I must read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that could be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means they may have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse the privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if a statement is potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue his or her remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings members must be physically present within the confines or place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask anyone who is participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to the meeting. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or in silent mode.

I welcome our witnesses from the Charities Regulator to this meeting. We have Ms Madeleine Delaney, chief executive, and Ms Rachel Rodgers, director of legal affairs and registration. I invite Ms Delaney to make her opening remarks.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the other members for the opportunity to brief the committee on our annual report and statement of strategy and the implementation of the Charities (Amendment) Act 2024.

The Charities Regulator was established in 2014. It is funded by the Exchequer through a subhead of Vote 42 of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. Our budget in 2024 was €5.3 million. Pay accounted for approximately €3.36 million and non-pay expenditure amounted to approximately €2 million. There are 11 members on the board of the Charities Regulator. A number of board committees assist it in carrying out its functions. We have 49 full-time equivalent members of staff.

At the end of 2024, there were 11,445 charities. It is a diverse sector that ranges from very small volunteer-only charities to large-scale operations with significant numbers of employees. They are supported by hundreds of thousands of volunteers, including more than 76,000 who take up the role of charity trustee. The persons legally responsible for the management and administration of a charity are the directors or committee members who are referred to as charity trustees. Additionally, an estimated 281,250 people were employed in charities in 2023, which is equivalent to almost one in eight workers. The overall financial impact of the charity sector was estimated at €32.1 billion in 2022.

A charity is only one type of not-for-profit organisation. The word "charity" is generally used to describe a non-profit organisation that helps people. However, under the Charities Act, "charity" is a protected legal term and the distinguishing feature of a charity is that it must provide a public benefit. This is a key part of the test that is set out in the legislation and applied by us as part of the registration process.

Our guiding function is to increase public trust and confidence in the administration and management of charities. Charities can come under the remit of several regulators and public bodies depending on the services they provide. The role of the Charities Regulator is grounded solely in the Charities Acts, particularly the Charities Act 2009. Our statutory functions include maintaining a register of charities and promoting high standards of governance and accountability in charities. We also deal with applications by charities under the Charities Acts 1961 and 1973 for services and assistance, such as approving cy-près schemes, appointing new trustees and authorising the sale of charity property in circumstances where the governing document of the charity does not otherwise provide for this. These services are provided free of charge and are an alternative to applying to the High Court.

Access to information is a key component in public trust and confidence and the Register of Charities provides important basic information on individual charities. Once registered, charities are required to keep their information on the register up to date and to submit an annual report which provides details of finances and activities undertaken in the previous 12 months. To date, we have removed 55 charities from the register for failing to file annual reports. A further ten charities were prosecuted for failing to file their annual report. These ten charities are companies that had filed their return with the Companies Registration Office, CRO. We actively promote checking the register to help people make informed decisions before donating and 2024 saw a 43% rise in views of charity records on the register.

We provide extensive guidance on our website and through events such as webinars to assist charity trustees to fulfil their duties and implement good standards of governance. If issues or concerns arise with a charity, we take a proportionate approach. We engage extensively on a one-to-one basis with charities and charity trustees to resolve governance- and compliance-related matters. Most engagements with charities are concluded on a voluntary basis. For example, in 2024, we received 493 new concerns but only had to issue nine statutory directions to provide information or to produce documentation by way of a statutory request.

Our statement of strategy for the period 2025 to 2027 focuses on fair and effective regulation, deepening our relationships with our stakeholders and developing our organisational capability. We are striving to learn from what has worked well over our first decade and what has not worked as well as we intended, and to bring that knowledge into our engagement with charities.

Preparing our organisation and the sector for the regulatory changes contained in the Charities (Amendment) Act 2024 is an important part of our ongoing work programme. We are engaging with the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht on the implementation of the changes. We are developing guidance in line with the commencement of the changes so charities will have the information they need to assess the potential implications of the changes for their organisation and the steps they may need to take. We are engaging widely with stakeholders in preparing for the changes. Our consultative panel on the introduction of the advancement of human rights as a charitable purpose will meet again shortly. Some changes will require updates and enhancements to our systems. We are in the process of procuring a new digital platform and expect the procurement process to conclude in summer 2026. I hope the foregoing gives some sense of our role as regulator in a highly complex and diverse charities sector.

I am happy to take questions and to be as helpful as possible to the committee.

I thank Ms Delaney. I call members to begin the discussion. I remind those participating remotely to use the raise hand feature in MS Teams and to cancel it when they have spoken. Deputy Guirke has indicated.

I thank the Chair and thank the witnesses for coming in and giving the presentation.

My question is about smaller charities such as Tidy Towns and community groups. They will say they have to jump through the same hoops to get charitable status as a charity that could be turning over millions of euro. Is it possible to make it easier for the likes of those groups?

We are very much aware of the diversity of this sector and the not-for-profit sector generally. The Act sets out the requirements an organisation must meet to be a registered charity. We look at the particular context of the organisation in question and we try to tailor the process we go through with it to reflect it within the test. Unfortunately, there are certain requirements we have to look for but, other than that, we try to help organisations through the process as best we can. Each applicant is assigned a case officer who works with it exclusively to understand what it is they are doing and bring it through the process. Unfortunately, it takes a certain amount of work on the part of the applicant, as well as on our side.

It just seems to turn people off helping out and so on if there is so much work involved. I assume it is not possible to separate the smaller groups from the bigger charitable organisations.

We had a simplified process a number of years ago but what happened was we had people who were not suited to that process applying through it and then it took everybody an awful lot longer. We have now brought it more in-house, in that we decide if organisations should be going into a more straightforward process or whether it is going to take a longer engagement. We are hoping the organisations the Deputy is talking about will find the process a bit easier because they will go to people through a more streamlined process internally.

Part of the difficulty sometimes that these organisations encounter, and that we encounter in dealing with them, is they are told by other organisations they have to register when, in fact, they do not necessarily have to do so.

That can cause problems. Sometimes that is even funders telling them they need to register because from their perspective, they feel that if they are regulated entities, they have a bit more reassurance whereas it should just be them doing their own due diligence and checking. That can cause problems because they do not naturally meet the charity test and are trying to get shoehorned into it. That is something we are trying to work on to make Government agencies and various funders aware that they should not just make it a requirement that an entity be a registered charity.

That is a good idea. A lot of charities that raise money would not necessarily have to register.

The law requires that a body considers whether it is one and whether it should register. Other than that, what we are concerned with is an entity calling itself a charity or leading people to believe it is a charity and raising money in that way. That is an offence under the Act. We prevent them from doing that. We engage with them and can prosecute them. Otherwise, an entity should be able to go about its business.

What are the most significant regulatory challenges facing the charities sector?

Deputy Guirke has touch on some of them and t is around the fact that the sector is volunteer-based. One is dealing with volunteers and they have legal obligations. Almost 50% of charities in Ireland have an income of less than €100,000 and 40% have an income of less than €50,000 so that is what we are talking about. Other issues include getting other volunteers and getting volunteers to be trustees because people perceive there is a big burden on them, which puts them off. Funding is not as much of an issue but there has been a decrease in donations directly from the public through fundraising events, collections and online donations. We published information on this earlier in this year.

What legislation could improve that?

There is a lot in the legislation. A lot of what we do in terms of regulation in this sector, which is a bit different from other sectors because of its make up, is about creating awareness and explaining to people so it is about standard setting. Much of what we do is about setting out those standards, explaining them and trying to provide the tools and guidance to help trustees meet those standards. That is an awful lot of what we do.

How effective is the Charities Regulator in monitoring the situation and non-compliance?

With 11,500 charities, much of the work is about transparency and accountability. That is what trust and confidence are based on and that is what our fundamental objective is. It is about us helping charity trustees and charities to be transparent, accountable and effective in how they run their organisations because if they succeed, we succeed. We have powers where things go wrong and things do go wrong. We can appoint inspectors and publish a report based on those findings, which are as much about providing more information and learning for other charities as they are about that particular entity.

What trends has the regulator observed regarding misconduct, mismanagement or irregularities in charities?

Most things stem from issues around governance and most of our concerns relate to governance matters. They would be made up of things like proper meetings not being held, the lack of joint decision making, financial controls and policies not be adhered to. Conflicts of interest can be a big issue. Dominant behaviour is another issue we issued guidance on recently. That can become a problem for no particular bad reason just-----

How is the Charities Regulator supporting smaller and volunteer-led organisations, which often struggle with administrative or legal compliance without imposing disproportionate burdens on them? I am talking about very small charities.

We are acutely aware of that cohort. Since I became CEO in August 2024, I have been going around doing maybe four or five visits in the year to small volunteer-only charities around the country. I have been in Kerry, Donegal, Tipperary, Waterford and Monaghan so we can hear directly from them as to what the issues are and to explain our role as regulator. We are not there to chase them down and punish them for non-compliance. We want them to engage with us and the materials so they can be effective in carrying out their roles.

In 2020, schools were brought into it. All schools are non-profit-making. Is Ms Delaney talking about fee-paying schools?

All schools are registered charities.

Now?

Yes; all second-level schools.

What about primary schools?

Some primary schools are. A decision was made that all second-level schools would be required to register as charities.

Even though they are non-profit-making with the exception of the fee-paying ones?

They are non-profit.

Take all the primary schools. They are all non-profit-making.

They are all non-profit.

Still they have to register.

Yes.

Where did that law come from? I am only new here and I just want to find out.

That was the interpretation that was taken regarding the requirement under the Act. The question of whether or not they should be has been discussed since then but the policy decision is that they should remain as registered charities. They do have a different regime because schools provide their annual financial information and other information directly to the financial unit in the Department of Education and Youth. That information is transferred in bulk to our system and uploaded to each individual school that is a charity. They then sign off to say that is their information so there is a different regime for schools' reporting.

I was trying to read up on it last night. Every school I know is fundraising for the day-to-day running of the school. To me, it was mind-boggling why they should have to engage in all that, which takes up the secretary's time or the time or whoever is dealing with it. All that money comes back to the regulator through the Department.

The information comes to us through the Department so that relieves the school of the burden of having to submit it twice. They submit it to the Department and it gets transferred in bulk to us for their annual report.

Only one good thing would come out of that, which is that the Department would see how difficult it is for schools to run under the allowance being given to them. What improvements have been made and what improvements are planned for the charity registration process, including timelines, guidance, digital systems and consistency of decision-making?

This is something we are constantly working on looking at how we can make improvements and do things better. On the digital side, we work through an online portal so we are quite digital-based. It is quite a cumbersome system for us as well as for the people using it. We are very aware of that. I have used it myself as a trustee so I know what it is like and we are trying to address that. We are constantly revising our internal processes and procedures to streamline it as best we can. It is also about providing the guidance and asking people to look at it in advance, prepare and consider whether the body is a charity, whether it meets the test and whether it needs to apply and if it does, the kind of things it needs to have in place before it comes to us. Otherwise we have to go back and say "can you give us this? Can you give us that?"

If Deputy Aird is concerned about fundraising for schools, as indeed we all are, to have a word with the Minister for education about the capitation grant because that is what forces schools to fundraise.

Since the Deputy was referring to me, we got an increase. My school principal is very happy with the work I did for the school.

This is my time. As the Deputy said, he is new to this and I am happy to explain to him that this is my time.

The Deputy made reference to me.

Could the Deputies address it through the Chair and address questions to the witnesses and we will leave everybody else?

As I said, this is my time and I will use it how I wish.

Ms Delaney stated that charities employ 281,250 people. What I want to focus on is charities as employers. Most charities are entirely dependent on funds they raise or on the State. In some instances, posts are wholly funded by the State. There is a bit of a competition in that regard because on the one hand, the State will bring in a scheme, like auto-enrolment, while also being solely responsible for funding. On the other hand, the State will say that there is no way out of auto-enrolment, that it is a good thing and that people should get pensions. However, there is no consequent uplift in the grant. This leaves not just the trustees but also the people running the charities in an almost impossible situation.

To go back a couple of years – this is all on the public record - we had CEOs of very large organisations, specifically in the health area, appearing before committees. They said they were faced with a choice when it came to their funding. They could sign a piece of paper which stated that they would not reduce the services, but the level of funding dictated that they had to do so. Effectively, they were asked to lie. Those are not my words; they are the words used by those chief executives. They were asked to effectively collude with their funders, that is, the Government, to tell a lie about what they were going to be able to do because their funding that was contingent on their doing so and they could not get it otherwise.

My question relates to the role of the Charities Regulator in this regard. These people are on an endless merry-go-round. They cannot increase their funding, nor can they decrease the service they provide because the State is dependent on them. It is another form of outsourcing. What role does the Charities Regulator have in supporting these organisations? If the answer to that is none, that is fine. Where can they go then?

I wish to touch on an industrial dispute, without going into the details. There has to be some role for an overarching organisation. Otherwise, people are just on an endless merry-go-round.

We do not have a role. I am aware, in general terms, of what the Deputy is talking about and the overall situation whereby charities get funding for, strictly speaking, the delivery of a particular project and nothing more. I simply support the position that they need to be adequately funded to carry out their duties, and they have duties. They will be set out in the amendment Act when the relevant provision is commenced next year. They need to be properly funded to be able to fulfil those duties but we do not have a role in that regard.

There is an ongoing dispute - I will not name the organisation, but it comes under the Charities Regulator's remit - in relation to the gender pay gap. There are laws that protect workers and that are not being implemented. These are disputes. I am a former trade union official. Sometimes, when I look at an industrial dispute, I can see a clear route to a resolution. Sometimes, it is not that clear. Generally, however, there is a route to a resolution. There is no route to a resolution in this case without some kind of intervention.

I appreciate Ms Delaney's comments. I am not asking her to comment on an individual situation because it would not be fair. I am not going to do that. It strikes me that this is an issue around service. The trustees are effectively managing money. In some instances, they are volunteers managing large-scale funds. They want to be providing a service. That is usually how people end up being a trustee. They start by doing a bit of volunteering - I am sure Ms Delaney is familiar with this – because someone said it would only be about half an hour per week and then all of a sudden it becomes their whole life. We are all familiar with that. These people then find themselves in a situation where they are handling huge amounts of money. They are doing so in the midst of an industrial dispute that there is no capacity to resolve. What happens in that instance is a lot of people move on and are lost to the sector.

The charity sector is a large-scale employer. A total of 281,250 people are effectively faced with something of a lacuna when it comes to their rights at work. It strikes me that, perhaps, the Charities Regulator’s remit, if stretched a bit, could encompass that. It also strikes me that somebody has to be responsible for this because it cannot simply be the case that charities are being told one thing by the funder, namely the Government, and another by the law, which was brought in by the same Government. When they go to the Labour Court - I have had this experience - they get an award from an arm of Government but they cannot accept it. This puts the trustees and management in an awful position. In some instances, management does not cover itself in glory anyway. Does the Charities Regulator have a view on the powers it would like to have in order to be able to intervene in this situation because it interferes with service delivery, which, I know, falls within its remit?

The area where we can be of most assistance is in the context of educating people in order that they can understand what a charity is, what the responsibilities of charity trustees are and helping them to succeed. It is not a cheap way of delivering services. You have to spend money to deliver services. Charity trustees have a duty to do that. While they have a duty to get the best value for money, they have a duty to do that. In general, where there is a role for us is in the education piece about understanding that it is not just about doing things on the cheap. It is not that we suddenly have these volunteers who can magic up everything, because they cannot. It is a significant sector with significant stakeholders. There is, maybe, a lack of awareness, appreciation and understanding that there are requirements that have to be met. If a charity is going to deliver services, it has to be funded. It is around that educational piece. A lot of charity regulation is around awareness and standard setting. It should not just be focused on the charity trustees but, rather, on all of the stakeholders, such as the various types of funders.

My time is almost up. There are workers within the charity sector who are incredibly disappointed that the Charities Regulator does not and cannot regulate in that way. They cannot see a way out of those disputes.

I thank the witnesses for coming before us this morning. Does the Charities Regulator have a sectoral breakdown of the 11,415 registered charities? My colleague Deputy Wall asked about Tidy Towns. I am interested as well in knowing the number of charities working in the disability sector, with the Tidy Towns competition, etc. Does the Charities Regulator have a sectoral breakdown?

We have a breakdown. Under the Charities Act 2009, it is done by charitable purpose. Everybody identifies with that purpose. We have introduced a classification standard which will allow us to break them down more. Unfortunately, many charities have not completed that. As a result, we cannot provide it.

Will Ms Delaney give us the narrow rather than the broad version of the purpose and what numbers fall within those remits? That would be very helpful.

Education is obviously a big one. The community and health purpose is another big one. It is probably second after education. Relief of poverty is another big one. To give the Senator an example on the relief of poverty remit, a lot of the housing, homeless charities and overseas agencies work in that area. The Senator mentioned charities working in the disability sector. Many of them probably fall into the social and healthcare category.

That gives us a flavour. I assume the community remit is made up of Tidy Towns and smaller organisations.

Yes, community development and community integration. That sort of thing.

All right. Having an idea of what the purpose is, will Ms Delaney give us a flavour of the numerical breakdown that might fall within those four top headings she mentioned?

Yes. Not surprisingly, given that we have schools registered, advance of education had 6,023 registered at the end of 2024.

The number for advancement of community welfare, including the relief of those in need by reason of youth, age, ill health or disability, which also covers some of the disability charities, is 2,170. The number for integration of those who are disadvantaged and the promotion of their full participation in society is 1,610. The number for relief of poverty is 1,347 and that for the promotion of health, including prevention or relief of sickness, disease or human suffering, is 1,292. After that, we have religion and arts and culture, moving all the way down. These are set out on page 14 of our annual report.

Thank you very much for that. It really helps to have an understanding of what consumes a lot of the regulator's time. Building on that, one of the comments made was that 50% of charities had a turnover of less than €100,000 and 40% had a turnover of less than €50,000. To go to the other side of it, what is the maximum turnover?

We collect the information as bands of information. We have 311 charities with a turnover of over €5 million.

How many are over €10 million?

A total of 6% are over €5 million and 3% are over €10 million.

What number does that equate to?

It is 181 that are over €10 million.

How many of those are on the social and health side?

I might not have that figure for the Senator right now but I will see if we can find one and come back to her.

It would be interesting for me, and for the rest of us, to understand what proportion is over €5 million and €10 million. I will go another step. If 3% are over €10 million, how many are over €12 million?

I do not have that figure for the Senator. We do it in bands.

What is the next highest band?

The highest band we do is over €10 million. We have a report where we compare annual reports from year to year. We have one for the year ended 2023, where we name the ten that are over €5 million, excluding the HSE, which is a charity. Quite a few hospitals are in there. They are the Higher Education Authority; Pobal; Beaumont Hospital; the Mater Misericordiae hospital; City of Dublin Education and Training Board; the Bon Secours Hospital; the Adelaide and Meath hospitals incorporating the national children's hospital, which is Tallaght hospital; Brothers of Charity Services; Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board; and Cork Education and Training Board. For the year ending 2023, they were in the top ten. They received most of their money from-----

The State.

-----Government sources.

They were above the other bracket of €10 million. I could go way deeper into that, but the next level of my questioning relates to the sectoral breakdown or the way the regulator has it partitioned into the different groupings. There is the standard we set for governance for the Mater or Beaumont and the standard we set for governance for a small charity that is trying to get recognised. That charity may be two years in the process because it is a voluntary organisation and, at the same time, is trying to provide a valuable service to its community and people, despite how long that process takes. Will Ms Delaney tell me about the standard of governance. Is it the same standard of governance whether a charity is over €10 million or over €5,000?

The principles of governance are the same but they obviously look different and are applied differently, depending on the context. We would expect-----

Just to get registered. Sorry, I am nearly out of time now-----

You are out of time.

-----but just to get registered-----

To get registered, there are certain requirements under the Act that have to be met to be a charity. We work with those entities on a one-to-one basis to get them through the process. It was taking a long time. We have learned a lot and improved our systems. We have reduced the timelines significantly. Some of them can still take 12 months, but some of them take six months. They will very rarely take less than five months.

Can I come in again?

You can, of course.

I thank both witnesses for coming in. It is important to hear from them. I thank them so much for all the information, preparation and engagement with the questions. The regulator's role in governance and confidence in the charity sector in Ireland is incredibly important. It is one of our shining lights to have great charities that do great work in our communities and society. Having proper governance and regulation of those charities is really important. I commend the witnesses and their colleagues on all the work they do on this.

One of the lines in the opening statement was about charities as a proportion of non-profit work within Ireland. Will Ms Delaney give me a sense of what the overall non-profit landscape looks like and where the charity sector is in that?

Charities account for about one third of the overall not-for-profit sector. That includes sports as well, which would be a big chunk of that.

Going on from the Senator's point, there is a diversity in approaches, in some ways, across this. Dividing the number of people employed here across the various charities, it is an average of about 24 employees, if I am not mistaken. There are section 39 workers, as the other Deputy mentioned, and there is this classification. I would love to get that classification work when the regulator is done with it and to see it come to the committee. It would be very interesting for us.

Will Ms Delaney talk a little about diversity of approaches? I will give her a few questions and then maybe she will respond. There is also the question of those that are reliant completely on taxpayer funds versus other charitable funds. Will she give me some sense of what that looks like and how those approaches might vary?

There is then the value of assets. Income and turnover really matter but, for example, fee-paying schools may have very expensive assets in central Dublin that change the nature of governance and how they participate in society. Given the role of the regulator, and the fact that some of these charities have significant assets and are reliant on taxpayer funds, there is an incumbency on them to act faithfully in the political discourse. Some people have an interest in how those political views and political activities are regulated within the charities space. I would love to hear about that from Ms Delaney in terms of what her role in that is, too.

We are acutely aware of diversity. While the Act sets out the rules and tells us what we have to do, what is within our gift is how we go about it. It is something that we are learning about and working on all the time.

We adopt a risk-based approach because, as the Deputy recognised, we are a small organisation and we need to target our resources where they will have most impact. Obviously, the important baseline is about the production of the information that tells organisations what they need to do. The risk rating is about deciding how we might approach a particular issue, but when we get to the point where we decide the extent to which we need to intervene or proactively monitor that cohort, one of the things we look at is who is funding the organisation. Where there is a big funder, whether it is a State funder, foundation, philanthropic body or something like that, the organisation does its own due diligence. It would have a written agreement and very good and timely access to information, even more than we do. It would know what is going on, or have the power to know what is going on, on an overall basis. We rely on the organisation, to an extent, overseeing that. We would be more concerned if a lot of fundraising was going on from the public, or a lot of small grants were coming in, because those people have no visibility and no access to information. We need to make sure they are getting that information and the charity is being accountable.

Equally, our overarching concern is always that the charity and the charity trustees will succeed but at the end of the day we are concerned with the services, the beneficiaries, the charitable assets and we will act to protect those. Regarding the value of the assets, we are mindful. Income is only one thing. An organisation can be cash poor and asset rich. We are developing a more proactive model for looking at charities on a stand-alone basis. A lot of work is driven by concerns that we receive in, which gives us very good intelligence. We have our own intelligence but we want to start risk-profiling charities in their own right. We will be looking at the value of the assets they hold and at any significant changes in those assets to see what steps we need to take. One important thing to go back to is that we would always try to link in with funders, where we believe there is an issue or a concern, to ask if something was going on, are they were aware of and dealing with it. That would be separate from generally saying we are not happy with some governance issues there and engaging directly with the entity.

On the Deputy's last question about engaging in political discourse, under the Charities Act, there is an exclusion. There is a section dealing with certain types of entities that are excluded outright from being a charity and if they were come and apply to us, we would say "No". One of those is a sports body that is getting a tax exemption from the Revenue Commissioners. Another is a trade union and another is a political party or anybody promoting a political candidate or a political party or engaged in political purposes. That would be the sort of political activity the Deputy is speaking about. How we monitor that is by a matter of degree. A charity can engage in advocacy. That is a very important part of the work of many charities - but they must do it in support of the other activities they are carrying out. An organisation need to be carrying out some practical activities. If we are talking about homelessness, it is engaging in the provision of some homeless services, assistance or aids on the ground but then it is also advocating in relation to it. This is subsidiary to those other activities. It cannot engage in it as its sole or primary activity. It has to be in support of other activities. That is what the law and the Act say and that is how we interpret it. I want to be clear that advocacy is very important and it is allowed. It just cannot be the primary or sole activity under the Act.

I thank Ms Delaney. I call Senator O'Reilly.

Probably coming from the taxpayer point of view, I start by asking whether the Charities Regulator assesses the salaries of employees of registered charities and evaluates whether the private benefit is too great. Is there an upper limit for a chief executive salary?

Regarding salaries, obviously a charity may need to employ people to deliver a service or carry out its operations. What we say in relation to that is that it must be done at arm's length. It must be an open competition, there must be a role specification, the salaries should be benchmarked and all of that should be very transparent. That is how you deal with the public benefit requirement. A unique feature of a charity over another type of not-for-profit is this idea that you should not be benefiting from your involvement with a charity other than as a beneficiary, or a potential beneficiary, or because what you are doing is reasonable, ancillary and necessary to carrying out the charitable purpose. We may get some applicants who say they are setting up a charity and will employ themselves straight away as employees. We have to say "No". That is not what it is about. It is about whether a charity needs to have employees. It may be able to start on a volunteer-basis. It is about what employees a charity needs, whether they are at the appropriate level and then it goes out and openly recruits for them. They are not people who are connected to the organisation. There is an open competition and the salaries are benchmarked. That is the standard we expect. That is guidance we give. When we are engaging one to one with an entity, that is what we will look at if we see there is an issue. However, we do not have a specific power or function to direct and say to charities that they cannot employ a particular person or that they can only employ people at a particular salary. It is on the trustees to deal with it in that way, to decide that what they are doing is in the best interests of their charity and they are getting good value for money.

Does Ms Delaney think there should be an upper limit?

For the most part, I think we can trust the trustees to do the right thing.

Okay. Just following on from that, how does the Charities Regulator whether a charity is delivering real public benefit? What standards or metrics does it use and how are they applied?

Again, it is about the setting of the standards and the guidance, and reinforcing that through educational pieces on webinars and that. Then, it is always something we look at when we are engaging with a charity on a one-to-one basis. When you have a sector of over 11,000 and you are a small organisation, it is always based on that principle of getting people to do the right thing, to the right standard and where they have not done it to call that out and help other people learn from it. However, the vast majority of charity and charity trustees, and of those very small applicants for charities we have spoken about, really want to do the right thing and they try to do the right thing. They do not always get it right and when we engage with them they take steps to remedy it. Again, it is about educating to say what a charity is and is not. Charities have to provide that public benefit and meet that public benefit test and not have any private benefit if they are a charity.

Ms Delaney mentioned that 55 charities were deregistered. Was that last year?

There was 37, I think, last year, and the balance this year.

When a charity is deregistered for non-compliance or whatever else, what happens to the assets? How does the Charities Regulator manage that?

We are very careful about removing people from the register because there is this issue around charitable assets and the services. Once an organisation is a charity, it cannot just stop being a charity and go back to being a private company. That is extremely important. We satisfied ourselves that all the ones we did remove from the register were inactive and there were no assets.

On the Peter McVerry Trust, an investigation found that the trust repeatedly mismanaged and misallocated funds. Around €40 million in restricted donations, earmarked for specific housing or homelessness supports, was diverted to cover debts and general expenses instead of its intended charitable purpose. An organisation entrusted with public funds and donations ending up in financial collapse requiring a €15 million Government bailout is a clear failure of oversight and public spending accountability. Some €300,000 was spent on a driveway and an enclosure for peacocks. How did this happen? After watching the public accounts committee last week, I wondered how the Charities Regulator did not intervene earlier in the Peter McVerry Trust issues. I believe a letter was sent from the board restricting the CEO from communicating transparently with regulators, restated 2022 accounts falsely showed €47.3 million in unrestricted reserves and there was clear evidence of governance failure. How did that happen?

As soon as we received that letter from the board and we were made aware, we did engage. We did not receive that other correspondence around the person being told not to engage with us and things like that. However, in any event, we were already on track for obtaining the information and appointing the inspectors. Undoubtedly, these are governance failures that can happen anywhere but in this case it was in the type of organisation where it was extreme and catastrophic over a short period of time because it was so heightened over a period of two years.

Does Ms Delaney think the Charities Regulator could have moved any earlier?

Based on the information we get from charities in the form of their annual report, there is probably not anything in there that we would have seen to indicate that level of difficulty.

In the proactive risk assessment of charities that we are going to look at, we are now including, as a learning from that example, the need to examine a situation where there is a big increase or decrease in property assets over a relatively short period. That might tell us that a charity is expanding at such a rate that we need to examine whether it is in a position to do so. We would expect a funder or any investor or person giving a loan to do due diligence and establish that an organisation is capable of delivering. However, when we look back and consider whether there was anything we could have examined, we see that as a matter on which we could pick up on a proactive profile.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. The work they do is important, especially in the instance being spoken about there where we cannot always trust the trustees. I will focus on two specific areas. The first is the charities that are turning over €5 million or €10 million. The second is the community groups. I am familiar with a community group at home that took a full year to go through the process to become a registered charity. Looking in from the outside of the process, I did not find the information about whether an organisation qualifies as a charity or not to be clear. Ms Delaney mentioned that the law requires the organisation to consider whether it qualifies or not. If there is any kind of fundraising, the organisation needs to be registered with the regulator. Small community groups that are just doing small amounts of fundraising come into that as well. We are then looking at the massive turnover of not-for-profit organisations that are getting the same regulation. There are the same compliance issues.

As was noted earlier, just 37 organisations were removed from the register. This is my second question. Those were small-end organisations that were not making any money. They were deregulated. I want to understand more about them. I hope there is more of a focus on the charities that are earning a lot more money. If all those 37 organisations involved small amounts of money, or no money, there must be something else in place so that what has happened with the Peter McVerry Trust does not happen again.

The charities that were removed were all identified as having never filed an annual report. When the regulator was established in 2014, any organisation that had charitable tax exemption from the Revenue Commissioners was automatically registered as a charity. We deemed them as registered charities. They did not have to go through the process we talk abut now. I recognise the process is hard. We do our best, and I feel for people. I see all the registrations that come through. It is partly educational. There would appear to be a cohort of charities on the register that are inactive and have no assets. That is the reason we removed those charities. We identified them through their failure to file annual reports but we removed them on that basis. Removing a charity from the register could be an easy solution for us but it not necessarily always the best thing to do for the charity or the people who benefit from it, or to protect the assets, so we have to think carefully about that. Removing from the register is one option but there are others. Most of the engagement we have with charities is voluntary. That is why you only hear about the odd inspection. Once we point out that there are issues and things they need to resolve, they generally do it. That is in the spirit of what the sector is all about and we recognise that. It is not about punishment. It is about helping those charities to get better.

That is great. Ms Delaney mentioned a report that the regulator has, comparing year on year. Can that be shared with the committee?

Yes, we can share that with the committee. We try to do some research so that it can be of benefit. Once we get the charity classification, that will help us a lot. If anyone knows any charities, they should ask them to complete their classification on the register. We can share that report with the clerk and pass it to the committee. There is more information and there are other reports on our website.

I too welcome our guests this morning. It is an important discussion. In her opening address, Ms Delaney spoke about the guiding principle being public trust. How does the Charities Regulator measure public trust? Does it have key performance indicators? Does it have contact information or a website through which people can make contact? Perhaps she might go into that in her first reply.

I will take up a comment that has been made by a number of contributors around how organisations are registered. I am aware of and have dealt with charities on a long-term basis that need to be registered as charities to avail of grants. It is a huge issue for them. Some of those charities, as has been mentioned, are very small. They are dealing with LEADER companies or other Government agencies that require them to be charities. Does Ms Delaney feel that is necessary for them? Is there any way we can help them to get registered quickly? Ms Delaney told us the average is between six and 12 months, but it takes at least five months to be registered. That can be the difference between getting a grant and not getting one. Sometimes when these communities come across a grant, they have a very short timeframe to apply. If Ms Delaney could answer those two points, I would appreciate it.

I will deal with the Deputy's second question first. Organisations being told by some other entity that they need to be registered charities to get funding is an issue. Such organisations may not be charities and may not need to be registered as charities. We encourage people to tell us precisely but in confidence so we then know the facts without divulging which is the relevant organisation. We then try to approach and engage with the organisations concerned that are saying that. This crops up a lot. Where we can get specific facts but without divulging the identity of the organisation, we try to address the issue. We are usually successful but it takes time. Even if it is agreed in principle at a higher level, it has to filter down. People have forms and processes so, unfortunately, the situation continues. I absolutely agree with the Deputy. The problem is that if an organisation is not a charity and those involved do not really believe it to be a charity, going through the registration process is very difficult. It means that you have to change some of the things about the organisation or the way of thinking through the engagement to meet the test. It is very important from our perspective that people believe their organisation is a charity and meets the test. The system goes an awful lot quicker in that scenario.

I will come back on that important point. There are so many organisations. If someone has a doubt that, is Ms Delaney saying they can contact the regulator? Is there a website? I do not want to give the regulator more work, but this is very important for all of us public representatives. We come across this issue regularly. Community groups are asked to register as a charity. Somebody needs to get on top of it and tell the group it does not need to register to access a particular grant.

There are a couple of ways in which we deal with this. It is difficult for us at a remove without partly going through the test with somebody to measure whether an organisation is a charity or not. That is a problem. We have two particular pieces of guidance on our website, which people should read before telling an organisation to become a charity or before they apply for charitable status. One of those documents is titled, "What is a charity?" The second document was a part of the "What is a charity?" document but we have updated it and included a lot more examples. We will be publishing it in the new year. That document is on the charitable purposes aspect. This is the list of general purposes for which an organisation is established, whether that is education, relief of poverty or integration. Within that is the opportunity to say something a bit more specific about the organisation's object. Those documents will be helpful to explain to people what those purposes are and where organisations are or are not involved in such a purpose. Those two documents will be very important.

Another piece of work we are doing is particularly relevant to very small and micro charities or organisations at a local community level. As part of our outreach with them, we are developing our relationships with the various support groups that work locally. There are volunteer centres, the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, and its managers, and the local development companies. They all do excellent work. We are now engaging with them on a more regular and formal basis. We meet their representatives when we go around. They are very well placed to help people through the process, answer their queries and perhaps give them that one-on-one guidance as to whether they need to apply or not.

That is a very important way for us to get our messaging out on the ground. The funders though are a different issue and is something constantly occurring.

Regarding public trust, we do surveys of the public biannually and we do one for the charity sector itself. Our most recent survey was done at the end of 2024, and we published the report in 2025. That gives us a measure. It may be that on the given day somebody is spoken to they feel good about a charity, or they do not, but it does give us a measure, which is holding at around 80% so trust is very good. Interestingly, according to that it is not the scandals or the media's stories around charities that cause people to second guess giving to a charity or volunteering with it. It is the perception that they are not getting all the information from charities. Charities and small groups do not fully understand that. We are living in a different society and a different age where everyone is a little bit more sceptical. People want information and where they do not have it, they question things. That is one measure. As part of our strategy, we have also committed to maintain or increase the baseline figures we have for visitor numbers to our website. Similarly for the register itself, we want people checking the register to get the information there and to encourage charities to file all their reports and then getting feedback after webinars. It is very hard to measure something like trust, but it is something we do absolutely look at and try to keep our finger on the pulse. Very recently we did a survey of charity trustees to see why they do it and would they recommend doing it. Again, the same people giving their time gave more time to respond. We had over 1,000 people respond to us. The vast majority said they would recommend doing it. People are still very positive about charities and about volunteering. We know charities are very important in communities. That is why people keep going.

There are 11,500 charities on the register. I am taken aback by the number of secondary schools. I did not realise that. They account for over 6,000. That is well over half. Does Ms Delaney find there is a doubling up of that? The schools are already controlled by the financial support services unit in the Department of Education and Youth. Does Ms Delaney have any comment on that?

I do not because it is a matter of policy. Secondary schools have a different system for getting on the register and for reporting. That is probably easier for them but in the context of an overall sector and a register, that is slightly different. That is a policy issue.

What about the number of primary schools?

I do not have a number for primary schools but I can come back to the committee with that. It is only a small number of primary schools.

Ms Delaney can provide that information through the clerk to the committee. Of all the charities on the register, how many do audited accounts or how many are so small that they do their own accounting?

Taking non-schools, the make-up of the sector is that around 50% are companies. The next biggest cohort is associations. As companies, they have to do audited accounts. It is different for the associations; they do not have to. The are provisions in the amendment Act, which allow the Minister to introduce regulations to specify the type of accounts that charities have to prepare and file with us. Associations do not have to file with us. If it is a company we pull it from the Companies Registration Office and they are published on our website for free. However, if it is not, they are not available. That will specify the type of accounts. Some will have to be audited and there will be a threshold. At the moment it is said the threshold will be €150,000. That will have to be increased to at least €250,000 because it is just too low given inflation. Those would have to be audited. There then needs to be a mechanism for smaller charities that is not an audit; something simple that can help verify their accounts. That is a big piece of work that needs to be done.

What is the current breakdown of the number of charities that provide audited accounts and those that provide non-audited accounts?

That is about 50% of the non-schools and 41.5% of charities on the register are companies. There is only 14% that are associations. Most of the companies would have audited accounts.

That is fine. I see from the briefing documents Ms Delaney supplied that in 2020 there was an influx of 13,000 applications to be charities. In the past couple of years it has been static enough at around the 300 mark. Does Ms Delaney expect that to stay the same?

Yes. That uptick was the schools starting to come on board at that time. The numbers now are probably about right. We do have an issue, which adds to the time it takes to process applications. Specifically, that is that we have a lot of applications that are abandoned. People go through the process and I can understand why they are abandoned. That takes up a lot of time. We get quite a few applications each year, but a much smaller number are registered and a smaller number again are refused.

The numbers refused and the numbers that achieve registration suggests the charity sector is still going to grow. If there are 300 applications every year, the ones that fall off during the year and the ones that are de-registered do not accumulate to 300. So, would Ms Delaney expect the sector to grow?

Yes, slightly. We would be comparable with our neighbours in terms of the number of charities per capita.

How many prosecutions did the regulator take last year?

We took eight last year and two this year. Again, they were identified through entities not filing annual reports. They had never filed any annual reports but during the same period they had filed their reports with the Companies Registration Office. They were given a number of opportunities through engagement with them to file their annual reports. They did not. Hence, we took the prosecutions in those cases.

What is the success rate?

We had two convictions and the probation Act was applied in the other cases.

Senator McCormack mentioned the de-registrations. What happens if they have assets? Ms Delaney mentioned that a lot of the de-registrations happened because they had no assets. What would happen in a case where assets were available? Can she go through what that process would be?

We would be very mindful that we need to protect the assets and that they need to stay in the system. It is about our awareness of when these things are going to happen. Sometimes we can find out late in the day. Most charities and trustees are doing the right thing. They know what they need to do. If a charity wants to meet the charity test, in its constitution it must say when it winds up all of its property will go to another charity with a similar purpose. Our role is to make sure that happens. Some of our one-to-one engagement is with charities that get into difficulty and is to just stay with them as they go through the process of finding somebody to either merge with or transfer assets to before they wind up.

I have a final question on the Charities (Amendment) Act 2024 and regulations. There are some changes coming. Can Ms Delaney signpost some of those big changes that are coming in the next few months?

One of the big changes is that the trustee duties, which we have spoken about and which are fundamental to everything trustees do, have always existed in law but are not set out in the Act. That is unfair on people who are coming on board. It will be easier for us to say what the duties are, provide the guidance and ask people to meet them. They will be set out in the Act.

There is another important provision. Our current guidance, which was previously the Revenue guidance, is that there should be a minimum of three trustees. That makes sense but is not actually a statutory requirement. That will become a statutory requirement, which is important.

A new charitable purpose is being introduced, which is the advancement of human rights. We have set up a statutory consultative panel to consult with various groups to see how we might implement that particular provision because the excluded bodies provision around political activity will probably come in to play in relation to some entities. We want to be clear about what the Act states and how we interpret it before it is ever introduced so we can produce guidance on it. They are the main provisions I expect next year.

I know a lot of members have mentioned this previously but a lot of people assumed if you became a charity, you would be exempt from VAT, tax and stuff like that. Is that a misnomer?

You have to apply for a charitable tax exemption to Revenue, which has made it a prerequisite that you are a registered charity to get it. If you are a registered charity, it does not guarantee you will get the tax exemption but it is available.

Would Ms Delaney suggest that has led to a lot of the applications from sporting organisations, etc.?

Sporting organisations can get a different tax exemption. There are various ones there that I was surprised could avail of them when I looked at them. Of course, it is something that drives some organisations to apply for it. For a lot of the small organisations we spoke about, it is funders, fundraising and this belief they have to be registered that drives the applications.

I thank Ms Delaney.

I will continue on the point where the Cathaoirleach left off about the tax exemption. From looking at all the organisations registered with the regulator, the 11,500 charities, does Ms Delaney believe that some in the health and social care sector are registered as charities, even though they get 99.9% of their funding from the State, to avail of the tax exemption?

I do not have any hard information on that but I imagine the Senator is correct.

I thought I was correct on that as well. I thank Ms Delaney for her honesty in her answer. At the end of the day, my definition of charity is people at a voluntary level, right on the ground within our communities. I find it hard and nearly unpalatable that organisations earning over €5 million, €10 million and in excess of that are in the same category and banding as those that are trying and struggling for the €5,000 or €6,000. Ms Delaney and I discussed SICAP and that community group. It is hard to see fairness, balance and equity for all when 99.9% of their funding is coming from the State.

On the same note, of those large scale charitable registered organisations, does the regulator keep a register of their assets? I want to leave out the one in relation to housing because that will distort my question. I am talking about health and social care. Does the regulator keep a register of their assets as part of the requisite for charitable status?

No, we do not.

Is that an anomaly in the whole purpose of the Charities Regulator? It does not have a line of sight on some of our health and social care providers and what their asset base is worth.

We get an asset figure on the annual report from them but in terms of a register of their assets and the make-up of that, we do not get that.

That is unfortunate. I am not laying any of it with the regulator but it is unfortunate because it is important, if a charity is registered and availing of that status, that the public have a right to see exactly what is the list of registered properties that the charity holds and what is the name of all the other shell companies that sit within the governance structure of that charity. Does Ms Delaney agree?

I agree that the more transparency and accountability there is, the better for the sector.

I thank Ms Delaney.

It was alluded to previously but I want to understand the power of oversight that the regulator has. There was a €23 million writedown on the property from the Peter McVerry Trust. There is an industrial relations dispute in Pobal relating to its gender pay gap, which is ongoing. Is Ms Delaney reading this stuff in the newspapers? Does she find out at the same time as everybody else? In what way is this notified to Ms Delaney?

If the regulator cannot see this coming, I find that hard to believe. I certainly know the people in dispute in Pobal will find it very hard to believe there does not seem to be that level of oversight because we are talking about millions of euro in public money.

Our powers of intervention are quite limited. A lot of our functions under the Act are about promoting, encouraging, ensuring and things like that. The Deputy can look at our range of powers at the other end, such as striking off for non-filing of reports, prosecution and things like that. The whole band of activity in the middle is about governance. That is where all of the issues the Deputy is talking about come under and stem from. It is based on trustees doing the right thing, how they go about that and meeting their obligations.

In this instance, it is the subject of the scandal. It was discussed at the Committee of Public Accounts and the information about the Peter McVerry Trust is in the media. Did the trustees uphold their function? Likewise in the industrial dispute in Pobal, are the trustees there, as it has charitable status, upholding their function by allowing the gender pay gap to widen over years? If they are not upholding their function and Ms Delaney is the regulator, what can she do about that?

On the Peter McVerry Trust, the report is on the record of detailing where there are governance failures. The way the information very often comes to us is people in charities, volunteers, workers and even sometimes trustees, come to us with information. That did not happen in the Peter McVerry Trust.

I cannot comment on the other case. I am not aware of anything coming to us but sometimes, we act on the basis of information that is in the public domain. We ask charities and charities trustees, from a governance perspective, if they are dealing with a situation but-----

I am sorry to interrupt but when it is manifestly obvious they are not - my friend would often say a blind man on a galloping donkey could see they are not - upholding their responsibilities, what is the next step for the regulator or is it simply a case where the regulator's powers are limited to not being able to intervene?

I cannot comment on that situation. I know the Deputy is familiar with it and has her position on it. We do not have the power to say someone must do this or someone cannot do that. We do not have that power of intervention.

Specifically in the case of the Peter McVerry Trust - there were very obvious governance issues and they have been ventilated in the media quite openly. In that instance where there is manifestly a problem, what exactly can the regulator do? When the regulator goes right up to the limit of its power, what exactly does that constitute?

Taking that particular scenario, once we had the report with all the facts, our first port of call was to the trustees to ask: do they see this, do they accept this and what are they doing about it? In the event that there has been manifest misconduct towards misappropriation or a situation, which we had before, where the charity trustees walked away, we could apply to the High Court to intervene to protect the assets and protect the services.

Has the regulator ever done that?

We did that in the situation where the charity walked away.

Is that in the public domain?

It is in the public domain, yes.

What charity is Ms Delaney referring to?

It was Inner City Helping Homeless.

Aside from that, and in the case of Peter McVerry Trust, there was no intervention required or there was no intervention?

No. It was not required at the time we did our report. There were trustees there and the trustees are best placed to address the shortcomings and turn it around. In time, there can be failures to step aside and be replaced with new trustees, which is exactly what happened with the Peter McVerry Trust. Yes, it has taken a long time but it is working under a very direct compliance plan with the approved housing bodies.

We are looking for outcomes. We are looking to protect the services, the assets and the workers as well and to do things in a measured way.

We do not have powers of intervention, so we are calling on people to fulfil their duties and do the right things. We are also calling again on funders.

Okay.

I thank Deputy O'Reilly and call Deputy Pete Roche.

I thank Ms Rodgers and Ms Delaney. I missed the opening statement, but I glanced through the written version. I would not be very au fait with the nature of the work of the Charities Regulator and what it covers, but one thing that struck me is that there are approximately 11,500 charities, 280,000 people employed and €32 billion circulating. That is quite a considerable industry in itself. The one thing we are all aware of is that every charity will have volunteers that work on its behalf. I am saying this, and I will be asking a question in a few moments, against the background where I supported a charity quite a number of years ago that was providing charity and gathering funding to provide for its activities. It was a charity that related to suicide. There is no need to recall that because it caused considerable hurt nationally when then CEO of the charity gained national notoriety for the way that money was embezzled. I will ask my question in the context of that experience. For people who support a charity like that - and "vetting" might be the wrong word - when individuals are volunteering, is there any knowledge of their profile, their background or their suitability to be collecting money in the name of a charity? It is quite a complex question but is probably the one foremost in my mind.

All our hearts sink when we hear of things like that happening because there are so many good people working in the sector. Charities are vulnerable to being exploited and taken advantage of, however. When we talk to them about governance and certain things that should be put in place, a lot of what we are talking about is to protect them as well as to allow things to be run effectively. If I understand the Deputy's question, there are two disparate aspects involved. First, there are those who become charity trustees. There is a requirement under the Act that if people are to be charity trustees, they are not to be disqualified. There are some very basic provisions around being disqualified. One of those relates to circumstances where someone has been convicted of an offence on indictment, been previously declared bankrupt, been the subject of a scheme of arrangement and things of that nature. We do our best to check that there are not people with that background involved in order to ensure they are not disqualified.

In terms of charities letting others volunteer on their behalf and, in particular, to collect money for them, this is becoming a bigger issue. At least, charities are becoming aware of it. Again, it comes down to the fact that even if a charity might only be a small organisation, if something seems too good to be true, then that charity should not avail of it even though it wants the funds. It has to be about people who are known to the charity and who can be traced after the fact. A charity must enter into some sort of agreement with people and not hand out its literature lightly to anybody who asks for it on the basis of a promise of fundraising. This is a very difficult issue, however. It is just about being as careful as possible. We do not have any role in relation to volunteers. Going back to the local support groups, the volunteer centres do great work. Getting volunteers through them obviously provides some comfort, but it is a very difficult area.

With the permission of the Chair, in the context of the approximately 11,500 charities - and perhaps this was mentioned earlier - are annual random audits carried out? Are there checks and balances? Is there any popping in to see how things are going before something goes wrong? Does Ms. Delaney get where I am coming from?

I do. I understand. We get a lot of concerns every year. We would have in the region of 500 every year. We close as many as we open, so people can imagine that there is a lot of work involved. We have learned a lot over our first ten years, and we are revisiting our approach to dealing with those in order to be more effective in how we manage it to try to build in some time to do that proactive work. We intend to carry out a risk profiling exercise in order that we can identify some charities which we should maybe drop in on, as the Deputy said, and ask them what is going on to see if we can identify any issues.

It is very difficult. We have a lot of contact with the regulators in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Australia and other places. Interestingly, they were doing random audits of returns they were getting, etc., and felt it was delivering no value. Generally, the experience is that it is very difficult to identify these things without hard intelligence in advance. The best we can do is to encourage people to come forward. We are a prescribed entity under the protected disclosures Act, and there are protections for people there. In any event, while we do give the details of the concern to the entities we engage with because they are entitled to know, we do not give them the identity of the complainant or a copy of the concern. We try to protect people. Many individuals come forward with very important information that allows us to get in early rather than after the fact.

If I can have one final opportunity, on Monday night last, the second episode of a programme on a national scam performed by a very famous hurler was broadcast. As a consequence of that, in the context of when that whole collection thing was out there in the public domain, does the Charity Regulator ever want to understand how or where people like that are operating? In other words, does the regulator ever intercept an attempt like that or look to where these collections originate, how authentic they are or where the funds might be going? Is the regulator ever called in to adjudicate on something like that? That is what I am really trying to get at.

No. Our role would be if an entity is calling itself a charity or leading people to believe it is a charity. We would intervene at that point. In the sense the Deputy referred to, the answer is “No”. Unfortunately, that is an area that is exploited.

I would imagine that would probably prompt a doubling down in the context of the regulator's efforts to make sure there is no repeat of the occurrence to which I refer.

Yes. A lot of all of this comes down to personal responsibility. That is why we encourage people to check the register. People just have to be careful nowadays as to who they are giving money to.

When people are equipped with information, they are in a better place. I thank Ms Delaney and Ms Rodgers sincerely for what they have brought before us today.

I thank Deputy Roche. I call on Senator Anne Rabbitte to ask a further supplementary question.

I concur with Deputy Roche. I thank Ms Rodgers and Ms Delaney for their openness and honesty in how they have engaged on this topic. It has been very informative.

I am coming in for the third time. I am looking at something totally different on this occasion. I am referring to social enterprises and various categories or tiering within the role of the Charities Regulator. I say this because I suppose I am hung up on the large ones. There are the middle ones as well, and then our grassroots, like our Tidy Towns and other small organisations. I am really saying that volunteers give 150% of their effort and then there are trustees or board members who are paid to be in their roles. We cannot compare apples with oranges. It is the same when it comes to submitting applications. I do not know if Ms Rodgers and Ms Delaney have ever had chats with the Minister in respect of looking at reviewing the legislation to compartmentalise it or to monetise it in different categories.

If that was the way, the community groups might feel they had a fairer chance, as opposed to having to lean back on an organisation to be nearly their sponsor to go for charitable status. It is unfortunate. Sometimes, when somebody is coming in to help the likes of a disability organisation that wants to do equine therapy, for example, they might have to use a larger, established organisation. Then, it loses all authenticity. Social enterprise has become a huge phenomenon in recent years. It was always there. The Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, and the Minister, Deputy Calleary, recognise the value of social enterprises. The work Rethink Ireland has been doing is phenomenal. For those social enterprises to get going and to support that indigenous space, how does the Charities Regular feel we could support social enterprises in coming forward a bit more?

Some social enterprises are registered charities. Many of those would be by virtue of their having come onto the register. I do not know whether they would pass the test now. Social enterprises come with in the remit of our parent Department. We work on the community side; that is our lead in. We are aware of them and of their policies and strategies. The difficulty is that some will meet the charity tests and some will not. All of the stuff that we talk about, all of the standards that we put out, all the training, all the guidance, etc., is equally applicable to those social enterprises in the context of helping them to govern effectively and safely and to be sustainable. They are very much part of the community from which the charities emerge and in which they are operating. Only some of them would be charities. Some would not be charities.

I also welcome the witnesses' honesty. I return to the Peter McVerry Trust. The new CEO of the trust was before the Committee of Public Accounts two weeks ago. He asked why the Charities Regulator did not intervene and use its power to appoint independent trustees when it received the letter.

We received the letter that was sent by him on behalf of the charity. It was a letter informing us of the cash-flow difficulties, the fact that the trust had the support of its funder and that there were plans under way to address the matter. In other words, it was under control. We engaged with the trust from there to find out exactly what was going on. We were concerned by what we discovered. We got more information and we appointed inspectors. The trust had already engaged with its funder and was able to keep going. There was no immediate risk of services being closed down, which, obviously, in that situation, would have been a big concern. We then needed to get the actual facts. The only way that we can look to either remove or appoint a trustee is to go to the High Court. We cannot just do it outside of that; we do not have that power. We have to go to court to do it. It is a whole application, and we can only do it in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances relates to misconduct or misappropriation. We would need facts of that, so we moved to appoint the inspectors and get the information.

As I said, actions were being taken in collaboration with a number of stakeholders to steady the ship and turn it around. That has continued. There was not a situation that warranted removing anyone. We were not provided with any information other than that in the initial letter from the charity. There was no whistleblowing. We did not receive anything that would have caused us any particular concern about misconduct or whatever. Things went very wrong, but that is a different standard.

There was a lot of mention of Tidy Towns groups today. I presume the witnesses would be advocating that Tidy Towns group should not become charities, particularly as they are so small and the amounts of money involved are also small. Would that be Ms Delaney's view?

They have to decide for themselves, but I would not have an issue if they came to the conclusion that they were not charities and did not need to register. We do have some of them on the register, but I know there are a lot more groups than the number that are on the register.

That is great. They came up a good few times today. Last year, the Charities Regular was ten years old. Does it have enough resources to keep going for next ten years? What are the challenges the organisation faces going forward?

We are a maturing organisation. We have learned a lot over the ten years. This is obviously quite a complex and diverse area to regulate. It is a different kind of regulation because it is not just about taking action; it is about trying to achieve certain outcomes. We received additional resources last year and this year. Hopefully, we will be able to build incrementally on that while still looking at how we do everything, listening to the sector and learning from them and trying to do things better. I think we are on the right path.

I thank our guests for listening to and engaging with us this morning. We are grateful to Ms Delaney and Ms Rodgers for coming in and for providing the documentation in advance of the meeting. This has been a really positive engagement. I look forward to our continued engagement during the lifetime of the Government while this committee is in place.