Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 15:"Page 6, line 30, at end insert—" ““7.   Facilitating development and innovation in the charitable sector.”” The noble Lord said: This amendment follows in the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. It adds a further function to the commission’s general functions listed under new Section 1C of Clause 7. That added function requires the commission to facilitate development and innovation in the charitable sector. As I explained on the fourth day of our previous Committee stage, we believe that the role of the commission should not be limited to regulation. It must not be merely a box-ticking entity created to issue guidelines and act as a policeman to the sector. Although, unarguably, the commission’s status as a regulator is its central function, the flexibility and dynamism of the third sector may be at risk if the commission’s purpose becomes one of restrictive finger-wagging. The list of its general functions given under new Section 1C(2) are: determining whether it is used for charities; encouraging better administration; identifying misconduct; determining whether public collection certificates should be issued; obtaining information; and giving information and advice. Those are the six. They all seem rather negative. In our earlier debate on 23 February 2005 (at col. GC 288 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who I am happy to see in his place, was unimpressed by my amendment. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I think that he was a little unfair, because he seemed to confuse my word ““facilitate”” with ““encourage””. I see them as very different: one is passive; the other is proactive. A body that facilitates development and innovation in the charitable sector, as well as one that sets guidelines centrally, would accurately express the balance that the Charity Commission must seek to strike if it is to be remain properly progressive, flexible and forward-thinking. At the first Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord   Bassam, described the Government’s stance on the issue in the following words:"““We want to see the facilitation and development of the charitable sector—certainly the Government want that. However, it is not right to describe it as a function of the Charity Commission, which is at its core a regulatory body””.—[Official Report, 23/2/05; GC 289.]" I have some difficulty seeing how adding ““Facilitating development of and innovation in the charitable sector”” to the list of the commission’s functions would undermine its role as a regulator. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained, the Government really want development and innovation in the sector, why not make it a function of the commission to facilitate that? The noble Lord went on to explain that the commission could operate only within the confines of the law. He suggested that it would be beyond the remit of the law for the commission to commit any of its energy to facilitating development and innovation. I do not see why that should be the case. He argued (at col. GC 289 of the Official Report of 23 February 2005) that the commission should develop the law by analogy and where it considers it necessary—at column GC 289 on 23   February. I would expect that the commission would want to develop the law so as to facilitate development and innovation in the sector that it is regulating. Putting that additional function on the face of the Bill, and thereby encouraging the commission to ““facilitate””—a word that I argue is very different in meaning from   ““encourage””—development and innovation is an important safeguard against the commission becoming too risk-averse and thus inhibiting the ability of the voluntary sector to meet the needs of our rapidly changing society. I beg to move.