Charities Bill [HL]

I am coming to that. The noble Lord went on to say that they will be told at the Beginning, or quickly, unless there is a good reason otherwise. That is the point. I would concede that this amendment should have latitude for the commission not to inform the trustees of the company if they would be prejudiced to the appointment of the receiver and manager in so doing. Amendment No. 39, which we are coming to in a minute, states:"““Unless to do so would prejudice the purpose of the order concerned””." If one had a similar caveat here, one has the spirit of the amendment in a way that meets the one good point that the Minister is making. However, it is not fair that we have been driven to legislating detailed statutory stuff in relation to charity law with all the rights on the one side. We have the entitlement of the commission to do this and that, how it does it and why it does it, but when it comes to the issue of the protection of the trustees of the charity we say, ““Well don’t worry old chap because normally this is what we do””. At this juncture in the Bill, which runs through vast numbers of pages and schedules, the rights of the trustee and the charity need to be expressly included. This is not a ““way out”” right. It is fundamental that the trustees should know what is alleged against them unless telling them would, to give the Minister’s example, endanger charitable assets. I agree that there   is not much distance between the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, myself and the Minister, provided that that change can be made. It is obvious that we cannot do it here and now, but there is no reason why it should not be done prior to the next stage.