Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2022

General Scheme of the Charities (Amendment) Bill 2022: Discussion (Resumed)

Apologies have been received from the Chair, Deputy Denis Naughten, and from Senators Róisín Garvey and Paul Gavan. Members are required to participate in the meeting remotely from within the Leinster House complex only. I ask that members and witnesses please turn off all mobile phones as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment. Members of the committee participating remotely, please use the raise hand function on Microsoft Teams in order to make a contribution.

We will now commence the third hearing of the joint committee to reconsider the general scheme of the charities (amendment) Bill 2022. I am pleased that we now continue our conversation on this important legislation and in this regard I would like to welcome to the meeting an Aire Stáit, Deputy Joe O'Brien, who is accompanied by the following officials; Ms Ciara Bates, principal officer, community and voluntary supports and programmes unit; Mr. Kevin Power, assistant principal officer, community and voluntary supports and programmes unit; and Ms Niamh Hoey, administrative officer, community and voluntary supports and programmes unit. They are all from the Department of Rural and Community Development.

Before we begin, I want to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references that may be made to other persons in evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or those who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if a witness's statement is potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue such remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction. The Department's briefing, opening statement and supplementary information has been circulated to members. I now invite the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and the committee members for the invitation to reappear before the committee this morning to discuss the general scheme of the charities (amendment) Bill 2022. I am joined by officials from my Department, including Ms Ciara Bates, principal officer; Mr. Kevin Power, assistant principal; and Ms Niamh Hoey, administrative officer.

I have been closely following the committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill over recent weeks. The points and queries raised in the meetings to date have been of great assistance to me and to my officials as we continue to develop the proposals. I would like to record my appreciation for the broad support the Bill has received during these hearings.

This is an important Bill. It aims to strengthen the charities sector, ensuring greater transparency, clarity and fairness, which will serve to enhance public confidence in the sector. The proposals contained in the Bill seek to enhance and consolidate the existing legal framework for the Charities Regulator to conduct its statutory functions, ensuring more proportionate regulation for the sector. The Bill aims to further foster a culture of proportionate regulation. The general scheme presented to the committee was the result of extensive engagement by my Department with the Charities Regulator, with counterparts across Government and representations and feedback received from the sector. In particular, the extensive operational experience of the regulator has resulted in a number of proposed amendments.

Pre-legislative scrutiny is providing a great opportunity to discuss and examine the potential impacts of the proposed Bill. I recognise and acknowledge those observations and concerns raised by witnesses and by committee members, respectively. There have been several insights and suggestions made which are being followed up, as my officials continue to engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, particularly those around significant events, due process and the right to appeal.

There is an identified need for proportionate regulation and governance requirements for our charities. The measures proposed in the Bill are designed to strengthen the sector further and to enhance public confidence in charities generally. In many cases, the Bill will ease the administrative burden on smaller charities. It will also further enhance and empower both existing trustees and potential trustees, by giving greater clarity in respect of roles and responsibilities.

I want to give some reassurance. With this Bill, we are seeking to create an environment whereby trustees feel assured that they are carrying out their duties and where people are willing and confident to volunteer to become trustees in the first instance. We have listened carefully to submissions made and have taken account of those areas which may require greater clarification and further consideration. Fair and reflective regulation is the very basis for this Bill.

Legislation, by its very nature, is drafted to account for a worst-case scenario. I would hope that last week the regulator gave assurance that her approach was very much one of early and ongoing engagement with charities when issues arise.

However, there have been specific instances where the regulator has not had the sufficient powers available to it to deal directly with a known issue. For example, the Bill will now allow the regulator to intervene where no effective management or board oversight is available. In this context, it is important to emphasise that the regulator already adopts a proportionate approach to regulation. The regulator engages directly with individual charities to support and enhance their understanding of both statutory reporting requirements and governance standards and works with charities to bring them into compliance. The small number of cases in which the regulator has had to appoint an inspector reflects the constructive and proactive engagement undertaken.

This balanced approach, commitment to fair procedures and adherence to the rules of natural justice, will continue with the implementation of any new legislation. Registered charities play an integral role in the provision of services to our communities. It has been acknowledged that public scandals involving the mismanagement of a charity, or in some extreme cases the misappropriation of funds, can have a detrimental effect on the wider sector. However there is also a risk that public confidence in the sector, and its regulator, will be eroded if the regulator is unable to effectively deal with concerns brought to its attention simply because the required powers are not provided for in statute. The perception of inaction can be just as damaging to the reputation of the sector. This Bill is a key step that needs to be implemented in order to allow for the appropriate regulation, particularly financial regulation, of the sector.

On more recent developments, I note that the Charities Regulator has proposed the inclusion of two additional draft heads which have been brought to the attention of the committee. The first proposed head centres on introducing an obligation on a charity to reflect their charitable purpose in their constitution. The second looks to remove an existing obligation on a charity with a court-ordered scheme to seek an order of the High Court, where the terms of the scheme require it, and allow them to apply directly to the regulator.

I would welcome the observations of committee members on these proposals which were not included in the general scheme. The Government is committed to ensuring the production of legislation that is robust, fair and transparent. Our charity sector is an important and valued part of Irish society. To ensure that our charities continue to thrive, we urgently require an updated legal framework that reflects the reality of operations on the ground. I am grateful to the committee for this extended opportunity to discuss the Bill and I look forward to the discussion. Go raibh maith agaibh.

I thank the Minister of State.

Go raibh maith agat Leas-Chathaoirleach. I thank the Minister of State for coming here today. It has been a really useful process and shows the value of the committee. The pre-legislative scrutiny has been really useful, particularly for me anyway in getting my head around this. On the Charities Regulator's input last week, many people were really reassured listening to how the regulator operates, how supportive it is to charities and that it does not get the heavy hand out first in the first instance. Everyone was concerned at first that the legislation seemed very heavy-handed but there was that reassurance that it is not the way that the regulator operates at the moment and in fact it is all about support. It is about getting in there and supporting the charities, dealing with all the issues that arise that may be of concern and working through all of those. The statistics given were very reassuring.

There was a note that came through from the Charities Regulator on the Irish Council for Civil Liberties relating to a conversation we had last week after the meeting when we were saying that we have the legislation and know the way the Charities Regulator has operated over the past while, that they operate on the basis of the law. It was interesting that just this week we said people come and go and if another person comes in they will operate on the basis of the legislation that is in place. It does not make decisions based on guidance documents, there has been no change to the law and to how the Charities Regulator makes its decisions. The importance of getting this right is reinforced on the basis of the conversations we had last week and also this process even though the evidence from the Charities Regulator last week was that it is done in an extremely supportive manner with this current regulator. There is always a concern that further down the road a person will interpret this in the way that it was originally interpreted, that it is like using a hammer to crack a nut. That is what has been said on an ongoing basis and that is why we have been so intent on getting this right. It is important that we do get this right.

The other issue I would like to raise is around the acceptance of somebody as a charity. I looked at the legal requirements which state: "the prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship; the advancement of education; the advancement of religion or any other purpose that is of benefit to the community ... the legislation provides further detail on what is deemed a charitable purpose under this heading". I have noted, and someone has sent me details, of a person who was registered as a charity which I would deem does not cover any of those aspects in any shape or form whatsoever. There is a tenuous link to religion but from what we can read from the reports would be extremely homophobic, extremely racist, anti Covid-19 and covers other areas I would deem offensive. They have been given charitable status. In this legislation is there anything that will change that would enable the regulator to investigate people who apply for charitable status? If a complaint is made, is it sufficiently rigorous that the charitable status of somebody I certainly would not see conforming to the requirements of a charity would be removed? Do we need something in this legislation that is stronger for the Charities Regulator to ensure people like these groups that I think should not have charitable status do not get it?

I thank Deputy Paul Donnelly. I listened closely to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL's, contribution at the committee last week. I am to give some reassurance that under the Charities Act 2009 registered charities may engage in activities to promote a political cause provided it relates directly to the advancement of the charity's charitable purpose, is not contrary to the charity's governing document and does not promote a political party or candidate. Of course we are also proposing to add the promotion of human rights to those viable charitable purposes. Any provision introduced in the Bill will ensure that those organisations who may seek to register under the advancement of human rights are not disadvantaged in their right to carry out such political activities once successfully registered. The human rights provision will I hope be in the legislation. The guidance document the ICCL was concerned about is further down the scale. Guidance is guidance; it can be altered or changed. Now that the concern has been raised we will look at that as the legislation progresses. It is also a concern I would be sensitised to. I will watch out for that but once we have that provision in law as a charitable purpose, we have the basis for clearing a way there for organisations where political lobbying is part and parcel of what they do and a big part of their reason for existence.

On Deputy Paul Donnelly's second point I have to be careful. Because the regulator is independent it is important for me, as Minister of State, not to question her decisions and for her to maintain her independence. What I would say is that religion is one of the grounds to get charitable status. How that is defined is reasonably loose. There are common law definitions which, when you read them, are quite open. In the broader scheme of things in terms of all the legislation and all the agencies connected to the State the regulator's role is relatively narrow in that it generally looks at corporate and financial governance. Some of the points Deputy Donnelly has raised would be of relevance to other Government agencies as well.

On the Deputy's question on whether the Bill would assist in that regard, the Bill is clarifying the duty, which was always there, in statute now that the regulator has an obligation to report to other Government agencies as well if it is seen that a law is broken that is relevant to another Government agency. That will help. The overall increased requirements for transparency will also help, particularly with those larger organisations in the higher scale of things and with those organisations that are registered as companies where we have little visibility of their accounts.

On this Bill, visibility will help and the Bill will provide reassurance. As I said, it was always an obligation anyway but the Bill provides reassurance that the regulator will bring it to the attention of other agencies if laws are broken. I would put into the mix that we are looking at hate crime legislation as well and that will be strengthened. That will not be done by me but by other Ministers.

A certain credibility is provided when an organisation gets charitable status. We have to be conscious that this lends credibility to an organisation. I appreciate the Minister of State's answer; gabhaim buíochas leis.

I welcome the Minister of State and his staff and I thank them for their contributions. There are 11,500 registered charities, which is a considerable number. Is the office of the Charities Regulator sufficiently staffed and resourced to carry out the required oversight that is laid down by the legislation, including the new legislation, to cover all those charities?

It is. We have a budget process every year and the Charities Regulator is under our responsibility for budgeting and financing. It has received a slight increase this year as well but that question has been asked and we have been reassured. On the proposal going forward, while there may be marginal requests for increased funding as the years go on, by and large its budgeting set-up will allow it to do both its current and planned work.

The Minister of State mentioned the human rights provision there and rightly so. What about the area of crowdfunding for disasters or charitable purposes? In a lot of areas you will see crowdfunding when significant things might have happened. Do they have to register for charitable status or is up to themselves? If they do, are they investigated straight away because some of them raise considerable funds overnight?

In short, if you are purporting to be a charity and you use that terminology you have to be registered with the regulator. That is the short answer. It depends on how they present to the public.

Does it depend on how the fund is set up?

It depends on how the group communicates with the public and if it is purporting to be a charity, it would need to be registered with the regulator.

I thank Senator Burke for that and it is an interesting question because crowdfunding can raise so much money so quickly and I wonder what the degree of regulation and control on that is. I remind any of the members who are participating remotely that if they wish to put a question or observation to the Minister of State, they should use the raise hand function on Microsoft Teams. I want to echo the comments of Deputy Paul Donnelly on the worth of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It has been a good opportunity for us to drill down into the issues. We have had some excellent inputs, particularly from The Wheel, the ICCL and Charities Institute Ireland. Last week's contribution from the Charities Regulator herself was important in answering or quelling people's fears about what the objectives of this Bill are.

I note that in his opening comment, the Minister of State asked for observations on the proposals that were put forward by the Charities Regulator last week and they were helpful. Something that struck me is that people who you might ordinarily characterise as being on opposite sides of the debate were saying much the same thing and moving in the same direction. There seems to be a consensus across the board that this is a good and important Bill. It has a road to travel yet because we will have to scrutinise it on Second Stage and then it will be back here for Committee Stage, when it will get that line-by-line analysis that will wash through some of those more detailed submissions we received. We will be able to see at that point how the drafters have responded to those concerns.

It deserves repetition, as the Minister of State said in his opening statement, that the regulator engages directly with individual charities to support and enhance their understanding of both statutory reporting requirements and governance standards and that it works with charities to bring them into compliance. The phrase I used last week was "tension between policeman and pal" and the regulator did not want to be identified as a pal but it is about striking the right balance. There must be a recognition that in smaller charities in particular, people are voluntarily putting a lot of their time into a good cause. Those people may sometimes need support and they do not necessarily need the sledgehammer. Elements of this Bill help in that.

It would be fair to say that our consideration of the Bill turned on three main things. First is proportionality and the regulator identified that there is no clear series of proportional responses. There is always the nuclear option and the big stick at the end of the process where a body can be delisted as a charity. It seems to me that you can either ask somebody to be compliant or you can deploy the nuclear option and there does not seem to be a graduated response. It felt to me that the regulator herself was acknowledging that they were sometimes operating in a grey area. It may be the case that primary legislation is not where you want to lay out a proportionality of responses because if you wish to amend that at any stage it is a much more difficult process but I invite the Minister of State to comment on that.

I want to pick up on Senator Burke's point on sufficient staffing. One of the things we were worried about includes those material changes to the constitution and if every comma changed in the constitution had to be reported to the Charities Regulator. Similarly a lot of people were worried about the significant event issue. If every single potential significant event was to be reported to the Charities Regulator, there would not be enough staffing in the world to deal with every one of those things. The proposed heads of Bill brought forward by the Charities Regulator last week, particularly the head on that charitable purpose in an organisation's constitution, helped to clarify that, for me in any case. What was brought forward with the use of the High Court as opposed to an appeals mechanism and things like that is important as well.

Those are the three cruxes of this Bill that need to be remedied: proportionality; the issue around changes to the constitution; and significant events and guidance on reporting of same. I ask the Minister of State to comment on those three points.

What the regulator brought to the table last week was an explanation of how her office has been working for many years. The Chair also requested clarity on what is called the enforcement pyramid in terms of the staged level of engagement. An awful lot of energy is spent on education and persuasion and at the top of the pyramid we have the provision for removal from the register. What is missing are a couple of steps between the persuasive side, and the office of the Charities Regulator has become adept at that and there have been lots of public engagement sessions online, particularly during Covid. Lots of materials have been developed there to support charities, in recognition of the fact that they are run by voluntary boards and people using their spare time to run charities.

That approach will stay and grow, and it is the right approach in terms of initial engagement when concerns are first raised. It is a pyramid, thankfully, in that the number of occasions that warrant the need to go further up the scale gets smaller, but there was that gap. I heard a representative from the Charities Regulator say there were hundreds of occasions where they considered the ultimate sanction of removal from the register but decided not to because it was too much. What is being proposed in this Bill bridges that gap, and even then, that sanction will be imposed in collaboration with the charity. The proposal is for a temporary removal whereby the regulator will go through with the organisation in question what it needs to do in terms of financial and corporate governance to get itself back on the register. I thank the committee for the opportunity to flesh that out because there were concerns early on that the Charities Regulator would go to the top sanction straight away without any engagement, but I have been engaging with the office for the past couple of years and that is not how it works.

In terms of significant events, the three realms being considered in that regard are changing the main objects, property and income clauses, and winding-up clauses. When a charity is looking at changing those aspects of its constitution, it will be required to talk to the regulator and notify it in advance. These are very significant or serious changes to the constitution, not a little word here and there. I reiterate that because I know there were concerns that people would have to spend every meeting thinking about what significant events could be because, obviously, the word itself has a relatively subjective meaning. I repeat those three again: change in the main objects, property and income clauses, and winding-up clauses are the core issues upon which the regulator needs to be notified if a constitution of a charity is being changed.

Were there other issues the Vice Chair wanted me to comment on?

No, those were the three.

Does the Minister of State envisage many changes to the Bill from when it is first published in this form to when it is brought to Second Stage in the Houses?

That is a good question and one I cannot 100% answer. We are actively engaging with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. There are certainly some things that have been raised and that we are working on with the office. There will definitely be changes, particularly in some of the areas we have flagged. I thank the Wheel and the Charities Institute Ireland for their submissions because they identified some smaller bits and pieces in terms of the drafting and some of the language that could be tweaked as well. I expect there will be some significant changes and some smaller inconsequential things, but I cannot give the Senator a number or a metric on it right now. We are open to improving the Bill and we have taken many of the good suggestions on board.

On the issue of significant events, is it going to be prescriptive? Is it going to be a case of this is what we deem to be significant events or will it be these are the three we believe will be the most significant events but there could be others we have not identified but we will work through them when we identify them? I am trying to clarify if it will be prescriptive. The big concern charities and community and voluntary groups will have is that it may or may not be a broad approach. We have three changes that are fairly detailed and we know what they are. Will the Charities Regulator be allowed then to bring in a fourth, fifth or sixth which it will then deem to be significant events? Is that leeway going to be given to the Charities Regulator?

I may have caused confusion when I listed those three events. They are around notification of changes to a charity's constitution.

On the significant events question, we are looking at other jurisdictions in terms of how they lay that out in language. The Scottish regulator in particular has been sharper in terms of laying that out. We are working on it, is the answer. I understand the concerns that have been raised about how broadly the word "significant" can be interpreted.

Are any other members looking to contribute on this matter? No. In that case, that concludes our consideration of this matter and concludes the committee's business in public session for today. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance this morning and I thank all of the bodies that made contributions to this pre-legislative scrutiny process. It has been extremely constructive and positive and I hope, by engaging, the committee has improved the shape of the final Bill. We look forward to having the Bill back before us on Committee Stage at some point as well. With that, I propose the committee goes into private session to consider other business.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.06 a.m. and adjourned at 10.14 a.m. sine die.
Top
Share