Mr.
Turner: I do not want to detain the Committee, for obvious
reasons, but one issue about international activity by charities that
has been drawn to my attention—and to which the Minister might
slip in a response in replying to the debate—is the extent to
which the commission has a duty to ascertain that money raised in this
country for charitable purposes is spent for charitable purposes
overseas. We know that that is the duty of the charity and of the
commission; the question is whether they have the capacity to discharge
it. I am concerned
because of allegations, of which I am sure Ministers and hon. Members
are aware, that some religious charities in this country remit
considerable funds overseas, where they are spent for purposes that are
only borderline religious, at least in the sense that that is
understood in the United Kingdom.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing,
West for raising this difficult and serious issue. Things are
difficult, partly because the example that the correspondence has
raised seems to rest on the territorial nature of the charity.
Geographical restriction as a principle is well established in charity
law as a perfectly legitimate restriction that would not contradict
public benefit. To introduce a new clause that appears to detract from
the commission’s ability to judge public benefit on a broad
basis seems to narrow the commission’s remit.
Although I am sympathetic to the
new clause, it opens a door to further attempts to define more
narrowly, in ways outside the public benefit test, exactly how the
commission behaves. However, the issue is serious and I should like a
reassurance from the Minister that, under his interpretation of the
Bill, charities that engaged in activities that fell short of human
rights standards would not pass a new public benefit test, and that
activities undertaken overseas that are widely accepted as being
charitable—in the case of Oxfam and many others that is well
established—but which fall short of proper human rights
standards should not pass the public benefit test
either.
Edward
Miliband: This is a fitting new clause to discuss in our
last debate. The hon. Member for Worthing, West has raised a complex
but important subject, although I shall not be able to give a
substantive and definitive answer today, because the issues are
incredibly complex and involve many parts of
government.
Mr.
Flello: The hon. Member for Worthing, West was unable to
clear the fog over whether those on the Opposition Benches wish to get
rid of the Human Rights Act 1998. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary
Secretary consider the additional costs that would be incumbent on a
charity when looking at the legal implications of making sure that it
was complying with the Human Rights Act each time that it did
something?
Edward
Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We must bear
in mind three issues. First, such a proposal would require quite
detailed investigative action by the commission. Secondly, that action
would be outside Great Britain and, thirdly, there is much wider issue
about the extent to which non-state actors are subject to the European
convention on human
rights. Let me deal
with each issue briefly. Of course, the commission has investigative
powers and can exercise them, although the sort of investigation that
would be involved when making a judgment about human rights standards
would be incredibly complex. Without going into a particular case in
detail, it is clear from the new clause that the issues involved would
be extremely deep and complicated.
The second issue is the power of
the Charity Commission outside Great Britain. It can visit other
countries to look into allegations, but its staff cannot exercise any
powers outside England and Wales. Its powers of investigation under the
Bill are confined to England and Wales. That limits its ability to
investigate outside the United Kingdom in the way suggested under the
new clause, although it can, of course, hold trustees in England and
Wales fully accountable for the charity’s
activities. I come now
to the third and most fundamental issue, which is the extent to which
the ECHR applies to non-state actors. For most purposes, a charity
would not usually be subject to the Human Rights Act, which places a
duty on public authorities not to act incompatibly with the convention
rights. It is possible that a charity could be a public authority were
it to be exercising a public functions, such as the provision of
publicly funded care. However, it would be extremely unlikely ever to
be exercising such a function
overseas. The new
clause would be a new departure because it would place obligations on a
charity not necessarily in its role as a public authority to comply
with the ECHR. That is the Government’s view of the new clause.
However, given its importance, the lucid way in which the hon. Member
for Worthing, West presented it and the distinguished nature of those
who have contacted us, it deserves a more substantive reply than I have
been able to give. I shall endeavour at least to report back to the
Committee in some form or another on our view. Obviously, the matter
can be raised on
Report.
Mr.
Turner: We must be aware of two issues, the first of which
concerns when remittances are made outside the United Kingdom or
England and Wales. I do not know what powers the commission has in
respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Should the trustees be
expected to demonstrate a higher level of awarenessin such
circumstances so that they can show the commission that money has been
properly spent than would be the case if that money were spent in
England and Wales? The
second question impinges on that. I believe that I am right in saying
that a charity may currently have objectives for a particular racial or
ethnic group. Were such an amendment accepted, would it have an effect
on certain existing charities in England and
Wales?
Edward
Miliband: I feel that I am already skating on legal thin
ice. The hon. Gentleman’s question is valid
and I shall address it in any substantive answer that I give to the
Committee on the new clause. The issue is important and I thank him for
raising it. I shall endeavour to come back with a more substantive
reply at a later
date.
Peter
Bottomley: The Minister may find that the issue should be
dealt with by written statement or on Report. We have nearly finished
our work so he will not be able to come back to the Committee. In
passing, may I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South
(Mr. Flello) that I was advised, at the time that I was
first elected, that bringing up a straightforward party point in the
middle of a serious debate does not always carry the reputation of the
Committee forward? The
Minister has dealt fairly with my points. He may have added some
additional ones, because my new clause does not refer to
extraterritoriality, though the example behind it is there. I fully
understand the reluctance of the Charity Commission to be bound up in
investigating things that may have happened—they did happen in
one particular case 50 years ago—in the middle of one of the
most complex areas of pain and disorder that one could imagine. Even if
what I am proposing is right and acceptable, I can see that there would
be arguments of practicality. For instance, what would it open up in
terms of consequence? At the moment, however, there remains the
question of what is right.
I should perhaps declare that I
think that I was a fellow trustee with Benedict Birnberg on the Canon
Collins Educational Trust for Southern Africa—the follow-up to
the Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa. The Defence and Aid Fund
was not charitable, but the Canon Collins trust was. What has been said
by Benedict Birnberg and his colleagues and the way that the new clause
has been proposed do not necessarily open up many of the problems that
have been discussed in our brief debate. Will the Minister consider
whether the approach in the new clause is right, proper and useful, and
whether it is controllable? I know that he is not committed to
accepting it, but I should be grateful for his reflections. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as
amended.
Edward
Miliband: On a point of order. Mr. Gale, I want
to say some thank yous. This is as close as I shall get to the Oscar
ceremony, but I promise that my speech will not be as long as those at
the Oscar ceremony—although as I understand it, I have
until9
o’clock. Let me
start by thanking the Doorkeepers, the police, the Clerk and the staff
of the Committee for their hard work during the last two
weeks.
Peter
Bottomley: And the official
reporters.
Edward
Miliband: And the official reporters—I am extremely
grateful to them for their work and dedication to their job. I also
thank my officials, led by Richard Corden. I can reveal to the
Committee that he has had the privilege of working in the strategy unit
on
the report that led to the Bill, then going to the Charity Commission to
reply to the Bill, and then coming into Government to implement the
Bill—a real hat trick. He has ably led what is a very able team
of officials. I also
thank the members of the Committee. On my own side there was a
glittering array of talent. They have engaged very much with the
Bill—mainly constructively. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop
Auckland (Helen Goodman) had 11 amendments of her own, which showed her
reputation for independence. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Cardiff, South and Penarth has brought his great expertise to the
subject and to the Committee, and I am very grateful to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for
High Peak (Tom Levitt) has coined a new principle, which I expect will
endure beyond this Committee. I am grateful to all Members of this
Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham
(Dr. Blackman-Woods) and for West Bromwich, West (Mr.
Bailey) who have been extremely kind to me. Most importantly, my hon.
Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) has kept me in order as I
predicted that she would do.
3.45
pm Let me also pay
tribute to some notable contributions on the other side, including the
hon. Member for Worthing, West and the hon. Member for Cheltenham who
has asked me many difficult questions to which I have not known the
answer. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cheltenham who has
brought good humour and a new principle to this debate and to the hon.
Member for Isle of Wight who has brought his considerable talents and
assiduousness to the work of this Committee. Finally, thanks to
Mrs. Humble and to yourself, Mr. Gale, for your
stern, but fair, chairmanship. Finally, I think that we have met the
two principles of being a charity: charitable purpose and public
benefit. I thank all members of the
Committee.
Mr.
Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Gale, may I endorse the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary? I am
grateful to those whom he has mentioned and my failure to repeat them
individually is not an indication that I am not genuinely grateful to
them. I am also grateful to him for his forbearance on occasions,
assistance on many occasions and genuine agreement and attempt to reach
consensus wherever possible on the further proceedings of this
Bill. I am grateful to
my hon. Friends and in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for
Upminster (Angela Watkinson) for her assistance, to my hon. Friend the
Member for Worthing, West for the great knowledge that he has brought
to the Bill and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham in
providing a useful “butt”. I also acknowledge the support
of my research assistant. I think the job of a virgin Front Bencher
depends heavily on the assistance of their research support.
I am grateful to the officials
of the Charity Commission which has responded to my frequent letters,
and to the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, the Under-Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland, the
hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) for having
been quick to respond to my many
inquiries. Martin
Horwood: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Gale, I would like to add my thanks to yourself and Mrs.
Humble for the firm but fair way in which you have regulated us. My
thanks to the Clerks and the officials, both those who are present and
those in the Minister’s office who have worked hard behind the
scenes to help the Committee
proceed. The spirit in
which this Committee has undertaken its deliberations is in contrast to
my only other experience of a Bill in Committee, which was rather more
confrontational, less humorous and less constructive. The Bill will be
received well by the voluntary sector. The spirit in which the Bill has
proceeded as a piece of legislation is exemplary. The Minister’s
tone and attitude in responding and listening to the points that we
made in a serious way reflected well on him.
I pay credit to my researcher,
Jake Rigg and the hard work that he and Elizabeth Fosten have done in
my office to try and take me as a fellow Committee virgin through this
process. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for
describing my “butt” as useful. I will try and think of a
comparable comment for him. I take it in the spirit in which I assume
that it was meant. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for High Peak for
recognising that Cheltenham is indeed a town that deserves its own
principle.
Peter
Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Gale, if Back Benchers are allowed to join in this exchange of thanks
and praise, I am glad that the Minister referred to those who backed
him up—those in his Department and the Charity Commission.
However, I do not think that we have mentioned trustees or the charity
lawyers who give them guidance. They deserve to be mentioned for their
attention to what has gone on, not just in Committee, but in previous
years. The lawyers will also be helping trustees when the Bill comes
into force. The way in
which the Front Benchers have led the debates has been exemplary. I say
to the Minister, in the hope of doing his party as much damage as
possible, he deserves his place on the Front Bench and the sooner that
he gets into opposition and lets us take over his role, the
better.
Tom
Levitt: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Gale, I never thought that I would rise, accused of having said that
Liberals have principles. I know that the Cheltenham principle will be
forever with us and brings a warm glow to the heart of my hon. Friend
the Member for West Bromwich, West, who is a native of
Cheltenham. On a
serious note, I do not expect that on Report we will bring too much
controversy or dissent. Over the four days of our work, we have
witnessed a serious and timely updating of charity law which, as we
know, has been with us for 400 years. I believe that the importance of
the voluntary and community sectors, and the third sector generally, is
in logarithmic phase at the moment and is of ever increasing value and
importance. I am proud to have served with colleagues on both side of
the House in taking the matter
forward. | 
