Community Pharmacy in 2016-17 and Beyond
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That is why the pharmacy access scheme is very much there to make sure that pharmacies in these rural areas will be fully protected from any funding reductions. But the competition is there. Pharmacies on the whole are privately owned. It is important and only fair that, in these strapped times for the NHS, private companies should in some way also help the publicly funded NHS.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, my question is in the same territory as the previous question. It is not just the nomenclature but the knock-on effects between this Statement and GP dispensaries that is concerning. Have I understood this correctly? On the one hand, the Government expect more traffic to be diverted into GP dispensaries but, on the other hand, people will ultimately pay more—someone is paying—through a mixture of pressure on the big chains, supermarkets and, of course, A&E.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I think we are in for a pretty bad couple of months, in which conspiracy theories will abound and suspicions of motives will arise in every possible circumstance as we approach an interesting referendum. I notice the good humour in the Chamber today. I think that if these amendments had not been tabled, there might be a very different atmosphere indeed. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said.
Democratic power has to be used with discretion and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this, and I agree with aspects of what he said. I was worried about the way that the Bill, as originally drafted, was going to go. Whatever discussions there were in government and in another place when the amendments came forward and were considered, I hope that there was a bit of historical memory in them—I think that there was—because we have been here before.
I was there in 1984, when it was proposed that we would do something about opting-in. I do not think that I am breaking a great confidence if I tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who was then the Chief Whip, had an interesting discussion with the Labour Chief Whip of that time, Michael Cox, who some may remember. They were arranging the business, as Chief Whips do, in those awful usual channels. There was agreement and compromise at that time in the Session. Then the issue came up about opting in—and the message was delivered quite simply and clearly: “If you do that, there will be war”. That was because it is an essential problem of political funding, with which all parties have problems, that the trade union contribution is massively important to the Labour Party. A sudden change in that would have significantly affected the balance and would have seemed, to many eyes, to have been a pretty unfair action and maybe an abuse of majority political power at that time.
It was against that background that such a proposal was put forward. When we considered it in the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 1984, Mr Len Murray came to see me for the trade unions and we discussed the issue. He had previously had discussions with my predecessor and noble friend Lord Tebbit, who one could not call a soft touch on these matters. But my noble friend made it clear that if the Trades Union Congress wished to put forward alternative proposals, he would be prepared to consider them. It fell to my lot to consider those proposals. We agreed that we would not proceed with the opting-in proposals, on the strict understanding that actions would be taken by the TUC and all affiliated unions at that time. That is why I agree very much with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because we are where we are now. I support the actions in respect of new members coming in. That is an important step forward which did not exist before. We were not able to arrange it or go forward on it in my time; maybe we should have done.
I would like to read part of the statement that Len Murray—Lord Murray, as he was subsequently—gave when he came to see me and exchanged correspondence. He gave me a copy of the statement of guidance to the trade unions. It said:
“Following discussions between the TUC and the Secretary of State for Employment, the General Council have prepared the following Statement of Guidance on good trade union practice in respect of political fund arrangements and related matters for use by affiliated unions. Unions are asked to review their existing procedures as soon as possible to ensure that this guidance is acted upon”.
That guidance was satisfactory to me and to the Government because it made it clear that every affiliated union had given an undertaking that it would make sure that all its members were properly informed of what their rights were in these matters. The guidance ended with the statement:
“It is particularly important that unions’ procedures avoid the possibility of members being unaware of their rights in relation to the political fund or being unable to exercise them freely”.
On that understanding and on behalf of the Government, I agreed not to proceed with introducing changes to the situation on opting-out or opting-in.
The disappointment for me in the discussions on this Bill is to discover that only a very small number of the unions which were affiliated to the TUC ensured that the undertaking given to me on behalf of them all was actually carried out.
Lord King of Bridgwater
If I may just finish this point, I will then give way to the noble Lord. What I want to know is: has the TUC now repudiated that understanding or is it agreeing that it stands? In the light of the amendment which the Government have agreed to, which deals with new members, will the position of existing members be exactly as encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Burns? Will it ensure that the undertakings given to me are honoured and that people are aware of that undertaking?
Lord Lea of Crondall
My former noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest was a man of great integrity. One of his straplines or catchphrases was, “We always deliver what we say we will deliver”. That was true of prices and incomes policy through the 1960s and 1970s. I challenge anybody to contest that point. It was not that there were no difficulties but, when we said that we had agreed something, we delivered. That was the first thing which Len Murray always said.
On this matter, my noble friend Lord Monks pointed out something that has never been refuted. He drew attention to this matter and the fact that there had been no complaint on it until it was suddenly dragged up in this House in relation to the Bill. If the Government had had evidence of this matter along these lines, the first thing that they should have done was to get in touch with the TUC and say that they were concerned about it. Did they get in touch with the TUC? No, they did not. I think that there are some crocodile tears here from the noble Lord, Lord King, who does not normally go in for such point-scoring. I ask him to be a bit more careful about the implications of what he says about the TUC’s actions on this matter.
Lord King of Bridgwater
I make it clear straightaway that I had the greatest respect for Lord Murray—Len Murray, as he was—and had extremely good relations with him. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for making the point that this should be honoured. If there is evidence that it has not been honoured, it will obviously be a concern for responsible people in the TUC to see that it is. As I understand it, the noble Lord is saying that in no sense has it been repudiated or has the TUC withdrawn that undertaking. My point today is simply about the giving of that undertaking. I agree with the noble Lord that the observance of it and the checking as to whether it was being followed seem to have been pretty slack. It is helpful this has been brought to the attention of us all and I hope that it can now be followed through.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she consider answering my noble friend Lord Whitty’s question, unless she thinks she already has?
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
For a start, we do not know exactly how many are not on it. The figure of 1.9 million has been quoted. It is inevitable that by the time we reach 1 December, that figure will shrink considerably and between then and the crucial elections that will take place in Scotland and elsewhere next year, I believe that the figure will be much smaller still, and I very much hope that it is. But we also have this balance between completeness and total accuracy. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made this point in his very fair speech. We know from experience in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere that there have been occasions when the electoral register has been manipulated and democracy has been brought into disrepute. We know that for a fact. What we want is a register of total integrity. That is why I agree with the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Empey that proof of identity should be a requirement. I also believe that postal votes should not be supplied on demand because that lends itself to abuse.
It has been said that this is a very different debate from yesterday’s. Of course, it is. Given the opportunity to speak yesterday, I would have argued that the constitutional priorities should be the most important ones for this House. But the House spoke as it spoke and, even though I may regret that, I had sympathy with the arguments advanced so brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others. We are where we are, as they say, and we must see what happens. However, I use this opportunity to say to the House that we must be very careful about using the power that we have. Today, we quite rightly have it, and that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, when he quoted from the Act. Of course, we have the right to reject this order today if we choose to do so. However, as one who believes passionately in this House and its integrity, and who believes equally passionately—nay, perhaps more so—in the supremacy of the other place, where I had the honour to serve for 40 years, I say to the House that we must be very careful how we use our power.
Although I have very considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and many of his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I say this to them: they believe in a number of things very firmly and, I accept, with complete honesty. They believe in the supremacy of the House of Commons, as they tell us repeatedly. They believe in proportionality and many of them do not believe in your Lordships’ House, but some do—
Lord Cormack
I will not give way at the moment. I wish to complete what I am saying. What I say to him, very quietly and in a spirit of collegiality, is that they must be a little careful how they use their votes because if they were proportionately represented in this House following the last general election, there would at the most generous estimate be 60 of them and more likely 50. I think 83, 84 and 81 voted in Divisions last night. Had they led by example, practised a self-denying ordinance and put only 55 into the Lobby—that being the difference between 60 and 50—the last Division would have gone in favour of the Government. The previous one would have been very finely balanced. I say to them, please be careful how you overuse the power you have accidently got when you are speaking in the House where you have 104 more Members than in the elected House. That is something everyone in this House should take into account. When we come to address—
Lord Cormack
I am not obliged to give way and at the moment I am not giving way. I will in a moment. When we are debating the franchise for another place, we have to be especially careful how we exercise our judgment as well as our vote. I will give way.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has on two or three occasions emphasised the supremacy of the House of Commons. I understand that the House of Commons, despite the enormous importance of this question, did not discuss it at all. This House is discussing it. Can he confirm that that is his understanding?
Lord Cormack
Yes, but I am not in charge of Government business. The other House has the opportunity to accept or reject. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, perfectly rightly pointed out, so do we. All I am doing is saying that we should be particularly careful when exercising judgment on an issue that pertains wholly and entirely to the elected House. We need to bear that always in mind. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
“Charity Commission annual report to refer to principles of best regulatory practice
(1) Schedule 1 to the Charities Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 11(1)(c), after “16)” insert “including the extent to which, in its opinion, it acted in a proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted manner (see section 16(4))”.”
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I will take just five minutes to move this amendment because I set out the reasoning at considerable length in Committee on 1 July, and the case that I made then still stands. I will restrict my remarks to developments since that time, notably at the United Nations. There are two main issues, and I contest the two main premises of the letter dated 13 July from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, in response to the questions that I posed on those issues then.
However, before I turn to those issues, perhaps the Minister will respond to a separate point that I made in Committee. The commission’s normal registration procedures can take a couple of years in what it considers to be a complicated case. They clearly do not match the requirements of a charity with a limited lifespan—in our case, of a little over one year. If ground-breaking fixed-term charities can in practice be arbitrarily ruled out for such reasons then it crosses the border between being simply an operational matter and a matter of public policy and the Government should address it. I would be grateful if the Minister will consider it before Third Reading.
I will now address the issue of the accountability of the Charity Commission, hence the reason for my proposed amendment to the present Act. My first bone of contention is the disingenuous way in which the commission went about blocking the application of the Hammarskjöld Inquiry Trust. This was purported to be—not exclusively, it said, but indispensably—on the grounds of the claimed lack of interest in the trust’s work on the part of the United Nations. This has indeed been the main bone of contention of the trustees as a body since we first made contact with the Charity Commission exactly three years ago. The Minister’s letter sidesteps the undisputed fact that the commission’s claim to that effect is now clearly seen to be plain wrong. As the Minister’s reply does not address that fact, I ask him once again whether he will take this opportunity to accept that that is so. If he wishes to deny it in the face of the pellucidly clear evidence now before us, on what grounds does he do so?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was obviously frustrated by the approach of the Charity Commission when he tried to register the Dag Hammarskjöld trust, and that his impression of the commission has been informed by and reflects that particular case. I must say that waiting several months for a response to a letter does not seem to be good customer service and I, too, would have been extremely frustrated.
For most charities with standard charitable purposes, the process for registration with the Charity Commission is quick and straightforward. In 2014-15, the commission registered over 4,600 charities. For organisations with purposes that are innovative or do not fall within previously recognised charitable purposes, the process of registration can indeed take longer. The law does not recognise wholly novel charitable purposes, but purposes can still be charitable if they are analogous to or within the spirit of charitable purposes specifically identified in the 2011 Act or if they were charitable purposes recognised by the common law before 1 April 2008. Where people want to register as a charity an organisation which has purposes that may not fall clearly within established categories of charitable purposes, the commission must proceed with caution in assessing whether the organisation really has been established for purposes that are charitable in law.
I turn to the specific issue of the Dag Hammarskjöld trust. I do not know all and every detail of the case and it is right that I should not, as the commission is operationally independent. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, I have written to him responding to some of the specific questions he raised in Committee about what the Government knew about the case. I apologise to the noble Lord, but I cannot at this Dispatch Box add to the detail that was in the letter sent to him. I regret that, but I absolutely cannot—it is a very detailed case.
On his amendment—which is really what we are debating—the Charity Commission already reports its performance against principles of best regulatory practice, usually framed in terms of proportionality. It does this in its annual report, in its annual Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement report and in stand-alone case reports. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for not repeating the detailed ways in which it does all this as I set it out in Committee at length. This amendment, by highlighting one particular aspect of Section 16, casts doubt on the extent to which the commission should report on other aspects of its general duties. It is, in that respect, undesirable.
Finally, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lea, will reconsider the offer from the Charity Commission’s chairman to meet him and discuss this case. I fear that I have not been able to reassure the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary—although I hope that I have done so. I assure him that his difficulty in trying to register the Dag Hammarskjöld trust was not representative of the norm.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On the first point, he clearly does not feel that there is anything amiss with the accountability of the Charity Commission. I think he is hiding behind the phrase “operational matter”. When a matter of this importance is put before the House, and with the detail that I have presented, is it not incumbent on the Cabinet Office or the Minister and his officials to look further into it? In other circumstances or areas, one could call it a miscarriage of justice.
As to the question of co-operation regarding the unfinished business of the United Nations arising from the work of the Hammarskjöld Inquiry Trust, we will now have to await the findings of the Secretary-General as he presses the British and other Governments on their failure, to date, to release all relevant records to the UN. It will then be up to the United Nations, not me, to decide whether to point the finger at anyone.
There is one thing of which I am increasingly certain. Historians will take note of the high likelihood of the existence of a second plane and, similarly, of the high degree of suspicion that there was subsequently a cover-up by certain Governments, not excluding the British Government then and subsequently. In time-honoured words, history will be the judge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak in favour of the insertion of the proposed new clause, and declare an interest as a former chief executive and now vice-president of a campaigning charity, Carers UK.
Last week, I gave a lecture on 50 years of the carers’ movement in which I argued that the fact that carers, their needs and their contribution are now so widely recognised is due almost entirely to the work of campaigning charities such as Carers UK, which have enabled the carer’s voice to grow strong and influential in bringing about policy change. Just to support what my noble friend Lady Hayter said about leading the world, I say that the carers’ movement is indeed an example to the whole world; it is in contact with emerging carers’ movements throughout the world and is a global influence.
I want to ensure that such organisations are confident in the legitimacy of their actions, whether it be campaigning for a change from which all will benefit or opposing a proposed change which is likely to disadvantage that client group. I know that it can be said there is nothing which currently inhibits such action on the part of charities and I believe that the Charity Commission may revise its so-called CC9 guidance to make sure that this is understood. However, like my noble friend, I believe that the passage of the lobbying Act has had the effect—I know that it was not the effect that was necessarily intended—of limiting campaigning by charities. We saw this clearly in the run-up to the general election, where charities did not have the strong voice that we normally expect at such times. It has made charities nervous; it has diminished their confidence. The insertion of the proposed new clause would go some way to remedying this situation and re-establishing that confidence. I emphasise that I want that confidence to be re-established not for the benefit of the charity but for that of the recipients of that charity’s services, by influencing policy in the way which is such a proud tradition in our country.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, in supporting the amendment, perhaps I may revert to a point which came up in Committee. It concerns what exactly we are to believe is the position under the present law.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, gave a long disquisition on party political support—which we knew was not charitable—but there are many examples of where the objection “this is political” is used against the registration of charities which in no sense are party political. The charity that I have been the chairman of is an example which your Lordships have heard about possibly to the point of tedium, but it demonstrates the fact that the dividing line at the moment is drawn in a place which the Government say is different from where it actually is drawn. It is drawn somewhere in the murky middle by arbitrary and subjective decision by the Charity Commission, which is dangerous for its credibility.
I have raised the example of an anti-EU charity putting out in a press release a narrative beginning, “In the latest outburst from the gauleiter of the European Commission, Mr Juncker”. As I pointed out, “gau” and “leiter” are two quite straightforward German words—“gau” means district and “leiter” means leader—and until 1933 there was nothing wrong with “gauleiter”. But ever since 1933, there has been a lot wrong with “gauleiter”. And so that is not political. How on earth can the Minister defend the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the commission when it pronounces that it objects to the Hammarskjöld inquiry commission on the grounds of it being “political” and says not a word about other charities which find favour with it?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke at some length on this issue in Committee and will therefore not try the patience of the House on Report by repeating all that. I simply say that, as somebody who has worked in the charitable field for quite a lot of my life—I have been chief executive of more than one charity; I have been an honorary officer and a trustee, and I am currently a trustee of one charity—there is an underlying issue here which is of profound importance.
Charities with great experience of front-line engagement have come to realise that they are sometimes aiding and abetting the problems which exacerbate the difficulties faced by those whom they are trying to help, because they are removing the unpalatable symptoms of what is wrong and disguising what is causing the problem. They have come to see that through the experience of their own work. There are many trustees and many staff in some of what I think everyone would on balance agree are the better, more experienced charities who have come to realise that they simply cannot go on doing this, because they are treating symptoms and settling for that, and that one of the most important things they can do in the service of those whom they seek to help is to advocate their situation and to seek the changes which will overcome the causes of the problems of those who are the victims, and that it would be dishonest to do anything else.
Personally, I find the way in which the law on charity has operated in recent years to be perfectly acceptable, and charities have responded to that very well by recognising that they have a duty to ensure that what they are advocating really does arise out of the experience of what they are doing. That is not just a matter of legal, moral responsibility; it is also one of effectiveness, because if they can be seen to be speaking out of real experience that is a very strong muscle in their campaigning.
However, we have to face the reality that there are those who have never been comfortable with this situation and there have been noises in recent years that people would like to curb the sector. That in my view would be disastrous and totally unacceptable and unfair to those who are really trying on our behalf, sometimes valiantly, courageously and bravely, to do the things that are necessary. From that standpoint, to have it explicitly stated in the Bill has great merit. I am therefore glad to see the amendment here and I hope that the House will find its way to endorsing it.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I have no difficulty at all in accepting the premise of the amendment—and much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said—which states that charities should be free to campaign where that is an effective means of furthering their charitable aims. Speaking up for their beneficiaries, who may have no voice in the democratic debate, stands long in the tradition of the charitable sector. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for some to hear the hard truths that they are told, but that is democracy at work and freedom of speech in action.
Charities have always campaigned, which is as it should be in a free society, and charity campaigns have brought about much good, opening our eyes to issues others have overlooked, often resulting in beneficial changes to the law. Examples are legion and stretch back over generations, and long may that continue. My objection to the amendment is not therefore that what it says is wrong. Indeed, it is not even seeking to have the right to campaign reflected in law, for it already is enshrined in law, through case law, as the noble Baroness said. My concern is that seeking to compress that case law into an amendment in the Bill is difficult, to say the least, and would be likely to inadvertently shift the boundaries of what is permitted under the law in unanticipated and unhelpful ways.
As well as being fraught with difficulty, such an amendment is unnecessary. The implication of the case law is set out in Charity Commission guidance CC9 and, with very few exceptions, that guidance is well understood and observed. Unlike primary legislation, commission guidance can be updated, with proper consultation, to ensure that it remains congruent with case law and up to speed with developments such as the rise of social media.
The introduction of the Transparency of Lobbying Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, to which a number of noble Lords referred, has recently made the relationship of the law and lobbying a matter of intense debate, and I can understand why. That Act is part of electoral law, and this is clearly not the time to rehearse that debate. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, was one of many noble Lords who referred to the so-called chilling effect that it might have had at the last election, so I am pleased that my noble friend, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has explicitly called for evidence from the voluntary sector and from noble Lords in his ongoing review of the third party campaigning rules that were updated by Part 2 of that Act. A clear view of the evidence about what impact the updated rules have, or have not, made in their first year is exactly what is needed on an issue that has aroused such strong feeling. The Charity Commission would obviously need to take account of my noble friend’s findings should it decide to review CC9. If there were any such review, the commission has committed to say so publicly and consult widely and wisely.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, the Charity Commission does indeed take action in cases where charities of all political persuasions are seen to have crossed the line. During the last election, a charity that was making a point that could be construed as being supportive of the Conservative Party was pulled up short. I therefore do not think it strictly true to say that it does not take action.
This Government welcome and support the campaigning role of charities, properly regulated and properly understood, and acknowledge the benefit that that brings to wider society. I hope that on that basis, and given what I have said to reassure the noble Baroness, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The Minister has totally misunderstood the purport of my question, which I will repeat. It is clear that the dividing line about what is political has nothing to do with support for a political party. What the Minister just said is a red herring. Of course, things can be ruled out for direct or indirect support for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. My point was this. That is not in practice the dividing line drawn by the commission, where party political support is ruled out and other matters are ruled in.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I would like, on the second time of asking, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—from a sedentary position if you please—to have an answer to the question that I posed in Committee that was not answered and I now repeat.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd
Does the noble Lord agree that this is not altogether simple? He and I clearly agree on this important matter, but it is not simple because if a charity finds itself strongly advocating a position and a political party is doing the same, that is open to misinterpretation. We have to be absolutely clear that the way in which the law is administered is also transparent. There have been arguments that campaigning should be curbed in the last year before an election. It is absolute nonsense for a charity, which feels strongly, passionately and morally obliged to put forward a case because it wants policy change, to have to lay off in the year of a general election. That would be condoning something they believe is wrong and that is not what any of us would want to imagine happening in Britain. It is very important that the Charity Commission is held to account; that the whims of a particular commissioner are not prevailing and that, from an objective, analytical position, very strict rules are fairly observed.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to be associated with this probing amendment. As I suspected, there is scope for talking at cross-purposes about the commission’s present understanding of “political”. I have been at the receiving end of an objection on the grounds of that word. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, whose attention I do not have at the moment, equates “political” with “party-political”. As I understand it, that is not the Charity Commission’s feeling about the word. I have been at the receiving end of criticism that this is political, but when I speak to Amendment 15 no one would think there is anything party-political about it.
I will give one illustration from the press in the last six or nine months, to show why there is a need for a minimum of clarification on this question. We all get round-robin emails from organisations: we agree with some and disagree with others. This is one about a breakfast discussion to be held on Wednesday 15 October 2014, arranged by a Eurosceptic organisation concerned with EU regulatory issues called the CSFI; someone will probably know what this stands for. It said that the CSFI was,
“now accepting online donations via the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). This is the most cost-effective way for the Centre to collect one-off donations online, which can also be GiftAided. To support the Centre, please click here”.
That clearly establishes that this is an all-singing and all-dancing registered charity as I understand it, or else it could not enjoy the benefits of the gift aid scheme. The first sentence by the director, Mr Andrew Hilton, states:
“As I am writing this, the Commission’s new gauleiter”—
being the European Commission—
“Mr. Juncker, is busy trimming the edges of the various portfolios he has offered individual Commissioners”.
Noble Lords who speak some German will know that, until 1933, “gauleiter” was a pretty everyday word, with “gau” meaning “area” and “leiter” meaning “leader”. But since 1933, no one would think that “gauleiter” was without very strong connotations and, I would say, strong political connotations. On the basis of what I have come across, this should be viewed by the Charity Commission as being out of bounds because it is political.
The Minister has a very sharp brain, so my question to him is this: does he acknowledge that there is an issue here? How should the commission go about its business if an organisation which can get gift aid refers to the President of the European Commission as the new gauleiter, while in other areas it says, “You cannot get Charity Commission registration because you are political”? That is my question.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness and some other noble Lords know that I have been asked by the Government to review the operation of Part 2 of the transparency of lobbying Act, which is the part referred to by the noble Baroness in her amendment and is about third-party campaigning. I am doing so on a strictly non party-political basis and the review is going to be evidence-based, as was my review of the Charities Act. I have been working hard to make sure that as much evidence as possible from right across the political spectrum is gathered in. I have been to all the devolved Administrations and have ensured, with the team at the Cabinet Office which is helping me—it is a terrific team whose members are working hard, so I shall place that on the record now—that every candidate in the general election has received a questionnaire, that every returning officer has received one, and that we had a question for the public on our website which we publicised as far as we could through bodies like the NCVO and the CBI.
We now have an outstanding call for evidence that is more detailed in its questioning and will run until the end of July. Moreover, I have had a great many face-to-face meetings with people from all parts of the political spectrum and our commercial life. I have to tried to ensure that, as far as possible, all the leading interested parties in this area have had a chance to put their point of view and have it recorded. We have tried to do a lot of the meetings on the basis of Chatham House rules so that people can speak frankly. We say, “Tell us what you really feel and later on, when we make a call for evidence, we shall want you to go public and on the record”. However, in order to amplify and get the colour and context of these things, at this first stage we will treat their remarks in confidence.
The report is due by the end of the year, subject to the figures on actual spending that we need from the Electoral Commission. The commission’s second set of returns is due around the middle of November, so we will be a bit pushed, but I hope that we can do it. As I say, my report will be evidence based. So however my noble friend is going to answer this debate now, I say to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and anyone else in the Committee—indeed, everyone in the House—that if they have information they think would be helpful and should be consulted on and included in the review, please get in touch. Firm factual evidence is a good basis for making recommendations, while rumour and myth are a bad one, and I am anxious to ensure that we get down to a hard evidence base. Obviously people can then debate the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
I shall not comment on the noble Baroness’s amendment this afternoon; I am not going to run before my horse to market. I want to collect the evidence, I am sure that Members of your Lordships’ House have a great deal of it, and I hope that they will ensure that I get it.
Lord Lea of Crondall
“Charity Commission annual report to refer to principles of best regulatory practice
(1) Schedule 1 to the Charities Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 11(c), after “16)” insert “including the extent to which, in its opinion, it acted in a proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted manner (see section 16(4))”.”
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, Section 16(4) of the Charities Act 2011 sets out the commission’s general duties and Schedule 1 provides that it should have regard to and report annually on its performance on accountability, consistency and transparency. I will present a case from my own experience for why we need to strengthen this section to require the Charity Commission to report on the extent or degree to which it has actually done so. As I say, I am influenced by a particular case and, whether or not I technically need to declare this as an interest, I certainly do so.
The case in question arises from the fact that I have had a long-standing interest in why the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld, died in a plane crash, or immediately afterwards, in Northern Rhodesia in 1961 on his way to meet the leader of the breakaway Congolese province of Katanga, Moise Tshombe, and the British Under-Secretary of State, Lord Lansdowne, along with the British high commissioner to the Central African Federation, Lord Alport, and his private secretary, Sir Brian Unwin. There was immediate and widespread speculation as to whether or not it was an accident. The United Nations carried out an internal inquiry, which reported in 1962, with an interim verdict of not proven—as they would say in Scotland—but the United Nations General Assembly then resolved that, if cogent new evidence came forward, the Secretary-General was empowered to draw it to its attention.
Fast-forward to 2011 and a book was published by Dr Susan Williams which produced some cogent new evidence. I, with others, established in 2012 the Hammarskjöld Inquiry Trust, a legal trust. I do not need to explain to everybody here that lawyers will distinguish a legal trust, which anyone can establish just like that, from a registered trust, which is registered by the Charity Commission. Its purposes were:
“To advance public knowledge and understanding, by seeking to ascertain first the true circumstances of the death of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld, in 1961 and secondly the true circumstances leading thereto; to make available the results thereof to the United Nations and more widely as the Trustees shall determine”.
This was in the preliminary submission of the purposes of the trust, of which I have a copy, but more of that in a few moments. Suffice to say that it was the start of my experience over the past three years with the Charity Commission.
The modus operandi was that having first appointed a group of trustees of good standing from Europe and Africa, our first job was to appoint an “international commission of jurists”—I use the phrase descriptively—to carry out, over a 12-month period, an examination of new evidence on this matter of national and international importance; and to put together the resources needed for it to carry out its work. I chaired the trust.
The commission of inquiry that we appointed was chaired by the right honourable Sir Stephen Sedley, a Lord Justice of Appeal from 1999 to 2011 and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Its members were Judge Richard Goldstone—inter alia the first chief prosecutor of the UN international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; Hans Corell from Sweden, a former deputy secretary-general for legal affairs of the United Nations; and, last but not least, Wilhelmina Thomassen, a judge in the Supreme Court in the Netherlands who had been a judge of the European Court of Human Rights.
We told the Charity Commission right from the start, very clearly, that this was a time-limited exercise. If there was cogent new evidence found, our idea was that the commission of inquiry would report by the autumn of 2013 and that there would be no need for the trust to carry on much longer than that once it had presented the report to the United Nations in New York.
In being time-limited it is perhaps an unusual trust—perhaps the Minister will comment on how unusual it is or is not—but it is none the worse for that. Again I stand to be corrected but there is certainly nothing in the legislation that states it is not possible to register a short-term trust. The significance of this consideration will become clear.
To cut a long story short, seemingly endless obstacles were put in our way. First was the contention I mentioned in the previous debate that the trust was “political”. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: no one would remotely say that there was anything party-political about it. However, inter alia, one of the objections raised was on the grounds that it was “political”. Secondly, there were various arcane discussions about the objectives and whether or not we would meet, for example, the test of promoting a sound administration of a law. Where that came from I do not quite recall.
Then we were told that the commission had ascertained that the United Nations was not interested. I will come back to that because it turned out to be not only untrue but the total opposite of the truth. In the background, there was a growing sense among the trustees that, as in a novel by Kafka, this process would never reach a conclusion. This is my answer to the tendentious explanation now given by the Charity Commission that we simply omitted to put in a formal application. I use “tendentious” because it had been made clear to us that, first, we had to satisfy a sequence of tests put to us before it was likely that we would get the green light. That was the process that it presented to us. It was the commission, which, when we had dealt with one objection in preregistration which would stand in the way of a successful application, simply came up with a new one. All that took place over 12 months from August 2012.
I fast-forward to the publication of the report in September 2013 from the commission that the trust appointed. The commissioners found that there was cogent new evidence that the crashed plane had been the subject of some form of attack as it circled Ndola airfield and that the key to this would be to access intercept records from the Cyprus listening post of the United States National Security Agency—likely to be held in its archives in Washington.
I presented the report to the United Nations in New York in October 2013. In the spring of 2014, the Secretary-General wrote a memorandum to the General Assembly recommending that it be an item for the agenda of the session of the General Assembly commencing last September. This was agreed and, in December 2014, a resolution drafted by the Swedish Government was adopted. It ultimately carried signatures of some 60 countries, including South Africa, and 35 European countries, including Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, but not the United Kingdom, France and Belgium. It decided inter alia that the UN should establish its own panel to carry out follow-up investigations. These have just concluded but its report and any further recommendations from the Secretary-General have not yet been published.
Despite all this, at no point in the last 18 months have we received—until yesterday and I am just coming to that—any acknowledgement, let alone an apology, from the Charity Commission, in terms of retracting its contention that there was no evidence of interest on the part of the United Nations. The importance of that is obvious: it has made that a sine qua non of continuing. Indeed, one of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown, a former Foreign Office Minister and a former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations, wrote on our behalf to the Charity Commission on this very point, with no substantive reply.
I shall complete the story. I wrote to the current chairman of the commission, Mr William Shawcross, on this aspect on 26 February this year and received no reply—until, surprise, surprise, I received a reply from him yesterday dated 25 June. He partially changed his tune by acknowledging the UN’s considerable interest, which was palpable, but still did not acknowledge that it had made a big deal out of this, that we had been right about it—and that the commission had certainly been wrong to be dogmatic about it, or that perhaps it had received its steer from biased sources.
In his letter, Mr Shawcross apologised for the delay in answering my letter—after four months; make of that what you will—but then went on to the now all-too-familiar routine along the line that the attitude of the United Nations to the work of the trust was only one aspect of its consideration and that there were others. However, even on the narrow point, how did it come about that we were advised that a positive message of support from the UN would be very significant for the commission’s decision? We have now, as a trust, given up chasing after the moonbeam of Charity Commission registration, so this is by way of a valedictory set of observations from me, regarding a time-limited trust which has now completed its work, given that the follow-up procedures within the UN are now well in hand.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea, for the explanation behind his amendment. I shall pick up on the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will need to write to her as regards the complaints procedures and the changes to be made in respect of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Perhaps I may begin by focusing on the actual words used by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, in his amendment,
“a proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted manner”,
and whether the annual report of the Charity Commission should refer to these. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the annual reports of the Charity Commission headed Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement in Charities, and the stand-alone case reports in which it applies the principles of best practice. However, I should add that the commission tends to frame this in terms of proportionality. The Charity Commission’s annual report for 2014-15 was published just yesterday—I am sure that noble Lords took it to bed with them last night to read. In the section on promoting compliance, the commission explains its approach:
“We use our powers proportionately according to the nature of the issue, the level of risk, and the potential of impact. However, even where we have regulatory concerns, it may not, in some instances, be proportionate for us to formally investigate a charity”.
The commission’s annual report also includes a paragraph specifically focused on how it is supporting the Government’s commitment to better regulation. There is furthermore an extensive section on enabling, which sets out not only the commission’s permissions casework—making schemes and so on—but also the work it has undertaken to prevent problems arising in the first place by making trustees aware of their duties and responsibilities, which is a key principle of proportionate regulation.
I turn now to the Tackling Abuse and Mismanagement in Charities reports. In these the commission is at pains to include some cases which show that it does not always have to make significant regulatory interventions, especially when the trustees who co-operate are either able to put the problems right themselves or can demonstrate that the initial concerns cannot be substantiated. For example, last year’s report set out the commission’s proportionate approach, stating that:
“As an independent, non-ministerial government department with quasi-judicial powers, we operate within a clear legal framework and follow published policies and procedures to ensure that we are proportional in our approach to tackling abuse and mismanagement”.
Finally, the commission’s published framework explains how it approaches all its work and helps to ensure that it continues to be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. It sets out three questions that the commission answers before taking any action: first, does the commission need to be involved; secondly, if it decides that it does need to be involved, what is the nature and level of risk; and thirdly, what is the most effective way of responding? The commission prioritises issues that fall within three areas of strategic risk affecting charities: fraud, financial crime and abuse; safeguarding issues; and concerns about the terrorist abuse of charities. I hope that I have addressed the substance of the amendment, and furthermore these words are set out under Section 16 of the 2011 Act. The commission needs to abide by them in all it does.
Lastly, I want to address the specific case that may have given rise to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. As I hope he will understand, I am not able to go into the details of this case as it is an operational matter for the independent regulator, the Charity Commission. However, as the noble Lord said, he has been in correspondence with the commission and I understand that the chairman has replied and offered to meet him to discuss the case. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that offer. With regard to the specific questions that the noble Lord asked me directly, I will need to write to him in response.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the wider issue of registrations of charities. I point out that we know the number of registrations applied for and the numbers rejected. This year’s report sets it out in detail on, I think, page 41: last year there were 7,192 applications to register, 4,648 registration applications were approved, 2,248 charitable incorporated organisations were registered and 34 registration applications were formally refused.
I am concerned that the amendment that we are considering is not necessary. The commission already explains in its annual report how it is enacted in line with the principles of best regulatory practice. I therefore hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lea, somewhat, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I totally expected that the Minister would be unable to reply to my questions today; that is why I said, and he has confirmed, that he should write to me about the questions that I have raised—before Report, I think he said—and no doubt put a copy in the Library. I am slightly surprised that in the circumstances, since he is aware of the broad outlines of the case, he has had nothing to say about the special circumstances of a short-term trust. Is this a lacuna in the procedures of the Charity Commission, as I suspect?
I stretched the limits of the procedure in the time that I took when I made my opening speech, so I will leave it there at the moment and study the Minister’s reply. Incidentally, with no discourtesy to Mr William Shawcross, no, I have no wish to meet him, given the nature of the reply that he eventually gave to my letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
“( ) privately funded educational institutions, except universities;”
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I tabled this amendment to help clarify what Clause 13 is not, as much as what it is. I would like to ask the Minister how widely this clause can be interpreted. I do not want to wake up one morning and find that it means something quite different from what I thought it meant. I would like to clarify that it is not an opportunity to open up a further shift towards helping taxpayers invest, with socioecononomic income distributional consequences, in private education rather than public education. I do not think anyone would deny that that is a consequence of the charity status of public schools in this country. I repeat that my purpose is to ensure that we all put our cards on the table as to what is going on here and what may be open to interpretation. We do not want to wake up one morning in four years’ time and say, “Well, people kicked the ball through that goal and you did nothing about it. Are you stupid or something? You didn’t keep your eye on the ball”.
I do not know how we are going to avoid the spectre that I am talking about but I will put my question to the Minister in two parts. First, will he comment on my anxieties or analysis of what this may lead to? Secondly, if he wants to reassure me—not me, I am sure he does not wake up in the middle of the night and think, “I’d like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lea, of something”; but if he wanted to reassure people—that this does not have any wider consequences in the sphere that I am talking about, what is wrong with this amendment? The answer can only be that it is redundant or offensive. I would like to know which it is. Is it redundant or is it offensive and if so, why? I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I both have amendments down for Monday’s Committee sitting which relate to the issue of public benefit and public schools, and specifically the provision of their facilities for use by others. We all know that this is a delicate and sometimes politically controversial issue. What I want to say on Monday—although I realise with horror that I am supposed to be speaking in a debate on Gaza at the same time—is that now that private schools in Britain with charitable status have some wonderful sports, music and drama facilities, the question of how far they make them available to their communities is one that we cannot entirely ignore.
It happens that a charity which I chair has benefited from very good partnerships with a small number of public schools which do this precisely because it demonstrates that there is a public benefit, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be saying much the same thing. We will return to this issue on Monday, but one has to be careful not to go on an all-out attack on schools with charitable status. Nevertheless one would wish to insist that public benefit does mean what it says in this and other areas. As I say, we will return to these matters on Monday.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Baroness makes a good point. The overarching check will be that it meets the twin ends of the social investment to make some financial return and ensures that—the noble Baroness mentioned Eton—its charitable mission is fulfilled. We will have to make sure that it does.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, it would be going a bit far for me to say that I do not believe a word of this and that I have got the t-shirt—but not very far.
To caricature—although not a lot—the purpose of the Charity Commission is to do with tax relief. The bigger the tax rate, the bigger the tax relief. That is why it is good for public schools and good for the socioeconomic distribution of income and wealth in favour of the rich. It is not only me saying this: every study that has been carried out for the OECD, through to Milburn and so on proves that. The Minister may wish to caricature me as or put me in the category of a dinosaur from an earlier age—that is entirely his privilege. However, I am talking about what the analysis is today—and that is the analysis of today.
We have a growing problem in Britain in this regard and I would like to think how to move this issue forward before Report. We are obviously miles apart on the analysis—not the politics—of what these kinds of investment would do to the socioeconomic distribution. The answer is regressive. That is the analysis on which 99% of economists would agree.
There have to be safeguards. Things need to be said about this which have not been said so far. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, wants to say something useful on this.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Probably not but I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is making a case for using charitable status for social engineering—fair enough, that is a perfectly good argument—but that is not what we are discussing in the Bill. Social engineering is a different issue. I have heard his callings and those of Members on the other side of the Committee on other occasions. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not what we are driving at on this occasion. We are talking about how to make charities more effective and how to widen the pool of money that is available for social investment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Yes, I know the speech. I have great regard for the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but my truth is much more truthful than his truth, which is that charities are about socioeconomic distribution towards the regressive. If you put my caricature up against his caricature, the jury will ultimately decide. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.