Charities Bill [HL]

I am happy to return to the fray and to find ourselves just where we were when I left it. I see the intent behind Amendment No. 17, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that those are not simple weasel words, or the weasel factor. We entirely agree that when the commission is regulating it must apply the principles of best regulatory practice in   performing its functions, as the noble Lord, Lord   Swinfen, has made plain. We have, however, added this new duty to do precisely that, and to make it absolutely clear. The qualifier of ““so far as relevant”” is necessary because the commission’s functions go wider than its regulatory functions. It is worth noting that the word ““functions”” in new Section 1D has a wider meaning than the phrase ““general functions”” in new Section 1C. Among its functions the commission prepares an annual report, recruits staff and performs other functions that are not regulatory in nature but ancillary to regulation. I assure noble Lords, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will agree, that it would not be appropriate to apply the principles of best regulatory practice in those kinds of instances. That is why additional words have been added. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the Bill is drafted to ensure that the commission applies best practice principles to all its regulations. The amendment is therefore not needed. I know that that issue was given support by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I now turn to Amendment No. 18, which drew the most support—particularly by the noble Lord, Lord   Howard of Rising, who added his voice last. We have debated the two little words ““fair”” and ““reasonable”” on several occasions—most recently on Second Reading on 7 June. The Government have given their view many times, and I invite the House to consider the comments of my noble friend Lord Bassam at col. GC 305 in Grand Committee on 23 February, and to the relevant parts of my noble friend’s letter, which was sent to all noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading on 7 June. A copy is in the Library. I shall summarise. We are in no doubt that the commission, like other public bodies, already has a duty in administrative law to use its powers reasonably. They are as affected by that wide body of jurisprudence as any other public body. We do not think that there is any need to include a statutory provision to give the commission that duty. If Parliament felt it necessary to give the commission that duty through the Charities Bill, the   implication would be that Parliament did not see the commission as being under that duty at present. It is not a question of feelings; the duty exists now. The commission must behave reasonably. We do not think that adding the words ““fair and reasonable”” to the words,"““proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted””," which are already in the Bill would add anything helpful. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were here, he   would probably give us an exposition of what ““proportionate”” means. If you have to behave proportionately, a fortiori the facts speak for themselves and you have to behave reasonably. The words already in the Bill are powerful. We listened to the concerns last Session and amended the   Bill accordingly. I thank noble Lords for the compliment in relation to that, but we do not see the need to amend it further. Because the matter is already covered, we are not minded to accept the amendment. I hear, too, what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about the dissatisfaction with the commission. Those figures are certainly new to us and we do not recognise those issues. Ninety-three per cent of charities that have use of the commission’s services are satisfied according to the commission’s figures. It was right for me to put that on the record.