Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their opening statement and the supporting documentation. Their opening statement was comprehensive. Their written submission is extremely detailed. I thank Mr. Cooper and members of the Wheel for talking me through that submission. It is comprehensive, and it was brilliant to have that opportunity to talk it through with them in order to really understand the implications of this. Even though there are quite a few criticisms of the general scheme in what the witnesses have submitted to us, I know they are positively disposed towards it. That bears saying. We all recognise the need for updated legislation in this area. We are trying to go in the right direction with this proposed Bill. It is about making charities easier to function, but with an appropriate level of oversight. In addition, this shows the importance of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, whereby we have an opportunity to have these discussions before general schemes are turned into legislation, before they enter into that pipeline where it becomes much more difficult to shape the legislation. All those things bear saying from the outset.

I will focus on a number of matters in order to allow the witnesses to bring their points out in more detail. What really comes across to me is that in a lot of cases here a sledgehammer is being used to crack a walnut. It seems like there has been an overpowering of the regulator in some cases to answer a problem that is there and, in other cases, to answer a problem I am not sure is there. One example of that was the idea of the transfer of powers to the High Court and that being moved back to the regulator, which is provided for in head 9, relating to section 43 of the Act of 2009. When we discussed this it became clear there is not a huge workload being generated by the High Court that this provision seeks to answer. Therefore, the question must be asked, why do we need to do away with this provision? It occurred to me that if the Bill were passed in its current format, mischievous charities might make numerous amendments to their constitutions and submit them to the regulator. They might foresee numerous significant events, and if all the charities in Ireland were to foresee numerous significant events and to make numerous minor changes to their constitutions, I think quite a job of work would be created within the new regulator.

Two of the most important things that jumped out at me were head 9, relating to section 43 of the Act of 2009, and head 8, relating to section 40 of the Act. They are about the ability to delist a charity. There is no sense of a graduated response here. It is like we go straight to a nuclear deterrent. If a charity is removed from the register, that is it, essentially. The curtains are closed and you go home. I do not see the steps leading up to that or see within the proposed Bill a sufficient requirement to engage with the charity before that deterrent is put in place. Then I do not see an appeals process whereby if a charity feels that it has been unfairly dealt with, it would have some sort of recourse. That is one of the central things that jumped out at me from the witnesses' submissions. In addition, there is the requirement to disclose information on a significant event, which is crystal ball gazing from anybody involved in a charity. Significant events should be identified and acted on, and charities should feel like they can go to their regulator and say they think there is a problem coming down the line and ask for help with it. As currently constituted, however, the general scheme provides that you are supposed to look into a crystal ball and, by God, if you miss something you are on the hook for it. I do not know if that will help charities to view the regulator as a resource that can help them and something they can rely on.

I could draw on many more issues raised in the witnesses' written submission, but if we may start with those, I invite the witnesses to comment on those specific provisions.