---

Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10:"Page 3, line 26, leave out ““may”” and insert ““must””" The noble Lord said: In a sense this amendment does not follow the end of the previous discussion. In the light of what has been said this afternoon, why does Clause 4 put the Charity Commission under an obligation in law to do certain things, but does not oblige it to revise its guidance? Under Clause 4 the commission must issue guidance; it must carry out such consultation as prescribed; and it must publish guidance issued or revised. The Charity Commission has the power to revise guidance but there is no obligation in this legislation for it to do so. I should think that everything we have heard this afternoon should make it absolutely clear that there is an obligation to keep charity law up to date on public benefit and that the commission should realise that that is a legal obligation. That suggestion is greatly reinforced by the commission’s document, Public Benefit Checks—how we will carry them out? Noble Lords may have seen that document, which states that,"““different criteria will apply to different charities in different ways””." The obligation to check public benefit appears to be interpreted in such a flexible way that one wonders what revision will really take place. I agree that that goes beyond my amendment, but if it were an obligation there would have to be further words about how it should be done and the time period   involved. Why, in the legislation, have the Government leave that so completely for the Charity Commission? I beg to move.