Charities Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord   Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has, as usual, put the case succinctly and clearly. The only point I wish to make in addition is to emphasise what has been said about the appointment of receivers and managers to a charity, which can be utterly devastating. There have been a number of examples over the past two years of charities which have suffered—and I use the term advisedly—a financial disadvantage consequent upon the appointment of a receiver and manager—and not only in terms of their fees, but generally—in excess of seven figures. As all the costs have to come from the charity’s assets, it can completely derail a charity’s purposes and activities. Of course, the commission will not put in a receiver and manager unless it believes that there are good and weighty grounds why that should be done in the interests of the charity. None the less, to take that step without the trustees and charity knowing why it is being taken is rather like arresting someone and taking him before a court without telling him of what crime he is accused. This is the civil equivalent of someone charged with a criminal offence knowing what it is all about. It is not as technical as that, but the amendment would give the trustees the ability to adjudge what it is that the receiver or manager will be particularly looking at. It is a thoroughly sensible and fair amendment. Given the spirit with which the Government have accepted earlier amendments, I hope that they will accept this one in principle if not in terms of its wording.