Clause 20
Charities Bill [Lords]
12:30 pm
Andrew Turner (Shadow Minister (Charities), Home Affairs; Isle of Wight, Conservative)
I appreciate the Minister’s words, which are meant to reassure, but am sorry to say that they do the opposite. The power that the commissioners have at the moment comes into play when they
“are satisfied...that... that there is or has been any misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity; or...that it is necessary or desirable to act for the purpose of protecting the property of the charity or securing a proper application for the purposes of the charity of that property or of property coming to the charity”.
I can think of very few improper ways in which trustees could act that would not, in one way or another, imperil the proper application of the property, except when the trustees were merely making decisions on discretion—they could have spent the money on A, but will spend the money on B.
I do not see why the commission should need an intermediate power. If the purpose of the Bill is to enable charities to get on with running their own affairs, there must be a high level of test before the commission is allowed to interfere. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, the power is virtually unappealable. [Interruption.]
The Minister says that it is not unappealable in law, and of course that is right, but it is unappealable in practice because the commissioners would have to demonstrate only that they considered it expedient and in the interests of the charity to do one of the things listed at the bottom of page 20. Yes, their decision would have to be reasonable and rational, but all they would have to say is, “We thought it was expedient.” The tribunal would just say, “Well, you thought it was expedient—sorry, appellant, you’ve had it”.