���˿���

I welcome amendment 11, which is in the minister’s name, and will support it. The committee highlighted that issue in our report.

Amendment 47, which was lodged by me, comes after consultation with a number of third sector charities and from my personal experience both as a trustee and having worked in the third sector. I am of the view that the amendment does not change the law in Scotland in any way but that, like amendment 11 in the Scottish Government’s name, it simply clarifies the law so that trustees who work in the charitable sector are clear about it.

Amendment 47 suggests that, when a charity sells heritable property, it does not need always to get best value, if that property is being passed on to another charity. The practical effect of that is to allow charities to support other charities without necessarily getting maximum income. Amendment 47 does not force trustees to do that—it simply clarifies that they can look at it if they want.

I do not believe that that changes the law. Opinions from senior counsel outline the situation as it is in my amendment. All that I seek to do is simply to clarify the law—as amendment 11 also seeks to do—so that charities that are trusts can go forward in their work. The reason for relating the amendment simply to “heritable property” is that that will often be the largest and most valuable asset. That brings clarification.

Amendment 47 is not a new law but a clarification of the law. I ask the committee to support it.

Good morning. Before I go into detail on the amendment, I put on record my thanks to all those who engaged with the committee at stage 1, in both oral and written evidence. I also thank those who have got in touch with me about stage 2 amendments. In particular, I thank the Law Society of Scotland for helping with what I have been working on.

In section 1, amendment 52 would leave out the word “expedient” and insert “necessary” at line 12 on page 1. The amendment would provide that the court may appoint an additional trustee under section 1(1)(a) only if the court considers it necessary to do so.

I lodged amendment 52 because allowing a court to appoint an additional trustee when it considers it expedient to do so would represent a weakening of the common-law position in Scotland, which refers to the word “necessary”. The amendment would reinstate the position as it is in the common law; it would not change that. That position has worked well over the past number of years and does not need to be altered.

Amendment 53 would clarify that the mere nomination of a sole trustee does not make that individual a trustee unless they have

“accepted office in writing or ... after intimation of their appointment ... acted in a”

fashion that

“indicates that they have accepted office”

as a trustee. The practical reason for the amendment is that, unless we make that amendment, a group of trustees could—in theory—include a trustee who does not want to do the job or is not ready for it. The office of trustee should not be forced on a sole nominee who has not accepted that office and who does not wish to accept it—that person must give their consent. Amendment 53 would clarify that area of law.

I look forward to hearing what the Scottish Government has to say about the other amendments in the group before I respond to them.

I move amendment 52.

I press amendment 52.

I thank the minister for her explanation of her amendments. I particularly welcome amendment 6, which brings clarity regarding the difference between someone acting as a professional trustee and someone who does so on a voluntary, or different, basis. I hope that that will bring some clarity. I also welcome her other amendments in the group.

I will press my amendments 52 and 53. Amendment 52 simply clarifies the common law and reflects what the courts have been doing for some years, so I do not think that it changes anything: it clarifies what is happening.

I will also press amendment 53. I have had conversations with lawyers and with the Law Society, who think that the issue needs to be clarified. Whether or not the amendment is accepted by the committee, I hope that there can be some further discussion with the Scottish Government to clarify the issue, but it would be good to have that in the bill at this stage.

I am grateful for the minister’s support for amendment 57. If it needs tidying up, I would be happy to work with her and her officials on that.

On amendment 58, the minister has almost answered the question whether, if a child protected trust accumulates income for too long, the intervention would come from OSCR. However, under the bill as drafted, if, for example, the charity planned to do something in three years’ time, it could not accumulate money for a three-year period. Now, if any accumulation went on for an excessive period of time and OSCR had concerns, it could intervene and talk to the trustees about it, as could HMRC.

The concern that the minister has expressed—that any accumulation could go on for years and years—is already dealt with by the power that OSCR has. I am concerned that, in the bill as drafted, child protected trusts could not look to make any short-term or medium-term financial accumulation of income to be spent later. Amendment 58 would give OSCR intervention powers, which it already has, and would ensure that the trust is accountable to OSCR and to HMRC.

Amendment 57 agreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Jeremy Balfour].

Amendment 60 would clarify the reference in section 55(5)(c), which provides for potential beneficiaries rather than ascertained persons specifically. It would make what is in the bill slightly clearer and, to my mind, clarity is always a good thing.

I am happy to support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 60.

Good morning to you, minister, and to your civil servants. I will follow up on the last point that you made. As a committee, we are clearly keen for what you have outlined to happen across all 32 local authorities. My understanding is that COSLA does not keep that information either. Is it your intention to write to local authorities at the end of this financial year to make sure that they have done that? If you do so, would it be possible to share the information that you receive with the committee?

Good morning. I will be brief, because a lot of my questions have been dealt with.

I will put a question to you, Dr Simpson. In the absence of the proposed bill, what additional resources or expertise would SCOSS need in order to consider regulations to create employment injuries assistance? We know that that is coming, probably in 2025, and it will require regulations to be made. What would you need in order to be able to scrutinise such regulations properly?

Thank you. I will leave it there, convener.

Good morning again, minister. As you look forward, what are the next steps for the collaborative?