Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 61: 61: Clause 23, page 19, line 14, leave out subsection (6) The noble Lord said: Clause 23(1) states: "““The Senior President of Tribunals may give directions””," in certain circumstances. My amendment relates to subsection (6), which states: "““Subsections (4) and (5)(b) do not apply to directions to the extent that they consist of guidance about any of the following—""(a) the application or interpretation of the law;""(b) the making of decisions by members of the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal””." Members of the Committee will have observed that, under subsections (4) and (5), the Senior President of Tribunals can give directions only with the approval of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, in subsection (6) there is no such qualification. Under subsection (6)(a), the Senior President of Tribunals is entitled to give directions on, "““the application or interpretation of the law””," without any reference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Generally speaking, we have been wary of the extension of the Lord Chancellor’s powers in the Bill. However, we wonder whether in this case the scope of the Senior President of Tribunals is cast too widely. Of course, it depends to some extent what the statutory intention is behind his power to give directions on, "““the application or interpretation of the law””." On the face of it, it looks a very wide discretion indeed: it looks as though the senior president can effectively direct tribunals on matters of law, which ought—in principle, at any rate—to be within their sole compass. The amendment is really an amalgam of a genuine amendment and, plainly, an element of probing, because we are not exactly sure what the intention of the legislator is. I beg to move.