Charities Bill [HL]

We have had some expert, persuasive and honeyed words from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in introducing this amendment. From the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we had equally persuasive words, with perhaps just a hint of menace underlying them. However, I remain unconvinced of the appropriateness and value of this amendment. I will not repeat what I said in the debate on Amendment No. 8, but the issue of the delicate balance remains. In my view, we have made the Charity Commission responsible for the public benefit definition. We have made it responsible for its revision; we have given it independence; we have told it that it must ensure compliance. It seems to me that if we have said that we should adopt a hands-off policy and we pass it over to the Charity Commission, it should be left as uncomplicated as possible. It is as if we were saying, ““Yes, we wish to create a level playing field””—I hate to use the phrase ““level playing field”” in an analogy about a school—““as far as concerns all charities and public benefit but, by the way, we would like you to tip the playing field a little when you consider the public benefit as it affects charities which charge for their services””. I therefore believe that the Government should resist this amendment.