---

Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, for his kind comments about us all. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I was thinking, ““Well, yes, perhaps the noble Lord would say that, wouldn’t he?””. The generosity of his view is well meant, and we have tried hard to make this as consensual a process as possible. That is not to say that we always agree on things and, in a sense, the amendment throws light on an area where there has been some considerable disagreement—properly so, because it is a difficult debate where many trenchant views are expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, put his view well, eloquently and forcefully—and rightly so. That reaches the core of an important issue. It has certainly been the case, as several noble Lords have said, that one of the strong themes regarding the future of the Charity Commission is a desire to ensure that it is independent from the Government. There may be some difficulties about the formulation, as expressed in the amendment, to which I referred, and some work will need to be undertaken to see what can best be done about that position. It is undoubtedly the clear will of your Lordships’ House and of the Government that the commission’s independence has been firmly established by statute and is highly desirable. As other noble Lords have said, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are entirely at odds with that overall theme, because they clearly state that the directions or guidance be issued by the Secretary of State, rather than the Charity Commission itself, which we can fairly trust to be of independent mind. I heard what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said about it being an organisation that was, I think he said, ““riddled”” with people sympathetic to public schools. That is rather a harsh judgment and is unfair. In my experience, the Charity Commission takes a powerful, independent and professional view. I do not believe that personal views come into the way that it operates in the manner that the noble Lord’s comment suggested. I know that those were not his own views; he was reflecting on something that others had said. In considering whether or not an organisation meets the public benefit test, the commission should, and will, as the Bill is drafted, act in an independent manner. The idea that a government Minister should give directions about whether a charity in a particular class meets the public benefit requirement is unacceptable and should be unacceptable in the framework that we have set out. It would undermine the notion of a credible independent commission and undermine the principle that charitable status is decided objectively under the law. It has been said before—it is the Government’s view—that existing and proposed charities should be subject to examination by the commission of their public benefit credentials on the basis of a public benefit requirement established under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised the issue that he put in earlier amendments of whether the charging of a fee would be taken into consideration in terms of access and so on to demonstrate public benefit. We take the firm view that that is a proper consideration, and no doubt the commission will reflect that in the way that it publishes its guidance and how it clarifies the public benefit test. The commission has said that it is able to apply the current law under the existing framework, as amended by the Bill, by removal of the presumption of public benefit that religious education and poverty relief charities currently enjoy. The commission has already published illustrative guidance on public benefit and on how it intends to go forward with guidance and the application of the law, once the Bill is enacted. It will apply to all organisations that aspire to charitable status and to existing registered charities. Independent schools will be no exception to that. Some of them might not meet the public benefit requirement, but there is no justification for singling them out, or any other class of charity, for the purposes of ensuring that the commission must have regard to ministerial directions or guidance when it considers their public benefit. Nor is there any justification for allowing the Secretary of State, as my noble friend’s Amendment No. 5 would appear to envisage, to intervene in the commission’s regulatory supervision of charitable independent schools. In summary, there is nothing that attracts us to either of my noble friend’s amendments or that is justified. On reflection, I thought that he gave us an interesting historical introduction, and I have little doubt that there will be a debate on the subject in another place.