In his Private Members' debate speech, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, included information in the possession of his Department regarding Rehab lottery cards. This was the first time this was mentioned in the House and all Members are aware there is a pending High Court case involving Rehab and the State. There is no doubt but that this information is in the taxpayers' interest and everyone believes there should be value for money. In 2013, the Rehab Group received €2.5 million from the Exchequer in the charitable lotteries scheme, which was a reduction from the €3.9 million received the previous year. The group produces consolidated accounts that give combined activities of various businesses within the group and there undoubtedly should be more openness and transparency with regard to how the group spends its money, most of which is made from its business ventures that prioritise the employment of people with special needs. What is confusing is the motivation behind the release of information itself as the Minister, Deputy Shatter, did this intentionally during his Private Members' speech. In the first instance, Members must be conscious that more than 80,000 people use and rely on the services provided by the Rehab Group and that 3,800 people are employed by it. However, the key question is, what was the motivation behind the intervention by the Minister, Deputy Shatter? What was the motivation behind the Government's intervention? Is it concerned about misappropriation of funds? Is it concerned about the national lottery and the matching funding or what is the motivation behind the continuous spin in this regard? Does it relate to concerns about individual salaries or is there a broader concern about how Rehab operates? Alternatively, does the motivation pertain to the national lottery scheme and matching funding, which is provided for by the State or are there broader general concerns?

Regardless of whether one is talking about Rehab, the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, or any other charity, the first thing one must do is make it absolutely clear that the work these organisations do is very important. The people who depend on their services value the work they do and in whatever approach one might take or in anything one might say, one should be careful not to undermine public confidence in charities or to undermine the confidence people have in making donations to them. I do not believe the Deputy is correct in stating it was the first time the issue of the wind-down of the lottery payments had been raised in the House.

He did not say that.

I did not say that.

My understanding is that it was raised at an Oireachtas committee by Rehab itself. The issue is that when one is talking about the disbursement of public moneys, there obviously must be accountability for that. Under the charitable lotteries scheme established in 1997, the promoters of certain private charitable lotteries that have products similar to those sold by the national lottery have received annual payments from the State to supplement their income. The total annual funding available peaked in 2009 and 2010 at approximately €8.6 million. As the allocation of funding is based on gross ticket sales, the Rehab Group typically receives approximately two thirds of the funding available each year. The scheme now is being wound down and a reduced total of €4 million was disbursed in 2013, while the allocation for 2014 is €2 million. I understand the decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality to wind down the scheme was communicated to the relevant charities in October 2012. The scheme is being wound down over a three-year period to afford affected organisations the opportunity to make any necessary changes to their fund-raising activities to ensure they are more directly profitable. It is not unreasonable that the State would examine how it spends public money in supporting charities. Between 2011 and 2013, Rehab received €10.4 million in public money for its lotteries. If it is the case that the State is spending several million euro per annum to support fund-raising in the tens of thousands, then it might be better to consider whether those millions could be used elsewhere, for example, in front-line services.

The key point is that matching funding is provided in the context of the national lottery scheme for charities. This has been a common practice for many years and many voluntary or charitable organisations have been receiving matching funding. For example, sporting clubs nationwide receive matching funding in the context of other schemes; this is not unusual. However, I find it amazing that the Tánaiste is running out of adjectives to describe his shock that this information has been unearthed, when the information on the number of tickets sold on an annual basis was freely available in the Department of Justice and Equality for many years. The implication that the matching funding in some way is being misappropriated is almost the speak that is coming from the Government. What is the Government's concern and what is the concern of the Minister for Justice and Equality? Even though the State is before the High Court with Rehab with regard to compensation being sought by the latter, the Minister came into this Chamber to make what was a very unusual intervention, to say the least. The implication that this information was unearthed simply is not the case, as it has been sitting inside the Department of Justice and Equality year on year. I reiterate the key questions, namely, what is the concern of the Government and the Minister for Justice and Equality with regard to the matching funding being provided? Are there concerns there has been misappropriation of funding or is it simply a concern regarding insufficient openness and transparency?

Thank you.

In the meantime, while this spin from the Government is going on, it is doing untold damage to families nationwide who are depending-----

We are over time Deputy. Please, this is a supplementary question.

-----on Rehab services and other charitable organisations to supplement what the State should be doing. Effectively, that is the case here.

Thank you. Please resume your seat. I call on the Tánaiste.

Some straightforward openness and transparency is needed on the Government's side, as well as that of Rehab.

I remind Deputies this is Leaders' Questions and we put questions, not make statements.

Hear, hear.

First, this is not particularly new. As for the arrangement whereby State funding was provided to certain organisations that were running lotteries, the decision to wind down that funding over a three-year period was communicated to the organisations back in 2012. It is being done over a three-year period and as I stated, at the peak in 2009 and 2010, it involved a sum of €8.6 million in total that was being paid to such organisations. It was decided to wind that down over a three-year period to give the organisations the opportunity to make other arrangements, including other fund-raising arrangements, and so on. This has been ongoing for some time and so there is nothing new in that. In the course of the debate here in the Chamber the other evening, the Minister for Justice and Equality drew attention to what was happening in that area. At a wider level, the Government must ensure the controversies that have arisen around some charities in recent times do not undermine the important work those organisations do and the services they deliver-----

Thank you.

-----which in many cases are delivered on the basis of payments provided by the State. Second, it must ensure the controversies do not undermine public confidence in them. This is the reason the Government brought in legislation to provide for a charities regulator. This is the reason the Government is proceeding with the putting in place of that regulatory regime and it is the Minister's intention that this will be in place, hopefully, by the end of February.

Today, one again can see the lack of regulation of charities in this State, as well as the untold damage the revelations are doing both to the charities themselves and to the citizens who depend on them. The Government has refused for three years to implement the Charities Act 2009 and again last night, its Members voted against the Sinn Féin Bill, which would have resulted in a supplementation forthwith. Ongoing revelations of excessive pay to charity chief executive officers, serious questions over fund-raising, and a lack of transparency and accountability have deeply angered citizens, particularly those suffering at the end of the brutal austerity cuts in recent years. I believe what has been uncovered at the CRC, Irish Water, Poolbeg and elsewhere is a toxic political culture of top ups, bonuses, jobs for the boys and contracts for the elite. Again, one reads in the newspapers today of a former chief executive officer of Rehab and long-time adviser of Fine Gael billing the company for consultancy services using a dissolved company.

That all suggests something rotten in the state of Denmark. CRC had very close links with Fianna Fáil.

The upper echelons.

Is it appropriate that the head of a charity earns more than the Taoiseach of the country and ten to 20 times more than those who are on social welfare? Does he agree that the CEO of Rehab should reveal her salary? Does he agree with the call from the Committee of Public Accounts that such charitable organisations should make full disclosure on such matters?

This Government is actually implementing the Charities Act and establishing a charities regulatory authority, precisely so public confidence in charitable organisations can be assured. In December, the Minister for Justice and Equality got sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to proceed with the filling of the post of CEO of the new charities regulatory authority and a number of other administrative posts from within existing resources by the end of February. The Minister is issuing a call for expressions of interest from suitably qualified persons who wish to be considered for appointment with a view to having these positions filled by Easter. This will enable the authority to proceed with the preparatory work necessary ahead of its formal establishment by ministerial order later in the year. The focus of the new authority in its early phase of operation will be on the preparation of a statutory register of charities for publication.

This move represents an important part of the work we are doing in government to rebuild trust and confidence in our charity sector. The charity sector can show leadership in this area through demonstrating good governance and transparency in its own operations. It is important we underline again the good work charitable organisations are doing. It is important that the public can have confidence that when they make a donation to a charitable organisation it is going for the purpose for which it is made and is going into the services. That is why we will have a regulatory system and authority for charities in place. It is the intention that the key posts will be filled by the end of February and that the authority will be in place by Easter. That work is proceeding and there will be a regulatory regime.

I am in favour of transparency. I am in favour of organisations making known in their accounts the salaries they pay to their CEOs. I see no reason salaries paid to senior people in charitable organisations or other bodies should not be made available by way of public information.

The root of the issue is the chaotic mix of public, private and charitable provision of health services in this State which has been allowed to develop over successive Governments, including previous Governments in which the Tánaiste has been involved. This has allowed charitable organisations to provide core health services. Those Governments, and the current one, must bear significant responsibility for the situation. While the State has provided much of the funding, an arm's length relationship allowed poor accountability to flourish. In St. Vincent's hospital there was one chief executive for both the public and private hospitals. Considering the amount of public money that has gone to support the activities of Rehab, does the Tánaiste agree that it would be more cost-effective for the services it provides to be provided directly, as they should be, by the State?

This Government is getting to grips for the first time with what is happening in organisations which are funded by the State and where issues have arisen regarding salaries that are paid or governance. It was this Government that commenced the audit, through the HSE, of the various organisations funded by the State, and that audit shone light on the salary levels and various other arrangements. We are putting in place the regulatory regime I have described. Progress has been made on that. The relevant staff will be in place by the end of February and the authority will be operational by Easter. That will be the first time that will have been done.

It is the Government's view that there must be accountability for the spending of any public money, and that it must represent value for money and the best outcome for the taxpayer. If we feel public moneys can be better used, more effectively deployed or can deliver a better service for the public by means other than channelling that money through particular organisations, that will inform our policy decisions. Our view is guided first by the need for the public to get the best possible service for the spending of any public money irrespective of how it is spent, whether through a State agency, a voluntary agency or a charity; and second by the need for transparency around the way taxpayers' money is spent. That is why we have taken the approach we have taken and we will continue with that until there is a satisfactory outcome to all these matters.