With respect, my Lords, I do not think the Minister answered the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He asked why the status quo, under the delegation described by the Minister, could not be put in the Bill. If there is retention in the hands of the Minister of the power to revoke that delegation, as there is, it is all very well saying that it is present custom and practice; those can change at the decision of the Minister. That is what we are not willing to see in the Bill.
If the Minister is saying that we should have consulted on this arcane issue before, it would have been helpful had he given us some warning of it. He knows how strongly we feel, because this is not a new amendment. I put back to him the fact that, if my amendment would change the status of the employees of the Charity Commission to their disadvantage, it is a straightforward matter for the Minister to bring back an amendment at Third Reading to say, quite simply, that their status is unchanged by this amendment. On the basis of past debates on this issue and debate today, I believe that the issue should be put to the House for determination.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 134
Schedule 2 [Establishment of the Charity Commission: supplementary]:
Charities Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Charities Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c327-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:00:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265633
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265633
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265633