Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument, which is subject to affirmative approval. I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

I welcome the use of dormant funds, particularly being ploughed back into local communities for the benefit of those communities. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive several years ago, we set up an arrangement for dormant funds there. It took about 12 years to be realised for investment in local communities, but there is no doubt that they provide that added resource when other resources may not be available to underpin community initiatives.

Thanks to the pioneering investment of dormant assets over the last decade and the work of organisations such as Big Society Capital, Access—the Foundation for Social Investment—and many others, social investment in the UK has grown more than tenfold in 10 years, with £9.4 billion invested into charities and social enterprises. This includes £1.8 billion committed to social enterprises and charities in 2022 alone, which has gone into over 1,310 projects delivering measurable social impact such as affordable homes, community food banks and tech start-ups tackling mental health.

There is no doubt, and we have all seen examples, that social investment has had a transformative effect on communities most in need. Around 43% of social investment deals have gone to levelling up priority 1 areas. Perhaps that is one area where levelling up has worked. But the next wave of dormant assets—I think the Minister was referring to that in talking about the initial legislation and this subsequent legislation on community wealth funds—will build on these foundations and take social investment further. A group of leading social enterprise, voluntary sector and social investment organisations have mapped out a plan for how best to do it. Known as the community enterprise growth plan, it proposes using dormant assets to deliver three proven interventions. Only yesterday, I talked to one of those organisations, and they have exciting initiatives for local communities through the investment of this resource.

There is no doubt that this plan has a number of benefits. It is a proposal to create jobs, boost growth and address regional inequalities, targeting communities affected by long-term economic decline. The plan uses existing systems, which would allow capital to begin flowing quickly and deliver results. Crucially, through social investment, the money invested is repaid and recycled, enabling funds to be used again and again to grow future support.

I am well aware that the Minister brought the initial legislation through your Lordships’ House, but I would like to be assured, as I am sure other noble Lords present would, that the dormant assets fund can continue into perpetuity for whatever that perpetuity means, because it brings much-needed benefits alongside government and other community resources. I would like to see it continue and to receive assurances to that effect.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing this proposal forward. As my noble friend pointed out, we discussed it in the final knockings of the Dormant Assets Bill on 9 February 2022, nearly two years ago. I thank my noble friend for adding community wealth funds to the list of bodies which can receive distributions from the dormant assets fund.

I will add a quick word on why I think community wealth funds are so important. Some noble Lords may recall that about 10 years ago I was asked by the Government to undertake an official review of the Charities Act 2006. That Act was the biggest change in charity law since the Elizabethan statute of 1601, so 400 years of history were wrapped up in a new Bill. There was concern on all sides of the House and in the sector as to how matters would work out, so we needed a review to see how the new system was settling down.

Assisted by a terrific team from the Cabinet Office, we undertook visits around the country, which were interesting in two senses. First, you saw just how much could be done by really small groups of men and women dedicated to their community and the area where they lived; they were small, passionate, hard-working and deserving of support. Secondly, you saw the very different levels of social capital around the country. After we had a session in the south-east of England, we had to have a second, because so many people wanted to come to the first, but we could not fit them all in—but it was not quite the same in Newcastle, where there were much smaller numbers. It seemed to me then that community wealth funds could hit both those targets: they could help to level up social capital in different parts and they could reach in and get to those small groups of men and women who are doing interesting things in tune with their communities.

Those two factors bring their challenges. The first is the distance between the distributor of the funds and the recipient. I shall use an aeronautical analogy: the distributors of the funds are flying at 30,000 feet, while the people I am talking about are hedge-hopping at 100 feet, because they have to be right down at the grass roots. So Big Society Capital is brilliant—I have not a word of criticism about it—but its handouts are in the tens of millions and its access grants are in the tens of thousands. We will have to find a way to make sure that there are plenty of intermediate layers so that what leaves the big groups at the top trickles all the way down and reaches the really small organisations in this new regime—because, with community wealth funds, they will be really small organisations. We must also find new little acorns, which may grow well, and not fall back, as is too often the case, on the usual suspects. That will be the challenge for the structure going forward for this important decision.

There are some challenges for the sector, which are worthwhile putting on the record today. There is now a pot of money—as David Jason used to say in “Only Fools and Horses”, “lovely jubbly”—but there will be some hard decisions to be made on what to support and what not to support and, even more painfully and hard, when to stop supporting something because it is not providing the answer to the question or demand for which it was set up. That, in turn, will mean a second challenge to the sector. The weather in the charity sector is too often made not by the thousands of men and women doing their stuff and being successful but by the outliers—the crass, the illegal and the stupid who end up on the front page of the newspapers and therefore begin to bring the sector into less good odour. Therefore, on behalf of those Members of your Lordships’ House, most of whom are not here today but who spoke in favour of this from across all parties, I say: we are looking to the sector not to let us down. There was a degree of cynicism at times about whether these small organisations would be able to deliver, and I hope that they will prove those of us who went in to bat for them that our confidence was well placed.

That takes me to the next important point. Because you are small, it does not mean that you do not need to have your impact measured. Every charity has a public benefit objective, and the Charity Commission is supposed to ensure that you are meeting that and that you have a proper impact. It will be very important, with these small bodies, that we do not forget that, because the dormant assets fund and all the other providers of funding are entitled to have a level of confidence about what is going on. I hope that the Oversight Trust may have a role here. It is chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, who was for many years chairman of the NCVO. I hate to say it like this, because Stuart Etherington is a good fellow, but he is—I say this as a compliment—a wily old fox, so he will be able to find out what is going on. I hope that he and his board will be able to dig into these sorts of things to make sure that we can have all confidence in what going on in this new sector.

Royal Albert Hall Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend Lord Harrington. He has been infinitely patient in dealing with us gadflies, and I am grateful to him for that. I also share his view that the hall itself is one of the great cultural institutions, and nothing I say in the next few minutes should be seen as in any way criticising the hall as a structure or as a business or an activity—it is a wonderful activity; nor would I wish to be seen to be criticising my noble friend, who is in an unenviable position, as several noble Lords have pointed out, as one of the nominated trustees, nominated by no less than the DCMS, so no doubt my noble friend the Minister, from whom we shall have the pleasure of hearing in a few minutes, had some part in the decision on that appointment.

The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, referred to Mr Richard Lyttelton. I want to put it on record that in my youth, in my teens and 20s, I was a friend of Mr Lyttelton’s elder brother, sadly no longer with us. I think that should go on the record. Do I agree with everything he says? I do not. Do I agree with some of what he says? I do. Am I his mouthpiece? I most certainly am not. Having cleared those points out of the way, I share the view that as regards the governance of the hall, there is at its heart a major, in my view irreconcilable, conflict of interest. This is an issue that has been of interest to many people: journalists, sector publications and, indeed, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, the Charity Commission itself. Today, we have before us this Bill promoted by the governing body of the hall that does nothing to address this inherent conflict. Indeed, in some respects, it makes it worse.

I apologise for diving into the detail but we have no Committee stage so I have to take this opportunity to make one or two quite detailed points about the nature of the Bill. Just to summarise the history—not to go over the ground that has been well ploughed already—the Royal Albert Hall was established in Victorian times by public subscription, and in return for your dosh, you got seats in perpetuity. Because not every seat-holder is going to want to go to every concert on every occasion, the hall set up the TRS, the ticket return scheme, which, as many noble Lords have pointed out, enables you to hand your tickets back for the face value, less 10%—for a £100 ticket, you get £90 back.

However, a few years ago a group of trustees decided there was a much more profitable way of doing this by reselling them not through the Albert Hall box office but through third-party websites. Here I address some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, of my noble friend. If you wish to go to hear Ed Sheeran on Sunday 19 November, you have a ticket with a face value of £200. I have here a screenshot from viagogo offering that ticket for £5,899—£6,000 for a £200 ticket. I also have a screenshot of a letter that Mr Sheeran and his promoters have asked to be circulated, saying that they deplore this practice. Mr Sheeran’s fans are being squeezed out of the hall because they cannot afford to pay £6,000 a pop. This is an extreme example, but a £100 ticket for the last night of the Proms was selling for £1,218, so this has clearly become a very profitable enterprise. The rumour was—and here I address the noble Lord, Lord Winston, again—that before the pandemic, seats were earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year and were selling for £150,000. That was the rumour. Today, we have had a rush and the market in seats has been very good. I have here a flyer from Harrods Estates offering five seats in the second tier at the Royal Albert Hall for £1.5 million—£300,000 each.

My noble friend Lady Stowell made the point that there is a distinction to be made between those who are trustees who sit on the governing body and those who have private property. The right to enjoy your private property is of course an important cornerstone of our civil society. But the operation of the hall as a commercial business, as it was originally seen, changed when in 1967 it decided to become a registered charity, which has, as many noble Lords have pointed out, a public benefit objective, tax advantages and the regulation of the Charity Commission. I am not going to repeat the point that of the 25 members of the governing body, 19—75%—of them have to be elected from other seat-holders by the seat-holders themselves. There must be a concern, or at least the possibility, that the idea of selling Ed Sheeran seats is more important than an equally worthy but less prestigious concert, such as a school choir competition.

If we summarise the situation now and go to the detail of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Harrington said that it was a hybrid model. My goodness me, he is right. Within the shell of a registered charity, the trustees are running what appears to be a personally highly profitable operation and, by the way, along the way they have managed to get a £20 million loan from the culture recovery fund, which is apparently going to be paid back at £1 million a year over 20 years.

How do these issues play through into the Bill? There are four points. First, the Bill empowers the corporation to create and sell or let two further seats in grand tier boxes. There will be 72 of these. That in itself is a good proposal, because more seats means that there are more seats to be sold, making it more attractive to promoters, who are therefore more interested in hiring the hall. But on what terms are these seats to be sold or let? Clause 5(1) says that they are to be sold or let on such terms—including as to their price—as the hall thinks fit. As I said, the hall is controlled by the council, 75% of whose members are seat-holders, some of whom will be looking to buy seats. They will therefore be deciding the terms on which they award themselves the new seats. As I also said, some seats are on offer at £300,000, so the amounts at stake are far from trivial. This surely cannot be right. At the very least, the terms on which the seats are to be sold or let need to be set by an external valuer approved by the Charity Commission. After all, the hall is a charity.

Secondly, there is a concern, or at least a possibility, that some of those seats have already been allocated and so are already being used profitably by seat-holders. If true, this would mean that the trustees are now trying to give statutory protection through Clause 5(4) to an action they have already taken. Can my noble friend explain whether this is true? If it is, when were these seats allocated and what price was paid for them?

Thirdly, as I have explained, the hall has an outstanding loan of £20 million from the culture recovery fund—that is, effectively, the taxpayer. The Bill proposes the sale of 72 new seats. If they were sold for £300,000 each, that would be £22 million, which would enable that loan to be paid off immediately. Since these are capital items, not income items, priority should go towards paying off that loan, thereby relieving the long-suffering taxpayer of a burden.

Fourthly and finally, as my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out, there is a need to disentangle the position regarding the resale of tickets by seat-holders who are trustees and so play a significant role in the operation of the hall from that of seat-holders who are not trustees.

It is absolutely clear that the hall has discouraged the resale of tickets in or around the hall. Section 15 of the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966 gave specific powers to prevent what in an earlier age was called ticket touting. Members of your Lordships’ House of a certain age will recall being approached at big sporting or cultural events by gentlemen in grubby macs offering to buy or sell tickets. It is quite understandable that the hall wanted to discourage that sort of activity in or around the hall. Ticket touting still goes on but nowadays rather more discreetly. It is no longer done via gentlemen in grubby macs but happens on the internet, but this does not disguise the fact that this is still ticket touting and damages the hall’s reputation—witness the Ed Sheeran promoter’s letter to every seat-holder. There are various ways in which this could be sorted. My noble friend Lady Stowell made the point that if you became a trustee, you could usefully be required only to use the ticket return scheme, which would show exactly what your return could be.

To conclude, I hope that the promoters of the Bill will be prepared to let some sunshine into this murky business and address some of the points that I and other Members of your Lordships’ House have made. If not, I hope that the Opposed Private Bill Committee will look closely at the implications. I am far from convinced that the House should allow this Bill to proceed further without at least some amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

Other than the fact that ongoing conflicts are discussed—it is not the conflicts that have come out in that council meeting, it is future conflicts. However, I accept there is an argument. I would argue, of course, that it is nothing whatever to do with the Bill. It is an argument, and it was very well articulated by other noble Lords.

I was impressed, as ever, by my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s and other noble Lords’ screenshots—I do not know how to do them—and technical knowledge, and by my noble friend’s serious point about tickets for Ed Sheeran and others going for large amounts of money. However, that implies that the people who own those seats have done something wrong by selling them. They own them and they are selling the seats that belong to them on the market, however crazy the market might be. I am pleased to see present Sharon Hodgson, the chairman of the APPG on such matters. She and I have discussed viagogo, for example, but I do not believe that that issue is relevant because those people own those seats.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My noble friend really cannot be allowed to get away with that statement. The fact is that we have made a distinction between trustees who are seat-holders and are therefore deciding which concerts seat-holders can offer seats for, and those who are not. People who have no conflict of interest are free to sell seats they do not they want, but once you become a trustee, the name of the game changes. With great respect to my noble friend, I do not think the way he is putting it makes that distinction clear enough.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

My noble friend makes his point clearly and with great lucidity, as ever.

Quite a few points were made about the Covid loan—as has been said, it was given according to the decision of an independent committee that DCMS, I presume, appointed for all the loans that took place—and whether surplus money should be used to pay back the loan early to the Government. Any charitable body which has a loan that it can pay back at 2% would not be doing its duty for charitable purposes if it did not invest it in something that would perhaps pay back at 4%. I do not believe that that point is relevant to the conflict of interest issue.

The valuation of seats was raised. My noble friend Lord Hodgson believes that seats should be valued by an independent evaluator nominated by the Charity Commission, or put through the Charity Commission. I remind him that, although the clause says that the trustees should take professional advice, all trustees, whether they are appointed, like me, or are seat-holders, are subject to the duties of trustees under the Charities Act, which means that they would be in breach of that duty if they sold them at less than the available market price. One noble Lord told me that some of these seats have already been allocated and sold. I am not aware of that, but I intend to find out. I would disapprove most strongly if that were the case, but I do not believe it is.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made, as one would expect, a very significant contribution regarding the legal aspect. He made a point about charities having separate commercial entities. I have some experience of that, having been chairman of a charity that had a separate commercial entity. That happens all the time. However, that is different because the commercial entity of the charity is set up for that purpose. In the case of the hall, the commercial interests are owned by the seat-holders. From that perspective, they are there in two capacities: because they are selling their seats and because they are trustees of the hall, trying to enforce its charitable purposes.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

This Bill will be warmly welcomed by the charity sector. As chair of the Special Public Bill Committee, I thank the Minister and, as he said, his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for their membership of the committee and their engagement with it. I join the Minister in thanking the members of the committee, who had to consider some really quite difficult technical evidence, as well as those who gave written and oral evidence. Professor Hopkins and Daniel Robinson of the Law Commission were extremely helpful. Finally, and certainly not least, I know the committee would want me to thank expressly Alasdair Love, the clerk to the committee, who so ably supported us in so many ways.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to mention my involvement. This is an excellent piece of legislation which will be of great benefit to the charity sector. Obviously, I regret that I was unable to persuade the Government of the importance of my amendment, but that particular recalcitrant attitude should not disguise the fact that my noble friend was extremely courteous and helpful in explaining the Government’s position. I am grateful to him for that, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage into law.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

2: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“References to the Tribunal
(1) In section 325 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (2), for “with the consent of the Attorney General” substitute “where the Commission has given the Attorney General 28 days’ notice of its intention to make such a reference”.(2) In section 326 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (1), at the end insert “provided the Attorney General has given the Commission 28 days’ notice of his or her intention to make such a reference”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements the Law Commission’s recommendations that the Charity Commission should not be required to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before making a reference to the Tribunal and vice versa.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late—later than any of us would wish it to be. In the famous phrase of Mr Jeremy Clarkson, it is time to put the pedal to the metal. Before I do, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for their putting their names to this amendment. The noble Baroness has tested positive for Covid and cannot be here tonight. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing her a very speedy recovery.

The only other preliminary remark I wish to make is addressed to the Minister, who has struggled mightily to find a way through this particular problem. However, I am afraid that he has been impaled—as I have—on what I can only describe as the obduracy and inflexibility of the Attorney-General’s Office. With that—to horse!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, no, I do not think that the Attorney-General claims client confidentiality in the same way. Her role overseeing charity law is part of her function as parens patriae. However, we think that it is important to maintain the consent function. As I have said, she is a Member of Parliament, so these questions could be posed to her.

The Attorney-General has set out her reasons why she does not think it would be in the public interest for reference to be made. Noble Lords may disagree with that, and they may ask her about that, but I reiterate that I do not think that one case, however long or complex it may be, should warrant a change in the law. It is for that reason that I hope my noble friend may yet withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, this has, as ever, been an interesting debate and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Rooker and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for the half-loaf that he offered. I am very grateful for that as well.

I do not propose to go on about this. My noble friend has talked about the oversight of charity law. I think we have seen what has been happening with the oversight of charity law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, produced quite an elegant half-loaf of a 60-day limit and a requirement to explain because the Attorney-General is performing a declaratory, not an advisory, role, which we discussed. The Attorney-General cannot even make that move to help a past Master of the Rolls with his elegant diplomatic solution.

It is late. Let us finish. If your Lordships support my amendment, you are voting for transparency, clarity and sunshine. If you vote against it, I am afraid you are voting for obscurity, obfuscation and concern that charity law may not be developing as even-handedly as it should. I have now been on this case for 10 years. I owe it to all the people who have been to talk to me, who say that this needs to be sorted out, that on this occasion I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Other Business

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

1: Clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of this section “amendment” includes the entire replacement of the trusts of the charity.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the power of amendment in proposed section 280A can be used to replace the entire governing document of an unincorporated charity with a new governing document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, since I am not a Member of the Committee, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I say a few words about why I have taken a particular interest in this sector and this piece of legislation. This comes about because, as long ago as 2005, I was the Conservative Party’s Front-Bench spokesman on what became the Charities Act 2006, which is now the Charities Act 2011. My party was then in opposition, so I was the shadow spokesman and the government Minister on the Bill was the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, well known to all of us and a familiar Member of this House.

The 2006 Act represented the biggest shake-up of charity law since 1601. It was a very substantial change and, while it was generally agreed across the House that the sector needed a shake-up, there was a concern about the unintended consequences that might flow from such a big change. We therefore wrote into the Bill, again by consent and with the agreement of the then Labour Government, the need for a five-year review, which I was asked to undertake in 2011. That is really the basis of my interest. This Bill in large measure flows from the work that was done in 2011, which was reported on, looked at and then enhanced and improved by the Law Commission and forms the basis of what we are discussing and approving today.

I want to place on record my thanks for the help I received from what was then the team in the Cabinet Office, now DCMS, led by Ben Harrison who is here today. It was a terrific effort and they were exceptionally helpful. I want to make that very clear.

It is a humbling experience to spend a year looking at the charity sector, because you see what relatively small groups of men and women, with relatively few assets—money, plant, equipment or buildings—do at the local level to improve their communities and make the lives of their fellow citizens better. I therefore felt that there were three things we ought to try to achieve. First, we wanted to have lines of authority and responsibility that were as clear as possible, from the commission and within the 170,000 registered charities. Secondly, because many of those charities are pretty small, we wanted to be deregulatory, as far as possible. It was important, in my view, that people should spend their time on public benefit and not on filling in forms. That is the origin of the phrase that I have heard being used in evidence sessions in Committee of “getting the barnacles off the boat”. Thirdly, overarching this was the need to maintain public trust and confidence in the sector, without which all is lost.

I am sorry for taking a minute or two. I do not want the Committee to think that I am whingeing about the Bill. It is an excellent Bill and I support it very thoroughly. I have a certain avuncular interest in its success, but there are some improvements that we could make and to these I now turn.

When you are known to have undertaken a review of a sector like the charity sector and a piece of charity legislation comes along, you are fair game for a bit of lobbying. Everyone tips up and says, “Have you thought about this? Have you thought about that?” I suppose between 15 and 20 groups came to me about various points in the run-up to Second Reading. I said to them, “That’s absolutely fine, but I’m carrying a spear at the back of the stage on this now. I no longer have any influence on this at all. I’m just a normal Back-Bencher. You need to talk to the Bill team.” My noble friend Lord Parkinson’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran, very kindly arranged for us to meet the Bill team, talk about it and give their details, so I said to each of the people who approached me, “Go to the Bill team and, if you don’t have any satisfaction, then of course come back to me. I’ll be pleased to try to see whether we can get clarity and/or satisfaction.”

Of the bodies that came to approach me only one came back, and this is the subject of these amendments. It was brought to my attention by solicitors acting for the Spilsby Grammar School Foundation, which is a registered charity but an unincorporated association—quite a rare form, but nevertheless one that does still exist. The foundation was created in 1994 to administer the property and funds connected with King Edward VI Grammar School in Spilsby in Lincolnshire. It is a grant-making charity and is not connected with its successor school, the King Edward VI Academy.

The charity is governed by a scheme put in place when it was set up in 1994, and its provisions are now very out of date. Individuals named are no longer alive. Property specifically referred to in it is constitution is no longer owned. Organisations have changed their names and the charity wishes to update its constitution. The trustees were very surprised when, earlier this year, the Charity Commission stated that it was not possible for a charity governed by a scheme—that is to say an unincorporated association—to replace that scheme by a constitution. The Charity Commission said, “A scheme is a narrative of the charity at the moment in time when it was made.” It further said that a schedule detailing the property, all of which was sold prior to 2009, does not require removal from the governing documents. This does not seem a very sensible way of proceeding. The solicitors to the trust said that they were aware of a handful of other foundations in a similar position.

To make it clear, nobody, certainly not I, is suggesting that the trustees of the Spilsby foundation should be free to make whatever changes they feel necessary without the appropriate permission from the Charity Commission. What do I mean by “appropriate”? It depends on precisely the level of importance of the changes you are making, in particular when they are to what are called protected clauses, which are the essence of the rationale and purpose of the individual charity. Clearly, where you are going to change major items of the constitution affecting its purpose, then you will need a higher level of permission.

Amendment 2 deals with a situation where you are dealing with issues that are merely changes of wording: they make no change to the underlying purpose of the charity but just change the wording. What might I mean by this? For example, a lot of charities have words such as “servicemen” in them. We do not have just servicemen anymore; we now have service men and women, so we need to change that to “service personnel”. In many charities, for example, what we would now describe as being disabled is described as “invalid”, which as a term has become slightly pejorative. So you are making changes to bring the document up to date with modern parlance. That is Amendment 2.

But Amendment 1 is where we deal with the wholesale replacement, which, according to the commission’s email on 21 January, is not currently permissible. This is to keep the protected clauses up to date and, obviously, can be done only with the full consent of the Charity Commission.

So when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, there are three things I think he might say. One is that the Charity Commission was wrong in its interpretation, when it wrecks the Spilsby Grammar School Foundation, and there are ways in which it can update its constitution. The second is that the Government recognise that there is a problem and will take it on board and bring forward some suggested amendments at the next stage of the Bill’s proceedings. I hope that he will say one of those two things. The third thing he might say is that this is all too difficult and the boat has sailed so we must wait until it comes along next time and, in the meantime, Spilsby will have to work with the presently rather unsatisfactory situation. I hope that he will not say that but, with that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a real privilege to be part of the Committee for this Bill and, in particular, to have been part of the special evidence sessions that we had, because this is a Law Commission Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has just demonstrated, this is fiercely technical, arcane law governing very rare situations.

In the original proposals that were put forward, the Law Commission explained that in its recommendations it was trying to take several hundred years of charities’ existence in different forms and formats and try to bring some of the law that applies to charities of different formats—particularly unincorporated charities, as differentiated from incorporated charities; charities can be incorporated in a number of different forms—to try to bring the process of amending governing documents much more into line, so that a trustee in any charity would have a clearer idea of how they could go about amending their charity’s governing document. The Law Commission had to go back through all sorts of different statutes that have led us to the point where we are now in charity law. It readily admitted that, if you were going to invent a way of doing this in future, you would not start from where it had to start.

The Law Commission put in place what it saw as a new way of enabling charities to amend their governing documents. Part of our job today is to try to explain that to people who are not steeped in all the detail of it. What we are talking about, by and large, is charities not changing the purpose for which they exist but changing the ways in which they achieve that purpose. In the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, set out, he is right that, when a major change concerns the disposal of property, that is a very significant change. Our evidence from the Law Commission said that there is a particular problem in cases such as the one cited by the noble Lord where there may not be a dissolution clause in a very old constitution. Therefore, in order to achieve some kind of disposal of property, it is not possible for the charity simply to dispose of that property and merge with another charity. However, the Law Commission says that it is, and that what it has come up with is a simplified way of doing this. Some charity lawyers disagree with the way in which the Charity Commission has gone about seeking to do that; this is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has alighted upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, before responding to this group of amendments, I first extend my best wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who has so ably chaired this Special Public Bill Committee so far. I hope he gets well soon and is back with us swiftly.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling Amendments 1 and 2 to Clause 3 and for the way he set out not just the amendments but, helpfully, the background to the Bill’s importance to charities and the people it will affect. Of course, he has long-standing interest and experience in this important area.

On my noble friend’s Amendment 1, which would insert a new subsection (2A) at line 9 on page 3 of the Bill, we consider that new Section 280A can be used to replace all the stated governing document in its entirety, with Charity Commission consent in respect of the particular provisions that fall within Section 280A(8). We do not think that a legislative solution is necessary and, as has been noted, this view is supported by the Law Commission and the Charity Commission—we have discussed the issue with both of them. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point, as it has prompted us to consider ways in which we can make the position clearer, but I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment 1.

On Amendment 2, which would insert subsection (9A) at line 14 on page 4 of the Bill, although my noble friend again makes an important point, we can in fact already achieve what the amendment sets out to do under the clause as it stands. Under the Bill, the Charity Commission’s consent is required for an amendment that would alter any unincorporated charity’s purposes. That is equivalent to one category of regulated alterations for charitable incorporated organisations, which requires the consent of the Charity Commission. By way of comparison, the Charity Commission currently treats amendments to the purposes of charitable incorporated organisations of the same type referred to in the amendment as not being a regulated alteration and therefore not requiring Charity Commission consent. Given the similarity between the statutory provision concerning charitable incorporated organisations and the new Section 280A(8)(a), the same approach would be taken in relation to changes to unincorporated charities’ purposes. Therefore, Section 280A(8) as it stands already looks at substance over form, and an amendment to a governing document would require Charity Commission consent only if it makes a substantive change, not if it is a pure drafting change. I hope that provides reassurance to noble Lords. As with the previous amendment, this is a view supported by the Charity Commission and the Law Commission.

However, I thank my noble friend for keeping us on our toes and for rightly probing this issue. Of course we want the situation to be clear to everybody who will be affected by the new law, so we will consider whether the Explanatory Notes could be expanded on this point to make that clearer. I hope that, on the basis of that reassurance—not the third of the options that my noble friend outlined in his opening speech but looking again at the Explanatory Notes to make this clear to all concerned—he will feel able not to press his Amendment 2.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their contributions. My noble friend the Minister has, of course, elegantly found a third way: it was not that the Charity Commission was wrong; it was not that we need to produce some new change to the Bill; there are powers within the Bill as it stands to find a way around the problem through Section 280A and ancillary provisions. I talked about getting barnacles off the boat, and this was certainly a barnacle. I will reflect on this, talk to the people from Spilsby, who are obviously at the front line of this to see if they have any comments. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has asked me to move his Amendment 3 and has provided me with speaking notes, which I will read out. I would like to send my best wishes to the noble and learned Lord and hope that he comes back to our proceedings as soon as possible.

Amendment 3, as set out in the brief explanatory note included in the Marshalled List, is in accordance with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s fifth report of Session 2021-22. Clause 12, which introduces new Sections 284A, 284B, 284C and 284D to the Charities Act 2011, creates a new statutory power for a charity to borrow a limited amount from the permanent endowment subject to repayment. Borrowing is limited to the permitted amount, as defined in Section 284B by reference to a formula in new Section 284B(1), and must be repaid within 20 years, as required under new Section 284A(2)(b), under the current provision in Clause 12(3) of the Bill.

Those two matters can be amended by regulations made pursuant to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 12(3) is one of five provisions in the Bill providing for regulations to be made by negative resolution where the appropriateness of the negative procedure has been questioned by the DPRRC. The DCMS response was that the powers are narrow in scope and use of the negative procedure merely follows the practice in the 2011 Act. There are three answers to that response. First, the fact that the negative resolution procedure is mostly used in the 2011 Act does not warrant the negative resolution in every case in the Bill. Secondly, there are provisions in the 2011 Act that stipulate the affirmative resolution procedure—see Sections 348 and 349. Thirdly, the regulations in Clause 12(3) are to be contrasted with regulations that are directed merely to changes in the value of money over time. As to that, the 20-year repayment stipulation is not a financial or threshold amount. No doubt it is for that reason that in his oral evidence Professor Hopkins of the Law Commission accepted that Clause 12 was not like other provisions in the Bill which provide for financial limits to be altered by regulation.

As to the calculation of the permitted amount, it is to be noted that the DPRRC said that greater weight should be given to the exceptional case of Henry VIII powers subject to the negative resolution procedure than to consistency with the existing approach in the 2011 Act; that in such cases provision for the negative resolution procedure to apply is to be treated as exceptional and requires a full justification to be given; and that, critically, unlike a power to amend the financial limit or threshold limit to uprating for inflation, the power in the Bill to amend the permitted amount that can be borrowed from the permanent endowment is not limited in any way and, in particular, is not limited to making changes to reflect changes in the value of money. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I urge the Government and/or the Committee to accept this amendment and in doing so I, too, send my best wishes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for a speedy recovery. I am sorry he is not here to speak to his amendment.

The issue of permanent endowment is critical. It sounds highly technical, but it is critical because if you give a sum of money for the future, you may not wish your successors after you have died to spend it all. You may wish to have a permanent lump of money that will go on creating, looking after and fulfilling the public benefit you had in mind when you gave your funds in the first place. It is a key issue of a donor’s wishes as expressed in the way that the charity is set up. That is one problem.

The other half of the problem is that times change. The numbers get quite small because of inflation and the nature of the purposes to which you wish to put your money become outdated. We therefore need to find a way to balance this, but it is important because a person’s wishes as expressed in their will are a critical part of our society, so issues such as this require the affirmative resolution. Of course, we need to be able to change things to reflect inflation and so on, but it needs as high a level of scrutiny—of regulation—as we can offer. There are arguments about whether any level of secondary legislation scrutiny is good enough, but that is for another day. What is important is that we should have the highest possible level of scrutiny for this type of change that is available in the present regulatory structure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

5: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“References to the Tribunal
(1) In section 325 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (2), for “with the consent of the Attorney General” substitute “where the Commission has given the Attorney General 28 days’ notice of its intention to make such a reference”.(2) In section 326 of the Charities Act 2011, in subsection (1), at the end insert “provided the Attorney General has given the Commission 28 days’ notice of his or her intention to make such a reference”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements the Law Commission's recommendations that the Charity Commission should not be required to obtain the consent of the Attorney General before making a reference to the Tribunal and vice versa.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I come to my second set of amendments. This is not a barnacle; it is an issue of principle. What a panoply of talented people have been good enough to put their names to the amendment: a past Front-Bench spokesman from the Labour Party; the current Front-Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats; and, on my right, last but not least, my noble friend the immediate past chairman of the Charity Commission.

The amendment concerns an issue on which the Committee took a lot of evidence, which I sat in on and listened to with interest. I do not want to repeat all that, except to say the following: the man in the street would undoubtedly think, in so far as he thought about it at all, that the Charity Commission was an independent, stand-alone regulator responsible entirely for the proper behaviour of the 170,000 or so charities whose activities reach into every corner of our national life. Why do people think this? In part, it is because of the way in which the media report on the commission: investigating, adjudicating and disciplining the sector for which it is responsible. There is no suggestion of any second-guessing in that.

If you were to probe further, that idea would be reinforced. Section 13(4) of the Charities Act 2011 reads:

“In the exercise of its functions the Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any Minister of the Crown or of another government department.”


That is pretty clear, but, of course, subsection (5) has some weasel words:

“But subsection (4) does not affect … any provision made by or under any enactment”


or

“any administrative controls exercised over the Commission’s expenditure by the Treasury.”

You get the impression that this is about money, so you can understand why the Treasury does not want the commission to be able to run away with the cheque book.

The implications of this were discussed in our proceedings on the Bill. There were no clear conclusions, except that it was a knot that would need untying at some point. As I undertook my review, the complexities and problems of the knot became more apparent because, as we know, Section 325 of the 2011 Act requires any attempt by the commission to seek clarity on a point to law to do so only through the Attorney-General. This means that there is a second-guess of the Charity Commission. The commission will seek interpretation of these important points only rarely; in my view, this decision and the continuing position of the Attorney-General have led to a number of important consequences.

First, it means that there is no longer a clear chain of responsibility and command—one thing that I think is important in the sector. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, put his finger on that point in the evidence session with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when he said straight up that this means that there are two regulators. He was completely right. Secondly, this undermines the commission’s authority and can prevent it obtaining clarity in the operation of charity law. Thirdly, and most unattractively, it can serve to encourage individual charities to take on the commission. We shall come to an example of that in a minute.

These points were made to me and to the team when the review was being compiled. There was plenty of evidence for them. However, there was a contrary point of view that there could be a risk that the Charity Commission would be rushing off to the tribunal too often. One has to recognise the force of this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry, I should have said that I am glad that the long saga to which my noble friend referred has come to an end, but these are complex issues. We do not think we should give too much prominence to one case, long and complex though it may be. We do not think we should look to legislate to remove what is an important check and balance in the system on the basis of the evidence from that unique case, but I have heard the points of concern raised by noble Lords not just today but throughout our consideration of this Bill. We will certainly take away Amendment 6 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, to consider it further ahead of Report, but I repeat that I hope my noble friend Lord Hodgson will withdraw Amendment 5.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Barker, for supporting my amendment and for their powerful interventions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. He spoke on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who was kind enough to speak to me over the weekend about his proposal.

Somebody said that the art of the diplomat is to create ladders down which people can climb. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me that the law’s gain has been diplomacy’s loss, because a very elegant ladder has been presented to us here. The Attorney-General preserves his power but he accepts restrictions to it of the sort described by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby; namely, the 60-day limit—we will possibly need some clarification on that along the lines of what my noble friend Lady Stowell referred to—and on the comprehensive statement referred to in the second part of Amendment 6. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I discussed this, we noted that it was very important that “not in the public interest” could not be an explanation, because that took us back to where we are now. If the Minister accepts this, we will certainly want to explore with him exactly what a comprehensive statement would mean and how it would work.

I understand and think this is a very elegant mid-way, but it is half a loaf and not full-fat milk, if I may change the analogy. It does not address the central problem of a divided command and the fact that the Charity Commission is beholden to the Attorney-General. The Minister slightly reminds me of one of those subalterns on the Western Front in the First World War. He is in a very desperate position and has sent a message back to the chateau behind the lines saying, “It is pretty tricky out here.” They say, “No, no. You stay there and hold the position to the last man.”

I will pick up just a couple of the things the Minister said, but I will not detain the Committee long. He said that the issue of the Attorney-General did not really affect many of the commission’s objectives. That is not true. The commission’s objectives concern: first, public confidence, which is affected here; secondly, public benefit, which relates to the public schools case; thirdly, compliance, which relates to the Royal Albert Hall case; and, fourthly and fifthly, charitable authorities and accountability. I would argue that in at least three—possibly three and a half—of those, the Attorney-General would take an active interest in points referred to as a result.

I understand the second point about the Royal Albert Hall case being particularly complex, but every one of these cases will be complex. Cases on public schools, religion and poverty will be extremely complex and complicated. None of the things that will rise to the top in respect of the Charity Commission’s position will be easy, because they are difficult moral questions affecting all sorts of views about public values and the way our society operates. I therefore do not accept that the Royal Albert Hall case was particularly complex.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, four and a half years in, we do not have a decision. Is it a conflict to profit from the management of an organisation of which you are a trustee and so profit from the decisions you make? Should that be allowed? Since April 2017, the Charity Commission has been waiting to resolve that and the Royal Albert Hall is sailing on unaffected. Maybe that is right and reflects what the tribunal would find, but surely we need to get this resolved, in fairness to the Charity Commission and the sector.

I have gone on long enough today. This is an issue which remains thoroughly unsatisfactory in every way. We are a small group here today and I am not a member of the committee. I will withdraw the amendment, but I serve notice to the Minister that I reserve the right to bring it back when we come to the next stage of the Bill. I also look forward to hearing further about what the Government propose to do in response to the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am very delighted to support this amendment. My colleagues and I are great believers in empowering local communities. Indeed, in my years as an MP, I saw a number of local initiatives, driven by local people and community groups, that did some extremely good work but could not cope with the mutual demands of both providing their services and fundraising, so they were unable to grow to that kind of sustainable point that was so important in the community. It seems to me that the community wealth fund gives opportunities to those new initiatives, driven by local people, targeted very much towards the members of the local community and very much reflecting local need. It would seem ideal to do this under the structure of the dormant assets programme.

I have two other reasons for feeling that this is important. Later on Report, we will address issues of oversight over the kind of programmes funded through dormant assets. But it seems to me that there is no way that that issue can be addressed without recognising that the kind of resources for the detailed scrutiny and monitoring of programmes is in short supply. It seems to me that, when you have small local programmes, a well-structured community wealth fund arrangement can put in place that administrative oversight and make sure that, locally, the funds are well spent, provide value for money and are properly targeted. So that level of administration in fact makes up for a much broader weakness, frankly, within the overall dormant assets structure.

I am also very pleased to look at a pilot approach—this will be a case of trialling, reshaping and refining—because I am concerned to make sure that the money derived from the dormant asset funds is used in addition to the kind of services that ought to be provided, whether by central or local government. It will be really important for an entity such as the community wealth fund to work in tandem with local authorities but not substituting for what they can or should be doing. We do not want duplication of administration or service, and we certainly do not want to give central government an opportunity to further reduce the resources that it provides to local authorities on the grounds that the dormant asset fund and various charitable and local civic societies will do the work in its place and not require the normal support and resource that ought to be provided.

It therefore seems to me that this is very much a win-win approach, and I hope that the Government will take it on board. The Bill is an opportunity to expand what has been a very successful programme in significant additional directions, and this is certainly one of them.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have my name down in support of this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, builds on one that we debated in Committee. As is always the case, when you come back to the subject, there is a risk of a great deal of repetition, and I do not wish to try the patience of the House with a long exposé. During the debate in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran, raised some significant concerns that the Government had about the way that this might operate. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has very neatly—if I may say so without sounding patronising—answered some of the points made then.

I will repeat, in four sentences, four reasons why I am attracted to community wealth funds. They are very local and can reflect the often highly idiosyncratic needs of a particular local community. They can provide a physical space—a building—as a focus for presenting and answering those particular needs. Thirdly, they can provide an element of professional help, without which a purely voluntary organisation can struggle. Fourthly—this is most important—they can provide the long-term capital needed to answer and build answers to the very deep-seated challenges that many of these communities face.

However, as my noble friend Lady Barran said—I am sure that if I could see my noble friend’s speaking note I would see that he will repeat it in a minute—this is a new approach and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance is setting out, brimming with confidence, hope and optimism. I certainly wish it well, but there will be difficult days ahead with hard decisions about structure, approach, governance and impact. The noble Baroness will probably raise that last issue in her speech in a minute. It is dangerous if you accept too rigid an approach in primary legislation; if it subsequently turns out to be less than ideal, you are stuck with it. So there is an element of “Be careful what you wish for”.

Then there is the issue of consultation. I think many of us would say that this was a case of putting the cart before the horse. Normally you have a consultation, get the results, draft the legislation and then discuss it in the light of what has been discovered, but that has not happened here and we are going at it the other way around. Whether we like it or not, that is where we are. So I can see why, unsatisfactory though that approach is, in the circumstances, the Government cannot and do not want to pre-empt the results of that consultation.

Conversely, primary legislation, like buses, does not come along very often; the next Bill might be in another five or 10 years—it is 15 years since the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I discussed the Charities Act, and we have had probably had one since—but we need to send a signal of our support for community wealth funds. How do we balance those issues? I suggested that if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replaced “must” in his original drafting with “may”, that might provide an answer that would not force the Government, the Secretary of State and my noble friend on the Front Bench to set up a community wealth fund but would provide them with an option to do so in light of the consultation when they had the full outcome available. Since the noble Lord was kind enough to make that change, I am delighted to support his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Ely]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is correct that my friend the Bishop of Newcastle has made her valedictory speech, but I have been permitted to speak on her behalf. Noble Lords may have noticed a certain discrepancy in height and volume between me and the Bishop of Newcastle but she is living proof that stature has nothing to do with size. I applaud my friend for her significant role as a Lord Spiritual and a community leader in Newcastle; the city has honoured her with the freedom of the city in recognition of her work.

In support of the amendment, we would like to say that the creation of community wealth funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, will strengthen community life in left-behind communities, including many in the diocese of Newcastle. Levelling-up investment, while welcome, has been largely about hard infrastructure but we want to see more investment in social infrastructure so that our communities can flourish. It is precisely that social infrastructure which could be provided by the community wealth funds, so they are already creating confidence in communities even if the consultation is yet to happen.

One of the key founder members of the Community Wealth Fund Alliance is a local trust that administers the Big Local programme, a programme that has inspired this community wealth fund proposal. The Big Local programme has been operating for 10 years and has generated considerable learning and evidence that could inform the design of the new pilot fund or funds that the amendment would enable.

The Big Local programme supports 150 neighbourhoods across the country that have each received just over £1 million in funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. That funding is placed directly into the hands of local residents, giving them the ability to make decisions about how to improve their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. Areas were selected on the basis that they suffered from higher-than-average levels of deprivation and had previously missed out on their fair share of lottery or other public funding.

An in-depth evaluation of 15 of the 150 Big Local areas half way through the programme outlined the benefits for individuals, groups and organisations and charted wider community change as a result of the funding and support offered. The benefits are considerable, including increased employment and access to employment opportunities, increased confidence and aspiration and reduced social isolation. The programme has also increased people’s sense of agency and belief in their own ability to make things happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 4 and I would gladly support Amendment 5. Government Amendment 3 is definitely an improvement on the previous situation, which was unclear; the Government were sure they would have a public consultation but were not really required to do so.

When the original Dormant Assets Bill was passed, the purposes for which dormant assets could be used were on the face of the Bill in primary legislation. Consultation, now that the Secretary of State is in a position to expand that range significantly, is absolutely vital. In Amendment 4, we reflect some of my ongoing frustrations with consultation after consultation: they fall to the attention of the usual suspects and, indeed, the responses of the usual suspects are very often taken into serious consideration, but they never get out into the wider world. When there are lots of diverse views, perhaps supported or mentioned by only small handfuls of people because they have never occurred to others, those tend to go into the “dismiss” bucket almost immediately.

I know how difficult it is to structure a consultation that really does consult. I say that from the position of having been a Minister during the coalition years, when I wanted to use a consultation to bring in new ideas as well as to get people’s responses to possible avenues that we might go down. It was a sheer battle with my own staff to devise such a consultation and questionnaire and to leave space for open responses and gather them in. It is not the norm; I am very well aware of that. I do want to press the Minister, because this should be going to a much wider range of groups than might normally keep an eye open for a consultation —the wide range of social enterprises and charities that go out to various communities, particularly deprived communities. Those communities tend to be the least alert to the fact that there is a government consultation happening or to knowing how to respond to it.

Then there is Parliament. Most of us understand that secondary legislation is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of getting parliamentary opinion or any potential for amendment, so it is important that the relevant committees of Parliament are engaged with something as significant as this. I press the Minister: we understand that he has moved some way, but we need quality. The style is perhaps there but there is no quality or content behind it to give us full reassurance. If he will not accept Amendments 4 and 5, can he at least give us a verbal assurance of the kind of quality that we want within the consultation itself?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was reassured by my noble friend’s introductory speech and the deal that has been hacked out between him and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has, in part, shot my fox because I wanted to talk about the usual suspects, which she referred to. That is the danger, although I say to the signatories to Amendment 4 that it looks to me like a pretty good list of usual suspects in that amendment. I was not sure that we were not just going back down the track that we were trying to avoid going down.

My reason for supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was to make sure that we would make a big effort to get down to the smaller organisations, which often had unique insights into the problems of a particular area. From my point of view, I rather doubt whether that goes well into legislation, but it is the sort of area where a good strong ministerial Statement, given on the Floor, would reassure a lot of us that there will be words that we can go back to if the consultation does not reach as far, as deep and as wide as some of us think it should.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their recognition of the action the Government have taken on this, even if it is conditional at the outset. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Merron and Lady Lister of Burtersett, for the important issues they have raised in tabling Amendment 4. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for Amendment 5.

We have had a good debate, both in Committee and again today, and I welcome the support shown for securing the widest possible input into determining the future spending priorities for England. I share the desire raised by noble Lords to ensure that the public, beneficiaries, both Houses of Parliament, social enterprises and charities can have their say on the future focus of dormant assets funding; although I disagree about the means and submit that Amendment 3 is a better way to achieve this, we all share the same intent.

As my noble friend and predecessor Lady Barran outlined in Committee, it is our position that everybody who is interested, rather than a collection of predetermined or specified stakeholders, should be consulted. That is why we have chosen to take the broadest approach available in Amendment 3, and why we believe that Amendment 4 is not as inclusive.

Dormant assets funding is not government money; it originates from individuals who have lost or forgotten about their asset and is voluntarily transferred into the scheme by responsible industry participants who, despite their best efforts, have not been able to reunite those moneys with their owners. The scheme is a unique example of collaboration between the public, private and civil society sectors, responding to the imperative to put forgotten money to better use, rather than letting it gather dust in inactive accounts. Because of the wide range of organisations and individuals that are potentially affected by the scheme, we want to avoid at all costs making further specifications in this clause which could imply that certain groups are more important than others that it might be equally appropriate to consult.

The government amendment is sufficiently broad and, in line with common practice, parliamentary committees will continue to be able to consider relevant issues as they see fit in the future. That is why we do not think it is appropriate or necessary explicitly to name parliamentary committees as a consultee. However, we are happy to commit on the record to engaging with relevant and interested parliamentary committees for the first consultation.

As noble Lords have highlighted, the social and environmental focus of the English portion is a significant and important question. The Government agree that the consultation must be open for a proportionate amount of time to allow for considered and good-quality responses. That is why I am happy to place on the record our commitment that the first consultation under this section will last for at least 12 weeks. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others for their appreciation of that.

I also reassure noble Lords that our intention is to consult widely, taking care to welcome local community voices into the discussion to ensure that we capture as many views as we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my noble friend Lord Hodgson and others rightly pressed.

The Government will continue to consider the most appropriate length of future consultations, in line with Cabinet Office guidance. I hope that our previous conduct in this area has proven we take that seriously and are committed to ensuring fair and open consultations on the dormant assets scheme. The 2020 consultation on its expansion, for example, was extended from 12 to 21 weeks, as requested by voices in the industry in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, to ensure that everybody had the time to contribute meaningfully. I am pleased to say that that was very successful: we received 89 responses, representing over 500 organisations and individuals, which informed the development of this legislation. Given the range of interested parties involved and the complexity of the policy area, we will always ensure that a proportionate length of time is provided for consultation. In order to preserve the integrity and protect the impact of the scheme, we also do not anticipate changing the causes regularly.

The consultation would seek views on what social or environmental causes should be supported with dormant assets funding in England. However, we do not think it is appropriate to specify the scope and content of the consultation in primary legislation, including the extent to which the scheme is meeting some of its underlying policy objectives or what additional assets or operational changes would improve its performance. We believe it would be most appropriate and effective to consider those as part of Amendment 7. We therefore do not support combining aspects of this equally important work with the duty to consult, particularly as the latter relates only to England.

Our commitment to an open, fair and inclusive consultation is also the reason why we cannot accept Amendment 5, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which seeks to require the Government to consult on community wealth funds every time an order on English expenditure is considered. I am conscious that we went into a more detailed discussion of the community wealth fund model in our debate on Amendment 1. Even if I did not convince your Lordships’ House not to support that amendment, I hope I convinced noble Lords that the Government are by no means against the proposals for community wealth funds but maintain that putting them in the Bill, and in the case of this amendment legislating for them to be consulted on every time an order was considered, would be inappropriate.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to refer to the official review of the 2006 Act that I carried out now nearly 10 years ago. I take a certain paternal pride that a large number of the recommendations that I made in that report have survived and appear in the legislation before us this afternoon, but it would be quite wrong for me to say that a report that took more than a year to produce and ran to 150 or 160 pages could be produced by one person. I should begin, therefore, by placing on record my thanks to the team—then at the Cabinet Office, now at the DCMS—led by Ben Harrison, which provided such wonderful advice and support. I would also like to thank more broadly the Law Commission, whose work I think is often undervalued in your Lordships’ House, for the way in which it has picked up and improved many of the suggestions that I made. The Bill has my 100% support except in one serious matter, of which I have given prior notice to my noble friend and which I will return to in a minute.

The underlying principles for my review could be seen as follows. The charities sector has very deep roots—witness the fact that the first recorded charity, the King’s School, Canterbury, was started in 597—and therefore it reflects the very rich and diverse social life of our country built up over hundreds of years. One consequence of that is that it is not neat, and there are those who would like it to be neat. They would say, “Why don’t we just have one cancer research charity so that we can avoid duplication and waste of money?” I certainly resisted that, and I am glad that the Government have, because to do that would drive a stake through the heart of a lot of the voluntary endeavour from which our society benefits. But a consequence is that a lot of charities are pretty small. We need as simple and clear a regulatory system as possible so that charities do not have to go to lawyers and spend a lot on fees to understand what they can and cannot do. I hope that, when the Bill passes, my noble friend’s department will urge the Charity Commission to bring forward user-friendly, understandable advice about the brave new world that we will enter.

Thirdly and finally, as background, I argue strongly that whenever in the past people gave money to charities they did so to put it to work; they did not want it stuck in a bank account on some technicality. We have to find ways to make sure that the structure remains up-to-date with modern conditions.

Against that background, what are my top picks from the Bill? First, as my noble friend said, there is the commitment to a quinquennial review of financial thresholds, without which they will rapidly become of little value with inflation, and in particular applying them to the permanent endowment figures of £25,000.

Hurrah for the simplification of the procedures for selling land. I was quite astonished to find that a charity selling land is bound by all sorts of procedures, but a charity buying land, which by definition must be just about as dangerous, had almost no procedures and prohibitions at all.

Hurrah for relaxing the rules on permanent endowment so that more money can be put to work, for the reasons that I have explained.

Hurrah for simplifying the merger regime, in particular the rules that my noble friend mentioned around bequests. It was astonishing how many charities that had merged still had to be kept in existence because they still anticipated some future bequests and legacies.

Hurrah for the changes to the rules regarding failed, or indeed overly successful, appeals, with charities spending a long time trying to find people who had donated money because the appeal had got either too much or not enough money. That was a complete waste of time. People almost certainly did not want the money back. There are limits in the Bill, and I am sure that is right.

Finally, hurrah for some loosening of the way that trustees can be reimbursed for their real efforts.

Those are my top picks, but they take me to my really serious concern about the Bill. I imagine that most Members will think of the Charity Commission as the all-powerful regulator of its sector. I certainly did before I began my review. In fact, it is not. Its ultimate power is subject to the permissions of the Attorney-General. Under Section 325 of the Charities Act 2011, if the Charity Commission faces

“A question which … involves … the operation of charity law in any respect”,


it can appeal to the Charity Appeal Tribunal for a ruling

“only with the consent of the Attorney General.”

This is, I submit, an extraordinary position for the sector regulator to find itself in. It is as though one of the financial regulators, seeking a ruling on a point of law, had first to go to the Treasury to get the go-ahead. People would think that an extraordinary restriction on a regulator’s independence and power, and so it is.

I recommended that the commission should be free to appeal to the tribunal but that it should have to inform the Attorney-General of the action that it was taking. The Law Commission supported that proposal. The Government have turned it down. Therefore, the Bill as drafted means that the Charity Commission remains in the last resort under the sway of the Attorney-General.

However, this in-principle defect is made worse—far worse—by the real-life performance of the Attorney-General’s duties. I refer to the case of the Royal Albert Hall, which is a Victorian charity built in the 1880s by public subscription. It is one of London’s great cultural venues, being home to the Proms and so on. As part of the original financing, subscribers were offered seats in the hall in perpetuity. The original idea was that, on the nights that the holders did not wish to attend, they could sell their seats to the Royal Albert Hall box office for face value, less a 10% handling charge.

A few years ago, seat-holders decided that they could sell their seats much more profitably through a third-party website, so today seat-holder tickets for an Eric Clapton concert next year, with a face value of £175, are on sale through viagogo at £946—a short £800 uplift or, in the words of a television sitcom, a nice little earner. It will come as no surprise that, pre pandemic, seats were allegedly earning £10,000 to £20,000 per annum and are changing hands for more than £150,000 each. As I said before, the Royal Albert Hall is a charity and, as such, has a board of trustees. There are 24 of them, but 19 are seat-holders—80% of them. I have no objection to seat-holders seeking to enjoy their private property; that is one of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. But when a seat-holder becomes a trustee, a conflict of interest must surely arise.

It was on this point of a conflict of interest that the Charity Commission sought a legal ruling for which, under the present law, it had to obtain the Attorney-General’s permission. The original application to the Attorney-General was made—wait for it—in August 2017. Four years later, we are still waiting for a decision from the Attorney-General as to what the Charity Commission can and cannot do.

In the meantime, I understand that the commission has tried to engage the trustees of the hall and suggested that, if a majority of the trustees were not seat-holders—for example, 13 out of 24—that would be a satisfactory compromise. The trustees rejected this proposal and, in a letter dated 27 April this year, the chairman of the RAH Seatholders Association described the purpose of that association, which was set up only last year, as being “to protect members’ interests from the very real threat posed by the Charity Commission”. These are strange words to use about your sector regulator.

To conclude, I stick to the proposal made in my report and supported by the Law Commission that the Charity Commission should be free to approach the tribunal for rulings on a point of law, but that the commission should be required to tell the Attorney-General that it was so doing. This is otherwise an excellent Bill, which has my enthusiastic support, but in my view we need to discuss and amend Section 325.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

54: Clause 29, page 21, line 18, after “no” insert “other”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54 and will speak to Amendment 55. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on Amendment 54 and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on Amendment 55. I will focus the bulk of my remarks on Amendment 55 but will first deal briefly with Amendment 54. I thought about degrouping it but, in the interests of speed, the Committee might be able to deal with it as part of this group.

Amendment 54 is about transparency, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her comments on the group beginning with Amendment 4, which the Committee discussed at its first sitting on Monday. Its very simple purpose is to ensure that, if the Secretary of State wishes to introduce restrictions on the way that the dormant assets scheme works, these have to be contained in regulations. This gives a proper degree of transparency to the actions of the Secretary of State. We all have our worries about the efficacy of the scrutiny of regulations, but this does at least bring them before your Lordships’ House. This is primary legislation, so will be in place for some years; it would clearly be inappropriate for a future of Secretary of State to be able privately to influence the operation of the scheme. That is the purpose of Amendment 54; I trust that the Government would have no problem with its objective.

In Amendment 55, I am returning to a point which I made at Second Reading: the very uneven distribution of social capital across the country. I fear that that unevenness may have been increased by the events of the past 15 to 18 months. This unevenness was originally brought home to me sharply during reviews of the charity and voluntary sectors that I carried out for the Government. It was my practice to try and hold meetings in different parts of the country to be able to take on board local concerns and questions. The fluctuating numbers of attendees at these meetings provided an interesting yardstick of the strength and vibrancy of social capital in those areas. When I chaired for your Lordships’ House the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civil Engagement—I was very lucky to have two such experienced committee members as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—the same situation revealed itself in our trips. Each situation is different, of course, but certain common themes to this problem have emerged. Funding is of course important, often in small, repeated amounts rather than in big dollops, but this is about much more than just money. It is about finding physical structures—buildings in which people can meet, socialise and help create communities. There is a third element: the need for practical experience and paid help to supplement voluntary efforts.

One of the most distressing aspects, for me at least, was the loss of self-confidence and self-belief. For too many, aspiration and hope had died, overwhelmed by the scale of the apparent challenge but, when a spark had been lit, often by a small group of people, the results were remarkable. I recall, on our committee visit to Clacton, that the pub which had been bought by the community, an ACV, was now breathing life into the area in a whole host of ways not originally envisaged. Money, physical structures and practical help are important, but there is yet another requirement—staying power and endurance. Rebuilding social capital is a marathon, not a sprint. Volunteers have lives outside the work they do for their communities.

On our committee trip to Sheffield, we met a group helping to keep libraries open and extend their opening hours, better to assist and serve their communities. But as members of the library group pointed out graphically, if Mrs Smith, say, has undertaken to open the library at 9 am on a particular morning and her child falls ill in the night and has to be taken to hospital, the library will not open because, quite understandably, rightly and properly, her responsibility to her child will take priority. That will be a blow to the community, unless there is a structure to ensure that someone steps into Mrs Smith’s place. That is why some limited paid back-up is important. It can be seen that this is a complex, shifting kaleidoscope of requirements that needs to be sustained over time.

Finally, to be really effective, to ensure that actions are done by and not done to, these activities must be and remain really local. That may seem very obvious to the Committee, but I shall quote a couple of sentences from our Select Committee report. We wrote:

“Communication between citizens and government at all levels is often poor, and was a subject frequently raised not just in formal evidence but by those we spoke to on our visits. When seeking people’s views, communication tends to be with the ‘gatekeepers’—those who hold themselves out, not always accurately, as representing their communities. People, especially in deprived areas, must be made to feel that government is speaking directly to them, working with them and for them, and paying attention to their needs and wishes … Communities must also be prepared to open up and bring more voices into the conversation.”


That is the background to the amendment. The concept of community wealth funds could be particularly well placed to meet the complex requirements I have described. They could provide funding, could provide a means to open and maintain buildings, could employ the limited permanent staff needed to provide the necessary structural framework and, finally, could do all these things over the long period needed to provide remedies for the deep-seated, structural challenges that these communities face—hence my interest in the briefing sent to me and many Members of your Lordships’ House by the Community Wealth Fund Alliance. However, I have to admit that I had a concern about the original briefing. The alliance speaks for 400 civil society public and private sector organisations, and the briefing sought the tabling of an amendment establishing a “Community Wealth Fund”—with a capital C, a capital W and a capital F—as a national body.

I told the alliance I believed that the concept and the approach they represented was entirely praiseworthy and worth supporting, but I did not think that as yet there was enough practical experience to justify a “Community Wealth Fund”, with capital letters, appearing in primary legislation as a national body. Could a CWF—with the capital letters—appear as a national body in future? Of course it could, but we are not there yet. We need more practical experience of how this alliance of 400 different organisations will work together, and how methodologies and objectives will change in the light of real-life experience.

Today, I am delighted to urge the Government to support the creation of community wealth funds—individual local efforts, shaped to meet the particular needs of their areas. I think it highly likely that a national body will emerge in due course, and perhaps become a fifth distributor but, as I have said, I do not think we are there yet. We need more experience of building from the ground up. In short, Rome was not built in a day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I absolutely do not deny in any way the importance of financial education, but the issue here is not the importance of any individual cause. The challenge we are faced with—or the privilege that we will all have—is to contribute to a conversation about the right cause for this particular stream of money, with its unique features, and that includes the existing causes that are funded. We will be putting the cart before the horse if we focus too much on causes to go into the Bill; rather, we should put the combined intellect of your Lordships and others into making sure that we spend future moneys in the best way possible.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I had better begin with an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for not having name-checked her as a member of the committee. The truth is that I saw who signed their name to the amendment, but I did not see who was going to speak to it. That is an explanation, not an excuse. I know her as a doughty fighter, and I hope that she will accept this apology for not expressing my thanks to her.

She rightly drew attention to concerns about duplication and what we discussed in our committee about what we call “new initiative-itis”, where ideas are started by a Minister wishing to make a mark but they are abandoned after six months, whether they are good or bad is not followed through with and the institutional memory is never properly adjusted. I accept that. Indeed, I accept the caution from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about future funds flow. She pointed out that this is not an endowment fund but a flow that stops flowing when the money is spent.

I share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we need continuity. There is sufficient visibility over the next five or 10 years to be able to provide the financial continuity that both she and I see as an important part of the community wealth fund concept.

In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about duplication, some of the plan methodologies that we have seen from the Community Wealth Fund Alliance are distinctive and will provide a different approach that is not duplicated elsewhere. However, I accept the strictures of both noble Baronesses.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his support. His suggestion of pilot studies as a means of beginning to build institutional memory was interesting.

I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Of course I accept his remarks about financial education. He and I have discussed many times the narrowness of the national curriculum, which fails to provide education in many of the most important parts of what makes a citizen an effective and worthwhile person knowing their rights and their responsibilities. Financial education surely must be a part of that.

Finally, the response of the Minister was, as ever, smooth and beguiling, and I am trying hard not to be beguiled. I think she said that the current drafting already implies what is made explicit by Amendment 54. Well, if the amendment makes it explicit, let us have the amendment, so that that is explicit, as opposed to relying on the interpretation of the words “at some date in the future”. I hope that my noble friend will come back to that and think a bit more about it, and also about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made.

On Amendment 55, the Minister said that consultation would begin as soon as the Bill becomes law. She referred later to the cart and the horse, and I have to say that that sounds like cart and horse to me because, essentially, Clause 29 throws all the cards up in the air, they will come down where they may, and the only way that your Lordships’ House, or indeed Parliament, will have to influence what happens after that will be by means of regulations. I fully accept that we will have a chance to look at them, but as has been said this afternoon, and as Members of the Committee know, they represent a lower level of scrutiny and of being able to amend what is proposed.

I understand the Minister’s reluctance to accept the amendment, and the weaknesses of the community wealth fund concept at this point in its history, but I hope that she will find time to reassure the people who are working hard in the Community Wealth Fund Alliance that the fact that the Government are reluctant to accept the amendments does not mean that they do not think it is a worthwhile concept. It is a worthwhile concept, and the Government ought to be finding ways—pilot schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested, and other ways—to encourage institutional memory and practice to develop in this area. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I think that the idea is distinctive, offers something that no other groups will offer and will be able to do so over a sufficiently long time to make it an attractive prospect in helping to rebuild our social capital. I hope that the Minister will think again about her remarks on Amendment 54. Let us make sure that we have absolute clarity about what can and cannot happen. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of these amendments, especially Amendment 59 in my name and Amendment 57, to which I have added my name.

With regard to Amendment 57, I was encouraged by the Minister’s response at Second Reading to concerns raised about the consultation process. However, given what she said and what is said in the fact sheet on the Bill, it seems very odd that the Bill itself suggests a narrower approach to consultation, restricted to

“the Big Lottery Fund, and … such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”

That “if any” implies that the Secretary of State could well consider that there are no other appropriate persons—not a good look to the outside world.

While it is reassuring to have a commitment to wider consultation on the record, it does not have the same force ultimately as the Bill itself, especially if we are looking to any consultation that might be required in future because of a new order under this clause. Would it not make sense to amend the Bill so that it reflects the Government’s actual intentions, thereby giving a clear signal that the Government would like to hear from a wide range of relevant voluntary organisations and community groups? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clearer idea of what is envisaged by way of consultation, but also that she will undertake to take the question away and see whether she cannot come back on Report with an amendment that better reflects the Government’s stated position than the rather forbidding wording of Clause 29(3).

I want to take this opportunity to refer back to the previous group and ask the Minister whether she can confirm that the idea of community wealth funds will be included in the consultation document. If it is not, only those who already know about the idea will be in a position to support it. This links back to what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said about the Government sending a signal that they consider community wealth funds a worthwhile concept. The Minister again carefully avoided saying what the Government think about community wealth funds, so some kind of signal to all those voluntary organisations in the alliance that they look sympathetically on the idea would be helpful.

Amendment 59 reflects concerns expressed, in particular by the NCVO, that there should be adequate time for consultation. When I tabled the amendment, I must admit that I thought that 12 weeks was the normal recommended time period. It had recently been breached by the six-week consultation on the New Plan For Immigration so I wanted to be sure that it would not be breached in this instance. However, thanks to a note provided for me by the Library, I have discovered that, some time ago, the Government withdrew the guidance on a recommended 12-week period in favour of departmental discretion. Since then, there appears to have been a marked reduction in the typical time allowed for consultations.

The NCVO puts two main arguments as to why consultation on the use of dormant assets should last for a minimum of 12 weeks. First, it is important that the Government hear from a wide range of groups and communities, which may themselves need to consult their members and may not be used to responding to government consultations. The official guidance on consultation introduced in 2013 indicated that, when deciding on the timescale for a given consultation, the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration. Timeframes should be proportionate and realistic. This all points to a good amount of time to ensure that such groups have the time they need to respond, even though the most recent iteration of the guidance in fact gives very little guidance at all. I was not at the meeting where the Minister gave assurances about following Cabinet guidelines but I do not think that those guidelines take us very far.

Secondly, the decisions that will be taken on funding have relatively long-term implications, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said on the previous group, so it is important to take the time to listen and get the decisions right. I am sure the Minister will point out that it is not usual to specify a timescale for consultation in legislation, but in the face of increasingly vague official guidance, it may be necessary to specify it to ensure that the Government hear from all those they need to hear from. That said, I would welcome a clear commitment on the record from the Minister that the consultation will last at least 12 weeks.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 57. The essence of the case has already been well covered so I shall be brief, but brevity should not be taken as indicating that I do not attach considerable importance to this amendment.

The Committee will recall that, a couple of minutes ago when I was moving an earlier amendment, I emphasised the need for local views to be taken into account and the fact that, to be effective, “local” must mean precisely that. It is charities and voluntary groups, which are often quite small, that can speak most authoritatively about the needs of their local areas and communities, hence the first part of this amendment. It is obvious that the groups that are the likely recipients of funding under the scheme will have the most relevant first-hand experience or views about how the scheme is or should be operating.

There is a danger, of course. I fully accept that trying to discern what local communities really want is not always easy and may require particular effort. That is why there is a temptation to fall back on what I referred to a few minutes ago as gatekeepers. While many gatekeepers are absolutely fine, we need to ensure that those who are holding themselves out are sufficiently well plugged in to the detail.

In that connection, I re-emphasise the point I made—it was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, a minute ago—that the concept of community wealth funds are relatively unknown and therefore, to get a proper consultation on how they might work, the Government are going to have to do a bit of pitch rolling, if I may use a cricketing analogy, to ensure that the contributors to the consultation process have a full understanding of what they are being asked to respond about. Having said that, Amendment 57 seems likely to provide the objectives to be fulfilled, which is why it has my support.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as I think this is her first outing in a Grand Committee in the House of Lords, and she is basically doing it in a prison visitors’ set-up. We probably feel like that sometimes here. She made the absolutely key statement: that consultation needs to be meaningful. That certainly underpins everything that I have to say.

I am exceedingly troubled by the very narrow list of consultees in the Bill. The Minister talks about the public, but has felt it really important not to put public consultation in the legislation. We really need an understanding of why she is so determined that the public will not appear in that consultation list. Obviously a Secretary of State who thinks it appropriate can do so, but it is not inherently appropriate in the way that the Bill is drafted. That really is important and it needs to be justified.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about the importance of including charities more broadly. I would add social enterprises. The noble Lord also pointed out the significance of local views.

It may be that I am an old cynic but I deal with a lot of consultations, particularly in the finance sector—they tend to be HMRC or Treasury-driven—and I am extremely conscious that a handful of voices get listened to. They are the sort of recognised powerhouses, the usual suspects and whatever else. Everybody else might get a little answer to one particular point that they make but very rarely—in fact, never within the field that I have covered—have I seen anybody other than that central core of usual suspects have any significant impact on the outcome, and lead to a different approach as a consequence of the consultation. I am extremely troubled by the way in which all this is currently structured and by its essential identification of only one big usual suspect: the Big Lottery Fund. Frankly, it is not fair to the Big Lottery Fund to make it carry that full burden alone, in the way that has been done.

My Amendment 58, also signed by my noble friend Lady Barker, was tabled because I am spitting tacks generally at the way that there is no role for Parliament in these consultations. From the many exchanges I have had with HM Treasury I know that, when there is a consultation, regulators take exactly the same point of view: that any parliamentarian is welcome to write in. Well, first, you do not find many parliamentarians with the time to develop and do all that but, secondly, they are not among the usual suspects who ever get seriously considered. It is not worth the candle most of the time and I have no reason to think that any other department will be very different in its attitude.

The first time that parliamentarians will have any impact will thus be in the useless process of dealing with a statutory instrument that they cannot amend or kill. This seems fundamentally disrespectful to Parliament. In an area such as this, we are essentially looking at Parliament in many ways as the guardian of people’s money that they have somehow missed or lost, or whatever else, so it is even more important that there should be that much wider voice speaking.

In Amendment 58, which is slightly hopeful, I have popped in a requirement to engage directly with Parliament. This problem will have to be resolved because consultation is increasingly becoming the substitute for scrutiny and accountability. It is not designed to do that in the way that it is structured at the moment.

I will pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is quite shocking that we do not even have a reliable framework now for a consultation: it is back to departmental discretion. That is not appropriate. It is highlighted again in the Bill and, for all these reasons, I find this very troubling. We need a justification from the Government on their approach to consultation, and the answer is not: “In this instance, we’ve decided to do something very broad and general, so be happy”. Why is it in no way captured within the legislation itself?

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, following our Second Reading, I went away and reflected on the way in which the Bill has been received and debated in your Lordships’ House. It would be fair to say that noble Lords as a whole wish to be supportive of the Government in what they are trying to do in the Bill. However, from a number of different perspectives, we all have questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of this method of doing things.

In particular, I tabled my Amendment 63 to make the point that nowhere in this Bill, or in its predecessor, is there an explicit statement about what these assets are supposed to be used to achieve. If we do not know what the objectives are, it is difficult to measure either the effectiveness or the efficiency with which the vehicle that has been constructed is doing that. It therefore seems that we as a House have an obligation to look at the reporting mechanisms that already exist. There are many of them in different places. They are all bits and pieces that you have to go and look at in, for example, the National Lottery Community Fund reports or the Reclaim Fund Ltd reports. Much of the detail of income and expenditure is in those reports, but there is very little in any of them on what has happened in terms of the impact.

My understanding is that the fund exists to use dormant assets not just because they happen to be there but for specific purposes of financial inclusion and developing financial literacy, particularly within poorer communities. That is what I really want us to try to have. When the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, I was very struck when she said to us that the main impetus behind it coming to us was from the financial services industry, which wishes to see more dormant assets being used. That is fine—I absolutely agree with that—but to what end, and is the expenditure on this being done properly?

Noble Lords have to understand that the charitable sector is in a seriously bad way. A year ago, the Government asked the charitable sector what it thought the impact of Covid would be. In the initial lockdown, it thought that it would lose £4 billion. We have been through three lockdowns since that one. The government funds released to the sector in response to that figure of £4 billion were £750 million, of which £150 million came from bringing forward some of the dormant assets referred to in the Bill. The whole of the charitable sector is going to experience severe problems. It is every part of it, from Cancer Research UK already having to delay some of its projected work for the next five years through to the small neighbourhood organisations.

It is therefore extremely important that these assets be used for the express purpose for which they have been given and used as effectively as possible. We must also be able to work out from all the reporting that we do get to see that the principle of additionality is being adhered to: that these are funds for a specific reason, and that they are largely treated as one-off and not as ongoing revenue, particularly when government comes to talk about its overall response to the charitable sector.

My amendment was in part a nod to the Public Accounts Committee’s report of 9 June, in which it came up with its analysis of the Government’s response to the charitable sector and Covid. I understand that that report relates not just to the £150 million of dormant assets funding but to the £750 million. Nevertheless, the PAC raised significant questions in it, not least about the National Lottery Community Fund being able to provide sufficient data about what is happening with the distribution of some of its funds to poorer communities. Similarly, the report raised questions with the Charity Commission and the Government about the ongoing viability of charities, which are sometimes involved in quite essential charitable work.

For all those reasons, I came up with my amendment. I am agnostic on the length of time to be taken. I do not think that, for a programme of this kind, it is worth doing reports of anything under three years, because I do not think that you can generate significant data in fewer than three years, but we should have reports that are something more than a succession of different sets of accounts and annual statements for the different bodies responsible for the collection or the distribution of money, and we should look at whether this will continue to be the best way to deal with this issue. That is my amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made a very important point about impact. I will come back to it in a moment in my remarks.

In the first instance, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about the timing of reviews to look at whether the structure is working effectively now and will work effectively at some date in the future. I want to probe the Minister a little further about the situation now and the current operation of the system. Specifically, I want to ask her whether the Government think that the existing powers to investigate, measure and check are sufficient.

As I understand it—I stand to be corrected—under the present system, money from the fund is passed to recipient bodies or recipient groups by what are called distributors, which have clear responsibilities to decide which bodies are worthy of funding and should get the money, and, after the funds have been passed over, to ensure that the proceeds are spent properly, effectively and in accordance with the way envisaged at the time of the grant. Again, as I understand it, there are currently four distributors: Big Society Capital, Access, Fair4All Finance and the Youth Futures Foundation.

The work of these four distributors is overseen by the Oversight Trust, which has no power to determine where the money goes but is charged with ensuring that the distributors have effective procedures in place to ensure good governance and proper performance of their duties. Clearly, the Oversight Trust has a very important role to play in maintaining public trust and confidence in the dormant assets scheme.

Can my noble friend enlighten me on three points? First, can a new distributor be appointed or dis-appointed? Who decides that and initiates it? If a decision is made to go ahead, what powers, if any, does the Oversight Trust, which is responsible for monitoring that body, have in making that final decision? That is my first question: can we remove or add distributors? How do we do it? What role does the Oversight Trust have in that process?

Secondly, and more generally, are the Government satisfied that the Oversight Trust has the powers necessary to fulfil this important role? For example, are distributors required or obliged to collaborate and co-operate with the Oversight Trust to ensure that it performs its duties effectively?

Thirdly—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—what role, if any, does the Oversight Trust have in measuring the impact of what the distributors are doing? Do we look in any way at whether the distribution policy being followed by one of the four groups now in power to do this makes sense for our society, or are they free as a bird? It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little about that.

Finally, it must be of importance, as we begin to see the expansion of the whole scheme—I think every Member of your Lordships’ House thinks that it is a good idea in principle; I certainly do—to ensure that the governance structure is adequate for the increased responsibilities that will be placed on it. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on these points when she replies to the debate.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. As has already been pointed out, it differs from the other amendments in the group, which call for reports, as it is a targeted amendment focused on ensuring that the scope for new asset classes being added to the dormant assets arrangements under the Bill is kept under review. The other amendments are broader and seek reports on the impact and operation of the scheme. I do not support littering legislation with reports on the impact of Bills—that is what the post-legislative scrutiny process is for—so I do not support the other amendments in the group.

I was going to point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that his amendment is ineffective because Clause 31 deletes Section 14 from the 2008 Act, but he got there first. I would just explain that Section 14 was put in in the very specific context of the first Bill, the then Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. At the time, there was considerable controversy about whether a voluntary scheme would work. There was much scepticism about whether banks and building societies would yield their assets, which is why that specific reporting section was put into the 2008 Act. It reported within a few years. It has been some time since I looked at that report but, broadly, it concluded that it had been effective. Not absolutely every bank and building society is in the scheme but, in terms of value, substantially the whole amount are.

I focused my amendment on bringing in other asset classes because it took a long time for this Bill to come forward after the 2008 Act. It was 13 years before more asset classes appeared, which is just too long. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister admitted as such at Second Reading when she said that the industry had been “nudging”—a polite term—the Government to get on and get this Bill done. I do not think that we can necessarily rely on the Government to prioritise or be proactive about the source of new funds coming into dormant assets, which is why I suggested a periodic report specifically on asset classes to keep up that pressure.

When the Dormant Assets Commission, which was set up to be independent of government, reported about four years ago it identified a number of additional assets. It decided to concentrate on the financial services sector, but even within that it noted, as we discussed at Second Reading, that a number of sources of assets in the financial services sector have not yet been brought within the scheme’s scope. The report also outlined a long list of assets outside the financial services sector, ranging from Oyster cards—I was astonished to find that there are 42 million cards with a balance on that have not been used for more than a year—to a large amount of money in unclaimed gambling winnings, which I find surprising. There are also lots of balances on things such as telephone accounts and energy accounts. There are lots of forms of dormant assets hanging around; they ought not to be retained by the companies that hold them but ought to be released for the kind of good works that are fostered by this Bill and the 2008 Act.

I hope that one day the Treasury will be shamed into no longer being the only body keeping its dormant assets out of the scheme, in the form of National Savings & Investments accounts. I believe it amounts to something close to state larceny for the Treasury to insist that it can keep dormant National Savings & Investments money because it has been used to fund public expenditure. It is not the Treasury’s money to keep. However, I acknowledge that shame is not something generally found in the Treasury, so we may have to wait a very long time to see those assets come within the scheme.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I have a long-standing interest in the charity and voluntary sector. I have written a number of reports for the Government on it, so a Bill that proposes to provide just short of another £900 million for the sector obviously has my support, as it does from everybody else around the Chamber.

Before I come to my remarks, may I ask my noble friend, when she comes to wind up, just to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis? I think he said that this was the only charity piece of legislation planned for this Session. I have a certain proprietorial interest in a Law Commission Bill on charity law which picks up a number of the recommendations in one of my reports. I think—I hope—that she will be able to say that it is in the programme and that, therefore, that point from him is not correct. I look forward to hearing her comments on that.

I have two areas which I wish to probe and on which I hope that my noble friend can reassure me and the rest of the House, both now and in Committee. The first flows from my chairmanship of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The committee has noticed increasing use of skeleton legislation, where you get a broad idea of the direction of travel but the detail—what it really means to people on the ground—is left for secondary legislation from regulations. With great deference to my noble friend Lord Taylor as an ex-Chief Whip, let us be honest: secondary legislation has virtually no effective scrutiny at all—affirmative or negative or whatever. The nuclear nature of the scrutiny means that no party will press the button to blow the thing up. You cannot amend it, so you are left with a situation where you really have to—as my children would say—suck it up. We need to bear that in mind as we consider the provisions of this very worthwhile Bill.

The Bill starts with good will. We all think that it is wonderful. We all know that my noble friend will do her stuff and that the Opposition have good intentions, but we are making primary legislation. This will be on the statute book for years, and who knows what comes after us? We need to make sure that sufficient checks and balances are built into some of the provisions to ensure that less worthy people than currently populate our Front Benches are controlled in the way they may wish to use the proceeds from the Bill.

I am concerned about Clause 19, under which the Secretary of State can extend the scope of the dormant assets scheme both by regulation and by amending the provisions of the 2008 Act. I know that I will get knocked about by my noble friend Lady Noakes, who thinks that we are not being brave enough, but we need to be prepared to look at and examine the dangers of adding categories of assets that might change not only the shape of the scheme but the processes under which it operates, the way that it is managed and the impact it has. That is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made in her comments. We need to probe all these things in Committee, not because we want to stop the Bill, but because we want to make sure it remains true to the purposes we are discussing.

My second area of concern is Clause 29, on the distribution of money and the way it can be controlled by regulation, which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to. When all present are gone there can be a danger of the slush fund that my noble friend Lord Taylor referred to, and which is referred to in the briefing sent to us all, because when it is convenient and expedient Governments find ways to say, “We can wriggle our way around this.” Regulations do not provide enough protection from that, unless we find ways to buttress them in some form or another. My noble friend the Minister will be aware of the principle of additionality: that funds should not be made available merely to replace other funding. I cannot clearly see any provisions in the Bill that ensure that the additionality principle cannot be infringed so that the Government cannot say, “Let’s take a bit out of this and the dormant asset boys will fill the gap.”

That is my first area of concern. My second is whether the Bill’s purposes, as laid out in the 2008 Act, are still sufficiently focused on and relevant to the urgent needs of the social conditions prevailing today. Since 2008 we have had the financial crash and the pandemic, and, in the background as we sit here, the inexorable wave of the fourth industrial revolution of artificial intelligence and robotics is sweeping through our society, with all the changes it will make to the way our society lives, operates and collaborates.

I had the privilege of chairing your Lordships’ Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement. I am pleased to say that a number of its members are participating this afternoon: the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Eaton, who is to speak. The group of us are not cut from the same political cloth by any manner of means, but we produced a unanimous report. Sadly, there has been pretty limited follow-up on its recommendations to date.

Our evidence sessions and, indeed, our trips around the country, brought home starkly how very unevenly social capital is distributed across the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, may not like the title “‘Left Behind’ Neighbourhoods”—I am a member of the APPG too—but it does carry with it a clear nomenclature of what we are trying to achieve. As we visited these areas, and met people, it was clear that it was not just about money. Money was, of course, important, but it was also about structure. The lack of knowledge and experience and, even more importantly, a lack of self-confidence and self-belief, meant that practical help was needed, often very locally based, along the lines mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. That is a precondition of the long and often painful process of rebuilding local social capital. Like many other noble Lords, I argue that this is an essential plank in the levelling-up process on which the Government are placing such emphasis. I am not yet sure that the Bill, as presently drafted, has enough focus on the deployment of patient, long-term capital to enable the provision of the practical experience and help need to provide remedies for these deep-seated structural challenges.

My final question is about the expanded asset list. I have served as a director of a number of listed companies and the unclaimed dividend register is the most awful administrative pain. I am not clear how private companies, public companies and private shareholders who do not have dividends due to them but have disappeared now fit into the scheme. I have read through the proposals for these unclaimed assets and the expansion of asset management companies. Nominee names may be one way that they could be attracted, but a lot of the people who have held shares for a long time still have them in their own name. They are registered with the company and they remain there. I would like to hear whether companies are joining the scheme, are encouraged to join it, are being told about it, are being told how they can provide or meet the provisions of it, or how they can delegate someone to do that on their behalf. Perhaps my noble friend will devote a word or two to that when she comes to wind up.

I conclude by saying that this Bill has absolutely worthy objectives and it has my support. Without wishing to delay the Bill or destroy its objectives, there are one or two areas where, in Committee, we just need to probe, explain and perhaps, from time to time, tighten it up.