Charities Bill [HL]

I am sympathetic to what I take to be the general thrust of argument of those in whose names the amendment stands. I would have supported it if the Bill had not contained the introduction of the public benefit test, which in future has to apply to all charities. Until it comes into force I concede that there is a discriminatory difference between religious charities and organisations such as the South Place Ethical Society mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which is not a religion in any conventional sense but is a body committed to the promotion of ethical principles. As I said, at present there is discrimination against that sort of body because it has to prove public benefit, whereas religions of whatever sort—they are now extremely wide in the definition—do not. We are dealing with a Bill that is going to level that playing field. I am left wondering what advantage there is in the amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that the Bill must be for laypeople and citizens, not for lawyers. Ironically, as both a citizen and a lawyer—and indeed a charity lawyer—I think that the amendments will make life more rather than less confusing. As I said, there is a general public sense of what is and what is not a religion. If we asked 100 men and women in the street about an organisation such as the South Place Ethical Society, whose objects are ““the study and dissemination of ethical principles and the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment””. I doubt that most people would view it as a religion. So to try and equate it with that is more confusing than clarifying.