Charity Bill should include rights groups

SEANAD REPORT:WHERE THERE were question marks about commitments to human rights in our society, it was not right that the Seanad, and particularly the Government, should allow certain questions to remain unaddressed in the Charity Bill, Dan Boyle (Greens) said.

As public representatives they recognised that there were charitable organisations and voluntary groups which represented particular interests in the area of social justice and human rights that needed to have their interests reflected in the legislation.

If there were political, administrative or legal constraints, it could be that this matter would remain unresolved, but he hoped that it would be dealt with.

Ivana Bacik (Ind) urged the definition of "charitable purposes" be extended to cover the advancement of human rights.

There were signs that the Government was once more appointing its cronies to semi-State bodies and to State agencies, and that was simply not acceptable, Shane Ross (Ind) said.

The kind of disease that had affected Fás would infiltrate, if it had not already done so, other semi-States.

"We really need to attack this on a very, very large scale," he said.

It was not just a matter pertaining to Fás anymore; it was a matter of removing the politicisation of such boards and ensuring that appointees to them were checked and double-checked and were subject to some sort of scrutiny and accountability, by which they were not simply appointed by Government Ministers.

Frances Fitzgerald (FG) said that while a public servant had fallen on his sword, they never had any Minister taking responsibility for serious decisions in various areas affecting people's lives.

Mr Boyle said the revelations that had brought about the Fás director general's resignation needed to be looked at in the context of the board of that body.

There was also a need to question all activity in State agencies to see "if these practices exist, to what extent they exist and who should take responsibility".

Eugene Regan (FG) said that in standing by certain Fás spending initially, the Taoiseach had shown that he did not appreciate the issue of value for public money. The lesson for him was to stop paying lip service to this issue.