John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

Before finalising on that, another point is that the organisations in this jurisdiction which are engaged in human rights activities and which are currently registered with Revenue will be deemed to automatically come within the remit of this legislation. As I said, the Revenue Commissioners do not recognise human rights per se. It is a question of trying to match terms that are consistent with each other. However, the principles and effects are clearly identifiable and this is something that will probably come up for greater debate on Committee Stage.

A number of speakers, in particular Senators Buttimer and Keaveney, raised the issue of the authority being a regulator and support for the sector. The position being adopted in the Bill is that the authority will have both a regulatory and a supportive role, and that is important. Senator Keaveney referred to the regulator with the big stick, but it is important that the authority is seen to be a supportive agency. I do not agree that the roles are mutually incompatible. Indeed, it is quite common for regulators to perform both roles and that is appropriate.

Senator Boyle said there are no new legal structures 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 charity sector for the first time since the foundation of the State. The Government wishes to ensure the accountability of the charity sector and to protect against the abuse of charitable status and fraud, and that is the commitment on which the Charities Bill will deliver.

Senator Ó Murchú in particular referred to the whole issue of holding out. This came about because of door to door collections, notices coming in, the collection of clothing and so forth, which we have all seen. Section 46 of the Bill makes it an offence for charitable organisations that are not registered to hold themselves out as charities. On Report Stage in the Dáil I strengthened the provision, with a particular focus on the door to door collection of second-hand clothes and bric-À-brac which was a cause of genuine concern. It was raised time and again. I have received numerous complaints from the public in relation to those collections.

I made it an offence to cause the public to reasonably believe that an organisation is a charity, irrespective of the terminology it uses in leaflets etc. This amendment strengthened the provision and greatly limited the scope for non-charitable organisations to suggest to the public that they are charitable in nature. This will, in turn, help the public to distinguish between genuine charitable organisations and non-charitable bodies. Prior to the amendment, such bodies would have been outside the regulations had they omitted to use the word "charity" and so forth. They now only have to give the impression or behave or act in a manner that the public might reasonably expect of a charitable organisation. That is aimed primarily at dealing with the door to door collection phenomenon.

The need for transparency was raised by Senator Ó Murchú and others in terms of the spend by charities on administrative and running costs. Increased transparency is a fundamental principle of the Bill. It must be recognised that there are administrative costs in running a charity, but the transparency issue is very important. There may be very valid reasons that one charity's administrative costs are higher than another's. However, with the register and the availability of accounts, people will make more informed decisions because that information will be more publicly available, and that is significant.

Numerous Senators referred to sporting bodies and talked about the importance of sport. I recognise that, and I have been involved with a number of sporting organisations for a long time, which I actively support. This has been mentioned to me and I have given it some thought. I want to point out a couple of things. The Revenue Commissioners operate a separate tax regime for sporting bodies from that applicable to charities and the Bill has been drafted to maintain the status quo. The legislation makes a clear separation between the determination of charitable status by the authority and the determination of tax exemption on funds applied for charitable purposes, which is exclusively the function and responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners. The intention is that there will be a seamless system with no duplication. The charities regulator decides whether a body is a charitable organisation, but it will solely be a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to determine whether any funds applied by such an organisation for a charitable purpose should be granted entitlement to tax exemption.

In the public consultation process relating to this issue, namely, sporting bodies attracting charitable status, it did not emerge as a matter of concern to any great extent. Regulation of sporting bodies as charities would impose additional regulation and scrutiny on those organisations. I do not believe that considering the inclusion of sporting bodies as charities on the principal basis that a particular advantage might accrue under the taxation system is a very sound rationale, particularly when the Revenue Commissioners alone have responsibility for granting tax exemptions, regardless of the decisions of the charities regulatory authority.

That is the key point. The argument put forward to have sporting bodies included is specifically that a tax benefit would accrue to such organisations, but that simply would not be the case. It is important to emphasise that the Revenue Commissioners still maintain their independence in that determination.

Senator Buttimer raised the issue of supports for the sector and there is acceptance in Towards 2016 that support will be required for charities to meet their obligations in the new regulatory environment. Towards 2016 provides that modalities of support will be decided following consultation with the community and voluntary sector after the legislation is approved by the Oireachtas.

Senator Norris referred to what we call "chugging" and the proliferation of charities collecting together to obtain promises of money. Collections or promises of money represent a very important source of regular income for charities and allows them to plan their activities in a more strategic way. Until now they have been outside the scope of the permit system and that was unacceptable. It is an important issue and will be subject to a legal permit regime for the first time.

I am also developing, with the sector, non-statutory codes of practice for charity fund-raising which should help to improve collection and ensure the public is not impeded with many collections taking place at the same time. If non-statutory codes of practice do not work, I have a reserve power under section 94 to introduce statutory regulation. It is worth mentioning that while we are looking for transparency and control and to have confidence in the charity sector, the counterbalance is not to over-burden and over-regulate charitable organisations, make their work more difficult than it needs to be and take away from their primary function. If the sector is prepared to implement satisfactory non-statutory codes, I am happy with that, but there is a reserve function.

Provisions regarding the appointment of the authority were raised by Senators Buttimer, Leyden and Burke. The provisions in the Bill are standard and were inserted on the basis of legal advice. There is provision for representation from the sector, specifically persons with knowledge and expertise of law on charities, the keeping of accounts, and the funding and management of charities. Such representation would be the key to the successful operation of the Bill. The legislation also provides for an extensive consultative process between the authority and the sector through the various consultative panels. This should allow the concerns of the sector to be taken fully into consideration.

The issue of pre-signed mass cards was raised prior to this debate and I am aware that it is a matter of concern to the church and Members of both Houses. I am taking legal advice on whether it is possible to make provision in the Charities Bill to control the practice of selling pre-signed mass cards in retail outlets. The previous clause I referred to of holding out would also apply in that if someone was selling a mass card on the false pretence that it was for a charitable purpose, it would be an illegal activity. I gave a commitment to Deputy Michael Ring that I would examine the issue. Finding a form of wording that can be effective may be difficult but I am examining the issue, and if Senator Buttimer or others have words of wisdom, I ask them to share them because I want to try to address the issue.

Senators Ó Murchú, Buttimer and Norris raised the issue of sealed box collections. The first time this issue was brought to my attention was when I entered the Dáil to take Report Stage and I did not have much of an opportunity to deal with it. I am aware it is an issue but it only became known to me on that day.

The existing wording is intended to enhance public confidence but not to hamper the day-to-day operations of genuine charities. As I said at the outset, the Bill is not intended to change how charities operate or change the sector but to recognise what is happening and assist it by introducing a degree of control. I am aware many charities collect by selling what I call fixed-price emblems, badges or tokens, and I appreciate that. My officials are engaging with legal advisers on how we might deal with this, but we do not want to undermine confidence and return to open bucket collections. It is a question of obtaining an appropriate form of wording. I am anxious to address this matter because it is what happens with charities in the real world.

If Senator Buttimer or Ó Murchú or any other Senators have specific ideas they wish to share with officials and see how robust they are, I would welcome them at as early a stage as possible because it is a practice that is in place and we are not introducing legislation to make existing practices more difficult. We must bring transparency, control and public confidence to what we are doing but we must not unduly burden the charities operating now or put their current funding streams in jeopardy. I will try to address it. I apologise I did not know about it sooner and if anyone in this House has any ideas, I will glad take them.

Notwithstanding that there are bound to be some differences on some of the approaches being taken, I have a positive sense from listening to the speakers today that the regulation of the charities sector in Ireland is broadly welcomed in this House. The Bill has emerged from an inclusive consultative process and consequently has improved as it progressed to publication and through the various Stages. I expect to table a number of amendments over the coming weeks and I look forward to working with the Members in this context. I put that on the record because if we table a number of amendments, the Bill will revisit the other House. Some people were concerned that there may not be any changes. I expect there may have to be a number of changes and it is better to be frank about it at this stage.

I came to this portfolio approximately six months ago. I put on the record of the House my appreciation of the work undertaken by my immediate predecessors in the Department, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Noel Ahern, who brought this long-awaited Bill to publication, and the Chief Whip and Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, who brought the Bill to Committee Stage in the Dáil. Their genuine commitment and recognition of the vital role charities play in our society and the need, therefore, to protect and value charities has been brought to us today.

In dealing with this Bill in the House, while not every amendment was agreed unanimously, there was widespread support for the general thrust of the legislation, there was a consensus approach and an openness and willingness to share ideas and work in a co-operative manner. The words shared in this House were encouraging and I am pleased to see that the Bill will continue. While we will not agree on every issue, I appreciate that Members of this House are prepared to work in co-operation to advance and improve the Bill as far as possible.

I mentioned Deputies Ring and Wall, and I want to put on the record that in the absence of Deputy Wall in the Lower House on one occasion, he was ably represented by Deputies Higgins and Lynch. Whether in the formal setting of the House or in informal consultations with me or officials from the Department, there was a willingness to see this legislation concluded because there is an understanding that it is important. Another aspect to remember is that there is a mandatory five-year review and during that time, we must ensure we examine how it is working. It is important and I am anxious to have it concluded, not just speedily but in an efficient and effective manner. I thank all those who contributed today.