James
Duddridge: Would it be helpful if the Minister offered to
lay before the House some comments on that report, which deals with
very specific cases? They look like the type of thing that comes up in
individual constituency cases. I see the Minister frown, and I do not
want to overburden him, but it would be useful to see which trends he
accepts and which accounts he considers to be more
one-sided.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for that intervention. It is for
the Minister to decide in what form he wants to reply to that report.
Perhaps Committee stage or
Report might be an appropriate time to address some of the concerns that
it raised. Some of
those concerns are quite serious, relating to matters such as the
appointment of receivers and managers who have no experience of running
charities, thereby displacing the existing trustees or managers of
charities; and the fees of receivers and managers being allowed to
overrun those estimated in the original tenders by 100 per cent., 200
per cent., 300 per cent. or more—sometimes by hundreds of
thousands of pounds. A trend was identified in which costs are imposed
on smaller charities without any possibility of challenging the process
by which those costs are incurred. Those are genuine and serious
concerns. As I said, we should be concerned even if only one or two of
them are correct or identify a real problem.
The duty to act reasonably and
fairly was discussed in another place, at which time the example of the
Little Gidding Trust was raised. The High Court judge, in ruling on
whether the commissioners had acted appropriately according to the law,
failed to consider whether they had acted fairly and reasonably in the
interests of shortening the hearing at the High Court. That is the
practical difference that the amendments would make: if they were
included, there would not only be a general moral obligation on the
courts to decide whether the commission was acting reasonably and
fairly, they would have to consider that duty in cases like the one
relating to the Little Gidding Trust.
The amendments will make a
practical difference, contrary to what Lord Bassam claimed in the
debate in another place, and they have a great deal to recommend them.
After all, who could possibly oppose the insertion of acting reasonably
and fairly into a
Bill? Amendment No. 76
is different and would include other responsibilities for the Charity
Commission, including a need to
have, “in appropriate
cases, regard to the desirability of providing extra support, advice,
guidance and encouragement to new and developing charities from a
diverse range of
communities”. That
reflects the changing face of the charity sector, which we discussed on
Tuesday, and how it must be more inclusive of organisations and
communities that may not necessarily follow the established model of
charitable organisations, particularly membership
organisations.
I have experience of
organisations such as the MS Society and others, which have tried hard
to make themselves more welcoming and inclusive, for example, in
relation to members of ethnic minorities. However, in some cases such
organisations have struggled to do that when established branch
structures have a particular ethos and, inevitably, an esprit de corps
that might be off-putting to newcomers or those who do not seem to fit
the traditional ethos. There is a challenge to organisations, including
many larger charities with established memberships and established ways
of doing things, to reach out to minority ethnic communities and others
from different social backgrounds. Those organisations must challenge
the twinset and pearls image of some local charities, which can be
off-putting to some people and could be a bar to them gaining the full
benefit of involvement in membership
organisations. The MS
Society is successfully tackling that problem and is doing great work
on inclusion and ensuring that its membership and local branches are
representative. However, it would be wise and sensible to give the
Charity Commission a responsibility to encourage new and developing
charities that provide an alternative route into involvement in the
charity sector for people from other backgrounds. I am keen to see the
amendments
progress.
Mr.
Turner: I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
The proposal to oblige the Charity Commission to act fairly and
reasonably links to the lead amendment in the previous group. The
Government have resisted such a provision with, it seems to me, a
disproportionate amount of energy. It seems to be a reasonable
objective to place on an organisation such as the Charity
Commission. The hon.
Gentleman referred to the Little Gidding Trust case, which I understand
was exactly as he stated. Lord Bassam said in the House of Lords that
the commission “would not
change its behaviour”.—[Official Report, House of
Lords, 12 October 2005; Vol. 674, c.
335.] It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
