NGOs question role of voluntary sector council

A group of NGOs are concerned that "government appointees" are speaking on their behalf, creating a situation comparable to having "Shell speaking for Greenpeace".

The National Federation of NGOs, which is autonomous, feels that the Council for the Voluntary Sector - whose members are nominated by voluntary organisations but selected by the government - is going beyond its function of providing a "forum" for the sector.

The council was created with the intention of being a "platform" where organisations could cooperate together and with government. It was set up after years of negotiations that led to the drawing up of the Voluntary Organisations Act.

The federation also feels that the government is sidelining it in favour of the council.

"If the council is to be our spokesperson, then we need to be the ones who elect the members, without any influence from the government," its president Nathan Farrugia argued.

He does not have any problems with the council or the Voluntary Organisations Commissioner Kenneth Wain but argues that speaking on behalf of organisations is not the role of the council - especially if it is made up of government appointees.

"You do not bite the hand that feeds you. NGOs and government often disagree on issues. So it doesn't make sense to have the voice of NGOs coordinated by the government. It can lead to a conflict of interest," he said.

The council, he argues, is there to protect and uphold the law, as well as to support NGOs and be an official link with the government.

He is one of the founders of the federation, which is a group of NGOs that prides itself on being completely independent from the government.

The federation's function is to represent and speak on behalf of its NGO members, which are currently about 45, but Mr Farrugia said to do this effectively it needed to be recognised by the government and placed on the appropriate councils and committees.

"NGOs should represent themselves through their own umbrella federations and networks at national, EU and international levels. Ultimately, what we need for NGOs to work together more effectively is self-representation and a united voice," he said.

But Prof. Wain believes that if the NGOs had a problem with the law they should have spoken up during the consultation period and when the law was being drawn up at a White Paper stage.

"Our duty is to follow the law. If they think the format of the council needs to change because it is not democratic enough then they need to lobby to change the law," he said.

He argued that the role of the council was to represent organisations.

"The law talks about the council being the forum, it doesn't use the word 'represent'... that would be an indelicate way of putting it, but it's obvious our job is to represent, safeguard and promote the interests of organisations. My question is, what is the federation's mandate?" he asked.

He explained the members were selected by the government through consultation with the social affairs committee.

"The council officially represents the entire voluntary sector in this country, enrolled and non-enrolled, and it is both pointless and divisive for any federation of NGOs which represents only the 30-odd organisations that constitute it to claim otherwise." He believes the federations should get behind the council and work with it rather than set themselves up as its competitors.

He said the law was drawn up following a long period of discussions and negotiations, so the selection process chosen was probably necessary to shortlist from so many possible nominees.

"I think having some sort of government involvement was simply the most efficient and practical way of short-listing all those nominated," he said.

However, he added he was willing to listen to any concrete proposals presented in "black and white", because so far he had not seen any so he could not form an opinion about them.