CHARITIES AND CHARITY LAW

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, it is not merely to use a conventional phrase to say that we are all deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, both for having chosen this subject for debate to-day and for the admirable way in which he has spoken to his Motion. I should also like to say from these Benches how very much we look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and how much we welcome her presence here. I wish to speak briefly because I am far less experienced in these matters than my noble friend Lady Phillips who will be speaking at a later stage. She has had very great experience and can, I am sure, contribute to the debate with far greater authority than I—as indeed can many of your Lordships whose names appear on the list of speakers.

I should like to put a few points for consideration. This is in no sense a Party matter; but it is one of great concern to all parts of the House. I should like to say first, because I tend to agree in certain respects with some of the remarks made by Lord Beaumont—with the more controversial aspect of his 334 speech—how much we must all be impressed with the work done by the Charity Commissioners themselves and their staff. Anyone who has read their Reports, including the one which has fallen into our hands in time for this debate, must be impressed by the very positive role that they now play, much more so than used to be the case. This, I think, is one of the most helpful consequences of the legislation of 10 years ago with which the name of Lord Nathan is associated—and I am glad to see that his son will be taking part in our deliberations—because it was based largely, though not entirely, on the Nathan Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, indicated, the Government of the day did not accept all the recommendations of that Report. But I think that one of the results of that 1960 Act has been that the Charity Commissioners have felt able to take very much more positive action and to be, in the most helpful way, more interventionalist and not merely to be the guardians of charitable funds in the negative sense of seeing that they are not being misappropriated.

I was impressed with the references in the latest Report, the 1970 Report, which we have only just received. I have not read it all but I have been through it rapidly. It seems to me that in addition to the establishment of the central register, which we all knew about, they seem to be doing most admirable work in instigating local consultations, in trying to bring together in cities or neighbourhoods the various charities and in trying to see that the work of different charities with common interests should not be wasteful or overlapping and that, as far as possible, schemes of co-ordination should be worked out between those charities that are working towards the same or comparable ends. Similarly, they have very properly emphasised the need to bring together the charitable organisations and statutory bodies charged with the duty of the good of the community. Again I think we are much in the debt of the Charity Commission for the very useful work that they carry out in this field.

Furthermore, I was glad that Lord Beaumont mentioned the work they do in the field of reorganisation of charities under cy-près doctrine; because I think 335 that many of us in past days have been much disturbed to find charities which had been, as it were, jogging on for generations and which, if not entirely useless, were far from being as useful as they might have been. One of the advantages of the 1960 legislation was to make easier the reconstruction of such charities. Plainly, the Charity Commission are active in this way. In all these administrative fields I think it only right that we should offer our grateful congratulations to the Commission for the way in which they are setting about their work.

The main purpose of the debate this afternoon, however, is to give an airing to the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has so vividly placed before us. These stem from the fact that a law enacted in Tudor times is not really the best and most suitable basis for action to-day. The concept of charity goes back to the law of 1601, when not only was society differently organised but the whole concept of social services and so on was different from the one which engages us to-day. I do not think that any of us who have been active in those fields of charity where opinion is in any way concerned can be entirely happy at the situation in which we find ourselves. It is true that the purpose of the Charity Commission is to administer the law and therefore one can lay no complaint at their door; but it is surely an unsatistory state of affairs that, as Lord Beaumont has said, so many organisations with which one is acquainted have to set up two organisations in order to carry out their purpose. He mentioned some. I think that we can all think of certain others. For example, when the group of charities concerned with overseas aid, Oxfam, War on Want and others, wish to influence opinion in the direction of greater contributions, by Government as well as by individuals, and set up a campaign of action for world development, they have to set up a different organisation in order to further this purpose. I understand that the Rowntree Trust for example, one of the best known charities in the educational and social field, has also set up a separate organisation to be able to help other organisations which are not charities in the strict sense of the word but 336 which are carrying out aims which, in normal, popular parlance, we would consider to be educational and charitable; but they do not come within the four walls of our law.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, naturally mentioned the Albany Trust with which he is concerned, and there is the Disablement Income Group, the Child Poverty Action Group and others which have got into difficulty—or apprehend that they might do so in this way—because they seek to change the minds of men, and not merely to collect money to relieve their distress. Is this an unworthy object? I should have thought that most noble Lords would agree that it is a worthy object. But it is not a legal object in the charitable sense because, I understand, it is not legally charitable to undertake any activity which would be likely to affect the law of the land. Any effort to influence the Legislature is a political purpose and therefore not charitable. This seems to me, my Lords, to be quite out of keeping with modern society and modern thought, and particularly, if I may say so, with the attitude of the younger generation. This definition, this attitude towards charity will, I think, prove to be one of the ingredients which has alienated a number of young people from political activity in this country. They feel that it is not realistic in the terms in which they look on life.

I read the passages in the 1969 Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred, and parts of which he quoted. The Commissioners devoted quite a considerable section of the 1969 Report to this very problem because, as they say, it had been causing them concern. They tried to indicate areas in which it would not be improper for there to be some communication, at any rate, between these organisations and those responsible for Government. For example, they suggest that if the Government are investigating, or have propounded proposals for, changes in the law, it would be proper for there to be some communication. If it is proper for the Government surely it ought also to be proper for Her Majesty's Opposition, who may be considering the possibility 337 of investigating changes in the law. In their Report the Commissioners say: …when a parliamentary Bill has been published a charity will be justified in supplying relevant information to a Member of either House and such arguments to be used in debate as it believes will assist the furtherance of its purposes. So also there can be other cases, not involving legislation, in which a charity is entitled to persuade a Member to support its cause in Parliament, for instance, where the question arises whether a Government grant is to be made or continued to a particular charity. But, my Lords, I find that when legislation to deal with gambling was before Parliament the Churches' Committee on Gambling, which is a charity—an educational charity, presumably—found apparently that it was not within its scope to undertake work of this kind because it set up a separate and non-charitable body namely, the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation, to deal with the problem of legislation.

I had an experience with an organisation which has very recently been established; namely, ASH—Action on Smoking and Health. The sole object of this organisation is to try to influence opinion—including, one would hope, indirectly if not directly, that of the Legislature—about the dangers of smoking. Your Lordships may recall that we were to have a debate on this subject in this House. When I asked the officers of this organisation whether we could have some information, they said that, as advised by their solicitors, they felt they should not supply anything other than the Report published by the Royal College of Physicians (a public document and, apparently, permissible) because it might endanger their charitable status. So plainly, my Lords, there is dubiety in people's minds about just how far they can or should go. The example I have given about the Churches' Committee on Gambling Legislation shows that the kind of reassurance which appears to be contained in the Charity Commissioners' Report of 1969 does not seem to have been disseminated sufficiently convincingly for legal advisers of charities to feel that they are entirely safe; and there is a great deal of difficulty over this business. A large organisation could perhaps set up a parallel organisation without too much difficulty or expense; but it is very difficult for a new or small organisation to have to go through all the 338 trouble and cost of doing this to make quite sure that it will be on the right side of the law.

I can quite understand that a major change in the law would need great consideration. I have had talks with people responsible for some of the largest and best known charities in the country, and on the whole I think that many of them—certainly the long-established ones—feel that they have found ways round the law and that they can manage not too badly. They feel that if the law were widened they might find themselves drawn into situations which might possibly be difficult for them, and might conceivably cause a fall in their income; because it might lead to controversy within the organisation. They also suggest that if there were a completely free-and-easy situation, in which there was no way of controlling or checking the way in which the money was dispersed, it would be very difficult to keep a proper balance, or to say what was a proper balance, between expenditure on the main object of the charity and expenditure on propaganda by advertising and so forth. So, my Lords, this is not a simple problem, and I do not think that it would be doing a service to anyone to suggest that it is. It seems to me, nevertheless, that one should ask the Government whether the time has not come to give further very serious thought to this matter because I think the growth of organisations in the last few years of a kind in which the members are "involved", to use the word of the Charity Commissioners, surely indicates that the balance of opinion in society—particularly, I repeat, among younger people—is changing somewhat, and therefore it is our duty to have a look at it.

I should have thought that we, as Parliamentarians, should suggest that ally communication from a charitable organisation to a Member of either House of Parliament should be regarded as privileged. There should be no dubiety in the mind of anyone in charge of a charity about whether he or she should be allowed to say anything he or she chose in relation to the charity, or to write it, to a Member of either House. I should have thought that a relatively simple matter, and something we ought to put beyond any doubt at all. Having said that, my Lords, I should like to quote a few sentences from an interesting lecture by Mr. Des Wilson given in 339 the Diamond Jubilee Address in December of last year to the London Council of Social Service on The Volunteer in Society.

I do not necessarily always agree with Mr. Wilson—some of us have reason to feel that some of his comments during the time of the past Administration were not entirely fair. But I must say that I think he is right here to pose the problem as sharply as he does. He says: We have got to get the only people who hold the answer, the ratepayer and the taxpayer, more knowledgeable about the need. This. I believe, has become the major role of the modern volunteer; acting as a bridge of communication between the island of the minority "— people who are in some form of distress or ignorance— and the mainland of the majority in our society. He then says: This is the challenge that faces Shelter."— which is the organisation of which he was until recently the Director— Should it go on raising money, claiming its very real achievements, but implying all the time that this is the best way for people to help? Or should it say plainly that this is the problem of the authorities, and that the authorities, denied the essential resources, cannot cope?… We believe where people are prepared to give time and toil to tackle the need, they have shown sufficient commitment to be also entitled to speak out about it. That I think is putting in a more precise way the problem which the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont of Whitley, had in mind when he put his Motion on the Order Paper. I repeat that I do not think that there is any easy solution, but I think that the time has come when we should think clearly and carefully about this problem.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)

My Lords, it is customary to thank the mover of a Motion of this kind, and I do so to-day for three reasons in particular. The subject of charities, their work and status, is one of continuing public interest and importance, although it lies in the main outside the field of day-to-day Parliamentary or Governmental control. Secondly, since there is no statutory 340 definition of "charity", the way in which the courts and the Charity Commissioners, in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions, interpret the meaning of the words "charitable purposes" will change as society changes. It is easy to overlook or underestimate the closeness of the relationship between law and opinion in any political system. It was Abraham Lincoln who remarked, in the course of his debates with Judge Douglas a hundred years ago: He who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. Therefore a debate of this kind, accompanied as it has been by a certain amount of comment outside Parliament, in the Press and elsewhere, is important in that it influences attitudes which ultimately determine the findings in the courts.

My third reason for welcoming the noble Lord's initiative is that it gives an opportunity for a number of noble Lords with very considerable first-hand experience of charitable work to take part in the debate, so that we can benefit from their advice and knowledge. We are particularly fortunate that this debate to-day is to be the occasion of the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve.

My Lords, in his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked about the restrictions placed on charities as regards political activities, and proposed that the definition of "charitable purposes" should be widened. The noble Baroness, Lady White, followed very much the same lines in her speech. I listened with great attention, and some sympathy, to the way in which the noble Lord developed his argument. This approach represents a line of reasoning which combines idealism with impatience and with an element of protest. This is a feature of much political debate to-day and we should be very foolish to overlook it; but he will not expect me to reply in quite the same terms.

In order to give noble Lords who are going to take part in the debate a fairly full picture, I should like to describe the current situation, based as it is on the 1960 Charities Act, on a number of decisions of the courts and on the powers of the Charity Commissioners, and to 341 explain some of the reasons that lie behind the practices to which the noble Lord has referred. Although the Charity Commissioners, as your Lordships will know, are an independent statutory body, I think that I may be the appropriate person to acknowledge from this Box the tributes which have been paid to them by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the obviously difficult work they have to do and for the sensible and common-sense way in which they have interpreted that work. I should also say that I do not intend to refer to educational charities registered with the Department of Education and Science, since my noble friend Lord Belstead is to reply at the end of the debate.

Both noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred to the fact that in their Annual Report for 1969 the Charity Commissioners set out in some detail their views on the question of charities' taking part in political activities. The Commissioners thought that it was desirable to try to establish some guide-lines for charities on this question, because queries had arisen concerning some of the activities of a number of different charities. The Commissioners made it clear that the law is based at present on a limited number of decided cases and that it is consequently difficult to formulate precise general rules. They offered to give guidance in any particular case which arose, where it would be possible to look at the actual question in the light of all the attendant circumstances. I am sure that this has been valuable and useful for a number of charities.

The reason why charities are excluded from political activities has perhaps not so far been made clear in the debate. Charities in this country enjoy certain benefits, one of them, a traditional privilege, being that they are entitled to the special protection of the Crown. If it is necessary for action to be taken in the courts in the interests of a charity, the Attorney General will accordingly act in the charity's interests. But probably more important in these days of high taxation is the very considerable financial privileges which are enjoyed by charities. It is reasonable that in return for enjoying these privileges, which are not shared by others, charities should confine themselves to activities which are 342 recognised by the common law as being properly charitable.

One of the conditions that has to be met to establish that an organisation can be regarded as charitable is that it should operate for the public benefit. Here we come into an area of great difficulty. The courts have taken the view that they are unable to decide whether activities of a political kind are likely to benefit the public or not. The 1947 case of The National Anti-Vivisection Society v. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, one of the leading cases in this connection, showed the great difficulties which arise in trying to decide whether or not a proposed change in the law—that is, a political aim—would or would not be for the public benefit. While noble Lords, particularly during our discussions of the Industrial Relations Bill, have been talking about a "lawyers' paradise" and about the aridity of the law, I think that the judgments in that case by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and particularly by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, show the immense breadth and width of understanding that the appellate courts can bring to bear when considering a question of this sort.

What happened in this case? I should like to give a brief description. In this case your Lordships' House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, held that the National Anti-Vivisection Society, an organisation which has as its object the total suppression of vivisection, was not a body of persons established for charitable purposes only and so was ineligible for tax relief. No one questioned the sincerity with which the members of the society believed that vivisection was cruel to animals and that its abolition would benefit the public. On their behalf it was argued that trusts for the protection and welfare of animals were beneficial to the community as a whole, and therefore in the public good, because kindness towards animals produces moral benefits as tending to promote feelings of humanity and thus to elevate the human race. Against these generous and humane sentiments, however, had to be weighed the importance of experiments on animals for the purposes of medical and scientific research. Consequently, the contrary 343 argument was advanced that, so far from the public benefiting if the Society succeeded in its object of banning vivisection, public health would suffer as a result.

Where in cases of this sort does the public interest lie? The noble Baroness used the word "worthy". I think that most people would feel that the aims of the Anti-Vivisection Society are worthy. But the courts had to decide whether they were or were not for the public good. There was a legitimate dispute in which honest and dedicated men found themselves on opposite sides. In such circumstances, it must be for the courts to decide. As it happened, in that case the House of Lords found against the Society. But these will never be easy cases to resolve. It is as a result of considerations of this kind that the courts have taken the view that if an organisation has as one of its main objects activities of a political kind, it cannot then be considered to be charitable. Political activity which is subsidiary to a main charitable object is not necessarily objectionable, but there is inevitably some difficulty in saying exactly where the line should be drawn between one case and another.

The Charity Commissioners have been in touch with a number of charities about activities which appear to be of a possible political nature, and have discussed with them the difficulties which arose, or are likely to arise, in the particular cases. The Commissioners have said that they believe that charities in general now understand fairly clearly what limitations the law, as it exists at present, has thought to impose on political activities. Moreover, they have added the comment that, in general, charities are not unhappy with the present position. It has happened from time to time in the past that an organisation wishing to be recognised as a charity has been unable to obtain that recognition because one or more of its objects was not recognised as being charitable in law. To be a charity, an organisation must have objects which are exclusively charitable. Where this difficulty has arisen, it has quite often been overcome by removing the objectionable object from the charity's purposes, and if it is still desired 344 to pursue that object, a separate non-charitable organisation has been set up for that purpose, relying on funds not raised for charitable purposes. The Charity Commissioners have suggested that a similar solution could be adopted where a charity wishes to exert political pressure: that a separate non-charitable organisation might be set up for that purpose. This, as we have heard already in the debate, has been done in some cases.

Apart from these considerations of public policy, however, there are a number of charities which are themselves doubtful about the wisdom of engaging in political activities, and I think it is worth placing this consideration before your Lordships. Donors to a particular charity will be unanimous in supporting the main purpose of the charity; but if the charity seeks to engage in political activity dissensions can easily arise as to whether such activity is desirable or, if so, as to what form it should take. Moreover, a charity may arouse opposition from taxpayers and ratepayers who do not agree with what the charity is seeking to do, or with the means being used, and who are aware that charities are, in a sense, because of the tax advantages that they enjoy, subsidised by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. There are therefore, I am informed, many charities which would be reluctant to extend their activities into the political arena for fear of creating dissension among their supporters and antagonising other members of the public. The Charity Commissioners refer in their Annual Report for 1969 to the controversies which have arisen in the United States because of objections on the part of members of the public there to the use of grants made by charitable foundations for what have been regarded as political purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, talked about an alternative definition of "charity". This, as he indicated, is not a new suggestion. The possibility of devising a statutory definition of "charity" was fully discussed when the Charities Bill was before Parliament in 1960. I see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his place; he tabled an Amendment in the later stages of the Charities Bill which attempted to widen and put on the Statute Book 345 a definition of "charity". The late Lord Simonds, to whom tributes were paid yesterday, made a notable speech in the course of the same debate. But, in the end, Parliament came to the conclusion that, desirable as it might be in principle to have a statutory definition, the practical difficulties in the way of producing a satisfactory formula seemed to be almost insuperable. It was eventually accepted, although not without some reluctance, that the disadvantages of any statutory definition that could be devised would be likely to outweigh the advantages.

The origins of the present law can be found as far back as the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. There has been a long line of decided cases since then, and the law has proved itself to be flexible over the years. It falls to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice to determine what objects are charitable and from time to time attempts have been made to classify the results of these decisions. The classification usually referred to at the present time is that made by Lord Macnaghten in the case of Income Tax Commissioners v. Pemsel. Lord Macnaghten classified charitable purposes under four heads: the relief of poverty; the advancement of education; the advancement of religion; and other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads. It is this fourth category, of course, that has caused so many problems of interpretation.

But it is possible—and we must not make any mistake about this—by proceeding from one analogy to another to regard as charitable organisations which could not conceivably have been envisaged in the Elizabethan Statute, or at the time of later decisions based on that Statute. At the present time, we find on the register of charities organisations such as the Albany Trust, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which it does not seem likely would have been regarded as charitable even a comparatively short time ago. If we were to have a statutory definition, it would be difficult to devise one, first of all, which would embrace all the existing case law; secondly, which would be flexible enough to enable development to continue in the future; and thirdly, which would not be so wide as to admit to charitable 346 status all kinds of organisations which have only the most tenuous relationship with the public good. Having regard to the pace at which social change continues, and the differing needs which emerge as a consequence of these changes, there would be dangers in replacing the present definition of "charity" with a broad formula on the lines envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.

My Lords, I am very anxious that in what I have had to say I should not appear too negative. This debate is exploratory: it is an airing of the subject. It has been very useful to hear the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the Government look forward to hearing, and subsequently to studying with careful consideration, what other Members of your Lordships' House have to say. At the same time, we must remember the practical difficulties, and noble Lords may find it helpful to have in mind some of the considerations that I mentioned. But I do not want to close on that note. Of course we must be concerned with the law, the practice and the status of charities. We tend to think of charities—and there are 100,000 charities, large and small, registered at the present time—as organisations which raise money and spend it for purposes that we can applaud. We ought not, however, to forget the inherent value of what moves people to perform charitable work. Charity is one of the three great Christian virtues, together with Faith and Hope, and it is a virtue which enables a man to fulfil himself by serving others.

One voice is missing in our debate this afternoon, that of the late Lady Reading, who would certainly have spoken in a debate of this kind and whose contribution in this field is one that we all remember and which very few indeed can equal. I should like to end by quoting two sentences from the booklet on voluntary service which she wrote and which was circulated shortly after her death: To be a real human being is a challenge in itself, and so in this context the Chinese proverb, ' What you hear you forget, what you see you remember, what you do is part of you', is a tenet worth remembering.

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what has been 347 said by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, in their appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this debate upon charities and in particular concerning the operation of the law affecting them. We are all aware that there are many anomalies in the law and not a little confusion. I am told that a gift to a vicar for parish work is probably not charitable, while a gift to a vicar for church purposes almost certainly is charitable. I do not intend to pursue this matter of law but to leave it to others more knowledgeable than I.

It has already been pointed out that the field of charities is a very large one indeed, with some 110,000 registered charities and some 30,000 unregistered charities and educational trusts with an income, so the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, tells us, of £60 million per annum. It needs to be remembered that charities have been from time immemorial the source of social intitiatives, social experiment and cultural development. Universities, hospitals, schools, friendly societies, social work amongst the poor and needly and the patronage of the Arts have sprung from charitable bequests and charitable works, and have in the course of time inspired the extension of these activities to make sure that that which was available for the few should now be made available to all.

Thus we have seen how, inspired by charities, the Welfare State has grown and developed and statutory authority has taken over, by and large, the work started, often in a small but inspired way, by some individual or charitable society. The example that immediately springs to mind is that of Dr. Barnado with his great work for homeless boys and neglected children, for whom, so rightly, provision is now made by statutory authorities; but the homes bearing his name, thank God! still remain and perform a most valuable function in partnership with the State. I believe I am right in thinking that one of the objects of the 1960 Act regarding charities was to promote co-operation between the statutory and local authorities and voluntary agencies; and we still need these voluntary agencies. I hope that this is a matter that will be brought out very strongly in this debate.

348 The noble Earl, Long Longford, said in this House in 1949—he was then Lord Pakenham—during a reply to a debate: It is the view of the Government that democracy, without voluntary exertion and voluntary idealism, will lose its soul. I am sure those words are true. Particularly in this technological age, with all the present emphasis on professionalism, we still desperately need idealism, and I hope that we shall always recognise our need for voluntary agencies because there is a greater flexibility about voluntary societies. There is a freedom to pioneer and undertake new work without being tied hand and foot by irritating regulations. Often, perhaps one goes to some statutory authority and finds that a particular department cannot deal with the matter of some regulation and so one is passed to some other department. But there is a freedom and flexibility about our voluntary agencies and we should pay tribute, as I am sure this debate will, to the great army of men and women throughout this land who are giving their time and service in a voluntary capacity on behalf of thousands of charitable causes, without whose aid the many agencies that exist could not be effective. The whole nation owes them a debt of gratitude, and we hope that with the increase of leisure there will be more and more people who are prepared to serve in voluntary and charitable agencies, which certainly cannot be effective without them.

The other great cause for gratitude is the wonderful generosity with which frequent appeals for charitable assistance are met. One thinks of the appeals for East Pakistan or, going further back, Aberfan, the appeals of Oxfam, Christian Aid, or appeals with which I have had something to do for a number of years such as the St. Martin-in-the-Fields Christmas Appeal. It is not only the large donations that are indeed necessary, but the "widow's mite" and contributions from old-age pensioners which reveal the inherent goodness in the hearts of the British people. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, that charities depend upon charity, which is the spirit of love and the spirit of God, the caring about the needs of others. It is this which inspires the actions of so many.

Personally, I do not think that the charity walks are to be despised or written 349 off. Provided that they are properly conducted, they give an outlet for a number of people who wish to do something to help a worthy cause. We may sometimes find flag days personally a nuisance, but in those a small army of volunteers help. There are also charity concerts in which great celebrities give their services. We welcome all these and believe that there are few, if any, genuine charities which fail to draw forth a response. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, some seem to be more successful than others.

But, having said all that, there is the real problem to which the noble Lord referred of the relevance of some charities to existing needs—the cy-près doctrine. Many charities are totally irrelevant in the traditional provision of shawls and red flannel petticoats. I was talking to someone this morning who told me that he had the greatest difficulty in disposing of £10 to needy poor on Whit Monday because none of such recipients must own his home. There are the loaves of bread which have to be distributed on Shrove Tuesday to poor people. A visit to almost any country parish church will reveal a list of these ancient charities. They are almost entirely out of date. We are grateful for the variations of these charities which can now be made. In this I have always found the Charity Commissioners to be very co-operative.

But there is an area which needs closer examination. That is the field of education trusts, especially those relating to church schools. In the days when the Church was almost entirely responsible for education, a large number of bequests, some big and some small, were made. Now many of those bequests are outdated and out-moded. There is a need for a very careful survey of those bequests and charitable trusts and for an examination of them so that they can be adjusted and better used in the service of education, and indeed of the Church.

As I see it, this is a joint responsibility of the Church authorities and the Department of Education and Science, which handles all educational trusts. The Department, with the Church Commissioners, are usually sympathetic to reasonable requests, but very often they are so overwhelmed with work that delays are long and tiresome. That is one of the things which Her Majesty's Government may think about in considering how to 350 increase the manpower in some of these departments which deal with these very pressing needs. It is very exasperating to have to wait for 18 months or two years for action to be taken. It might be possible to employ some voluntary agencies to help in this matter. I sincerely hope, with your Lordships, that this debate will initiate those procedures which are necessary to simplify the existing laws and also to speed their working.

BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE

My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon and hope that nothing I say will prove contentious. As some of your Lordships may be aware, I was in the wings of another place—or perhaps, more correctly, more often in the Gallery of another place—for nearly 21 years, but I am very proud of being a Member of your Lordships' House.

I am enormously grateful for the many kindnesses I have received since I became a Member of this House. Specifically this afternoon I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for their kind welcome. I also thank Lord Beaumont of Whitley for initiating this debate. This is one of the subjects I know a little about. One might perhaps have thought that I should have to wait two or three years before a subject arose on which I felt I knew a little.

My Lords, I wish to make one or two quite brief suggestions and comments. I am sure that everybody present read an article in one of the evening papers last night by a man who has been mentioned in this House this afternoon, Mr. Des Wilson. In that article he mentioned that charities are able to be exempted from certain taxes. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has told us about that this afternoon. I wish to draw the attention of the Government to one tax which, if it were altered, could be of enormous benefit to charities, perhaps in the not too far distant future: I refer to the tax on Christmas cards. As all noble Lords will be aware, many charities, particularly the large ones, derive considerable profit from the sale of Christmas cards but perhaps not everyone is aware that Christmas cards attract purchase tax at 96⅔ per cent. This seems an extraordinarily high rate of purchase tax which, perhaps in the fullness of time, could be reduced. I wonder whether my right honourable 351 friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be persuaded at some foreseeable time to look into this matter and alleviate what I regard as the excess tax which charities have to pay on Christmas cards.

My Lords, to me charity does not necessarily mean money. I know that it does in the minds of a great number of people in the country to-day. To me, charity first of all means aid, then it means help, and then it means involvement. Also, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Blackburn said, it means caring. I have had 25 years of organising people who want to be involved and who do care, who are willing but are not necessarily able to give of their money because very often they have none or very little, although as the right reverend Prelate also said, the widow's mite is as much forthcoming as the pound notes from the general public. There is an enormous wealth of people in this country who want to give of their help—what we in the hospital services call personal service. In the 20 years I have been involved in trying to organise hospital services throughout the country I do not think I have ever had a refusal from anyone to give personal service. This, my Lords, is because people care and want to help.

I want to make a plea this afternoon that we should all nationally (and specifically from this House) try to involve more young people in the giving of personal service to others. In my experience young people will, if they are asked, always come forward to give personal service. They often do not volunteer although they will, in the end, be volunteers. When I have asked the young people of this country to help out I have never had a refusal. I hope that anybody in this House who is able to contact young people will ask them to make a special contribution in this field. I should declare an interest here in that I am chairman of a juvenile court. Having been in court the whole of this morning, I am quite certain that if some of the young people who came before me had been more involved in helping other people, then perhaps they would not have made my list rather longer than it usually is.

My Lords, you have listened to me very courteously and I am most grateful. I 352 have considerable knowledge, mostly in the hospital field. All charity, it is said, begins at home; but the British people have never been lacking in charity of any sort, and we should all be proud of our countrymen and give thanks where credit is due.

LORD GORE-BOOTH

My Lords, I have suggested before now to your Lordships that fate gives one extraordinary gifts and occasionally inflicts on one extraordinary reverses. One of the happiest gifts that it has bestowed upon me is the privilege of being the Member of your Lordships' House to speak immediately after the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. She has come through so many things in life with such courage, capability, vitality and charm that it is beyond the capability of my mind or tongue to do all that she has done adequate justice. So I give her a very simple welcome with all my heart, and, I am sure, the hearts of all your Lordships. We look forward to seeing her many times. Fate did something else to me: I went out of your Lordships' Chamber to see whether there was any difficulty about pronouncing the word "Borve" (my Celtic fringe comes from Ireland and not from Scotland). I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Baroness, who put me right and told me that Borve was in the Hebrides. I am sure that the noble Baroness will bring the fresh and fair wind of the Hebrides into this House often, where it will be very welcome indeed. May I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in a tribute, particularly from these Benches, to the late Lady Reading. She was a regular occupant of these Benches, and we, like the rest of your Lordships miss her very much indeed.

In offering thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this Motion, I do not propose to detain your Lordships long, but to concentrate on two aspects of this question, one of which has been dealt with fairly comprehensively already. I should like to say a word about the function of voluntary societies and charities, and then a word about the complications of the principal point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I refer to political activity concerning charity work 353 abroad, or in connection with work abroad.

On the subject of charity as such, and its place in our society, I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in paying a tribute to the people of this country for their instinct for charity. I feel a little more polemical about it than anyone who has yet spoken, because I have sat through some television programmes which seem to treat the subject with a kind of intellectual aridity or austerity which I find extremely inappropriate. I remember one programme which concluded with the last question being referred to one speaker, who was asked: "Do you think, therefore, that voluntary charity work should cease?" The gentleman replied, "Yes". Intellectually that is true: in the Kingdom of Heaven either there is no charity or it is all charity. No doubt in the perfect Welfare State there would never be anything left over. I am quite sure that, I think it is safe to say for centuries to come, there will be found pockets of suffering in the lives of our own people and other people where the instinct of our own people to help can still be applied voluntarily, with the thanks and not the rather condescending criticism of the State, or members of it. I feel very passionately that it is to those people who do this work—and I want to include one other community which has not been mentioned; namely, British communities abroad—that the human race owes, and will go on owing, very profound thanks.

Now I should like to turn to the problem of the action which can be taken by charities here in regard to situations abroad, because it is relevant to this question of whether more political activity should achieve charity status. I shall have to analyse this a little closely in order to reach a conclusion. We are familiar, and have been lamentably familiar in recent months, with disasters in different parts of the world. The world being the way it is, disasters are apt to happen in places where the political situation is complicated and, indeed, even tense. Often the repercussion of that is that charity work finds itself in great difficulties. Medical teams cannot get in or cannot function, or there 354 are other complications which prevent the authorities in the country concerned, understandably, from affording the facilities to charity work which charity workers quite naturally expect. This kind of situation immediately arouses the indignation (and so it should) of the people and organisations engaged in charity work in this country. If I may mention my interest, this is something I have found myself involved in for the past year. There is a temptation, when this happens, to rush into activity which must be classified by the Charity Commissioners as "political", a pressure on the Government which goes beyond what the noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke about and which, in modern terms, would be called "political".

When this happens, the following point arises. The best judge of a situation, and how much pressure you can put on it—as, for instance, in Nigeria and Biafra—is that body which has permanent information and judgment; and that body must be the Government of the day, of whatever Party. The Government of the day may well feel that political activity of this kind may be an impediment to charity work reaching the people whom it wants to reach. We all want to reach the people we want to help, and quickly. But it may well be that an indignant or pressure approach to this objective may have precisely the reverse effect of what the people who put it in hand expect.

I am not arguing, and could not possibly argue, that there must be any limit on people urging that right effects be produced by the wrong method. We all have the right to do that and must exercise it. Where the constitutional point arises, and the administration point, is whether that kind of activity is something which those who have studied charity legislation throughout the centuries would deem to be something which should be free of any tax obligation. I do not think it is, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was extremely honest about this when he said that the total logic of his remarks might well mean that in the end the Conservative and Labour Parties should also be afforded tax privileges under this heading; and if that were the case, perhaps I might put in a word of co-operation from these Benches.

355 No, my Lords. There is a point very difficult to find here where the genuine, exempt charity work stops and legitimate political activity, but political activity that is essentially political, begins, and where therefore the financial and other privilege must cease. I have tried to bring out one of the most difficult cases because I think it gives the measure of the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has raised. If I may refer again to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, I was very much attracted by some of the suggestions she made on where the borderline could in subsequent administration, or even again ultimately in legislation, be defined. There is certainly a very difficult moment where giving the public information goes over into advocating priorities on the Government, and that again is politics. So what I am really saying is that the Charity Commissioners have, to my mind, with great wisdom and great insight, tried to determine this borderline between the two; and even for purposes of the changed views of society that we have at this time they have got it about right. This is not to say that it will always be right, but I think it is still right at the moment.

I come to my final point here, and the only point on which I think I disagree flatly with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. That is that I do not believe this is a matter of definition. If we were all Latins probably it would be, but I think that even if we become members of the Common Market we shall retain that Anglo-Saxon part of our psychology which really makes us regard what we are discussing as a matter of degree rather than as a matter of definition. But I believe that in this matter of discussing charity, if I may steal from what may have been an unused part of the brief of the right reverend Prelate, we should think of charity rather as we did perhaps at the beginning of my remarks, in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, used the word. I think that we should think of charity both from the point of view of people doing it and from the point of view of people watching charity being done in some extremely famous words: Charity suffereth long, and is kind"— 356 kind and not disputatious for the sake of being disputatious— charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil. My Lords, if that could be the background of all charity work and of all people who talk about charity work, I am sure that the dedication of the many thousands of people who do it and contribute to it will be even more amply rewarded than it is already.

VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON

My Lords, I should like to join in the chorus of congratulations that has greeted the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on initiating this debate and on the manner in which his own intervention was framed. I should also like to join in the praise given to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, on her maiden speech and to say how much those of us who have known and admired her for many years rejoice in her arrival in your Lordships' House and look forward to frequent interventions from her.

As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, reminded us, the legal definition of "charity" is a very old one—370 years old in fact—and charitable objects which were set out in that definition were summarised at the end of the last century by Lord Macnaghten. Considering the antiquity of the definitions, it is not surprising that from time to time there is pressure to take a new look at them to see how relevant they are under modern conditions. I remember reading the debates in this House ten years ago when the Charities Bill 1960 was being considered. The first Lord Nathan, to whom all concerned with charities owe a very great deal, when dealing with the limited issue of the doctrine of cy-près, said in that connection: It should be possible to keep charitable trust purposes in tune with public needs in changing times. But he also made his own position clear and, so far as I know, no noble Lord at that time challenged it, on any widening of the definition of "charity" so that charities could find themselves in what the Commissioners would rightly call the 357 political field without losing their charitable status and all the much valued advantages that flow from it.

In the report of Lord Nathan which preceded legislation it was stated: Charity has always in this country been regarded as standing quite outside the realm of Party politics and it is in our view of the first importance it should continue to be so regarded. Noble Lords have been reminded already this afternoon of an article on charities which appeared in an evening paper yesterday with the arresting headline: Charities—A battle to free the money box. They should enter political arena and fight all the way ". The article then quoted from last year's Charity Commissioners' Report an extract which it said caused hilarity in the field. The extract read: One contemporary development "— it was in the Commissioners' Report of 1969— which has given us some concern has been the increasing desire of voluntary organisations for involvement '"— they put the word "involvement" in inverted commas— in the causes with which their work is associated ". If that was all that the Charity Commissioners said on that subject it could have been no doubt more happily worded. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, himself pointed out, and the noble Baroness as well, this was part of a very long, sustained argument occupying three pages of closely argued reasoning in that Report, and all who are tempted to economise on their reading' by concentrating solely on what appeared in last night's Evening Standard will, I hope, take the trouble of reading what the Commissioners wrote in full.

I speak with a little knowledge of the work in this field, for I was for nearly ten years President of the Save The Children Fund, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, is now Chairman; and I am still President of LEPRA, the British Leprosy Relief Association; and as the Commissioners know very well, and have never hesitated to say, in both these splendid bodies, and in all similar bodies, the staff are deeply and passionately involved and to many it is their life's work. But being involved does not mean necessarily that they 358 would want their organisations to become political pressure groups. I suspect that most of these people working in these great organisations would hold firmly to the view that on balance charity in the future, as in the past, should remain free from political pressure. I frankly do not think they would follow the noble Lord in his desire to equip their organisations with the right to undertake some kind of pressure group or political activity.

If this change were made and charities working in the international field yielded to the new possibilities that would be open to them, relations with our own Government here, or overseas Governments, would become continuously embarrassing. No one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that it was in large part by keeping out of politics, despite constant pressure to get involved, at the time of the tragic war in Nigeria, and retaining freedom to work for children wherever they were in need, that the Save The Children Fund was able to operate field teams simultaneously on both sides of the firing line in the Nigerian civil war, and to continue to be acceptable to the Nigerian authorities after the war. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of existing charities for their power to be widened to enable them to engage in these new activities.

The noble Lord, apart from wishing existing charities to have new powers for which, so far as I know, most of them are not asking, has also a second purpose which he mapped out this afternoon. He argued that any non-profit-making organisation which attempts to promote the welfare of the community ought to be considered as a charity and entitled to the benefits which accrue to the existing registered charity. If this sweeping change were to be introduced, I very much doubt whether the privileges which existing charities enjoy when they are precluded from political activities not only by their charters, in most cases, but also by law, will long survive. It seems to me inconceivable, if the definition of a charity were changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggests, that public opinion would tolerate the continuance of the financial privileges which charities at present enjoy and without which their work would be impossible. So, my Lords, on this count too, while thanking him 359 for his speech, for the form it took and for the debate it has made possible, I see the most formidable difficulties ahead if either of the noble Lord's objectives were achieved.

LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY

My Lords, may I first join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his introduction, and also the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his explanation of what is almost the inexplicable: where charity begins and where politics ends. Though I may not agree with him entirely, I am grateful to him for the painstaking way in which we were brought nearer to some conclusion. Perhaps I may also add my happiness that my clanswoman, if I may say so, should have addressed us so well and amicably to-clay. Were I to declare my interest, it is that inevitably a minister of religion is concerned with the sponsoring or co-sponsoring of charitable funds; and, quite frankly, I, like others, have been mystified by what does and what does not qualify as a charitable status, which actually is the main issue that we have been discussing.

Before I say anything else may I declare with equal sincerity my gratitude to the Charity Commissioners for the positive way in which, time and time again, they approach borderline cases; for their obvious sincerity in endeavouring to show us ways in which to word it in order that—always in terms of integrity—an allowance may be made for charitable status. Time and time again they are on the side of the angels. The point of our mystification is that sometimes something seems to happen just at the point where the Charity Commissioners are almost agreeing with one. Am I out of order in suggesting that the office of Inland Revenue, in its largest sense, comes in at some point on the question of what is and what is not political?

It is at this point in the debate that we can all afford to be short, so many things having been said which need not be repeated. But perhaps I may make my short contribution by mentioning just two charities, to bring the matter down to actualities, and also make a comment arising from those two charities. These are two charities with which I am connected in sponsoring and which have 360 failed to qualify. And I do not think that specific comment is without importance. Most of your Lordships will be familiar with the Defence and Aid Fund inaugurated by Christian Action to assist the Bantu in South Africa, to ensure that he gets defence if he is accused. I think I am right in saying that the average salary of the white man in Johannesburg is £2,400 a year and that of the Bantu and the coloured £240 a year. There is no one in this House who would disagree with the view that anyone, especially those in conditions of poverty, should have the fullest representation when he comes up and is accused in the courts. This is precisely what the defence side of the Defence and Aid Fund is for; and the aid side is obviously for the children of people who have been put in this position. Bantus who are "had up" on the most difficult kinds of cases are unable, because of the lack of social security there, to have free advice, and therefore they must have defence. Here is something with which we all agree; that every man is entitled to justified and instructed defence; and, by the same token, that his children should not die of starvation, by reason again of lack of social security, while he is being tried, and sometimes while he is in prison.

Here is something which is charity, and here is something which on political grounds has been denied a position for charitable status. Parallel to that, because it comes also under the ægis and fathering of Christian Action, there is the more recent Martin Luther King Foundation, when there was an effort, starting in 1968 and still in process. We have been for three and a half years in most amicable, helpful and courteous discussion with the Charity Commissioners, but not yet does the Martin Luther King Foundation find that it has the kind of objects which allow it a charitable status. Its object is, of course, to spread the news of non-violent action, and although it seemed at one point in the discussions with the Charity Commissioners that it would pass for charitable status if they were to discuss non-violence, if it had anything to do with the practice of non-violence then that would be a political issue and the Foundation would not stand up as a charitable organisation. If this were the kind of way in which it was going to be argued on its face value, then the practice of non-violence by the 361 Founder of Christianity at Calvary would not qualify as a charitable status because of its political significance. Would this satisfy us? That might be the text—if I may use the word "text"—for the one comment that I want to make arising from these two cases at this junction between the political and the charitable.

With regard to the great responsibility that lies on the Charity Commissioners (or is it on those who advise the Charity Commissioners, the legal advisers, in the interpretation of the Act?), I would emphasise that it has become greater when Christianity is no longer the formative power of our national principles.

May I, again for the sake of brevity, put this point in this way? It so happens that I have strong views about the Common Market, and I have been expressing these views. What my views are has nothing at all to do with this debate, and I am not declaring them. I am merely referring to the point because, in becoming public in that matter, I have been amazed at the number of people, both inside the Church, and still more outside the Church, who in correspondence and over the telephone, and on meeting me in the street, have asked what on earth the Church has to do with the Common Market. They seem to feel that there is no place for a relationship between the Common Market and the teachings of the Church—or, if you like, between the area of charity and the area of politics. I must be entirely telegraphic here and not preach a sermon, but they seem to forget that the late Archbishop Temple said that Christianity is the most materialistic religion in the world. They seem to forget that "Bethlehem" means the House of Bread; they seem to forget that "Lord" means the warden of the loaf: Why call ye me Warden of the Loaf and do not the things which I say? They seem to me (and I was assisted by the noble Lord. Lord Gore-Booth, in quoting from Scripture) to say that Pentecost is of no significance at the present time. Yet at Pentecost all the nations were gathered together and they had all things in common. Too many people seem to forget that the parable by which it is decided, in biblical language, who is to go to Heaven and who is going to Hell—or, if you 362 like, who is going to have life now and who is going to have death now—is the parable of judgment. And the parable of judgment as to who is going to have eternal life and who is not going to have eternal life is precisely on political grounds: I was hungered and you gave me no meat; I was naked and you did not clothe me—either with clothes or with houses. I was in prison—either in the prison of illiteracy or the prison of dictatorship and you did not come to release me ". Political, political, political! The ultimate decision as to where spiritual life lies is in the political area. It is in this sense that there is an enormous responsibility lying on those, whoever they may be, who find it easier than I should find it to decide between charity and politics in the light of these things.

Perhaps, of course, it is not the fault of those who so decide. It may be because of the rarefied nature of the Church's witness for the last two centuries, getting more and more spiritual and less and less biblical, that we leave it to them to decide. Perhaps I may make this point by the shortest possible story, a true story, of the missionary in Africa who was in an area where there was a very primitive tribe who on March 1 used to celebrate their god's anniversary. They would go through the woods, to the cacophony of drums, until they came to a point shortly before midnight where they would pause and then go down into the groves for their bestialities and obscenities.

One of the missionaries, with some courage, decided on one occasion, to accompany them. He walked with them, and when they got to the pause just before midnight he got on to the stump of a broken down tree and preached the love of God. For a moment there was a terrifying silence, while the young men of the tribe were considering whether to knife him on the spot for getting in the way of their celebrations when they allowed him to have his Easter. But grace intervened, no one attacked him; he was not molested, and, somewhat to his own surprise, he was able to go back to the mission station. The next year he did it again; and there was less intensity, lessened tension. Indeed, he did it increasingly for ten years, and then he died a natural death. The year after he died, as March 1 approached, the head of the 363 tribe came to the mission station and asked that another missionary be appointed to do it, as it had now "become part of the show". Unfortunately, it may be that secular people are left with these terrible decisions because the Church has become "part of the show".

Up in the part of Scotland that I come from, not many days ago I found myself near Holy Loch—still so strangely called Holy Loch, where we are somewhat furtively unloading Poseidon missiles, not Polaris missiles but Poseidon missiles. Polaris missiles might be interpreted as being a response to such a terrible thing as nuclear attack. We all know that Poseidon missiles are not for that purpose; they are first strike missiles; they are not to reply to some attack by some atheist opposition. They are there to make the first strike in order to break down the missile centres and missile buildings on the other side. This is what we are committed to politically at the moment, and the Church is part of the show; and if it is part of that show it is no wonder that people look less and less to the Church to decide where politics begins and where charity ends.

My Lords, I would plead with those who are responsible for these final decisions, which are so difficult to define, that they should take on an immense responsibility, else charity will very soon be reduced to mere soppiness, and politics, in the last resort, will become the instrument of the devil.

LORD SAINSBURY

My Lords, from these Opposition Back Benches I should like to extend our warm congratulations to Baroness Macleod of Borve. Her speech, I am sure your Lordships would all agree, showed deep humanity, sincerity and understanding. Secondly, I should like to join with noble Lords who have spoken earlier in this debate in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this much-needed and extremely interesting debate. Thirdly, I should like to apologise to your Lordships' House if during the course of my brief remarks I traverse ground that has already been traversed. I find it very difficult in a debate of this sort to decide whether to erase my name from the list of speakers or, out of sheer 364 vanity, to proceed with the speech I intended to make. I have, perhaps to your regret, chosen the latter course.

To my mind, one of the most pleasing features of our society, which reveals the compassionate nature and the generous character of the British people, is the support given to our many and various charitable organisations. I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that most of our charities do excellent work, and that no matter how well the Welfare State functions charities at home will always have an essential role in supplementing the efforts of and filling the gaps left by the State.

My main reason for intervening in this debate is to underline, as other noble Lords have done, the growing anxiety felt by many charitable organisations, especially those in the field of research and education, about some recent developments concerning the definition of what is a charitable activity. As has already been said, the difficulty stems from the legal requirements that charities may not pursue activities with the object of changing the law of the land. I have no doubt that some safeguards are necessary in order to prevent the abuse of charitable status for political purposes. But the current interpretation of this rule seems to me to be too wide and all-embracing.

Thus, according to the 1969 Report of the Charity Commissioners, which concedes that the law is imprecise and difficult to interpret, any action to influence the Government to adopt a particular line of action may be against the law. Not infrequently, such a strict interpretation would, and does in fact, lead to some rather absurd results. For example, educational and research charities which study and report on a large number of subjects of general interest cannot lawfully make public recommendations as to what should be done if those recommendations involve action by the Government. In a similarly absurd way, if a charity engaged in the alleviation of poverty produces a reasoned case for greater Government expenditure on a particular branch of the social services it may be breaking the law.

Although the Charity Commissioners' Report of 1969 shows that there are certain exemptions, these merely make the 365 recent rather restrictive interpretation of the law even more absurd. Thus, apparently the rules regarding public recommendations do not apply in respect of a Government Bill that has been published or when the Government themselves ask for comment and advice. In other words, it is quite in order for charities to propose changes in the law or recommend new Government action when the Government have already decided that changes are necessary. This not only enhances the power of the Executive but also provides a strong built-in bias in favour of the status quo. History proves that many desirable reforms have originated from the efforts of dedicated pioneers outside the Government, and I am sure that many of your Lordships will agree that it would be most undesirable to restrict the activities of our charities in this way.

a few minutes ago I gave your Lordships a few examples of the absurd results brought about by the current interpretation of the law. I hasten to add that my examples are not entirely hypothetical. I am aware that the Charity Commissioners, and the Department of Education and Science, have indicated to certain charities that they are in danger of losing their charitable status by making recommendations and proposals which involve action by Government. Whether this is simply the result of the efforts of some over-zealous civil servants, or is due to a conscious change in Government policy, I have no means of knowing. In either case, however, it is, in my opinion, a regrettable development which is not in the public interest. It is highly desirable (and I would say even essential) that our charities should be deeply involved, and passionately concerned, with the causes that they are working for, and the fact of maintaining a highly legalistic and restrictive attitude regarding the range of their activities would merely shackle them and reduce their effectiveness. I am convinced that some safeguards are necessary, but it is essential, in my opinion, that the law is interpreted wisely and tolerantly, and that charities have the maximum possible freedom of action in this respect.

LORD GRENFELL

My Lords, like all other speakers I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve on her maiden speech. The 366 fact that she has made most of my speech for me does not deter me in the least, and I hope that my few words to-day will reinforce what she has so ably said.

It is important to define, in the context of this debate, what we mean by "charity". There are many in this country who devote their spare time to charitable acts. Many are young people who have just left school and of whose kind acts we hear little. We live in an age when violence and crime make the headlines, and I feel sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the young and old who do so much in their quiet way to alleviate pain and loneliness among the less fortunate members of our community. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to whom we are all deeply grateful, framed his Motion in order to bring to our notice the charitable organisations whose main duties are to fill in the gaps which cannot be covered by the State in bringing help to humans and animals, and indeed assistance to the Arts and the environment of our country. All who work in this field are finding it more and more difficult to raise the money required to finance projects which, in spite of the Welfare State, are of the utmost importance to the old and young who are in any way afflicted. Charity organisations do all they can to keep down to the minimum the cost of administration so that every possible penny goes to the object of that charity. It is essential that the State should assist them in every way.

In a very short speech I propose to put before Her Majesty's Government a few matters which, to my mind, need careful consideration. Some of these are requests for retention of privileges given in the past, and some are for privileges so urgently required in order that the organisations can continue to give their invaluable service. A great number of charities depend for their income on Christmas cards, as indeed my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve stated a short while ago. There can be no doubt that the increased cost of postage will make it impossible for so many who sent them in the past to continue to do so. I know that this is a matter for the Post Office, but could not the Government, through the Minister, give their blessing during a limited period to a reduced stamp fee for Christmas cards? I fully 367 realise that it would be administratively impossible to differentiate—and I would not wish to do so—between charity and other Christmas cards; but at Christmas time we all want to remember those whom we do not often meet, and to revive memories of past friendships. I believe that the Post Office would be fully compensated by the volume of traffic at the reduced rate; I firmly believe that the public would play fair over this concession, and that it would be of infinite assistance to the charities and to all those who look forward to receiving the cards.

My second plea is for the abolition of S.E.T. contributions by registered charities. The payments are returnable, but it is ridiculous that charities should have the added administrative costs of the payment and reclamation of this tax. We are delighted that S.E.T. will, in the near future, be halved, and we look forward to total abolition; but we must consider the implications of any future tax, such as added value tax, on their work, and what concessions should be given. May I turn for a moment to football pools. I know that conversations are taking place regarding this subject, and I hope that ways and means will be found to ensure that charities can continue to receive income from this source. For many charities it would be catastrophic if the law decided against this method of raising money which really, in this day and age, is a quite harmless pursuit.

My last plea is in the educational sphere. I hope and trust that no Government in the future will remove the charitable status from independent schools (especially those not privately owned) which gives them a financial advantage. I know that there are differences of opinion on this subject; but there can be no doubt of the value of these schools, and if they cease to exist the added cost to the taxpayer would be very high.

May I finally say that our charity organisations, through devoted workers and voluntary contributions, are saving our country thousands of millions of pounds, and are extending to so many of our people from early youth up to old age that care which some, through pride, and some through ignorance, do not obtain. They care not for colour nor creed, but request, and indeed demand, 368 every facility from the State to carry on the great work for which, in this madcap world, there is ever more demand.

BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER

My Lords, may I first of all add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, for her valuable contribution to to-day's debate. Secondly, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this debate, as it gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the problems facing charities to-day. I am joining in the debate only because, like so many other noble Lords and Baronesses, I have an interest to declare, in that all my life I have either worked with, or been connected with, charities which have all been, or are, filling the gaps that the State is unable to deal with, raising money by voluntary efforts, contributions and donations from trusts and foundations, or receiving grants from local authorities and undertaking certain tasks on an agency basis. But they have all been, and are, utterly independent of pressures and of Government.

Once a charity becomes a pressure group, it is liable to get a political tang. If it lobbies the Government of the day, the Opposition Parties may quite likely take a different view and, inevitably, in the eyes of the public the charity will be linked up with a political Party. It may no longer indeed be truly independent. Surely one is then entitled to ask, "Is all this in line with the wishes of the founders of the trust or charity?" To follow up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, those of us connected with international charities know that it is vital that there should be no hint of political or other type of pressure groups having any influence at all, as the charity could then easily lose the respect and confidence which only time and experience can build up.

I must confess that I am thinking in particular of the Red Cross, because it has national societies all over the world who are respected by their Governments as they are bound by charter and by the Geneva Conventions, and because they uphold the principles of independence, neutrality, universality and no politics. Unlike some other charities, the Red Cross is an organisation which raises 369 money for its own day-to-day services in this country as well as overseas, in addition to supporting the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva when asked for overseas help. In recent disasters and troubles the national societies have been used by their Governments often when other people and other organisations have not been acceptable. Your Lordships will remember that after the hijacking in Jordan only the Red Cross was trusted by both sides. If there is a relaxation of the accepted charity rules, this could reflect on those who keep strictly within hounds, as they might become suspect in the eyes of the public in this country and abroad, which would prejudice both fund-raising and confidence.

Of course, conditions have changed by leaps and bounds since the introduction of the Welfare State. Organisations are springing up to-day and doing splendid work and they expect to have the same tax concessions as the existing registered charities, which they regard as too established and old-fashioned because they abide by certain standards. Even the word "charity" is not acceptable to everyone to-day, and it would be of help to all of us—including the Charity Commissioners, I suspect—to have a modern definition of "charity", even if little change is needed. Finally, I beg the Government to resist all forms of charity pressure groups and to ensure that charities are run for genuine charitable purposes only.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I have had to deal with charities and trusts for many years and I think I know enough of the tremendous complications of the whole subject. The field which has been covered to-day has shown what those complications are, but I want to deal with only one point. What I wish to say is very simple and very short. I am a member of a committee which issues grants and loans to charitable housing associations. We sit quite often, and, apart from myself, everybody on that committee is what I might call a housing expert,