John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their contributions. I am conscious of this issue and note it has taken up much time and debate on earlier Stages. I am aware the definition of charitable purpose as outlined in section 3(8) has been the subject of much debate on previous Stages of the Bill and that of particular interest in that context has been the reference to human rights within that definition.

The Charities Bill has been consciously framed in order not to have a negative impact on any organisation that enjoys charitable status with the Revenue Commissioners at present. The Bill endeavours to protect the status of organisations that at present are regarded as charities by ensuring the categories of charitable purposes in section 3 of the Bill reflect those that have developed in common law over many years and have been used by Revenue when considering eligibility for charitable tax exemptions.

While the Bill does not seek to narrow such charitable purposes, neither does it seek to expand the range of charitable purposes. The advancement of human rights or social justice is not a charitable purpose at present. Revenue does not grant charitable tax exemptions to human rights organisations per se. I understand that where it has granted exemptions to organisations that might be regarded by some as being human rights organisations, it has done so in the context of purposes relating to education or poverty, for example. Where Revenue has made such determinations, the proposal to automatically deem such organisations as charities ensures that such charitable status is fully protected. Consequently, organisations that already have charitable tax exemptions have nothing to fear from the new legislation.

I should point out that the Revenue Commissioners operate a separate tax exemption scheme for human rights bodies, but only for those that have consultative status with the United Nations. I understand the only organisation that receives such recognition in Ireland is Amnesty International and its position will not be affected by the Bill. I have specific concerns about the terminology proposed in the Opposition amendments. I do not accept in Deputy Wall's amendment No. 14 that an organisation that is involved solely in the advancement of economic policy should be regarded as charitable in nature. Regarding Deputy Ring's amendment No. 21, my advice is that social inclusion is already fully comprehended under section 3(8)(k) and that civic participation would be included within civic responsibility in section 3(8)(c). In those circumstances I regret I cannot accept amendments Nos. 14 and 21.

See this speech in context