Clause 8
Charities Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I will withdraw the amendment. However, I shall do so in the hope that the Minister, having found himself a little ill at ease in answering some of the questions that were put to him, will consider examining the schedule and making appropriate amendments in due course under the powers that are conferred in the Bill to address these serious issues.
The general principles that he has stated do not hold water. If other decisions are in the schedule, both being and not being made and in both cases being open to challenge, and if such a serious matter—the phrase he used was “of sufficient gravity”—as the decision to instigate an inquiry can be included in the positive, I cannot understand why it, like those other decisions, cannot be included in the negative as well. That seems a perfectly logical and reasonable thing to do.
I do not think that the other amendments in the group, which have not been moved and therefore cannot be withdrawn—I am learning Mr. Gale—take us into the field of administration. There is nothing to suggest that in the amendments. They allow a particular class of decision—to appoint a receiver manager—to be revisited and reopened. That does not mean that the administration has to be reviewed as a matter of legal principle. It simply allows the decision to continue with the appointment of receiver manager to be challenged. That seems a reasonable and legally justifiable step to take. With that expectation and hope, I withdraw the amendment in my name.