Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am deeply sorry that the former Solicitor-General cannot say his piece, but so be it. The Minister said that the tribunal hearing would not be adversarial. That would depend on what he means. The argument will have two sides or it would not be brought before the tribunal. He went on to say that the commission will ensure that the would-be charity’s view can be put across. But I have to say that that is an unsafe assumption. If the tribunal hears an argument in respect of what might be called a frontier charity, it is more helpful if it is able to hear from the parties on both sides of the argument rather than to expect one advocate to present both sides; that is, I believe that the tribunal proceedings themselves would be diminished in their effectiveness unless the traditional two sides of the argument are presented. That need not be adversarial. It can be an exploratory hearing. Finally, the Minister said that my amendment would force the Attorney-General. It would not force anyone to do anything, rather it is merely a discretion for the tribunal, in the particular circumstances, to come to the aid of the party that finds itself in the middle of a fascinating but extremely expensive case. I am disappointed that the Minister will not concede and accept the amendment at this stage. I would be grateful if he would read my response with a view conceivably to coming back with something at Third Reading. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 51, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 52, as an amendment to Amendment No. 50, not moved.] On Question, Amendment No. 50 agreed to. Clause 9 [Registration of Charities]: