Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It is good to see a charities Bill finally working its way through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It has been a long time in gestation since the first treatment of the Bill was made available a number of years ago. It was promised over the course of several years. One can see by its length that there were many issues to be considered, some of which are still open for consideration. The Second Stage debate, as in the other House, is an important part of the process.

Since the original publication of the Bill, there have been several significant developments, one of which was the initial reluctance to include advocacy as an issue to be addressed. This comes from a particular official mindset, not necessarily a party political one, that charities should be seen and not heard. We have been very fortunate that many of our social services have been provided by charitable organisations in a way that the State has been unwilling to provide them. Even as we have grown more prosperous as a country, certain parts of our social services would collapse if it were not for the existence and actions of charitable organisations. The need for legislation of this type is obvious and it is very welcome. It fills a significant gap and will be the template for the development of further legislation.

There are ongoing concerns about particular charitable organisations, the raison d'être and objectives of which are not appropriately covered in the Bill. This has been mentioned in the context of human rights, in particular. My understanding of the concerns expressed — the Minister of State might allude to this — is that it is partly a question of drafting but mainly a matter of political concern about how to define organisations which exist for the promotion and enhancement of human rights and the extremely grey area between such organisations and openly political groupings. I am talking about party political groupings, in particular. How to legislate for this and provide a buffer is the essential issue. It should be possible to do this and we should be working towards making it possible. I have a sense that there are many in the Government who would like to see it happen. However, because there is this grey area as of now there is an unwillingness to go as far as we need to go. We still have an opportunity in the remaining Stages of the Bill to continue to examine that issue and ask the appropriate questions. I hope it can be done. If not, it will leave a significant area to which we will need to return in the very near future to amend appropriately. Human rights organisations represent an important part of charitable activity and without their existence the body politic would be weaker. We would not have properly informed debates, decision making and allocation of resources. We should recognise them in legislation and I would like to think we would do so, although I understand the political and drafting constraints.

The other provisions that may follow the passage of the Charities Bill in both Houses of the Oireachtas relate to finances. While this is not a money Bill, for many years my party has argued that we should look at the Danish example of VAT exemptions for charities. Money that they collect from the general public tends to be eaten up by taxes returned to the State for goods and services provided largely on behalf of the State. There are mechanisms we can and should consider which have been given favourable consideration. In the course of the budget debate the Minister for Finance indicated he was willing to do this. Possibly in next year's budget and Finance Bill we will have such a mechanism.

Attention should be drawn to the concerns raised by the free legal advice centres about the liability that accrues to directors in a situation where State assistance and funding to such organisations is subject to immediate review and reduction. If the State has been supplying funding to voluntary organisations, they may have made decisions on this basis. The legal position of directors of charities taking on a liability they did not understand they would have in making their original decision is something we should review. It may be a matter of company law. However, the Bill, as comprehensive and welcome as it is, fails to address these questions. While it is not addressed in the Bill, it is worth considering the vehicle applied in the United Kingdom, the protection of liability for many charitable organisations under the Companies Act or companies limited by guarantee. The United Kingdom produced a legal structure known as charitable incorporated organisations. It seems to be a more specific legal entity that is more representative of the work done by charitable bodies. If we could examine such a structure in the context of a companies Bill, we would further ease the lot of charities.

As we seek to complete the processes involved in the Charities Bill, many organisations consider they might not be properly represented by its provisions. We have received representations from sports and religious bodies. On the whole, other than the question of human rights which may remain unanswered on the final passage of the Bill, we have the right balance. The religious organisations will be subject to a particular review. I understand sports bodies are dealt with elsewhere. As sports can be both amateur in their nature and have a significant professional money-making aspect, they should not be considered in legislation of this type. It is right to make that distinction.

We need to use the remaining time in the Seanad to answer the points and concerns raised by most speakers. A significant unanswered question has been raised by Senators Buttimer, Ó Murchú, Norris and Alex White. I refer to the fact that we, as public representatives representing our political interests, recognise that there are charitable organisations and voluntary groups which represent particular interests in the field of social justice and human rights which need to have their interests reflected in the legislation. If there are political, administrative and legal constraints, it may be that the issue will remain unresolved after the passage of the Bill. However, it cannot remain so for long. I hope it can be dealt with in the remaining Stages of the Bill. However, there is a near certainty that if the Bill is passed without addressing these concerns, we will return to it sooner rather than later. For such comprehensive and necessary legislation, it is not right that this one remaining question should be left unanswered, particularly in this climate where there are question marks over commitments to human rights in general within our ever-evolving society. It is not right that we as a Seanad, and particularly the Government, should leave those questions unanswered.