Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies today from James Dornan and I welcome Evelyn Tweed to who will be our substitute today. Our first item of business is the consideration of a negative statutory instrument, the Council Tax Reduction and Council Tax Discount, Miscellaneous Amendment Scotland, Regulations 2023. This negative instrument is an annual update and it amends three existing principal council tax regulations. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid. Do members have any comments on the instrument? No. I invite the committee then to agree that it does not wish to make any further recommendations in relation to this instrument. Are members content to note the instrument? Yes. We will move on. Our second item of business today then is an evidence session on the Charities Regulation and Administration Scotland Bill. The Charities Regulation and Administration Scotland Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 November 2022 following two consultation exercises by the Scottish Government in 2019 and 2021. The bill aims to strengthen and update the current legislative framework for charities by increasing transparency and accountability. It also aims to make improvements to Oscars powers and brings Scottish Charity legislation up to date with certain key aspects of regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last week we heard from representatives across the third sector as well as from designated religious charities and a local authority. Today we will hear from two more panels spanning charity regulation, law, academia, accountancy and audit, and all our witnesses will appear in person. I will now welcome to the meeting of our first panel. We have Martin Tyson, Head of Regulation and Improvement, Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. We have Alan Echoes, solicitor member, Charity Law Sub-Committee, Law Society of Scotland and John Maitan, Assistant Director of Legal Services, Charity Commission for England and Wales. I just have a few points to mention about the format of the meeting before we begin. Please do not feel that you all have to answer every question. If you have nothing new to add to what has already been said, that is absolutely fine. We have a lot of questions to get through this morning, so I would just ask everyone to keep questions, answers and any follow-ups quite tight, please. Colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerk if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary and committee members online should use the chat box or the WhatsApp. We will move straight to questions for members. Our first theme will be covered by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for engaging with the committee on this so far. I just have a couple of questions about the consultation that has led to the review and the proposals that we have before us today. Probably maybe to start with Martin, if that is all right. What is your view of the consultation to date, the previous one that was done in 2019 and, again, repeated? What is your view of that? Do you think that there are any areas of regulation that have not yet been covered as part of the review and the bill that we see before us? From our point of view, the consultation has been satisfactory. There have been two consultations. I think that the second one gave an opportunity to drill down a little bit further to some of the issues that come up in the first one. From our point of view, we have been able to fully engage with the Scottish Government on the proposals. Indeed, they first came from us as part of our statutory function of advising ministers, so it has been satisfactory from our point of view. Again, from our point of view, the bill covers the areas that we have indicated need to be highlighted, given the age of the underlying legislation, so we are quite satisfied with the coverage. The only thing that is not there that we suggest would be there is the power for reorganisation of bodies established by Satute. There are complexities around that and discussions are on that. Do you think that there is a need for a wider review? We would entirely welcome a wider review and we would be very happy and we would be intent to be fully involved and to inform that review. I do not think that it is for us to necessarily set limitations or say what that should cover, but we would welcome it. A number of organisations said to us last week that the importance of that being an independent review. What would your view have been? I do not think that we would have any particular view on that. We would be happy to engage with whatever format came out there. Do you have any understanding as to why some of the other regulatory frameworks that charities are required to respond to were not included in this particular legislation? Are you meaning other regulators that regulate charities? Last week, we heard particularly from the Children's Hospice Association and, in fact, SEVO, that there are a number of different requirements on charities from various different regulators. It is just a bit of an understanding of your view of that. We work with a lot of other regulators that have dual or overlapping regulation of the charities that we regulate—the Care Inspectorate, Scottish Housing Regulator and other bodies. We have memorandum of understanding and we have the power to share information with them and we work quite hard to minimise dual regulation and overlap and minimise the burden on charities. That is how we work now. Clearly, if there is a sense that that needs to be looked at, we would be happy to engage with that. I wonder if I could come to you with the same question around the review and, in particular, is there any aspect of regulation that you think is missing from the proposals? The society has welcomed the review and the opportunity to engage in the consultation process throughout. Indeed, there was one item in the bill that was not in the original consultation, which was a proposal coming from the society that has made its way into the bill. We have welcomed that opportunity to engage in and there is an example of where that engagement from the society's point of view has led to something coming into the bill. Yes, there are areas where we think there is further reform that would be useful in the society's original response to the consultation. We set out a detailed analysis of the 2005 act, where we thought there were technical amendments and improvements that could be made. There are certainly some that we would have liked to have seen in the bill. Martin gave the example of charities that are established by active parliament or other enactments. It would be an improvement to enable those to go through the Oscar reorganisation process, particularly now that we have Oscar having been in place for 15 plus years and the experience that they have built up. We would have thought that it would make sense for those charities to be able to go to Oscar rather than having the expense and time of going through a parliamentary process. While they are very interesting cases to be involved in from a legal point of view, the Oscar process would be more streamlined, we would have thought, and therefore better for the charity delivering services. Another area that we think would be good to see in this bill without major further work being done is around the process for unincorporated charities becoming incorporated charities, often Scottish charitable incorporated organisations. Usually that is for better governance. Sometimes it is funders requiring that change, sometimes public funding requiring that change to being incorporated and that process as it stands is not that simple. That would be one area where there is an opportunity to improve things and perhaps in this bill. Do you think that the proposal in front of us would be amended to take account of that? The bill, as introduced, would not deal with those particular two points that I mentioned there around charities looking to reorganise if they are set up by an act of parliament or for unincorporated charities, that is trust, unincorporated associations, looking to move into perhaps the better governance framework, particularly the Scottish charitable incorporated organisation. I appreciate that, Alan. Can I ask John? Are there any areas within the proposed legislation that you think will link well with the other parts of the United Kingdom or the charity's regulation there? What is your experience being of implementing similar proposals? Taking the two questions separately, the two regimes operate quite independently. There is not a great deal of overlap or dual regulation between England and Wales and Scotland. In a technical sense and in an operational sense, the two regimes do not need to overlap so much. I think that where there is interoperability, like in automatic disqualification, I think that the bill is helpful because it seeks to align the automatic disqualification criteria between the two sides of the border. If a trustee is disqualified automatically under the law of England and Wales, then the same is true in Scotland and vice versa. That is helpful in that regard. Beyond that, I do not think that that is particularly necessary. I think that in terms of how the two regimes operate more broadly and how the bill is amending or seeking to amend the Scottish regime, I think that we have to look at them quite separately. I do not think that there is an inherent need for one to match the other. I think that there is historical reasons why the two regimes have developed separately. I am newt sure on the point. Is there anything in particular that you can share with the committee about your experience as a regulator and the charities' experience in England and Wales of some of those changes, such as the automatic disqualification? Members will come to questions on that later. Is there anything that we could learn from the process and how you supported charities to meet the new obligations? Although it is quite a general statement, I think that early and clear communication with the sector is important. When developing guidance on changes to legislation, there is quite an art to that. The Charity Commission in England and Wales is going through a major process at the moment to implement the Charities Act 2022, which is delivering a number of technical reforms to our legislation. It is not to be underestimated that the challenge of trying to accurately and excessively communicate the nature of the changes to the entire sector, which is very diverse between large and small charities, complex and simple charities, lots of different perspectives and lots of different ranges of experience. That is something that I would lean on. To the extent that colleagues at OSCA would like to be speaking to us, we have open channels of communication to talk about how those things are implemented. Did that affect the resources that you had available? Did you need more resources to be able to communicate that to charities? We did not seek or get more resources for that, but we have prioritised that over other things that we might have done with the same time and cost, certainly. Okay, thank you. I will end on that point with a final question to Martin. Last week, Volunteer Scotland said that it will not know the true impact of the legislation on charities and their trustees until it is clear how OSCA intend to communicate and implement their new measures. That is not clarified with the detail in the bill. An SCVO said that the Administration in comms budget could be significant and notwithstanding the point that we have heard from John, who I think from what he said is that there has been a bit of re-prioritisation. How are you preparing for this legislation? What are your plans to communicate with the third sector on it? Do you think that you will be able to do that within existing budgets? Okay, you have taken the first question first. Sorry, I do not mean to interrupt. Can I just... Those questions are for... They come under theme 3, so they will be covered in another theme. If you have any supplementaries to those questions, Pam, I am more than happy to bring you in then, but I would just like to keep it in line with where we are going. We have a different understanding of it, but that is absolutely fine. We can get answers to those questions later if you wish. That would be great. Thank you all. If we could now move on to questions from Paul McClaren on theme 2, which is general principles of the bill. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Just talking about the general principles of the bill, and I suppose this is just a question for yourself in terms of Oscar. Do the provisions in the bill accurately affect the proposals that you put forward in your paper in 2018? I suppose that just looking beyond that as well is... Do they support your regulatory role and how effective that is at the moment, and now we are then talking about the extension, do you think that they are appropriate and proportionate? I will open it up to the rest of the panel, but just on that. Simply yes, they do reflect the proposals and thinking back to why we made those proposals. The original legislation dates back to 2005. We have, obviously, quite a few years of experience with regulating the sector now. The proposals we made very much reflected our experience of that. I suppose that there is also a sense of what had changed in the sector, but I think also what had changed more generally. If you were back in 2005, there probably wasn't the same and when the 2005 act was drafted, there wasn't the same sense of possibility in terms of what you could do with publishing information online and making it transparent in that way. I think that some of what's in the act at the moment, the 2005 act at the moment, reflects a sort of older perception of that. The idea that you could put all charity accounts online fairly easily wasn't there. I think that we need to reflect our opportunities to do that and to take all the opportunities that we can to increase the transparency of charities and their activity. Isn't there transparency of regulation as well to increase public trust and confidence in charities? Just on that one, because, again, we had a few evidence sessions with an informal evidence session. The charity is well money, things we talked about. We have transparency and accountability in terms of that. I think that it was to grow the welcome, but I don't know if you've had any feedback in any thoughts in terms of that. It certainly was something that they welcomed. I think that from the surveys that we do and also from our day-to-day contact with charities, most charities absolutely accept and welcome transparency. A lot of your charities nowadays are very proactive themselves in putting information out, putting their constitutions, their accounts online and being open about what they do. Partly that's helpful in terms of tracking funding and maintaining trust. I think that charities certainly accept in principle that sometimes that's more difficult for some charities than others in terms of the practice of it. Small ones, for example. We do understand that we are required in terms of the 2005 act to act proportionally and to be targeted in terms of the action that we take and that is something that we think about all the time. It's something that we will very much bear in mind in terms of the implementation of this bill as we do with what else we do. Good. Thanks for that. Alan, Jonathan, if you want to comment on what's going on, on transparency that was really important in driving this forward? From the society's point of view we think that the general principles and that idea that this is a package that's aimed at transparency and accountability is a fair and proper one. For us, building on the 2005 act because it was very new in a very broad brushway prior to that there wasn't really Scottish charity law in a way so this is an opportunity to build on it with that experience of a number of years of having a proper regulatory regime in Scotland. We do think that it does strike the balance. Yes, there will be issues perhaps around the publication of names where people have raised some issues but on the whole we think that that is something that is going to be workable, does strike the right balance and when we compare it to other systems companies house of which many charities are companies or what the charity commission produces and what charities themselves need to capture in terms of who their trustees are etc we don't see that as being a significant burden or a significant new burden for charities to deal with. Well, just briefly I think it's not really our place to comment on the sort of value judgements as to the effectiveness of those results but I think we would certainly say that transparency and accountability are very important principles it's a principle which the commission pursues in England and Wales indeed is one of our statutory objectives to enhance accountability and actually what we can see in terms of the direction of travel in policy is the same sort of direction of travel that the English and Welsh legislation has followed in terms of firstly enhancing transparency and accountability and also providing separately more graduated and more refined powers in order to enforce compliance when necessary. Thank you, that's very helpful. Thank you Paul. Now move on to theme 3 regarding information about charity trustees and move over to Evelyn Tweed. Good morning panel. Good to see you here. My first question is to Martin. Can Oscar give some insight into how the register may operate from a public perspective and is there an expectation that it's going to be fully digitised? Yeah, absolutely. So the Scottish Charity Register at the moment it's a fully online register and you can you just log in and get on to our website and the first thing that comes up in our website is a register search and you can search by the name of the charity keywords or the charity number and the entry for the charity will come up. When we if the bill is passed and we collect charity trustee information charity trustee names and owner names will come up on as a result of a search on a charity so you will get the entry for the charity and the trustee names will come up as part of that entry. It won't be searchable by trustee name. It's only searchable as part of the charity's information. Thanks, Martin. There are some concerns that we've seen in evidence about digital exclusion. What would you say to that? I mean, we as I say, we have a fully online register a huge majority of charities, almost all charities communicate with us online now through our Oscar online system they give us an annual return every year and that is almost entirely completed online. We do accommodate where charities are unable to do that and we would do so with the current proposals in terms of supplying us with trustee details but it would be primarily online. Thank you. If I could move on to John for this question. Can the charity commission give any comment as to how such a register operates in England in Wales? Certainly. You may be aware that we display all names of charity trustees on our public register as part of the record of each registered charity. That's subject to a dispensation policy in relation to physical security where Oscar is going to have similar provisions in place in terms of its public register. I think we would see it as central to transparency and accountability of charities and charity trustees and it's something which I don't think within our framework and within our sector is any matter of difficulty at all I don't think that there's any concern about it, it's not something we are told is contentious in any way it's simply a part of the process much like registering a company and having company directors' details published is a key part of what we publish. Okay. Just one final question for me because I know Pam might want to come in with her question. Do you have any concerns generally about the proposals for Oscar to gather and maintain up-to-date information on charity trustees and to include the names of trustees because again we've heard from that this is a worry and whoever would like to come in. From the society's point of view the provisions we don't see as overly burdened for charities and in many ways they will come down to these operational matters in terms of how it works in practice and as John mentioned there about what happens in England and what is proposed for Scotland there will be provisions where if there are names and details that shouldn't be made public that that will be possible to take that out of the system. I would just comment as John said there is a process where charities or individuals can ask to be dispensed from having their name published. That's similar to provisions that we currently have for information to be excluded from the register for certain charities whether there are issues of security to people or places and I think part of the communication that we would do in the run-up to implementation with charities is to make sure that people are aware of that or aware of how that works and I think maybe do some targeted work with some of the charities where we know that that's an issue women's aid charities for instance. Okay, thank you for that. Thanks very much Evelyn and we'll move to Pam Duncan-Glancy for a supplementary. Thank you convener and apologies for the preview earlier of this question. I'll repeat it again because I know we've moved on slightly. Volunteer Scotland said to us last week that we will not know the true impact of the legislation on charities and their trustees until it's clear how Oscar intends to communicate and implement new measures. This is not clarified within the detail of the bill and SCVO said admin and comms budget and asked Martin how are you preparing for this? Do you think you will be able to do it within existing budgets and how will you communicate this? I think that one general point a lot of the measures in the bill are expansions or augmentations of things that we already do or things that charities and charities are already used to for instance putting in an annual return or being able to ask for information to be excluded from the register. We're not starting from a zero base there but we absolutely recognise that a big part of the implementation for us will be communications and we're thinking very hard about a communications campaign and the communication strategy there. That'll depend on commencement dates and how that's phased and when particular things come in but what we will be doing there is a phase running up to implementation of specific measures generally with the sector to look at what it means for charity trustees generally. We will do specific targeted communications where we think there may be particular factors or particular issues with particular subsectors and making sure that they know what would be involved there and making sure that we know from them what they think the issues might be in detail. There'll be quite intensive communications during the implementation and we have a lot of channels to communicate with charity trustees at the moment that people are used to referring to. We have the ability to connect directly with charities and we will use those. After the implementation there will be a phase where people will need support and we will be looking at what we need for the on-going support for specific provisions and the implementation of specific provisions. In the development of how you will do that what kind of engagement will you do with smaller charities? We'll be looking to work in a very targeted way with smaller charities. We work a lot, for instance with the likes of Guildguiding Scotland, Scout Scotland and we'll fall into those generic categories also with churches with the designated religious charities and with the unbrawl bodies the likes of the third sector interfaces in the local council areas. As with a lot of the engagement and sector improvement work we do a lot of the most effective way to do it is through other people. We aren't the sole purveyers of wisdom here. People like Guildguide Scotland, Early Years Scotland know what their sectors are and how best to help people implement and get used to specific measures in their sector and we need to take cognisance of that and take advantage of that. You commit to working with those organisations to look at the communication and implementation? Absolutely, we do already and that would be what we'd be wanting to do here. Thank you, convener. We'll now move to questions from Foisal Toudry who is joining us online. Thank you very much, convener and good morning, panel. Before I ask the question I'd like to declare an interest as a chair of a charity organisation and, convener, my apologies I should have done that before. The question I think I'll probably direct to Martin if any witnesses want to get involved. Do the witnesses have any concern that this would disproportionately affect smaller charities, particularly ethnic minority charities that are already struggling to stay in business given the cost of living crisis? Who would you like to direct to Foisal? Martin? I think our view is that we need to make sure that, in the implementation we thoroughly bear in mind the need to be proportionate in the way that we implement this and, in my previous answer I think a lot of this will be around working with the umbrella bodies and that there are some umbrella bodies specifically for ethnic minority charities working with them to identify where there are specific factors that might make it more difficult to implement specific provisions here. We want to be targeted and we want to be proactive and to do a lot of that up front rather than waiting for issues to appear. Thank you. Sorry. Can anyone Foisal? Yes, sure. Do you have any concerns regarding the provisions or charities to reject certain information from published accounts where there might be safety or security concerns? That's probably a question for Alan. Well, I think that as I said previously in terms of the new rules about publishing names etc. I'm providing that kind of information. We don't see that being obviously burdensome or causing significant problems to charities and there are those protections where there is sensitive information or reasons to not have that information being made public. Maybe just going back one moment on to smaller charities. We wouldn't see the bill causing significant issues for smaller charities in terms of what is in the bill. We think smaller charities could be helped by having some of the topics that we have thought would be additional points for a bill particularly around unincorporated charities converting into skills and even the provisions for charities established by active parliament sometimes affect very small charities. The way in which some charities have become established by active parliament is quite unusual. There was times in the past where it was on vogue for people who have left assets to charities under their will for that then to be turned into an active parliament so you have a small charity magically being governed by an active parliament. There are provisions that are not in the bill that could help smaller charities and use their funds in a better or more effective way for their charitable purposes. Thank you. My last question will probably to John. I mean, I've been involved in smaller organisations and majority of the trustees are volunteers and they're working elsewhere. Is there any sort of support will be provided to the smaller organisations if they're struggling what kind of support can be provided? If you're thinking about support in terms of dealing with the shift, the implementation of new legislation I think the support which we provide to charities in our jurisdiction is mostly in the form of guidance and outreach activities through explaining the provisions and we work quite hard to ensure that our guidance is accessible. We're very aware that the majority of trustees are volunteers and they're working in their spare time and most charities don't have the resources to pay for professional advice on new legislation and the like. We are very conscious of that and we're very aware of that and we also rely on sector bodies and the like to be knowledge hubs in relation to the changes. I suspect from my experience that the sorts of changes that are going through in this bill are not changes that would impose enormous administrative burdens on charities because some of this stuff is particularly around the register of trustee names. It's information which charities are going to hold already and it should I would imagine be a fairly simple finding requirement so I don't think there should be too much concern in that regard. Thank you. Thank you very much. Just on this theme, sorry. Do any of the witnesses have any concerns around the proposal to publish unredacted accounts for all charities? Sorry, regardless of size, we heard last week from some of the witnesses that they suggested a threshold could be implemented so that charities with smaller incomes would be exempt. Would the witnesses support such a measure? I'll maybe go to Alan first. Certainly the idea of information being made available is something society would support in terms of the general principles of the bill and again as long as there's not information in there that would be causing any risks to anyone then we would see the provision of information being a good thing and from the public reassurance the ability to get easy access to information about charities is something that we would think would support the sector, support people fundraising and getting involved with the sector rather than being hundreds, but as I say making sure that there are protections around certain pieces of information. Would you agree then that removing the charitable status from organisations that failed to submit accounts is an appropriate measure? Yes, if a charity is not doing that key fundamental basic thing then having provisions that allow Oscar to more easily deal with that situation we would support. Just on a point of clarification what's proposed isn't to give us the power to remove simply because a charity fails to submit its accounts they have to both fail to submit and not engage with us so there is a safeguard there where charities are genuinely struggling for whatever reason as some did during the pandemic for instance to get accounts finalised we can have that dialogue with them and that won't result in removal. My next question then was going to be around the routes to appeal what routes to appeal will be in place for charities who have failed to publish their accounts on time have you talked about that communication could you maybe expand on that? There are quite a lot of what we call hurdles for us to go over before we remove a charity so we would have to have a pattern of attempts to engage with the charity we would need to publish the fact that we were going to remove it for a time to allow the charity to come back and say wait a minute you can't do that we'll have our accounts by Tuesday so if we do remove then that decision can be subject to the statutory review procedure that's in the act if they don't like the result of that review which is carried out internally by us then there is an appeal to the charity's tribunal Last question from myself and again back to you Martin can you go into any further detail as to the criteria for what constitutes a safety or a security concern and how would a review of Oscar decisions work in practice? This is something that is a factor in the law and in our practice at the moment so where charities are asking to be registered they can say we don't want our address to be published on the register so this is a bit of decision making that we do at the moment and looking at the wording of the act and it's replicated in the bill we would be looking to see evidence that there was a specific and clear reason why publishing the information would jeopardise the safety and security of individuals or of the premises again the example is women's aid, women's refugees where that would make individual people vulnerable that's very clear to us I think there is something like 69 charities on the register at the moment who have information excluded on that basis where we excluded that information then that the charity would be able to exclude information from their accounts That's very helpful thank you Okay we'll move on now to Deputy convener Emma Roddick who has joined us online Thank you convener Good morning to the panel My first question is also for you Martin and I know that the law society did address this in its response but I'd be keen to hear from you around whether you think it is sensible to have the same disqualification criteria in place across the UK and if there are any areas where Scotland could go further we do very strongly think it's sensible to have the same disqualification criteria across the UK if you look at the criteria the new ones that the bill is coming in those are for matters which I think any member of the public would think are a serious ones and where I think pretty much everyone would regard that as matters that would prevent someone from properly acting as a charity trustee at the moment, theoretically someone could act here as a charity trustee when they couldn't in England and Wales where they had been found to have done something really serious so I think in terms of public trust and confidence we do think that's right I don't think we would have any desire that at present to go or in prospect to go beyond what's in England and Wales OK, and in terms of the proposal then to extend the disqualification criteria to senior management positions as well do you agree with that and do you anticipate it having any implications on recruitment? We do agree with that again there is a issue of public trust and confidence given the kind of decision making that charity trustees sometimes delegate to senior members of staff in terms of the operation and decision making in a charity where people are would be disqualified if they were a charity trustee we think there is a need to guard against that sort of vulnerability there and to I think what would be legitimate public expectations there and maintain confidence there in terms of recruitment I think a lot of what is in the disqualifications are things that would probably be part of the due diligence that most employers would do for near recruits anyway we in terms of the numbers involved I'm not sure we do see that it would have a big impact on recruitment I'm finally to yourself I do have questions for other witnesses too do you think it is appropriate for Oscar to maintain a publicly searchable record of trustees and does it have been disqualified and does it present any issues around handling sensitive personal data? I suppose it's quite good maybe to start from the reason for this at the moment it is quite hard for charity trustees who are recruiting new charity trustees to do their due diligence in respect of people who the regulator has decided can't be charity trustees so there's a gap there in the due diligence that charity trustees are able to do and that's what this measure tries to address in terms of the information and data issues around this clearly we would be very keen to guard against any sense that the wrong people were being identified from a register search so the register will set out enough detail to from the original you're reflecting the original court decision to disqualify the person enough personal details to distinguish them but what we will be saying is that if there is any uncertainty there then charity trustees should contact us to try and just make sure of who they're dealing with okay, thank you very much if I can move on then to Alan cos I've read the submission obviously but what are your thoughts on the comments that have been made by previous witnesses to the committee that measures for disqualification are too punitive and restrictive on those wishing to act as trustees we would take the view that the extension of the disqualification rules does seem a sensible one that's one area where alignment with neighbouring jurisdictions would appear to make sense and the idea that it now extends to senior management we would say is one that is reasonable and again is maybe an example of where we're building on the 2005 act based on the experience of 15 plus years of seeing what happens and the idea that those who have very important roles within charities are subject to this regime we wouldn't think would be much of a surprise to the public and probably would give them some further reassurance about how charities are being operated okay, are there any concerns that the disqualification criteria might proportionately impact certain demographics and not others particularly when thinking about charities that do work within those demographics and might be looking for lived experience I think what is important in an issue like that but also generally with how the regulatory system works here is that Oscar's status really required to be a proportionate regulator certainly my experience is a proportionate and reasonable regulator to be dealing with and therefore will deal with matters properly and I don't see that it's going to affect particular groups in different ways and there should be a proper system for dealing with any issues that arise including something as serious as someone being potentially disqualified as a trustee Can I say sorry Emma just before you go on I think Martin had you want us coming on this Yes I just thought it might be helpful I think some of the previous discussion around this has concentrated on people being disqualified from ACMA as a trustee by a reason of personal bankruptcy that is an existing disqualification criteria and has been since 2005 it's not a new thing that the bill is bringing in and I suppose that the anxieties here come in because of the current situation the cost of living crisis and the pressures on people I suppose what I would say there is that bankruptcy or having a protected trustee tends to be a relatively short term thing I think the average personal bankruptcy will last 12 months and then you are free to act as a charity trustee so it's probably a lot more temporary than the other disqualifications Sorry Emma if you have further questions on you go Yeah I do have a few sorry convener but the point made by Martin just there was important I think because we did note that a lot of witnesses seem to believe that bankruptcy was not an existing disqualification do you think there is an issue with awareness or maybe implementation of that at the moment that's causing this to happen so? I wonder if that might be and I think that that's something we're reflecting on in terms of our communication and indeed the communication around the implementation of this bill probably gives us an opportunity to do a little bit of a reset and communicate very clearly about how things are at the moment I was just going to add if okay that maybe that's true I walked and certainly rather than a society point of view just from some cases in which I've had to give advice on this point maybe it is people thinking that if you have been bankrupt then that affects your ability to do that forever rather than covering the period in which the bankruptcy arrangements are in place and certainly I have had that question asked of me the relatively speedy answer and the one that gives reassurance to individuals and charities there is that it's not something that applies after the bankruptcy arrangements have been completed thank you and just finally here if I can go to John as the charity commission for England and Wales are you able to offer insight into how disqualification criteria and process there works at the moment and how it aligns with Scotland and specifically how your register of disqualified individuals operates certainly so I guess there's two separate things there's our power of discretionary disqualification which is not something that's being proposed to be introduced here and that's what our proactively maintained register relates to is people who've been actively disqualified I believe in Scotland the equivalent power would be for the court rather than for the regulator and then separately there's automatic disqualification we maintain a register of people who've been disqualified by order but we work on automatic disqualification through advice and guidance to trustees through searches of other public registers like the insolvency register, the register of disqualified company directors because there's a crossover there in terms of when you're on when you're subject to one of those provisions in the same terms as the Scotland bill effectively when you're subject to one of those provisions you're then automatically disqualified I think if I can reflect on the introduction of the current list of automatic disqualification criteria which came in in England and Wales in an act passed in 2016 I think there was probably there was some concern at the time about the scope and scale of how far automatic disqualification was going to go and I think the post-immunitation review that was carried out by the Westminster Government the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed that the concern about the burden placed on the sector was not born out by the impact in practice which I think might be helpful I suppose the one other thing to say is we do embed we do embed the automatic disqualification criteria in things like our trustee declaration that we require people to complete on registration and then in our guidance for trustees around appointing new trustees we advise people to work through that in terms of doing their injury diligence We have some supplementaries on that line of questioning first from Pam Thank you, convener Just a couple that I've arisen particularly from the answers given can I start, John, the point that you made around the discretionary qualification versus the automatic can you explain that a bit and what we would need to do here to apply discretionary qualification instead of an automatic qualification I defer to Martin around conversations that have happened in the development of the bill discretionary disqualification is something of what this bill relates to I believe it's currently a power in Scotland for the Court of Session to remove trustees the England and Wales Charity Commission has a power of discretionary disqualification in cases of misconduct and mismanagement or need to protect charitable resources but it's a separate part of our framework if you like automatic disqualification happens by operation of law so if a certain circumstance applies to you such as bankruptcy for example then you simply are disqualified by the provisions of our act and that's what the current Scotland bill proposes to introduce here Martin is there a reason why a discretionary qualification approach couldn't be used in Scotland and the reason I'm asking is because of some of the lines of questioning that my colleague Emma Roddick has suggested which is some organisations have said that it could be a little punitive to automatically disqualify people and I take the point about public interest I do take that point but a lot of charities are people who want to become trustees and charities maybe doing so to rebuild their life and they may have some convictions for which they will now be automatically disqualified so is there scope potentially for it to be discretionary or how would you address that? Well I think that the first thing I'd say is the disqualifications on automatic disqualification on grounds of bankruptcy or on grounds of having an unspent conviction for dishonesty those are in the 2005 act they have been operating for the last 17 years and those are very close to the spine of charity trustee duties that are in essence with the disqualification on grounds of bankruptcy if you are bankrupt if you have a protected trustee that takes away your ability to control your own affairs charity trustee duties you are acting on the standard of care that you have to exercise is the standard of care that you would exercise in looking after the affairs of another person there's something very problematic about doing that are not able to fully look after your own affairs you're getting into something that's quite fundamental there so I don't think that there would be the scope in the current bill and we wouldn't necessarily support it I think that the other thing I would say on that point you make about people wanting to rebuild their lives simply because you're disqualified as a charity trustee it doesn't stop you volunteering for a charity it doesn't necessarily stop you working for a charity in the new bill if you're a senior member of staff it might disqualify you but if you're not it wouldn't stop you necessarily working for a charity provided the charity trustees were happy okay and what kind of process do you imagine would be in place for wavering that or for challenging that decision I mean again this is something that is there in the current legislation it's a process that we currently operate what we would do there is that we would look at waiver applications what we would concentrate on is where the the request to waver disqualification for an individual reflects the purposes and the activities of a particular charity is there something about the skill or the experience for instance the sort of life experience for a particular person that means it's necessary for them to be a charity trustee it's a job that really only them or someone like them can do so we'll be looking from the point of view of the needs of the charity primarily and also how the charity would manage any risks from that and the administrative budget on proof for that would that be where would that kind of level be it is for the you know the person to the extent that the other charity trustees to make a case for that it's an exception automatic disqualification means just that so it is effectively requesting us to make an exception and we would need to make a case as to why that exception should be applied okay thank you thank you Pam another supplementary from Paul McLeanon Pam is kind of almost touching it then formal sessions have had was about for example rehabilitation of prisoners who are obviously that experience in coming through and I think that example you gave would probably be one you probably considered that approach because that was raised by a couple of charities who deal with rehabilitation and obviously their lived experience is extremely vital so would that be the kind of example you would look at? it would be if you were talking about someone there who had an unspent conviction and the trustees were you know putting forward a case that looked you know this person by reason of their lived experience you know we think they are uniquely fitted to be a trustee of this charity that would depend on its purpose depend on what it did then we would look at that really seriously but we would also say well okay what is this person doing how will the rest of you exercise your duties in respect of how they go on with their duties thank you thanks Paul and just one final point on that so the bill would give oscar the power to create a database of people obviously who have been removed from being involved in the administration of a charity by the courts the consequences for individuals who are mistakenly thought to be in this position could be really significant for example they might not be able to work within the charity sector can oscar explain how the risk of mistaken identity will be minimised by the public searches of the database the person will have already gone through a court process and the register will very fully reflect their identity and the details of that process and we will be looking very hard to make sure that there is sufficient information to enable people to be distinguished easily but what we will also be saying at the side of that is if charity trustees have concerns, have doubts they will be invited to get in touch with us so that it can be verified thank you Martin do any of the other panellists have any ideas on how that should be approached Alanis so you make an eye contact during that and we will move on to questions from Miles Briggs thank you convener and good morning to the panel I wanted to ask some specific questions with regards to how that will impact on the numbers of charities in Scotland specifically do you think that that will result in more fewer charities if the bill goes through Parliament not to tell maybe I suspect that it will particularly the power to remove charities where they have not submitted accounts to us and where they are not engaging with us I think that what that will do will enable us to remove some charities from the register where effectively possibly as a result of the pandemic and the kind of cessation of activity and a lot of charities through the pandemic trustees have kind of just walked away were the things just kind of fallen down and trustees have walked away they haven't wound it up formally and it will enable us to take out a bulge of charities that are sitting on the register like that that we don't currently have an ability to deal with so it will adjust it downward today and have you done any work to quantify what that looks like how many we're talking about it's a little bit of a sort of unknown we have quite a high level of non-submission of accounts at the moment much higher than it has been historically and again we think that's a result of the pandemic it's about 11% of charities at the moment have failed to submit accounts on time that's a bit higher than the historic level and we think a proportion of that additional number there will be charities that are in this situation but it's very hard to quantify because they're not engaging it's much easier where you're dealing with charities that are engaging but are just having problems with submission thank you for that and I wondered has any research been undertaken into organisations in Scotland who if they're not currently registered as a charity in Scotland what impact that will have on them accessing funds and whether or not that might result in more people then thinking that they should register in Scotland under the new bill I think that there's been quite a lot of thinking over the past few years about community bodies about social enterprises some social enterprises are charities some charities undertake social enterprise activities and then they have social enterprises that are a bit more towards the trading end of things who would never want to be charities but I think that there is a degree of interest and fluidity about the boundaries between those categories and charity it's interesting some of the things that drive people to seek organisations to seek charitable status Alan's already alluded to some of them it will be about funding it will be about the tax or the local taxation advantages and where those things change that's where we see fluctuations in the number of registration applications we get for instance there was a tax change affecting community sports clubs back in the 20 teams that made it more advantageous to be a charity we got a lot of applications like bowling and tennis clubs thank you for that and that was one of the points I think that we have had concerns around smaller charities sometimes you know village hall charities things like that and the pressure which is on them sometimes individuals to submit accounts and I just wondered unredacted accounts for all charities regard to size being published whether or not you thought there was need for some flexibility in that around income potentially I suppose that going back to first principles here I think what everyone would expect of a charity is to prepare accounts to keep looking at what the trustee duties are everyone would expect charity trustees to be able to keep control and keep a sense of their charity's financial situation so I think preparing accounts is almost a given the requirement to submit accounts to us you know it's a long standing one and obviously I say there's been a dip in compliance with that but historically levels have been pretty high in compliance with that so I'm not sure that the publication of accounts adds to the burden or necessarily becomes more burdensome I suppose the point I'd also make there our regulatory experiences that people really care about small charities people care about what's happening in their village hall a lack of clarity there a lack of trust there that can have surprisingly big consequences in small communities thank you and do you think in terms of removing charitable status from organisations that have failed to submit their accounts isn't an appropriate measure is that a very last resort in what you've outlined in terms of trying to work with them to get that information absolutely it is a last resort and as I said before we won't be able to remove simply because they fail to submit it'll be because they fail to engage as well if they're engaging well yes we can work with them if they're not engaging we can't does anyone else have anything we want to add on any of those questions I suppose on this will it affect the number of charities we don't see the bill leading to less people wanting to be setting up charities because of what's in the bill the register of mergers to do with legacies might see a very small number of charities who probably shouldn't be there or shouldn't be but don't need to be there coming off the register what the bill doesn't do and we think could usefully do is in terms of the right types of charities there are smaller unincorporated charities who probably would want to be and should be incorporated and the bill doesn't help them and you mentioned something like a village hall if you've got a smaller charity which might be asset heavy the process of moving to a better governance structure one that actually encourages new trustees to come on board which is sometimes the reason why they want to become incorporated that process is quite difficult and the bill doesn't take that opportunity to smooth that process for them thank you thank you can I just ask before moving on to my colleague do you think it's appropriate for Oscar to be able to issue positive directions following inquiry work and is it appropriate for designated religious charities to be exempt from this provision I'll go to Martin first thank you we do think it's appropriate this is one that very much comes from our regulator experience the power for us to issue positive directions would be a very circumscribed one there again are hurdles that we have to get through that there's misconduct in the administration of the charity or that there are assets that need to be protected that could only come as a result of an inquiry on our part and considerable engagement with the charity but there are situations where we do need to make very specific very measured very timed directions to get charity trustees usually to do something that falls on their duties or what their constitution says they have to do and they're not doing it okay, thank you would anyone else like to comment on that no, don't feel the blight John it's a power that we've got that we use quite regularly and it's effectively part of a tool kit of powers I think when we use this power more often it might be in a slightly different context because our power of positive directions is used to issue things like action plans and plans for improved governance in relation to a charity and the effect of issuing that by order makes it a legal obligation which can then be enforced using our other powers so it's part of a sort of suite of compliance powers that we've got and it's one that we use quite regularly thank you John and just a kind of supplementary to that Martin I'll go back to you again sorry what level of engagement does the parent charity currently have in this process and does it present any challenges so unless the parent charity is a designated religious charity there isn't a sort of formal provision for parent charities to be involved what a parent charity is can be quite various and the links between the small charity and the parent charity can be quite various we work a lot with parent charities for instance in the field of non-submissions where the smaller charities aren't submitting their accounts that's a public fact it's a fact that we publish and that means that we can engage with the parent charity but we don't have specific powers to share information with parent charities in the way we do with other regulators or other statutory bodies so in the case of an inquiry we would have to look at that very much on a case by case basis sometimes it'll be the parent charity that's come to us with an issue and there'll be a degree to which we can engage with them sometimes the issue will be a dispute between the smaller charity and the parent charity and there we have to step very carefully on those questions from Jeremy Balfour Good morning panel, thank you all for coming I wonder if I can start with Alan if I'm okay with my first question there have been some concerns raised in written evidence around the data protection implications of the bill and I wondered in the law society view have these adequately addressed within the DPIA and the legislative proposals that still needs to be looked up further The first thing I would say is that my knowledge of data protection law is not very good so I know about charity law hopefully but not that much about data protection but of course the society does and so me commenting on that might not be the most helpful but we have from the society's point of view been very keen that when the proposals are being put in place that in terms of security of information the right information being publicly available and of course the data protection regime that is in place is followed and we would expect between the legislation and what Oscar is doing in practice that ensuring that data is protected and is being looked after properly is going to be central to that and again it's part of the transparency and accountability is important but that is going to be the public reassurance and that would be eroded if the data was not being looked after in a proper fashion OK thank you maybe Martin from a kind of regulated perspective are you happy with this kind of area of what you mean with? Obviously we are considering this very carefully and what we are looking to do is to make sure that how we build the implementation particularly around the trustee database builds in compliance with data protection requirements and one of the things here is we will have a duty to collect this information and that puts us in a particular place with data and data protection but there will be specific safeguards in terms of how we collect information from charities and the privacy notices that we issue to charity trustees we will ask charity trustees to confirm the information that has been submitted on their behalf through the annual return mechanism that charities are used to submitting to us we will ask charity trustees to have a yearly update in confirmation of the charity trustees and we can make sure that the data is accurate and there will also be an easy online mechanism for charities to update trustee details after their AGM when they elect new trustees John, I just wonder anything we can learn from how it works down south in regard to this? I think overall it's not a matter of concern if you like data protection legislation is well known for being especially complex and technical we work very hard to ensure that our work is compliant but at a level of principle data protection legislation is about ensuring a balance of rights and responsibilities between data controllers and data subjects in the field of regulation we talked already about transparency and accountability, public trust and confidence and how providers are given powers and duties to handle data in furtherance of those objectives so I think to the extent that what is proposed here in the Scottish Bill matches arrangements that we already have in England and Wales there are established understandings of how that works in terms of data protection and I wouldn't have a concern at the level of principle certainly My second question and again maybe start with Alan that is the terminologies within the Bill a connection with Scotland I know that some of them give some guidance in regard to that my understanding is that there is no real clear definition of what this means again from a law society perspective, from a legal perspective are you happy with that terminologies or do you think it should be more defined with employable legislation we recognise that defining that with great precision could be quite difficult to achieve I suppose that the idea here is that Oscar is going to be able to consider things on a case-by-case basis to do that so greater precision would be good the difficulty is what would that greater precision be and would it capture the type of situation that hasn't been considered that arises and one that doesn't have a connection to Scotland but didn't fit into a very tightly constructed definition of a connection to Scotland I say this because I am one of us is this part of my buck to the courts so ultimately will this have to be decided when someone takes this to a healing so is this primary legislation us plus my buck to a digitally or has that been unfair on us one thing and Martin made more insight on this is how often this really crops up and what types of situations crop up and certainly in my experience charities that don't have an obvious connection to Scotland when you drill down do you have some kind of connection to Scotland and that becomes clear what I'm not sure to say Martin out of that insight is are the ones who just have no connection at all to Scotland and you wonder why they have applied in the first place Martin I don't know if you want to comment on that point two things I would comment that the bill sets out a bunch of things that we need to have regard to in looking at this and it's a set of characteristics of what a connection to Scotland might be so it's having a physical footprint here undertaking activities here having charity trustees here that's actually very similar to provisions that are in the 2005 act that we've been operating for a number of years in respect of the obligation to register as a charity here and we have very clear guidance there and we have a pretty settled idea of what we've been able to explain to the sector of how that operates you know as Alan I think Alan's right we're talking about where there will be uncertainty about that we'll be talking about a very few marginal cases and there is a bit at the bottom of those provisions that says well we need to consider whether the connection is a negligible one and I suppose that there is a bit of discretion for us to exercise around that and we will need to think about how we would do that but as someone who has to look at legislation and think about how to operate it quite a lot this actually seems relatively detailed to me okay that's helpful if I can move on to what the next bill or when it comes out would give is in regard to Oscar to be able to point into him charity trustees and again maybe if I can start with Alan and then come to Martin and that is around I mean have you any concerns that this is a fairly large power that Oscar has and do you think it's an appropriate power? One aspect of this power is where charities quote unquote run out of trustees there had been amendments in this area which gave Oscar powers but not in the situation where you completely ran out of trustees and you would be surprised how many trusty charities could accidentally run out of trustees the Parliament will be looking at the trust and succession bill soon and that includes powers about how you change trustees under the current rules if you don't follow what parliamentarians came up with in 1921 about changing trustees of a trust you might accidentally run out of trustees and then you have to go through a court process to get up and running again this gives an Oscar process for dealing with that so I think that's quite a sensible one to allow a charity to get back up and running in terms of its trustees I have very little to add to what Alan said there it's a very circumscribed power and essentially it is a power in very limited circumstances for us to be able to break a legal log jam to allow a charity to appoint to be able to appoint trustees to allow a charity to deal with a problem that's in front of it which will often be caused by a problem around quorum it's a short term measure the appointments are short term my final question and this really is from Martin obviously when Oscar was originally started the first appeal was to a separate tribunal we now go to first tier tribunals and this has made the question ring for me have we actually ever disbanded officially legally the tribunals that were set up under a 95 act and just for clarity tidied up, would that be an appropriate place to do it with them as well I'm sorry but the answer is I don't know I'd be happy to take that question away and try and give the committee an answer I don't know if you know Alan and I but I have the same answer as Martin in that one If you could perhaps write to the committee after today that would be really helpful Thank you, convener Thank you very much Jeremy I'm sorry to my own before we finish and I do apologise that we're running slightly on we've had so much to get through Do the panel have any concerns regarding the appointment of interim charity trustees and are you satisfied sorry that there is enough clarity around this provision and should there be a dispute mechanism Apologies Did you just cover that Jeremy Sorry I have a few here I'll move on to financial implications Do witnesses agree that the bill proposals will not result in any additional costs for local authorities or charities and I'll go to I think perhaps Alan We wouldn't see that the provisions in the bill will cause significant additional costs for the charity sector on the whole as I say some of the provisions that we would like to see in there would save costs for charities Thank you Does anyone have any other comments on that Martin Just from me I think where local authorities local councils are acting as charity trustees of charities they will have the same responsibilities as other charity trustees so there will be the same burden what I would say is that we've worked very successfully with a number of local authorities to streamline their holdings of charities so where they've been able to do that then their costs will be proportionally low so it's probably much better than it would have been a few years ago Thank you Martin We've touched on communication strategy this morning around other themes so I'd quite like something specific on that so the SCVO highlighted that Oscar has a responsibility to ensure charities understand the impacts of the bill and noted that there is a possibility that the need for communication, engagement, guidance and clarification to charities as a result of the bill may have been underestimated Is Oscar confident that you will be able to carry out your enhanced duty efficiently and effectively at the current levels of funding or will further resources be required So like other public bodies we're looking to see how we can maximize efficiency with the resources we've got but I think we do see that there will be a need for further resources here that's both in terms of the digital changes that we'll need to make and particularly in terms of the communications and engagement and we're working with our colleagues in SG and with ministers to identify what those resources will be that's on the basis of the financial memorandum and looking at our overall budget requirement as well Okay, thank you Do you have any further comments just on that planned communication strategy should the bill be passed? As I mentioned before some of this will depend on commencements and phasing because we are thinking very hard about a strategy and a campaign particularly around the areas that we've spoken about at the committee this morning automatic disqualification the trustee database those things where it will impinge on the information and the charities provide to us in their interaction with us and we want to do a lot of that and both in terms of overall messaging the charities with the channels that we already have but also that specialised sector specific communication where we think that there may be specific issues and obviously we're listening with great interest to what's coming out of these sessions in terms of where that might be Okay, thank you very much Martin and thank you to all the panels for giving your evidence this morning I'll briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to change over Thank you again Welcome back everyone I welcome to the meeting our second panel Dr John Picton, Senior Lecturer Charity Law and Policy Unit University of Liverpool Nick Holroyd, member faculty of advocates Gavin McEwen, committee member Charity Law Association Keith McPherson, member ICAS Charities panel who all join us in the room today As with the first panel just a couple of very quick points to mention about the format of the meeting again please don't feel you have to answer every question if you've nothing new to add and again we have a lot to cover so just if you could keep your questions and answers as tight as possible Again we will begin the question in today this morning with Pam Duncan-Glancy Thank you convener, good morning Some more questions as to the panel previously so if you were here to listen you'll know what's coming Could the panel say a bit about the consultation that they've seen undertaken to get to the point in this with this bill and what is your view on that consultation I'll start with John Thank you The Charity Law and Policy Unit at Liverpool took part in both consultations and we thought it was very thorough the questions were and the agenda was clear we noticed one of the initial grounds in the consultation related to charities established by an act of parliament or charities established by a charter and there were questions surrounding whether on or Oscar the Scottish regulator should be able to consent to constitutional changes at those charities and that's been dropped and we regretted that we thought that was a shame on that point giving Oscar that power wouldn't necessarily mean deregulation it would just mean giving Oscar the control they can take a very strict view if they want to in relation to those types of charities Thank you, that's interesting we've heard something similar on that from one of the witnesses last week what about yourself, Nick Yes, I think there was general approval the fact of advocates then for the proposals which were being put forward and the way in which matters were structured there were various additional issues which are listed in the written submission which may be worthy of consideration and a further review of charity law but broadly speaking it was a very positive response there are certain individual suggestions which we made but broadly on the point of a further review do you think there is a need for such a review and what do you think it should include and I see John Nodding as well so we'll note that I think there are a variety of issues which need to be looked at one is the difficulty facing charity trustees in the broad sense of that term where the charity through which they operate is a conventional trust and the exposure to liability I think that is a substantial issue which needs to be considered to some extent a separate issue but one which in practice interfaces with that is the ability to change constitutions either on points of detail or changing the actual medium through which the charity body operates for example changing from a trust to a skeo so I think there are other suggestions made in the written submission as well thank you Gavin do you have anything further to add I would echo those comments and I think just to pick up on John's point about the reorganisation of charities created under enactment or royal charter those provisions wouldn't impact on a huge number of charities but if there were provisions in the bill they would make a meaningful difference to those charities so I think it's important to emphasise that it's not going to transform the entire sector but it really would assist those bodies in making swift, cost-effective and cost-efficient constitutional changes so for my part I think it would be really good if that could be built into the bill during its progress I do think a wider review is essential there are lots of little technical things that lawyers and accountants I'm sure would bring along that is part of their wish list of things they'd like to see changed but I think more interesting would be what the sector feels should change and I think that really good sector engagement may flush out things that we haven't thought about and that Parliament hasn't thought about so a really wide review which really engages with the sector I think would be an extremely valuable process thank you and we heard some evidence from the sector last week about that and I think they would concur Keith do you have anything to add yeah thanks to both the consultations we've been satisfied with those exercises we've also welcomed the opportunity to engage both with the Scottish Government's charity law team and Oscar themselves earlier this year and see the Oscars commitment within their own submissions and panel evidence that they will continue to engage with stakeholders through the implementation process of the bill at a high level we broadly welcome the proposals in the bill recognising that it's a regulation and administration bill I think in our own submission we have gone into some further areas around regulation that as Gavin's touched on in terms of a wish list for areas that could be done that we would like to have seen to go further unnecessarily I suppose from our interest in terms of regulation and scrutiny in terms of accounts and the audit and independent scrutiny of charity accounts etc thank you I think there are further questions from my colleagues on that particular point to come sticking with the theme of the review and what's in the current bill on the basis of that I think John you said in your submission that in order to bring it in line with UK regulation there would need to still be a bit more in that do you feel that come out in the consultation do you think there are areas that would be part of this proposal in regards to your comment about bringing it in line with other parts of the UK so thank you England and Wales has just been a large scale review of charity law and that has led to some new differences between England and Wales and Scotland and so of course there's a question there for Scotland to consider those differences and whether it wants to respond I said that with some hesitancy because I'm not necessarily in favour of all the changes that have happened in England and Wales but there have been changes so for example it's now easier in England and Wales for trustees to change their own constitutions so they have a power of amendment it is now possible for trustees to sell goods to their own charity so I imagine I run a stationery factory and I can sell stationery to my own charity as a trustee and there are questions there for Scotland as to whether or not it wants to respond to that thank you that's helpful where would you point us to have an understanding of the new differences that you refer to so the Charities Act 2022 is coming into force in stages so it's partially enforced at the moment on the charity commission and its guidance and ourselves at the Charities Act 2020 thank you that's much appreciated and Gavin it's my final question on this theme the submission from yourself said that the law could go further so notwithstanding the comment you made about reorganisation which we've noted are there any other areas that you think that have come out through the consultation that should be part of what's proposed now as opposed to part of a review in the future I think one of the joys of the Scottish charity system is that we've been slightly ahead of the game sometimes so we beat England & Wales if you want to be competitive for a moment in the introduction of charitable incorporated organisations and we had them in Scotland before they had them south of the border and that's been very nice to see that Scotland has been ahead of the game there in terms of charity law and regulation I feel now we're slightly behind the curve and I feel that this bill might put us slightly further behind the curve and that would be my concern so the register of mergers provision for example in this bill is really helpful and will allow us to catch up a bit with the system south of the border but it covers only legacies and not lifetime gift as well so I think there are subtle changes that could be made even to the bill as it stands which would help to keep us either ahead of the curve or on the curve and if that wider review can then capture more changes to really help the regime in Scotland to evolve and develop then that will hopefully put us ahead of the curve again and it shouldn't be a competition between jurisdictions but I think we have done well in Scotland in the past and it would be a shame if we lost that momentum Thank you you're a man that knows your audience in that regard, thank you much appreciated Thanks very much Pam Good morning panel A couple of questions One is obviously in the general principles of the bill I was wondering about provisions Did they actually reflect the proposals brought forward by Oscar in 2018 and does it support the regulatory role and I think we asked that of Oscar and also are the proposed extensions proportionate and appropriate at this time? I don't know if you and I had that in formal session I don't know if you want just for evidence to comment on that I think in brief the answer is yes I think it does pretty much achieve most of what Oscar had put forward as its wish list of changes and the one key thing that's missing as we've already mentioned this morning is the provisions around charities created by enactment or royal charter and it's a pity that that's been missed in terms of the appropriateness or proportionateness of the proposals I think that they are appropriate and proportionate Oscar needs to be able to carry out its jurisdiction properly and if it doesn't have decent powers to do that it can't fulfil its obligations and I think it's important also to remember that Oscar is under a duty to act appropriately and transparently and proportionately so even if you introduced a disproportionate measure Oscar would still have to comply with it in a proportionate manner so the framework that we have should lead always to proportionate regulation but I do think that what's in the bill is proportionate and appropriate We would support the proposals particularly around publication of accounts register of trustee names I know there would be more detailed questions probably in these areas but I think that all we support these is increasing transparency and accountability in the sector as long as that is undertaken proportionately as has been talked about then fully supportive of Can you take some time which leads nicely into the next question and obviously we're talking about one of the key things transparency and accountability in the sector Was there any weaknesses you think that were in the sector at that particular time in terms of that and does it well address these weaknesses? I think weaknesses may be described as potentially too strong a word but I think certainly as we say the full publication of unredacted accounts maintaining a register of trustee names all adds to that transparency oversight if you look at the surveys of what builds public trust in charities then being able to see how the money's been spent by obtaining the accounts seeing who's in charge of charities all of these are high up on the things that tick off those elements of trust and some of that a lot of that information if you're a charitable company for example that information is already in the public domain so this is really just we see as codifying that for good practice across the whole sector John, netkinathan to come in and obviously Oscar and obviously accountability and transparency so thank you the bills concerned with transparency and accountability makes useful measures towards that I think a very important feature of course is the publication of trustee names on the register which goes to accountability it's quite a constrained bill with a limited set of objectives and so of course what is not is a review of all the possible ways in which lowering it I think you've probably heard the discussion on going about whether it was a need for a non a further review which I think seems to be the emerging view netkinathan to add on that Yes, generally again a very positive view is still what's trying to be achieved which is transparency and accountability and to that I would also add that some of the measures in addition to doing that will have possibly could be described as a side effect it will create a degree of discipline so for example in relation to producing accounts if there are rules on accounts which are proportionately, dare I say it, gently pleased by Oscar that will mean that there's a gentle pressure on trustees to get their accounts in order another area which I think has been mooted by the faculty of advocates is the idea of making the constitutions available because then one can marry up the accounts which would to some degree explain what has been done with the, for example, there's a summary of charitable objectives on the Oscar website but if the constitutions are also published that would to some extent I think not only promote transparency but also create the sense of discipline amongst trustees do we need to change the constitution are we are tempering what we're meant to be doing and so forth so I think that would be a good idea where the faculty has reservations is in relation to having a public a wholly public register the preference would be to have a vote for charity trustees to have a voluntary decision on whether or not their names were made public part of that is inspired by practical considerations I think one wants to make the environment for charitable trustees one which is appealing and there can be all sorts of reasons why not having one's name in public might be appealing and having it in public unappealing and however well one has an appeal process it's not going to be as good as having a starting point of it wholly public it's not any suggestion that there shouldn't be a list of trustees it just shouldn't be open to the world at large and I think the second sort of secondary to that that sort of general idea is one which I suppose is one might call jurisprudential but it's not an academic point is that our issues to do with privacy is the invasion and so you are giving all the information to the world at large is that strictly necessary and if it is necessary how can that be done in a proportionate way so it's that way of approaching matters and the faculty written submission drew attention to a recent decision a recent European Union case which does show us like rowing back from perhaps earlier thinking on the matter due to things like 9-11 and the concerns with terrorist funding and other horrors very real horrors there has been a desire to achieve transparency but I think the faculty's position would be that if this can be done in a way which isn't giving the information to the world at large with potentially unknowable data implications but nonetheless can be pleased by oscar and perhaps other people with legitimate interest in policing that would be the main point if that approach isn't appealing if the appeal the process where one can make the application to not have one's name made public needs very very careful thought from a practical point of view because there will be people who don't want any flicker for possibilities they will need to be able to make a prior application and that would also need to mesh with the way in which a particular charity selected its charitable trustees some will be just assumed by the existing trustees but some may have some form of election procedure that could be all sorts of possibilities so I think if the faculty's primary position is not acceptable huge care needs to be taken to achieve the result the European union case mentions the risks of things like that which is concerned with beneficial ownership rather than trusteeship concerns with things like kidnapping blackmail harassment and so forth some of those are quite possible in a Scottish domestic context but I think there are other possibilities for example one might have if I can use a ghastly expression a Celebrity X convict and that person might have rehabilitated and he might be an excellent person to have on a suitable charity but what the charity might want and what he might want to do is to help with that charity ideally in the role of a trustee not through his celebrity status but through his real world experiences I think from the Charity Law Association's point of view we took a slightly different view from Nick we felt that if there is to be complete openness and transparency then the register of trustees is a very good starting point because we should begin when I say begin we're 17 years into the regime in terms of this bill but it is right that people should be able to have their names taken off the register or not disclosed publicly if there are good reasons for that I think what's important is the messaging from Oscar because Oscar will be the ones who deal with that process that messaging needs to be very clear so there's an understanding about how you go about the process of and what circumstances it would be acceptable I think that's the most important point there Sorry, just to suppose to add, we fully recognise the position of applying for dispensations and recognise that that can be an important thing I think to note that under accounting regulations the accounts of a charity need to disclose the names of the trustees unless such dispensation is in place and the 2005 act already requires effectively somebody can write it to that charity and ask for a copy of the accounts with those trustee names to be provided to them so to some extent a lot of that information is already available if not perhaps listed on a register that can be associated directly but it should be in the accounts anyway Thanks Keith Thank you very much Paul Evelyn Tweed Good morning panel, good to see you My first question is to Keith I cast highlighted in their submission that though some charities may feel daunted by the implementation of a register, those fears can be addressed through effective communication from Oscar and we did touch that previously What do you think effective communication would look like? Thank you, yes I've had some advantage in listening to what their plans for that communication were earlier and may have answered some of those elements I suppose yes we said it may seem daunting and I suppose that was about something that may seem new and different notwithstanding my previous comments just now about the fact that their information is in the accounts but yes to that extent I think it is very much about communication where we saw that going as obviously providing some idea about timescales for the rollout and how that would be captured within for example the Oscar online system for reporting of the annual return and the timelines for doing that I think we obviously saw how the need for and potentially guidance on use of that digital system if it was going to be as necessary any kind of offline alternatives where that online could be seen as a hindrance or a barrier we obviously heard from Oscar earlier that in fact they feel that there's very good engagement on the online system and that isn't seen as too much of a barrier I think we welcome the fact that the annual return process becomes a kind of statutory requirement and so that becomes an obvious point that charities can get involved in and I think another element I suppose may be just also to make sure there's communication out there to kind of alleviate or potentially explain any concerns that trustees may have for non-compliance or timescales for compliance in terms of changes and timescales for reporting and what does it mean if they don't comply because they overlook the timelines I think including those elements what we would see as the necessary requirements for communication Okay, thanks for that Keith and my next question is to John Liverpool University said dispensation should be allowed and we've kind of talked about dispensation but not in too much detail so far in situations where trustees can demonstrate a risk of personal danger John what do you think the reviewer may look like? So thank you so in the legislation you can have your name kept off the register for safety and security concerns so that I take to be targeted at people who are in some way vulnerable or publicity might lead to personal threats an open question is whether or not it should go further so that's a high threshold so it's certainly not for example to think about professional embarrassment it's not something broad otherwise disadvantaged beyond safety and security I don't know if anyone else wants to come in on that Some of the examples were touched on the earlier session of today's committee meeting so thinking about charities involved in domestic abuse for example where users of the service might also serve as trustees they bring a really valuable skill and lived experience and it's very important to capture that but if that might put them at risk because they're suddenly much more visible as a trustee then that needs to be managed and there are other examples like that we talked about rehabilitation of offenders in the earlier session as well that kind of situation I think is important to be managed and so the regulatory framework needs to allow that to be managed properly Yes the to some extent back to the issue of whether trustees names should be made public and I'm just glancing at the European Union case and the risk of repeating myself mentioned is made the risk of fraud mapping blackmail, extortion harassment, violence or intimidation and in addition to that I've made the suggestion that there might be this other issue that you might want someone who was high profile but not want them because they were high profile but for their actual experience or skill set I suppose the other issue which is perhaps more to do with the almost in the realms of questions of whether or not something is necessary or disproportionate if given that Osco would have the list of trustees names even if they weren't publicly accessible if there was an option to make them publicly accessible so if the charity that the individual could choose to make them publicly accessible I suppose Osco would police those charities where their names weren't being made public with particular vigilance and there are obviously charities references to women's refuges where the names may not be made public and the addresses may not be made public and it would be interesting to know whether in those circumstances where names and other details have been kept out of the public domain whether there have been any particular problems and the flip side of that coin is that if charities thought that having their names made public was a, for want of a better expression a good public relations position and they might well take that into account as well but I say the tiered approach which is favoured and there would be no obligation to make the names public is the primary one That's making me now Thanks very much Evelyn Moving online now to Foisal Childry Thank you very much and good morning panel Before I ask the question I think I should declare my interest I'm a co-chair of a charity organisation Elric My first question would be to Gavin and John Do the witnesses have any concern that this would disproportionately affect smaller charities particularly ethnic minority charities that are already struggling to stay in business given the cost of living crisis? So I think my own thoughts from the Charity Law Association's considerations we are not overly concerned that this bill places an undue burden on charities I think we appreciate that there's quite a lot for charity trustees to get their head around in terms of new rules and regulation and requirements but we don't see that as a fundamental barrier for most charities and I think with sufficient support and education of the sector both from ofscar and other umbrella bodies that ought to be manageable so we don't have undue concerns I do think that some parts of the sector will struggle though given that there are particular pressures through inflationary cost of living issues I think we just have to accept that that's part of a wider social problem just now but I don't think that flows from the bill itself Thank you very much John, do you want to say anything on that? Yes, briefly So I think on small amateur entirely voluntary charities the bill does impose frictions rather than costs so I don't think it costs the money necessarily but it does mean of course that they have to be organised, there has to be somebody organising the conveyance of the information to oscar you would expect that even in a small charity but it is of course the case that it does impose frictions Thank you very much My second question is probably for Nick Do the witnesses have any concern regarding the provision for charities to reject certain information from published accounts where there might be safety or security concerns? I think that's an extremely good question I think the opportunities for redacting information with the approval of oscar is a good one for example some accounts as we've already heard would disclose the information of trustees and there might one way or another be a desire but if not having them named or it might indicate the location where certain charitable purposes were being fulfilled for example back to the women's refuge I do think that there is scope for redaction and again one's hope would be that there would be the opportunity to liaise for the charity trustees to liaise with oscar to find some acceptable landing zone for both the charity and for oscar rather than necessarily make it contentious I think that oscar has generally done a very good job in that approach on top of that the oscar website and indeed the equivalent English bodies website are very helpful and no doubt they're already very good but no doubt there's always scope for additional materials perhaps a publication on the circumstances about what things you might think oscar over so I think that is a really fantastic point because being involved in third sector organisations and I always found that security concern is a main issue for the trustees thank you very much for that answer I think I'll go on to I don't know if anybody else wants to get in on that question Keith I suppose if I just may say while we support and it links back to my previous comments about the accounts requirements including names and disclosure of names we are fully supportive that it is just a proposal to publish names of individuals and not other associated personal information like addresses etc and notwithstanding some very specific cases where dispensation should also be in place thank you very much my next question will be for all the panel members as you told me majority of the first sector small organisations are very limited with numbers of people and majority of the trustees are volunteers what support is provided to the organisations and I'll start from UK and any support can be because there is loads of work involved I suppose sorry I suppose in terms of thinking about the provisions for some of the smaller charities and concern of whether there is a duplication of efforts around maintaining registers of trustees or those elements and restoring that I suppose one area that we've considered is to what extent Oscars register itself may provide the means to support some very small organisations to have that detailed information contained securely and what we would presume would be a secure GDPR compliant means of having their listing of trustees available and therefore supporting their own governance in terms of maintaining that list of their trustees etc and potentially supporting best practice for them so we see that that potentially could have a positive for some smaller organisations who struggle to maybe maintain that information themselves thank you very much if anybody else wants to get involved I think the comments made by Keith again very much in point if there is a database an accessible database of charities and for example gooding mergers and say hypothetically constitutions it might in some circumstances be possible for one charity to find out how another charity has dealt with a particular problem tweaking the constitution or something much more practical so I can see that the idea of indirect benefits arising from the register thank you very much I don't have any other question thank you Faisal now moved to Deputy convener Emma Roddick online thank you convener my first question here is for Keith I know that most of the discussion around whether it's important or sensible to have the same disqualification criteria across the UK in comparison to England and Wales but I was interested to see Northern Ireland mentioned in your submission could you expand on why you feel it's important to have consistent disqualification in different jurisdictions and whether there are particular interactions with Northern Ireland that the committee should consider I believe the submission was as much to point out that it's not talking to jurisdictions Northern Ireland has its own elements that are different again I think in that respect being in mind some aspects of it's not about pure alignment but I suppose some charity trustees will not necessarily because you're a Scottish charity your charity trustees or senior management won't necessarily only be trustees of a Scottish charity they may also be trustees of other organisations and therefore some it seems eminently sensible that the same disqualification criteria are in place across those jurisdictions and I think our submission wasn't particularly pulling out Northern Ireland but just to note that it was another jurisdiction to reference in that sense Beyond that much more of that I think the requirements in terms of what the criteria are speak more into the legal aspects and I would probably defer to other panel members to go into more detail on that I think from the charity law association's point of view I would simply point to what Martin Tyson from Oscar said in the earlier session in today's committee meeting I think that he made clear that there were benefits in having a consistent structure so far as possible across the UK and I think that that does make sense particularly where there are cross-border charities it's important there that the disqualification rules are the same and are as uniform as possible I don't see the need for the rules to be expanded particularly in Scotland in a different way and I'm not particularly familiar with the setup in Northern Ireland but I think if we can have as much consistency as possible that does help the third sector to manage disqualifications in a practical way and if I can go to Nick to pick up on something that we were discussing earlier with Martin is it appropriate for Oscar to maintain this publicly searchable record of trustees who have been disqualified and do you think this presents any issues around the handling of sensitive personal data? If I can take that to the two stages generally I think it's important that there is a register of disqualifications which is available to Oscar and I think here I'm probably speaking for myself rather than the faculty I would be sympathetic to that being made publicly available and not it gives rise to issues akin to rehabilitation of offender type matters I would need to think about it quite carefully I don't know the answer to that so that is an additional issue as I say there could be some analogy with rehabilitation of offenders and not making those matters public after a certain time but in substance there certainly should be a register and I'm personally sympathetic to being public but I can see that you've raised an interesting question about potential legal complications if it is made public the other matter on disqualification which the faculty makes the point is there will be some benefit in actually having a declaration for example in the accounts that there are no disqualified people in trustee positions or senior management positions but the analogy of rehabilitation of offenders and that type of issue is one I don't have a settled view on and I don't think the faculty expressed a view on that in the written submission but that is a point worth exploring You've preempted my next question there actually because I was going to pick up on the declaration could you expand on why that would be helpful in your view in addition to this register and could you clarify whether this would force charities to declare that nobody has ever been disqualified even if they do not currently appear on that register Part of the inspiration for having the declaration was the idea that charity trustee name might not be available and so that would be some assurance to those dealing with the charities that there has been some vetting off the charitable trustees and that declaration would sit with that again as far as I also think it would be a good thing to have even if the names are available as far as the time period is concerned I think I and neither I nor the faculty has got a view on that again it's a matter which is worth exploring should it be say five years because people do get rehabilitated and that's a very positive thing and bad experiences can give rise to insights and lead to people being able to do valuable things in the future so perhaps the idea that someone should never be someone who's never been a charitable trustee someone who has been disqualified should never be a charitable trustee I think would be going too far there was an interesting comment which I half-over-heard earlier in the morning and that was made in relation to bankruptcy the suggestion was that bankruptcy wasn't someone who'd been bankrupt could later go on to become a charitable trustee so I do think that the scope for people who've had misadventures to make a useful contribution at a later date that brings me on quite nicely actually to one of the next things I wanted to ask if I'm sorry Emma, I know that you're on a flow there but I just know that Gavin had wanted to come in on that specific point so if I could just interrupt you for a second thank you very much convener I did just want to support what Nick was saying there but also to add that for lots of charities when you're considering whether potential trustees have actually been disqualified or are perhaps currently disqualified at the time of their appointment you're really taking that on trust because you only have the charity trustees word for that unless you're able to carry out other due diligence in the context of a charitable company you can search against the register of disqualified company directors but for any other kind of trustee you don't have that ability so without a list of disqualified or a register of disqualified trustees maintained by Oscar it's very difficult for charities to carry out any additional due diligence at all so this is something which currently is taken on trust and I think that the availability of a register which would need to be managed properly would help to charities thanks Gavin Emma, if you would like to continue apologies that's okay convener so earlier in last week's session we did hear concerns that the disqualification criteria might disproportionately impact certain demographics and particularly charities working within sectors where lived experience is valued might become a barrier if this criteria is applied does anybody share those concerns in the room today? Possibly there's a point to make about uniformity in the United Kingdom in terms of having the same disqualification criteria and a separate point about dispensation which could be much softer and done by Oscar on a policy basis so question about dispensation for people with undischarged convictions or bankruptcy could be done informally that said it's important to note that a regulator doesn't have much incentive to give dispensations to people with a record of dishonesty to take a position of trust because the regulator themselves is then taking on some sort of culpability or responsibility at least I should say so in those circumstances there should perhaps be very clear guidance around the circumstances in which Oscar would be prepared to give dispensation to someone who's been disqualified Would any other of the other panels like to come in? Yes I think the point about lived experiences is very important I suppose ideally in most charities you won't have a mixture of people someone with financial insights and someone who knows the territory where the purposes are going to be fulfilled the charitable purposes are going to be fulfilled Earlier again there was a very helpful comment made earlier this morning making the point that even if someone can't be a charity justee or a very senior manager they could nonetheless make a valuable contribution to the charity so they could be a less senior employee or have a voluntary role as far as dispensations are concerned the other matter which crosses my mind and is an offer is there might be scope for allowing somebody to take on a senior management role or a trustee role but restrict the type of activities which they're involved to give a very crude example you might be happy for someone who's had an unfortunate past to do with money type irregularities you might be less concerned if they had a role as assistant secretary than if they were treasurer and you might feel less anxious if they had no access to using very old fashion language signing the checks so I think it could be quite a flexible regime and one could even see people progressing from one role to so for example being a volunteer and then getting a manager and then becoming a charity trustee with restrictions on them that makes a lot of sense and we did hear from Martin earlier on similar lines in terms of there maybe being scope for exceptions where it makes sense but would that present challenges Nick in terms of charities meeting your suggestion of being able to make a declaration would that not cause problems if there were those wiggle rings? It would undoubtedly complicate that picture and I suppose that they would have to say unless they got a dispensation for making the dispensation they would have to make it clear they couldn't in good faith say no one on this panel has been on this none of the charity trustees have been disqualified or whatever the declaration was they couldn't say something which wasn't true but I don't think that would necessarily be a complete barrier because they could in the narrative might make it unappealing to certain people wishing to make donations we might say we have someone who is a reform convict he has got a limited role and that could be something which could be made explicit it might put people off giving funds but that would be something which would have to be balanced again I would hope that there could be a liaising between I should say amongst the Oscar, the charity and the individual concern it is important to get people with lived experience actually doing within charities That's all my questions Perfect Emma, thank you very much Miles Briggs Good morning to the panel The changes proposed in the bill would allow Oscar to investigate former charities and their trustees and I wanted to ask a couple of questions with regard to that and whether or not the panel think it is appropriate for Oscar to be able to issue positive directions for that inquiry work Do you want to start on that, Gavin? I think it is important that Oscar can investigate former charities and former charity trustees former charities because the body might still exist and might therefore still have assets which are subject to use restrictions under section 19 of the 2005 act and it's important that Oscar has the ability to police those funds in effect to ensure that they are not at risk so that that is important In terms of former charity trustees I think it's also important that Oscar has those powers because what we don't want to find across the third sector is that people simply leave a charity from their role as a trustee in order to escape liability and at the same time are perhaps nevertheless trustees of other charities and if there's a pattern of behaviour a pattern of misconduct which needs to be managed then Oscar needs to have the ability to step in so I think it is proportionate for Oscar to have those powers I think it's important for the instilling of public confidence in the sector Anyone else have any points? It might be reasonable to ask Oscar to explain perhaps reduce guidance on the circumstances in which he'd like to use the positive power I was struck that there hasn't been much explanation of the circumstances in which the power might be used so it does seem reasonable and proportionate it is quite difficult to see what its function is Primarily we would support most of what Gavin said so I just want to confirm that for all the reasons there the ability to do that investigative work for former charities former trustees would demonstrate the ability of the regulator for good governance etc I think potentially having sat in one of the informal sessions around I think the clarity in a sense that the power around positive directions comes after undertaking inquiries and therefore making decisions based on that and having engaged with the charity I think is a key point about it and that there hasn't been fully understood up until that in terms of maybe some charities thinking that this was going to be an ability to do a kind of positive directions that would affect large number of charities as a kind of blanket power or something so I think that will be a key part of the communication process going on Thank you We've also heard with regards to designated religious charities that in some cases church acts and constitutions go further than the bill currently so I just wanted to ask whether or not the panel believe it's appropriate for a designated religious charities to be exempt from this provision and if there's any points that they want to make around that as well In the faculty's written submissions this was a matter which we considered and ultimately thought it was probably better that the designated religious charities point was considered under a fuller review there was an initial in discussions there was a thinking well why should one group get treated especially compared to another but there was a slight anxiety that there might be something being missed a constitutional issue to do with separation of church and state or something like that but it was just a feeling there might be something there which wasn't obvious as to why one group should be treated differently from another so I think it was a suggestion that it should go into a further review process Thank you Sorry Kevin, did you want to come on that? I think just to add that obviously designated religious charities structures means that hopefully they can actually police any areas of difficulty including misconduct so from that point of view having a slightly different regime for them works but it's fair to say that amongst the members of the charity law association there are some members who are very against the idea of separate treatment for DRCs and I think if it were to come out in a future review some of our members would not be particularly disappointed Thank you for that Anyone else got any other points? No, if not, hand back to yourself. Jeremy Balfour Good morning again and thank you for coming Obviously you've heard the questions before so I'm just going to go through the same ones that I dealt with with the first panel First around data protection implications and I don't know whether Keith has any comments around the data protection stuff Actually not really to make in this it's not an area that ICAS has considered in any great detail and so we wouldn't look to make a detailed comment I think that two brief points one is that there is a whole body of law on data protection and I've no reason to suspect that Oscar wouldn't comply with that and the other point is that in my experience Oscar is already very responsible with the data that it handles and how it's used how it's controlled and how it's released if it has to be released I have no particular qualms personally on how Oscar would comply with the data protection rules but it is simply a matter of compliance and the rules are there to give that framework Thank you I don't know whether Nick or John have any comments Nick Again I wouldn't claim to be an expert in data protection but I would renew the anxiety about having some information such as names which is available to the world at large and also pick up on the point which was raised in questioning and the idea of redacting information having liaising with Oscar who for whatst of information should be redacted so it didn't realise to risks but I don't think I've got any specific points on data protection beyond that I mean just moving on in regard to the connection with Scotland obviously we have two lawyers in the room and Alex said are we happy with the definition for the connection with Scotland should it be tighter or do you think this will help us to move forward Nick, I'll start with you from the faculty I would think this may be something and if it if it gives rise to problems that may be something which needs to be tweaked I don't think I have any views on how it should come into life at the present time but again it might be something which could be dealt with I'm just trying to think how mechanically that could be dealt with if there would be a mechanism to have an easy way of reviewing how it was working in practice one matter related to that was that the faculty considered slightly mischievously whether there should be a requirement at all or whether it might be a good source of business for Scotland to regulate other charities and ultimately came to conclusion now there should be a Scottish connection requirement not least because it would be difficult to police but I think the idea of keeping under review how something works in practice would probably be the best way of dealing with it Thank you If I can move on one of the powers that Oscar will get if it becomes legislation is the appointment of interim trustees obviously we heard the evidence previously on that I'm just wondering again if there's any practical concerns around this in regard to how this might work Are we all happy about that? I think it's right that Oscar should have the power to appoint interim trustees where there's a particular difficulty that needs to be tackled in a particular charity I think for me the practical issue is where will Oscar find those interim trustees and for some charities it's difficult enough to find their own trustees without looking to Oscar to appoint interim trustees I guess that's a problem for Oscar rather than for Parliament or for us but that is in the back of my mind a difficulty around the system I feel a point Following up from Gavin's point is the question of expense as to who would bear the expense of the interim trustees because if it was for example a professional person that would presumably be a paid professional person unless there was a panel of volunteers to be prepared to be appointed to suitable interim positions My final question again maybe to start with Gavin Obviously when Oscar was set up one of the first purposes it was meant to have done was to review every Scottish charity to see if it was fit for purpose Now that has taken a long time not absolutely sure how well that has been achieved mainly due to lack of resources and other things coming in I mean how confident are we that what has been asked to be implemented here can actually be achieved with the resources that Oscar have at the moment or are we actually in danger of setting an organisation up to fail Obliging Oscar at the outset to review every charity on the register was quite a noble aim and I think with its limited resources it is simply an impossible task and a task that would never end because new charities are added constantly to the register What the bill does is allow Oscar to carry out a review of any charity that it sees fit to review I think that that is better because it allows randomised checks to be made but I think that original noble aim is simply that Oscar would need a lot more financial resource and person power to be able to carry that out John, can I just ask you again from a kind of good practice is this something we should be asking Oscar to do more of of investigation or do you think the balance is about right what we have at the moment Oscar has come to you in effect if he asked for a suite of new powers and they all seem their technical powers but they seem broadly proportionate but you are of course right you can give your regulators many powers as you want the question is always one of resources Thanks Jeremy and I'll just finish with one final question Do the witnesses agree that the bill proposals will not result in any additional costs or charities given a perhaps direct that to yourself Yes I think in theory most charities shouldn't really feel much cost here there is a bit of compliance work to be done there is a bit of resource that will need to be applied by charities I think the cost implications ought to be minimal for most charities and certainly for us at CLA we did not have a particular concern around that Okay, thank you I'm not sure if you've got anything to add I was going to come to you next on that I would agree with that frictions but not costs and I think the frictions are appropriate Okay, perfect Thank you very much everyone for your evidence this morning next week we will continue to take evidence in the bill when we hear from the cabinet secretary That concludes our public business for today we will now move into private and can members who are joining us remotely please use the teams link in their calendars in the meeting Thank you