I wish to share my time with Deputies Killeen, Moffatt, Batt O'Keeffe, O'Dea and Sargent.
Private Members' Business. - Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time.".
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on this important Bill. I am very disappointed the Government is not prepared to accept Deputy Woods's Bill. If the Minister thought the Bill needed amendment, her concerns could have been addressed on Committee Stage rather than have a further unnecessary delay. I commend our party spokesperson, Deputy Woods, for his initiative in drafting and publishing this Bill. In his contribution he outlined in a very constructive manner the purpose, intent and necessity for this legislation. He used the very apt phrase, namely, the need to level the playing pitch for Irish charitable lotteries. That viewpoint has been echoed widely by senior management and spokespersons for various charities.
No justifiable reason can be put forward for the restrictions that apply to lotteries for charitable purposes. We are all conscious of the outstanding work carried out by voluntary charitable organisations, and the stranglehold on their fundraising capacities should be removed. With the strength of the Irish and, recently established, British national lotteries, charities have more than enough competition with which to contend. Deputy Woods outlined in detail his proposals on funding and accountability. Every facet of the organisation of lotteries for charitable purposes is addressed in this legislation.
Fortunately there is a good partnership between statutory agencies and voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations provide many services and such work is undertaken in every parish. In many cases the work of statutory agencies is supplemented by voluntary organisations and in some cases voluntary organisations are the only bodies providing much needed services.
The disbursement of the national lottery surplus is far from adequate and unfair. We all know of voluntary, social, sporting and recreational organisations that provide much-needed facilities for all age groups but receive no State assistance — their hopes for assistance were raised when the national lottery was established. I have in mind in particular local groups operating from small community centres or social centres who have been denied the £8,000 or £10,000 grant that would constitute a major financial benefit for them and would be a major source of encouragement in their work. Such groups consist of people who give generously of their time and effort to others.
Time permits me to instance only the work of the Rehab National Training and Development Institute. I compliment the manager of the centre in County Cavan, Mr. John Rooney, and his colleagues on the excellence of the centre there. In early March this year I had the privilege of attending the annual certificate awards ceremony at which 49 graduates were presented with certificates from CERT, City and Guilds and the Northern Council for Further Education. The importance of this event to the community was evident by the large attendance of students, parents, employers and representatives of statutory and voluntary organisations. Those students graduated with the work, skills and achievements which were verified by the independent certification agencies. The activities of the institute constitute a huge industry, with 650 staff, the generation of £15 million revenue in sales and the provision of services to 2,500 people. The work of the National Training and Development Institute is dependent on the co-operation of employers within its catchment areas. The employers I know who have taken on students of the institute have always been satisfied with their level of competence and commitment. The placement of students in permanent employment is a tribute to themselves, the management and employers who gave them the opportunity during their apprenticeship and the voluntary workers who give their time, year in, year out in raising substantial funding that is essential for those institutes to continue their valuable and necessary work.
It is ironic that the State, with its legislative powers, restricts in a very serious manner the fundraising abilities of charitable organisations, which in many instances supplement inadequate State services and, in some cases, are the sole providers of services which the public expect the State to provide.
Fáiltím roimh an Bhille seo agus tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis cainte agam faoi. Cuireann sé íontas orm go bhfuil an Rialtas ag cur i gcoinne an Bhille agus gur theip orthu Bille da gcuid féin a chur os comhair an Oireachtais. Is cúis náire dóibh an fhaillí sin.
It is surprising the archaic legislation of 1956 has survived unamended for so long, particularly in view of the fact that Irish charities have lost approximately £200 million since 1987, a huge amount of money which would have had a major impact on areas in which charitable organisations provide much needed services. I reject the Government argument that comprehensive legislation can be brought forward quickly in this area. The passing of this Bill would in no way impede or undermine that intent. It would give a financial boost to charities and improve confidence which, in view of their experience, has been seriously undermined.
Charities do vitally important work for people in need. Much of that work is the responsibility of the State but is done probably more cost effectively by voluntary and charitable organisations. Are Government Deputies saying that they do not support the work of the Polio Fellowship, the Irish Cancer Society, the Irish Wheelchair Association and other organisations? I am sure that is not the case, but in rejecting this straightforward Bill that is the message that will go out from this House, and that is not good enough.
Last Monday night I attended a meeting in Ennis of the Clare Branch of Cerebral Palsy Ireland and as a politician I was embarrassed that the State grant to that organisation is a meagre £5,000. That money goes towards an impressive range of services, which cost infinitely more than the amount allocated. This Bill would enable Rehab and others to give greater support to the various charitable organisations in each area. It must be borne in mind that the Aware lottery ceased to operate this year because of competition from the national lottery. That was a double blow to its members who have been severely affected by the provisions of the health regulations.
Fundraising by other charities is also under threat, affecting services to their dependants. There is an onus on politicians to back up words of concern with real action, and this Bill provides such an opportunity. We are all accustomed to lectures from certain political quarters on the needs of the poor and underprivileged. Rejection of this Bill is further evidence that that is merely posturing and empty rhetoric. Charities deserve better and we have the opportunity tonight to do something for them. It is difficult to believe that the Government is protecting the national lottery, which had sales of £303 million in 1995. Only 3.4 per cent of the proceeds go to social welfare related charities as opposed to 20 per cent in the UK. Unfortunately, the existing cap which will be removed by this Bill also involves the Garda in unnecessary administration, namely, the checking of one million cards from various charities. Obviously that burden of administration also falls on Rehab and the various lotteries and ties up some of their financial and personnel resources. That problem must be dealt with immediately.
To make matters worse, the UK lottery is currently taking approximately £20 million per year out of our economy. The Government says it is addressing that problem in the short-term but there is little evidence of that, which makes the problem even greater. I call on the Government to support the Bill and to take action in support of national charities.
There is only so much money in the kitty and the recent development whereby the UK lottery is taking £20 million per year out of the funds that could be available to non-profit making charitable organisations here is a problem that must be addressed immediately.
Irish charities have encountered major difficulties with the advent of the national lottery and the major prizes offered and those difficulties have been exacerbated by the advent of 1,500 outlets which sell UK lottery tickets.
National charities have received a great deal of kudos for their excellent work in our society, yet that work is not being acknowledged because of impediments that have been put in place. A £5 million decrease in moneys accruing to charities between 1988 and 1994 is testimony to that fact. They now have only a 3 per cent share of the overall take from lotteries.
Discrimination is apparent in the charitable sector. How can charities hope to compete with a cap of £10,000 against the unlimited prize money offered in the national lottery? We demand and expect the intervention of these charities to cater for the disadvantaged in our society, yet we are not prepared to provide some form of equality of treatment even though many of the organisations involved in what one might call "charitable niche areas" are performing functions that ideally should come within the remit of our social services.
The action, albeit delayed, of the Government in declaring the UK lottery illegal here stands in stark contrast to its lack of action in relation to charitable lotteries. It leads one to the conclusion that the Government does not care a with for charities and is more concerned with amassing a major slush fund to be administered at the whim of Ministers in their endeavours to ingratiate themselves with the electorate in the run-up to a general election. Cork is testament to this with its two Ministers of State travelling around with their cheque books in their inside pockets ready to hand out money.
Good for Cork.
The north side of Cork city has done particularly well from that cheque book diplomacy.
Three out of five for Fine Gael.
I think not. The electorate in Cork is far more sophisticated now and realise they were conned in the past.
Deputy Woods is to be congratulated on introducing the Bill. He is telling the Government that enough is enough and the existing cap on prizes, as well as the costly administrative procedures, should be removed. Charities must be allowed to play on an even pitch and carry out the functions urgently needed by the disadvantaged in our society.
Even if this Bill is passed, charitable organisations will face an uphill struggle to win back some of the market share they have lost. By and large consumers are creatures of habit and, having moved from buying tickets from charities, it will take meaningful, resourceful and penetrating marketing on the part of charities if they are to regain the lost ground.
If evidence were needed of the lure of the larger prize money, the UK lottery is the perfect example. Through the ineptitude of an uncaring but facilitating Government, its prize money was allowed increase to £20 million in a short number of months.
We are all in favour of encouraging self-help and Fianna Fáil has designed this Bill in a way that will allow charities to promote that. It is disappointing for this side of the House to hear the Government will oppose the Bill on Second Stage rather than allow it proceed to Committee Stage where meaningful amendments could be tabled.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. I compliment Deputy Woods for bringing forward the Bill because the existing legislation is outdated. The modifications outlined in it are necessary and I am disappointed the Government does not intend to accept it. That is rejection for rejection's sake.
There is general agreement that the Bill addresses the issues that must be urgently addressed. The Government accepts there is need for change, particularly in regard to the capping of lotteries at £10,000 per week, so why is it rejecting the Bill? It says it intends bringing forward its own "super" Bill which no doubt will have all the hallmarks of advisory bodies, a three way examination of the Costello report and a measure of openness, transparency and accountability for good luck.
The Minister said we need a system of registration and accounting as well as a registration authority. Those facets are contained in the Bill yet the Government continues to express its pseudoanxieties while the voluntary charities who run lotteries must play on an uneven pitch.
Following 18 months of procrastination, the UK Government is finally taking action in regard to its lottery. Where was the legal advice 18 months ago? The legislation has not changed so what is the reason for all the procrastination? That is the problem facing charitable organisations in this country. They are being forced to play on a very uneven pitch.
One must ask whether our voluntary charities will be required to wait another year or two before the Government brings forward its legislation. The legislation proposed by Deputy Woods is excellent and the Government should accept it.
We all agree that our voluntary charitable organisations do excellent work. I am particularly interested in charities who work in the areas of health and disability including the polio association, the various associations dealing with mental handicap and the National Rehabilitation Hospital. It is all very well praising those charitable organisations but we are restricting them in their ability to gather funds and continue their good work. As the old adage says, thoughts without deeds are not much good. These organisations need to be given a chance to raise funding. In this regard the £10,000 limit on prizes is no longer workable and the cap should be increased. The necessity for these organisations to inform the Garda every week about £1,000 lotteries should be done away with. I am disappointed the Government has decided not to accept Deputy Wood's Bill which would have advanced the situation and ensured we got away from procrastination by the Government which has to think twice before it makes a decision.
My colleagues have graphically depicted the grim plight in which charitable lotteries find themselves and time does not permit me to elaborate on what they have said. Suffice it to say that the Government knows what they have said is correct, and has acknowledged as much. Charitable lotteries are being marginalised to the extent that they control only 3 per cent of the lottery market. The reason for this is obvious: they are hamstrung by legislation passed by this Parliament.
It is no exaggeration to describe this situation as an emergency. Their plight is desperate and urgent and needs immediate remedial action. Apparently the Government agrees with this proposition, yet it resolutely refuses to take the necessary immediate action to resolve this emergency. The alibi given to the House for the Government's obduracy is undoubtedly the most transparent thing we will ever get from this so-called Government of openness, transparency and accountability. This transparent nonsense had a familiar ring to it —"comprehensive legislation is necessary and it will be introduced some time later this year". This will happen magically seven years after the Costello Commission report. It is also suggested that Deputy Wood's proposals or a variant of them will be contained in the legislation. Without wishing to insult the Minister of State, I do not believe those statements. The comprehensive legislation referred to by the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, will be passed on the recommendations of the Costello Commission which are almost seven years old.
Whose fault is that?
This matter has been in gestation for seven years.
Who left those recommendations lying around?
The Costello report contains more than 100 recommendations for change. Many of these recommendations are extremely controversial and I know the Government has not resolved its differences on many of them.
The Deputy's party did not do the job when it had the chance.
My information from the Department of Justice is that this legislation is still at a very early stage of preparation. It is no exaggeration to say it will be some time, perhaps years, before it sees the light of day. Does the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, not know that many small charitable lotteries will be driven out of business during this waiting period? Is she aware of the calamitous consequences this will have for thousands of citizens, particularly the disadvantaged? I ask these questions as the Government postures as a left leaning one.
There is no inconsistency in agreeing that the general law on charities needs to be updated and also accepting the Bill which is a short-term or stop gap measure specifically designed to save a number of organisations which have made, and continue to make, a priceless and incalculable contribution to Irish life. Comprehensive legislation is necessary and the provisions in this Bill can be incorporated into it with any necessary amendments. That procedure is not new — it was done in the early 1990s to save the Goodman organisation. Yet the Government is unable to accept this minor measure which would allow several organisations which have done nothing but good for the disadvantaged to survive.
When the comprehensive legislation finally appears and we come to debate it, surely we will have benefited from the experience of how a level playing pitch works. No doubt the Government would vehemently deny that its intention is to destroy organisations like the Polio Fellowship, Rehab, the Irish Cancer Society, Hospice Homecare, the Central Remedial Clinic and countless other organisations. However, if some of them disappear while we wait for legislation this will be a direct consequence of the Government's refusal to accept this Bill. That will be on its conscience, but the record will show that we at least did all we could.
The Deputy's party did nothing when it was in Government.
The Government should accept the Bill.
I identify with the charities which have called for this legislation. I too have to scrape for time to speak in the House. I thank my Fianna Fáil colleagues for sharing their time with me but sometimes it is like trying to play against the national lottery. There is also a need for a level playing pitch in the House. Is oth liom nach bhfuil níos mó i gceist leis an mBille seo mar tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh reachtaíocht den chineál seo againn go luath. Le cúnamh Dé beidh an Rialtas in ann é sin a dhéanamh.
Is oth liom go bhfuil an crannchur náisiúnta mar atá sé an-lochtach ar fad ar go leor bealaí. Tá staidéar déanta ag an National College for Industrial Relations agus níl fhios agam cé mhéid daoine atá ar an eolas faoi seo, ach deirtear ann go bhfuil 70 faoin gcéad den teacht isteach ag an gcrannchur náisiúnta ag dul isteach go ciste an Stáit. Más buan mo chuimhne ní chuige sin a bunaíodh an crannchur náisiúnta. Tá, mar sin, 70 faoin gcéad de theacht isteach an chrannchuir náisiúnta ag íoc as na seirbhísí agus as na háiseanna a bhíodh á íoc as an teacht isteach ó cháineacha. Ciallaíonn sé sin go bhfuil cáin sa bhreis á íoc ag gnáthmhuintir na hÉireann tríd an crannchur náisiúnta.
In ainneoin sin tá an-chuid áiseanna a bhí luaite nuair a bunaíodh an crannchur náisiúnta gan a bheith le fáil go fóill. Fós táimid ag fanacht ar an linn snámha 50 méadar agus na Cluichí Oilimpeacha le bheith ar siúl i mbliana. Táimid ag fanacht ar go leor áiseanna eile don phobal chomh maith. Cé nach bhfuil mé féin im bhall de Chomhairle Chontae tá fhios agam de bhfuil an Comhairle Chontae i mo cheantar féin ag íoc deontaisí arbh chóir a bheith á íoc ag an gcrannchur náisiúnta do eagraíochtaí spóirt agus mar sin de. Ag an am chéanna níl an Chomhairle Chontae in ann áiseanna eile a chur ar fáil. Ar ndóigh bíonn siad ag gearáin i gcomhnaí faoi ghanntanas airgid. Is léir mar sin so bhfuil an-dul amú ar an gcrannchur náisiúnta. Is cúram don Rialtas é sin a cheartú.
Ar maidin luadh an Freedom of Information Bill agus tá súil agamsa go mbeidh an freedom of information atá ag teastáil maidir leis an gcrannchur náisiúnta san áireamh ar bhealach éigin. Faoi láthair níl aon doiciméad ar fáil chun daoine a chur ar an eolas mar gheall ar an gcrannchur nó chun daoine a chur ar an eolas faoi cá bhfuil an t-airgead ag dul nó cá bhfuil an t-airgead ar fáil, cé tá freagrach as an airgead a chur amach agus mar sin de.
Tá an-díomá orm go bhfuil an crannchur náisiúnta ag baint úsáid as cuairt na loinge JFK chun na tíre seo agus an landmine Order á phlé ar maidin. Táimid ag tabhairt amach faoi uirlis mhíleata amháin agus ag baint úsáid as uirlís mhíleata eile ag an am chéanna chun an crannchur náisiúnta a chur chun cinn.
Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil cinneadh déanta ag an Rialtas gan dul ar aghaidh le reachtaíocht a chuirfeadh casino ar fáil sa tír. Mairfidh an cinneadh sin le cúnamh Dé.
I should like to share my time with Deputies Kathleen Lynch and Pat Gallagher.
I am sure that is quite satisfactory and agreed.
I compliment Deputy Woods on having introduced this Bill which allows us focus on issues which are quite serious and need to be debated. The fact that he has provided a platform for such debate warrants commendation. However, that is as far as I shall go in commending him.
Before focusing on the provisions of the Bill, I should like to dwell on the broader scene. The Bill can be viewed in the context of the old adage that for every complex problem there is a simple solution that does not work. That is how I can best sum up this Bill.
The background to this Bill is that there are unscrupulous operators who have been preying on the generosity of the Irish public, converting for their own use moneys allegedly raised for charitable causes. The Revenue Commissioners recently estimated that there are over 6,000 charities in this country, many of them no longer active, which between them raise in excess of £330 million annually. It is very much in the public interest that all moneys donated to charities should go to their intended beneficiaries. Unfortunately, that does not always happen.
The legislative framework is hopelessly out of date and inadequate to protect the public who contribute so generously or the many worthy beneficiaries on whose behalf and in whose names huge funds are donated. Over the years there has been a series of scandals. There was the recent cruel exploitation of terminally ill children, for whom moneys were allegedly being raised for hospice care, which they never received. It is only a matter of time before even greater scandals emerge. The reputation of all charitable organisations is damaged by the scandals of the few. It is timely to point out that controls over charities should be maintained at a reasonable level because of the actual abuse which occurred and further potential abuse.
It is almost six years since the Costello Committee reported on fund-raising activities for charitable and other purposes. The report proposed over 80 changes in controls and regulations covering such fund-raising and the manner in which proceeds are accounted for and distributed.
The political scandal is that nothing whatever was done by the last two Fianna Fáil-led Governments to implement the recommendations of the Costello report. Fortunately, this Government has taken steps to progress the issue. Earlier this year an advisory group on charities legislation was established. Its membership is drawn from a variety of charitable organisations and its report is expected shortly. It will then be referred to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security to advise on the necessary legislative provisions which I hope we shall be debating in the not too distant future.
It is against this background that the Bill introduced by Deputy Woods must be considered. Naturally, we would all like to support the fund-raising efforts of reputable charities such as those mentioned by Deputy Woods but placing them in open competition with the national lottery would be disastrous. There is room for only one national lottery. The establishment of an open season by enabling every charitable cause in Ireland to establish a national lottery without any limit would do nothing whatever for those charities. It would almost certainly wipe out the fund-raising efforts of most of them.
Apart from the overall updating of the charities legislation, several measures are needed. First is the enforcement of the ban on the sale of tickets here for the United Kingdom lottery by which we have been very badly affected. We are quite entitled to enforce such a ban. The precedent is the Schindler case which, in 1983, decided that the United Kingdom could prohibit the sale of German lottery tickets.
There has been reference to prosecutions earlier this year which were not proceeded with. There were some evidential problems associated with such prosecutions which have now been overcome. The Government, quite rightly, has made it abundantly clear that henceforth anybody who engages in the sale of UK lottery tickets here will be prosecuted.
Second, the present limit of £10,000 weekly prize money for charitable lotteries was fixed ten years ago. When I introduced the National Lottery Bill, 1986 that limit was only £5,000. At that time I included a provision enabling the Minister for Justice to increase that figure for charitable lotteries. I consider the figure of £10,000 to be too low and it should be raised to at least £25,000. I would go even further and suggest that the Minister should engage in discussions with representatives of charitable lotteries. I accept that charitable lotteries need to be able to compete fairly, particularly in the scratch card market. The increased prize money to which I refer does not require legislation since I included such an enabling provision in the National Lottery Bill ten years ago. Once a decision has been taken, all that is necessary is the introduction of a further regulation by the Minister for Justice — such as the one page regulation introduced in 1987 when Deputy Dukes was Minister for Justice — under the national lottery prizes regulation. There is no need for a Bill to increase the prize money.
There is also a case for making charitable organisations beneficiaries to a great degree from the proceeds of the national lottery. This year there was approximately £100 million by way of surplus from the national lottery for distribution. Apart from the specific causes mentioned in section 5 of the National Lottery Act, 1986 for youth, sport, art and so on, there should be a separate category, the establishment of a special charity fund into which a separate proportion of the proceeds of the national lottery should be lodged for allocation to charitable purposes. That is the way to deal with the problem experienced in regard to Rehab and the other charitable lotteries. We must find an answer but one that will work. There is no point in coming up with quick fix solutions such as those mentioned in this Bill which will not work. The type of approach I have outlined constitutes the answer to the problem I want to see resolved. The way forward is to implement the Costello report which will deal with the broader issue of charities, which thankfully is now being dealt after many years of neglect and, second, in relation to the urgent problem encountered vis-á-vis charitable lotteries, to introduce the regulation to which I referred. The proposals introduced by Deputy Woods, while affording us an opportunity to discuss the issue, do not constitute the answer to the problem.
Having raised the cap on charities twice in the course of Adjournment debates since becoming a Member of this House, I welcome this opportunity to discuss this matter in a broader sense. Usually Adjournment debates are very limited in their scope and unless one has a specific interest in a particular issue one will not come into the Chamber to listen. This makes it all the more important that Members of the Opposition avail of the opportunity afforded them on Private Members' Bills to raise issues like these. I am a great believer in strong Opposition. Someone once said to me that, having spent a little time there, one might change one's mind but I have not; I continue to believe in strong Opposition.
This is the type of issue which should be brought to the fore and discussed. I had a great deal of discussion with Deputy Woods, as Minister for Social Welfare, over a 12-month period and always found him courteous and generous with his time. While he did not accede to my requests then, I appreciated the time he devoted to matters and the courteous was he dealt with me and my group.
I cannot but refer to Deputy O'Dea's contribution during which he equated Larry Goodman with charitable organisations. Maybe he considers Larry Goodman fits into the charitable bracket, but he should not have been lumped with those organisations. Deputy O'Dea's reference to the report of the Costello committee published seven years ago was also unfortunate because he was in Government for five of those seven years.
I welcome the opportunity to debate our gaming and lotteries regulations in particular and charity fund-raising in general. I share Deputy Woods's concern about the current capping system which, effectively, handicaps private charity lotteries. I welcome the Minister of State's comprehensive statement last night in regard to the proposed charities legislation which is long overdue, not only since the report of the Costello committee but since 1601 with the exception of an interpretation in the 1800s. The ceiling which currently applies to charity lotteries compounds the problems they face and that was recognised by the Minister of State.
Charities are trying to compete with the national lottery with one hand tied behind their backs. They receive very little from lottery proceeds, over 62 per cent of which goes to the State and semi-State sectors. They must compete with very large jackpots and massive advertising campaigns and, as Deputy Sargent said, the campaign that rankles most concerns the lottery for tickets to board The JFK II. It no harm to examine how the lotteries operate and to consider the objections raised by some people to their modus operandi. That is one of the areas I would like revisited because I do not consider the lottery should invest money in that type of campaign irrespective of whether it is provided for in its advertising budget.
The lottery was established on the clear understanding that the funds raised would be devoted to new projects, mainly the voluntary sector. Instead charities estimate that they have lost a massive £200 million in potential donations since the introduction of the lottery nearly ten years ago. A certain charity in Cork, one most people do not consider a charity, which had done great work with disabled people since the fifties when the State did not, or were incapable of doing such work, is in serious difficulties today. To suggest closing down that organisation would be akin to telling somebody in Cork that Shandon had to be demolished, and it would probably be more devastating because it caters for such a wide variety of people with all types of disabilities. Where would they go if that organisation no longer existed? That is something about which I am very worried.
Since the lottery was introduced ten years ago we have been forced to watch while the lion's share of its proceeds went to plug gaps in Exchequer spending. That has happened over the past ten year period, not only in the past 18 months or two years.
I hope when addressing the cap, section 8 of the 1986 Act will also be revisited. That section provides for unclaimed prize money to be returned to the national lottery fund after 90 days if unclaimed, to top up already extravagant jackpots. I am not a killjoy and have not said the lottery jackpot should be restricted to £1 million. When I hear people say they would not like to win £1 million, I am puzzled when they are usually the first in the queue to play the Lotto. I do not have any problem with the size of the jackpot, but I object to the unclaimed prize money going back into the fund to top up jackpots. Unclaimed prize moneys, currently estimated to be more than £4 million annually, should be diverted into a specific reserve fund from which moneys should be disbursed to charities, for example, in the chronically underfunded area of mental handicap. If the moneys were disbursed to such charities, I do not believe a single complaint would be made by anyone who plays the lottery regularly.
I welcome Deputy Woods's initiative in putting forward this Bill. However, the problems associated with this lottery and with charity fund-raising in general will not be solved by the proposals in it. I am sure Deputy Woods will say that is because I am in Government. I believe in strong Opposition and we must also have good Government. If Bills like this bring to the fore issues of concern and elicit replies to the effect that legislation will be introduced in the near future, they are worthy. I welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a charities Bill, which will regulate the fund-raising operation of charities as a whole. The so-called third sector is one of the fastest expanding sectors in the economy. Every time a need is identified, a voluntary organisation springs up to address it. The contribution made by the voluntary sector to society cannot be overestimated. In many cases it is trying to plug gaps in our social services with inadequate and unreliable funding. Therefore, it is small wonder that one cannot walk through the centre of Cork or Dublin without coming across a charity fund-raiser seeking funds for yet another good cause, and the majority of them are excellent causes.
In 1989 3,790 charities were registered with the Revenue Commissioners as enjoying tax exemption status. That figure encompasses small, locally based charities as well as international charities, such as Concern and Trócaire.
Despite the huge growth in the charity sector we do not have an up to date legal definition of the term "charity". The current definition of the term in Irish law has its roots in the Charitable Uses Act, 1601, which was interpreted in 1891 in the so-called Pemsel case. Members may be interested to know that the 1601 statute is rooted in William Langland's 13th century poem, "Piers Ploughman" which dealt with the area of alms.
In effect non-governmental organisations seeking charitable status must find a niche within the index of charitable purposes incorporated in the 1601 statute, which refers to the marriage of poor maidens but not to the rehabilitation of drug users or the needs of people who are less mobile than most people. I know it will bring a smile to the faces of most men here to recall that charity was associated with marrying off a woman who did not have a dowry.
There is an urgent need for legislation governing the definition and management of charities and non-profit organisations as we enter the 21st century. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Burton's assurance that the present cap on charitable lotteries will be changed in the context of a new legislative framework and that the regulations governing fund-raising in general will be addressed. Nobody is in any doubt that the majority of charity fund-raisers are committed people dedicated to the aims of an organisation who tramp the streets in all weathers armed only with a small tin and a huge amount of endurance. They are brought into disrepute by a smaller number of rogue operators and deserve legislative protection. Charities are in favour of stricter regulations in that regard and would be delighted to have the opportunity to account publicly for their activities. It would be another opportunity to promote the good work they do in certain areas.
The recommendations of the Costello committee form a useful basis for the proposed legislation. However, some other issues regarding charities need to be addressed in this or in other legislation. I am especially concerned at the plight of some charities who are unable to fully reclaim their back payments. I urge the Government to take on board the suggestions made in the report entitled Charitable Organisations and Value Added Tax prepared for the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group. The scope for action is limited, given that VAT is a Euro tax. There is, however, room to establish a system of Exchequer funding which would match pound for pound the VAT incurred by charities in any one year. This suggestion was first mooted by the Commission on Tax Reform in 1985 and has been endorsed by the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Gallagher.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Laoighis-Offaly): All of us as public representatives and people active in our communities are aware of the great efforts that charities, both local and national, make to fund-raising in order to meet a wide range of needs. It is useful that we have the opportunity to debate some of the concerns in this area.
I recognise the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced. We are all aware of the difficulties which face charitable organisations, such as Rehab, in making prize draws viable with the current cap on prizes. I accept the point made to me and other Members of the House by Rehab representatives that the existing arrangement initiates against them in two ways. First, it is difficult for them to compete against the national lottery and, second, significant administrative costs are imposed upon them in complying with the existing regulations.
I acknowledge the good service that Deputy Woods has performed for charities by holding this debate. I welcome not only the response by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Burton, last night but also the work she has been doing over the past 18 months in attempting to get this sector regulated while at the same time allowing them compete on a more level playing pitch.
I also recognise a significant change made to the tax regime by the Minister for Finance last year so that people can make private donations to Third World charities and have the tax equivalent of such donations contributed to them. It is useful that people can direct part of their tax contribution to a charity of their choice. This is working successfully in regard to Third World charities and it is now worth looking at the extension of the scheme across the board.
However, we should not look at this matter simply in terms of competition or potential competition between private charities and the national lottery. Both can prosper. For example, Rehab receives substantial State and EU funding. It is not in its long-term interests to undermine the hand that feeds it in some areas of its operations.
I welcome the commitment given by the Minister of State in the House yesterday that the Government intends to review the existing cap on charitable fund-raising institutions. The current limit of £10,000 was established ten years ago. Even in the ordinary course of events it should be reviewed at this stage. I am not clear as to whether it would be appropriate to lift this cap entirely or merely increase the limit which applies. As the Minister stated, in reality there is very little difference. The potential is there to raise the cap limit to such a level that its existence becomes irrelevant. I am sure that the Government's decision will be arrived at after due consultation with interested parties.
I am pleased the Minister of State was able to say last night that she was engaged in extensive consultations with charities about legislation she is preparing. I know this is the case from talking to people involved in a number of charities, especially in Third World charities. I am also pleased she intends to bring proposals for reform to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. We have all sought reform of the committee system. When it was expanded in 1993 we looked for a greater role for committees in the formulation of legislation before it is presented. It is appropriate that proposals for legislation should be discussed with this hard working committee. The Minister of State is to be commended for undertaking this initiative.
The Costello report has been on the desk of the Minister for Justice for a long time. I recall watching a recent edition of "Prime Time" on RTE about fraudulent charitable fund-raising. The problem with this is that highlighting a small number of cases undermines everybody's case. I am only too aware of the good work undertaken by charities nationwide and the integrity of those involved in fund-raising for them. However, it is important to recognise that the actions of a few, such as those covered on the "Prime Time" report, have the potential to do damage to the efforts of the many.
The public is very wary of the burgeoning number of charities seeking financial help. It sometimes wonders about the fund-raisers, the methods of fund-raising, where the money is going to and how much, for example, is being taken in administration costs and expenses. As a result of this burgeoning number of charities, many of the smaller charities, especially the local charities, tend to lose out, however worthy their cause, to the publicly recognised charities with the big advertising budgets and PR campaigns.
My party colleague, Deputy Kemmy, has often raised the issue of the number and diversity of charities operating here. As matters stand, there is little or no regulation governing this sector, hence the establishment of the Costello committee. It is hard to believe that there is no register of licensed charities in the State but that is the case. The only method available to attempt to calculate them is in respect of the tax exemption certificates issued by the Revenue Commissioners. I understand that in 1995, 11,712 applications were made to the Revenue Commissioners for tax exemption of which 7,000 were granted. This does not mean that there are 7,000 charities as many of the licences issued are temporary. Even the guidelines under which the Revenue Commissioners make their decisions are archaic.
The Minister of State has promised to bring her proposals to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security prior to finalisation of the Bill. She has also said that she will include altering the cap for private charitable fund-raising in these proposals. These legislative proposals will be drawn up when the report of the advisory group, which is looking at the Costello report because it was produced so many years ago, in conjunction with Rehab and the national charities is available. While I recognise that the organisations may want to move quicker than this, the proposals by the Minister of State are the correct ones.
The Costello report has raised a number of concerns about the nature of charitable fund-raising in this State. These include a system of registration for charitable and fund-raising purposes, a system of accounting requirements, a registration authority, greater controls of private lotteries and registration and control of private fund-raisers. Of these, the most significant are the need to compile a register of charities and the introduction of a new system of accounting requirements.
If we wish to raise the amount of prize money which can be given out by private fund-raisers, presumably on the basis that it will help them raise more revenue for their valuable work, we should also ease any public concern that exists about the operation of these charities. The two proposals go hand in hand.
A number of the charities here have taken steps over recent months to regulate themselves. A new institute to promote good practices in fund-raising has been established. I hope this type of genuine effort at self regulation will be recognised by the Minister of State when she introduces her proposals for legislation.
There is widespread support in the House for the measure proposed in the Bill, but we do not need legislation; it can be done by regulation. I congratulate the Minister of State on her progress so far. I believe the proposals she introduces to this House will represent a landmark on how charities operate and are regulated. This type of fund-raising needs to be regulated. It needs to be seen to be regulated for its own benefit and for the benefit of society. Whatever regulations are introduced need to be clear and concise. I am confident that the Minister of State's proposal will comply with these criteria.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Hughes, Coughlan, Foley and Keogh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
In the few minutes available to me I would like to address some of the central issues raised by the Bill and to comment on how they concern the support of service for people with disabilities. I congratulate Deputy Woods on his initiative in bringing forward the Bill. During his time in the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Woods distinguished himself as a reforming Minister. Without the army of advisers employed at public expense by his successor, he showed what an immense amount could be achieved with political will and commitment. The only reason the Bill is unlikely to pass is that the Ministers concerned lack political will and commitment to take speedy action on this important issue.
Deputies and the public know that Irish charities are suffering immense financial losses because of the various ways in which the lotteries are controlled. The recent explosion in sales for the British lottery has worsened an already critical situation. Many charities may have no lottery fund-raising left if immediate action is not taken.
In discussing lotteries it is easy to forget the practicalities. The money collected provides vital services for people throughout the country who would otherwise have to go without. The area with which I am most familiar relates to services for people with disabilities who constitute the most disadvantaged and marginalised group in society. Voluntary organisations form the mainstay of support for people with disabilities. They are always seeking to extend and improve their services. The bottom line on fund-raising is that the more this is restricted the fewer services they can offer.
Deputy Woods last night outlined at length the need for immediate action. The response of the Government is more than merely disappointing; it is short-sighted and inadequate. During her contribution, the Minister failed to address the immediacy of the problem, but stated she was pleased to announce that the Government would take action later in the year. This is not a new promise from the Government. It has been its consistent response to all questions on charitable fund-raising for the past 12 months.
The Minister also laid bare the recent statement by the Minister for Finance that sales of British lottery tickets would be dealt with. She stated that files would soon be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, the basic problem is that the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to act on a previous referral was the root cause of the dramatic growth of the British game. The Minister also failed to appreciate that Deputy Woods's Bill would specifically remove only those administrative regulations which the Garda Síochána and the charities accept are unduly costly and unnecessary. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Minister's response was the absence of serious comment on the Irish national lottery and its aggressive monopoly. The Minister's reference to the national lottery was to praise it for providing money to fund schemes for women's groups; it is surely that this scheme is a scheme which was established by Deputy Woods when serving in the Department of Social Welfare.
The Government's attitude to most issues, and in particular to issues raised by way of Private Members' Bills, is unfortunately characterised by delay and inaction. In spite of its new army of paid political assistants, the Government is consistently slower than its predecessor in the production of legislative reforms. This Government is generally incapable of giving a serious reply to a Private Members' Bill. With parliamentary time allocated to the issue and the prospect of a cross-party consensus, it is surely reasonable to expect the Government to make a constructive commitment and a contribution to the debate. The same sort of tactic evident today was employed by the Government when defeating my Bill earlier this year with regard to disabled voters. On that occasion the Minister for the Environment, while expressing his support for the intentions of the Bill, called for delay and promised to take his own action. In spite of the fact that that Bill has been to the Committee on Finance and General Affairs and has received unanimous support, the Taoiseach, this week, communicated to my party leader that the Government is unwilling to help in having it passed into law.
There is a series of legislative and other initiatives concerning people with disabilities and voluntary organisations which have been promised for immediate production on many occasions but which have not been published or provided with funding. They include the Equal Status Bill, the Employment Equality Bill, the report of the review group on services for people with physical and sensory disabilities, the report of the advisory group on personal assistance services and the White Paper and charter on the voluntary sector. In its so-called budget for the long-term unemployed, the Government did not include a single measure to help people with disabilities, a group which suffers from 80 per cent unemployment. Deputies will also be aware of the cases of people with disabilities who have had their personal assistance services withdrawn because of refusal to continue funding.
What action will the Government take to ensure that charitable lotteries are not fatally undermined before the Government gets around to introducing legislation? What justification does the Government have for refusing to immediately remove a specific administrative requirement which the Garda Síochána and the charities believe is not important in maintaining proper oversight? Finally, what is the Government's basis for believing that the referral of a new file on the British lottery would have a different result from the last referral?
In fairness to the Government Deputies who spoke, their approach has been reasonable; they commended Deputy Woods on bringing the Bill forward to discussion. However, none of them has come up with substantial, principled reasons for opposing it. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's fine contribution basically came down to saying that if the cap was removed the voluntary charitable scene would be eroded. He did not give us the reasoning behind that conclusion.
I commend my colleague for bringing the Bill forward. I accept the need for checks and balances. However, Knock International Airport, or Horan International Airport, as it is now known, would not be in existence but for the fact that it was supported by the Taoiseach of the day who gave a Government grant that went hand in hand with substantial voluntary fund-raising undertaken by Monsignor Horan throughout the length and breadth of Ireland and overseas. If all the checks and balances had been available he would not have raised in excess of £2 million in a raffle with a first prize of a farm worth about £50,000. I am not suggesting there is no need for checks and balances. However, the Deputies across the Chamber should support the principle of this Bill and let us get down to the hard work of Committee Stage where we can cure any shortcomings with suitable amendments.
This measure has been sought by the voluntary organisations and Irish charities for over a decade. During that time their income has been reduced from £15 million to £10 million. That is a loss greater than 50 per cent when one takes inflation into account. They have seen a massive curtailment in the services which they can provide to their members in organisations dealing with cancer, polio, asthma, physical and mental handicap, training and vocational services. All those national organisations have suffered, while the demands on them were much greater in 1996 than in 1988. The State-supported monopoly, underpinned by legislation which is heavily discriminatory in their favour on many fronts, has seen its income go up in excess of 300 per cent in that period. Strict marketing and a monopoly as regards legal limit of prize fund and a considerably lesser burden on returns to be made have all but eroded the charitable lottery base. Even acceptance of this Bill would ensure that the national lottery's premier position would be maintained for many years because of the very substantial set-up costs for terminals, etc., and their premier trading locations in towns and villages. Any of the lotteries referred to in the explanatory memorandum would have a very difficult uphill battle to seriously increase the 3 per cent national funding which they control at present to anything in the region of the 10 per cent which they controlled before the national lottery came into being.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuiochas agus comhghairdeas a ghabháil le mo chomhlachtaí chun an mBille seo a chur ós ar gcór. If there was equality there would not be a need for charities to raise money in the first place. That would be real equity. Unfortunately, the charitable and voluntary organisations have had to spend more time fund-raising than at their work. We have created an unjust and unfair situation whereby charitable organisations have not been able to compete fairly with the national lottery, a State monopoly. The amount of money that voluntary and charitable organisations can pay out in prize money is capped. They have also to adhere to archaic restrictions such as returning scratch cards to the Garda Síochána on a weekly basis and this puts them at a disadvantage, losing the edge in the market.
There is all-party support for addressing this problem and for that reason I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the Bill. The Government says it wants to implement the entire Costello report. That is fine but very little action has been taken since the report was published in 1990. This Bill addresses one of the major problems which voluntary organisations face and after its enactment we could then progress to dealing with the other issues. In my opinion the Government is fobbing us off. It is easy to say that this is great legislation but the Government will introduce its own Bill. We on this side of the House will still be waiting for another six or seven months and nothing will have happened. It is unjustifiable that the Government should not accept this Bill.
The charitable and voluntary organisations have been the backbone of social policy in this country. They have been exemplary in looking after those who otherwise would not have been looked after, particularly those with disabilities. They have made a wonderful contribution to women's lives. Every parish holds fund-raising events so that voluntary and charitable organisations can carry out their work. I was very involved with the Sligo Hospice and they find that there is unfair competition in trying to raise funds for their very worthy charity. The needs of the charitable organisations should be addressed.
The orientation of the national lottery is wrong. Originally the proceeds from the national lottery were to be used to cater for sport and young people. The ethos has changed. The national lottery should revert to its original ethos and the proceeds should be used for sport, facilities for young people and community development. I agree that a percentage of the proceeds should be made available to charitable and voluntary organisations. The national lottery was established ten years ago and has been a success. Everybody should benefit from that success, not just a small segment of society. I commend this Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider its position and accept it. If it wishes to introduce justifiable amendments they can be dealt with on Committee Stage.
I thank Deputy Mary Wallace for sharing her time. I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Woods, on introducing this very important Private Members' Bill.
The main aim of the Bill is to level the playing pitch by removing the restrictions which have been placed on lotteries for charitable purposes. The removal of the cap on prize funds for charitable lotteries must be a priority. It has become a matter of great urgency and a question of survival for Irish charities. In recent months we have seen the rapid spread of the UK lottery, which claims to have 1,500 outlets throughout the country and a turnover in excess of £20 million. This is adding to the problems already faced by Irish charities. If charities are to continue to do the tremendous work they have been doing they must be allowed compete on equal terms with the British and Irish national lotteries. Irish charities are facing a major loss in business and in many cases are being forced out of the market. The present 40 year old legislation applying to them must be updated. It is imperative that action is taken right away to enable charities to retain their share in the market. If prize funds are to be limited that should apply to all lotteries, otherwise the restrictions should be removed from all charitable lotteries to create a level playing field. The Bill does this by amending section 28 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.
The national lottery has achieved its position through more flexible legislation and there is no cap on the prizes. In contrast charitable lotteries are restricted to a legal limit of £10,000 on the total weekly prize fund. It is clear that Irish charities such as those catering for cancer, polio, the Central Remedial Clinic, the Irish Wheelchair Association, to name but a few, are being discriminated against. Some, if not all, of these charities have called on the Government to support an immediate change in the law. Time does not permit me to highlight further the plight of the many charitable organisations which play a vital part in the provision of vital services.
Irish charitable organisations are recognised worldwide for their outstanding contribution, especially to people with disabilities. They need a level playing pitch when carrying out fund-raising activities. This is a must if they are to survive. This can be achieved by removing the cap on the prize funds and allowing them to continue to prosper in their fund-raising. They need a greater share of the national lottery funds. The time is opportune for a full review of the national lottery and the distribution of its funds.
The voluntary and charitable sector plays a very important role in society, as we have heard from many speakers tonight. Charitable organisations provide a variety of essential services ranging from housing the homeless, training those with disabilities, protecting children at risk and many more. There are an estimated 4,000 charitable organisations with a total turnover of £300 million. They may have as many as 50,000 working for them, many on a voluntary basis. In carrying out their work the charitable organisations greatly reduce the burden that would otherwise fall on the Exchequer, not least because they are often able to deliver services much more efficiently than the State bureaucracy. It is not only the beneficiaries of the various charities who gain from their activities; the taxpayer gains also. In all the circumstances one might expect the Government to do everything it could to help the charitable sector to grow and prosper. Instead we have a bizarre situation where the State has put the charitable sector at a major disadvantage in its ability to raise funds. We currently have a severe legislative imbalance which penalises charitable organisations in their fund-raising efforts.
The national lottery is governed by its own Act passed in 1986 and effectively that Act allows the national lottery to offer unlimited prizes. The high level of participation in the national lottery means that in practice it can offer prizes of up to £3 million at a time and can offer major prizes twice every week. Contrast that with the entirely different legislation that applies to the charitable sector. Charitable lotteries are governed by the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 which reflects the circumstances obtaining in the Ireland of 40 years ago. That Act sets down a maximum weekly prize limit of £10,000 for charitable lotteries. It was a generous enough prize limit at the time when one considers that one could buy a new car in the mid1950s for a few hundred pounds. Part of the problem is that the prize limit has not kept pace with inflation. If it had the limit would be closer to £100,000 than to £10,000. The real issue is that the prize limit has not kept pace with the major changes that have taken place in the market in the meantime, particularly the introduction of the national lottery and more recently the encroachment of the British national lottery into the market.
The national lottery and charitable lotteries operate in two totally different legal environments. The legal cap on the charities, coupled with the national lottery's ability to offer unlimited prizes, has given the national lottery all the attributes of a classic monopoly. It has a powerful retail distribution network, having been in a position to cherry pick the best outlets on day one. Its guaranteed cash flow has enabled it to invest in technology in a way which would not be affordable for other lottery operators. Its powerful market position is strengthened by a huge advertising and marketing budget, while its ability to create millionaires gives it ready access to the mass media, particularly television.
It is not just a monopoly but a State monopoly, because every aspect of the national lottery's activities is controlled by the State. It is operated by a State company and the distribution of funds is controlled by the State. The introduction of the national lottery has had the net effect, therefore, of increasing the role of the State in society at the expense of one of the most effective and efficient providers of services to the community, the charitable sector. The dice is weighted so heavily against the charitable sector that it is simply not able to compete. It is not surprising it has suffered heavily in financial terms since the national lottery was established. The charities estimate they have foregone up to £200 million in revenues since 1987 as a result of the operation.
Surely, this was not the intention when the original national lottery legislation was passed by the Oireachtas. Clearly, we need new legislation, not just governing the operation of lotteries but of the whole charitable sector. Twelve months ago the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, gave a clear commitment that new legislation would be introduced in this area. A year later, we are still waiting and all we have are promises. It seems incredible the Department of Justice, despite having no fewer than three Ministers, is incapable of delivering the relatively straightforward legislation required to solve the problems in the charities area. We saw yesterday how speedily legislation can be put through this House when the Government so wishes. Clearly, despite its importance in society, the charitable sector does not merit a high place in this Government's list of political priorities.
Given the inactivity of the Minister of State on this front, I am all the more pleased to support the Bill tabled by Deputy Woods. I congratulate him on putting this Bill forward. The key requirement in any legislation is to level the playing field between the national lottery and charitable lotteries. The prize limit on charitable lotteries has to be abolished so as to remove their competitive disadvantage vis-á-vis the national lottery. I appreciate that lotteries may not be subject to European competition law, but it is not an issue of competition law but of basic fairness. We must be prepared to treat charities in an equitable manner. We cannot use discriminatory legislation to give an unfair advantage to the strongest player in the market.
We could go a step further. One of the problems with the administration of lottery funds in Ireland is that there is no explicit recognition of the needs of the charitable sector. This contrasts with the situation in Britain where 20 per cent of the total distribution is made available to qualifying charities. It seems grossly unfair that we in Ireland, having brought in legislation which discriminates clearly against the charitable sector, then ignore completely the needs of the sector when it comes to the distribution of lottery funds. We should look at the possibility of establishing the charitable sector as one of the categories of beneficiary for lottery funds.
Indeed, there is a need for much greater transparency and accountability in the way in which lottery funds are distributed. At present, there is not even a standard method of applying for lottery funds. This does little to boost confidence in the system. One of the big dangers with the national lottery is that the moneys of the poor may be used to subsidise the pleasures of the rich. A more accountable distribution mechanism, independently managed in line with clearly established criteria, would go a long way towards obviating that possibility.
New charities legislation needs to do much more than simply level the playing field between the national lottery and the independent charitable lotteries. At present, we have a totally inadequate legislative and administrative framework governing the operation of all charitable fund-raising. Two State bodies have responsibility for overseeing different aspects of charitable fund-raising — the Revenue Commissioners and the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests. Neither of these bodies has any real policing powers over the sector. In fact, the whole definition of charitable status is very loose. In practice, the granting of charitable status is an administrative decision of the Revenue Commissioners.
The whole sector operates largely on a trust basis. We have been very fortunate, so far, that to the best of our knowledge there have been no large scale scams or abuses. However, that is no reason for us not to be vigilant.
Last week my colleague, Deputy Quill, highlighted a case in Cork which has given rise to considerable public concern, which is the case of the all Ireland national children's hospice, an organisation which has raised over £1 million operating from premises in Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and Dublin, but whose activities were mainly concentrated in Cork. This organisation promised to use the funds it raised to build a hospice for sick and dying children. As yet, there is no evidence that any such project has even commenced, let alone been completed. Despite this, the organisation has continued to receive further collection permits around the country. In Cork city that charity was issued with no fewer than 58 collection permits in less than a year, an average of one every five days.
That case gives rise to a number of questions. Why was the organisation issued with so many permits when there was no evidence to indicate that a hospice was actually being constructed? Why was no one responsible for checking that the collectors represented a bona fide charity? Are those organising charity collections accountable to anyone for the donations they receive? What has happened to the money raised? That case shows the need for proper legislation to cover the whole area of charitable fund-raising. There are many questions being asked in that case about why prosecutions have not ensued.
The lack of progress in the Department of Justice is all the more surprising given that a blueprint for new legislation already exists in the form of the Costello report. Many speakers have alluded to this report. In 1990 Mr. Justice Declan Costello chaired a committee which examined in depth the whole area of fund-raising for charitable purposes. The principal recommendations of that report were that there should be a formal registration process for all charities, that all charities should submit an annual report to a national registration authority, and that the accounts of all charitable organisations should be available for public inspection.
The Costello committee did not make specific recommendations on the issue of prize limits, as it considered this subject to be outside its terms of reference. However, the committee's report did recognise the irrelevance of the whole 1956 Gaming and Lotteries Act in the modern era. The recommendations of the Costello committee are, by and large, non-contentious and uncontroversial. If they were to be embodied in a new charities Bill I have no doubt that such a Bill would receive wide support in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Yet, it is six years since the report was published and there is no sign of new legislation.
It is important to stress that charities want to see a proper regulatory environment put in place. The whole sector lives by its reputation, so it is vitally important to maintain public confidence in it. Most of the larger charities already operate to a high standard of openness and accountability. Little or no additional effort would be required on their part to satisfy the demands of any new legislation.
However, to sound a note of warning, in framing legislation we should be careful not to create a new regulatory bureaucracy which would impose major compliance costs on the charitable sector. That would be very damaging to the smaller charities, in particular, many of whom have no full time accounting staff. Any new regulations need to be flexible, so that the smaller organisations are not unduly penalised. It should be possible to put in place a system whereby they are required to comply with fairly simple, basic accounting standards and their fund-raising activities are monitored by the local superintendent of the Garda Síochána.
Yesterday evening the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, promised legislation in this area. She should bring legislation before the House as soon as possible. The Government has an ideal opportunity this evening to accept this Private Members' Bill. I abhor the practice of the Government in refusing all Private Members' Bills produced. I commend this Bill to the House.
That is not true.
The Deputy should not exaggerate.
It refused my Bill, a decision which rankles me.
I am glad to be able to make a small contribution to the debate on this Bill. Deputy Woods is seven years too late. He did not think it worth his while during his seven years in Government to change the legislation when he was in a position to do so. This problem did not happen overnight but has been with us since the national lottery was founded. I take this opportunity to compliment Deputy Creed for introducing the relevant legislation. It took many months to steer it through the House because of the shilly-shallying of Fianna Fáil.
There is a major problem in this area. People are very generous and if the cause is right, they will subscribe to a charity. The reason this Private Members' Bill is before the House is that the Fianna Fáil Party knows the Government intends to introduce its own Bill later in the year. In recent weeks it has indicated its support for various projects in my constituency. When in Government for seven years Fianna Fáil failed to support any project in the area, which its leader has visited twice in recent months. Perhaps he thinks an election is on the horizon but I have news for him. The Government intends to continue until November or December next year or January the following year.
I would like to see major changes in the Bill the Government intends to bring forward. I do not see anything wrong with the introduction of controls. I remember watching a "Prime Time" programme a number of weeks ago which dealt with the collection of moneys in Cork to set up a local radio station. It transpired that the people collecting the moneys were getting more than the charities concerned. This cannot be tolerated. I do not mind a small percentage being retained to cover administration costs but I fail to see why 70 to 80 per cent of moneys collected should go into somebody's pocket.
When I go to Mass on Sunday, shopping on a Friday or Saturday or attend my clinics £1 tickets are shoved in front of me. This also happens when people go for a drink at weekends. What sickens me is that nobody knows what happens to the money. My mother used to say that charity begins at home. This does not mean that people should bring home the money with them, rather it should be given to the charitable organisations concerned. I do not see anything wrong with the Government introducing legislation to control the activities of these cowboys.
I remember a time when Ministers travelled around the country with national lottery cheques in their back pockets and, in the weeks before leaving office, allocated money for projects which they did not have the power to allocate. That amounted to abuse. There is a need for proper legislation to assist genuine charities which do a wonderful job. I fail to see why there should be a cap. They should have the same freedom as the national lottery.
What annoys me about the national lottery is that a number of small shop-keepers in the west, including my home town of Westport, are being deprived of the opportunity to become agents. I do not see anything wrong with shop-keepers selling British national lottery tickets just as we do not see anything wrong with thousands of people from Northern Ireland buying national lottery tickets here. We should not be hypocritical. It is a bit like Fianna Fáil and this Bill. I ask it to await the introduction of the Government's Bill which will be well thought out and control the activities of cowboys who for too long have been collecting money under false pretences.
Deputy Hughes referred to the moneys collected for Knock Airport by Monsignor Horan who travelled all over the world and organised lotteries. I wish to correct one thing he said. It was Garret FitzGerad, not Fianna Fáil, who provided the money. He did not receive the credit he deserved.
I am delighted to hear that, unlike Deputy O'Keeffe and the Minister, Deputy Ring who raised the temperature wants to have the cap removed. It seems that we have raised some pertinent issues. It was important to do so.
This has become a serious problem because the moneys collected by charitable lotteries have fallen sharply because of the impact of the national lottery on the one hand and the UK lottery on the other. Because the Government drew back from taking action at the beginning of the year over 1,500 outlets are now selling UK national lottery tickets. We said this would happen and asked the Minister to introduce regulations. When nothing happened we put this Bill on the table.
Many Deputies have offered their support and welcomed the Bill's main provisions. Some would like to see much wider legislation but it seems there is a serious difference of opinion about the cap. Government Members have been offered their sympathy but I do not want it. I want a level playing pitch to allow charities earn the money they know they can earn, for people with disabilities in particular, and other charitable causes.
While it agrees with its principles and intent the Government will not support the Bill or take action now, rather it has asked us to wait until the advisory bodies have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. If it agrees that the removal of the cap of £10,000 and dispensing with the obsolete reporting arrangements should be given priority, why does it not do so immediately? It could then proceed with its comprehensive review of fund-raising generally.
The Minister confused, purposely perhaps, fund-raising generally, as dealt with in the Costello report, with the activities of charitable lotteries dealt with in the Bill. The Government says that this is a complex matter and that it will take time to tease out all the details. Many issues remain to be dealt with but this is a simple Bill which deals with charitable lotteries only and would be effective.
The voluntary organisations and people with disabilities are bitterly disappointed and feel let down. I am not surprised by this. Many people thought that the Government would proceed with these measures because of the urgency of the problem. Since January the charitable organisations have lost out heavily. They need the money. There is no point in saying we will have legislation eventually. In fact they needed the money earlier. The national lottery reduced them to 3 per cent market share. The UK lottery took £20 million from the funds available. It is still taking it today and will do so next week and the week after and probably for a long time because nothing has changed in the legislation. The Government said it will try once again to effect a prosecution but it has allowed the market to develop, the systems to operate and the couriers to take the money to the North. It is now a business.
We are talking here about a charitable business — Deputy Ring will understand that because he understands business — which is being put out of action by inaction at Government level through its failure to level the playing pitch and give them a chance to survive. Some of the Government backbenchers have pointed to long established charities in very severe difficulties. We are not talking about the theory or the niceties of better fundraising controls which are important but specifically about the charitable lotteries, the desperate position they are in and the lack of action to deal with it. Last night the Government asked them to wait another six months or more when it promised to do something. Let us continue to talk through the summer and into the autumn and examine the complex area of fundraising. In itself that is admirable but the practical business issue here is to help these charities in their hour of need. They have outlined their situation very clearly and honestly and this House should be capable of responding to their needs. Yet, the Government is saying it is not capable of responding. Although the Government agrees with the principle and intent of this Bill, it is not prepared to take it into committee to make whatever changes it wishes. That is regression to the bad old days of many years ago and something we hoped we had grown away from in this House. I ask the Government to make good the financial deficit or give them the means to protect themselves as we had proposed.
How much?
Ask them how much? Consult them. The people suffering from cancer should not be asked to wait. I will not ask them to wait because the time left to many of those people may be short. They do not have time to wait for rounds and rounds of discussion. I ask the Government to talk to some of them and face the reality. Their time is too precious and they should not be asked to suffer further in silence. We need a new set of priorities. If steps such as this are damaging——
Deputy Woods did not do it.
Please allow me to speak and behave for a moment.
It is a disgrace.
I ask the Minister to behave himself.
That is common courtesy.
We need a new set of priorities which recognise the needs of genuine people who are asking us to do something. Last night the Minister asked me to withdraw the Bill but I will not do so for those reasons. People with disabilities want our support here and now. They do not want niceties, platitudes or sympathy. They want action and are entitled to it. The Government at its meeting this week decided to let them wait and would not take action.
The Deputy had the Cosello report since 1989 and did not do anything with it.
Allow the Deputy in possession to continue his remarks without interruption. He is about to conclude.
Having heard their pleas and received their letters it said it would not act now. This week the Government said it would not act now. Prior to that the Government's programme managers and advisers met — we all know how numerous they are. They did not see the urgent need for action or if they did they were not listened to. The party leaders, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare met and decided they too would turn their backs on the charitable lotteries and the people who work for those charities, whose work is exemplary, whose contribution to society is extraordinary and whose lives are dedicated to serving those most in need. The party leaders had more important things to do. They forgot about the vulnerable people who depend on them. Did even one member of the Government say it should be done now? Were there no voices in the Fine Gael, Labour or Democratic Left parliamentary parties to speak for the charitable organisations and their members?
They have no interest.
Was this issue not worthy of support?
No.
Was it not an issue on which to make a stand? Deputies, especially on that side of the House, made a stand on all sorts of issues.
Why did Dr. O'Connell resign?
Is concern about light rail more important to Government backbenchers than the well-being of thousands of people with disabilities?
No, his ego.
Nobody turned up on the plinth. The Government did not say it will remove the cap. Last night the Minister said the Government accepts that changes need to be made in relation to the cap. That is the key. I am sorry for Deputy Ring who would like to see the cap removed. Deputy O'Keeffe said the limit should be raised to perhaps £25,000.
I am consistent.
The Deputy has a long way to go yet.
Is this the shorthand for saying it will raise the limits. It wants to do it by means of regulations and the Minister said the ceiling could be raised substantially. Is this not legislation by regulations?
Ask Dr. Moffat about the biscuit factory.
Our proposals simply abolish the cap and if the Government want to restore it, it must come back to the House.
The time has come to put the question.
I note the Taoiseach's reply to a question yesterday in which he said there are no plans to introduce any legislation in relation to the national lottery. That information was also contained in a letter which our party leader received, dated 18 June. There is no hope of reform. We want a full review of the national lottery as so many on the Government side of the House. After the debate last night I was given to understand that the advisory body set up by the Government recommended that the cap be removed. If that is the body's recommendation, why conceal it from the House; why continue to pursue the line of raising the limits? I ask the Minister to clarify the matter and not to conceal this relevant fact. I ask Members on all sides to support the Bill.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Question declared lost.