Ms Helen Martin:

I think I have got everything but if not I will defer to my colleagues who have joined me today.

The first question was on the extension of powers and the perception that a hammer is being used to crack a nut. That phrase has been used a lot. Funnily enough, the phrase we would use internally is “a sledge-hammer to crack a nut”, because that is often what we are facing. As I said in my opening statement, our first step when dealing with non-compliance is always to endeavour to engage with the charity and its trustees. That is our regulatory approach. The approach, in the first instance, is to try to bring a charity in difficulty and that may not be complying into compliance. There would never be a case, or there would be very few cases, where we would go straight in with a statutory sanction. Our regulatory approach is very much to bring charities into compliance. The regulatory tools we have available to us are available to us when we cannot get people to engage with us.

There are often cases where people are not in compliance. Those cases can be really hard because the individuals might not be willingly non-compliant. In many cases, the charity trustees are ill-informed. They are just not informed enough about their role as charity trustees and what they need to know to oversee a charity. As a result, one ends up with poor governance and charities finding themselves in difficult situations. Reputational damage, which was mentioned, can occur when people do not understand the obligations that apply to them. In most of these cases, all that is available to us is the prosecution of the individual concerned. We believe that is an absolute no-no in many cases because it is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. It is not going to achieve what we need to achieve. It is not that the trustees are badly intentioned; it is just that they are ill-informed. In those circumstances, we need to have available to us other powers that are more proportionate and balanced.

Let me give the example of the intermediate sanctions provision. That has been focused on a lot by many witnesses who have appeared before the committee. Intermediate sanctions can be imposed on a charity only with its agreement. An intermediate sanction is not one that we can impose unilaterally. The charity has to agree. The reason it would be advised to agree is that the only other option available to us in the circumstances is the prosecution of the offence. What we are looking for is the introduction of provisions in the Act that would be linked to those intermediate sanctions, because the intermediate sanctions provide the charity with an opportunity to fix whatever issues arise. They provide transparency to the public, indicating that the charity is working with us to remedy any difficulties. That is a really big thing for charities. We are better able to assist and bring into compliance those charities that, on being contacted by us, are willing to work with us, engage with us and help us understand the difficulties. That is very much our regulatory approach and starting point. That is the issue with the intermediate sanctions.

The Deputy said there were concerns that people could suddenly be taken off the register. I believe this is what he was getting at.