COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Charities Bill

10 January 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Gregory Campbell (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fred Cobain
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Mrs Claire McGill
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness

Witnesses:
Mr Kieran Doyle ) Department for Social Development
Mr Roy McGivern )
Mr Seamus Murray )

The Chairperson (Mr Campbell):
We welcome departmental officials Mr Seamus Murray, Mr Roy McGivern and Mr Kieran Doyle. Gentlemen, thank you for attending the Committee. I am sure that you know the drill and will have switched off your mobile phones. I invite Mr Murray to begin.

Mr Seamus Murray (Department for Social Development):
I thank the Chairperson and Committee members for this opportunity to provide an update and briefing on the Charities Bill. We last met to discuss the Bill on 31 May 2007, so it is worthwhile to reflect on the reasons why Northern Ireland needs such legislation, on the progress that has been made since last May, on the Bill’s main provisions, and on what has changed in the interim.

There is currently no register of charities in Northern Ireland, so there is no such thing here as a registered charity or a charity registered number, other than those charities that are registered in England or Scotland and operate in Northern Ireland.

There is no charity commission or regulator of charities in Northern Ireland. There have been reviews in England and Scotland: the Charities Act 2006 has been implemented in England and Wales, and, in Scotland, the Charities and Trustee Investment ( Scotland) Act 2005 was passed, out of which the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) was subsequently established. There has also been a review in the South of Ireland, where the Charities Bill 2007 was referred to the Dáil Select Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in November.

For several years, the general public, politicians, the media and the charity sector have expressed concerns about the lack of a regulator in Northern Ireland. A Charities Bill for Northern Ireland will ensure public confidence and provide effective accountability in the charity sector, through the making public of information. The Bill will also ensure that there is consistency across the UK and Ireland in the way in which charities are regulated, it will support and encourage good governance in the charity sector, and, importantly, it will encourage additional donations to be made, which will increase charities’ good work.

Committee members will recall that the Department for Social Development (DSD) carried out a public consultation and review, and drafted legislation based on the responses that it received. Legislation went to Westminster in January 2007, in the form of The Charities ( Northern Ireland) Order 2007, but that Order fell when devolution was restored.

The Charities Bill was redrafted for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it was laid before the House on 10 December 2007, after receiving Executive approval. One of the key provisions in the Bill, as drafted, is a new, clearer definition of “charitable purpose”, and that definition is largely based on the Charities Act 2006. The 12 descriptions of “charitable purpose” are set out in clause 2(2) of the Charities Bill. Clause 3 outlines a public-benefit test for charitable purpose, and is based largely on the Scottish model, which specifies that there is no presumption that any particular purpose is for a charitable purpose.

Under clause 6, a charity commission will be established, consisting of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson and up to five members, at least one of whom must be legally qualified. All charities that operate in Northern Ireland will be required to register with the charity commission and to provide it with an annual statement of their accounts and an annual report of their activities. A system will be put in place for the issue of public-collection certificates and licences to ensure that that occurs. A new legal entity, charitable incorporated organisations, of which charities could opt to be part, will be established. The appeals process will be initiated through a charity tribunal for Northern Ireland, which will operate under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Court Service.

Key changes have been made to the Bill since it was last before the Committee in May. Those have been the result of discussions that have been held with, principally, some religious bodies in Northern Ireland but also after discussions with some of the other regulators across the UK and Ireland on developments that have been made as a result of their operations.

Designated religious charity status is now included in the Bill, under clauses 165 and 166. Those provisions recognise the unique governance arrangements in some of the Church bodies. In fact, some Church bodies are established under separate legislation, which provides for their exemption from certain aspects of the Charities Bill but does not preclude them from registering as a charity or from providing annual reports.

We also took cognisance of the fact that, based on their reporting and financial statements, some charities are income-poor but asset-rich. That could mean that they will be obliged to provide full audited accounts, even though their organisation may not have the resources to pay for those to be done. The Bill proposes to separate the triggering of assets for audited accounts, which will be reported separately.

We have also adjusted the definition of religious status to reflect more adequately the current situation in broader society. Furthermore, we have included “section 167 institutions”, a category that recognises that there are charities that are registered in England, Scotland or elsewhere but operate across the UK. Those charities will still be required to register under that heading, and the charity commission of Northern Ireland will keep a record of those and provide the Department with an annual return, albeit by a slightly different mechanism.

Some minor, technical adjustments have been made to the Bill to take cognisance of the fact that the Finance Act 2006 and the Companies Act 2006 will roll out across the UK.

If the Bill receives a fairly smooth passage through the legislative process, we aspire to establish the charity commission for Northern Ireland by late summer 2008. If that happens, the Department will look for the first registrations from the larger charities by the end of 2008.

I am happy for myself and my colleagues to take questions from the Chairman or members of the Committee.

The Chairperson:
Thank you, Mr Murray. Will you briefly outline the advantages and disadvantages for a Church or religious body that qualifies for designated religious charity status? What will be the distinctions between a body that qualifies for that status and one that does not?

Mr Murray:
First, all bodies will be required to register with the charity commission. Designated religious charity status is not an automatic benefit to religious bodies.

The Chairperson:
I refer to bodies that cannot register as such because they do not meet the criteria, as opposed to bodies that do meet the criteria. What will be the distinction between those groups?

Mr Murray:
There are particular clauses in the Charities Bill from which groups that apply and that receive charity commission approval are exempt. Those clauses relate primarily to the appointment or disqualification of trustees. That recognises the fact that some Churches reappoint to positions in the Church body annually.

If that exemption were not there, Churches would be required to seek the charity commission’s approval of their appointments annually. Moreover, situations may arise in which the charity commission disqualifies or seeks the removal or suspension of a Church trustee. The exemption recognises the fact that a Church body meets the criteria for designated religious charity status and has particular governance arrangements in place to deal with appointments, investigations or suspensions.

Designated religious charity status also allows for constitutional changes, which may occur annually. For example, motions that require changes to a particular Church’s constitution might be proposed at its annual synod or meeting, and, rather than having to seek approval for those changes from the charity commission, if the Church has designated status, the charity commission will recognise its governance arrangements, and the Church will therefore not be required to go through that process.

Those are the relevant exemptions; however, Church bodies are still obliged to provide an annual report that outlines their activities and finances.

The Chairperson:
Does designated religious charity status — whether in or outside of the scheme — have any effect on a body’s eligibility for HM Revenue and Customs schemes?

Mr Murray:
None whatsoever. As members may be aware, tax is separate from charity registration. Tax is a reserved matter, and HM Revenue and Customs makes its own decisions about qualification as a charity. Clearly, there is some degree of read-across, and HM Revenue and Customs might question why a body that is not registered with the charity commission for Northern Ireland seeks HM Revenue and Customs recognition as a charity, and it might ask the charity commission directly whether there is an issue or a difficulty, and why that is the case. Nevertheless, HM Revenue and Customs will still make its own decision about approval for tax-benefit purposes.

The Chairperson:
That brings me to my final question on that matter. How was the stipulation that a Church body must have at least 1,000 members arrived at?

Mr Murray:
In discussions with our colleagues in OSCR, which developed the criteria for the Scottish scheme for designated religious charity status, we found that 3,000 members are required in Scotland for status to be granted. The figure for Northern Ireland was derived from the size of the population, and of the religious population, and we also consulted the main Churches in order to arrive at an appropriate number.

The Chairperson:
When you say the main Churches, I presume that you mean Churches with more than 1,000 members.

Mr Murray:
We also held discussions with bodies such as the Quakers, which is perhaps perceived as being one of the smaller Church bodies. The figure of 1,000 members recognises the different situation in Northern Ireland, and is set at a level that we believe will ensure that organisations possess an adequate capacity for governance. If a figure lower than 1,000 members were to be stipulated, the capacity of the organisation’s governance arrangements may not be there.

The Chairperson:
I understand the difficulties of approving very small organisations; however, I am slightly concerned about your reference to the HM Revenue and Customs read-across. If it were to accept the charity commission’s benchmark figure of 1,000 people in order to qualify for designated religious charity status, and a small Church or denomination comprised 950, or 999, members attempted to apply for the tax-exempt covenant scheme, which can be beneficial to all Churches, that small Church might not qualify.

Mr Murray:
As I said, the process for an organisation to be recognised as a charity will be first to register with the charity commission. HM Revenue and Custom’s potential question about whether that organisation has achieved designated religious charity status will not then arise, because the body will already have been recognised as a charity. The matter would therefore have no bearing on the tax issue.

The Chairperson:
Yes, but what would happen if a body was recognised as a charity but failed to achieve designated religious charity status due to its having an inadequate number of members?

Mr Murray:
Regardless of whether such a body achieved designated religious charity status, its charitable status, or its registration as a charity with the charity commission, would not come into question.

That benefit, or clause, relates only to exemption from those particular aspects of the Bill. It does not alter their charitable status one way or the other.

The Chairperson:
I have a final question, after which we will move on to members’ questions. In the past, police highlighted cases in which bank accounts in the names of charitable organisations appeared to be associated with current or former paramilitary groups. How is that issue being investigated?

Mr Murray:
DSD officials have held discussions with the PSNI on the proposals in the Bill, and we hope to develop a relationship of information exchange with the police. Once established, the Charity Commission will ensure that there is contact with other regulators and the PSNI about potentially flagging bodies or persons that may give cause for concern. Part of the Bill relates to the disqualification of trustees for previous offences and how that may affect their ability or capacity to serve as trustees of a charitable organisation.

The Chairperson:
Does that mean that a person with a terrorism-related conviction would be unable to serve as a trustee?

Mr Murray:
No, it does not preclude that. Many disqualifications will be due to financial impropriety or related convictions, or previous disqualification as company directors, rather than to paramilitary offences. The legislation also covers spent offences.

Ms Lo:
Hello, Seamus. Does the Bill require an equality impact assessment? For example, the legislation sets out the conditions that the group must have been established in Northern Ireland for at least 10 years and comprise at least 1,000 people to qualify for religious status. That may be perceived as discriminatory to new groups entering Northern Ireland.

You have consulted with groups from the majority Christian faith, but there are now several Muslim organisations and, as far as I know, the Belfast Islamic Centre currently has charitable status. If those organisations do not qualify, it means that they do not get tax relief and cannot apply for grants, for example, to the lottery, because they would be refused.

Mr Murray:
A couple of factors must be taken into consideration. I assume that the Belfast Islamic Centre has tax recognition rather than charitable status. To ensure that this change met equality legislation, we consulted the office of the departmental solicitor, because there was concern that part of the legislation may treat one section of the charitable sector differently to another.

We were careful to consult our solicitors to ensure that that part of the legislation does not contravene either European human rights legislation or Northern Ireland legislation, and we were assured that it does not. The clause deals with the recognition of the particular governance arrangements that exist in the Churches. Therefore, there must be criteria to ensure that the groups have been established for some time and have achieved a certain level of stability, and we agreed on a period of 10 years.

That ensures that a new Church that has been established for only a year cannot qualify. That could have led to a situation where the bona fides, establishment or confidence in the governance arrangements of that body could have been called into question. As far as I know, a body does not have to be a charity to apply for lottery funding.

Mr Craig:
Having listened to what you have said, there are good reasons why a body would want to be designated as having religious status.

Has it been taken into account that there are tens of thousands of independent Churches in Northern Ireland that, if considered individually, would not meet the criterion of having 1,000 members? A lot of them, for example Baptist Churches, if considered collectively, would meet that criterion. However, as I have said, individual Churches would not meet it, yet they may require the designated religious status, as a lot of them change their congregations annually and biannually. How has that been allowed for?

Mr Murray:
Perhaps I should have clarified that point. The figure of 1,000 is at a denominational level rather than at an individual Church level.

The Chairperson:
Mr Craig’s point was that some of the smaller Churches are precisely that — they are individual Churches, as opposed to part of a larger denomination.

Mr Murray:
We had to agree a figure that was sensible in recognising that Churches have a particular governance structure. If that figure is decreased, the level becomes meaningless, for example, it could decrease to 500, 200 or 300. Our best judgement was partly based on representations that we received from the Irish Council of Churches.

The Chairperson:
They tend to represent larger Churches that have larger numbers; that is the point that I was making at the start.

Mr Murray:
They also perhaps represent some of the smaller Churches. Therefore, we did have some degree of discussion with them. Our best judgement from the feedback that we received from the Churches that were represented was that 1,000 was an appropriate figure.

A legislative process is clearly ongoing. If representations are made, there is an opportunity for people say that they think that figure should be adjusted.

The Chairperson:
I think that that will happen.

Mr Craig:
I have a problem with this. The fact that the smaller Churches frequently require the charity status has been highlighted. Yet, including any figure excludes 90% of independent Churches. Unlike the main Churches, those denominations do not act as a single body. There is a unique structure to those Churches. [Inaudible.]

Mr Murray:
To emphasise again, the proposal will not affect whether a body is designated as a charity. Any such body has to apply for that status first. Therefore, the criterion is not a deciding factor in whether a group becomes a charity. It is only after a group is recognised as a charity that it can apply for designated religious status.

The Chairperson:
That is the reason I wanted you to outline at the outset the distinction between those who qualify and those who do not. The Committee wants to ascertain whether the smaller Churches qualify; under the numeric criterion most of them would not. What do they gain or lose by not qualifying? That issue needs to be investigated in some detail.

Ms Lo:
Churches have to have 1,000 members to qualify for the status. Does the same apply to other charities?

Mr Murray:
No, it does not apply to other charities. The clause simply recognises the unique governance arrangements, and, in some cases, the unique legislative arrangements, of Church bodies.

Ms Lo:
Can that be challenged? Other charities are not being asked to quantify their membership, but Churches are.

Mr Murray:
The clause relates only to those that apply for designated religious status. Again, it is a unique aspect of their particular situation. Other charities do not have the particular governance arrangements that relates to Churches. That is why the clause is included.

The Chairperson:
Designated religious charity status is the issue, with the term “religious” effectively referring to Churches and religious-type bodies. Are there any other bodies, apart from Churches, that that includes?

Mr Murray:
One or two charities on a UK level, not simply in Northern Ireland, which were established by Royal Charter, could be included. That is why section 167 was included.

The Chairperson:
I was thinking of organisations such as the Salvation Army or St Vincent de Paul.

Mr Murray:
They are religious-based organisations.

The Chairperson:
So they would come under those criteria?

Mr Murray:
Potentially, yes. It is, perhaps, worthwhile pointing out that a similar benefit has been available to Scottish charities for the past year. There are roughly a dozen Church bodies.

Mr Kieran Doyle (Department for Social Development):
There were 11 Church bodies in Scotland when the legislation was introduced, but that number has been reduced to nine. [Inaudible.]

Mr Murray:
Although those nine Church bodies were given registered status in Scotland, there have been no broader issues for smaller Church bodies.

The Chairperson:
We may be able to examine that in some detail.

Mr F McCann:
It would be interesting to learn about the impact of charities legislation in Scotland, and whether any small Churches have been forced out of business. To follow up on Jonathan Craig’s question, has there been any research, as part of the work on the local legislation, on the number of small and independent Churches that might be affected? There would be a concern that in trying to fulfil the set criteria they might go out of business, which would be a loss to the communities that they serve.

Mr Murray:
There are a couple of responses that can be made to those questions. As members will be aware, we carried out two public consultation processes and consulted extensively with Church bodies. Admittedly, not many of those were small Churches, but they were included in the process. We have had no indication from our discussions with Scottish colleagues that there has been any adverse impact on the smaller Church bodies in Scotland.

I must emphasise that the clause under discussion does not restrict, debar or preclude religious or Church bodies from applying to become a charity. The criteria do not impact on that part of the process. Those bodies, like any other organisation, can apply for charitable status. In considering the impact of a charities Bill, I refer members to the changes we propose to the issue of accounts. There are issues around the impact of assets and small charities meeting the accounting requirements. We have tried to make that as simple as possible, by separating out the assets issue, so reducing the burden on small charities.

Mr F McCann:
Will small Churches still be able to apply for charitable status? I take it that, once the application is received, the criteria are applied. However, if they do not have the congregation of 1,000, would they be refused charitable status?

Mr Murray:
No. They will have applied for charitable status and been approved. Regardless of that, nothing else changes. Once they are approved and registered as a charity, they can apply to the charities commission for designated religious status, which is an additional benefit.

The Chairperson:
It is two separate and distinct things. The smallest Church groups can be established as charities without having to meet any criteria.

Mr Murray:
Beyond what is contained in the legislation.

The Chairperson:
In addition to that, once the Church group has applied for charitable status, it may, because of its small numbers, be refused designated religious status. The problem that might occur is that in losing that, do they lose anything that could jeopardise them or make life difficult for them?

Mr Murray:
No.

The Chairperson:
We need them to tell us that. It is fine that you are telling us that, but we must find out if they think that.

Mr Murray:
They will not lose out as a result of the legislation. They will not lose their charitable status or registration.

They lose nothing by the Bill. Even were they to lose charitable status or lose their charity registration, it would not impact upon them. Tax is a separate issue and is dealt with by the Inland Revenue, but as things stand, it has no impact on that either.

Mr Brady:
My question pursues the same point. In addition to applying for designated religious status, criteria have to be set down.

[Inaudible.]

With respect to numbers, the figure of 1,000 seems arbitrary.

[Inaudible.]

The people who formulated that must have had something in their minds when they drafted it.

[Inaudible.]

Will things like this become more clearly defined as the Bill progresses? What is meant by “regular worship”? Does it mean once a week, once a month or once every six months? Does it mean formal worship? Does one have to go to a Church? What if people were to worship in their own houses? I know Hindu people who have temples where they worship in their homes. Will all that be tied down?

The easiest criterion to satisfy is that for “advancement of religion”. That is the principle purpose. The Bill goes on to mention “regular worship”. Ten years may be an arbitrary figure. Some people may regard it so; certainly, 1,000 is an arbitrary figure. Then there is another issue about regular worship. The witnesses say that if you apply you can be awarded status; but if you apply for a designated religious status it gives even more benefit.

Could that set of criteria be tied down?

The Chairperson:
The witnesses have given us some detail on that. Perhaps they will go over it again and reassure the Committee on that point.

Mr Murray:
We worked on the figure and consulted at length with our colleagues in Scotland who have established a figure that works in practice. We looked at the population figures in Northern Ireland and calculated a pro rata figure that was initially higher than 1,000. We reduced it to 1,000, in the light of discussions with the main Church bodies who were concerned about it, and following contact with some of the smaller religious bodies, such as the Quakers. Therefore, we had considered that figure carefully.

As to worship, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator has developed guidance for the application of designated religious status. We can work on that basis. We have not included that detail in the Bill; there is a substantial volume of wording in it already. It will, however, be available once the Commission is operational.

Mr Cobain:
I return to the issue of Churches. In Northern Ireland there are a lot of small Churches, and any that considers itself an independent Church should be able to apply for designated religious status, irrespective of numbers. I do not see the rationale for discriminating against a Church because of numbers attending.

I do not agree either with the 10-year criterion. I know groups that are run proficiently and professionally, but have not been operating for that long. To set 10 years as a criterion for governance gives no guarantees.

With regard to ageism — a big issue — I see that once one turns 70, one cannot be appointed a commissioner. Why is that?

[Laughter.]

The Chairperson:
Are you baffled, Mr Murray?

Mr Cobain:
It is a serious point, Mr Chairman. Ageism is a big issue now. People who reach a certain age are discriminated against. I am unhappy that the Government discriminate against people because of their age.

The Chairperson:
I was not querying you question, Mr Cobain. I was querying the lack of an answer from Mr Murray.

[Laughter.]

Mr Murray:
Mr Cobain makes two points. As to the first, the Bill needs to be cautious; so does the proposed Commission. If we removed the 10-year and numbers criteria, potentially a body that called itself religious, moved into Northern Ireland, sought designated religious status and, if we had scrapped those criteria, could well meet others that we have laid down.

Therefore, some of the governance arrangements and the regulation rulings on the particular charity that has been set up no longer exist. Therefore, there is a particular risk, which is why time is needed to ensure that there is a status, reputation, standing and sufficient figures for any body that is established in Northern Ireland, so that it can be seen as a bona-fide religious body. That is still going through the legislative process, so numbers are open to question.

I take the point about the requirement for a body to be established for 10 years, which was not something that struck us. However, I am also aware that a challenge to the age criteria was reported recently in the media, and we will consider that again.

Mr Cobain:
Why was it there in the first place, Seamus?

Mr Murray:
I am not able to give an answer to that at the moment, but I will go away and consider it and reply to the member in writing.

Mrs McGill:
Thank you for the briefing, Seamus.

The Assembly researchers’ paper states that the charity commission should consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and at least three, but no more than five, other members, and it is anticipated that the commission will initially be staffed by approximately 16 people with an estimated set-up cost of £300,000 and an annual running cost of £800,000. Is that the number of people that will be appointed to operate under the finished legislation, and is that the cost?

I wonder if, when the commission develops, if there will be a group of people for this and another for that, and if will it snowball so that we end up with a very well-peopled organisation, although we are unsure at this point exactly what work those people will do? The regulation has to be different to that which exists at the moment.

Can you tell me a little more about the commission and its funding, and what is its connection with the legal processes that already exist? What role will DSD, the current authority, have? Will it be redundant, or will there be duplication?

Mr Murray:
Currently, DSD is the sponsoring body. The proposed charity commission will be a non-departmental public body (NDPD), and therefore it will report back to DSD, as NDPBs must have a body to report to.

I can provide limited assurance at the moment. Our best judgement, on both the size and scale of the proposed charity commission and the cost involved, is based on the most comparative example, which is the Scottish charity regulator. We have had the benefit of looking at its operation and what it has been through. We have also looked at the structures and scale of some of the other regulatory bodies in Northern Ireland, and their figures are our best judgement of an estimate of the required functions of the proposed charity commission for Northern Ireland.

I cannot provide an answer on what may happen in the future, because we can judge only on what we envisage as the requirements and the level of work that the charity commission may have. In our judgement there will be an initial heavy workload to establish the commission, carry out all the registrations and put everything in place.

One would anticipate and hope that, as the charity commission becomes established and embedded, it will operate more effectively. Therefore, there should be no growth in staff numbers or requirements for that, other than the usual additional year-to-year cost that any organisation faces regarding the cost of living.

Mrs McGill:
As a final point, such organisations seldom cost less as they grow and grow. It would be good if the commission could maintain that level.

The Chairperson:
Is there any guarantee of that, Mr Murray?

Mr Murray:
I would love to be able to guarantee matters of that nature, but, unfortunately, I am unable to do so.

Mr F McCann:
I have two small points. First, will there be a specified period between a body’s application for charitable status and the commission’s recognition of it? Secondly, from the notes, I see that, occasionally, one-off charities are set up, for example, to provide an operation for an individual. Some of those charities might have a lifespan of only six months or a year. Will the Charities Bill have an impact on them? Some of them raise huge amounts of money

Mr Murray:
I suppose that that is more appropriate to the part of the Bill that deals with public collections, rather than with charities. An organisation can choose to register as a charity and be recognised as such, but it must weigh up the pros and cons of doing so. If an organisation becomes a recognised charity it must be aware of what that means. It will be required to produce annual reports and make annual returns. However, under the public collections provisions, any charitable or philanthropic body can make a public collection. The legislation sets out the requirements for that, such as a system of initial licences to say that the organisation is fit to carry out a collection, and the body must request a permit for the actual collection.

As regards ad hoc issues, such as a response to a local tragedy or appeal, where people are motivated to raise money, the Bill contains exemptions that allow that to happen. In that case, the body will contact the charity commission a couple of days before it wants to make the collection and ask for a permit or an exemption to do so. There is provision to enable the commission to do that. The charity commission legislation should not, and will not, preclude that type of emotive response to situations.

Mr F McCann:
Some of those organisations might run for six months or one or two years. How do they fit in?

Mr Murray:
The only precaution is that if, for example, the organisation starts calling itself a charity and puts that on its posters, once the legislation is enacted, that organisation will not be able, legally, to call itself a charity unless it is registered to do so.

The Chairperson:
What is the penalty for doing that?

Mr Murray:
There would be some degree of censure. The charity commission will not be a dogmatic, punitive body that will come down hard on people who wish only to do some good. The commission will probably contact the organisation and explain why it cannot call itself a charity under the legislation and work with it to resolve the situation.

The Chairperson:
I appreciate that we speak hypothetically; however, in such circumstances, would that dispute be in the public domain, so that people would be aware of the problem?

Mr Murray:
We can reverse the argument. Part of the reason for the Bill is to protect the public, so that, if people wish to make a donation, they will have some reassurance that they are giving money to a reputable charitable body, and they can check that through the charity commission and the register. On the other hand, we do not wish to preclude the response of people who, over a period of time, wish to make a specific collection. The commission will be there to work with such organisations to see how they might be able to do that.

Mrs McGill:
Going back to my previous point about DSD and the commission, I would be happy if you could provide some information on what the connection between them will be. At present, DSD acts as the charity authority for Northern Ireland, and deals with disposal of land and so on.

I want to know whether DSD will be out of the picture on this matter. My question concerns duplication —

Mr Murray:
Apologies; I did not pick that up.

Mrs McGill:
That is OK.

Mr Murray:
We will respond in writing, if that is OK.

Mrs McGill:
That will be fine.

The Chairperson:
On the same issue, the Committee has been contacted by an individual body, Donaghadee Sailing Club, about problems that it feels that it may face as a consequence of the legislation. As Chairperson, and the Committee has been unanimous in supporting me on such matters, I am always cautious that we as a Committee do not get drawn into specific complaints that either an individual or a group of people may make. However, are you aware of the sailing club’s problems? Is it possible that either liaison, or a written confirmation, between the Department and the sailing club could clarify matters to its satisfaction?

Mr Murray:
We have already responded through the Minister.

The Chairperson:
Yes, but I am thinking about its —

Mr Murray:
We can certainly contact the organisation and speak directly to it.

The Chairperson:
If you could, please. You may have responded, and we might think that that was an end to the matter, but the sailing club may be of a different mind.

Mr Murray:
I am happy to respond to it. That raises a broader issue, which is perhaps worth noting, about recreational and sporting clubs. Clubs of that nature, which have membership and are therefore restricted by nature, are dealt with by HM Revenue and Customs under separate legislation. Certain types of tax relief are available to them. Clubs that fall under that legislation cannot be both a charity and receive the benefits of those provisions, too; those are two separate issues. However, we will respond directly to Donaghadee Sailing Club on that matter.

The Chairperson:
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your contribution. Unfortunately, Mr McGivern, you did not get an opportunity to contribute. I am sure that you will on a future occasion.

Mr Murray:
We shall also respond to Mr Cobain and Mrs McGill on the two issues that they raised. Thank you.