Clause 3
Charities Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Andrew Turner (Shadow Minister (Charities), Home Affairs; Isle of Wight, Conservative)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Gale.
Both of the amendments resist the abolition of the presumption of public benefit which seems to be at the heart of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 refers to clause 2(2)(a) and (c) and amendment No. 54 to clause 2(2)(b). The principle embodied in the Bill is very simple: it is that there should be a level playing field and all charities should have to demonstrate public benefit, albeit that that principle was somewhat undermined by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cheltenham in support of amendment No. 71. What is interesting is that the public benefit test seems to be different for many of the causes set out in clause 2(2). My intention in tabling the amendments is twofold. First, it is to tease out what the law is on public benefit in respect of each of the three charitable purposes. Secondly, it is to test whether it is to the advantage of the populace in general that charities should have to devote time and energy to demonstrating public benefit when to do so is otiose, as in the case of the relief of poverty, or impossible, as in the case of the advancement of religion.
I am told that, under charity case law, it is not those who engage in religious practices who are the public who benefit; the public benefit is the benefit that they bring to society by rubbing shoulders with those who do not so engage. In other words, people who engage in religious practices are presumed to become more moral and altruistic as a result, so the public at large benefit when they mix with such people. That is an ingenious interpretation. However, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that
“all charities will have to show that they are for the public benefit...an organisation will have to show that it generates identifiable benefits that reach...a sufficiently large section of the public.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 25.]
What are the identifiable benefits from religion that reach a sufficiently large section of the public? If it were a case of rubbing shoulders, many religions, but not all, will be able to demonstrate public benefit.
Perhaps prayer brings comfort to those who participate in it, but I am worried about how we can demonstrate that it generates a public benefit. I said that on Second Reading, but I do not think that I received a satisfactory reply. Can we demonstrate that the prayer undertaken by people engaged in religion has made them more moral and altruistic? Is that what religions will be asked to demonstrate?