---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for so succinctly explaining what he is seeking to achieve. This goes back to what I was alluding to in the previous group: looking for the flexibility that recognises that the Tribunals Service has developed over a number of years and has expertise in a number of different fields. I assume we recognise that that may well continue to be the case in the future. We may find that new tribunals grow up as a consequence of changes, either in the operation of government or in the operation of specific pieces of legislation. Part of what we seek to do with this Bill is not to rule out possibilities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, accepts the principle behind that, though I understand his desire to understand what we have in mind. I can point to examples: there are occasions when expertise from a Commonwealth jurisdiction or another European jurisdiction may be relevant, or when, for particular tribunals that have expertise way beyond me in matters of taxation and so on, it might be appropriate to look for someone who has acquired expertise in a more academic field. We have sought the flexibility in paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 2 to enable the Lord Chancellor, looking at the breadth of the Tribunals Service, to identify people with specific expertise who might be eligible to serve on a particular tribunal. I have given examples of other jurisdictions—Commonwealth and European—and particular areas of expertise. The Lord Chancellor will have in mind the specific function of a tribunal, the particular areas of expertise that could be drawn down and where such expertise exists. But, again, this is about eligibility. I think the noble Lord accepts the principle that this does not mean that such people will be appointed but that they may be eligible for appointment. That is the current thinking in those areas.