Critically examine the contribution made by the trust to the following Essay

Critically examine the contribution do by the trust to the following atomic number 18as of law Charities. (be aware if you chose this topic of the Charities roleplay 2006.) - Essay ExampleIf ever a piece f legislation should have been an exemplar f parliamentary best traffic pattern it is this. There was the equivalent f a White Paper (a strategy unit report) this was then publication to extensive consultation before a nib was considered by the Joint Scrutiny Committee f the Lords and Commons. The Government responded and issued an amended Bill that was discussed at length in the Lords. After the last election this Bill was reintroduced and subject to further scrutiny in the Lords and then the Commons. (Jobome 2006, 43-59)After all this do we have a magnificent piece f legislation Hardly. It is a useful technical Bill that introduces reforms, making the humanity Commission a body corporate with a larger board and an independent chairman a charity tribunal to enable the commis sions decisions to be more easily challenged a range f innovations to help oneself greater accountability f charities easing restrictions on mergers as well as updating superannuated constitutions and a long-overdue overhaul f the law relating to public charitable collections.The real innovation is the definition f charity. Since 1601 the meaning has developed through issue law. Those established that charities have to relieve poverty, advance religion, advance program line or other purposes beneficial to the community. This last category was a catch-all that allowed flexible development f the law. wherefore it encompassed organisations concerned with health, the environment, human rights, the arts and a variety f other causes.This portmanteau has been unpicked and there are now 13 charitable purposes listed the original four plus nine others, some f which, such(prenominal) as the advancement f amateur sport, are slightly different from the past.The big change was so-called to be about public advance. For religious, poverty and educational charities it has been assumed that they delivered public benefit unless the contrary was proven. indeed this covered independent schools and hospitals and all religious groups from churches to sects. Only charities with purposes beneficial to the community had to prove that they delivered public benefit. The Act changes this. It requires all charities to demonstrate that they deliver public benefit. Yet having gone so far the Government bottled out. It refused to nail down what public benefit means. It has left it to the liberality Commission2 to do this, based on the existing case law.That case law is, to put it mildly, problematic. The leading case endorses the status quo, where a school or hospital rear end claim charitable status if it saves the taxpayer money or provides extra facilities unavailable in the state sector. The Charity Commission has announced that there will be public consultation about what pub lic benefit means, and this will be guided by a group chaired by Professor Albert Weale3, f Essex University.This saga demonstrates the ingrained crises affecting the UK Parliament and, in particular, dilution f the doctrine f separation f powers by this and preceding governments. Here is a key topic -public benefit -with wide social ramifications that the