David Lepper

Labour Party | Brighton Pavilion

Speech on Chuggers

Debate on the Charities Bill
House of Commons 26.06.06

David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op): First, I place on record that I am a trustee of a small local charity, Ardis, that is based in Brighton and Hove. It works on behalf of people with dementia in that area. I am also a member of the Association of Town Centre Management. The reason for that declaration might become clear when I say that I wish to concentrate my remarks on part 3, and particularly on street collections. Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I have no hesitation in referring to the street collectors as chuggers—charity muggers. That is because of the outrageous activities of some paid street collectors in my constituency.
I am talking of those who are paid on behalf of charities to stop people in the street and encourage them, on the spur of the moment, to sign up to regular direct debit payments to extremely worthy charities. I question whether that is the best way to encourage people to make thoughtful donations regularly to a charity. Perhaps payroll giving might be a better form of making donations. Nevertheless, a number of charities use the street collector method.

When the Bill was in draft form, I think that the Government took the view that the problems caused by street collections could be dealt with by self-regulation. I welcome the terms of the Bill generally, as have others, and as debate on the Bill in draft form and in another place has continued, I am glad that there are now to be two stages of regulation in terms of collections. Those stages will not, it seems, harm in the least local charities that collect by holding the tin and not shaking it, or from time to time shaking it, but I hope that regulation will help to curb the chuggers.
The two stages involve the charity obtaining a certificate from the charity commissioners, followed by a form of local authority licensing. I gather that the Government’s proposal is to talk with local government representatives and councils about guidelines for the licensing system. Alongside that, a self-regulatory code of fundraising practice will be developed. That is all good, but when it comes to discussing the guidelines I hope that those involved will bear in mind the local experience in Brighton city centre, in my constituency. I am sceptical about the self-regulatory approach on the basis of that local experience.

I shall quote from a letter about chuggers—I could quote from others—from one of my constituents, which was written in September 2005. It reads:
“The sheer rudeness of these people is breathtaking...the money...would be better spent on helping those who the charity is trying to help”
rather than on paying the collectors. It continues:
“People should have the right to go about their business without being insulted for not being able to afford to give a monthly donation to charity.”
That, unfortunately, is not an unusual experience that I have had reported to me by one of my constituents. Others have told me of similar stories.
Local traders have contacted me, particularly about the North Laine area of Brighton, where there are quite narrow streets and many small shops and businesses. Day after day and week after week, many charity collectors gather there. They stand close together and they block shop doorways. It is obvious from what is reported to proprietors that those collectors are intimidating potential customers. Sometimes they are offensive to those who ask them to move on.
All that has happened despite attempts to negotiate a local code with the help of the Public Fund-Raisers Regulatory Association. I have raised with that association issues that have been discussed at meetings of the all-party group on charities and voluntary organisations, and there have been failed attempts with the association to sort out a local code of practice.

On 16 March last year I presented a petition that was signed by 200 people, which states:
“The Petitioners...declare that the Public Fund-Raisers Regulatory Association agreed to amend the voluntary code of practice in order to address traders’ concerns...The Petitioners declare that operatives”—
the collectors—
“are ignoring the amendments”—
that is to the code of practice—
“as well as the standard requirements of the voluntary code of practice”.
That was the experience after attempts to resolve those issues voluntarily. I spoke to the chief executive of the Brighton and Hove business forum, Tony Mernagh only last week to ascertain the position now. He wrote in a letter of 22 June:
“Chuggers continue to be as much of a problem as they ever were. Our attempts to control the nuisance factor by a voluntary agreement did not work. The PFRA were not prepared to agree to some of our requests and were half-hearted about asking their members to abide by the voluntary code and the vast majority do not.”
Tony Mernagh attached an 11-point code, most of which is based on a national voluntary code with some local amendments, a code which, he told me, is still, by and large, being flouted.

For those reasons I have no hesitation, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, in referring to many street collectors as charity muggers. Far too many chuggers have been operating in my constituency and I hope that the proposals that are before us will help to regulate an unacceptable situation. When it comes to Ministers or officials working with local councils or local council representatives on guidelines for a licensing system, I hope that local experience will be considered. From what I read in newspapers, the experience in my constituency is not perhaps unusual because similar complaints are made elsewhere. As I have said, I hope that local experience will be taken into account when drawing up the guidelines to allow local authorities, in issuing licences, to have genuine powers to control the location and the frequency of collections and the numbers of collectors involved.
I finish by repeating my earlier recommendation: people should think seriously about whether a spur-of-the-moment decision in the street to sign up to a regular donation to a charity is the best way to make such a donation. Payroll giving is surely a far better alternative.

Ed Milliband (Parlaimentay Secretary to the Cabinet Office) REPLYING AT THE END OF THE DEBATE
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, clause 60 sets out the terms on which local authorities will be able to regulate fundraising. There are a number of ways in which they will be able to do that. The key aspect is that they must make a judgment about whether a collection
“would cause inconvenience to members of the public by reason of—
(a) the day or the week or date on or in which,
(b) the time at which,
(c) the frequency with which”
it takes place, and so on. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my hon. Friend.