Charities Bill [HL]

We debated this amendment in Grand Committee on 23 February, when I agreed to reflect further on what was said. Having done so, I remain—sadly, from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—of the view that there are merits in having some flexibility on the publication of the tribunal’s decisions. It will be open for appellants to appeal to the Charity Appeal Tribunal on what I am sure Members of the Committee will agree are a wide range of issues, from the removal of a charity trustee to requiring a charity to change its name. There is already provision in the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to make rules about the recording and promulgation of decisions. As I probably said previously, in our view the amendment is unnecessary and if, as seems likely to be the case, it would prevent rules dispensing with the   requirement to publish decisions in particular circumstances, it is, in the Government’s view, unnecessarily restrictive. Tribunals, of which the Charity Appeal Tribunal will be one, usually make arrangements for the public pronouncement of their decisions as soon as possible in the interests of those involved, whether by giving their decisions orally or at a public hearing or by publishing them in writing. Such decisions, which usually include a summary of the facts and reasons on which the decision is based, are placed on tribunals’ websites. The Government believe that it is right that tribunals should be able to exercise the power to exclude from public pronouncement or publishing particulars of any decision in special circumstances; for example, where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. In those circumstances, it might be appropriate for tribunals to anonymise any decision, edit the text of any decision or decline to publish the whole or part of any decision. This is entirely in line with government policy on tribunal reforms and with the guidance laid down by the Council on Tribunals on drafting tribunal rules. This is the process envisaged for the Charity Appeal Tribunal. Of course, we endorse the general principle of transparency in these matters, but there may well be circumstances where sensitivities have to be very carefully thought through. That is why we think it more appropriate to approach the matter as we have. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that the Bill as drafted allows for the promulgation of decisions—very much as he envisages—but in view of what he has said, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.