John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 32, to delete lines 47 to 50 and substitute the following:

"(2) A body (other than a registered charitable organisation) that, in any notice, advertisement, promotional literature or any other published material, describes itself or its activities in such terms as would cause members of the public to reasonably believe that it is a charitable organisation shall, subject to subsection (6), be guilty of an offence.".

Section 42 makes it an offence for charitable organisations which are not registered to hold themselves out as a charity. Concerns were raised on Committee Stage as to whether this section was adequate to address practices such as door to door collection of second-hand clothes and bric-a-brac which are a concern to many people. The Department has received numerous complaints from members of the public concerning such collections, with which Deputies will be familiar. While it will be within the remit of the regulatory authority to make members of the public aware of how to determine the veracity of organisations which may ostensibly appear to be charities, this power, by itself, was not sufficient.

The current provisions state that referring to an organisation when it is not a charity is an offence. In practice, however, such organisations are careful not to refer to themselves as charities. Nevertheless, they may convey a false impression through the language used in their promotional literature. Therefore, having consulted the Office of the Attorney General, I propose amendment No. 57 to make it an offence to cause members of the public to reasonably believe that an organisation is a charity, irrespective of the terminology used by the organisation in leaflets, etc. This amendment strengthens the existing provision and greatly limits the scope for non-charitable organisations to suggest to members of the public that they are charitable in nature. This will, in turn, help members of the public to distinguish between genuine charitable collections which are not profit-based and non-charitable collections and make informed decisions about which collections they choose to support.

Deputies Wall and Ring have suggested alternative approaches in amendments Nos. 58 to 60, inclusive. However, the formula I have developed in close consultation with the Office of the Attorney General addresses this issue more satisfactorily. Accordingly, I propose amendment No. 57.

See this speech in context