Ms Helen Martin:

There is a consequential amendment to the general scheme. What is in the proposed new section 40 has already been provided for, but to a much more limited extent. It is not as clear as it is in the new section that we have proposed and we hope will be considered. We think it is a better laid-out section and we hope it will better address some of the concerns people have around needing to notify us about minor changes. They absolutely will not have to do so. We need to be clear on what people are required to do if something is an obligation. We are interested in the main object, income and property clauses, and charities winding up. The consequential amendments relate to those elements as they relate to the general scheme.

The final head we mentioned relates to the Charities Act 1961. There are older charities Acts that we operate under as well because we took over some functions from the Commissioners for Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland. A particular provision has been posing a real problem for charities and for the charity services committee of the Charities Regulator. These are highly qualified people who consider quite complex applications from charities, particularly charitable trusts, relating to trust deeds, sale of property and that kind of thing. We are looking for a technical amendment here. There is a requirement at the moment and it is not clear whether charities have to go to the High Court to get something done. Much of what the commissioners did was to ensure charities did not have to bear the cost of going to the High Court. This is in a similar vein - we are trying to make sure that we are clear on this and that we can save charities money where possible. Charities can then spend that money towards their charitable purpose. This second amendment is quite technical, but it is something that should be welcomed by everybody. Certainly our charity services committee will welcome it, as will the charities that have made these applications.

The Vice Chairman mentioned the "tension between policeman and pal". We certainly think we have the balance right. We would not refer to it in those terms. As a regulator, the last thing we want is to be the subject of regulatory capture, which is what being a "pal" of the sector denotes, unfortunately. The way we look at it is by considering how we can bring charities into compliance and address the small minority of charities mentioned by Ms Delaney earlier that are unwilling to engage for whatever reason, perhaps because they are ill-informed or badly intentioned. That is where our enforcement and compliance piece comes into play. As evidenced by our work to date and by our engagement charities, we have a supportive role to play. Even our own mission encapsulates that we have a supportive element while also ensuring compliance and enforcement. We are extremely conscious of the supportive element, which is why we spend such a significant part of our non-pay budget on it. We spend a lot more on it than on compliance and enforcement. In terms of facts to back up what I am saying, I hope that provides some assurance to the committee.

The companies point is a crucial thing. The Vice Chairman mentioned a courts and civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill that was introduced. We proposed some amendments to that legislation, but unfortunately it did not go anywhere. They were crucial amendments that are needed. There is a considerable flaw that has to be addressed. Out of everything in the general scheme, it is the most important. The framework as it was set up for charities exempted charities that are companies from a number of key provisions, and not just the financial ones. There are implications around that. For example, the obligation to keep proper books of account applies to all charities under the Charities Act. If the charity is a company, however, the provisions under the Charities Act does not apply - what applies is the similar requirement under the Companies Act. If we are faced with a situation where a charity is a company and has not complied with the duty to keep proper books of account, as the Act currently stands we cannot look to impose intermediate sanctions on that charity.

It is not bound by that particular provision, so it is not technically in breach of the Charities Act.