 Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. The only item of business on our agenda today is the committee's consideration of the charities, regulations and administration, Scotland Bill at stage 2. The cabinet secretary for social justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville joined us for this item. The cabinet secretary is joined by her officials, but just to make members aware they cannot take part in the debate and are not named on the record. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on 25 May and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments, and I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention if they are in the room and for members online by placing an r in the blue jeans chat. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Standing orders give any Scottish Minister a right to speak on any amendment. I will therefore invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before I move to call the winding up speech. Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment, when called they should say not moved. Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. Can members join us online? Please make sure that their hand is clearly visible on the screen. The convener has a personal vote as a committee member and also a casting vote in the event of a tie. It is entirely a matter for the discretion of me as a convener how to use the casting vote. There are no agreed conventions on this point. However, if the casting vote is used, I intend to indicate the basis on which I will use the casting vote immediately before doing so. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We will now move into consideration of amendments and if you should refer to your marshaled list as well. The question of section 1 to be agreed, are we all agreed? I will call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own. I ask the cabinet secretary to move and to speak to amendment 1. Section 2 of the bill imposes a specific requirement to include the names of charity trustees on the Scottish Charity Register, as well as ensuring transparency and accountability in charities. This section also aims to ensure that publication of information does not put anyone at risk. Where the safety or security of any persons or premises could be jeopardised, an application for dispensation can be made to Oscar to exclude the charity's contract address or any trustee names from the register. A discretionary element was added to the bill to allow Oscar to apply dispensations to a charity or a class of charities without the need for an application, for example in the case of a woman's refuge charity. However, Oscar has since expressed some concerns regarding this element of discretion, in particular that it potentially creates an additional burden on Oscar to look behind every charity entry on the register in order to ascertain whether dispensation should apply. That was not the intention behind the provision. Following discussion with Oscar, the Government is satisfied that the key policy intention can be achieved in other ways. For example, by Oscar taking the initiative to contact a particular charity or class of charities to discuss any security concerns with them and to invite applications for dispensation that could then be processed swiftly. As such, this amendment adjusts the process to be followed before a dispensation is granted. It removes Oscar's ability to grant the dispensation of its own accord whilst retaining the ability to grant dispensation and remove the relevant information following an application from a charity or trustee. I hope that the committee can appreciate the need to overcome that technicality. I move, amendment 1. I have come to the bill without having had all the previous evidence sessions that other committee members have. However, I wonder whether the rationale in terms of Oscar where they might seek to remove someone of their own accord, would that have been in a case where there may have been a risk to the person who was registered? Just to understand a wee bit more about the Government's rationale for bringing this amendment in terms of not having that power, if it may, convener? Thank you, convener. It is certainly the ability for us to ensure that we are providing Oscar with the powers to ensure that they can do what they need to do. For example, as I gave during my introductory remarks around the Women's Refuge, if there is a threat to a trustee or that trustee feels that they might be threatened if their information is given, then that information can be withheld. We are still upholding the transparency aspect but respect and there may be very specific circumstances and understandable circumstances about why a trustee may not wish their details to be made public. The amendment is simply to ensure that we still have that policy intent within the bill but without what Oscar may perceive as an additional burden. If I could just briefly, convener, I am just trying to understand that this amendment essentially removes Oscars unilateral power, if you like, to make a decision to remove someone without their consent in a sense. I just wonder if there are scenarios where that power would be required. For example, where perhaps the individual does not see the risk to themselves but there is maybe a wider risk in taking that action. I am just trying to understand what discussion there was with Oscar in this. Were Oscar concerned that they would have to require that unilateral power, essentially? Certainly, a charity can apply on behalf of an individual as well, so even if an individual may not wish to or not be in a position to apply, the charity can apply on their behalf. It is not just down to the individual. I hope that that reassures the member on that. It is about specific concerns that Oscar has raised around the impact of that discretion to grant dispensations of his own accord because it is a legal obligation on Oscar to do so. Does any other member wish to contribute to the debate? That is the case. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed or... No further comments. Happy to press the amendment. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed or we all agreed. The question is that section 2 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 21 in the name of Jeremy Balfour in a group on its own. Jeremy, if you want to move and speak to amendment 21. Thank you, convener and good morning, cabinet secretary and good morning to colleagues. Can I just remind colleagues that I am a member of the Church of Scotland and I am a retired Baptist minister? In regard to this section, this really looks to balance, I think, the two things that we want within the bill. We want transparency so that the public can have confidence to know who are trustees of each charity and to be able to hold them accountable. But at the same time, we want to encourage charities and to be able to flourish and to be able to attract trustees into their charity. That is a balance that the bill seeks to work its way through. I think by and large it has achieved that and that is why we are supporting the bill and I should probably dispute on record that we will be supporting the Government amendments as we go through them one by one. However, in regard to this particular area, I do think that the balance has gone too far away from charities. The issue here is in regard to a process and these regulations are, I think, disproportionate and hugely costly. We heard in the stage 1 debate that this could cost over 100,000 pounds for the Church of Scotland to do alone. Those of whom the committee received last night an email from Episcopal Church, which gave the example of what they would do, that they have in one diocese, 50 church buildings, 40 lecturers or mansions, 25 church halls, which equals a total of 105 properties. With each congregation having a minimum of three associates, the number of registers required would be five times 115 times three, which equals 1,725. That is for one diocese and then that would have to be times by seven for the whole of Scotland. That all requires legal work to be done and would require solicitors to be involved every time that happens. Already, a charity bill creates a public register for charity trustees, so there is no hiding if you are a trustee, but to go through this process is time consuming and expensive. As a committee over the last number of months over the last year, we have taken evidence of how hard it is for many people in our society to keep going, that we are relying on food banks, relying on other areas, and that is often provided by religious bodies. The question for the committee today is whether we want to see £100,000 spent on helping people to come out of poverty, helping young people, helping children or the activities that happen day in, day out across the different churches and religious organisations, or whether we want to see that money going to lawyers hands. That is why I think this amendment gets the balance right. It means that there is accountability, there is openness in regard to who trustees are, but it does not mean that we are simply going through a slightly bureaucratic system that will only, as I can see, benefit lawyers. For that reason, I will be looking to move amendment 21 in my name. I think that in the stage 1 debate, I had engaged in this discussion to say that I share a number of the concerns that are raised by Jeremy Balfour and, indeed, by a number of the churches. I think that this argument has been well rehearsed in the chamber and elsewhere. There is a challenge. I think that the Government has obviously agreed to a year's grace period of the implementation of the Land Reform Act provisions, but I think that there is serious concern that what is not coming forward is actually any kind of solution to the issue, but rather a pause. I do think that there is a balance here. I think that the balance very clearly is about ensuring that we have transparency of who has a controlling interest in land and property. I think that if we can balance that by ensuring that trustees are transparently available via the Oscar process, then it might be worth looking at the amendment in more detail that is suggested by Jeremy Balfour to remove the burden from churches. I thought that it was very start that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed the deliverance at the General Assembly just last week on this. I think that we do need to take cognisance of that. I would just be keen to understand in the definition of religious charity that Mr Balfour has outlined. Is that a legal definition? Is it a legal definition of a religious charity? A sort of playing devil's advocate, pardon the pun, but just to understand, could someone, for example, set up a religious charity to try and mask the fact that they own land? No, I am not saying that that would happen or not, but I am just trying to understand do we have a definition of a church or a religious group or is it wider than that? I invite the cabinet secretary to comment. Thank you very much, convener. Just with respect to the point that has just been raised, my understanding is that there is no definition of religious charities and that is one of the technical difficulties with the bill. For that and for other reasons, I cannot support the amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Charity's regulation is fundamentally in place to ensure and maintain public trust in the operation of charities. The register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, known as the RCI, was an essential part of the Land Reform Act, which was unanimously passed in 2016. The purpose of the RCI is to improve transparency in relation to land and property assets irrespective of what type of legal entity owns them and to ensure that there is a direct link between the property and whoever exercises a controlled interest in that property. The bill seeks to increase transparency in relation to charities. I appreciate that concerns have been raised about the RCI, in particular by the Church of Scotland, and my assumption is that Jeremy Balfour's amendment is in relation to those. However, I must stress that a bill on charity regulation is not the place to try and address those concerns and would indeed change the obligations of the RCI, which have, as I have already said, been debated in Parliament, not just within the act but also within the discussions around the SSI on RCIs. The information that will be available on the Scottish Charity Register under section 2 of the bill is a charity trustee name. The RCI relates to transparency in ownership and control of property and assets requires additional information to simply a list of names. Therefore, the information that is required is not the same and the two registers are not like for like. The Scottish Government has had considerable engagement with religious organisations recently, particularly the Church of Scotland, in developing the RCI regulations. To address the concerns of some religious stakeholders, the transitional period before offence provisions take effect for non-compliance was recently extended by 12 months to 1 April 2024 with the unanimous support of this Parliament, therefore providing those who need to register with the RCI more time to prepare their submissions. All parties supported the introduction of the RCI, which is a key part of our land reform strategy. Much progress has been made by this Parliament on delivering greater transparency in relation to individuals who have a control over decision making in relation to land. The RCI regulations are a complex piece of legislation and this amendment risks unintended consequences to them. Therefore, urge the committee not to support the amendment. I now invite Jenny McBalfour to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 21. I thank the cabinet secretary and Paul Keane for their contributions. We already have exceptions as the cabinet secretary will be aware that Scottish Charitable Incorporate Organisations are excluded from this, so there are already exceptions that we have agreed on. Picking up Paul Keane's point, I will have to go and check that, and for that reason I will not be moving the amendment, because I would like to clarify that. One of your charitable objectives is the promotion of religion. I would have thought that that would be the fallback scenario to stop anyone having to do that, but to get charitable status you would have to prove to Oscar that you are able to show that you are doing a religious organisation. However, I will seek to clarify that before coming to stage 3. I do hear what the cabinet secretary is saying, but I think that we are hearing in regard to the cost of this and the public benefit does seem to me to be more on the line of not having to do that, because I cannot see how it is appropriate. For some churches, this will be an annual thing that they have to do, because their secretary, the setting clerk, will keep changing and every time that happens they will have to redo that again. I do think the cost of that. However, picking up the point by both other speakers, I would like to reflect on that. I will not be moving the amendment today. I will show the amendment. You withdraw the amendment at 21. Is any other member object? The question is that sections 3 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 2? Amendment 2 addresses the recommendation made by the committee at stage 1 to provide for a dispute mechanism in connection with Oscar's appointment of interim trustees. The committee raised the issue that there was a lack of recourse for any existing charity trustees and a charity where interim trustees are appointed. This amendment addresses that issue by extending the established review and appeal mechanism under the Charities and Trustee Investment Scotland Act 2005 to appointments of interim trustees in cases where it is known that there are still some existing charity trustees continuing to act. The new provision introduced by section 8 of the bill is designed primarily to capture those small number of cases where there are no trustees acting for the charity. However, I do accept that there may be some occasions where an existing trustee could still be acting and the right of review over Oscar's decision is warranted. The same is also true of the existing appointment process, which is restated by section 8 of the bill. In that scenario, although the aim is that existing trustees would ask Oscar to step in because they are unable to make an appointment themselves, that request does not have to be unanimous. As such, I agree that it is right that there is a review and appeal mechanism for any trustee who wants to challenge that decision. I hope that members will therefore support the amendment and I move amendment 2. I apologise. I am moving back to the previous section. The question was, is sections 3 to 8, and I have never picked up on 8, to be agreed to. Are we all agreed to sections 3 to 8 for the record? Thank you so much for your ford bearing. I can ask any members if they wish to contribute at this point. Miles? Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials. Just to put on the record, welcome this. I think it was one of the key parts of some of our considerations. How it works in practice is something I think we will also want to see monitored. I hope that that will be something that the Scottish Government will take forward, but take into account, hopefully, the limited number of cases this will actually be needed for. Thanks, Miles. Does any member wish to come in at this point? No? Cabinet Secretary? Nothing to add, convener. Okay. Can I ask you to wind up the press or withdraw the amendment 22? I'll press the amendment. Okay. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to, or are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 9 to 11 be agreed or are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments as shown in the grouping? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group. Can we hear amendments 3 to 12 refine the records of mergers provision as introduced following discussions with Oscar about how they will work in practice? They do not alter the fundamental intent of the provisions, which is to ensure that legacies left to charities in wills are retained for the charity sector and that so-called shell charities do not clog up the register simply for the purposes of collecting legacies. Amendment 3 will provide that a transferee charity has a choice as to whether or not to notify Oscar of the merger rather than being under a duty to do so. Notification of the merger may be done at any time after the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of the transfer is complete. While we would imagine in most cases transferees will want to notify Oscar of a merger, we do not think that it needs to be a specific duty. Amendments 4 to 11 would provide that the key date that triggers the rules on redirection of a legacy is the date notice of the merger. The date notice the merger was given to Oscar instead of the date Oscar records the merger. That means that there is no risk of a legacy being lost due to a delay in Oscar recording a merger, for example, where a merger is notified just before a bank holiday and then the tetester dies during that weekend. Oscar will must still keep a record of all charity mergers notified to it and the record can be used as a reference point to establish what has been notified and when. The amendments will also provide that a transferor charity will not need to have a formally wound up or dissolved in order for the rule redirecting legacies to step in, which should avoid disrupting any winding up processes which the charity may have commenced having already transferred all its property to another charity. Amendments 4 would also give the Scottish ministers the power to clarify what is meant by notice being given. In most cases, the giving of a notice will be instantaneous using email or Oscar's online system. However, where notification is sent by post, there may be a need to make specific rules around when a notification of a merger should be treated as being given, for example, where delays occur due to postal strikes. It may transpire that there is not a need to bring forward regulations to clarify this type of point. However, given that section 12 of the bill introduces a new process, I want to ensure that any unforeseen issues relating to notification that arise in practice can be swiftly addressed, particularly once Oscar has established a process for dealing with merger notifications. Amendment 12 corrects a referencing error in relation to the definition of a will, and I move amendment 3. I welcome these amendments. One of the points of clarification that I still think might be needed for stage 3 is that a UK-wide charity might be based in England, which does research funding in Scotland, and that research project might have a legacy gifted towards it from a Scottish domiciled individual. If that had been captured within those amendments for clarification, that might be something that the cabinet secretary wants to go away before stage 3, but I know of a number of charities that fund research projects at our universities and individuals might donate or leave a legacy to that project. I just wondered within those amendments whether that had been captured or any legal advice on that scenario taken. Thank you, convener. I am happy to take that away and provide an update to Mr Briggs and the committee and take back at stage 3 if we need to do so. Can I now invite you to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 3? The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 4 to 12 on block. I wish to ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 4 to 12. Thank you. The question is that amendments 4 to 12 are agreed to or we all agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 12 be agreed to or we all agreed. I now call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, can I invite you to move and speak to amendment 13? Can we remember that amendment 13 introduces a new section to the bill, albeit one on a topic that has previously been subject to full public consultation? Amendment 13 seeks to clarify the existing provisions in the 2005 act relating to the reorganisation of endowments held by what are often referred to for shorthand as statutory charities, that is charities constituted under a royal charter or warrant or an enactment. An endowment is property where the capital has to be preserved and only the income is spent on the fund's charitable purposes. For most charities, if the charity's constitution would not allow it to take an action such as varying its constitution, transferring its property to another charity or amalgamating with another charity, the charity can apply for a reorganisation scheme to allow it to take that action if granted consent by Oscar. However, those rules are turned off for statutory charities, subject to a specific exception relating to endowments. The wording of the existing provision has caused confusion for some statutory charities and Oscar about the extent to which an endowment can be reorganised by Oscar. In some cases, that has meant the only way forward is through the use of private bills to reorganise endowments. My amendment today is intended to resolve that issue and to allow endowments held by statutory charities to be reorganised, as we believe the 2005 act always intended. This is not a straightforward area of the law and, as such, I anticipate that there may be a need for some further technical refinement of this section at stage 3 when detailed feedback from charities, legal professionals and Oscar has been received. Given the complexity involved, there are also still wider issues around statutory charity reorganisation that would need to be considered in the post-bill review. However, this amendment provides a solution in the short term for some statutory charities that should see significant financial savings by no longer needing to reorganise through a private bill. It is right to deal with fixing the rules around endowments first, as there is a long historical precedent for those being allowed to reorganise more readily, and there is existing provision upon which to build. It was also the current exception relating to endowments that Oscar asked us to clarify in its 2018 paper with the proposals that formed the backbone of the bill. The amendment contains two new regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers. The first is a power to adjust the definition of endowment should practical experience of the new provisions give rise to any issues. The second power gives ministers the ability to supply through regulation those changes in respect of particular endowments or charities or classes of endowment or charity. This latter aspect is considered necessary in order to ensure that where there are policy reasons for restricting the reorganisation of a particular endowment or charity that can be achieved. I hope that members will agree with me that we should do what we can now to refine the provision that is already in the 2005 act on this topic, and then we can turn in the post-bill review to the much wider question of reorganisations that do not involve endowments. I move amendment 13. I invite members, if they wish to contribute to the debate at this point. Can I then ask the cabinet secretary to wind up press or withdraw amendment 13? The question is that amendment 13 be agreed or we all agreed. The question is that section 13 be agreed to or we all agreed. I now call amendment 14 in the name of the cabinet secretary grouped with amendments 16 and 20. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in that group? Can we do this group deals with both notices given by and to Oscar? I will speak to amendments 14 and 21, which deal with notices given by Oscar. Amendment 14 makes a minor change, where Oscar is obtaining documents from a third party for an inquiry into a former charity. The amendment clarifies the application of the rule, which ensures that where a body continues to exist but without charitable status, notice is served by Oscar on the body, which used to be a charity. Amendment 20 is designed to provide Oscar with alternative methods of serving notice in certain circumstances. Convener, as part of its overarching duty to act in a fair, transparent and proportionate way, Oscar is required to serve notice on a charity or a charity trustee before it can take specified regulatory action, for example issuing a direction. However, in some cases, Oscar does not have accurate contact information for the charity or trustees in order to serve the notice, which means that Oscar is prevented from pursuing regulatory action as it is unable to serve the required notice. While the introduction of an internal schedule of trustee details held by Oscar will, in large part, address the problem, there will inevitably be cases where contact information is unavailable or becomes out of date. Amendment 20 will allow Oscar to serve the relevant notices by other means, for example by publishing a notice on its website. Serving notices by other means would be used as a last resort where previous attempts to contact the charity directly had failed. That will then allow Oscar to continue its regulatory action. Amendment 20 only relates to notices where the action being taken is one that would still be appropriate to take, even if the charity or body in question cannot be contacted directly. For example, that would apply where a direction is issued to a bank not to take part with charity funds, but the charity also needs to be notified of the direction. There would be value in issuing that direction to the bank even if the charity itself cannot be located and could only be notified by means of public notice. Turning now to notices given to Oscar, amendment 16 addresses concerned by stakeholders, particularly the Law Society of Scotland, about the current requirement for charities wishing to take certain actions which require Oscar's consent to give Oscar at least 42 days advanced notice before they take the relevant action. Amendment 16 does not remove the need for charities to obtain Oscar's consent before taking such actions, but it would mean that once Oscar grants its consent, the charity will be able to act straight away if it wishes, rather than having to wait until the end of the 42-day period. I hope that the committee will agree with the approach being taken here on respect of all those notice requirements and will support all the amendments in this group. Amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that section 14 be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that sections 15 and 16 be agreed to or we all agreed. I now call amendment 22 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, group with amendment 23. Can I ask Jeremy to move amendment 22 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Amendment 22, I think, tries to pick up something that came across in the evidence that we took at stage 1. That is in regard to the third sector charities being aware of changes to this bill, if it becomes an act, and what effect it will have on them. There was concern raised, particularly by SCVL, but by other charities, that the communication had not quite worked between Oscar and them, and that some charities were unaware of what was proposed in the consultation and in the bill. There was concern that, if it becomes an act, then charities may not be aware. That puts a bit of pressure, gentle pressure, on Oscar to do a bit more, perhaps, in regard to communication and for Parliament to have the satisfaction and the knowledge that this has happened and so that the Parliament, or maybe particularly this committee, can review that in two years' time. I hope that that is helpful to Oscar but, more importantly, helpful to the third sector. In regard to section 23, convener, again, one of the striking things that came out in regard to the evidence was not what was in the bill but what was not in the bill. There was, I think it would be fair to say, disappointment from certain sectors that the bill did not go further, quicker and faster. I understand that we had Covid. I understand that the cabinet secretary has a lot on her plate but I think that there is an appetite within civic society generally to see a more radical reform of charity law here in Scotland. I think that, I am right in saying that in the stage 1 debate, the cabinet secretary did suggest that there would not be any further legislation in this Parliament, which I again understand. However, I am concerned that, once the bill becomes an act, hopefully before the summer recess, that it goes off our agenda, I may go off the Scottish Government's agenda because there are other things going on. That, again, really is an opportunity for the Government to take forward what I know they want to do but do it within a scale that, at least this Parliament can see the direction that the Scottish Government is going on and then the next Parliament can hopefully take that forward and bring forward more legislation. It really is an encouragement, it is hopefully a stick and a carrot for the Scottish Government, which I am sure the cabinet secretary would welcome. Thank you, Jeremy. Can I invite any other members who wish to comment on the debate? Can I invite the cabinet secretary to comment, thanks? Thank you, convener. Amendment 22 appears to follow on from a recommendation made within the committee stage 1 report. In my response to that report, I agreed that effective and open communication is vital to ensure smooth implementation. Oscar also wrote to the committee to set out an initial outline for communicating changes to charities and an addition confirmed it would share its plan with the committee ahead of engagement with the sector. Amendment 22 focuses on charities with two or fewer employees, but that is 73 per cent of charities. Oscar would be expected to aim its support and guidance at the majority of charities in any event. It also requires communication with each charity, however, at present it is not possible for Oscar to do this. That is why we have section 11 of the bill and amendment 20 in my name. There are over 25,000 charities and, while Oscar has contact details for the majority, communicating with each is not technically possible. However, I am sympathetic to what Mr Balfour is trying to achieve and would be happy to work with him on a stage 3 amendment that would enhance Oscar's existing reporting requirements and I would therefore urge him not to press amendment 22. Turning to amendment 23, this would require ministers to carry out a review of the act that this bill becomes starting six months after royal assent and lay a report before the Parliament no later than 31 December 2025. We do not expect the act to be brought into force six months after royal assent, so there would be no experience of the act in practice at that point and also an adequate amount of time is needed for an act to actually embed so that evidence for our review can be gathered. I appreciate the comments that she has made. Would the cabinet secretary be open to negotiation at stage 3 in regard to perhaps a later date in regard to that? The principle is that there would be a review taking place before this Parliament finishes in just on three years time, so is the principle there or would she be open to some discussions before stage 3 in regard to dates? I would be open to that, however, I am not sure that it would have the desired effect that Mr Balfour would want and the reason I say that is that every dead agree to amendments to the timescales of any review that fitted better with the commencement plans, it would be necessary to divert resources from the wider review that we have already said as a government that we will undertake once this bill is enacted. We would be obliged to carry out a review even if nobody was calling for it or had any issues in practice, and I do not believe that that is the right approach, particularly when any stakeholders who might want to raise specific points relating to the bill will be engaging with the wider review that we have committed to and will therefore no doubt raise any points that they would ask us to consider. For that reason, I am afraid that I would not be open to that. I do try to oblige Mr Balfour with amendments and assist but not in this case. As set out to the committee previously, the Scottish Government intends to take a phased approach to implementation with at least two sets of commencement regulations anticipated to be in spring 2024 and summer 2025. That is to allow charities and Oscar the time needed to prepare for the changes and give Oscar the opportunity to consult with the sector, produce guidance and communicate the changes. The Parliament has the ability to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of any act and therefore it is not necessary for this to be specified within the bill, particularly those timings do not allow with the expected commencement of the bill. As I have already mentioned, the Government is committed to conducting a much wider review of charity regulation following commencement of this bill and my officials are already preparing the groundwork for that and indeed I have carried out meetings on this issue as well. I am committed to working with the sector to shape that review and ensure that there is a proper opportunity for engagement. I know that members and stakeholders were very clear during stage one of the importance of this and I very much agree with that. A review of this current bill, as I have said to Mr Balfour, would hold up that wider review by diverting resources and I would therefore urge the committee not to agree to this amendment if Mr Balfour presses it. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I now invite Jeremy to wind up press or withdrawal amendment 22? I am grateful for the cabinet secretary's remarks around section 22 and the mylite of her offer to work for something perhaps better for stage three. I will not be moving section 22 and withdraw that. We can just seek to withdraw amendment number 23. Does any other member subject? Thank you. The question is that amendment 22—sorry, my apologies. Can I now call amendment 23 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with 22. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move? Can we just point forward? Do we not have to go back and move the amendment, but we haven't moved every other amendment yet, have we? You withdrew the amendment? Yes, so I was pointing forward. In 14, 16 and 20, they've been moved yet. Can I just suspend the meeting just now until we get clarification on that? Thank you. I can mend with the meeting again. So can I call amendment 23 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 22. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move? So the question is that section 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 15 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendments 17 and 19. Can I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group? Can we now? These are three very minor amendments. Amendment 15 removes a redundant cross-reference. Amendments 17 and 19 modify two of the headings in the 2005 act, which Oscar and the Charity Law Association respectively flagged as potentially confusing or inaccurate. My thanks to them for highlighting those points and I move amendment 15. Thank you Cabinet Secretary. Can I now invite any other members if they wish to take part in the debate? Thank you. Can I invite the Cabinet Secretary to wind up press or withdraw amendment 15? The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I now call amendment 16 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 14? Can I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move formally? So the question is that amendment 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I now call amendment 17 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 15. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to move formally? Question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I now call on amendment 18 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and a group of its own. Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to amendment 18. Thank you. The 2005 act retained the concept of designated religious charities, or DRCs, which existed under preceding legislation. The rules in the 2005 act recognised that many religious bodies operate effective self-regulatory mechanisms by having an internal organisation with supervisory and disciplinary functions and seek to avoid over-regulating such charities. However, the 2005 act places restrictions on who Oscar can share information with and for what purpose. In general, information can only be shared with public bodies and office holders for the purpose of enabling or assisting in the exercise of either Oscar or the body's functions. As a DRC is not a public body and the information to be shared by Oscar would not be for the exercise of its own function, it is not currently permitted. This bill does not seek to change that original policy intent of the 2005 act. It seeks to address a practical issue identified by Oscar and the DRCs around the ability to share information. This amendment will enable Oscar and the DRCs to share information if necessary for any purpose connecting with the exercise of Oscar's functions or for the purpose of enabling or assisting the DRC to exercise any supervisory or disciplinary functions it holds in relation to its component elements. For example, where Oscar receives information from an auditor or an independent examiner in relation to the accounts of a charity, which is a component part of a DRC, Oscar is currently unable to share that information with the relevant DRC. That DRC in turn is then unable to fulfil its regulatory functions. This small amendment will allow DRCs to fully exercise their functions in respect of their component parts, thereby improving and enhancing the regulation of those charities. The amendment makes sure that current arrangements with DRCs can work properly and the original policy intent is not hampered by the inability to share information where necessary. I hope that the committee will agree with the approach being taken here and will support amendment 18. As the current position is that some charities are designated as DRCs, this bill needs to ensure that they can exercise their functions as intended by the 2005 act and I move amendment 18. I now invite members if they wish to contribute at this stage. I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up press or withdraw amendment 18. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to or we all agreed. I now call amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 15, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 14. I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that the schedule be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that sections 18 to 20 be agreed to or we all agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to or we all agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her team for joining us this morning. I confirm that amendments for stage 3 can now be lodged with the legislation clerks.