Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)

It is a pity the Minister of State intends to reverse the excellent decision we took in this House last week. I commend the House on its support of the amendments we tabled. There is broad consensus on the Bill. The Minister of State has support across the board for the main rubrics of the Bill. I cannot comprehend why the Government has introduced amendments that do not allow for the advancement of sport or the promotion of human rights. We need to address the concerns of many sporting organisations and of the umbrella organisation, the Federation of Irish Sports. The Government amendment does not address those concerns.

I appeal to Senator Ó Murchú and his colleagues to recognise the importance of sport and the importance of the promotion of human rights as a positive benefit to the advancement of communities. I appeal also to the Minister of State not to reverse the decision of last week. The purpose of the previous amendment was to broaden the scope of the definition of charitable purpose outlined in the legislation. As it stands, the purpose and the goals of some worthwhile organisations that contribute great benefits to the community are not recognised in the section of the Bill outlining charitable purposes.

I thank the Minister of State's officials for their briefing. They have been very upfront and honourable and I pay tribute to them. However, I do not see the logic of the restrictions the Minister of State is putting in place. He has not convinced me, nor has he convinced other Senators.

At this eleventh hour, the scope of the definition should be broadened to ensure sports organisations qualify automatically under the definition of "charitable purpose". There can be no doubt that sports organisations contribute greatly to communities. They benefit them and people prosper. If one considers the society in which we live, one will note that a young boy is before the courts this morning. There is, therefore, a gaping hole in the Government's policy for providing sports, community and recreational facilities. Sports clubs and organisations are filling that void. Government policy should be to deliver what is required to tackle problems associated with health, education and all other sectors of society. This side of the House will oppose amendment No. 4.

It is true the majority of sports organisations would qualify under the definition of "charitable purpose" based on the criteria outlined in that they are of benefit to the community. However, it makes no sense to refer to their purpose within the relevant section of the Bill to ensure there is no ambiguity involved. I am at pains to understand why the definition of "charitable purpose" should not be broadened, especially given that sports organisations have contributed to communities' well-being. The Government talks about the promotion of health but the most important vehicle for doing so is sport. It promotes social inclusion and enhances the community spirit among all strata of society. Sport transcends gender and all age groups. Surely the legislation should reflect sport's charitable contribution to society. We will oppose the amendment.