Debate contribution: Charities (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .

MLA
Mr Mark Durkan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
23 June 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Charities (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5636765

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day. They help families through poverty, support people living with disability, help to tackle loneliness, improve mental health and provide countless other services and supports that strengthen our communities. Too often, they are the safety net when every other safety net has failed. As the Chair outlined, today's Bill is the product of a process that began back in early 2021, when the then Minister commissioned an independent review of charity regulation. That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system. Although the Bill that we are talking about today addresses 18 of the 92 recommendations, I would like some clarity from the Minister, perhaps when he is winding up, on where we are with the 92 recommendations and where addressing the 18 will take us. We have been promised that there will be further legislation in a future mandate, but we need to know where we are in the process. I would also like to hear from him what progress has been made on speeding up the registration process. I know that that is something that the review was very critical of, and it is something that we will all have heard about from charities, or prospective charities, in our constituencies. The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited administrative capacity. Many volunteer-led organisations simply do not have the capacity that larger organisations enjoy or employ. Every hour spent filling out paperwork is an hour that is not being spent delivering services and support to those who rely on them. We should also be honest about where the greatest pressures facing the charity sector now lie. The greatest challenge confronting charities today is not regulation; it is sustainability. When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap. The local growth fund has failed to match the scale and certainty of what has been lost. For many charities, funding has become short-term and unreliable. The consequences of that are visible across every constituency: organisations have had to strip back staffing to the bare minimum, experienced staff have been lost from the sector altogether, and community projects that had become embedded in neighbourhoods have, sadly, disappeared — some have had to close their doors entirely. Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector. The measures in the Bill are certainly worthwhile, but proportionate regulation must be matched by proportionate investment and support. The Executive need to recognise charities as trusted partners that deliver services that lead to improvements and that, as I said, often save the public purse money in the long run. The Bill is a positive step that should make life easier, particularly for many smaller organisations. The SDLP has no hesitation in supporting its progress to Committee Stage, at which time I look forward to working with my Committee colleagues to ensure careful scrutiny of its provisions. The Chair outlined a few areas that we will need to explore and a few assurances that we will certainly seek. We look forward to doing that, but we must not lose sight of the bigger picture.

671 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.55
No identity-related subject0.43
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification