John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

It goes without saying that elements of this legislation are overdue. Ireland is unique within the European Union in that it does not have a charities register. There is no legal obligation on organisations not registered as companies to publish their accounts. I have had experience of people who masqueraded as bona fide charities and I agree that, in general, reform is necessary. I support the reforming measures in the Bill.

Where I may depart from my colleagues on this issue is in respect of the establishment of a new authority. Why do we assume that matters would improve purely on the basis of the setting up of such an authority? Why can we not equally assume that the Government has not been reforming in this area and simply has not done its job? I am not convinced that a new authority is necessary.

Reform is overdue, as are the specific reforming measures contained in the legislation. On many occasions, however, we seem to view reform almost as a reason for making government bigger. In my opinion, the act of creating an authority and a tribunal to accompany it is not, by its nature, reform, nor are developments of this nature always the solution. I understand that if the legislation is passed, the Minister could, under statutory regulation, make policy in respect of charities. Whenever a problem arises, in some instances the accepted response does not necessarily deal with the issues at hand, nor does it make government leaner, more streamlined or more efficient. On foot of the fact that Ireland is a rich country and, by extension, has a rich Government, we tend to create new bodies or authorities or new managerial levels within organisations. It emerged earlier today that in the HSE there is one manager for every six employees.

I am not convinced that this reforming measure can be dealt with by the Department sponsoring this Bill. When the legislation was first announced, the justification put forward in respect of the proposed authority was that no central body exists. That does not necessarily mean that we should automatically have an authority or a regulator. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill refers to an annual budget of €4 million being set aside. The Minister of State did not indicate how this money would be provided. He referred to different jurisdictions but did not identify any of them or outline any of the foreign models the Department has examined. He also referred to people working in the Department who are dealing with charity-related issues. There are obviously many individuals in the Department who have a great deal of experience in dealing with such matters.

The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states that the "issue will be subject of further discussions with the Department of Finance at the appropriate time". This is a problematic and vague statement. It is similar to constructing something and then figuring out the cost after the fact.

My interest was peaked when the Bill was published as a result of the comments made by the senior Minister at the Department, Deputy Ó Cuív, not two or five years ago or when he was a county councillor, but last week, in respect of the HSE. Many Deputies might agree with him, particularly in light of their day-to-day dealings with the HSE. The Minister stated: "I've always been sceptical of the model that divorces the running of all these agencies from Government control." Now, however, his Department is putting forward an item of legislation that proposes the creation of a new agency. Obviously the Minister is not that sceptical of the model because we are engaging with it today. It is one thing to be outvoted or outnumbered in Cabinet in respect of a particular issue. In fairness, the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, never held the post of Minister for Health and Children. However, he is the line Minister responsible for dealing with this matter. One cannot have it both ways and it was abject hypocrisy for him to make a statement such as that which he issued last week and then set about creating a new agency this week.

Why could the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, not deal with this matter? He has experience of charitable issues and why could he not deal with it within the Department. The Minister of State has not provided an answer in this regard but he must do so. He must also make it clear why his Department should not continue to deal with charitable issues rather than transferring responsibility for them to a new agency which will cost the Exchequer €4 million and which will ultimately cost charities a great deal of money because they will be taxed. The establishment of agencies of this nature always leads to people and organisations being taxed.

Let us be clear what the legislation does, particularly in the context of what the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, stated. The Bill provides for the transfer of all jurisdictions issued in the Attorney General, by statute or common law, in respect of charities. The authority's powers will be quite extensive and harsh. It will, for example:

. . . have the power to institute investigations; to call for documents and search records; to enter premises on foot of a search warrant; to impose sanctions, including intermediate sanctions; and to co-operate on an administrative basis with foreign statutory bodies on law enforcement matters. There will also be significant penalties in place for offences under the legislation.

When I first read this, I thought I was looking at the terms of reference of the FBI. However, when I re-examined it, I realised that the latter does not have unilateral power to impose sanctions. There is, therefore, a difference of sorts.

The Law Reform Commission issued a report on this matter in December 2005. The Minister of State indicated that the report was issued last year. That is not the case; it was published well over 18 months ago. I am aware of this because I read it on the Internet last night. The Law Reform Commission recommended the introduction of a new form of legal structure for charities. It did not make any definite recommendation in respect of a regulator or a new authority. The Minister of State glossed over those facts. His Department has had a great deal of time to peruse the 55-page report the Law Reform Commission compiled. That report contains some quite detailed recommendations and suggestions. For example, it suggested an entirely different legal framework when it comes to charities. A number of reports relating to this matter have been issued in the past 16 years and the Minister of State must explain why the Law Reform Commission's recommendations were not taken into account before the legislation was drafted.

I welcome the reform elements of the legislation, which are long overdue. Many charities have been the subject of fraud. As already stated, we are making government bigger and when one takes that route, one must consider the necessity of what one is doing and the cost implications to the Exchequer. It may be a bad example — most Deputies will understand from where I am coming in respect of it — but I was elected seven or eight years ago and I have seen government replicate and grow inordinately. Even if one contacts a local authority engineer these days, the chances are that the project about which one is inquiring has been contracted out to a consultancy firm and is not being done in-house. Government continues to grow and, in many cases, there is no good reason for this.

We need to ask ourselves whether outsourcing government work or creating new bodies necessarily makes government better. The Minister of State should provide a clear explanation as to why it is absolutely necessary to create a stand-alone authority such as that envisaged. It was interesting to hear other Deputies almost pleading with the Minister of State to have replies issued to them when the new authority is established. When we table questions relating to charitable organisations or charity in general in the future, the position is unclear as to whether we will receive replies. We should not be doing this. The Minister of State must explain why responsibility for this matter is being outsourced from the Government. It is not as simple as introducing legislation and creating a new authority. The Government has neglected this area and failed badly in respect of it for a long period. The Minister of State knows it is not as simple as that. He must explain why he, as Minister of State with jurisdiction over charitable issues, cannot do it within his own Department with his own staff and within his own budget.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised an interesting point when he discussed one section where the authority is described as independent and another section which states that the authority is subject to ministerial or Government direction. The Minister of State must explain that because there is a real contradiction in respect of those two sections.

I am glad my party has refrained from giving an absolute decision on this Bill. We all welcome the reform measures within it. However, before any support is given unconditionally to this Bill, the Minister of State must explain why he could not deal with this within his own Department with his own staff and budgets and why we continue to put these new authorities together. It does not necessarily mean that Government will get better. Sometimes it just means it will get bigger.

See this speech in context