���˿���

Yes. The financial memorandum sets out the estimated costs of developing the database for the internal schedule of charity trustees as well as the on-going maintenance of the database. OSCR has made and will continue to make that important investment as part of its delivery.

That is a record of around 50 individuals who have been removed from being a charity trustee by the Court of Session since 1990—following an application from OSCR or its predecessor. The reason for their removal would be serious concerns about their conduct while they were serving as a charity trustee. It is important that charities are able to find out whether a person that they might wish to recruit has been removed by the courts from that role in the past.

I do not believe that the provision will result in cases of mistaken identity, because, if the searcher is unclear as to the identity of an individual—for example, if they are searching for John Smith—they can contact OSCR with further information to establish identity. The Charity Commission for England and Wales already employs a similar search function in relation to removed individuals in that jurisdiction and it works perfectly well.

A specific process for incorporation or change of legal form is not part of the bill, and that is not being consulted on, as you know. Creating a bespoke process for an unincorporated charity to become incorporated, usually by becoming a SCIO, would require extensive consultation with the sector, especially when it comes to small charities and those that have already been through the process. We would want to explore and capture that in the wider review. I understand that there are benefits to charities becoming SCIOs or companies, the ability to access secure funding streams being a key one, as well as having limited liability. The problems that charities can face when going through the incorporation process are largely outside the remit of charity regulation and the OSCR process.

I think that there are two provisions in the bill that would assist charities wishing to incorporate. I do not know whether Caroline Monk wishes to say more, but I would refer to the record of mergers, and the schedule to the bill contains a provision

“to allow duplicate charity names as part of merger”.

I do not know whether you would like more detail on that, but the main point is that we would want to consider it as part of the wider review.

That is an important point. Again, it is important to say that the main additional requirement for all charities will be to provide OSCR with the charity trustee names and contact details, including postal and email addresses. Charities should already hold that information, so the requirement should not be onerous. The provision of trustee details will take place through OSCR’s existing system, with which charities are already familiar, so the process will not be new or strange to them.

Importantly, OSCR’s data shows that the average number of trustees in a charity is eight, so, for many charities, providing the name and contact details of trustees will not create huge additional burdens; it will be part and parcel of what they would normally do as part of their routine reporting to OSCR. It is important to stress that there is nothing onerous in that respect.

That is an important point. In section 11, on the removal of charities, the bill provides OSCR with a bespoke route to remove a charity from the register when it has failed to provide accounts as required, the deadline for submission has passed, and the charity—this is important in relation to your previous point—has not responded to any communications from OSCR.

The removal process is not automatic. The power is discretionary for OSCR and it will take into account all the information that it has. The removal process starts with giving the charity notice of the intention to remove it, after which it has three months to act. If it makes contact with OSCR in any way during those three months, the process stops and OSCR can use its other powers to ensure that the charity complies with its duty to provide a statement of accounts.

There are various points at which a charity can avoid its removal from the register, and engagement with OSCR is obviously key. If the delay has been caused by either an oversight or problems within the charity, OSCR will want to work with the charity. It is not in anybody’s interests for a charity that is doing good work to end up being removed from the register because of practical issues or problems that have emerged within the organisation.

A consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office has been carried out as required by the general data protection regulations. As part of the consultation, the Information Commissioner’s Office raised some points that were addressed during the policy development stage. Any amendments made by this bill and involving the processing of personal data all operate within the framework of and, importantly, are consistent with general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

There is a strong argument for members of the public being able easily to access charities’ financial information and information about those who are doing the important work of running charities, given that that involves having responsibility for charitable property and for donations from the public. It is also important that those provisions are accompanied by appropriate safeguards. The dispensation mechanisms that we spoke about earlier allow for certain information to be excluded from the register, the statement of accounts and the record of removed trustees, where inclusion of such information would be

“likely to jeopardise the safety or security of any person”

We covered that earlier.

Rather than concerns having been raised, there are points to consider. As I have just explained, those have been taken on board.

First, it is important to say that any appointment of interim trustees would very much be a time-limited measure to safeguard charities. There might be a scenario in which there is a falling-out within a charity, the trustees all walk away, the charity’s good work cannot continue and something has to be done to safeguard the work of that charity while new trustees are appointed. The circumstances would be very specific and would be time limited.

Interim trustees would not routinely be remunerated. The 2005 act sets out the rules for charity trustee remuneration, starting from the basis that, in general, trustees should not be remunerated for their role as a trustee, although trustees can reclaim expenses—such as the cost of travelling to a trustee meeting—from the charity, and interim trustees would be able to reclaim expenses from the charity in the same way. I think that that would only be fair because, if we do not put that provision in place, there might be financial barriers that prevent someone who does not have a particularly great income from serving as a trustee, whether or not that is on an interim basis. We do not want to put barriers in the way of that person. I hope that my answer has clarified that issue.

I think that OSCR has indicated that interim trustee positions would, for example, be advertised in the local press, and a recruitment panel would be convened with the assistance of the local third sector interface, such as SCVO or a similar organisation. The expectation is that TSIs for each local authority area could also hold a list of individuals who are willing to step in and act as temporary trustees. As you said, that situation will not happen very often, and it just requires an urgent response for a time-limited period, so having that as a back-up sounds quite sensible.

As I have said, I think that diversity is vital. We want charities to be able to draw on people from various backgrounds, but the law needs to treat all charity trustees equally.

With regard to whether OSCR would apply a waiver from disqualification, it would have to do that on the circumstances of the case, which would involve looking at whether the person concerned posed a risk to the charity. That would be the important thing rather than whether the person came from a diverse background.

OSCR would probably take quite an objective test as to whether the person’s disqualification—or whether applying a waiver—would pose a risk to the charity. I think that that is how OSCR would set up the application process for a waiver. Caroline, you might want to make it a bit clearer than I have.

I take your point about whether there is an awareness issue here, but I would just say that disqualification on grounds of bankruptcy applies during the period when the bankruptcy is undischarged. Perhaps communication from OSCR will make it very clear that, once the bankruptcy is discharged, the disqualification will fall away and the individual will be free to take up a trustee position, should they wish to do so, or the individual can apply for a waiver. As I have said, there might need to be some communication from OSCR with regard to that process in order to make things clear.

The other point that I should make is that being disqualified does not stop someone volunteering or working with the charity in a role other than that of a trustee and having a different kind of day-to-day interaction with the charity. What will be important is communication from OSCR to ensure that people understand the current process, the waiver and the opportunity for the individual in question to continue their relationship with a charity in some other role.