UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Margaret Thatcher and, I believe, Tony Benn used to say that there are no final victories in politics. Despite the storms of past controversies and the hard work required to win important arguments, some arguments need to be won again and again, by each generation in turn, and so we are here again today. Some politicians talk as though a world without nuclear weapons were a possibility that could be realised, or at least seriously advanced, by our giving up our own unilaterally; as if the threat from nuclear armed states is not real, growing and still unanswered; and as if Britain should, in these times of all times—these post-Brexit times when we need our friends and allies more than ever—step back from our own defence and that of our allies. In essence, whether opponents say it or not, they suggest that we should piggy-back on our already stretched friends.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is a defender of the idea of a nuclear deterrent and the deterrent effect. Does he follow that logical train of thought and therefore stretch to agreeing with biological and chemical deterrents?

[Robert Jenrick]

Today, we are discussing the nuclear deterrent.

We have heard some curious arguments tonight. We have heard an argument that this is all about cost, but security is not about cost; security is the foundation of everything we hold dear. Without security, there is nothing. Without security, the costs are incalculable.

Nuclear deterrence has preserved the security and stability of this country for half a century. When I was a teenager, our national response to what appeared to be the end of the Soviet menace in the 1990s was to plan for a reduction in the size of our nuclear arsenal, without abandoning our commitment to an independent deterrent capability. That was then a sensible way to hedge against unpredictable future threats to this country’s vital interests. It was the right approach then and it is the right approach again today.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have browsed through the business pages of The Sunday Telegraph yesterday. He will have noticed that there is some concern as to whether BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce can actually deliver the Successor programme on time and on budget. Does he think it would be wise for the Secretary of State to make contingency plans for possible failure in that direction?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. As I understand it, the Secretary of State is committed to reporting annually on the progress of the project, and I hope that will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and to all of us who want to see it proceed successfully.

In the time I have available, let me summarise the arguments as I see them. First, deterrence is not simply for the cold war history books, as some have said this evening. Deterrence remains essential to prevent major wars from occurring between nation states, and to prevent our being coerced and blackmailed by threats from those who possess nuclear weapons. Deterrence also extends into war itself, ensuring—or attempting to ensure—that any war, whether large or small, is a limited war.

Secondly, we still live in a uniquely dangerous world, at risk of terrorist attack, as we heard from the Prime Minister earlier. We are also at risk and uncertain in terms of nation states and other major powers around the world, as other hon. Members have said. A couple of days ago, I saw on television the dignified face of Marina Litvinenko, as she stood on College Green, outside this building. She is a living testament to the danger and unpredictability of the regime in Russia.

We have seen further evidence of the growing long-term instability in Asia with the escalation of the South China sea dispute. That is surely one of the disputes that will mark out our generation and beyond, and which in turn will encourage the United States to pivot its attention and resources further towards the Pacific and away from Europe’s security. In late June, North Korea succeeded in launching a home-grown intermediate-range ballistic missile, which flew a distance of 250 miles to the Sea of Japan after five previous failed attempts. And let us not forget that it is little over a year since the signing of Iran’s nuclear deal, which I suspect will only delay the prospect of that country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Hon. Members might not be aware that Iran celebrated the first anniversary of the signing of that deal by firing a long-range ballistic missile using North Korean technology.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Surely the poisoning of Litvinenko and the annexation of Crimea happened despite our having nuclear weapons, so what exactly have they prevented?

[Robert Jenrick]

The point that I am making is that we cannot predict the future. We only have to look at the events of recent days and weeks to see the incredible unpredictability of this world. Most Members, myself included, could not have predicted the events of the last three weeks and we certainly cannot predict the events of the next three or four decades.

[Alex Chalk]

On the subject of Russia’s actions, would not the annexation of territory on our continent have been unimaginable two years ago? This just goes to show that we need to be prepared for things that are completely beyond our expectations.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The past is a poor predictor of the future. Looking back at our own history, we can say that we are not good at predicting the future.

Thirdly, as the Prime Minister has said, we cannot outsource our security—or rather, we can, but we take a grave risk if we do so. In the early post-cold war period, the willingness of the United States to stand with its allies—

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in the last 10 seconds of his speech. Is he aware of the book by Peter Oborne in which the author tells of the Iranian leadership describing nuclear weapons as “haram”?

[Robert Jenrick]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people still wish to speak and that there is not very much time left. I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will nick that soundbite—it’s a good one. The hon. Lady is right. If we leave the single market and the European Union, the Council President has said clearly that that process probably takes two years, and after that we will have to negotiate a trade deal with the European Union. If that trade deal is like Canada’s, it could take seven years. We are looking at a decade of uncertainty for our economy.

On the ceramics industry, I am advised by my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who before coming to this House did a worthwhile job of working in that industry—[Interruption.] He may not be spinning pots any more, but he is spinning for me very effectively. Last year we exported £38 million in porcelain and china to the EU. If we were outside the EU without a trade deal and had World Trade Organisation tariffs, there would be a 12% tax. I do not want us to hit British manufacturers, car makers and aeroplane makers. We should be investing in and supporting those industries, not making their situation more difficult, which Brexit would undoubtedly do.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Q10. Thirty years ago when I was just a little lad—[Hon. Members: “Aah”] Thirty years ago, my parents quit their jobs and founded a small manufacturing business around our kitchen table. Today, British manufacturers—particularly small businesses—are worried because if we leave the European Union, they will continue to make their products to common European standards because they value the free market. They value the single market and want to export, but they are aware that the United Kingdom will have no say whatsoever in the formulation of those standards, and their competitive advantage will be destroyed. What advice does my right hon. Friend have for my parents and for small businesses and the millions of jobs that depend on them across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I had always assumed that my hon. Friend was under 30, so I am shocked to get that news. He makes an important point. If we were to leave the EU, we would lose the seat around the table that sets the rules of the single market. Of course sometimes those rules can be annoying or burdensome, but at the end of the day those are the rules we have to meet. If we leave and have no say over those rules, we do not gain control, we lose it. That is a crucial argument, and it is why the majority of small businesses—as well as a very large majority of larger businesses—back staying in the EU.

Record Copies of Acts

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to hear the opinion of a former colleague of mine, Mrs Meg Ford, who is the head of books and manuscripts at Christie’s and one of the world’s foremost experts in this field. She advises the great collectors who spend millions of pounds purchasing books and manuscripts. She emailed me to say:

“Vellum surely is the strongest, most durable writing material. Maybe there is some newly invented material lined with graphene, but if the choice is between even the best paper and vellum, vellum will win.”

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend speaks with passion from a position of great expertise, and he is absolutely right. When I was going through my personal archives recently, I was interested to come across my grandfather’s certificate as a graduate of Edinburgh University. I have it here—this is not an aide-mémoire, Mr Speaker. He graduated in engineering in 1903, and his certificate is absolutely as it was when it was first printed. It has simply been sat in a cupboard in my family’s house for 120 years, and it is as good as new.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) had listened, he would have heard that I said that there were reductions in the time that people had to speak, which is a perfectly valid point—

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Melanie Onn]

I will finish my sentence before I give way.

I am surprised that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is normally so eager to tell us of his prudence with taxpayers’ money, has said that the Government will find the extra money for this with no problem. I thought that the Government had a long-term economic plan, but it can hardly be called that if money can be found down the back of the sofa whenever it suits the Government politically.

[Robert Jenrick]

When I heard that the hon. Lady was opposed to the proposal, I took the liberty—I hope she does not mind—of looking up whether there are any important documents from the town of Grimsby that are printed on vellum and would not have existed had they been printed on paper. It turns out that in Grimsby town hall there are 14 boxes of them including, from 1227, the charter creating the town of Grimsby; from 1256, the charter granting the town of Grimsby its right—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sit down, Mr Jenrick. [Interruption.] I suggest you sit down—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Flynn, I certainly do not need any help from you. I say to you, Mr Jenrick, that the Minister is desperate to come in. By all means make the point, but you cannot read a list as though it is the phone directory to tell me what is there or not. We have got the message; let us get on.

Panama Papers

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that there are many people in our country—I think there are now over 12.5 million shareholders—who hold shares in things such as unit trusts. There is plenty of information about them, and they do not need any from me. The point is that, if you invest in one of those and you are a UK resident, you must pay UK income tax and UK capital gains tax, just as you would if you buy a share in any other organisation.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I would not recommend doing this, but, having read back through Hansard over the 13 years of the previous Labour Government, I could not find a single occasion on which the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised any of these issues. The closest he came was when he described the Labour Government’s decision to use Orders in Council to take control of the Turks and Caicos Islands as “mediaeval” and “extremely undemocratic”, but he now advocates that policy for all territories. Is it not fortunate that after 2010 we had a Government who actually took up this agenda?

[The Prime Minister]

I am interested to see that the right hon. Gentleman has conducted a U-turn because recently he has been suggesting taking control of these territories. I can now see a use for the nuclear submarines as they head off towards the Isle of Man, and as the Corbyn invasion force begins to mass to take over this territory. It is much more sensible to get them to do the things they ought to be doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me just take one of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Homelessness today is less than half what it was at its peak under the last Labour Government. There is a simple point here. You can only invest in new houses, you can only restore existing houses, you can only build new houses and you can only support people into those houses if you have got a strong economy. We inherited mass unemployment, an economy that had completely collapsed and a banking crisis. Now we have got zero inflation, wages growing, unemployment at 5%, an economy growing and people able, for the first time, to look to their future and see that they can buy and own a house in our country.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Q2. Nadia Murad, a Yazidi woman, was 19 years old when Daesh came to her village. They killed most of her family, they tortured her, they raped her and they made her their slave. Nadia’s story is the same as those of thousands of Yazidi women, except that thousands of Yazidi women are still held in captivity and Nadia managed to escape. In fact, she is in the Public Gallery today. Will the Prime Minister join me in acknowledging Nadia’s resilience and her bravery—the essential qualities that have allowed her to triumph over Daesh—and will he do everything in his power to redouble his efforts to support Yazidi women and to eradicate Daesh?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in such a way. Let me welcome Nadia Murad, who is here with us today. She and the Yazidi community have suffered appallingly at the hands of this murderous, brutal, fascist organisation in Syria and in Iraq. We must do everything we can to defeat Daesh and its violent ideology. We are playing a leading role in this global coalition. In Iraq, where so many Yazidis have suffered, Daesh has lost over 40% of the territory that it once controlled. We are making progress, but, as I said at the time of the debate about Syria, this is going to take a long time. Building up Iraqi security forces, working with Syrian opposition forces, building the capacity of Governments in both countries to drive this evil organisation out of the middle east—however long it takes, we must stick at it.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that for a charity that is picking up the pieces left by diseases such as cancer or heart failure, it is a better use of taxpayers’ money to lobby for better investment in prevention and research and development?

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am sorry to relive arguments that were heard in Committee, but the only example that was given to the Committee of the so-called chilling effect or of a charity being prohibited from carrying out activities by the so-called gagging law was that of the Badger Trust. That organisation was explicitly party political. The chief executive officer, Dominic Dyer, sent out an email using the charity’s email system to all its members, who may have had any party political affiliation or none, saying that he had contributed to the Labour party’s rural manifesto, that it was wonderful, that they should turn up at the launch of the manifesto, that they should take part in an anti-Cameron rally and, presumably, that they should vote Labour. The hon. Lady said that she supported that kind of behaviour, which was illegal. Surely Members from all parts of the House can agree that such behaviour is wrong. New clause 3 should be defeated because it would give the green light to that sort of extremely negative behaviour.

[Anna Turley]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has a problem with negative behaviour—I am afraid that it is a fact of life. Having looked at the evidence from the Charity Commission on that case, I still struggle to see what was wrong with the situation. I am very happy to continue that conversation with the Charity Commission.

The hon. Gentleman says that that was the only evidence given. More than 160 charities signed a letter to the Government ahead of the general election saying that the legislation should be scrapped, including Save the Children, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Age UK and Amnesty International. The charity sector is up in arms.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right to pay that tribute. There is often a political motivation behind such proposals that resents the fact that a party, once it is in power, has to accept that people will challenge it and hold it to account.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the one case that I am aware of when a charity has been criticised for not being politically neutral during the general election. That was the Badger Trust. It is not a charity that I am particularly familiar with, but the Charity Commission said that there was a risk of its political neutrality being called into question. The example it gave was that Dominic Dyer, its chief executive officer, organised rallies in the lead-up to and during the general election, and emailed all its supporters, using the charity’s computer system, in advance of the Labour party’s manifesto launch on rural communities, saying that he had contributed to it and asking supporters to attend the launch event and support it—or words to that effect. Does the hon. Lady think that is right? Surely not.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that suggestion. I wonder whether he would have had the same concerns had that been done for his political party. Surely consultation is a positive thing. If a charity’s aims and objectives are welcomed and taken forward by a political party, it is surely right for it to welcome that success for its charitable objectives and its efforts to have influence, shape policy and change society. That is something to be welcomed, and the hon. Gentleman is on a difficult line with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

On the second point, perhaps they have given up hope and they may have some despair. We have certainly had a lot of support and encouragement from the sector in taking these proceedings forward. Charities have asked us to continue to press the Government on this issue and to review it. We came under a lot of pressure, and our manifesto stated that if we had won in May we would have revoked the measure.

[Robert Jenrick]

I have done some research into that just briefly over the past few days, and the only example I could find is the one about the Badger Trust, which I think most reasonable people would agree is an example of inappropriate behaviour by a charity. Can the hon. Member give us some examples of charities whose activities during the general election campaign were inappropriately curtailed as a result of the 2014 Act?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. The reason why it is concerning is not about party politics; it is about faith and trust in charities. In my constituency, 60% of the electorate voted Conservative, I am pleased to say, but I am sure that many of my constituents who voted Conservative share her passionate support for badgers and, if they were members or supporters of the Badger Trust, would have been disappointed to see it explicitly support one political party. The statistics about lack of trust in charities suggest that of those people who say that they do not have faith in charities or that their faith in them has been diminished, the number who cite partisan and party political campaigning by charities as a reason has tripled in the past three years. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about that?

[Anna Turley]

I do not recognise that evidence, because what has come to us indicates quite the opposite.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will send it.

[Anna Turley]

Please do. To go back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I am delighted for his sake—if not for ours—that so many of his constituents voted Conservative, but if many of them care passionately about badgers and see such measures in the Labour manifesto and not the Conservative manifesto, surely they can challenge that party’s views, because views can be changed. There will always be things that a political party stands for that we will disagree with—I am sure that many of us on both sides of the Committee feel that. Things are not set in stone and this measure does not seem inflexible and against the grain. I am happy to explore that case in more detail, but I remain to be convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

It would not; it would just allow charities the opportunity to be free from restrictions and to able to influence political parties in the way they think best, which is what the hon. Lady was trying to defend.

[Robert Jenrick]

I promise that this is my last intervention on the hon. Lady on this point. We should be careful what we wish for here. In the United States, the blurring of the line between philanthropy and politics is much greater than in this country. In fact, it has been legal for charities to support parties and candidates for only 50 years in the US, where we see wealthy philanthropists setting up charities with blurred objectives. We should all defend against that passionately.

[Anna Turley]

I totally agree, but I am not aware that we were in the same situation as America before the hon. Gentleman’s Government introduced this Bill. I do not share his view that our revoking these powers would provoke that kind of situation. As I said at the beginning, we are trying to defend the independence and voice of the charitable sector and to enable charities to speak truth to power without fear or favour and to shape and influence their view on what would build a better society, in accordance with their charitable aims and, hopefully, with the views of many in the Committee. We will not be pressing the new clause to a vote, but we will return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Independent schools’ facilities: public benefit

‘In section 4 of the Charities Act 2011 (the public benefit requirement), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Independent schools which are charities must engage actively with local communities and state schools with a view to sharing resources and facilities.

(6) The Charity Commission must publish guidance setting out the minimum that independent schools which are charities must do to comply with the duty in subsection (5).’.’—(Anna Turley.)

This New Clause would require independent schools to engage with their local communities and state schools to share resources and facilities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wilson]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to make those comments. It is true that the Opposition have worked effectively in the other place and, indeed, in this place. I deliberately set up the Etherington review as an all-party review because I wanted every party to be involved and to have a stake in ensuring we get this right. By and large, the Etherington review, all of whose terms I have accepted, has proved to have produced a very effective report, and we need to get on with implementing all parts of it.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I strongly support the changes in the Bill, but I want to press the Minister on the annual statement that the larger charities will have to make about how they conduct their fundraising. One question that it does not seem to ask is what percentage of the public money that is given to charities is spent on funding commercial fundraising operations. I have written to a number of charities on behalf of my constituents to ask that question, and on every occasion they have replied by saying that they cannot provide that information because it is commercially sensitive. The public want that information. They want to know how much of their money is spent on funding commercial fundraising operations, rather than on the charities. I would like that to be either in the Bill or the Charity Commission’s guidelines.

[Mr Wilson]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, and I believe there would be a level of support among the public for that. There certainly are commercial confidentiality considerations, in the same way as there are for Government contracts, but I will look seriously at what he said and come back to him.

To take that point a little further, there are questions about how extensive the problem of poor fundraising is for charities. The hon. Member for Redcar said that it is a small problem that affects a small number of charities. By and large that is true, but the Fundraising Standards Board received 52,000 complaints in one year, so the activity is deep-rooted. That is why it is important that we introduce these measures and try to do something about it. I believe that these two measures, coupled with the others, will help to stop some of the poor practices. They will ensure that there is oversight and accountability among the trustees and that fundraising is overseen directly.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Maggie Throup]

I think not only in the charity sector but across the board, evidence can be destroyed or changes made very rapidly, so the provision would begin to undermine the purpose of the Bill, which tries to help charities rather than be too draconian. That is the measure we want to take with this clause.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that most regulators in other spheres have the power to issue warnings without notice? For example, the Financial Conduct Authority has those powers for precisely the reasons that she has just given.

[Maggie Throup]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is probably why the measure is in the Bill. It mimics what is happening across the board with other regulators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We know that judicial review is pretty much inaccessible without legal assistance, and that cuts to legal aid have had a hugely detrimental impact on people who are trying to access justice.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is making a good point. Doe she agree that perhaps the best way to tackle that problem is through guidance from the Charity Commission? If the Care Quality Commission issues a warning, there is no formal way to appeal against it, but in the guidelines there is a 10-day period in which representations can be made to the CQC, which happens all the time. Then the CQC, having read the representations and at its discretion, can withdraw its warning.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent comparison, but what happens if, at the end of that representation, the Charity Commission does not agree? Where is the right of redress or recourse after that? Judicial review is too large, bureaucratic and expensive. It is a complex, time and resource-intensive activity that is largely inaccessible without legal assistance. It is widely known as the remedy of last resort for public body decisions when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

There may be a perception among the public that charities should not use their funds to pursue judicial review applications, in particular in the light of some of what we have seen in the media in the last few days about how charities spend their money, which goes against the grain of what we are trying to encourage. It has been said that if it were possible to appeal against a warning, the commission might be reluctant to issue warnings full stop, as there would be a risk that appeal after appeal would gum up the system. This implies an awareness that judicial review is not really a remedy, as it so much more costly, complex and inaccessible than an appeal to the tribunal. In any event, research suggests that of the 103 inquiries opened by the commission between April 2014 and April 2015, no more than 5% were appealed to the tribunal, which is not a significant proportion. If the warning power is meant to be only for low-level issues but could precipitate adverse publicity—we have already discussed that at some length this morning—and the exercising of the commission’s protective powers, it is illogical that it should be more difficult to challenge than the exercising of the commission’s more extensive regulatory powers, such as the power to remove trustees, which can be challenged in the tribunal.

It is also worth noting that there seems to be confusion over whether the warning power can be used for low-level or medium-level concerns. When the power was first suggested, the Cabinet Office said that it would be for medium-range abuses, for which the commission’s protective powers could be used but it is not likely to be proportionate to do so. Yet the explanatory notes to the Bill say that it will be used where the risks are relatively low. There is still a huge lack of clarity about the difference between a medium-range and a low-level concern. The possible implications of a warning, as we know, are harsh for low-level matters, so it is important that charities have a right of redress and recourse to a tribunal. Without it, they might be unable to disprove what could potentially be false allegations. We also want to ensure that the Charity Commission considers warnings extremely seriously before issuing them.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill, which is a much needed and sensible Government reform. I am delighted that they have introduced it.

Before entering this place, I practised as a solicitor for several years. I practised corporate governance, among other areas, and over the course of the past year, I think we have all come to realise that the governance of charities is in crisis and it is affecting all charities. The large charities are infecting the small charities, which is why it is so important for this House to act.

As has been said by many Members on both sides of the House, we all support the charities in our constituencies, including those we give to and those of which we are trustees. We want them to thrive and we want public confidence in them to increase, because, undoubtedly, public confidence in charities has been knocked this year. As the head of a charity based in my constituency recently told me, charities are different from many other parts of our society. When large businesses get knocked by scandals, the public turn towards the little guys and confidence in them rises. If there is a horsemeat scandal at Tesco, we all go to our local butchers and sales there start to rise. Charities seem to have the inverse situation. If the big charities get hit by scandals, the little guys suffer as well.

It is essential that we protect the thousands of excellent small charities that we, as Members of Parliament, get to know more than most members of society. It is for them that we must ensure that the larger charities, in particular, have the highest quality of governance. That comes down to trustees. It has been a torrid year in many respects for how the large charities have behaved, whether the scandals have been about the high salaries of chief executives and the management teams of big charities, about the question of politicisation or, above all, about the question of the inappropriate use of fundraising on our high streets. Of course, there has been the tragic case of Olive Cooke.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. Does he agree that part of it is about the public having confidence about how much of the pound that they donate ends up going to the good work of the good cause, particularly as with some of the larger charities there have been issues about how much ends up going on overheads and administration?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I want to come on to how we can ensure proper financial management of our charities. That cuts in both directions: how they govern themselves and what percentage of their organisation and resources is deployed on central management.

Kids Company has seen the last and perhaps most prominent scandal, which has raised all manner of questions about the governance of our most high-profile and largest charities, particularly their capacity to handle their finances appropriately. I do not want to dwell on Kids Company, which is an outlier, but it has done huge damage to other charities. That is why those who have been at the heart of it and those parts of Government that have worked with Kids Company have to take it seriously. It is damaging all our charities throughout the country. The powers in the Bill to bar ineffective and inappropriate trustees from acting as trustees will be tested if there are Kids Company-type scandals in future.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is that not at the heart of the matter? The vast majority of people who work with, volunteer for or have leadership positions in charities across the UK generally do the right thing in their day-to-day activities. Through this Bill and other initiatives, we need to try to get the right balance between governance and allowing them to get on with doing the things that they really want to do.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. It is important to remember that the core activities of our charities are rarely questioned. They are usually performed incredibly well and incredibly sensitively and appropriately. The scandals and disappointments tend to come from the way the operation of our charities occurs. That is why it is incredibly important that trustees play their full role in managing, scrutinising and supporting those organisations, as do directors and non-executive directors of our companies.

The role of a trustee has to be at the heart of it all. The new Bill is important in that regard as the power to bar individuals who are not appropriate to be trustees and who bring charities into disrepute is incredibly important. I would be interested to know from the Minister how many trustees he believes that that would apply to in an average year. Will the difference be marginal, or will it be more significant? As for the question of preventing trustees from moving on, after damaging an organisation, to continue in many others, we all know that many people—many good people—are trustees of several charities and so, inevitably, the bad apples are also involved in many charities. We want to ensure that that involvement cannot continue.

The power to issue warnings to charities is important if the Charity Commission considers their actions to amount to misconduct or mismanagement. Of course, that must be done proportionately and the Charity Commission has not always acted proportionately on a range of other issues, including, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the issue of the Plymouth Brethren. Had I been in the House at the time, I would certainly have supported that important campaign.

Many involved in the third sector have expressed concern that the Bill gives the commission the benefit of the doubt, but bearing in mind the importance of raising public trust in our charities, particularly the big ones, it is essential that we have a strong regulator with the tools to act. The Bill provides that.

I have some questions and thoughts for the Minister on the role of trustees. First, it is absolutely essential, as Kids Company showed—this seems a simple and obvious point—that a board of trustees contains the right range of expertise. That is stipulated within the guidance of the Charity Commission but, clearly, it does not always happen. In particular, that must include the right range of financial expertise. When charities reach a certain size, like our larger companies, they qualify to be in the FTSE 250. They are huge organisations and require individuals with genuine financial expertise and knowledge of financial controls so that they can scrutinise the organisation and hold it to account.

[Fiona Bruce]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but my concern is, as the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned, possible regulations for larger charities. My concern is how that is defined and that one might bring in the smaller charities. Does my hon. Friend not share my concern about the difficulty in attracting officers of charitable organisations, particularly to the role of treasurer, as my experience shows?

[Robert Jenrick]

I share that concern. We all know through the other organisations in which we are involved how difficult it can be to find good people, particularly younger people, as has been said, to act as trustees. Incidentally, the charitable sector is a lot more diverse than our corporate sector. About 40% of charitable trustees are women, and that figure is not the same in the corporate sector. It is important that we do not put people off from getting involved. It might be that the time has come when “one size fits all” does not work and that our largest charities, which uphold public trust and confidence in charitable giving more generally and which are very large—we are encouraging charities to merge and get larger—should be subject to far greater scrutiny and a different regime from the small ones that we all know in our constituencies and want to thrive.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps for the very small charities there needs to be some sort of Charity Commission kitemarked course that a would-be trustee can go on to ensure that they have the necessary understanding of the role required.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend comes on to a point that I wanted to make. By the Charity Commission’s own reckoning, knowledge of governance rules and best practice is quite limited among our trustees. I do not blame them—they are busy people who are doing this voluntarily and we want to encourage that—but knowledge is quite limited. The awareness and knowledge of some of the guidance—for instance, CC3, which is “The essential trustee” guide—are quite modest. Surveys that the Charity Commission has put out to trustees of larger and small charities suggest that basic functions of being a trustee are not widely known by our trustees.

Anything that the Charity Commission can do to boost awareness without putting off our trustees is essential. I know that the Charity Commission takes that seriously, because I have spoken to it, but it needs to do something to boost that awareness and support trustees in a way that strikes the right balance between not deterring people and ensuring that they know what they are supposed to do. Some of the reports and surveys are quite scary when it comes to how few trustees understand their responsibilities, particularly as regards finance.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous with his time. Does he agree that it is also important that we ensure that anyone who wants to do the best for their community or to support a good cause does not feel excluded from being a charity trustee merely because they do not have formal qualifications? It is important that the Charity Commission helps to build the skills they need, as I would not want to see trusteeship become a graduates-only zone.

[Robert Jenrick]

That is very important, but I do return to the theme of some of our biggest charities. They are major organisations dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds of not only the public’s money, through charitable donations, but the taxpayer’s money. I am nervous to dwell on the case of Kids Company, but its trustees had very little relevant expertise. One was a celebrity hairdresser—there is nothing wrong with that, but I do not expect that person necessarily to have expertise in running a major multinational business, as Kids Company had become. It is therefore essential that those organisations step up and have appropriate trustees. I would like this Bill and the Government to push our biggest charities to have those individuals.

I know that charities are now required in their annual return to confirm whether or not they have reviewed their financial controls. Clearly, that important lesson has come out of recent scandals, and such a provision is essential. Anything we can do to beef it up, without deterring the little guys, is essential.

Another issue is that, unlike as happens in companies, most trustees do not meet in mixed board meetings with their management, and so the interplay between the two is often limited. Those trustees who take their role most seriously and work hardest at it no doubt get to know the senior management of their organisation, but others do not and often rely, crucially, on the chief executive, who may be, as we have seen in other scandals, an overbearing founder. Such a person may be incredibly charismatic, powerful and knowledgeable about the organisation, but it is difficult to scrutinise them, stretch them and hold them to account. That is important, and our larger charities have started to have mixed board meetings involving executive and non-executive directors— I use the corporate setting there.

I would like the Government to think about the role of overbearing founders, because it is an incredibly important issue. Anyone involved in the charitable sector sees examples where someone who may be a brilliant individual founds a charity and then it gets out of control, as they become extremely difficult to scrutinise and perhaps the time comes when they should step aside or hand over to somebody else. Perhaps it would be appropriate for these individuals to have term limits, as we might have for a chairman of a public company, where they have to go through a rigorous procedure at the end of a certain term in order to be reappointed.

A number of our charities, even the largest ones, are riddled with conflicts of interest. We see trustees having friends and relatives employed in the organisation, and trustees sometimes getting benefits that are not appropriate. I do not think the Bill particularly deals with that issue, but it does a lot of damage and undermines confidence in the charitable sector.

Lastly, I wonder whether the Minister really believes that the Charity Commission has the capacity to regulate the vast number of charities. We have thousands of charities in this country, some of which are extremely complex organisations, as we have seen. Does the Charity Commission have the resources to do that work? I suspect it does not, a view shared by many in the sector. Some of our most experienced chief executives believe the time has come for some form of beefing up of the Charity Commission through self-funding, whereby the big charities, which are the holders of public trust and confidence, might contribute some money towards ensuring that trust in the wider sector is maintained through a Charity Commission that has the funding required to see that happen.

I know that the Minister wants to speak, so in conclusion, trustees are absolutely essential and those of our biggest charities are letting down the entire sector. Scandals such as what happened at Kids Company matter, because they are harming the small charities, which are the lifeblood of charitable giving. As a Member of Parliament, I have taken huge pleasure in getting to know and working with these charities in my constituency, and I know other Members feel the same. Those who hold those positions in the big organisations need to step up and behave as if they are non-executive directors of large and important organisations, which they are.