| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this afternoon's debate has afforded the opportunity to have a useful exchange of views across the House. I do not intend to reply to the detailed points raised in the debate. Should the House agree to the Motion, those are points that the committee should consider in seeking to make recommendations that would then be put before this House for it to decide on.
I say at the outset that this is not a party-political issue. There has been a sense from some speakers this afternoon that the Government are in some way trying to force the House to move in a particular direction. That is not the case. The Constitutional Reform Bill has been enacted, and as Leader of the House I have returned to a process that started in 2003. I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that I see this as a decision for the House. If the House agrees to the
12 Jul 2005 : Column 1031
Motion, it will be for the committee to hear the views of Members of this House and then report back to them for a decision.
A strong thread running through the debate today has been the principle of self-regulation and the importance of the ethos of this House. I could not agree more; it is at the heart of the proposals that I have put before noble Lords today. But this House must have some way of ensuring that self-regulation works. Of course it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, but at the same time the House has vested in me a degree of authority to make interventions at certain points, and the House expects the Whips on each Bench to make interventions. There must be a way of ensuring that self-regulation works.
It is clear that this House does not want to become like the other place. It does not want a Speaker with the kind of powers vested in the Speaker in another place. That came through very strongly in the first report of the Lloyd committee on the Speakership of this House.
I do not consider having a presiding officer and self-regulation as mutually exclusive. I certainly do not think that having a presiding officer will take away from the authority of the Leader. Anyone elected by this House would be given pretty short shrift if they sought to move this House beyond the limits that it had agreed. We must remember that very important point.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Baroness envisage the presiding officer having any powers at all?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my personal view, which I will put to the committee, is that I would like the presiding officer to take on the functions that the Whips currently fulfil in this House. That is what I think being guardian of the Companion means and it is what I mean when I say that we must have a way of ensuring self-regulation. It is the ethos and feeling of the House that that individual must put in place.
That is why I say that, if any individual went beyond what the House wishes, the House would make it absolutely clear that that was the case. In that sense, I have absolute confidence that we will not stray into having the kind of Speaker that exists in another place. This House does not want it, and noble Lords would in no way allow any individual to stray into that territory. I have absolute confidence that the Members of this House will work to ensure that that does not happen.
I recognise the concerns expressed. I have to say that some of the fear is misplaced. But that is precisely why in the Motion I proposed that the committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, should look at the detail, report back to the House and then give the House an opportunity to decide.
I assure noble Lords that more than one Member of this House will be in the Cabinet. Noble Lords know that it is for the Prime Minister to decide who is in the Cabinet. When I was appointed Secretary of State for
12 Jul 2005 : Column 1032
International Development, there were three Members of this House in the Cabinet. The Government Chief Whip, although he is not a member of Cabinet, has attended Cabinet since 1997. These are matters for the Prime Minister. I would be a very brave woman to stand at the Dispatch Box and make promises on his behalf.
In my opening speech, I alluded to three issues which I had borne in mind in drawing up the Motion. The first issue is the need for this House to have a strong independent voice. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. While Back-Benchers in this House are perfectly able to stand up for themselves, there is an issue about this House collectively having a voice and, in particular, collectively having a voice on issues such as public engagement and the standing of this House as a House of Parliament.
A number of times recently there have been, for example, stories in the press about Members of this House, which have not been party political. Had I, or the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde or Lord McNally, responded on those issues, it would have been seen as a party political issue rather than an issue of the House of Lords as a whole.
We are in a changing environment in terms of the way in which politicians and Parliament are viewed. That is why I said that a second issue guiding me was that there is a very strong role that we need to exploit to build public awareness and confidence in Parliament. The third issue that I took note of was the important principle of self-regulation.
If the Motion is agreed I will of course give more detailed evidence on those matters from my point of view to the committee. I feel very strongly that this House needs to have confidence in itself and confidence in its ability to move on while retaining the elements that are most important to it. I hope that the House will agree the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Charities Bill [HL]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 35:
"POWER TO INSTITUTE INQUIRIES
(1) Section 8 of the 1993 Act is amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (1), insert "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"
12 Jul 2005 : Column 1033
(3) After subsection (1), insert—
"(1A) The Commissioners may only institute such an inquiry on reasonable grounds and such grounds must be communicated in writing by the Commission within 7 days of the opening of such an inquiry to—
(a) the persons who are or claim to be the charity trustees of every institution which is the subject of such an inquiry, and
(b) (if a body corporate) each institution which is the subject of such an inquiry."
(4) After subsection (6), insert—
"(6A) In the case of either form of publication determined by the Commissioners under subsection (6) above, the Commissioners shall allow the persons who are or claim to be the charity trustees of every institution which is the subject of such an inquiry to add their own comments to such report or statement provided such comments are not manifestly unreasonable and are provided within such reasonable period as the Commissioners may determine.""
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 35 would insert a new clause into the Bill, entitled, Power to institute inquiries. While the new proposal to include the statement of the commission's general duties as outlined in the Bill—in particular, the requirement that the commission must have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice—is helpful, it is suggested that the commission's free-standing power to open an inquiry into a charity should have specific principles expressed as being applicable to carrying out all or any such inquiries.
In the past, the commission has been in the practice of opening inquiries without giving written notice to the charities affected. It now gives written notice to charities on the opening of an inquiry. Its reasons for opening such an inquiry are often implicitly clear, but we suggest that its obligations on taking such a step should be broadened and made explicit.
The opening of an inquiry is potentially a damaging matter for a charity. It may well be an occasion on which a charity or its trustees would wish to refer such a matter to the Charity Appeal Tribunal. Indeed, such a decision of the commission is a matter which is expressly reviewable under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 relating to the tribunal. Because of the potential impact of such an inquiry on a charity, it is very important that charities and their trustees should know why the commission has considered it appropriate to take such a step, not least because it may be possible to dispel concerns quickly and readily, thus avoiding potential further damage to the charity. This amendment would ensure that charities are notified of why the commission has taken the step to initiate an inquiry, and surely this is a desirable feature.
Subsection (4) of the amendment could be described as the "right to reply" provision. Amendment No. 48, tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, covers some of this ground and I apologise if I am stealing his thunder. It has been brought to our attention that to date the commission has been in the habit of producing reports ex cathedra, with the charity or individuals who are the subject of the report having no prior view of what is said about it or them. Not only is that clearly unsatisfactory,
12 Jul 2005 : Column 1034
it is also at odds with modern administrative practice. No doubt some lawyers would argue that it is in contravention of the ECHR.
Too often we are told that such reports contain not just errors of misinterpretation, but straightforward errors of fact. Surely it is in everyone's interest that these reports should be factually accurate and that the charities or individuals concerned should be able to add reasonable comments on the qualitative conclusions reached by the inquiry.
According to the Government, a key strategy objective behind the Bill is to maintain public confidence in the charitable sector. This is most likely to be achieved if the reports of inquiries are as consensual as possible. The commission is to gain significant powers under the Bill, and this new clause would be a useful check and balance. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |