Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 53:"Page 98, line 4, leave out ““shall”” and insert ““may””" The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 53 is grouped with Amendment No. 54, which is also in my name. This goes back to a debate we had in Committee before the election. The amendment emanates from the Charity Law Association. I received a letter from it which contains a very succinct explanation of why these two amendments are needed. It states:"““We would also be grateful if you would press to have the CIO provisions amended so that the vehicle is available in a non-member form, with a single tier of governance. As you are aware, it was the intention of those who first proposed the CIO that it should be available in both member and non-member forms. If I recall rightly, the reasons for rejecting a similar amendment last time the Bill was in Committee, were all to do with the fact that companies have members. Surely, if we are creating a new form, this is irrelevant””." I believe that that is so. It is also fair to say that at the back of the Government’s scepticism about these two amendments was the fact that they would reverberate through the Companies Act and through the provisions relating to the CIOs. There is no doubt about that, but I press them none the less. It is also true, as the quote I gave from the   Charity Law Association makes clear, that my colleagues Stephen Lloyd and Roger Warren Evans, who were the two authors of the CIO as a concept, were extremely keen that the CIO should not have to have a membership. One should consider that the majority of CIOs by conversion will go from trusts into the CIO format because it is a light-form corporate vehicle, which some trusts will find much more attractive than going the route of a company limited by guarantee. Of course that is the very point of the CIO—it is a light format with a less bureaucratic overburden. Trusts that convert into the CIOs are themselves single-cell organisms and will want to remain single-cell organisms. I think that the point I made last time is valid. Why   put a trust converting into a CIO to the trouble and expense of creating the coterminosity between membership and membership of the governing body which is available by fiddling with the articles and memorandum? It is do-able, but it is a complete waste of time, money and energy, and it ends up being much more complicated. I do not see any valid reason why   this should not be incorporated. I tabled two sample amendments because I readily accept that there will be a whole series of subsequent or consequent amendments, but we have until 10 October to work those out. I hope very much that the Minister will this time think better of his former ways. I beg to move.