My Lords, I support the probing questions of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. At several stages in our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we became anxious about the breadth and vagueness of the powers which it bestows on the Charity Commission. These concerns were reinforced by a letter from the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Dr Hywel Francis MP, in which he said:
“In the absence of further definition in the Bill itself, or other guidance, such broad and vague language significantly increases the power of the Commission and provides insufficient certainty to both individual trustees and charities about the possible consequences of their conduct”.
At each stage, when we had these concerns, we looked carefully at the evidence and concluded, as noble Lords will see from the report, that the powers were indeed justified in that they were likely to help to increase public trust and confidence in charities.
However, when it came to the inclusion of terrorism offences, as my noble friend has indicated, we received evidence that disturbed us. As noble Lords will know from our report, a number of witnesses expressed concerns over the difficulties presented by terrorism legislation in relation to the operational requirements of NGOs in challenging circumstances overseas. They were particularly concerned about charities operating in dangerous parts of the world for humanitarian purposes. My noble friend referred to the chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum, Dr Hany El-Banna, who told us that he thought counterterrorism legislation was,
“preventing us from having access to the neediest people”.
David Anderson QC, the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has already been referred to, said concepts such as the provision of “indirect support” to terrorist organisations had,
“an impact on humanitarian charities, particularly when working abroad and when working in areas that are under the de facto control of a proscribed or designated group”.
He went on to say that charities operating in these areas ran the risk of falling foul of terrorism law by, for example, delivering relief to a general population which might include individuals or groups designated as terrorists. He suggested that an increased risk could deter charities and their trustees from delivering humanitarian support. Bond, the umbrella group, went on to suggest, in our words, that,
“the withdrawal of banking services exposed donor assets to greater risk because international NGOs had no option other than to use less secure money service bureaux or to carry sums of cash across borders”.
Nothing in what I have said undermines the need to deal with terrorism offences and to address legitimate concerns about the abuse of charitable funds in connection with terrorism. It does, however, raise questions about the uncertainty surrounding the application of terrorism legislation when it comes to charities operating in dangerous circumstances overseas. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee was offered the examples of Australia and New Zealand as places where Governments had addressed this issue and where specific exceptions in law existed to meet this point. We thought that this was worth pursuing, but when we raised it with the Minister for Civil Society, he said it fell outside his remit and was essentially a matter for the Home Office. He went on to say that it could be,
“chasing a problem that does not exist”,
since,
“no one has been prosecuted”.
I do not think that that is good enough. Clearly these charities are expressing real anxieties about the risks they might face and about the chilling effect of this legislation. The difficulties facing these charities are already enormous in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya and Somalia, among other places. If it is possible to provide them with greater certainty in pursuing their important work and overcome this worrying and chilling effect, then we should try to do that.
Like my noble friend, I was disappointed with the Government’s response. The Government recognise that there are concerns, but points only to the problems of creating loopholes without even addressing the suggestion that they might look at the examples of Australia and New Zealand to see whether and how those countries have overcome this danger. I ask the Minister to think again and at least to consider whether other countries can provide some inspiration about whether there are ways to provide greater legal certainty.
Finally, the Government have said they will draw to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions our recommendation to publish guidance. I hope they will agree to do rather more than that and to put their weight behind the need for guidance to address the current uncertainty, which was revealed in our evidence and which the Government acknowledge.