COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 27 July 1960)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I now beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the remaining Amendments, Nos. 9 to 31, which are drafting and clarifying Amendments. A number of them refer to mortmain appeals and I should just like to say one word on Amendment No. 12, because that gives an appeal as of right to the High Court Ito any person removed by the Commissioners under subsection (1) of Clause 19. If my memory is right, that was a point about which my noble friend Lord Saltoun was concerned during the Committee stage.

I should like to say only one other thing, which really arises under the more general remarks of my noble friend Lord Saltoun on the last Amendment. I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Charity Commissioners, especially in view of what my noble friend has said. It has been said—indeed, it was repeated at the conclusion of the proceedings in another place—that uneasiness is still felt lest the independence of the Charity Commissioners is somehow being impaired because they are to be appointed by the Home Secretary and can be removed by him; and that through them the Government will be able to bring pressure to bear on charity.

In both Houses Her Majesty's Government have sought to bring out that this is not so. The Home Secretary will appoint the Commissioners to carry out their statutory functions. The Chief Commissioner, aided by his colleagues, will be responsible to him, as the head of any other public department is responsible to his Minister; and, of course, the Minister is, in turn, responsible to Parliament for the efficient conduct of the public service. But the Bill gives no power whatever to the Home Secretary to give to the Commissioners any directions or to influence their decision in an individual ease. The discretion they will exercise is their own and 871 it is subject to review, not by any Minister but by the courts.

It is often said that we have accepted this from this Home Secretary because he has undertaken that he will not do anything and, anyway, we do not think he would. But I do not feel that that is a material objection here, because both the larger political Parties have expressed their desire that charities should be insulated from political pressure. We think that in law the Bill does this effectively; and, in view of what has been said on both sides of both Houses, it is really unthinkable under our system of government that a Home Secretary, of whatever Party, would attempt by some extra-statutory means to influence the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion by threats of dismissal or other pressure.

The Commissioners have been placed by Clause 1 (4) under an express statutory duty to act in the case of any charity so as best to promote and make effective its work in meeting the needs designated by its trust, and this serves to preclude their being activated by other considerations. What a future Government will do by legislation is something we cannot control. But it would have to be done by legislation, and not by action behind the scenes. I wanted to make that quite clear because I know that a certain amount of uneasiness has been felt, and I think that my statement should do the utmost that can be done to dispel it. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

"2 Edw. 7. c. 41	The Metropolis Water Act, 1902.	Subsection (2) of section one from 'having' on wards.
3 Edw. 7. c. 20.	The Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903	Subsection (1) of section one from 'and power' on wards.")

("2 &3 Eliz. 2. c. 55.	The Television Act, 1954.	In the First Schedule, paragraph 1 from 'and power' onwards.
4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 48.	The Sugar Act, 1956.	In the Second Schedule, paragraph 1 from 'and power' on wards.")