Charities Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 4:30 pm on 28 June 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden Labour 4:30, 28 June 2005

My Lords, I support the amendments being made in this Bill to rationalise the law on charities and to define specific categories of charitable purpose to be covered by it. I have listened carefully to the preceding argument and, as we know, among the purposes listed is the "advancement of religion". Frankly, I still want to put this amendment before the Committee because it seems to me that, once again in this Bill, religions are sorted out as presumably deserving while non-religious bodies are not.

Here I must state my own interests. I am a vice-president of the Humanist Association and an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, formed as long ago as 1866 by Charles Bradlaugh MP—a well-known free thinker of his time. Most secularists adhere to a system of ethical beliefs. We believe that this life is the only one of which we have any knowledge and that human effort should be directed to improving it for humankind. We believe that morality is social in origin and application. Secularism aims at promoting the happiness and well-being of our fellow citizens. We also believe in the abolition of special privileges granted to religious organisations.

We accept that there may be some difficulty in arriving at a suitable form of wording. That is apparent from the discussion we have had this afternoon. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by "religion", and we have sought to come to terms with that argument. Our amendment seeks to spell out that,

"other systems or philosophies of belief or ethics which are not included in subsection (3)(a)", should be covered by this section. Subsection (3)(a), as we have heard, says that,

"'religion' includes—

(i) a religion which involves belief in more than one god, and

(ii) a religion which does involve belief in a god".

This attempts to define secularism in a more precise way.

In our amendment, we have sought to come to terms with the argument that we could be opening the door to frivolous or unworthy beliefs. Our concern is that without some amendment to the list of charitable purposes set out in Clause 2, we shall once again be in the position where theistic religions have a respected and acknowledged place in the scheme of things, but secularists and humanists do not.

Nor is it acceptable in my view to refer to previous case law as an indication that the secularist case is covered. In some of the cases already quoted in the debate this afternoon, the circumstances were entirely different—a different environment, and different circumstances existed, circumstances in which religion was differently considered and always held to have an educational purpose. This is a new Charities Bill, and the position of secular organisations such as the NSS should be respected and acknowledged. I beg to move.