Mr. John Farrelly:

When I refer to data protection, I am not talking about sharing personal information or data. We do get the line quoted a good deal. I think there is something there somewhere. The people involved are usually credible, professional and astute people. I am unsure whether it is a cultural thing. Why would someone put something out there? What is going to happen only for people to have found that they have breached this, that or the other?

I look on it differently. I believe the sharing of information in the public interest is as important as other things. In our Act there are obligations on trustees to share. They are given some protection. In our Act, if there is a potential criminal act or if something happened along those lines, those responsible have to report it to certain entities. It comes back to governance. Sometimes I wonder whether people understand what governance is about. It is not simply about running a board. It is about understanding the duties and obligations and ensuring they are carried out. I do not in any way or at any level buy in to the idea that we cannot share information in a republic with laws all around it. Perhaps I am a little naive but that is the route I will be going down and sticking to. We will do it in compliance with the Act. Let us suppose people are donating to something and I have information that can save that money or allow it to go somewhere else. I would pass on that information and I would be happy to see what happens afterwards. We will consider it, but that point is important. I think there is a fear and there is a culture around that. In my mind it is a terrible shame that information gets to the media before it gets to the regulator. That is not appropriate.

The point about trustees is that it is not only about the skills, it is about the competencies as well. Not everyone goes to college or is an accountant or a solicitor. However, there are people of the highest integrity involved. It is about the competencies we are looking for in reaching out for people. It is also a question of people who can differentiate between certain terms in governance. We are working with some groups on this. The questions that arise include the nature of private benefit and conflict and how to go down a safe path. Let us consider some of the issues that have happened over the years. They have involved a small number of people. The questions have been about private benefit versus public interest. Only a small number of charities have been involved. There is a great deal going on that is right. How do we support that transition in order that everyone joins the cause?

Another thing we are trying to do involves chairpersons. They have specific roles. It becomes more affordable if we get down to a given pool. Let us suppose there are 10,000 charities and 3,000 are schools. Schools are usually well supported in that many people are interested. Let us suppose we are left with 8,000 charities, including small ones. If we could reach out to the chairpersons in the first instance and support them, the benefits would be significant. I am prepared to do anything to leverage the various sectors, including the private sector, the state sector and the not-for-profit sector to support people.