Charities Bill [HL]

I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. When we went through the Bill last time round at great length and deliberation, I was marginally inclined against adding a further specific purpose to Clause 2. However, on reflection I was persuaded by the arguments advanced by the noble and gallant Lord and others for these reasons. First, the original 1601 preamble on which, somewhat paradoxically, modern charity law is still based, referred to the setting out of soldiers. The support of the military has been a charitable purpose since time immemorial and it seems slightly odd, therefore, that one has a whole series of new charitable heads specifically set out in Clause 2. I think, for example, of animal welfare or the saving of lives and various others—not that I have any objection to them, but it seems somewhat quixotic that they should find a specific place when military charities, which have been at the heart of our charity system for ever, are not mentioned specifically. The other point is that the effectiveness and welfare of the Armed Forces of the Crown is a different genus to most other charities; it is a rather particular breed of charity, if I may put it that way. One needs to bear in mind that, in this day and age, the role of the Armed Forces of the Crown is principally the preservation and sustenance of peace—not just in these islands, where there has been too much to do in Northern Ireland, but all over the world, sometimes on their own and sometimes as part of UN peacekeeping forces. So, by the end of reconsidering our previous debate, I was sufficiently moved towards the position of the noble and gallant Lord to add my name to his amendment.