Charities Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord as two points arise immediately from his argument. I was about to sit down, but I shall answer them now. First, the noble Lord begins with the proposition that a charitable purpose or the purpose in a fund, document or association that is not for religious belief   explicitly, and which is not within his moral improvement formula, must prove in some other way that it is analogous. That may be very difficult to do. The noble Lord has put a limit on the analogy to suit his argument, finding it in the original deed. It follows that there is an extra risk for the advancement of non-religious belief. It is that extra risk that creates discrimination. It is impossible not to see that there is something extra—a hoop that the purpose must go through—than what is expressly stated in the list. I beg to move.