COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Charities Bill

21 February 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Gregory Campbell (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Mrs Claire McGill
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness

Witnesses:

Rev Norman Hamilton ) Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland
Ms Karen Jardine )

The Chairperson (Mr Campbell):
The Committee is delighted to welcome Ms Karen Jardine and Rev Norman Hamilton of Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland. I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones, as even on standby they interfere with the Hansard recording.

You kindly provided the Committee with a written briefing on the Charities Bill. Karen, do you wish to start with an opening contribution? Members may then wish to ask questions.

Ms Karen Jardine (Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland):
Thank you for your invitation, Chairman. I will begin by telling the Committee a little about Evangelical Alliance, as I am not sure how many of you are familiar with it. Evangelical Alliance was formed in 1846, and it is the largest body serving evangelical Christians in the UK. Its membership includes denominations, churches and individuals, ministers and laypeople. Our mission is to unite evangelicals to present Christ credibly as good news for spiritual and social transformation. Our Northern Ireland office opened in 1987, so the organisation has been here for 21 years.

As well as providing support and advice to its members, Evangelical Alliance co-ordinates the work of the Missions Agencies Partnership, which is a group of 35 mission agencies that work together to promote the challenge of world mission.

I am particularly pleased to be here this morning because my colleagues in London worked closely and effectively with the Cabinet Office and the Charity Commission for England and Wales in the run-up to the Charities Act in 2006 and on the subsequent guidance that the Charity Commission issued. We welcome this opportunity to contribute constructively to the legislation here.

We raised several issues in our written submission that we sent to the Committee a couple of week ago, and I will cover those briefly. The first is about clause 2, “meaning of charitable purpose”. We are pleased that “the advancement of religion” is still included in the list of purposes. We would like missionary work at home and overseas to be included or be seen to be an important part of the advancement of religion. The legislation is unclear about whether public benefit must be gained in Northern Ireland or whether it can be gained overseas. Many mission organisations, especially those in the Mission Agencies Partnership, are more concerned with benefit overseas than locally.

We have no problem with religious organisations having to face a public benefit test, especially where many charitable organisations have a religious motive or emerged out of religious organisations. We are concerned that the test should not be restricted to tangible outcomes that can be quantified and measured. Religious organisations provide many intangible benefits, one of which is spiritual benefit, and that is very hard to quantify.

Rev Norman Hamilton (Evangelical Alliance Northern Ireland):
I must point out that if Members see me at a future date, I may be wearing a different hat. For the record, I am here today as a member of the Evangelical Alliance rather than in any other capacity. Members will know — and Alban will certainly now — that there has been a high suicide rate in north Belfast over the past couple of years, not unlike Bridgend. The alliance argues that in the care of families and communities that have suffered a high incidence of suicide, the term “spiritual benefit” has some meaning. Addressing the issue is not simply a matter of creating a suicide prevention strategy; it also involves caring for people in an holistic way. That is an example of spiritual benefit to a community in particular personal circumstances, yet it is very hard to quantify.

We do not remotely want to confine the definition of spiritual benefit to cover only Christian activity; it is about caring for people in mind, spirit and soul, just as people can be cared for in more quantifiable ways that involve healthcare, and so on.

Ms Jardine:
We expressed concern about the term “disbenefit”, as people do not really know what it means. Therefore perhaps the word “harm” would be better in that instance.

I now turn to the registration of charities. Clauses 165 and 166 deal with exemptions for designated religious organisations. We appreciate that that recognises the accountability structures of many religious organisations in Northern Ireland, but it leaves out parachurch organisations, mission organisations, smaller churches, newer churches and so on. I appreciate that that exemption is there and we know that one of the roles of the charity commission will be to ensure financial accountability and proper financial management; however, there may be an issue with that definition.

The Chairperson:
Have your counterparts in England and Wales encountered any difficulties following the introduction of similar legislation there?

Ms Jardine:
The public-benefit test was introduced in the Charities Act 2006. The idea of “disbenefit” is not part of the Charities Act 2006; it was mooted as part of a consultation with the Charity Commission for England and Wales. “Disbenefit” was changed to “harm” in the guidance in England and Wales. The guidance from the Charity Commission shows that public benefit covers intangible benefits as well as quantifiable and measurable ones. The Charity Commission extended that by saying that one cannot measure the benefits that can be gained from looking at an area of conservation or an area of beauty, but that such views have intangible benefits to society.

The Chairperson:
What is your view of designated religious status? What do you think about the 10-year rule and the 1,000-member rule?

Ms Jardine:
We recognise the need to balance investigation into financial mismanagement against respecting the ethos of religious organisations. However, there is no designation of religious charities in the Charities Act 2006, so the issue has not come up. Nevertheless, it excludes many organisations that might be concerned that trustees — who will not understand the ethos of the organisation — will be put in place if an issue arises.

There is also a question about how the definition of a designated religious charity might be used in future. Will it be used in other legislation to define what charities or organisations will be exempt from legislation or be affected by it? That does not relate to the Charities Bill, but one must consider how the use of a definition of a designated religious charity in legislation might affect issues in future.

The Chairperson:
Are you content with that, Rev Hamilton?

Rev Norman Hamilton:
This may be a sideways point, but it is relevant. There is at times aggravated debate, some of it among academics, on whether the religious sector is part of the community and voluntary sector or constitutes a third sector. That ambivalence has implications for the Charities Bill. There is a distinctive ethos in the faith-based sector that the governance of charities legislation ought to recognise. Some of the major denominations have made representation to the Committee on that issue. If charities legislation treats faith-based and religious organisations in the same way as, for instance, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) or the big players in the community sector but fails to recognise the different ethos involved, there will be a problem about how the religious sector stands in relation to wider society. Although it may be an abstruse point, the ethos, value base and standing of faith-based organisations in the charities sector must be described carefully so that we do not run into difficulties in future or exacerbate existing problems.

Mr Hilditch:
Karen, your submission refers to the fact that the commission will not be required to consult before revising guidance. Will you expand on that?

Ms Jardine:
Our written submission contained our comments on the guidance that the charities commission must issue under clause 4. However, the clause suggests that the commission will not necessarily be under obligation to consult before revising any guidance that it issues.

I appreciate that if a minor revision has to be made, 8 to 12 weeks’ consultation may not be the most efficient way to go about it, but I am concerned that it could develop into a loophole whereby major revisions of the guidance would take place without consultation.

Mr Brady:
Thank you for your presentation. You made the point well that spirituality is not always tangible when discussing mental health and general well-being. Do you regard faith-based organisations as a third sector or in some way separate? Would you like to see that being addressed in the Bill?

Rev Norman Hamilton:
I am not sure that we would want to argue for a special position or dispensation. There is ambiguity about whether the faith sector is part of the community and voluntary sector, and we are simply saying that that must be consciously acknowledged or addressed in the legislation so that it is not made worse. For example, Ballysillan Presbyterian church cannot be a member of NICVA, but our youth club can.

I do not want to overstate this, but why is it that the local expression of the Presbyterian Church in an area, which seeks to involve itself in the community and which is itself a charitable organisation, cannot join an umbrella charitable organisation? I know the history and the reasons for that situation; however, the legislation should strive not to make that ambiguity worse — if anything, could it be clarified a wee bit?

Mr Brady:
That issue must be addressed.

Rev Norman Hamilton:
I agree.

Ms Jardine:
There has never been a quantifiable record of the contribution of the faith sector to the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. Research into formal youth activities in Northern Ireland showed that most volunteers for the formal activities that are registered with the education and library boards came from a faith-based background. However, the contributions of churches, faith-based communities and other organisations to the community and voluntary sector have never been quantified.

Miss McIlveen:
Thank you for your presentation. Has the legislation in England, Scotland and Wales dealt with missionary work being considered as an integral part of the charitable purpose?

Ms Jardine:
Not specifically. Some charitable purposes have been expanded on, but overseas missionary work has not been specifically included in legislation covering England, Scotland or Wales, despite representations by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Scotland and the Scottish Churches Committee, which sought that protection in the legislation. Its inclusion in the legislation would give greater protection, although even including it in the guidance of the charity commission would be helpful.

Mr A Maginness:
The public benefit test is an important issue that Evangelical Alliance, the Catholic bishops and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland quite properly raised.

Rev Norman Hamilton:
That is a relief.

Mr A Maginness:
You are not alone; you are in good company.

Clause 2 states:

“(1) For the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland, a charitable purpose is a purpose which —
falls within subsection (2) and
is for the public benefit”.

It is important to emphasise “and is”. It is not enough for a charitable purpose to fall within a description such as the prevention or relief of poverty or the advancement of education or religion: it must show a public benefit. Otherwise, a Church could carry out purely spiritual activity that has no tangible benefit and claim charitable purpose, and that could disadvantage all religious organisations. It is an important point, and it was raised in other submissions.

In order to meet the Churches’ legitimate concerns, criteria are required for the public-benefit test. I do not wish to put the witnesses on the spot —I am not asking for draft proposals — but it would be useful if Evangelical Alliance could suggest a formula to address what is a substantive problem in the Bill.

Ms Jardine:
I will air our concerns about the word “disbenefit”, which is vague and has never been tested in law. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator produced a consultation document, ‘Meeting the Charity Test’, in which it stated that:

“The concept of ‘disbenefit’ reflects social circumstances and values and at present is primarily a philosophical and ethical concept rather than a conventional legal concept.”

The nuances are in whether people construe some of the faith organisations’ activities as “disbenefit”, which is a term that reflects social circumstances and values rather than the more usual and better known word “harm”. Three years on, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator still has not produced a final document about meeting the charity test, although the consultation is due to finish in April. However, the regulator’s guidance for applicants and existing charities states that:

“Disbenefit is more than the mere absence of benefit, and our view is that it is equivalent to harm.”

In order to avoid ambiguity in our legislation, I wonder whether the concept of “harm” might be introduced at this stage rather than being left to guidance later.

Mr A Maginness:
That is a useful suggestion.

Rev Norman Hamilton:
My background is as an economist, and if I may I will introduce an analogy. We are all familiar with the concept of the opportunity/cost relationship: no matter how good something is, it always involves cost. Having to endure talking to us costs you time doing constituency work — everything has a cost. Therefore the concept of “disbenefit” is part and parcel of something good and desirable; the concept of “harm” is quite different. We argue that “disbenefit” is a dangerous and almost meaningless word because one can point to the downside of anything. If there is a cost to everything, one might say instead that there is a disbenefit. However, that is different from saying that there is harm in someone’s activities. The word “disbenefit” is profoundly unhelpful because it can be used in every circumstance, and we argue forcibly for the use of the word “harm”.

The Chairperson:
You make the point clearly. Thank you both for your informative contributions; the debate will continue as we scrutinise the Charities Bill stage by laborious stage.

Rev Norman Hamilton:
Your words, not ours.

The Chairperson:
Thank you.