In a country where transparency is increasingly recognised as a cornerstone of public trust, it is striking—astonishing, even—that Clergy Discipline Tribunals (CDTs) remain entirely outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. At a time when public institutions, regulators, and professional bodies are expected to operate in the open, the disciplinary system governing the Church of England’s clergy still functions behind a statutory curtain. And the question practically asks itself: why?

The UK has a long and proud tradition of using transparency to strengthen confidence in public and quasi‑public bodies. Many of the tribunals that sit outside HM Courts & Tribunals Service are nevertheless subject to FOIA, and the benefits of that openness are clear.

Take the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, for example. Its decisions shape the careers of doctors and influence public safety. Because the MPTS is subject to FOIA, journalists, researchers, and members of the public can scrutinise how cases are handled, how sanctions are applied, and whether the system is functioning fairly. That scrutiny has exposed inconsistencies, prompted policy reviews, and ultimately improved the way the medical profession is regulated.

Or look at the Traffic Commissioner inquiries, which oversee the conduct of professional drivers and operators. FOIA has enabled campaigners to obtain data on licence revocations, safety breaches, and enforcement patterns—information that has directly informed road‑safety campaigns and parliamentary debate. Transparency has not weakened the system; it has strengthened it.

Even the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, dealing with some of the most sensitive matters imaginable, is subject to FOIA. While exemptions apply for obvious reasons, the principle remains: where public power is exercised, public accountability follows.

And yet, Clergy Discipline Tribunals—bodies that adjudicate serious allegations including bullying, harassment, spiritual abuse, and sexual misconduct—operate with none of this statutory openness. Their decisions can profoundly affect complainants, clergy, congregations, and communities. They deal with matters that go to the heart of safeguarding, trust, and institutional integrity. But unlike the tribunals regulating doctors, nurses, solicitors, pharmacists, chiropractors, or even crofters, CDTs are shielded from the basic transparency obligations that apply across the public sphere.

This exemption is not merely an administrative quirk. It has real‑world consequences.

Without FOIA, there is no right to request data on how long cases take, how many complaints are dismissed at preliminary stages, how sanctions vary across dioceses, or how often safeguarding concerns intersect with disciplinary allegations. There is no enforceable route to obtain internal policies, training materials, or anonymised case statistics. There is no mechanism for journalists or researchers to test whether the system is consistent, fair, or effective.

In short, there is no sunlight.

And sunlight matters. We have seen, time and again, that institutions dealing with misconduct and safeguarding cannot rely on internal assurances alone. Transparency is not an optional extra; it is a safeguard in its own right.

Some may argue that ecclesiastical tribunals are part of a religious institution and therefore should not be subject to FOIA. But this argument collapses under the weight of comparison. Many of the tribunals already covered by FOIA regulate professions that are self‑governing, self‑funded, and independent of the state. The General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the General Optical Council—none are arms of government, yet all are subject to FOIA because they exercise public functions affecting public trust.

Clergy Discipline Tribunals do exactly that. They adjudicate on the conduct of office‑holders who perform marriages, funerals, pastoral care, and safeguarding responsibilities. Their decisions shape public confidence in the Church’s ability to police its own standards. That is a public function by any reasonable measure.

So the question becomes not “why should CDTs be covered by FOIA?” but why on earth aren’t they already?

If transparency improves every other disciplinary system it touches—and the evidence shows that it does—then the continued exemption of Clergy Discipline Tribunals is not just outdated. It is indefensible.

It is time for Parliament, the Church, and the public to demand change. A disciplinary system that affects real people, real communities, and real safeguarding outcomes must not be allowed to operate in the shadows. FOIA coverage would not undermine the Church. It would strengthen it, by ensuring that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

And that is the very least the public should expect.