Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I am glad the law in respect of charities is the subject of updating legislation. I have a couple of problems I would ask the Minister of State to consider. On the provisions of sections 3 and 4, as I see it, the effect of these sections is to establish new definitions of charitable purposes for the purposes of the Charities Act. The introduction of the advancement of human rights as a recognised charitable purpose under Irish law for the first time is slightly problematic. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission defines human rights as civil and political rights, as well as economic and social rights. If we took that as our yardstick, is every body established for the advancement of economic and social rights to be considered charitable in these circumstances? I note that the Minister of State says a key part of this process will be the introduction of guidelines in respect of this proposed charitable purpose but I do not see where the statutory basis for those guidelines arises. I would like to know by whom those guidelines will be issued.

I would also like to know whether the Houses of the Oireachtas will be able to determine what does and does not amount to a charitable purpose, given the very wide definition. Going by the IHREC website, the definition is very wide of what human rights actually are for the purposes of that body. Is a different measure being applied here? There is no definition given of human rights for the purposes of this section. It is an extremely broad concept. They could be political movements. They could include, for example, the National Women's Council and NGOs of all kinds, which are suddenly being given charitable status. I wonder whether this is wise. If we do establish these as charitable purposes, we are introducing safeguards as to how they are run but we are also establishing taxation and other privileges for them which may or may not be appropriate.

My concept of the advancement of human rights could be quite different from Senator Murphy's concept. We probably agree on most things but we could radically disagree on some concept of what human rights are or are not. We see arguments on the floor of this House, for example, about whether surrogacy is a human right. I would like to know what the Minister of State actually means by saying that a key part of widening the definition of charitable purposes under existing law to "the advancement of human rights" for the first time in terms of what the result will be. How many more bodies will become so-called charitable organisations coming under the remit of the Charities Regulator if this takes place? If you raise money for what one person believes is the advancement of human rights and what another believes is antipathetic to human rights, who is going to decide that? This is an issue I would like to see teased out more accurately.

I would like to have a workable definition of human rights. Is it the same as what the IHREC applies to the term on its website, which is immensely broad, including social and economic rights? If NGOs of that kind become charitable organisations, where does that leave the likes of political parties? Are they charitable or not? What party would actually say, hand on heart, that they are not in the business of advancing human rights? Are we casting the net too wide? The Minister of State said in his speech that a key part of this process will be the introduction of guidelines in respect of the advancement of human rights, and that these guidelines will be developed in consultation with experts in this area including representatives from the sector. Who are the experts in the human rights field who are going to be consulted? Who is going to do the consulting and who is going to lay down the parameters of what is and what is not included in the term "human rights"? The Act in its current form talks about other things of public benefit and of benefit to the community. This is much more specific than that, however. I would like to see what it actually means in reality.

Section 4 of the Bill provides that section 3 of the principal Act is amended in subsection (1) by the deletion of paragraph (d), and "by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (d)" after which it inserts new paragraphs (e) to (r). Is there to be a paragraph (d) in section 3(1) of the Act from now on? Is it going to jump from paragraph (c) to paragraph (e), given that paragraph (e) is the next paragraph in quotation marks to be added after the deleted paragraph (d)? Is there some convention that all the letters will change to allow for the deletion of paragraph (d)?

There is one other point that I want to raise for the consideration of the Minister of State. It is something I came across in the course of my work. There are restrictions on persons receiving salaries who are in charge of charities. That seems very plausible until we come to the situation where, for example, a university is a charitable body.Does the fact that the president receives a salary from a university by virtue of the fact that he or she is the head of that university mean that the person in charge of the board of the university, that is, the president, the person who chairs the board and receives a salary for doing do, is prohibited by other provisions of the Act, as unamended, from receiving a salary, or is there a difficulty in those circumstances? It is an issue I came across in the course of my professional life and it caused me some difficulty of interpretation. It seemed to me that a university is and can be a charity. If, however, its president can draw a salary and is in charge of the board of that charitable body, there seems to be a problem in prohibiting the head of the board of the charity from deriving a salary from it. I ask the Minister of State to deal with that.

In general terms, however, I am positive towards this legislation. I believe that the Charities Regulatory Authority needs to be in a position to enforce the law relating to charities. I take on board what my friends have said about a multiplicity of charities. Sometimes one wonders if there is needless duplication, and perhaps the authority should have a role in pointing out to the public where there is duplication and where there could be a case for a merger or whatever. In general terms, however, everyone in Ireland wants an effective charities regulatory regime. They want to ensure that money given for charitable purposes is spent wisely and economically in pursuit of those purposes and that administrative and employment expenses are kept within reasonable bounds, bearing in mind the nature of the activities carried on by the charity.