Charities Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for that intervention. It was a very disappointing response. The Minister said that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, got it about right, which is praise indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, gave three reasons for wishing to reject the amendment. The first was that new Section 1C(2)(2), in Clause 7, is about facilitating better administration. However, as the noble Lord has just said, that is not what my amendment is about. My amendment is about looking forward and encouraging the emergence of new forms and not being risk averse. The second reason given by the noble Lord was that Clause 24 gave the Charity Commission,"““Power to give advice and guidance””," but that is a completely different sort of activity from being part of its general functions. Thirdly, the noble Lord quoted back to me my remarks from the previous Committee stage. He said that I had used the words, ““facilitatory””, ““helpful”” and ““proactive”” and that I was to be hung on the fact that I had used the word ““proactive””. He accepted that the first two words were in accordance with the meaning of the word that I used, but that I had been unguarded enough towards the end of the debate to use the word ““proactive””. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was right when he said that this is an ““arid”” list of functions. The Minister went on to talk about being an ““encouraging regulator””. I see nothing about innovation here. The Government’s answer on this point is not good enough and I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 93.