New
Clause
9Appointment
and payment of the Receiver and
Manager ‘(1) In section 19(1)
of the Charities Act 1993, at end insert “subject to a public
tender exercise conducted in line with best practice from the Office of
Government
Commerce.” (2) In
section 19(6)(b) of the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10), after “the
income of the charities concerned”, insert “subject to a
public tender exercise and up to a sum agreed in such an exercise, any
additional costs to be met by the
Commission.”’.—[Martin
Horwood.] Brought
up, and read the First
time. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
8.
Division
No.
10] Question
accordingly negatived.
New Clause
10Property
in trusts from residuary
legacies ‘(1) After section
36(5) of the Charities Act 1993 (c.10)
insert— “(5A)
References to a “charity trustee” in this section mean a
trustee of the relevant charity or any proper officer with delegated
authority from
trustees.” (2) After
section 36(9) of the 1993 Act
insert— “(9A)
Requirements in subsection (3), above, do not apply to any property
under the value of £500,000 or a sum
afterwards
determined by an order, a draft of which has been laid before, and
approved by a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.”’.— [Martin
Horwood.]Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Martin
Horwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. The new clause
was recommended by a learned friend, and I should be interested to hear
the Minister’s response to
it.
Edward
Miliband: The new clause is about delegation, some of
which I suspect has already taken place from Lord Phillips to the hon.
Gentleman. The first
subsection of the new clause is unnecessary, because the law already
allows charity trustees to delegate appropriately. The Charity
Commission’s publication “The Essential Trustee: What You
Need to Know” puts it like
this: “Trustees
can generally delegate certain powers to agents or employees, but will
and must always retain the ultimate responsibility for running the
charity.” In the context
of section 36 of the 1993 Act, it means that in practice, trustees must
personally make the initial decision to sell a property and the final
decision to sell it on particular terms. In between, the trustees may
and routinely do delegate the administration of the sale to their
staff. That balance is right.
The second subsection of the new
clause would remove important safeguards on sales of property worth
less than £500,000. Since the hon. Gentleman appears to want to
allow charities to sell their property without having it properly
valued, one wonders how they will know how much it is worth in the
first place. However, the serious point is that although he, as the
beneficial owner of his own house, is free to sell it at whatever price
he likes, the trustees of a charity do not have similar freedom. They
must obtain and consider a written report from a qualified surveyor,
and they are under a duty to dispose of their land only on the best
terms. The objection
to the new clause is that essentially the duties on trustees to take
expert advice and to sell only on the best terms reasonably obtainable
should not be disapplied as the new clause suggests. They are important
safeguards for the disposition of charity lands. However, I have a
piece of good news. I understand the amendment’s deregulatory
intent, and I undertake to review the regulations that set out what a
surveyor’s report must contain. They were made in 1992 and may
be seen as over-prescriptive, especially for smaller sales. Our review
would aim to reduce the level of detailed prescription in the
regulations.
Peter
Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Cheltenham does not mind
me saying so, the Minister is right. However, the Minister might want
to include the exception—I am not sure how far it is covered by
the 1992 provisions—that if a charity sells property to another
charity, it does not have to get the best market price. It would be
interesting to know whether some of the regulations under the Charities
Act 1992 apply.
Edward
Miliband: That process is already possible, but I shall
consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. On
that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is happy-ish, and
will withdraw his new clause.
Martin
Horwood: I am interested in the Minister’s
response. I was surprised by his response to the first part of the new
clause, which talks about the power to delegate to a proper officer.
Part of the problem is that properties can be disposed of once in a
blue moon by some charities, but when properties are left as part of a
legacy, as they frequently are, the requirement for the trustees always
to take the decision can be extremely onerous. I have talked to
charities that were under the impression that that was the requirement
in law, but the Minister’s response appears to go against it.
Nevertheless, if that is the legal situation, and he has put it on the
record, they might well be reassured.
In the second half of the new
clause, the value of £500,000 is only indicative. It then
says, “or a sum
afterwards determined” by
the Secretary of State. It is a rare and generous example of me
offering rather than withdrawing latitude to the Secretary of State.
However, I am reassured by the Minister’s statement, and I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New Clause
11Small
charities: remittance of
fees ‘(1) Where any fee or
charge is payable to a local authority under any enactment, the local
authority may draw up and operate a scheme of fee remittances for any
class of small charities. (2)
“Small charity” in this section means any charity with a
turnover of less than £100,000 per
year.’.—[Mr.
Turner.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I would be
grateful if the Minister told me that the new clause complied with the
Cheltenham principle, but I believe that it does not. It is intended to
provide an additional power—although not, I emphasise, a
duty—for local authorities to remit any fee that is payable to
them by a charity, or to draw up and operate a scheme of remittances
for such fees. I shall illustrate it, as one so often does, by
reference to a local example.
The people who run the
Chale show, an agricultural show on the Isle of Wight, found that under
the new licensing regime they had to pay £1,000 for a licence.
Because their expected gate now exceeds the threshold set out in the
Isle of Wight Acts, they had to comply with the requirements of those
Acts as well, which cost another
£3,000. 3.15
pm
Peter
Bottomley: Was the Isle of Wight Act pushed through by one
of my hon. Friend’s predecessors, Mark Woodnutt, to stop an Isle
of Wight pop festival after the three successful ones held about 30
years ago?
Mr.
Turner: It was indeed. I should say that it has been
amended twice since then, and the Isle of Wight has once again started
holding extremely successful pop festivals, the most recent of which I
did not attend because I could hear and enjoy it from my back garden. I
attended the previous one and enjoyed it immensely. Some 60,000 people
came this year, and I recommend the festivals to all hon.
Members. To get back
to—
The
Chairman: The new
clause.
Mr.
Turner: When I raised the matter with councillors and
officers of the Isle of Wight council, they told me they had no power
to remit any fee payable under the Licensing Act 2003. If that is
untrue, I will be glad to hear it. It occurred to me that they may also
find themselves without the power to remit fees payable under other
Acts, and that we ought to give them that power. It would be entirely
discretionary; we are not forcing any local authority to spend any more
money than it is currently
spending.
Peter
Bottomley: May I give wholehearted support to my hon.
Friend’s new clause? A number of examples can properly be used.
For example, on Remembrance Sunday, when organisations including the
Royal British Legion want a temporary interruption to traffic, a
regulation requires them to apply for a full traffic management order,
and a fee is involved. Another example is that of a village that is
going to have a popular regatta and wants to ban traffic on a road. In
the past, that was done by custom and practice, but the law has been
tightened up so that people have to apply for a temporary road closure
order.
Helen
Goodman: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
raising the issue, which is close to my heart and on which we have
tabled amendments to another Bill going through the House, namely the
Compensation Bill, which will deal with much of the
problem.
Peter
Bottomley: The Minister may accept the new clause, in
which case further debates will not be necessary. The new clause might
for some reason need further modification, or the Government might need
to co-ordinate—perhaps the Minister will want to talk to the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—to see
whether giving the option suggested to local government would be
acceptable across government. I know that it is acceptable to local
government, which wants control over crucial charges. I strongly
support the new
clause.
Martin
Horwood: I am delighted to have the opportunity at this
late stage in our deliberations definitively and finally to restate the
Cheltenham principle, which I believe is that if something such as the
new clause might require the services of an extremely expensive lawyer
to explain that it is not necessary, it might be worth putting it into
legislation in the interests of clarity and transparency. If the
officers of the Isle of Wight council are under the impression that it
is necessary, it is worth supporting. I therefore support the new
clause.
Edward
Miliband: I am afraid that I disagree with the hon.
Gentleman’s interpretation of the Cheltenham
principle. As I remember it, as defined by my hon. Friend the Member for
High Peak (Tom Levitt)—he will correct me if I am
wrong—the principle relates to something that is nice but
ineffective.
Martin
Horwood: The exact wording used a long time ago was that
an amendment that was
“harmless, but not entirely
necessary”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,
4 July 2006; c. 26.] should
be put into
legislation.
Edward
Miliband: I stand corrected. The question is whether the
new clause fulfils the Cheltenham or any other principle. Local
authorities can waive fees and charges to small charities in certain
cases. For example, under the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992, local
authorities have the discretion to waive a charge for waste collection
from premises occupied by a charity.
There may be a danger that the
new clause would drive a coach and horses through lots of national
charges applied by local authorities. Perhaps the hon. Member for Isle
of Wight would not mind that, but it would be more than my job’s
worth. Having said that, I shall look at the issue properly and see
whether I can take on board some of the spirit of the new clause and do
something in a generous and charitable
way.
Mr.
Turner: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend
the Member for Worthing, West. He mentioned regattas, and, implicitly,
Sea View yacht club. I should mention that I am an honorary member of
that club and, as such, a participant, although only from the land
side, in the Sea View regatta from time to
time. I am pleased to
hear that some fees for charities can be remitted and I am grateful to
the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to consider the matter. I hope
that we shall draw up a definitive list, perhaps before Report, of
those local
authorities.
| 
