My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the careful consideration he has given to the amendment. Clearly, for those of us who are not blessed with a law degree, endowment and permanent endowment is tricky territory.
I want to make two comments in response. He stated that the Charity Commission makes no presumption as to endowment. That may be the case, but the law firms which have contacted us do not see it that way. Therefore, at least a couple of the firms experienced in charity law in a way that I am not believe that, in practice, the Charity Commission does not operate in the even-handed, open way the Minister’s remarks suggested.
There has been a breakdown of communication, if not worse, between some of the experts in the field and the Charity Commission. The second point was that he talked about the moving of the presumption, which is absolutely right—the amendment seeks to move from half full to half empty, depending on which way one looks at it. That was right and indeed was the purpose behind the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, with his usual forensic skill tore into this on at least three counts. The first question was the purposes of the Act. The purpose was that it should apply in general charity law. I believed that it did, but the noble Lord is of course expert and will tell me that that will not be the case. The second question was about the use of the word ““intention””. As he has heard me say many times before, I have not had the benefit of a legal training. I was assured that the use of the word ““intention”” would not give rise to the sort of problems that he described. I turn to past gifts—permanent endowment. The amendment was intended to move the issue from half full to half empty, except where specific instructions have been given and specific wishes expressed in the past, when the donation was originally made.
I accept that those are tricky and difficult areas. We have had some important questions from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Minister laid out the Govenrment’s position clearly. I will talk to those who have forgotten more about permanent endowment than I will ever know and reserve the right to bring back the amendment if there is still an issue that should be dealt with. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved. ]
Clause 43 [Merger of charities]:
Charities Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Charities Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c709-10 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:11:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267643
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267643
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267643