Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with what Senator Kyne has said. Perhaps Passport Express should be renamed "Passport stopping at all stations".

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for mentioning the mass for the late Sir David Amess today, to which people of all faiths and none are welcome. It is no harm at this point to thank all those who made this possible, including the British ambassador, who will address the congregation after communion today, and the Australian ambassador, who I believe will be present as well.

The Leader will forgive me for not being here to hear her response because of arrangements I must make in respect of that ceremony, but I will be paying close attention to what she says. As I think everybody knows, an issue has arisen with commercial rates, stemming from a decision of the High Court last week. It deserves some focus and attention and, potentially, action from Government and the Oireachtas. As we know, registered charities are ordinarily exempt from paying rates, but last week the High Court ruled charities which include the advancement of religion as one of their charitable objects are not exempt from rates under the Valuation Act. This was in a case concerning Tearfund Ireland, a Christian group that does development work in impoverished parts of the Third World, which is a registered charity. The High Court found that because one of the objects of the organisation was the advancement of religion, a phrase well-known to people who know about charity law, it could not qualify as a charitable organisation under the 2001 Act and therefore was not eligible for a rates exemption.

It seems strange a registered charity doing work among the poor and the hungry anywhere in the world would not be considered a charitable organisation for the purposes of any legislation. I do not think that could have been the intention of the Oireachtas when it passed the Valuation Act. You could literally have two registered charities in adjacent premises, both dedicated to the cause of helping the homeless, with one being entirely secular and the other, because it has a religious ethos or affiliation, not being eligible under the valuation legislation.

If the two definitions of charitable organisation in the Valuation Act 2001 and the Charities Act 2009 are not properly or fully merged by section 3 of the Valuation Act 2001, as amended, then that means there are charitable organisations that are charitable by the law on charities but are not by the law on valuation. That contradiction cannot be let stand. It is not my job to blame either the original legislation or the courts that interpret it. There is a problem here that must be fixed. The purpose of section 2(a) of the Valuation (Amendment) Act 2015 was clearly to adopt for valuation purposes the definition of "charitable organisation" in section 2 of the Charities Act 2009. Thus, we have the faintly ludicrous, or maybe extremely ludicrous, position that the definition of "charitable purpose" is sufficient to secure exemptions from income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, deposit interest retention tax, capital acquisitions tax, dividend withholding tax and professional services withholding tax but insufficient to secure an exemption from the payment of rates. That cannot have been the intention of the legislator. I even wonder about the constitutionality of the exclusion of an organisation on the basis its charitable purpose was religion.

This is a matter for us as legislators to attend to and I hope it is something the Government can take an interest in. I would certainly like to be involved in the process of remedying this contradiction, which seems to have no just reason for its existence.