DESIGNATED RELIGIOUS BODIES

HC Deb 16 October 1990 vol 177 cc1061-74

".—(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time, by order, designate for the purposes of this section such recognised bodies as appear to him—

1. (a) to have as their principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective;
2. (b) to have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship; and
3. (c) to be bodies which satisfy each of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(c) above are—

1. (a) subject to subsection (4) below, that the body has been established in Scotland for not less than 10 years;
2. (b) that the body can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that it has a membership of not less than 3,000 persons resident in Scotland who are 16 years of age or more; and
3. (c) that the internal organisation of the body is such that one or more authorities in Scotland exercise supervisory and disciplinary functions in respect of the component elements of the body and, in particular, that there are imposed on such component elements requirements as to the keeping of accounting records and the auditing of accounts which appear to the Secretary of State to correspond to those required by sections 3 and 4 of this Act.

(3) Where a body is, for the time being, designated under subsection (1) above the following provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to the body nor to any component or structural element of the body which is, itself, a recognised body—

• section 1(5);
• section 3;
• section 4, other than subsections (6) to (8) and subsection (12);
• section 5(2) and (6);
• section 6; and
• section 7.

(4) The Secretary of State may determine that the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above shall not be required to be satisfied in the case of a body—

1. (a) which has been created by the amalgamation of two or more bodies each of which, immediately before the amalgamation, either was designated under this section or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation; or
2. (b) which has been constituted by persons who have removed themselves from membership of a body which, immediately before such removal, was so designated or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation.".—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I found this the most difficult issue in the Bill. I will try to sum up quickly our point of view on it. New clause 16, in its former guise as new clause 2, was the subject of prolonged debate in Committee. As a result of the concerns of many hon. Members, I agreed to withdraw new clause 2 for further consideration. Having given the matter further thought, I concluded that the new clause should be part of the Bill with only a minor modification to its former form. New clause 16 seeks to provide a measure of exemption from the supervisory and accounting provisions of Part I for religious organisations with a substantial following in Scotland.

Forceful representations were made to the Government that charities for the advancement of religion—Churches—are in some respects a special case. Religious freedom is, of course, a fundamental right of people in this country, and we must be careful that, in establishing a system of supervision, we do not prejudice or appear to prejudice that.

The person concerned with the management and control of a religious charity will frequently be the religious leader of the community. To suspend a religious leader, as the court will be entitled to do for mismanagement of the secular affairs of the religious body, might be viewed as improper interference by the secular authority in spiritual matters. The state is, of course, most anxious not to become involved in any way in the spiritual affairs of the charity.

A most important consideration is that, if we were to provide a blanket exemption for all bodies established for the advancement of religion, many undesirable, cult-like bodies would escape control. Some unscrupulous people might, indeed, deliberately set up charities with spurious religious purposes to escape the controls contained in the Bill. That must be avoided.

A distinction also needs to be drawn between taking action to intervene in a Church's affairs or to enforce compliance, on the one hand, and simply including the Churches within the purview of those provisions concerned with disclosure, accounts and the Lord Advocate's right to investigate, on the other.

Yet a further consideration, and one about which hon. Members who served in Committee were particularly concerned, is that, for obvious reasons, we do not wish to discriminate in favour of one religion over another on grounds of religious doctrine. That is certainly no business of the state.

New clause 16 affords religious organisations capable of meeting certain criteria the opportunity of opting out from the supervisory and investigatory functions of the Lord Advocate and the courts. It enables them to prepare accounts in the manner in which they have in the past, provided that such accounts are generally of a standard similar to those provided for in clauses 3 and 4. It removes the possibility of sanctions being applied for noncompliance, but retains a right for members of the public to seek copies of accounts and the explanatory document.

The provisions are necessarily a compromise, but I believe that they strike a reasonable balance between ensuring that there is internal control within the religious body as regards discipline and the requirement for production of accounts, and preserving a right for the public to be informed, while removing from such bodies anxiety, however misplaced it may seem, about interference by the state.

This is difficult territory, and any solution must be a compromise. The new clause has the support of the Scottish Churches Committee, a body representing all the major Churches in Scotland whose combined membership of people over the age of 16 amounts to 1,600,000. Despite widespread reporting of the Standing Committee's consideration of the original clause and our having since consulted the minor Christian Churches and the non-Christian religions in Scotland, including the Jewish congregations, members of the Islamic and Hindu faiths, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army and a wide variety of smaller bodies, I have received no representations to the effect that the provisions are unacceptable. On the other hand, I have received strong representations from the Scottish Churches Committee, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and various parish ministers to the effect that the new clause should be introduced.

4 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

I wonder whether the Minister could clarify a matter that is causing me some apprehension. It arises from the justification that he has advanced for the clause. Do I understand that one reason for the clause is to ensure that the Lord Advocate does not have to intervene in the affairs of religious charities in the same way as he might have to intervene in the affairs of non-religious charities?

Surely the issue concerns the standard of conduct and the standard of behaviour of a charity, whether it is of religious origin or not. It is most curious to say that the exemption is being introduced for the purpose of ensuring that the Lord Advocate does not apply the same standard to religious charities as, by law, he would be obliged to apply to non-religious charities.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

It is necessarily a compromise, and the public would retain the right to be informed. It is important that the larger Churches should be in a position to administer their own affairs and to have a two-tier system of supervision. It is important that they should have the opportunity to administer that system. We have specified the membership figure of 3,000 because an organisation with fewer members might not necessarily be able to form its own supervisory arrangements, and we had to be certain of that point. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said that he wanted the smaller Churches to be properly consulted and many more of them will be included under the present new clause.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

We are starting what I think will be a long journey through this evening, and this will not be the most unimportant of our debates. A great deal of interest was expressed in this subject in Committee and a great many arguments were put to the Minister. The Minister is noted for his courtesy in debate, and perhaps we were misled by that. At the end of our mammoth discussion, he said that he would take away new clause 2, as it then was, and would reconsider it in the light of the many points that had been put to him. I suspect that there will be some disappointment that the changes and adjustments have been made on such a migerly basis—

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Eh?

Mr. Dewar

It is a new word. I have just invented it. I am rather good at that. I hope that Hansard will transcribe it accurately, because it represents a nice amalgam of the two words from which it derives.

As I understand it, the only change that the Minister has been able to offer involves bringing the qualifying mark for membership down from 5,000, as it was originally, to 3,000. If one crosses that mark and meets the other obligations and qualifications set out in the new clause, one may get the advantages off the exemptions that are provided.

I have some sympathy with the Minister, because I realise that he was attacked from two totally different directions during our earlier exchanges. A number of people took the view that there was no logical case for the exemption. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and perhaps the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) were among them. The former argued, perhaps in rather extreme terms, that religious bodies were just as prone to wrongdoing as any other body.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

I have always understood that it was an assumption of the Christian Church that we all sin and that the purpose of a church was that we went there to be forgiven. The new clause is based on the assumption that Christians sin less than others. If that is the case, what is the point of the Church?

Mr. Dewar

Indeed. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question with all the seriousness that it deserves, if he examined the Presbyterian doctrine and in particular the doctrine of predestination, he would see that the Church is extremely useful in explaining to people who sin that they can still get to heaven and continue to sin in the meantime. That is a very comforting theological position, which I offer as worthy of study even to an unreconstructed member of the Scottish Episcopalian Church like the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross.

To return to the serious matter under discussion, the Minister had to withstand criticism from the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, who said that religious bodies are just as prone to wrongdoing as any other body. From that, the Minister argued that we should have no exemption for religious bodies. I did not accept that point of view; many of my colleagues and I were more worried about the fact that the exemption did not seem to be worth very much and the hurdles were such, to borrow a phrase from another setting, that it would be as easy for a religious body to gain the advantages of the exemptions as it would be for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle. Many people who should not be excluded would be excluded. That was our worry and that concern remains.

I do not want to go through all the arguments, but I want to encourage the Minister to comment further on this matter. I am particularly concerned about the worth and practical application of the exemptions. Let us assume that a body has qualified for the exemptions as a religious body. The particularly important points are the accounts records in clause 3 and the annual accounts provisions in clause 4. We are told that a recognised body will not have to conform to those provisions.

That is a quite substantial concession until, as I said in Committee, we consider new clause 16(2)(c), which states that there must be accounting records and the auditing of accounts which appear to the Secretary of State to correspond to those required by sections 3 and 4 of this Act. I do not think that I am being obtuse or difficult when I suggest to the Minister that it is not clear what the exemption is worth. We do not need to accord with clauses 3 and 4 or to run our accounts in compliance with those clauses, so long as the Secretary of State is "satisfied" that our accounts and audits correspond to clauses 3 and 4. That is a little puzzling, and the Minister should comment on it.

Presumably there is a distinction between the two positions. Presumably a Church will be able to say to its auditor—or its board of managers, if it is part of the Church of Scotland—"We can accord to a certain standard which will get past the Secretary of State's scrutiny, but that is a lesser standard than that demanded by sections 3 and 4 of the Act, from which we are exempt."

What is that gap? I agree that that is difficult for the Minister to answer, because it may not be defined. If the Minister defines it too generously, he will be open to attack by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, who will say that he is lowering the standards and allowing the sinner to run away with the Church funds, metaphorically—and perhaps literally. On the other hand, if the Minister says that he will make it so tight that at the end of the day it will be just like clauses 3 and 4, as the new clause states, what on earth is the advantage of this new clause and this provision?

The nub of the problem is that we do not know what we are being asked to agree to. Even those of us who have been reasonably diligent and have sat through the many hours of debate and have examined the new clause are none the wiser. That is the kernel of the argument. The Lord Advocate's powers of interdict and suspension under clause 5(2) and (6) and the powers of the Court of Session to manage under clause 6 are comparatively minor matters. At the end of the day, they arise only when some form of defalsification has been flushed out. There is a case for saying that, if that has happened in a charity, in any event those powers should apply.

I ask the Minister to turn his mind to those matters. He warned us that he did not wish in any way to get involved in the spiritual affairs of the nation. His ancestors used to interfere freely in the spiritual affairs of the nation, as I remember from reading 17th-century Scottish history, but I do not want to encourage him in that respect. He started in his usual beguiling way by inviting us all to have a willing suspension of disbelief. My concern is that to accept the new clause or to pretend that we know what it means we must also have a willing suspension of disbelief. I am not very willing in that respect. The Minister must say a good deal more before he can expect hon. Members to nod the measure through.

I am not in the least bit happy. I recognise that the Minister has a powerful argument and that he wrote to many organisations and that none objected. I must take cognisance of that, of course, but many questions, such as the definition of membership, are still unresolved. I fear that a large number of people in perfectly bona fide religious sects operating in Scotland at the moment may find that they are disqualifed from the advantages, ill-defined though they are, of this new clause. The Minister must be a good deal more specific than he has been so far.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

I do not want to traverse the ground that was traversed at length in Committee. The new clause comes forward in substantially the same form as was considered by the Committee. I repeat one point that the Minister has not dealt with, and that is that subsection (1)(b) provides that, to qualify a body must have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship". Certain religious bodies undoubtedly have as their principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective but do not necessarily have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship. Indeed, by their exclusive nature, some bodies do not permit admission to their ceremonies to people other than those who are already members. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as having as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship, because the public do not have an unfettered right of access.

That provision is unnecessarily restrictive. If a body is bona fide of a religious nature and has as its principal purpose a religious objective, why should it be subject to the restriction which this provision necessarily provides, that it must reflect that religious objective in the regular holding of acts of public worship? That point was raised in Committee, and so far in our proceedings the Minister has not considered it.

I also draw to the Minister's attention subsection (2)(b), which reflects an alteration. The figure before the Committee was 5,000, not 3,000. There must be a justification for that change, and no doubt the Minister will tell us what it is.

One of the effects of setting such a relatively high target is that a religious body that is set up with its principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective, even one that has as its principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship, will not be able to qualify for the exemption that this new clause provides until it can demonstrate that it has a membership of 3,000 or more. That means that, for small bodies that start up, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to reach the threshold, yet they may be bona fide bodies that have as their principal purpose the promotion of religious objectives.

Why has that hurdle been created in that way? What is the justification for inserting a threshold in terms of numbers? The new clause is far from satisfactory. I regret to say, bearing in mind what has already been described as the Minister's beguiling approach, that he has not really taken to heart the effective criticism that was advanced against the new clause in Committee. That is a great pity, because the exemption is something that we should introduce into our law for the benefit of religious bodies. It is a great pity if the exemption, as drafted, makes it difficult for certain bodies, which would otherwise justifiably be entitled to claim that exemption, to bring themselves within the embrace of the provision.

I hope that the Minister will at least consider the matters that I have raised and now tell the House something of the thinking behind the new clause.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

This will be just a short intervention. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us something about the thinking behind the change to 3,000 members, and about which Churches will now be exempted that were not exempted before. That would give us some idea about the discussions and consultations that he has had since the Committee gave the almost unanimous view that the original clause was not satisfactory. I am sure that my hon. Friend has had discussions with various Churches, so perhaps he could let us know which ones made him change his mind.

4.15 pm

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

I am disappointed that the Minister has brought these provisions back to the House, because they have nothing to do with the right to religious freedom. It is confusing the issue—deliberately, in my view—for the Minister to introduce the new clause by making it clear that everyone has the right to exercise religious freedom. There is no debate about that. There is no difference between any of us participating in this debate on the issue of a person's right to exercise religious freedom.

I am not saying that I do not believe the Minister when I say that I am surprised that the Scottish Churches Committee has not written to hon. Members on this issue. Scottish Churches are never slow to write to hon. Members on a range of issues—that is quite right, and I am not criticising them for it—but in this debate we are being led to believe that, although this is an issue on which Scottish Churches feel strongly, and although they knew that we would debate the matter today, they have not taken the trouble to write to the right hon. and hon. Members.

I should like to nail my colours to the mast erected by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). Here I part company, to a certain extent, with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), because I do not accept that Church charities—religious charities—should be treated separately or differently from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the boy scouts, the Boys Brigade or any other reputable charity in Scotland.

I have not yet heard any explanation for that exemption or difference in treatment. If the Minister is making an exception, I do not understand why it should apply only to a religious body. Furthermore, I honestly cannot see the difference between a religious body that has 3,000 members and one that has 30 members. They are both religious bodies. The new clause is so artificial that it does not bear discussion in this House. However, as the Minister has tabled it, we must discuss it.

As a member of the Church of Scotland, I know what happens when the Church decides to remove non-communicants from the roll. I suspect—I have no doubt that I shall receive a letter from the Church either rejecting or confirming my comments—that in future, in order to keep the number on the roll above the numerical limit that the Bill seeks to impose, fewer non-communicants will be removed from the register than in the past. I do not believe that that will do religious worship, the Church of Scotland or any other religious organisation any credit.

What saddens me even more—I shall not say "angers me" because I have never found it possible to get angry with the Minister—is that we could have defeated him in Committee and taken the clause out of the Bill. In those circumstances, the Minister would not have dared to bring it back to the House, but we took the Minister at his word when he told us that he was going to take the clause away and have a rethink. But he has brought it back, and the extent of the rethink is a reduction from 5,000 to 3,000 in the level of qualifying membership.

I shall not vote against the new clause, because there are other important aspects of the Bill that my colleagues want to discuss. However, I want to place on record my regret that the Minister has chosen to table the new clause. I would love to hear an explanation of why religious charities should be treated differently from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Boys' Brigade, the boy scouts, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Multiple Sclerosis Society or any other charity with national standing that anyone cares to name. There is no difference, because they all serve a marvellous purpose and should all be treated on the same basis. One of them should not be given privileged treatment, as it is in the new clause.

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)

I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), but he has put his finger accurately on a number of key points that the House must consider. Like him, I was not only disappointed but astonished when my hon. Friend the Minister, with his customary courtesy, told me last night, when I had not yet read the amendments, that the new clause would be on the Notice Paper for the House to consider today. While the Minister said that he would take away the clause and reconsider it, which he has done—the House should be clear about that—my interpretation of the debate, like that of every other member of the Committee, was that the clause would either be withdrawn completely or radically altered.

Let us consider the history of the new clause. The Bill has taken a long time to pass through the two houses, and the provisions were not in the original Bill or in the Bill considered by the other House. To my knowledge, the matter was not raised in the other House, although I could be wrong. It certainly was not raised on Second Reading, but suddenly came to the Committee out of the blue, where it was torn apart by both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was undoubtedly correct to say that, if the original clause had been forced to a Division in Committee, it would have been lost.

Although he has spoken with his customary courtesy, my hon. Friend the Minister must expand his explanation and tell us who are making the representations for the new clause. He has mentioned a committee. Like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and all Scottish Members, I receive a large number of representations from Churches of all denominations on a wide range of issues. I have not received representations from people arguing for the new clause. My hon. Friend the Minister has referred to the strong representations that he has received, and I have no doubt that the Scottish Office has received strong representations. But if Churches feel so strongly about the matter, why have hon. Members not received strong representations? My hon. Friend the Minister is not at the pearly gates yet and does not answer to the Churches but to the House and to hon. Members.

The Minister has said that there are no objections from the minor churches—I think that that is the correct term—or the non-Christian Churches. I realised that point in Committee, and I am grateful to him for consulting non-Christian churches. Will he tell the House more about what "no objections" means? It could simply mean that a letter is still sitting in somebody's pile somewhere. There is a difference between people positively saying that they are quite content with something, and not responding to it at all.

My fundamental objection to the new clause, even as amended, relates to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for. Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in Committee. I should prefer there to be no exemptions, but if there are to be exemptions let them be logical and rational. What is the justification for 3,000? This is not a statutory instrument; the House is considering primary legislation which cannot be changed without a new Bill. What happens if a Church passes the threshold or if it becomes a little less popular and drops just below the 3,000 point? Who is to decide? The House should not readily agree to the idea of a numerical threshold anyway.

In passing, it is worth pointing out that, if the new clause had been around in Jerusalem in AD 30, our Lord and his disciples would not have qualified—they would not have met the criteria. There was no way in which they could have formed a designated religious body.

The House is being asked to differentiate between religious bodies on purely arbitrary grounds: the number of years for which they have been established and the number of members that they allegedly have. Dividing Churches into these two categories on the basis of wholly arbitrary criteria is fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)

Those of us who come in on Report are at a disadvantage compared with hon. Members who took part in the detailed, intimate examination in Committee, but it is interesting to see a consensus developing between the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I go along with them; I see no rational grounds for the new clause. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastwood took it apart, and if it was taken apart in Committee, the most sensible course of action would be for the Minister to withdraw it this afternoon.

I agree with the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Falkirk, East that there is no sense in trying to exclude all other organisations by including the religious bodies. Let us examine the new clause in the light of the Minister's argument. Religious bodies are designated, but subsections (1)(a) and (b) contains a serious contradiction, which would probably exclude the adherents of Islam. Subsection (1)(a) reads: to have as their principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective". Islam would probably qualify under that, but there is a second condition: to have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship". It does not necessarily follow that that would include Islam. In fact, arguments could be adduced to show that it excludes Islam, which is very different in its theology and practice from the Christian religion.

Public acts of worship form an important part of the whole ethos of Christianity, but the same is not true of Islam. For example, the adherents of Islam pray five times a day—there is a moving clock as the year progresses. There are no major acts of public worship at 2 am either in Glasgow or in Saudi Arabia. Islam is noted for a fundamental belief that there is a short and direct connection between the adherent and God, whereas in Christianity there are many moderators between the adherent and God. Ministers and priests play a far larger role in the Christian religion than do their counterparts, if such there be, in Islam, particularly among Sunni Muslims.

If I were a follower of Islam, where would I fit in in those circumstances? It may be an unhappy consequence of putting new clause 16 on the statute book that, somewhere along the line in two or three years' time, an Islamic group comes along, there is a proper reading of the statute and they are told that, unlike their Christian brethren along the road, they are excluded from the provisions of what the hon. Member for Eastwood correctly pointed out is not a statutory instrument that can be easily altered but a fundamental Act of Parliament. I think that we are entitled to hear from the Minister whether I am correct in my interpretation of the potential exclusion of Islam from subsection (1)(a) and (b).

I noticed that, in the letter that the Minister sent to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—copies of which were received by members of the Committee—he said that he did not receive representations from minority and non-Christian organisations. However, did he specifically raise with the Islamic community in Scotland the problems that might arise under new clause 16?

4.30 pm

Dr. Godman

I wish to express disappointment at the conduct of the Minister, who is usually a generous and courteous Member of the House. He has not played the game with Committee members over the new clause.

As others have said, the new clause might well have suffered defeat as it was originally worded if it had been put to a vote in Committee. The Minister will recall that I expressed serious reservations about its precursor. My concern was that small sects—such as Brethren, which have existed in some of our maritime communities for a considerable time—might well be excluded from the new clause because they had fewer than 3,000 members. Such small religious bodies are increasingly populated by elderly members; as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has said, what happens when their numbers fall below 3,000? The figure of 3,000 is the defining criterion in the new clause.

I should like to hear from the Minister whether he or his officials contacted any of those small religious bodies in our maritime communities—and other communities—to obtain their views on such a clause. I repeat that he has not played the game, and my advice to him is, "Take the new clause away".

Where the interests of small and perhaps declining—in terms of numbers—sects are concerned, it is not good enough. The Minister should think again before attempting to bring such a measure to the House.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

I do not want to be contentious on this Bill. I apologise to the Minister if by the slightest chance he feels that I am being duplicitous, but the new clause was not among the many communications that he sent me, with great courtesy and kindness. It therefore came as a surprise to me to discover, at 2.30 pm, that the new clause had got back into the Bill.

I think that the matter is far more serious than has been suggested by any hon. Member who has spoken so far. We have not been slightly annoyed or partially misled; nor do we think that it is not quite right in detail. We have been totally misled, and it is entirely wrong in principle. As those who were not on the Committee will not know, but those who had the fortune—or misfortune—to be on it will, if we had not been misled, without the slightest question the new clause would have been roundly defeated and would never again have seen the light of day. In a spirit of Christian peace and light, we interpreted the Minister's view to be that he would take the animal out of the stable and that it would have its throat cut out of our view. However, it has come back and that is a rotten trick with which to start the debate on Report. I beg the Minister to do the honourable thing and forget it.

It is offensive that the new clause again proceeds upon a false principle that was torn apart by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Either out of deference towards what is called religion, whatever that may be—I do not think that one could get agreement on it—or because of some fear of touching the cloth, we divide Christians into non-sinners or presumed non-sinners and those who work for or collect funds for a charity, who are assumed to be guilty.

We should be clear about some of the exemptions that apply to the so-called religious bodies. To illustrate that, one can do no better than to look at clause 7(1) which says:

"A person who—

1. (a) has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty;
2. (b) is an undischarged bankrupt;
3. (c) has been removed, under section 6 of this Act, from being concerned in the management or control of any body; or
4. (d) is subject to a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986."

That person is allowed to act for a religious charity but not for any other. I can understand the concepts of compassion and forgiveness of sin, but I cannot understand why a Christian who has committed a crime of dishonesty should not be allowed to raise funds for lifeboats whereas a Christian who is an undischarged bankrupt or who has been convicted of a crime of dishonesty is allowed to raise funds for a priest's retirement. The whole concept is not only confused but basically dishonest.

Let us look further into the matter. I do not know why it should be assumed that we do not touch the cloth. I have defended a few priests for the most serious offences. I appeared in a case in which the priest said to Lord Wheatley, who was a Catholic, "I suppose you will not expect me to give evidence that breaks the confidentiality of confession." Lord Wheatley said, "No, and I will not expect you to commit perjury either, by breaking the oath that I have just administered. My advice to you, Father, is to bring your toothbrush tomorrow."

Dr. Godman

I hope that that was not in Greenock.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

There are no lady priests, so this one could not be confined in Greenock.

I understand that we are all equal in the sight of God. This new clause arises from a ridiculous English concept that the established Church is somehow above the law. It has nothing to do with Scotland. Surely the Christian or the religious person would be the first to put his hand before the fire and the first to say, "Search my pockets, take my records, arrest me, prosecute me, do what you will for I know that I am pure," or "I know that I have sinned"—whichever it is.

As I said earlier, even with a membership down to 3,000—I do not know whether that is at the Lord Chancellor's behest—half the split Free Presbyterian Church does not qualify. It is split into two parts, one of which consists of about 1,200 members. That is the part that thinks that it has the funds, which is a good reason, if ever there was a good reason, why it should not be exempted. I do not know whether the good Samaritan was an atheist. I do not understand why assumptions should be made about his charity if it were discovered that he was, or was not, a faithful Samaritan.

This is a most serious matter. The new clause refers to minor religious bodies, whatever a religious body might be. I should have thought that the fervency of those who collect for lifeboat charities—for those in peril on the sea—would make them a religious body. I should have thought that the fervency of those who collect for the Save the Children Fund would make them a religious body. First, the clause is meaningless; secondly, it is hypocritical; thirdly, it is alien to the law of Scotland; and fourthly, it is an affront and wrong to exempt certain people from the activities of the Lord Advocate—when charities have to be subjected to such—on the presumption of holiness.

I remember a case in Glasgow when the head of the criminal investigation department declined to arrest a priest because he was of the cloth. That priest turned his back until he reached Ireland, where he successfully resisted his extradition to Britain on the ground that the explosives in his possession made his a political crime—yet in the witness box in Glasgow he had given evidence in support of my client and claimed that he had no knowledge of those explosives.

We should not imagine that the human beings who profess a religious belief—whatever that is—and can persuade 2,999 others to join them are holier than the rest of us. So that he can demonstrate that he is not holier than the rest of us, I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister withdraws the clause so that we can proceed with the Bill.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

The Minister said that the purpose of the 3,000 limit was, at least in part, to exclude cult Churches from benefiting under the clause. I hope that he agrees that neither the Society of Friends nor the Unitarian Church could be described as cult organisations. However, their numbers in Scotland may well fall below the 3,000 limit. Has the Minister consulted either of those Churches and does he know specifically what the impact on them will be if the clause is passed?

My local Unitarian Church in Dundee has asked me to do everything possible to ensure that the clause is not reinstated in the Bill. If that is the flavour coming from Dundee, I suspect that it is the flavour coming from the Quakers and the Unitarian Church throughout Scotland. I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with the question of those two Churches. When he listed the minor Churches that had been consulted, he did not mention either of them.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I do not want to prolong the debate on this issue because there are a great many important aspects of the Bill that we wish to discuss. The Minister's press release referred to the question posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) about consultation with the minor Churches, including non-Christian denominations. The Minister nods. Does he recall that that point was pressed vigorously in Committee by several hon. Members, and that he undertook to begin that consultation?

To which bodies did the Minister write? To which non-Christian denominations did he write? When did he write to them? What length of time did he give them to reply? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that the Unitarian Church had expressed concern about the Bill, but it appears from the Minister's press release that it did not take the opportunity to reply. Perhaps it did not have sufficient time to do so. The Government have a bad record on the way in which they consult—it is often done in a manner designed to create the least possible dissent from their views.

4.45 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Some hon. Members have questioned the disapplication of the provision for exempted religious bodies. All religious bodies would probably view the question of what criteria should be used in the appointment of their members to offices in their organisations as a matter for them. We felt that it was necessary to recognise the legitimate interest of religious bodies, and we have therefore retained the provision for such bodies. We have incorporated the two-tier supervisory structure. That will provide the public with the necessary reassurance that the religious bodies will apply their own tests of reasonableness within their own structures. We believe that they will make decisions in which their members and the public can have confidence. Any religious body, on the introduction of a two-tier structure, can obtain the benefit of the exemption provisions.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to the Unitarian Church. It is ruled out because it does not have a two-tier structure. It is a member of the Scottish Churches Committee, which supports the clause, although the Unitarian Church may not. The Society of Friends would not meet the criteria. It may, however, be a recognised English body. Following consultation, it is clear that the religious bodies, especially the Scottish Churches Committee, strongly support the provision.

The question posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) concerns me. I have every reason to believe that there is no impediment to giving Muslims recognition under subsection (1)(b). We explained to all the bodies consulted exactly what the clause contained.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned the keeping of accounts. That is covered in subsection (2)(c), which requires that the internal organisation of the body is such that one or more authorities in Scotland exercise supervisory and disciplinary functions in respect of the component elements of the body and, in particular, that there are imposed on such component elements requirements as to the keeping of accounting records and the auditing of accounts which appear to the Secretary of State to correspond"— that is the important word— to those required by sections 3 and 4 of this Act.

Mr. Dewar

I do not understand the meaning of the word "correspond" in this context. If the Minister is saying that the component elements will have to meet the exact same tests as those included in clauses 3 and 4, by definition the exemption is worthless. If he is saying that they do not have to meet those tests, the word "correspond" appears to have a rather peculiar definition, which he should give us.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

As a rough and ready definition, the word "correspond" means "equivalent to". The point is that the Churches wish to exercise the supervision themselves. The question is whether they can be trusted to do that satisfactorily in the public interest, and I believe that they can.

Mr. Dewar

The Minister has said something of interest, which I wish to understand. It appears that he is saying that, for the accounts and auditing procedures, he anticipates that the Secretary of State will insist on exactly the same standards as if clauses 3 and 4 applied. If so, it is not a matter of trusting the Churches, because it is the duty of the Secretary of State to be satisfied on that point and to insist upon it. The Minister is giving the Secretary of State the job of insisting that, in effect, clauses 3 and 4 are complied with. That is a distinction without merit.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

I do not see why there should be any concern about the accounts. The Churches are concerned instead about whom they should appoint to the offices in question. They feel that should be a matter for them, that they should have their own supervisory arrangements, and that they can perform those functions at least as well as anybody else. They do not want the state to interfere in their affairs. Whether or not their fears are well founded, they firmly hold the convictions that they do.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

The Minister's announcement that Quakers will not qualify under new clause 16 will come as something of a surprise to people in Scotland. That apart, the clause introduces a new limit of 3,000 persons, whereas the figure was 5,000 in Committee. Why has that change been made, and what is the purpose anyway of a qualifying figure? If the organisation fulfils the other criteria but has only 1,500 members, why should it be debarred from taking advantage of the exemption in new clause 16?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The purpose was to avoid the inevitable descent into sects. A line had to be drawn somewhere, but not so low that cults having dubious purposes would be admitted. After due consultation, it was felt that a figure of 3,000 provided a suitable dividing line at this stage—although, in my view, it could be reviewed in due course.

The bodies that were consulted were the Hebrew congregation, the Islamic faith, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, and a variety of smaller bodies.

Mr. Sillars

What will happen if there is a cult with 4,000 members?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

That will depend on whether it satisfies the terms of the clause. I use the word "cult" advisedly. The hon. Gentleman may recall that some years ago a person who purported to be a religious leader caused a large number of young people to commit suicide. We must obviously be extremely careful, for that is not the type of activity that should be supported.

All the Churches that I mentioned have memberships above the 5,000 limit. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that new clause 16 has the support of all the major Churches in Scotland, representing more than 1.5 million members over the age of 16. No body has made strong representations against the provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.