Proceeding contribution from John Bercow (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Charities Bill.
Charities Bill
I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are great dangers in over-prescriptive regulation and we often complain about that, but I hope that he accepts that the flipside of the coin can be unduly ambiguous legislation and that the Government would want to avoid that, too. Earlier, the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) spoke powerfully about independent schools sharing facilities, to the public benefit, and how that might be viewed as a criterion for retaining charitable status. I do not object to that—it is perfectly sensible. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that another way forward might be to say that, if those independent schools can prove that they provide permanent access to people from low socio-economic groups, it might also be proof of their public benefit?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c48
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Education Poverty Accountability Charities Charity Commission Charitable donations Finance Fees and charges Licensing Exemptions Fundraising Private education Universities Regulation Registration Schools Religion Taxation Sports Voluntary work Charitable incorporated organisations Charity Tribunal
- Legislation
- Charities Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-11 14:20:37 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332675
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332675
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_332675