Martin
Horwood: I shall ask what may sound like a mischievous
question, but in fact it is genuine. Will the Parliamentary Secretary
summarise the benefits to the staff of being classed as civil
servants?
Edward
Miliband: There are two choices for Government: the
Charity Commission staff can be civil servants, because they are
working for a Department, albeit a non-ministerial one, or there can
bea non-Departmental public body approach. My understanding of
this matter, which was fully considered by the Joint Committee and the
strategy unit, is that there would be more control by Ministers of a
non-Departmental public body; such a body would be more subject to the
direction of Ministers than a non-ministerial Department. People are
clear that in regulating for food safety, the FSA, for example,
operates transparently and independently. That is a good model for us
to follow. The Charity
Commission already has delegated authority on behalf of the Minister
for the Civil Service to determine the number and grading of its posts
and the terms and conditions of employment, in so far as they relate to
remuneration allowances, and so on. The commission is only required to
agree the overall pay remit with the Treasury. It takes its own
decisions on terms and conditions of service within a broad framework
and has some latitude, while remaining a non-ministerial
Department. The
amendment is important to the board and staff of the Charity
Commission, because without it the commission might end up in the
unique position of being the only Department whose staff are not in the
civil service. That is the basis of the amendment, which I commend to
the
Committee.
Peter
Bottomley: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary’s
response. The Government amendment is sensible. I read it as saying
that Ministers will not get involved in the appointment of the chief
executive; that is left to the Charity Commission, which is a good
idea. I ought to
acknowledge and put on the record that I am and have been a trustee of
a large number of charities, and so has my wife, who is also involved
in headhunting in the charitable field.
The Parliamentary Secretary has
chosen the right form for the Charity Commission. Ministers have much
more power over things that they do not directly control than those
over which they have closer control, such as Departments, from which
they are kept further away. That helps keep away some of the
malevolence or frustration that is occasionally expressed by
Ministers. I think
that the amendment is saying that the number of charity commissioners,
plus the chairman, should increase. However, that is not necessary. It
is clear that the Government intend to appoint six, seven or eight.
Having a low number means that the commission can still exist if one
member has a car crash, another is struck off and somebody else
retires.
6.9
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 6.40
pm On
resuming—
Martin
Horwood: I was on the point of begging to ask leave to
withdraw my amendment. However, I shall not do so right now because, on
reflection, I have realised that that would deny us the valuable
opportunity of hearing the Minister’s
comments.
Edward
Miliband: I will be brief.
On amendment No. 72, the Bill
makes significant improvements to the Government’s arrangements
for the commission. It enables the board to reflect legal and
accounting expertise, a Welsh perspective and the diversity of the
sector.
It is our
strong intention to appoint nine members to the board. In
accordance with the wise words of the hon. Member for Worthing, West,
we have to plan on the basis that if there were some act of God, the
commission could carry on functioning. I hope that the hon.
Member for Cheltenham will withdraw the amendment. We want a commission
of nine because that is far more likely to represent the diversity of
the sector and be an effective board for the Charity
Commission. Amendment
No. 73 does not reflect the intentions of the hon. Member for
Cheltenham. I have already spoken about Government amendment No. 57,
which I hope will be
supported.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful that the Minister has the strong
intention to appoint nine members to the commission. I am reassured by
that, as I am by his comments on amendment No. 73. However, I hope that
he will take on board the comments made about having not only a more
socially and ethnically representative commission, but one that, for
instance, includes somebody with disabilities. We should also look at
the users and beneficiaries of charities as possible members of the
commission; that would be in line with the general trend towards the
empowerment and representation of users and beneficiaries in the sector
as a whole.
I did not refer to Government
amendment No. 57 and am still slightly mystified about the supposed
huge benefit that attaches to commission members’ belonging to
the civil service. I am sure that that is great and laudable, but this
is my first public sector job and I sometimes find it a little rigid
compared to my previous experience in the business and charity sectors.
I am not sure that it is necessarily right rigidly to prescribe terms
and conditions for any organisation in that way. However, I take it on
trust that the move is sensible in the context of the Government as a
whole. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: No. 57, in
schedule 1, page 82, leave out lines 38 to
43 and insert— ‘(2) The
terms and conditions of service of persons appointed under
sub-paragraph (1) are to be such as the Commission may determine with
the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.’.
—[Edward
Miliband.]
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
schedule 1, page 84, line 36, at
end insert ‘and shall
publish it on the Commission’s
website.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 7, in
schedule 1, page 85, line 13, at
end insert ‘;
and (c) attendance by as many
representatives of charities as reasonably
practicable.’.
Martin
Horwood: The amendment is very simple.In the
spirit of e-government, inclusiveness and accessibility, it aims to
extend the publication of the commission’s report, which would
normally simply be laid before Parliament. The amendment would add the
report to the commission’s website, as opposed to simply the
parliamentary website, so that it would be there for any affected
charities to read and access in the easiest form possible. I hope that
hon. Members will happily support
that. In amendment No.
7, with which mine has been grouped, the Conservatives suggest the
organisation of an annual meeting of the Charity Commission, which
would have to maximise the attendance of charity representatives. That
objective seems entirely laudable. In keeping with the Cheltenham
principle, it is both harmless and desirable, and I therefore support
it.
Mr.
Turner: Amendment No. 7 does not follow the Cheltenham
principle because it is harmless but necessary—organisations are
good at organising their annual meetings at inconvenient times in
inconvenient places. I suspect that the Charity Commission would not be
doing this intentionally. However, the most sensible time from its
point of view would be lunchtime on a Wednesday but from their
trustees’ point of view it would probably be at a weekend. That
is why I hope that the commission will take account of this when
deciding when and where to locate its annual general
meeting.
6.45
pm
Peter
Bottomley: May I suggest that we can trust the Charity
Commission to have more than one meeting? The annual meeting does not
have a legal status except it may be required by the legislation. I
would hope that the Charity Commission is similar to the BBC and that
it will go around the country so that trustees of local charities can
be in attendance and raise issues.
When making a decision that
could go either way, the Charity Commission ought to go out to public
consultation. I can give one example that would be relevant to an
annual meeting, which is the suggestion that the commission will pick
out one or more Olympic sports and say that they are not charities. It
would be useful at a public meeting, or even a private one, for the
Minister to say to the Charity Commission, “Do not try and pick
out one or two of the Olympic sports and say that they are not
charitable.”
Alun
Michael: In relation to maximising the number of
representatives, may I ask the Committee to consider that the case made
by the hon. Member for Cheltenham sounds entirely reasonable because it
is a matter of getting an effective discussion that involves the
sector? However, there is a danger with the wording that success will
be measured merely by numbers, in which case the commission would take
Wembley stadium for the meeting. However, that might be less productive
and less challenging to the commission in terms of debate and
engagement.
Edward
Miliband: I fear that—I hate to end the evening on
an uncharitable note—both amendments follow the Cheltenham
principle. Neither of them is necessary. I hope that I can explain why
to the Committee.
The Bill
already requires the commission to publish its annual report and lay a
copy before Parliament, as right hon. and hon. Members know. The
commission’s publication scheme also sets out the classes of
information that it intends to make available to the public as a matter
of course, the manner in which it intends to publish the information
and whether a charge will be made for that information.
Publication schemes are
intended to encourage organisations to publish more information
proactively. The commission’s publication scheme includes
details of its annual report, which it makes freely available on its
website. It is also available in print.
Mr.
Flello: Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment No.65
puts a technological limit on the Bill? For example, we are already
moving towards podcasts. By having websites, what happens in a few
years’ time when they are old hat and there is a new form of
technology? Does my hon. Friend agree that, by being prescriptive, we
are probably being
counter-productive?
Edward
Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. His
e-sophistication is greater than mine, and I suspect, than that of most
members of the Committee.
The Bill already requires the
commission to publish its annual report. The commission’s
publication scheme
provides for it to be made available on the commission’s website.
That is an example of the aforementioned principle and therefore I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment. That takes
me to amendment No. 7, which encourages the Charity Commission to
ensure “attendance by as
many representatives of charities as reasonably
practicable.”. I would
say—I hesitate to be the defender of the Charity Commission on
this occasion and I do not intend to be—that we need to
understand what the commission is doing. The Bill sets out detailed
requirements for the commission about the timing of advance publicity
of the AGM. The commission will be required to take reasonable steps to
notify all registered charities of the arrangements for the AGM and to
publish details bringing it to the attention of the general public.
That will ensure that the main stakeholders in the work of the
commission are aware of the
AGM. Since
last year—even before the Bill has been passed—the
commission has been holding an open AGM as a matter of good practice.
It has notified all the main registered charities—there are more
than 150,000—of the AGM’s details in advance. It has
already communicated, to all the main charities on the register,
details of the AGM that will be held later this year.
The commission does, however,
limit the number of attendees to two from each charity, although I
think that all hon. Members will agree that that is sensible. I wonder
what would happen if all, or even asignificant proportion, of
the 150,000 charities sent representatives to the
meeting—Wembley stadium, even in its rebuilt form, would not be
big enough. The
commission is therefore taking important steps to make itself as open
as possible and to encourage as many representatives as possible to
attend its annual meeting. However, I take on board the interesting
and, once again, wise words of the hon. Member for Worthing, West about
the need for the commission not only to hold an annual general meeting,
but to have a roadshow at which it can talk about its work. I am sure
that the commission will be listening and will read the report of our
proceedings, and I hope that it will take up that suggestion.
Having said all that, however,
I should repeat that neither amendment is necessary. I hope that the
hon. Member for Isle of Wight will not press amendment No.
7.
Martin
Horwood: I am intrigued by the suggestion from the hon.
Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that the commission’s annual
report might be translated into a podcast. Given that podcasts are
live-action broadcasts, that would require somebody to sit there
reading the report, which might make for a fairly boring podcast and an
enormous file size. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite
right about that.
Mr.
Flello: I was merely illustrating the fact that there are
alternative technologies out there, and who knows what tomorrow will
bring.
| 
