Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 36:"Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause—"    ““REASONS FOR APPOINTING A RECEIVER/MANAGER OF A CHARITY    In section 19 of the 1993 Act, after subsection (1), insert— ““(1A)   Within seven days of an appointment under subsection (1), the Commission must communicate in writing to— (a)   the persons who are or claim to be the charity trustees of the institution concerned, and (b)   (if a body corporate) the institution which is the subject of such an appointment; the reasons why they consider such an appointment necessary and appropriate.”””” The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to insert a further new clause at the same point in the Bill. The proposed new clause is headed,"““Reasons for appointing a receiver/manager of a charity””." I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord   Phillips, who, I am sure, will speak much more ably to this than I shall be able to. The amendment has been prepared with the advice of the Charity Law Association. The power to appoint a receiver and manager of a charity is arguably the most contentious of all the powers available to the commission after it has opened an inquiry into a charity. Recent cases such as that of the Kingsway International Christian Centre have indicated how contentious this step is, with the supporters and trustees of charities feeling that ““their”” charity has been taken away from their control. Accordingly, in accordance with the principles of best regulation, it is suggested that the commission should be required to communicate in writing the reasons why they thought it appropriate to make an appointment of a receiver and manager. The power to make such an appointment, in any event, only arises under Section 18 of the Charities Act 1993 where, at any time after the commission has opened a Section 8 inquiry, the commission is satisfied that,"““there is or has been any misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity . . .  or that it is necessary or desirable to act for the purpose of protecting the property of the charity or securing a proper application for the purposes of the charity of that property or of property coming to the charity””." It would be helpful and assist transparency if the commission could be required to explain why it has taken   such a potentially very serious step. It also ticks an   important box to which we have regularly referred   regarding what should be one of the main concerns of the commission—that is, to ensure continuing communication between the commission and the charitable entities that it regulates. If the Bill ensures that the commission has full accountability and interaction with the third sector, it will have achieved a major part of its purpose. I beg to move.