Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 17:"Page 7, line 14, leave out ““, so far as relevant,””" The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 18. The purpose of the amendments is to require on the face of the Bill that the commission must act at all times, and not merely when it thinks it advisable, in accordance with the principles of best regulatory practice, and must act fairly and reasonably. Omitting the words ““so far as relevant”” would prevent the commission choosing when it is expedient to act in accordance with best practice. The requirement for fair and reasonable conduct by the commission has had much support in the House. Many noble Lords, such as myself, believe it should be on the face of the Bill because the commission has not always behaved this way, as I mentioned at Second Reading. In the Little Gidding Trust case, the High Court refused to consider the behaviour of the Charity Commission, even when that was identified as a central issue. If the High Court had not recognised that as law, it might be wise to include these words in the Bill so that both the High Court and the commission do so in future. During the debates on the previous Charities Bill before the election, I and others asked for ““fair, reasonable and proportionate”” behaviour of the commission. In spite of the claims that it was already the   law and therefore did not need to be on the face of the Bill, the Minister has now allowed ““proportionate””, and I am grateful for that. But it does not go as far as ““fair and reasonable””. The charity sector is the only one which is founded on morality, and charities expect a standard of regulation likewise founded on a moral bedrock. The commission, as I said at Second Reading, has not always met this high standard, and it is necessary that it should. I quoted a number of examples at Second Reading, and I am distressed to say that since then, I have heard from a charity that there are still similar problems. I have been specifically asked by the charity not to mention its name or to give details, because it is frightened that that would adversely affect its standing with the Charity Commission. It is a sorry state of affairs if any charity thinks that. A recent survey by the commission revealed that 44   per cent of its stakeholders think that it is not doing a good job. Why would charities utilise the commission for advice if they lack confidence in it? How is the commission’s enhanced advisory role to be delivered while charities continue to lack confidence in their regulator? The new management at the Charity Commission have committed themselves to acting fairly and reasonably in their recently published policy document, but that is not something that it can be held to. Future management could reverse or ignore this. I urge the Minister to bolster the commission in its reforming process and accept that both the commission and the courts need to be told explicitly that fairness and reasonableness are legal requirements, thus enabling charities to have confidence in their regulator. I beg to move.