Rónán Mullen (Independent)

In speaking to the amendment, I am reminded of the exchange between the barrister, F. E. Smith, and the judge where Smith gave a long exposition. The judge said he was none the wiser having heard the comments, to which the barrister responded that perhaps the judge was none the wiser but certainly was better informed. The subsequent response of the judge was to ask if the barrister in question was trying to show contempt for the court and the barrister responded that he was trying to conceal contempt for the court.

Where priests or clergy receive in excess of one stipend per day, it is their practice to pass it on to people in missionary lands and clergy who very much depend on these stipends. It supports them in positions of extreme financial difficulty. I have worked with a charity in Argentina and have been asked on a number of occasions to facilitate this very good and laudable practice of transferring excess mass stipends to missionaries who need it. They are not necessarily Irish people and are in foreign lands.

As is well known to people in the church, one can see mass cards on sale in many shops and post offices in the country. If Senator Buttimer has a comment, he might address it to the Chair because I cannot lip-read. There has been a purported sale of mass cards and very often what one sees on them is a name that is hardly legible. The name is of a priest who may or may not exist. Certain commercial interests have been selling these mass cards, but it is a scam. People purchase these cards in good faith and believe they are making an offering in respect of a particular mass, which is not the case. Very often the signature on the card is that of a defrocked priest or a non-existent person. People who buy such cards are transferring money not to the church, as is their intention, but to a commercial interest that is acting quite cynically and not in the common good.

It is in this context that I am addressing Senator Bacik's second concern. Just because the church is a private interest into whose business the State may not necessarily inquire, people in the church are citizens of this country. On countless occasions, President McAleese has extolled the good works done by our missionaries abroad. It is entirely appropriate to act in the interests of a certain group in society, whose business primarily should be to alert shops and post offices that these are bogus mass cards. It is also a legitimate activity of the State to spot the scam and seek to inhibit its perpetrators by introducing a rule or regulation that will operate to the specific benefit of a certain group in society. We all agree that that group is doing good pastoral and humanitarian work here and abroad.

To address Senator Bacik's first concern about the rights of the accused, given what I have explained about the practice, there can be no doubt about the desirability of putting the onus of proof on the person selling these cards. It will be a burden on them that will be easy to discharge if they are operating in conjunction with recognised bodies associated with the Catholic faith in parishes or diocese, including religious orders. It is clear that people who sell mass cards in post offices or shops are doing so through an arrangement with a commercial interest. There are cases where it is done by arrangement with a local priest or missionary to collect money for the missions. Such people have nothing to fear from the Bill, notwithstanding Senator Bacik's concerns.

I ask for a greater degree of generosity when it comes to addressing the interests of specific groups in our society, including, heavens above, faith groups. I compliment the Minister on tabling a comprehensive amendment that deals with a problem that has emerged. I accept that it is primarily the responsibility of the church to deal with this, and it could be doing a lot more. The church needs to be more active locally in advising shopkeepers and post offices that they are helping to perpetrate a scam, albeit unwittingly. In many cases, they are depriving missionaries in developing countries of much needed funds. It is good that the State is intervening in this regard. I compliment the Minister in coming up with a comprehensive wording that is far superior to my own. Perhaps I lacked faith in the process in thinking that something as specific as the Minister's proposal would not get through. He is addressing a problem and it will benefit people here who will not be subject to such scams. In addition, he will be benefiting the work of Irish missionaries abroad, as well as their religious colleagues.