Ms Patricia Quinn:

The Senator is correct to say that the provisions of the Companies Act 2014 changed the terms under which companies limited by guarantee previously were obliged to publish their financial statements in full. This was because they were deemed to be public companies under the old Companies Act. That changed, and as the Senator said, the companies, charities and non-profit organisations were being advised that, for the first time, they were free to avail of the same reporting thresholds as private companies. Many have chosen to do so.

The last time we checked, this month, the number was 1,362 charities. That is in the order of 40% of registered charities. Let us consider the profile of these organisations. Many of them are smaller charities. Nonetheless, they have chosen to withhold information from the public, even though many of them are organisations which receive public funding.

There is an irony for all of these organisations. I will come to the question of the Charities Regulator. The provisions of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's circular that govern the way in which the Government requires grant recipients to account for funds are highly specific on what should be included in the financial statements. The organisations have borne the expense of having an audit prepared. That is unavoidable as it provides all of the information one would expect to see in a full set of audited financial statements. That is what goes to the members of the company and it is for them to decide whether to file an abridged set with the Companies Registration Office. My understanding is that if only one member of the company disagrees, the accounts have to be submitted to the Companies Registration Office in full. However, if there is unanimity on the abridged accounts being filed in public, that is what happens.

Benefacts is like any member of the public. We have no power, other than the power of influence. That is why we seek to encourage charities and non-profit organisations to adopt the highest standards of disclosure in their own self-interests.

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh is correct to say the Charities Act, as it stands, exempts charities that are companies from filing financial statements with the Charities Regulator which has amending regulation in hand to change that situation. It is surely anomalous that charities are allowed to withhold this information without breaking the law. I emphasise that no one is suggesting they are doing anything that is not entirely legal, but the abridgement does not save them any money. A full audit has to be prepared and the abridgement happens post hoc. Our understanding anecdotally is that because of the requirements on public funders to get this information to charities, frequently charities file abridged accounts with the Companies Registration Office, which is where members of the public can read them, but file the full set with their funders, as they are required to under the provisions of the circular.