The Regulator for Charities in England and Wales
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and Father Hudson's society
The charities made an application for consent under section 64 of the Charities Act 1993 to amend their objects. The purpose was to permit the charities to restrict the adoption services they provide to heterosexual parents because of the religious context in which the charities operate. Such a restriction would not breach the regulations set out in the Equalities Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007(“the regulations”) should the amendments bring the charities within the exemption in regulation 18.
The Commission considered the case, including the charities’ oral representations. It considered that the word “benefits” in regulation 18(1) means benefits of a charitable nature provided to the charity’s beneficiaries. It concluded that the beneficiaries of the adoption services were the children and not the prospective parents. It was not satisfied that the proposed amendments would permit the charities to fall within the scope of the exemption in 18(1) of the regulations. It therefore concluded that the amendments could not be in the best interests of the charity. As a result, the Commission was also not satisfied that it would be entitled to the protection of regulation 18(2) were it to agree to the proposed amendments.
Accordingly the Commission concluded that it should not give the necessary consent to the proposed amendments to the objects.
Clavering and Arkesden Playgroup (“the Charity”)
A former trustee of the Charity was disqualified from acting as a Company Director on 21 December 2007. They were therefore no longer permitted to act as a trustee of a charity without receiving a waiver from disqualification from the Charity Commission under the powers vested in us by section 72(4) of the Charities Act 1993. This was applied for and turned down on the basis that there weren’t sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4) and grant a waiver.
The applicant requested a review of this decision. The review was undertaken by a Charity Commission Director who considered all the information including the representations made by the applicant and also by the trustees of the charity.
The Commission’s final decision is that there are not sufficient grounds for us to exercise our power under section 72(4), therefore the waiver from disqualification as a charity trustee will not be granted.
The Company English Pen, with objects:
1. To promote the education of the public by encouraging the understanding appreciation and development of writing in any style or form.
2. To promote the human rights (as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations) of writers, authors, editors, publishers and other persons similarly engaged (“the Beneficiaries”) throughout the world by all or any of the following means:
2.1. Monitoring and seeking to prevent abuses of human rights of beneficiaries;
2.2. Obtaining redress for Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;
2.3. Relieving need among the Beneficiaries who are the victims of human rights abuse;
2.4. Research into human rights issues affecting the Beneficiaries;
2.5. Educating the public about human rights;
2.6. Providing technical advice to government and others on human rights matters affecting the Beneficiaries;
2.7. Contributing to the sound administration of human rights law;
2.8. Commenting on proposed human rights legislation;
2.9. Raising awareness of human rights issues;
2.10. Promoting public support for human rights;
2.11. Promoting respect for human rights among individuals and corporations;
2.12. International advocacy of human rights;
2.13. Eliminating infringements of the prohibitions on torture, slavery, extradition killing, arbitrary detention and disappearance.
3. To relieve poverty and distress among the dependents, family and/or household members of Beneficiaries.
was recognised as a charity. See Full Document (PDF).
The Company Expressions Studios with objects:
(a) To provide or assist in the provision of a resource for the performing arts by means of affordable and accessible quality facilities and space for rehearsals for dance and other arts for the benefit of those who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area who have need of those facilities by reason of their youth, age infirmity or disability, financial hardship or social circumstances or for the public at large in the interests of social welfare and with the object of improving their conditions of life.
(b) To advance education for the public benefit by the provision of free or affordable dance classes to schools community groups and individuals who live or work in the London Borough of Camden and the surrounding area.
was recognised as a charity.
Shri Guru Ravidass Cultural Association, Birmingham
A review of the Commission’s decision to appoint 25 individuals as charity trustees of the Shri Guru Ravidass Cultural Association, Birmingham (“the charity”) by a section 18(5) order dated 7 January 2008 (“the Order”). The review was conducted by Board Members Simon Wethered and Theo Sowa acting under the delegated authority of the Board.
Having considered the evidence and the representations made by and on behalf of the applicants, the Board Members concluded that the Order had been proportionate and properly made in the interests of the charity and should therefore stand.
The Board Members did however consider that the Order should have been more explicit about the terms on which the 25 people were appointed as charity trustees. They therefore recommended that a further order is made under sections 18(5), 89 (1) and (5) of the Act to vary the Order by clarifying the terms of the charity trustees’ appointment.
Decision of the Commission to remove Mr Nagendram Seevaratnam (“the applicant”) as trustee, charity trustee, agent and/or officer of the charity named Sivayogam (“the charity”).
Having considered all of the evidence and representations made by and on behalf of the applicant, the Members of the Board have found that, in accordance with the statutory grounds under section18(2)(i) of the Charities Act 1993 as amended by the Charities Act 2006 (“ the Act”):
such as would justify the applicant’s removal from office as trustee of Sivayogam.
The Board Members further decided that removal of the applicant as trustee, charity trustee, agent or officer of Sivayogam was a reasonable and proportionate step for the Commission to take. The final decision and the order of removal was made on 27 March 2008.
The applicant is, as a consequence of his removal, disqualified for being a charity trustee or a trustee for any other charity under the provisions of section 72 of the Act.