Peter
Bottomley: May I follow on from what the Parliamentary
Secretary said rather than attempt a debate that the clause stand part?
He mentioned various powers—I refer here to not to groups of
charities but to individual ones. Does the Minister have the power
under subsection 12(b) to help officially change the name of a charity?
For example, if Queen Mary and Westfield College drops the “and
Westfield” part of its name legally, as well as in common
usage—it is now called Queen Mary College, but I am not sure
whether it has changed its name officially—will the Minister be
able to update matters by order? If not, might I suggest that he
consult with people to consider how it can be done in some other way?
For a college to change its name and have to be deregistered and
re-registered as a new one would be hard way in which to go about
things. That might be something that the hon. Gentleman will consider
later. I do not want a response
straightaway. As for
the Welsh Church, it will be interesting to know whether the
Parliamentary Secretary has consulted or will consult with its main
committee. That might be a good avenue to go down to see whether the
assurances that have been given will work in
practice.
Edward
Miliband: I or my officials will be happy to talk to the
committee to make sure that it is content. I do not believe that
Ministers can change the name of charities, but charities can do so in
consultation with the Charity Commission. We are coming to some clauses
that deal with those
issues.
Peter
Bottomley: If the charity commissioners have the power to
change under the schedule, I am reassured. If they do not, there may be
a
problem.
Edward
Miliband: I shall investigate the matter and come back to
the hon.
Gentleman.
Martin
Horwood: I am not entirely reassured by everything that
the Minister has said, but I hope that we have explored the issues
surrounding the amendments in sufficient detail for him now to consult
further on the implications of some aspects of the Bill, especially the
Big Lottery Fund. It strikes me as surprising that it will not have
charitable status. It seems a slightly unhealthy sign that its focus is
moving even further away from funding charities as the National Lottery
Charities Board did. I raised that worry when we were debating the
Lottery Bill.
As for the status of the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge as opposed to the colleges and
halls, I am somewhat reassured by what the Parliamentary Secretary
said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
11 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause 12
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5Exempt
charities: increased regulations under 1993
Act
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
schedule 5, page 105, line 29, leave
out paragraph
6.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 99, in
schedule 5, page 106, line 17, at
end add— ‘Role of the
principal regulator of exempt charities in increased regulation under
1993 Act10. All references in Schedule 5
of this Act to “the Commission” mean the
“principal regulator”, as defined in section
13(4)(b).’. No.
105, in
clause 13, page 16, line 27, at
end insert— ‘(3A) The body
or Minister shall have the same powers and responsibilities as the
Charity Commission under this Act in relation to the charities of which
he is principal
regulator.’. No.
92, in
clause 13, page 16, line 32, leave
out ‘made by the Secretary of
State’. No. 93,
in
clause 13, page 16, line 32, at
end insert— ‘(c) in the
absence of any principle regulator under paragraph (b), above, the
regulator shall be the Privy
Council.’. No.
22, in
clause 13, page 16, line 33, leave
out subsection
(5).
Martin
Horwood: We tabled the amendment because the Bill expands
the power of the commission to act for the protection of exempt
charities. That sounds wise, but given our discussion on the exempt
status of universities any power to expand the rights of any body,
including the Charity Commission, over our universities is a major step
and should not pass without debate. Currently, following the
institution of a section 8 inquiry the commission may suspend any
trustee, officer, agent or employee of the charity, order any debtor of
the charity not to pay the debts or appoint receivers and
managers. We are
familiar with that in terms of the rights of registered charities. They
have become used to such powers and the Bill deals with many of their
worries about the Charity Commission exercising such extensive powers
over them. However, it is new for those powers to have been acquired
quietly over the aforementioned universities of Oxford, Cambridge and
those throughout the rest of the country. In effect, that would give
power to the Charity Commission to remove Oxford dons from their posts.
That would be a major step and one that should not pass without full
debate. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure
us that that is not the case. I cannot see how the
powers of the commission could be
extended to exempt charities as set out in the Bill and for that not to
apply. That is the reason behind amendment No.
98. Amendment
No. 99 and the other amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats deal
with some of the uncertainties under the Bill about who is regulated by
whom. Parts of the 1993 Act refer to the commission in respect of
regulatory functions, but it is not explicitly pointed out exactly how
many of the powers extend to other principal regulators in relation to
exempt charities. That is what amendment No. 99 addresses. The
intention is to make it clear that references to the commission, in
terms of the regulatory powers, also mean the principal regulators, as
defined elsewhere in the Act. In other words, the amendment would make
it clear that the regulatory powers that pertain to the commission in
relation to non-exempt charities also pertain to principal regulators
in relation to exempt charities.
Amendment No. 92 addresses the
ability of the Secretary of State to decide who the principal regulator
is for various exempt charities. The Bill gives him that power by
regulation, and our amendment would take that power away. That connects
with amendment No. 93; we assume that if no other regulator
exists, the regulator will be the Privy Council. We tried to work out
who was the current regulator of the Oxbridge colleges and halls, and
it seems to be the Privy Council. Amendment No. 93 provides for the
eventuality of the Minister and his advisers missing out a body, in
terms of appointing a principal regulator. It leaves the Privy Council
as the fall-back position, as we believe that it is the regulator in
the case of one particular group of colleges and
halls.
Mr.
Turner: We are examining a particularly important change
to the way in which universities are regulated. I am completely
astonished that universities that have lain on their backs with their
feet in the air and have allowed themselves to be regulated even more
by HEFCE. Anyone who remembers the huge row that took place in the
1990s, when the University Grants Committee was abolished and replaced
by HEFCE, will be amazed that universities got so wimpish and so
incapable of opposing. They are now so incapable of protecting their
position that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is absolutely correct when
he says that it is possible for the occupant of a teaching post paid
for by the university to be removed at the instigation of HEFCE. In
those circumstances, one wonders how long university dons can keep the
protection of free
speech.
Edward
Miliband: Come
on!
Mr.
Turner: Exactly the same arguments were deployed by
universities at the time of the abolition of the University Grants
Committee. Will someone make a complaint against a university lecturer,
saying that he erred in some direction or
other— [Interruption.] The Minister refers to charities,
but for the moment universities are exempt; they do not have a
regulator because they are trusted to regulate themselves. We are
imposing a new level of regulation. We can quite understand that those
who research controversial subjects, such as vivisection, embryology or
weaponry, may find repeated complaints being made against them to the
Charity Commission or to HEFCE.
Edward
Miliband: I have the utmost respect for the hon.
Gentleman, and he has made many coherent arguments during Committee,
but this is not one of them. We are talking about regulation for the
purposes of charitable law. The idea that a don teaching a
controversial subject would be slung out of his post because the
institution was not within the confines of charitable law is simply
fantastic and wrong.
Mr.
Turner: We will see. James II sent to a troop of horses to
Oxford because it knew no argument but force and Cambridge knew no
force but argument. He was trying to remove dons from the university
because they were peddling theories with which he was not happy. In
short, I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment No.98 and I am
horrified that the universities have been so
wet. 11.30
am Amendment No.
105 is a probing amendment that fulfils the same function as amendment
No. 99, which is to find out whether the responsibilities of the
principal regulator are the same as those of the Charity Commission. If
they are not, we are not creating the level playing
field—equivalent regulation for all charities—which the
Minister says is the whole purpose of the Bill. An increasing number of
exempt charities are bodies that are the creatures of Government, yet
the principal regulator has only one objective in respect of those
institutions whereas the Charity Commission has five objectives in
respect of all other charities. The Minister must explain why the level
of regulation of exempt charities is less when one of the purposes of
the Bill is to create a level playing field. If he is saying that the
regulation will be exactly the same, at least that is consistent with
the purposes of the
Bill. Amendment No. 22
is an attempt to deal with what I consider too broad a provision in
clause 13 which, put simply, allows the Minister to amend the list of
principal regulators and to make amendments subsequent to the enactment
of the legislation which would change the powers of the principal
regulator. Whether the powers are as I fear that they are, or they are
as I suspect the Minister believes they are, there is no need for him
to have the power to amend
them.
Edward
Miliband: I think that we are getting hot under the collar
about the idea of Oxford dons being sacked without any good reason at
all. Let me try and explain why that is the case.
All the universities are
required to follow charity law. However, they are not monitored in that
respect. The Bill would introduce proper monitoring of the way in which
universities and other institutions follow charitable law. That is the
context in which we have to understand the amendments and the
clause. Let me say
something about the relationship between the principal regulator where
that is not the Charity Commission, and the Charity Commission. It is
fair to say that the situation is complicated and it is difficult to
get the arrangements right. The principal regulator where that is not
the Charity Commission, such as HEFCE or the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport in relation to some museums and galleries, will be
responsible for monitoring compliance with charity law. What happens if
the principal regulator believes that there is a problem in the
charity? It is for the
principal regulator to say to the Charity Commission that, for example,
an inquiry into the charity is needed. The Charity Commission then has
all the powers at its disposal that it would have in relation to other
charities to inquire into what is happening in the charity. The purpose
of amendment No. 98 is to disapply those powers of the Charity
Commission, but that would not be sensible because it would create the
unlevel playing field about which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is
worried and which is implied by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member
for Cheltenham. It is
then for the Charity Commission to conduct its investigations and to
reach conclusions. What happens to those conclusions? Under the Bill as
it stands, the Charity Commission can implement changes as it would
implement in the case of any other charity, with one proviso.
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 14 which
states: “Before
exercising in relation to an exempt charity any specific power
exercisable by it in relation to the charity, the Commission must
consult the charity’s principal
regulator.” If I may be
so bold, I suggest that the useful discussion for us to have is of
whether the requirement for the commission to consult the
charity’s principal regulator is a sufficient
safeguard.
As the Bill
stands, the principal regulator where that is not the
commission—HEFCE, in the case that we have been
discussing—is in the driving seat of monitoring compliance with
charity law. When HEFCE feels that an inquiry is necessary, it goes to
the Charity Commission and says so. The Charity Commission then reaches
conclusions, but before it can implement them, it must consult the
principal regulator. I have not been asked to do so, but because I am a
generous soul and we need the best Bill possible, I will consider
whether consultation between the commission and the principal regulator
is a sufficient safeguard. Although that is not what hon. Members were
complaining about, I think that it is the most important
aspect. Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I am following what the
Minister says exactly. If the principal regulator thinks that something
is wrong, it refers the matter to the Charity Commission, which
investigates, and at present when it reaches a conclusion it only has
to consult the principal regulator. Is he suggesting that the principal
regulator should have a veto over what the Charity Commission says?
What happens if the commission says, “We have investigated this,
and this is what’s happened, but we don’t think any
action should be taken,” but the principal regulator thinks that
it
should?
| 
