Charities Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for coupling his amendment with that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. My argument is the same so it is highly desirable to consider the two together. As both noble Lords said, we have discussed the issue before. That debate took place on 23 February this year. On that occasion I said:"““We accept that there might be a small number of cases””—" before the tribunal—"““in which the issues are of clear public interest . . .  where the issues are  . . . complex  . . . [and] the appellant might not have the   resources to engage legal representation””.—[Official Report, 23/2/05; col. GC 342.]" I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord   Phillips, that there will be occasions when that is highly desirable. The Attorney-General will be copied in to all tribunal cases, and we envisage that in such complex cases he might want to exercise his power to be a party to the proceedings and to argue them before the tribunal. That would relieve the appellant of much of the cost of engaging legal representation. In addition, the Legal Services Commission will be able to grant exceptional funding before the tribunal in certain cases. The common reason for granting exceptional funding is because of cases in the public interest or for what is effectively a test case. Given the existence of the Attorney-General’s power to intervene and the ability of the Legal Services Commission to grant exceptional funding, the Government continue to believe that the case for a separate suitors’ fund has not been made. It is for those reasons that we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.