REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Date01 January 1976
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1976.tb01444.x
Published date01 January 1976
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
1OTH
REPORT
FROM
THE
EXPENDITURE
COMMIITEE,
1974-75
CHARITY
COMMISSIONERS
AND
THEIR
ACCOUNTABILITY
Introduction: The Charity Law Reform Debate
Neither the title of this report, nor the press publicity given to it
give the full flavour of what is contained within it. In essence it is
the latest stage in the long-standing debate
on
the whole question of
charity law reform. This has been advocated by legal academics,$
official reports,‘ pressure groups,S judges and
in
various articles
in the Press.’ Many of the issues raised in the foregoing were drawn
together and discussed further by Benedict Nightingale in his book,
Chorities.
Additional fuel for the discussion will be provided when
Lord Goodman’s Committee rep0rts.O It hardly needs stating that
within this welter of writing there is little consensus as to what should
be done, apart from a fairly widespread feeling that something
should be done. The issue to be examined in this note is what, if
anything, the Expenditure Committee has added to the debate.
Their report is divided into two parts. Part One (paras.
1-23)
contains a brief description of the existing definition
of
charity, the
history of charity, and the work of the Charity Commissioners,
together with a word on the Ministerial responsibility, such as it
is,
exercised by the Home Secretary.
Part Two, which comprises the bulk of the report (paras.
24-136),
surveys the many criticisms of the present law and work of the
Charity Commissioners made by witnesses before the Committee,”
1
H.C.
495411974-75
(H.M.S.O.,
1979,
henceforth cited as
‘’
Reporr.”
2
For example, “More pressure
on
schools’ charity
status
likely,”
The Times,
September
25. 1975.
3
Bentwlch,
‘‘
The Wilderness
of
Legal Charity
(1933) 49
L.Q.R.
520;
Brunyatq:
Legal Deflnition of Charity
(1945) 61
L.Q.R.
268;
Keeton,
‘‘
Tho
Charity Muddle.
Chap.
18
in
Modern Development
of
rhe Law
of
Trusrs
(Belfast,
1971).
See also
Keeton and Sheridan,
Modern Law
of
Chariries
(2nd ed., Belfast,
1971).
4
Low
and Practice Relating
ro
Charitable Trusrs
(Nathan Committee Report),
Cmd.
8710, 1952;
Royal Commission
on
Taxation
of
Profits
and Income
(Radcliffe
Report), Cmd.
9474, 1955;
see also
Reporr
of
Royal Commission
on
rhe Income Tax,
B.P.P.
1920.
Vol. XVIII.
5
Either individual bodies, such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, or
the reccntly formed Charity Law Reform Committee, whose two publlshed reports are
reprinted in the Volume
of
Evidence
to
the Expenditure Committee.
6
e.g.
Foster
J.
in
Incorporated Council
for
Law Reporting
v.
AIrorney-General
[
19711 2
W.L.R. at p.
564
said:
‘*
It
is timc this branch
of
the law was reconsidered,
rationalised and modernlsed.”
Cf.
Sachs L.J. in the appeal to the same
case,
who said
119731 3
W.L.R. at
p.
868:
“Any [new] statutory deflnition might well merely
produce
a
fresh spate
of
litigation and provide a set of undesirable artificial
distinctions
.
.
.”
Reccnt examples include
Building
a
sense of justice
on
charitable foundations.”
The Times,
April
17, 1974;
Modernizing Charities,”
The Times,
August
12. 1974;
How
to
Change the Law
on
Charitics,”
The Observer,
January
26, 1975.
Allen Lane, the Penguin Press, London,
1973.
9
Committee of Inquiry established in
1974
by
the National Council of Social
Service.
10
These are contained in the extremely useful 390-page
Volume
of
Minutes
of
Evidence and Appendices,
H.C.
495-111 1974-75,
henceforth cited as
Evidence.”
77
78
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 39
and comes up with a large number of proposals for reform. It is on
this section of the report (and some of the related evidence) that
this note concentrates.
As
already suggested the fundamental problem with charity law
reform is to decide exactly what needs reforming. The Expenditure
Committee argues that there are at present two main points on
which action should be taken:
(i) the need for
a
proper legal definition of charity; and
But having drawn this distinction, it may be noted that most of
their
27
recommendations relate to head (ii) and only four (nos.
1,
2,
3
and 6) relate to head (i). Furthermore they are presented
in an extremely confused way. They will be discussed here in
reverse order.
(ii) the need for improved machinery.”
l1
The Need
for
Improved Machinery
Under this head, the Committee makes a large number of points
which relate to the following themes:
(a)
Flexibility.
The Expenditure Committee first endorses the view
of Lord Beveridge
l2:
Individuals should be able to
.
. .
endow
experiments in the use of their money after their deaths for a
limited period according to their ideas, and thereafter according to
the judgments of living persons,
other than the government
of
the
day.”13
Thus it suggests that the law of
cy-prks
should be made
more flexible (paras. 63-71).’‘
In addition they argue that local authorities should have power
to compel the amalgamation or winding up of local charities (para.
78).15 Charities should, on first registration, be
on
probation for
five
years (para. 117); The Charity Commissioners should prepare
a
number of model trust deeds which should contain draft provisions
for altering the trust if it becomes outdated (para.
95).
Furthermore,
organisations, accepted
as
charities before the 1960 Charities Act,
should no longer be immune from investigation by the Charity
Commissioners (para. 59).16
11
Report,
para. 24.
la
Voluntary Action:
A
Report on Melhods
of
Social Advance,
Allen
&
Unwin,
London, 1948.
13
Quoted
Report,
para.
69;
my italics.
Cj.
the view of the Charity Commissioners.
Evidence,
p.
324, that such flexibility might result in
less
money being given
to
charity.
14
This
proposal
was a response, in particular,
to
the very strong criticisms
of
Sir
Charles Klmber who was responsible for tho review of charities in Oxfordshire
and whose suggestions for restructuring those charities were found
to
be not wholly
acceptable
to
the Charity Commissioners.
Evidence,
pp. 218-225, 228-248. and
364-368. See also Chief Chancery Master Ball,
ibid.
pp. 177-178.
15
There was a considerable amount of evldence on the way the local review
provisions, provided by the Charities
Act
1960,
s.
11, were and ought
to
be
used.
Evidence.
pp. 58, 76, 163-164, 225-228. 291, 303-304, 351-361. 371-372. 382-390,
and refs. at note 14 (above).
18
Apparently
tho
government of the day gave an undertaking, when the Charities
Bill was going through Parliament, that there would be
no
removal
of
charitable
status from then existing charities.
Evidence,
p.
316.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT