Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support the rationale behind the Bill, which is of great importance to many members of the public. Its purposes are indeed to protect the public from unscrupulous fundraisers and to stop individuals who run charities abusing them. I agree that action should be taken in such cases, and I agree that the Charity Commission should have appropriate powers where misconduct is proven to have occurred.

I am pleased to note that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that

“it is widely acknowledged that deliberate wrongdoing in charities is extremely rare”,

and it is important to remember that when we debate this Bill. There are many millions of people across the country who devote themselves and give selflessly of their time to charities. It is very important that we do nothing that in any way inhibits them from engaging and contributing to this important part of our civic society.

Having highlighted that motivation, I now want to highlight some of my concerns about the Bill, particularly about some of the new powers it contains. I hope that expressing my concerns is helpful and that they can be explored further in Committee. I speak with particular reference to the new measures in clauses 3 and 11, and the wide-ranging wording of the powers, which I fear could severely curb civic engagement, possibly deterring responsible people from wanting to be appointed as an officer to a charity.

I have more than 30 years’ experience of working in private practice on charity law, and the representation of charities was a particular part of that practice. I know that it has become increasingly difficult over those years to get individuals to step up to the plate, to coin a term, and to agree to an appointment in a charity. That often proves to be one of the challenges that new charities face, particularly—and interestingly—when it comes to the appointment of a treasurer.

I come to this debate, as I say, with over three decades of practical experience of working in this field. I want to ensure that we encourage and do not deter the very responsible people that the Bill is designed to support.

I note that clause 11 provides for new powers to suspend and disqualify. It has an extensive list of reasons within it, but I note that these could in future be varied by Ministers through the laying of new regulations—subject to those regulations being consulted on. We all know, however, that with the best will in the world among the Government, consultations can often reach only a few members of the public. There is the further problem of the regulations being scrutinised only by a few Members in Committee. That is why I am concerned about the excessive powers that will be granted if the Bill is passed, which if extended could come to embrace actions that might not have been fully scrutinised or intended by Members. I enter that caveat about the extension of disqualifications merely by Ministers laying new regulations.

The Bill gives immense power to the Charity Commission. Indeed, in its policy paper of May 2015, the Charity Commission acknowledged that it was gaining “a significant new power” to disqualify people from serving as trustees or senior managers of charities. I am concerned about the wording. The Charity Commission is able under clause 1(1) to issue a warning,

“to a charity trustee or trustee for a charity who it considers has committed…misconduct or mismanagement”.

Clearly, “who it considers” is a very wide-ranging phrase. I note that clause 1(2) allows the Charity Commission to issue a warning that it can “publish”. Yes, the charity or person subject to that warning can respond, but the publication might already have occurred, so I am concerned about the damage to the reputation of the charity in general and the individual. I am worried if there is an opportunity to publish without an opportunity to respond, and I would be grateful if Minister corrected me if I am wrong on that point.

Let me deal with some of the conditions for disqualification. The Charity Commission interprets unfitness to be a trustee to mean failure of honesty and integrity, competence or credibility, the latter being defined as undermining the confidence of the public. That is what I want to highlight in the next part of my speech—how the Charity Commission could take steps to act and issue a warning solely on the one criterion of conduct that might damage public trust and undermine public confidence.

The Charity Commission says that it will use an evidence base relating to the knowledge it gains from the surveys it takes into public trust. I am rather concerned about that. Does it mean that the Charity Commission could carry out a poll, asking people with certain views whether they think the public would be more or less likely to trust an individual or charity? What if those views were very much in the minority or if the views were greatly opposed to current Government policy—views on foreign policy, for example?

That is quite a broad-ranging power, and so far as I can see there are no requirements for any independent review from the Government before the warning is issued. It seems to be based on an individual undertaking some activity or saying something that might be contrary to the views held by the majority of the public who respond to a survey. When the Bill refers to “any conduct”, does that include conduct that someone might have undertaken several years before becoming a trustee? We all know—including many of us in the House—that views can change over time. Many of us might have expressed views some years ago that have changed. How is an individual going to be protected from action taken against them, on the basis of this Bill, which could have far-reaching repercussions?

This is not a merely theoretical issue. Let me highlight how serious a problem this is. I remind Members of the challenges faced by the Plymouth Brethren in the last Parliament. Their charitable registration was threatened because of the interpretation of the words “public benefit” within the Charities Act 2006. We are fortunate now to have William Shawcross as chairman of the Charity Commission. He is an excellent head, a man who possesses wisdom and expresses his opinions, conducts his deliberations and makes his decisions very carefully and with great common sense. Following his appointment, I felt that an appropriate approach was being taken to the plight in which the Plymouth Brethren found themselves when their charitable status was challenged. The case was to go to a tribunal, the Plymouth Brethren had to engage lawyers, and more than 300 churches were affected.

The Plymouth Brethren are a long-established denomination that exists throughout the country, but the challenge that they faced was very serious. They had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal advice. As I have said before, it was to their the credit that in the past they had done an enormous amount of voluntary work without shouting about it, but now they had to start producing documentation, and indeed they produced some excellent booklets citing the work that they had done to the public benefit. They continue to do that work, one example being disaster relief.

Some major debates were held about the case in the House. More than 40 Members of Parliament attended a debate in Westminster Hall to speak up for the Plymouth Brethren and to say that the Charity Commission’s action should never have been taken, because it had been based on a subjective interpretation of the words “public benefit”. Ultimately, as we know, the commission withdrew its action, and the charitable status of the Plymouth Brethren—and many other charities that had been standing by and waiting for the decision—was secured. However, we do not want a rerun of that case.

Some may claim that minority views undermine public confidence, but where would the suffragettes have been had all this been happening years ago? Our society contains a wide range of views and beliefs, which are often held with passion and principle. Disagreement is common, as we saw in the House only yesterday; indeed, it is a characteristic of a free society. However—and social media can be very cruel in this regard—many people despise or reject others entirely on the basis of their sincerely held but different, or minority, views. Charities are often formed for the purpose of protecting minorities, and it is important for us to ensure that genuine people with genuinely held minority views are protected from what I am sure would be the unintended consequences of the Bill.

Let me return to the subject of faith groups. Many religions in this country espouse views that are rejected by the majority, and a number of those views are very strongly rejected. Creationism, for instance, cannot be taught in schools as a scientific fact, but one would hope that it can still be expounded in RE lessons as a belief. If a charity’s work involved the promotion of creationism as a belief, would that be considered likely to undermine public confidence? There are many other examples—for example, different views on sexual ethics.

I am not, in this context, talking about minorities. A few weeks ago I spoke to a Church of England vicar—and it should be borne in mind that the Church of England is our state Church—who said that he had gone into a school and spoken about a particular view from a biblical perspective, and had gained the distinct impression that he should not come back and talk about the issue again. We must protect people with sincerely held but minority beliefs from the chilling effect that legislation can have on free speech in our society.

Let me now say something about the connection between the new powers in the Bill and the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. I understand that the Government are seeking to ensure that charities are not abused for extremist purposes. The problem is, however, that there does not currently appear to be a clear definition of extremism. That problem affects the Bill, and I think that it could have a very negative impact. The Government’s information document on the counter-extremism strategy defines extremism as

“the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

That sounds fine, but previous definitions contained two or three additional words that now appear to be missing. They referred to

“mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.

That was one of our fundamental British values, alongside democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty: mutual respect and tolerance of people who held different faiths and beliefs.

In March, I said in the House:

“It is entirely right that we should respect other people, including those with other beliefs, and to respect their right to hold those beliefs”.

I added, however, that we should be careful not to conflate that

“with a requirement to respect all other beliefs, which is quite a different thing altogether.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 496.]

That is the problem with the current definition of extremism. If I say that I respect scientologists but I do not respect scientology, I mean that I respect those who hold different beliefs, but I do not respect the belief of scientology. Does that make me an extremist? We must be very careful about the way in which we define extremism, and in that connection it is interesting to note that the Government have yet to provide a statutory definition of non-violent extremism.

We all value free speech very highly in the House. A free society is based on disagreement and mutual respect, and I believe that that is strengthened, not compromised, when I respect my fellow citizens without necessarily respecting their beliefs. I mentioned the suffragettes earlier, but the issue of slavery is another example. The wording of the current definition is deeply troubling, and we need to clarify it, because otherwise we could end up contributing to the marginalisation that feeds extremism. Open dialogue with those who hold different views is essential if we are to understand each other’s views, reduce prejudice, and promote community cohesion.

The role that faith groups play in community cohesion through their involvement in the voluntary sector is staggering. Research carried out earlier in the year established that they contribute about £3 billion to social action in their communities, and that is just in monetary terms. In my view, the social cohesion that they provide is unquantifiable. Thousands of churches have run, or helped to run, charity projects for decades. It concerns me greatly that the removal—or the mere deterrence—of those who hold faith-related views that, in our present society, might not be popular, and certainly could not be considered mainstream, could deprive the charitable sector of valuable experience and expertise for decades.

Having had more than 30 years of experience in legal practice and of working with the charitable sector, I know that people are increasingly worried about falling foul of legislation and, as a result, are not becoming charity trustees. Will the Minister look again at the powers relating to disqualification? It is interesting that he used the term “self-regulation”. I would not like to become self-disqualified. I am concerned because the powers are so wide, and we need to ensure that the thousands of experienced servant-hearted volunteers involved in the charitable sector are not deterred from being involved in our civic society. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, and I would be grateful if they looked at these concerns. I am sure that that would be an unintended consequence, but we cannot afford any further marginalisation and exclusion of people from a sector in which they play such a vital role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. It is important to remember that the core activities of our charities are rarely questioned. They are usually performed incredibly well and incredibly sensitively and appropriately. The scandals and disappointments tend to come from the way the operation of our charities occurs. That is why it is incredibly important that trustees play their full role in managing, scrutinising and supporting those organisations, as do directors and non-executive directors of our companies.

The role of a trustee has to be at the heart of it all. The new Bill is important in that regard as the power to bar individuals who are not appropriate to be trustees and who bring charities into disrepute is incredibly important. I would be interested to know from the Minister how many trustees he believes that that would apply to in an average year. Will the difference be marginal, or will it be more significant? As for the question of preventing trustees from moving on, after damaging an organisation, to continue in many others, we all know that many people—many good people—are trustees of several charities and so, inevitably, the bad apples are also involved in many charities. We want to ensure that that involvement cannot continue.

The power to issue warnings to charities is important if the Charity Commission considers their actions to amount to misconduct or mismanagement. Of course, that must be done proportionately and the Charity Commission has not always acted proportionately on a range of other issues, including, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the issue of the Plymouth Brethren. Had I been in the House at the time, I would certainly have supported that important campaign.

Many involved in the third sector have expressed concern that the Bill gives the commission the benefit of the doubt, but bearing in mind the importance of raising public trust in our charities, particularly the big ones, it is essential that we have a strong regulator with the tools to act. The Bill provides that.

I have some questions and thoughts for the Minister on the role of trustees. First, it is absolutely essential, as Kids Company showed—this seems a simple and obvious point—that a board of trustees contains the right range of expertise. That is stipulated within the guidance of the Charity Commission but, clearly, it does not always happen. In particular, that must include the right range of financial expertise. When charities reach a certain size, like our larger companies, they qualify to be in the FTSE 250. They are huge organisations and require individuals with genuine financial expertise and knowledge of financial controls so that they can scrutinise the organisation and hold it to account.

[Fiona Bruce]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but my concern is, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned, possible regulations for larger charities. My concern is how that is defined and that one might bring in the smaller charities. Does my hon. Friend not share my concern about the difficulty in attracting officers of charitable organisations, particularly to the role of treasurer, as my experience shows?

[Robert Jenrick]

I share that concern. We all know through the other organisations in which we are involved how difficult it can be to find good people, particularly younger people, as has been said, to act as trustees. Incidentally, the charitable sector is a lot more diverse than our corporate sector. About 40% of charitable trustees are women, and that figure is not the same in the corporate sector. It is important that we do not put people off from getting involved. It might be that the time has come when “one size fits all” does not work and that our largest charities, which uphold public trust and confidence in charitable giving more generally and which are very large—we are encouraging charities to merge and get larger—should be subject to far greater scrutiny and a different regime from the small ones that we all know in our constituencies and want to thrive.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps for the very small charities there needs to be some sort of Charity Commission kitemarked course that a would-be trustee can go on to ensure that they have the necessary understanding of the role required.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend comes on to a point that I wanted to make. By the Charity Commission’s own reckoning, knowledge of governance rules and best practice is quite limited among our trustees. I do not blame them—they are busy people who are doing this voluntarily and we want to encourage that—but knowledge is quite limited. The awareness and knowledge of some of the guidance—for instance, CC3, which is “The essential trustee” guide—are quite modest. Surveys that the Charity Commission has put out to trustees of larger and small charities suggest that basic functions of being a trustee are not widely known by our trustees.

Anything that the Charity Commission can do to boost awareness without putting off our trustees is essential. I know that the Charity Commission takes that seriously, because I have spoken to it, but it needs to do something to boost that awareness and support trustees in a way that strikes the right balance between not deterring people and ensuring that they know what they are supposed to do. Some of the reports and surveys are quite scary when it comes to how few trustees understand their responsibilities, particularly as regards finance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions to this debate. Clearly, these issues are very important to them and their constituents. May I add my welcome and congratulations to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on her first outing at the Dispatch Box? I am sure that it is the first of many.

It is clear that the House has great respect and admiration for the good work currently being done by charities throughout the UK. I also know that hon. Members have much experience and expertise of charities in the voluntary sector, which was demonstrated during some of the speeches today.

There is also a strong desire to protect the privileged position that charities hold in the eyes of the public, as was demonstrated in the latest world giving index, which found Britain to be the most generous nation in Europe. We also have a strong, diverse and growing charity sector. Over the period of the last Parliament, the number of registered charities in England and Wales increased by more than 2,000 to 165,000. Their combined income has grown by more than £10 billion, and is now just short of £70 billion a year.

Before I address the remarks that have been made by hon. Members, let me take the time to echo a point that has been made throughout this debate. The vast majority of charities in this country do excellent work and are run by good, honest and generous people. They wish to help those most in need and make the world a better place. I particularly wish to pay tribute to charity trustees, without whose unpaid efforts there would be no charity sector. For their selfless passion and commitment, they have my respect and sincere thanks. However, their good work is threatened by a small minority who seek to abuse charitable status for their own ends. The Bill will help the independent regulator to take robust action against that small minority. By doing so, it will reinforce public trust and confidence and protect the reputation of charities as a whole.

The powers in the Bill have broad support from the charitable sector and the public. The charity commissioner has been involved throughout the process of developing these proposals. The sector has also been subjected to public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, both of which helped inform and refine the proposed powers.

Some have argued that the Bill would give the Charity Commission too much power, or that some of the powers are too broad. In response, I say that the Bill seeks to achieve a balance. The new commission powers need to be broad enough to make them useful. If they are too narrow they would be impractical and go unused or would leave loopholes to be exploited by the unscrupulous. Charities also need to know the circumstances in which the commission will use its powers.

Although this Bill achieves the right balance, I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to a couple of key safeguards. The Charity Commission is subject to a general duty under section 16 of the Charities Act 2011. That means that the commission must be satisfied that the exercise of any of its powers would be in line with the principles of best regulatory practice, including that it is proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for drawing our attention to that section. It is a pity that it was not invoked when the whole interpretation of public benefit was being debated, and that the Charity Commission did not refer itself back to it then. My concern is that this Bill could be in force before there is a clear definition of non-violent extremism. The Government’s counter-extremism strategy says that this Bill would give the commission powers to disqualify trustees for wide reasons, including past conduct and a variety of other abuses, such as extremism. In the same strategy, there is also reference to non-violent extremism. Will the Minister address that point?

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution this afternoon and her question. She raises some extremely important issues, with which I intend to deal in full. As she has asked, let me just deal with the public benefit and religion issue first. Religious charities play a hugely important role in our public life. Over 25% of registered charities have a religious purpose and are often working in some of the most hard-to-reach communities. The advancement of religion is one of the oldest charitable purposes, and there is no question but that it is under threat. There are more than 25,000 registered religious charities, almost all of which have no difficulty in demonstrating their public benefit.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Plymouth Brethren in her speech. Its case was an exception, and I am pleased that it was resolved in a sensible way, even though it took too long. I will come back to some of the other issues that she raised later in my comments.

All the proposed commission powers in the Bill have a right of appeal, in most cases to the Charity Tribunal, ensuring that there is independent judicial oversight of the exercise of the commission’s powers. There have also been some questions, notably from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), about the rehabilitation of offenders.

The Government believe that individuals with serious convictions should not be able to hold the position of charity trustee and have control over charitable funds and fundraising activities until those convictions are spent or a waiver from disqualification is obtained from the commission. The waiver regime exists to enable disqualified individuals who wish to be a charity trustee to apply to the Charity Commission for their disqualification to be overturned.

A waiver application would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Charity Commission would take into account the nature and seriousness of the conduct that had resulted in the conviction and consequential disqualification.

A decision by the Charity Commission not to grant a waiver could be appealed to the Charity Tribunal, which would consider the matter afresh. That strikes me as a fair and proportionate system that on the one hand protects charities from individuals who present a known risk, and on the other hand provides for the rehabilitation of offenders and a way back into charity trusteeship on a case-by-case basis.

People have also raised concerns about the official warning power and the fact that there is no right of appeal to the Charity Tribunal. There is a right of appeal, which is judicial review. That is the same position as now, where the commission publishes its operational compliance case reports on non-inquiry cases that have attracted public interest and that highlight important lessons for charity trustees.

The Bill provides for a period of time to allow representations to be made in relation to an official warning, which the commission would be obliged to consider. There is then the option of judicial review. We consider that proportionate.

A right to appeal an official warning to the tribunal would be disproportionate and could tie the commission up in red tape, rendering the power impractical for its intended purpose. The last thing that we want to do is give the Charity Commission powers that it cannot use, and for which it could be criticised for failing to exercise several years hence. The Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny agreed that, with the appropriate safeguards in the provision, judicial review was the appropriate route for appeals.

Let me turn now to fundraising. I was deeply disappointed to see the extent of poor practices by large charities in relation to their fundraising. That matter was widely exposed by the media earlier this year following the sad death of Olive Cooke. Since then, further damaging cases have come to light, and once again the reputation of charities has been put at risk by the actions of a small minority. Public trust and confidence in charities have not been this low since 2007, and charities now rank 12th in the list of most trusted institutions, below supermarkets and television and radio stations. Only 48% of people said they trusted charities.

In response to the fundraising scandals, we acted swiftly to amend the Bill in the other place to reinforce charity trustees’ responsibilities and accountability for the charity’s fundraising. Clause 14 will encourage charities to exercise greater control and oversight of those who fundraise for their organisation. It will ensure that there are proper processes for dealing with vulnerable people and will generally safeguard the public. Large charities will make this commitment public through their annual reports so that anyone can hold them to account for how they interact with them.

I asked Sir Stuart Etherington to conduct an independent review of how fundraising regulation could be improved to safeguard vulnerable people and better respect the public’s wishes about how and whether they are contacted. He was supported by a cross-party panel of peers. I have since accepted the review’s recommendations in full, and I am now encouraging the sector to move quickly and firmly to show that it gets the public’s anger and concern and is committed to making self-regulation work.

I also expect the sector fully to back the new fundraising regulator, both financially and through compliance with its rulings. In the past few weeks, I have announced that Lord Michael Grade has been recruited as the interim chair of the new body and will oversee the set-up and initial phase of operations. I am confident that he is the right man to lead this important task and that the sector will unite behind him to address these urgent issues and restore public trust in fundraising.

The new regulator will also host the fundraising preference service, a tool that will allow people to opt out of receiving fundraising requests and that will stop charities wasting resources on approaching those who do not wish to hear from them. A working group is currently being set up to establish how the service will work in practice. In addition to a simple reset button, there will no doubt be a few more nuanced options should people wish to opt into certain charities only. Crucially, it will provide everyone with a way to get off charity contact lists they no longer wish to be on.

Charities need to demonstrate that fundraising and its self-regulation can work in the best interests of the public. They will have the chance to do so at a summit tomorrow, when the next steps for implementing better self-regulation will be announced. I hope that this will be a constructive and collaborative meeting where charities show their commitment to the new self-regulator and to meeting the public’s expectations. Should they fail to do so, I stand ready to step in to safeguard the public and their trust in charities.

For that purpose, I will seek to add two reserve powers to the Bill: one to compel charities to sign up to the new regulator and a second to mandate the Charity Commission with regulation should the sector fail to rise to the challenge. I also welcome the commission’s revision of its guidance for charity trustees on fundraising, which it has published today. It reminds trustees of their duties and responsibilities in relation to fundraising, including the need to protect their charity’s reputation and that of the wider sector.

The Bill also provides support to social investment. As many will have seen in the autumn statement, the Government have shown a strong commitment to social investment, having invested £80 million to grow social impact bonds in the UK. For charity investors, the power of social investment enables them to increase their mission impact and sustainability by making investments that provide a financial return as well as furthering the purpose of the charity. Although most charities can make social investments under the current law, it can be complex and costly to do so. The new social investment power for charities in clause 15 was recommended and drafted by the Law Commission to overcome that complexity and reduce the costs of investment for charities. It was widely supported on consultation.

The UK is already recognised as a world leader in social investment, an area in which the Government have taken pioneering action. For example, we have set up Big Society Capital and stimulated the use of social impact bonds to deliver services to some of the most disadvantaged in society through initiatives such as social outcomes funds. With the power of social investment conferred on charities by the Bill, we take another step forward in building a sustainable social investment ecosystem.

I now turn briefly to interventions and speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about the transparency of direct debit fundraisers. Professional fundraisers are already required to state how much they are paid for asking the public to donate, but I would be happy to discuss the matter further in Committee. I was delighted by the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who spoke for the SNP and may well have set a precedent under English votes for English law: he said that the SNP would not be taking part in any other stages of the Bill. I hope that that precedent will now stand.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for an uplifting speech and her comments about her inaugural volunteering day. I hope it sets a precedent for other MPs. It is great to see that that will now become an annual event, and I certainly wish it well. I also thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for supporting the fundraising preference service. For the sake of fundraising in the future, it is important that it works. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who told us the wonderful story about poppy knitting in one of her villages. It demonstrates the value of civil society and the contribution of charities. She is absolutely right that a small kindness can make a big difference.

For several reasons, legislating for a maximum trustee term does not appeal. The evidence is that 50% of charities are carrying at least one trustee vacancy, and we must be mindful that the role is a voluntary one. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned the impact on small charities and made an important point about minimising the burden of regulation, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd South. We are keen to minimise the burden of regulation on small charities. For example, the new reporting requirement on fundraising in clause 14 will apply only to charities with incomes over £1 million, and the new fundraising self-regulator will need to consider exemptions for small charities from the fundraising preference service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made a strong speech that clearly set out how big charities were causing great concern for some smaller charities. It is certainly our intention to try to protect them. The Opposition raised concerns about campaigning. To be clear, charities cannot engage in party-political campaigning, and where they undertake any other types of campaigning to support their charitable purposes, they must avoid adverse perceptions of their independence and political neutrality. In addition, they must not embark on campaigning to such an extent that it compromises their legal status as a charity. The Charity Commission provides clear guidance, in CC9, about what is permitted. It makes it clear that charity law recognises that non-party political campaigning can be a legitimate activity for charities and sets out the general principles.

A concern was raised about whether the commission should be able to publish official warnings. Charities exist for public benefit and depend on public support, so there should be transparency and publication of official warnings when the regulator considers it necessary to intervene, unless there is a good reason not to publish them. There should always be an opportunity, though, to make representations about the factual accuracy of a statutory warning before it is published, and a process for representations is included in the Bill. Concerns were also raised about the scope of official warnings being too broad. We consider the scope to be right and clear. Under the Bill, a warning can be issued in respect of a breach of a statutory provision, breach of a commission order or direction or breach of a trust or duty.

I will turn briefly to the concerns about extremism raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Extremism or the terrorist abuse of charities of any kind is very rare but must be addressed to protect public trust and confidence in charities. Although it may not represent most of the Charity Commission’s compliance work, it represents a serious risk to public trust and confidence. The reforms proposed in the Bill are not specifically focused on counter-terrorism or extremism—they would enable the commission better to tackle all types of abuse of charity—so the Bill does not seek to define extremism, nor should it. Charities and their work can be an important protection against extremism. We have no intention, as I said, of undermining freedom of religion or freedom of speech, and the Bill has been certified as compatible with the European convention on human rights.