Public Administration Committee Report (Charity Commission)

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that that is not the intention, Mr Flynn. Under this procedure, Mr Jenkin can take up to 20 minutes to present his report but he will take interventions as he is going along.

[Paul Flynn]

He has just refused one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think we should interpret his remarks, as I did, to mean that he wanted to finish the point he was making before he took an intervention. I am sure that that was what you meant, Mr Jenkin, was it not?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and I can assure the House that I have never been able to gag him, try as I might. I can assure him that my speech will by no means fill the 20 minutes available; I hope it will fill no more than half that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want to make sure that we are both clear on the procedure. If you make your remarks and sit down, that is the end, so we need you to take interventions during your speech.

[Mr Jenkin]

I quite understand.

We received firm advice from the Attorney-General that we should treat the Preston Down case as sub judice to avoid prejudging any future tribunal decisions. In any case, it is not for PASC to determine the charitable status of individual cases.

The impact of the 2006 Act on the issue of public benefit and charitable status was at the centre of the inquiry. It has always been the case that charities must be established for charitable purposes only and that a charitable purpose must be “for the public benefit”, but the 2006 Act is said to have removed the presumption of public benefit from the list of headings that has historically existed, although case law prompts the question whether there ever was in fact such a presumption. However, the Act also placed a duty on the commission to publish guidance on public benefit, even though Parliament failed to define “public benefit” in the Act.

That aspect of the Act has been an administrative and financial disaster for the Charity Commission and for the charities involved, absorbing vast amounts of energy and commitment. Lord Hodgson describes the public benefit aspect of the Act as “a hospital pass”, inviting the commission to become involved in matters such as the charitable status of independent schools, which have long been a matter of political controversy.

We criticise the Charity Commission’s interpretation of the Act in some cases, but ultimately find that

“the Charities Act 2006 is critically flawed on the question of public benefit and should be revisited by Parliament”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the suggestions being made from a sedentary position that I have not read the report are outrageous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr Bone, I quite agree. Mr Sheerman, Mr Flynn, you have made your contributions, and shouting across the Chamber is not helpful.

[Mr Sheerman]

He spends his life shouting across the Chamber.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, the next time he shouts across the Chamber when I am in the Chair, I can assure you I will pick him up, as I do everyone. Mr Bone, you may continue.

[Mr Bone]

May I refer to a different aspect of the report, on charitable status for religious institutions? Many such institutions feel that there has been creep by the Charity Commission in defining public benefit or, worse still, going to the tribunal to define it. From what the Chair of the Committee is saying, I gather that he thinks this is something that Parliament should revisit.