Mr.
Turner: My amendment would omit the provision on page 15
that omits the Church Commissioners. I understand that the reason for
that omission was that nobody could think of anyone to be the
commissioners’ principal regulator. I am not sure if that is
true, but the commissioners are quite a respectable body of people.
[ Interruption.] Some of them are, anyway. Mr. Speaker is a
Church Commissioner, for example. On the other hand, so are the First
Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor—if he continues to
exist—the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the hon.
Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), three other right reverend
prelates in another place, and one who is not in the other place, and
someone called Canon P.N.E Bruinvels; some of us have heard of him.
Along with them are a number of luminaries elected by the General
Synod. Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): For the sake of clarity,
our former friend Peter Bruinvels is a lay canon of Guildford
cathedral.
Mr.
Turner: I am grateful for that confirmation, though it
somewhat undermines parts of my original argument. None the less, the
commissioners are mostly a respectable bunch of people, and I see no
reason why they should be omitted from being an exempt
charity—for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Cheltenham
gave in respect of the church in Wales.
Edward
Miliband: Let me deal with this clutch of amendments as
briefly as I can. It is a rare occurrence but I think that the hon.
Member for Cheltenham simply misunderstood what amendment No. 94 would
do. So far as we can see, the only effect of it would be to omit the
colleges of Winchester and Eton whose
exempt status is removed by the Bill. I know that that is not the
intention of his amendment, but that is the effect.
Let me
clarify what the clause does on higher education
institutions—the specific issue that he raised. Higher education
institutions, with the exception that I shall describe, will for the
most part remain exempt charities subject to principal regulation by
the Higher Education Funding Council for England. There is a particular
issue around the colleges and halls of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham,
which have no relationship with the HEFCE and which therefore need a
different principal regulator. That regulator will be the Charity
Commission. Had we included that in the Bill, however, it would have
made the Bill a hybrid Bill, which would further have elongated the
process of enacting it. We will therefore make provision for the
colleges and halls of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham to be regulated by
the Charity Commission in secondary legislation. That is the long and
the short of the position on universities. The hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is unnecessary and would not achieve its
purpose.
Martin
Horwood: I am not entirely sure that the Minister is
correct, although I am struggling without a copy of the 1993 Act in
front of me. [ Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member
for Isle of
Wight.
Peter
Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is the problem
partly the distinction between the amendment to the Bill or that the
hon. Gentleman may be making an amendment to the 1993
Act?
The
Chairman: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said
is a point of order for the
Chair.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention. I am aware that I am amending the schedule under the 1993
Act. The amendment that was tabled was an amendment to schedule 2. I am
sure that that was
intended.
The
Chairman: Shall we allow the hon. Gentleman time to gather
his thoughts and perhaps intervene
later?
Edward
Miliband: Again in the spirit of good faith, I hope that
the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurances. I spent a long time last
night trying to understand the nature of his amendment. It rather
ruined my night’s sleep. However, having talked to officials
this morning, I concluded that I am indeed correct and that his
amendment is not fit for purpose. It would not achieve what he wants,
apart from in relation to Winchester and Eton, which I am sure he wants
to be regulated by the Charity Commission. I am sure that he does not
want them to be exempt. I have panoply of choices before
me.
Mr.
Turner: This may be an unfair question, but why would the
omission of the colleges and halls of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham
universities make the Bill a hybrid Bill, whereas the omission of the
colleges of Winchester and Eton would not?
Edward
Miliband: It is an unfair question, but I shall try to
answer it none the less. I understand that Winchester and Eton are
covered by the Bill on the same footing as other schools, whereas if we
single out the colleges and halls of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, they
will be put on a different footing from other higher education
institutions. It is necessary to put them on a different footing
because they do not have a relationship with HEFCE, nevertheless it
would make such a measure a hybrid Bill. That takes us to secondary
legislation. Because there will be a discrete class for the purposes of
any order that is made, issues of hybridity will not arise because such
matters will be treated as a distinct class and will not be compared
with other higher education institutions. I hope that I have satisfied
the hon.
Gentleman.
Peter
Bottomley: Is the secondary legislation the power that is
included under subsection
(12)(a)?
Edward
Miliband: That was definitely an unfair question. Yes, the
hon. Member for Worthing, West is correct. I hope that I have
dealt with amendment No.
94.
Tom
Levitt: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for
the extreme clarity that he has brought to this discussion and his
confirmation that universities will remain exempt charities under the
1993 Act. Are there implications for the National Union of Students?
Can it qualify for charitable status in some form or another? I know
that several hon. Members have expressed interest in
that.
Edward
Miliband: My hon. Friend asks an important question.
Whatever their views on the National Union of Students, it may surprise
some Opposition Members to learn that it currently has charitable
status. The matter has been tested in the courts and we expect that the
National Union of Students will continue to enjoy charitable
status.
Martin
Horwood: Now that I have gathered my thoughts on the
amendment, the proposal would create exemption for all the universities
of England and Wales, including those of Oxford and Cambridge, but that
does not extend to the colleges and halls, which are not universities
and are separate legal institutions. Can the Minister clarify who the
regulator is of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as opposed to
the colleges and halls which form parts of those universities and are
legally separate bodies? I will then accept his reassurances on that
amendment.
Edward
Miliband: That is not so much an unfair question as an
incomprehensible one. To the extent that I understand the question, my
answer is—if I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman
misunderstands the 1993 Charities Act—that the universities of
England and Wales currently enjoy exempt status. What will change as a
result of the Bill is that we will bring in a principal regulator,
HEFCE for the most part, which will regulate them for the purposes of
charity law.
Whatever the
nature of his ambitions for his amendment, I can assure him that it is
not fit for purpose. The
universities of Oxford and Cambridge have a relationship with HEFCE and
will be regulated by HEFCE as their principal regulator. I hope that he
is satisfied with that and that I can move on to amendment
No.95. Amendment No.95
also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Although it
is meaningful, I confess that I do not understand why he wants to do
it. It would allow an Order in Council to be made to declare an
exemption for Churches and other religious organisations and make them
exempt charities. At a time that we are driving to increase the
accountability of other exempt charities, I cannot understand why he
wants to do it. On
amendment No.95, I do not understand why he thinks that the Privy
Council is an appropriate body to make those decisions. Does he want to
give that power to Ministers anyway? I do not understand why he wants
to give exempt status to
Churches.
Martin
Horwood: I am content with the intention of the
Bill to bring Churches out of exempt status and under the registration
of the commission. However, there are specific examples—I
mentioned the Church in Wales—where that is not having the
intended effect and is adding a level of bureaucracy to local,
parochial Church Councils that does not apply to the Church of England
purely because of their different institutional
status.
Edward
Miliband: I may be able to look into that. My
understanding is that many Churches will have excepted status. The
provisions under the Bill mean that only those excepted charities, with
incomes over £100,000, will be required to register. I hope that
those particular circumstances, which I am happy to look into, will be
catered for by that.
It is convenient to deal with
the matter of amendment No.165 in this context because it is about the
Church Commissioners. I agree with what the hon. Member for Isle of
Wight says about the Church Commissioners and, for the most part, that
it is an august body. Again, I am not entirely convinced that the
amendment is
necessary. The Church
Commissioners will now be regulated by the Charity Commission. We have
had discussions with the Church Commissioners. They had some concerns.
Those concerns have been satisfied. Good order will prevail. They will
be able to continue with their work. Therefore, I am not completely
convinced that this amendment is necessary.
Mr.
Turner: The responsibility of the principal regulator to
an exempt charity is different from the responsibility of the Charity
Commission to a non-exempt charity. The commission’s
responsibilities are set out in section 7 on page 5, new section 1B of
the 1993 Act and include five objectives. The principal regulator of an
exempt charity has only one comparable objective, which is that of
compliance. Therefore, he is introducing a greater level of regulation
in to those charities that cease to be exempt, than would otherwise be
the
case.
11.15
am
Edward
Miliband: That may be correct—a charity does cease
to be exempt. However, it is part of the wider discussion on the level
of obligations that charities face, whether it be the Church
Commissioners or other charities. I do not understand why the powers
that the Charity Commission will have in relation to the Church
Commissioners, which will be on a level footing with the powers that
they have in relation to other charities, will be particularly onerous.
As we shall be discussing, the Charity Commission also has powers in
relation to exempt charities, though subject to its relationship with
the principal regulator. I hope that that satisfies the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Turner: I accept that it is an explanation. What I am
concerned about, however, is how many organisations will cease to be
exempt as a result of clause
11(7).
Edward
Miliband: I suggest that I write to the hon. Gentleman
with a list. Let me briefly explain the process. In seeking a level
playing field so that there would no longer be exempt charities that
were not subject to regulation save for charity law purposes, the
Government sought in all circumstances to find a regulator—other
than the Charity Commission—which would be an existing regulator
having a relationship with the charity concerned. In a number of cases
it proved impossible, after discussion with the relevant charities, to
find a suitable regulator other than the Charity Commission. The
default position was therefore to move to the Charity Commission. I am
happy to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the organisations that will
now be regulated by the Charity Commission. I hope that that is
satisfactory. Amendment
No. 96 concerns the National Lottery Charities Board and was tabled by
the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The hon. Gentleman is correct that the
National Lottery Charities Board is an exempt charity. It is being
abolished and will be replaced by the Big Lottery Fund, which will not
be a charity. That is to do with the way in which the Big Lottery Fund
is being established. I believe that it is a company limited by
guarantee.
Martin
Horwood: We have established at length, and we may do so
further later on today, that being a company limited by guarantee does
not exclude one from charitable status.
Edward
Miliband: Indeed. I am not an expert on the Big Lottery
Fund, though the hon. Gentleman might be. However, it will not be a
charity and it is not the intention that it be a charity. The point
therefore does not arise. The hon. Gentleman may not have had it in
mind when we tabled his amendment, but it turns out that we are
removing the National Lottery Charities Board from the list of exempt
charities in the National Lottery Bill which is currently before the
House of Lords. That is being dealt with in that Bill, so I suspect
that we shall in any case need to table an amendment for the purposes
of tidying up of the process.
On the amendment that concerns
affirmative and negative resolutions, I repeat what I have said before.
The Committees of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have
examined the matter and are satisfied with the procedures that the
Government propose, so I hope that the amendment will be
withdrawn. Finally, I
believe that I misspoke when I said that the National Union of Students
is itself charitable. The key point is that student unions are
charitable but the NUS itself is not necessarily so. I can see some
relief about that on the faces of hon. Gentlemen
opposite.
| 
