Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

I am afraid that I am nearly at the end of my speech, so I will finish.

The lobbying legislation looks to many in the sector too much like another deliberate and shameless act by a Government who are too scared to debate their record or to be open to scrutiny and challenge. The health of our democracy depends on people’s right to campaign on the issues they care about. The 2014 Act was an attack on our democracy. It limits the rights of charities to fight for important causes. It has left expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make to public debate unsure whether they are allowed to speak out. We seek to protect the right of charities to have a loud and respected voice in our democracy. I commend new clause 3 to the House.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on her first speech from the Dispatch Box in the Report stage of a Bill. She gave a thorough explanation of her case on behalf of the official Opposition, although I am not entirely sure that I agreed with all of it. No doubt she gave it a lot of thought. She certainly gave us the benefit of her views.

I will not follow the hon. Lady up and down the badger setts of England and Wales, if that is all right with her, but I will speak to amendment 1, which stands in my name. I will do so, with the greatest of respect, in a slightly less aggressive way than her, although there is nothing wrong with aggression when one has something decent to say. I must declare an interest, as is indicated on the Order Paper, because I am a patron of Unlock, the charity that seeks to help people with convictions, and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. Both positions are unpaid.

I became interested in prison issues, the rehabilitation of offenders and so on when the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, appointed me in the middle of the last decade as shadow Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation. As a consequence of that appointment, I visited about 65 of the 140 or so prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units throughout England and Wales. It became apparent to me—it was not a new idea, in that others had discovered it previously—that one of the things that contributes to the high levels of reoffending among those people who have been sent to prison and come out again, particularly among youngsters, is that they do not have a job or somewhere settled to stay, and that they have, to put it loosely, relationship problems. If we can do something to help people to form strong, stable relationships with families, partners or others, and if we can find them somewhere stable to stay and live, and if we can help them to get training or work, the chances that they will reoffend and go back to prison are very much reduced.

As a consequence of the voyage of discovery that I went on from 2005 or so until I was appointed shadow Attorney-General in 2009, I wrote a paper called “Prisons with a Purpose”. I hope that the Secretary of State for Justice—I see his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), sitting in his place to my left—is picking up many of the ideas that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) pushed forward in that period of opposition.

I suppose it is not a surprise that I have become attached to the Prison Reform Trust and to Unlock, but in speaking to my amendment 1, which is long—it is set out on page 5 of the amendment paper—I invite the Government to have a little think about the disqualification or waiver procedure that applies to people with criminal records, either in so far as they may be trustees of charities that have an interest in looking after ex-offenders, or in so far as they may be employees of those charities.

I hope that the framework of the amendment is clear in itself but, if I may—I will be as quick as I can because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and other right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope he and the House will forgive me if I take a little time in setting out what I intend to do. I should confess at the outset that I am very grateful to the Prison Reform Trust in assisting me in preparing for today’s debate.

The purpose of my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, before clause 9 comes into force, a report on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees of, or who are employed by, charities that work with or employ ex-offenders. I intend to urge the Government to provide us with further clarification of the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records and charities that work with or employ ex-offenders. The amendment also provides an opportunity for the Minister to outline in more detail how he and his Department intend to conduct the review of the waiver process to ensure that people with criminal records who are existing employees or charitable trustees, or who are seeking or intend to seek employment or a trusteeship in a charity, are not unfairly discriminated against.

Clause 9 and the policy behind it are entirely worthy and understandable. We clearly do not want people who are engaged in terrorism to be using charities to move money around or to hide their outrageous behaviour; that is not controversial, but one problem might be the unintended consequence of the clause on people whom the Government may not want to impact. One has only to read out clause 9(5) to realise that someone who comes within

“Part 1 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010…or…the Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011”

is not someone whom we want to be involved in charities. That is not a problem, but I am concerned about the unintended consequence of that perfectly understandable and worthwhile clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

We probably know more about Roman law than trust law from our time at university, but as I recall, it was indeed in 1602 and thereafter, during James I’s time, that charitable heads came into play. That is not unimportant to the debate. There has been a lot of radical change quite recently, which has upset the very essence of what charities should be about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) pointed out.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Clearly, I need to take my right hon. Friend around with me in a knapsack, particularly when I am speaking in the Market Harborough Conservative club. He is just the chap they want to hear more from.

To return to the serious point we are discussing, a longer period to enable charities, the Charity Commission and the Government to work out how best to move forward with the clause 9 provisions would be to the advantage of all. That would enable us to get rid of any glitches and look out for any Heffalump traps that may be lying there for the unwary.

My hon. Friend the Minister was very kind and met me in his Department with his officials on Tuesday 19 January. It came across to me that he was in listening mode and that the Government are very likely to move towards me to some extent. If he does, that would be very helpful. If he is able to say so on the Floor of the House, that would be even more helpful. That would enable me to do what I promised him and not press my amendment to a Division. I am here to try to produce clarity and better legislation. If he and I can do that together, in partnership, then everybody goes home happier.

I would like to touch briefly on a number of the paragraphs in my amendment. There are 11 areas specified. I appreciate that the Government have tabled their own amendment, which to some rather limited extent alleviates some of my concerns, but to be honest with my hon. Friend the Minister, the Government will need to go a little bit further than amendment 3 if all the concerns the charities I speak for, or have some connection with, are not to have their worries continue.

Subsection 23(a) deals with the first problem area:

“the number of people employed by charities who will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to cover senior management positions”.

For reasons of time only, I will not set out extensively the arguments that apply here, but we are concerned about an absence of detail so far expressed in Committee or in any other public pronouncements made by the Government in relation to this particular impact. I urge the Government to do a bit of work to see how many people employed by charities will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework insofar as it relates to senior management positions.

Subsection 23(b) relates to

“the number of people who are trustees of, or employed by, charities who will be affected by the extension of the list”.

Again, will the Government please have a think about this and recognise that it is not a negligible problem? This is not just a whinge from a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. This is quite an issue, which needs to be thought about. The impact of clause 9 needs to be considered in co-operation with the charities and the Charity Commission, so we can get this right for the long term.

I will provide just one example in relation to paragraph (b): a glitch caused by an unwitting failure to consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as reformed in 2014. Under the 2014 amendments to the 1974 Act, rehabilitation periods for a convicted person were to some extent reduced. For example, an individual convicted of a sexual assault is sentenced to three years in prison. Assuming the individual does not reoffend, that conviction will become spent seven years after the end of the sentence. However, they will remain subject to the notification requirements indefinitely, with a right to review after 15 years. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the individual would automatically be disqualified from being a trustee for at least 15 years and potentially for the rest of their life. Under the 1974 Act, as amended, once an individual has been convicted, if they remain conviction-free for a defined period of time they are legally recognised as being rehabilitated. That is just a simple discrete example of where the Government, the Charity Commission and the charities sector need to get together and see how best to move forward.

Subsection 23(c) relates to

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are seeking, or intend to seek, employment in the charitable sector, including on their recruitment, retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement”.

I made this point in general at the outset of my remarks. The one thing we, as people interested in reducing recidivism, need to concentrate on is getting people back to work, or getting people into work—of course, many people in prison have never been in work. If we want to get them back or into work, we need to reduce the barriers to that as sensibly as we can.

Subsection 23(d) relates to



“the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are currently employed in the charitable sector, including on their retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement”.

That is the same point, but with a different shade.

Subsection 23(e) deals with

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees or employees of charities which are partners in, or are contracted by, community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and its impact on the successful running of those organisations”.

In line with Government policy under the coalition Government in the previous Parliament, community rehabilitation companies have been set up. They are contracting with charities to deliver rehabilitation and probation services. It would be a pity if good policy was undermined by making it much more difficult for ex-offenders to work with more recent offenders in order to rehabilitate them. Again, we need to think very carefully and collectively about that.

Subsection 23(f) deals with

“the effectiveness of the existing waiver process provided for under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011”.

Charities have significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of the existing waiver application process and the ability of the Charity Commission to administer the additional applications that will result from the introduction of the new framework without any additional resources. In the past six years, the Charity Commission processed only six waiver applications. The Government suggest that this shows it is effective in granting waivers but that fails to recognise the disproportionately low numbers of waiver applications compared with the number of trustee positions and the estimated number of people with unspent convictions for existing disqualifying offences. Once one has expressed the point, I hope its obviousness becomes clear to the Government. Again, the charities I speak for, the Charity Commission and the Government need to sit around a table and thrash out how best to deal with that. As we say, six to 12 months is not long enough for that to be achieved.

Subsection 23(g) deals with

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on the number of applications for waivers to the Charity Commission”.

It must follow, surely, that the extended disqualification framework is highly likely to increase the number of waiver applications, not simply as a result of the extension but of an increased awareness of the framework that will inevitably flow from the production of guidance and general awareness raising. The Government, however, have not provided any assessment of a likely increase in waiver applications as a result of the extension of the disqualification framework. More troubling is that the Minister has confirmed that no additional resources will be provided to the Charity Commission to administer the waiver application process. The obvious inference is that the process will slow down and become more sclerotic. I hope it will not, but let us discuss the matter and iron out the problem in advance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reaffirm some of the concerns expressed in Committee that have not been addressed, but which will be addressed by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).

I have had a long association with several different charities in a professional context, as a member of staff, as a volunteer and as a donor, whether through a regular standing order or money in the tin. Going back to earlier comments, I think that people know what they are signing up to when they support charities, whether it is a charity’s campaigning effectiveness or its direct work with beneficiaries. We ought to pay tribute to the remarkable work that our large and diverse voluntary sector does, from the largest to the smallest of charities.

In my constituency, we have a variety, from Barnardo’s, headquartered in Barkingside, through to smaller branches, such as the Barkingside branch of the Royal British Legion. There are also other charities such as Hopes and Dreams, set up by volunteers to help children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions to enjoy experiences that enrich their lives at a difficult moment for them and their families. These are remarkable people doing remarkable work.

It is disappointing, therefore, that the voluntary sector, particularly in recent times, has been in the headlines for the wrong reasons and for what I would describe as the misdemeanours of the few, however large and significant they might be. It is also disappointing to hear the unnecessary condemnation of far too many. Hon. Members and others in the media have used intemperate language to bash a charity sector that does a remarkable amount of good and which should be cherished and celebrated, not derided and denigrated.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I am concerned that the warnings mechanism in the Bill does not carry a right of appeal. When I was a chief executive of a charity, had I received a warning from the Charity Commission for any aspect of our work, I would have taken it very seriously, and I would have expected trustees to take it very seriously too, yet we have heard in Committee and on Report today that the commission may issue warnings for what are relatively minor infringements—I even hesitate to use the word “offences” —of guidance. There is a difference between best practice and regulation. Of course, we expect charities to uphold the letter of the law, but there is also a great deal of best practice out there, and we should not necessarily be slapping warnings on charities for falling short of best practice, when a more informal route might result in a better outcome.

I particularly welcome the new clause dealing with the disposal of assets. In Committee, we talked about the origins of the Government’s proposals around what might be described as the disposal of assets. We were talking about the seizure of assets, particularly in relation to their proposals for housing associations and right to buy. I am happy that housing associations and the Government are moving forward on the basis of agreement, but we should be in no doubt about how the Government reached that position: not through negotiation or evidence-based argument, but through threats, bullying and the cajoling of housing associations, with the threat that if they did not comply and work with the Government on right to buy, the latter would simply legislate for it. To me, that seems to go against the very essence of the Charitable Uses Act—sometimes referred to as Elizabeth’s law—which was referred to earlier. Indeed, I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field): it was, in fact, an Act of 1601, and I would not want people to review the record and find that they were inadvertently misled on this issue.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Is the hon. Gentleman angling for an invitation to the Market Harborough Conservative club?

[Wes Streeting]

What a kind invitation. Were the Conservative majority in Harborough slightly more marginal, I would be happy to visit on many occasions, but will have to pass this time and focus on matters closer to home and my majority.

Going back to the Charitable Uses Act of 1601, there is a long established principle that donations, bequests and legacies given to charities really ought to be used for the purpose that their donors intended. What my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has set out in new clause 2 would give people the confidence that they could donate to charities or leave bequests to them knowing full well that independent charities would not be compelled

“to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes.”

I therefore strongly endorse new clause 2, and I am glad she has tabled it for discussion this afternoon.

The final area I want to focus on is campaigning. As someone who has been a charity campaigner—both professionally and through my voluntary contributions to the work of charities—this is an issue I feel strongly about. As I said in my earlier intervention, I am still at a loss to understand the problem that the gagging law was trying to solve, because Charity Commission guidance has always been clear that charities cannot campaign for party political purposes and certainly cannot use charitable funds for the purposes of party political campaigning. It would therefore be completely unlawful for a charity to say around a general election, “We completely disagree with the Conservative party’s policy on x, and would therefore encourage you to vote for one of the other parties,” or, “The Labour party policy on y is inconsistent with the views of the charity, and therefore you should vote for another political party.”

What has always been perfectly in order and, I would argue, desirable is for charities to be an effective voice for civil society and to ensure when policy is up for debate, whether during our deliberations in this House, in one of the devolved Parliaments or Assembly, or in local authorities up and down the country, that they can draw on their wisdom and experience, and the evidence base they gather—through desk research, commissioned research or, more often than not, their direct experience of working with their beneficiaries—to make sure that decision makers are well informed.

That is a real benefit to our democracy, and I am afraid that the cries from those on the Government Benches—that this change has not had a chilling effect—are simply untrue and unfounded. Whereas the Conservative party is usually found in this Chamber arguing against red tape, the gagging law has had completely the opposite effect. Indeed, I am aware of campaigners and finance officers in charities having to sit there with their spreadsheets prior to the last general election and try to calculate whether something would be a constituency spend or a national spend, whether a collaboration with other charity partners would be workable within the law or where spending would be apportioned. I am afraid that the gagging law has imposed real and unnecessary burdens on charities. If people are concerned about how charities are spending their money, they should certainly be more concerned about the amount of time and money they might spend complying with unnecessary Government regulation than they should ever be concerned about whether they are sending briefings to Members of Parliament or asking parliamentary candidates to sign up to specific pledges or causes.

It really sticks in the throat that lots of Members of Parliament are very happy to turn up to photo ops at their party conferences or out in their constituencies with the Guide Dogs or children at a local youth club, or to go along and see all the great work an animal rights charity does—they are happy to issue press releases and enjoy the photographs—but when those charities come back to talk about the impact of their voting record or public policy they have supported or might consider supporting, suddenly this is considered a huge inconvenience or, even worse, people want to argue that it is illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I can see the trap that the hon. Gentleman is setting for me, and I am not going to walk into it. I have further comments to make on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, but I thank him for his attempt, lame though it was.

Some people who are currently trustees or senior managers will be caught by the extension of the disqualification provisions. Although the number of waiver applications is likely to increase, we do not think that a significant number of people will be affected by the changes. I would be surprised if it ran to more than the low hundreds, based on the commission’s experience under the existing disqualification regime.

I recognise the concerns that have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am happy to commit to producing a report on our assessment of the impact of the disqualification changes. I will deposit it in the Library of the House before the commencement of the automatic disqualification provisions in clause 9. I cannot promise that we will cover every point listed in amendment 1, but I will ensure that we provide a very detailed assessment, as he has requested.

I want to ensure that the disqualification powers in the Bill protect charities from individuals who present a known risk, while at the same time providing for the rehabilitation of offenders and a way back into charity trusteeship or senior management on a case-by-case basis. That strikes me as both fair and proportionate.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I thank my hon. Friend for his very welcome assurances. I much look forward to the discussions that will follow this debate, as do those I have been speaking with and for today.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those kind words. We will certainly work very closely with those organisations.

Amendment 13 seeks to empower the Charity Commission to disqualify several trustees in cases of collective failure. In Committee, I explained that the Charity Commission already has the power to act in such circumstances and, indeed, has done so in cases relating to systemic governance issues. There is no reason why the Charity Commission could not take action against all the trustees of a charity where it was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the principles of best regulatory practice to do so. For that reason, I do not support amendment 13.

Amendment 14 would give the Charity Commission the job of consulting on and publishing guidance on how it assesses “unfitness” in relation to the power to disqualify, as set out in clause 10. We discussed a similar amendment in Committee and, although I agree with its intended effect, I do not believe that it is necessary. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, the Charity Commission published a well-received document setting out its initial thoughts on how it would exercise the disqualification power. The document highlights the broad categories that the commission would consider, namely honesty and integrity, competence and credibility. It gives various examples of the sorts of specific conduct that it would take into account. I explained a number of those examples in Committee and do not propose to repeat them today.

The Charity Commission has further committed to develop and consult on its initial thinking in draft guidance on how it would operate the power to disqualify. All of that will happen before the power to disqualify is commenced. As with any commission guidance, it will be kept under regular review to reflect changes in legislation or tribunal findings. On that basis, I do not see that amendment 14 is necessary.

Amendment 15 was previously proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Redcar. The Charity Commission already considers only conduct that is “relevant and serious”. If it were to take account of other conduct, I would expect any resulting disqualification order to be thrown out by the charity tribunal on appeal. Besides that, the amendment should not be passed because the inclusion of the words “relevant and serious” in condition F would pose potential unintended consequences.

Including those words in the disqualification power could cast doubt on all the Commission’s other powers that do not contain them. The exercise of those other powers, such as the power to remove a charity trustee or the power to direct a charity, already depends on conduct that is both relevant and serious, even though those words are not included in the criteria for exercising the powers. I do not want there to be the risk that the other powers could be interpreted as not requiring relevant or serious conduct in order to be exercised. Although I understand and sympathise with the aims of amendment 15, I hope the House will understand why I do not believe that it is necessary and how it could inadvertently reduce the bar for the exercise of the commission’s other powers, which I would not support.

Amendment 5 is another relatively modest Government amendment that was suggested to us by rehabilitation charities. As I said in relation to the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, we are keen to work with rehabilitation charities to ensure that the Bill does not undermine their important work.

To make a disqualification order against a person, the Charity Commission will have to meet one of six conditions, from A through to F, alongside a number of other things. Condition B is that the individual has been convicted outside the UK of an offence against a charity or involving the administration of a charity which, had it happened in the UK, would have automatically disqualified the individual. As it stands, the commission can take into account only an overseas conviction that is not spent under the law of the territory where the conviction took place. It was pointed out to me that it would be fairer and more proportionate if the limitation related to the UK rehabilitation period for an equivalent UK sentence, rather than the rehabilitation period of the overseas jurisdiction. I agree that that would be more proportionate, and amendment 5 makes the necessary change.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) ingeniously managed to speak about independent schools. He made an important point about the variety of ways in which independent schools provide public benefit. There is not one single way to achieve public benefit and the Charity Commission would certainly not direct any independent school that there was.

New clause 2, proposed by the hon. Member for Redcar, represents an attempt to reinsert a provision that the Government removed in Committee. Let me explain why the Government oppose it. It was described by several peers in the other place as sending a signal of opposition to the Government’s plans to legislate to extend the right to buy to tenants of housing associations. That message has been received, considered and responded to. Extending the right to buy to tenants of housing associations is a manifesto pledge on which the Government were elected and are committed to deliver. It will mean that up to 1.3 million more families in England get the chance to own their own home while at the same time ensuring the replacement of housing stock.

We listened to the concerns raised. Rather than legislating to implement the policy, we reached a voluntary agreement with housing associations which will implement the policy while protecting the independence of housing associations.