COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Charities Bill

6 March 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Fred Cobain
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Mrs Claire McGill
Miss Michelle McIlveen

Witnesses:
Mr Ronnie Douglas ) Magheraknock Mission Hall
Mr Mark Gibson )

Mr Brian Agnew ) Kingdom Life Faith Centre

Pastor David Goudy ) Moira Pentecostal Church

Pastor Nick Serb ) Mount Zion Free Methodist Church

Pastor Lewis Smyth ) Jordan Victory Church

The Acting Chairperson (Mr Cobain):
I welcome Mr Douglas and Mr Gibson from Magheraknock Mission Hall.

Mr Ronnie Douglas (Magheraknock Mission Hall):
Magheraknock Mission Hall has been in existence for approximately 80 years. Last year we rebuilt the hall. We are small in number, but we intend to reach out into the community and expand. We are a religious organisation and would like to be involved in the religious opt-out clause. We are concerned about the criteria for that — the 10-year rule and membership of at least 1,000 members — and would like to see them removed from the Charities Bill. We have charitable status, and we are dependant on that status to help with the overhead expenses of running the hall.

The Acting Chairperson:
Is that your only concern?

Mr Douglas:
Yes.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is your main concern — like many small Churches.

Mr Douglas:
Many of the small Churches do not meet the criteria. It would be sad to see some of those Churches losing out as a result. They are doing a fine job in rural areas. Belfast and the other cities would have no bother meeting the criteria. However, in rural areas, small mission halls, Baptist Churches and various other halls are very concerned about the criteria.

The Acting Chairperson:
Would you be content if that clause were removed from the Bill, rather than amended in any way?

Mr Douglas:
If possible, yes.

Ms Lo:
Are you concerned about the membership criterion? Rather than having the clause removed, do you want that criterion taken out?

Mr Douglas:
Either way.

Ms Lo:
You are concerned about one of the four criteria.

The Acting Chairperson:
Your charitable status will remain.

Mr Douglas:
Our charitable status will remain. However, young Churches or mission halls starting up in rural areas could never meet the criteria. We cannot meet the criteria at the minute.

The Acting Chairperson:
Is it too much of an inhibiter?

Mr Douglas:
Yes. In days of old, many rural Churches were run on pennies and with few people. However, keeping rural Churches going today involves a lot of overhead expenses. Everything must be taken into consideration, and everything is a help.

Mr Brady:
Does your membership fluctuate, or do you have a steady membership that could increase?

Mr Douglas:
It fluctuates.

Mr Brady:
Would there be more people if there were functions or a mission?

Mr Douglas:
Yes. We would have more people when we hold a mission.

Mr Mark Gibson (Magheraknock Mission Hall):
A single building will never meet the criteria anyway. What size of a building would be needed to hold 1,000 people? Every single mission hall in Northern Ireland will be ruled out, and all the individual Baptist Churches, which are not a conglomeration. Every single independent building and religious outreach will be ruled out.

The Acting Chairperson:
Yes, because of the rule.

Mr Gibson:
It is nonsensical. The big four main conglomerations will be the only Churches to hold the status. I do not know how many mission halls there are in Northern Ireland, but a multitude of them will lose out. I do not see the need for it.

Miss McIlveen:
Is there a misunderstanding about the Charities Bill per se? Your mission hall will not be excluded from charitable status. This provision is to accommodate the governance arrangements of larger groups, so that they will not have to reapply and their governance arrangements will not be examined annually. My understanding is that your group’s application to be recognised as a charity will not be affected; the provision relates only to the governance arrangements of larger Churches. I am concerned that smaller groups may have misunderstood the legislation, and they may think that they will not be eligible for charitable status.

Ms Lo:
There are four criteria for designated religious status. A Church can still become a charity, but if it wants that special religious status, it must meet the four criteria. When a group becomes a charity, it gets the rate exemptions and the other benefits of being a charity. It may be a matter of principle that your group wishes to have that designated religious charitable status.

Mr Gibson:
Why is that being removed? Why is it not being left as it is?

Ms Lo:
It is not a matter of removing it. The special status means that the big Churches will not have to change their constitutions, and it gives them the leeway to appoint their own trustees. It does not mean that a Church will not have charitable status. A Church will get charitable status if it passes the public-benefit test. However, in order to get the special designated religious status, it must fulfil the additional four criteria.

The Acting Chairperson:
Before we go any further, our researcher can give us more information. There are many misunderstandings of this issue, and many small Churches are concerned about it. Our researcher can give us a definitive view on the position of small Churches.

The Committee Researcher:
Churches will not lose their charitable status. They will still have that status for the purposes of income tax, and they will be registered as charities with the charity commission. The provision will mainly affect what are referred to as the four main Churches, which have been operating for many years under their own governance arrangements. The charities commission will still be able to remove that designated religious status from them. For example, the commission could ask a Church to deal with a problem and, if it felt that the Church had not dealt with it properly, it would have the power to remove the designated religious status. The commission would then be able to appoint someone to sort out the problem, whatever it may be. The legislation will not make a difference to Churches’ status as charities or to any of the benefits that go with that.

Mr Douglas:
Our Church is currently registered as a charity. If we remain legal and above board — and, hopefully, that will always be the case with any charity — that charitable status should never be removed from it?

The Acting Chairperson:
No. That is not an issue.

The Committee Researcher:
That should not be an issue. In a way, it is protection for you. The commission’s job is to protect the public and to protect you. If you were worried about anything, the commission could help you to sort it out. Removal of charitable status is unlikely to be an issue.

Mr F McCann:
During the initial presentation on the Charities Bill, I asked a similar question in relation to the charitable status of community groups. I was told that this would not impact on them in any way. That seems to apply across the board.

The Acting Chairperson:
There are many misunderstandings around that point. It is really about the four main Churches. They are up and running, and they have these governance arrangements in place. It is a governance issue; it has nothing to do with whether a Church can retain, or apply for, charitable status.

Mr Brady:
You said, initially, that you understood that your establishment will not be affected. The point that we are making is that groups that might want to start up may be put off by the extra bureaucracy involved in trying to get off the ground. That is a valid point.

Mr Douglas:
New halls or Churches struggle at the beginning, and that is when they need assistance. It is possible that that assistance might not be available.

Mr Brady:
You said that it might stop new Churches from trying to start up.

Mr Douglas:
Yes, that is possible.

Mr Burns:
Many of the smaller Churches know that their buildings would not hold 1,000 people, and they think that that will rule them out of charitable status, but it will not. That message is not getting across to all of those Churches. Is there any way that the Committee could get that information to the Churches?

The Committee Clerk:
Several weeks ago, the Committee agreed to send each of the religious organisations that had written in specifically about designated religious charity status a copy of the research paper relating to that clause. That is really as far as the Committee can go.

The Acting Chairperson:
Perhaps that information could be put on the Committee’s website, and people could access it there.

The Committee Clerk:
The information has been published on the website. Also, we have sent a hard copy to those organisations.

Mr Burns:
There seems to be a huge breakdown in information, and the Churches seem to have a huge fear that they will be excluded. There has been a misunderstanding.

Mr Douglas:
Many Baptist Churches that do not meet the criteria have that fear.

The Acting Chairperson:
Charitable status has nothing to do with having 1,000 members.

Mr Douglas:
Has it not?

The Acting Chairperson:
No. Anybody can apply for charitable status.

The Committee Researcher:
The use of the opt-out clause is causing some confusion, and I know how it originated. There is no such thing as an opt-out clause for any of the Churches. They still have to apply for charitable status — which the Churches already have. It comes from the income tax. They can then go to the charity commission. They will be asked to furnish their accounts and financial activities throughout the year to the charity commission annually. The main problem arises if there is an issue. For example, the Church of Ireland has synod groups and vestries in each of its Churches. If anything goes wrong, that hierarchy should sort out the problem. The commission will offer you, as a smaller organisation, protection if you do not have the wherewithal to sort out the matter.

The Acting Chairperson:
The Bill does not stop anyone from applying for charitable status. An individual can apply for charitable status. If I fitted the criteria for charitable status — and the criteria are listed in the information that was sent out — I could apply. It has nothing to do with the size of an organisation; that does not matter. There is a lot of misunderstanding around that. Anyone can apply.

Mr Gibson:
Where did the 1,000 people come from?

The Acting Chairperson:
That refers to designated religious charities. There are two different issues involved.

Ms Lo:
It is an additional status.

The Acting Chairperson:
Anyone can apply for charitable status. I could apply, provided I meet the criteria laid down. However, there is a designated status in the Bill for Churches with 1,000 members or more.

Ms Lo:
They have a designated religious status.

Mr Gibson:
Is there any difference between secular and religious organisations in the Charities Bill? Are they all the same?

The Acting Chairperson:
Anyone who meets the criteria is entitled to form a charity.

Mr Douglas:
When does the 10-year rule become applicable?

The Acting Chairperson:
The 10-year rule relates to designated charities. Churches with 1,000 or more members —

Mr Douglas:
I understood that a Church group has to be in existence for 10 years or more before it can —

The Acting Chairperson:
No.

The Principal Clerk of Bills:
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I will try to explain the situation as simply as possible. Any Church — or anyone — will be able to apply for charitable status. A Church will have to submit papers to the new commission, and, subject to those being satisfactory, that Church will then become a charity.

Large Churches can apply for a special designated status which prevents the commission from taking over their governance arrangements — unless the commission is sufficiently concerned that that has to happen. In order to prevent the commission from becoming involved in the governance arrangements, a Church has to be large enough to demonstrate that its arrangements are satisfactory. In other words, long-established governance arrangements have to be in place.

The basic criteria are that a Church must have at least 1,000 members and has to have been in existence for 10 years or more. If a Church meets those criteria, it can be granted special designated religious status, which means that the commission will not automatically become involved in its governance arrangements should any problem arise. However, at the end of the day, should the commission become sufficiently concerned, it can rescind the designated status and get involved.

Therefore, designated religious status is not to do with being a charity; it is to do with whether the commission will begin to interfere — for want of a better term — with a Church’s governance arrangements. The Bill is not aimed at stopping groups from becoming charities.

The Acting Chairperson:
I hope that is a bit clearer, Ronnie.

Mr Douglas:
Yes, that has cleared the air somewhat.

Mr Gibson:
Are you saying that it is simply an add-on for the four big Churches?

Mr Brady:
It is more to do with governance; the four big Churches require more governance.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is what the 1,000 members and the 10-year rule is about.

Mr Douglas:
Therefore, it will not affect us at all.

Mrs McGill:
It is my understanding that the groups that the witnesses represent cannot have designated religious status.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is correct; they cannot.

Mrs McGill:
Is that not a problem? Are you content with that?

Mr Gibson:
The information that we got was that we would lose our charity status because we had fewer than 1,000 members and had existed for less than 10 years.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is a different thing altogether. Anyone can form a charity, provided they meet the regulations. Only Churches that have 1,000 members or more and have been in existence for 10 years or more can get designated religious status.

The Principal Clerk of Bills:
All charities are subject to the commission beginning to get involved in their governance arrangements, if the commission is sufficiently concerned about those arrangements. The only charities that have a certain degree of protection against that interference are the four large Churches.

That protection will exist only as long as the charity commission is prepared to grant them the designated religious status. It can be withdrawn at any time. The charity commission can say that it is sufficiently concerned and withdraw the special designated status. However, such a scenario would only occur in circumstances in which there is suspicion of criminal activity, fraud or abuse of the charitable status.

Mr Douglas:
We are pleased to hear that charities will be scrutinised to ensure that they are being legally managed for the benefit of the community, rather than for the benefit of certain individuals.

Mr Gibson:
We are happy enough.

The Acting Chairperson:
Thank you for your time.

(The Acting Chairperson [Mr Brady] in the Chair)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr Brady):
I welcome the representatives from the four religious groups on behalf of the Committee.

Pastor Nick Serb ( Mount Zion Free Methodist Church):
I thank the Committee for taking the time to listen to us. From what I hear, you are willing to listen, which is important, and your time is much appreciated. I apologise for my accent. I am sure that Ms Lo is aware that I am a foreigner, and she knows what that is like. We are grateful to be here.

We want to raise a few issues. We represent different Churches and are pretty much independent of each other, but we speak with one voice. Each of us will talk about a part of the Charities Bill that concerns us. Although we are glad to be here, we are, at the same time, slightly disappointed, because someone decided not to issue us with an invitation to the preliminary consultation. Had that been done, we would not be here today.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 22 of the Bill. I welcome the Bill, and the fact that it intends to regulate and control the financial aspect of how charities operate. That is positive: as I understand it, the last charities Act in Northern Ireland was passed in 1964. It is about time that we had something new. Clause 22 provides that:

“The Commission may institute inquiries with regard to charities or a particular charity or class of charities, either generally or for particular purposes.”

That is fine: we completely agree with that and it has to happen. The commission and the charity tribunal have to have some means of imposing the law on charities.

The witnesses who spoke before us touched a little on clauses 33 and 36, which are my main concern. Under clause 33:

“the Commission may of its own motion do one or more of the following things —
(i) by order suspend any person who is a trustee, charity trustee, officer, agent or employee of the charity …
(vii) by order appoint (in accordance with section 35) an interim manager, who shall act as receiver and manager in respect of the property and affairs of the charity.”

Those two items cause me some concern. Every individual is liable for prosecution under the law if he has done something wrong. The law is very clear. If the charity is a religious charity, and something goes wrong — for example, a fraud — clause 33 may be invoked. However, it overlooks something important, namely, Church discipline. It conflicts with what the Bible teaches us about what is to be done when someone in the congregation does something wrong.

Furthermore, if a manager is imposed and dictates in the finance or governance of the Church, that also overlooks an important thing: that anyone in any position in the Church needs to meet special spiritual, social, moral and educational requirements. The Good Book says so, not me:

“Likewise deacons”

— that is, trustees, treasurers, anyone who does anything in the Church —

“must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.”

So, what is the guarantee that the manager will fulfil those requirements? As a Church, we obey the law and we want to observe our Church’s book of discipline. It says here that:

“Every church needs to have a good witness in the community. Every person needs to have a good witness.”

We have no guarantee that the manager will fulfil the requirements. Therefore, the law contradicts the constitution of the Church and the Church has no other option but to disobey the law. That is a problem.

The Acting Chairperson:
Presumably, someone will only be appointed by the charity commission if the people of the Church do not fulfil their duties.

Pastor Serb:
I understand your point. However, as Mr Douglas said, this is direct interference in the governing of that Church. Each Church has a structure, and, whether the Church is large or small, each person is accountable to a board or committee. Large Churches are governed centrally, as well as locally, and in essence each local church has its own government.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is predicated on what you have quoted. Perhaps Michelle can explain it better than I can.

Mr Brian Agnew (Kingdom Life Faith Centre):
Ms Lo has mentioned the five criteria that must be met to obtain designated religious charity status. Three of those criteria are a template and have been well constructed by people who understand non-denominational Churches, which, in a sense, are independent Churches.

The requirements for a Church to advance religion as its principal purpose, and to regularly hold public worship as its principal activity — there is no problem there. Similarly, every Church that I am connected with satisfies the requirement to have an internal system of governance with supervisory and disciplinary functions and the requirement to audit accounts and keep records thereof.

The two criteria that we feel are discriminatory are the requirement for the Church to have at least 1,000 members over the age of 16 who live in Northern Ireland, and the requirement that the Church has been established for 10 years. That discriminates against non-denominational Churches. The 2001 census figures showed that 40·26% of those reporting a religion were Catholic, 20·69% Presbyterian, 15·3% Church of Ireland, 3·51% Methodist and 6·7% non-denominational. Those figures may be different today, and I imagine that non-denominational Churches comprise a larger percentage now, because independent and non-denominational Churches have come to the fore during the past decade.

As Pastor Serb has already said, we had no notification of those new criteria and found out almost by default. The establishment of the charity commission might solve that problem, but it should have been within the Assembly’s power to find a list of charities in Northern Ireland, through consultation with the Inland Revenue or whatever. We do not know which groups are absent today, or from subsequent meetings, because they were not informed. That has resulted in our coming to the Committee on a bad footing and with some suspicion.

Earlier, someone use the term “misinformation”, and I think that there has been a certain amount of that. A lot of people think that this is going to affect their charitable status, although we understand that that is not the case. However, looking back at communist Russia or some of those other countries — such as Romania, where Pastor Serb comes from — this could be perceived as the thin end of a wedge exercising control over evangelical, religious or Christian organisations. Why is there one rule for the denominational Churches and another for the non-denominational ones?

More than 6% of Churches are non-denominational, and that is a high percentage. That 6% is predominantly made up of small independent evangelical Churches whose whole ethos and mandate is based on the word of God. The thrust of their teaching is based upon local autonomous Churches run by local elders. We believe that smaller and local is better than big and older, and the same principle can be applied to the Assembly. If big and older is better, power should be handed back to Westminster. We do not believe that, and that it is why the country has a devolved Government. It is wonderful and awesome to hear local accents discussing local issues that apply to local people.

People may have put as many as 40 years of their lives, and their own finances, into particular religious organisations on the basis of belief in Church government, elders, leadership teams — whatever terminology is used in that particular organisation. There are forms of government there.

I have brought a copy of my Church’s constitution, and my understanding is that Churches must have an internal constitution — including rules about eldership, leadership and governance — in order to achieve charitable status. Further to Nick Serb’s point, our constitution stipulates that any manager must believe what we believe and have the same ethos. Technically speaking, an agnostic, an atheist or even a Satanist could be placed in governance over our group, which would be totally against our ethos and at variance with our aims and objectives. Those are some of our concerns. Bigger and older is not necessarily better, and that is why we are sitting here.

Miss McIlveen:
Thank you for attending; I acknowledge that you have genuine concerns. In the event of your worst-case scenario of someone coming into your Church in order to deal with governance, it would be possible at that juncture for you to withdraw your application for charitable status, which would mean that no one could interfere.

The Acting Chairperson:
The other point worth making here is that it was the Department for Social Development that was involved in the consultation — not the Assembly per se.

Mr F McCann:
Members of this scrutiny Committee were the first people to point out that small Churches might not have had a say about the matter, and that we should reach out to hear their opinions.

Mr Agnew:
We very much appreciate that.

Pastor Serb:
Would it not be easier and more logical for charities with designated religious status to operate under their own governance, which already obeys the Bible in relation to the law of the land? If anyone involved with Church governance were to disobey the law of the land, they would be subject to God’s judgement. Therefore, those Churches should have designated religious status, and, if anything happens, that status can be removed at any time by the charity commission.

The Acting Chairperson:
Do you mean all religious organisations, irrespective of size?

Pastor Serb:
Yes.

The Acting Chairperson:
Earlier, the point was made that awarding designated religious status to organisations with 1,000 or more members was related to governance. By definition, larger and longer-established Churches should have better governance systems than smaller organisations, which may have governance systems but not with as many people involved in governance.

Pastor David Goudy ( Moira Pentecostal Church):
We fully understand that our Churches’ designations are nothing to do with charity status, but to do with governance. My problem is that the 10-year, 1,000-member rule appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory because it applies to bigger denominations, and I do not understand how those figures were arrived at. It appears that bigger and older is better and that that demonstrates a proven track record, which is not necessarily so. Our Church has had charitable status for 16 years, still has the same trustees and has undergone random checks by HM Revenue and Customs. We consider ourselves to be completely and utterly above board, and I do not understand why we should be treated differently from other denominations simply because we are smaller, which is discriminatory. If we properly govern ourselves, why should that be? If we had not governed ourselves properly, we could have dealt with the problem ourselves or HM Revenue and Customs could have intervened.

For example, our trustees had to buy our church building. We had to sign on the dotted line. If things had gone pear-shaped, apart from anything else, we would have suffered — personally, not as a denomination. That was a belt-and-braces matter for us.

This is also a belt-and-braces approach, because, as a charity, we will still be under the jurisdiction of HM Revenue and Customs, but we will also be under the jurisdiction of the new charity commission. The commission will be able to check us out at any time. Therefore, I do not see why arbitrary rules about having 1,000 members and 10-year existence should even apply. Why not designate all Churches as religious charities, and, if a problem occurs, deal with it then, rather than separate us?

The Acting Chairperson:
With respect, the issue of the numbers and the timescale being arbitrary was raised by the Committee. In fairness, that is one of the reasons why representatives of smaller Churches were asked to come along and give their views, which could be relayed to the Department. You have been given the opportunity to state your case, and your views will be passed on. No one is implying that a smaller Church has less governance, or that it is not well governed.

Pastor Goudy:
That is what it seems like, though.

The Acting Chairperson:
The Committee certainly does not take that view. It seems to be more a matter of the logistics of governance. It is my understanding, from evidence that the Committee has heard from officials and from other Churches, that it is not a question of saying that smaller Churches are less well governed than larger ones.

Pastor Goudy:
If you agree that the size of a Church and its having been in existence for less than 10 years does not necessarily mean that it is badly run, what is the purpose of that legislation?

What is the track record of smaller non-denominational groups with regard to the misappropriation or misuse of funds or the abuse of power? Is there a track record of such behaviour? Why is the legislation being brought in? Having a safeguard for the public is fair, but why is it being brought in?

The Acting Chairperson:
First, it is a matter of striking a balance. Secondly, there should be an inbuilt element of protection for the public. The points that you make will be taken on board and passed on. You have demonstrated that smaller Churches have genuine fears about being discriminated against.

Pastor Goudy:
It looks as though we are being discriminated against in comparison to the four big Churches. That is very unfair.

The Acting Chairperson:
The points on designated religious status have been well made, and the Committee will pass them on to the Department. The numbers of members required and the timescale are felt to be arbitrary. A good point was made by Magheraknock Mission Hall that the amount of bureaucracy may prevent smaller groups from starting up.

Pastor Goudy:
We would feel happier if those two requirements were removed. If all Churches were on a level footing, we would have no problem with the rest of the Bill.

The Acting Chairperson:
Your views on that will certainly be passed on.

Ms Lo:
I agree with Pastor Goudy. The whole idea of designated religious status criteria is divisive. It creates a hierarchy of Churches in the eyes of the state.

Mr Agnew:
That is right.

Ms Lo:
The main Churches were consulted, and they came up with those requirements. What about the other Churches? They were never consulted. We need to look at that issue seriously.

The Acting Chairperson:
In fairness, the smaller Churches have been invited here because the Committee felt that their voices were not being heard in the way in which they should have been heard during the consultation. They may all have had fears about the points that have been made today about the possible discrimination. Anna made a good point about a hierarchy of Churches being established.

Mr Agnew:
This issue affects over 100,000 people who are non-denominational — it is a large minority.

Pastor Lewis Smyth ( Jordan Victory Church):
I received the Research Services briefing note on designated religious status. It says:

“To take the example of what are referred to as ‘the four main churches’ in Northern Ireland, all have central governing bodies to regulate their finances, assets and disciplinary procedures. They also have elected governing bodies from within their membership. It is feasible therefore to assume, at least in the first instance, that they can govern themselves and have mechanisms in place that provide accountability to their members.”

Assumptions are an internal and subjective part of how people look at life. On the same assumption, therefore, I can say — because of how that document is worded — that the Committee assumes that Churches with less than 1,000 members cannot govern themselves, and do not have such policies in place. This has not been merely overlooked; it has been written very clearly that the Charities Bill — and the people who formulated it — already assume that the Churches with smaller memberships cannot, and do not, have those mechanisms. If it is felt that smaller Churches are not fulfilling the necessary criteria, and are insufficient in governance, it would be more helpful if the Committee set out principles for us to adhere to in that regard.

There is also an opt-out clause, but we are not necessarily going to opt out like the four main Churches. Clauses 130 and 131 of the Charities Bill concern public collections — door-to-door and business collections — and practices that are not permitted. I remind the Committee that the Church at large, including the small denominations, conduct a lot of youth work and drug programmes without Government support. We fund those schemes ourselves, along with help from local businesses. We received £5,000 to help us to implement procedures in school training for children. This legislation will crush — not might crush, but will crush — a lot of community activity. Small local Churches strive to make a positive impact on their communities, so that is another point that I ask the Committee to consider.

The Acting Chairperson:
You have reinforced the issue of public benefit, which is part of the Bill. There is no question of the smaller Churches’ contributing less to public benefit than the larger Churches. However, you have addressed perceptions and fears that the Committee will take on board. We will deal with those concerns to the best of our ability. The information that you have given us will be passed on, and the Committee will attempt to impact on what you have told us. That is why you were invited to give a presentation today. As a scrutiny Committee, we need to be informed by all strands of opinion, and not just by the larger Churches. I accept Pastor Goudy’s point that bigger is not necessarily better; that is just a perception. I thank you for your presentation.

Pastor Goudy:
Can we assume that we will be kept in the loop now?

The Acting Chairperson:
Yes. You will receive a copy of the report when it is published and will be kept informed of what is happening.

Pastor Smyth:
Would it be feasible for the Committee, in co-operation with the Inland Revenue, to establish who the Church charities are? Those Churches could then receive a letter of explanation, rather than learning by default and having to scramble together a presentation at short notice. We met at 9.30 am today to put our minds together and prepare a presentation. We appreciate the Committee’s service but, like you, we are busy people. We would like a system that would set out the strategy or plan more clearly.

The Acting Chairperson:
As a Committee, we scrutinise the Bill; contact with other statutory organisations, such as HM Revenue and Customs, is the remit of the Department. We will, however, relate your views on the matter to the Department.

Pastor Serb:
The Free Methodist Church, like some of the other Churches, is part of a worldwide denomination. We have churches in England, and when we contacted them and HM Revenue and Customs, we realised that there were no conditions like these in England or Wales. The Charities and Trustee Investment ( Scotland) Act 2005 has some restrictions — in Scotland, the number is 3,000. I understand that charities must be protected. However, there are many other things that we must consider and review.

The Acting Chairperson:
That is the purpose of the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. There are 186 clauses, and I am sure that you appreciate that we have to go through every clause in detail. The Committee is aware of your views and thoughts on that issue, and we will address those as we go through the Bill.

Pastor Smyth:
With regard to a religious organisation demonstrating that it has a membership of not less than 1,000, how many independent Churches have been excluded? How many have been included in that figure? I think that it must be minimal. Has anyone researched that?

The Acting Chairperson:
We are not in a position to answer that question. However, we can ask the Department to get that information for us. The Committee will take on board all the points that have been made today. Thank you for your presentation. We have found it very useful.

Mr Agnew:
I should like to add one thing that may not be for this Committee; perhaps you can pass it on to the relevant powers that be. With regard to National Lottery funding, some representatives from Churches and religious organisations have told me recently that they have a conscience issue about accepting money for youth projects or whatever that has come from gambling. Personally, I do not have a problem with it, because when I get funding I put it to good use. However, the majority of Christian people do not want to take the money because they see it as filthy lucre, or whatever you want to call it.

The Assembly will be coming into receipt of funds from dormant bank accounts in the not-too-distant future. That money could be set aside to help fund projects for the Christian charities that have a problem conscience-wise in accepting money from the National Lottery That issue may not be for this Committee, but we would appreciate it if that suggestion were passed on to the appropriate Committee.

The Acting Chairperson:
We will certainly take note of your comments and bear that in mind. We are not in a position to make any definitive statement on that at the moment; it will depend on how much money is available and on how it will be designated to particular organisations or bodies.

Mr Agnew:
I understand.

Pastor Goudy:
I realise that we are running out of time. This is a large Bill, and you mentioned the many clauses that must be considered. When will the Bill be brought before the Assembly?

The Acting Chairperson:
We are hoping to complete the clause-by-clause scrutiny by April.

The Committee Clerk:
The Committee hopes to publish its report at the beginning of May. However, that is an indicative date; it is not set in stone. If that is the case, it may well be brought before the Assembly before the summer recess. Those are the timings at the moment, but they could change.

Pastor Goudy:
Is there still time for other groupings to provide evidence?

The Committee Clerk:
We put advertisements in the newspapers and we contacted different religious organisations and invited them to give oral evidence to the Committee. We must draw the line somewhere. However, it would be up to the Committee if it felt that there was a particular issue that it wished to pursue.

Pastor Goudy:
It would probably be the same arguments.

The Acting Chairperson:
Thank you very much.