Charitable Registration

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I remember that aspect of the debate, and certainly that is something that could be considered.

Members have spoken about how many other faith groups are concerned about the legislation. It is interesting, therefore, to look back at the debate in 2006, when the Charities Act was passed in the House. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), now the Leader of the Opposition, said that

“it is right that public benefit must be shown, but…at least for religion, the obligation will not be onerous. We have accepted, and I think others have, too, that making provision for people to attend acts of worship is clearly a public benefit. It is clear in case law, and it will remain part of the charity law of this country. Religions have nothing to fear.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 96.]

It would appear that religious charities now very much have something to fear.

Several commentators have remarked on the issue, and I want to draw attention to some of them, because it is important to demonstrate that concern exists about it among not only a huge swathe of parliamentarians but people in authority outside the House. Last week, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said he was “very concerned” and was quoted as saying:

“I do believe we need to hold the Charity Commission to account as much as they hold any religion and social service to account. I believe that Christianity has a huge and great record in terms of serving the community, in terms of education and all kinds of ways.”

Other people have expressed concern. Lord Boateng wrote to me:

“I believe the Charity Commission has exceeded its mandate and needs to be reined in. I believe people of faith have much to fear from this decision and will support all measures brought to Parliament to reverse it.”

A highly respected charity law practitioner, Robert Meakin, has written a book, which I have with me, called, “The Law of Charitable Status: Maintenance and Removal”—quite a triumph to read over the weekend, although I say so myself. His words date back to 2008, although I notice that the copy in the Library was in pristine condition:

“The law of public benefit is confusing and as a result the Commission cannot be confident of its powers to remove charities from the Register… there is a need for greater clarity about the Commission’s powers.”

Interestingly, he also refers to a 1948 House of Lords decision in a famous case, the National Anti-Vivisection Society v. the Inland Revenue Commissioners, in which Lord Simonds stated that

“only a radical change in circumstances, established by sufficient evidence”

should justify holding an object not to be charitable which in earlier ages has been held to possess that virtue. As mentioned, the Plymouth Brethren have been registered as a charity for some 50 years.

Mr Meakin also says that it should be rare for charities to be removed from the register. He says that there is no power in the Charities Act authorising the commission to decide questions of charitable status judicially:

“Its role is to register charities and in doing so it must follow general law but there are so few decisions of the Court and legislation that the Commission is forced into becoming a de facto law-maker”,

rightly pointing out the importance therefore of clarifying the issue. He also mentions the importance of public confidence, in the commission and in the status of charitable registration.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is interesting that the Charity Commission has not justified the action that it took. More importantly, is it not important for us to pursue the matter now, because who will it be next?

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.

Mr Meakin wrote about the importance of securing public confidence, and so many questions are now being asked that we must raise the issues broadly, to ensure that we maintain public confidence in charitable status. Many people rely on it when giving to and involving themselves in support for charities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

“I understand that removing charitable status for religious bodies because of supposed lack of public benefit is dangerous territory. Doing so would almost certainly open up a minefield of civil actions in the courts and could quite possibly breach the conditions of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to religious discrimination. In addition to the obvious loss of religious freedom, the cost to the taxpayer of lengthy legal actions is worth taking into consideration beforehand.”

A leading Queen’s counsel and specialist in the field, Hubert Picarda, has given his opinion that the Preston Down Trust

“is a charity and should be registered as such… Where under the old law it has already been determined that a purpose is beneficial there is no necessity to determine…any further point. The requirement is already satisfied.”

He also mentions that, over the years,

“the conventional advancement of religion is intrinsically for the public benefit, has been accepted as such and there is no reason for creative bureaucratic intolerance to replace judicial and settled community tolerance.”

House of Lords Reform Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

I heard the Deputy Prime Minister desperately trying to answer that question, but on four or five occasions when such questions were put to him by his hon. Friends, he failed to answer them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend notice that in answering one of his colleagues earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the coalition had decided on a change to the voting system in favour of proportional representation? Only a few months ago, however, the electorate rejected that, but the coalition is not prepared to accept the democratic will of the electorate.

[Sadiq Khan]

It is worse than that. The Joint Committee did not even examine the type of voting system that is now being proposed. It was pulled out of a hat without any proper consideration.

Although the Bill recognises that conventions—[Interruption.] Ministers on the Treasury Bench need to calm down.

European Council

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s approach. We should use these opportunities as the European Union changes and the eurozone changes to maximise Britain’s national advantage. We have to be clear: we do not yet know how much of a treaty change will be proposed by the Germans and others, or how extensive it will be. We shall have to look carefully at that to see what is right for Britain in response. However, I should say to my hon. Friend that, so far in this Government, one treaty change has been proposed and we exacted an important price, which was to get us out of the bail-out funds from 2013, which was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Is not the tragedy about the Prime Minister the fact that, as Leader of the Opposition, he totally underestimated the world crisis? As a result, he has had to grow up very fast in regard to European politics. What is his next alibi going to be in regard to the postponement of a referendum? I am sure that there is going to be one.

[The Prime Minister]

I have not for one minute underestimated the scale of the crisis that we face in Europe and across the world economy. Sadly, that crisis has been made worse by the vast overspending that took place under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, of course there has to be a political process; almost every insurgency in history has ended through some combination of military might and a political process. I accept that, but where I disagree with my hon. Friend is that I think that this year the Taliban will see that there is no meaningful removal of US forces from Afghanistan. This will be another year in which the Taliban are going to be heavily defeated on the battlefield, which will make a political solution more rather than less likely.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Q10. Why is the Prime Minister cutting benefits and pensions for the armed forces? Does he intend to honour the agreement with our armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the armed forces are excluded from John Hutton’s report, which is looking at increasing people’s contributions. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what we have done for the armed forces. We said we would double the operational allowance for people serving in Afghanistan, and we have done that. We said that we would introduce a pupil premium, for the first time, for soldiers’ children who go to our schools, and we have done that. We have said that leave for the armed forces should start when they land back in the UK, not when they leave Afghanistan, and we are doing that. This Government are very pro our armed services and their families, and want to ensure that we give them a good deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

3. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the application of international law in respect of Gaza.

[The Attorney-General]

I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on that matter.

[Mr Cunningham]

What is the position under international law when Israel intercepts ships carrying aid for Gaza? Can the Attorney-General tell me what the legal position is there?

[The Attorney-General]

The Foreign Secretary deplored the loss of life during the interception of the Gaza flotilla. He also stressed the need to establish the facts about the incident, without which, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, it is impossible to ascertain what laws if any might have been breached and, especially, what was done during the operation to prevent deaths and injuries. My right hon. Friend therefore welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General’s establishment of a panel of inquiry into the interception and both Israel’s and Turkey’s commitment to participate. It is also vital that existing national investigations proceed swiftly, transparently and rigorously to ensure accountability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

3. What account the Church Commissioners take of ethical criteria when making investments.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

7. What account the Church Commissioners take of ethical criteria when making investments.

[Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners are committed to managing our assets in a way that reflects the Church’s teaching and values and take advice on ethical investment policies from the Church’s ethical investment advisory group.

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The Church Commissioners seek positively to encourage responsible corporate practice by the businesses in which we invest. We are signatories to the United Nations principles for responsible investment. We vote our shares in line with the importance we attach to good corporate governance. We continuously discuss environmental, social and governance issues with our investment managers, and if ever we should have a concern about corporate practice in a company in which we invest, we engage with that company to seek to influence its corporate behaviour at board level.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

What is the Church Commissioners’ attitude to arms deals, particularly the shady arms trade? What would be the commissioners’ attitude to that in terms of investment?

[Tony Baldry]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not invest in companies that we thought were shady. For example, we disinvested from Vedanta Resources plc recently because of its treatment of tribal communities in India. There are a number of US companies that we have made a conscious decision not to invest in because of their involvement in cluster munitions systems. Wherever possible, if we think that someone is behaving in a shady way, we would hope to influence through engagement, and engagement as a potential investor takes the Church Commissioners into discussion with the boards of some of the world’s biggest companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Q13. What is the Prime Minister doing to protect manufacturing in the west midlands, and in Coventry in particular? Equally, what is he doing to protect the research and development that a lot of manufacturing companies rely on?

[The Prime Minister]

The most important thing that we can do is make Britain a great place to do business, to set up a business and to manufacture. That is why we showed in the Budget that we are going to cut corporation tax to one of the lowest levels in the developed world, why we are cutting national insurance for every new business that sets up, and why we are dealing with the appalling economic inheritance that we were left by the Labour party so that this economy can grow, have low interest rates and get moving to provide good jobs for all our people. That is what this Government are all about, and that is what we are fixing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

1. When he expects to publish the timetable for a referendum on the alternative vote system for general elections.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The Government have made clear their intention to introduce legislation providing for a national referendum on the alternative vote for future elections to the House of Commons. The appropriate timetable for that legislation and the subsequent referendum is currently being considered within Government. Further details will be announced to the House in due course.

[Mr Cunningham]

Given that answer, why has the Deputy Prime Minister prioritised boundary changes, as opposed to a date for a referendum on the electoral system? Can he answer that question, or has the Prime Minister leaned on him?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The coalition agreement is clear. We want to proceed with the preparations for a referendum, giving people the choice to choose a new electoral system—the alternative vote system—and, in parallel, to proceed with a review of boundaries. Reviewing boundaries in this country is not a new thing. If the hon. Gentleman would care to look back at the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which establishes the provisions for reviews of boundaries, he will see that the legislation imposes a requirement on us to keep the size of the House of Commons lower than it currently is, and to have greater equality between the sizes of constituencies. I do not think that anybody will quibble with the principle that people’s votes should count equally, wherever they so happen to live.