Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the winding-up of this debate because there is such a widespread degree of consensus. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her lucid introduction to the Second Reading. I must declare my interest as shown on the register. I am a trustee of the Stroke Association and of the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Charitable Trust among others. The Bill has received a general welcome because it is much improved as a result of the work of officials during the election Recess. It shows that you cannot have enough legislative scrutiny. When this Bill becomes an Act it will be held up as a model for the preparation of legislation. It has been welcomed because it introduces a much greater degree of flexibility, lighter regulation and has a greater appreciation of the needs of smaller charities which, as my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, constitute the overwhelming majority. I think that I recall him saying that 97 per cent of all charities are small. There remain some concerns. The noble Lord, Lord   Sainsbury of Preston Candover, pointed to the excesses of the SORP accountancy regulations and said that charities are required to adhere to more than 400 of them. That surely must be overkill. He also first mentioned what became a recurring theme in the debate; that is, the independence of the Charity Commission. He suggested that it might become a non-governmental public body, much freer from any possible departmental influence. That theme was echoed by others. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised a theme that was echoed in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that is, the definition of ““religion”” and provision for non-religious belief. I believe that we shall return to that issue in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, it is not beyond the wit of human kind to have a definition that encompasses both religious belief and non-belief for charitable purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was particularly forceful in making his views on the role of the Charity Commission known; that is, that much further clarification of its regulatory role is needed. He and others want among other things better provision for protecting charities’ funds from the costs of regulation and a much lighter touch on the part of the Charity Commission so that charitable funds are not used by charities to defend their actions. He echoed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, regarding a more independent basis for the Charity Commission than the Bill currently allows for. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, echoed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in wanting the words ““fairly and reasonably”” to be added to ““proportionate”” as a direction to the commission. That was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. My noble friend Lady Barker spoke from her very extensive experience in the charity sector. I was much taken by her suggestion that the commission could be helped in its work by the appointment of a users’ panel to act as a sounding board for its actions. The noble Lord, Lord Best, who I have had the pleasure of knowing over many years in connection with the Rowntree Trust family, pointed to the inevitable tension between independence and regulation and the associated problem of compliance and co-option by charities that are in receipt of public funds. That is really part of what the noble Lord, Lord   Dahrendorf, called the virtue of civil society,   that it has this creative chaos. There is a real problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed to, where that relationship in partnership ends and independence is maintained. It is difficult to manage that tension without losing the ultimate independence of the charitable sector and of the particular charity concerned. It is too easily co-opted into an adjunct of the welfare state; that must be avoided at all costs. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, concentrated on the redefinition of charitable purposes and on public benefit. In particular, he expressed his disbelief, which I share, that it does not seem to be possible to have parity for disbelief along with belief. Furthermore, he pointed out that new aspects of the Bill needed closer examination and scrutiny in Committee. Public benefit, along with the greater independence of the Charity Commission, will be the two main themes that we will return to in Committee. I am sure that in winding up the Minister will be able to give us some pointers to how the Government might respond to the comments that surround those two themes that have been raised in this debate.