Schedule 4
Charities Bill [Lords]
3:45 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
We have at times been a little rude about schedule 4, particularly about its size, complexity and tables. However, I am not sure that I entirely go along with what has been said about it; I am quite impressed by it. I would rather like to congratulate the drafters of the Bill on their clear setting out of what can and cannot be presented to the tribunal, who can make the applications, and what the outcomes may be. It is quite easy to follow, and it is therefore quite easy to spot when things have been missed out.
Earlier, we discussed amendments through which I was trying to introduce exactly what I am trying to introduce here, and various objections were made to my broader approach in the main part of the Bill. The suggestion was made that my earlier amendments might offend various legal principles, in terms of not being legal decisions or drawing in administration. I hope that these extremely detailed amendments to the schedule will not commit any of those crimes. I urge the Minister not to dismiss them frivolously, because they deal with extremely serious issues that may—as we know from the Association for Charities document—affect the very existence of some charities, and certainly the value of their assets. The costs incurred in the course of the appointment of a receiver and manager may sometimes hugely exceed those expected, even by the charity commissioner, at the time of appointment.
There are major issues at stake. The Charity Commission is an extremely powerful body and it is right that we should address in detail the decisions that it makes. Amendment No. 81 covers the appointment of
“a receiver and manager in respect of the property and affairs of the charity”,
which is a decision analogous to others set out in the schedule. The mention of the
“continued appointment of a receiver and manager”
in amendment No. 82 carries no suggestion of drawing the tribunal into the matter of administration, covering merely the whether the continued appointment is appropriate. Evidence might be brought to bear from the consequences of that continued appointment, and that is as it should be. That would surely apply also to any of the other matters listed in the schedule—it is difficult to see how they could be discussed without reference to their consequences.
I give you notice that I shall want to move amendment No. 82 when I may, Mr. Gale. The amendments contain important detail and I hope that they avoid the legal difficulties on the grounds of which the Minister objected to earlier amendments.