Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. He is one of the Ministers who come to this House regularly for debates. Today's debate is particularly important. As has been pointed out by Senator Conway, the charities sector in this country is well supported by the public. It touches every aspect of Irish life. Much of it is not out in the open because of the confidentiality of the work being done.

Senator Mary Ann O'Brien has spoken on the regulation of the charities sector on many occasions and I believe she reflects the view of many people involved in that sector. It is not as if it is an imposition to progress this matter, but it would be at the request of the sector itself. There are many reasons for that, but one of the main ones is a lack of governance. There is lack of governance and there are many concerns about that. Where that exists it affects people who are involved in charities and are doing genuine work. Certain suspicions can be aroused simply because of the perceptions that exist about the lack of governance.

We can be very proud of the manner in which Irish people regularly respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Even in a time of recession, we always seem to be prepared to respond in a generous way. There is a historic background to this because in the past we benefited from similar generosity on the part of others when we were in need. One stand-out instance in this regard involved the Choctaw tribe of native Americans which made a considerable financial contribution during the Great Famine. It must have been exceptionally difficult for the tribe to which I refer to do that. When members of the Choctaw tribe visited Ireland in the past ten or 12 years, they obtained an immediate sense of appreciation and gratitude for their forebears' act of kindness. This was only one instance of the support and assistance Ireland has received when it has needed it. This is one of the reasons our people want to respond to the suffering of others.

The thousands of volunteers who collect money or deliver assistance on a weekly basis go about their business in a very quiet, almost anonymous, way. It does not matter to which organisation one is referring in this regard. It could be the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which may hear about a family that is virtually destitute and which will, in an easygoing way, make an approach and offer assistance. There is no fanfare of trumpets in respect of such acts. It could also be those involved with meals on wheels who deliver meals to elderly people who would otherwise not eat properly. Then there is the work done by other organisations in respect of families that are obliged to deal with particular emergencies. For example, a loved one may have died abroad and the family cannot afford to bring the body home. The list in this regard is absolutely endless. That is why it is so important to ensure that the work of charities is not undermined, minimised or misrepresented in any way.

One of the most worrying aspects of the recent debate in respect of this matter relates to the fact that the deliberations of the Committee of Public Accounts were similar to those one might see on a television drama. People were, of course, outraged by what they heard. They would have been extremely disappointed by the fact that the money they donated from their meagre resources was not used for the purpose, namely, to help others, for which they thought it should be used. This all comes down to the need for transparency and accountability, both of which must be legislated for. We can draw up all the pious wish lists that we want but the simple fact is that these will not be delivered upon. When the current controversy blows over it will be forgotten to some extent, if not fully. At that point, we will be obliged to start all over again.

I am glad the Minister is taking steps to initiate implementation of certain aspects of the Charities Act 2009. I am also pleased that the Opposition has supported him in this regard because this matter should not be a political football. It is absolutely vital, particularly in view of the current controversies, that answers are obtained and that markers are put down in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence of what happened in the past. In the wake of recent revelations, there is a sense of suspicion and caution among people. If one comes out of one's bank or credit union and encounters an individual selling something on behalf of a charity, one will question whether the money is actually going to go to charity. The position is similar in respect of requests for donations received in the post. I know many people who are delighted to receive such requests. They want to make charitable contributions and they are glad that there are organisations which are prepared to use the money they receive for the right causes and in the right way. People do not resent being asked for donations. However, due to the fact that answers have not been provided in respect of certain questions that were posed - it is important that such answers will be forthcoming - members of the public are wary.

Not only do is there a need for a regulator, we must ensure that said regulator is properly resourced.

In recent years, regulation and oversight have failed. We must not allow this to happen again because we will have no excuse as we will have had an opportunity to examine regulation in other areas. It is vital that the regulator is properly resourced and has sufficient powers. However, we must also avoid building an unnecessary bureaucracy. We know the reasons red tape is introduced. We must bear in mind, however, that there are no question marks hanging over hundreds of charities which are under pressure as a result of limited staff and resources. We must take a balanced approach that does not impose excessive stress on such organisations, especially in the current climate where there is a danger of a knee-jerk reaction. The money people give to charities must be used for the purposes for which it is given and expenditure on salaries and other items should not be excessive. These are givens which should not be questioned. We must also restore confidence in the charities sector. The Minister responded quickly when the recent controversy broke. I hope he will, as a matter of urgency, ensure the 2009 legislation is implemented, especially given that it enjoyed the support of the Opposition and Government of the time.

We have an opportunity to achieve some balance by ensuring we do not paint everyone with the same brush. We must bear in mind the differences between charities, which are good in themselves.

Senators who contribute to this debate do so because they have a strong belief in charity. If it were not available, many people would suffer and slip through the net without fully knowing what has hit them. Let us think of those vulnerable people who benefit from charities and acknowledge those charities which do the work we expect of them.