Martin
Horwood: The hon. Gentleman must realise that efficiency
is not the only issue at stake. A private preparatory school in my
constituency without great grounds or theatre facilities struggled to
think how it might pass a future public benefit test, and it decided to
share one of its music teachers with local state schools. That was a
laudable response, but that step is being taken only as a result of the
possibility of a public benefit test. Can the hon. Gentleman possibly
be arguing against
that? 5.15
pm
Mr.
Turner: I happen to think that education is a public good.
It does not matter that I benefit from the education, because the world
benefits from my being better educated. In fact, it would probably
benefit if I were better educated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says
that education is a public good: that is the argument he puts forward
for taxing us to put money into schools. That is the argument advanced
by the Make Poverty History lobby for paying for more people to be
educated in the developing world. Education is a public good, and that
is a benefit. I accept and am glad that the school that the hon.
Gentleman mentioned is doing something rather more useful than building
rowing trenches near Slough to demonstrate public benefit. It is
important that children are educated. It does not matter if some can
afford a better education for their children than others; it is good
that they are
educated.
Edward
Miliband: I fear that, although he is trying to close the
divisions, the hon. Gentleman is opening them up. Mr. Jonathan Shephard
says that the indirect benefit that private schools provide in relief
to the public purse is not enough, in his view, to justify their
charitable status. That suggests that education on its own is not
enough; in his view there needs to be co-operation. Does the hon.
Gentleman disagree?
Mr.
Turner: I did not think that that was what Mr.
Shephard was asserting. I thought that he was saying that there should
be additional benefit, not that education was an indirect benefit. I
think that that is so, although I cannot speak for him. My view is that
it is beneficial if more people are better educated. That should be
enough to justify an educational organisation being
charitable.
Edward
Miliband: No doubt Jonathan Shephard will be pleased about
his role in this Committee. The question and answer document issued to
Members of Parliament by independent schools
asks, “Is
indirect public benefit through savings to the taxpayer enough to meet
public benefit
requirements?” The answer
is: “Indirect
public benefit is not enough on its own to ensure charitable status.
There are many reasons...which support the charitable status of
independent schools, of which indirect public benefit, though a very
large benefit, is only one. Savings to the taxpayer, however large,
will not be enough on their own to make a school (or hospital, or
retirement home)
charitable.” That is
Jonathan Shephard’s view and that of the Independent Schools
Council.
Mr.
Turner: I am sorry; I misunderstood the Parliamentary
Secretary. That is Mr. Shephard’s view. However, we are not
talking about the indirect benefit of savings to the taxpayer, but the
direct benefit to the public of more people being better educated. That
is the
benefit.
Tom
Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Mr.
Turner: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that it is
worth
it.
Tom
Levitt: If he is arguing that all education, however or
wherever it is delivered and whoever it is delivered by, is by
definition a public benefit, notwithstanding how restrictive it is
regarding the number of people who can engage in it, would he say that
state schools should have charitable status? Should a company providing
supply teachers, or individuals who set themselves up as private piano
teachers, have charitable status? If he is saying that education must
always in every context have charitable status, he will make spending
commitments for a future Government that will be impossible to
keep.
Mr.
Turner: Many state schools have charitable status. For
example, all grant-maintained schools were exempt charities. I do not
know whether the same is true of foundation schools, but I suspect that
that is so. My argument is that education is a public good, and that is
generally accepted. I was not asserting that, just because someone says
that they are educating, there should be the irrebuttable presumption
that it is charitable. It is the rebuttable presumption that
matters. We are at the
end of a useful and interesting debate—at least, it was
interesting to me—and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
4Guidance
as to operation of public benefit
requirement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Turner: This will be
short.
Edward
Miliband: Promises,
promises.
Mr.
Turner: Well, my contribution will be. Some months ago,
members of the Bill team at the Home Office gave me the benefit of
their advice on the process in respect of the guidance on the operation
of the public benefit requirement. I should like to read out my
understanding of what that is and ask the Minister whether I have it
right. An
organisation can become a charity if it comes under one of the
charitable purposes listed under clause 2(2) and meets the public
benefit test. Despite the desires of the hon. Member for Cheltenham
(Martin Horwood), there is no presumption that any purpose is for the
public benefit. Public benefit will not have a statutory definition and
will continue to be interpreted according to case law.
The Charity Commission must
issue guidance on the meaning of public benefit, and that will be
updated when necessary. That guidance is not legally binding; I
understand “guidance” to mean that charities must have
regard to it and take account of it when deciding what they will do,
but that they are not obliged blindly to follow it.
The commission’s
objective is to promote awareness and understanding of the operation of
the requirement that a charity must be for the public benefit. Before
the commission issues guidance, it must undertake a consultation
process. Charity trustees must have regard to any guidance published by
the commission when they make decisions to ensure that their activities
remain for the public benefit.
On 9 February
2005, Baroness Scotland told the Grand Committee in another place that
the
commission “will
have to explain in its guidance what the public benefit requirement
is—in other words, the nature and meaning of the
requirement...it will have to explain in its guidance how it
proposes to operate or apply the requirement in practice to charities
of various types and characteristics...it will have to carry out
the public and other consultation mentioned in Clause
4”— she omitted to
say that it would presumably have to take account of the response to
the
consultation— “Fourthly,
it will have to disseminate the guidance”—[Official
Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2005; Vol. 669, c.
103.] I have put my point in
those terms because I find it difficult to describe the process off the
cuff. Does the Minister think that I have it right, and does that
include a change to the public benefit test, as set out in clause
3(3)?
Edward
Miliband: My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is
right. If his information came from formerly Home Office, now office of
the third sector, officials, I am sure that it is right.
[Interruption.] The letter did not
come from them. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman’s description of
the process is broadly
right. The clause
gives the commission a duty to carry out whatever public and other
consultation it thinks appropriate before issuing the guidance. My
understanding is that the commission is very keen to provoke widespread
public discussion about the nature of public benefit in general and how
it will be applied. That is a good idea.
A number of hon. Members,
including my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth, emphasised on Second Reading that they expected the commission
to take into account views expressed in Parliament about how it should
approach the whole process. I agree with that too.
The commission has published
its illustrative guidance; we can expect that only to be illustrative
before the Bill becomes law because, as the hon. Gentleman emphasised,
the process is new for the commission, and it is important that it
undertakes it well and properly. In the guidance, the commission says
that it will interpret the public benefit requirement in the light of
three criteria: case law, modern conditions and the removal of the
presumption of public benefit. It says that after the Bill is enacted,
it will issue a new version of the guidance as an exposure draft for
public consultation. Having published that overall guidance, it will,
as I said, look at specific areas. It is for the commission and the
chief commissioner to move forward on that basis. I hope that that is
helpful for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr.
Turner: That is indeed helpful. I should also acknowledge
that my research assistant wrote the letter, not the Home
Office.
Edward
Miliband: On that basis, I propose that the clause stand
part of the Bill.
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): First, I apologise for
not being here earlier, but I have just come back from a meeting of the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Brussels, and
the train was delayed. I am especially sorry to have missed the
consideration of clause 2, which links to this clause.
Clause 4 is
about guidance on the public benefit requirement. There have been
several recent communications from Churches Together in Britain and
Ireland asking what guidance will be given on the public benefit test
for religion when the presumption that religion is a public benefit
goes. I am not suggesting that the Minister can necessarily give a full
and detailed answer about what the Charity Commission will put in its
guidance, but he should offer to go into rather more detail either now
or on Report. First,
the Minister should say how the Charity Commission will be expected to
deal with non-religions, such as the British Humanist Association,
which might carry out some of the functions normally carried out by
churches or faiths, but which, by definition, are clearly not
religions. Secondly, he might wish to liaise with the Charity
Commission—the body to which the clause relates—to put
together detailed considerations on how the commission will respond to
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and other
organisations, including parts of the Muslim Council
of Britain, which have made representations. He and the Charity
Commission might have had time to consider them, but if they have not,
it is important that they make it clear that there is no intention of
excluding one of the great faiths of the world, Islam, from providing
the public benefit that it clearly does. I do not want to get on a late
debating train on the issue of education, but most of us who support
arts organisations—whether performing arts or
others—think that, as long as it is not for profit, the question
of art not being a public benefit is not a problem. Quoting too much
from the Independent Schools Information Service on the question of
whether education is a public benefit puts weight where it should not
be. The Charity Commission should be able to say that education is of
direct benefit and, if and when the direct benefit is not sufficient,
it should specify when an indirect benefit would be needed as
well.
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman places me in a
slightly difficult position. I fully appreciate, as does the House,
that hon. Members have duties in other places, but the hon. Gentleman
will find that much of what he has just raised was covered in earlier
debates, and it might be to his advantage to study Hansard and
then return to the issue. I am not seeking to curtail the debate, and
if the Minister wishes to respond briefly to the points that have been
raised in the spirit in which they have been raised, he may of course
do so. Strictly speaking, however, they fall outwith the scope of the
clause stand part debate.
Edward
Miliband: I have great respect for the hon. Member for
Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), so I will definitely
respond.
Let me
briefly cover the hon. Gentleman’s point about religion and the
public benefit test. He is completely right that religious
organisations need to be given reassurance and confidence that those
that have charitable status will continue to enjoy it and that the Bill
does not affect their status. We can give them that assurance in broad
terms. The hon. Gentleman’s comments about the handling of
specific religious organisations will also have been heard by the
Charity
Commission.
Peter
Bottomley: I understand your remarks, Mr. Gale,
and I shall not try to detain the Committee. In the early part of my
speech, however, I asked whether the Minister would consider whether
services that were offered by an openly non-religious body and which
were often also provided by faiths could be regarded as charitable.
That is not a test question or a trick question, but a serious issue,
which deserves some thought.
To respond to
the Minister’s kind remarks, let me add that he might want to
consider between now and Report whether relying on Charity Commission
guidance is sufficient to deal with the point that I raised. Giving an
assurance is one thing but, if it were not given in clear guidance by
the Charity Commission and it is not in the primary legislation, there
will still be
apprehension.
The
Chairman: Clearly, the Minister has heard what the hon.
Gentleman has
said. Question
accordingly agreed
to. Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
