| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, should look at Amendment No. 97, which is coming round the bend, as it deals exactly with the point that he makes.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I note what the Minister has said and am grateful for the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall wait to hear the debate on Amendment No. 97, read what the Minister has said and see whether we are satisfied that his solution to unconscionable delay meets the case in the real world. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [The Charity Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 93:
The noble Lord said: This schedule deals with the operation of the Charity Appeal Tribunal. The amendment would remove sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 6, which is concerned with the constitution of the tribunal panels on page 75 of the Bill. Paragraph 6(2) says:
"Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (2) above the President shall consult the Lord Chancellor".
That seems to add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and potential delay.
This is a probing amendment. We simply wish to ask the Minister whether there is a good reason why the president of the tribunal should have to consult the Lord Chancellor each time he or she issues a direction on where and when the panel of the tribunal should sit. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I strongly support the amendment. It would deal with a piece of bureaucracy that encumbers the satisfactory working of the tribunal. If the Lord Chancellor does not have confidence in the president to issue these directions sensibly, that person should not be the president.
Lord Borrie: As I have been so critical of so many of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, this afternoon, may I say that this seems an eminently sensible amendment? I cannot see why the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, the officials in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, should get their knees dirty in such a mundane matter as this.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am quaking now. The principle argument against accepting the amendment—and this may amuse the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—is that doing so would impede the efficient functioning of the tribunal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Well, I did say it would amuse your Lordships. I almost sense that we are talking at slight cross purposes. So while I continue to resist the amendment, having listened to what the noble Lord has said I will at least take it away and give it fair consideration. However, it needs to be understood that the Lord Chancellor has overall responsibility for operational matters, which includes the provision of the tribunals, their location and sitting times, as well as the regional administrative staff. The role is different from the judicial role; that is undertaken by the president of the tribunal, who is responsible for the tribunal's judicial operation.
I shall have another think about this because we might have been at cross purposes. However, I am sure that we are at one in the desire to ensure that the tribunal works in an efficient and effective way.
Lord Craig of Radley: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask whether this is a question of consulting or seeking approval. From what the noble Lord was saying, it sounds as though it is "seeking approval", although the wording in the Bill is "consult". It seems to me that consulting means no more than simply telling the Lord Chancellor that the tribunal will
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC348
meet somewhere. While the Lord Chancellor takes note of that information, he does not appear to have any way of stopping the tribunal meeting if he wants to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will probably reassure the noble and gallant Lord to know that there is an expectation that the president would consult the Lord Chancellor in determining where the tribunal would sit. This will enable the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the appropriate resources and staff are in place. That is the effect and how it should work in practice.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The Minister did the best he could with a difficult speaking note. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for having ridden over the hill at the appropriate hour. We look forward to what the Minister will have to say when he has reflected further on the amendment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 94:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 94, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 95. We are looking at the ways in which the panel is constituted in paragraph 7(2) of proposed new Schedule 1B on page 75. The provisions cover the arrangements for the constitution of the panel. The first two ways in which the panel may be constituted are,
Our amendments insert before these two arrangements the words,
As I have said many times this afternoon, I am not a lawyer, but if the president seeks to constitute the panel as simply a panel of one—and, furthermore, seeks to make himself the only member of the panel—it seems contrary to general best practice and principles to allow the president to act in such a way and to nominate himself or herself without a requirement to obtain the consent of the parties to the proceedings, who may have personal reasons for wishing the matter to be considered by someone other than purely the president. This amendment would avoid that undesirable eventuality.
If the Minister is inclined to resist the amendments, perhaps I may draw his attention to paragraphs (e) and (f) at line 43 on page 75 and line 1 on page 76 respectively. If the consent of the parties is required in cases where the president sits with one member or the legal member sits with one member, why not when they sit alone? I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. There may be reasons why parties before the tribunal do not want to sit with just the president or one legal member.
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC349
There may be a personality clash or the reputation of the individual sitting on the tribunal may be a factor. Human frailty being what it is, it could cause trouble and could mean that the parties feel that they have not had a fair hearing. We are trying to ensure that parties who come before the tribunal feel that they have a fair hearing. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment, which would provide that if one person sits alone both parties must agree.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, which has provided an ideal opportunity for us to review the arrangement for the constitution of the panels of the tribunal. The noble Lord has rightly noticed that while the president can make arrangements for determining which members of the tribunal will constitute a panel for the purposes of hearing an appeal, in some circumstances the consent of the parties is required but in others it is not.
The Bill provides that the consent of the parties is required when the panel is to be the president sitting with one other member or a legal member sitting with one other member. We believe that it would be helpful to require the consent of the parties in those circumstances as the decisions of panels so constituted might not be taken by a majority vote as one member would have a casting vote.
As I understand it the purpose of the amendment is to extend the requirement for the consent of parties to arrangements where the president is sitting alone or a legal member is sitting alone. On reflection, we now believe that it should be for the president alone to decide which members should constitute a panel for the purposes of hearing a particular appeal, so we do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the requirement for the consent of the parties in this way. The president, and not the parties to the proceedings, would have the necessary experience in dealing with appeals and the issues involved, so he would be best placed to decide the constitution of the relevant panel. We do not now believe that it is appropriate to give the parties to the proceedings a right of veto of the president's decision.
The Bill provides that the consent of parties is required for certain constitutions of the panel, and I am sure that the noble Lord will not be surprised, in the light of my remarks, that we intend to table an amendment on Report to remove those references. In doing so, we would be bringing the Charity Appeal Tribunal in line with other tribunals where it is for the president alone to decide the constitution of the panel. I hope that, having heard what I have said, the noble Lord will understand why we believe that it would be appropriate to withdraw the reference to,
from paragraph 7 of new Schedule 1B to the 1993 Act. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |