Dr. Oonagh Breen:

That section comes from the Finance Act 1973 and was meant in respect of a gift. It was at a time when we were in favour of human rights organisations. The then Government came up with the great idea that it would reward human rights organisations in a tax way that had never been done previously. Therefore, in 1973, the then Government extended tax reliefs on covenants to human rights organisations. Before then, if someone made a covenant, it was to a private individual or a university and they got the tax back. In 1973, for the first time ever, the Government extended the provision to human rights organisations and said it would give them the tax exemptions it gave to charities also.

Therefore, in 1973 human rights organisations got a double bonus. It was as if because they had not been looked after as well as they should have been in the past, the Government really wanted to promote the work of human rights organisations and would make a "gift" to them and they got both reliefs. However, there were strings attached. The strings were that they had to have consultative status, had to be promoting the UN or the Council of Europe declaration of human rights and had to have the non-profit qualification included. If an organisation met those criteria, it could, in principle, benefit. What happened thereafter was a sad and sorry story. When I checked with Revenue in 2009, just one organisation was on this list. Only one human rights organisation qualified for this special status. Therefore, the provision instead of being a major advantage, became, in the mind of Revenue, a distinguishing factor. It found human rights organisations different, not a charity and put them to the other side.

As we became more generous with our tax reliefs for those with eligible charity status, so that every charity could claim back tax paid on donations if over a certain amount, we forgot the reason human rights organisations were in this other box. It was because they were special and because in the 1970s we were trying to do something good to reward them, while at the same time being afraid to say which internal organisations were human rights organisations. We handed over that right to a proxy and decided the Council of Europe or the UN would tell us rather than decide ourselves. Perhaps that is understandable if we consider the 1970s were different times, with the Troubles.