Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a sad day for artistic and political freedom in Ireland when a simple mural on the wall of the Project Arts Centre in the centre of Dublin has had to be painted over. I am sorry the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is not present herself as this is very much an attack on artistic freedom. It is a very wrong decision by the Charities Regulator. As I travel to work in the middle of the referendum campaign to repeal the eighth amendment, I pass churches which have posters on their railings. I am told by many that they find an amount of material from different publications on the tables at the backs of churches, all of which is consciously and strongly anti-repeal. Many Catholics find this deeply offensive and upsetting and some of the suggestions in them around what happens are deeply upsetting. It is a very sad day regarding a simple, attractive mural using the word "repeal" and the image of a heart. The referendum is about things that are close to all our hearts and which are difficult.

The Charities Regulator has written to the Project Arts Centre threatening its charitable status for engaging in political activity which is not in line with the charitable purposes of the organisation. It is worth looking at this juncture at what the Act states and not just at the guidelines on political activity issued recently by the regulator. The 2009 Act excludes from being registered as a charity a political party or body which promotes a political party or candidate or a body which promotes a political cause unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body. The Act does not exclude any charity from engaging in a collaboration with any of those bodies. Neither does the Act have an express ban on charities engaging in political activity. The Act also lays down the circumstances in which the authority, after consultation with An Garda Síochána, can exclude a body from the register. These are circumstances where something is either unlawful, contrary to public morality, contrary to public policy, in support of terrorism or terrorist activities or for the benefit of an organisation membership of which is unlawful. None of these, as far as I am aware, applies to the Project Arts Centre and its collaboration whereby the mural was painted on the wall of the centre in public view.

I was involved in the development of charities legislation some time ago. The last time I checked, most religious bodies in Ireland were charities, which is rightly so. I do not object to that. I do not object to churches having huge amounts of material from posters to leaflets, sermons and events relating to their view in respect of the referendum. That is as it ought to be in a civic society. I object very much to the interference with the artistic and political freedom of the artist, which is essential, in this decision by the Charities Regulator which has forced the mural to be removed.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Burton for raising this issue. The Charities Regulatory Authority was established in October 2014 pursuant to the Charities Act 2009. The authority is the State organisation responsible for registering and regulating all of Ireland's charities. Its role is to provide effective and robust regulation in accordance with the 2009 Act. Responsibility for the regulator, which is fully independent in the performance of its statutory functions, has been assigned to the Department of Rural and Community Development. The general function of the authority is to regulate charitable organisations operating in Ireland in order to increase public trust and confidence in their management and administration. Section 39 of the Charities Act 2009 sets out the regulatory basis on which organisations register with the regulator. If anyone has concerns that a charitable organisation is in breach of the 2009 Act, he or she may forward details of those concerns to the regulator directly. I am advised that all concerns received are actively reviewed.

On receipt by the authority of an expression of concern relating to a mural on the Project Art Centre's property, the authority indicated to the trustees of the centre that the continued display of the mural would, in the authority's opinion, constitute a political advertisement in respect of a matter for which the charity was not set up. I understand that all complaints are handled by the complaints committee within the Charities Regulatory Authority. The net effect was stated to be that if the display was to continue, the charity ran the risk of being deregistered from the authority's register. The authority has the power under the 2009 Act to consider matters of concern in relation to the running of a charity and action such as deregistering a charity may be taken if deemed necessary. I emphasise that the authority is completely independent in carrying out its functions and in making any decision in relation to enforcement. The authority took the view in this case that the charity was engaged in making a political statement for a purpose for which it was not set up and, thus, fell outside the remit of the 2009 Act. I am advised that the Project Arts Centre itself indicated during its interaction with the authority that it was relying on an exemption under the planning code in relation to political advertisements. In the authority's view, this was a de facto concession that the centre was engaged in a political activity outside the scope of its established purposes.

The Charities Regulatory Authority is independent of Government in its deliberations and my Department has no function in its day-to-day operational activities. As Minister of State, I had no hand, act or part in this decision. I am advised that the trustees of the centre indicated to the authority on 20 April that they would arrange for the removal of the mural and it was subsequently removed on 23 April as we saw on television.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am taken aback by the content of the Minister of State's reply. There are two sides in a referendum, namely, those who are for the referendum proposal and people who are opposed to it. Voters are free to go to the polls and decide which way they want to vote. We have a situation in which a very one-sided interpretation of the powers and guidelines of the regulator has been effected with the result that a very simple image had to be taken down. One can walk past this House any day. I was with some people as I came in yesterday morning and they practically got sick when they saw the large-scale posters of foetuses in various states on display outside. I pass churches regularly. For the most part, the posters outside churches are simple "No" posters but I am regularly told about some of the material that is available inside churches.

Can the Minister of State confirm that churches are, by and large, charitable organisations? If the Charities Regulator is going to take action against a simple poster which contains nothing offensive and deem it to be political, is the Minister of State telling me, as holder of his office, that the same regulator will go into churches and check out the material there? I am not suggesting the regulator should do that, rather I am suggesting it is not being even handed. There is an interpretation of the law there. The Act lays down the circumstances in which the authority can, after consultation with gardaí, exclude a body from the register. That was the threat against the Project Arts Centre. That is where something is unlawful, contrary to public morality, contrary to public policy, or in support of terrorism or terrorist activities. Does the Minister of State think the Project Arts Centre, which has operated in Dublin for 50 years, does any of those things?

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had no hand, act or part in the decision. It was a matter for the Charities Regulator and its complaints committee. I am not privy to the detailed discussions which took place on that, whether there was a vote, whether it was contentious or whether it was unanimous.

The chief executive officer has the ultimate say in accepting, or not, the recommendation of the complaints committee.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister of State repeat that?

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chief executive officer has the ultimate say in terms of the decision that was made following the recommendation from the complaints committee.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about the Charities Regulator. I did not ask about the chief executive officer.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I meant the chief executive officer of the regulator.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister of State saying that the regulator has responsibility for the ultimate decision? I think we need a copy of the Act.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I have been told in respect of this matter. The Deputy said there are two sides to the story and I agree with her. I would hope that if any mural which had a slogan “Love Both”, “Save the Eighth” or “Do not Prohibit Abortion” was similarly covered over, the Deputy would take the same stance, like Deputy Coppinger when she raised the matter yesterday on Leaders’ Questions. Complaints were made to the Charities Regulator. If there are complaints about a specific church or churches - I think all churches, not just the Catholic Church, are against abortion - to the Charities Regulator, I am sure it would investigate them and make recommendations. I cannot say what it would do. The publicity and television coverage generated by the actions of the regulator have done more for the repeal cause than if the mural had been left there. I did not see it and would not be in that area. However, it has reached a wider audience because of these actions.

The Charities Regulator is independent in its functions. People can make complaints to it about any other organisation if they so wish.