Seanad debates

Thursday, 11 December 2008

Charities Bill 2007: Report and Final Stages

 

12:00 pm

Photo of John CurranJohn Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

Senator Boyle referred to charities and advocacy. The general scheme was quite restrictive in respect of political advocacy on the part of charities. When drafting the Bill, however, in the context of addressing the question of advocacy towards a political objective by charitable organisations, practical issues arose concerning the protection of charitable status for certain bodies which do good work on the ground, such as those dealing with families of victims of homicide, abuse etc. It has been argued that many charitable organisations legitimately engage in advocacy as a means to achieve their charitable purpose, although advocacy in itself is not their principal objective. Accordingly, it was decided not to include a specific provision in the Bill restricting advocacy by charities.

The question of deemed versus non-deemed charities has arisen on a couple of occasions. There seems to be some misinterpretation to the effect that charities which are deemed under section 40 are to be perceived differently from those which apply for registration under section 39. I wish to put the record straight in respect of this matter. I received legal advice to the effect that deemed and non-deemed charities are exactly the same for the purposes of the Bill. The most critical provision in the Bill in this context is the definition of "registered charitable organisation" in section 2. Deeming is not to be regarded as a temporary measure pending registration proper. Deemed organisations will have had their charitable credentials assessed to the satisfaction of Revenue in the first instance. In addition, they will be no more likely to be removed from the register than their section 39 counterparts.

I reiterate that while human rights and social justice are not specifically mentioned in the legislation, the acts to which they relate, namely, the prevention and relief of poverty, the advancement of education and the prevention of human suffering, are so specifically mentioned. As stated previously, my purpose has always been to maintain the status quo and draw up legislation that is in line with established practices. On those grounds, I cannot accept the amendments.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.