Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 53:"Page 11, line 37, leave out ““£5,000”” and insert ““£10,000””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the minimum level of annual income at which charities are required to register with the commission. We have debated this previously, but I make no apology for returning to the important topic of deregulation and reducing the regulatory burden. However, given that it has been debated previously, I shall be as brief as possible. Simply put, the amendment would increase the level of annual income at which charities must register with the commission from £5,000 to £10,000. I make it clear that this does not prevent any charity, of whatever size, applying to be registered. The Government—again, I thank the Minister—kindly accepted my earlier amendment which stated that any charity may apply to be registered and the commission must accept that application, which was not previously the case. So it is not—I repeat, not—a question of smaller charities being unable to register and, because they have no charity number, being precluded from receiving funding from many bodies in both the public and private sectors which will give grants only to charities which are registered. On the contrary, my amendment would reduce the regulatory burden for both charities and the Charity Commission. If a charity has an annual income of, let us say, £7,500, this would imply capital assets of probably less than £200,000—perhaps £150,000—but such a charity would have to register under this Bill as it presently stands. I understand, indeed I support, the Government’s wish to maintain confidence in the charity sector, but small charities of the type that I have just given as an example do not offer any systemic risk or threat to public confidence. If a charity with an annual income of less than £10,000 does not want to register, why should it? The risk-reward ratio and the regulatory burden implied by the Bill as drafted are out of kilter. Even the original report by the Strategy Unit on which much of this Bill was based recommended a figure of £10,000 as being that at which registration should take place. It felt that that was the appropriate level and I see no reason to disagree with it. Noble Lords on all sides of the House, including those on the government Front Bench, are inclined to talk on and on about the need to decrease the regulatory burden, but too often, when we have a practical opportunity to do it, we shy away. I hope the Minister will not fall back on the argument that my amendment is superfluous because there is going to be a review of all thresholds 12 months after Royal Assent. This is a matter which needs action now. I beg to move.