COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Oct 2024

I welcome everybody here today. I remind those in attendance to ensure mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off. Before we start I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references that may be made to other persons in evidence.

The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. This means witnesses have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they may say in the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Leas-Chathaoirleach to ensure that privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to any identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with such direction.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way that would make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from enquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits or objectives of such policies.

We are joined by Ms Colette Drinan, secretary and director of audit at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is deputising this week for the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is the permanent witness to the committee. She is accompanied by Mr. Leonard McKeown, deputy director at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

This morning we will engage with representatives of the Charities Regulator to examine the financial statements from 2023 of the Charities Regulator and the financial statements 2023 of the charity funds. We are joined by the following representatives from the Charities Regulator: Ms Madeleine Delaney, chief executive officer; Mr. Thomas Mulholland, director of compliance and enforcement; and Mr. Seán O'Connor, head of charity services. We are also joined by the following officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development: Mr. Jake Ryan, principal officer, community and voluntary supports and programmes; and Mr. Kevin Power, assistant principal, community and voluntary supports and programmes. The witnesses are all very welcome.

I call Ms Drinan for her opening statement.

The Charities Regulatory Authority was formally established in 2014 under the Charities Act 2009. It is responsible for the regulation and protection of charitable trusts and organisations. It has a range of statutory powers and duties, including the power to conduct investigations into the affairs of charities.

The 2023 financial statements of the authority recorded total income of €4.8 million, all of which is Oireachtas grant funding from Vote 42 - Rural and Community Development. The authority’s expenditure in 2023 was €4.9 million, which included staff costs of €2.7 million and other administration costs of €2.2 million. The authority reported an operating surplus of €79,000 for the year. A clear audit opinion was given on the 2023 financial statements.

The authority also manages the statutory charity funds account and reports separately on the transactions and balances of the funds account. This account was originally set up to administer assets or funds of any charity that were vested with the predecessor of the Charities Regulatory Authority, that is, the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland. The balance on the charity funds account at the close of 2023 was €1.3 million. Receipts into the funds account during 2023 amounted to €1.67 million, mainly comprising dividends from investments, the proceeds of investment units sold at the direction of participating charities, and administration costs recovered. The payments from the funds account in 2023 mainly represented distribution of those receipts to the charities concerned and the payment of administration costs. A clear audit opinion was given on the 2023 financial statements of this account.

Separate to the charity funds, the authority also operates a common investment fund. This fund was originally set up to support charities, particularly smaller charities, to invest charitable funds collectively that were not required for immediate use and to earn a return on those balances. The common investment fund is separately accounted for and is not subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The financial statements of that fund are not presented to the Oireachtas. Access to the investment fund is closed to new members but dividends earned on existing investments can be reinvested. The authority has reported that the value of the investments in the common investment fund at the end of 2023 was €41.6 million.

I thank the Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to address them on the Charities Regulator’s financial statements for 2023. I am joined today by the director of compliance and enforcement, Mr. Thomas Mulholland, and the head of charity services, Mr. Seán O’Connor.

The Charities Regulator was established ten years ago yesterday, on 16 October 2014. It is funded by the Exchequer through a subhead of Vote 42 - Rural and Community Development. Our budget in 2023 was €5 million. Pay accounted for approximately €3 million of our overall budget and non-pay expenditure amounted to approximately €2 million. There are currently 13 members on the board of the Charities Regulator and 47 full-time members of staff. A number of board subcommittees assist the board in carrying out its functions.

At the end of 2023, there were 11,516 charities and more than 75,000 charity trustees. 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 across Ireland, including those who take up the role of charity trustee. In addition, an estimated 281,250 people were employed in charities in 2023, equivalent to almost one in eight workers. The overall financial impact of the charity sector was estimated at €32.1 billion in 2022.

It is important to mention that 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, "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 set out in the legislation and applied by us as part of the registration process. 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.

Charities can come under the remit of a number of regulators and public bodies depending on the services they provide. Our role is grounded solely in the charities Acts, in particular the Charities Act 2009. Our statutory functions include maintaining a register of charities and promoting high standards of governance and accountability in charities. Our guiding function is to increase public trust and confidence in the administration and management of 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.

These services are provided free of charge and are an alternative to applying to the High Court.

During its first ten years, the Charities Regulator focused on establishing its organisational structures and governance and setting up the register of charities. We have also developed and maintain a wide range of guidance materials and supports to assist charity trustees understand and fulfil their responsibilities in running their organisations. We work with charity trustees, charity representatives and other experts and stakeholders to make sure our guidance and materials are practical and relevant to those volunteering and working in the sector.

Where issues or concerns arise, we seek to take proportionate action. We engage extensively on a one-to-one basis with charities and charity trustees to resolve governance and compliance matters. Most issues are resolved voluntarily without the need for us to use any formal powers. In 2023, for example, we received 632 new concerns. However, during that same year, we issued only 15 statutory directions to provide information or to produce documents.

When the situation requires, we will use our powers, for example, by appointing inspectors to investigate and report on the affairs of a charity. Another example is during 2023 we undertook a targeted initiative to address falling compliance rates with the requirement to file an annual report. The filing of an annual report is a relatively simple task and is an essential part of accountability and transparency. It is also a legal obligation, and one that is complied with by the majority of charities. This initiative has led so far to eight prosecutions in the District Court, and 31 charities have been removed from the register.

We are in the final year of the Charities Regulator’s current statement of strategy and I acknowledge the work of our dedicated, professional staff. During the lifetime of this strategy we have introduced a new registration application form, increased our engagement with stakeholders, established a new stakeholder forum and held trustee events and surveys. We have also enhanced our website, added new guidance, increased the frequency of our e-zine and our webinars, and undertaken focused staff training. We have promoted informed giving and our latest campaign, Click, Check, Give, has helped to increase searches of the register.

We have also worked closely with the Department of Rural and Community Development on amendments to the Charities Act 2009 which will enhance and strengthen the existing regulatory framework. We look forward to working with the Department and the sector on implementation of these provisions.

Our next statement of strategy, which will run to the end of 2027, will focus on fair and effective regulation, deepening our relationships with our stakeholders and developing our organisational capability. We aim to learn from what has worked well over the past decade and also what has not worked as well as we intended, and to bring that knowledge into our engagement with charities.

Our ambition is to develop a regulatory model that is appropriate to the diversity across the sector and that supports good practice in the governance, management and administration of charities. I hope the foregoing gives some sense of our role as regulator in a highly complex and diverse charities sector. I am happy to respond to any questions that the Leas-Cathaoirleach and members may have.

I welcome the witnesses and wish them a happy anniversary yesterday - ten years. I congratulate them on that.

How many staff are employed with the Charities Regulator?

Those media reports referred to the Estimates process for 2024. We sought funding for specific work, which we did not receive. In the Estimates process that took place this year for next year, we also sought additional staff for a certain type of work, not the same as we sought before, and the indication is that we will receive that funding. Obviously, we have to wait for the Revised Estimates.

The work we wanted to undertake was primarily additional to the work we were doing. We had identified some projects that we wanted to undertake what we believed would be of value. They were curtailed. In addition, we were doing work on the governance code. We reviewed our work on that and we have a different project related to that now. Overall, we wanted to try to improve the efficiency of our services. Some of them are quite labour-intensive in terms of staff involvement. Therefore, we looked for staff in order to achieve that as well.

The need that we requested for 2025 and the allocation we requested in respect of people were staff to work at a junior level - case officer level - who carry out the bulk of our work in the registration function, to try to improve timelines, and also in the concerns function. We also sought funding for a legal adviser who would be dedicated to regulatory aspects of the work, namely in compliance and enforcement.

Those consultancy costs the Deputy quoted relate to the figures of €500,000 and €51,485. They relate to day-to-day consultancy costs, if you like, where we supplement our own ability to carry out work with consultants. Legal costs would be included in that, as well as the cost of accountancy firms that fill the role of inspector. We also had some exceptional IT costs related to a project for us to procure a new digital platform. The digital platform is basically the system by which we do all our work. It supports the register of charities, it puts the information up there, it is the customer portal where people access it and it is how we do our back office work. It is a very extensive, important and complex strategic project for us. We engaged the services of a project manager and a business analyst to help us do the work for that.

The rent is actually cheaper than where we moved from in 2017. The rent is approximately 40% less than what it was previously. We have a lease. The lease will be up for renewal and negotiation next year. We are already preparing to carry out an assessment of the market and our needs to see what is there.

It seems like an extraordinary amount of rent when there are so many State owned buildings.

In terms of the charities themselves and the pay for CEOs, it has to be said an awful lot of charities operate on a voluntary basis and there is no remuneration whatsoever. For CEOs who are paid, the average is approximately €70,000. There were some reports in the media that said CEOs were making up to €160,000 and some said that was justifiable. Are salaries and remuneration packages monitored by the regulator?

We monitor the oversight and the process in relation to whether staff need to be recruited and what staff at what grade, whether there is an open recruitment competition with a proper role profile and whether the salaries are benchmarked. That is the guidance we give charities. It is permissible to employ people because you have to deliver services, you might have to buy equipment and materials and you might have to rent space. All of that is allowed. Charities are however expected to make sure they only incur the costs that are strictly necessary and reasonable. They have to look at and examine that.

CEO is a title, but you might ask whether there is a need for the role of CEO in a very small charity with two employees or sometimes even one as opposed to a charity with hundreds of employees and lots of services and complex matters to deal with.

I cannot say specifically but it is something we look at and we draw the attention of charities to it. The main way in which we do this is when charities come to us to register. The registration process is as much teaching charities about what it means to be a charity, what they can expect in running the charity and what the requirements of being a charity are as it is about meeting the requirements of the Act. In that instance, they might talk about having employees from the very start or having a specific numbers of employees. When they have not even started operations, we may question as to whether this is, in fact, necessary at this point in time. We ask them to go away and look at that.

We provide them with the information I have just spoken about there about how to recruit people. It all boils down to that; it is not just in relation to your staff. It is in relation to services and everything you pay for. It is about ensuring you get good value for money, much as we are required to do in the public sector.

We absolutely see the need for the regulator and the work it does in ensuring there is regulation and all the standards are adhered to, but in some cases it is construed that there is heavy-handedness in the approach taken. I do a lot of work with organisations that help the homeless, and I am sure others do as well. There was a brilliant organisation in my constituency that was set up by a local woman, Colette Talbot, called Together for Homeless. They came into the city centre on a weekly basis and helped feed up to 250 homeless people. They were fully compliant with food safety regulations and all of that. They got a letter from the regulator completely out of the blue and were told them to cease operation.

That organisation was not an isolated case; there were a number of other similar organisations carrying out voluntary work and receiving small donations to help feed the homeless. That lady was threatened with imprisonment or a fine of up to €30,000 unless they ceased operation immediately. Unfortunately, they had to cease operation. There are 250 people who were receiving food on a weekly basis now not receiving that service.

The organisation came at it from a very charitable perspective. They saw a need and serviced that need, which is unfortunately still there and growing on a daily basis. Together for Homeless and a number of other organisations like it were forced to cease operating because of what I deem a heavy-handed approach. Could Ms Delaney speak to the approach taken in situations like that?

There are probably two aspects I need to address in relation to that. The first is the communication itself and the tone and content. That is feedback we have received and it is something we will look at and we want to address. Where something is an offence, we are obliged to warn people of the potential consequences but I fully accept there are ways in which you can do that. That is the first point.

Without talking about anybody specifically, we would never tell anybody to shut down. I refer to what would have happened in the type of cases the Deputy is talking about. You cannot call yourself a charity if you are not on the register and you cannot let people believe you are a charity if you are not on the register. If we find that somebody is either deliberately or mistakenly calling themselves a charity, we point this out to them and tell them they cannot do that or they can apply to the register in which case when they are registered, they can call themselves a charity. That is the distinction.

We are not saying these people are not doing good, they are not needed or that there is anything untoward in their behaviour. We are simply saying you cannot call yourself a charity if you are not on the register of charities or you cannot collect money as a charity. What I imagine was said there was that they could not continue to call themselves a charity, not to shut down operations because that is not within our gift-----

I do not want to get into specific cases or anything like that, but they were certainly not masquerading as some charity. They received small donations, similar to many little groups like that. It was a coming together of community activists and people who wanted to do good. I gave the wrong figure. She was threatened with a fine of €300,000 and-or a prison sentence of up to ten years-----

The other expenditure includes our legal costs for external legal advisers. It includes the cost of inspectors where we use an external firm to help us with inspections.

We have an external data protection officer. That is covered in that as well.

As regards the report carried out on the Peter McVerry Trust, a list of recommendations was made, one of which pertains to the Charities Regulator, namely, recommendation No. 32. That recommendation states that fundraising will be receipted appropriately and in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Regulator. That status of that recommendation is in progress. What does that mean?

First, the requirement to be receipted does not mean someone is physically given a receipt. It means the money is accounted for, particularly on receipt by the organisation. The organisation should clearly be able to track where the funds come from, where they go and, if someone did inquire, it should be able to tell them where the money has gone.

That explains that.

I often receive calls from constituents who are trying to register charities and they find it a pretty arduous process. I am not saying that is the Charities Regulator's fault. For people who want to do good, there is a rigorous process in place. It can be daunting for someone who is not a solicitor or an accountant. What is the average time it takes to register a charity from start to finish?

While I cannot say “Yes” definitively, a lot of the information we act on is brought to us. We pick up things ourselves internally. We have red flags such as circumstances where a number of trustees quickly resign en masse or something like that. By and large, however, most of the information we get is external.

The whole issue with debt warehousing and such ran into €8 million. That is just one charity. Ms Delaney told us the Charities Regulator's resourcing from the Government is €5 million per year. Ms Delaney probably has an opinion that she may or may not be able to share but if that is just one charity, the Charities Regulator is very under-resourced from a confidence and transparency perspective and the perspective of the public.

My view of charities, which I think everyone shares, is that the money people give to charities should be spent on a charitable basis. We have seen what happened in the Peter McVerry Trust and a few other charities such as Concern whose names crop up. Bóthar is another that comes to mind. People are very giving in Irish society in particular. They are very good. I attend coffee mornings all the time and it never ceases to amaze me. Trust and confidence are paramount. What level of resourcing did the Charities Regulator request over and above the current budget in the 2025 Vote?

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I was fortunate enough to head up a charity for almost seven years and I know the value of the work the regulator does in sustaining the public's trust in the charity sector as a whole and allowing charities to continue doing the good work they do. I thank it for that. In May of this year, the regulator issued a statement urging charities to be more vigilant in identifying conflicts of interest. By their nature, such conflicts are sometimes difficult to identify and more difficult to pin down than financial irregularities. The regulator issued guidance to the boards of charities on how to manage such conflicts of interest. Apart from issuing that guidance, is the regulator being proactive in identifying conflicts of interest that have the capacity to seriously undermine the work and credibility of charities? It is a significant area that needs forensic scrutiny. The witnesses have outlined the resources available to the office so I know that may not be possible. However, to restore the public's faith in the charities sector as a whole and to strengthen it into the future, that needs to be central to the work the regulator does. Do the witnesses have any views on that?

We issued that guidance and note in May because we see it as an issue that charities can struggle with. We see it when they are applying for entry to the register. There is very little we can do other than issue guidance. We cover the issue as part of the webinars and training that we run. It is all about the management of the issue. It is a very difficult area. Sometimes, especially in small charities in rural communities, it cannot be avoided so it is about how it is managed and the transparency around it. Some of them are very good at it. It is about having the conversation, being aware and understanding that the perception of a conflict is as dangerous as an actual conflict. It is one of those areas that charities struggle with as part of overall governance. That is probably because of the nature of people coming on board on a volunteer basis. Often, people will bring in somebody they know. That is how you get new trustees to come on. It may be someone you work with or something like that. They may then be a little bit more uncomfortable talking about it. We just want to make it more normal to talk about it, to build it into meeting agendas and to make it routine. We want charities to have a very good policy that they actually adhere to and keep up to date.

In her opening statement, Ms Delaney outlined that the office oversees a very diverse landscape of charities, ranging from small volunteer-led charities, sometimes operating in small communities and perhaps only serving the needs of that particular community, to very large entities with budgets of millions of euro. In her most recent response, she mentioned webinars. Does the regulator undertake any specific work with those smaller charities that are coming under its scrutiny for the first time? On the webinars, I assume, although I could be wrong, that attendance at these webinars is voluntary and that there is no obligation to attend. Has consideration ever been given to making this a mandatory requirement for charities? Perhaps those in their first year or two of operation could be obliged to attend these webinars if they are to remain registered with the regulator. This would allow them to become very familiar with all of the regulatory and governance requirements the regulator imposes.

The Deputy is correct that attendance is voluntary. We have quite good attendance but we are concerned that we are not reaching the volunteer-only very local charities that we really need to reach if we are to help them put in place governance and oversight measures, which is where charities can ultimately be exposed. We are doing a particular campaign or initiative in that regard. We have been working on a project to organise a seminar for those charities that have just registered. A charity may have been registered for three weeks or three months but we will capture that cohort and bring them through some of the basics, particularly pointing them to the guidance they can find on our website. We cannot force them to do it but we will be strongly encouraging them. It is interesting that there is a provision in the amending Act that has not been commenced but that will allow us to impose conditions as part of registration. As the Deputy has said, we can certainly look at imposing a condition requiring a certain amount of attendance at webinars. There is no doubt that charities need help with the mechanisms they need to put in place. They need to have things explained to them and to be given practical examples, which is what we try to provide in these webinars.

The provision Ms Delaney refers to has not yet been enacted. Is the regulator proactively seeking that power to oblige charities, particularly those recently established charities, to attend webinars? I would argue these webinars are very much in their interests as regards their governance, the public's trust in them and their credibility. Would the regulator encourage Government or the Minister to confer that power upon it? Can the regulator assume that power? Does it have the legislative freedom to do so once the amendment is enacted?

We are just waiting for the various provisions of the Act to be commenced. There are quite a lot of amendments in it. We have been engaging with Department officials on it, working out the practical implications of various aspects and trying to ascertain what would be for the very short term, the medium term and the long term. That provision certainly fits into the short-term category.

It means being more proactive as regards how we deal with matters that arise. It goes back to Deputy Verona Murphy's point. Understandably, in the first years of our establishment, in addition to getting up and running, we have looked at every single concern that has been raised with us. That is because we needed to build an understanding of the sector and the issues and to build our own capacity and ability to know how to deal with these issues. We are now at a point where we will have to be more selective about what we look at on a risk basis. We do risk profiles but we will now have to be more selective. We cannot look at everything. We need to do more proactive supervision. That is one aspect of remaining agile. The other aspect is that, when you have limited resources - and we are not the only body to have limited resources - you constantly look at new, different and better ways of doing things. One of the things we need to look at is the use of information and technology. For some queries in the very early stages of the application process, we may be able to make use of technology such as AI. We are a long way away from that but we are starting the discussion this year. We are having somebody come in to talk to staff about it. The other thing, which is somewhat connected, is data. Data is key not just for us, but for the public.

Much of how the regulatory framework was set up, the powers given to the regulator and what it can and cannot do was designed around a system whereby the information on the register tells people what they need to know. We will have to keep increasing the amount and accuracy of information on the register and make sure people keep it up to date. Then we need the public looking at that register. When we were established, we inherited 8,000 charities that had a charitable tax exemption, CHY, number from Revenue who never came through our process, some of which have engaged to varying degrees, although some of which have been in existence for years and may be our best-known charities. We have a challenge, particularly regarding that cohort and that data. We are trying to tackle this on a piecemeal basis. We hope the new digital platform will give us a tool but we need to get charities producing the information they should be producing in order that the public, as well as ourselves, can see what is going on.

I thank the witnesses for being here this morning and the Comptroller and Auditor General for putting in the work on the report. I agree with Deputy Cannon that it is a very complex landscape and that we are dealing with charities of different capacities and sizes. I think roughly 11,000 charities are registered. Has their turnover been categorised in any way? How many fall into the very small category of having very small turnover, almost on the point of inactivity?

Possibly 10% are inactive. We have been running a targeted initiative on annual reporting compliance, because it is a basic requirement and organisations should be doing it. We have found a cohort that is effectively inactive. At least this gives us a way to identify them, although it is by literally writing letters, following up and then removing them from the register. A total of 257 or 4% of charities have no income whatsoever. A further 30% have less than €100,000 per year.

If a charity has less than €10,000, it is an incredibly small operation. It more than likely does not have any paid staff and is mostly volunteer run. Equally, the auditing requirements are very onerous. Regarding audit fees in some cases, I know of one group with a total income of €2,500 and the cost of auditing is just north of €1,000. Has any consideration been given in that space to how we might be able to address those challenges, or is that just a necessary part of establishing trusts for the larger landscape?

I find it very frustrating, as does the group itself, which I will not name, that to carry out charitable work, and it inherited a legacy structure, 50% of its fundraising is to satisfy the Charities Regulator. While that is necessary, and I cannot see any other way around it, there is scope to have a more agile approach for smaller charities, as Ms Delaney mentioned. I will leave that with her as a point. It is a more significant number than I expected when she said 12%.

In those other charities that have staff, active boards and governance structures, you would expect that these obligations are not onerous. The issues at the Peter McVerry Trust came as a surprise to many people. When and how did the Charities Regulator become aware of the issues and what was its immediate response?

Yes, that is correct. The letter referred to some cash flow difficulties but not beyond normal ranges and there was nothing to worry about, etc. We had information in our possession because we had been looking at a separate concern regarding the organisation, which is why we had obtained a lot of information. We asked for some specific information relating to a meeting referred to in the letter and a financial sustainability plan they had at that time. We put that together with the other information. We made contact with the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority, AHBRA, and requested a significant amount of information under our statutory powers.

That is the first concern. Had the cash flow or the financial operational management not become an issue, it is likely that we might not have discovered the many other areas such as the co-mingling of donations, restricted and unrestricted funds, and issues of poor governance decisions by the board and so on. For the Charities Regulator, that must be a lesson in the sense that had the day-to-day operational challenges of cash flow and meeting budgets not been flagged, we would not have known about the other areas. Is that something Ms Delaney has reflected on?

Yes, it is something we have been reflecting on, even before the extent of it has come to light. It goes back to what we have said about needing to be more proactive. We need to try to use some of our resources to be more proactive in our monitoring. The nature of the financial statements that companies and charities have to file now is such that they can tell us little or nothing. Even if we were looking, we might not see it. The idea of the amendments in the amendment Act is that they will introduce, by ministerial regulation, certain requirements in relation to those accounts and they will be akin to the standard required in the UK, which is the charities statements of recommended practice, SORP. That gives much more information. Our ability to act and for the public to see it will be better.

Does Ms Delaney accept that the relationship between CEO and chair is key? The governance issues or the protection of the public interest really rely on the board. When there is an entirely voluntary board and chairperson, however, without the independent resources of the staffing of the organisation, the board can be in a very weak position to monitor what is happening in the organisation.

I agree, but does Ms Delaney accept the resourcing of the board is the issue there? I am not speaking about a particular case here, but if there was any attempt by a senior staff member, the CEO or staff in general to mislead the board, it could be incredibly difficult for a board that may meet once a month, whose members perhaps do not know each other very well as board members and who do not have any resourcing to get independent advice and so on. I have served on boards and it is very easy for the staff to create a situation where the board is entirely dependent on the information provided by them.

This is why it is very important that charity trustees understand that they are the persons legally responsible for the control and management. They do that by putting in place the governance framework, which sets out the boundaries. This is where the work comes in at the outset and then keeping it up to date. We produce a lot of material on this. That sets the boundaries and limits within which the employees operate. It says what decisions are reserved to them, what information they require to make those decisions and then standard reports and the detail of those that have to be produced.

Ms Delaney is outlining the obligations of the directors and the board and I do not take from those.

My point is that many directors find it very difficult to fulfil that because they are entirely dependent for resourcing and expertise and information on the people who work within the organisation. Where it goes wrong, that is often the challenge.

That is one of the reasons we have the charities governance code. It sets out everything the trustees need to look at, put in place, ask their employees to help them put in place and report on. That is specific guidance for trustees to know how to discharge their obligations and protect themselves. You redress the balance by saying that we have the code of governance; that we know what it means, which is this, this and this; that we are putting this in place; and that you need to report to us on it.

In some cases in community structures, for example, the people involved are very well meaning but perhaps do not have the experience and so on. That is the weakness of corporate governance in Ireland. It is the reason we will have other instances. We are not resourcing the boards. That brings me to my second point, which is the recruitment and retention of board members. Why in God's name would anybody volunteer to be on a board where the responsibility is so onerous and they have no resources to exercise their function, other than those controlled by the CEO and the organisation? We are hanging many directors out to dry. In some cases these bodies are spending almost entirely State money.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Chathaoirleach agus leis na finnéithe as teacht os comhair an choiste. In the briefing pack it is mentioned that the Charities Regulator is responsible for the registration and regulation of charities in Ireland. Can I take it that the regulator grants charitable trust ownership structures to companies here as well? In other words, they must apply to have that status.

According to a press statement from 2017 that the regulator has on its website:

The Charities Regulator has completed a review of registered charities holding shares in section 110 companies on trust. The purpose of the review was to establish the number of registered Irish charities holding shares in section 110 companies and to determine whether they fell within the remit of the Charities Act 2009.

Two of the main conclusions were that "Four registered charities were identified as holding shares in section 110 companies on trust" and "Of the identified registered charities, one was de-registered because the organisation fell within the scope of section 8 of the Charities Act". My understanding of that is there were three that would not have been deregistered.

It would be fantastic if that could be brought to the committee. I am talking about three structures and obviously I am not aware of what three they were or anything like that, so I am not speaking about them. I am sure they are doing fabulous work. When the regulator is looking at those I assume it looks into the background of them, such as the way they are constituted and if there is a parent company or whatever it may be. All that gets looked at. Is that correct?

That is good. I asked about that because over the last two and a half years there has been significant interest in the IFSC and IFSC-based shell companies that often use charitable trust ownership structures. Some of these firms have billions in assets. We know about some examples from research carried out by academics in Trinity College showing that Russian-connected funds funnelled €118 billion through the IFSC over a 12-year period. Naturally with shell companies it is often very difficult to see what the parent company is and all those things, but some of these were connected to Gazprom and one was related to the Russian military. Of those 122 shell companies, over half had charitable trust ownership. Ms Delaney mentioned that some, under section 8, do not fall under the regulator and that is fine. Some do, as we know from the regulator's press statement. How do companies, structures or whatever one wants to call them acquire this kind of status? There is a concern because in many senses they are as far removed as can be imagined from a charity structure. I understand about section 8, but I would like the regulator to touch on that in general.

Okay, but from the regulator's press statement there was the suggestion there were three that were using section 110. Ms. Delaney may wish to come back on that. I am just asking these questions because it is something I have a long interest in and it has been in the public eye. The Department of Finance did a review of section 110 in its entirety in the last year. Did it at any point ask the regulator to feed into that?

Okay. On the back of this, I ask the regulator to come back to the committee with detail. It could look back to 2017 and see what the story is with those three structures and whether there have been any others. An Teachta Verona Murphy outlined the concern about the amount of staff the regulator has to look through 11,060 charities and whether it has enough funding to be able to look at these kind of things in their entirety. I ask the regulator to come back to us specifically on that.

Something that stood out to me was that you went from a deficit of €6.3 million to a surplus of €79.1 million. It seems like a massive saving. I am wondering how that turnaround happened.

It is €79,000. I had just assumed. At least the regulator has moved from having a deficit to a surplus.

I raise the issue of Stewarts Care, which was investigated by the HSE.

I am just wondering what role the Charities Regulator had and why there was no charity regulator involved in any investigation.

Without wishing to comment specifically on any particular organisation, one of the issues we have in terms of dealing with everything that comes in is that, as the Charities Regulator, we still only look at what is within our remit, so we look at governance matters. We cannot look at service delivery, contracts, employment issues or anything like that. It is simply where there are governance matters that we can get involved. We have a good relationship with the HSE, with which we have a memorandum of understanding. Typically, if another organisation is looking at something substantive, unless there is a need for us to do something urgent, we will not be in there at the same time because, of course, it is very disruptive to the organisation as well. Without talking about specifics, that is how we would approach matters.

That is fair.

Following up from my colleague Deputy Brady's query about gathering data on CEO remuneration, obviously we see so many fantastic charities across this State that put huge work in, and so many people are constantly supporting it, but there have been times when people have had concerns about the remuneration of CEOs. That is something that has had quite a focus placed on it, and there is the impact that has had as well on people's confidence and their willingness to put money in it. Does Ms Delaney think it would be good to have a situation whereby we could look at what charities, or what percentage of charities, provide salaries to their CEOs that would place them in the top 1% of income earners?

We try to keep adding the items of information to the annual report form, which is where we can set out what information needs to be produced, and, obviously, we display that. Besides that, we very much encourage charities to disclose all this information on their websites and more. It is interesting that the Deputy should mention the CEO salaries in relation to trust and confidence, because that is out there, but the top reason for maybe not having as much trust and confidence in charities as they would otherwise that is given by members of the public when we do surveys - we do a biannual survey - is the lack of transparency from charities. Really, the CEO issue is a subset of people feeling overall that charities are not producing the information they want - not just financial. People actually want to know the stories about what has gone on. They really do. That gives them a sense that they are making a difference with their money. It is all tied up in the one. Charities perhaps would benefit more from being very open and transparent about this and taking on board any feedback because in this case people will vote with their money. That is how it will be managed.

To pick up on Ms Delaney's final point, it highlights the importance of the Charities Regulator and its role. When people donate to a charity, they understand that there are administrative costs and staffing costs but they like to think that the money, or a large percentage of it, is doing what it says on the tin. The Charities Regulator is incredibly important in that. We have had a couple of very high-profile instances where people's money was not being used to best effect. The regulator's role as watchdog in that regard is very important.

I have few enough questions. Broadly speaking, we have an organisation here that has two clear audit opinions and is doing what it is supposed to be doing, but I have a couple of questions. First, to draw on the Comptroller and Auditor General's statement at the start, I do not much like this common investment fund. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. I would like to be able to shed some light on the fund. We do not have oversight of that, as the Committee of Public Accounts, and nor does the Comptroller and Auditor General. I think the stated purpose is to support smaller charities, in particular, to invest collectively charitable funds that were not required for immediate use and to return a balance. That is fine and well - I do not mind the objective - but it is €41.6 million that I cannot have a look at. Is there any material barrier to that being consolidated into the charity funds account properly in order that the Comptroller and Auditor General can have oversight and then, by extension, we can have oversight of it?

I would have to check that from a legal perspective. These are charitable funds that are owned by these entities that are invested in this way. It is very much a product of its time. It is something we inherited from the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. It is something that the board is currently actively looking at. I can certainly ask that we examine the Deputy's request from a legal perspective as regards his getting sight of it. As it stands, I am advised that they are funds of these charities, so in that sense they are private funds. That is why they are not subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General, although the Comptroller and Auditor General obviously checks the ins and outs of what goes through the charity funds account which we hold. However, I understand the Deputy's concerns about it.

It is the one thing that jumped out from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. I would like to be able to see that money a little more clearly. I am not making any suggestion that there is anything untoward there, but we have seen at this committee other funds that were maybe less than transparent being used for all sorts of interesting items like flip-flops and so on. I do not suspect there are any flip-flops happening here, but we would just like to have a better line of sight.

I thank Ms Drinan.

I was involved in the Charities (Amendment) Act, which was passed by the select committee on rural and community development, of which I am a member. Ms Delaney said that some parts of this important Act are not commenced yet. I was going to say "Bill", but it was signed into law on, I think, 10 July. There were earlier questions about staffing and resourcing for the Charities Regulator. This Bill will put extra work on the regulator. A lot of the provisions of the Bill are very good in terms of lessening the onerous workload Deputy McAuliffe talked about, for example. If we are to commence all parts of the Act, which I would like to see happen, will that have an impact on the regulator's resourcing?

Yes. We currently have a system and making any changes to it is quite difficult and cumbersome and the end product for the user is not very easy to use. Depending on timing, we are looking at a new digital system which could possibly properly incorporate the changes that are required on foot of the amendment Act. Certainly, in looking at what we can introduce as soon as possible, we are looking at those that have the least amount of IT impact or impact on our resources.

Very good. I suppose that is more a future-facing question so perhaps it is not really properly a question for this committee.

The atomic bomb the regulator can deploy is to have somebody removed from the charities register. Is that a power that is often invoked?

It was not until very recently. What we have found as part of our special project into annual reporting is that a lot of the charities that have failed to engage with us at all or to file an annual report are inactive. In those situations, once we have taken appropriate steps to ascertain that, we have removed them. They account for the 31 we have removed so far as part of that project.

We have one staff member at HEO grade who effectively works full time on this project and has done for the best part of a year. Our legal adviser has been working with her. We also ran those prosecutions in-house because we had a previous prosecution that we gave to our external advisers. It has not yet been heard but that is through no fault of theirs or ours. There has just been a number of instances of coming back for dates. That cost us approximately €30,000, without the case being heard. We have run those ones ourselves between either just attending ourselves or getting a local solicitor to attend. It takes a lot of work for our in-house legal adviser.

That is very good. I will ask a very big question in two minutes and I do not suppose we will get to the bottom of it. Approved housing bodies are becoming a bigger part of housing provision and they are going to become difficult. There are encumbered assets with loans against them. There are unencumbered assets where some of these houses are being bought through fund-raising and have no mortgage attached. We will end up with ostensibly charitable bodies with a very large asset base and income streams derived from the asset base. Is Ms Delaney content that robust systems are in place? We have the Peter McVerry Trust where systems have broken down. There is a special report on that which people can read at their leisure. Is Ms Delaney content that the structures are in place to deal with what is going to be a very large asset base and very large income streams?

No, it should not be as in their governing document says what they have to do. Again when we are looking at them as part of the registration process, we look at what we call "key standard clauses" to see that they have them, which locks in the property for the charitable purpose. They cannot just stop being a charity and decide to do something else. That is how it works unless people want to go rogue but there should be checks and balances within the organisation to do that and that is the protection. A difficulty might be that most of the AHBs on our register were grandfathered on to the register so they did not have to come through so we were not have able to run the rule over them and make sure that they have all of those clauses in place and I cannot guarantee that they are all protected as they should be. Some of them are quite loose associations.

This is something that we need to do. We will work more closely with the Approving Housing Bodies Regulator on this because it is obviously aware of the connection. We need to start identifying the different cohorts and the AHBR will have more information than we do. That will help us identify ones where maybe we can look at them and check the status of their various governing documents and all of that. However, it may be quite tenuous in some cases because some of them are very old, loose and tenuous. A certain amount of consolidation has occurred, which is probably a good thing, whereby some of the smaller, older entities, with just maybe a few volunteers running them, merging or transferring the property to another approved housing body and that is probably a good thing because, again, when we talk about the governance and the need for trustees to be aware of their obligations, it is as much for their protection as for the good running because they are vulnerable.

I welcome all the witnesses. The Peter McVerry Trust is in the headlines for the wrong reasons, which has prompted a lot of questions that need to be answered around what merits the Charities Regulator getting involved to undertake investigative work. Under Part IV of the Charities Act 2009, the Charities Regulator has the power to appoint investigators to investigate the affairs of any charitable organisation. I am interested in the inspectorate capacity. Where the regulator feels it may merit, because of the period that has elapsed where the Charities Regulator has not undertaken the auditing of accounts of charities, where does the remit lay? I come from a farming family and in that setting, inspections can be carried out by inspectors from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the local authority, the county council or the Health and Safety Authority. Inspectors can show up at a premises unannounced. Where the books are concerned, a body can be investigated by Revenue. Any charity the size of the Peter McVerry Trust can have a large amount of cash received from donations, a significant number of assets and so on. Has the Charities Regulator the power to undertake an investigation itself or does an investigation only taken place on foot of a complaint? In the case of the Peter McVerry Trust, the matter was first raised with the regulator by the chief executive highlighting discrepancies.

In how many instances has that happened? As the Peter McVerry Trust grew between 2011 and 2022, I understand that it took over nine separate charities. The trust’s remit is supposed to be housing and homelessness, but the purpose of one of those charities was the advancement of religion, which is not one of the trust’s charitable purposes. The trust is in receipt of significant funding. I just want some insight into this matter. The regulator gets a lot of State funding. How often has the regulator stepped in to undertake an investigation on its own merit or where it felt an organisation was so large that it needed to step in?

Investigation and the appointment of inspectors is the thin end of our powers and we do not use it in all cases, which is why there have been so few investigations overall. The bulk of our activity is done on a one-to-one basis with the charities without appointing inspectors where we can get the information asses it and sort out the issues, and the charities are co-operative and willing to implement whatever measures are needed. This represents the vast majority of the work we do. We closed 654 concerns last year but only appointed one inspector. This gives the committee a flavour of the situation.

I will try to get the Deputy a figure for the number of investigations that we initiate ourselves.

The reason I ask is there is a lot of grime on the window of the immigrant investor programme, IIP, which I am concerned about. Nobody is quite sure why it was shut down. A number of charities were involved in the process of obtaining it. There are multiple reasons - "issues occurred" and pressure from the European Commission and other aspects at an international level but looking at the facts and figures, there was nearly exponential growth in the number of applications for IIP funding. Large sums were flowing into organisations beyond charities, in all fairness, but also from a charity angle. Were concerns raised with the Charities Regulator about the IIP system and misuse of funding in that regard? Have any cases come before the Charities Regulator in that respect? Was it discussed in 2023 in the context of media reports on the scheme being closed down or mooted developments that it was going to be shut down, which it was, by the Government?

I am not aware of any specific concerns raised about the investor programme itself but I will check for the Deputy and come back to him after the break. We looked at perhaps two or three charities - I will come back with a figure - which might have had some funding from that programme but that was not necessarily specifically what we were looking at.

I want to be careful; I am not from a legal profession but I want to ask the question because it is relevant. Is Ms Delaney aware of many charitable bodies accountable to the Charities Regulator from an inspection point of view that left that structure and went into a company limited by guarantee structure or out of the charity structure to obtain funds from the IIP?

I welcome the witnesses back. I want to go back to the issue Deputy Ó Cathasaigh raised regarding approved housing bodies. I appreciate that some predate by a considerable distance the existence of the Charities Regulator. I have serious concerns about the asset base of properties for which the mortgage is paid off and that are now unencumbered. A couple of years ago, the Department of housing and AHB representative organisations were before the committee. I pursued this issue and tried to find out who owns the asset when it is unencumbered. Looking back at the minutes of that meeting, I was told that 97% of AHBs are charities and as a result, their assets are charitable assets. I wanted to find out the beneficial owners and, for example, whether the directors own the assets. It was confirmed that was correct. Obviously, somebody has to own them. Is this a red flag for the Charities Regulator? The witnesses mentioned red flags and things they watch for. For example, if a charity changed its status and constitution, that is where the real risk is. Does that jump out at the regulator? Does the charity have to notify the regulator? Can it deregister as a charity? How does that work?

Currently, it does not have to notify us of changes to its constitution. A lot do but there is a provision in the amendment Act to make sure they do, which is an important protection. They cannot come off the register without contacting us. If they were a charity that came on the register by virtue of having a CHY from Revenue Commissioners, which many have, then they contact the Revenue Commissioners about that, currently. That is how the process works. When we are notified by Revenue, we look at the profile of any charity looking to come off the register and why. If we think there is a risk to the assets, that is where we intervene. Our ability to intervene if we have the information - that is the big point - is contained in section 74 of the Act, which allows us to apply to the High Court. We are concerned with the charitable assets not particularly with the charity. We want the charity to succeed but a lot of what we do is around protecting those charitable assets. The directors hold those but they do so for the benefit of the people using them, the beneficiaries.

We have just started. We have good contacts with the approved bodies regulator. We have a memorandum of understanding in place under which we have operated for the purposes of the recent investigation.

There was a gap between CEOs there as there was in my organisation so I recently got together with the new CEO and we made some plans for how we will work together in the future, but we have to finalise them. We recognise we need to co-operate and share the intelligence we have on the various organisations.

My attention was drawn to it when someone who was on the board of a small approved housing body was talking about their portfolio of properties. I was absolutely shocked by that. That is what prompted me to start asking questions about this. In theory, an organisation could change its constitution, but there are protections.

Yes, it depends on who the trustees are and what the rules say about making such a fundamental change. Normally, members would have control in that instance. There are some controls on people being able to do such a fundamental thing and it could not be passed without them getting support from their membership. There are a number of different things in place, but in theory an organisation could and we would have to rely on someone telling us that it was trying to do this unbeknownst to us.

I am trying to envisage a situation. In the way AHBs are set up, there is often co-operation with the local authority. There would be a piece of land and housing would be developed, and that would be important because it brings some affordable housing supply. Some of this goes back decades. The bigger ones are of less concern because they were set up in a modern context and they are professional organisations. Some of the others rely on volunteers. They would have been set up with the intention of people being drawn primarily from the social housing list, though not exclusively - I think it was 75:25 - and the rent would be different depending on what stream the tenants came from. The Charities Regulator does not have a function to look at the how the approved housing bodies operate. They could in theory charge 100% market rents, if you like. There would be a big income and that is not what was intended. That is the remit of the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority.

It is in the first instance, but there is a fallback position with the Charities Regulator because those on the register have to have a charitable purpose. If AHBs wants to be a charity to access the charitable tax relief and all that comes with it, which is necessary for many of them, they have to stay on our register because that is a prerequisite for Revenue. One of the things we look at to the extent we can is where charities came on to the register but not through our process. Even if they were not operating in a particular way to begin with but perhaps start to operate in a way that brings them outside the definition, we can look at them and take them off the register. In that instance, however, we would also have to protect the assets.

We are reliant a lot on getting information from people, but one of the reasons we need to engage with the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority is that we need to understand the sector from its perspective. It has more information on the AHBs than we do, including on their make-up. We can try to identify then where we think the greater risks are by virtue of how they are structured, what their constitutions look like and how much they engage with us and engage the register. They are all things we could look at. We can also proactively check whether they have the measures in their constitutions they should have. We can check whether they are applying the model they were intended to apply as opposed to just renting accommodation. It can fall back to us, but the Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority would be best placed to look at it initially.

Some of the 11,000-odd charities are schools and sporting clubs and some charities are public services that, in other jurisdictions, would be public services rather than charities providing services to the public. One of the biggest responsibilities of the Charities Regulator is to make sure the public has trust in the other cohort of more recognised charities, if you like. There have been catastrophic failures. Console would have been a case in point. The Peter McVerry Trust is in a different category, but there were some serious governance issues which the regulator identified in its report, such as the inadequate management of accounts, including basic stuff like the level of debtors and creditors and debt financing. It is documented well in the report. Other than it being brought to the regulator's attention, how would Ms Delaney identify similar failures in other high-profile charities?

There could be certain issues such as people resigning. The late filing of annual reports is sometimes a flag for us. If an organisation is normally on time and is well funded and resourced, there could be something wrong if that happens. It could be from general intelligence. People talk about stuff and we might look things up. For such things that are not obvious externally, however, we are reliant to a large degree on receiving reports and information from third parties.

Okay. The Department would have had to have provided funding. Homelessness is an escalating problem. I remember the first time I raised the issue of a family sleeping in a car. It was ten years ago. It was 2014 and that kind of thing was unheard of before that. There would have been a cohort of people who would have been rough sleeping who would have had complex issues. It now primarily results from people getting eviction notices, not being able to pay the rent and so on. That is an area that is escalating and chaotic and it is new. It is difficult to forward plan unless the plan is to undo homelessness. Local authorities, in many cases, are partnering with homeless charities or the Dublin Region Homeless Executive has a remit to engage those charities to do the work directly. Is there a conflict of interest with the local authorities in terms of oversight? Does the Charities Regulator have a role in that? As the local authorities are part of the State, does the Charities Regulator anticipate that they do a lot of the regulation?

As they are the ones that are in a position to know what activities the organisation is engaging in or plans to engage in and as they provide significant funding, I would expect that, like any investor or anyone providing a loan, they would carry out certain due diligence to check that the structures and processes are in place to be able to handle that level of funding. That is an assumption we would make on that side of things.

On the Department and the Peter McVerry Trust, the Department would have had to provide it with funding or it would have got funding through the Dublin Region Homeless Executive.

It possibly got funding from other local authorities as well. As the local authority in Kildare partners with the Peter McVerry Trust with regard to one of the homeless facilities, there is a direct relationship there. Did the Charities Regulator not pay as much attention by virtue of the fact that it expected the local authorities to have that oversight?

No, I do not think so. Where it is relevant is when we did become aware of it, we had less of a concern about the assets and the services than we would have had if there was not a funder such as the Department or the Dublin Region Homeless Executive in there. We might have had to look to our powers under section 74 and see whether we needed to intervene to protect those services and assets. In the sense that the Department or the Dublin Region Homeless Executive was in there, we were satisfied that the assets and services were not at risk.

I will turn to 11.15 of the C and AG's report on page 181, which states:

The checking included one spot check of the Peter McVerry Trust's expenditure, seeking invoices to substantiate expenditure in quarter 1 of €94,206. The [Dublin Region Homeless Executive] explained to the Department that quarter one funding is not invoice based and therefore the Department could [not] exercise the control check on invoices in quarters 2, 3 [and] 4. The Department accepted the [Dublin Region Homeless Executive's] explanation and stated that it would consider a further spot check of invoices in the next quarter, but this was not done.

It all seems very loose. I cannot see where there is that hands-on approach. When people see the Dublin Region Homeless Executive or the Charities Regulator, there is a degree of comfort that somebody has oversight but then it is not complied with. Does the Charities Regulator engage with the Dublin Region Homeless Executive in respect of that or has it any function on that?

Okay.

The organisation has 13 members on the board. Do they rotate and how often? Obviously there is a governance issue here.

The 15 that I referenced in my opening statement concerned charities which did not engage with us voluntarily to provide information so that we could assess what was going on and then engage with them to resolve whatever the issue was. Those are the instances where we have invoked our statutory power to require them to produce the information and if they do not, there is a sanction for that. The purpose of illustrating the 15 was to say that most charities do engage and resolve issues. Most of these issues are around governance.

No, as I say, it is the rare occasion when we feel the situation warrants appointing inspectors, which is a more public-facing and formal aspect of the work. We engage an external party as well. All of the other work is done internally on a one-to-one basis with charities and it can be quite intensive.

It was very useful to have the information in one location. I might ask the departmental official about a replacement for Benefacts. That was talked about at the time. I could not for the life of me understand why it would not have that in place before it closed down a valuable source of information. Where is that at the moment?

It was my understanding that was the case. I can check that out with the Department of the Taoiseach. I am trying to figure out the information but our witnesses really are scratching around in the dark. Looking at other similar institutions in other jurisdictions, have they a stronger function? Have they more powers or information that is more readily available to them? What are we looking at in terms of what the ideal would be?

The Chair has hit on the important point of information there. A difference in the other jurisdictions that is of advantage to them is that they supervise all of the charities on their register that apply through them. Therefore, the quality of the information and making sure their governance documents are what is required are all in a better position than it is for us. We are on the back foot in respect of making sure that we have all the information that we need but also that the public should have. That is one thing. The powers are quite similar, with just small differences. In England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they each have a power to appoint somebody - they call it an interim manager - to go in to an organisation on a short-term basis. That is something they can do themselves. We have to apply to the High Court for that. There is nothing to say we could not go in on an urgent injunctive basis but that is quite a difference between the two.

None. Okay, that is fine.

Regarding the positions, Ms Delaney talked about a very small number of vacancies. What kind of expertise does the regulator have and is there anything it has applied for in terms of additional resources for expertise? I presume she looks for resources all of the time. She might give us an idea of what she thinks is needed.

The vast majority of the very important work of dealing with applications for registration and with the concerns that come in - and indeed that is done in the early stages of processing applications under the charity services Act, which is done at the EO grade - is basically our own training of those people. We are very lucky that we have some really good people that we are managing to retain for a particular time. An accountancy background is another important aspect and there are a number of accountants in the organisation. The director himself is an accountant on the compliance and enforcement side. The one area we realised we needed a bit more support in - and hopefully we are at the start of getting that support - is on the legal side. There is quite a lot of law underpinning much of this, even back before the Charities Act, because it is informed by the common law and the cases that were there before that. There is also the charity services work, which is to do with trusts and properties and all of that.

We need to have enough internal resources to help the others to do their job. We have identified that. It is not something you can buy in. Somebody can help externally to defend proceedings or bring proceedings. However, we need our knowledge and understanding internally to be able to carry out our job effectively. They are two particular areas that we need.

We also have quite a demand on our communications function because we, quite rightly, get a lot of queries from the Oireachtas. We have a dedicated Oireachtas email address. We get a lot of email queries and representative queries and also an awful lot of queries from the public. That is a very important part of what we do. In fact, we are realising we probably need to do more on that because there are many matters that people need to understand and things that need to be explained to them. We do it all day every day and we have to remember that other people do not. We need to do a lot more with explaining and reinforcing our messaging.

I have no more questions. I thank the witnesses and the staff of the Charities Regular and the Department of Rural and Community Development for the work involved in preparing for today's meeting. I also thank Ms Colette Drinan and the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General's office for attending and assisting the committee today.

Is it agreed that the clerk should seek any follow-up information and carry out any agreed actions arising from the meeting? Agreed. Is it also agreed that we note and publish the opening statement and briefing provided for today's meeting? Agreed.