Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Bill. It is an ideal model of complex legislation in that it has been discussed with the various interests and agreed. It is long-needed and long-awaited legislation.

Irish people are very generous but it is important their donations go to bona fide charities. I remember being struck some time ago in regard to overseas aid, which is the subject of a number of charities, that voluntary individual contributions in Ireland are the highest in the OECD. I do not refer to the Government contribution which has considerably improved in recent years. There is a tradition of generosity.

We sometimes hear complaints about the difficulty of getting people nowadays to engage in active citizenship and volunteering. My experience down the country is that this spirit is still very alive and active. Many people are prepared to give a great deal of time and money to local organisations. I appreciate that sports clubs are one form of community activity that is covered by separate legislation but in most cases they are quasi-charitable institutions that include community halls, theatres and various social schemes funded by voluntary fundraising. It is amazing to see, even in what appears to be the smallest village with one shop and a few houses, the amount of money that can be raised for a worthwhile purpose.

Most familiar charities are well run but we are all approached by charities with which we are not particularly familiar. It is very important for confidence and generosity that the system is transparent so people can have confidence in it.

I did a radio programme on Newstalk 106 called "Talking History" and the subject was Gladstone. Looking through a book my eye was drawn to a bit of a fiasco Gladstone had with the charities legislation of 1863, which is presumably one of the predecessors of an Act, which shows that even the greatest statesmen sometimes have to mend their hand when it comes to legislative intentions. He wanted to tax charities and there were delegations of the great and good, including archbishops, dukes and the lot to prevent him. His philosophy was that since all money was on trust from God it should all be equally taxed. That approach was not followed.

He also had a view which is held by many contemporary philanthropists that money should be given away during people's lifetime not necessarily after their deaths. In those days there was an occasional scandal masquerading as a charity. I came across one nice quote from his speech: "It is too much to suppose that hospitals are managed by angels and archangels and that their governors do not, like the rest of mankind, stand in need of supervision and occasional rebuke." Public grants in many cases to charities in our jurisdiction make the public a party to the management of such funds.

There is perhaps one aspect of charities about which I have a little reservation in specific instances. I refer to the question of political advocacy. That should be kept strictly to the purposes of the organisation. A charity to which I subscribe, Oxfam, engages in what I consider to be partly misguided advocacy in regard to the Common Agricultural Policy — I have said this directly to some of the people involved. It is possible this aspect of Oxfam's advocacy is funded by the British Government, which purely coincidently happens to be a major critic of the CAP. The fallacy in this instance is that the poorest of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have a stake in the CAP and it is the much more developed countries such as Brazil that tend to be against it.

I had some personal involvement as a member of the tax strategy group in the 1990s in what I thought was a very valuable legislative reform whereby individual contributions were offset against tax. Prior to 1998, corporate contributions only could be offset. There is of course a de minimis figure and the contribution must be significant but this reform has extended and facilitated charitable giving.

In a previous generation, this country, although poor, was nonetheless the recipient of some very important and valuable philanthropic or cultural contributions. One thinks of Chester Beatty, who left a priceless library of oriental documents and artifacts, or Sir Alfred Beit, who left the nation Russborough, or even Lord Gort, who left Bunratty Castle to the nation in the early 1960s, which was the foundation of much of the tourism effort in the Shannon area. I have just read — partly, I admit, for the purposes of this debate — a new biography by Conor O'Clery of Chuck Feeney, who for a long time was completely anonymous but who has made quite enormous charitable contributions, particularly to third level education in this country. Every single third level institution, north and south of the Border, has been a recipient of this philanthropy to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As the book states, the Irish higher education system was subsequently better placed to provide graduates and researchers for the emerging Celtic tiger economy of the late 1990s. More recently, when there were certain financial difficulties in 2003, the temptation was to cut back research and development funding. Chuck Feeney intervened with the Taoiseach and, as a result, the Atlantic Philanthropies foundation put up the enormous sum of €178 million for a programme for research in third level institutions.

That is the case of one philanthropist who lives outside Ireland and who has helped transform the third level sector and third level research. Many people would like to encourage the practice and tradition of philanthropic giving, which is such an important part of American culture. Inevitably, it will be applied perhaps more to some purposes than others. We have had debates with regard to tax exiles, in some of which I have participated. One can get oneself into quite a lather suggesting that if one was in that position, one would live at home and pay one's taxes. While I hope this is the case, none of us is likely to be in that situation so we are unlikely to be put to the test. It is a real challenge to encourage those who have made a great deal of wealth in our economy, and perhaps in their international activities since most of them operate internationally, to advance the social and educational and cultural life of this country, perhaps through a system of matching funding, as operated in the case of Chuck Feeney.

The Bill will establish a new body, the charities regulatory authority. It is Government policy that where new agencies are established the Government should first consider locating them outside Dublin. I appreciate that staff have been working in the Charities Commission, many of whom may wish to work in the same area. Nonetheless, I would like to put forward for the consideration of the Minister a location in south Tipperary that was earmarked on a cross-party basis as suitable for decentralisation. Tipperary town itself is receiving two decentralisation bodies so I do not make the case for my home town. However, at the other end of the constituency is the fine town of Carrick-on-Suir. I would be glad if the Minister and his colleagues would consider earmarking this body, or any other bodies to be established, with a view to locating them in that very attractive town.

See this speech in context