Charities Bill [HL]

I have listened very carefully to the comments of the three noble Lords who have supported the amendment. We are not a million miles apart in what we expect the law to do. However, we have to consider carefully what receiver and manager appointments are all about and what they are a part of. In general terms, I am sure that noble Lords will accept that in most cases—and these cases do not arise very often, thankfully—this approach is adopted for very good reasons. When the Bill was in Grand Committee during the last Session I said that the appointment of a receiver and a manager—to be known as an ““interim manager”” under the Bill—is action undertaken by the commission only where it is absolutely necessary and in the bests interests of the charity to do so. It ought to be remembered that in order to appoint a receiver and manager under Section 18(1)(vi) and in   accordance with Section 19 of the 1993 Act, the   commission must first open an inquiry under Section 8 of that Act. It must have good reason to do so, particularly now that the Bill places it under a duty to carry out its functions with due regard to the principles of what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, described as best regulatory practice, which is what it should be. The grounds on which the commission can make such a decision to appoint a receiver and manager are limited to cases where the commission is satisfied that there is or has been misconduct or mismanagement—both of which are pretty profound for any charitable organisation to suffer—in the administration of the   charity, or that it is necessary or desirable to act for the purposes of protecting the property or assets of the charity, or securing the charity’s property for the proper application of the charity’s purposes. As I said, such cases are rare. In some cases notification and giving the reasons for exercising the power would not be in the best interests of the charity, particularly where assets are at risk. We discussed those sets of circumstances in earlier debates. Except when it would prejudice an inquiry into a charity, it is the commission’s usual practice to inform the trustees within a reasonable time-frame why it has taken any significant action using its powers of investigation and remedy. In most cases, the commission will advise the trustees and take them carefully through the process, explaining exactly why the strategy has been adopted.