Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Charities Bill [HL].
Charities Bill [HL]
While the Minister is cogitating on that fast ball from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—and I think the answer is ““no””—I ask him whether he might reconsider the wording of this amendment. It is an entirely meritorious attempt to make things clearer, but does not take account of the fact that there are some quite large charitable trusts that are oral, with no enactment or document. I think, for example, of Children in Need, which operated for several years on an oral trust. The Penlee lifeboat disaster fund was an oral trust. This only deals with enactments or documents. I would also recommend that, in reviewing the wording, the amendment should start by saying ““any direct or indirect reference in any enactment or document””. Those are my two, hopefully helpful, comments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c151
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Clubs Appeals Charities Armed forces Assets Charity Commission Fees and charges Exemptions Ethics Private education Public appointments Regulation Scotland Registration Schools Religion Tax allowances Taxation Sports Charity Tribunal
- Legislation
- Charities Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-11 14:19:37 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260435
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260435
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260435