Charities Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister and I am sorry that we have had to go over this ground again. On this side, we were not happy that   the Lord Chancellor’s rules—the mechanism governing promulgation or the need to promulgate—were a sufficient safeguard. That is why we gave the example—admittedly, it has to be from the Charity Commission rather than the tribunal because the tribunal does not exist yet—of the delay in publicising a pretty important case where there was no issue of confidentiality or prejudice to the interests of justice. That is also why the words ““without unreasonable delay”” were included—so that if there was a reason why it should not be done quickly, it could be held up for the time being. I accept the argument about prejudicing the interests of justice and the argument about confidentiality. On balance, we felt that those would be less important than transparency. However, we have probably sucked most of the juice out of this orange and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.