Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I understand it, OSCR already includes the Gaelic charity name on the Scottish charity register when the charity has requested it. The question is whether the register could include a Gaelic version of every charity name, which would be a matter for OSCR to consider as part of its duties and resources as an independent public body. The member might want to raise the question directly with the organisation to see whether it would be willing to consider that.

If the outcome is that legislation is required—be it secondary legislation or primary legislation—we should be open-minded about that. Clearly, we need to wait and see what comes out of the review. If the review concludes that there is a need for change, which in turn requires legislative change, we will, of course, have to consider that, and we will have to examine where in the parliamentary schedule that would be possible. At the moment, I am fairly open-minded about that.

Given what I mentioned earlier about what happens where there is a concern, the bill gives OSCR the power to exclude information from its register of its own accord where it would have “safety or security” concerns about a person or property.

If you are thinking, for example, about an organisation that may have been targeted for whatever reason, OSCR is able to take that into account and exclude the information, even without the charity or trustee having to apply first. If OSCR believes that there could be a security risk, it has the power to exclude that information.

I gave the example earlier of a women’s refuge; I am sure that we could think of other examples. If a property pertaining to a charity was in danger of being targeted for whatever reason, OSCR would look at that very seriously indeed.

I ask Rebecca Reid to come in.

On the first question, the new power is not being proposed with a view to its being used a certain number of times; it is more a case of ensuring that the regulator has appropriate remedies to support its important inquiry work, where those are needed. A positive direction would be issued only following an inquiry and where the circumstances of the case required formal action to be taken because OSCR had reached the view that there had been misconduct in the charity or that it was necessary for it to act to protect charitable property. Of course, OSCR is required to publish a report when any direction is made.

I think that the power is unlikely to be used frequently. The annual report for 2021-22 shows that, in that year, OSCR opened 60 new inquiries about charities and closed 99 inquiry cases. There was one incidence of regulatory powers being used, and a third of inquiry cases closed with recommendations or guidance to trustees. That is the context to what we are talking about.

On your second question, there are a number of areas in which OSCR anticipates using a positive power of direction. Those include directions to appoint additional trustees to form a quorum or to meet a minimum number that is specified in a governing document; to take a specific action in line with the charity’s governing document, such as holding an annual general meeting to make a specific decision; to take action to remove a trustee in line with the powers that they have; to manage a conflict of interest effectively and demonstrably; and to prepare and submit a compliant statement of accounts.

Non-compliance with a positive direction would be classed as trustee misconduct, and OSCR would be able to take enforcement action against the trustees, taking into account the specifics of any case.

The financial memorandum sets out the additional costs and resource that OSCR itself has forecast for implementation of the bill. Most of those relate to OSCR’s staff costs to enable it to carry out communications and engagement activities—we talked earlier about the importance of that aspect—to provide support to charities and other stakeholders, and to process casework.

Funding for OSCR more generally will be negotiated in the usual way, taking into account the projected costs of its functions at that time. In line with the standard practice for budget forecasting, the additional staff costs have been calculated on the assumption of 3 per cent annual uplifts to salary figures for 2021-22.

I met the chair and the chief executive of OSCR in February, and funding was discussed. The financial situation is challenging across the whole public sector, and OSCR is not being treated any differently in that regard. Officials are in regular contact with OSCR about its resourcing requirements. We agreed that we would keep a watching brief over its financial resilience, and those discussions with OSCR will continue, but I do not anticipate any particular challenges around any additional costs arising from the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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