Charities Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 24 and the associated schedule 1 simplify the Universities and College Estates Act 1925, and remove layers of administration for charities that fall under that Act. These minor technical changes clear up bureaucracy in land transactions for those charities.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial interests in relation to universities and charities. I rise to say that, generally, these technical amendments are positive and reduce burdens on universities. However, I do think that there is a wider philosophical discussion to be had—probably not for this Bill, but more broadly—about the role of universities in disposing of land that they might not have acquired themselves but were given. Often that land is given at public expense, and includes heritage assets. Universities should not see those assets as pure money transactions but as heritage transactions. They have a wider duty to the public to look after and maintain those assets, and ensure that they are disposed of in a way that continues that maintenance.

I support the reduction of bureaucracy for universities and charities, but it is important to put on the record that universities should consider not just the business importance of their estate, but its wider social importance.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, in my role as the Minister for Heritage, I agree with the principles that he set out. I do not believe that that is strictly the purpose of the Bill, which is very much about procedure, but he has put his comments on the record. I think most hon. Members would agree with the intent and thrust of what he said about universities’ responsibility to look after their heritage assets.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 25

Working names etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown jogs my memory in relation to the register of interests. I did declare in our Second Reading Committee that I am a trustee of the charity Drug Science. I perhaps ought to put that on the record in Committee as well.

The Opposition support the measures in clauses 25 to 28. They are sensible safeguards that will not only make life less bureaucratic for charities, but will actually have a role in protecting the public from being misled. They are important parts of the Bill. However, there was some concern from charity lawyers that, because the working name proposals were not part of the original report, they may not have been given as much consideration as other parts of the Bill—in terms of unintended consequences and so on. The Opposition support the measures in the clauses, but we would ask for some kind of post-legislative review to make sure that they are working correctly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise generally to support clause 25, but I wish to put on record a note of caution about historic charities that might have competing or similar names. The Charity Commission must act with caution in those cases. My background is in youth organisations, of which there are a number that take the name “Scouts”. They might not be part of the official UK scouting group we know or be affiliated to the international World Organisation of the Scout Movement, but they are Scouts in the sense of the Baden-Powell scouting groups. The same goes for the Woodcraft Folk and others.

It is important that the Charity Commission does not act in a heavy-handed manner, but ensures that it is responsive and light-touch only when there is deliberate confusion taking place, not when a bigger organisation might just not like what a smaller organisation is doing, even though they have both been active for many years. I think it is important that the Charity Commission hear that. I am sure the Minister with his other hat on would agree with that as well.

[Nigel Huddleston]

In answer to the first question, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington is right that clause 25 is not based on a formal proposal in the Law Commission’s consultation. Instead, the recommendation arose from the consultation and was then discussed with the Charity Law Association. That was the genesis of this proposal, and it is not an unusual occurrence in Law Commission projects and reports for that to happen.

With regard to the criteria, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned, the message of reasonableness and being sensible is key. The Charity Commission does have operational guidance, which caseworkers use to determine whether they consider a name to be offensive. The Commission has to date not needed to issue a direction that a charity had to change its name because it was considered offensive. We do not consider that the proposed changes will change the frequency or likelihood of a controversy where a charity’s name is found to be offensive, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which seem eminently sensible, have been noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Powers relating to appointments of trustees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.