���˿���

The current and proposed disqualification criteria are based on behaviour or conduct that the Government considers makes a person unsuitable to hold office as a charity trustee. That goes back to the importance of the trustee role and the fact that trustees are responsible for managing money and property that have been donated by the public in good faith. However, it is recognised that in some circumstances a person might have valuable experience and expertise to bring to the role of trustee, notwithstanding that they would otherwise be disqualified.

Automatic disqualification for bankruptcy is time limited and applies only until the debtor is discharged. On discharge, which can happen quite quickly—in a matter of months, in some cases—the disqualification falls away.

It is also open to anyone who would otherwise be disqualified from acting as a trustee on any of the disqualification grounds to apply to OSCR for a waiver. The existence of the waiver mechanism means that, although disqualification is automatic, it is not absolute, and it can be waived at the regulator’s discretion.

The existing waiver system and its extension to the new automatic disqualification criteria demonstrates a recognition by the law that there will be cases in which a person who is disqualified can still hold a trustee or senior management position. Again, though, it is for OSCR to make that judgment.

I know that the committee has looked at that area in some detail. Currently, the ability to apply for a dispensation from the inclusion of certain information in the register is provided for in the 2005 act. The bill extends the current dispensation provisions to cover the new trustee information on the register. The ability to do that is already there and is being extended to cover the new trustee information.

OSCR will operate the mechanism in the same way as it does now: assessing the information that is provided case by case. In addition, the bill gives OSCR the power to exclude information from the register of its own accord, if it believes that the safety or the security of a person or property could be jeopardised, without a charity or a trustee having to apply first. That could relate to a specific charity or type of charity, such as a women’s refuge.

On your second point, about a deterrent, I stress once again that the bill does not alter anything about the dispensation mechanism that OSCR has been operating since the 2005 act was passed. As I said earlier, the bill extends that mechanism to the new provisions.

A charity or any of its trustees will be able to apply to OSCR for a dispensation from the requirement to publish the name or names of charity trustees on the register where, as I said, publication could

“jeopardise the safety or security of”

a person or property.

OSCR has an established procedure in place for dispensation and is well used to assessing requests and working with those who are applying for a dispensation before information is entered in the register, so it knows how to do that. The names of trustees are already contained in a charity’s accounts, and the accounts are already publicly available simply by way of a request that is made to a charity directly as opposed to automatically. The measures in the bill will put information on every charity in a single place in order to enhance access by the public.

I think that that is the right balance, and it does not make a huge fundamental change.

I acknowledge that there is an appetite for a wider review of the charity sector, but I thought that it was important to move forward, as we were ready to do, with some of the technical aspects that had already been consulted on.

Once scrutiny of the bill under the parliamentary process is completed, it will be important for us to scope what the wider review should look like, together with SCVO and the sector more widely. There will be varying views on the scope of the review and on what should be covered, and I am open-minded on that. I think that the role of SCVO will be critical. I have discussed the matter directly with SCVO; as you can imagine, it has raised it with me directly. The Parliament will have a view, and the committee will have a view about its scope, too.

Given that some aspects of the proposals have been somewhat delayed because of the pandemic, it is important to progress the bill, and we should then consider the wider review. Whether that review throws up the need for further legislation remains to be seen, and I am open-minded about its scope, as I have said.

Again, I am open-minded on that. There are pros and cons around that, but I have not come to any fixed view on it. That is open for further discussion and consideration.

No, I do not think so. I go back to the points that I have just made in relation to smaller charities. There is nothing burdensome in the bill; we are talking about the provision of details with which charities will already be familiar. They will have that information, so there will not be a huge additional burden.

For many charities, providing the name and contact details of trustees will not create additional burdens—they will already have that information and will be used to providing it as part of their routine reporting to OSCR. I do not believe, therefore, that that requirement will give them any particular difficulties.

The development, introduction and population of the internal schedule of charity trustees is likely to take place over two to three years, and charities will therefore have significant time in which to prepare for that specific change, so I do not think that it will be onerous.

Our policy intention is to capture those cases in which the donor is not able to change where the gift goes—for example, because they are deceased. The record of mergers was included following discussions with the Law Society of Scotland on the difficulties of legacies that have been left to charities that have ceased. We are not aware of any difficulties around lifetime gifts. Caroline Monk is probably closer to the detail on this, so I will bring her in.

I will bring Rebecca Reid back in on that point.

The committee has taken evidence on that. OSCR already works with umbrella charities or parent charities in cases of charities not submitting, and it has done so for a number of years. When a charity fails to provide accounts on time, it is shown on the Scottish charity register and there is nothing to prevent OSCR sharing that information with the parent or umbrella organisation and working with it to ensure compliance by the individual charity. For example, if you take a church body that is not a designated religious charity, exactly the same applies. The supervisory functions of the designated religious charity in respect of the individual church would apply and it would be for the DRC to deal with that.

I hope that that gives you some clarity.

OSCR is very much aware of the needs of smaller charities in particular, and it already recognises those needs in the way in which it conducts its business. What OSCR requires of a huge charitable organisation is quite different in comparison with what it requires from a small local charity.

OSCR has experience of working with organisations of vastly differing scopes and sizes. With regard to the changes in the bill, OSCR recognises that, although there is nothing onerous in the requirements, smaller charities may need additional support, or may simply need to be reassured about what will be required of them.

I take your point. As you said, the bill does not include any dispute mechanism in relation to the appointment of interim trustees, and you have highlighted the unlikely—but potential—scenario in which someone could dispute the process. I think that the new power, by its nature, will be used only in circumstances where, in effect, no one is running the charity. If there were concerns in relation to appointments, I would expect OSCR to engage on a case-by-case basis with those who are raising concerns. If an individual remained and there were no concerns about them continuing as a trustee, I would expect OSCR to work with that remaining trustee to help to recruit on an urgent basis some interim trustees that they could work with. If you are thinking of an extreme scenario, in which the person said, “I am not going to work with anyone,” you are into territory where the person is obstructing the work of the charity. In that unlikely scenario, it would be for OSCR to determine the most appropriate route to take for the good of the charity.