Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office
Tuesday 5th January 2016

(8 years, 4 months ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Turley Portrait Anna Turley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The issue is the charitable ambitions of housing associations in supporting those who are most vulnerable and in need. The danger is that we are moving away from that.

Jo Churchill Portrait Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. In the realms of a charity selling a high-price asset, it could in a broad sense outreach its charitable work. However, the clause does not allow them flexibility; it ties their hands and means that they are completely unable to disburse their assets as they wish.

Anna Turley Portrait Anna Turley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I disagree with the hon. Lady, because charities currently have the flexibility to do as they wish with their assets as long as that is in line with their charitable status. The removal of the clause is about trying to push charities towards selling off assets—selling off the family silver—but, whatever their charitable status may be, whether tackling poverty and inequality or sheltering the homeless, it is for them to decide how they use those assets.

I will not detain the Committee other than to comment on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North about Lord Beecham’s speech in the other place. That point is important and goes much wider than housing. Assets are a broad definition, so there is danger in not specifying in the Bill the fact that charities have an independent ability to dispose of their assets in a way they believe to be consistent with their charitable purposes. The clause is about giving broad protection to charities in the light of potential Government pressure to encourage, cajole or influence how they dispose of their assets. That is extremely important.

Finally, on the Charity Commission, I totally understand that it did not ask specifically for the clause, but the Bill was not drafted for the Charity Commission or by it. It was drafted in the best interests of the charitable sector to support its independence and to provide it with a secure regulatory framework in the future. There will be areas where the Charity Commission agrees with us and others where it does not, but we do not believe that the clause is burdensome for it. It is part of its role in defending the integrity of the charitable status.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.