³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

No, convener—that was very helpful.

On sections 7 and 12, we have heard quite a lot of evidence, particularly last week, that it would be difficult for trustees to reach a decision on whether a particular trustee was incapable, and there was concern about the possible abuse of those sections, with trustees perhaps trying to get rid of each other by using that methodology. Should there be a statutory procedure for assessing a specific trustee’s capacity by a third party, such as a medical professional, or would there be drawbacks in going down that road?

In the evidence that we have heard, particularly last week, there seemed to be some confusion with regard to the different types of trusts, as we have discussed already. Obviously, the Scottish Law Commission did not consider that, but has the Government considered trying to define a bit more clearly the different types of trust and how they work in practice? Indeed, we heard evidence from an individual with quite a lot of expertise in being a trustee, and she was not sure where one of the trusts that she is dealing with at the moment would fit into the bill. Has any thought been given to trying to define different forms of trusts, and if not, why not?

To follow up on that issue, what would be the disadvantage of allowing the trustees to decide whether to go to the Court of Session or to a sheriff court? I presume that the trustees would take legal advice, and their lawyers could advise them of the best option. What would be the disadvantage of letting the trust make that decision, instead of its having to go down a certain route?

Thank you.

With respect, minister, that does not really answer the question. There is the issue of who has jurisdiction if OSCR seeks to appoint and the court seeks to appoint. Does the court overrule OSCR or does OSCR overrule the court?

I am not asking about the SLC. I am asking whether the Scottish Government has a view on that.

I thought that that power was new to OSCR, but I will go and check that out. Your answer is helpful.

What do you make of the interaction between the two bills? Do you think that there needs to be any more clarification of how the two bills will work together?

I suppose that I am trying to push at whether we believe that, as a principle in law, there should ever be only a sole trustee in a trust. Does the Government have a view on that? Do you agree that trusts should have more than one trustee?

I thank the cabinet secretary and Paul O'Kane for their contributions. As the cabinet secretary will be aware, we have already agreed on exceptions—for example, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations are excluded from the provision.

On Paul O’Kane’s point, I will have to check. I will not press the amendment, because I would like to clarify the matter. One of the charitable objectives is the promotion of religion, so I would have thought that the fallback scenario would be that, in order to get charitable status, you would have to prove to OSCR that you were a genuine religious organisation. However, I will seek to clarify that before stage 3.

I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying, but, with regard to the costs and the public benefit, to me, what we are hearing is more along the lines of not doing this. I just cannot see how it is appropriate. For some churches, it will be something that they will have to do annually, because the church secretary or the session clerk will keep changing and, every time that that happens, they will have to redo it, which will have a cost.

However, I would like to reflect on the points that have been made by the cabinet secretary and Mr O’Kane, so I will not press amendment 21.

Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

After section 8

I remind colleagues that I am a member of the Church of Scotland and a retired Baptist minister.

The proposed new section that amendment 21 seeks to insert in the bill represents an attempt to balance the two things that we want the bill to do. We want there to be transparency so that the public can have the confidence of knowing who the trustees of every charity are and being able to hold them to account. At the same time, we want charities to be able to flourish and to attract trustees. The bill seeks to achieve that balance, and I think that, by and large, it has done so. That is why we support the bill. I should probably put on the record the fact that we will support the Government amendments as we go through them one by one.

However, in this particular area, I think that the balance has gone too far away from charities. The issue here relates to the process. The regulations that my amendment seeks to amend would be disproportionate and hugely costly for charities to implement. We heard in the stage 1 debate that what they require could cost the Church of Scotland alone more than £100,000. Last night, committee members received an email from the Episcopal Church that illustrated what it would have to do. In one diocese, it has 50 church buildings, 40 rectories or manses and 25 church halls, which comes to a total of 115 properties. With each congregation having a minimum of three associates, the number of registrations required would be five times 115 times three, which equals 1,725. That is for one diocese. That would have to be multiplied by seven to give the figure for the whole of Scotland.

All of that would require legal work to be done, with solicitors having to be involved every time. The bill already provides for a public register of charity trustees, so there is no hiding for trustees, but it would be time consuming and expensive to go through the proposed process. Over the past number of months, the committee has taken evidence on how hard it is for many people in our society to keep going—they are having to rely on things such as food banks, which are often provided by religious bodies. The question for the committee today is whether we want £100,000 to be spent on helping people to come out of poverty, helping children and young people and supporting all the activities that the various churches and religious organisations are involved in day in, day out or whether we want that money to go into lawyers’ hands.

I think that amendment 21 gets the balance right. It would mean that there would be accountability and openness with regard to who trustees are, but there would not be a need to go through a slightly bureaucratic system that, as far as I can see, will only benefit lawyers.

I move amendment 21.