Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Martin Horwood: I am grateful for the Ministers comments, but they are surprising, given the overwhelming body of legal advice that all the major charities that I mentioned have been receiving for more than a decade. The misunderstandingif it is thatabout the involvement of the trustees is understandable, given what is said in part V of the Charities Act 1993:
Except where the proposed disposition is the granting of such a lease as is mentioned in subsection (5) below, the charity trustees must, before entering into an agreement for the sale...obtain and consider a written report.
I can understand why charities believe that it is the trustees who must approve the reports.
Edward Miliband: On the first point about the legal position, clearly I have infinite capacity to surprise the hon. Gentleman. I am assured that the position is as I said. On the point about trustees, my understandingI am told this reliablyis that the authorisation can be delegated to members of staff. If I find that that is not the case, for some reason, I will obviously correct it, but that is my strong understanding.
The overall point is that we are discussing a complex area of law. The Charity Commission is clear that double compliance, which is the primary problem that has been raised, is not necessary. The letters read out by the hon. Gentleman, and the letter from STEP, convince me that a lot more work needs to be done on sorting out the perception of the law, and quite possibly its administration by the commission. I have proposed that the commission should undertake such a process, and it has agreed to do so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but, as I said, I find them surprising. The people who are concerned about the point of law that we are discussing are not amateur organisations, or junior legacy officers in charities; as he said, they include STEP, which is the professional organisation of trust accountants and lawyers. There is a widespread body of legal opinion that has been shared with most of the top 500 charities, and it suggests that the issue remains a problem in law, hence all the representations that we received. Clarification on the double compliance issue might assist charities, and it will certainly provide them with a defence in law if they are challenged on the lack of a report on a particular occasion, but the overwhelming body of advice from charity lawyers states that there is indeed a problem in law with the personal involvement of trustees and the commissioning of reports.
Edward Miliband: To expand on my earlier point, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear that duties are given to trustees throughout the law, but there are general powers allowing the delegation of many of those duties, including the duty that we are discussing. I hope that that satisfies him, and that he will withdraw his amendment. I give him a promise that there will be proper dialogue on the issue with the commission.
Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and for that promise, to which we will hold him, whatever the outcome.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Is it not still a problem, despite what the Minister says, that if a conscientious trustee delegates a duty, it is still the trustee who will be liable?
Martin Horwood: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentlemans comment; indeed, I was about to make it, myself. As a charity trustee, I have some interest in the subject, and perhaps I should declare that interest. Although we have good liability arrangements in place, in general trustees have personal liability in that regard. It is routine to delegate administrative functions, includingas the representations from the various charities have made clearsecuring section 36 reports. No one is suggesting that trustees are personally talking to surveyors and estate agents and obtaining the reports; such duties are clearly delegated to the proper officers. However, as part of the approval process that must be followed, I guess that it would be a derogation of trustees responsibilities if, at a meeting of trustees or of the governing body, there was not, at the very least, a personal vote on whether to approve the report.
I welcome the Ministers promises to take the matter up with the Charity Commission and to look at perceptions, as well as the simplification of any regulations. However, that does not remove a problem that, according to the advice of the overwhelming majority of charity lawyers, has persisted for a decade or more. It requires the change of law proposed by the new clause, which I wish to press to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 284.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 2, line 10, after religion, insert or belief.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 124, in page 2, line 16, after religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity and insert
harmony or equality between races, religions and beliefs.
Amendment No. 125, in page 2, line 27, at end insert
(aa) in paragraph (c) belief, and in paragraph (h) beliefs, are to be construed in accordance with article 9 in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).
Amendment No. 122, in page 2, line 35, after exertion insert
or which, on the day this section comes into force, are sports or disciplines open to competition in games organised by:
(i) the International Olympic Committee;
(ii) the International Paralympic Committee; or
(iii) the Commonwealth Games Federation..
Dr. Harris: I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other hon. Members from more than one party. I shall talk about Government amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125. I shall cover in passing amendment No. 122, and I shall say a word about the other Government amendments in the group for another reason.
I accept that I come late to the Bill and I know that a huge amount of excellent work has been done by Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, not just on this Bill but on a draft Charities Bill and a previous Bill in a previous Parliament. I have followed this particular aspect with interest but I do not claim to be an expert on charity law like other hon. Members who have worked so hard on this impressive piece of legislation.
The issue that I want to speak to is relatively narrow, and the Minister knows that it has been the subject of correspondence with, in particular, the British Humanist Association. I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, and I wish to record that. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has reported on this matter at least three times, backing in general terms the amendments that I am proposing.
The purpose of the amendments is, as the Minister and other hon. Members know, to widen one of the descriptions of charitable purposethe advancement of religion, in clause 2(2)(c)by adding the words or belief, using a definition of belief that is consistent with previous legislation. That should be the default position. The default position in law generally is that when we talk about religion now, we talk about religion and belief. The Governments own admirable Equality Act 2006 did just that; the Communications Act 2003 did just that; and of course the parts of the Human Rights Act that deal with these issues, notably articles 9 and 14, are predicated on that basis.
The default position should be that the Bill says religion or belief, so that non-religious belief systems analogous to religion but not religious, and not simply non-theistic religious views but non-religious belief systems, are covered. So the Government need to provide an explanation, which I may or may not agree with, of why they have departed from what is the default position in modern legislation. I hope that they will realise that there is not a good enough explanation, and will accept the amendments.
Secondly, not to do that creates an issue of principle, which is that in our legislation, non-religious belief systems are being dealt with differently. There is an argument to be had about whether that has a practical impact; I believe that it has, although the Minister may claim that it has not. But regardless of whether there is as yet a visible practical impact, or has been in the past, there is a principled position, which must be explained.
I have certainly received representations, and I have seen a letter dated 18 September to the Minister from the British Humanist Association, which I shall refer to, setting out the practical impact of the fact that until now charities law has dealt with non-theistic belief systems in a different way, meaning that they have to jump through extra hoops and offer extra justifications to get the treatment under charity law that religious charities get almost by default. I intend to discuss that.
Finally, I shall draw attention to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on this issue, because that Committees recommendation is to draw to the attention of both Houses the ongoing concerns.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I strongly support the hon. Gentlemans amendments, which I have signed myself. I wondered whether he would give some idea of the proportion of the population who might be excluded in a sense from the coverage of the Bill if the word belief were not included.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |