Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

In addressing amendment No. 17 to this issue, my colleague, Deputy Wall, was concerned about the original text on page 11, lines 23 and subsequent. He was particularly concerned about the loose language used in determining whether a gift is of public benefit. Subsection 3(5) states: "A charitable gift for the purpose of the advancement of religion shall have effect, and the terms upon which it is given shall be construed, in accordance with the laws, canons, ordinances and tenets of the religion concerned." This is a serious matter and one of the fundamental issues I mentioned in my early comments on Report Stage.

Subsection 3(5) means that, if one can get inside the definition of a religion, it automatically follows that one can draw up ordinances. I do not intend to waste time, but some of the bodies describing themselves as religions are oppressive, dangerous and in breach of human rights. The suggestion that they would be able to define their own structures is unacceptable.

It was to this matter that Deputy Wall addressed his amendment, the function of which was to include the provision "provided that for the purposes of this section, "religion" shall not include any organisation or cult which in the opinion of the Authority is primarily economic in nature or employs oppressive psychological manipulation of its adherents". None of the Deputies in the Chamber or those listening to us on radio would have a difficulty in identifying a qualifying body.

One must make a choice between the wording of Deputy Wall, on whose behalf I will move his amendment, and that of the Minister of State in amendments Nos. 16 and 18. My difficulty lies with the proposed clause (4) in amendment No. 16, which states: "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that a gift for the advancement of religion is of public benefit." However, we will still be left with the definitional question. I appreciate that drafting in this regard is complex. We all respect the importance of religion and autonomy in describing practice and inviting people to accept principles of transcendence is a fundamental right of religion and religious diversity. I have no difficulty in this regard, but Deputy Wall has noted the fact that a body qualifying as a cult in terms of psychological manipulation and oppression can secure attachment of the economic assets and income of adherents and members.

The value of accepting amendment No. 17 over amendments Nos. 16 and 18 lies in the fact that the former clearly leaves the issue of religion intact while explicitly stating the exclusionary condition, which is important. I cannot accept amendment No. 16. I have made my case for amendment No. 17. While I realise that amendments Nos. 16 and 18 were an attempt by the Minister of State to address the issue raised on Second and Committee Stages, I will press amendment No. 17.

See this speech in context