Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 26:"Page 85, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 86 and insert—" ““1   (1)   Except in the case of a reviewable matter as set out in paragraph 3, an appeal may be brought to the Tribunal against any decision, direction or order made or given by the Commission under this Act (including any decision not to give a direction, make an order or otherwise act under this Act.    (2)   Such an appeal may be brought by— (a)   the Attorney General, or (b)   any person from the following— (i)   the persons who are or claim to be the charity trustees of the institution or who otherwise have control or management of the institution, (ii)   (if a body corporate) the institution itself, and (iii)   any other person who is or may be affected by the decision, direction or order (as the case may be).    (3)   In determining such an appeal the Tribunal— (a)   shall consider afresh the decision, direction or order appealed against, and (b)   may take into account evidence which was not available to the Commission.    (4)   The Tribunal may— (a)   dismiss the appeal, or (b)   if it allows the appeal, exercise any of the following powers— (i)   quash the decision, direction or order (as the case may be), in whole or in part, and (if appropriate) remit the matter to the Commission, (ii)   substitute for all or part of the decision, direction or order (as the case may be) such other decision, direction or order as could have been made or given by the Commission, (iii)   give such direction to the Commission as it shall consider appropriate, (iv)   substitute for all or part of any direction or order any other direction or order which could have been made by the Commission, (v)   add to the decision, direction or order (as the case may be) anything which could have been contained in the original decision, direction or order.”” The noble Lord said: The Minister will be aware that I have had Schedule 4 in my gun sights. I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 to 31. The amendments seek to remove the current table under Schedule 4, which is a jolly long table at that, and reword the details of how appeals and applications can be made to the Charity Appeal Tribunal. The table provided in the Bill makes it clear which Charity Commission decisions will be subject to appeal, who will be able to submit an appeal in each case, and the powers of the tribunal in relation to those decisions. That is a clumsy, ineffective and wordy approach. The effect of the amendments taken as a whole is to open the tribunal to all appeals rather than to restrict the tribunal to appeals as listed in the current overly prescriptive format in the table under Schedule 4. The Strategy Unit report, Private Action, Public Benefit, in   recommending the introduction of a tribunal, envisaged that it would, first, hear appeals against legal decisions of the commission (paragraph 7.79); and, secondly, be able to make determination in the case of delay or impasse in the commission’s decision-making process (paragraph 7.8). The Charities Bill instead includes at present a right of appeal that is restricted to the specific decisions and orders of the commission. In being so specific in the Schedule 4 table, there is a danger of significant omission or inappropriate provision that may only be corrected by the order of the Secretary of State approved by each House of Parliament as in Schedule 4 paragraph 6. That is an inflexible model for a major new institution and decision-making procedure, and the right of appeal still does not extend to instances of delay or impasse. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained at the previous Committee stage why the Government chose to specify each matter that is appealable to the tribunal. He said:"““While it would have been possible to group some of the decisions together, we believe that it is simpler to list the decisions in the order in which they appear in the Charities Act 1993. In that way a lay person can quickly identify whether the decision they are concerned about falls within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and whether they are eligible to appeal. It is necessarily long and complicated in order to be effective””.—[Official Report, 23/2/05; col. GC 345.]" So it appears that the Minister believes that all the commission decisions that are listed under the 1993 act have been lifted and put into Schedule 4 of this Bill as decisions which can be appealed against. However, the Charity Law Association has pointed out that that is not the case by any means. It has already identified two examples: neither the provisions of Section 29 nor those of Section 33 of the 1993 Act had been listed in the table. Section 29 of the 1993 Act specifies that the commissioners may, on the written application of any charity trustee, give him or her their opinion or advice on any matter affecting the performance of his or her duties. This is an important consideration. If a charity wishes to do something which it is not positive is fully within the confines of charity law, it can write to the commission and receive advice which would make any actions the charity was subsequently to carry out bomb-proof. There is nothing in Schedule 4 that allows an appeal to be made to the tribunal against the commission for failing to provide advice. Similarly, with no reference to Section 33 of the 1993 Act, a charity cannot appeal against a decision of the commission which does not authorise the taking of charity proceedings. Nor, in either of these two cases, can the charity appeal against any lengthy delay in   coming to a decision on either proceedings or providing advice. These are just two examples of how this prescriptive method of listing the commission decisions which could be subject to appeal is highly restrictive. Who knows what other similar lacunae may not appear after the Bill has become law? These amendments would solve this by establishing in its place a full general right of appeal, including a right to request the tribunal to make a determination in the event of undue delay on the part of the commission. This approach also has the desirable by-product of reducing the length of the Bill by some six pages—that is Amendment No. 31. I hope that all noble Lords who share my view of the desirability of reducing the volume of legislation will support these amendments. I beg to move.