Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, we have had some healthy debates about the independence of the Charity Commission. As was made clear a few minutes ago, we had debate on that very provision in Committee, but our thinking has not changed. The Bill preserves the Charity Commission’s status as a non-ministerial government department, and this provision flows from that. The Charity Commission already has delegated authority on behalf of the Minister for the Civil Service to determine the number and grading of posts—with the exception of senior civil servants—and the terms and conditions of employment. That is in so far as they relate to the classification of staff—with the exception of those in the senior Civil Service—and remuneration, with the same exception, although here there is very broad scope for discretion. It also relates to allowances, expenses, holidays, hours of work and attendance, part-time and other working arrangements, performance, promotions, retirement age—again, with the exception of the senior Civil Service—redundancy, and the re-deployment of staff within the Home Civil Service. All those things are delegated in terms of authority to the Charity Commission. The commission, along with other non-ministerial government departments, has already delegated authority to determine the terms and conditions of its staff without referral to the Minister. That means that the commission is required only to agree the overall pay remit with the Treasury and to employ the right mix of staff to deliver its objectives. As with other departments, the commission would require approval of the broad framework within which it can take detailed decisions on terms and conditions of service. It is a broad approval. That has worked extremely well, and the commission has made good use of that significant flexibility and independence to recruit and retain good-quality staff. Paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1 brings members of staff of the commission within the Home Civil Service. It is a common provision in other legislation that establishes non-ministerial government departments, and works well with, for example, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, the Food Standards Act 1999 or the Land Registration Act 2002. They all do the same for their staff. The amendment would require the staff of the commission to be reclassified outside the Home Civil Service. That is the effect of the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords opposite to think about that extremely carefully. That would create problems with such staff transferring to and from other departments, and it could affect their career options. It could also seriously affect the pension position of staff. The Government have decided that the most appropriate status for the commission remains that of a non-ministerial department—not least because no suitable alternative had been identified from other quarters. It works well for the Revenue, and in food standards and land registration. However, as I said in Committee, Clause 70 gives us the opportunity for the commission’s status to be considered as part of a review of the impact of the legislation. I made that clear the last time we debated this. A person must be appointed to carry out the review within five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and a copy of the report produced as a result of the review must be laid before Parliament. It may well be that as a result of that review some alternative status for the Charity Commission can be identified. We remain of the view that, for as long as it remains a non-ministerial department staffed by civil servants, it is essential that the Government retain some broad control of staff terms and conditions of service. That is exactly what I set out earlier in my explanation. If noble Lords opposite are tempted to press the amendment, they need to take careful cognisance of what I said, particularly about the impact on staff and their classification and career opportunities. They also need to take careful account of the impact that it would have more broadly. This is a dangerous amendment; we cannot support it. I urge noble Lords who are tempted to support it to rethink their position. I ask this important question—have noble Lords who are considering pressing the amendment given any thought at all to consulting with those it might affect? If they did, they would find that those staff might find it increasingly difficult to live with. It is not the purpose for which they entered their current employment. To be transferred in a way that the amendment might suggest could have very serious consequences indeed.