| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, do the Government have a view on what the timescale for these carbon emission permits will be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a complicated question. Do you mean under the European Emissions Trading Scheme?
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I mean national allocations.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. We were aiming that that would take place this year, but of course the discussion about the allocation ceiling—for us and for certain other member states—puts that back a bit. It would probably be sensible if I set out the totality of the immediate position on that, including what I have said about the cap itself, and write to the noble Duke and, indeed, other noble Lords.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, obviously the Minister's reply has opened many interesting doors, all of which we might wish to walk through at some time, but it is not going to be tonight. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, on all sides of the House and on all the Front Benches, for their extremely interesting and wide-ranging contributions.
I particularly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haworth. He said that, in his personal experience of mountaineering, he could see the glaciers melting around him, which was a vivid reminder to him of climate change. I also enjoyed those remarks because my father-in-law, a native of Ayrshire, also climbed all the Scottish Munros, and my wife climbed a lot of them with him. We were not married then, but she told me that she found that the best moment at which to have a good discussion with her father was when they were getting near the top of a Scottish Munro. He was singularly eloquent and thoughtful at that moment.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1329
I know that my colleagues in Sub-Committee D who have been here tonight and who spoke, including the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and the noble Lords, Lord Lewis, Lord Hunt and Lord Livsey, will have appreciated the comments made by so many noble Lords about the conciseness of our report. We tried to put over complicated problems relatively simply, and we thank noble Lords very much for that.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1330
However, I know that the climate in this House can change very quickly, and I do not want it to go from enjoyment to exhaustion. So I shall end there, with a reminder of the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, that this is a problem that will not go away. We shall certainly go back to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1329
23 Feb 2005 : Column 287
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Charities Bill [HL]
(Fourth Day)
Wednesday, 23 February 2005.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): I remind noble Lords that the procedure in the Moses Room is the same as in the House with the exception that Divisions cannot take place. We are not expecting to have to adjourn as we are not expecting any Divisions in the Chamber.
Clause 7 [The Commission's objectives, general functions and duties]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 65:
"Facilitating development of and innovation in the charitable sector."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 65 keeps us with Clause 7, entitled,
on which we had several debates before we adjourned for last week's break. We discussed furtherment, the increase in public awareness, for which there was some support in the Committee, and an advisory objective for which there was rather less support. Amendment No. 65 seeks to add a further function to the commission's general functions listed under new Section 1C on page 5 of the Bill. The amendment seeks to add the function:
In our view encouraging development of and innovation in the sector should be a fundamental part of the commission's role, and as such should be included on the face of the Bill. That would accurately express a serve-and-support dimension that the commission should have to balance its regulatory side. We believe that the commission should be committed to that function as it encourages both flexibility and progress in the charitable sector.
As has been repeated countless times, the charitable sector is enormously broad and there are a whole range of approaches that charities can take. Moreover, new needs and new approaches are emerging all the time. For example, charities in Dorset will differ from those in Cardiff because of population, local authority
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC288
policy, levels of expendable income and a whole raft of socio-economic variables. Flexibility is the key to survival and, indeed, the success of many charities.
Moreover, what is relevant in Newcastle today will not necessarily be relevant next year. Of course, the general regulatory framework must be consistent, but for this sector to develop and thrive, flexibility and innovation must be encouraged rather than discouraged or the growth of the sector will be inhibited.
Innovation is the precursor to development. We do not want to see our charities over constrained by over-regulation and so prevented from growing and improving. The commission should actively encourage innovation among charities as a whole so long as it is within its regulatory provisions.
There will always be a tension between regulators and innovators. At best this will be a creative tension, but regulators tend to see innovators as a risk, and risk is something that regulators fear. Saying no rarely hurts a regulator—you usually never find out that it said no—but saying yes can hurt a regulator if the activity thus approved gets into difficulties. Therefore, within any regulator there is always the danger that there will be a drift to conservatism and rigidity. That is why, in Section 2(3)(d) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Financial Services Authority is required to have regard to,
As the commission's six listed general functions revolve around its regulatory and intervention powers, it is important to include as a function the need to further develop and encourage innovation within the sector. The commission's functions should include the progressive as well as the regulatory. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I am not sure whether I agree with the amendment. In opposing it, one runs the risk of being regarded as uncharitable, at least, or certainly unwilling to support the development of charities. I am all in favour of their development and of innovation, but I am not sure that the Charity Commission should push people into promoting new charities. There is a huge number of charities, most of which, no doubt, are very worthwhile. All of us find some more worthwhile than others and wish to contribute to some and not others.
The Charity Commission should be in helpful mode at all times, wanting to assist people with questions about the risks, problems and so on, and what is involved in regulation. However, I am not sure that it should go beyond that help, if only because of the word "risk", which the noble Lord used. There are risks in setting up charities. The Charity Commission could get into an awkward position if it encouraged innovation and development and then charities were newly started and ran into difficulties. Surely its job is to help to avoid those risks by pointing them out rather than doing what the amendment proposes.
Lord Swinfen: I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has really understood the amendment. If I quote him correctly, he said that he did not think that
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC289
the Charity Commission should be involved in "promoting", whereas the amendment talks about "facilitating". To my way of thinking that means, not that the Charity Commission should push innovation forward of itself, but that it should look kindly on charities that wish to move forward in an innovative manner.
Technology is developing very fast and change is happening at an exponential rate. We do not wish the Charity Commission to be stuck in the mud like a Middle Ages cart; we wish it to move forward at least at the rate of an aeroplane, as with modern transport. It should think on its feet and look kindly at new ideas and methods rather than saying, "It has not been done before therefore it should not be done now".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |