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

Very good. I remind members taking part on Microsoft Teams who wish to ask questions to indicate using the "raise hand" function.

There seems to be broad acceptance from across the sector and the Charities Regulator that the legislation is necessary. I know that a courts and civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill covered some of this ground but was not progressed. In addition, unfortunately, the change of situation with the UK in terms of its political affiliations with the rest of the EU necessitates some of what is in the Bill. As outlined in one of the notes provided to the committee, just under 42% of all registered charities are incorporated generally as companies limited by guarantee and the 2009 legislation is not really fit for purpose in that instance. It strikes me that people who might be characterised as being on opposite sides of this debate are not on opposite sides in reality. What the charities sector and groups such as The Wheel are calling for and what the Charities Regulator is calling for are very similar and aligned. The lack of detail in terms of progressive sanctions puts the regulator in a difficult position when it is trying to engage with charities. One of the characterisations the committee has heard relates to a tension between policeman and pal.

If the sledgehammer remains a sledgehammer rather than a more nuanced tool, the Charities Regulator is going to be increasingly viewed as a policeman. That will mean charities will not engage in order to remediate problems at an earlier stage when they are more easily fixed. We need some better direction in terms of the intermediate sanctions that are available, rather than going straight to charities being taken off the charities list. It is one of the things that the charity sector is very concerned about. We need to understand the appeals mechanism a little better as well.

I want to give the Charities Regulator the opportunity to flesh out the proposed two additional amendments to the existing draft heads and the three consequential amendments that come from that. They have been supplied to the committee in an information note circulated to all members. I ask Ms Martin to talk in a little more detail on these useful amendments, which meet much of the need for nuance that has been discussed. As her opening statement was quite truncated, she did not necessarily get to delve into the type of detail these amendments deserve. I want to give her an opportunity to do that now.