Summary of public responses to the Draft Counter-terrorism strategy with commentary from the Commission

(July 2008)

The Commission received nine responses to its informal public consultation, including four from umbrella organisations. Most responses welcomed and endorsed the Commission’s strategy and, in particular, our commitment to maintaining a proportionate, risk and evidence-based approach to regulation as a key element of the design and implementation of our counter-terrorism strategy.

Some feedback also pointed out that it is important that the Commission emphasise its status as an independent civil regulator.

Other responses welcomed the emphasis on strengthening existing systems to counter abuse, and on co-operation with the sector. There was strong agreement with the approach in the strategy to provide guidance and support to charities.

Several responses expressed interest in collaborating with the Commission in developing guidance and highlighting best practice in raising standards in charity governance and limiting the threat from terrorist abuse.

Concerns were raised in some responses as to whether the Commission has sufficient resources to take on additional roles and responsibilities. One response felt that since part of the Commission’s work will be dependent on funding with conditions attached by HM Treasury, it will feel under pressure to deliver results to maintain the funding, therefore jeopardising its independence. In addition, the respondent held that the balance of interests within the Commission will be impacted by this ring-fenced expenditure, and could lead to changes in the character of the Commission, with other services liable to suffer if resources continue to be redirected to this area.

In response to this concern we would like to explain that all of the Commission’s funding comes from HM Treasury and we are therefore accountable to it for the use of all this resource in delivering our statutory objectives, and not only for the additional £1 million allocated for our counter-terrorism work. In any event, this additional allocation is incorporated into the baseline settlement of our overall funding. Furthermore, other high risk areas of our compliance work will also benefit from a step change in strengthening and improving many aspects of the compliance function; including our proactive monitoring capability and investigatory capacity, our broader outreach work with the sector and general public, and co-operation with government, law enforcement and other agencies.

One response pointed out that although the strategy emphasises the Commission’s intention to increase public trust and confidence in charity and enhance public understanding, it does not set out how the Commission intends to disseminate information to the public.

In response to this comment, although we do not yet have detailed plans in place, we intend to make full use of our website to provide up to date and relevant information on the evolving terrorist risk to charities.  We will use this to build a shared understanding of risk with the sector and the general public.  This is in addition to our updated and new guidance for charities in managing the risks and building safeguards.  As part of our communications plan, we will also profile key information through the media and by targeting our key stakeholders through events, seminars and email alerts. We intend to report annually to the sector and the public on the wider lessons arising from our compliance work. This will provide another opportunity for disseminating information and enhancing public understanding about the terrorist threat to charities.

One response was concerned that the strategy focuses on the role of trustees to the exclusion of members (and volunteers and activists). In cases where the trustees may be the source of concern in a charity, the response pointed out that the best way to identify wrongful conduct is to motivate and mobilise charity members to bring their concerns to the attention of the Commission.

In response to this comment, we would like to draw attention to our recently updated guidance on Complaints about Charities (CC47) which explains when we will and will not take up complaints, and the information that we need.  It also provides guidance on making a complaint under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, also known as “whistleblowing”, which protects workers who report wrong-doing within their charity.

There was a call for decisions of the Commission to be open and transparent, based on evidence, and for adequate opportunity to be given for challenge in the Charity Tribunal and the Courts. The Commission was also called on to set out publicly its own criteria for investigation. A concern was raised that our treatment of allegations or suspicions of terrorist activity within charities as a zero tolerance issue does not appear to square with an evidence-based approach.

1. The Commission’s risk and proportionality framework clearly sets out our approach to handling high risk cases where zero tolerance issues are involved, as well as setting out the criteria we apply when deciding whether to open a formal statutory inquiry. Our approach to cases involving allegations or suspicions of terrorist activity within charities falls within the scope of this framework.

One response felt that our zero tolerance issue “connections to proscribed organisations” needed clearer definition, and that our counter-terrorism strategy appears to imply acceptance of the approach of the use of the lists of proscribed and designated organisations as a tool for minimising risk. The response also raised concerns about the inconsistent approach to designation across different regulatory regimes, and the de facto extra-territorial creep of jurisdictions outside the UK, especially the US and EU. The response called for the Commission’s international programme to advocate for a consistent regulatory regime in this area.

In answer to this point, we would like to draw attention to the Awareness strand of our strategy, in which we have committed to, and currently are, engaging with and listening to the sector.  This will enable us to identify and agree an appropriate range of guidance and best practice ‘products’ that will be most useful to revise or develop for the sector. This will aim to assist in identifying and minimising the risk of terrorist abuse, disrupting those that seek to exploit charities for terrorist purposes, and building upon already embedded best practice within the sector. We will lay out the priorities for the production of guidance and set out a timetable for their delivery in the near future.

In addition, an important aspect of our proposed guidance will include charities’ legal obligations under the UK's anti-terrorism legislation and will cover the background to the various designation and financial sanctions regimes. The issues arising for charities from these regimes will focus on the risks and implications of working with designated organisations appearing on the UK, EU and UN lists and also of designations by foreign governments. It is not the Commission’s role to comment on the actions of governments or others leading to the inclusion of individuals or organisations on such lists. However, we have a role through the Co-operation strand of our strategy to highlight to the charitable sector the implications and impacts of these lists.