| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 112:
"(a) a single Act, or
(b) a group of two or more Acts,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last group of amendments. I shall speak also to the five other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 112. All the amendments relate to a possible consolidation of charity law. A long time ago, at the beginning of the debates on the Bill, there was a heartfelt plea for consolidation—it was probably made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who seems to be putting his hand up. It was a popular cause.
The Bill contains a power to make pre-consolidation amendments of the enactments relating to charities. However, as drafted, it allows for the possibility of only one consolidation Act. Amendments Nos. 112, 114 and 115 allow for the possibility of more than one consolidation Act. We have not decided that we would like to have more than one, and the amendments are not supposed to indicate that that is necessarily our proposed course of action. However, there is at least a possibility that more than one consolidation Act might be desirable; for example, one Act covering public charitable collections and another covering everything else. It is
18 Oct 2005 : Column 733
better to err on the side of caution and to allow for that possibility, ensuring that if more than one consolidation is required the Secretary of State has a power to make pre-consolidation amendments.
Amendment No. 113 is simply a drafting correction suggested by parliamentary counsel, and Amendments Nos. 113 and 116 define more precisely the enactments to which the Secretary of State could make pre-consolidation amendments. Clause 74 already defines the enactments relating to charities in general terms, but we now believe that it would be better to define more precisely which enactments we are talking about. Those two amendments achieve that objective. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it is nice to respond to the last group of amendments on Report by saying how strongly one supports them, particularly the notion of having various consolidating Acts. The noble Lord is quite right: a public collection is a good example of where a discrete Act might be of benefit to all concerned.
My only additional point is that the new definition in Amendment No. 116 seems either long-winded or necessary. I think that it is the latter, as the definition in the Bill does not include charities in Scotland but the amendment does. Otherwise, it is a helpful group.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 116:
"(a) the Charities Act 1992 (c. 41), the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10) and this Act,
(b) any other enactment relating to institutions which fall within section 1(1) of this Act, and
(c) any other enactment, so far as forming part of the law of England and Wales, which makes provision relating to bodies or institutions which are charities under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland,
and section 75(2)(a) (definition of "charity") does not apply for the purposes of this section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 117:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 118:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
18 Oct 2005 : Column 734
Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2005
6.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) rose to move, That the rules laid before the House on 27 June be approved [2nd report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the rules insert a new Order 116A into the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) 1980 to support proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings in the Court of Appeal under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It may be helpful if I recap briefly the background to the rules.
It remains the Government's view that it is appropriate and necessary that procedures are put in place to protect the nation against the risk of terrorism caused by individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activity but who cannot be prosecuted through the criminal courts. However, it is also the Government's view that it is imperative that such procedures are subject to strict safeguards and consistent with the rule of law and our human rights obligations.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provides for the making of control orders that impose obligations on individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity. The Act, as noble Lords will recall, draws a distinction between two types of control order: the derogating control order and the non-derogating control order, and there are different judicial procedures in respect of each type of control order. The purpose of this amendment to the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) 1980 is to establish rules to support control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings.
Noble Lords will recall that supreme court rules are usually made by the Northern Ireland Supreme Court Rules Committee, which is the body with statutory responsibility for maintaining those rules. The committee is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Brian Kerr, and is made up of representatives from the judiciary, barristers and solicitors. Due to the exceptional circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was passed, it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court Rules Committee to make the relevant changes to the rules of court in the very short period of time originally available. That is why it was necessary to legislate for a special rule-making procedure under paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act authorising the Lord Chancellor to make rules on the first occasion after the Act was passed, instead of the Supreme Court Rules Committee. This mirrored the approach taken in England and Wales whereby the relevant civil procedure rules were made by the Lord Chancellor as opposed to the civil procedure rules committee.
The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was informed before the introduction of the Bill of the need for a special procedure to make the first set of rules.
18 Oct 2005 : Column 735
The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, made the first set of rules, but the Supreme Court Rules Committee may make any subsequent rules or amendments as and when necessary. Rules made by the Supreme Court Rules Committee will be subject to the normal requirements of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, including the negative resolution procedure.
The Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2005 introduce a new Order 116A to the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) 1980. The new rules in Order 116A are based on the general principle that the existing provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court relating to applications and appeals in general should apply to control order proceedings and appeals subject to any necessary modifications as set out in Order 116A.
The order is divided into five parts. Part I deals with the scope of the order, the interpretation of terms used, and necessary modification of the overriding objective of the Rules of the Supreme Court, to ensure that sensitive information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. It has been modified for the purposes of the new order by placing a new duty on the court to ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest and by requiring the overriding objective to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with that duty.
Part II deals with applications to the High Court relating to derogating control orders. Part III deals with leave applications, references and appeals to the High Court relating to non-derogating control orders. Part IV deals with onward appeals to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. Part V contains general provisions that apply to all proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This includes provision in Rules 25 to 28 for closed hearings and the use of special advocates.
Finally, Part V also includes provisions in Rules 30 to 32 which require the Secretary of State to disclose to the court all the material available to him and which is relevant to the matter under consideration. The Secretary of State must also disclose all such material to the other party,. except where the court permits him to withhold material on the grounds that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. If the Secretary of State withholds material from the other party without the permission of the court, the court may prevent the Secretary of State from relying on such material himself, or it may withdraw the matter from its consideration. These rules reflect the requirements of paragraph 4(3) of the schedule to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was inserted by an amendment to the Bill to meet concerns about the need to establish a procedure for the disclosure of exculpatory material.
That is an outline of the substantive provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2005.
18 Oct 2005 : Column 736
Moved, That the rules laid before the House on 27 June be approved [2nd report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |