| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Almost certainly, this amendment is to be regarded as a probing amendment because, clearly, in the discussions that were carried out with the Charity Commission, the Royal Television Society was left in a certain amount of doubt. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give a rounded view of how the promotion of the
9 Feb 2005 : Column GCGC83
public interest in public service broadcasting falls within the category of "charitable purpose" within which it has always been assumed to have fallen.
I found it difficult when reading what the Charity Commission said to believe that it had got it right. Therefore, without further ado, we should hear how both tests are perceived—the charitable purpose and particularly the public benefit test—with regard to public service broadcasting. I would have thought that it fulfilled the purposes set out in this Bill 100 per cent.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This is the first time that I have addressed the Committee and I will be extremely brief. When we are debating these long lists of definitions in the early stages of Bills and government responses are elicited, it is a great mistake to enlarge the list indefinitely. I am not speaking against the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, except to remark in this context that the department of which I was the second Secretary of State, after my great friend David Mellor, was entitled the Department of National Heritage. In their wisdom, the present Government decided to change that title and turn it into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am sorry to say that in doing so they suggested that the media lay outside culture.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise only to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that I am entirely behind the sentiments of the two amendments, but I think that they are superfluous. He will find in the constitution of every single charity that is formed these days voluminous references to radio, television and the popular media as a means of promoting virtually every charitable purpose under the sun.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We are dealing with subsection (2)(f),
and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's response to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. However, I wonder whether I could tack on something about heritage? I am sorry to do this at the last minute, but my briefing arrived almost as late as the Charity Commission's latest publication on the definition of religion. It is from the Historic Houses Association and therefore concerns heritage.
The association represents 34 major charities, including some outstanding properties of world importance such as Chatsworth, Burleigh and Wilton. The retention of charitable status is critical to their survival. The association argues that "public benefit" includes public access, education, local employment, economic generation and, of course, tourism, which benefits the balance of payments. It has some concerns that the public benefit test could be drawn in a way that does not take sufficiently into account the contribution to the leisure and tourist industries, which are in themselves obviously profitable.
Secondly, that test may also lead to some prejudice against donor families, many of whom still live in the properties. The association points out that the
9 Feb 2005 : Column GCGC84
presence of these families means that the properties are living examples of our history rather than just museums. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I raise that point in asking for reassurance when she comes to wind up this particular amendment. If she needs more time to reflect, I would be happy to be written to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chandos for moving this amendment because it enables us to spread a little clarity on the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, Clause 2 (1) concerns lists of descriptions of charitable purposes. I can well understand why the provision has been raised because this is not the first time that it has come up in our debates on the Bill.
The advancement of culture is a charitable purpose by virtue of its inclusion in the purpose which reads,
Charitable purposes in connection with film, television and radio could fall within the advancement of the arts, the advancement of culture or the advancement of education; it would depend on what the promoters of the charity were seeking to achieve. There is no definition of "culture" in the Bill because the Charity Commission will consider the object of each new or existing charity on its own merits.
The point about existing charities answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on heritage houses. I can offer him the reassurance that he is seeking. Historic houses will continue to be charitable under the Bill on the same basis that they are charitable now. "Public benefit" will be interpreted as it is now, so they can expect to continue to benefit from the definition and its interpretation.
A number of organisations which are connected with film, television and radio are already registered charities. I hope that that reassurance will satisfy the noble Viscount and he will feel able to withdraw the amendment—and hopefully not bring it back, although I will understand if he is tempted to do so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I am sympathetic to what is behind the amendments.
5.15 p.m.
The second amendment in this group deals with advancement. I can see where the amendment is coming from, and I certainly understand why it has been put before us in terms of what the noble Viscount thought were worrying words. In seeking to partially define which activities are potentially capable of being charitable, we have refrained from including the definition of activities that are not capable of being charitable for a number of reasons. The range of activities that charities carry out is so wide that even starting to put together a list would be very difficult indeed.
If a definition were included in the Bill—even if it were non-exclusive—as I said in our first session there would be a danger that the list would come to be seen as definitive and that those activities that were not on the list were in some way less charitable or less
9 Feb 2005 : Column GCGC85
deserving of that designation. It would be necessary to choose certain activities and exclude others. To include such a specific particular as the promotion of excellence through awards without including a long list of other activities would, for that reason, be undesirable.
It is for the Charity Commission to determine whether a charity's activities further that charity's charitable objectives. In its publications, the commission gives some guidance as to what kind of activities may be charitable for organisations with certain purposes. Where trustees are in any doubt about whether a proposed activity would fall within their objects, the commission will obviously give advice to that organisation to ensure that it conforms to what it seeks to achieve.
I could perhaps best address my words of reassurance to the noble Viscount on this particular issue by looking at an example. The example on which I would draw, which is perhaps closest to where the noble Viscount is coming from, is the British Academy of Film and Television Arts—Bafta—which is a charity. It is there for educational purposes, and we know that it holds a famous ceremony. It is certainly seen as advancing an important side of the industry in terms of encouragement and educational work. Obviously, it is also recognised as an international gold standard.
I do not think that the noble Viscount needs to worry. Those organisations that are already charitable will continue to be charitable, and the definitions are sufficiently widely cast through custom and practice to enable the object, especially the Royal Television Society, to be considered as a charitable purpose. I hope that, having heard that, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment and not bring it back on another occasion.
Viscount Chandos: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments and for the comments and support from other Committee Members who have spoken. I guess that there is a problem with definitions. I enjoyed the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointing out the change in the name of the department. It reminds me of a discussion that we had at the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation when we were looking at the allocation of money from the arts and heritage budget. There was a pie chart that showed music and theatre. With my known enthusiasm for opera, I asked where opera fell. The director of arts and heritage said, "Heritage". Television, as we have heard, seems to touch on a wide range of objects and touches large parts of our lives.
I hope that I can be reassured by my noble friend's comments. I find it a little difficult to reconcile them with the bald statement that the Charity Commission made to the Royal Television Society. However, as the Minister has observed, there does not appear to be any question—unless there is something going on that we do not know about—of Bafta's charitable status. To return to a previous discussion, if ever there were an elite institution, Bafta is one. The Royal Television Society is an even more popular one, so I will happily
9 Feb 2005 : Column GCGC86
withdraw the amendment and hope that I do not have to consider bringing it back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |