Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

With the greatest respect, I suggest the Minister of State's amendment does not clarify any matter but rather makes it far more difficult. I intend very much to facilitate the Minister of State and the Government in some of these amendments which are technical and, like Deputy Ring and others, we are anxious to improve the Bill.

However, this is one of those fundamental issues. The fundamental issue that arises is that, first, it is extraordinary to suggest it is possible to delimit and confine a political cause within a charitable purpose. I will give a practical example which might be of assistance. In doing so, I indicate, lest there be any difficulty about it, that my daughter works for Trócaire as a campaigns officer. For example, on a day like today, if one was to run a campaign against slavery, it is an issue that would arise in regard to trade, debt and so forth or in regard to bondage, bonded labour and so forth. It is not clear whether that comes within the Minister of State's definition — it may well do so.

We ran into difficulty previously as to where advocacy begins and ends. The issue arose particularly with a campaign concerning young girls in regard to a Trócaire advertisement, which was struck down by an intervention in regard to advertising by RTE. The advertisement had to be withdrawn and restructured. Effectively the Government amendment construes "political" as meaning "party political". Deputy Wall's amendment went very far. It went with the Government regarding the issue of political party and political person. It is fundamental that we cannot concede on the issue of cause.

What has the general sense given to "cause" included? It includes matters such as climate change, sustainable development, aid, trade, debt, slavery, child labour and so forth. If I accepted the Government amendment No. 6, it would always be suggested that a body had overstepped its reach regarding charitable status in collecting and that it should not take on a particular cause. What it is not stating is even more important. It is not stating that a body can do all the advocacy it likes as long as it is within the framework of the existing status quo. It cannot go beyond the status quo of its expressed compassion or charity and go into the realm of justice.

I have been involved in the general development area for a long time, and I do not say this about the Minister of State's party. I remember in the days of Bishop Casey when Trócaire was campaigning in Central America and elsewhere. Many people stood up in this House and asked whether this was what the organisation was established to do. What it did for human rights was crucial and the broader tasks of advocacy are very important. In order to save considerable time on this issue of advocacy expressed in its more general sense, I must insist on the right to protect cause, even though I am conceding political party and person. I will also do the same on a later amendment on human rights. I am doing this by way of housekeeping.

I spoke on Second Stage and having spent a long time considering the matter with the various bodies that made representations, including the Irish Council of Civil Liberties and many others, I have decided that these are very important points. I also believe that the Minister of State can achieve what he has said he wants to achieve by conceding on this fundamental single word, "cause". That is all that divides us and it is extraordinarily inflexible not to yield on it.

See this speech in context