Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

First, I acknowledge the work that RTE's "Prime Time" has done on this issue. In the absence of publicly provided services, for example, for bereavement, the charity sector steps in. Good governance and finances must be beyond reproach because they can bring an organisation into disrepute as quickly as the adequacy or inadequacy of the service that organisations provide.

There are 4,500 charities registered in the country. This presents a challenge of oversight and shows the fragmentation in the sector. Many of these are small organisations but the example of Console shows the importance of good governance and proper financial oversight as well as the serious consequences for those who abuse their position. There should be serious consequences.

I am keen to separate the role of the staff of the charity who are doing a necessary and fine job from this controversy. They are paying a heavy price for what has transpired. Instead, we should be paying our attention to Paul Kelly, his wife, Patricia, and their son and other family members. They are the people I wish to direct my concern towards. They gained trust because they understood the need for the service, a service they have now compromised. The series of failures appear to span everything from company law to criminal law to Revenue obligations and the Charities Act. It is a breathtaking series of failures.

Normally, a charity has to have a set of audited accounts to receive State funding. The accountants appear to have had adverse comments on the accounts. The auditor appears to have identified those failures. Did the charity continue to receive State funding after those failures were identified? They also need to provide information on the directors to receive State funding. How could they have been family members in that case? So many flags were raised in this case that it is incredible Console continued to receive State funding.

The HSE carried out an evaluation in 2006. What controls did the HSE put in place after that? How did family members continue to sit on the board? On the "Prime Time" programme, the HSE representatives appeared to identify the need for the service as paramount. Was this policy to the detriment of putting controls in place? Given the constrained public funding, I would have thought even more controls should have been put in place at that point, but that does not appear to have happened because the amount of money seems to have escalated.

We are a generous people and we contribute a great deal to charities. That we have 4,500 charities identifies that. However, these revelations do extensive damage to public confidence. The Social Democrats have argued that there is a need for an anti-corruption agency. There must be consequences. We must stop the fragmented approach in our response whereby a scandal is followed by an inquiry and a report. A more robust approach is needed to prevent this from happening again and to change behaviour.

Did the provision of public funds continue after the internal audit was carried out? Were controls put on the board? Many questions remain unanswered but the major issue is the question of public trust. Public trust will not be satisfied unless there are consequences and unless we put systems in place to provide for those consequences.

See this speech in context