************  We Need Rights - not Charity *********

Andrew Blackmore takes a look at our continuing 
reliance on charities to do essential services.

IRELAND IS ONE of the thirty richest countries in 
the world. At the same time, 20% of the population 
live below the poverty line. The Combat Poverty 
Agency says that "disparities are widening and will 
continue to do so in the years ahead". Yet, instead 
of providing money to deal adequately with the 
problems of poverty, for example; drug addiction, 
homelessness and unemployment, the State gives tax 
amnesties to the rich, and puts up over £200 
million for Larry Goodman.

The material desires of most people - for example a 
job and a good standard of living, are not provided 
for. We have no 'right' to these things. We are 
given a welfare system which does not provide a 
basic minimum for a decent lifestyle, and we have 
to turn to charities to fill in the gaps.

Charities

And the gap between what people need and what they 
get is big. There are over 3,700 charities in 
Ireland, trying to deal with just about every 
disadvantaged sector in society; from Health and 
Education to Travellers, women, and children. They 
all do essential and valuable work. But they are 
only necessary because the state is not providing 
these services itself.

The ordinary citizen volunteers the time and money. 
Most adults in Ireland give to charity more than 
once a month, amounting to roughly £246 million 
donated each year. And people devote large amounts 
of time as well. 

Take carers, for example. According to the National 
Carer's Association, there are roughly 100,000 
carers, looking after people who are severely sick 
and helpless, but who are not given hospital beds. 
A typical carer is a housewife looking after one of 
her relatives, "in many cases, on call 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week". 

Insecurity and Competition

The work that carers have to do in Ireland, with a 
high physical and emotional burden, highlights one 
problem of leaving the voluntary sector responsible 
for doing vital social work. 

But aside from leaving individuals with large 
responsibilities there are other problems. The 
voluntary sector is by its nature insecure. It is 
reliant on volunteers to put in the time and money. 
If that time and money is not forthcoming, then the 
charity folds.  

Even voluntary services which receive State 
donations are not safe. The "Rape Crisis Centre" in 
Dublin, has nearly collapsed on several occasions 
due to lack of government funds.

Competition is also a problem that charities have 
to deal with. People have only so much to give, so 
charities have to compete with each other for 
donations. 

National Lottery

Since the introduction of the National Lottery, 
donations to charities have decreased. And the 
National Lottery, which gives nearly £100 million 
to various causes, has recently expressed fears 
that the new British Lottery will take away some of 
its customers in Northern Ireland. 

To quote John Hynes, the Chairman of the National 
Lottery, "It is still too soon to determine what 
long term effect the UK games will have on our 
sales". Loss of customers means less money to the 
charities which are dependent on its handouts.  

This has direct results. The National Lottery gives 
one third of its takings to the Department of 
Health and Welfare. It could mean fewer hospital 
beds, less money to Women's Aid or less money to 
the Irish Red Cross. Why should any of these causes 
suffer at the whim of the consumer? The only way to 
avoid it is by guaranteeing the right to funding 
for these services.

And it is 'rights' which is the crux of the whole 
problem with charities. The existence of a charity 
to provide a service, means that it is not a 
'right' to receive such a service. The service is 
not guaranteed, it could end due to lack of funds, 
lack of support, or it could be out competed by 
another, equally deserving cause.   

Rights not Charity

When we say that organisations such as the Irish 
Wheelchair Association or St Vincent de Paul have a 
voluntary status, it is another way of saying that 
we do not have the guaranteed right for such 
services to exist. We should be lucky that they 
exist.  When the National Lottery gives money for 
hospital building or a grant for Libraries, we are 
expected to be grateful instead of regarding it as 
a right.

Is this the way the state should treat our 
disadvantaged? Money should be spent on eliminating 
poverty and providing decent jobs for all.  The 
reliance on the voluntary sector to provide 
essential services should be eliminated. We deserve 
rights not charity. 

Capitalism, with its "free market" and division of 
society into exploiters and exploited, can not 
guarantee such 'rights'.  A combination of charity 
and campaigning for more funding, at the expense of 
the rich, can bring some small but very real 
improvements in the lives of the poor.  The 
elimination of poverty, however, requires the 
replacement of the present system by one where 
production is organised to satisfy the needs of the 
many instead of the profit lust of the few.  Then 
mutual; aid will do away with the need for charity.

***********

      The facts and nothing but the facts

In 1960 the richest 20% of the world's population 
owned 30% of the wealth, today they own 60%.  The 
annual income of the bottom 50% of the world's 
population totals £815 billion.  That is exactly 
equal to the amount spent each year on arms, 86% of 
which are supplied by Britain, the USA, France, 
Germany and Russia.

