Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

It is now a government amendment, so we are going to get it—and that is vital because we will learn a great deal after that. I will just finish the point that volunteer trustees, perfectly understandably, are going to be cautious about this new legislation. The last thing in the world they will take a risk with is the prospect that things may get a bit out of hand or may not be perfectly understood, and that they, the trustees, will end up being personally liable. As I am sure everybody hearing this debate knows, they are personally liable. It does not matter if they are a limited-liability charity.

All in all, therefore, these are some of the reasons—I think other contributors to the debate will add others—that we should avoid the huge confusion that will follow if we subject charities to both charity law and electoral law. For good reason, I will not detain the House now beyond saying that this is still a very important issue that touches a hugely important part of our civic society—the very part of our civic society that does so much to uphold and vivify election campaigns. I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely well aware that the Charity Commission has given us a document to say that it is against this amendment, but the charity commissioners do not actually do legislation; that is our responsibility. They have set out in this missive that we got about 6.30 pm yesterday some of the reasons for their opposition.

Charities are, as I understand it, very fully regulated by law. Charities are those bodies that are established for charitable purposes only, and charitable purposes are defined as falling into certain classes, with the general provision that a charitable purpose is one that must be for public benefit. When I got this missive and had a chance to look at it, I e-mailed back the writer of the document asking, “Are you saying that a charity can lawfully, under existing charity law, engage in activities regulated by this Bill?”. I got an e-mail back to say that he was out of the office today and that, if it was urgent, I should ring a number. So I rang the number, and no one answered—although these things happen, even in the best regulated circles.

This is an extremely important point, as I see it. Charity law is sufficiently robust to require charities to obey the rules, which state that they can use their expenditure and efforts only in support of or in pursuance of their charitable purposes. As the missive says:

“Charities must never support political parties or candidates for election”.

At the moment, I cannot see why it is necessary that the Bill applies to charities. However, the Charity Commission, in the missive we got last night, goes on to explain that if the charities were exempted, its task of making sure that the charities obeyed the law in this regard would be too much for it, particularly in an election period. The Government have cut its budget so much that it cannot support this or do it properly. If that is the reason for passing the responsibility for seeing to this from a government organisation, the Charity Commission—which has a very long history of 150 years or so—on to charities, which depend on voluntary contributions for their financial support and to a great extent for their personnel support, it is an extremely bad one. Why should the government organisation pass on its responsibility to ensure that this is happening to the charities themselves and have them registered for that purpose?

This is an extremely serious matter that the Charities Commission has raised in this missive to us. So far as I am concerned, it requires the Government to look into the matter. I would like to see the Government undertake to look into this between now and Third Reading. I do not wish to pursue the matter further today. I originally raised this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, before he was away, and I am extremely glad to see that he is able to be back with us again. This is an important matter that I feel strongly about, and one that your Lordships’ House should not just pass over. We do not need to spend long on it, because it is a short but very important point.

Legal Profession: Regulation

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Is it not also true that the university which emerged from the College of Law is a profit-making entity? I rather think that it is.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am just about to come to that point. I understood that the something or other—I am not sure exactly what—of the College of Law has been sold to a commercial organisation, which I assume has a profit motive in it. I do not think that it is a charity. However, the university would be a charity, at least under the ordinary definition of charity which prevails as an institution for the advancement of education. I would be glad to know a little about the Government’s policy in relation to having the legal profession taught, and a university financed, by a profit-making organisation. I am not against profit for profit’s sake at all but, hitherto, universities have not been regarded primarily as institutions set up for profit, except for the profit of those who profit from them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has led the Bar Standards Board with tremendous distinction. I sensed a certain amount of frustration in her remarks this evening about the way in which really efficient standard-setting for the Bar can be damaged by unnecessary and sometimes overcomplicated interventions by those who do not quite share the same objectives as the Bar Standards Board. I feel that the same may be somewhat true in the solicitors’ branch of the profession.

I hope that the Government will take very seriously the suggestion that this whole area should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committees of this House and the other place have shown themselves to be very valuable in scrutiny of legislation. Post-legislative scrutiny of this legislation, which is so fundamental to the success of our free legal profession, is now due.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, the point that is covered by “may” rather than “must” is that, in the light of the consultation, even if the Minister wants to make an order, he may well think it is right to do something else first; for example, have further consultations and make modified proposals before he proceeds with the order. That is why, in this context, the word “may” is often used when many of us might have thought it was going to happen anyway. That is the reason and I believe it is a good reason.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I hate to disagree with a noble and learned friend and former Lord Chancellor, but I have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is quite clear that this is posited on the basis that, having had the consultation, having considered all things, the Minister then considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order. That is perfectly clear. He is then en route to making an order. It then goes on to say,

“the Minister may lay before Parliament”,

but surely, once the Minister is committed to making an order, he must lay it before Parliament.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I am sorry to respond, because this is Report and it is the last thing I want to do, but it seems to me that the point is that it says, “make an order”, it does not mean to say that it is an order in anything like the form that is thought of so far. The consultation might well open up new possibilities altogether. The Minister wants to make an order, he wants to proceed, he may do it this way or he may do something else in the way of further consultation and then go ahead with an order different in substance from what he had proposed in the original consultation. That is the reason for it.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I say to the Minister that her good faith is not at issue at all. The issue is whether it is possible under the rules of the House to bring back at Third Reading an amendment that has been moved on Report. I would like advice from the Clerk because, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I do not think that that is within the rubric of the House.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

It is not me to give this advice, except in response to what my noble friend has asked. However, as I understand it, it is certainly within the rules of the House to bring back the matter at Third Reading if it has not been decided before that.