| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his support. I am slightly nonplussed because the result is
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC350
different from what I expected: I thought that we would have more rather than less consent. Therefore that will require a bit of thought.
I am glad that the Minister did not try to argue that one plus one with a casting vote is more dangerous than one sitting alone. That is much more dangerous than one plus one with a casting vote. In the light of what the Minister has said I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall think about the absence of any consent anywhere and may on reflection wish to return to the matter. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Appeals and applications to Charity Appeal Tribunal]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No 97:
Page 76, line 36, at end insert "or against any failure or unconscionable delay in reaching or making any such decision, direction or order"
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to address the very important point recently made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that a charity is up a gum tree if the commission does nothing. The amendment would give any charity dealing with the commission the power to make an appeal to the tribunal in effect against the failure to reach a decision or to make a direction or order. I suppose that the words in the amendment,
are superfluous. Perhaps I should have added the words,
However, the intent is clear enough. I shall be interested to hear how the Government respond to this matter because it needs to be dealt with one way or another. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, gave a hint in respect of my reply as this is a matter with which we dealt in part on an earlier amendment.
We do not believe that it is an appropriate role for the Charity Appeal Tribunal to consider matters of administration. That, in essence, is what lies at the root of this amendment. The tribunal is an independent body to hear substantive appeals about the Charity Commission's decisions. It is not for the tribunal to consider the administrative workings of the commission, although I accept that those are important in themselves.
We believe that cases where the Charity Commission has failed to make or excessively delayed a decision amount to complaints about the commission's standard of service. Anyone concerned about the commission's standard of service should submit a complaint via its established complaints procedure. In doing so, for example, the independent complaints reviewer might recommend that the commission should reach a decision about the relevant direction or order and pay a
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC351
consolatory payment for the excessive delay in doing so. I gave examples of figures regarding how that works currently.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it would be better for what really constitutes a complaint about the commission's standard of service to be dealt with via its established complaints procedure and that it is not appropriate territory for the tribunal. It is for the independent reviewer can consider administrative procedure and, in some cases, the parliamentary ombudsman. That is their field of expertise.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister really believe that a consolatory payment deals with the problem? One could be dealing with a hugely important issue for consideration by the commission. Often the delay is caused by a succession of people dealing with the same matter. I know of one case where a sixth person is dealing with the matter. Each person starts every time de novo. The charity in question is
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC352
suffering grievously because it is holding back a hugely important project, grant programme or whatever. Will the Minister consider the power of the tribunal to give a direction in important and serious cases because I do not think that the present administrative ombudsman-like arrangements deal with the matter satisfactorily? Certainly, consolatory payments are beside the point. I leave the matter there and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.
23 Feb 2005 : Column GC351
Written Statements
Wednesday 23 February 2005
23 Feb 2005 : Column WS85
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): In its report published on 16 July 2002 (HL Paper 150-I) the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures made a number of recommendations that were broadly accepted by the Government in their published response in January 2003 (Command 5729).
The Government have since acted upon most of the Select Committee's main recommendations. This Statement concerns two remaining key recommendations, that the application form for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 should be simplified and shortened, and that anonymised details of granted project licences should be published.
The chief inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate has at my request, and in line with proposals from a joint Home Office/stakeholder working group, been considering these recommendations as part of a review of the project licence application process. The review has been taken forward in close consultation with project licence holders, other stakeholders and members of relevant representative bodies, who have been involved at all stages in the related development work and field trials.
A revised project licence application form has now been placed with other licensing forms on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/licensing.html. The revised form commands the broad acceptance of all directly concerned with its use. It is generally seen as more user-friendly and as a significant improvement on the form it is replacing. It will allow applications to be submitted either in electronic format or as hard copy, and is expected in due course to be adapted for use in a new IT case-working system as a prelude to eventual online processing.
The revised form is gradually being phased into use, and we expect it to be used for all applications started afresh after 31 March 2005. There is provision on it for an applicant to produce an abstract of his/her proposed programme of work for publication on the Home Office website once a licence has been granted. This will help to implement a key recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee, and will also
23 Feb 2005 : Column WS86
meet the requirements of the Home Office publication scheme approved under the Freedom of Information Act.
We expect that a licence abstract in each case will cover points of general interest to the lay reader. These might include the expected benefits of the project, the reason for using animals and the choice of species, the procedures to be undertaken and their likely effects on the animals, and the steps taken to minimise the number of animals used and their suffering. Examples of abstracts provided by existing licence holders are already on the website and can be accessed at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/index.html.
The publication of licence abstracts is a major step towards greater openness and more informed public debate about animal experimentation. We wish to record the Government's appreciation of the willingness of many of the scientists concerned to co-operate in such a ground-breaking development. We also wish to make clear that we will continue to take the greatest care, in collaboration with the scientists, to ensure that no details are published which could jeopardise their safety or their work.
Community Legal Service (Asylum and Immigration) Regulations 2005
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): I have today laid before Parliament, in accordance with Section 103D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as inserted by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, the Community Legal Service (Asylum and Immigration) Regulations 2005. These regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the High Court, when retrospectively awarding legal aid for challenges to decisions of the tribunal.
These regulations will come into force on 4 April. The new legal aid arrangements are being introduced to support the new Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the new system of access to the higher courts, by discouraging weak applications. This will contribute to increasing speed and efficiency within the appeals process and ensuring that public money is focused on applicants with genuine claims.
Under the new arrangements legal aid will be awarded retrospectively at the end of the process, usually by the tribunal judge following reconsideration and in a limited number of cases, following the determination of the review application.
23 Feb 2005 : Column WS85
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |