Charities Bill [HL]

Perhaps it would be for the convenience for the Committee if I spoke to Amendment No. 24, which is in my name, and which deals with the same subject. I am rather surprised that it was not grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I do not mind which of the two amendments the Government accept, but they should accept one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, being a lawyer, probably drafted his own amendment. I am fortunate in that I had another lawyer to draft mine. Not being a lawyer, I shall not try to judge between the two of them. During the discussion of the previous Charities Bill in Grand Committee, the amendment was opposed by the Minister—at col. GC 342 of the Grand Committee proceedings on 23 February—on the ground that it was unnecessary as the Government had decided to propose a tribunal to resolve uncertainty in charity law. The tribunal and the suitors’ fund are not alternatives; they are complementary. The tribunal cannot set legal precedent any more than the commission, and there may be cases when the authority of the High Court is required. The charity sector has been bedevilled by uncertainty in charity law, the snail’s pace at which it moves forward and the cost of taking cases to resolution in the High Court. It is often new charities without any money for lawyers that are at the boundaries of what is charitable and produce the applications which test charity law. If the Minister is right that there will be no applications to the court after the creation of the tribunal, the amendment will become merely academic and cost nothing. But if there are cases that need the authority of the High Court, the tribunal can access a small fund that will enable a charity with a public interest application to obtain an authoritative answer. I am happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I am sure that he could support mine if we needed to get to it.