| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 78:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 78, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 84. These amendments concern the practice and procedures of the tribunal as set out in Clause 8. I hope that we are all agreed that it is in the interests of justice that the Charity Appeal Tribunal should resolve cases expeditiously, particularly those involving smaller charities with their inevitably more limited resources.
New Section 2B(4) lists the subjects on which the Lord Chancellor may make rules pursuant to subsection (2)(b). The list includes at subsection (4)(b) the ability to make rules,
In our view it is important that all cases should be dealt with expeditiously. Speed and efficiency should be key procedural objectives of the tribunal. Accordingly, the need for the expeditious hearing of cases should not be relegated to subsection (4), and in any case cover only urgent cases. Because of its importance and significance, this matter should be referred to directly in subsection (2)(b) rather than in the subsidiary list set out in subsection (4). As I have said, it should cover all cases, not only urgent ones.
For example, who will decide whether a case is urgent or not? No doubt for the charity or charities concerned, many cases will be seen to be urgent. These amendments would correct that weakness. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support these amendments, particularly in regard to very small charities. They are often run by volunteers and have no paid staff whatsoever. If a case was outstanding with the Charity Commission and the trustees needed to be changed, that would put a small charity in a virtually impossible position because it would not be able to do so. No new trustee would take on the task while there was an outstanding case. That could be very upsetting for a
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC325
small charity. If it has a problem to be resolved by these means, its members would often not be able to carry on with their work.
If the Minister will not accept the precise wording of these amendments, I hope that he will agree that something similar needs to be put in the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree with the desire expressed by both noble Lords to see that cases coming before the tribunal are dealt with expeditiously. Indeed, the Bill as it is makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to make rules about that. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is important in that regard because smaller charities could be profoundly affected if there was an unreasonable delay in the consideration of their cases.
The amendments seek to move the relevant provision from new Section 2B(4) to 2B(2) of the 1993 Act. However, that would not alter the Lord Chancellor's rule-making power. New Section 2B(2) sets out the general areas to be covered by the rules, while Section 2B(4) deals with some particular matters that might be covered by them. We think it is clearer to list all the specific matters on which rules may be made in one place so that they can be taken together. That is why the provision is set out as it is.
I said earlier that we are committed to consulting on the draft rules with stakeholders and that work will start at an early stage. At that point I think that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will come into play and be taken into careful consideration. I shall certainly make sure that they are.
As drafted, the Bill enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules about the need to deal expeditiously with urgent cases. What has been said today has been most helpful in that regard, and on that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for their comments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am glad that we shall have some further involvement in the procedural rules when they are drafted. However, the reason for seeking to move the expeditious treatment of cases up from subsection (4)(b) to subsection (2)(b) of new Section 2B is to highlight the importance of this provision, given the nature of our debate concerning accessibility and the user-friendly nature of the tribunal's proceedings.
I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but I did not hear the Minister explain why we need to have the word "urgent". I accept his argument that it should remain in the list set out in subsection (4), but why should only urgent cases be dealt with expeditiously? I return to that point because urgency is in the eye of the beholder. If the tribunal is to be effective and well regarded by the sector, we seek the expeditious treatment of all cases.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, can the Minister tell us in whose opinion a case would be deemed urgent?
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC326
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is that that would be as determined and described in the rules. A framework will be set up for determining the urgency of a case. On the definition of what is urgent more generally, an example might be where an order has been made to remove a trustee or official of a charity. Cases of that kind would merit urgent consideration. In any event, we want to see the tribunal exercise expedition on all the cases brought before it. Given the volume of cases expected to be brought forward, I suspect that that will be the case, certainly at the outset. I do not see a large volume of cases being brought forward immediately, and it has been estimated that the initial effect of the tribunal will be modest in terms of numbers.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that further probing question. I am content to leave the treatment of urgent cases as set out in subsection (4)(b), but I want to think further about the more general question of urgency, which I am not sure that the Government have yet addressed properly. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 79:
"( ) requiring the Tribunal to publish its decisions"
The noble Lord said: We remain in exactly the same place in the Bill; that is, new Section 2B(2) which provides for the Lord Chancellor to make rules. This amendment would add to paragraphs (a) and (b) by requiring the tribunal to publish its decisions. We think that the Lord Chancellor ought to make this further rule regarding the practice and procedures of the Charity Appeal Tribunal.
In Amendment No. 70 we discussed the merits of setting out in the Bill the need to include, as one of the commission's general duties, that of publicising its decisions. If charity law is to develop consistently and transparently it is important that the commission, the charities themselves and their advisers should be aware of tribunal decisions. With such information the sector can be kept informed about and in touch with developments in charity law. It could also significantly benefit the commission by reducing the time it has to spend advising and updating charities, as greater transparency on tribunal decisions should result in fewer queries being directed to it.
We would argue that an issue of this importance regarding the new tribunal—the need to publish its decisions—should be set out in primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Amendment No. 96 is grouped with Amendment No. 79 and really is to the same effect, but I have put it in the schedule rather than in this clause. The only difference between the
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC327
two amendments perhaps is that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, talks about publishing the decisions whereas I say:
I think that there is a significant difference. The decision of a jury is guilty or not guilty; reasons they do not give.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have not had 40 years' experience.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Fair enough; and the noble Lord is probably the better for it.
Subject to that, I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I think that I must also say that, having argued strongly that one wants to minimise the legalisation of all this, none the less it is going to be helpful to the sector to know what is what and how things are developing. There is no getting away from that.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |