---

Charities Bill [Lords]

This is an interesting debate that illustrates a theme that was clear in the debate on section 36 agreements—that there is a practical advantage in having clarity in such a Bill, because that avoids the kind of arguments that are reasonably harmless in this place but when conducted in the courts and with solicitors add up to delays and large bills for the charities involved. Government amendment No. 2, which has not been discussed a great deal, adds a head of charity for"““the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services””." We owe the amendment to the inspiration of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and I am pleased that the Government have tabled it. It is an example of adding clarity to the law in such a way as to avoid onerous debate and discussion by the relevant charities. I had to be persuaded that amendments Nos. 123 to 125 had such a practical impact as well as the point of principle involved. My personal experience with humanist organisations was always that they had managed to achieve charitable status through the formula of ““the mental and moral improvement of mankind””. The Minister pointed that out to me in Committee. The formulation, ““religion and belief””, is increasingly widespread not only in human rights law but in Government legislation on several different topics. I even found a regulation that refers to it in its title—the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Some people worry that this might open the door to Marxism, for example, becoming charitable. However, the meaning of ““belief”” is well established in this context, as in those regulations and in human rights law—it does not extend to political beliefs but is limited to relevant beliefs such as humanism and secularism.