Schedule 5
Charities Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
We tabled the amendment because the Bill expands the power of the commission to act for the protection of exempt charities. That sounds wise, but given our discussion on the exempt status of universities any power to expand the rights of any body, including the Charity Commission, over our universities is a major step and should not pass without debate. Currently, following the institution of a section 8 inquiry the commission may suspend any trustee, officer, agent or employee of the charity, order any debtor of the charity not to pay the debts or appoint receivers and managers.
We are familiar with that in terms of the rights of registered charities. They have become used to such powers and the Bill deals with many of their worries about the Charity Commission exercising such extensive powers over them. However, it is new for those powers to have been acquired quietly over the aforementioned universities of Oxford, Cambridge and those throughout the rest of the country. In effect, that would give power to the Charity Commission to remove Oxford dons from their posts. That would be a major step and one that should not pass without full debate. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure us that that is not the case. I cannot see how the powers of the commission could be extended to exempt charities as set out in the Bill and for that not to apply. That is the reason behind amendment No. 98.
Amendment No. 99 and the other amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats deal with some of the uncertainties under the Bill about who is regulated by whom. Parts of the 1993 Act refer to the commission in respect of regulatory functions, but it is not explicitly pointed out exactly how many of the powers extend to other principal regulators in relation to exempt charities. That is what amendment No. 99 addresses. The intention is to make it clear that references to the commission, in terms of the regulatory powers, also mean the principal regulators, as defined elsewhere in the Act. In other words, the amendment would make it clear that the regulatory powers that pertain to the commission in relation to non-exempt charities also pertain to principal regulators in relation to exempt charities.
Amendment No. 92 addresses the ability of the Secretary of State to decide who the principal regulator is for various exempt charities. The Bill gives him that power by regulation, and our amendment would take that power away. That connects with amendment No. 93; we assume that if no other regulator exists, the regulator will be the Privy Council. We tried to work out who was the current regulator of the Oxbridge colleges and halls, and it seems to be the Privy Council. Amendment No. 93 provides for the eventuality of the Minister and his advisers missing out a body, in terms of appointing a principal regulator. It leaves the Privy Council as the fall-back position, as we believe that it is the regulator in the case of one particular group of colleges and halls.