Ivana Bacik (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in support of this Bill on behalf of the Labour Senators. I was a co-sponsor of the Bill and have worked on the issues it addresses with colleagues in civil society groupings, in particular with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I commend Senators Ruane and Higgins on bringing it forward, and note also that it has received support from a wide range of civil society organisations and NGOs. The number is 65, I am told, including ICCL, Amnesty International Ireland and The Wheel, which is an umbrella organisation for civil society groups, community and voluntary organisations, charities, and social enterprises.

As others have said, the Bill has a simple, straightforward purpose. It seeks to offer a definition of "political purposes" that addresses the existing problem that has been identified with the Electoral Act 1997, as amended in 2001, which has effectively imposed funding restrictions which are having a really negative effect on the work of civil society organisations. Because the definition of "political purposes" in the original legislation is so vague that it can be interpreted and applied in a broad fashion, it has brought a wide range of organisations within the scope of the Act, despite their activities not being directed in any way at influencing the outcome of an election or referendum.

As others have said, the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, itself has identified the problem in the legislation.In 2003, it noted in its annual report that the scope of the current law is so broad that it may cover such bodies at Tidy Towns committees, charities, representative organisations and other interest groups. SIPO has suggested change. It has doubted that it was the intention of the Legislature that these bodies, in conducting their ordinary affairs, would find themselves covered by the legislation and recommended that a different definition be offered. SIPO has identified this issue. We have also seen concrete examples of organisations that have fallen foul of the current definition. Other have referred to the Amnesty International Ireland case in 2018 and we also saw it with the voluntary group campaigning to end the so-called baptism barrier. The group Equate was compelled to hand back a starter grant.

There is also an international dimension to this. We should be aware that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, for example, has been critical of Ireland for operating funding rules that have had the effect of shutting down the work of some human rights organisations. Closer to home, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has highlighted the negative impact of the restrictions on advocacy.

It is an important point that is being made in this Bill and an important issue to be addressed. It is therefore disappointing that the Government is not supporting it sufficiently to even allow it go through Second Stage. I know that Government speakers have identified flaws and that Atheist Ireland has corresponded with us about flaws that it suggests are in the Bill but Private Members' Bills can be amended on Committee and Report Stages. Indeed, we have a lot of experience of that. In the previous Seanad, I brought forward legislation to amend the Competition Act and colleagues who were Members of the House then will recall that the Government identified flaws in that but we won a vote on Second Stage and, as a result, I worked with officials and Ministers and we amended, by agreement, the amending legislation and brought forward an important Bill that safeguards and protects the rights of freelance workers to engage in collective bargaining. That was a good example of how Private Members' Bills can be amended and improved upon through collaborative working with the Government.

I welcome the Government's announcement of an electoral commission. I know that there has been a good deal of correspondence and negotiation between Senator Ruane, Seb McAteer in her office and Government officials. That is also welcome. At the same time, I think it would have been preferable simply to let the Bill go through Second Stage and then we could all work together on identifying flaws and seeing whether the aims of the Bill could be addressed in another way. There are useful suggestions coming through, for example, looking at the charities legislation and amending definitions there, rather than necessarily just using this sort of legislation. The Charities Act could be amended to enable promotion of human rights under the category that currently protects religious organisations. Others have pointed out the anomalies there.

We could look again at whether that approach is better or the SIPO approach is better. SIPO's recommendation in 2003 was to keep the current definition of "political purposes" and capture third parties if they intend to spend over a certain threshold in advancing such a purpose. This Bill does not have any threshold and amends the definition of "political purposes" to exclude those groups unless they are spending money during an election or referendum. There are certainly different models by which we can address the current problem that is restricting and curtailing the activities of groups advocating for human rights. I do not think any Member on the side of the House that is supporting the legislation is saying it is perfect. It has been acknowledged that we would be happy to work with the Government to ensure that the Bill could be amended and that any flaws it contains could be addressed, as I said, on Committee and Report Stages.

In the meantime, it is important that Ireland is seen to take a lead on the promotion and protection of civil society. In a debate like this, it is worth reflecting on the contribution to Irish society that civil society organisations have made. I have worked with many groups on many different campaigns, including the referendums on marriage equality and the repeal of the eighth amendment in 2018. I have also worked on campaigns in between and outside of referendum and electoral processes, including campaigns on the extension of multi-denominational schooling, for example. As a parent in the local community, I was one of the people who helped to establish a new Educate Together school. That is the sort of low level, local campaigning that goes on and in which many civil society groups are engaged on a day-to-day basis. The problem with the current definition in the Electoral Act is that it unduly hampers the work of such groups. There are sensible ways in which we can address restrictions that were not foreseen or intended. As SIPO and others have said, the restrictions were not intended at the time of the passage of the legislation.

We should be working together with the Minister. I am sorry that we cannot simply agree and move forward through Second Stage and see the Bill go to Committee Stage and then work together to bring forward amendments to ensure that we are not bringing in any unintended consequences and are simply seeking to enable the flourishing of civil society organisations in our society. I again commend Senators Ruane and Higgins on bringing forward the legislation.