| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is disappointed with the response he has had from the Charity Commission. It is clear, however, that the Charity Commission does listen and perhaps reads Hansard occasionally. The important message is that the Charity Commission wants to be more user friendly. I certainly understand the noble Lord's point that it should not seem to be on the back of charities and hounding them. I do not believe that the Charity Commission, as a regulator, wants to be seen in that spirit.
As I said earlier, the Charity Commission has an important job to do in its primary and core function of regulating, and the noble Lord is tempting us to debate the way in which it does so and the quality of its regulation. He has usefully drawn attention to the need for a softer approach.
I take the noble Lord's third point that the Charity Commission at times needs to be—in my kind of language or argot—hard-nosed and able to chase-up people to ensure they stick to the letter of the law. In doing so, the Charity Commission is clearly carrying out its responsibility to ensure that there is compliance with the law.
The amendment would not work in the way the noble Lord thinks on two grounds. First, it relates not to a function but more to a duty; and, secondly, it is not an appropriate duty. I would argue that it ought to be a part of the culture of the organisation that it responds in a responsible, sensible and sensitive way. From my experience in public life, I believe that good quality communication for an organisation is essential. Otherwise people do not know where they are and do not have a clear understanding of what their responsibilities are. Communication is the essence of getting all of those matters right.
As a by-product of this legislation there should be greater clarity of how the commission regulates. I was quite impressed by the booklet entitled The Charity Commission and Regulation. It was produced a few years ago and sets out with some clarity how the
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC293
commission sees itself as a regulator. Obviously the booklet will need to be updated when the legislation takes effect, but it is a useful piece of communication. I would expect that kind of communication to be made plain and to be given to those who fall within the Charity Commission's remit for regulation.
It is not appropriate to put this as a function or a duty on the face of the Bill; it is there for guidance. The issue will need to be addressed in a helpful publication.
I agree with the noble Lord that the Charity Commission must take due care and attention in its communications. I hope that the quality of communication improves. Certainly the commission has become more sensitive to the issue. If the commission did not understand and appreciate it already—which I am sure it did—this debate and the debate at Second Reading has, if nothing more, alerted it to the importance of communication.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his comments. Obviously I shall withdraw the amendment today but I hope it has been made clear that it is very difficult to legislate for culture.
I wonder whether there is some way in which this area can be covered so that there is no question of silly destruction because people are a few days late in responding after three months. Bearing in mind the way in which people operate within charities—they have meetings at fixed times and have to get their diaries together and so on—I believe there is something fundamentally wrong about the system and that it needs sorting out.
Obviously we have time to discuss the issue and I hope we will be able to do so. It may well be that the Minister is right and that this is not the right place and these are not the right words, but there needs to be some words somewhere, because we cannot leave this culture to luck.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before my noble friend sits down, I suggest that one place where this could happily rest would be in the commission's general duties, the second of which states:
"So far as is reasonably practicable the Commission must, in performing its functions, act in a way",
which is compatible with the encouragement of, say, efficiency and consideration for users of its services. That is an off-the-cuff suggestion, but it seems to sit very suitably there. Perhaps the Minister will contemplate that.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord answers, I refer to the question of the Charity Commission destroying files if three months have passed without communication. When the commission asks a charity to submit its annual report and accounts, it normally gives the charity 10 months in which to reply. In many cases, not only are charity trustees extremely busy but they
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC294
have very little in the way of secretarial help. Therefore, it might be more practical to extend the period of dormancy from three months to 10.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No doubt the noble Lord is right to raise that issue. I think that there is something in it.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I am always reluctant to invite new and fresh amendments when we are trying to get through an important piece of legislation which we all support. However, I should not want to stop the noble Lord bringing forward a proposal and enabling us to consider it. He may well have a useful point to make.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I thank the noble Lord for those further considerations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 67:
"Giving advice and guidance to charity trustees and to any charity or charities whether particularly or generally."
The noble Lord said: When we last met, we debated Amendment No. 64, which was not dissimilar from this amendment but sought to put the advisory function into the objectives of the Charity Commission. This amendment seeks to put a duty of advice into the commission's general functions, remembering that it has three tiers—objectives, functions and duties.
In the debate on Amendment No. 64, a number of noble Lords made very important and interesting points. A recurring anxiety was that in putting in what was then an objective but is here a function, one might create a rod for one's own back in the sense of the Charity Commission feeling that it had a duty to meddle, and nobody wanted that. In moving this amendment, I am alive to that consideration.
I think that this wording gives rise to the prospect that the Charity Commission would think that it had a duty to give advice "whether particularly or generally". It might say, "Yes, we have a duty and we are going to exercise it". In fact, in the course of its policing functions, the Charity Commission frequently writes to a charity and asks why it is doing something or wants confirmation of something. That is perfectly sensible.
Clause 24 allows trustees of any charity to request advice in respect of any matter from the Charity Commission. I think that this is a worthwhile and sensible amendment, albeit inadequately drafted. Clause 7 does something that has never been done before by trying to set out a comprehensive account of why the Charity Commission exists, its broad objectives, its particular functions in working towards those objectives and the general duties with which it has to comply in activating its functions, and so on.
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC295
4 p.m.
I rather take the point made by my noble friend Lord Shutt and by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that this legislation is for a huge sector—a lay sector and voluntary sector. It is a sector that we want not to impede but to empower. Whereas many of the amendments to much legislation can easily be left out and abandoned, this is a particular clause. Once the Government have embarked on trying to set it out fully and comprehensively, they will see the sense of referring under the functions to the function of giving general advice to the public.
As the Committee will appreciate, the Charity Commission has a massive website. There are more than 50 advisory, guidance leaflets—one of which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, recently flourished—to the sector as a whole. On the whole, they are jolly good leaflets. It seems odd not to include this function. We already have six functions, including that of giving advice to the Minister, but we do not include the function of giving advice to the sector generally, which in reality, after registration and policing, is probably the most active and important function that it currently undertakes.
I will leave it at that. I shall be interested to hear what others may have to say. I emphasise again that the wording is not as it should be. However, it seems to me that, on balance, it would be helpful. It is not essential that it be included. The fourth provision in Clause 7 is headed "The Commission's incidental powers" and there is no doubt that,
and so on. There is no doubt that it can do it. I am trying to include in the Bill a sort of description that accords with reality and something that lay trustees will see when look at the Bill. That is the spirit in which I move the amendment. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |