COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 25 October 1990)

§ Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. Clause 2 deals with non-recognised bodies. Subsection (4) provided that it would be an offence for a non-recognised body to represent itself or hold itself out as a charity, and would be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. Strong concern was expressed in another place about the possible effect on small charities. A particular concern was that such small organisations might unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law by describing themselves as charities, without having obtained recognition for tax purposes from the Inland Revenue.
Powers already exist to deal with major fraud. The Government accepted that Clause 2(4) could be deleted because the public interest would be adequately safeguarded by the interdict provisions in Clause 2(3). If a local community believed that a small charity of the type mentioned above was not using the money for the purpose stated, it could report the matter to me.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Fraser of carmyllie.)

§ Lord Morton of Shuna
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and I tried unsuccessfully to get rid of this clause when it was before your Lordships at Committee. I am glad that at last wisdom has prevailed, and I welcome the amendment.

§ Lord Macaulay of Bragar
My Lords, perhaps I may add a brief welcome for this deletion. The Government are wise in recognising not only the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but the various difficulties in interpretation contained within the clause as it existed. It is clearly an issue which may need to be faced at some future time, but this was not the way to resolve it. I am glad that the Government recognised that.