THE Malvern Hills Trust CEO stated in last week’s Gazette that “for all of its 140 years lifespan its duties have always been charitable”.

Malvern Hills Action Group (MHAG) has in writing from the Charity Commission that the CEO’s statement is incorrect.

The commission has confirmed to MHAG the definition of charitable purposes in 1884, the year the Conservators became a charity, was the one laid down by the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 and that “it was not until the enactment of section 2 of the Charities Act 2006 that a statutory definition of charitable purposes was introduced in the legislation”.

These 1601 charitable purposes were “the relief of aged, impotent and poor people, the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, the maintenance of schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities, the repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea-banks and highways, the education and preferment of orphans, the relief, stock, or maintenance for houses of correction, marriages of poor maids, the ‘supportation’, aid and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed, the relief or redemption of prisoners or captives or the aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of fifteens, setting out of soldiers and other taxes”.

Perhaps the MHT CEO will enlighten us and identify which of the clauses in the 1601 statute shows the Conservators were charitable?

At the same time it would be helpful to know how the Conservators became a charity in 1984?

The commission cannot answer that question as it no longer has the documents.

One thing is for certain — there was no mandatory reason why the Conservators had to be a charity.

Research by MHAG has identified 17 conservator bodies in England of which 10 have chosen not to become charities.

Finally, on the CEO’s concern “the trust doesn’t have the power to fundraise like other charities”.

This would have been better expressed as saying almost 100 per cent of other charities do not have the power to raise taxes to finance their activities — a totally different picture.

They have to rely on donations and bequests for their survival.

For example, the latest published financial statements show the Herefordshire Wildlife Trust depended on donations and bequests for over 27 per cent of its income while the MHT only raised 1.27 per cent on its income from those sources.

John Watts

Malvern Hills Action Group

THE two letters from the CEO and vice-chair of Malvern Hills Trust in last week’s Gazette should give the public cause for concern.

Several assertions were made but the evidence to substantiate them was sadly missing.

The claim there is no clear definition of a public body is untrue.

MHT meets all the criteria necessary to be called a public body — a description of itself that MHT proudly used in fliers it sent out with council tax demands as recently as 2014-15.

The UK government states a public body is “a formally-established organisation that is publicly funded to deliver a public or government service, though not as a ministerial department”.

MHT is an organisation with tax-raising powers and a statutory mandate to provide a public service.

As to its status, MHT appears totally confused.

In land management documents it describes itself as a public body, as a body corporate in its governance handbook, a body governed by statute on its website and finally an unincorporated charity in its annual accounts submitted to the Charity Commission.

The truth is it is a statutory body with a clear mandate and with taxation-based public funding.

It is therefore first and foremost a public body.

As to its income, MHT has three main income streams — 45 to 50 per cent of its income comes from the precept levy collected as part of council tax from a subset of the Malvern Hills population, 40 to 45 per cent comes from mandatory parking charges, a tax, levied on the public to park in MHT car parks and 10 to 15 per cent comes from land management grants that central government funds from public funds.

This means currently less than one per cent of its income is coming from voluntary contributions which are the only monies the public would recognise as charitable funds.

As to the power to fundraise, I have seen nothing in its statutory mandate as a public body that prevents the organisation from augmenting its income by fundraising provided that GDPR regulations are not breached and there is compliance with voluntary industry guidelines.

As to the duties of the trust having always been charitable, there was no clear definition of what constituted a charity or charitable purposes until the 2006 Charities Act.

The word charity does not appear in any of the five Malvern Hills Acts including that passed in 1995, 11 years after questionable charitable status was granted, which also makes no mention of charitable status or indeed the Charity Commission.

Finally, on the public trusting MHT not to abuse the general power it is seeking I am sure the taxpayers of Bristol, Nottingham, Watford, Thurrock, etc, received similar assurances from their councils before being hit with increased taxes to meet losses incurred by risky investments they had not sanctioned.

A general power allows an organisation to undertake any activity without accountability for its actions provided they are not breaking the law.

To conclude, MHT should pay attention to the only credible expression of public opinion on its proposed private bill — that made by more than 2,700 members of the public who have signed the petition calling to pause its plans and carry out a proper formative public consultation — and act accordingly.

Prof Malcolm McCrae

Malvern

What do you think? Write to letters@malverngazette.co.uk