Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, we do not agree. We are entitled to disagree. This version of the Bill took account of our earlier debates in March by amending the clause so the commission would have regard to the need for a charity to have purposes that were suitable and effective in the light of current social and economic circumstances. Previously the requirement would have been to have regard to the need for the charity to be able to make ““significant social or economic impact””. This is not the biggest issue we have had to consider, but it is important that we have some context in which to root the way in which these issues are considered. ““Social and economic”” is fine. I could think of words to add, and can see that there may be other things that could be put in there, but the phrase is a fair catch-all. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that it is restrictive and narrowing, which is certainly not the intention of the Government. We think this flexibility goes far enough in allowing charities to develop in response to social and economic changes in society, and to provide for the needs of those who, by virtue of their financial position, can benefit most from charitable activity. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord extends this further by making unlimited this limb of the matters to which the commission must have regard, rather than constrained in this context. We do not want to do that. Our view is that, when using these provisions, the courts and the commission must have a greater focus on what is important; that is, the social and economic circumstances in which charities operate. There may well be circumstances wider than social and economic that could influence a decision, such as the effect of lobbying from particular interest groups in the locality including political groups, which it would not be appropriate to take into account. We believe the circumstances must be clearly defined, and an emphasis on society and on economic needs is the right limitation to adopt. This clause also reflects the provisions of the earlier Clause 15, which defines when it is appropriate to make a change of this sort, rather than what the change should be. We would like to maintain this similarity and consistency of approach. The amendment goes too far. We have something that is flexible enough, and can be operated in a way that excludes things that may be undesirable. ““Social and economic”” seems to me to be commonly understood, and makes a lot of sense. We continue to resist the amendment.