I call on Senator O'Connell to move the motion. The Senator has 30 minutes and each succeeding speaker has 15 minutes.
Registered Irish Charities: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, conscious of the growing public concern at the lack of full accountability by registered Irish charities urges the Government to take the necessary steps to rectify the situation.
This motion was promoted by the RTE "Today Tonight" programme some months ago. It highlighted the dubious activities of some of our most respected charities and exposed some of the fraudulent activities of others. The RTE programme and its revelations caused considerable public disquiet and concern, so much so that confidence and trust in very many of our established charities has been seriously undermined. This is a matter of great regret as the numerous legitimate charities operating in Ireland play a very important and, might I say, a vital role in relieving distress, aiding the sick and indigent, financing research, working for the handicapped, among other great projects. Were their future to be jeopardised, the Government could well be faced with a serious drain on their own resources to fill the gap. Recognising this fact and ever conscious of the need for charitable organisations, all of us in this House must adopt a very responsible attitude in everything we say on this motion. With that in mind I shall try to be responsible in my analysis of the present position.
In researching this subject I must say I was appalled at the paucity of information available about charities. As far as I could ascertain, anyone can set up a charity and gain charitable status. I learned that charities are governed by the following Acts: the Charities Act, 1961; the Street and House to House Collections Act, 1962; the Income Tax Act, 1967, sections 333 and 334; the Charities Act, 1973 and the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, sections 27 and 28.
The Charities Act, 1961, merely deals with any charitable bequest or devise and does not provide for the supervision or monitoring of the activities of charities. The Street and House to House Collections Act, 1962, merely deals with collection permits and is mainly concerned with illegal organisations. A permit is only refused if the collection is for unlawful purposes or purposes contrary to public morality. The Charities Act, 1973, is merely concerned with extending the powers of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests and amending the 1961 Charities Act. The Income Tax Act, 1967, in sections 333 and 334, provides for exemption from tax for a body of persons established for charitable purposes in respect of income applied to those charitable purposes. The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, concerns itself with the issuing of Garda permits and court licences to hold lotteries. In fact, those are the main controls we have over charities, the only forms of control I could find that we have over charities in Ireland.
The RTE programme highlighted the many undesirable aspects of charitable collections of which the public had up to then been unaware. I do not know, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, if you saw the programme but it certainly exposed some, shall we say, flaws in the system that allowed charities of dubious origin and questionable objectives to operate without let or hindrance and, more importantly, it showed how unscrupulous people can exploit the generosity of an unsuspecting public. We would all agree that the Irish as a people are the most generous in the world, responding magnificently whenever the need arises and the greatest tribute to their generosity was when Ireland contributed more to Band Aid in proportion to its population than any other country in the world, including the most affluent states like Britain, the United States, France, Germany or Japan. We were in the forefront, ahead of all those nations. It is a great tribute to the generosity of the Irish. The generosity of the Irish is also seen in the support for such organisations as GOAL, Trócaire, Concern, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the ISPCC, to name just a few. Many others like them could not function without such great public generosity.
Having said all that, we must ensure that this great generosity is not unscrupulously exploited. Charities are now big business with little or no control or public accountability. The whole area is so lax that it is astonishing that there is not widespread abuse, human nature being what it is, but perhaps there is widespread abuse and it has not yet come to light. The RTE programme could do no more than touch the tip of the iceberg, working as it had to within so many constraints.
It has been estimated that the charity business may be as high as £100 million each year, but we do not know exactly how much is involved, we are merely hazarding a guess as there are no public accounts, no proper disclosures of moneys collected and, indeed, it may be twice that amount.
In Britain the charity commissioners investigate and check abuses and maintain a register of charities. Local authorities in Britain co-operate with this central register in keeping a register of charities within their own jurisdiction. They are constantly informed, from the central register, of changes that may take place. We do not have such controls on charities in this country.
Concern over the laxity of approach to charity was voiced by a number of Members of the Dáil in recent times. Deputy Michael O'Kennedy tabled a parliamentary question to the then Minister for Finance, Deputy John Bruton, on 17 April 1986. He asked the Minister if he would indicate the number of charities already exempt from liability to income tax under sections 333 and 334 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Bruton, replied, and I quote from the Official Report, Volume 365, column 1206.
A body of persons established for charitable purposes only may claim exemption from tax under the provisions of sections 333 and 334 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, in respect of income applied to those charitable purposes. Charity exemption has been available in this country since the extension of income tax to Ireland in 1853 and the latest available information from the papers still extant and retained in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners is that charitable status for tax purposes was granted in 4,432 cases and refused in 495 cases. The Revenue Commissioners have not compiled a record of approved cases which are still in existence and for which tax which would otherwise be directly assessed has been foregone and do not have a record of charities which have ceased to exist.
In the circumstances it is not possible to determine the number of approved cases in existence and benefiting from the exemption provided for under section 333 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1967.
That is an admission from a Minister for Finance, that we know nothing about these charities. All we know is that they are granted tax exemptions.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe tabled a Parliamentary Question on 19 April 1988 to the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins. He asked the Minister his views on whether it is necessary to review and amend the law in relation to charities in Ireland; and if he would indicate his proposals in this regard. The Minister said in reply, and I quote from the Official Report, volume 379, column 1177:
My responsibility in relation to charities is confined to three areas: (a) the Charities Acts, 1961 and 1973 which provide for the jurisdiction and powers of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in relation to charitable trusts; (b) the Street and House to House Collections Act, 1962 provide for the issue of Garda permits to take up collections in specified areas and, (c) the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, sections 27 and 28 of which provide for the issue of Garda permits and court licences, respectively, to hold lotteries.
He went on to say:
As I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, I could not undertake, in response to a Parliamentary Questions, to indicate what my views were in relation to the amendment of the law in particular areas. Proposals in this regard are announced in the ordinary way following Government approval only. However, I can say that I have no proposals at present in relation to the areas of law covering charities for which I have responsibility.
Deputy O'Keeffe then said to the Minister, to put his mind at rest, that he should point out he was directing his question to him on the basis that when it was originally addressed to the Taoiseach he referred it to him. He asked the Minister if he would accept that the charity business was very large indeed and if he would accept that because of the problems obtaining in that area, with no statutory definition of what constitutes a charity or any system of registration such as obtains in other countries, there was cause for concern, in particular about the activities of professional fundraisers and, in those circumstances, was action not necessary. He also asked the Minister if he would accept that this was particularly worrying for the genuine people involved in the charity area who rely on public trust and confidence, who had raised these various concerns and that action was necessary in response to those concerns. The Minister in reply said, and this is most important, and I quote from the Official Report, volume 379, column 1178:
The Deputy will appreciate that I outlined in my reply my responsibility in this area. The Deputy is also aware of the fact that there are a number of other Government Departments with a significant involvement in the area of charities. For example, some health related charities are grant-aided by the Department of Health. The Department of Finance are responsible for taxes and legislation in respect of charities. The Department of Foreign Affairs would have to be consulted in relation to charities providing aid to the Third World. The Department of Social Welfare are responsible for inter-action with St. Vincent de Paul type groups. I mention that for the information of the Deputy and in order to allow him to appreciate my responsibility in this area. Of course I am aware of the position obtaining. I am aware there was a television programme presented recently that caused certain disquiet in this area.
— there is the Minister for Justice admitting there was disquiet about the problem —
I am also aware of proposals that were submitted by Gorta in April 1987 with regard to specific changes they have been asked be considered. I am aware also of the Deputy's efforts, when in Government, to give the matter attention. I am aware, for example, of his proposals for an interdepartmental committee — I think it was back in 1986 — which he tried to get underway. I readily understand the reasons such committee did not get off the ground. Because I am concerned I am examining a number of areas at present. When I am in a position to bring proposals to Government I will do so and shall make an announcement in due course.
We got that far. On the advice of the Minister for Labour, he suggested that the Revenue Commissioners have full responsibility for this whole area. I submitted a list of questions to the Revenue Commissioners early this year. I asked them quite a number of questions: what procedure must be followed by an applicant wishing to apply for the status of charity? Are there any guidelines laid down by which applications for such status are assessed? If there are no guidelines laid down, on what basis is a decision reached on whether to grant this status? Once status has been granted, is it for the life of the charity or is it reassessed and renewed and, if so, at what time intervals? If the accounts of charities are not published, do the Revenue Commissioners inspect such accounts and if so, how often? Do the Revenue Commissioners regularly assess that charities which have been granted status are still operating and functioning as stated on the original application? In other words, have the objectives of any of these charities been changed without the knowledge or the consent of the Revenue Commissioners? Is the status of charity ever withdrawn and, if so, under what conditions? How many, if any, charities have had their status withdrawn in the last ten years? How many charities have been granted the status of charity and also what number were granted this status in each of the last ten years? Are charities who have been granted status obliged to account for all moneys received and state in what manner they were received, for example, through donations, street and house collections, etc? Are charities which have been granted such status obliged to account to the Revenue Commissioners for all moneys spent and in what manner this money was spent? Do the Revenue Commissioners examine such spending to ensure that it was spent in accordance with the objectives of the charity? If such spending is examined and found not to be in accordance with the charitable aims of the organisation will the status of charity be withdrawn? Are all moneys and property owned by the charity exempt from tax and, if this is not the case, under what circumstances would moneys or property be liable for tax?
To give the Revenue Commissioners their due, they went to considerable trouble to get the information I required. I received a letter from them within a few days saying:
Charity in its legal sense means, broadly, a body established for charitable purposes only. Under a leading Irish case, charities have been classified, in line with the decision in an earlier British case, as being for the relief of poverty, for the advancement of education, for the advancement of religion, and for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.
That would appear to me to cover every eventuality. The reply went on:
Non-trading income arising to and chargeable capital gains accruing to, (e.g. an estate, interest or right) taken by, a body approved as a charity by the Revenue Commissioners under the relevant statutory provisions are exempted from Irish tax where such income or gains or benefits are applied to or taken for charitable purposes only.
Again, that is a very broad definition, entitling the charity to do as it likes with the money. It goes on to state:
Charitable bodies do not enjoy exemptions from tax on trading profits except in a limited number of cases where, for example, the trade is mainly carried on by beneficiaries of the charity. Persons engaged in the performance of the activities of a charitable body are entitled to benefit by way of remuneration or compensation for services performed or for reimbursement of expenditure incurred.
Again there is no indication of what these costs should amount to, what the remuneration should be and what proportion of the income should be applied for administrative purposes. It said they are specifically debarred from otherwise sharing in the profits or property of the charitable body.
It stated that the application should be made in writing to the claims branch, along with a governing deed of establishment, that is, a charitable deed of trust, constitution, rule, articles and memoranda of association, etc., depending on the nature of the body established. In addition, a copy of the most recently audited accounts should be applied. In the case of a new charity this would not exist. Applications would be examined to ensure their objects are in accordance with one or more, usually one of the four, of the categories laid down by the courts. These objects must be for charitable purposes only or else the body concerned would not be regarded as coming within the scope of the Act. The body itself must therefore say that it is being established for charitable purposes only and that would entitle them to benefit. Thus entitlement to exemption for tax purposes would be granted where the objects are for charitable purposes only and this would be dependent on the income arising being applied solely to the charitable purposes expressed. In other words, though a body may be granted charitable exemption, unless it applied its income to the pursuit of its charitable objective the income would not be regarded as exempt. Furthermore, only such income as is applied to these purposes would be exempt.
It went on to state that status for tax purposes of a trust established for charitable purposes only would be determined by its governing objects and if these change a review of the position may be required. Otherwise the charitable status would continue for the life of the charity.
The next point raised is a very salient one. It states that this position is not monitored. However, charitable bodies are required to keep accounts and these are requested in some cases to verify the application of the income to charitable purposes only. That is the sum total of the monitoring that takes place. It goes on to state:
As the establishment of a body of trust for charitable purposes only is mainly designed to avoid tax on income or capital gains the question of withdrawing relief for tax purposes only arises in exceptional circumstances unless, as previously indicated, the objects are amended.
As charitable exemption has been available in Ireland since 1853 it is difficult to ascertain precisely how many charities exist. Of some 6,800 applications by 1986 papers available for research indicated 4,432 exemptions allowed and 495 cases refused (about 10 per cent).
It points out that the assumption is that the balance of the remainder were also rejected. The papers have not been retained, therefore, they cannot be sure. Many of the bodies granted exemption would have long ceased to exist so they do not know the true picture. It goes on to state:
However, from 1976 to 1986, a period of ten years, there has been a total of 737 applications processed. Since then in 1986-87 and 1987-88 some 1,231 and 658 applications were processed — a considerable increase. Most of these cases emerged by virtue of the imposition of the DIRT (Deposit Interest Retention Tax).
It further goes on to state:
Staffing arrangements do not permit the monitoring of day-to-day financial transactions of all charitable bodies. Specific cases are, of course, examined where information is available which suggests that the conditions of approval for tax exemption purposes are not being or are not likely to be met.
As can be seen from this there is great laxity in dealing with this area, which has become quite a big business in this country. It has become patently obvious to me that we must restore public confidence without delay. To do this we need action at legislative level to ensure that there be compulsory registration subject to certain exceptions, and that a register of charities would be open to the public at all reasonable hours. There must be full public accountability. There must be proper supervision. We must have new rules and regulations governing their establishment and operation and we must have annual audited accounts detailing income receipts, administrative costs and disbursements.
What I am proposing could not possibly be objected to by any legitimate, properly motivated, properly run, genuine charitable organisation. What I am proposing will merely eliminate those fraudulent organisations who are seeking to exploit public generosity. What I am proposing will ensure that laxity in the running of charitable organisations, even well established ones, will cease. It is mandatory on us as legislators to bring a sense of order and control into this whole area because as charities have extensive fiscal privileges granted by the Oireachtas the onus is on the Oireachtas to ensure that they comply strictly with the terms of the Act.
I recognise that there are small bodies operating with limited income and receipts and we must not do anything to make life difficult for these small bodies who are trying to help in their local areas. We must, above all, protect them. It should be possible without altering the basic concept of what I would like done to provide exemptions for these small bodies who do great work on a small scale. I would like to see, where permits are issued, that they confine their activities to the particular area. For months and months I had someone coming to my area to sell tickets for some place in Portarlington. I often wondered what was built because this went on for almost a year. They were selling tickets for some place for the mentally handicapped in Portarlington and nobody ever knew what happened to the money.
I would also like to see some kind of limit put on administrative costs. When the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes were established a limit was set on administrative costs and this ensured that a considerable proportion of the funds were given over to the hospitals. I feel we should apply the same kind of rule to charities. This would be doing a great service. I was displeased with one organisation as shown on a television programme who had told its collectors to lie to the RTE people and not to tell them how much commission they were getting. They pretended they were going it all on a voluntary basis and this was found to be incorrect. Some of the collectors finally agreed to tell the reporters what happened. That kind of activity should be disapproved of.
On behalf of my party members in the Seanad I am suggesting five guidelines that could be introduced. One Department of Government must accept responsibility for this area because we cannot have the responsibility for charities spread over so many Departments. One person must accept responsibility for them. It should not be beyond the Government's ability to come up with some simple guidelines in regard to the operation of charities. If this is done it will allay public disquiet and bring back again the confidence and trust that people had in charities in Ireland.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the motion seconded?
I would like to formally second the motion. In doing so, I wish to say that I am in somewhat of a dilemma because what exactly constitutes a charity is extremely difficult to define. The nearest thing to the definition of a "charity" is contained in a definition going back as far as 1601, a very loose definition. As Senator O'Connell has said, anything could constitute authority. I will quote from an article in the Irish Independent of 8 December 1982. It stated:
Anyone in Ireland can start a charity. All you need is a collection box, a cause and a generous public. If your cause is a Third World dilemma all the better. You will not be hampered by official inquisitiveness. There is no official watchdog in Ireland to keep check on charitable organisations.
I am saddened that that article included the Third World as a specific charitable development because a lot of organisations do fantastic work for the Third World. As Senator O'Connell said, Ireland showed exactly what it is made of by the contributions to the Band Aid collections and the other organisations specifically geared towards Third World fund raising. The charities I have in mind would not, effectively, have anything to do with Third World fund raising.
We all recognise that the Irish public are renowned for their generosity in respect of charities. Not a day goes by without the public being asked to subscribe to some charity. At all the churches on Sundays there are all kinds of fund raising efforts on behalf of different charities. If on Sunday you were to ask for what charity the collection had been made the previous week, very few people would be able to tell you. One sees a collection box and subscribes to it. One buys tickets in the same way, one does not question. In that area, we are a generous nation and for that reason there is great difficulty in defining fund raising for charitable purposes.
In theory, charities are subject to law like any other organisation but the implementation of the law is extremely difficult. Since we do not know how many charitable organisations there are in Ireland, it would be very difficult to quantify exactly the number of charitable organisations because it is difficult to define what is a charitable organisation. It would appear that charities are a law unto themselves. There is no official register of charities in Ireland. In other countries the situation is different. A registered charity is a definable entity with a recognised status which is subject to definite checks. A number of charities in this category define themselves as "registered charities". Most of those are genuine, but there is the problem that some, through deliberate misrepresentation with a view to establishing themselves as respectable, would have motives that would be very questionable.
There can also be confusion where an Irish organisation is a branch of a British-based registered charity. It has been argued that some system of charity registration should be established in Ireland — this is the area Senator O'Connell is referring to and is advocating. I sympathise and go a long way with him, but there are problems in relation to registration of charities. The argument for the registration of charities would be that, initially, it would protect the public, that there would be accountability, that there would be eligibility for fiscal reliefs and that they would have recognised status.
It is worth noting that in Britain the registration system in operation is far from being an unqualified success; yet we must have some type of mechanism to ensure our people are protected. Whether registration is the answer is a matter for debate but the idea that with a registered charity the public knows where it stands is not true. A registration system can only be effective where the registration authority have resources to properly monitor the activities of the registered charities. There are disadvantages.
Senator O'Connell referred to one in particular, that is, the formalised structure where small local groups would be overawed by the amount of work involved in establishing themselves as a charity. For a register of charities there would have to be certain minimum structures set up. A vast number of small local charities set up for a number of different activities would not qualify under this type of minimum structure. In any registration, small local groups would have to be protected.
I have to disagree with the Senator in relation to these local groups going far afield to get revenue for their activities. In rural Ireland the community spirit has to be appreciated and the people have to be congratulated on their efforts. We are talking about very small local communities who take pride in their own place and decide to do something to develop facilities in the area. If they were to rely on the finances available to them through fund raising in their local area, they would fall far short of the finance needed to fulfil their ideas and aspirations.
Senator O'Connell need not be too worried about the small rural organisations because they are genuine. If there is any place where a tight rein is kept on funds, it is in those groups. I would be far more concerned with the larger charitable institutions which have more room for manoeuvre. That is one of the difficulties.
Then there is the rigid definition of a "charity". What is a charity? If you register one, how do you define exactly what a charity is because in doing so you might exclude legitimate charities if they do not fulfil the obligations laid down in the description of a charity. Another disadvantage would be the expense of registration and staffing. In Great Britain there is a registration monitoring committee with a staff of 300, and they are said to be under-staffed. We are talking about a huge staffing problem if we are to regulate this properly. In the Irish context the establishment of a registration system is not sufficient unless the registration authority is properly funded and the law on charities is clarified and modernised. The real crunch is not really the registration of charities but to try to regulate the fund raising activities of the different charities. That is where the difficulty lies. The most pressing issue is the control of the fund raising activities of specific charities.
I appreciate what Senator O'Connell said in relation to registered charities and relief for tax purposes. Some charities get relief for tax purposes but they do not get relief for rates. There seems to be a conflict in that area. Only in that context would I see the registration being of importance. What I would be concerned with is fund raising activities, because if you can control the fund raising activities of the different charities then you need not worry because you will know what exactly is happening to these funds. If there is a specific mechanism to monitor that, registration will follow without any problem.
It is not so much a question of regulating genuine charitable fund raising as it is of ensuring that funds raised for allegedly charitable purposes are used for such purposes. It has been suggested in a number of cases that little or none of the money raised ended up in the charity for which it was raised. We all know of instances where that can happen. On that line, I have to disagree totally with the professional ticket sellers, where most of the money collected end up in the sellers pockets. It is interesting that in law a person who gets a permit or licence is not supposed to derive any personal profit from that fund raising, but in practice very little checking is done. At the very least these ticket sellers should carry identification cards. In a sense the public are a little at fault because very few of us ask for identification when people come selling different things. Maybe people are coming round to this system of checking now in order to make sure that they are bona fide sellers.
It would also seem that once a permit or licence is granted there is no facility to revoke that licence. The only remedy is that the courts or a superintendent can refuse if that charity apply for a licence to do something else. The consequences of the activities of these professional ticket sellers is that the public will be increasingly wary of all ticket sellers. That would be a very unfortunate development because there are quite a number of organisations which do absolutely fantastic work and it would be a very unfair and very unfortunate development if they were coupled with these professional ticket sellers.
The amount of effort, enthusiasm and dedication by local volunteers that goes into the development of facilities, whether they be for St. Vincent de Paul or whatever is enormous and must be appreciated. It would be very unfortunate if they were to be coupled with professional ticket sellers, because the losers would be the genuine charities. A proper balance must be struck between protecting the public and restricting the fund raising capacity of charities.
I do not know what the solution to this problem is or whether legislation and registration of charities is the answer, but it is time something was done. Initially, what I would like to see is a working group set up to investigate the system as to what constitutes a charity, how registration would be implemented, how to protect bona fide local communities in their fund raising efforts, and so on. However, before that would happen one would have to give careful thought to exactly what is the best method of protecting the general public. The time has come to set about remedying the situation that exists at the moment.
I welcome the fact that this motion has been placed on the agenda for this evening. Senator O'Connell has examined in great detail the question of public charities and their present lack of accountability. I would agree with his definition of charity that it covers every eventuality that can be perceived in all walks of life. All of us are aware of the enormous voluntary and community effort that takes place in each parish in rural Ireland in particular. It would be fair to say that the country is being run on lotteries of all descriptions at the moment. The fact that this is such big business today means that proper controls and proper accountability were never more important or more essential in the discharge and the expenditure of these funds and the nature of the projects involved.
On a motion like this, it is only right that we should pay tribute to the enormous voluntary effort which is commonplace in many parts of the country, in organisations such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Concern, the Simon Community and Gorta. These organisations have collected enormous amounts of money through their voluntary efforts. The consciousness of the Irish people being what it is, they have responded generously to the many national and international crises for which fund raising was so essential. The need to scrutinise how this money is spent is certainly important now when one considers the huge amount of money and the huge growth industry that has developed in this area over the years.
In my own area, the development of charitable work is very well and long established — the Ossory Social Services and the SOS Workshops have been doing tremendous work for the physically and mentally handicapped. That is an example of local communities coming together where they see a particular need and devising fund raising activities with State support, to provide the necessary and proper facilities for the unfortunate in our society.
It is worth noting also that the extension of many of our public charity works has led to employment creation, especially in the area of community enterprise. In many communities there are people coming together voluntarily lending their expertise and support to those who are trying to establish community enterprise businesses for the first time. The fund raising activities we normally associate with charitable work, such as famine relief and poverty, has now extended to the area of employment and job creation. It is not surprising that this has happened in view of the enormous level of unemployment in many communities at the moment and the huge level of emigration, particularly in rural Ireland. People with expertise are coming together to draw up programmes of employment creation to keep people at home and to stop the emigration flood of our young people in particular to the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia. The public have a right to know whether this money will be given to the enterprise it is supposed to support or whether the finance raised locally will be used for the purpose originally intended.
Senator O'Connell, quite rightly, raised these important questions. It is very difficult to find a solution because no matter where or how you try to draw up regulations to ensure accountability there are loopholes and people will be very fast to spot them and get round the regulations. Even though the Revenue Commissioners have a role in relation to the definition of charitable status for taxation purposes, nevertheless they are a bit far removed from the smaller public charities we are trying to cover in this debate this evening. Perhaps they would be in a better position to scrutinise the records and the accounts of larger charitable organisations, such as those I mentioned earlier, but the role of the Revenue Commissioners in community-based public charity programmes is certainly a non-starter. One is dependent on the goodwill and bona fides of the local people who are actively involved in the organisation. If there are trustworthy persons at the helm in a community that is as much as the public can expect. To put our trust in a fellow human being at the head of any organisation is as far as we can go.
Senator McKenna laid the blame fairly and squarely on our own shoulders when he said we do not query the charity or seek identification when people ask for contributions at the door. The public must be awakened to the fact that abuses are taking place, and that they will take place if they continue to adopt a very laid back approach. On a Saturday morning it is not unusual in any urban area to have a number of callers asking for subscriptions or contributions to various projects.
I was awakened on a Saturday morning by a knock on the door and when I opened the door an individual asked for a subscription to support a very noteworthy and important community enterprise scheme in Dublin. I live 75 miles from Dublin. People are so taken up with trying to raise funds that they must go further afield to tap another source of finance. That is why people from as far away as Dublin travel to places like Kilkenny to try to get contributions.
The national lottery is a very important and topical issue as regards the disbursement and accountability of funds. The revenue to be raised through the national lottery was estimated at £10 million when the Bill was enacted in 1986. It has surpassed all expectations and £70 million is the amount at the disposal of the Government. What I hate most about politics is hypocrisy. As regards public accountability, we as politicians must get our act in order and give a lead to charity organisations. I would like to see more public accountability in relation to the disbursement of national lottery funds built into the legislation. The danger is that these lotteries will lose their attractiveness and this will mean a reduction in the amount of money available for the objectives originally intended as well as the amount going into the coffers of the State.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am loath to interrupt the Senator, but we had a protracted debate on the narrow question of the lottery. While a passing reference is in order, the Chair hopes you will not dwell on it.
I am seeking accountability for the disbursement of funds to public charities. I think Senator O'Connell would agree that the money being given through the national lottery to the various organisations, is doing tremendous work in the community, but the accountability, assessment and criteria by which those disbursements are made leave a lot to be desired. I am merely taking this opportunity to point out to the State that if we want to get accountability from charitable organisations and institutions, the least we can expect is that the State, and the Government, would put their own house in order by ensuring greater accountability to the general public in relation to moneys being disbursed through the national lottery. We have to forget that we are disbursing what could be called confetti money. The number of communities and charities looking for help from any type of lottery, national or local, is so enormous that I have no hesitation in saying the country is being run on lotteries. This is probably due to cutbacks in expenditure which are essential from the economic point of view, but the cutbacks themselves leave gaps that must be filled by other means. Lotteries are the way in which people normally go about filling that vacuum.
As the Minister is aware there were sufficient funds from the Department of Social Welfare for disbursement to various charities and communities and that was a means of accounting for the way that money was disbursed. Everybody knew, through the Oireachtas, where moneys were going, and public attention was drawn to the fact that moneys were being spent in a certain area through a particular Department. For example, if money is being given by the Department of the Environment, the local authorities should administer it; if the money is given by the Department of Health, then the health boards should have a role to play. In that way, we would have greater accountability at local level because it would be clearly seen where the money was being spent.
As I said earlier, our people have a tremendous awareness of the need to assist others in need. Probably the best examples were Band Aid and Self Aid. Even today, there is the enormous effort being organised by Concern and GOAL for Sudan relief. This has brought Ireland's reputation in relation to public charity work an international dimension that could not have been foreseen when we were introducing legislation to control the operations of charities.
If, as Senator O'Connell said, we have to go back many centuries to find the loose definition of charity, then it is about time we reviewed the legislation to tidy up and tighten the definition of public charity. In this connection I think it is important that this debate has taken place. The lack of supervision in respect of moneys donated to charities is disturbing and there is a public unease as to where this money could finally end up. There is a danger that if money gets into the wrong account public confidence could be seriously curtailed.
The registration and record of charities is one way of knowing exactly which charities are on the record books. It will not stop people from devising ways to subvert the legislation, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. The procedure by which charitable status can be gained could be examined in the context of a review of legislation. The monitoring role that was mentioned by Senator McKenna could be concentrated on, but the most telling point he made was when he said that the regulation of the fundraisers and the fund raising activities that are being carried out by the individual communities and individual organisations, are matters that we must home in on. We have a habit of putting the cart before the horse in imposing legislation at national level which will have little or no bearing at the end of the day on small rural organisations or communities who are trying to assist a charitable event. If we have control over the activities in which the individuals are involved then we will go a long way towards regulating this disturbing development and continue to ensure that the public will have confidence in charitable organisations and public charities.
I compliment Senator O'Connell on bringing this motion before the House. There is a great deal of public concern about the lack of accountability of charities. The Irish public has a noble record regarding the support of a diverse range of worthy causes. The Christian tradition of the country and the basic decency of the people have gained us the respect of people across the globe.
Against this background it is deeply worrying that grave questions of accountability in relation to charitable organisations have arisen. The many genuine and committed individuals involved in such concerns rely on public trust and esteem. Recent revelations dealing with activities of some charities have led to a shadow of suspicion being cast over many organisations regardless of whether it is deserved or not.
Of primary importance is the issue of control of charitable endeavours. Following the publication of the results of investigative journalism suggesting that all of the funds donated in good faith do not find their way to their intended destination, public confidence has been undermined. Charges that payments are made from funds to collectors lower the esteem in which registered charities are held. It is lamentable that well-known bodies with excellent track records should find themselves tarnished by general accusations and face a situation of guilt by association. Even more insidious is the charge that laudable causes are used to attract contributions while the total amount does not go to the cause used to publicise the event. This results in reduced public satisfaction with the existing system of permits and licences as a means of controlling the activities of charities. Senators leaving this House and walking down any street in the main shopping areas of this city will see unsealed and often insubstantial collection receptacles in use.
I move the Adjournment.
Debate adjourned.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 November 1988.