§ 2.56 p.m.
§ Lord Phillips of Sudburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure the widest response to the public consultation on the Strategy Unit Review of Charities; and whether they will ensure that the consultation will primarily be evaluated by the authors of the review and that the results are published.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)My Lords, officials from the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and from the Active Community Unit in the Home Office are undertaking an extensive programme of consultation events and meetings across the United Kingdom over the three month period. There will be some 50 events taking a wide variety of form. Responses to the consultation will be evaluated by officials in those two departments and by other departments affected by the recommendations. The results will be published.
§ Lord Phillips of SudburyMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, may I ask him to ensure that the authors of the report, which is extremely complex, have the opportunity to evaluate the responses? Does the Minister share my concern, and, I think, that of many noble Lords in this House, with regard to the impact of the review on small charities? Of the 300,000 or so charities. 95 per cent or more have no paid staff. Given that the review contains 61 proposals, and that over half of those are earmarked for legislation, will the Government consider legislating extremely cautiously and, in so far as they do, perhaps exempt the smaller charities, as was the case in the 1992 and 1993 Charities Acts? Finally, will the Government evaluate the impact of legislation a year after its introduction?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, as I indicated, the authors of the report will be part of the evaluation as well as the consultation process, subject, as ever, to civil servants' career progression. We shall be highly mindful of the 563 impact of the review on small charities. In fact, throughout the report there is a strong thrust of seeking to deregulate small charities and reduce the burden on them. If the review is carried through, they will have less administration rather than more. As the House well knows, the Home Office is always extremely cautious about legislating.
Lord RentonMy Lords, in further considering this matter will the Government bear in mind that the traditional definition of charity has been very widely interpreted in recent times and that perhaps the time has come for it to be more precisely defined?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. In many ways, charity law is the product of 400 years of history, which is partly what the strategy unit report examined. It looked at some of the historic exemptions and pointed out that in terms of tax relief and public confidence it is important that clear and strong principles of public benefit should be applied fairly across the piece. The central message is about public benefit, which is being utilised. That will be applied in a consistent fashion to all benefiting bodies.
§ Lord JuddMy Lords, does my noble friend accept that among the many who have been deeply involved in charitable work, the report has been welcomed as an extremely thoughtful and stimulating contribution to the future? Does he agree that in the general approach to the work of charities at this juncture, while there may be an important role for charities in partnership with government in providing services, we must take care to ensure that they are not over-encouraged to go down the road of simply being subcontractors in service provision, as distinct from fulfilling their historic role of being initiators, capitalists and making an original, qualitative contribution to society?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, thank you for the welcome. I do not believe that there is an issue between us. I refer to the parallel report, The Cross Cutting Review, which also came out recently. It explored ways of making it possible for charities to make a stronger contribution towards service delivery, if they wish to do so, and it also looked at some of the less effective ways of procuring services. That approach sits against the background of the need to be absolutely clear that charities should set their own objectives, subject to law. If they want to become involved in service delivery, fine; and if they do not wish to do so, that is also fine. Many will wish to do both campaigning and service delivery.
§ Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords—
§ The Lord Bishop of WakefieldMy Lords, do the Government recognise that, notwithstanding the assurance in the report, many in the Churches—and, 564 indeed, other faith groups—will be concerned about the proposed abolition of the presumption of public benefit in the case of bodies established for the advancement of religion, especially because the report gives no convincing explanation for the abolition?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, the central argument about public benefit is that there should be no automatic assumption of public benefit without at least some form of evaluation of that process. That is good and sound for tax exemptions reasons and because of public confidence. However, I do not believe that there is any cause for anxiety among established Churches. The report recommends that it is essential to retain the centrality of public benefit. The Churches should have no difficulty in demonstrating that if they practise the celebration of a religious right that is open to the public, because that should be seen as providing a public benefit. Over and above that, Churches with a relatively small turnover may also be absolved from some of the regulatory burdens.
§ Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, is the Minister aware—
§ Viscount BridgemanMy Lords—
§ Viscount BridgemanMy Lords, does the Minister agree that some eminently suitable persons are put off becoming trustees, particularly of the larger and more exposed charities, on account of uncertainties about personal legal liability? Will the Minister take note of part 5 of the unit's report, which proposes the need for a degree of protection in such situations, and assure the House that those recommendations will form the basis of any future legislation?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, I note that concern. There are many of us in the House who are trustees and who are aware of our exposure. Sometimes, those risks can be insured against, but sometimes not. I shall consider the noble Viscount's point. As for legislation, the House would clearly not expect me to give a view one way or the other.
§ Lord Pilkington of OxenfordMy Lords—
Baroness SharpiesMy Lords, has there been an increase or decrease in the number of applications from organisations for charitable status?
§ Lord FilkinMy Lords, there has been an increase. From recollection, it is running at about 1,800 new registrations a year.
§ Lord Pilkington of OxenfordMy Lords—
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)My Lords, we must move on.