Seanad debates

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

Community and Voluntary Sector: Statements, Questions and Answers

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Aideen HaydenAideen Hayden (Labour)

I will make three brief points on contributions from other Senators. I wish to inform Senator Quinn that Dublin City University has a very active programme of student involvement as part of final qualification for activity in the community. I refer to what Senator Crown said about philanthropy in the medical sector. When I was having my second child, I noticed a heart monitor which had been provided by a very famous singer. I would have preferred if he had been paying more tax and I could have had that heart monitor as part of my basic human and health rights rather than it being a matter of philanthropy.

While philanthropy is all very good, I have noticed in third level institutions that the State is providing 85% to 90% of the funding for particular buildings, a particularly well-known person, an entrepreneur, gives 10% of the funding and yet the building is not named after the Minister or the State but rather after the person who gave the 10%. I am exercising a note of caution to the Minister that the State should be receiving congratulations for its contribution rather than the person who gave the 10%.

As for the issue at hand, the point has been made by other speakers that there are wide divergences. It is between the community and the voluntary sector and it is in that regard I have a question for the Minister. Historically, much of the growth of the voluntary sector has arisen by way of gaps identified in the failure of State provision. Part of the reason certain voluntary organisations have become as large as they are is the failure of statutory bodies to mainstream much of that provision. Most voluntary organisations have no assurance from year to year in regard to their funding, yet they employ significant numbers of people, have pension and insurance contributions, must pay for buildings and insurance and so forth. Has the Minister's Department considered promoting biannual funding, at very least, for these organisations? I know from experience that some voluntary organisations receive acknowledgment of their annual funding 11 months into the year. That means the voluntary sector is supporting State activities out of its own resources for 11 of 12 months in the year. This is untenable.

It is important to bear in mind, too, that the previous Government, in particular, placed much focus on voluntary provision in a number of areas because it deemed this to be more efficient, but mainly because it was cheaper. A great amount of pressure has been put on the voluntary sector to deliver where certain programmes are being put in place, particularly at local authority level. Has the Minister any plans to evaluate some of the decisions of the previous Government concerning the placing of this level of emphasis on the voluntary sector?

I agree completely with the Minister there needs to be cost efficiency, and so forth but it is important to remember this is a two-way street. Although the voluntary sector has obligations to be efficient and cost effective, the State also has an obligation to the voluntary sector.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.