Charities Bill 2007 - Report Stage - 11th December 2008
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Before we commence, I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of the amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: On a point of order, is a briefing note on the new amendments available? Will the Minister of State have a script?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State will deal with each amendment as it arises. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 1 of the list of amendments made in Committee, to delete the text inserted by amendment no. 3, and to substitute the following:
"(iii) none of the property of which is payable to the members of the body other than in accordance with section 88,".
Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy John Curran): Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are technical amendments.
Senator David Norris: Is the amendment being seconded?
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator beat me to it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Under Standing Orders Government amendments do not need a seconder.
Deputy John Curran: They provide for the necessary redefinition of charitable organisations and trusts arising from section 88 which allows for charitable organisations to enter into certain agreements with charity trustees or connected persons that would have been contrary to the previous definition.
Senator David Norris: Some of the amendments are welcome but there is an astonishing number of them. Will the Minister of State provide an explanation for why no less than 65 of the 80 amendments, that is, well in excess of 70% or three quarters of them, are Government amendments? I accept it is the function of the House to amend but it is astonishing that 65 amendments out of 80 are Government amendments given that the Bill was already before the Houses and lapsed prior to the previous general election and there has been plenty of time to consider it. Since there is such a plethora of amendments, it encourages one to hope the debate we had earlier will lead the Minister of State to address the most significant omissions. I will continue to press the human rights amendment with strong support from academic and other organisations involved, especially given that it is so close to international Human Rights Day.
Deputy John Curran: Senator Norris is correct that there are a number of Government amendments. Report and Final Stages of the Bill were concluded in the Dáil recently. I am anxious that before the Bill is finalised it would be reviewed by the Attorney General's office. I think that is an appropriate exercise. Accordingly, some amendments are drafting ones for the sake of clarity. I have no problem accepting suitable amendments. The amendments have been introduced on purely technical and drafting grounds in recognition of previous amendments and to tidy up the Bill in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 1 of the list of amendments made in Committee, to delete the text inserted by amendment no. 4 and substitute the following:
" "charitable trust" means a trust-
(a) established for a charitable purpose only,
(b) established under a deed of trust that requires the trustees of the trust to apply all of the property (both real and personal) of the trust in furtherance of that purpose except for moneys expended in the management of the trust, and
(c) none of the property of which is payable to the trustees of the trust other than in accordance with section 88;".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 2 agreed?
Senator David Norris: It is welcomed.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 3 and 40 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 1 of the list of amendments made in Committee, to delete the text inserted by amendment no. 5 and substitute the following:
" "education body" means-
(a) a vocational education committee established by section 7 of the Vocational Education Act 1930,
(b) a recognised school within the meaning of the Act of 1998,
(c) a management committee established for the purposes of section 37 of the Act of 1998,
(d) a parents' association established in accordance with section 26 of the Act of 1998,
(e) a student council established in accordance with section 27 of the Act of 1998,
(f) an institution of higher education within the meaning of the Higher Education Authority Act 1971 (amended by section 52 of the Institutes of Technology Act 2006), or
(g) a body established solely for the purpose of funding not more than one such institution of higher education;".
Deputy John Curran: Last week I introduced an amendment that excluded certain educational organisations from particular provisions of the Bill. Having reflected further on the matter and following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, I table these two amendments today to have the following effect. Having consulted the Department of Education and Science, I am adding third level educational fund-raising foundations to the definition of education body. In the amendment I introduced last week, inter alia, I exempted education bodies from the requirement to keep books of accounts under section 47. On further consideration, having taken advice on the matter, I believe it is essential that the financial position of a charity should be verifiable at any given time and in this regard I am removing the previous exemption under section 47. It is not unreasonable to expect an organisation to maintain financial records, especially where it enjoys an exemption from having to file a statement of accounts.
Senator David Norris: This is a welcome amendment. I have had an opportunity to work, for example, with vocational education committees and they provide a very good service. I note the wording of the final part of the amendment, "a body established solely for the purpose of funding not more than one such institution of higher education". A number of bodies, especially VECs, receive central funding, in other words, funding from citizens. They are not necessarily just voluntary contributions. They receive also voluntary contributions through their charitable status and the public is entitled to an account for those. We have had a number of recent scandals that were rather surprising and regrettable. They occurred in institutions that the majority of people in this country respect, admire, and which many have used. The same is true of VECs. This is a question of accountability and I welcome it. The Minister of State has done a good job by introducing these paired amendments.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I, too, welcome the amendment. By removing the exemption, one removes also a question mark over a particular body. In any case, such a body would keep proper accounts, and it is vital it would do so. Educational bodies should have the same status as any other charity in that regard.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I welcome the amendment. This is a welcome removal. I hope it will augment the work already being done in the keeping of accounts. However, it is important we do not place an unnecessary burden on educational establishments in particular in respect to audited accounts. I am concerned we may be allowing a level of carelessness to creep in here. The amendment is welcome. In revoking reference to education we are making a positive statement. There is a growth of educational trusts in the third level area and fund-raising is an important part of the primary and second level education sectors.
Deputy John Curran: I thank the Senators for their comments.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 4, 9 and 61 are related and can be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 9, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"(c) an approved body of persons within the meaning of section 235 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997,".
Deputy John Curran: The amendment seeks to reinsert the provision excluding an approved body of persons within the meaning of section 235 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which was removed last week on Committee Stage. The Bill seeks to retain the status quo as regards charitable purposes. Sport is not regarded as a charitable purpose. Therefore bodies of persons under section 235 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 cannot become charitable organisations. I do not believe that considering the inclusion of sporting bodies as charities on the principled basis that a particular advantage might accrue to them under the taxation system is a sound approach. Revenue will still retain the absolute right to make its own determination on eligibility for tax exemptions for any body on or not on the register of charities. Therefore, I cannot accept the Opposition amendments before the House on this matter as they are directly contrary to the intent of the Bill and they also involve amendments to tax law, which is not within my remit.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is a pity the Minister of State intends to reverse the excellent decision we took in this House last week. I commend the House on its support of the amendments we tabled. There is broad consensus on the Bill. The Minister of State has support across the board for the main rubrics of the Bill. I cannot comprehend why the Government has introduced amendments that do not allow for the advancement of sport or the promotion of human rights. We need to address the concerns of many sporting organisations and of the umbrella organisation, the Federation of Irish Sports. The Government amendment does not address those concerns.
I appeal to Senator Ó Murchú and his colleagues to recognise the importance of sport and the importance of the promotion of human rights as a positive benefit to the advancement of communities. I appeal also to the Minister of State not to reverse the decision of last week. The purpose of the previous amendment was to broaden the scope of the definition of charitable purpose outlined in the legislation. As it stands, the purpose and the goals of some worthwhile organisations that contribute great benefits to the community are not recognised in the section of the Bill outlining charitable purposes.
I thank the Minister of State's officials for their briefing. They have been very upfront and honourable and I pay tribute to them. However, I do not see the logic of the restrictions the Minister of State is putting in place. He has not convinced me, nor has he convinced other Senators.
At this eleventh hour, the scope of the definition should be broadened to ensure sports organisations qualify automatically under the definition of "charitable purpose". There can be no doubt that sports organisations contribute greatly to communities. They benefit them and people prosper. If one considers the society in which we live, one will note that a young boy is before the courts this morning. There is, therefore, a gaping hole in the Government's policy for providing sports, community and recreational facilities. Sports clubs and organisations are filling that void. Government policy should be to deliver what is required to tackle problems associated with health, education and all other sectors of society. This side of the House will oppose amendment No. 4.
It is true the majority of sports organisations would qualify under the definition of "charitable purpose" based on the criteria outlined in that they are of benefit to the community. However, it makes no sense to refer to their purpose within the relevant section of the Bill to ensure there is no ambiguity involved. I am at pains to understand why the definition of "charitable purpose" should not be broadened, especially given that sports organisations have contributed to communities' well-being. The Government talks about the promotion of health but the most important vehicle for doing so is sport. It promotes social inclusion and enhances the community spirit among all strata of society. Sport transcends gender and all age groups. Surely the legislation should reflect sport's charitable contribution to society. We will oppose the amendment.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: There is no doubt the decision Senator Buttimer referred to last week has certainly become part of the folklore of Seanad Éireann. It will probably be debated and discussed for a long time to come. We will not make any progress in that regard this morning and we will deal, therefore, with the actual amendments before us.
Senator Buttimer is quite right that sport is vital to the well-being of a community. Of this there is no doubt. "Sport" is a very broad term and many of us realise that it is very much a commercial business. I sometimes regret this because I am often very dissatisfied that, if a team at a certain level does not do well, we call for the head of the manager straight away. This is a side to sport that unfortunately has come to the fore. There is also pressure put on those who represent us in the Olympic Games.
At Oireachtas committees, I have often stated there is much to be said for the old-fashioned approach to sport, which involves doing one's very best, for the honour of the little village if that is what one is representing. I genuinely hope we will return to this approach because I have seen people who have been made absolute wrecks as a result of the pressure put on them by the media and others.
The Minister of State has made it quite clear that a tax law has an implication in respect of these amendments. That is ultimately a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. If there is a tax law implication and we proceed along the lines proposed, we will have to revisit the legislation. The Minster of State said from day one that it was not a matter of expanding out of all recognition what is already in place regarding charities but that it was a matter of copperfastening the legislation already in place. Organisations with charitable status will continue to have such status under the new regulatory authority. We all welcome this because it immediately does away with a whole line of applicants. It also takes the pressure off the many existing charities in terms of their having to comply with whatever is necessary in the application process.
The advice the Minister of State has given on tax law implications is important. It would be wrong of us to detract and distract from existing charities by including large commercial bodies as if they, too, were charities.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister of State is not taking on board the amendment that was considered in the House last week. Amendment No. 9, which concerns the advancement of sport, was suggested by the Federation of Irish Sports, which represents 60 different sports organisations. The amendment seeks to ensure that bodies whose primary purpose is the advancement of sport will be included in the legislation.
Last week we had a very full debate on this issue and I do not want to rehash the same arguments. Suffice it to say the amendment was supported by Members on the other side of the House. Independent Members, such as Senator Mullen, voted in favour of it, the Green Party decided not to oppose it and Fine Gael and the Labour Party voted in favour of it. I am a little disappointed that Fianna Fáil will not take it on board. The opinion of the House was clear and, if the amendment is pressed, I will vote in favour of it again today.
Senator David Norris: I agree with much of what Senator Ó Murchú said. The amateur element in sport is very important. When sport becomes a business, it loses many of its values, which, tragically, has happened in the United States.
I remember saying quite a number of years ago in the Houses of the Oireachtas that I used to watch wrestling from Manchester with Kent Walton.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Giant Haystacks.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Big Daddy.
Senator David Norris: Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks and the wonderful Mick McManus, who was a savage in the ring but who collected Ming porcelain. He could be very delicate in his aesthetic appreciation. The interesting thing about wrestling then was that it was fun, theatre and sport. Then it moved to the World Wrestling Federation and it became utterly unscrupulous. The values were different and it was a matter of winning at all costs by cheating, smashing and using outlawed weaponry, the very values that led the United States, tragically, into the Gulf War.
Whatever about the Battle of Waterloo being won on the playing fields of Eton, I believe a moral is to be learned from sport. We certainly learned one during the Special Olympics World Games. When one participant fell, that person's colleagues, instead of saying, "Great, this is my opportunity, I will really rub their nose in it.", actually went back to help the fallen participant and all crossed the line together. Everyone felt this was heartening. I therefore agree with Senator Ó Murchú on the amateur element in sport.
I do not agree, however, that the proposed provision will facilitate just, or even principally, the large organisations such as the IRFU and the GAA. These organisations already receive enormous sums of money and seem to be able to tap into any fund. One need only consider the dispersal of lottery funding. The IRFU and the GAA receive enormous and disproportionate sums of lottery funding. The bodies being excluded from benefit by the legislation are the very amateur bodies about which Senator Ó Murchú is so passionate. They are the ones that will suffer because one can only obtain tax relief on money spent on capital projects. One cannot claim tax back for hiring boxing instructors or coaches of various kinds. These are very necessary, particularly for the amateur groups.
On the business of copperfastening, to which Senator Ó Murchú referred, the Minister of State made the point that the legislation is really a tidying up exercise and that it is intended to confirm the status quo. Confirming the status quo is not terribly adventurous government. If it was a question of copperfastening and tidying up, a better job could have been done.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: That is why I asked my initial question about the number of amendments.
I accept that many of these amendments may well strengthen the Bill. This is not the first time the Bill has made the rounds because it was proposed before the last election so there was that period to look at it. There was the period between the two Administrations and the period when the Bill was being prepared before it was presented to this House, yet 75% of the amendments are Government amendments.
That leads me to the Minister of State's argument that it is all about technical difficulties with tax. It is an argument I can understand, that in order for this amendment to be sustained, it would necessitate changes in tax law, which is not under the remit of the Minister of State, but rather that of his colleague, the Minister for Finance. That should have been explored with the Minister for Finance and the appropriate assurances should have been given by the two Departments.
It is very welcome that this House is absolutely pulsating at present with young blood, in the corridors and in the Public Gallery. While I am not inviting our guests to make a contribution, I wonder what they think of a Government that is turning its face against allowing sport to be considered, particularly the type of amateur sport that many of them may be engaged in, and preventing that from being recognised as a legitimate charitable purpose. I would not like to shock them too much, but I reveal at this point that later we will be looking at the question of excluding human rights. What a celebration of Human Rights Day, which was yesterday.
We very often look to our United Kingdom colleagues for models of legislation. Very often this is a form of legislative laziness. We just take down the UK Bill and stick it in here with a few harps and things around it to make it Irish. However, in the Northern Ireland legislation, this matter is addressed. The proposed definition of "charitable purpose", to be found in clause 2 of the Northern Ireland Bill follows closely the broad definition of the English Charities Act 2006, with new references included to the advancement of amateur sport. That, I believe, addresses all the matters raised by Senator Ó Murchú and should assuage his doubts because it clearly points in the direction of amateur sport. If they can do it 90 miles up the road, I do not see why we cannot do so, particularly given that we are so anxious to have a united Ireland.
I notice that every day we are widening the gap in legislation between the two jurisdictions in Ireland. I wonder when I hear people talking about boycotting Newry whether they are committed to a Thirty-two County Ireland. It does not sound to me like an all-Ireland republic, unless they propose to isolate Newry as some type of curious principality, such as Andora or, indeed, that oddest of all states, the Vatican. I am sorry, but I could not resist the dig.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 5 is a Government amendment which arises out of Committee Stage and is in the names of Senators Hannigan, Alex White, McCarthy, Ryan, Prendergast and Kelly.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 10, line 4, to delete "activities, or" and substitute the following:
"activities, whether in the State or outside the State, or".
Deputy John Curran: One of my basic aims in respect of this legislation is to make charities secure against takeover or against being undermined or misused by criminal or terrorist groups. It is vital this does not happen. Members may remember that during my opening remarks on Committee Stage last week, I signalled that I was examining the references to terrorism in the Bill. In this regard, I have consulted the Office of the Attorney General in respect of a possible concern that the existing wording in the Bill relating to terrorism might be interpreted as referring only to terrorism in this jurisdiction. While my advice is that the existing wording applies to terrorism in any jurisdiction, I am introducing an amendment for the avoidance of doubt in this regard. I thank Members for their input on this matter.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I thank the Minister of State for so doing. He gave that undertaking last week and I appreciate that the Bill will be changed to reflect it.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I support this amendment. All Members are aware that terrorism is extraterritorial and I am pleased this has been included.
Senator David Norris: While it is reasonable to include the amendment, I do not feel as threatened by terrorism as do some others. However, I take this opportunity to compliment Senator Hannigan, who has enjoyed a series of unusual successes for someone in his first term in the Seanad. It is refreshing when one puts in such energy and is rewarded by having a direct impact on legislation, even in a small way, by having one's amendments accepted. This is a good day.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Like other speakers, I compliment Senator Hannigan on highlighting this issue and I thank the Minister of State. Like Senator Norris, I do not feel so threatened by terrorism but it is important to have protection and I welcome the amendment.
Deputy John Curran: During the debate on Committee Stage, Senator Hannigan mentioned the Supreme Court D case, which related to the Criminal Assets Bureau and which stated that unless legislation specifically mentioned the rest of the world, it applied only to Ireland. Based on the legal advice, the proposed amendment removes any doubt that any organisation involved in terrorism in any jurisdiction would be excluded.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 6 in the names of Senators Hannigan, Alex White, McCarthy, Ryan, Prendergast and Kelly arises from Committee Stage.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, after line 40, to insert the following:
"(2) This Act applies to humanism as it applies to religion.".
While the Labour Party tabled this amendment on Committee Stage, it withdrew it because there also was a reference to cults. I have resubmitted it to state "This Act applies to humanism as it applies to religion." The Minister of State will be aware that the US Supreme Court has recognised that humanism is a religion for the purposes of the religious charitable exemption there. Consequently, this exemption is in line with what has been done elsewhere. The Humanist Association of Ireland met the Taoiseach and other Ministers to discuss humanism in Ireland and at the time its representatives were assured there would be parity of esteem between humanists and religious groups. This is the first opportunity for the Government to deliver on that commitment and, unfortunately, by excluding humanism, it has flunked it. It has not met the commitment it gave to the Humanist Association of Ireland. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this new amendment and I hope he will see fit to include it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment formally seconded?
Senator David Norris: If Senator Hannigan needs a seconder, I would be honoured to second the amendment.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I also would be happy to second it.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I appreciate that.
Senator David Norris: While Members have rehearsed this issue on a previous Stage of the Bill, I wish to introduce a new element. I received a very brilliant paper by Dr. Oonagh B. Breen of the school of law at University College Dublin, Belfield, in which she comments on the manner in which this matter is addressed in Northern Ireland legislation. My eyesight is not great and I am prepared to be corrected by the Minister of State, but I have looked without success for a definition of religion in the Bill. The Minister should inform me whether it contains such a definition.
Deputy John Curran: No.
Senator David Norris: That is an extraordinary omission that the Minister of State should consider because practically everything else has been defined, down to the hairpins. For example, it defines "church" as the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, albeit not, I am glad to say, exclusively, as there is permission for other churches to survive. However, there is no definition of religion although there are definitions of all kinds of other matters. If one is dealing with religion and if one intends to exclude humanism, the least one should do is to provide a definition of religion.
I do not know whether the Minister of State, as a good sportsman, can take an amendment on the hop as he would a ball, but to be helpful, the Northern Ireland Bill provides for a statutory definition of religion that includes express references to faiths that do not profess belief in a god, as well as to polytheistic religions. This statutory definition, which was first seen in the English Charities Act 2006, is cognisant of the multicultural make-up of Northern Irish society. This recognition of religious difference goes beyond the law in Ireland, where the definition of religion remains a matter of common law interpretation based primarily on belief in, and worship of, a supreme being. The proposed statutory definition in Northern Ireland should facilitate the registration of nontheistic organisations, including, for example, humanist, Confucian and even Buddhist organisations as religious charities if they otherwise satisfy the public benefit test in Northern Ireland.
While I am unsure whether it is possible to take this on board, this Bill deals with a matter in which religion is central to at least one section. However, no definition has been provided. I do not make this point with an intention to carp or to water down the beliefs of any particular church. I am a regular churchgoer, but I do not approve of the current practice whereby everyone, when reciting the Nicene Creed, is obliged to say "We believe". I know what I believe but I have not the slightest idea of what the people in the next pew believe and I will not say anything on their behalf. Their religious views and values probably alter in respect of the state of their digestion, the time of day and so on. Moreover, there are certain things I simply do not say. As I do not believe in the resurrection of the body, I will not say it. I am happy to believe in the resurrection of the dead.
Members should try to provide a definition of religion and, in its absence, they must go in the direction of Senator Hannigan's amendment. I am neither a humanist nor an atheist, but people of very high ethical standards who promote values such as this should be afforded a space within Ireland's charities legislation.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The amendment is an interesting one from the point of view of the definition of humanism. What is the meaning humanism in modern 21st century Ireland? My party is not opposed to the amendment, but we would like to see a definition of humanism.
Like Senator Norris, I am a regular church-goer and I believe in the resurrection of the body and the soul.
Senator David Norris: I do not believe in Senator Buttimer's either, or Senator Mullen's. I find that a great relief. It is a comfort.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The growth of humanism needs to be looked at in the context of the Bill. We have not included a definition of religion, which, I suppose, is an omission that perhaps should be looked at.
In the context of where we are at in this Bill, we need to recognise the importance of people who, as Senator Norris stated, are of high ethical standards and who do promote values. Therefore, we would not have any difficulty with the amendment before us. However, I would like to hear a definition of humanism.
Senator Rónán Mullen: This is turning out to be an interesting debate. I am sorry that Senator Norris does not believe in the resurrection of the body.
Senator David Norris: The dead, yes; the body, no.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I am looking forward to my new glorified body in the next scheme of things.
Senator David Norris: He could do with the glorification.
Senator Rónán Mullen: I could certainly do with a make-over. I am very much inclined to support Senator Hannigan's amendment. I like the look of it. It proceeds from a generosity of spirit in including groups who have ethical values in our society. The way it is worded, that it would apply to humanism as it applies to religion, does not proceed from any intention to water down religion or the value society places on religion.
It might be worth saying at this point that what Senator Norris is proposing would not pass constitutional muster. We are in a different constitutional set-up south of the Border. It is interesting to note that Article 44 of the Constitution, for example, pledges the State specifically to acknowledge the importance of "the homage ... due to Almighty God." It is not often reflected on, but the State is not neutral on the issue of religion. The Constitution values the religious experience very highly. It refers in explicit terms to the value of acknowledging the role of religious faith in society. However, that need not necessarily have negative implications for people who do not have religious faith. That is why I say I would be inclined to support what Senator Hannigan has proposed.
I would not go with the approach of the US Supreme Court which would try, as I think Senator Norris is suggesting in the Northern Irish context, to lump in humanism as a form of religion. That would be to deprive what I like to call authentic religion of its unique and positive character in society.
In the spirit of the new era, which I hope we are approaching, which is one where we take a generous approach to the different convictions of others and also to the absence of conviction on the part of certain people on the meaning of life or the origin of our existence and, indeed, our ultimate destiny as persons, it is good that there are people in society who, while not professing religious faith, express a desire to be associated with strong ethical values that are communitarian in nature.
I certainly hear that from time to time from people who do not share my faith or any religious faith. I have come across it recently, for example, on the pro-life issue in the context of my Stem-Cell Research (Protection of Human Embryos) Bill where several people told me they did not really share what they thought were my religious convictions but they were with me on the issue covered by the legislation. I do not wish to single out that issue unduly. There may well be other humanists who would not be with me on that but who would none the less walk the road in terms of a vision of society that is inclusive, communitarian, etc.
For that reason, it would be good if we were to find a way to include the aspirations of groups who come together, do not profess religious faith but, like religious faith communities, none the less seek to advance values in our society which, as I have stated, are communitarian and promote altruistic behaviour, if one wants to call it that, in various ways.
It surprises me that one point on which I agree with Senator Norris, and on which he is absolutely right, is "We believe", because in Latin it is "Credo", in the first person singular. That is probably the more correct approach to take in the Profession of Faith.
Senator David Norris: We will have to get back to the Latin mass and the Cranbrook prayer book.
Senator Rónán Mullen: As I do not want to alarm Senator Norris by agreeing with him on too many matters, I will conclude my comments with that.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: We could have an animated discussion on religion but my better judgment tells me to stay clear of the theological minefield presented by Senator Norris. Perhaps some other day we can have a full debate on that.
I must admit I am fairly ignorant about humanism. I always thought it was an antidote to religion. Perhaps that is misinformed in its own way.
Senator David Norris: It places the human, rather than God, at the centre.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I cannot speak for the Holy Spirit, obviously,-----
Senator Jerry Buttimer: But Senator Ó Murchú is imbued with it.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: -----but I would be surprised if the Holy Spirit is not in there among humanists as well, in their own way.
Religion in many ways is community and in other ways it is individual. We need to be very careful when it is community and when it is individual. I will focus on individual for the moment. There is a slight danger here - I do not attribute this to anyone who has promoted the idea here or elsewhere - that often when someone wants to become part of someone else's party, so to speak, it is intended to distract or dilute from that. I would be a little worried that to put humanism in the same context as religious is precisely what it could do. In fairness, it is not prescriptive enough when it comes to legislation. I do not know what will be the Minister of State's response to it, but my first reaction is that it is not the category for humanism.
Deputy John Curran: As Senators will be aware, the Charities Bill 2007 provides that the advancement of religion shall have a charitable purpose with a rebuttable provision to deal with those organisations whose religious credentials are doubtful or whose methods are suspect. The Bill does not attempt to define religion, nor would it be wise to do so as religion has a much wider context than merely charity law. The other principal charitable purposes such as poverty and education have similarly not been defined in the Bill. It will be a matter then for the charities regulatory authority to determine, in a case-by-case basis utilising common law and precedent as well as its own expertise, whether an applicant body has a charitable purpose and serves a public benefit. In addition, it will be open to all applicants for charitable status to appeal decisions to the authority, to the charity appeals board and, in turn, to the High Court. In that regard, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from both sides of the House. I am disappointed that the Minister of State will not accept this but I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 11, line 29, to delete "regarded as being".
Deputy John Curran: Amendment No. 7 is a drafting amendment removing text considered to be superfluous.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 8, 14, 15 and 16 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(b) the promotion of human rights,".
This relates to the promotion of human rights. It is a slightly different wording than that of my party's amendment last week. This would give the same definition that is included in other jurisdiction such as England and Wales where, in both cases, the protection and promotion of human rights is included within their Acts. That is all we seek to do. We are concerned the consequences of excluding them mean some organisations may lose their charitable status because of some of the sections in the Act. We encourage the Minister of State to include the amendment in the Bill.
Senator David Norris: I have indicated that I very much regret this Government clearly has committed itself to a policy that is deeply antagonistic to the entire area of human rights.
There cannot be any doubt about that. I know from speaking to my Fianna Fáil and Green Party colleagues that Members on the opposite side of the House have equally little doubt about the matter. I commend the Green Party and Deputy Cuffe in particular, for bravely standing up to oppose the Government's swingeing attacks on human rights. This Bill comprises a small part of an attack being made across all Departments. This is a shameful campaign and it renders valueless the speeches made by Government Members on human rights day.
I will not rehearse the comments I made earlier but will, if the House permits me, quote from a learned paper by Dr. Oonagh Breen because it is important to flesh out the political views of people such as me with the opinion of somebody with an extensive academic acquaintance of this area. Dr. Breen states: "No reasons have been publicly offered for the subsequent deletion of the advancement of human rights from the published Bill." This comes on foot of the fact that the initial consultation paper on charity law reform did not originally include human rights in the proposed list of charitable purposes but the public's disagreement with this policy decision led the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht affairs to remedy this omission in its 2006 general scheme of the bill with express reference to the charitable nature of the advancement of human rights. Human rights were specifically removed, therefore. Nobody can tell me that is not sinister. Dr. Breen continues:
The Minister of State for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, although promising to return to the issue at report stage, declined to speculate on the possibility ultimately making the list other than to say the matter was being considered by the relevant departments and the Attorney General.
I want the Minister of State to specifically state whether he has received advice from the Attorney General on this issue and, if so, whether it was negative and what it contained. Is this a political decision rather than one with a firm legal basis?
Dr. Breen states:
It is trite but true to say that the issue will turn upon politics or, at least, a conception of what is "political" and whether political acts, even if not for political purposes, should qualify as charitable. In the absence of an express charitable purpose in favour of human rights, human rights organisations may find no natural home for themselves in the statute other than the broad heading of organisations supportive of "political causes". From a legal perspective, given the existence of so many human rights organisations that pursue charitable purposes, this default labelling - or even the potential for such default classification - is an altogether insufficient categorisation of the promotion of human rights in the context of charity law.
These comments do not come from the alliance of charities, which could be said to have an axe to grind. This is the dispassionate view of a professional whose legal expertise has been brought to bear on the problem. Dr. Breen further states:
The problem with s. 2, as it stands, is twofold. First, it offers no insight into what is meant by the phrase "political cause" that, if found to be a body's principal object, results in its non-eligibility for charitable status. Ultimately, human rights organisations stand to lose the most from this. There is no direct judicial authority on the meaning or scope of the phrase "political cause" to assist the regulator in applying this concept. In a non-charity context, the High Court has interpreted the phrase "political end", drawing upon English charity case law in its exegesis, but it is unclear whether the terms are synonymous. If promotion of human rights is ultimately excluded from the statutory list of charitable purposes (putting the Irish definition at odds with that of its neighbours, all of which expressly recognise the charitable status of human rights bodies), organisations in this field would be well advised to set out their objects as precisely as possible in the governing instrument, relating them back to the other established heads of charity and demonstrating the non-political ways in which human rights will be promoted.
A second problem with s. 2 relates to its limits. As discussed above, s. 2 is concerned solely with the purposes for which an organisation is established. It is silent on the extent to which legitimate charities may employ political means to achieve their ends.
I apologise for quoting more extensively than I normally do. I usually speak off the cuff rather than refer to documents but these points are so convincing and irrefutable from an independent and dispassionate perspective that if the Government refuses to address them, it will be clear that the Bill represents another attack on human rights. Particularly due to its actions over the past year, this hypocritical Government has the worst human rights record of any I can recall in my 21 years in this House. It is mounting a sustained attack on the Combat Poverty Agency, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority. They are irritants but that is the reason they should be supported. Otherwise, we might as well abolish the Opposition, pestilent Independent Members and turbulent priests of a non-Roman Catholic variety.
I received correspondence from FLAC, Amnesty, Frontline and ICCL which referred to a report by the Charities Commission for England and Wales entitled Charities Working in the Field of Human Rights. This report points out that human rights charities are more likely to have complaints made against them because of the high profile of their work. It states:
Broadly speaking we found that these charities' performance and governance arrangements were in line with other charities. We did, though, find evidence of more complaints about their work than other types of charities. This is perhaps unsurprising
given the generally high profile and contentious nature of the fields in which they work.
With human rights consistently under the media spotlight, and the recent recognition of the promotion of human rights as a description of a charitable purpose in its own right in the Charities Act 2006, we hope this short overview illustrates some of the diverse ways charities seek to promote and safeguard human rights...
Human rights are seen as fundamental to the healthy functioning of society and respect for human rights is generally seen as a moral imperative. In [Britain], the implementation in 2000 of the Human Rights Act 1998 reinforces the legal imperative.
In 2002, the Government's Strategy Unit report Private Action, Public Benefit recommended the inclusion, in the proposed new Charities Act, of the promotion of human rights as a charitable purpose in its own right. Its reasoning was that this would "allow charities to play their full part in the vital tasks of protecting human rights both in the UK and overseas" In the same year, the Charity Commission recognised the promotion of human rights as a charitable purpose in its own right...
Our findings were that human rights charities are broadly very similar to other charities on the Register in terms of their structure and governance. They have very similar concerns and issues to other types of charity. However, in some areas, while the concerns are similar, they are magnified for human rights charities.
That is an unanswerable case and the Minister of State will commit an act of moral cowardice if he evades it. All the charities have made this case. Why are they being spurned? I understand that independent reports submitted to the Government on this area made similar recommendations. It will be a black day for this House and for the Minister of State if he refuses, even at this late stage, to include human rights as part of the definition. It puts into context the public statements yesterday from members of the Government parties. I honour the Green Party and its representatives for taking a strong line on this issue and I urge them to continue to do so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator seconding the amendment?
Senator David Norris: I second the amendment, if that is all right with Senator Hannigan. I would also like to move my own amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator cannot move his amendment at this stage.
Senator David Norris: When the time is appropriate, I will do so. I see my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Boyle, sitting on the Government benches. I do not deplore the fact that the Green Party is in government with Fianna Fáil. That gives a certain degree of leverage in this matter and whatever happens today with this issue, I hope Senator Boyle and his colleagues, both in this and`in the other House, will use that leverage to try to bring some moral value to the views taken in these areas so disgracefully by the Fianna Fáil element of the Government.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: What is before us is, to say the least, bizarre. We are talking about the advancement of the promotion of human rights in this section of the Bill. I do not agree with Senator Norris on the leverage held by the Green Party.
Senator David Norris: I did not think the Senator would.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: If the Green Party is in government and is supposed to be an equal partner, why are we at this point? We will, no doubt, get a long lecture from Senator Boyle about Fine Gael and Labour opposing Bills and our record on human rights.
Senator Dan Boyle: I do not need to give it, the Senator has done it for me.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am pre-empting the Senator's comments as I can read him like a book.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am glad I am so easy to read.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Why are we in the current position if the social conscience of the Government is Senator Boyle and his cabal?
All this week we are, rightly, celebrating the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today in Ireland we are restricting the inclusion of the promotion of human rights in consensus-oriented legislation for no apparent reason. Senator Norris is right in that we have received extensive consultation with human rights organisations, all of which are united in their views.
We have not heard a cogent explanation as to why this measure is being rejected, especially when it was contained in the original heads of the Bill. Why has it been removed? There is a need to look at the model in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where the legislation Senator Norris read to the House has been effectively introduced. Why can it not be introduced here and what is the issue? What are we afraid of?
The concept of this amendment is to promote human rights. Yesterday, Amnesty International published a document outlining ten actions for every Deputy and Senator. If we are to be serious about the advancement and promotion of human rights, the amendments put forward by us on this side of the House should be accepted. Unfortunately, the Government has ignored, in every step of the legislative process so far, attempts to include them and that is regrettable.
I will not go back over the debate we had last week on Committee Stage. The joint correspondence we got from Amnesty International, FLAC, the ICCL and Frontline asks a number of questions which should be answered by the Minister of State today. Is it purely about tax and revenue in the Department of Finance? Perhaps in his reply the Minister of State will address some of the concerns of the organisations, the representatives of which I know the Minister of State has spoken to. We must get an answer.
It is regrettable that we will again divide the House today on important legislation dealing with the promotion and advancement of human rights when we have not had a cogent message from Government as to why it has acted in such a way and the thinking behind this exclusion from the Bill. The Minister of State may indicate there is a five-year review but why not start today and include the bodies, as I argued last week? If the Department finds the practice is not working in five years, it could be reviewed then. Why are they being excluded today? We have not had answers from Government and we need them.
Senator Dan Boyle: Yesterday I attended an event hosted by Amnesty International to mark the 60th anniversary of the publication of the agreement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I spoke candidly at that event, probably too candidly, but I would like to use the opportunity of Report Stage to repeat much of what I said there because I stand by it.
I cannot understand why the original reference to human rights in the scheme of the Bill has been removed. I do not agree with that, although I am involved in a Government process that obliges me to accept it because it has gone through Government procedures. I already stated in my speech on Second Stage that I believe this is good legislation which is flawed as a result of that omission. This has not come about through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. As a result of general Government processes, concerns have been raised, not specifically political concerns, in other Departments.
There is a view that human rights in their widest aspect are not considered with unanimity as they should be. Human rights exist in different contexts as there are civic and political human rights, on which there is a broad degree of consensus. These include democratic principles and the involvement of people in civic life. There are other human rights, such as social and economic, which engender ongoing political debate.
As far as I and my party are concerned, these are also inalienable human rights, and seeking to afford those rights is part of the democratic role of any citizen. No political process should stand aside, whether informed by administrators or elective political representatives, from seeking that such rights be attained.
If the Minister is not prepared to address the issue, the existing operations under a human rights banner could find themselves with spurious and political challenges for existing or being seen to affect charitable operations in their status. One of the major bodies in the form of Amnesty International has special tax status only because of a particular Irish solution to the Irish problem of failing to recognise human rights in the widest sense. A former Minister for Finance, Richie Ryan, chose to grant the body that status in a Finance Bill. We should no longer have such machinations.
Senator David Norris: Yes.
Senator Dan Boyle: We should not have the validity of well recognised organisations being questioned and uncertainty over their future because of a Bill that is 90% excellent in what it proposes to achieve. The Bill aimed to achieve that at its inception, when it was presented as a scheme by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The fact that it cannot do so now means that either spurious challenges will be made against these organisations or bodies will be formed that will have their validity questioned in future. There will be a need for future legislation to amend this prior to the review mentioned in this legislation.
I am stating that while acknowledging that I will be voting for the Government and against the amendments. The least the Minister can do is bring out regulations, at the earliest opportunity, to define and protect the role of organisations that currently find themselves in this position. The regulations should also define how other organisations, that may come into being under similar circumstances, can be afforded similar protection. If our legislation is not complete, we could find ourselves in difficulties in future because the valuable work of well recognised and publicly accepted organisations is being challenged by someone who disagrees with them politically. The political system should not adopt that approach.
I reluctantly accept that because unelected influences may have had an effect on the Bill and they have been given a weight that is disproportionate to what their individual concerns should be, it will result in a Bill that is missing an important element. How does the Minister of State intend to allay the concerns that will remain until the legislation is eventually completed under the five-year review or, hopefully, though amending legislation? We may feel obliged to propose such amendments because others have been successful in arguing against the issue.
Coalition Government is about give and take, and winning and losing arguments. The most important argument that has been won concerning this Bill, given what was absent from the original draft legislation, is the issue of advocacy. Advocacy is essential in civic society, including all voluntary and charitable organisations, in order to hold a mirror up to the type of society in which we live. The fact that advocacy is now very much part of the Bill will allay some of the ongoing concerns about human rights organisations. It is more important to have a Bill that recognises the charitable intent and purpose of organisations, whatever their historical background. In that way we can hold up a mirror to reflect society and force Governments and the political system generally to account for that. The inclusion of advocacy in the Bill makes it somewhat easier for me to support it, but it will not totally allay my unhappiness that there is a lacuna in the legislation that will eventually have to be filled.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: On Second Stage we all had an opportunity to express our views on human rights issues. I put my position on the record at that time because I felt uncomfortable. I must also put on the record that Senator Norris in particular has been one of the foremost advocates for human rights in this House. On many occasions, particularly on the Order of Business, I have been on the same wavelength as him. There is no doubt but that the organisations which have been mentioned here have done exemplary work. At times, many of us have felt particularly comfortable that such organisations exist, including Amnesty International in particular. On many occasions throughout the world, it has been necessary for Amnesty to put its head above the parapet. When it comes to what we might almost regard as state violence and terrorism, we are lucky to have Amnesty International's reports. The organisation has suffered for its views. It has gone into areas to investigate state terrorism, thus putting the lives of its representatives on the line. For that reason, in the debate on Second Stage, we all expressed our feelings and emotions on that issue.
It is important to send a message to those organisations that their work should be acknowledged with the stand they have taken. Obviously, I do not agree with Senator Norris when he says we have the worst record on human rights. I do not know whether he meant in Europe or in the world generally.
Senator David Norris: If I could explain, I meant in comparison to other governments, in terms of the interference with every single human rights organisation.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I genuinely feel it would be wrong to see Ireland in that regard.
Senator David Norris: No, I would not say that, but I meant compared to other governments, including Fianna Fáil governments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Ó Murchú, without interruption.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: When opportunities arise, we often ask the Government to take an independent stand. Just because one is a member of a particular forum, whether it is the European Union or the United Nations, one does not have to toe the line completely. We saw that during the invasion of Iraq. I can still recall watching that invasion on television as if we were watching a movie, forgetting that people on the receiving end of that indiscriminate bombing were being killed in their thousands. From day one, I made the point on the Order of Business that, first, I did not accept that the invasion of Iraq was justified because certain countries went against the will and procedure of the United Nations and, second, there was absolutely no respect whatsoever for human life. We were able to see the embedded journalists in Iraq telling us what suited the powers that be, but we were never told about the suffering of men, women and children. The number of people who have been indiscriminately killed has run into hundreds of thousands.
Senator David Norris: Yes.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: We have also seen what some of the major powers did in laying their mines in countries they invaded. When they withdraw, however, they leave the mines and it is left to private organisations and spirited people to engage in clearing them. We also saw what mines do to people, not just killing them but also maiming them by blowing off limbs and destroying their lives. There is so much of that going on that an independent voice is needed.
Ireland was the only Government in Europe that took an individual stand against the invasion of the Malvinas or the Falklands war. People said we would suffer for doing so but we did not and, subsequently, our stature improved because we were prepared to stand up. We were not prepared to accept the soccer lingo concerning what they did to the Belgrano.
Senator David Norris: Disgraceful.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: It was totally against all the existing conventions on war. We should bear in mind that there are thousands of examples where we must stand up. On the other hand, while it may not be the strongest argument, I do not contribute to the notion that the organisations I have mentioned are the only custodians of human rights. I would regard that as a weakness in the protection of human rights, which are a matter for each individual and every organisation also. I am a member of several organisations for which human rights are high on the agenda. For that reason, I am making the case for the charities listed in this Bill.
I have always been a supporter of Amnesty International and contribute fairly generously each year. I was unhappy, however, with the position taken by Amnesty on abortion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I think the Senator may be straying from the amendment.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: The point I am making is part of the amendment.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is not.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: The work done by these organisations has been mentioned, therefore we are entitled to put the other side of the argument. I do not agree with the position taken by Amnesty International on abortion. If one supports human rights, one must support them in all forms, including for the born and the unborn. We cannot genuinely say that Amnesty should have taken that position.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is straying a little from the amendment.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I look forward to the Minister of State's response. Obviously I will be voting with the Government.
I have stated what position individual organisations should take on human rights. If there is a further discussion, we might also respond.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on human rights. Our human rights aspirations should be reflected in legislation. In recent months, organisations that promote human rights in Ireland have been attacked. This is clear from the reduced funding and budgetary changes in respect of the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, which falls under the Good Friday Agreement, the Equality Authority and the abandonment of the Combat Poverty Agency. Given that people experiencing poverty is a human rights issue, any body that voices the concerns of the most vulnerable is a human rights organisation.
I welcome the Green Party's comments, but Senator Boyle's view of coalition government is questionable, given his support for the Bill and despite his statement to the effect that it is empty of an important element. Would a coalition partner not want to express its values? The Senator has spoken strongly on the value of human rights and his wish to change the legislation, but he is accepting a Bill devoid of an important element, namely, human rights.
Why is there such intransigence? Senator Ó Murchú has referred to his discomfort and the Green Party has asked the Government to change the Bill. The Minister of State has been contacted by a range of credible organisations with a long record of quality work in the protection of human rights in Ireland, including the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, Amnesty International, Front Line and others. Why will the Government not accept their comments on including human rights in the Bill?
This week is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After recent actions, the Government is missing a critical opportunity to restore the credibility of its approach to human rights. The arguments are spelled out by those working in this area. Why did the Government remove the advancement of human rights from the Bill? If it had to do with tax concerns or Front Line's arguments, they can be addressed easily. Its exclusion and the consequential impact on the work of human rights organisations give rise to a range of concerns. They will be undermined and presented with further difficulties. They are concerned that they will be excluded if human rights are not included in the Bill.
I wish to place on record some of the concerns of Front Line, Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and FLAC. If the advancement of human rights is not reinstated in the Bill, problems may arise. Since human rights will not constitute a charitable objective, organisations engaging in its advancement will find accessing funding more difficult, given that foundations and donors require clarity regarding charitable status. Will the Minister of State inform the House about how organisations will be able to address this matter?
Like my colleague, Senator Buttimer, the organisations pointed out that the advancement of human rights is a recognised charitable objective in the UK, including Northern Ireland. According to them, the Bill will undermine the principle of equivalence in the Good Friday Agreement. Will the Minister of State respond to this serious issue? United Kingdom organisations that advance human rights will be able to promote their aims in Ireland, but Irish organisations will not be able to benefit from such promotion. That they will be placed at a disadvantage is immediately evident.
Many Senators will have received the organisations' document which states that organisations have a charitable exemption for education, religious or humanitarian work. However, were they to frame their work in human rights terms, the regulator would be able to remove their charitable status. If non-governmental organisations are to retain their status, they will be in the bizarre position of trying to deny that their work includes the advancement of human rights. This is a serious problem. The organisations also claim that they could be subject to malicious complaints to the charities regulator to the effect that they are not working to advance human rights. While I am sure the Minister of State is familiar with these concerns, will he explain how the organisations will deal with them if changes to the Bill are not made?
The organisations estimate that an amazing array of Irish charities, 60 to 200 in total, may have their work with the vulnerable affected by the exclusion of human rights as a charitable purpose. Reviewing the legislation in five years is not good enough as damage could be done in the meantime. Given the week that is in it, the Government has an opportunity to begin making amends for the damage it has done to human rights in recent weeks, as eloquently referred to by Senator Norris. Will the Minister of State review the decision?
Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the opportunity to speak on my amendment No. 14 and related amendments, which seek to include the protection of human rights as a charitable purpose. I am disappointed because, when we debated the matter on Committee Stage, a number of points were strongly made. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.
As others have stated, the Bill in its original form as the 2006 charities regulation Bill included the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose. We do not know what has changed since then that would lead to that goal's removal. From our Committee Stage debate, it appears that no legal objection was made by the Attorney General.
As I stated then, it is the opinion of the human rights committee of the Law Society that the advancement of human rights should be included as a charitable purpose. Subsequently, I provided a copy of that submission to the Minister of State's office, as requested. Given these facts, that the opportunity to reinsert the provision was not taken is disappointing. I hope the Minister of State might accept one of the amendments.
As Senators have stated, this week is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given this, including the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose would be fitting. It is unfortunate the Government has seen fit to attack human rights bodies by undermining the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority and underfunding them next year. As pointed out by the charities that have briefed us - Front Line, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and FLAC - the charitable status of between 60 and 200 organisations could come under threat unless the protection of human rights is included as a charitable purpose.
While others have referred to this, it is important to note some of the difficulties those organisations will face. According to the Minister of State, current charities will retain their status, but this is subject to change and potential challenge. This is of concern to many groups that view their primary purpose as the advancement or protection of human rights.
Even if they have charitable status, they may find it difficult to access funding because the advancement of human rights is not explicitly recognised in our legislation on charities. They may also find themselves open to malicious complaints to the charities regulator. Previous speakers referred to certain charities and took issue with particular views they expressed. I do not believe it is appropriate, in this debate, to take issue with different charities and stances they may have adopted. However, this shows the dangers involved and highlights that human rights-based charities may be the subject of complaints.
I thank the free legal advice centres, FLAC, for recommending to me the 2007 annual report of the Charities Commission for England and Wales which makes the point that human rights charities are more likely to have complaints made against them because of the high profile nature of their work. The commission also pointed out that human rights are seen as fundamental to the healthy functioning of society and that respect for such rights is generally seen as a moral imperative. That is a strong statement. It is also a strong premise on which one could base a list of charitable purposes.
The Minister of State did not provide an adequate explanation in respect of this matter on Committee Stage. He must indicate why he does not propose to reinsert a provision relating to the advancement of human rights in the Bill. He must also indicate why he is not following the legislative models adopted in other jurisdictions to which reference was made on Committee Stage. It is clear that we will be out of line with neighbouring jurisdictions when the legislation is passed. The principle of equivalence of protection of human rights under the British-Irish Agreement will be undermined if we do not include the advancement of human rights as a recognised charitable objective, particularly as it is so recognised in the UK and Northern Ireland.
The charities have pointed out that resources, including funds and volunteers, for human rights objectives may be diverted to neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly as they see those as having stronger protection for the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose.
A great deal more could be said in respect of this matter. However, I do not propose to belabour the point. As a result of the Committee Stage debate, we know of no legal obstacle to the inclusion of the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose. There is no indication that the Attorney General has objected in any way. We are aware that the advancement of human rights is included as a charitable purpose in neighbouring jurisdictions and that difficulties will arise under the British-Irish Agreement if it is excluded. The charities - those most affected - have pointed out the many problems they will encounter if the advancement of human rights is not included as a charitable purpose.
I urge the Minister of State to take on board the sentiments we have expressed, and those put forward so strongly by the Incorporated Law Society's human rights committee and others, and include the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose.
Deputy John Curran: This issue was debated at length on Committee Stage and I accept that Senators have particularly strong views in respect of it. The Bill does not effect any diminution in the status of human rights organisations operating in Ireland.
Senator David Norris: Of course it does.
Deputy John Curran: It has been framed to safeguard their status through the deeming process relating to the register of charities.
Senator David Norris: Rubbish. The Minister of State should not insult the House.
Deputy John Curran: I will refer to that point in a moment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State, without interruption.
Senator David Norris: The Minister of State deserves to be interrupted. What he is saying is a disgrace.
Deputy John Curran: Many of the charitable purposes in the Bill are very closely linked with human rights. My understanding is that no charity has been granted a CHY number by Revenue on the basis that it is a human rights organisation per se.
The Bill does not change the charitable purposes that have developed in common law, nor is it within its gift to do so. As I made clear to the House, it is not the intention of the Bill to widen or to narrow the range of purposes that have become accepted as charitable over time.
The Bill before the House is substantially different in many respects from the general scheme that was originally published. Much of what was contained in the general scheme was based on examples from other common law jurisdictions. Much of the legal guidance received during the drafting reflected that it is not always possible to transfer into Irish law what was in other legislative codes.
As regards human rights and social justice, during the drafting of the Bill and the detailed consultations that were undertaken at that time with other Departments and statutory agencies it emerged that the advancement of human rights and social justice was not a charitable purpose in Ireland. That is why it was removed. As stated on many occasions, the purpose of the Bill is to maintain the status quo and regulate the current system.
Senator David Norris: A very noble ambition.
Deputy John Curran: 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.
Senator David Norris: On a point of order, will the Chair provide a ruling as to whether it is appropriate for the Minister of State to merely read a typescript that was prepared in advance when replying to a detailed debate?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.
Senator David Norris: Will he be kind enough to indicate whether he obtained advice from the Attorney General?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris is being disorderly.
Senator David Norris: If there is nothing in his typescript in respect of the matter, then he could not have obtained such advice. The Minister of State could not have known the questions I intended to pose before that rubbish was prepared.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Has the Minister of State concluded his reply?
Deputy John Curran: Yes.
Senator David Norris: The Minister of State is not going to answer my question.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call Senator Hannigan.
Senator David Norris: The Minister of State does not have much courage.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: Members feel strongly about the failure to accept these amendments. Those on the Opposition benches have been approached by organisations such as FLAC, Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties in respect of this matter. Senators on this side have posed questions, as has Senator Boyle on the Government side. I agree with the latter in that there is a large hole in the Bill. Senator Buttimer suggested a way to circumvent difficulties in this regard by the inclusion of this measure for a period of five years. That is a sensible proposal and I do not know why such an approach could not be taken.
The Minister of State indicated that there is no specific reference to human rights in the Bill. However, such reference is made to "the prevention or relief of suffering of animals". I fail to understand why human rights have not been referred to in this way. I encourage the Minister of State to reconsider the position in this regard because nothing he has stated will dissuade us from pressing the amendment.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Prior to the sos Senator Boyle referred to "outside forces" and I am concerned by those remarks. I seek clarification on what he said. Prior to the sos we took a vote to exclude sporting and human rights organisations from being considered as charitable organisations. A member of a Government party has referred to "outside forces". The section with which we are dealing refers to "a public benefit". Are the outside forces at work of public benefit to the wider community and the organisations we represent? I seek clarification from Government on what are the outside forces. Who are these mystical people?
Is pressure being put in regard to human rights, as so eloquently outlined by Senator Norris, and is Fianna Fáil wielding a big axe and a big stick? If that is the case, we deserve to know. Let us have the debate now. If the Green Party is not happy to support the Bill, let us park it. We have already seen a major tome of amendments, which shows that the Bill is a work in progress, a bit like the Government budgetary policies. A member of the Government parties came to the House and made a speech like a Member of the Opposition and then voted against the Bill.
Is a sinister plot involved? We have not raised the matter on this side of the House. We have been consensual in our approach to the Bill but a member of the Government parties has made an astonishing revelation to the House. I would like to know who are the outside forces and what Senator Boyle is talking about. If the matter is of concern to groups that promote human rights and the advancement of sport and it has a negative impact on the Irish charities sector then we need to park the legislation. We need honesty in this matter.
I appreciate that the Minister of State is probably none the wiser than I, but we need clarification. It is disingenuous of Government to come to the House with a vast tome of amendments when a member of the Government parties has castigated his colleagues and voted against them. That beggars belief on a Bill that is of such importance to the regulation of the charity sector. Are we justified at this eleventh hour to deny the inclusion of human rights bodies or sporting organisations in the Bill? We deserve answers. It was appalling for a member of the Government parties to make such comments in the House and then vote against the Government.
Senator David Norris: I would love to go along the line Senator Buttimer has so effectively promoted but I do not believe that is the case. I do not think that it is outside, sinister forces who are pushing a particular political agenda on behalf of the forces of reaction. This is weak Government. Senior civil servants in Departments are driving Government policy. I am sure that is the case. It is inappropriate to name the particular senior civil servant in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but the Minister will know exactly who is involved. It is treating the House with contempt that those kind of pathetic non-answers should be read into the record, prepared by other people, and not to answer the questions that were asked.
I do not follow the conspiracy theory. I do not think all kinds of mad pro-lifers, George Bush neo-cons and doodahs are behind the Bill. I do not suggest that my balanced friend, Senator Buttimer, was suggesting that, but that might be an implication that could be taken from it by more hysterical people. I do not believe that for a minute, but it is up to Government to govern or listen to the advice of its civil servants. I emphasise the second word, because they, like the Ministers, are servants of the people, and if the Government does not listen to the advice and then makes a decision on policy, it is in difficulty.
The reason the matter that has been raised by Senator Buttimer is so important is not that these sinister agents were involved but that the door has been left open for them to walk right through it. That is the problem. That is why I put on record the vulnerability in these cases that was found by the British Charity Commission's report. Senator Bacik did the same. The danger is that one is leaving it wide open.
Turning to the specific amendment, which relates to charitable purpose and public benefit, I am interested to hear the Minister of State's reply. Since I am not the proposer of the amendment I will not be able to speak again. I am reminded of those rather innocently sectarian days when one had collections for the Catholic boy scouts or the Protestant orphans. I always thought it was rather unchristian, whatever about the skirts, I beg your pardon, the shirts. I have a slight verbal confusion - the scouts. Skirts, shirts, I eventually got scouts right. Whatever about the scouts, is the idea of public benefit intended to make sure that if any of those groups who make collections have survived, that they widen their focus so that they take in the full public within the remit of their benevolence rather than narrowly collecting for the charitable purposes of assisting, for example, the Protestant orphans.
Thinking back on it, I remember there were Protestant gentlewomen also, and even Protestant lepers in India. I thought that was a little bit discriminatory. My heart went out to the poor Catholic, Muslim or even Hindu lepers who were deprived of that munificence. I am curious about that point. What is the effect of this measure and why was it necessary technically to change it because the change is not substantial? I do not have the original wording in front of me but the Minister is now saying, "A purpose shall not be a charitable purpose unless it is of public benefit". I think there was a phrase after that saying "within the meaning of this Act". What is the point of removing that? I seek to be informed.
Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I am beginning to wonder if I am an innocent abroad when it comes to the operation of democracy. My understanding of democracy is that one expresses one's point of view and then accepts the will of the majority. I am not a Trappist monk when it comes to that, I am entitled to express a view and still vote with the Government.
I would be very disappointed if this process were diluted in any way. What we are trying to do is get to the essence of any given matter, be it an amendment, report or otherwise. It is through this cut-and-thrust process that we have had some of the best debates in the Seanad over the years. We do not all necessarily sing from the same hymn sheet at any given time but we all have the opportunity, as members of political parties, to attend the parliamentary party meeting and have an input. We have an opportunity to approach a Minister, etc. This is how democracy operates and I hope we do not suggest this should not be the case.
One would hope that every charity would fall into the category of having a wider public benefit. One of the difficulties associated with trying to legislate for such a diverse group of bodies is that one must be very careful that one's legislation is implementable and does not have any loopholes or inadequacies. I look forward to what the Minister of State has to say but I hope that, in our debate on amendments, we can express our views and await the Minister of State's response.
Deputy John Curran: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are technical. Senator Buttimer referred to the "forces" but I have no idea what forces he is referring to. In the preparation of this legislation, there has been extensive consultation with various Departments, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, political parties and the charities sector. The reason for the substantial number of amendments on Committee and Report Stages is that we accepted amendments or redrafted amendments on advice we took, where possible.
Senator David Norris: It would be perfectly possible to accept the amendment on human rights.
An Cathaoirleach: The Minister of State should be allowed to reply.
Senator David Norris: He must be corrected when he is wrong.
An Cathaoirleach: No.
Deputy John Curran: Amendment No. 10 is just a strengthening provision. The wording "be regarded as a charitable purpose" is being changed to "be a charitable purpose". It is a technical amendment in that regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 11, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following:
"(3) Subject to subsection (4), a gift shall not be of public benefit unless---".
Amendment agreed to.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 12, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(10) For the purposes of this section, a gift is not a gift for the advancement of religion if it is made to or for the benefit of an organisation or cult-
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation-
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.".
Deputy John Curran: Since the earlier debates on the Bill in both the Dáil and Seanad, I have been reflecting on the issue of those organisations that purport to be religious in nature but whose principal interest is in profit or whose methods may be harmful to their followers. As I stated last week, this issue arose from an Opposition amendment originally developed by Deputies Wall and Higgins. It was reintroduced today by the Senators. I have concluded that there is merit in the principle of the original amendment in that religious organisations that in reality have scant regard for the spiritual, psychological or financial well-being of their members or potential members should not be granted the privilege of charitable status. Accordingly, I am proposing an amendment, developed in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, that will ensure dubious organisations that pose as religious but whose motive is making money or which use inappropriate psychological techniques in recruiting or retaining members will not attain charitable status. The Opposition amendment has not been moved but mine serves the same purpose.
Senator David Norris: It is very welcome that the Minister of State has clearly used phraseology from the original amendment of Senator Hannigan. It is very interesting that it has been considered properly by the Minister of State and carefully referred to the legal authorities. The Minister of State has come up with a very good amendment that takes the essential elements of what was proposed from the back benches of the Seanad. It is very good that he has done so. Praise is due where it is merited but, unfortunately, such instances are becoming scarcer.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I concur with Senator Norris. In this amendment we are taking cognisance of the role of the church and religion, yet the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, by banning the Veritas advertisement, has done the exact opposite. There is no joined-up thinking by the Government and its agencies. In praising this amendment, one must seek consistency in terms of Government policy. I ask the Minister of State to raise the banning of the Veritas advertisement with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The ban was a completely crazy decision.
An Cathaoirleach: That does not have much to do with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 14:
In page 12, line 36, after "advancement of" to insert "human rights,".
I must indicate I have Senator Bacik's authority to press this amendment. She stated she would be at a professional consultation and might not be back.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, line 36, after "reconciliation" to insert the following:
", the promotion and protection of human rights as one of the purposes beneficial to the community".
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I second the amendment.
An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?
Senator David Norris: It most certainly is. It is one last grim opportunity for the Government to find its conscience.
Amendment put.
Senator David Norris: I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, to delete lines 22 to 29 and substitute the following:
"(2) Any default in the relationship/agreement between the Charity and the State Agency/Public body whereby the Charity would be at a loss, would not be counted as such where the Charity has little or no option but to comply with standards/practices set out by the particular body. In such a case, the individual trustees/Directors of the Charity cannot be held liable.".
This is a question of liability. On Second Stage, I put on the record of the House extensive information on the brief I received, particularly from the Respond Housing Association, and it would be tedious for me to repeat that now. The Minister of State understands the points that were made. As I recall, he said he would reconsider the matter to see if there was room for movement on it.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment. I echo the words of Senator Norris. This is an issue of great importance for voluntary directors of charities. I have also received communications from the Respond Housing Association, which has been very supportive of this amendment. It is supportive of the Bill as whole, as we all are, and believes that it is important to regulate the charities sector. However, the association is concerned about the problem of liability for individual voluntary directors and trustees of charities. It is concerned that it will be difficult to get indemnity insurance without an amendment such as this. It is also concerned the Minister of State may have misunderstood the purpose behind the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's response.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: I too support the amendment and compliment Respond Housing Association on its representation on this matter. It is important that we protect voluntary directors, especially in the current economic situation where commitments made have been pared back, frozen or cancelled. It is incumbent on the Government to protect voluntary directors. Sometimes, in the rush to legislate and regulate, we forget voluntary directors. Therefore, it is important to protect them. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's reply on this issue.
Senator Feargal Quinn: I will just add a few words because the issue was debated on Committee Stage. Some years ago a Bill went through the House with regard to directors of private and public companies. The point was made very clearly that sometimes there is great difficulty in getting someone to become a director of a company because of the inherent liability he or she could suffer. Whatever about commercial companies, in the case of charitable organisations this should never inhibit a person from becoming a director or becoming involved in a charitable organisation. This amendment seems logical. On Committee Stage, the Minister of State undertook to give serious attention to this issue and I look forward to hearing he has found a solution in this regard.
Deputy John Curran: It is clear from the amendments tabled that there is a great appreciation throughout this House of the vital role trustees play in the operation of charities. I am aware of the need to protect the interests of trustees of charities and I wish to ensure they are not made unfairly liable for commitments into which they enter on behalf of charities in all good faith. I wish to ensure that those engaged in charity work can undertake the role of trustee without being worried that such a role might have negative financial implications for them.
I already have amended the Bill to enable charities to use charitable funds to indemnify trustees against personal losses arising where they have acted in good faith. Even though Opposition Members welcomed the insurance provision, it was considered that there may be a high cost involved in taking out such a policy, particularly when potential liabilities might be considerable. Accordingly, Opposition Members have tabled amendments on Report Stage, as they did last week, in respect of trustee liability. I agreed to reflect on this matter and have done so in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. My advice is that a trustee could be liable only where there is a breach of fiduciary relationship by the trustee with the content of the trust deed. Where a trustee acts in good faith in carrying out its business with a body such as a statutory body, I understand there is no way the trustee would be personally liable. Nonetheless, for the removal of doubt, Government amendment No. 62 will introduce a new section 89 to deal with the issue raised by the Opposition amendments. By allowing the court to grant relief to charity trustees from personal liability for a breach of trust where the trustee has acted honestly, reasonably and in good faith, I am confident that this will offer reassurance to those who act as trustees to charities or who are contemplating such a role. Although I cannot accept the Opposition's amendments as worded, I thank Members for raising the issue. I hope the Government amendment, which has been tabled on the advice of the Attorney General, will address the issue.
Senator David Norris: First, I thank the Minister of State for his clear statement. I will pass on a copy of the Official Report to Respond!, because it would assuage its problems and anxieties to an extent. The Minister of State has stated clearly that in situations in which trustees were acting in good faith and in concert with the intentions of the trust and so on, they would not be held liable. Moreover, he has tabled an amendment to this effect. As he has honoured his commitment to reconsider this issue and to introduce an amendment, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. It would be foolish to put this to a vote in any case as it would be just another lost vote. The Minister of State has moved on this issue and I will revert to those who briefed me on this matter. I thank the Minister of State for accepting the sense of the points raised in the House. While there may be further difficulties because the exact wording sought by the various organisations has not been included, significant movement has taken place, which I welcome.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 18 to 24, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 26, line 16, to delete "established" and substitute "established pursuant to a direction".
Deputy John Curran: These amendments are presentational and corrective in nature. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are similar in that they clarify subsections 2 and 4, respectively, applying to consultative panels established on the direction of the Minister under section 37. Amendment No. 20 is a technical amendment clarifying that section 39(4) applies only to applicants under the section and not to charitable organisations so deemed under section 40. Amendment No. 21 is a presentational amendment to the provision introduced on Committee Stage allowing for the authority to exempt certain applicants from being obliged to provide each and every document listed in section 39. However, there is no substantive change to the provision. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 both correct cross-references to other sections of the Bill that should have been made following previous amendments and amendment No. 24 simply clarifies that the subsection refers to a requirement under section 43.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 26, line 27, to delete "under subsection (1)" and substitute the following:
"pursuant to a direction under subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 27, line 17, to delete "Subject to section 40, a charitable organisation" and substitute the following:
"A charitable organisation (other than a charitable organisation to which section 40 applies)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 3 of the list of amendments made in Committee, to delete the text inserted by amendment no. 14 and substitute the following:
"(6) The Authority may exempt an applicant for registration under this section from such of the requirements of subsection (5) as it considers appropriate where it is of the opinion that compliance by the applicant with those requirements would be unduly onerous having regard to his or her circumstances.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 29, line 14, to delete "section 40" and substitute "section 43(10)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 30, to delete line 13 and substitute the following:
"(b) the entitlement under section 45(1) to appeal the decision.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 31, to delete lines 28 to 30 and substitute the following:
"(5) The Authority shall, as soon as practicable after receiving information pursuant to a request under subsection (2) or a requirement under subsection (3) in respect of a charitable organisation, enter in the register---".
Amendment agreed to.
An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, inclusive, and 31 are related and will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 32, line 14, to delete "registered" and substitute "registered or deemed to be registered".
Deputy John Curran: Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, inclusive, and 31 are similar drafting amendments which provide that charities that have registered under section 39 and charities that have been deemed to have registered under section 40 are regarded in the same way in the legislation.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 32, line 17, to delete "registered" and substitute "registered or deemed to be registered".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 32, line 20, to delete "registered" and substitute "registered or deemed to be registered".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 32, line 23, to delete "registered" and substitute "registered or deemed to be registered".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: On a point of information, may Members speak on amendment No. 29?
An Cathaoirleach: No, it was not moved.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 34, to delete lines 7 to 48 and in page 35, to delete lines 1 to 23 and substitute the following:
43.---(1) Where the Authority, after consultation with the Garda Síochána, is of opinion that a body registered in the register is or has become an excluded body by virtue of its promoting purposes that are---
(a) unlawful,
(b) contrary to public morality,
(c) contrary to public policy,
(d) in support of terrorism or terrorist activities, or
(e) for the benefit of an organisation, membership of which is unlawful,
it shall remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that body and the body shall thereupon cease to be registered.
(2) Where the name of a charitable organisation is changed in contravention of section 42(2), the Authority shall remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that organisation and the organisation shall thereupon cease to be registered.
(3) If a registered charitable organisation that is a body corporate is convicted on indictment of an offence, the Authority may remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that organisation, and that organisation shall, thereupon, cease to be registered.
(4) Where, in relation to a charitable organisation, the Authority is satisfied that there has been a contravention of---
(a) section 47, 48, 50 or 52, or
(b) a direction under section 50 or 51,
the Authority may remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that organisation, and that organisation shall, thereupon, cease to be registered.
(5) If a registered charitable organisation fails to comply with a direction of the Authority under section 53, the Authority may remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that organisation, and that organisation shall, thereupon, cease to be registered.
(6) Where the Authority is of opinion that a body registered in the register is not a charitable organisation, it shall apply to the High Court for a declaration that the body is not a charitable organisation.
(7) If the High Court, upon an application under subsection (6), grants a declaration that the body in respect of which the application is made is not a charitable organisation, the body shall thereupon cease to be a registered charitable organisation and the Authority shall remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that body.
(8) If a charity trustee of a registered charitable organisation ceases to be qualified for the position of charity trustee by virtue of section 55, the Authority may apply to the High Court for an order authorising the Authority to remove the charitable organisation from the register, and, upon such an application, the High Court may make such an order if it considers it appropriate in all of the circumstances.
(9) If the High Court makes an order under subsection (8), the Authority shall forthwith remove from the register all of the information entered in relation to that organisation, and that organisation shall thereupon cease to be registered.
(10) A body that, in accordance with this section, has ceased to be registered for the purposes of section 39 shall not, before the expiration of one year, or such shorter period as the Minister may determine, from the date of its ceasing to be so registered, be eligible to apply to be registered, and the Authority shall not, before such expiration, perform any functions in relation to that organisation under section 39(6).
(11) Where, in accordance with this section, a body ceases to be registered, the Authority shall enter in the register a statement that the body has ceased to be registered and a statement of the reasons therefor.".
Deputy John Curran: Although at face value this amendment, which replaces the original section 43, is substantial, essentially it is a presentational amendment proposed on the basis of legal advice. It provides for the circumstances under which a charitable organisation, which had applied successfully for entry onto the register of charities may be removed from the register by the authority. It ensures that the circumstances reflect those applicable to those charities deemed to be registered under section 40. This underlines the principle that charities that are deemed to be registered and charities that actually applied for registration should be regarded equally under the legislation.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister of State for clarifying the purpose of the amendment. I apologise that I did not have an opportunity to speak on this matter on Committee Stage because I wish to express a concern about the wide-ranging powers that are given to the authority after consultation with the Garda Síochána. What causes me alarm is the exclusion of any reference to the advancement of human rights as a recognised charitable purpose, despite the numerous Opposition amendments tabled to that effect. Given such an exclusion, an organisation that is deemed to be a charity because it currently exists, although its primary purpose is the advancement of human rights, may be deregistered under the new section 43. It may be deregistered where the authority, after consulting with the Garda, considers that its promoting purposes are contrary to public morality or contrary to public policy.
My general concern about both the existing section 43 and the Government amendment under discussion is that the powers bestowed are too broad and the criteria too vague. In particular the reference to public morality and public policy could easily be used effectively to deregister a charitable organisation that is in existence at present and is deemed registered but the primary purpose of which is the advancement or protection of human rights. If such an organisation in such a capacity is critical of the Government in some way, it could at some point be deemed, therefore, to be acting contrary to public policy or public morality.
