Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I would also look to expand on this area. There are valid points but there are also some concerns, which we can see highlighted. For example, it is important that we do not have measures used as an attempt to create a chilling effect in advocacy on NGOs or civil society. Ireland has been a strong champion for the role of civil society as part of democracy internationally. However, we have had lacunas and problems within our legislation.I understand my amendment No. 12, which I tabled with Senator Ruane, will be ruled out of order. I would be much more confident about this amendment if amendment No. 12 was also being addressed. It dealt with the problem of how "political purposes" has been defined, something that SIPO has signalled. I think Bobby Molloy brought in that legislation, which envisaged political purposes as rightly looking to restrictions relating to referendums and electoral decisions. However, the ambiguity in how it was framed has led to its being interpreted in such a wide way that it has acted effectively to chill civil society from being able to engage with things.

When I worked for Trócaire many years ago there was an ad which said that girls experience inequality, which is a fairly obvious fact. The BAI pulled it because it was concerned about it being a political message. That problem with political purposes, which has been long signalled to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and others, really needs to be addressed. We have been promised for years that it would be addressed. If that was in place, it would be useful in terms of this. We would not have situations as we have seen. There has been a suggestion which should not be the case that a body receiving Government funding should not be able to criticise Government policy. It is really important that this sort of measure is not used to interpret it in that way. Many of those receive Government funding because they bring an expertise or an insight. For example, the National Women's Council of Ireland has 180 member organisations and many hundreds of thousands of women are represented by it. It brings the voices of a large constituency through and we need to look to how we bring the voices through, much as unions, for instance, bring a very large constituency of voices through. That is what we want because we want people to be involved in decision-making. We want decisions and policies better informed by the widest possible perspectives and not solely by those with financial interests.

I wanted to highlight another concern over why we might need to expand this amendment. We do not want to force NGOs to have financial transparency, something I am completely in favour of, but not address corporate entities. This measure refers to a person but if for example, five fossil fuel industry lobby corporations are funding an organisation, that would not be visible. We also know some of the religious orders have subsidiary organisations. Several different kinds of entities are in play. State funding is one part of it but there are also cases where a subsidiary group registered as a lobbying entity may not reflect that it is operating within a larger context. I gave the example of religious organisations, but there are multiple others. Perhaps a more useful and relevant one might be a lobbying entity that is in favour of green energy but in fact is largely funded by a corporation that also has just as many and possibly far more financial interests in respect of fossil fuels.

Those are the examples that I am going to signal. I see the direction of travel of this amendment. I generally favour transparency in that regard, but we might need to widen how we frame that transparency. I would be very concerned that this amendment might create a chilling effect on Government regarding advocacy or might lead to NGOs being targeted, as we have seen in Hungary. We have seen a two-pronged attack. I saw this when I was a member of the European Women's Lobby executive board and I worked with organisations in Hungary long before some of the concerns we have been fighting about recently. There was a double-pronged attack where bodies were cut off from state funding and also not allowed to receive any other funding. Effectively it was used particularly to target women's organisations and LGBT organisations.

I am just signalling those concerns about this amendment and I may table my own amendments on Report Stage. I apologise for the extensive comment.