Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, line 9, after "community" to insert the following:

"including the advancement of human rights and the promotion of equality or for advancing social or economic policy".

I am disposed towards insisting on this amendment, which would include the words, "including the advancement of human rights and the promotion of equality or for advancing social or economic policy" in section 3(1). It is interesting that section 3(1) states:

For the purposes of this Act each of the following shall, subject to subsection (2), be regarded as being a charitable purpose:

(a) the prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship.

Members already have gone into the issue as to whether this is a matter of charity or of justice. However, this problem will resonate with them throughout their discussions in this regard. Section 3(1)(b) cites "the advancement of education", which historically includes questions pertaining to women's education in 19th century Britain and section 3(1)(c) refers to "the advancement of religion", which has its own problems later in the Bill in respect of definition. One presumes that it is religion that is not of an oppressive kind and Members will deal later on with the specific issue of cults. Section 3(1)(d) includes "any other purpose that is of benefit to the community".

In this amendment, Deputy Wall seeks to insert an additional line, "including the advancement of human rights and the promotion of equality or for advancing social or economic policy". I refer to the history of the human rights movement, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the establishment of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a post that was filled in a distinguished way by Mary Robinson. I must declare an interest in that I hold an honorary adjunct professorship at the Irish Centre for Human Rights. Surely the issue of human rights is important and should be promoted. Consequently, non-governmental organisations and charities should have the right to promote it.

Equally, when one considers the promotion of equality, I have a real issue regarding the drift of Government policy. I consider the inclusion of the Combat Poverty Agency within the Department of Social and Family Affairs simply to be the taming of advocacy. Equally, I consider the changes regarding the Equality Authority to be quite corrosive of movements towards vibrant citizenship. For that reason, one might reasonably ask why one cannot include the advancement of human rights, the promotion of equality or the establishment of social or economic policy?

For example, I refer to the current debate as to whether one should have a market driven policy that regards society as a residuum or whether one should adopt a new version of a social economy. The suggestion is that such issues cannot be included, while the advancement of religion and education, as well as the prevention of poverty or economic hardship are included. One has reverted to the old notion in respect of worthy people, such as the Oxford movement, who in the old days used to travel from London to discover the poor. They would engage in distribution, try to get them to uplift themselves and so forth.

Whether one likes it or not, a tremendous debate is under way in respect of the rights implications of our structures. Human rights, where they are being discussed most seriously, are no longer confined to legal texts. A genuine attempt is being made to move on from civil and political rights into economic, social and cultural rights. This movement is taking place and includes people throughout the world who are struggling both to be recognised as human beings and for the right to live, to construct their way of life, to their own culture and so forth. This pertains to the human rights side of the issue. Within the developed countries, one has rights of bodies such as, for example, Travellers, children, special communities and so forth. All these rights are being expressed by the non-governmental organisations and rights bodies as rights with responsibilities. They are about participation, the democratic distribution of power and the manner in which one gives consent.

On the other side, in respect of equality, there has been a great debate that has gone far past the poverty debate. The question on equality asks what constitutes the equal participation of citizens in society in respect of education, health, transport and the rights of different people of different ages. One then moves on to try to discuss forms of social and economic organisation and so on, as bodies may well do. I refer, for example, to bodies that specifically discuss giving rights to elderly people and so forth. Consequently, I do not understand how one can assert that the prevention or relief of poverty or economic hardship is permissible when it is much less than the matters to which I refer. This is being concerned for the victims, the inequalities and frustrations of human rights having happened and so forth. For that reason, I ask the Minister of State at least to consider amendment No. 14. I cannot see how the Bill would be damaged by the inclusion of the wording suggested by Deputy Wall in this amendment.

See this speech in context