Charities Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 21:"Page 8, line 23, at end insert—" ““(   )   requiring the Tribunal to publish its decisions without unreasonable delay”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21, which concerns Clause 8 and the Charity Appeal Tribunal, inserts into new Section 2B the requirement that the tribunal publishes its decisions. One of the major difficulties faced by charities in recent years is that, though the Charity Commission has to date been the main forum where developments in charity law practice have taken place, despite the best efforts of the commission, it has not in every case publicised the changes of law practice instituted by it. One such example concerns a landmark decision announced by the Charity Commission on 21 February 2005. The press release from the Government News Network, which is available at www.gnn.gov.uk, explained that the decision,"““means that charities can now deliver public services which public authorities have a statutory duty to provide. As a result, both the Trafford Community Leisure Trust and the Wigan Leisure and Culture Trust have been registered as charities””." It went on to explain:"““This decision changes our previous approach that charities could not usually use charitable funds to pay for public services—which a public authority had a duty to provide—but could only supplement them. This was reconsidered when the two organisations asked us to review our original decision to reject their applications for charitable status . . .  In the course of the review, the Commission also looked again at the extent to which existing charities may carry out public services. It is now for the charity’s trustees to decide if they should contract with a public authority  . . . The published decision sets out our full guidance for charities””." This is a landmark case in charity law that has had significant ramifications for the third sector. The problem is that these published decisions that set out the full guidance were published, as mentioned, in February 2005. However, the decision that changed the law was made in April 2004, which was 10 months earlier. Charities need to be kept abreast of any change in charity law, particularly significant changes such as this. If the tribunal is to take on the official role of charity law implementer, rather than the quasi role that the commission now holds, it should be imperative for such decisions to be published as soon as they are made. If charity law is to develop consistently and transparently, it is important that the commission, the charities themselves and their advisers should be aware of tribunal decisions. With such information, the sector can be kept informed about, and in touch with, developments in charity law. It can also significantly benefit the commission by reducing the time that it has to spend advising and updating charities, as greater transparency on tribunal decisions should result in fewer queries being directed to it. We argue that it is dangerous to leave a loophole whereby it becomes possible for the tribunal either to delay publishing its decisions or not to publish them at all. As a major new institution in the charity field, there should be a statutory requirement for the tribunal to publish its decisions without delay. I beg to move.