Skip to main content

Charities Bill [HL]

Volume 686: debated on Tuesday 7 November 2006

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, today is Tuesday 7 November in the year of Our Lord 2006. At the first Second Reading of this Bill, as long ago as 20 January 2005—nearly two years ago—the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said:

“One of the most important contributions that the Government can make to facilitating and promoting activities of the charitable sector is to create a modern legislative framework for it . . . By reforming the legal and regulatory framework for charities, the Government will enable people to use charities as a means to make a difference. The Bill will help existing charities to thrive, grow and realise their full potential”.—[Official Report, 20/1/05; col. 883.]

Sadly, the Bill could not complete its passage before the general election was called.

At the Bill’s second Second Reading on 7 June 2005—a mere 18 months ago—the noble Baroness said:

“The Government believe that a thriving charity sector is a cornerstone of a healthy society”.—[Official Report, 7/6/05;col. 783.]

Given those remarks and the fine words that the Government use about the voluntary sector, the subsequent progress of the Bill—or lack of it—is very surprising. After that Second Reading in June 2005, there were a couple of days in Committee and on Report, in July and October respectively, with Third Reading on 8 November last year. Since that date—one year less one day—we have heard nothing. The Bill has disappeared into some legislative black hole. It has only now emerged, with two days to go before the end of the Session if we are to avoid the extraordinary spectacle of the Bill failing and falling for a second time. The Government owe the House and the charitable and voluntary sector an explanation of why their behaviour on the passage of the Bill has been so dilatory.

My Lords, I return to the Bill, having been here before, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned. I thought that there was about to be a deal prior to the general election, but it did not come to pass. I am disappointed that it has taken all this time, but let us rejoice that the Bill is before us and we can see it home today.

My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is sojourning in Sudbury and is not presenting himself here further. I think that that is a sad affair, but that is his decision. That means that I return to the Bill. I was with it the first time round but not the second. I suppose, having returned to it again, that I ought to declare my interests. I am a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the JRSST Charitable Trust, and am vice-president of the Community Foundation for Calderdale. I welcome the Bill’s return today.

My Lords, this is a bit of general knockabout, so I will treat it with the respect it deserves. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could probably tell your Lordships better than I why the Bill was delayed at all first time round. We thought it was uncontroversial legislation. We had given it a thorough bout of House of Lords scrutiny and we thought that our colleagues at the other end, just prior to the 2005 general election, would happily see it through. Then, when the opportunity was presented to have a definitive piece of charity law on the statute book, the Conservatives in another place, for reasons best known to themselves—perhaps they saw some controversy in it that we at this end did not see—decided to knock it on the head and kill it off. That was a great shame because we have, as a consequence, spent a lot longer getting to this happy point of putting this legislation to bed and seeing it happily on its way.

The delay is regrettable in the sense that the parliamentary process has taken rather longer than it should have, with timetabling, and so on, but it has meant that the Bill has been further scrutinised. It is probably one of the most scrutinised non-controversial Bills of all time. That is no bad thing, because it has enabled experts in the field such as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to help us sharpen it up. It has been sharpened up also by notable contributions from the Benches opposite, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, Lord Swinfen, Lord Shutt, and others. The Bill is in almost perfect form. We have a small hurdle to clear this evening, which I am sure will not detain your Lordships' House too long, except for, I am sure, very well informed questions.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert “, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall spend a little time on the amendments, because the group includes an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, intends to move. Within this small group, Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 go together and Amendment No. 2 stands on its own.

Noble Lords will recall that when this Bill was in your Lordships' House last year, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, put forward a powerful case for adding as a specific category of charitable purposes,

“the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown”.

The Government accepted the force of the noble and gallant Lord’s argument and made an amendment to include his proposed category, which is Clause 2(2)(l).

A similarly powerful case was put more recently on behalf of the police to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill by the Police Dependants’ Trust and by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police among others. They advocated the inclusion in the Bill’s list of charitable categories of,

“the promotion of the efficiency of the police”.

The Government agreed to its inclusion and the amendment was duly made. I should emphasise that this amendment does not change the law, since the promotion of the efficiency of the police can already be charitable, but it is of considerable importance to the police service that its status and its importance in national life be recognised alongside that of the Armed Forces. The chief executive of the Police Dependants’ Trust has written to my honourable friend to express his and his trustees’ delight with the amendment.

It would have been invidious to have included the police without also including the other two emergency services, so the provision at which the Government arrived, which is Amendment No. 1, covers the police, the fire and rescue services, and the ambulance service. Amendment No. 3 provides a definition of “fire and rescue services”.

Amendment No. 2 is on the different subject of sport. The Bill includes as a category of charitable purposes “the advancement of amateur sport”. When it left your Lordships’ House last year, “sport” was defined in that context by Clause 2(3)(d) as meaning,

“sport which involves physical skill and exertion”.

The Government have listened carefully to representations in another place and elsewhere that the definition of “sport” was unclear or was too narrow. The new definition, substituted by Amendment No. 2, improves on the Bill’s existing definition in two main respects. First, it makes it clear that what we are talking about, in the context of charitable sport, is sports or games—we have added “games” as an extension of the previous definition—which are capable of contributing to improvements in the health of participants. The Bill’s original definition, with its requirement for physical skill and exertion, was intended to denote sport which was capable of contributing to physical health, but I concede that it did so by implication rather than by stating it expressly. The new definition takes a direct approach by referring specifically to health.

Secondly, there seemed to be no justification for continuing to focus on the physical to the exclusion of the mental, when those two aspects of health appear to be of equal significance. The new definition therefore extends to sports or games on the mental as well as on the physical side. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will recall his own amendment to exactly that end in Grand Committee in the Bill’s previous life.

The charitable purpose of the advancement of amateur sport should be seen alongside the Government’s community amateur sports club scheme, which provides a real alternative to charitable status. It gives tax advantages to community-based sports clubs run on an amateur basis, without requiring those clubs to show any public benefit in the charitable sense. The scheme exists to encourage grass-roots participation in a wide range of sports.

The Government have therefore taken full account of what has been said in Parliament and outside about the definition of charitable sport and have reacted as helpfully as they could. I shall listen with interest to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, of his own amendment before I respond to it.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I think we had degrouped the amendments, but, in the spirit of harmony which should always guide our proceedings, I am quite happy to speak to Amendment No. 2 and my Amendment No. 2A alongside the other amendments in this group, because, as the Minister pointed out, they are both concerned with Clause 2, which defines the meaning of “charitable purpose”. We have no problem with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but we have tabled a further amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2, as drafted, sets a double test for a sport to be charitable. Not only must it involve physical or mental skill or exertion, but also it must promote health. Our amendment would remove the test of promoting health from the definition of charitable sports. As the Minister pointed out, the Government have already amended this clause considerably. Effective lobbying, of which we have all been recipients, has taken place from the Chess Federation and so on. Despite this, the amendment as proposed is flawed. The promotion of health requirement is very difficult to prove and can be contradictory. It sets a double threshold for charitable status which may well prove too high for some very worthy potential recipients. It is also superfluous. The public benefit test, as laid out in Clause 3, combined with proof of some sort of mental and physical exertion, should surely be more than adequate for the Government’s purposes.

Several comments were made in the debate in another place about the difficulty of proving a health benefit. We have so far heard or seen nothing to explain exactly what standard of proof will be needed. If we are not to proceed with our amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain how the Charity Commission proposes to assess studies purporting to show health benefits. Numerous reports have appeared in the press which suggest that certain mental exercises, including sudoku and others, may help delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, yet the Alzheimer’s Society’s website makes no mention of this or other mental exercises. There is no conclusive proof either way. This is tricky territory that depends on medical advice, which will often be contradictory. Why do we have to land the Charity Commission with this difficulty?

The test is also inherently contradictory for many sports. One need only think about boxing and other martial arts to see that the practice of these sports can both promote and damage one’s health. The training needed to excel is no doubt good for you, but the injuries that occur routinely in the fights surely are not. It is possible to be extremely fit, and yet not to be healthy. The high levels of serious injuries and long-term health problems that afflict our most accomplished sportsmen and women would bear that out.

Our amendment would resolve all these contradictions and confusions and come to the Minister’s aid. The Government's view that sport is only a good thing because of the health benefits it brings is extraordinary. Religious organisations and those whose purpose is education may now have to prove public benefit, but they are not being asked to prove that they directly improve job opportunities or personal morality, or reduce crime. Why is sport considered less intrinsically beneficial? Why do the Government consider the many skills and traits that sport encourages, such as personal motivation, self-confidence and team work, irrelevant?

My Lords, I am quite clear that Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are fine, although I have never understood why the word “efficiency” was used in the charitable purpose clause. However, it is certainly right that the police and fire and rescue services should be included.

Secondly, on sport, I read the Commons debate in Hansard and cannot really fathom the reasoning for the proposal—and then I ask myself whether it matters, and I do not know. The test is to ask the Minister whether he, as someone who is interested in sport and understands the word “sport” far more than I do, for example, can think of any example of an exclusion. I think that that would help us. What does he believe would be excluded because it is not thought of as promoting health? If we have an answer to that, it may give us a clue whether we should support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

My Lords, is it not the case that the advancement of health is already in the list of purposes which fall within the meaning of charitable purpose, making it superfluous to insert it in the context of sport? The advancement of health is there in its own right in Clause 2(2)d, so it would seem tautological to include it twice.

My Lords, this is a useful discussion to have, and I am sure that at the end I shall in part agree—personally—with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. How much difference it will make is not for me to estimate, but it is an important question to raise. The matter revolves around the question why we should not make all sport charitable instead of requiring a link to health improvement. That is the kernel of the debate.

Charity is based on the requirement to show public benefit. To qualify as a charity, a sports club would have to be able to show that the facilities and opportunities that it provided for participants led to a public benefit. The most obvious form of benefit from public participation in sport—I would claim, without discounting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—is the health benefit. It is true that there are many sports in which you can suffer an injury, including even innocent sports such as cricket, which is my favourite sport, or running, which I do to try to sustain a level of fitness. So of course it is possible to have a disbenefit, although you are a pursuing a healthy lifestyle, but there is overall a benefit from public participation in sport. I think that we would all acknowledge that—which is why we have thought it right to define sport in terms of its potential to improve health.

However, a sports organisation that could show that its activities resulted in another form of public benefit could also qualify as a charity under one of the other charitable categories, rather than the amateur sport category. There are, for example, charities that use sports, such as riding or target shooting, to help those with a disability. There are others that use sports or games, such as chess—perhaps even sudoku, for all I know—to achieve an educational objective. However, a real alternative exists for clubs that cannot show an identifiable public benefit in a charitable sense, or that do not want to be charities: the community amateur sports club, or CASC, scheme. That scheme is for clubs which are open to the whole community; are organised on an amateur basis; and have as their main purpose providing facilities for, and promoting participation in, one or more eligible sports.

An eligible sport for the purpose of the CASC scheme means any sport which is on SportEngland’s list of recognised sports. The underlying purposeof the CASC scheme is to promote grassroots participation in sport. A club registered in the CASC scheme is entitled to many, if not quite all, of the tax reliefs that charities enjoy. So, one way or another, there is encouragement for virtually every type of amateur sports organisation. For those that can demonstrate a public benefit in the charitable sense, there are two potential routes. One is through the charitable heading of advancement of amateur sport for those that meet the new definition of sport; the second is through some other charitable heading, such as the advancement of education or the relief of those in need by reason of disability. For those that cannot demonstrate a public benefit in the charitable sense, or simply do not want charitable status, there is the CASC scheme.

The inclusion of an express health requirement is in our view the most transparent way in which to proceed. Let us consider the effect of leaving out any reference to health. A sports club applying to register with the commission under the advancement of amateur sport heading would have to do two things. First, it would have to show that the activities it promoted qualified as a sport under the definition of sport. With the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson’s amendment, a range of activities that made no contribution to health would be able to do that. On the physical side, the noble Lord would admit pie-throwing, for example, or perhaps even dangerous sports such as tobogganing down Ben Nevis on a piano, or being launched from a catapult as a human projectile. On the mental side he would admit, for example, arcade games, poker, pub quizzes and so on.

What is unsatisfactory about that is not that we disapprove of those activities per se. It is simply that some activities, of which those I have mentioned might be examples, have little or no chance of demonstrating the required public benefit or, consequently, of acquiring charitable status. In considering the public benefit aspect of a sports club applying to register as a charity for the advancement of sport, the Charity Commission would look for a health benefit, since that is the legal basis on which sports clubs can already be accepted as charitable. We do not think there is any point—indeed we think it would be positively misleading—to give sports and games which do not contribute to health, or which might even have the opposite effect, the impression that they might succeed in gaining charitable status. We would be giving a misleading impression if we went the route of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

Sports that can demonstrate nothing by way of charitable public benefit have an alternative route: the community amateur sports club scheme, which admits sports not by reference to whether they are good for health but by reference to the extensive list of sports recognised by SportEngland.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked a specific question in his own inimitable style. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord because, much as I should like to speculate on examples of sports that do not meet the health criteria—and it would be fun to do so; we could have quite an entertaining time—it is not really for Ministers to do that. That is really a job for the Charity Commission, which must decide on the definition established by Parliament. The commission will undertake public consultation when the new definition is in force, which will give every sport the opportunity to put its case that it qualifies as a sport within the new definition. So those pie-throwing sports folk, who come from somewhere else in this universe, could launch their argument if they so wished and thought that it was a valid thing to argue as a sport.

My Lords, I cannot think precisely of a whole load of sports that I want to set to one side. I know that the noble Lord is trying to be helpful.

For a sport to fall within the definition, it will ultimately have to pass the test of public benefit. If it can do that, then fair enough. Either way, we are in a beneficial position, because there are the alternative routes and those that are already provided for through the convenience of this Bill. So I have to reject the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and encourage him not to cause us any further delay with the Bill and not to move his amendment this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

2: Page 2, line 34, leave out “sport which involves physical skill and exertion; and” and insert “sports or games which promote health by involving physical or mental skill or exertion”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

2A: Clause 2, line 22, leave out “promote health by involving” and insert “involve”

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am glad he mentioned cricket. I have had first-hand experience of his cricketing prowess, since I met him at the check-in queue at Heathrow airport at some ungodly hour when he was flying to play cricket in Lisbon with the parliamentary cricket team. That said, I thought his response was more a nudge down to third man than a flashing cover drive to the boundary.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Best. I think we have extracted the juice from this orange. I do not think there was a necessity for a two-tier test, given the points the noble Lord, Lord Best, made, but the evening is moving on, and we will not advance the arguments any further now.

[Amendment No. 2A not moved.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

3: Page 2, line 37, at end insert “; and (f) in paragraph (l) “fire and rescue services” means services provided by fire and rescue authorities under Part 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004(c. 21).”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

4: Clause 8, page 9, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I am happy to. I do not wish to detain the House for too long. I thought this was a relatively uncontroversial groupof amendments. I shall speak to all the other amendments in the group.

I can be brief. The amendments give effect to the machinery of government changes that transfer parts of the Home Office to the newly created Office of the Third Sector in the Cabinet Office in May this year. Quite simply, the need for these amendments has arisen because the Charities Act 1993 and the Bill give certain statutory functions to the Secretary of State. Examples of the Secretary of State’s functions include the making of regulations and orders and the appointment of the Charity Commissioners. In the past those functions have been exercised by the Home Secretary, and in the future they will be exercised by Cabinet Office Ministers. Since none of the Ministers in the Cabinet Office is a Secretary of State, references in charity law to the Secretary of State have to be converted to refer to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

I am happy to say more if noble Lords want me to, but I hope that explanation is sufficient.

My Lords, I hope the Minister will explain just one sentence. I have had several telephone calls following the publication of these amendments saying, “Does this mean the status of the Charity Commission and charity generally is being downgraded?”. Outside, in the country at large, the use of the word “Minister” appears to be less important than “Secretary of State”. I understand the reason behind the change, but it was worthwhile the Minister putting that on the record so the sector is reassured.

My Lords, that is certainly not what the amendments mean. They simply reflect the change in title. The Minister for the Cabinet Office—who, as the noble Lord will know, is currently my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is a Minister in the Cabinet who happens not to have the title of Secretary of State. The same is true of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is not a Secretary of State, but I do not think anyone would dare to suggest that he was down the pecking order. I certainly would not.

It is an indication of the prominence the Government wish to give to the role of charities and other third sector organisations in national life that the Prime Minister has created the new Office of the Third Sector. It is important that we have a high-level appointment. The creation of that office is valuable in itself. I know my honourable friend Ed Miliband takes his role and responsibilities extremely seriously, and has worked hard to promote that office. Having such a dedicated ministerial level of expertise set aside for the charitable and voluntary sector will serve that sector well in the future.

I am grateful for the opportunity the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has given me to clarify that point. I am sure he will understand just how seriously we take this new role.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

5: Clause 9, page 11, line 39, leave out “(subject to subsection (11))”

6: Page 11, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 12

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I can be brief on these amendments too. They achieve three separate effects. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 give up a ministerial delegated power that has not been used in over45 years. Amendment No. 11 allows the general income threshold for the registration of charities to be varied by order at any time. That amendment was needed because the Bill had inadvertently been drafted to prevent variation of that threshold before a report had been made to Parliament on the operation of the Act. We have had a lot of debate in the past about thresholds, so I know the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will see the importance of that. That report need not be commissioned until five years after Royal Assent. The Conservatives were keen, and Ministers have agreed, that the registration threshold and other thresholds should be reviewed much sooner than that, and that changes in thresholds should be made if necessary.

Other amendments in this group allow different provisions within the new registration arrangements to be brought into force at different times. The point of doing that is simply to ensure that the Charity Commission can manage the flow of new registrations in a smooth and orderly way. As I understand it, none of those amendments was at all controversial in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that, and for his reassurance. I assume these amendments cover all thresholds in all places, because there is not just the £5,000 threshold: there are also the £90,000, £100,000 and £250,000 thresholds. It is important that we do what we can to regularise the schedule as much as possible, and therefore I would be grateful for that reassurance.

How is the process of change in the thresholds initiated? Is it the Secretary of State—or, now, the Minister? Is it the Charity Commission, or some third party? It would be helpful to know how that will happen. There is always a danger of inertia where we do not do it yet and the years tick by while all the time inflation is having an effect, particularly on the £5,000 thresholds, but also on threshold levels generally. A word of reassurance on that point would be helpful.

My Lords, we had many discussions about the business of thresholds when this Bill was discussed the first time around. Keeping thresholds under review is very important.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on that point. It is important that we have flexibility, and if we had not put these amendments in place I feel we would have lost that, which would have been unfortunate.

The review of the operation of the Act, which can be instituted under Clause 72, kicks in after five years. The provision to which this amendment relates, if uncorrected, would have got in the way of the commitment that has been made to carry out within one year of Royal Assent a review of all the financial thresholds in the Charities Act 1993 and in the Bill. This amendment will remove the anomaly, and will allow the general registration threshold to be varied should the review of financial thresholds point that way, allowing the Government to be in a position to implement any recommendations from the review. After this amendment, all thresholds except the one relating to excepted charities can be altered at any time. As I said, the Government will initiate a review a year after Royal Assent.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

7: Page 12, line 22, leave out “by the Commission”

8: Page 12, line 31, leave out “by the Secretary of State”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. This group consists entirely of minor amendments that have been recommended to us by the draftsman and others. They are designed to improve the drafting of the Bill or to correct minor errors and, in some places, omissions. The effect of the amendments generally is very small indeed.

I rise really to speak to the other 40 amendments in the group, but I have no intention of doing so, because that would be not a good use of parliamentary time. When we discussed these matters confidentially, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked me to provide a few examples of what a minor and technical amendment might mean. I have a very long list of those, and if the noble Lord gives me a number I will turn to any one of them and try to provide him with an answer, perhaps as an exemplification, if he really needs me to. I assure the House that none of these amendments is of consequence other than making the legislation work better.

Moved, That the House do agree withthe Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

9: Page 13, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

10: Page 13, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

11: Page 13, line 22, after “(7)” insert “(a)”

12: Page 13, line 26, leave out from “day” to “(registration” in line 27 and insert “on which subsections (1) to (5) above come into force by virtue of an order under section of the Charities Act 2006 relating to section of that Act”

13: Page 13, line 41, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

14: Page 14, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

15: Page 14, line 30, leave out “(subject tosection 3(11) above”

16: Clause 10, page 14, line 34, leave out “commencement of section above” and insert “appointed day”

17: Page 14, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

18: Page 14, line 43, leave out from “the” to end of line 44 and insert “appointed day. “(4)In this section “the appointed day” means the day on which section 3A(1) to (5) of the 1993 Act(as substituted by section of this Act) come into force by virtue of an order under section of this Act.”

19: Clause 11, page 15, line 21, leave outsubsection (9)

20: Page 15, line 36, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

21: Page 16, line 2, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

22: Page 16, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

23: Page 16, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

24: Page 16, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

25: Clause 22, page 22, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 25.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

26: Clause 23, page 24, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert- “(a) a Scottish recognised body, or (b) a Northern Ireland charity,”

27: Page 24, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert- “(a) a Scottish recognised body, or (b) a Northern Ireland charity,”

28: Page 24, line 44, at end insert- “(3A) After section 25 insert- “25A Meaning of “Scottish recognised body” and “Northern Ireland charity” in sections 24 and 25 (1) In sections 24 and 25 above “Scottish recognised body” means a body- (a) established under the law of Scotland, or (b) managed or controlled wholly or mainly in or from Scotland, to which the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have given intimation, which has not subsequently been withdrawn, that relief is due under section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in respect of income of the body which is applicable and applied to charitable purposes only. (2) In those sections “Northern Ireland charity” means an institution- (a) which is a charity under the law of Northern Ireland, and (b) to which the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have given intimation, which has not subsequently been withdrawn, that relief is due under section 505 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 in respect of income of the institution which is applicable and applied to charitable purposes only.”

29: Page 25, line 2, leave out “and 25” and insert “to 25A”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29. The amendments update the references to Scottish and Northern Ireland charities to take account of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the proposed Northern Ireland legislation. They ensure that a Scottish charity or a Northern Ireland charity cannot invest in an English common investment fund or common deposit fund unless it—the Scottish or Northern Ireland charity—is recognised by HMRC as being entitled to charitable tax relief.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 26 to 29.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton).

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister one question about Amendment No. 62. I came across this today; I am sorry that Iwas not able to give him prior warning. Amendment No. 62 inserts a new clause before Clause 72, presumably after Clause 71. The new clause is entitled, “Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator”. Clauses 70 and 71 are in Chapter 3 of Part 3, entitled, “Financial assistance”. Clause 70 is headed, “Power of Secretary of State to give financial assistance to charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institutions”, and Clause 71 is the same for Wales, through the National Assembly.

For those of us who are trying to keep the Bill clear, systematic and comprehensible—something that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and I have debated at some length on the Companies Bill—this seems a strange place to have this provision. When we come to Amendment No. 130, we will be inserting into one of the schedules sections entitled “Disclosure of information to Commission”, “Disclosure of information by Commission”, and “Disclosure to and by principal regulators of exempt charities”. Why have we stuck the Northern Ireland provision into the middle of the Bill, when it surely would fit better when we are dealing with issues of disclosure of information as provided for in Amendment No. 130? This is not going to shake the charity world, but these small idiosyncrasies make the job of a charity trustee more difficult and more complex. An explanation would be helpful.

My Lords, I am more than happy to provide an explanation, but whether the noble Lord will find it entirely helpful I am not sure; we can but try. One of the changes that this relates to falls essentially under Amendment No. 62. The grouping, with Amendments Nos. 70 and 72, relates to the draft Charities (Northern Ireland) Order, which I mentioned earlier. One of the changes that the order will make, if enacted, will be the creation of a charity commission for Northern Ireland as the regulator of charities there.

Amendment No. 62 is the main amendment, and it comes into play when the Northern Ireland charity regulator comes into existence. The amendments allow provision to be made by regulations authorising disclosures of information to the Northern Ireland charity regulator for the purpose of helping it to carry out its functions. Such provision must be made in legislation that extends beyond Northern Ireland, because it needs to authorise bodies outside Northern Ireland to disclose information to the Northern Ireland charity regulator. For that reason, it cannot be done in the Northern Ireland order.

We are happily trying to assist the Northern Ireland authorities by including the provision in this Bill. I suspect that that has probably affected the chronology, although I cannot be absolutely certain about it. Maybe the noble Lord has a point about where things fall in the Bill. I certainly take his point about statute sometimes being hard to follow. We thought about this in relation to the Bill generally, and I have probably said on earlier occasions when we have been debating the Bill that we need to ensure that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is accessible; we will provide proper guidance to ensure that it is. That is all about setting out contents, cross-referencing and all those things. The Northern Ireland provision is new, and it is free-standing as a clause while the other disclosure provisions amend the existing statute. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

30: Clause 24, page 25, line 22, after “court” insert “or the Tribunal”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30. This amendment relates to the charity tribunal. Section 29 of the Charities Act 1993, as substituted by Clause 24 of the Bill, allows trustees formally to seek the Charity Commission’s advice on any matter relating to their duties as trustees or to the proper administration of their charity. Section 29 also provides trustees with a form of protection; if they follow the commission’s advice, they will be taken as having acted in accordance with their responsibilities. This protection is, however, not available where a court decision has been made on the matter in question, or where court proceedings are pending to obtain a decision. Amendment No. 26 corrects an oversight on our part by putting tribunal decisions on the same footing as court decisions in that respect.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

31: Clause 27, page 29, line 17, after “(2)”, insert “above””

32: Clause 28, page 30, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

33: Clause 29, page 31, leave out line 21

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 71, 80 and 81. The present accounts scrutiny regime for charitable companies—charities that are established in the legal form of a company—is a company law regime. One consequence of that is that smaller charitable companies are subject to a regime whose requirements are designed for small businesses, not for small charities. Larger charitable companies—those whose annual income is above the professional audit threshold of £500,000, as it will be set by this Bill—are in a better position, as the company law scrutiny regime for larger charitable companies is effectively already the same as the regime prescribed by charity law for unincorporated charities.

In our debates on the Companies Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, tabled amendments that would have taken small charitable companies out of the company law regime for accounts scrutiny and placed them instead within the charity law regime. The Government accepted that there was merit in that approach. We took representations from a number of umbrella bodies for charities and professional accountancy bodies and received favourable responses. We therefore agreed to proceed with the idea. At its heart is the sensible proposition that we should treat charitable companies primarily as charities, albeit ones that happen to be set up in company form, rather than primarily as companies that happen to have charitable status.

To give effect to that, changes are needed both to the Companies Bill and to the Charities Bill. The necessary Companies Bill amendments were made in that Bill’s Report stage in another place last month and were agreed in your Lordships’ House last Thursday. The principal amendment to the Charities Bill is Amendment No. 80, which contains a new order-making power allowing Ministers to amend the Charities Act 1993 and the Bill to reflect changes in company law that will be made by the Companies Bill when it comes into force. The result will be that we can apply the same accounts scrutiny requirements to all charities regardless of their legal form. Once the relevant parts of the Companies Bill have come into force and the order has been made, those scrutiny requirements in the case of small charitable companies will be in charity law rather than company law.

The order-making power will also allow for the group accounting requirements to be changed so that, as regards the preparation of group accounts, a group of charities headed by a charitable company is put in the same position as a group headed by any other form of charity. This order-making power will allow Ministers to amend primary legislation. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which Amendment No. 71 achieves. The other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 33 and 81, are minor and consequential.

There will have to be careful co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Office over the timing of the company law and charity law changes. Our intention is to put that in motion as soon as we can in the next year. The changes cannot be instant because, in accordance with our obligations under the compact between the Government and the voluntary and community sector, we will need to consult charities, professional accountancy bodies and other interested parties by publishing an exposure draft of the order for a reasonable period. Noble Lords can be assured that we intend to press ahead with these changes as soon as we can.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton).

My Lords, those who have followed the Bill’s proceedings will be aware that I have form on this issue. For reasons explained in our debate on Amendment No. 5, on threshold, we should seek simplicity and comprehensibility whenever we can and bring as much regulation as possible under one regulator—in this case, the Charity Commission.

So I was disappointed when, during the earlier stages of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that my objective, whether desirable or not, could not be achieved because accounting regulations for charities that are companies form part of the Companies Act, not the Charities Act. Just as I was reflecting ruefully on that, a Companies Bill came along that gave me a chance to use my persuasive skills in relation to another department. As the Minister has pointed out, we have been able to bring in the necessary changes, but our amendments were designed to bring them in forthwith.

There appeared to be some backsliding by the Government during subsequent proceedings on the Companies Bill in another place: instead of a measure to introduce the new regime immediately, there was to be only a power taken in Amendment No. 80 to introduce the new regime in due course. We debated this matter last week during consideration of Commons amendments to the Companies Bill. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in his place on the Bench, because he reassured me that there was no intention of delaying implementation of this matter. He explained the reasons why this rather amorphous situation had to remain—the timing of the two Bills could not be foreseen and, in the natural order of things, every possible disaster must be guarded against, including that one Bill might still fail. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance this afternoon. I would be very disappointed indeed if, after all the work that has gone into trying to make this shift to bring charity regulations under the charity regulator, there were delays in implementation beyond the requirements to consult the sector.

My Lords, from time to time there is good reason for charities to incorporate and sometimes there is good reason that they do not incorporate. It should not be the nature of the auditing regime that moves one in one direction or the other. Therefore, applying that auditing regime to either situation is absolutely right.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

34: Clause 37, page 37, line 11, leave out “(5)to (7)” and insert “(4) to (6)”

35: Clause 38, page 38, line 3, leave out “or directors”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

36: Page 38, leave out lines 13 to 21 and insert- “(1) Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of court to grant relief to officers or auditors of companies) shall have effect in relation to a person to whom this section applies as it has effect in relation to a person employed as an auditor by a company. (2) This section applies to- (a) a person acting in a capacity within section 73D(1)(b) or (c) above in a case where, apart from this section, section 727 would not apply in relation to him as a person so acting, and (b) a charity trustee of a CIO.””

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. This amendment is designed to give the court power to grant relief from personal liability to the charity trustees of a charitable incorporated organisation or CIO. Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 gives the court the power to grant relief to trustees, but the charity trustees of a CIO are not trustees within Section 61 of that Act. Section 727 of the Companies Act 1985 gives the court the power to grant relief to the officers of a company, but that, too, does not at present apply in the case of a CIO. This amendment therefore provides for Section 727 of the Companies Act also to have effect in relation to the charity trustees of a CIO. We are indebted to the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, who is the counterpart in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Between them, they spotted the gap and the need for this amendment. I am grateful to them both.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

37: Clause 39, page 39, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

38: Clause 40, page 41, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

39: Clause 41, page 45, line 1, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

40: Clause 42, page 45, line 24, at end insert “in response to the question put to the meeting”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 40.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

41: Clause 43, page 46, leave out lines 34 to 36

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This simple-looking amendment responds fully and directly to amendments tabled both in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and in another place by Andrew Turner MP, the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight. The aim is to allow trustees, where they have power to sell land and decide to sell it, to spend the capital proceeds of the sale without having to replace the capital from their charity’s income. The underlying purpose of the original exclusion of land was to make it clear that charity trustees who do not have power to sell land could not use these provisions to allow the capital proceeds of an unauthorised sale to be spent. We are now satisfied that these provisions could not be used in that way, even if, as we propose through this amendment, the exclusion of land were removed.

In addition to these provisions, the Charity Commission already has power under Section 26 of the Charities Act 1993 to authorise the expenditure of permanent endowment capital where it is expedient to do so. That power continues. I understand that after the Bill is passed the commission will publish guidance on the application of these new provisions and on the use of its existing powers. I hope that that will assist those who might benefit from this provision.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government, and to the Minister for his explanation of the amendment. Permanent endowment raised a number of concerns for me and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The negative definition in the legislation meant that gifts made centuries ago were trussed up in such a way that they could not be released, which was probably quite at odds with the original wishes of the donor. It is good to see that that issue is being addressed. It is also important that the issue of in specie land—which particularly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—was involved. After all, a charity does not exist to act as the perpetual owner of a particular piece of land if those proceeds could be better used in furthering its purposes elsewhere. I am glad that the changes are now going to reflect this.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

42: Page 48, line 29, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

43: Page 49, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

44: Clause 45, page 53, line 21, leave out “to give money or other property” and insert “which is- (i) an appeal to them to give money or other property, or (ii)an appeal falling within subsection (4), (or both) and”

45: Page 53, line 35, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert- “(4) An appeal falls within this subsection if it consists in or includes- (a) the making of an offer to sell goods or to supply services, or (b) the exposing of goods for sale, to members of the public.”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 were recommended by the parliamentary draftsman, to achieve clarity in the wording of the Bill. They do not change the meaning or effect of the Bill.

I am led to understand that Amendment No. 122, however, makes a more substantive change, to preserve an existing power which continues to be useful and which the Bill would, without this amendment, inadvertently have repealed. It is to do with the regulation of street collections. The Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 currently allows local authorities to regulate such collections. The provisions of the Charities Bill will replace those of the 1916 Act for the regulation of street collections which are for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, but the Bill will not make provision for the regulation of street collections for purposes other than charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes. The effect of the amendment is to preserve local authorities’ powers under the 1916 Act to regulate street collections for purposes other than charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes.

The particular example mentioned to us as justifying the preservation of this power was the collection by animal rights activists, some of whom might deserve the label of extremists and who might use the proceeds of collections for purposes which were clearly not charitable, philanthropic or benevolent. We think it right that local authorities should continue to have the power to regulate such collections. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Shutt of Greetland, would agree with me on that.

I am sure that we could think of other collections that were not charitable, and do not fall into that definition, where it is quite right that the local authority has a regulatory role. I know that a number of my colleagues in another place have made that case forcefully. I pay tribute in particular to my long-term friend and colleague David Lepper, MP, who has drawn attention to some of the difficulties that can arise through less than philanthropic or charitable activity by some street collectors.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

46: Clause 63, page 68, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

47: Page 69, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

48: Clause 68, page 73, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

49: Clause 69, page 73, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

50: Clause 70, page 75, line 5, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “A relevant Minister”

51: Page 75, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

52: Page 75, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

53: Page 75, line 22, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

54: Page 75, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

55: Page 75, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

56: Page 75, line 35, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “A relevant Minister”

57: Page 76, line 2, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a relevant Minister”

58: Page 76, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

59: Page 76, line 4, leave out “the exercise of” and insert “any exercise by him of any”

60: Page 76, line 6, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

61: Page 76, line 11, at end insert- “(11) In this section “relevant Minister” means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.”

62: Before Clause 72, insert the following new Clause- “Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator (1) This section applies if a body (referred to in this section as “the Northern Ireland regulator”) is established to exercise functions in Northern Ireland which are similar in nature to the functions exercised in England and Wales by the Charity Commission. (2) The Minister may by regulations authorise relevant public authorities to disclose information to the Northern Ireland regulator for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Northern Ireland regulator to discharge any of its functions. (3) If the regulations authorise the disclosure of Revenue and Customs information, they must contain provision in relation to that disclosure which corresponds to the provision made in relation to the disclosure of such information by section 10(2) to (4) of the 1993 Act (as substituted by paragraph 99 of Schedule to this Act). (4) In the case of information disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator pursuant to regulations made under this section, any power of the Northern Ireland regulator to disclose the information is exercisable subject to any express restriction subject to which the information was disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator. (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to Revenue and Customs information disclosed to the Northern Ireland regulator pursuant to regulations made under this section; but any such information may not be further disclosed except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. (6) Any person specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made under this sectionwho discloses information in contravention of subsection (5) is guilty of an offence and liable- (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both. (7) It is a defence for a person charged withan offence under subsection (5) of disclosing information to prove that he reasonably believed- (a) that the disclosure was lawful, or (b) that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public. (8) In the application of this section to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the reference to 12 months in subsection (6) is to be read as a reference to 6 months. (9) In this section- “relevant public authority” means- (a) any government department (other than a Northern Ireland department), (b) any local authority in England, Wales or Scotland, (c) any person who is a constable in England and Wales or Scotland, (d) any other body or person discharging functions of a public nature (including a body or person discharging regulatory functions in relation to any description of activities), except a body or person whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters; “Revenue and Customs information” means information held as mentioned in section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11); “transferred matter” has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).”

63: Clause 72, page 77, line 21, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

64: Page 77, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

65: Page 77, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

66: Page 77, line 40, leave out from “the” to “, it” and insert “appointed day (within the meaning of section of this Act”

67: Clause 73, page 78, line 2, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a relevant Minister”

68: Page 78, line 9, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant Minister”

69: Page 78, line 10, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a relevant Minister”

70: Page 78, line 16, at end insert- “(ba) any regulations under section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator),”

71: Page 78, line 19, after “” insert “or (Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions)”

72: Page 78, line 21, after “(b)” insert “(ba)”

73: Page 78, line 22, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “a relevant Minister”

74: Page 78, line 28, at end insert- “(7) In this section “relevant Minister” means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.”

75: Clause 74, page 78, line 34, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “A relevant Minister”

76: Page 78, line 41, at end insert “(including an enactment restating, with or without modifications, an enactment amended by this Act).”

77: Page 78, line 41, at end insert- “(6) In this section “relevant Minister” means the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.”

78: Clause 75, page 79, line 2, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

79: Clause 76, page 80, line 8, at end insert- “(5A) In this Act “the Minister” means the Minister for the Cabinet Office.”

80: Before Clause 77, insert the following new Clause- “Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions (1) The Minister may by order make such amendments of the 1993 Act or this Act as he considers appropriate- (a) in consequence of, or in connection with, any changes made or to be made by any enactment to the provisions of company law relating to the accounts of charitable companies or to the auditing of, or preparation of reports in respect of, such accounts; (b) for the purposes of, or in connection with, applying provisions of Schedule 5A to the 1993 Act (group accounts) to charitable companies that are not required to produce group accounts under company law. (2) In this section- “accounts” includes group accounts; “amendments” includes repeals and modifications; “charitable companies” means companies which are charities; “company law” means the enactments relating to companies.”

81: Clause 77, page 80, line 15, at end insert- “(ca) section (Amendments reflecting changes in company law audit provisions),”

82: Page 80, line 17, at end insert- “(f) the following provisions of Schedule 8 - paragraph 88(1A), paragraph 99 so far as it confers power to make regulations, and paragraph 169(c), and section 75 (1) so far as relating to those provisions.”

83: Page 80, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

84: Page 80, line 22, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

85: Clause 78, page 80, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert- “(3) The following provisions extend also to Scotland- (a) sections 1 to 3 and 5, (b) section 6 (5), (c) sections (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator) and , (d) section 75 (2) and (3) and Schedules 9 and 10 so far as relating to the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17), and (e) section 75 (4) and (5), sections 76 to 79 and this section. (3A) But the provisions referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (d) affect the law of Scotland only so far as they affect the construction of references to charities or charitable purposes in enactments which relate to matters falling within Section A1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (reserved matters: fiscal policy etc.); and so far as they so affect the law of Scotland- (a) references in sections (1) and (1) to the law of England and Wales are to be read as references to the law of Scotland, and (b) the reference in section (1) to the High Court is to be read as a reference to the Court of Session. (3B) The following provisions extend also to Northern Ireland- (a) sections 1 to 3 and 5, (b) section 6 (5), (c) section 23, (d) sections 72 (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator) and 74, (e) section 75 (2) and (3) and Schedules 9 and 10 so far as relating to the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17), and (f) section 75 (4) and (5), sections 76 to 99 and this section. (3C) But the provisions referred to in subsection (3B)(a) and (e) affect the law of Northern Ireland only so far as they affect the construction of references to charities or charitable purposes in enactments which relate to matters falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) (excepted matters: taxes and duties); and so far as they so affect the law of Northern Ireland- (a) references in sections 1 (1) and 2 (1) to the law of England and Wales are to be read as references to the law of Northern Ireland, and (b) the reference in section 1 (1) to the High Court is to be read as a reference to the High Court in Northern Ireland.”

86: Page 80, line 34, leave out “But this does not apply to” and insert- “(6) But subsection (5) does not apply to any amendment or repeal made in the Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17) by a provision referred to in subsection (3) or (3B). (6A) Subsection (5) also does not apply to- (a) ”

87: Page 80, line 35, after “(c. 6),” insert “or (b) those made by Schedule in the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31), or (c) the repeal made in that Act by Schedule 9,”

88: Page 80, line 36, leave out subsection (7)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 to 88.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

89: Page 80, line 39, leave out subsection (8)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. The amendment simply removes the privilege amendment.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

90: Schedule 1, page 81, line 11, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

91: Page 81, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

92: Page 82, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

93: Page 82, line 6, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

94: Page 82, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

95: Page 82, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

96: Page 82, line 21, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

97: Page 82, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

98: Page 82, line 29, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

99: Page 82, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 90 to 99.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

100: Page 82, leave out lines 38 to 43 and insert- “(2)The terms and conditions of service of persons appointed under sub-paragraph (1) are to be such as the Commission may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100.

The amendment reverses an amendment made in your Lordships’ House on Report, on 12 October last year. That amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who, for reasons that we well understand, is no longer with us. His contribution to this Bill—and to the field of charity law over many years—has been second to none. As ever, I shall not avoid an opportunity to praise him for that. He has done a fine service, and we are greatly in his debt.

However, the amendment had an effect which I believe went further than the noble Lord foresaw or intended. It is to reverse that effect that the Government made their counter-amendment in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was rightly concerned to secure the independence of the Charity Commission from ministerial interference and control in the way it operates in regulating charities. Many of your Lordships shared the view that the commission must be independent in how it operates as a regulator. The Government strongly share that vision. For that reason we have included in the Bill a provision expressly asserting and guaranteeing the commission’s independence. The provision is in new Section 1A of the 1993 Act, inserted by Clause 6 of the Bill. It says:

“In the exercise of its functions the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any Minister of the Crown or other Government department”.

I do not think it would be possible to be clearer than that as to the commission’s independence as a regulator from ministerial influence.

The need for the provision inserted by the amendment comes from the fact that the commission is—and, under the Bill, is to remain—a non-ministerial government department. While the commission is a non-ministerial department, its staff must be in the Home Civil Service. Without the amendment there will be, at the very least, serious doubt as to whether the commission’s staff were in the Home Civil Service. We would be in the highly unsatisfactory position of having to tell the staff of a government department that the effect of the Bill might well be to remove them from the Civil Service. We could not, however, tell them with any certainty what their status was, since there is no obvious precedent for a government department outside the Civil Service.

As I have said, the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was probably not exactly what he had in mind. To quote from his contribution to the debate:

“The Minister made a serious point, with a degree of tentativeness, about what this would do to the status of the employees. I am sure I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as well as myself in saying that, if that is the case, we would accept without demur an amendment at the final stage of this Bill that made it clear that the status of employees was unchanged”.—[Official Report, 12/10/05; col. 327.]

That is precisely what our amendment aims to achieve: to make clear that the commission’s staff are to remain in the Home Civil Service. Our amendment is a common provision which is used in other legislation establishing non-ministerial government departments—for example, the legislation which established the Food Standards Agency. It does not mean that the Minister for the Civil Service will be involved in the determination of the terms and conditions of employment for individual members of staff. The Charity Commission already has delegated authority on behalf of the Minister for the Civil Service to determine, except for staff in the senior Civil Service, the number and grading of its posts and the terms and conditions of employment in so far as they relate to such things as remuneration, allowances, expenses, holidays, working arrangements performance, promotions and redundancy. The commission is only required to agree the overall pay remit with the Treasury. The commission takes its own decisions on terms and conditions of service within a broad framework.

Finally, I repeat the most important point in this debate: that the Bill places the commission, for all purposes to do with the exercise of its regulatory functions, wholly outside ministerial control in both fact and appearance. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his contribution in that debate, which enabled me to move this amendment—unchallenged, I am sure.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 100.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, as the Minister said, we return to familiar territory: the independence of the Charity Commission. Concern was expressed during the earlier stages of the Bill that, given the greatly increased power of the Charity Commission, it is important that it be properly insulated from political pressure from any part of the political spectrum. I am the first to recognise that the Government made a major step with the insertion of subsection (4), which the Minister read out a few moments ago. I am sure the whole House is grateful to them for that.

However, in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, there are what could be regarded by the suspicious—some might say, the paranoid—as weasel words that the appointment of other staff requires the approval of the Minister as to their terms and conditions of service. There was concern that it would be said that the Charity Commission is independent, but it would be told how it is going to make appointments and how much it will pay and therefore the effectiveness and work of the commission could be shaded and guided by use of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which is headed “Staff”. While the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I could see the force of the argument about approval of the chief executive’s pay and rations, the argument for controlling the terms and conditions of all other staff did not hold water for me.

The amendment on which I supported the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was to establish a cap on the total remuneration—clearly, we could not hand away the pen and the chequebook—but leave the detail tothe commission. Strangely enough, that is what the Minister says the present amendment does, but it does not quite say that. Our wording makes that much clearer than his amendment does. It states:

“The terms and conditions of service of persons appointed under sub-paragraph (1) are to be such as the Commission may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service”.

That is not, “Here’s the overall cap, you get on with it”; it could be, “Bring us a list of all the people, and we will see what their pay and rations are”. I was very reassured by the Minister’s words from the Dispatch Box, but I was rather less reassured by the way they tied in with the amendment. What he said seemed to me to fit much more happily with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and me, which is in the Bill at present.

I accept that the Minister is a man of honour, and I am sure that he is telling me exactly how the situation is going to work out in future. I am sure that there are some deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I tabled, which was passed at the last stage, but it will be helpful if, one last time before we wave goodbye to this clause, he could give us a final word or two of reassurance that the wording in my amendment, which matches his words, cannot be used and that we have to have this amendment, which still leaves the slightly uneasy feeling that a determined Minister at some date in the future could grab the powers and influence the commission in a way that all sides of the House agree would be undesirable.

My Lords, the Minister spoke about my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I think it is an appropriate time to pay tribute to him, particularly to his tremendous service in charitable endeavours and in assisting those involved in them. However, I thought, “He’ll not get away with this one”, and that is how it has turned out. One of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—and we hear that the staff are concerned the other way—was that good people arrive at the Charity Commission, but they do not last long because the salary regime is not sufficient compared to other fields. That was one of his concerns, and it is interesting that the commission not being thoroughly part of the Home Civil Service leads staff to worry in the other direction. It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments and his absolute assurance that, in this, independence is crucial and supreme.

My Lords, the debate we had on this matter was important, and we should remind ourselves of its outlines. I can only repeat—perhaps with extra emphasis—that we value the independence of the commission, which is essential. We believe it is there in fact, and I dispute some of the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I thought I made clear how we see the situation, particularly with regard to pay and conditions, which commission staff, in the main, are very happy with. They were certainly unhappy about the prospect of being outside the Home Civil Service. They were not too chuffed about that idea at all, and were somewhat horrified when they discovered what the effect of the amendment might be. We gave a lot of thought to the legal status of the commission, and we came up with what we thought was most appropriate and would work best. Earlier, I made a comparison with the Food Standards Agency, which is, perhaps, the closest comparison we can come up with among regulators. I do not hear too many complaints about that organisation’s independence, and I know that people greatly value the way in which it works.

Of course, it is never an entirely closed story, and there is an opportunity to review the way in which the Bill works. I am sure that noble Lords will not have missed the importance of Clause 72, which requires the commission’s status as a government department to be considered as part of the review of the impact of the legislation. A person must be appointed to carry out the review within five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and that issue will be reported and laid before Parliament for further discussion and consideration. It might be that in four or five years’ time, people will take a different view about the way in which the commission operates and, as a Government, we would be foolish to ignore criticism at that stage. We will judge any case for a change in the status of the commission on its merits. However, a coherent alternative has not been presented to us. We think that what we have designed works well in legislative terms and, important though this debate on independence has been, we have something that has worked well and will work well in future. I hope with that the noble Lord will feel happier and will not oppose this amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

101: Schedule 4, page 101, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

102: Page 101, line 47, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 101 and 102.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

104: Page 104, line 34, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

105: Schedule 6, page 108, line 4, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

106: Page 108, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

107: Page 108, line 39, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

108: Page 109, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

109: Page 110, line 19, leave out “company” and insert “charity”

110: Page 112, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

111: Page 114, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

112: Schedule 7, page 115, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

113: Page 117, line 4, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

114: Page 118, line 29, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

115: Page 119, line 44, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

116: Page 121, line 6, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

117: Page 124, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

118: Page 125, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

119: Page 128, line 28, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

120: Page 129, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Minister”

121: Page 131, line 10, leave out “of the Secretary of State”

122: Schedule 8, page 133, line 17, at end insert- “Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31) 14A (1) Section 5 of the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (regulation of street collections) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) for “the benefit of charitable or other purposes,” substitute “any purposes in circumstances not involving the making of a charitable appeal,”. (3) In paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) omit the words from “, and no representation” onwards. (4) In subsection (4) before the definition of “street” insert- ““charitable appeal” has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Charities Act 2006;””

123: Page 136, line 13, at end insert- “Recreational Charities Act 1958 (c. 17) 37A In section 6 of the Recreational CharitiesAct 1958 (short title and extent) for subsection (2) substitute- “(2) Section 1 of this Act, as amended by section of the Charities Act 2006, has the same effect in relation to the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland as section of that Act has by virtue of section (3) to (3C) of that Act. (3) Sections 1 and 2 of this Act, as in force before the commencement of section of that Act, continue to have effect in relation to the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland so far as they affect the construction of any references to charities or charitable purposes which- (a) are to be construed in accordance with the law of England and Wales, but (b) are not contained in enactments relating to matters of the kind mentioned in section (3A) or (3C) of that Act.”.”

124: Page 138, line 24, at end insert- “Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) In section 21A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (public authorities) in paragraph 14 in the Table of Exceptions in subsection (9), for “Charity Commissioners for England and Wales” substitute “Charity Commission”.”

125: Page 143, leave out lines 21 to 29

126: Page 144, line 9, at end insert- “(1A) In subsection (1) after the definition of “institution” insert- ““the Minister” means the Minister for the Cabinet Office;”.”

127: Page 144, line 31, at end insert- “91A In section 79 (short title, commencement and extent) omit- (a) in subsection (6), the words “(subject to subsection (7))”, and (b) subsection (7). 91B In Schedule 7 (repeals) omit the entry relating to the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31).”

128: Page 144, line 33, at end insert- “92A In the heading for Part 1, for “CHARITY COMMISSIONERS” substitute “CHARITY COMMISSION”.”

129: Page 145, line 32, leave out “COMMISSION’S”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104 to 129.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

130: Page 146, line 32, leave out paragraph 99 and insert- “99 For section 10 substitute- “10 Disclosure of information to Commission (1) Any relevant public authority may disclose information to the Commission if the disclosure is made for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Commission to discharge any of its functions. (2) But Revenue and Customs information may be disclosed under subsection (1) only if it relates to an institution, undertaking or body falling within one (or more) of the following paragraphs— (a) a charity; (b) an institution which is established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes; (c) an institution by or in respect of which a claim for exemption has at any time been made under section 505(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; (d) a subsidiary undertaking of a charity; (e) a body entered in the Scottish Charity Register which is managed or controlled wholly or mainly in or from England or Wales. (3) In subsection (2)(d) above “subsidiary undertaking of a charity” means an undertaking (as defined by section 259(1) of the Companies Act 1985) in relation to which—(a) a charity is (or is to be treated as) a parent undertaking in accordance with the provisions of section 258 of, and Schedule 10A to, the Companies Act 1985, or (b) two or more charities would, if they were a single charity, be (or be treated as) a parent undertaking in accordance with those provisions. (4) For the purposes of the references to a parent undertaking— (a) in subsection (3) above, and (b) in section 258 of, and Schedule 10A to, the Companies Act 1985 as they apply for the purposes of that subsection, “undertaking” includes a charity which is not an undertaking as defined by section 259(1) of that Act. 10A Disclosure of information by Commission (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, the Commission may disclose to any relevant public authority any information received by the Commission in connection with any of the Commission’s functions—(a) if the disclosure is made for the purpose of enabling or assisting the relevant public authority to discharge any of its functions, or (b) if the information so disclosed is otherwise relevant to the discharge of any of the functions of the relevant public authority. (2) In the case of information disclosed to the Commission under section 10(1) above, the Commission’s power to disclose the information under subsection (1) above is exercisable subject to any express restriction subject to which the information was disclosed to the Commission. (3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to Revenue and Customs information disclosed to the Commission under section 10(1) above; but any such information may not be further disclosed (whether under subsection (1) above or otherwise) except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. (4) Any responsible person who discloses information in contravention of subsection (3) above is guilty of an offence and liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both. (5) It is a defence for a responsible person charged with an offence under subsection (4) above of disclosing information to prove that he reasonably believed—(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or (b) that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public. (6) In the application of this section to Scotland or Northern Ireland, the reference to 12 months in subsection (4) is to be read as a reference to 6 months. (7) In this section “responsible person” means a person who is or was—(a) a member of the Commission, (b) a member of the staff of the Commission, (c) a person acting on behalf of the Commission or a member of the staff of the Commission, or (d) a member of a committee established by the Commission. 10B Disclosure to and by principal regulators of exempt charities (1) Sections 10 and 10A above apply with the modifications in subsections (2) to (4) below in relation to the disclosure of information to or by the principal regulator of an exempt charity. (2) References in those sections to the Commission or to any of its functions are to be read as references to the principal regulator of an exempt charity or to any of the functions of that body or person as principal regulator in relation to the charity. (3) Section 10 above has effect as if for subsections (2) and (3) there were substituted—“(2) But Revenue and Customs information may be disclosed under subsection (1) only if it relates to- (a) the exempt charity in relation to which the principal regulator has functions as such, or (b) a subsidiary undertaking of the exempt charity. (3) In subsection (2)(b) above “subsidiary undertaking of the exempt charity” means an undertaking (as defined by section 259(1) of the Companies Act 1985) in relation to which- (a) the exempt charity is (or is to be treated as) a parent undertaking in accordance with the provisions of section 258 of, and Schedule 10A to, the Companies Act 1985, or (b) the exempt charity and one or more other charities would, if they were a single charity, be (or be treated as) a parent undertaking in accordance with those provisions.” (4) Section 10A above has effect as if for the definition of “responsible person” in subsection (7) there were substituted a definition specified by regulations under section 13(4)(b) of the Charities Act 2006 (regulations prescribing principal regulators). (5) Regulations under section 13(4)(b) of that Act may also make such amendments or other modifications of any enactment as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for securing that any disclosure provisions that would otherwise apply in relation to the principal regulator of an exempt charity do not apply in relation to that body or person in its or his capacity as principal regulator. (6) In subsection (5) above “disclosure provisions” means provisions having effect for authorising, or otherwise in connection with, the disclosure of information by or to the principal regulator concerned. 10C Disclosure of information: supplementary (1) In sections 10 and 10A above “relevant public authority” means— (a) any government department (including a Northern Ireland department), (b) any local authority, (c) any constable, and (d) any other body or person discharging functions of a public nature (including a body or person discharging regulatory functions in relation to any description of activities). (2) In section 10A above “relevant public authority” also includes any body or person within subsection (1)(d) above in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. (3) In sections 10 to 10B above and this section—“enactment” has the same meaning as in the Charities Act 2006; “Revenue and Customs information” means information held as mentioned in section 18(1) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. (4) Nothing in sections 10 and 10A above (or in those sections as applied by section 10B(1) to (4) above) authorises the making of a disclosure which—(a) contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998, or (b) is prohibited by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.””

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130.

The amendment provides for an updated information-sharing regime between public authorities and the Charity Commission, building on that already contained in Section 10 of the Charities Act 1993. It includes specific provisions relating to the exchange of Commissioners for Revenue and Customs information, tightening up that particular regime.

Under the current arrangements in Section 10 of the Charities Act 1993, certain Revenue and Customs information may be disclosed to the Charity Commission. The commission may onwardly disclose that information unless the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs have expressly restricted it.

The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs have a modernised information-sharing provision in Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and are now seeking to modernise their information gateways with other bodies. For example, they have recently established a new information gateway similar to that set out in this amendment with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. Their premise now is that information gateways relating to the exchange of Revenue and Customs information should contain an automatic restriction against onward disclosure of Revenue and Customs information. HMRC must consent to any onward disclosure of that information. That is one of the changes that this amendment will make to the gateway for Revenue and Customs information with the Charity Commission.

The Commissioners for Revenue and CustomsAct 2005 also provides for a criminal offence if Revenue and Customs information is unlawfully disclosed by Revenue and Customs personnel. This amendment would extend that offence to unlawful disclosure by Charity Commission personnel.

New Section 10B inserted into the 1993 Act by this amendment extends the Charity Commission’s information-sharing capacity, including that for sharing Revenue and Customs information, to principal regulators of exempt charities in carrying out the role of principal regulator. The provisions in relation to Revenue and Customs information apply in the same way as they do with the Charity Commission; namely, that there would be an automatic restriction against onward disclosure of Revenue and Customs information disclosed to the principal regulator, and that HMRC must consent to any onward disclosure. The offence for unlawful disclosure would also apply.

I should emphasise that the commission, as a government department, will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which offers important protections to the public about the handling of personal information.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, I know that this is the last amendment for our consideration, but I would like to take the opportunity to raise concerns about the growing number of information gateways between various organisations and public authorities. AmendmentNo. 130 takes this a stage further. Most of what the Minister said referred to HMRC, but of course it has much wider applications than that.

As I read Amendment No. 130, newSection 10A(1)(a) permits the disclosure of information,

“if the disclosure is made for the purpose of enabling or assisting the relevant public authority to discharge any of its functions”.

So far maybe so good, but new Section 10A(1)(b) states that,

“if the information so disclosed is otherwise relevant to the discharge of any of the functions of the relevant public authority”.

The words “otherwise relevant” could cover almost anything. The Government have a great fondness for proposals that could lead to what they describe as “joined-up government”. It is always sensible to encourage the right hand to know what the left hand is doing and I am sure that nobody would support the unwarranted withholding of information from relevant bodies. Indeed, the past situation, where concerns about confidentiality meant that no information was permitted to be divulged, even to the police, obviously needs amending. But people now argue that the pendulum has swung or is swinging too far in the other direction.

These concerns are not unfounded. Many of these new gateways deal with highly confidential or sensitive information. Safeguards must be included to ensure that this information is not misused or treated with less care and attention than it should. Too often disclosure of information is made at a low level by junior staff who have no idea of the importance of the data they are handling and handing over. And, of course, once disclosed, the information cannot be recaptured. Moreover, for the organisation which has been affected by this disclosure, to prove that the disclosure was improper can be very difficult. However useful gateways may be when everyone behaves as they should, we must still guard against the certainty that people will make mistakes, albeit inadvertent mistakes.

To many that may seem like narrow, or even irrelevant, quibbling; it is perhaps hard to imagine this amendment leading to disclosures of sensitive or confidential information. But these questions about gateways need to be raised every time a new gateway is developed or proposed.

We read every day that people are increasingly concerned about the hidden intrusion of closed circuit television on their lives and the threat this may present to our individual freedom. Information gateways can be just as dangerous, with detailed information about people or organisations being passed over without their knowing anything about it, and always with the danger that the recipient may not be as careful with the information as he should be.

I understand that it will be possible in this case for the organisation sharing its information to classify sensitive data as such and to request that it is used only for certain purposes. This seems entirely sensible and probably should apply across the board to all other gateways. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me that I have assessed that correctly and that there will be some way to check that the recipient organisation is following these instructions.

My Lords, the Minister prefaced his remarks by telling us that this provision was about modernisation. That puts one on one’s guard. Of the amendments that we have—certainly in terms of space; three pages and a bit—this is the most substantial.

I have three questions on the amendment. First, in new Section 10 under “Disclosure of information to Commission”, new subsection (2) refers to bodies falling under one or more of the following paragraphs,

“charity … an institution which is established for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes … an institution”—

where tax relief is involved—

“a subsidiary … of a charity”

and a “Scottish Charity Register”.

Why is paragraph (b) there? What does that bring in that is not covered by the word “charity”? Why do we need,

“an institution which is established for”?

My second question relates to new Section 10A. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to paragraphs (a) and (b). Having got paragraph (a), why do we need paragraph (b)?

My third question relates to new Section 10C. “Relevant public authority” is defined as,

“any government department … any local authority … any constable, and … any other body or person discharging functions of a public nature”.

How far does that spread? For example, does it include a contractor? It would be helpful if we were clear about what some of these things really mean.

My Lords, I will try to be as helpful as I can on the points raised. Essentially both noble Lords were asking about the distinction between the provisions of new Section 10A(1)(a) and 10A(1)(b). The provisions are considered to have a similar effect to the existing provision in Section 10 of the 1993 Act. That is how we approach this issue. They give the commission the power to disclose information to another relevant body, whether the main purpose in doing so is to assist that body to discharge its functions under new Section 10A(1)(a) or where it is relevant to the other public authority’s function under new Section 10A(1)(b). The second part will enable the commission to disclose information to other public bodies in circumstances where it can assist the commission to discharge its functions.

An example might be when the commission passes information to the police about bogus fundraisers: it may be less concerned with the prevention or detection of crime—the function of the police—than with protecting charity property through the hope that a prosecution will put the people concerned out of business. Another example where new Section 10A (1)(b) might apply would be where the commission passes information to HM Revenue and Customs about failings of a charity’s employee tax administration that it had discovered in the course of an investigation. Of course, the commission may be less concerned with the collection of tax than with the hope that the impact of a Revenue and Customs intervention will promote better charity governance in future.

Amendment No. 130 does not make a lot of radical changes to the exchange of information provisions that have been in place for many years—in particular, as I said, in Section 10 of the Charities Act 1993. Those provisions emerged in the 1980s following abuses of charity tax reliefs for personal gain which, at that stage, were identified by the Inland Revenue. It found that, where abuses were taking place, the organisations or individuals involved would give different explanations and accounts of their actions to the Revenue than to the Charity Commission. There is no surprise there. The introduction of the information-sharing powers enabled a joined-up response to ensure that any abuses of tax relief for personal gain were effectively addressed.

I entirely understand where the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is coming from. I appreciate his point about data creep, because that is what it amounts to. That is a theme that he and other noble Lords have referred to many times. The amendments will strengthen and modernise the information-sharing regime. They will enable it to work better and have a more rigorous framework around it, so that the principal regulators can properly fulfil their duties under the Act. It is common knowledge to us all that the Data Protection Act 1998 protections are there. As I said, they include the Charity Commission and the principal regulators of exempt charities. The safeguards contained in that legislation are there to provide protection to the public relating to the handling, storage and disclosure of personal information.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was also concerned about how staff might handle the issue internally. I fully recognise that; he made an important point. It will be for us to ensure that Charity Commission staff are well trained, understand the import of Data Protection Act protections and are trained in handling these sensitive data. That will be important. We have underlined the seriousness of offences that can be committed by ensuring that we are very clear about the import of those issues. That is why we have specifically created offences relating to the unlawful onward disclosure of Revenue and Customs information. As I explained earlier, that is consistent with the offence of unlawful disclosure in Section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which applies to Revenue and Customs staff.

That is my explanation of what we seek to achieve. I think that I have covered the main points about which noble Lords were concerned. If I have not, I am more than happy to write with further, better particulars—

My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is too late. I cannot see that he will oppose the amendment, but it is important that people are satisfied and that we put things sufficiently on the record and in the public domain to provide the measure of reassurance that is sought.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

131: Page 148, line 41, after “was”,”, insert- “(ba) for “they act” substitute “it acts”,”

132: Page 149, line 16, at end insert- “(za) for “they have” substitute “it has”,”

133: Page 156, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert- “(c) for “the Commissioners so request, be transmitted to them” substitute “the Commission so requests, be transmitted to it”, and”

134: Page 157, line 11, at end insert- “(9) In subsection (8) for “in subsection (3)” substitute “to subsection (3)”.”

135: Page 158, line 9, at end insert “, and (c) for “they may” substitute “it may”.”

136: Page 162, line 10, leave out “19B” and insert “19C”

137: Page 162, line 35, at end insert- “(3A) At the end add “or section 75D”.”

138: Page 164, line 41, at end insert- “(2A) Omit- (a) in the definition of “exempt charity” in subsection (1), the words “(subject to section 24(8) above)”, and (b) subsection (4).”

139: Page 165, line 7, at end insert- “(ba) in the definition of “institution”, after ““institution” insert “means an institution whether incorporated or not, and”.”

140: Page 165, line 11, at end insert- ““the Minister” means the Minister for the Cabinet Office;””

141: Page 165, line 15, at end insert- “169A In section 97(3) (general interpretation) for “Part IV or IX” substitute “Part 4, 7, 8A or 9”.”

142: Page 165, line 15, at end insert- “169B In section 100(3) (extent) for “Section 10” substitute “Sections 10 to 10C”.”

143: Page 169, line 32, at end insert- “Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) In Part 3 of Schedule 14 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the Judicial Appointments Commission: relevant offices etc.) after the entries relating to section 6(5) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 insert- “President of the Charity Tribunal Legal member of the Charity Tribunal Ordinary member of the Charity Tribunal Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1B to the Charities Act 1993(c. 10)”.” 144: Page 169, line 32, at end insert- “Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland)Act 2005 (asp 10) The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 has effect subject to the following amendments. In section 36(1) (powers of OSCR in relation to English and Welsh charities)- (a) for “Charity Commissioners for England and Wales inform” substitute “Charity Commission for England and Wales informs”, (b) for “under section 3” substitute “in accordance with section 3A”, and (c) for “section 3(5) of that Act,” substitute “subsection (2) of that section,”. In section 69(2)(d)(i) (persons disqualified from being charity trustees)- (a) at the beginning insert “by the Charity Commission for England and Wales under section 18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 or”, and (b) for “under section 18(2)(i) of the CharitiesAct 1993 (c. 10),” substitute “, whether under section 18(2)(i) of that Act or under”.”

145: Page 169, line 32, at end insert- “Equality Act 2006 (c. 3) (1) The Equality Act 2006 has effect subject to the following amendments. (2) In section 58(2) (charities relating to religion or belief)- (a) for “Charity Commissioners for England and Wales” substitute “Charity Commission”, and (b) for “the Commissioners” substitute “the Commission”. (3) In section 79(1)(a) (interpretation) after “given by” insert “section 1(1) of”.”

146: Schedule 9, page 170, line 5, at beginning insert- “Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 (c. 31) In section 5(1), in paragraph (b) of the proviso, the words from “, and no representation” onwards.” 147: Page 170, line 18, column 2, at end insert- “In section 79, in subsection (6) the words “(subject to subsection (7))”, and subsection (7).” 148: Page 170, line 20, column 2, at end insert- “In Schedule 7, the entry relating to the Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916(c. 31).” 149: Page 170, leave out line 29

150: Page 171, line 6, leave out “paragraphs (x) and (zb)” and insert “paragraph (x)”

151: Schedule 10, page 173, line 21, leave out paragraph 12 and insert- “12 The amendment made by section does not affect the payment of remuneration or provision of services in accordance with an agreement made before the day on which that section comes into force.”

152: Page 174, line 4, at end insert- “Section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator): Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator 15A In relation to an offence committed in England and Wales before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general limit on magistrates’ courts power to impose imprisonment), the reference to 12 months in section (Disclosure of information to and by Northern Ireland regulator)(6) is to be read as a reference to6 months.”

153: Page 174, line 20, at end insert- “18A In relation to an offence committed in England and Wales before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general limit on magistrates’ courts power to impose imprisonment), the reference to 12 months in section 10A(4) of the 1993 Act (as inserted by paragraph 99 of Schedule to this Act) is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”

154: Page 174, line 21, leave out paragraphs 19and 20

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131 to 154.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.