Supplementary memorandum from the Churches
Main Committee (DCH 355)
RESPONSE FROM MR ANDREW BRITTON TO QUESTIONS
FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT CHARITIES BILL
QUESTION (1)
The case for widening the definition of religion
is not a strong one. If there is an argument for broadening it
on grounds of alleged discrimination, belief systems which are
not in law "religions" and do not qualify for charitable
status under clause 2(2)(c) of the draft Bill, would nonetheless
be eligible to do so under clauses 2(2)(l) and 2(4) provided that
they could demonstrate public benefit from their activities. It
is hard to see how any discrimination would arise just because
a body was entitled to charitable status under one provision rather
than the other.
However, if it were desired to extend the concept
of the advancement of religion to include as wide a range of religions
as possible, or even to embrace non-religious belief systems,
there would not seem to be any reason to object to that in principle.
The provision would only apply where the body advancing the religion
or belief system in question could demonstrate public benefit
from its activities. The only issue that would seem to arise is
whether an extension to non-religious belief systems could be
expressed in such a way as to avoid giving charitable status to
bodies that most people would not recognise as promoting a "belief
system" in any meaningful sense.
QUESTION (2)
The Churches' concerns arise from what appears
to be a rather narrow understanding of the types of body currently
entitled to charitable status under the head of the advancement
of religion, the breadth of activities those bodies undertake
and the nature of the public benefit which may accrue from those
activities. Thus in "Private Action, Public Benefit"
it was stated (in paragraph 4.33) that "Religious practice
tends generally to contribute to the social and moral welfare
of adherents. It is not proposed to change the principle that
celebration of a religious rite which is open to the public should
be regarded as providing public benefit". And the Government's
response stated (in paragraph 3.19) that "Removing the
presumption of public benefit will not affect the continuing charitable
status of religious organisations that carry out missionary and
evangelistic work".
These statements might be thought to imply a
belief that all or most charities concerned with the advancement
of religion are involved in providing opportunities for public
worship or evangelistic/missionary activity. In fact, currently
accepted religious purposes are much broader than that and include
within the Church of England alone:
— the provision and maintenance of
places of public worship (including their contents);
— the promotion of worship;
— the promotion of ministry (including
the endowment of bishoprics, the augmentation of clergy stipends,
the encouragement of candidates for ordination and patronage trusts);
— evangelism and missionary work (eg
the Church Missionary Society and Alpha International);
— the promotion or co-ordination of
the work of a particular denomination (through bodies such as
parochial church councils, diocesan boards of finance and the
Archbishops' Council);
— the promotion of the work of charitable
ecclesiastical offices (such as those of an incumbent and churchwardens);
— (in some circumstances) the promotion
of the work of religious communities;
— the encouragement of the spiritual
life (eg the Bible Reading Fellowship and the Society of Retreat
Conductors);
— the nurture of young people in the
Christian Faith (eg the Boys' Brigade);
— the promotion of particular aspects
of the Christian Faith (eg the Anglican Society for the Welfare
of Animals);
— the promotion of particular doctrinal
positions within a Church (eg the Church of England Evangelical
Council); and
— the promotion of ecumenism.
Moreover, the statements also appear to assume
that the benefit derived from religious belief and practice will
be confined to adherents alone, when those with religious affiliation
would wish to argue that such belief and practice confer significant
benefits on society as a whole, in a number of ways. These include
the articulation and propagation of fundamental ethical values
beneficial to society, and the significant contribution made to
its "social capital" by the substantial commitment to
voluntary service on the part of members of faith communities
(whether through volunteering or charitable giving). The existence
of benefits of this kind has of course been recognised by the
Prime Minister and other senior ministers in the support they
have given to the role of the faith communities in society.
In the light of this, the Churches' concern
is to establish that, if the existing presumption of public benefit
is removed, decisions about the public benefit of religious activities
should preserve the breadth of religious purposes currently accepted
as charitable. One way of achieving this would be to write such
a breadth of definition into the legislation itself. It would,
however, in practice be difficult to specify (in ways that reflect
the current position) the precise nature of the public benefit
requirement to be met by bodies for the advancement of religion.
The Churches were pleased that, during discussions
on 10 June between the Churches Main Committee, the Charities
Unit at the Home Office and the Charity Commission, it was explained
that the rules governing charitable status would be exactly the
same as they are now. The advancement of religion would continue
to be a charitable purpose and there would be no change in the
definition of public benefit. The provision that would impact
on that was the removal of the presumption of public benefit.
However, the Churches were told that in practice that would have
little impact as the Charity Commission had been asking the same
questions of new charities regardless of the charitable purpose
they pursued. Decisions about public benefit would be based on
previous judgements on public benefit and we were assured that
there was nothing in the Bill that would alter the way in which
those considerations were undertaken.
The alternative, given the diversity of types
of religious body and of activity undertaken by them, and in the
light of the assurances that the Churches have been given, would
be to rely on the Charity Commission taking, in deciding the public
benefit issue in particular cases, a properly informed and objective
approach which recognises the many possible manifestations of
religious belief and observance and the full range of public benefit
than can accrue from them.
| 
