Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Charities Bill (HL).


Charities Bill [Lords]

It certainly will; my understanding, based on my discussions with the Charity Commission, is that it has no problem with that at all. As well as putting public benefit at its heart, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new objective of promoting public awareness of, and understanding of, the public benefit requirement. The commission will have to prepare, consult on and issue guidance on public benefit. That guidance will explain how the commission intends to go about ensuring that charities meet the public benefit requirement, and what will happen to charities that do not. We know that the commission is determined to apply the public benefit requirement with appropriate rigour. These changes are intended to reaffirm public benefit as the foundation of charity, and we are confident that they will. Over the years following the Bill’s enactment, we expect charities, especially those whose claim to be for the public benefit is in doubt, to expand the public benefits that they provide and to become increasingly transparent in explaining publicly the range and quantity of those benefits. Those are our intentions and expectations. Under the Bill, we will have a duty to review the operation of the Act and to report to Parliament. We are in negotiations about which Select Committee will take responsibility for activities under the Bill and other activities that have recently come into our Department. The review will consider whether the changes to public benefit and the definition of charity more widely are meeting the expectations of the Government, Parliament, the charitable sector and the public. If we find that expectations are not being met, we will consider what action needs to be taken to put things back on track. We are required to start the review within five years of the Bill becoming law, but we are free to carry it out sooner, and I am happy to commit the Government to review that part of the legislation within three years. Defining the nature and scope of charity, and the requirements for charitable status, is of fundamental importance. We intend to get it right for the long term. I thank the Committee, including its Chairmen, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I particularly thank the two Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who have worked with us in an open and constructive manner at every step. They have been fundamental in securing the Bill’s progress though the House. I am even given to understand that a new principle, ““the Cheltenham principle””, was born in Committee. It was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) as,"““the idea that a harmless but not entirely necessary proposal should be included simply on that basis””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 July 2006; c. 26.]"


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1617-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Appeals Charities Audit Company law Companies Charity Commission Charitable donations Health Finance Land Gun sports Human rights Fundraising Private education Property transfer Property Schools Religion Regulation Sports Trusts Wills Humanism Chess
Legislation
Charities Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk