here - United Kingdom Parliament

1705 Public Administration Committee 6 JUNE 2013 Public Administration Committee 1706
Report (Charity Commission)
Report (Charity Commission)
Mr Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again,
but first I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee
for their report. I look forward to reading it in more
detail, but I will be honest and say that I have only had a
chance to skim through it. I want to concentrate on
conclusion 28, on the payment of trustees. Does he
agree with me that in cases where there are voluntary
trustees who are willing to replace expensive paid-for
corporate trustees, that should be encouraged, welcomed
and, indeed, facilitated by the Charity Commission?
Mr Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
question, because we were presented by my noble Friend
Lord Hodgson with a recommendation that it should
be made much easier for trustees to be paid officials. I
have to say that there was a strong reaction against that
proposal, which has a bearing on the point my hon.
Friend raises because the whole point about charities is
that trustees are not paid. There may be quite highly
paid executives in charities, but the job of a trustee is
not to benefit financially from being a trustee. There are
exceptions, but the Charity Commission has to approve
them. I believe my hon. Friend is suggesting that the
commission should be prepared to withdraw that consent
in the event of a person offering to do the job for
nothing. I invite the commission to consider that matter,
which we may revisit in a future inquiry.
Paul Flynn: Following the remark by the hon. Member
for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that a number of Christian
denominations have been under pressure from the Charity
Commission, will the Chair of the Committee remind
the House that 1,176 Christian and other religious
associations were awarded charity status, but only one
tiny and oppressive sect was turned down, and that was
Hales Exclusive Brethren? Is it not appropriate to remind
the House that we were subjected to the most intensive
lobbying on this matter? Two million pounds was spent
and I was personally approached—face to face—more
than 50 times, including at my party conference. Around
every corner in this House, there were members of that
very unpleasant sect waiting to accost us. The Committee
made a point about the control of bodies that lobby in
that way. It was not about religion or charitable status;
it was about money.
Mr Jenkin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and
he made his views clear in the Committee. I just
re-emphasise that we declined to express a view one way
or the other on the merits of that case on the advice of
the Attorney-General.
Mr Bone: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving
way. The point I was trying to make is that there are
religious organisations of all faiths that are concerned
about what is happening and what might happen in the
future.
Mr Jenkin: That is certainly correct. There has been
widespread fear among many colleagues that the case
presages a crackdown on religious groups by the Charity
Commission. I believe the consistent message in our
report is that we believe that too much has been laid at
the door of the commission to determine. If Parliament
wishes to legislate to provide additional restrictions
against religious organisations, it is for Parliament to do
that, but there is established case law, which I quoted
earlier, that should determine whether or not a religious
organisation becomes a charity. It is unfortunate that
that particular case became so adversarial. It has to be
said that the charity tribunal has not reduced the costs
of litigation as was hoped, and there is scope to improve
the practices of the commission in handling such disputes,
so that vast amounts of the time and resources of the
commission and charities, or potential charities, is not
absorbed in paying lawyers to argue about how many
angels there are on the head of a pin.
Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that
particular sect has been involved in lobbying in other
countries—including paying politicians, although I am
not saying that that has happened here—and that the
resulting disquiet among other religious groups was
entirely because of the propaganda of Hales Exclusive
Brethren? This is not a religion; it is a very nasty sect
that treats its members very badly. We had people giving
evidence in this House that they were threatened with
losing their job, their home or their mortgage because
they bought the wrong computer—not the one that
Exclusive Brethren have, which, rather like what happens
in North Korea, can only pick up the group’s website.
This is an exceptional group of people, and the Charity
Commission took no action that was disreputable or
wrong. The commission did the right thing in identifying
that group and allowing 1,176 other religious groups to
have charitable status.
Mr Jenkin: I am sure the whole House has heard the
hon. Gentleman’s strong opinions on that matter. He
will know that the Committee as a whole declined to
express a definitive view on the matter on the advice of
the Attorney-General. My understanding is that we all
agreed that such matters would be best settled by Parliament
laying down more clearly the meaning of public benefit
or by returning to the previous position in which it was
left to the courts to decide, rather than by requiring the
Charity Commission to produce guidance on the meaning
of public benefit, which has been the source of much
dispute.
If there are no more interventions—I should be happy
to give way to either Front Bencher—I will conclude
by stating our belief that the implementation of our
recommendations is essential to restore and to maintain
public trust in charities and in the Charity Commission,
which in turn is essential to promote the good work
done by charitable organisations in communities across
the country. I hope that the House will join me in
thanking the charity commissioners and everyone who
works for the commission. They are dealing with a vast
work load with diminishing resources—like much of
the public sector, they have had to suffer extensive
redundancies, with more to come—and we rely on their
devoted service. We should thank them for everything
they do for charities in this country.
Question put and agreed to.