Charities Act 2006 (Charitable Companies Audit and Group Accounts Provisions) Order 2008

I can be brief due to the clear exposition that the Committee has had of the order and the fact that we on these Benches give it a broad welcome. We endorse the underlying objective trailed in the passage of the primary legislation, which seeks to unify the account scrutiny requirements for small charitable companies. That must be beneficial. If the impact assessment is to be believed, it seems that the costs are minimal. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is right to say that it is most distressing to those who support small charities if there is mismanagement and any kind of fraud. So I suppose that the balance of argument is in favour of scrutiny, and the simpler that external scrutiny is, the better. The Office of the Third Sector is to be congratulated on the clarity of its impact assessment statement. Admittedly, the facts are not supported by footnotes indicating precisely how they have been accumulated, but the facts are rather compelling. It is interesting that there has been a 10 per cent response to the proposed changes from the consultees and that that response has been entirely positive. I would also, however, like to hear from the Minister why it is that the timing of the order is as it is, in view of the consultation that is in train on raising the financial thresholds. It seems odd that the order should take effect the very day after the consultation is concluded. There has been no attempt to align the order with the outcome of the consultation, on the basis that the Government have put it forward. Broadly, however, the provisions are welcome. The second part of the change—the proposal for group accounting—seems enormously sensible. However, it also conforms largely to existing practice, and it is, in a sense, ratifying a procedure that is almost universal. When one is talking about small charities, it is important to recognise that the clarity with which the rules are set out is of great importance. What the Minister said about the consolidation appearing on the website is welcome, but, when there is a consolidating Act—I understand that there may be—it will be worth asking parliamentary counsel to look closely at the simplification of language. I know that that is a difficult thing for Ministers to pursue, because they are dealing with legal draftsmen who are not only self-proclaimed but recognised experts. Speaking as someone who was, a long time ago, a consumer protection Minister, I think that we have not succeeded in making our consumer protection legislation and this kind of legislation as accessible to the lay reader as possible. The more accessible it is, the more the rubrics will be observed. The rubrics are not usually broken because of intent but because of lack of awareness. That fortifies the case for a simplification of the language when consolidation takes place. I welcome the order.