Clause 8
Charities Bill [Lords]
2:00 pm
Andrew Turner (Shadow Minister (Charities), Home Affairs; Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I strongly support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. That is why I have tabled amendmentNo. 19, which seeks to achieve the same thing by a different route and which I give notice that I wish to move at whatever time is appropriate.
I was appalled to read the Association for Charities’ report. I cannot believe that a public body has behaved in such an irresponsible way. One that is so open to criticism and appears to adopt the most reprehensible tactics in dealing with members of the public and members who are trying to do their best—a very small group of people.
To my knowledge, and as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, none of the report has been substantially challenged by either the Charity Commission or the Home Office. I am amazed that such behaviour has been tolerated in a public body. The hon. Gentleman quoted the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West. It bears repeating that the letter was not written by the Association for Charities, nor by an irritated trustee and nor by someone who went into the marketplace in Salisbury, gave money and then found that the money was being wasted by the appointees of the Charity Commission. The letter was written by a reputable firm of charity lawyers who described the commission as having extraordinary latitude and draconian powers, as having behaved with heavy handedness and unfairness, and as having made serious miscalculations.
The commission appointed trustees for the charity who came and went on an almost monthly basis. It then handed over what remained of the charity’s assets to another charity that did not appear to have identical objectives—the National Canine Defence League. That is a perfectly reputable charity that focuses on the needs of dogs, but PALS focused on the needs of a far wider range of animals. The commission tried to bully Lorraine Drake, using what seems the absolutely perverse excuse that the buildings of the charity, which were mobile buildings, were on her land. It bullied her into entering into a lease with the charity for that land—a move for which there was no legal justification.
I accept that the tribunal may have been set up as a result of such a case. However, I believe that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is absolutely right in saying that there should be a general mechanism of appeal, because the alternative is to go to the High Court—an option that the tribunal is meant to prevent. The tribunal was established because charities cannot afford to go to the High Court; charities that spend money going to the High Court are spending money that could be better spent on animals, young people, or the elderly and vulnerable, or the other beneficiaries of the charity. I strongly believe that any decision or non-decision of the charity should be appealable to the tribunal. That is why I tabled amendment No. 19.