 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Charities Bill [Lords] |
Charities Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mrs E. Commander, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ATuesday 11 July 2006(Afternoon)[Part I][Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Charities Bill [Lords]Charitable
incorporated
organisations 4
pm Question
proposed [this day]: That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): Mrs.
Humble, may I say what a pleasure it is to sit under your discipline
this afternoon for the second part of my speech?
I was explaining that I have
deep reservations about schedule 7. I hope that my hon. Friend the
Minister will take away my reservations and consider amending the Bill
on Report. My objection is that the schedule incorporates a pointless
acronym into law. It not only incorporates it but repeats it, so that
in my view those who wrote this part of the Bill are guilty of a serial
offence. It is a
dreadful habit of Whitehall to turn everything into acronyms. The issue
is important, because language and communication are important. An
acronym can do two things: it can damage communication because the
acronym label is not comprehensible and does not mean anything, and it
can exclude those who are not anoraks.
Anyone who has served, as I
have, at DEFRA and DTI will know that it is possible to have whole
sentences that contain few words and little meaning because acronyms
are used all the time. When I was given responsibility for chemicals,
it took me a little time to adjust to the fact that the CIA that was
referred to in the Department was the Chemical Industries Association.
I think it is right to say that the Federation of British Industries
changed its name to the Confederation of British Industry to escape
association with an American institution. It is certainly not always
clear whether one is talking about the Food Standards Agency or the
Financial Services Authority when the initials FSA are used. The tin
lid was put on all that for me when I heard officials describe the
rural affairs forum as “the RAF”. I made the point at
that stage that although the rural affairs forum was an important way
of communicating with rural communities in England, we did not intend
to bomb anyone into submission in the course of our
deliberations.
In this Bill, which is in other
ways such an excellent piece of legislation, we have the dreadful
acronym habit of Whitehall being incorporated into primary legislation.
It is an absolute outrage. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my
point and cleanse the Bill with amendments on Report.
Exclusive language is damaging,
and we now have the initials used in schedule 7. I had something of a
battle to persuade officials that community interest companies should
not be called CICs, because the word CIC does not communicate anything
whereas the title community interest company tells one exactly what it
is. It would be simple for my hon. Friend to introduce an amendment
into paragraph 1 of schedule 7, in page 114, line 30, to delete
“a ‘CIO’” and to insert “an
incorporated charity”. We would then all know what we meant by
the term, and the label on the bottle would be clear. In the age of the
computer, it cannot be claimed that typing the term “an
incorporated charity” is onerous compared with using
initials. I do not
want to delay the Committee on this point, but I do not believe that it
is trivial. The Government have done a good job in making available
different models, such as the community interest company and the
incorporated charity. Those two options are available for organisations
that want to pursue worthy purposes but want the protection of
incorporation, apart from industrial and provident societies and the
other options. To have that range of options and refer to them simply
so that people can make decisions based on the best model for them to
deliver the value-led outcomes that they want to achieve will be a
major step forward. I hope we can take that step forward with clarity,
and not with an acronym settled into primary legislation. I regard that
as an outrageous proposition and the one defect in an otherwise
excellent Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have
sympathy for the fact that, as a Welshman, I am trying to protect the
English language from this outrageous
intrusion.
Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): It is nice to see you in the
Chair presiding over us, Mrs. Humble. I have some sympathy for what the
right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said
and was rather looking forward to his pronouncing the words in the
proposed new section 69C(4)(a) of the Charities Act 1993, as I suspect
that he is the only member of the Committee who could do so.
The right hon. Member might be
rather exaggerating the threat contained in schedule 7, because
although it provides for added flexibility in exactly which
incorporated status a charity might adopt—I hope that every
member of the Committee would welcome that—as I read it, it does
not oblige them to use the letters CIO. In fact, the precedent is for
limited company status, which many charities—certainly all the
major ones—have adopted without having to use acronyms such as
plc, Ltd or anything else in their notepaper or elsewhere. That has not
proved much of a limitation, so although I share the right hon.
Gentleman’s dislike for acronyms where clear English will do,
the injunction to charities that adopt CIO status to call themselves
charitable incorporated organisations rather than CIOs should
remain.
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I agree with the right
hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. We could take the
polysyllabic sludge of “charitable incorporated
organisations” and say that we do not need the word
“organisation”, because it is implied by
“incorporated”, and that we should substitute one
syllable in “charitable” to make it
“charity”. What is proposed is absolutely
straightforward—Dorothy Sayers would have approved of
it—so I hope that the Minister will take the wording away and
bring it back changed.
The
Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Edward Miliband):
The passion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and
Penarth was clear for us all to see. If our proceedings were being
covered by “Today in Parliament” or “Yesterday in
Parliament”, he would deserve to get on with the speech that he
delivered, which was entertaining and informative.
There are good reasons to be
sympathetic to my right hon. Friend’s view. The Government come
up with lots of incomprehensible acronyms and other phrases that mean
nothing to members of the public. However, “incorporated
charity” does not work, because there are other non-CIO forms of
incorporated charity, namely the industrial and provident societies,
and friendly societies, which are incorporated charities—to use
the term of art—but will not necessarily apply for the status
that we currently call CIO.
I am tempted to say that anyone
with good ideas should send them on a postcard to my right hon. Friend
over the summer. We have been aware of the problem, but we have not
found a better alternative. However, Members of Parliament get a long
summer break, and although I do not promise to devote the whole of mine
to thinking of an alternative formulation, we will apply our minds to
see whether something can be done about the dreaded
acronyms.
Peter
Bottomley: During the summer break, will the Minister also
turn his mind to a word that appears right at the beginning of the
Bill, which is “institution”, of which I am not sure I
have found the definition? I think that I know what it means, but if
there is a definition, perhaps the Minister could point it out.
“Institution” is an acceptable word, but it would be
lovely to know precisely what it
means.
Edward
Miliband: My list of summer tasks is growing, although in
the meantime perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what he thinks the
word means.
“In this
Act ‘institution’ means an institution whether
incorporated or not, and includes a trust or
undertaking.” I hope that
that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Peter
Bottomley: Does that also include all the other
organisations that would otherwise be included in the incorporated
charities that the Minister has talked
about?
Edward
Miliband: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that
question. I think that the answer is
yes.
Alun
Michael: In view of the Minister’s generous
undertaking to think about the matter during the summer, I can respond
only by offering to enter into correspondence with him to see if we can
find a solution and protect the English language. I am grateful to him
for his response and I shall not press the clause to a
Division. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause 34
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 7Charitable
incorporated
organisations Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I beg to move
amendment No.
170, page 114, line 32, at end
insert ‘, with either— (a)
charity trustees only, or (b)
charity trustees and one or more
members.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 112,
page 115, line 1, leave out ‘shall
have one or more’ and insert ‘need not have
any’. No.
113, page 115, line 2, after
‘members’ insert ‘(if there is a
membership)’. No.
114, page 115, line 11, after
‘members’ insert ‘(if there is a
membership)’. No.
115, page 115, line 14, after
‘membership’ insert ‘(if there is a
membership)’. No.
116, page 129, line 14, after
‘members’ insert ‘(if there is
a membership and of the charity trustees if there is no
membership)’. No.
117, page 129, line 22, after
‘meeting’ insert ‘or, as applicable, charity
trustees’
meeting’. No.
118, page 129, line 25, after
‘members’ insert ‘or, as applicable, charity
trustees’. No.
119, page 129, line 26, after
‘meeting’ insert ‘or, as applicable, charity
trustees’
meeting’. No.
120, page 129, line 28, leave out
‘general’. No.
121, page 129, line 29, leave out
‘general’.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 12 July 2006 |