Charity Commission

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate and to raise an issue that is important not only to my constituents but to everyone who relies on the vital work of charities. It concerns whether the Charity Commission currently has the necessary powers and resources to respond effectively when charities are not properly governed.

A charity’s ability to operate successfully and serve our communities depends on public trust. Well-governed charities can make an enormous difference to people’s lives, and trusteeship carries series legal responsibilities. Trustees are custodians of charitable assets, and they must comply with the governing documents and manage the charity’s resources responsibly to ensure that activities further charitable purposes. When charities are not appropriately governed, the consequences are significant, and it undermines public confidence and deprives the local communities they are supposed to serve. When trustees fail to meet their responsibilities, there must be an effective regulator with the powers and resources to intervene swifty and restore public trust in the charity sector, the vast majority of which does an excellent job. That is the role of the Charity Commission.

I acknowledge the important work of the Charity Commission. It regulates more than 170,000 charities in England and Wales, overseeing a sector that is responsible for tens of billions of pounds in annual income and expenditure. It has a range of statutory powers, including the ability to investigate misconduct and mismanagement, to require information and documents, to issue official warnings, to suspend or remove trustees, and in appropriate circumstances to appoint interim managers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduousness in bringing forward this issue. Although the Charity Commission should have teeth, does she agree that it is the job of enforcement agents such as HMRC, or indeed the local council, to take a bite out of those who are in breach? The delineation of powers must be clear, and that is one thing that charities perhaps needs some help with.

[Ashley Dalton]

A wide range of powers are held by a number of organisations, and it is crucial that each one of those takes responsibility and has power to work within its own remit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. There are serious questions as to whether the Charity Commission’s current framework is sufficient. A regulator’s ability to investigate concerns does not necessarily mean that it has the capacity to intervene swiftly or effectively enough, and there is a pertinent concern in my West Lancashire constituency, where I have been engaging with the Charity Commission over long-standing concerns about the management and governance of Scarisbrick village hall.

In 1972, local people secured a piece of land and went about fundraising and building a village hall, a village green and a children’s playground. They then fundraised and erected a war memorial to the Scarisbrick residents lost in the world wars who had not previously been recognised. Many years went by, with the village hall being a valued community asset, including the village green and the children’s playpark. In recent years, however, concerns began to surface over the running of the hall and facilities.

First went the children’s playpark, with trustees claiming that funds could not be found to maintain it. The trustees then changed the name of the village hall to The Venue Scarisbrick, marketing it as a function suite. Local organisations such as the Scouts were allegedly deprioritised, and regular slots that they had been using were changed, making it difficult for them to continue, forcing them to go elsewhere. The trustees then fenced off the village green, denying access to local residents, and renting the green space to a private sector petting zoo. The final straw came in July 2025 when the trustees proposed the permanent removal of the war memorial. I launched a petition to save the memorial, and wrote to trustees in August 2025 setting out my concerns and requesting a meeting. I received no response. I chased it in August and later in October, but I still received no response.

Meanwhile, local residents became increasingly concerned about not only the trustees’ decisions, but their behaviour towards residents. It transpired that the trustees were using the hall as a base for their own private sector businesses and charging other businesses to use the address. When challenged, the trustees refused to meet local residents, refused to meet or correspond with me, and called the police when local residents protested at the proposed removal of the war memorial. On inspection, it transpired that the trustees have set up a limited company in the name of The Venue Scarisbrick, of which some of the trustees are directors. There is no indication of how that company relates to the charity that owns the building. They have also failed to register accounts for the charity for several years running.

Residents demanded an annual general meeting, as one had not been held for some time and was long overdue. In February 2026, six months later than the governing document required, the trustees, despite receiving advice from the Charity Commission that they must hold the AGM in person, held an online broadcast, claiming that it was an AGM. There was no way to ascertain who was there, how many people were present or whether they were eligible to be there. There was no way to contribute unless explicitly invited to do so.

When it came to so-called elections, the trustees were appointed by ballot by email. It was not secret, and there was no adequate scrutiny or transparency. Unsurprisingly, all the existing trustees were re-elected. Not only was the so-called AGM appallingly run, but the chair of the trustees took the opportunity to launch a 15-minute verbal attack on local people who challenged him. Local parish councillors have been threatened with legal action and intimidatory language on social media. While the war memorial was saved—at least for now—the village green remains inaccessible and the trustees remain in charge.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a bold and brave case. As she knows, she has recently become a bit of a heroine of mine following a recent and well-publicised speech. Is not the problem here the Charity Commission? I do not know if it has the resources, the means or the legal powers required, but, in a variety of cases that I have drawn to its attention on woke causes—about which we might not agree—it seemed to be highly ineffective. She is talking about a very local case, but she is highlighting a bigger point in doing so.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. That is the point that I am making: whether the Charity Commission has the powers, resources and ability to act. I fear that the story I am laying out today is far from unique across the country.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on securing this debate. There is a really key point about trust and accountability. Does she share the concerns of myself and other members of the coalfields group of MPs about the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? It is a charitable body established by Parliament in 1952 to provide support to mining communities. Many former mining communities, including some in my own constituency, say that they are missing out on millions of pounds of investment from the sale of former miners’ welfare halls and outdoor welfare schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public must have confidence that charitable trusts are held accountable for their actions? Will she support our efforts to ensure that the Charity Commission takes all appropriate action in the cases that we have identified?

[Ashley Dalton]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has outlined. The Charity Commission should support all charities, because it is fundamental that public trust remains. That is why residents and I have engaged with the Charity Commission and raised concerns regarding the transparency and governance of Scarisbrick village hall and the decisions being made.

The Charity Commission has begun an investigation. Following the February AGM, the commission confirmed that concerns about the failure to comply with advice and the conduct of the meeting itself had been escalated to its regulatory compliance team. Further concerns, including concerns around social media activity and questions about the transparency and integrity of the AGM ballot, have been added to its case records. However, by June, the commission confirmed that the case remained ongoing and was progressing.

Last month, the commission advised that it had received a significant volume of further correspondence, including new concerns about the conduct of a trustee on social media. It also confirmed that it was continuing its investigation and planned to undertake a books and records inspection in the coming weeks. I appreciate that thorough investigations take time, particularly where there are complex governance issues to consider. However, this case illustrates the challenges of addressing concerns in a timely way, particularly where further issues and inappropriate conduct continue to emerge while an investigation is ongoing. Residents of Scarisbrick are concerned that the village hall will potentially be lost and its resources frittered away.

Those concerns have been compounded by further developments. Two companies associated with the management of the village hall, The Venue Scarisbrick Ltd and Community Inclusion Projects Ltd, have appeared on Companies House as having active proposals to strike off. That raises even more questions about corporate governance and the protection of charitable assets and community facilities. Given that this case has been ongoing since last summer and I have been raising concerns with the commission for a year, I ask the Minister to consider what more the Government can do to ensure the commission can investigate cases of this nature promptly.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am staggered by the story of Scarisbrick village hall—what the hon. Lady is describing is terrifying. It seems to me that the Charity Commission does not have the resources it needs to do any of its work. I have a constituent who is starting a charity, HeritageTies, and he has been told that it is going to take 23 weeks to register his charity. During that time, he cannot get a bank account, fundraise, or start the job he is trying to do. I am told that 3,000 new church charities have been added, so does the hon. Lady agree that we need a root-and-branch investigation of whether the Charity Commission has the resources it needs to do its job?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. This is an ongoing issue, and she will be aware that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigations of the Charity Commission more widely has raised similar concerns. It also questions whether the commission shows sufficient boldness in exercising its existing powers, and whether it has the powers it needs to regulate the charitable sector effectively.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for referencing my Select Committee’s recent report. Will she join our Committee in calling on the Government or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to hold a thorough consultation on the commission’s powers, both to identify whether it needs further powers and whether it is making the best use of the powers it already has, and particularly whether the legal advice it is getting is too risk averse?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and join him in that call.

I would welcome an update from the Minister on the Committee’s report and on the Government’s plans to take forward its recommendations, particularly its proposal for a wider consultation on the powers of the Charity Commission. Is the Minister satisfied that the commission’s existing powers and resources are adequate to enable it to intervene at an earlier stage where there are persistent governance concerns and potential risks to charitable assets? Are there opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework so that the commission can take effective action without unnecessary delay? Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the Charity Commission has the resources, powers and support it needs to fulfil its responsibilities, protect charitable assets and maintain public confidence in the charitable sector.