Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in his Ministry. I welcome many of the proposals in this Bill. Will the Minister of State explain why it was necessary to change the contents of the Bill from the heads as originally published? There are many areas in which there are omissions. I have heard it said that perhaps we are introducing this Bill now and leaving out the more contentious and difficult areas for the time being and that we will deal with them at a later stage.

Many of the organisations which have welcomed the Bill have sought legislation to regulate and introduce transparency to charitable organisations and their fundraising methods for a long time. Indeed, approximately 85 submissions were received in response to the initial request made. Perhaps the Minister of State could consider the possibility of a single umbrella group representing the endless number of charities. Many bodies are umbrella groups for a number of organisations. It is important when dealing with this legislation and discussing how it will be applied to have a single agreed umbrella body for all charitable organisations.

Many people in this country have been involved at local level in organisations or perhaps at national or international levels. Many people have been involved in providing urgent responses, whether at local or national levels. I fear that the duty and onus placed on the trustees of organisations is so great that it will result in some people withdrawing from supporting, or finding an alternative route to support, charities. The intentions behind the legislation are welcome but if it has that effect, it will be counterproductive. I hope that will not happen but I can give one instance where it may. I refer to duty of care. The Law Reform Commission report, Charitable Trusts and Legal Structures for Charities, states:

In the consultation paper, the Commission considered the duty of care and standard of care required of charity trustees. The Commission was mindful of the need to ensure that the standard of care required was not set so high as to discourage individuals from becoming involved in voluntary activities, but at the same time would ensure that public confidence in the charity sector is maintained by providing that funds donated to a charity are properly applied for the purposes of the charity.

The document further states:

The proposed statutory duty of care which would apply to all charity trustees is framed as follows:

A charity trustee must, in exercising functions in that capacity, act in the interests of the charity and must, in particular:

(a) seek, in good faith, to ensure that the charity acts in a manner which is consistent with its purposes and

(b) act with the care and diligence that it is reasonable to expect of a person who is managing the affairs of another person

We are heading into a minefield in this area. If trustees or ordinary people in communities are to be subject to restrictions, impediments and onerous charges when raising funds for charities, their involvement would present a serious difficulty.

Key aspects of the Bill will provide for a definition of "charitable purpose", a regulatory authority to secure compliance, a register of charities and dissolution of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland upon establishment of the new authority. Many Members have queried how the regulatory authority can be independent if it is responsible to the Minister. They also asked whether a response to a parliamentary question on a particular charity would be received from the Minister, the Minister's secretariat or the authority itself, as is now the case in respect of the HSE.

The example of the HSE has been highlighted frequently. It is necessary to reconsider this matter and the submissions that were made in the first instance that referred to the appointment of an ombudsman as an intermediary. Doing so would be far less expensive than what is proposed and would be far more effective in that one person would have the supports to enable decision-making. We must congratulate the current Ombudsman on the magnificent and effective way in which she carries out her work and produces answers effectively. There is a need to reconsider the proposal to have another independent regulatory body. I have heard many contributions on this from all sides of the House and I have a serious preference for having an ombudsman as an intermediary.

I hope we will have the opportunity on Committee Stage to tease out many of the difficulties people have with the proposals, despite now having legislation that will give confidence to the public. Transparency in respect of charities has been queried many times. Transparency and other assurances are especially important when NGOs are dealing with overseas aid, which involves considerable public funds.

Certain charities' fundraising methods give them an advantage over others. For example, Trócaire, which has done tremendous work, makes collection boxes available during Lent through the church. Charities should compete for funds in the same way as every other body, be it religious or secular. I have no preference for any individual organisation because they are all doing fine work, but I ask the Minister to comment on the methods certain charities use to raise funds.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, who is a colleague in Galway East, and I wish him well in his Ministry.

See this speech in context