Dáil debates

Thursday, 15 November 2007

Charities Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Pat CareyPat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I will deal with as many of the issues as we have been able to track. There was a wide range of contributors to the debate. Everybody supported the general thrust of the Bill and the charities sector and recognised the importance of the role charities play in society. That reinforces the need to have a robust yet proportionately regulated sector to ensure that public confidence and goodwill is maintained.

The first issue raised was the justification for a new authority. Some speakers said we were putting in place another quango. That issue was raised by Deputies Ring, Wall, Deasy, Barrett, Bannon, Chris Andrews and Tom Hayes and perhaps one or two others. Although there was broad agreement across the House that the sector requires regulation, there was some divergence of opinion as to the way that might best be achieved.

A number of Members suggested that regulation might be delivered within existing structures or in ways other than by establishing an independent regulatory authority. In framing the Bill various approaches to establishing a regulatory framework for charities were explored in the screening regulatory impact assessment that was prepared by the Department in the initial stage of this regulatory initiative. The conclusion of that assessment was that a new regulatory authority would be the best option. The external report on the public consultation that followed found that of those respondents who commented on the matter, "an overwhelming majority were in favour of the creation of a new independent statutory regulatory body, rather than using an existing body". That was the approach the Government ultimately approved in the general scheme and in the Bill that followed.

I want to put to rest any suggestion that we are establishing a quango, as suggested by several Deputies. The charities regulatory authority will be simply a regulatory body. It will not be an executive body for charities. It will not be impenetrable or unanswerable; the opposite is the case. One of the fundamental changes the authority will bring about is that information on charities that until now was not available will be readily available to one and all. Essentially, the authority will be a one-stop-shop for information on charities. It will not be necessary for members of the public to contact their public representatives to find out about a particular charity. As Deputy Stanton suggested, the information will be available on the authority's website or by telephone. It will greatly simplify matters, rather than complicate them.

The authority will be required to prepare annual reports — an issue raised in the debate — that will have to be laid before this House. The authority will be answerable to various committees of the Oireachtas. It will not have a huge operational budget and will represent value for money particularly, as Deputies pointed out, as it has been estimated that this sector has a total economic value of €2.5 billion per annum. It will be a relatively small price to pay to ensure confidence in this hugely valuable sector is preserved.

Some Deputies raised the issue of the register being available on-line. I will be happy to consider that suggestion favourably in the course of the next Stage.

Deputies Jim O'Keeffe, Deasy, Burke and Higgins raised the issue of the independence of the authority and it being subject to Government policies. The concern about the independence of the authority is unfounded. It is a standard clause in legislation that statutory bodies are required to comply with Government policy. However, the clause is not intended to suggest that the Government will play an active role in the day to day running of the authority. It merely means that the CRA will be obliged to comply with general policy as enshrined in legislation in areas such as freedom of information, ethics, data protection, public service numbers etc. It will not impinge on the independence of the authority in fulfilling its regulatory role.

Deputies Ring, Jim O'Keeffe, White, Burke, Chris Andrews, O'Connor, Costello, Flanagan, Reilly, Higgins and Nolan raised issues about the definition of "charitable purposes", particularly a number of charitable purposes that were originally in the general scheme but were not ultimately included in the Bill. The most common difficulty Deputies had was with the exclusion of the human rights provision from the definition of "charitable purposes". I am not averse in principle to examining the possibility of revisiting such provisions should it be appropriate, taking into account legal advice available to me. It could be said that although the promotion of human rights is not mentioned explicitly as a charitable purpose, several of the other purposes are closely linked to the promotion of human rights. Nonetheless, I appreciate the heartfelt views of speakers on the matter and am happy to explore this issue further on Committee Stage. I am aware of the extent of the concern in the sector about that issue.

Deputy Ring expressed the view that the authority cannot have both a regulatory and a supportive role for charities; it cannot be policeman and pal. The position being adopted in the Bill is that the authority will have both roles. The roles are not mutually incompatible. It is common for regulators to have both roles, and in this case it is appropriate. There is provision in the legislation for a review of the Act after five years in operation. That will be an appropriate time to reflect on whether the range of duties assigned to the regulatory authority has operated satisfactorily.

The administrative burden on charities was raised by several Deputies including Deputies Wall, Mattie McGrath, White, Burke, Chris Andrews, O'Connor, Costello, Durkan, Tom Hayes, O'Mahony, Nolan and Crawford. They expressed a view that the legislation must not place too onerous an administrative burden on charities as that might discourage people from working in charities. I agree with that view and we will ensure that the legislation is consciously framed to ensure proportionality in the demands it places. That is the reason my officials are working on proposals to minimise the potential for dual filing by charities. It is not in anyone's interests to put people off volunteerism, and given the supportive ethos of the authority, I am confident that any difficulties that might arise between charities and the authority in this regard can be resolved in a reasonable manner. I take on board Deputies Byrne and Stanton's comments.

Deputies Ring, Costello and Morgan suggested that the wording in respect of charities engaged in political activities might be changed to reflect the equivalent Scottish legislation. Much of the legal advice given to my officials during the drafting process was to the effect that UK legislative provisions do not easily transfer to Irish law however simple it may seem. The relevant wording in the Bill is designed to allow charities to engage in valid political work as a means of achieving their charitable purpose rather than as a primary purpose itself. Deputy Perry discussed at length the question of the fine line between political advocacy and lobbying. I do not accept that charities should be predominantly engaged in political activities and the wording achieves an appropriate balance.

The issue of statutory bodies having charitable status was raised by a number of Deputies, including Deputies White and Reilly. They believed the independence of the sector might be undermined by not excluding statutory bodies from charitable status. Some statutory bodies enjoy eligibility for charitable tax reliefs courtesy of the Revenue Commissioners and I do not want to do anything to impact negatively on that. The key issue is whether an organisation is engaged in charitable purposes with an inherent public benefit, not the class of the organisation itself. If statutory bodies meet the criteria to the satisfaction of the new regulatory authority, they should be eligible for charitable status. From the information that will be available from the new register of charities provided for in the Bill, it should be readily apparent to the public as to whether an organisation is statutory.

The issue of registration fees for charities was raised by a number of Deputies. It is an enabling provision and is not mandatory. The authority will not be obliged to impose fees. It would be remiss not to include such a clause, although it will be a matter for further consideration with the requisite parties as to whether the clause should be invoked. It is envisaged that the authority will be predominantly, if not completely, funded by the Exchequer, to which effect the Bill makes provision. Some of the Deputies' concerns will be taken on board.

Virtually every speaker referred to the potential impact of the legislation on spontaneous collections in aid of local or international charities. The proposed legislation will not change the current situation. What has applied to date will continue to apply. Spontaneous collections within a workplace, office or private club do not require a permit. It is not within the spirit of the legislation to regulate such once-off gestures of human kindness. Given their spontaneity, it would be difficult to police the practice.

Spontaneous public cash collections have the potential to give unscrupulous people licence to defraud the public. Is the public not equally entitled to know that its generous contribution to a spontaneous collection is accounted for properly as is the case with a normal collection with a permit? Deputies Deenihan and Stanton among others referred to this issue. After the Bill's enactment, the public will be in a better position to verify whether its contribution is going to the intended charitable purpose. I presume the regulatory authority will consider the suggestion that information on the amount collected and the donors should be made publicly available. Codes of best practice will be developed in that respect.

A number of issues raised by Deputies Morgan, Reilly and others are outside the scope of the Bill. Multi-annual funding for charities, the tax reform of charities and a single umbrella organisation for charities are more appropriate for discussion on another day in another forum.

The value of a shared approach with Northern Ireland was raised by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and the North's charity regulatory initiative was mentioned. While it will not always be possible, principally on the basis of legal advice, to match the approach being taken in Northern Ireland, my Department has developed a strong relationship with the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland over the course of our parallel regulatory initiatives, including attendance at regular meetings of the UK and Ireland five nations forum for charities regulators.

The new authority will be empowered to co-operate on an administrative basis with statutory bodies inside and outside the State, which will be particularly important in the case of Northern Ireland, given the number of charitable organisations that operate on an all-Ireland basis. This would be a matter of simple good practice in the exercise of regulatory functions and might involve exchanging information, addressing issues of common concern and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

Regarding Deputy Nolan's comments on co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners, I assure the House that my officials are working closely with the commissioners to ensure that the parallel regulatory and taxation regimes work as seamlessly as possible alongside each other. We expect a positive outcome to the ongoing discussions.

I wish to clarify a matter raised by Deputy Deasy as it is necessary to correct his statement. It relates to my opening remarks in which I stated "in a report published late last year", the Law Reform Commission had recommended a new legal structure for charitable organisations, the Charitable Incorporated Organisation. Subsequently, Deputy Deasy suggested that the report was published in December 2005 and, thus, my Department had a great deal of time to peruse the 55 page report. Lest the Deputy's remarks be interpreted as my misleading the House, the LRC publishes in two stages usually, that is, a consultation paper and then a report. The former is intended to form the basis for discussions and the recommendations, conclusions and suggestions contained therein are provisional. The commission makes its final recommendations in the report following further consideration of the issues and consultation. The publication to which I referred was the LRC's report on charitable trusts and legal structures for charities, which was published in October 2006. The Deputy was referring to the LRC's initial consultation paper on legal structures for charities, which contained the LRC's provisional recommendations. My Department was aware of the recommendations in December 2005, but was charged with delivering a much awaited Bill. The final recommendations of the LRC were not published until October 2006, when work on this task was well advanced.

Deputy Deasy raised the issue of the legal structure for charities. It has always been the position that the matter of legal structures for charities does not constitute the purpose of this legislation, which is to regulate the charities sector for the first time since the foundation of the State. The Government's commitment to ensure accountability of the charities sector and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud will be delivered on in the Charities Bill.

Like Deputy Stanton, Deputy O'Rourke expressed concern about anecdotal experience that certain bishops object to collections for political parties outside church gates. While it will remain the case that collections within church grounds will not require a permit, once a political party or anyone has obtained a valid permit from the Garda Síochána for a public collection, he, she or it is entitled to collect in the location approved subject to whatever conditions have been applied to the permit. If any member of the public is unhappy with a collection being undertaken in a public place or believes that the terms of the permit have been breached, it is within his or her rights to complain to the district superintendent who issued the permit. This situation will not change following enactment of the Bill.

The location and cost of the authority was mentioned by Deputies Tom Hayes, Deasy and Mansergh. My Department will engage in detailed discussions with the Department of Finance on all the practical aspects of the establishment of the new authority. It is anticipated, in accordance with the terms outlined in the Bill, that the staff of the Office of Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, based in Dublin, will transfer to the new authority on establishment day. Its experience will be important in the transition period. This will be among the factors to be taken into account in any discussions on the location of the new body.

Deputy Reilly raised the issue of supports for the sector in the transition to a regulated environment. There is acceptance in section 34(1) of Towards 2016 that support will be required for charities to meet their obligations in the new regulatory environment. Towards 2016 provides that the modalities of this support will be decided following consultation with the community and voluntary sector after the legislation has been approved by the Oireachtas. I will keep this matter under review.

Deputies Perry and Reilly raised the issue of duty of care for charities' trustees. Provisions to allow charitable trustees to indemnify themselves were originally in the general scheme but were not in the Bill as published. While I understand that trustees already have statutory fiduciary responsibilities, I am open to discussing these matters further on Committee Stage subject to legal advice.

Deputies Perry, Aylward, Deenihan and others raised the need for transparency on the amount spent by charities on administration and running costs, rather than on their core purposes. One of the fundamental principles of the Bill is increased transparency and availability of information to the public. While it must be recognised that there are administrative costs in running a charity and that there may be valid reasons that one charity's administration costs are higher than another's, after the register is established and accounts are available to the public, potential donors will be in a position to make more informed decisions on which charities they should support.

Many speakers raised the issue of clothing collections and the impact on them of the Charities Bill. The Bill will oblige genuine charities operating in Ireland to register with the charities regulator and they will be given a unique charity registered number, CRN. In their publicity they will be obliged to state that they are a registered charitable organisation, as stipulated in section 41(7)(a), and will be at liberty to state their CRN. Members of the public will be able to check the veracity of the CRN on the charity regulator's website. Companies without a CRN which continue to collect goods will not be able to state that they are a charity or to quote a CRN. In this way, it will be clear to the public which charity is genuine. It will also be within the remit of the regulator to publish advice for the public on how to determine the veracity of door-to-door collectors. A person who represents an unregistered body as being registered will be guilty of an offence punishable by a fine of up to €300,000 or five years in prison, or both.

Deputy Deenihan raised the history of individuals who collect and whether there is provision for investigating whether people involved in collections have a criminal record. Although the Bill does not contain such a provision, it provides that one cannot be a charity trustee if one has been convicted on indictment of an offence. It would be in the interests of charities to ensure they are confident about those working for them. Anyone who breaches the Bill, including collectors, will have committed an offence, however the authority may consider that this matter is best addressed as a best practice policy.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of mass cards. It will be in the remit of the regulator to publish advice for the public on how to make informed decisions on their support of causes and the legitimacy of organisations operating in the jurisdiction. If mass cards do not carry a registered number allocated by the authority, the public would be right to have concerns about the organisation producing them.

Deputy Deenihan raised the issue of collections for purposes other than charities and reporting to the Garda Síochána. This is outside the scope of the Bill but the Garda Síochána has duties to ensure collections are for valid purposes and are well run.

I have listened carefully to the whole debate and it was gratifying to hear the constructive contributions from Members. I accept that there will always be differences of opinion on the approach to be taken and on some of the finer detail of the legislation. That is the nature of democracy and it is to be welcomed. There is a broad acceptance that the regulation of the charities sector is a welcome and necessary development. The various stages of the passage of this Bill through both Houses will provide the opportunity for further meaningful, inclusive debate and discussion. As I said in my opening speech, I am personally committed to progressing the Bill in this way. This will serve the interests of the sector and underpin civil society by producing better legislation.

Though this Bill may appear to some to be just the start of the regulatory process, that is not the case. Great credit is due to my predecessor in the Department and constituency colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern who, from a blank canvas, began and led this much awaited regulatory initiative through comprehensive public consultation and drafting processes over a number of years through to the publication of this Bill earlier this year. I am privileged to take over the baton as the Bill moves to its public phase. I also comment on the support this Bill has received and the hard work the officials here and others have put into it. The charities sector has been supportive and has put forward constructive proposals on the sector. I will reflect fully on the issues raised by Members during this debate. I am looking forward to Committee Stage but, as I have indicated, a small number of provisions must be addressed before we move on to that Stage.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.