moved Amendment No. 19:"Page 7, line 22, at end insert—"
““6. In managing its affairs, the Commission must differentiate clearly its regulatory from its advisory functions.””
The noble Lord said: The amendment adds to the commission’s general duties, which are listed in new Section 1D of Clause 7. There are currently five general duties and the amendment would add a sixth.
To avoid repeating arguments from the discussions that we had on the advisability of including the amendment from the first Committee stage, I shall summarise the main points.
The distinction of the Charity Commission’s advisory and regulatory functions was subject to rigorous investigation and discussion during and after the Joint Scrutiny Committee’s hearing of evidence on the draft Bill. The need for separation was the subject of recommendation 20 of that committee, yet nothing requiring such a distinction has so far been written into the Bill.
Supporting the Joint Scrutiny Committee, the Association of Charitable Foundations, the Charity Law Association, the National Council for Voluntary Organisation and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations have all highlighted the need for the commission to distinguish its regulatory from its advisory functions.
This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that many small charities are dependent upon the advice of the commission. Such charities do not have the resources of the larger charities, which might have a strategy unit or a legal department. The advice these charities seek from the commission might become confused with regulations administered by the commission.
The commission’s central task—we agree—is as a regulator. Therefore, its central interaction with charities will be in a regulatory context. Advice from the commission needs to be clearly distinguished from any regulation as it might be wrongly assumed that the latter was intended and, in consequence, a suggestion misinterpreted as a command, hence the term ““regulatory creep””, which is what this amendment battles against.
Everyone seems to be in agreement about the value of this amendment being included in the Bill so it seems strange that this is one that the Government have not accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:"““I understand why noble Lords want to see this included on the face of the Bill. In seeking that objective, they wish to compel the commission to take forward the recommendation. But both the commission and the Government have accepted the recommendation and, in the sense of changing practice—which is what this is all about—the noble Lord is pushing at an open door””.—[Official Report, 23/2/05; col. GC 313.]"
So it appears that the only reason the Government wish to exclude this important duty of the commission’s from the face of the Bill is that it is ““as good as done”” already. That is an argument we hear too often and, needless to say, I do not see it as a strong one. My point is this: if this distinction is as good as done, why not incorporate it into the Bill? I beg to move.
Charities Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 June 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Charities Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c191-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-10 14:35:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260520
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260520
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260520