HL Deb 11 June 1981 vol 421 cc313-5

3.14 p.m.

Lord Vaizey

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise the Charity Commission that their decision to prefer short-term financial advantage over the long-term interests of scholarship in the case of Kelmscott House and the William Morris Society is causing grave disquiet and will lead to litigation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not answerable for the day-to-day administration of the Charity Commission. However, I understand that the commissioners have not yet taken any decision, but are continuing their efforts to facilitate an acceptable solution that is consistent with the objects of the charity. They deny that there is any question of their unduly emphasising the financial aspect, important as that is.

Lord Vaizey

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that William Morris was one of the most distinguished men of the 19th century and a very great Englishman, and that a great many people are anxious and indeed distressed by the dilatory and confused behaviour by the Charity Commission in this important case, which appears to be resulting in most unfortunate consequences for the William Morris Society and the virtual dereliction of Kelmscott House?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that I understand the anxiety which he is expressing, but I believe that the commission has all along been trying to devise an acceptable solution as soon as possible. Delays have arisen through the inability of the interested parties to reach agreement.

Viscount Eccles

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of course the reputation of William Morris slumped a little in previous years but is now coming up again? There are a very great number of craftsmen interested in seeing that there should be a solution and that a wonderful tradition in the crafts should be carried on.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful for me to say that the point at issue is that the Charity Commission's approval is needed for the sale of the lease of the house. The commission, as I understand it, has to ensure that the best interests of the charity are served, not only financially but in the furtherance of the charity's stated objects.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety on the part of many people who are concerned and have the interests of the society at heart, as they feel that it looks as though the Charity Commissioners are giving the house to the trustees, rather than to the society? Although the Government are not responsible for the day-to-day affairs, is there not a point at which the Government will have to come in, before it becomes too late, or before there is litigation?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the commissioners must ensure that the best interests of the charity are served in financial transactions, and their dealings officially, I understand, would be with the trustees. So far as intervention by the Government is concerned, it is important for me to stress that the powers of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary under the Charities Act 1960 do not extend to intervening in decisions of the Charity Commission.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, would the Minister be prepared at any rate to consider urging the Charity Commission to pay proper respect to the wishes of the donor of Kelmscott House in 1972? It was the clear intention of the donor that the premises should be used for the benefit of the William Morris Society, and it is the William Morris Society which is now going to be largely ousted from those premises. Would he not consider it proper to make sure that the Charity Commission in its deliberations pays the utmost respect to what the donor had in her mind in the first place?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I hope that it is evident from the replies that I have tried to give that this would be among the functions and responsibilities of the Charity Commissioners.

Lord Alport

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is highly undesirable—whatever may be the views on the judgment of the Charity Commissioners in any particular case—for the Government to be involved in bringing pressure on them in any particular direction?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I would agree with what my noble friend said.

Lord Vaizey

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a real doubt about the way in which the Charity Commission is exercising its responsibility in this and in many other matters? There is a lack of confidence in the Charity Commission. Two charities are involved, although the commissioners persist in believing that there is inextricable confusion and that there is only one charity, and have refused an inquiry under Section 6 of the Act, Only six inquiries under Section 6 took place last year, which is a grave dereliction of their responsibility.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I repeat that I understand the anxiety which my noble friend is expressing on a matter in which he has a close concern and which is very important. I repeat that the Charity Commission has functions and responsibilities which are clearly set out in the 1960 Act. We must keep in mind that the Government have no authority to intervene in individual decisions which are made by the Charity Commission.