Opposition raises questions on Voluntary Organisations Bill

Opposition social solidarity spokesman Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca said yesterday that the Opposition would back the new Voluntary Organisations Bill but Parliament, through the Social Affairs Committee, should give an opportunity to voluntary organisations to express their views on the proposed legislation.

She said in Parliament during the first day of debate on the Bill that some organisations had complained that the proposed legislation would limit their independence.

Mrs Coleiro Preca said the need for legislation had long been felt, especially to ensure that there was accountability and transparency. This would help voluntary organisations move forward and make progress.

Even if there were no statistics on the extent of the input by NGOs into the national economy, it was a known fact that the Church had given an outstanding contribution to society.

More than 40 NGOs were working in the disability sector providing services which even the state was not handing out.

Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina had emphasised that there was wide consultation before this Bill came before the House. But what was the outcome? The NGO Legislation Working Group, incorporating some 40 main NGOs, had complained that three main difficulties which had been raised during the consultations had been completely ignored. One of the suggestions was to have a commission rather than a Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations, who would need to be a super-person to cope with the work. She hoped that the commissioner would not be rendered to the same level as that of the Commissioner for Children who had not been given enough resources with which to work.

The Bill provided for a council to help the commissioner. Therefore, what was the difficulty of having a commission? In terms of the Bill the minister would have wide ranging powers. Several organisations were concerned that government-controlled non-profit-making organisations could fall within this legislation. If this happened, the principle of independence would be stifled.

The NGOs also objected to that part of the Bill which provided that an enrolled organisation may be party to contracts and arrangements for the carrying out of services at the request of the government or any entity controlled by the government. This needed to be looked into to see that there would not be any conflict of interest.

Mrs Coleiro Preca quoted Council of Europe documentation showing that NGOs should not be controlled by public entities, they should be self-governing and non-profit making. Moreover, one should be careful how government aid was distributed. NGOs were voluntary, independent and not for profit. Government-appointed NGOs were neither voluntary nor independent.

Turning to the appointment of the commissioner, Mrs Coleiro Preca said that the Bill provides that the minister could replace the commissioner while the House was not in session, without consulting the House Social Affairs Committee. The minister should explain this line of action.

She also complained that the commissioner would have a number of conflicting powers, like being a regulator and a service provider, a prosecutor and a judge.

Concluding, Mrs Coleiro Preca said that the NGOs had pointed out that the fiscal burdens, like VAT and surcharges, would outweigh the benefits of having such voluntary organisations.

The debate continues today.