguments against regulating third parties

• Disproportionate burden on small organisations

• Deterring legitimate campaigning activity at election time

• “Concern about dual regulation of those third parties which are charities, since they are already subject to regulation by charity law”

• “Some third parties may be spending money in order to raise debate on an issue which just happens to be identified with a party or candidate (or perhaps an issue which comes to the fore during an election campaign) rather than specifically to influence voters for or against a particular party or candidate”

Page 40: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Test of regulated spending under Part 6 PPERA

Purpose test = spending that can “reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success at any relevant election” for –

i) One or more particular registered parties

ii) One or more registered parties who advocate [or do not advocate] particular policies[...]

iii) Candidates who hold [or do not hold] particular opinions or who advocate [or do not advocate] particular policies[...]

(s.85(2) PPERA)

Objective test Would a reasonable person regard the spending / activity as intended to influence voter choice?

• Spending must also be on specified activities (activity test)• And directed toward public (public test)

Page 41: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Lord Hodgson’s proposals • Include proposal to move from objective purpose test to subjective test

• Would mean charities could no longer incur regulated expenditure or register with Electoral Commission, as cannot intend to support parties/candidates

• Similar to test in Representation of the People Act 1983 for local campaigns:

• Spending “with a view to promoting or procuring … the election of a candidate [or registered political party for GLA elections]”

• PPERA Part 7 – referendum campaigns:

• Spending “with a view to promoting or procuring … a particular outcome [in a referendum] or otherwise in connection with promoting or procuring any such outcome”

Part 7 PPERA and RPA = subjective tests What was the actual intention of the person incurring the spending?

Page 42: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Elections 2016

• Northern Ireland Assembly• National Assembly for Wales• Scottish Parliament• London Assembly• Mayor of London• English local government • Local mayoral elections• Police and Crime Commissioner (England and Wales)

• and a referendum …

Page 43: PM2: The future of charity regulation

EU Referendum 23 June 2016

Page 44: PM2: The future of charity regulation

More interesting alliances...

Page 45: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Referendum campaigning: election law

• Legislation: part 7 PPERA + EU Referendum Act

Must register as a ‘permitted participant’ if spend over £10,000

“with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome or otherwise in connection with promoting or procuring any such outcome.”

• Registration available since 1 February 2016 • Must specify outcome you are supporting

Controls on spending and donations

Detailed reporting requirements

Rules on campaign material

Maximum spend £700,000

Page 46: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Referendum campaigning: charity law

• New Charity Commission guidance issued March 2016 – quickly revised – asks:– Does political activity support, and is it incidental to, the charity’s

purposes? – Are any conflicts of interest and other risks properly managed?– Are decisions to engage properly recorded?– Is there transparency about EU funding?

• Written record should be maintained of:– How the action furthers and supports charitable purposes – Why the activity is in the best interests of the charity – The risks involved (including reputational risk) and how you will avoid

them

Page 47: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Anti-advocacy clauses

• February 2016 Govt announced inclusion of anti-advocacy clauses in grant agreements

• Grant monies not to fund costs of activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Govt, political parties policy, legislative/regulatory action, awarding/renewal of contracts/grants

• Builds on clause introduced by DCLG in 2015 • Based on a IEA think-tank ‘Sock Puppets’ report• Criticised as counter productive because:

– Prevent departments seeking important advice and expertise of charities– Inhibits feedback from frontline– Charities already subject to constraints on political activity – cannot be

party political

• Govt departments being tasked with working out the detail for their own departments by 1 May 2016

Page 48: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Grants to non-charities

• Draft guidance published by Charity Commission February 2016• Consultation closed 8 April• “Organisations that aren’t charities don’t have to deliver public benefit

or stick to charitable objectives … you need to understand the risks and boundaries”

• “A charity can only make grants for activities that in principle it could carry out itself”

• “Ensure that the organisation receiving the grant understands your charity’s purposes and their boundaries”

• Emphasis on due diligence and monitoring, risk assessment, systems and procedures

• Trustee engagement:– “Trustees are responsible for deciding what level of scrutiny and

discussion are appropriate in the circumstances”– “High risk and unusual decisions should not be delegated”

Page 49: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Grants to non-charities – core costs

• Guidance states that:– “a charity can’t give an unrestricted grant to a non-charity”– “a charity can only allow a grant to cover costs that are directly connected

to carrying out the activities it has agreed to fund”– “beyond that, a charity can’t fund the ‘core’ costs (or overheads) of a non-

charity”

• Funding of core costs – e.g. office/staff costs - “limited to the proportion of those costs …. directly linked to delivering the grant…”– But, core funding can be essential to capacity building?– Impact on venture philanthropy, incubation of social enterprise and new

models of public benefit– Non-charitable core costs may be ancillary to charitable costs– Core costs not the same as overheads?– Unnecessary inhibition of public benefit?

Page 50: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Grants to non-charities – other key risk areas

• Certain purposes, e.g.:– Promotion of rural/urban regeneration– Promotion of human rights– Focus should be on circumstances, not purposes?

• Where intellectual property will be generated– can be a valuable asset - take steps to protect the charity’s share

• “Plan how you will respond to questions from your staff, volunteers, members, donors, the public or the media”

• Is the guidance necessary? Already covered by other guidance?– e.g. CC27 - It’s your decision: charity trustees and decisions making

Page 51: PM2: The future of charity regulation

On the horizon – fee charging?

• “The commission’s budget has been reduced by 50% in recent years….”

• “Adequate and stable funding of the commission is, I believe, the only way we can achieve an appropriate level of resource to regulate effectively. We will be, therefore, consulting on the concept of asking charities to contribute to their regulator.”

• “… we would only seek contribution from larger charities… ”[William Shawcross, February 2016]

• Existing power to charge for “functions” (s19 CA2011), subject to the affirmative resolution procedure

• What is within the scope of a “function”?• Charges for registration, being on register, filings, inspecting register?• Would charging encourage or discourage, good practice?

Page 52: PM2: The future of charity regulation

On the horizon – fee charging? (2)

• Fee charging by the Charity Tribunal• July 2015 MoJ consultation on further court and tribunal fees• Government response December 2015 - decision to proceed with

most fees proposed, including for the General Regulatory Chamber, encompassing the Charity Tribunal

• Proposals include:– £100 issue fee to start proceedings and have the merits considered– further £500 to bring the case to an oral hearing– £2,000 to appeal a tribunal ruling

• Disincentive to bring cases?• Impact on Charity Commission accountability?

Page 53: PM2: The future of charity regulation

Simon Steeden and Lawrence SimanowitzTel: 020 7551 7796Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Bates Wells Braithwaite10 Queen Street PlaceLondon EC4R 1BEWeb: www.bwbllp.com