Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I still have to say that the situation is not sufficiently covered in the amendment, although I accept what the noble Lord said, that this is to get the issue into play, perhaps for Third Reading. Although the charity interest company—the so-called ““CIC””—puts a lock on the assets, it has a huge hole in it, which was raised when the Bill was passed, but the Government refused to do anything about it: there is no limit at all under that format for the remuneration that can paid, and the bonuses drawn out, by the directors of the entity. The London Clinic, for example, is a charity, but I am not aware other than that it charges top whack for services it renders its patients, and that it remunerates top whack to consultants who perform operations there. I am not sure where the London Clinic would go under the noble Lord’s formulation. At the moment, the only charitable endeavour that it seems to me to fulfil is based upon the assumption that anything done of a medical nature is ipso facto charitable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was criticising the Government for moving to a public benefit test for education, although I do not agree with him. I am trying to help the House and to get the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, if and when he comes back with this, to take account of some of the points I have made. The provision could provide a coach and horses to drive through the net of charity assets, which is hugely important. I am sure he will agree that the public, if they have been donating regularly to a charity out of their own pockets, will not be impressed when after five years the trustees decide that it is no longer practicable to run the charity in the way they want and then shove the lot into a non-charitable entity and become paid trustees. There is no limit with a CIC on the payment of trustees so they could then remunerate themselves and do so handsomely.