---

Charities Bill [HL]

I have a couple of points to make on the amendment which I support for all the reasons so eloquently deployed by my noble friends. That is because it seems to me that the law is not only, and perhaps not even primarily, for lawyers; it is for the citizens who intend to abide by it. Ordinary people, like me, do not understand that non-religion is included in the term ““religion””. It flies against sense. However, I am comforted by the fact that the Government share that view in numerous other pieces of legislation. I believe that we need joined-up government here. We should use the language of the European Convention on Human Rights. We should say ““religion or belief””. I am also comforted by the opinion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated:"““We remain of the view that protection of Article 9 rights on an equal basis could most effectively and clearly be ensured by provision on the face of the Bill, expressly extending clause 2(2)(c) to cover all religious and non-religious organisations which promote systems of belief””." Finally, there is a question of parity: non-religion should be on a par with religion. It will not be so unless we adopt the internationally-recognised language of ““religion or belief””.