We reviewed each section and then ratified them.
However, we did have a few observations on them which I agreed to communicate back to the Board.
These are as follows:
-
The ToRs set out the context for the review. We noted that there will be different opinions on context; and therefore as part of our review, we will form our own opinion on context based on available data – and where there is none, seeking to understand the underlying basis for an opinion, where this is relevant to our review and whether we can find that data from other sources. As part of this review, we are interested in understanding the different perceptions and reasons for them. This will form part of our stakeholder engagement.
-
Additionally, we tabled the charitable objects of the CRT and noted the different elements of them. We did this as a way of grounding ourselves in the need to balance each of these objects in our work; and by way of acknowledging that any scenario which we conclude is worthy of recommendation to the Board must not conflict with the ability of CRT to comply with Charity Law.
-
We acknowledged that it would be easy to focus on the enforcement of licensing in our review, but noted that this is subsidiary to an understanding of the wider issues created by the current framework, as you have reflected in paragraph 3.1 of the ToRs. Our work will therefore focus on these wider issues, of which enforcement will we suspect form a part.
-
We will seek to engage a wide range of stakeholders to help us understand the issues about licensing for each group, the ways in which we could evaluate any potential change which mitigates those issues and options which we would recommend to the Board. If any one or more option is favoured by the Board, it can then consult on it in the usual way. We will start that initial engagement early so we are informed by it as we commence our evaluation assessment.
Andrew Cowan
Sir Chris Kelly
Penny Barber
