Charities Bill [HL]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and for his explanation of it. I hope that he will consider what I am about to say as a positive response. We believe that the requirements of procedural fairness under the general law are likely to require the Charity Commission to supply reasons in such cases where it makes an order affecting a charity. As I have said on previous occasions, other than when it would prejudice an inquiry into a charity, it is the commission’s usual practice to inform the trustees of why it has taken any significant action using its protective powers. The commission also provides the trustees with information about how to ask the commission formally to review a decision which it has made and about statutory rights of appeal. I appreciate that several of your Lordships have pressed for a statutory requirement to give reasons in relation to several of the commission’s protective powers. We tabled two amendments specifically in relation to the appointment of interim managers under Section 19 of the 1993 Act and the new power in Clause 20 of the Bill to give specific directions for the protection of the charity, the first of these specifically requiring the giving of reasons. We are therefore familiar with the territory. However, after further consideration, we believe that it would be better to have a consistent statutory approach covering all the commission’s protective powers in Section 18 of the 1993 Act and new Sections 19A and 19B inserted into that Act by this Bill. As a result we have withdrawn the proposed government amendments relating to the two specific powers. We propose to consider this further and return at Third Reading with a suitable amendment. That amendment would require the commission to give a copy of the order, and the reasons for making it, to the charity if incorporated or the trustees if unincorporated. However, there should still be the caveat that the commission need not comply with either requirement so long as it considered that to do so would either prejudice any inquiry or investigation, or not be in the interests of the charity. That is quite an important further consideration. We also want to bear in mind that the Lord Chancellor’s rules will provide the requirement for notification of appeal rights to the tribunal, and that this should work compatibly with any requirement to provide reasons. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that as a positive response; I think it certainly is, and I think it probably satisfies what the noble Lord is after.