COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

 

Charities Bill

28 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

Witnesses:
Rev Dr Donald Watts ) The Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Mr Clive Knox )

The Chairperson (Mr Campbell):
I welcome Rev Dr Donald Watts and Mr Clive Knox from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. We are pleased that you are here.

Rev Dr Donald Watts (The Presbyterian Church in Ireland):
Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland supports the thrust of the Charities Bill, feels that it is vitally important that appropriate safeguards are in place and wants to see that happen. It also supports the process that we have gone through to date; there was genuine consultation both by the Department and, later, by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Some changes appeared during that consultation.

One of those changes, and one that is very important to us, is designated religious status. I will explain why that is important to us, as one of the larger denominations. Initially, there was to have been a requirement to ask permission from the charities commissioner if an organisation were to make any change to its constitution. Our constitution has been evolving since 1840, and it is now a book of 200 pages. Changing it is a complex process, especially the basic part of it, which would take two years to change. Most of it is totally irrelevant to anything that the charity commissioners would want to know about. Having to seek permission for any change to the constitution would have been so complex that it would have been almost impossible to operate. It would also have meant asking the charity commissioners about the appointment of new trustees, which is also a fairly complex process in the Church.

We are delighted that designated religious status has been brought into the Bill, as it is the only way to work that aspect of it. The Presbyterian Church would clearly have designated religious status, but we are concerned that some smaller denominations and para-church groups would not. Those groups may want to meet the Committee about that.

Our major reservation is that the Bill gives no definition of “public benefit”. We appreciate that such a definition would not normally be included on the face of the Bill, and that it will come forward later. We do not imagine that anyone would challenge the view that organised religion is of public benefit in Northern Ireland. However, the legislation will last for some time, and a time may come when people question the spiritual aspect of what we do, as opposed to the social and developmental aspects. As a Church, we can demonstrate public benefit, even if it is a narrow definition of social and developmental benefit. Given our beliefs, we argue firmly for recognition that spiritual nurture and development is also of public benefit. That is recognised in the new Bill that is going through in the Republic of Ireland, but it is not recognised in the Bill in the North.

I want to draw attention to another aspect of the Bill, which may be a drafting problem. The definition of “religion” in clause 2(3)(a)(i) includes “belief in more than one god”. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland believe in one God, and they see that as what religion is. That was under discussion at the time of consultation, and the phrase that was used then was “one or more gods”. Perhaps the “one” has dropped out somewhere.

The Chairperson:
I certainly hope that that is the case.

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
I wanted to draw attention to that point.

Mr Clive Knox (The Presbyterian Church in Ireland):
The legislation provides that the commission should have the power to change a charity’s name. A number of organisations in Northern Ireland use the word “Presbyterian” in their name, including the Presbyterian Mutual Society, the Presbyterian Housing Association, the Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland and the Presbyterian Orphan and Children’s Society. Some of those have an association with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and some have separate legal structures. We are concerned that the public perception might be that the inclusion of the word “Presbyterian” in their titles means that all those organisations are associated with the Presbyterian Church. We would like some reassurance that a change of name will not be enforced, and that we can continue to use the word “Presbyterian”.

Turning to the issue of annual statements of accounts, which is in clause 65 of the Bill, we note that the charity trustees are required to:

“prepare in respect of each financial year of the charity a statement of accounts complying with such requirements as to its form and contents as may be prescribed by … the Department.”

We are, therefore, unsure at present what form the accounts will take. While we would obviously support a high level of transparency and accountability — and I believe that we have already demonstrated that by preparing accounts for the past three years in accordance with the statement of recommended practice issued by the Charity Commission for England and Wales, and by obtaining a true and fair audit opinion of our accounts — we are concerned about the impact that that might have on some of our congregations and what this prescribed format might be.

The Bill also provides for three stages of auditing requirements, with a lower limit of £100,000 for preparing receipts and payments accounts. As a charity, we benefit from bequests from time to time and we are concerned that, if a substantial bequest was received, that might mean a charity moving from one category to another for just that year before having to move back. That might have implications for their reporting requirements.

Our intention is to seek to register the central Presbyterian Church in Ireland as one charity and each congregation as a separate, individual charity. At present, each congregation of the Church has a charity number with HM Revenue and Customs, and it is our intention to follow that through with the charities legislation. We are seeking reassurance that the Department for Social Development, through the legislation, will not seek to impose a single registration, because that would have significant practical implications for us in trying to pull everything together. We understand that different denominations may take a different approach to this issue.

My penultimate point is to do with the registration of charity trustees, which we think will be required under the legislation. We are unsure what that will mean for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Yes, the Church has trustees, but they probably do not have the same roles and responsibilities as trustees in other organisations. They are largely bearer trustees, holding titles to properties and suchlike. The general assembly, the Church’s governing body, has about 1,200 members; we hope that we will not be required to register all 1,200 as trustees. Therefore, it would be helpful to have some indication of what registration of trustees will mean in our case.

Registration will also have implications for individual charities as to who will be regarded as trustees in an individual congregational setting. There are two committees that oversee the affairs of a congregation: the kirk session and the congregational committee.

My final point concerns the designation of religious charities. We welcome that exemption, which we understood would extend to the annual changes that we would make to our code, the law of the Church. However, according to clause 165, the exemption is from “Sections 33 to 36”, which cover the power to act for a charity, the power to suspend trustees, and the power to appoint interim managers. We do not feel that the assurance that was there is included in the Bill. We hope that we will not be in a position whereby we have to report to the charity commission every single change in our code every single year.

The Chairperson:
Dr Watts, you referred at the outset to the “one god” issue. We are taking up the matter with the Department. Hopefully, we will get clarification, possibly even later this morning when we are talking to officials, and the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily.

As you pointed out, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is one of the larger bodies. Owing to its tradition and history, it will be above the 1,000-member threshold and the 10-year threshold that are required to get designated religious charity status. However, a number of small religious groups and denominations will not meet those criteria. I know that it does not affect your Church, but do you have a view on those criteria? Is that of any consequence to you?

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
We are concerned for those smaller groups. There are genuine religious groups that will probably not meet one or both of those criteria. However, somebody has to draw a line somewhere.

The Chairperson:
Would you have any problems if that threshold were reduced?

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
No.

Mr Brady:
It seems reasonable to claim that a church, by definition, provides a benefit to the public. That seems to have been taken into account in the legislation that is going through in the South. Presumably, the reason that is not in the Bill is to bring the legislation into line with that in England, Scotland and Wales. I know that you do not think that the Department will make any changes to that, but what are your views on that rationale? It makes sense that churches, by definition, contribute to the public good.

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
As you know, in the South, the legislation specifically says that religious purposes are charitable. Our fear is not for today; I do not think that anyone would challenge the notion that churches are of benefit to the public. However, we are increasingly becoming, in an accelerated way, a much more secular society. There may come a day when people will want a more narrow definition of the term “public benefit”. Therefore, it is important that “public benefit” be defined in legislation now, rather than our having to start fighting in future for the right to be deemed to be providing a charitable service.

Mr Brady:
So you are entering a caveat for the future.

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
Yes.

The Chairperson:
Are you saying that, owing to the pace of change towards the secularisation of society, if this Bill were to become law, the problem that you outlined could become a reality in five, six or seven years?

Rev Dr Donald Watts:
The problem is probably not for us. We have a massive social witness department that runs homes for the elderly, alcohol rehabilitation units and so on. At that level, it is not an issue that affects us. However, the smaller groups that you talked about earlier, which may simply meet on a Sunday to worship, have some meetings during the week and have some outreach programmes for the immediate community, might have difficulties in showing that they have a major social or developmental aspect to their work. We want them to be protected with designated religious charity status. The underlying theology is that developing the spiritual lives of people around us is of public benefit, just as much as developing their physical or mental well-being.

The Chairperson:
Thank you very much, gentlemen. That has been useful and helpful to us in our deliberations.