During a more general discussion of the provisions
of the Bill, Mr Britton was invited to present further evidence
on the following two questions:
- How far would he feel comfortable with a very broad definition
of religion - one that was broad enough to include all religions
and indeed many non-religious belief systems?
- Could he produce a definition of public benefit, to be applied
to the advancement of religion, which could be included in legislation?
Mr Britton has consulted as widely as possible in the time available
and his answers are given below.
Yours sincerely
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 (e.g. 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 (e.g.
the Bible Reading Fellowship and the Society of Retreat Conductors);
- the nurture of young people in the Christian
Faith (e.g. the Boys' Brigade);
- the promotion of particular aspects of the Christian
Faith (e.g. the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals)
- the promotion of particular doctrinal positions
within a Church (e.g. 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 10th 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.
