---

Charities Bill [Lords]

The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) will agree that there are none so generous as Yorkshire folk. He will forgive me for providing the more common version of the Yorkshireism that he cited to the House—““If tha does owt for nowt tha does it for thissen””. That is the opposite of the selfless work undertaken by many volunteers for the wonderful charities that we are seeking to control in the Bill. Amendment No. 126 is straightforward as it simply retains the presumption that the advancement of religion is in the public benefit. The right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) mentioned common sense—most people in the country would regard that proposal as simple common sense. However, the Bill would remove that time-honoured presumption and therefore represents a major change, and I suggest that it could seriously damage religious liberties and our traditions and even damage our benevolent and tolerant society. Moreover, the clause is entirely unwanted, at least by the majority of the public, who despise political correctness. Under the law as it stands, many worthwhile religious charities have been registered in the UK, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, ““If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”” If a charity, even a religious charity, has been acting improperly and is found not to be acting in the public benefit, it can be deregistered. That has happened plenty of times, such as in the case of Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque. Under the existing statutory regime, the Charity Commission has successfully regulated religious charities and does not, nor should it, challenge or question their underlying doctrine—but that is what the Bill will inevitably lead to, and it is wrong. The proposed, more aggressive approach of the Bill is unnecessary and could be yet another step towards destroying the traditions of our society. As we have heard, the commission states unequivocally that the public benefit must be assessed"““in the light of modern conditions””" and that keeping up with ““modern society”” is required if a charity is not to have its charitable status revoked. It is the word revoked that is so challenging and worrying. It means that the intention is to remove charitable status from some religious charities, and I wonder whether the Minister would spell out exactly which ones he is thinking of. Christian charities, of course, take guidance from the Bible, written in ancient Israel, but I happen to believe, and so do many people in the House and in the country, that that Bible is still as relevant today, and its words as meaningful today, as they ever were. The Bill gives the commission massively increased powers. The current commissioners may be good people, but how can we be sure that they will always be benevolent and reasonable in the future? They will be required to make very subjective judgments about the ethos and ethics of different religions and religious activities. As there is nothing in the Bill that sets out any objective criteria for their judgment, their judgments will be subjective. How can they decide which religious groups are ““beneficial”” and which are not? On what criteria will they base that decision? In any event, why should the commission—or, indeed, the law in interpreting the Bill—be rational and consistent when even the Government are not rational and consistent in proposing the Bill? The Government’s statements on this issue have been confused and contradictory. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, on Second Reading in this House the Minister said that removing the presumption of public benefit would ““raise the bar”” on religious, educational and poverty relief charities, while in Committee he maintained that"““religious charities and organisations provide public benefit, and I see no reason why that should change.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 July 2006; c. 58.]" Those statements cannot both be true. So the Minister has himself been inconsistent in presenting the arguments for his own Bill. Time is short, so I shall curtail my remarks. I believe that we should not inflict this clause on good people who are simply serving their communities through a religious charity. Political correctness must not become the new test of charitable status. I commend amendment No. 126 to the House.