Debate contribution: Charities (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 23 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 23 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Charities (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5636782

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and for the constructive tone in which it has been conducted. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress. We have set a high bar, though. The legislation that the House passed most recently was the Sign Language Bill. After we passed that, there was unbridled joy in the Great Hall and great celebration. I do not know whether the Charities (Amendment) Bill will generate the same interest and levels of excitement out there, but let us try, anyway, to work together to make sure that we get the best legislation that we can. I will address Members' comments. Mr Gildernew, as Chair of the Committee, was right to say that the debate is about the general principles of the Bill. On those, it seems, we have clear agreement or at least enough agreement to get it to the next stage so that it can go into Committee. I assure him that I agree with many of the comments that have been made. I certainly welcome and want to see scrutiny. A number of changes made by the legislation will help improve the regulatory framework for our charities in Northern Ireland, but it is right that the Committee takes time to examine them properly, and I welcome scrutiny of the issues, including how the Committee and the Assembly will oversee some of the issues that will arise from the legislative changes that we hope to make; how we can ensure that the legislation, especially the secondary legislation, is enacted in the right and proper way; and how we can make sure that the legislation does what we want it to do, which means making sure that there is no unnecessary duplication and that it is implemented in a clear and easily understandable way. I agree with the Chairman's comments, and I assure him and the Committee that I will engage in good faith to ensure that we have the answers that we need to those questions. I will respond to a few other queries that were raised. Mr Durkan asked a couple of questions, the first of which was about the processes around registration thresholds. I assure him that those matters are being taken forward and that we will have the regulations after the summer recess. They will come in two parts that we hope to put in place so that those who do not have to avail themselves of registration can apply for that from autumn 2026 and that we have deregistration from April 2027. The independent review made 93 recommendations of which, as Mr Durkan rightly points out, 18 are taken forward in the Bill. Implementing other recommendations will require further legislation that, I trust, will come in the next mandate, but I can confirm that 60 of the recommendations have already been separately addressed by either the Department or the commission. I hope that that answers his questions. I move on to Kellie Armstrong's contribution. As I said, this is about the general principles of the Bill. What does Kellie Armstrong do? She takes us straight to clause 3, and paragraph 4 of a proposed new section of the Charities Act to raise an issue about whether information will be provided by post. I assure the Member that all those issues will be properly addressed at Committee Stage, but I draw to her attention the fact that the legislation states that the information "may" be given by post rather than that it shall be given by post. That gives us enough flexibility to look at the provisions. I have no doubt, however, that, as an assiduous member of the Committee, Ms Armstrong will raise the issues at Committee Stage as well.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; that is much appreciated. I will address some of her other points. She raised concern about removal from employment. That is provided for in the 2008 Act, which enables that action to be taken. I draw Members' attention to the amendment that we propose to make at clause 4 on page 3:
"Where the Commission has given notice under subsection (9) of its intention to make an order under subsection (2) removing a person from an office or employment"
— that is already in the legislation —
"the Commission may proceed to make the order even though the person has ceased to hold the office or employment."
That is similar to what we are trying to do with trustees. Even though you leave your position as a trustee or your position as someone who holds an office in a charity or who has employment in the office, the commissioner will still be able to make a determination that says, "Even though you have left, we are still making this order to try to bring in some form of additional accountability". It will level that up with what is being done for trustees. Again, that is something that can be discussed further through the proper Committee process. The Member talked about a reference in the legislation to removing "for Communities". This is to tidy up the 2008 Act. It already refers to Communities, so it is essentially a tidying-up action. Hopefully, that has addressed most of the points that she made. However, we will come back on some of the other ones. There was a question about section 167. I simply make the point that that was never enacted in the first place. From many of our consultee responses, there was an understanding that, if section 167 was ever brought in, it would be ambiguous legally and create duplication, and it was strongly opposed. People felt that it would require major new infrastructure in return for a relatively insignificant benefit and that it could not deliver some of the perceived tax or funding benefits. Repeal was considered to be preferable, but, of course, those charities can continue operating as they do now, because the section in the legislation was never enacted. They can therefore continue to do what they are doing now. If they want to constitute as a Northern Ireland-only charity, they are able to do that, if they believe that that will bring certain benefits. However, repeal of section 167 will mean that such institutions can continue to operate in or from Northern Ireland as they currently do, but they may choose to separately constitute as a Northern Ireland charity, should they judge that to be beneficial for them. It was very clear from the consultation responses that we received that that was the right way forward. I also agree with what Andy Allen said about ensuring that we are appropriate and proportionate in the actions that we take. There is a battle, if you like, between flexibility and accountability, and it is right and proper that we do the work around that. I am happy to assist the Committee in that. The Member also spoke about the official warning. I am more than happy for the Committee to properly examine and investigate what that would look like. However, we have the benefit of seeing what that is like and what it has done already in England and Wales. Over the course of a year, they have to issue around 40 such letters. That is 40 letters for in the region of 180,000 charities. We have about 7,500 charities in Northern Ireland, so you would expect to issue a very small number of letters. Oftentimes, as or before those are issued, some of the issues that caused those letters to be issued get tackled and sorted out. This is about giving us another step before you go to that full-on next phase of an inquiry or whatever else might come after it. It is an additional step, but we are right to take our time to consider it and make sure that it is proportionate. I confirm to the Member that the regulations that he talked about on accounting and reports will not be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. They will be subject to negative resolution, as they are technical in nature, but if he wants to explore that further during the Committee process, I will be happy to do that.
I am happy to give way.
I do not believe that it was. That was maybe picked up wrong. We are happy to look at and explore that, but that is the information that I have on it. Again, we will have the Committee Stage of the legislation, so we can look into that then. I will be happy to ensure that, before the Committee Stage begins, we provide that information to the Committee and that that is clarified. Apologies if anything from our end caused a misunderstanding on that point. Lots of issues have been raised, but I am aware that this is the Second Stage. It is about the general principles. As we progress to the next stage, there is clear agreement across the Chamber on the importance of a strong, trusted charity sector and the need for regulation that protects the public and supports charities to do their work. The Bill, I believe, strikes that balance. It strengthens oversight where needed, while reducing unnecessary burdens, particularly for smaller organisations. That is worth noting. Often, we think that what we do in this place just adds more bureaucracy, more form-filling and more regulation and makes it more difficult for charities to do what they want to do. However, today, we are reducing that administrative burden, which does not happen often. It has to be balanced with accountability, but it is very positive and will be welcomed by many charities.
I am happy to give way again.
Yes, I do and am happy to share those. The issue has been raised in the Chamber and through Assembly questions. My position is that we want to make it simple and straightforward for people. We need to have accountability, but, at the same time, we cannot have burdensome regulations on people that make it more difficult for them to do what they are doing. I certainly do not want to be in a position where we are putting people off. What we have in the legislation and in the regulations that we are bringing forward will be a massive help for people who are under a certain threshold in deciding whether to register at all. If they do register and want the benefits of being registered, there will be far fewer reporting requirements on them. Audit is another stage further, but I understand the concerns that have been raised around that. I want to be clear that the Bill is good legislation that will benefit charities across Northern Ireland, but I fully respect and value the importance of Committee scrutiny. If we can improve the Bill, let us do that. I am happy to work with others. I hope that I have dealt with the issues that have been raised by Members today. If there is anything that I have not picked up, l commit to writing to individual Members, and I will copy the Committee into that as well. I look forward to seeing the legislation move through the legislative process.

1,877 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification