NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Wendy Morton

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend ignores the starting point, which is that the Secretary of State makes the appointments, whereas that has never been the case for other charities. They have evolved differently, whereas NHS charities are evolving out of the NHS, more towards the private sector. To put in place a safeguard which one hopes would not be used seems to me quite a prudent thing to do. It says, “This is our hope, this is our intention. We expect it to work and we think it will work in the vast majority of cases and make NHS charities more like other private sector charities.”

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I give way to the promoter of the Bill.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful. The Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill is proceeding through this House. It comes back to the Chamber next week, giving us the opportunity to hear more about the work of the Charity Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the NHS charities that we are discussing today become independent, there is the assurance that they will be covered by the Charity Commission? That goes a long way to ensuring public trust in those charities, which is the crux of the matter.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I suppose the answer is “Up to a point, Lord Copper.” The Charity Commission has marvellous and admirable elements. It has a brilliant chairman who has been a great force for good in that organisation, sorting out some of the problems that it had before his appointment. I think particularly of the dreadful treatment meted out to the Plymouth Brethren before he was there. It is none the less an unelected, unaccountable quango. I take the rather extraordinary view that we should trust our democratically elected politicians more than we should trust the unelected. That is why I am always banging on about this House maintaining its own powers, and why we should hold Ministers to account. We should be very cautious about thinking that an independent, unaccountable body is a better supervisor than the democratic will of the nation expressed through this House.

When responsibility is shifted, it is prudent to do that cautiously, in stages, and to keep a safeguard in place. When the first case goes wrong, which it will—within 10 years something will have happened; there will be an NHS charity where the accountant has snaffled off all the money and gone to Barbados or wherever it is fashionable to go at this time of year, or perhaps gone off to South Africa to watch the test match—at that point people will say, “Why didn’t the Government do something about that? Why have they not got a plan? Why didn’t they make sure that they could keep it under control?”. Having a protection, possibly even a time-limited one—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I reiterate—I am sorry, Mr Speaker, to reiterate. I may be becoming repetitive, but I hope not yet tediously repetitive; that may come at a later stage. We need to look at the starting point. These charities are coming out of the control of the Secretary of State. To move them completely away from his control in one fell swoop may be relatively imprudent, whereas to do it more cautiously and keep a safeguard is perfectly sensible. By contrast, in the case of charities that have never been under the Secretary of State and have never had their trustees appointed by the Government, it is perfectly sensible to leave them with their existing regulatory system.

[Wendy Morton]

We have had a lot of debate about the term “appropriate”. What exactly does my hon. Friend mean by “cautiously”? I have to say that I am very sceptical about this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said, it is a question is how we get to where we are going from where we are starting. As we make the transition, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that the money is handed over in a way that is properly audited so that people can have confidence in the NHS charities and not feel that there is some kind of sleight of hand or money is being siphoned off.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend not agree, though, that funds donated to the NHS and put into these charities must be held separately from Exchequer funding provided by the taxpayer? Charities exist to support their beneficiaries, and there is a special relationship between the charities and the—

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is wonderful just to be able to imagine my hon. Friend in my mind. I have finished my intervention, but I am grateful for your advice and reminder.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a very distracting interlude, I must confess.

The key is the safeguarding of money and ensuring that things are done properly with an audit trail.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Debate between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Wendy Morton

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because that is exactly the point. It is one of those occasions where rigour really helps. If donors feel that their money will be used properly, they are more willing to give. It is fascinating how charity law has developed in this direction in recent years. Historically, if people gave money to charities, they gave it to the charity for its general purposes. Then they discovered that the general purposes of charities included all sorts of jolly things, such as lunch at the Ritz, so increasingly they have given money for limited purposes, and the funds can then only be spent on those purposes, even within a single charity. For example, if people viewing this debate wish to make donations for the renewal and restoration of this Palace, that money could only be spent on the renewal and restoration of this Palace; it could not be used for other purposes. Charity law has gone that way because it encourages people to give, as they have confidence in how the money will be spent. That is crucial for NHS charities, because there is this large pool of Government money, but it is never quite enough. We hear of deficits, and hospitals and doctors wanting more money, and all of that is a constant pressure on the health service.

[Wendy Morton]

The reason behind the Bill and for removing the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees stems from a consultation with the charities. The move to independence is something that the charities want, and it is a key part of the Bill. We are recognising that donations must be kept entirely separate from the money that comes from the Exchequer, and that it is also accounted for separately.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend really is a truly radical parliamentarian in the train of her predecessor, because she has been involved in a consultation that has actually listened to what people have said. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I cannot believe that the Government ever do anything of that kind. They always wait for the answer that they hoped for in the beginning. What a brilliant thing she has done, and I entirely agree with the point she makes, but it makes so much sense to reinforce the independence of charities and to ring-fence the money, because there are inevitable, inexorable pressures on NHS budgets. If there is a couple of million pounds sitting around at the end of the year and a waiting list and the hospital could do with a bit of cash, it could easily try to claw in the money. That is why ring-fencing and independence are so important to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that charities will do what they have been set up to do. That reassures people and will make them more generous.

I wish to raise one point with the Minister, however, that comes from a constituency experience. It relates to the independent charities using the trademark of the national health service. A constituent of mine runs a charity that has put defibrillators across the country, and he has done so in co-ordination with the NHS. The numbers needed to open the boxes are given out when people dial 999. The charity is supported by ambulance trusts, which have said that they want their logo put on the boxes. Now, some random bureaucratic body in the NHS protects its logo, and it has decided in its wisdom that the charity must spend some money removing all the NHS logos from a system backed by the NHS, operated with the NHS, but not formally part of the NHS. That seems to me the worst type of bureaucratic folderol imaginable. It is a stubborn refusal to allow something sensible to happen for no good reason other than that a rule must be rigorously enforced. The whole purpose of the boxes is to support the NHS, to make its job easier, and no one can open the box without having got in touch with the emergency services in the first place, and, as I say, the ambulance trusts want this to happen.

It concerns me that, if the charities are made formally independent, that same bureaucracy will be jumping up and down in a few weeks’ time and saying, “Well, you’re now an independent charity, so you can’t use the NHS logo because it will damage the NHS brand.” That is a perfectly ridiculous point of view to take. I could not have less sympathy for how that body is approaching the issue, rather than using the good common sense that is another Tory value and principle and allowing something that benefits everyone to happen. I hope that that will not be a problem emerging from the Bill. Perhaps an amendment can be inserted in Committee to say specifically that charities linked with the NHS are entitled to use NHS logos and trademarks. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on what I am saying about the charity in my constituency that is doing something really wonderful—it is saving hundreds of lives—but some petty bureaucrat is getting in the way. So I hope that an additional benefit will come from the Bill.

I have been saving up talking about J.M. Barrie and “Peter Pan” because I remember when the Bill—introduced by the late Lord Callaghan, a former Prime Minister—was passed in 1988 to extend the copyright on “Peter Pan” indefinitely, and I do so because I remember the late Lord Charteris starting a speech by pointing out that Captain Hook was an old Etonian. Lord Charteris was then the provost of Eton, and that was therefore immediately relevant and of interest to him, but it is also of interest to me because it has to be said that there are all sorts of old Etonians. There are the great and the good: the greatest figures in the land—our Prime Minister is an old Etonian, and he is one of the good lot—but we have at the other end the rogues’ gallery of old Etonians, where Captain Hook stands proud, along with people like Lord Lucan. Hon. Members know exactly what I mean. Captain Hook is there in that role to frighten the children, to keep them well behaved, just as Bonaparte was used in earlier times to frighten badly behaved children. I am rather proud of the fact that an old Etonian fills that role. It rebalances the scales so that we do not mislead people into thinking that all old Etonians are wonderful fellows. One or two of them are in the rogues’ gallery, but there is a balance: only in the past week, the new James Bond film has come out, and James Bond is, of course, another old Etonian. We have some good historical characters, as well as some villains, who are there to remind people that Eton is a serious school that produces people who will take all sorts of different sides in various cases.

What is happening with “Peter Pan” and Great Ormond Street hospital is a great combination of good sense and generosity. J.M. Barrie’s generosity was remarkable. He left his royalties to various people. He left them to Great Ormond Street hospital. He left some to Westminster school, and, where I must declare an interest, he left some to the Garrick club. Since the “Winnie-the-Pooh” money came into the Garrick club, the wine list has improved very considerably. So we all have a lot to be grateful to J.M. Barrie for, either directly or indirectly.