NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Bill

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Friday 22nd January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I want to focus on amendments 4, 5 and 6, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). Amendment 4 deals with the need for a public consultation; amendments 5 and 6 remove the requirement for the draft to be laid before, and approved by, each House.

I shall turn first to amendment 4 and the principle behind it. It inserts

“after appropriate public consultation”

in clause 1, page 1, after “may” in line 15. It seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to carry out a public consultation that he considers appropriate before making regulations. The principle of a public consultation should be relatively uncontentious. After all, the origins of the Bill being ably presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), which I fully support, were found in public consultation. The Department of Health conducted a review in 2011, and consulted publicly in 2012. The 2012 consultation set out the rationale for reform. As a result of that consultation and review the Government committed to move to a model of greater independence.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea of the costs associated with the consultation? While the principle of public consultation is not contentious, we need to make certain that consultation is necessary, and all these things come with a cost.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point: one must always balance the benefit and the cost. I do not have figures on the cost of the consultation, but I think he will agree that the principle of a public consultation is a sound one, and that is what I am speaking to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend, who has put her name to these amendments, makes a valid point, and helps me to make the argument that the public consultation is the right way forward.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), a far from mediocre figure in any sense, is far too self-deprecating, but I want to come back to the point he made. He referred to the consultation in west London, which was on a huge issue that affected vast numbers of people and had been the subject of a hard-fought political campaign. It was also a very costly consultation, but that was appropriate and proportionate. A lot of the changes that your amendment refers to—sorry, that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) refers to—are purely technical in nature and this would not be necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I had not intended to follow on so quickly, Mr Speaker, as I thought there would be a great rush to the barricades of people wanting to speak. I am moved to speak in opposition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) is proposing before dealing with my own amendments. I am very concerned about what he is suggesting, given its radicalism and its move away from proper parliamentary scrutiny and from the sovereignty this House enjoys. He asks us to throw all that away for this vague “appropriate” consultation. One of his amendments would remove the following provision in the Bill:

“A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) which amend or repeal primary legislation…may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House”.

You will know, Mr Speaker, that one of the most dangerous powers this House can give to Ministers—one we have always been cautious about giving them—is the power to amend primary legislation without going through the normal procedures for repealing primary legislation. Therefore, slipping in an amendment to a Bill that would take away that safeguard from this House and the other place, and allow things to be nodded through, is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It takes away the authority of this House and is therefore fundamentally dangerous, and so I oppose it.

[Jeremy Quin]

Does my hon. Friend envisage any de minimis provision whatsoever? Should everything come before this House as primary legislation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If primary legislation is being changed the default position should be that it can be changed only by primary legislation. That should not be subject to a de minimis level because primary legislation is by its nature important. If something is not important, why is it in primary legislation? If it is in primary legislation it can be assumed that it is a matter of such nature, state and standing that it has required this House, the other place and Her Majesty to approve it. If we are dealing in trivialities, that is a broader constitutional question that should be considered and we should stop doing that. If something is in primary legislation, it ought, as a starting point, only be changed by primary legislation.

To allow Ministers what have been known as Henry VIII clauses to wipe out primary legislation is something that constitutionalists have been concerned about for many years. That is why I am very uncomfortable with this provision being slipped in as an amendment and brushed over when what it does is of fundamental importance and is quite rarely used. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made the point that the affirmative route for statutory instruments is rarer than the negative one, and that is quite correct, but the negative one is mainly used for routine regulations that do not engage in any change to primary legislation. When primary legislation is changed, that ought to be brought to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Jeremy Quin]

I agree with the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he agree that if that power exists, it is even more likely that charities will fall into that predicament? If they are fully cognisant of their own responsibilities and know that they have to look to themselves to ensure that such problems do not occur, it is far more likely that fewer such problems will occur.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I cannot follow the logic of that argument. I do not think charities will be more likely or less likely to have ill governance because the Secretary of State is in or out. The protection would be there in case there is ill governance, which there invariably is to a small degree. In charities, businesses and Governments there is invariably ill practice somewhere along the line, and I do not think the motive for ill practice is affected by the knowledge that the Secretary of State may be keeping an eye on them or a feeling that he is not doing so. We need to ensure that if the problem arises, there is a safeguard—a mechanism to put things right.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was not for one moment suggesting that a board may be encouraged to act in an adverse way because of powers resting with the Secretary of State. A presence that could rescue a charity in dire straits may influence the judgments of a board of trustees.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I quibble about the word “rescue”. It is not so much rescue as fire. If the trustees do things badly, the Secretary of State may fire them and put other people in their place. That would not encourage slackness, idleness or malpractice. It would encourage probity, forthrightness and good management. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument supports what I am saying, rather than what he thought he was promoting.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has proposed extremely sensible, prudent measures that will keep a broad eye on what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to out-pedant me, which is a great thing to do, and she may well have won this particular bout of pedantry. By “cautiously” I mean proceeding in a step-by-step way. I am fully supportive of the thrust of what her Bill is trying to do, which is admirable, sensible and wise. I am merely suggesting that in seeking to reach the same destination, we should ensure that there is a fall-back position in case things happen that are less than ideal. That is simply a matter of good sense and good housekeeping. There is no need to do everything in a great rush. As somebody once said, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”, and there are no doubt other clichés of a similar kind that I could use.

I want to turn to my own amendments, two of which are concerned with preserving the rights of this House. Amendment 8 would remove clause 2(8), which is about how the statutory instrument setting out regulations of this kind should be brought forward. It would ensure that a draft of the instrument is laid before the House and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Laws are always best made when they go through the full democratic process, controls are kept on Ministers, and we do not have arbitrary government.

We need to ensure that the assets underlying this are being protected, so in amendment 7 I suggest that there should be a statement by the Comptroller and Auditor General—a comptroller who is properly spelt rather than a controller with the modern spelling—that he is satisfied with the treatment of public assets and funds envisaged in the regulations. This is public money, to some degree—money that is under public auspices.

[Jeremy Quin]

I challenge my hon. Friend on that remark. Surely it is not public money but charitable money. It has been invested in the charity by donors, and the last thing they would expect is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to opine on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I go back to what I said earlier about where NHS charities sit. By virtue of the money being given to a charity that supports the NHS, that money comes into the public purview and is subject to the way in which the public sector ought to ensure the good management of money. That is why I think it is appropriate—“appropriate”; I am using that awful word—rather, suitable and proper that it should be audited thoroughly to make sure that assets are not handed over that should not be handed over or misappropriated, and to give confidence to this House, and indeed to the other place, that moneys are being sensibly protected. These are very modest amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. That confusion is almost inevitable. In the case of charities linked to hospitals, most members of the public will expect the money that is spent charitably to be as thoroughly audited as the money that is spent by the state, and it is prudent to formalise that.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am desperately trying not to look at my hon. Friend; I will try to imagine him. He is being typically modest in saying that these are modest proposals, as they go to the heart of the Bill. He refers to the necessity of an audit trail, and I agree. However, there are plenty of very good firms of auditors fit and proper for making such pronunciations, so I do not see why we need to trouble the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a busy man with lots of other stuff to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend’s kindness towards the Comptroller and Auditor General is, I am sure, noted in many other places beyond this one, and I expect that his office would be delighted not to have the extra work. However, my hon. Friend is missing a point that I may already have laboured, so I will labour it only once more. This is a transition phase. This money is very close to public money. It is in a Neverland, one might say, in that it is not quite separate from charitable money and not quite ordinary public expenditure. Therefore, keeping an eye on how it is used in the most formal and protected way, at least in an initial stage, is a prudent way of ensuring that the assets are not used or transferred unsuitably.

Amendment 9 is different in nature and arises from a constituency issue. A constituent of mine, with the support of the NHS, established a charity that put defibrillator boxes around the country. These are very admirable boxes that operate in conjunction with the ambulance service and have been shown to save lives by ensuring that defibrillation equipment is available throughout small villages across the country. It has been a most successful charitable endeavour.

While my constituent was working with the ambulance trusts, they wrote to him to say that it was perfectly all right—indeed, they wanted him to do this—to put the ambulance service logo on the boxes, so that people would know that they were formally connected to the NHS. He then received a letter out of the blue from some little-known bureaucracy that protects the NHS logo. I understand the reasons for that: we do not necessarily want random private companies to call themselves the NHS or for unrelated businesses to use the logo. Some protection is needed, but the letter struck me as a heavy-handed way of going about things. It was an excessive response to something that was linked to the NHS and that was, at its core, a health issue operating with and through the support of the NHS.

The amendment would merely make it straightforward for the Secretary of State to overrule the whole procedure. When there is an issue of this kind, the Secretary of State would have the power to say, “Well, there may be this bureaucracy that safeguards the NHS logo, but I am overruling it and giving permission for the logo to be used, because I think it is a sensible thing to do.”

The reason I like the amendment is that, in a strange way, it relates to what this place is about. It is about seeking redress of grievance for our constituents when they are badly treated by bureaucracy. The best way of doing that is not through independent, unaccountable and unelected bodies that have been separated off from Government, but by a Minister being held accountable at the Dispatch Box. That is how we get things put right for our constituents.

This very small amendment would simply allow the Secretary of State to short-circuit the system when it is behaving badly. It provides that the permission given by the Secretary of State can be cancelled with six months’ notice, which is a reasonable amount of time for people to change any boxes, stationery or anything else they may have with the NHS logo on it, if they are found to have been abusing the permission or for some other reason. The principle that power should be with democratically elected people, and that it should be there to override offshoots of bureaucracy that nobody previously knew about or cared for, is a very good and sound one. As I understand it, the issue that my constituent has had has been mainly sorted out, but the amendment would be a better and clearer way of dealing with such things.

Of the amendments that I have tabled, amendment 9 is of the greatest importance to me. As is the case with so much of what I have been saying, it is about the fundamental principle of what we are trying to do when we legislate. We are trying to ensure democratic accountability and the rights of our constituents, and not to be constantly handing things over to ever-growing bureaucracies.

--- Later in debate ---

The NHS logo does not belong to an obscure body. It may do in some legal sense, but the NHS is the people’s, for want of a better turn of phrase. It is not something truly vested in an obscure bureaucracy. Therefore, to allow it to be used by charities that are co-operating with the NHS is a sensible ability to have within the Bill. The amendment does not compel the Secretary of State to do that, but if another Member of Parliament finds themselves in my position, where a charity in their constituency has been treated badly, they may ask the Secretary of State whether he will give his permission. They could write to and lobby him, or send a petition to his house. The amendment opens up all sorts of ways to seek redress of grievance, but it also achieves the main object of the Bill, which is that there should be a great flourishing of charities that will help the NHS to do even more than it already does, and some of them may need this flexibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) looks as if he wishes to intervene.

[Jeremy Quin]

I was halfway to asking whether my hon. Friend would give way, so I am glad that he has invited me to intervene. His argument in favour of the amendment is very persuasive, but I am not fully convinced. Some liability is accrued by the use of a well-known logo associated with a national asset such as the NHS. Does he believe that the Secretary of State is the right person to be the final arbiter of whether it is acceptable to the public purse to undertake such a liability? The charities may be doing a great thing, but they are not actually the NHS.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I think that the Secretary of State is the right person, because that is his responsibility and that is where the buck stops, but the financial liability for the use of the NHS logo in the circumstances I have described is likely to be highly limited. Its use would merely indicate co-operation and collaboration with the NHS, not that the NHS was taking on all the responsibilities and liabilities of the organisation. Legally, it would not create the liability my hon. Friend suggests.

The amendment is the result of a specific constituency issue, which I have raised with Ministers on behalf of my constituent. It is an answer to that issue, but it also has broader application, which is why in due course I hope to move it formally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has been caught up in this idea of fashion, and I am afraid that he speaks of yesterday’s fashion of judicial review. The great work done by the now Lord President of the Council and former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in restricting judicial review means that I simply do not think that that would now be a risk. It would have been a risk in those fashionable new Labour days, when people were judicially reviewing everything and having bogus consultations, which I spoke about earlier. That set the fashion for judicial review, but it is yesterday’s fashion. Those of us who are modern and who are with it—in the current phraseology—know that judicial review is yesterday’s news in such a context. Therefore, I do not believe that this would be a risk. It is a sensible way to deal with a problem that has arisen and to prevent it from arising again.

[Jeremy Quin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise that this will be my last intervention on my hon. Friend. To return to the logo, if any of my constituents saw the NHS logo on a letterhead, they would naturally assume that they could go through the relevant complaints procedures for the NHS. Is that what my hon. Friend has in mind? To me, it seems that that would be perfectly apparent to my constituents and a natural thing for them to do.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am not sure that those are the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would use his discretion to allow the logo to be used. I am thinking more of a sign outside a charity shop that supports the NHS, saying “We support the local NHS”, with the name of the local hospital that it is supporting and the local hospital’s logo, which includes the letters “NHS”. I am thinking of that sort of circumstance. It is not about promoting the charity as an offshoot of the NHS; it is about indicating its co-operation with the NHS.

Defibrillator boxes give the name of the ambulance service—the ambulance service’s logo includes the letters “NHS”—to indicate that people should ring 999. The ambulance service will then give them the code to open the box and talk them through how to use the equipment. Most of us probably would not know how to use it without some advice. It was entirely rational to use the logo until some idiotic bureaucracy got in the way. Initially, it was very stubborn—the worst type of pettifogging bureaucracy. If the Secretary of State had had the power to cut through such bureaucracy, that could just have been done.

The circumstances in which the discretion is used would be limited to where there was genuine co-operation—where the charitable sector and the NHS are working hand in glove—and there was a benefit from using it. It is not about charities posing as the NHS where they are not part of the NHS. If the Secretary of State thought the logo was being misused, he would have the power to rescind the permission. This protected and limited power would solve a particular problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I thought so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for pedantry, who is right.

This is one of the things about which I am concerned. We saw the notion of group-think in Kids Company. A group of trustees, led by a charismatic leader, felt themselves to be invulnerable. They thought that they should not be doubted, and they were hostile to external views expressing doubt about them. One only has to review the correspondence of Mr Yentob, with his wild claims about the death and insurrection on the streets that Kids Company’s demise would cause, to see that group-think in action.

I studied politics and economics at university, specialising in the psychology and behavioural side of politics, and we studied group-think quite closely. When future students come to study group-think, they will look at Kids Company as a perfect example of it. Those involved were trapped in group-think. If only somebody had been able to step in and take control earlier, the charity and the remnants of its good work could have been saved.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend is referring to the charitable sector, which has billions of pounds of assets and does a vast amount of good. Tarring every charitable board with the same brush is grossly unfair.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I am not tarring them with the same brush. I am saying that all boards—commercial, charitable or even political—must bear this in mind. That is the whole foundation of our modern governance structures. It is the idea behind having non-executive directors, who are meant to be external and to provide a challenge to make executives and those more involved in the work of an organisation think more carefully about what they are doing.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend will be aware that a good board contains non-executive directors to fulfil that challenge function. They are appointed by the board; they do not need to be appointed by an external body.

[Kit Malthouse]

The truth is that non-executives are technically appointed by the shareholders, so they are appointed by people who have an interest in the board being challenged constructively. The problem with charities is that non-executives are appointed by the board, the members of which more often than not appoint people in their own likeness. When the members of a board get trapped in group-think, they will appoint people who agree with them. Brave would be the chairman or chairwoman of the trustees who appointed somebody awkward or difficult, who might question or challenge them, particularly when one charismatic person is in charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is a dog with a bone. As I have explained—I think five times—I believe that the charities that we are considering are different because of the inextricable link with the institution that they serve. In the public’s mind, they are just a vehicle to give the money to the hospital and the national health service. Indeed, many boast about the percentage of money given to them that will be spent on the wards of a hospital. Those charities are seen co-funding, along with the Government, the NHS. I can see that not everybody is convinced, but I hope that others will speak in support of my amendments.

As I have said, the provision would be in the House’s control through a statutory instrument. It is not as though the Secretary of State could act unilaterally. We would all have control.

[Jeremy Quin]

I apologise to my hon. Friend: I rise not to support his amendment, but to oppose it, particularly on the point that he is making. His time is valuable. Does he really think that it is a good use of it for orders on this subject to be laid before this House and the other place, and for the matter to be considered on that grand scale? If he must vest these powers with the Secretary of State, does their exercise need to come back to this Chamber?

[Kit Malthouse]

I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend, but that was a slightly odd intervention, given that much of the Bill is about one hospital and it is taking up many hours of debate in the House. I do believe that those kinds of things are serious, and, frankly, he and I have sat on Statutory Instrument Committees on much more trivial matters that take up the House’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right. I correct myself. One clause relates to Great Ormond Street and the rest of the Bill clears up some anomalies. The debate is not about Great Ormond Street’s requirements, but about other ancillary bits in the Bill. One wonders whether the rest of the Bill could have been included in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill, and we could have had a short measure about Great Ormond Street, but that is a matter for the Bill’s promoter and sponsors.

[Jeremy Quin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I would like to move on to amendment 2. I am conscious that others wish to speak.

Amendment 2 would address a particular issue that I have come across in my constituency work. The only national charity that is located in North West Hampshire is the Macular Society. It is quite small and raises about £5 million or £6 million a year, most of which goes into research. One of the complaints of the Macular Society, which obviously deals with sight-related illnesses, is that enormous charities for sight and blindness, such as RNIB and Guide Dogs for the Blind, which raise many tens of millions of pounds—more than £100 million each—put hardly any money into research. Although they are engaged in blindness in its wider sense, they do not use their muscle to improve the lives of those who are afflicted by blindness or partial sightedness through trying to find cures and therapies.

The Macular Society and others complain about that and the fact that, if there was more research, we might be able to do something about the conditions. Part of the reason for the lack of research must be the disconnection with the organisation with which the charities should engage. For example, although I have not looked, it would doubtless be helpful to Guide Dogs for the Blind if it had representatives on its board from the scientific community and some hospitals, such as the Western eye hospital, because then the charity might be compelled to put money into the right causes.

The amendment seeks to ensure that, when an NHS charity is attached to a particular hospital, that hospital is allowed to put at least one trustee on the board. The charities need to stay connected. They need to have a line of communication and to be able to see the right priorities in the organisation rather than decide on their own pet projects, which they foist on the hospital without negotiation. The disconnection between charity and purpose can often happen, and it seems to be particularly pertinent to blindness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right, and anyone who is putting together a board of trustees wants to ensure that it contains a full range of skills and experience. As I have said, trustees appoint themselves. No one externally is taking a wider view of how broad the ambit is of those people’s experience, how fruitful or consensual their discussions are, or whether they are being challenged. We all know of charities that are made up from small numbers of people. Often, those jobs are undervalued and take a lot of work. The people who act as charity trustees are often heroic, and there are too few of them. Many people will not take on such onerous duties, so there are often small numbers of trustees, particularly in some of the smaller charities such as friends of hospitals and so on. In such circumstances it behoves the Secretary of State to keep a weather eye, and when problems with a local charity are brought before MPs and we wish to raise them with the Secretary of State, we must be able to do so in the knowledge that he or she will be able to do something and appoint somebody to challenge or change things.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend paints a very dangerous picture. He was referring to circumstances in which a charity strays into inappropriate political activity, but that is purely the remit of the Charity Commission. In such circumstances, the last person who should be intervening is the Secretary of State—we would be inviting them to wade into a political quagmire.

[Kit Malthouse]

That may be so, but—I hesitate to stress this point again—in my view these charities are different. They trade off the advantage of being associated with the national health service. People see them as part and parcel of the health service; they are not viewed as separate in the way that Oxfam or the Guide Dogs for the Blind might be. If something is called the Great Ormond Street hospital charity, people see it as a wing of the national health service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I apologise if that is a vision of doom, but much of our life in this House involves dealing with the stream of human misery that comes through our letterbox daily. We have urgent questions and statements on all manner of horrific events here and overseas, and much of our legislation is to plan for the unexpected, which seems sensible. Much of our legislation dates back many hundreds of years, and I hope that this Bill will last for a similar period. Who knows whether there will be trustee vacancies in the generations to come. I hope not, but if there are, it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to appoint someone. At the moment, there is nobody else to do it.

[Jeremy Quin]

In these hopefully extremely unusual circumstances, does my hon. Friend envisage that, once again, the process could drag through both Houses? If a charity tragically loses all its trustees, are we expected to go through the full rigmarole of full parliamentary scrutiny? That seems strange.

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not think that I have attached that requirement to this straight appointment. If there are no trustees, who objects to the Secretary of State making those appointments? Can anyone think of anybody better? I certainly cannot. Possibly the chief executive of the hospital, but given that they are probably appointed under the influence of the Health Secretary, why not allow the Health Secretary to do it?

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill as it has come from the Committee makes sense, sets out the appropriate safeguards and should not be seen as sweeping away regulation or oversight of these charities. It places the charities under the oversight that this Parliament has provided for every other charity in this country. If the regulation system is good enough for Rowcroft hospice, a place that provides exceptional care to those in the final stages of their life, and for the Torbay Hospital League of Friends, it is good enough for the charities covered by the Bill. I urge the Members who have tabled these well-meaning amendments, supporting the overall objective of the Bill, to realise that many of them do not help the Bill’s aims and in fact strike at its heart. I hope that they will not press them to a vote.

[Jeremy Quin]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Like him, I am a great supporter of the Bill and, like him, I think that it emerged in good shape from Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on steering it on its merry path to get here today. It is because I support the Bill that I look askance at some of the amendments. I wish the Bill a smooth passage today; that is why I oppose the amendments, particularly amendments 4, 2 and 7. My hon. Friends have been incredibly generous in giving way to a number of Members this morning, including me, so I do not feel the need to speak at length. However, there were one or two points that I thought would be useful contributions to the debate.

On amendment 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—the fashionable Member for North East Somerset—was somewhat cynical in his approach to public consultations. There are at least three circumstances in which public consultations can be valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned one: cases of great constitutional import for this Chamber and this country. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) referred to others, and made an excellent point about the consultation on the congestion charge in London—a matter of wide regional interest. The cost of that consultation was borne to ensure that the relevant authorities had a proper appreciation of the views of the electorate, which was a wise step in those circumstances.

There are also circumstances in which consultation is appropriate at a local level. One such case in my constituency related to school catchment areas, which matter greatly. It is important that those consultations are carried out properly, and that all those who will be affected—or, in this case, whose children will be affected—are able to contribute to those consultations. Not every consultation is conducted to as high a standard as we would all wish.

The amendments are extremely technical. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to reconsider his amendment 4, as it would place a huge burden on the Secretary of State and on the trustees to go through a process of consultation on highly technical issues that are not matters of constitutional, regional or local import affecting individuals. Although I greatly respect my hon. Friend, going through a process of public consultation is unnecessarily burdensome, particularly where the matter will be reviewed and can always be brought to the attention of this House through the normal procedure. We should empower the trustees to take decisions.

Understandably, my hon. Friend was not able, although pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and by me, to give an approximation of the costs or who may bear them. That should be a point for consideration by the House.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not being quite so cynical about public consultations as other hon. Members have been during the debate. Perhaps he should cite one further consultation: that which was the foundation of the Bill. On cost, he does not press me to come up with a precise figure, I know, but does he accept the broad point that if public consultation is right in principle, the cost will have to follow, come what may?

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying his views. I have no problem with paying for consultations when they are necessary and appropriate, but I do not believe that the circumstances likely to pertain to the Bill will be in that category. Issues worthy of consultation are those described by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for North West Hampshire, and the local issues to which I referred.

On amendment 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, I hope he will not be upset if I refer to it as the magic circle amendment—now you see it in the Bill, now you don’t—hey presto. With one stroke, his amendment would remove a power that is at the core of the Bill, as it creates clarity for the charities concerned. I know that every hon. Member who has tabled an amendment today is a passionate supporter of those charities, as are we all. The benefit of the Bill is that it provides clarity to the charities. Under the Bill, trustees will become fully independent. They are left in no doubt about who is responsible for the conduct of the charity and about their own corporate governance. That is a good thing, which empowers them and encourages responsibility.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend has made some excellent points. Does he agree that the point of the Bill is to make these charities independent and regulated like others? This is the Peter Pan Bill, but the tale of disaster behind the amendments will make them the Tinker Bell amendments.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s knowledge of pantomimes. No doubt Captain Hook is in there somewhere. I certainly accept the pith of his remarks. By making the charities fully independent, we provide clarity not only to the trustees by empowering them, but to donors, who will know that their generous gifts to the charities will be looked after by independent trustees.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) referred to the sad state of current polling on Government Ministers. I think we would all agree in this House that those who fulfil the functions of charity trustees are good people doing a good task, and are recognised as such. They are the people whom the generous donors to these charities want to be in command of the assets that they transfer, rather than any other body. That is why I oppose the amendment.

Amendment 7, which stands in the name of my hon. and fashionable Friend the Member for North East Somerset, would merely add to complexity and cost, neither of which is required. In particular, a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General is an unnecessarily bureaucratic step.

[Seema Kennedy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are trying to increase the public’s confidence in these charities, involving bodies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General—names that are alien perhaps to many of us, and definitely to our constituents—will not fulfil the purpose of this Bill?

[Jeremy Quin]

The Comptroller and Auditor General already has a very valuable role, and I would not wish to place extra burdens on him. I take my hon. Friend’s point.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide clarity, so that donors know that the boards are in control of their destiny and will look after their assets appropriately in the interests of the charitable endeavours that they serve. Involving bodies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General would merely invite bureaucracy and confusion. There are myriad auditors prepared to do a good job to support charity trustees in their work and to ensure that their accounts are kept in good order, so I do not see the need to involve public bodies. With that in mind, in particular, I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, and I hope that he will not press his amendment.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on introducing this Bill, which I wish a smooth passage. I hope that those who have tabled amendments will think again and not press them to allow for that smooth passage.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on bringing her Bill through to Report. The Bill will improve the independence of NHS charitable trusts, and I am pleased to speak on it. I did not serve on the Committee, but I note that it lasted only 10 minutes. The House has obviously since developed an appetite for debating amendments, which could be seen as surprising. However, the hon. Lady dealt with them very well, so I will keep my comments short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

On that note, may I draw to the Minister’s attention one charity in my constituency? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), we have charities that support the local hospital, but we also have Action Medical Research, which does a wonderful job for children. It was formed back in 1952 and has the distinction of being supported by Paddington Bear, which is wonderful. It runs the largest regular London to Paris bike ride to raise funds to support research into diseases that affect young children. It is not directly linked to the NHS, but it is a wonderful medical charity. I hope that the Bill will empower many more such charities to get going.

[Jane Ellison]

How nice it is to hear about that charity. I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking the opportunity to praise it and to shine a spotlight on a charity that so richly deserves it. Indeed, well done to him for name-checking Paddington in a debate that has been otherwise dominated by Peter Pan. We will see whether any more well-loved characters make an appearance before the end of the debate.