CHARITY LAW ASSOCIATION

Response to the Charity Commission's Consultation on Charities and Public Service Delivery (CC 37)

The Charity Law Association (CLA) has over 900 members, mainly lawyers but also accountants and charity professionals. It is concerned with all aspects of the law relating to charities and has established a working party to consider the Charity Commission’s new draft guidance - Charities and Public Service Delivery (CC37).

The members of this working party are:-


The working party is indebted to Elise Millington of the Charity Commission who, as an observer, provided helpful comments at the meeting of the working party and on the draft response.

Overview

The working party welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the new guidance on Public Service Delivery. We feel that the guidance will be a useful addition to the range of advice offered by the Commission to charities and that it meets a particular need to clarify the issues in the light of the Wigan and Trafford decision, changes in the charitable sector and changes in government policy in relation to public service delivery and contracting. The guidance provides an opportunity to highlight the risks and realities for charities working in this field. It also provides an opportunity for the Charity Commission to endorse Government moves to encourage efficiency and effectiveness in the negotiating and contracting process for charities and commissioning bodies through multi year funding and standard contract terms, which we hope the Commission will embrace.

We felt that areas that are particularly useful include Section C summarising the issues and Section E dealing with areas of risk. We would like to see clarification in particular of the issues of total cost recovery and subsidy of public service provision, and powers of charities with general charitable objects to subsidise public funds and the circumstances when that can take place.

There was a strong feeling that the focus of the guidance should be clarified. There is a clear need for “a practical guide to the legal and good practice issues that charities should be aware of if they are planning to deliver services under a funding agreement with a public authority”. If the new guide is intended to address the top level, there is a need for more detailed guidance to complement it. There is also a need for a detailed legal and practical guide for charities, whether large, medium-sized or small to entering into contracts generally. We would like to see relevant issues not covered by the guidance included in other guidance for charities with appropriate cross referencing, including a replacement of the existing CC37 to ensure that charities have access to a full range of basic legal and practical advice in this area.

Does the guidance address issues that would be helpful to you/charities in thinking about public service delivery?

1. Yes, as a general comment, the revised guidance is very helpful and reflects how the understanding of the law has developed recently. However, the guidance is high-level and not sufficiently explicit in some regards. Although it is recognised that the move to more high-level advice is the Charity Commission’s intention, we were concerned that guidance at this level may be less useful for the charities themselves. The existing CC37 is more helpful in terms of the law. For example, the existing CC37 gives charities practical advice on, for example, the sort of costs it should take into account when negotiating contracts whereas the draft guidance does not go into this level of detail. The working party felt there is a continuing need for a Charity Commission publication giving guidance on more general contractual matters affecting charities whether or not falling within the ambit of public service delivery.

2. We are aware that other guidance on legal and practical aspects of contracting may exist. However we were concerned that busy managers/trustees, particularly in medium sized charities, do not have the time/resources to search for advice in a wide range of locations. We suggest that reference should be made in this guidance to where charities can get further advice on contracts e.g. the NCVO Guide to Contracts with Public Bodies.

3. The guidance is understood to be aimed at larger charities. However medium-sized and smaller charities also need targeted and succinct advice from the Charity Commission and we suggest a further guidance for smaller and medium-sized charities should be made available.

4. A concern was expressed that the revised CC37 does not tie in well with guidance produced by other bodies, for example the DCLG guidance on steady state contracts. Charities could become confused by the divergence of views and it would be useful to ensure that any divergence of views was acknowledged.

5. References within the guidance to the collective bargaining power of charities and the fact that charities do not have to sign up to contracts was felt to be useful.

Are there any relevant issues that are not covered in the guidance and which you feel should be included?

6. While the working party understand that the revised guidance is intended to be an overview document some essential detail is missing. For example, charities do enter into major contracts and therefore the guidance needs to address the issue of charities and contracts, which is addressed by the existing CC37. For example, contract clauses, tax, VAT and insurance. We recognise that it is not the Charity Commission's role to provide detailed advice on such issues, (in particular VAT and tax), we suggest charities should be pointed in the right direction for more detailed information on these issues. In addition, competition law, data protection and the Freedom of Information Act are not mentioned and an explanation of the impact of each of these areas in an annex would be helpful, particularly as the pitfalls are not always obvious. (For example, a charity may breach competition law by assuming a dominant position in a market because of servicing an existing beneficiary class and then by contracting with a local authority to service an additional class).

7. More information about the procurement process would also be useful. This should cover in particular the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 under which most significant public sector contracts have to be tendered.

8. The guidance could usefully signpost the OGC and DTI websites and relevant guidance on how to win public sector contracts.

9. The guidance should be clear on whether it is intended to be a legal analysis of the position for charities entering into contracts or a practical guide. For example, if the guidance is called 'Public Service Delivery,' then it should cover more non-legal issues such as policy, impact, evaluation, quality control and the like. We suggest that if it is a guide to public service delivery contracts, the title should be changed to say so.

10. Specific comments on each Section of the Guidance are set out below:

Section B

11. We suggest including a reference to the structures charities may come across including the straightforward two party contract; lead and sub-contracts; and joint venture arrangements. We would further suggest that more information is included warning charities to take steps to ensure a written contract is entered into with other charities if public sector work is being sub-contracted or a pitch is made by two or more charities jointly.

12. We suggest including a reference to the particular issues of relevance to unincorporated associations that enter into pubic service contracts.

13. We suggest that the first sentence of the second paragraph of B1 is deleted. It is not clear what it means (or is intended to mean) to the reader.

14. A charity's mission statement is often narrower than its objects (it should never be wider) and it is important that the words 'objects' and 'mission' are not used interchangeably such that charities might interpret them as being the same thing. The Charity Commission's own guidance makes numerous references to the importance of charities acting within their objects, not their mission statements. This clear distinction should be retained. We would suggest that the word "mission", if retained, should be linked with the SORP definition, if not, reference should only be made to the objects.

15. The definition of “’Public Authority’ distinguishes between LEAs and county and district councils. The LEA will always be the county council or, in a unitary or metropolitan area, the unitary or metropolitan district council. Referring to them separately is confusing. The same comment applies to social service authorities.

16. On page 4, on the definition of Trustees, we suggest that reference should be made to the difference between holding and custodian trustees and cross-references to further guidance on this should be given.

17. There is no reference made to the legal difference between the roles of acting as principal or agent. Given the very different implications of charities acting in these roles in the context of public sector contracts, the guidance note should explain these terms. Linked to this is that there is a lot of terminology used in relation to arrangements between charities and public bodies e.g. a contract for services, a grant, a service level agreement, a grant with conditions etc and the draft guidance would benefit from including an analysis of these terms to ensure that charities fully understand the legal basis of the proposed arrangement. This should cover particularly the differences in relation to procurement, VAT and the consequences of breach.

Section C

18. This is a useful section but it should be more clearly defined as a summary – headed ‘Section C: Summary’ and should clearly cross-reference the more detailed sections of the guidance later.

19. The guidance about total cost recovery should be much clearer. The basis on which the statements are made in this section should be explained. In particular:

19.1 The statement that it should be rare for grant making charities to subsidise a public service appears to reflect the Charity Commission’s “Pre Wigan and Trafford” view that charities should not subsidise public sector service provision and is misleading. We think it would be helpful to explain the issue that charity trustees should consider whether any arrangement to subsidise public service provision is a prudent use of the charity’s resources. It is easy to think of some local government services (particularly discretionary services) that would not be provided without charitable grants, whereas it might be harder to justify receiving less than the full costs of providing certain statutory services. Supporting these would be a legitimate use of charity funds.

19.2 The information in the middle of page 6 regarding costs (e.g. to decide to use other funds to make up the shortfall) conflicts with the section (at the bottom of page 6) stating that it should be exceptional for grant making charities to be called upon to subsidise public service provision.

20. The guidance for grant-making charities should be more rigorous, especially the information on page 6. Asking charity trustees to 'use their experience of what public authorities have funded in the past' is perhaps not sufficiently clear.

21. The phrase “using the form of a limited company” in the paragraph under “Other issues to consider” is initially confusing. Adding “for the charity” would make it clearer.

22. The section headed ‘Know your worth’ refers to steps that a charity could take to make a public authority comply with the Compact or a statutory duty. There was doubt whether the expression “Know your worth” is sufficiently self-explanatory. The purpose of the section would be clearer with examples outlining what some of these steps may be.

Section D

23. We suggest that the heading "Charities and Public Services" be changed to "What are Public Services?"

24. A new question could be helpfully added, "What is a Contract?" with guidance given on when a contract is formed i.e. when an arrangement becomes binding on a charity. This should refer particularly to the situation when a charity is tendering for a contract, for example, when a term of the tender is that making a response to a tender is an offer that can be accepted by the public authority and that the terms are those provided in the invitation to tender documents.

25. Further guidance in this section on how to distinguish between (for example) local authority grants and the provision of public services would be helpful.

26. The section “The short answer” is confusing in the way that it deals with “duty” or “discretionary” services. The explanation is much clearer on page 23.

27. We suggest a paragraph should be added to this section or to section K regarding personal liability of trustees and setting out the differences in relation to personal liability of trustees unincorporated and incorporated charities, or reference made to other guidance on this area.

Section E

28. The section on risks is laid out well, albeit at a high level.

29. The statement that “Multi-year funding arrangements are permitted under government procurement rules“ in the “Inappropriate duration of funding” section skirts over a difficulty in relation to grants. We feel more detail would be useful here. For example, contracts can last for a number of years, but this brings in EU procurement, VAT and liability for breach implications which should be explained. There is still some unhelpful case law which suggests that local government grants must be determined on a year by year basis, and that any contract beyond this are ultra vires on the basis that they an unlawful fetter on the authority’s grant making powers. This was certainly the position the Audit Commission took very strongly until recently, although there does seem to be some acceptance that an authority can now make a decision to give a grant which lasts for a number of years. There is a further issue for charities to be aware of here which we suggest should be explained. Many local government powers allow local government to fund the provision of a service, but not to pick up liabilities on termination of this service. Charities should therefore ensure that their funding level is sufficient to enable them to set aside enough money to meet termination costs such as redundancy payments and any contract breakage costs for equipment hire etc) if the funding ceases.

30. Whilst the guidance gives advice on the factors to be considered by a charity when presented with an opportunity to enter into a public sector service delivery contract, there is little emphasis on the fact that the actual transfer of risk takes place through the contract itself.

31. In relation to Loss of Independence, we feel it would be helpful to point out that the risk is that the more a charity engages in public service delivery, the more reliant it potentially becomes on funding from public authorities, potentially adversely affecting its ability to negotiate robustly and ‘independently’ in contract renewal.

32. In the section on Reputational Risks it would be helpful also to refer to reputational risks that might affect campaigning charities where their independence (rightly or wrongly) might seem to be prejudiced by a reliance on public funding.

33. There are additional risks which would be helpful to expressly deal with in this section – in particular:

Pensions (whilst there is no obligation under TUPE to take on a final salary pension arrangement various local authorities make it a requirement as part of the contract, there are also union issues. If the fund is under funded there is automatically a problem, but there are also problems which arise if the charity cannot afford the contributions).

Indemnities;

Inappropriate levels of monitoring by the public body (with the risk of potential interference with a charity's decision-making and also the resource costs required to meet the obligation.)

Fixed price contracts and ensuring that, if a charity agrees to a fixed price contract, they have properly factored in inflation, provision for pay rises etc.

Delegated signing authority and the risk in allowing contracts to be agreed and executed without having been reviewed and considered by the Board or by those with proper delegated authority for that purpose from the board.

Lack of proper arrangement for secure and continued asset availability – a lack of asset transfer can lead to an imbalance of control between the parties. Circumstances will vary however and charities should be wary of taking on onerous assets.

Understanding when a contract is binding - where charities are asked, as part of the tender process, to agree to terms of the contract, they should be aware that, unless they reserve their position on the terms before tendering, they could be deemed to have accepted those terms (but also understand that in many cases they may have no choice but to accept the terms if they do not wish to be disqualified from tendering). They should also be made aware of the risks of a tender response being incorporated into the contract;

Personal liabilities of trustees;

TUPE (and TUPE risks should be explained in more detail);

Inappropriate control over the charity’s staff;

Unreasonable duration provisions (for example, a 3 year fixed term, but a right for the commissioning authority / both parties to terminate on 3 months’ notice);

Obligation to provide services where demand is unknown - one example of this is where a charity had to provide a certain level of service as set out in the agreement but the local authority was under no obligation to provide a certain level of referrals. The local authority failed to refer the necessary number of cases to make the relationship viable and although the charity spent all of the money paid on the provision of the service the local authority required a rebate. A deal was struck in that case but could have caused a number of difficulties. Therefore the charity must ensure that there is an obligation on the local authority to provide a certain level of referrals or similar to protect the charity should the local authority fail to comply with its side of the agreement.

The risks of subsidiary public service delivery (with an appropriate explanation).

Other risks such as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Competition Act 1998 and risks associated with human rights, insolvency and wrongful trading might also be addressed.

34. In relation to all the risk factors outlined in Section E (and the additional ones listed above in clause of this Report), the guidance should give specific examples of the risk, state the consequences of the risk and how the charity involved might mitigate the risk.

35. On page 10, the reference to clawback should be clarified: in practice, clawback is standard in government grant funding arrangements but would not be expected within service agreements.

36. In the first paragraph of section E1, the final word "self-financing" should be changed to "sustainable".

37. In the second paragraph under “Financial Risks” where there is a cross-reference to government procurement rules, it would be helpful to add further details outlining the procurement framework. Reference to an annex or a separate guidance providing a basic review of procurement is suggested.

38. In the Statutory Obligations it would be useful also to refer to the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers and the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters.

39. The statement that contractual / litigation risks are particularly serious risk areas is not always correct. This will depend on the nature of the contract. Entering into any contract entails accepting risk, and public contracts are no difference. Compared to many service delivery risks, the contractual / litigation risks pale into insignificance. Dealing with members of the public is a service delivery risk and should be covered in this section, not in the contractual risks section.

40. The “Sense of obligation” section would benefit from being worded more clearly.

41. The section on “Risks to service delivery or service quality” does not make sense. Why should transferring services to a charity reduce the charity’s capacity to meet the expectation of those commissioning the service?

42. The reputational risk issue runs both ways. If a charity is unwilling to step in to provide services which a local authority is unable to provide, this may harm its reputation with (and prospects of support from) both local authorities and individual donors. All that the guidance should do is to get charities to consider the reputational implications of their decision whether or not to participate in public service delivery.

43. The statement that contracts are always negotiable (£5) is not strictly correct. Charities should be warned that if a charity tenders for a contract then, depending on the terms of the tendering arrangements, it may need to set out any amendments it wishes to negotiate in its tender but it may risk losing the opportunity to tender by so doing. (See also paragraph , bullet point on understanding when a contract is binding).

44. In E2, it is suggested that the paragraph on “Objects and Mission-related risks” should highlight the risk of a gap opening up between a charity’s Mission (PR/marketing statement) and its Objects (legal purpose).

45. In relation to E5, we suggest that reference should be made to the Commissioner for the Compact which will shortly become live.

46. We suggest that paragraphs E6 and E7 would be better incorporated into section D of the guidance.

Section F

47. We suggest that Section F on the legal framework should come before Section E on risks and Section F should be renamed "The Charity Law Framework".

48. In F1 and F2, the wording makes clear that there is no legal prohibition in statute for charities to contract with public authorities but it should go on to state that there may, nevertheless, be a prohibition in the charity's governing document. The guidance should make clear that the position on this would need to be checked by each charity.

49. In F1, the statement “Without such an object” is too restrictive. Any charity with a “general charitable purposes” object, a “benefit of the inhabitants of the area” object or an object of carrying out specific works that are now a local government responsibility can apply its funds to subsidise public funds. The first two of these categories of charity, and those with the express charitable object of relieving taxation, can lawfully simply pass funds to local authorities to use as they wish. The key question is whether the activity to be funded is within the charity’s objects and is a prudent use of the charity’s funds.

50. The headings in section F1 could be changed to 'New Charities and Existing Charities'.

51. In F2, there are references to trustees making decisions in line with their "duty of care" and the codification of directors' duties under the Companies Act 2006 should be referred to in this section.

52. The guidance would benefit from greater clarification on the difference between statutory services, discretionary services and powers. Section F (or possibly Appendix M) would be a useful place to include more detailed discussion on these distinctions and the implications of the distinctions.

53. The definition of legal independence on page 15 should be expanded. The Charity Commission has particularly helpful Operational Guidance on this and we feel that more detailed practical guidance would be appropriate on this issue e.g. how many trustees would be appropriate for a public authority to nominate to a charity's board? Practical examples of conflicts of interest should be provided. We also suggest that the words “legislation or case” be inserted before the word “law” at the end of the second paragraph under “The charity’s objects and powers”.

54. In the section on prudence, the emphasis should be on avoiding insolvency rather than maintaining solvency. Charities, while solvent, must serve their beneficiaries but they have no continuing duty to continue their existence once their purpose is achieved.

Section G

55. We suggest a clearer heading would be “Stick to your [or the] Objects.

56. The use of bullet point questions (which appear at the bottom of page 17) are particularly helpful throughout the guidance as they are practical tools which trustees can use when considering public sector contracts. Development of toolkits in the appendices including checklists (as at M2) and a template risk matrix would be useful.

57. An additional bullet point should be added at the bottom of page 17 to say "Risk".

Section H

58. The guidance should be expanded to deal specifically with accountability i.e. maintaining the independence of the charity (what it stands for and how it is delivering) against accountability to a public body through receipt of public funds. This balancing of accountability is crucial. This is a general comment and may be best developed in the section on "Legal Independence" on page 13.

59. Rights to nominate beneficiaries do not inherently restrict the Trustees’ ability to act in the charity’s interests, as the joint guidance with the Housing Corporation on stock transfers makes clear. Equally, sending non-voting observers to trustee meetings should be regarded as unobjectionable, as long as the charity board retains the right to exclude them for “conflict of interest” issues. Provided any equality and diversity requirements are consistent with the charity’s own policies, these should not be difficult requirements for a charity to comply with. A statement in this section that these kinds of funding conditions are acceptable, with proper safeguards, would be helpful.

60. In the section “Saying no”, it should be made clear that this is subject to any contractual obligations the charity has entered into.

61. The reference to campaigning at H2 should state that charities should not feel inhibited from campaigning provided that this falls within their objects but that such activities would not otherwise be permitted.

Section I

62. We suggest changing the heading to something clearer, for example, “Understanding your [the charity’s] costs”.

63. An acknowledgement of the difficulties which charities face in respect of contracting with the public sector would be helpful (in particular, in respect of the bargaining position of the parties, bearing in mind the very different sizes of local authorities as compared with many charities). The problems of sustainability when charities are required to enter into contracts of short duration could also be addressed. It would be helpful if the guidance could acknowledge the difficulties charities face because of the imbalance of bargaining power when contracting with the public sector.

64. In I1, it would be useful to include a statement to remind trustees to expressly state the position in relation to surpluses and deficits in any public sector contract so that there is no ambiguity on this point in the contract.

65. The final sentence of I1 includes technical terminology of "restricted" and "general" funds and the guidance should either go on to explain what is meant by those terms or should refer to other Charity Commission guidance where these terms were explained. If a charity has been paid a fee for delivering a service, it is difficult to see how any surplus would be a restricted fund.

66. As stated earlier, it is important that the distinction between contracts and grants is explained clearly within the guidance. If the charity is negotiating a contract, then there will be an imperative to recover as much money as possible under it (and trustees should be encouraged to make a detailed assessment of that including, for example, the costs of volunteers). If it is a grant the trustees may only be able to get cost recovery.

67. The paragraph numbers need adjustment (no I4).

68. I5 ‘In more detail’, first paragraph, could be expanded to explain that such a condition could be accepted by trustees in negotiations if they considered it to be in the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries to do so at the relevant time.

69. I5 final paragraph, a justification as referred to might include the charity’s ability to provide a higher standard of service, e.g. more focused, innovative or with added value as identified by Government in the Cross Cutting Review and the 2004 Spending Review.

70. In I7, there is a reference to making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Seeking information on a public body's powers under the FOIA would not be a “request for information” held by the authority so could be ignored or rejected by the authority (although it is acknowledged that it is right that a charity should ask the public body to confirm this). There is no reason for saying that legal advice on a local authority’s duties would be any more expensive than charity law advice on a charity’s own powers or charity law provided an appropriately specialised adviser is used.

71. Reference could also be made to making a complaint to the Monitoring Officer.

72. As a general point, the booklet should use consistent language throughout. For example, in paragraph I8, the question should be changed to "What if the governing document prohibits subsidising statutory funds?"

Section J

73. It is suggested that the word "other" be removed in the question under J1. J1 should also cross-refer to page 6 of the guidance.

74. Perhaps the legal considerations should be at the start of the section, rather than at the end, so that the information provided can be understood in the context of the legal background.

Section K

75. Specific explanation should be given on incorporating a charity (this is included in the existing CC37) including the benefits of incorporation in terms of supplying services to public authorities. This section should also cross-refer to the Legal Framework section.

76. The reasons for incorporating a charity are varied but the guidance suggests that the only reason would be to manage risk. It should be acknowledged that there are other reasons. This Section should also refer to HMRC guidance on taxation issues in setting up a separate company.

77. Reference should be made to the Charitable Incorporated Organisation when the relevant sections of the Charities Act 2006 come into force. In the second paragraph of the “Separate Company” section, the words “for example by providing public services” are unhelpful since most charitable public service provision is primary purpose activity.

Do you feel that the guidance clearly sets out the legal and best practice requirements involved in public services delivery? If not, what could be done to improve the guidance?

78. Many of the comments made under the earlier sections of this Response are relevant here also. What follows is a summary of points made in other parts of the paper, together with some new points pertinent to this question.

79. The withdrawal of the existing CC37 leaves a big gap in the general advice provided to charities in terms of contracting with third parties. There is a need for more in depth advice to complement the top-level advice of the draft guidance.

80. The format of having short and long answers to various points is good. In addition, the coding of using the words 'should' and 'must' is useful, although we feel that the use of the word 'should' could be misleading – there should be a distinction between 'absolute' should and 'ought to' should. It would be helpful if the guidance would explain exactly what the Commission means.

81. The guidance has some difficulty in striking the right balance between being a document which gives more technical legal information and one which is ‘warm and friendly’ and gives only high-level general advice. This is not an easy balance to strike but we would suggest that, while charities have a need for the full spectrum of help, they look to the Charity Commission to provide succinct, helpful and authoritative guidance on the overall legal position.

82. On a related point of language, there is an inconsistency between formal/informal language and the guidance would benefit by being standardised in terms of style. For example, the guidance in section G refers to "stick to your mission" but then refers to "a charity's objects", but this is a comment that is applicable in a number of places

83. As stated previously, many charities do not have large numbers of administrative staff to do research and to contact a wide range of information providers. For them Charity Commission guidance booklets are an invaluable source of reliable information and a powerful link between a charity and the regulator. The guidance should thus contain enough practical detail to allow trustees and managers to make informed decisions, including a decision to take formal legal and/or financial advice.

84. The guidance should take care not to create room for confusion between ‘Objects’ and ‘Mission / Mission Statement’. The latter terms are in more common use and so it is easy for trustees and managers to fall out of the habit of checking back to the objects as laid out in the governing document, especially at times of pressure such as when considering a contract with a public authority. If they consult a lawyer the problem will be avoided, but if they do not, the Charity Commission guidance should provide a clear checklist of steps that should be taken.

85. A useful approach would be to include more Appendices, which together make up a toolkit for use by a charity considering entering into a contract for public services.

86. In the context of full cost recovery, one member of the Working Party raised a practical example. This concerned a charity that had subsidised the provision of services out of its reserves, and in the end had used all its reserves in this manner, with the inevitable consequences (although this is legitimate where it is a deliberate strategy by the trustees). The existing CC37 is tougher on full cost recovery, but in the revised guidance, the emphasis was on what was in the interests of the beneficiaries. While this may have been done as a result of the Wigan and Trafford cases, some working party members expressed the view that this was not adequately set out.

87. The guidance could be improved by ensuring that all information on each particular issue is in one place. At the moment, information is scattered throughout the guidance. For example,

Sections B, C and E7 could be combined (general background, executive summary and clarification of Commission's message to charities).

Section D could be combined with Sections M, E6, F1 and I7 (law relating to public service delivery). Section D is not particularly clear as currently drafted, because it does not refer to the legal background.

Section I8 could be included in Section G (Objects/Mission). Section K1 could be included in Section E (Risk).

Section F2 (Duties) could incorporate Section H (conflicts of interest) or it should cross-refer to the duty to avoid conflicts.

88. As mentioned above, it would be helpful if the guidance could deal with issues specifically to do with the public sector, including the public sector procurement regime and the role of the compact.

Are there other sources of information, guidance or help that should be signposted in the guidance?

Generally the list of other sources was felt to be very helpful. Other sources that might be included might be as follows:

OGC website

Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers

Best Value Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts

4Ps guidance on “Disclosure of information and consultation with staff and other interested parties”

Charity Commission / Housing Corporation joint guidance on stock transfers.

The Compact website.

Guidance issued by DCLG in relation to Steady State Contracts.



CHARITY LAW ASSOCIATION

JANUARY 2007
Home
About Us
Membership
Constitutions
Useful
Contacts
Contact Us
Aesthetic artwork
  Members Area
 • Updates
 • Working Parties
 • Members Forum
  Site usage policies
 • Terms
 • Privacy