Dr. Oonagh Breen:

In terms of an example, I am always reluctant to give names of organisations, but ICCL has a foundation and the foundation has charitable status and it does its research through it. ICCL is a great organisation in the community advocating on a general basis but it does that through a different structure. That is one clear concrete example of a body that has had to develop its legal status to allow it to accomplish all its aims.

In terms of the soft guidance, the Charity Commission for England and Wales, even prior to the enactment of their Charities Act 2006, which was the first Act that gave statutory recognition to the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose, had begun to engage with this issue. From the McGovern case in 1981, through the 1980s, into the early 1990s, it had to engage with human rights organisations and provide some indication of what they could do, if human rights was a charitable purpose, that did not offend the public benefit part of the test that one could stay within the law. It had issued guidance through the 1990s. The best source to which I could refer the Senator is a document called CC9, which was revised in 2008. It is aimed at all charities and explains what they can do in the political sphere without losing their charitable status. The reason it is particularly relevant here is that it draws on examples from human rights organisations because they are aware that this is particularly relevant to such organisations.

They use two terms in this guidance. They talk about campaigning. They say that charities can engage in campaigning. Campaigning is defined as awareness raising, public persuasion, all of which is related to ensuring enforcement of existing law, and advocating in a way to ensure that the law that currently exists is upheld and maintained. Campaigning is distinguished from political activity. The Charity Commission for England and Wales defines political activity as seeking a change either in the law or in the policy of a country. In the past it would have said charities cannot do that at all, that is the prohibited piece of the jigsaw. Interestingly, what it says in this guidance is that charities can engage in political activity for a particular period to bring about a certain end which is in line with their charitable purpose. It allows them to put all of their resources towards it to achieve a goal but it cannot be their ongoing, permanent, sole, primary goal. In the course of carrying out their bigger, charitable objective there can be times when a charity can do this. That is very useful, practical guidance. What is nice about this document is that it is written by someone who speaks plain English.

The examples are good, so I would commend it to the committee and would be happy to supply a copy afterwards if it would be of use. It is just a starting point. We do not always have to reinvent the wheel. It is much better to enable organisations and allow them come in. They say in the US that one does not want to exclude someone or a voice from the marketplace of ideas. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a human rights organisation being able to step forward and explain why we should change the law. We are not saying the law is going to change. They do not have that control. They are just another voice contributing to the debate, which makes us a better society and community. It is much better to have those voices in the forum and then let the majority and the people decide. We should not exclude them. We are cutting it off at the top. As Mr. Cooper said, we are de-legitimising them by telling them they cannot come in and speak, that they lack that right. That is wrong.