Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have listened with more than usual interest to this afternoon’s deliberations on the Bill, and I have been most impressed, as I was last time, with the breadth of contributions. Before I get into the meat of my response, I put on record my sadness at the passing of Baroness Blatch. She was a doughty performer at the Dispatch Box, someone who engendered respect, who always put her point of view forcibly and who researched her position with great integrity. She did not always please everyone on all sides of your Lordships’ House, with the strength of her commentary and her observation. We in politics miss Baroness Blatch, and we mourn her passing for very good reason. She was a public servant, and she acted in what she rightly believed to be the public interest at all times. We regret her passing for that and for many other more personal reasons. When I was musing over what the shape of the debate might be this afternoon, I thought that there was some risk of a déjà-vu Second Reading being somewhat dull. Having listened to the last three or so hours of debate, your Lordships’ House has, as ever, frustrated that potential, because it has been a most enlivening and broad debate. It bodes well for what everyone hopes will be a swift but fair consideration of the Bill in Committee. There have been many words of praise for the Bill this afternoon, more than there were last time. That is because the Bill has improved since we first set about the task in Committee earlier this year of looking in detail at the Bill and its contents. The noble Lord, Lord Best, described it as ““an excellent Bill””. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, described it as ““an admirable Bill””. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that we should ““celebrate its improvement””, and so it went on. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that it was a ““stronger and better Bill”” for being produced in the way in which it has been. I have no doubt that all those comments are absolutely true. It was described as a ““nearly there Bill”” and a ““one more heave Bill””. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was probably closest in his kind words because we are just one more heave away from getting what we all want. The debate took some expected turns. We had a great deal of consideration of the public benefit test, which is right, and that will clearly be an important debate in the later stages. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, gave full voice to that. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, rightly focused, as he did before, on the burden of regulation and the importance of there being an effective and businesslike review when the Bill is reviewed. He made a particularly good case for that. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, as one would expect, focused on the service non-public fund charities and their status and the importance of recognising them. Clearly, that will be an issue. The issue of religious definition was raised from   a   humanist perspective by the noble Lord, Lord   Wedderburn, and from a broader view by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. We had a trenchant and carefully argued analysis of the Charity Commission and its doings and wrongdoings from the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, was right to say that we ought to look more broadly at the impact of the public benefit test so far as the arts and the cultural sector are concerned and ensure that our debates and concerns there are broadened rather than narrowed in Committee. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell raised, as we would expect, the concerns of religious charities—particularly the smaller ones—and the regulatory burden that the Bill places on them. I was delighted, too, that the noble Baroness, Lady   Pitkeathley, raised the importance of philanthropy and generating more public support and interest in it. That was very helpful.