David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Mary Ann O'Brien and the Independent Senators for again tabling a motion on this issue. It is only a short number of weeks since we had a similar debate in the House. The Senators who tabled the motion might recall that at the time my party and I tabled an amendment to their substantive motion. At their urging, we decided not to press the amendment because I understood the logic of what they were trying to do, which was to get the Government over the line on a specific issue in the implementation of the Charities Act. That was very laudable, but I have to restate the premise of our amendment, on which Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú touched somewhat in regard to the obligations of the State. The State has an obligation to make sure the basic needs of citizens are met and that people are cared for from the cradle to the grave. Putting food on the table, making sure children are properly clothed and that people have enough income, for example, to heat their homes and keep them running, pay utility and other bills and gain access to education are basic requirements that should be met.

The reality is that many of the austerity policies put in place by this and the previous Government which primarily impact on the most vulnerable in society and low income families will result in more and more families and individuals depending on charities to put food on the table and heating oil in their tanks, send their children to school, put clothes on the backs of their children and even pay their mortgages and basic utility bills. That is the reality for any of us dealing with people on a daily basis in our communities. We know that is a fact. When they come into our offices and clinics, they are increasingly saying they are going to charities such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or the Simon Community. Unfortunately, more and more people are depending on charities because the State is failing to meet their requirements. It would be remiss of me, as somebody who gladly represents people who are being left behind, not to make that point.

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the motion and the logic of what the Independent Senators are trying to do. I also fully support implementation of the Charities Act. The motion references the report drafted by Senator Mary Ann O'Brien. I have read it a number of times because it is an excellent report and the Senator has done the House a service by drafting it. I have found it to be excellent and of very high quality. In the foreward she says we need to sit back and reflect on how so many Irish charities prop up the State in the provision of vital services in areas in which the State has been found wanting. That is essentially the point we were making in the previous amendment and I concur entirely.

I have long supported the need to ensure charities are well regulated and very much welcome the 2009 Act and commend the previous Government for introducing it. Deputies Jonathan O'Brien and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, the Sinn Féin spokespersons on this issue, on several occasions in the Lower House have queried the reason we have not implementation of the Act. We seek to amend it to allow human rights promotion as a charitable ground, but perhaps that is an issue for another day. The legislation needs to be implemented. I appreciate Senator Mary Ann O'Brien's argument that there are financial restrictions on what can be achieved, but this should not be used to delay or halt implementation of the Act. There is clear agreement in the House across the political divide among all parties and none that this should happen.

Senator Mary Ann O'Brien's report also notes that those Irish charities regulated by the Companies Act and limited by guarantee are obliged to publish their financial statements and that in so doing the application of the statement of recommended practice, SORP, is entirely voluntary and adopted by some charities as best practice. According to a recent survey, 20% have adopted the SORP, while 20% are in the process of adopting it or plan to adopt it soon. However, 60% have no plans to adopt it. That underpins the importance of the motion.

I commend the Minister for making a very good contribution and the fact that the Government has not tabled an amendment which, unfortunately, is the practice, even when well intended, constructive and good motions are tabled by the Opposition or Independent Senators. We must welcome the approach taken and I hope it can be seen as a statement of intent on the Minster's part that he will follow through on the logic of the motion.

As I assume I am close to the end of my contribution, I want to-----