DCH 31 - Submission from Mr Richard Nunneley
GENERAL
I am a Director of a number of Charitable
Advisory Boards-including Service ones. I am also Chairman
of a Tri Service Charity
Further I manage money for a broad
spectrum of charities as part of my occupation. That said
I was a Regular soldier for some 19 years
Subsequently I became a Director of
a FTSE plc
OBJECTIONS
.I think the Draft Bill is flawed.
.Proper Service views have not been
canvassed by The Central Staffs, who themselves have not canvassed
experts like ourselves. Have they considered or asked, what is
the Public Utility essence of these Charities. It is arcane, but
T SOL or an SO2 would not know; nor indeed would, perhaps,
the various Forces Legal Services .
.The majority of Funds are Private not
Public therefore consultation seems essential. Without Proper
Independent Advice who will be liable if ,in the course
of law, weak or badly drafted legislation- is challenged?
.Recent precedent shows the exclusion
of Real IRA as a proscribed organisation. Clearly the drafting
had been casual. May this not be the case here?
It is said that categorical assurances
have been given by both The Home Office and Charity Commission
that no threat exists to Service Charities. This assurance is
worthless unless it is enshrined in The Law. Given the recent
farrago in respect of The National Army Museum North, what trustee
would trust the word of Ministers? Minister Caplin and others
may not have grasped the reputational impact of a recent decision
but for, in effect, he and Prescott to contradict each other,
the Museum development to be abandoned, perhaps because of the
severe and parlous state of MOD finances, may be bad enough. However
for the trustees of a Service Charity to be faced with a
potential personal liability is deplorable. Given the nature of
politics, any trustee, who does not have the comfort of a watertight
and legally unambiguous piece of legislation, should not, reasonably,
trust the word of a Minister or Department. We would advise to
that effect.
.Like others I have reservations about
the removal of "Excepted charity" status from Service
non Public Funds
.Devolved legislation is mad. The Army
is subject to English Law. It is One Army. Having commanded a
Highland Regiment English law does not pose a problem. What poses
a problem is the law of unintended consequences-English Regiments
can purchase Common Investment Funds, yet, and for historic charitable
reasons, Scottish Regiments cannot. Will Ulster and Wales apply
rules which match Englands? If English law applies to some aspects
of Services matters why does it not apply to all? What do you
do with say Scots DG who are a combination of Scottish, Welsh
and English interests? Perhaps this is covered in Cr 5-19?
Do we recognise and reflect the unique
circumstances of The Armed Forces of The Crown? As as a specific
Charitable Head?
Were, say a C130 carrying 90 soldiers
of The Blankshire Regiment and 7 RAF to crash would the State
provide for all the next of kin and on an equitable basis?-or
would a greater part of the burden fall upon Service Charities?
The State cannot have it both ways-to promote the Armed Forces,
deploy them to wage war on the one hand, and then, as seems apparent,
to deflect collateral cost into The Charitable Sector .Does Parliament
understand why The Army Benevolent Fund was established 60 years
ago?-to care where State assistance is inapplicable, inadequate,
or unable to pay. Likewise are you trying to hinder or support
themyriad of smaller, unit based charities who ,too, try to bridge
the gap, at the local level?
CONCLUSION In
conclusion I think the MOD Central Staff have failed to
deliver a cogent well understood Service Paper. What appears is
one with very limited Terms of Reference-but that in itself may
be the cause of the problem
| 
