Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

I will bring Rebecca Reid back in on that point.

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

I hope that that gives you some clarity.

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

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

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

We consider that OSCR is best placed to make decisions on what constitutes a connection to Scotland in individual cases. It would be guided by the facts and circumstances of the case, its extensive experience as a regulator and the guidance that it will produce on that part of the bill, which it will consult on.

The provision is unlikely to impact on the vast majority of charities or applicants to become a charity. OSCR’s data indicates that two charities out of 25,000 do not appear to have a connection to Scotland. Its decisions on whether an applicant charity or an existing charity has a sufficient connection to Scotland will be subject to the review and appeal mechanisms that are already in place under the 2005 act.

It is not a huge issue, and leaving it to OSCR to look at each individual case is a sensible approach.

We have touched on some of that. The bill does not introduce significant additional costs to charities, and I do not think that what charities are being asked to do is burdensome. A lot of that information is already held, so I do not think that there will be huge additional costs. I do not think that that will be the case for councils that administer charities either, or for the sector as a whole.

Previous evidence sessions have noted that there would be a small resource requirement to comply with the new provisions. We approached a small representative sample of charities to ascertain estimated costs and savings as a result of the bill’s provisions, which will directly impact all charities. Overall, the charities that fed back did not anticipate incurring anything other than minor costs and were supportive of the proposals as set out. The benefit that the bill will bring to the sector as a whole will far outweigh the very minor costs to charities.

It is important to progress the bill, so I envisage the substantive discussions around the scope of the review happening after stage 3, but there is probably some groundwork on the mechanics of how we would take forward those discussions that could already be taking place. However, I do not want to redirect these guys beside me, who are working on the bill, to carry out that work while they are doing so, so we need to manage resources appropriately. The main scoping with the sector will have to take place after stage 3.

I do not want to be too restrictive about how long it will take after that, because it depends on the scope. If the scope is extensive, we will need to take as long it takes to get it right. Once stage 3 is complete, I am prepared to set out more detail on that process. We will then have the capacity to look at that in more detail.

We touched earlier on the point about designated religious charities. It is intended that DRCs will be exempt from positive directions, in line with the precedent that was set by the 2005 act.

The bill seeks to update and improve the existing law rather than to change the original policy intent of the 2005 act, which recognises that many religious bodies operate effective self-regulatory mechanisms through internal supervisory and disciplinary functions.

There is a balance to be struck in relation to not wanting to overregulate such charities, but I recognise the point that Miles Briggs makes. There are varying views on the subject, and some in the sector would like the exemption to be reviewed. It probably could be considered as part of the wider review—we could come back to that. However, we felt that it was not appropriate to review the exemption at this time.