UK Parliament / Open data

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].
moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, Amendment No. 51: Line 23, at end insert ““, and (c)   the Tribunal may require the whole or a proportion of the fair and reasonable costs of any permitted party to be borne by the Commission.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52. The Government have introduced a new Schedule ID. These useful amendments would allow the Charity Commission or the Attorney-General to refer matters to the tribunal in circumstances where a decision has not yet been reached if they consider that there is an issue of law or policy which warrants it. That, in turn, would entitle the tribunal to allow charity trustees or any other person likely to be affected to become parties to the proceedings. I have come across this situation a number of times over the years. When considering an application for charitable status, the commission is put into a quandary over whether a particular application is or is not permissible under current charity law. With the advent of the tribunal and with this permissive power, I do not doubt some cases will avail themselves of the opportunity to have the tribunal answer a difficult question for them. That is the whole point. It could work unfairly for a charity pursuing an application for status if it found itself caught in the middle of a test case for a whole category of would-be charities. In those circumstances, an individual party would be affected. It would want to make representations because a particular case would also be its suit, albeit that it would represent the test for a category of similar potential cases. If the Attorney-General throws his hat into the ring, that is fine. He will take up cudgels for the would-be applicant. But if he does not, the applicant would be drawn into what inevitably would be highly expensive legal proceedings. My amendment—Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are essentially the same save that one applies to a reference made by the commission and the other by the Attorney-General—would give the tribunal the discretion to decide whether, in all the circumstances, it thought it fair and reasonable for part or all of the costs of the party involved to be paid by the commission or the Attorney-General. I hope that the amendments commend themselves and I beg to move Amendment No. 51.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

674 c389 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top