None
Charities Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, leave out from ‘whether’ to end of line 23 and insert—
“a body provides or intends to provide public benefit, regard must be had to—
(a) how any—
(i) benefit gained, or likely to be gained, by members of the body or any other persons (other than as members of the public), and
(ii) disbenefit incurred, or likely to be incurred, by the public in consequence of the body exercising its functions,
compares with the benefit gained or likely to be gained by the public in that consequence, and
(b) where benefit is, or is likely to be, provided to a section of the public only, whether any condition on obtaining that benefit (including any charge or fee) is unduly restrictive.
(2A) It is presumed that a charity established to benefit the natural environment, or the living species within it, exists for the public benefit.’.
I should like to raise what is almost a point of order. We submitted two different amendments that have emerged as one. The first part of the amendment, which clearly relates to public benefit and the insertion of the Scottish guidance on its implementation, was separate from the last subsection (2A). I shall deal with that second provision first.
Our new subsection (2A) is intended to close what I think is a loophole in the Bill, so that the preservation of, or concern for the welfare of, species or elements of the natural environment, which cannot automatically be assumed to be for the public benefit, would nevertheless be considered charitable. Charities that are for the protection of the environment clearly qualify under clause 2, under the heads of charity. However, under the Bill, by contrast to previous charity legislation, they must also now pass the public benefit test. It is not clear to me how the preservation of an area of wilderness, such as the Antarctic or the Arctic, would be easily defined as for the public benefit. Likewise, we can imagine that the work of a charity such as St. Tiggywinkles, which looks after the welfare of hedgehogs, has no great implications for biodiversity or pet care that might indirectly benefit the public. What I wanted to achieve by the provision was to put the issue beyond doubt.