Charities Bill [HL]

It will probably come as no surprise to the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Wedderburn, that I have considerable difficulty with the amendment as proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, appears to be advocating a degree of social or educational engineering. He is entitled to do that, but I am not sure that we should start it via the Charities Bill. What we have achieved in the Bill is a delicate balance as regards the public benefit issue. Therefore, for the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to talk about blanket advantages in the circumstances in not right. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we are in fact creating a level playing field here, in which all charities have to meet a public benefit test, no matter what their purposes are, and must do so on a continuing basis. The responsibility for this is passed to the Charity Commission by Clause 4(1) and we have made the Charity Commission independent of government in new subsection (1A)(4) of Clause 6. It may not be independent enough—we shall come to that later—but we have made a big step towards it and I thank the Government for that. In Clause 4(3), we require the Charity Commission to revise the public benefit objectives from time to time. Although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, wishes to make that ““must”” rather than ““may””, it is nevertheless an obligation on the Charity Commission. I oppose the amendment on three grounds. First, the amendment shatters this delicate balance and does so in respect of only one charitable activity—that of education. Secondly, the wording adopted by the proposers of the amendment is open ended, to say the least. In paragraph (a) of their amendment, they refer to,"““significant and continuing benefits””," and in paragraph (b) they say that the Charity Commission shall,"““consult relevant central or local interests””." Who defines what is significant and continuing and who defines what are central or local interests seems to me to open up a Pandora’s box in which politics and prejudices could be paraded on either side of the argument. Finally, paragraph (d) seeks to ensure that every such charity publishes an annual report. We do not need more paperwork. This Bill will increase considerably the amount of paperwork required to be filled in by charities considerably. The Charity Commission is in charge. It will set the public benefit test and enforce it. There is no reason why one section of the charitable sector should be asked to produce an additional annual report. It would be unfair and prejudicial so to do, besides being expensive. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.