Contribution
A wide range of powers are held by a number of organisations, and it is crucial that each one of those takes responsibility and has power to work within its own remit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. There are serious questions as to whether the Charity Commission’s current framework is sufficient. A regulator’s ability to investigate concerns does not necessarily mean that it has the capacity to intervene swiftly or effectively enough, and there is a pertinent concern in my West Lancashire constituency, where I have been engaging with the Charity Commission over long-standing concerns about the management and governance of Scarisbrick village hall.
In 1972, local people secured a piece of land and went about fundraising and building a village hall, a village green and a children’s playground. They then fundraised and erected a war memorial to the Scarisbrick residents lost in the world wars who had not previously been recognised. Many years went by, with the village hall being a valued community asset, including the village green and the children’s playpark. In recent years, however, concerns began to surface over the running of the hall and facilities.
First went the children’s playpark, with trustees claiming that funds could not be found to maintain it. The trustees then changed the name of the village hall to The Venue Scarisbrick, marketing it as a function suite. Local organisations such as the Scouts were allegedly deprioritised, and regular slots that they had been using were changed, making it difficult for them to continue, forcing them to go elsewhere. The trustees then fenced off the village green, denying access to local residents, and renting the green space to a private sector petting zoo. The final straw came in July 2025 when the trustees proposed the permanent removal of the war memorial. I launched a petition to save the memorial, and wrote to trustees in August 2025 setting out my concerns and requesting a meeting. I received no response. I chased it in August and later in October, but I still received no response.
Meanwhile, local residents became increasingly concerned about not only the trustees’ decisions, but their behaviour towards residents. It transpired that the trustees were using the hall as a base for their own private sector businesses and charging other businesses to use the address. When challenged, the trustees refused to meet local residents, refused to meet or correspond with me, and called the police when local residents protested at the proposed removal of the war memorial. On inspection, it transpired that the trustees have set up a limited company in the name of The Venue Scarisbrick, of which some of the trustees are directors. There is no indication of how that company relates to the charity that owns the building. They have also failed to register accounts for the charity for several years running.
Residents demanded an annual general meeting, as one had not been held for some time and was long overdue. In February 2026, six months later than the governing document required, the trustees, despite receiving advice from the Charity Commission that they must hold the AGM in person, held an online broadcast, claiming that it was an AGM. There was no way to ascertain who was there, how many people were present or whether they were eligible to be there. There was no way to contribute unless explicitly invited to do so.
When it came to so-called elections, the trustees were appointed by ballot by email. It was not secret, and there was no adequate scrutiny or transparency. Unsurprisingly, all the existing trustees were re-elected. Not only was the so-called AGM appallingly run, but the chair of the trustees took the opportunity to launch a 15-minute verbal attack on local people who challenged him. Local parish councillors have been threatened with legal action and intimidatory language on social media. While the war memorial was saved—at least for now—the village green remains inaccessible and the trustees remain in charge.