 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have apologies this morning from James Dornan and I welcome Evelyn Tweed, who will be a substitute for the committee today. Our first item of business is our first 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 in charities. It also aims to make improvements to Oscars powers and bring Scottish charity legislation up to date, with certain key aspects of charity regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The committee held an informal engagement session on the bill yesterday with a range of individuals from across the third sector, as well as those representing accountancy and law firms. Those discussions were a useful introduction to today's evidence and will help to inform members' scrutiny of the bill. A summary of those discussions will be available on the committee's website shortly. Turning back to today, I welcome to the meeting our first panel, Jason Henderson, Policy and Public Affairs Officer, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and Sarah Lattow, Policy Officer, Volunteer Scotland, who are joining us in the room. And David Gibson, the Methodist Church's representative on the Scottish Church's Committee, Methodist Church in Scotland, Stephen Ingle's team leader, Aberdeen City Council and Madeline Sproul's List Church of Scotland, who are joining us remotely. Welcome all and thank you for coming this morning. Just a few quick points to mention about the format of the meeting before we begin. Virtual witnesses, please wait until I or the member asking the question, say your name before speaking. Virtual witnesses, please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you start to speak. Virtual witnesses can also indicate with an R in the dialogue box in blue jeans or simply with a show of your hand if you wish to come in the question. Please don't feel you have to answer, you all have to answer every single question. If you have nothing to add to what's been said by others, it's really okay. We do have a lot to get through this morning, so I would just ask everyone to keep questions, answers and any follow-up questions quite tight, please. Colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerk if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary question. Committee members online should use the chat box or WhatsApp. So we will get started straight away and I will turn first to our first theme, sorry, and questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. Thank you for the evidence that you've given us in advance and for coming here this morning. I want to explore a little bit about how we've got to this point and the review that has been indicated as part of the development of this legislation. So the Scottish Government have said that they'll do this piece of legislation now, but they'll do a broader review in the future. First of all, have you been involved in the development of the proposals for the current legislation and how would you characterize that to Jason? First of all, in terms of being involved in the process today, SCVO have been heavily involved in that before my time as well, so we were involved in the original consultation in 2019 and then the engagement process in 2020-21. SCVO have been involved throughout that. I think I would highlight that obviously the proposals that the consultation engagement has been on were developed at the very beginning by Oscar and the Scottish Government without input from SCVO or the sector, so very much that process has been specifically on those proposals that have been favoured by the regulator. I think that that speaks to the increasing calls for a wider review, because there perhaps hasn't been that opportunity throughout this process to really discuss and debate what more could have been done. I think that in some areas of the sector there may be a belief that there's been an opportunity missed perhaps here, but that said, we broadly support the bill and its aims and what it intends to do. In terms of a wider review, I think that we, firstly, SCVO have been calling for a wider review for quite some time, so we absolutely welcome the commitment from the Scottish Government. But I think that what we would call for now is to make sure that that review is broad, is wide. I think that we need to remember that the 2005 act isn't the only legislation that is of relevance. There are other forms of legislation, there's regulations, different regulators, duties, obligations, administrative processes, all of which make up the regulatory landscape in which charities and the wider sector operate within. I think that we need to keep that in mind, and I hope that the Scottish Government will commit to keeping that in mind as we see progress on that. I think that also for us the review has to be independent. I think that we recognise that there is a wide swath of opinion in terms of what the review could involve, but I think that the recommendations that come out of that need to be independently set and not crafted by Government and certainly not crafted by a handful of organisations such as ourselves. That would be able to take on both the review and the process to date, and the only other thing that I would stress is that it would be good to start calling for timescales regarding a review from the Scottish Government as well. Thank you, I appreciate that. I've got a supplementary tip, but I'll come back in a second. Sarah, do you have more to add? Just to add that Volunteer Scotland hasn't had a policy function until quite recently, when I came into post in April last year. We weren't involved in the earlier conversations around the bill. However, the fact that SEVO, COSFO and the third TSI colleagues were involved with the importance of volunteering was reflected within that. Having said that, I would echo quite a lot of what Jason said about the need for a wider review. We don't feel that the bill goes far enough in terms of trustee diversity and some of the challenges in that regard, so we welcome that and agree that it would be good to know what the timescales are around that review. I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anyone online who looks to come in? I have indicated. I appreciate that and thank you for those answers. What would an independent review look like? What would be the key elements of that to make sure that it was independent? I think that that is something that should be discussed. Whether it is an independent panel review that takes into account how complex and varied the sector is, that is something that can be looked at. At this stage, our first priority is to stress the need for it to be independent and then hopefully we can then have the discussion about what that specifically looks like going forward. On the point of independent review, it kind of related earlier on that you mentioned that the proposals before us are based on Oscars' perceptions. Do those proposals, are they kind of skewed in that direction? I think that the proposals themselves, we broadly support the proposals. There is nothing in there that I think that we vehemently disagree with or I think that shouldn't be in there. I think that perhaps some of the detail and information that is in there is perhaps skewed in the regulator's direction and by which I mean that there isn't a great deal of information for the sector to grapple with and really understand how that is going to work. I think that maybe not so much in terms of the proposals themselves. We completely understand that this particular bill seeks to give the regulator improvements and modifications that allow it to regulate better. We understand that the regulator has to be at the heart of that. However, in terms of information and how that is going to be implemented, I think that there are a lot of questions that still exist in the sector and I think that that might be because that has been approached perhaps with not taking that into consideration as much as it could have been. Sarah, when you spoke earlier, you said that there were aspects of the legislation that were missing, I think that you said. Can you tell us a bit more about that? Not so much that it is missing. We feel that it could have gone further to address a real challenge around trustee diversity. We feel that it could have gone slightly further. I mean that we do acknowledge that there is the dispensation scheme that would allow for trustees who have safety concerns for their name removed from the record, or not added to the record. There is also the waiver scheme, for example, for people who want to be trustees who maybe would be disqualified. However, the information around that waiver scheme is very light. We do not really know how that would look. We feel that the default disqualification would create issues for a lot of people from more marginalised groups. It is not so much that the legislation has anything missing per se. I agree with Jason that there is nothing in there that we vehemently disagree with. It is more just the fact that it is quite light on detail and we do not yet know. I know that some colleagues in the room from the faith community have acknowledged in their responses about the fact that trustees are volunteers and their time to be trustees is limited. We need to make sure that the administrative burden is not increased as a result of the legislation, and I do not think that the information is readily available yet to understand whether there would be an administrative burden for volunteers at this time. I appreciate that. I think that my colleagues will possibly press some questions in that particular area later. I have nothing further at this point. We will move on to theme 2, in questions from Paul MacLennan. Thank you for coming in. Good morning, panel. The first question that I was going to ask was talking about the general principles of the bill and whether the existing Charite law needs updated and kind of hearing, obviously, from yourself that it does. I want to move on and look at what I learned about transparency and accountability. In the sector we had our event yesterday, as the convener had said, and that kind of came through quite strongly. I just wonder whether you have any views or thoughts on that at the moment, and I will probably come to yourself, Jason, first of all, in terms of that, about transparency and accountability. We, SCVO, absolutely support the need for transparency and accountability. We are pro-regulation where it is needed, so that is absolutely something that we support, we support the aims and objectives of the bill. More to the point, across the bill, the proposals, although we have the concerns about communication and how it is going to be implemented, the aims of increasing transparency and accountability are met by a number of the proposals in the bill. Certainly, in terms of the actual aims that we all are striving for with the bill, we absolutely agree with the need to go ahead with that, and we do see the bill as something that will work towards that. Yeah, absolutely, pretty much the same, to be honest, yeah. I think that this bill does address the fact that there have been concerns about transparency and accountability within charities for a while now. I think that it is transparency and accountability, but without being too onerous as well, so there is a good balance within the bill to addressing those concerns. Is there any specific issues that you mentioned about transparency and accountability? From a volunteer perspective, I think that just recognising that the ultimate governance of a charity lies with the trustees, they are accountable for what happens within charities, so making sure that it is much more clear who it is that is leading charities and that that is publicly available in the vast majority of cases will make it much more transparent, and it will increase accountability. I do not know if David Maddell wants to come in from a faith point of view. Can you raise yesterday when he was talking about names of trustees and whatever appearing more openly? I do not know if you have any thoughts, or David might be yourself first of all on that one in terms of that. Church councils reach church and they are automatically the trustees for the local church property. We understand the necessity for trustees to be transparent and to be understood who the trustees are, so we are quite comfortable with the proposals that are being made for transparency and accountability and the details of trustees that would be entered for names. So yes, we will be broadly supportive of the proposals. We have had some concerns raised from some of our local trustees in a general way where people do not like to have their personal information shared, so it is good to see that it is only going to be names that are identifiable from the public register and not people's more personal data. Broadly we support the fact that it does make charities in general more transparent and accountable. I want to move on now to the role of Oscar and your views on the role of Oscar. There are a couple of questions. One, the proposed extensions to Oscar's powers are the appropriate and proportionate. Secondly, does it operate effectively at the moment? One of the key things that I think Kenny came through yesterday during my discussion was about the capacity that Oscar would need to try and take on additional powers. So I guess Stephen, I might be coming to yourself first of all on that one, what your thoughts are in that regard and then open it up beyond that Stephen, just yourself first of all. Thank you. I guess from the councils, our main interest in this is in terms of those charitable trusts, where there's a mix of councillor trustees and trustees who are not councillors and where we provide administrative support to those trusts. It's appreciated that the aim here is for a proportionate regime, which will be effective. I guess our point is around whether it can perhaps be made a bit more proportionate with regard to very small charitable trusts. In terms of Oscar's powers and the new provisions, the one that jumps out to us is the requirement to provide on-going, throughout the year, notification of changes in terms of information to Oscar, which would appear in the schedule that they keep themselves, which wouldn't be public, but they would keep it themselves. From our perspective, it's just the extra administrative work that would be required in that regard. Could the provisions be made more proportionate by having some kind of financial threshold in place? I think that you're right to pick up on the fact that there will be an increase in capacity required to do some of what's being proposed. One thing in particular is that we have some questions around the appointment of interim charity trustees and the fact that that will then fall to Oscar. We have some questions about what the process would be for that, because that's quite a significant undertaking, especially in the current climate where we know that, well, trustees are a bit like gold dust, so recruiting trustees can be a challenge for organisations. How would Oscar propose to do that and what capacity would be required? That's just one example where it's still just a little bit light on the detail about how Oscar would undertake some of the duties that are proposed. First, I'd absolutely go to your response around that particular aspect of the bill. I think that there is still a lot of detail there that needs to kind of, you know, there's a lot of gaps that need filled in. We don't know what kind of approach would be taken in terms of recruiting an interim trustee. I think that, as Sarah said, I think that in Oscar's Scottish Charities Survey last year, it was 25 per cent of charities in Scotland have said that recruiting trustees is a difficulty, so if a quarter of around 25,000 charities in Scotland are finding a difficulty with recruiting trustees, I think that in the search for transparency and accountability, we need to make sure that we're not also compounding some of the struggles that the charity is already facing. In terms of another part of the bill that I think obviously gives Oscar a little bit more power, you know, the power to issue positive directions, it's a part of the bill that, again, we understand and we support in principle, but, again, there's that lack of detail. I know that within the policy memorandum, it states that the list or the situations that a positive direction could be used cannot be exhaustively defined, but I think that the sector will still need some sort of idea as to when they could be used and in what circumstances. Again, it's that lack of communication and I would hope that, if we don't get that detail through this process, at least post-legislation, there would be a lot of burden. I kind of draw us into that question around the burden on Oscar. I think that it's not just the burden in terms of administration and in terms of the ability to deal with the administrators of burden that these additional powers would give. I think that it's also about the engagement that's quite extensive that's going to be required after this. It's not just about putting comms out on the website. It will be about providing proper guidance and support, making sure that the length and breadth of the sector is aware of these changes and ensuring that charities know the expectations that fall upon them, know about the dispensation mechanisms that are available to them, how those work. So I think that it's both in terms of the administrative burden but also the burden that will come with the sheer amount of comms that I think we would expect from the regulator after this. Yes, so I suppose communications issues is vital, in particular in regard to the smaller charities and so on. Can you move on from that? Probably sit yourself mad on it, obviously that the Church of Scotland is going through church closures and mergers and so on and one of the issues again that was raised yesterday was talking about mergers, for example, and about what that would look like in terms of trustees and whatever. I don't know if you have any thoughts on the role of Oscar. Do you experience possibly what the church is going through at the moment? Obviously, do you think that Oscar's powers are proportionate at this stage? As you say, the church is going through a huge adjustment process at the moment with lots of congregations forming unions to try to reduce the number of ministers. However, since 2005, when the act came into force, the Church of Scotland had a lot of dialogue with Oscar about how unions of congregations within the Church of Scotland would be treated. If we have two congregations or three congregations who unite in terms of church law and charity law, while only one charity will remain on the register, the congregations subsist within the union, so we have never had a problem with losing out on legacies in those circumstances. That is not a problem that we have identified as needed to be resolved on behalf of the Church of Scotland. On the bill being appropriate and proportionate, we do think that it is. The only thing that we have tried to draw attention to is that there has not really been any joined-up thinking with regard to the dual reporting that charities who are not registered as skills are going to be subject to, in terms of A, having to put all the information in the charity register and B, having to submit that information to the RCI. In the interests of time, we will need to move on to the next theme. We will move on to information about charity trustees and I will bring in my colleague Evelyn Tweet. Those with lived experience are an asset to boards and voluntary organisations. Do you anticipate that their details being published or having to ask for a waiver may put them off? I would like to ask Sarah Fust. I have been short, yes. It would be a significant barrier. I should caveat that by saying that we welcome the dispensation scheme and it goes some way to reassure those potential charity trustees who might experience concerns about becoming a trustee if it meant that their personal details were not made public. However, we still feel that the process is quite onerous. It is also not a particularly transparent process. There is not an awful lot of detail yet about the dispensation, but certainly the existing waiver scheme for disqualification is not particularly transparent in terms of the criteria. From that perspective, we have concerns. I mean, just to give you a bit of an idea, so we do not have a lot of information about the make-up of charity trustees in Scotland, but from the Charities Commission in England and Wales, we know that 75 per cent of charity trustees are above a median income, 51 per cent are retired and 92 per cent of trustees are white. There is almost certainly a real challenge in terms of trustee diversity. Ideally, we would be wanting trustees of the charities that are working for us to reflect the communities that they serve. I think that that will be particularly challenging given some of the existing barriers. It is a difficult one because you have to balance off the accountability that is required, recognising that being a charity trustee is a significant responsibility, but at the same time you want to make it as easy as possible for people from currently underrepresented groups to get involved if they can. I can see that David would like to come in online. I think that on this point it is one thing to give the names of the charity of the trustees. It is quite a different thing to give their private addresses. I am very pleased that the policy that seems to be adopted is not to have private addresses publicly shown on a public register. That is where, to take up Madeline's point that she made about the RCI regulations, we have the absolute horror, to be honest, that private individuals, members of our church councils who are just normal members of our church councils will automatically be our trustees. Their private names and addresses are going to be on a public register under the RCI regulations, and I think that that is completely disproportionate. It is counter to what has just been spoken about in the presentation of this bill. It is really dangerous. I do not understand how it got through with the RCI regulations when they were before the Parliament, but it is quite inappropriate for trustees, private individuals for their addresses to be put into a public space. It is not as if our church hides behind anything. If anybody wants to know a church property, there is plenty of information that is available as to who to speak to about anything to do with that church property, but it is quite inappropriate for private details, personal addresses of trustees to be put into the public domain. The exemption that has been applied to SCIOs should also be applied to all charities because, as a result of the changes that you are proposing, all charities will be in exactly the same position as SCIOs, so there is no logic for not extending that exemption to all charities that you currently have for SCIOs. I also ask that there seems to be a concern about the proposal's diversity and how we make sure that diversity is incoming with fresh blood. How can the proposals be strengthened to ensure that diversity is paramount and maybe to Jason first? I think again that this touches firstly upon the communication around it. Again, to touch on Sarah's point earlier, if we accept that there are dispensation mechanisms and there are processes for waivers of disqualification, we need to make sure that those are proportionate, and those are not putting off individuals who, as Sarah says, are perhaps from marginalised areas of the community or from different backgrounds. We need to first get the mechanisms, and we need to make sure that the decision making is correct, so that the decision making takes those points into mind when those decisions are being made. Again, I think that it is about the optics of it, and it is about the communication. We are talking about potentially very, very small charities of a handful of volunteers. They need to know that firstly the dispensation mechanism is not going to be, for example, intrusive or complex. They need to know that those processes are going to reach the correct decision. Anybody from any background or from a marginalised community also needs to know that when they put themselves forward, be it for a trustee or anything else, they need to know that they are not going to face some sort of uphill battle or that they are going to be discriminated against. I think that it is about getting the mechanisms that are in the bill correct, but it is then about making sure that people understand that they are correct and that it is worthwhile and that it is not intrusive and that it is a fairly straightforward procedure and that the correct decisions will be made at the end of it. We will move on to questions from Faisal Chowdry, who is joining us online this morning. Thank you, convener, and good morning panel. I have just a small question. Do the panel believe that, during the consultation time, third sector organisations or ethnic minority organisations were involved? Just a general question, whoever wants to pick it up on. I think that the other question that I wanted to ask my colleagues, I have already asked and I have got the answer. Do you have any specific person who would like to direct that question to? Not really, but anyone from the panel can choose that. My name is General. I just want to know if third sector organisations, smaller organisations, have been consulted or not. We will move to Sarah first. If anybody else would like to come in, please let me know. I was not involved in the process, but it was good that there was such a range of organisations and the fact that quite a number of intermediars were involved. Jason will probably touch on that a lot better than I will. The fact that a Cosmo was involved is reassuring to us because it has a network for trustees, so it recognises that trustees were involved. One thing that struck me when I was reading about who was engaged in the process is the relatively small numbers of organisations that were consulted within events, and the fact that there were only 12 TSIs out of a possible 32. It could have gone further, but I was fairly satisfied that a range of voluntary organisations were involved. Your point about faith communities, given the quite significant and minority ethnic communities, and the particular challenges that they might have experienced as a result of the bill, might be some further consultation with those particular groups might have been good. Foisel, do you want to bring anyone else in? Are you quite content with that? I am quite content with that. It is concerning because quite a few of other colleagues are saying that in the majority of the organisations that you do not find are balanced, but that is why I thought that consultation should have been more wider. Thank you very much. Just before we move on to the next theme, I want to ask something that has not been covered. Do witnesses have any concerns around the proposal to publish unredacted accounts for all charities, regardless of size? Do you feel that the publication of accounts for all charities will enhance transparency and accountability within the charity sector? I will move to Jason first and then I will maybe move to anyone online if they wish to come in, if you could let me know. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but I think that again this focuses for us primarily on the processes around dispensation mechanisms, etc. I think that in terms of the publishing of the accounts themselves, I think that we would support it and I think that we would see it as being quite an important part of this bill in terms of achieving the aims of increasing transparency and accountability. Again, I think that if there is information in there that should be redacted or removed, I think that as long as the sector is confident that the mechanisms are in place to reach that decision, the dispensation mechanisms, etc, they will play a really important role. I think that that kind of underpins most of this bill. I think that there are proposals there that will achieve the objectives, but in order to keep the sector confident and secure that they themselves can feel assured by the bill, I think that the dispensation mechanisms are really, really important. I think that this is another example of that. So no great concerns are the overall part of the bill in terms of publishing accounts. We support that. We think that it will increase transparency and accountability, but again it is about getting it right and it is about making sure that the processes are there that dispensation is awarded where it needs to be. Thank you, Jason. Just following on from that, would witnesses agree that removing charitable status for organisations that fail to submit accounts is an appropriate measure? Now I know that there were some mixed views around this in the informal session yesterday for a variety of different reasons. I will look online to… Could I maybe bring David in for this one, please? I think that we would broadly support that. However, I would make a plea that for example, where you have a charity which has a parent charity, for example all of our church councils are individual charities and the Methodist church is the parent charity. So if a particular church was not doing what it should be doing, if notice could be given to the parent charity at the same time as notice is given to the individual charity so that the centre understands that there is an issue which it may not be aware of and it can then seek to address it. Thanks, David. That's very helpful. If I have no one else looking to come in on those points, I will move on to our next theme and our deputy convener, Emma Roddick. Thank you convener and good morning everyone. I think that I would like to direct that towards Sarah, because I know that that Volunteers Scotland has talked about this in the past. Would you agree that it's sensible to have the same disqualification criteria here as in the rest of the UK? I don't think that we should have the same disqualification criteria just for the sake of being the same as the rest of the UK. I think that if anything, we've actually got an opportunity and I don't know if this bill is the right place to look at that, but maybe when we're looking at wider review of charity law, I feel like there's an opportunity for legislation in Scotland to go further. We certainly, in terms of the disqualification, the fact that the criteria for automatic disqualification might be a bit too punitive, particularly around bankruptcy. In some ways, it's almost like it's criminalising poverty, which is particularly given where we're at at the moment in terms of the cost of living crisis. I've actually got some figures around that, so at the moment in Scotland, this is from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, we've got 160,000 households that are in debt, which is five times their monthly income, so just recognising how widespread debt is and the fact that going down the route of bankruptcy is sometimes the only option for a lot of people who experience poverty, and it's worth recognising as well that lower income households are far more likely to be in debt. It feels unfair that that would be a barrier for people automatically to become a trustee, particularly given the number of charities that we have within Scotland that are supporting people experiencing poverty. There's a direct challenge there in terms of having trustees with lived experience on boards where poverty is one of the key focus. With that point in mind, I feel like there's no need for us just to be in line with the rest of the UK. We could actually go further and have a much more inclusive approach to disqualification. I'm glad to hear the specific reference to lived experience there, because I was going to specifically ask if there are sectors that recruit in lived experience that would be made more difficult by the extension of the disqualification criteria. In terms of the specific proposal to extend that disqualification to those in senior management positions, do you see there being specific recruitment challenges because of that? Potentially. Obviously, I'm from Volunteer Scotland, so I'm looking at this more specifically from a trustee perspective, but I'm just speaking from experience in terms of that there are increasing moves in the voluntary sector to have all positions within organisations to be more representative and reflective of communities. In the same way that it might be a barrier for trustees, it could equally be a barrier for people who are wanting to move into senior positions and organisations as well. Finally, do you think that it is appropriate for Oscar to maintain a publicly searchable record of trustees who have been disqualified? That's a good question. In terms of the aims around transparency and accountability, I can understand why that would exist. It almost needs to exist because of the requirements around disqualification. It's a bit of a double-edged sword at the moment, but if you challenge the criteria around disqualification and having that publicly searchable record instantly, I don't know if that would necessarily be required anymore. In terms of reducing the administrative burden and ensuring that organisations don't have struggle to recruit trustees because they can't find information about whether or not they would be able to be a trustee, it's important that it exists to support the existing legislation. I hope that made sense. We have a supplementary from Pam. On that last point, is there a mechanism that could be used that was somewhere in the middle, so that people who are disqualified and the world in a granny can find a register of it, and reducing the burden of charities to have to find that? Could there be a register where they could contact Oscar and ultimately ask Oscar to say that this person doesn't appear on this list? That was my first point. My second point was, in terms of the disqualification, I too was concerned about that, particularly given the impact that some charities can have on people wanting to rebuild their life, and part of that can be becoming a trustee. What would a kind of compromised, wavered position look like from your point of view? I think that we've probably said that there needs to be some checking balance in those areas. What would an easy waiver look like, basically? I think that the fact that it's automatic disqualification, it's a kind of default no. If it was maybe more of a part of an application process, I'm not sure, to be honest, but I think that having something where people were able to become a trustee in a particular area, because we're just recognising that boards have different positions, so things like having it as a disqualification for people if they're going to be the treasurer, for example, might be an obvious first step. To be honest, I'd like to take more time to have a bit of a think about it. It's not something that I've got any particular answers in my head right now, but I do just think that the current situation goes too far in the wrong direction. Jason, do you have anything to say? No, I think that we would certainly agree with Becerus' points there. I think that it's the idea of it being a default no. I think that if you're talking about someone seeking to rebuild their lives, again it comes back to almost the optics of it. If you're automatically disqualified, that can give the impression that you face some sort of uphill battle to try and prove that you are worthy to be a trustee. As much as similar positions don't have an instant answer in terms of what that process would look like. Again, it's about finding something that isn't putting people off from the very beginning, because it would be very easy to entertain the idea of becoming a trustee, find out that you're automatically disqualified because of something that's occurred in your background and just decide that it's not worth the hassle, essentially, and that's something that we really need to try and avoid. Good morning to the panel, thank you for joining us today. I want to ask a number of questions with regards to inquiries that Oscar can make. Whether or not the panel believes that the powers should be extended to allow Oscar to undertake inquiries into former charities and their trustees as well, and maybe bring yourself in, Sarah, if anyone online wants to come in. I don't think that there's necessarily any concerns around that, I think, in terms of again that kind of accountability. What kind of immediately springs to mind is if you're thinking about child safeguarding as an example, where there's maybe an inquiry further down the line and there's a need to look at an organisation that no longer exists and it makes sense to be able to see who was responsible for that charity historically. From that perspective, I don't think there's a challenge, but obviously the same dispensation would need to be in place for those individuals where it could be a kind of safety concern. Does anyone else have anything that they want to add on that? No, if not, I'll move on to that. My other question was with regards to Oscar being able to issue positive directions following their inquiry work and to also add to that the question over whether or not it's appropriate for designated religious charities to be exempt from this provision going forward as well. I'll maybe bring in yourself, Madeline, on that point. Anyone else who wants to add anything? Our position is that we do think that it's appropriate for a DRC to be the people who are exempt from those provisions because we feel that our internal structures and Oscar are satisfied that our internal structures are such that we have an appropriate supervisory and an acceptable degree of self-regulation and disciplinary procedures in place. We also feel that we are better placed to act in a disciplinary function. We have, in terms of our church acts, we've probably got more powers than Oscar does, so we can take disciplinary action against trustees in these circumstances where we feel that it is required. It obviously has to be recognised that the legitimate autonomy of the church has been recognised in matters of worship, doctrine, government and discipline, and that's an important point that has to be made. David, do you want to come in on that point as well? Well, the Methodist Church in Scotland is not a designated religious charity, but we have our own, very like Church of Scotland, we have our own legislation, Acts of Parliament and theordinate legislation that governs our discipline and procedures, so we have a very robust system in place. Again, I would ask here that if there is an issue that Oscar is wanting to take up with a charity, which might lead to a positive direction, that the parent charity should be advised because if the parent charity is advised and Methodist Church said quite frankly, the star chamber will get active. Thank you. Anyone else have any points on that? I wanted to move on to the issue of connection to Scotland, which has also emerged and introduced in the bill as a requirement, and to ask specifically whether or not the panel believes that charities should be in this position to have to demonstrate a connection to Scotland, whether or not that's an appropriate measure. Jason, do you have anything you want to? Yeah, I mean, SCVO's position from the beginning has been consistently in support with this particular part of the bill. We understand the reasoning behind it, but we're entirely supportive of it. Our original—this is one area where I think there has been clarification provided, and it has been slightly reframed, taking on board some of the feedback through the consultation. I think that the original consultation, particularly in 2019, there was a great deal missing in terms of clarity around what was actually meant by a connection with Scotland. I think that the bill provides that clarity, and I think that what it does is that it can reframes it slightly, so it can now reframes the question as the idea of which charities is not appropriate for us to regulate rather than the ones that should. I think that reframing of it just adds a little bit of clarity there as well, so we support it and we don't have any great issues. That's helpful. Thank you. Does anyone else have anything contrary to that? I'll move on to my final questions, and we've touched on this already. With regard to powers to appoint interim trustees in specific circumstances where there are no trustees, I wanted to ask how, in practice, that could work. You've already said that it's difficult enough to find people sometimes, but how, in practice, that might present challenges of who those interim trustees would then be? The obvious challenge is the fact that it's quite a difficult place out there in terms of recruiting trustees, but I think that, as well, it's thinking about the diversity that we've got within our charitable sector in Scotland and the size and scale of the organisations. Often, if we think about how trustees are normally appointed, it's usually done by the organisation or representatives within the organisation who have an understanding of the needs of that charity, the clientele of that charity. I'm a bit confused about how Oscar would be able to appoint people with the local knowledge and the knowledge of the client group, so I think that it would be quite a challenge, to be honest. However, that is an area where there isn't a huge amount of information at present, so it's definitely an area where we have some concern. Does anyone else have anything to add to that? I'll quickly come in and highlight again that this bill is underpinned by a lot of proposals that have safeguard measures, and that is one area that noticeably doesn't look like, whether it would be a mechanism for charities to ask for it to be reviewed in terms—I'm not sure, but it is noticeable that this is one area of the bill that doesn't have a safeguard in place. Whether or not it's a sort of emergency measure more than anything, but we'll hopefully look more into that. Just finally, in terms of a finance question with regard to charities merging, and I declare an interest, I chair Heart of Scotland appeal in Scotland around this, whether or not you think that this makes it easier for legacy charities and resources to be transferred in those situations and anything that you want to add on that, where maybe a charity has merged or changed its name, for example. I see the always position that this particular proposal is to support it. I think that it will, certainly from what we've heard from some of the organisations that we've spoken to in the bill that this has been wide support, so I think that we are quite content with that part of the bill. I will move lastly to Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, convener. Good morning. For public to clear, I am a member for Church of Scotland and I'm also a trustee of a number of different charities of different sizes. I wonder if I can go back, Jason, because I am, I have to say, no, not that clever, I'm sure you were able to help me here, but I don't understand what a connection to Scotland means legally. Can you help me out in regard to what that actually means legally? Because you said it's a good thing and I understand that, but within legal definitions, what does it actually mean legally? In terms of, I mean, obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I can't go into the details in terms of legally. In terms of the regulator in Oscar, I think that there are specific points now that we can look at. I think that the bill itself contains the specific aspects that the regulator would be looking towards in terms of that connection. I think that we are content that the aspects that are set out in the bill, I think that we are content that it won't exclude, for example charities that are cross-border charities. We don't think that it will exclude, for example, charities that are based in Scotland but work for the benefit of communities outwith Scotland. I think that the bill does clarify what that connection will look like. As I said earlier, I think that it's also been reframed in quite a good way, that it's more about identifying the small number of charities that perhaps Oscars shouldn't be regulating rather than seeking to deprive any organisations of being regulated. So you're happy with it? Do you think that there's enough there for definition? At this stage, yes. I mean, it may be something that, you know, if there was to be post-legislative scrutiny, it could be something that could be looked at in the future, but certainly on the basis of what's in the bill, yes, we would be okay with that. Okay, thank you. If I can move on just two final questions for me. Firstly, I mean, are you concerned that there's going to be additional costs for charities because of these regulations and particularly smaller charities who don't have full-time staff? So if you're kind of small charity, is this going to be more expensive for them and also more time-consuming? Maybe start again with you, Jason. Yeah, no, no, I think, again, it kind of touches on the earlier points around the lack of real concrete detail around implementation, but I would suggest that there is certainly the potential for that. I think that with regards to even a lot of the processes, we don't know yet whether there's going to be digital solutions with regards to that. So there's so much of the process itself that we don't know about, but certainly there is the potential that there could be additional costs, additional administrative burden, and there is the potential that that could disproportionately impact smaller charities, and I think that's where the comms and the actual processes and the detail comes in. Stephen, I wonder if I can be new on a mission, because obviously this will affect local authorities as well, or are you concerned about extra costs that you will face? Yes, and it comes back to the requirements throughout the year, as I said earlier, to keeping Oscar up-to-date on changes to details kept in their schedule. Now, I suppose that a lot would depend on questions that Oscar are going to publish, which will indicate what information they're going to want to hold, but it's a task, clearly, that would need to be kept on top of throughout the year, and so, inevitably, there would be extra administration involved. I think that's really why I mentioned earlier the possibility of having some kind of financial threshold for smaller charities. If a charity fell below that threshold, perhaps it wouldn't require to provide all those details for Oscar's schedule on an on-going basis. But, yes, it's to do with the on-going administration throughout the year, which may not be so proportionate for a small charity with a small annual income. That's all, but I mean, I mean, maybe just back to Sarah and Jason on this, because you're obviously dealing with smaller charities. Do you think that there should be, as Stephen has suggested, some kind of financial target if you don't have x9 of expenditure or turnover a year, you have to do less than, say, the National Trust or the Church of Scotland have to do? I mean, it's certainly a possibility. I'm just thinking about the range of charities that exist. I mean, you've got the sort of big ones that you've just mentioned, but you also have, you know, small town hall committees that maybe only have less than £1,000 in the bank. So, it could be a possibility, yeah, but I think I would very much agree with what Jason said, that we don't know yet what the financial burden or the administrative burden is likely to be, because we don't have that clarity yet around the process. So, it's quite difficult to make some sort of definitive statement on this without knowing that detail. Thank you. My final question is a kind of four-way question, but actually it may be quite important. I mean, maybe just go around the whole panel. A matter is, if you could add one thing to the bill, that's not in it, what would it be? And if you don't want to answer right now, you can maybe write to yourself. I appreciate it as a, you know, a disaster to think of a stop, but, you know, we've talked about what's in the bill. I think we're all pretty comfortable with maybe some modification, but is there something when you think that if only that was in, that would make the life of a volunteer or a trustee easier? I think, for me, it would be all about the waiver around disqualification. That, for me, is the biggest potential barrier to diversity on boards. So, removing the automatic disqualification, I'm not suggesting that this necessarily needs to be within this bill, but certainly a future review of charity legislation, that to me is the biggest thing. I'll go to Jason and I'll go on to Rose Online if you've got any question, any thought? At the risk of sounding, like I'm just stealing Sarah's answer, it would be similar. I think that was certainly the one thing that jumped out at us and those that we spoke to. I think that that's really important to get that particular aspect right, and I think that's something that gave us the assurance that that was going to be adequate. I think that would certainly be something that we would change. Can I go to Rose Online? Do you have any one thing that you would love to see with him on the bill, or are you happy? I'll bring Madeline in first, thank you. Yes, so we are disappointed that the bill does not extend to allow Oscar to approve reorganisation of charities that have been established under royal charter warrant or enactment. This means that they have to go to the court of session to make changes, which is a very cumbersome time-consuming and expensive process. Would anyone else online like to come in on that? No, I'm done. Okay, thank you very much everyone for your evidence this morning and for coming along. I will just briefly suspend to allow our witnesses to change over. Thanks again. Welcome back everyone. I welcome to the meeting our second panel. We have Vicky Cahill, policy officer at Alzheimer's Scotland, Riddo Wadwa, chief executive officer at Edinburgh rape crisis centre, Rami O'Casha, chief executive of children's hospices across Scotland, who all join us in person. Shona McLean, chief executive officer at Borda Nagallac, who is joining us remotely. As with the first panel, a few points to mention about the format of the meeting, and apologies in advance for that. Please wait until I or the member ask in the question say your name before speaking. Please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you begin to speak. You can indicate with an R in the dialogue box and blue jeans or simply with a show of your hand if you wish to come in and a question. Again, please don't feel you all have to answer every question if you have nothing to add to what's being said by others. It's absolutely fine. Before we begin, I would just like to start by putting on the record that Borda Nagallac requested that they give their evidence in Gaelic this morning. Clarkson spoke with colleagues across the Parliament with a view to facilitating interpretation of this evidence session. However, we have been informed that this was not possible due to various factors. The Parliament is aware that there is an issue and are acting to resolve it as new broadcasting systems come into operation, and we are truly sorry for not being able to facilitate interpretation at our meeting on this occasion and recognise that this is an unfortunate situation. I will now pass over to Deputy convener Emma Roddick, who in Gaelic will invite Borda Nagallac to give a short introduction to their evidence in Gaelic, and afterwards they will provide an interpretation in English before we hear from witnesses. I'll pass over to Emma. Moryn Tyng, Natalie. Agus Tyng, Hanna Hulw, Niach Ffynish, Aha, Agal Perch, Anson Session and Gyllyn Gwyllian, Adam Van Dhu. Hami Inish, Aherd Curric, Dawd Fordd Nagallac Rhorach, Gorach, Aherd Sechid, Mhys Toseuw Szyn. Siona. Hef Lai. Matilda Chyrechidwyd is the new committee. It is not the committee in the committee that gives the evidence to the whole of our way but the committee has to discuss the yn y chymethu ers ond y chorwm ysio. A seliwyr gyfel y bwrhwch ddigwun iawn yn all y bwrth taethgog yn y gallu, ac ysgwbl ffaas yn unwysoch yd yn y gallu, yn dachwch ym yn sgoltsiwn ac ysgmesg ennill. Yn y lles yn ychyd yn y gallu, haf tor i'r ysgwbl i'r bunion surholwch a chlarwchio mae'r hara hyswn. Ysgwbl ysgwbl i'r bwrd yn y gallu sefyll ysgwbl ysgwbl ysgwbl i'r gwybyr gwych ysgwbl i'r bunion Hami Keinschach gyntwr yn Cymru Cymru Cymru iwnserch mwy yn cairnysyn a haf gob arser gallu gwneud hyll yn y bair yw'r yw eich ogymryd o'r hefyd yn hefyd yn hefyd yn cohexau i perialysdiaeth. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. It's an honour for me to give evidence to the committee today on behalf of Portnagalloch and on behalf of Galloch speakers and welcome the committee's recognition of the importance of Galloch in Scotland. You may be aware that it is increasingly clear from the social social attitudes survey and other sources that the majority of people in Scotland are supportive of Galloch and also that there is a significant growth in learning Galloch both in formal education and amongst adults. Since 2019, some one and a half million people have engaged with learning Galloch through Duolingo and about 400,000 are currently learning through Speak Galloch. Portnagalloch's role is to promote and support development of the Galloch language through developing a national Galloch language plan, working with public authorities and also in partnership with a wide range of community organisations. The last are particularly important but increasing opportunities for using Galloch in social, sporting and cultural activities. We recognise that for Galloch a significant amount of development work is delivered by volunteer groups, which are registered charities. A Portnagalloch work includes distributing funds to these organisations to support this development. Therefore, our role reflects the key role of charities as delivery partners. Since 2018-19, we have awarded 522 grants to 181 different charities. That is almost half of the total grants that we awarded, and the value of our grants during that time was also almost £13 million, which is more than two thirds of all the grants that we awarded. In terms of the information to be included in Scottish charity register, we believe that it would be useful to raise awareness of Galloch and of organisations that undertake Galloch activities if the Galloch name of an organisation was recorded as well as an English one. It would also raise the profiles of those organisations in the work that they do. We submitted more information in our answer to the consultation. I am very happy to provide that as we go through the meeting. We will now move straight on to questions from members. I will move back to Pam Duncan-Glancy to start us off. Thank you, convener. Good morning, and thank you for the evidence that you have submitted in advance, and thanks for today and the questions that you are about to answer. I am keen to understand a bit about the consultation process that has led to the bill in front of us today. How would you characterise your involvement in that? I will start with Rami, if that is okay. Yes, of course. We have not been particularly aware or involved in the consultation process. That said, it happened during lockdown, and my characterisation of those proposals is that they are relatively minor. It would have been good to have been more involved, but I recognise that the circumstances were as they were. If there were going to be a wider reform of charity law, we as a charity would want to be more closely involved at an earlier stage. Do any of the other panel members want to come in? Alzheimer Scotland was initially involved in the consultation process back in 2019. However, the timing of the second part of the consultation coincided with the pandemic. As an organisation, we had to refocus and redirect our resources and our ability to participate in further consultation was interrupted by that. In terms of the overall process, we feel as if it has been an interrupted process due to the timing of the consultation and the ability of not just ourselves, but several other organisations to be able to participate and to join in that conversation. Having said that, we are keen to be involved and to participate in future conversation around charity regulation. Thank you. As a public body, we scan what consultations are being published, so, for us, it was a normal part of the process, but we operate differently to charities, I recognise that. I appreciate that. The other area that I wanted to explore at this point was the review that has been mentioned. What do you think that needs to take into consideration? We have heard a little bit about the independence of that. What would it look like to panel members to be broad enough and independent? I might go backwards this time, so I might start with Vicky and then work back around the panel to it online. In terms of a wider review, we would absolutely welcome the opportunity to have a wider review of charity regulation. I think that there is a need for a recognition of the changing landscape or that charities are currently operating in at the moment the impact of the pandemic, the on-going impact of the cost-of-living crisis and how charities are operating within the environment that is setting up those conditions that are around the act that we are looking at and that we are looking to change and make amendments to is the need of modernisation. It has been in existence since 2005, with very little in the way of change or amendment to it. Again, it is not necessarily reflective of the current context, so we would certainly welcome the opportunity to have that wider review. Again, what that review would look like should be open to discussion, and it should welcome discussion from large parts of the sector and should not solely be focused on the regulator's position or the position of large parts of the sector, but it should be widened to ensure that, as many charities have an opportunity to input and influence what it looks like in the overall context. We would welcome a review, and I would like to echo what Vicky said. I guess that our sector is currently going through a strategic funding review, which is an independent review. I would say that what is refreshing about that process is that the people conducting the review came to us and were very flexible in how diverse and how they approached engagement with our sector. Just to reflect back on your earlier question, I would say that we were not involved until maybe two days before this consultation to the committee closed in submitting our response, so that says a lot about our capacity to engage, but if I'm reflecting back on the strategic funding review that we are going through within the violence against women sector, I would say the positives of that is that we were reached out to in many ways, and that's what we would welcome. The question of minority organisations or marginalised groups or those working within marginalised groups being excluded from reviews will be better addressed. Charities do amazing things in Scotland, so any review that's got to start from what works really well rather than what doesn't, still thinking about it from that perspective, might unlock how we can build on something that's really, really good. I think that from the point of view of charity regulation, I would reflect as a charity that's providing health services. We're regulated by Oscar Company's house, the Care Inspectorate of Healthcare Improvement Scotland. They all do really important things, but there are areas where they could be better co-ordinated and more streamlined, so any wider review should take into account, I think, how different aspects of regulation work for charities. On that point, do you think that there's a need to pull some of that together into one regulatory framework, or do you think that there's a need for each organisation to come to a kind of agreement between themselves but to still do their own significant part? I think that it's working separately. I would reflect just a simple example about the names of trustees. If that proposal were to go through, we would be providing the names of our trustees to four separate regulators for different times. There may be an opportunity to think about how that can be streamlined. I think that it's about working together rather than any major structural reform. I should say that there's no issue about providing names of trustees for us. It's just the administrative burden of doing that. I appreciate that. That makes sense. We very much welcome the opportunity to take part in a review, particularly by co-ordinating with the charitable organisations that we fund. Many of them are very small, so they don't have paid employees. If there was a way that we could co-ordinate a response with them, that would be a very helpful way to support them giving their views into such a review. I want to ask a few questions about the general principles of the bill. I think that a few of you have probably heard the questions that were asked in the first panel. One was about do you agree that the existing charity law needs to be updated? I'll probably come to yourself, Rami, and then open it up. In a proportionate degree, there's nothing in the bill that is problematic or would be a bad thing to do. In that sense, the answer to your question is yes, because those are sensible tidying up proposals that improve the regulation of charities, but they are quite focused and they very much come from a point of view where regulation is the starting point. Actually, there might be other things around charity law that could be looked at in a wider review, but there's nothing controversial in that. I don't know if there's anybody else to add to that. I think that we mentioned at the session we had yesterday that tidying up was a phrase that was used quite a bit across that. In relation to transparency and accountability in the sector, are there any weaknesses that you can try and identify? If I am her, I'll probably come to myself in terms of that or any comments on that and then open it up beyond that. I suppose that there are a number of factors. One is around the proposal of disqualification of trustees, if that's your question. We would like to see a process that is transparent and clear and that does not exclude, as the previous respondent said earlier, from Volunteer Scotland. People would have lived experience and we would also want to be careful that bankruptcy does not automatically disqualify you from being a trustee or even a member of the senior management of a charity. From an Alzheimer Scotland point of view, we would advocate for any measure that would increase accountability and transparency in terms of charity regulation. We would support every effort to increase the voice of lived experience. We think that that is a particular piece of important process that needs to be involved and included in any legislative framework around charity regulation and actively encouraging the participation of the voice of lived experience to ensure that that creates transparency from the ground up rather than from a top-down perspective. Shona, any thoughts on that and I'll bring on Rami if there's any thoughts beyond that. The only thing is, I think that the very small organisations that we work with, that any processes shouldn't be overly burdened on small organisations. Matching requirements with capacity to deliver, I think, would be the important thing from our perspective. Rami, anything else to add? Just to reflect that transparency and accountability are really important for charities. The primary duty to be transparent lies with the trustees and should remain with the trustees. The role of the regulator should be to set the framework that allows trustees to provide that transparency in respect of their own charity. That goes to the last point about making sure that we recognise the wide range of charities and sizes of charities that will do things in different ways. I wanted to move on just to really talk about the role of Oscar and your thoughts on does it operate effectively? I suppose that more than looking at the extensions to Oscar's powers, are they appropriate and proportionate? Rami, I'll probably come to yourself and open up beyond that. Yes, I think that broadly speaking the proposed extensions are proportionate and appropriate. I think that there will be quite a number of areas where Oscar will need to provide detail guidance about how it intends to use those powers through publication of its regulatory policies so that there is transparency and understanding between the regulator and charities about how those powers will work in practice. Broadly speaking, I think that they are appropriate and will seek to use their appropriate and will strengthen public trust in charities. Do you have any thoughts on your interactions with Oscar? We don't interact directly, but I would just echo what Rami said just now as well. Where will Vicky anything else to add? Our interaction as a reasonably sized charity in Edinburgh is pretty limited with Oscar. It happens maybe once or twice a year. They respond well, but with increased powers we would be interested to know what sort of capacity they will have for greater interaction with us, because I think that those proposals might require us to have more interaction than normal. I have a watch and brief, if you like, on how that would interact and continues. Yes, certainly. Just to echo similar sentiments that have already been expressed, but also about the importance of remembering that Oscar has to provide a bit of a dual function, so it provides not only that disciplinary action, but it is also there to provide support and guidance to charities. It is important that any legislative framework is there and that both of those functions are performed, particularly around the support and guidance. That is equally where it is important that openness and transparency come not only from the third sector towards Oscar, but it is reflected back the way and that the openness and transparency starts from Oscar and works its way down from there. That is a good way to finish my question. Some responses have requested that the data be kept at a minimum. What do you say is too much data? I am going to ask Vicky first, and if anybody else wants to come in, please do. Alex Simons Scotland advocated in its response to the committee that Oscar should only use the minimum amount of information necessary in order to be able to perform its function, so anything beyond the scope of that would be too excessive. We advocate the position that people who choose to take up the role of trustee within a charitable organisation still have the right to data protection and the right to privacy enacted to them through existing law. Therefore, we advocate that position. We believe that the publication of names only would be sufficient in terms of public offerings, in terms of making that information available to the wider system, but anything beyond that, which would be held on an internal record, should also be kept to a minimum because we would like to satisfy and ensure that we have to understand what information is being gathered, how it will be stored and what mechanisms, if any, there will be in order to share that information, either within Oscar itself or beyond Oscar. It is really important that we are clear that we are taking on board the absolute minimum so that we can still ensure the privacy and the protection of individuals. I was just going to reply around the publication of information. I am reflecting on my own charity in CHAS. We publish 100-page annual reports every year with full accounts, full reporting on activity, lots of detail around charity governance and are made publicly available. Although it is really important to maintain issues around confidential information and data protection, there is a huge amount that charities can and should be doing to describe their work. I have been entirely comfortable with doing that, and I think that many other charities would be too. The information goes that it should be very limited to names. We are, as a charity registered with Companies House, so we use our official address because we have to declare an address for our directors and our trustees. In recent times, there have been particular risks to trustees who have served on our charity. We would be quite cautious about what information of theirs is available outside or in the wider community. We are also keen—I can speak for my charity but I also know about my sector—to bring in more diversity and people with lived experience. There are safety concerns for some who would join us as trustees, and any information that is held about them should be the very minimum. On that same theme, Murdo, we talked in the last panel about there being concerns about diversity, inclusivity and the proposals. How do we move forward with that? How do we strengthen the proposals to make sure that diversity and inclusivity are paramount? As I echo what volunteer Scotland said, it is the process of what the bill proposes and how do you go about ensuring that any processes around disqualification or inclusion for those who want to work or volunteer at charities such as ours. This is a simple process. It does not create fear or reinforce fear of the state or state intervention. I am thinking particularly for people from certain marginalized communities, those who have been through the asylum process or even managed migration process, as well as trans people. We have good evidence of lived experience of experiencing state oppression, so anything where the state is now collecting information, because that is how they are likely to see it, must be simple and less intrusive and very respectful. I do not know what that would look like, but I think that that should be at the centre of any process that is developed. Do you have any further questions? No, that is your question. Thank you very much. We will now move to questions from Faisal Chowdry, who is joining us online. Thank you very much, convener. My question is probably to you, Mejuda, and obviously I want Rami to come in as well. As you probably know, I have been involved in third sector organisations all my life and I have been working with smaller organisations and bigger organisations. I have always found that smaller organisations find it very difficult to liaise with Oscar or the company houses and big organisations. However, my question to both of you is whether you think that smaller organisations were involved during the consultation period and at the minority organisations too. From the previous panel, the answer was that there were only 12, but do you think that that was enough? In my first response, I did say that we got involved in this consultation by two days before it closed. My wild guess would be probably not, and having worked in minority organisations before and on boards there, it is unlikely that there would have been capacity or engagement, which is why any future review must factor in how those who are conducting the review should come to us rather than us coming and responding to consultations in a more traditional way. Rami, do you want to come in? I think that is a really important point. If there is going to be a wider review of charity law, it is important to make sure that lots of different voices, including a wide range of organisations representing a wide range of people, are involved in that, and there will be an opportunity to do that, I hope. Thank you very much, convener. Just out of the small question to Rami, do you think that the current charity law, is that anything that you believe is out of date, and the smaller organisations know about it? That is a really hard question. I am not sure that I can answer it well. I am a charity leader, but I am not a lawyer. I do not know that I can give that question much justice, but I suppose that what I would say is that running a charity can be complex. There are a lot of requirements placed rightly on charity trustees and charities organisationally and staff, so anything that can be done to help people to understand that what their obligations are is really important. I commend the work of SCVO in relation to that, to do some excellent work in helping charities, particularly smaller charities, to understand their responsibilities, but perhaps there is more work that Oscar could do too. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener. I do have any other questions. Thank you very much, Faisal. Just around the publication of charity accounts, I would like to ask if witnesses have any concerns around the proposal to publish unredacted accounts for all charities, regardless of size, and whether you think that the publication of those accounts for all charities will enhance transparency and accountability within the charity sector. If I could move to Shona online first, and then I will bring some in from the room. I will be honest, I do not have a view on that. When organisations apply to us for funding, we ask for their accounts as part of the due diligence process. As far as I am aware, we do not see any risks in them publishing full accounts, but we do not deal with the full range of charities that there are in Scotland. From our perspective, no, but that is not to say that I do not think that that applies across the board. Thank you very much, Shona. I guess that you are following on from that, from my original question. Would you agree as well that removing the charitable status from organisations that fail to submit accounts is an appropriate measure? I will perhaps go to Vicki first and then I will bring the rest of you in. In terms of removing someone from the register because they fail to submit and then publish accounts, according to the legislation, we feel that that is quite a draconian step, and in order to get to that, that should be the last possible step as part of a built-in process. It is important to ensure that Oscar provides reasonable support and guidance to enable charities to meet the criteria and obligations that are set out for them. There has to be a recognition that there may be reasons as to why there would be failure to comply with a particular direction, particularly around the submission or publication of accounts. For example, there could be reasons around either capacity within the organisation itself or administrative issues around how that is done. There could also be conflict among existing trustees in terms of how things should be done, when they should be done and so on. It is important that Oscar has a role in support and guidance around how it supports that. In the initial response that Alzheimer Scotland made back at the beginning of the process around that, we recognised that there needed to be the ability to show a persistent failure to do so. A desire to be able to do something is not the same as not being in a position to be able to do so. I think that that support from Oscar has to be imparted in terms of part of that process and mechanism as to how that would work. That is where more detail is required as to how that would be carried out. That certainly echoes some of the views that we heard in the informal session yesterday. Rami, I am not sure whether you would like to come in on that if you have anything else to add on those points. Yes, Rami? I will bring Rami in and then I will bring. I think that the answer to your question, convener, is yes. It does promote public confidence. As a charity, you are in a privileged position around the handling of money from donations from the public, tax and gift aid. Those are things where public accountability is important. I think that the publication of accounts is something that is important and charities should do. There is a scale around what a set of accounts look like in the level of detail that needs to go into an annual report on accounts. However, the principle of it is important and does promote public confidence. The point about what the sanctions might be for not publishing accounts is a good point. Striking a charity off would surely be the very last thing that ought to be happening. However, it does not seem, in principle, an unreasonable sanction to exist as long as it is used proportionately. I do not have anything to add on the second question, but on the first one, in our response, we said that we believe that it is a good thing to be able to publish and that charities should publish their accounts. However, it should come with some support for those who are reading those accounts to understand what they mean and also some support for charities where that information, if it is going to be used maliciously against them for them to receive support from Oscar because that is a possibility if the accounts are not read accurately. Thank you. We will now move on to questions from Deputy Convener Emma Roddick. Convener, I am directing the first question towards Radill because I know that Rape Crisis Centre did submit some evidence on this already. Could she expand on the proposal to extend disqualification criteria to see more management positions and how that would affect recruitment? In the first panel spoke a little bit to that about who comes to work in charities and where people come from. If we are disqualifying people based on bankruptcy as one example, then it can exclude a number of people whose pathway into charities like ours is not as as those who have written this would expect so people come through various challenges in their lives, particularly within our sector. I think that it presents some difficulties for us. The other questions we have is what are the additional recruitment methods that we will need to use. We currently do use PVGs for all our roles within our organisation. I do not know if PVG looks at bankruptcy and things like that. We just received the information that was excluded to work with, but I think that we need to be careful about that disqualification. The wording is phrased as if you have control of our money, but most charities have reasonable processes on how finances are handled. It never really is one person. The CEO is usually shared between trustees and senior management. We need to be more careful. If that is what comes, then I guess there are cost implications for charities and recruitment. If you look at our accounts, we look like we have a decent income, but most of that is for front-line service delivery. We often do not have much capacity in terms of core support staff in admin, so we need to be mindful of that. I am sure that there is a lot more to say, but this is where I will stop my answer today. I know that most witnesses were listening to the earlier panel as well and may have heard me ask Sarah this. I wonder if any have a view on whether it is sensible or necessary to have the same disqualification criteria here as in the rest of the UK. I agree with Sarah. I think that there is an opportunity for us to have a look at what is available and what is there. There is a value to having a degree of consistency. However, if we are looking at sharing of information cross-border, it is also useful to have a clear set of guidelines around how information is shared and what information may be shared. In the event, for example, that Scotland strengthens its position around disqualification and the information that it holds around that, and if that exceeds the level that exists cross-border, we have to consider how understanding of what information would then be shared in comparison with our neighbours. I would like to go to Shona, because I am keen that we pick up on geographical issues here. I do not just mean distances and topography but cultural as well. I wonder whether she has any insights on the impact of disqualifying criteria within Gaelic organisations and rural and island organisations? People have multiple roles and have been relied on for lots of different roles. One of the things that we see, particularly in island rural areas, and that is to do with the population, the demographic changes, is the decreasing number of people available to carry out trustee roles. Also, in any small community, whatever that community is, the kind of reputational risk around people. I think that all of those things have to be handled extremely carefully. At the same time, what we want is more people to participate, but we also have to make sure that there is a rigorous process that ensures that anybody in a position of authority in a charitable organisation has confidence about that. I did not hear the part about the cross-border sharing, so I will not comment on that at all, but I recognise that there are challenges in small communities about participation. We want to encourage people to participate rather than deter. It is also so important that we were talking about earlier to make sure that lived experience is in the mix. Will that be made harder in terms of the criteria being proposed to have people who maybe have Gaelic and have relevant experience for the charities that they want to help? It is quite difficult to talk about it in a broad sense. It very often comes down to individual circumstances. In a way, I would rather not comment on that. As I was saying, it is about making it as open as possible to increase participation, but making sure that there are safeguards in place, so that the credibility of the organisation is robust and sustained, both locally and in its dealings, if it works further afield. No, you do not want to come in. I have a supplementary question from Pam. You have probably heard my supplementary question earlier. I noted your answer on the proportionality and that there are already mechanisms around finances. What do the panel think is the kind of appropriate compromise so that there is no onerous burden on charities to do checks on bankrupt say disclosure? Your comments were really helpful on that. How do we balance that with not putting people off applying? The default no was something that came up earlier on. How do we balance that with the need to protect the integrity and reputation of charities? Sorry, I know that there is a lot and that it is tricky. I feel like we maybe need to do something, but if it is something that the panel wants to come back to the committee with in writing, that is fair. Anything that does not bring too much cost to charities would be a good solution. I do not know what that would be and where that would sit, but it might be a checking service of some kind that we could go to as charities. In terms of the mechanisms and processes that are there, there is not a great deal of detail around what that would look like. It is important that we minimise the amount of input that is required from charities in terms of where the burden is placed and how that sits with the regulator and how the regulator then absorbs that within the existing functions that they have and how that would increase their capacity in terms of what they are able to produce and what they can provide for charities in terms of that supporting role. That is something that really has to be considered in terms of that bigger picture. That conversation and discussion has to be held around how charities are able to provide the openness and transparency that they need, but equally that that sits alongside making sure that those appropriate checks are there. It is about having more of the detail around how processes would work and where we could minimise those processes. For example, using digital platforms, using existing mechanisms and trying to avoid duplication or replication of existing work that already exists for charities in terms of the delivery of their outputs. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Pam. We'll now move to questions from Miles. I wanted to start with a question with regard to extending Oscars powers to allow them to undertake inquiries into former charities and their trustees and what the panel's view was on that. Rami, why have you started with yourself? It's not an area that I've given much consideration to. I have to say, but it seems to me that, if you take it from first principles, it is about public trust and charity as much as charities and that would suggest to me that, if there's a relevant inquiry for a former charity and former trustees, it would be appropriate for Oscars to undertake that. My second set of questions is in relation to issuing of positive directions following inquiry work. I think that it's important that we've picked up this morning in terms of burden being a real part of this that we need to look at. What you've touched upon, Vicky, in terms of supporting and providing guidance, is not policing almost as a role. I just wondered what the panel thought was appropriate for Oscar to be able to issue positive directions following inquiry work. I'm not sure that I'm showing you the range of charities that maybe you support, but whether or not the panel believes that it's appropriate for designated religious charities to be exempt from the provision. Does anyone want to come in on that? We don't have any takers. Do you want to move to anyone specific? Happy to come in on the point about positive directions. I think that that is a sensible thing because inquiries are rare and should be rare. They occur when something has gone wrong. That should be as much about fixing things and getting them right. The principle of issuing positive directions is a good one, one that we welcome, knowing that it will be used appropriately and where Oscar feels that there is something significant that has gone wrong. That's helpful. I think that for smaller designated religious charities it's something we want to hear that they have used as well if any involvement is there. There was also an issue with regard to the connection to Scotland, which is now included, and just wondered where witnesses consider the requirement for charities to demonstrate a connection to Scotland is appropriate and an appropriate measure. If there's any concerns over that. I think that Alzheimer Scotland, we are widely supportive of the measure to have a connection to Scotland. I think that the connection to Scotland helps to focus Oscar's role ensuring that it's doing the work that it has to be doing to support charities based in Scotland, providing services and resources in Scotland and takes away from any potential diversion elsewhere. Charities are working under really challenging circumstances at the current time, so any support and guidance should be there to support those particular charities in Scotland. As was mentioned at the earlier panel today, there has been a refocus and a shift around how the connection to Scotland is being looked at. I think that that is a really helpful and useful way to consider that connection to Scotland question in terms of focusing resources where they need to be. The panel will have heard earlier my question in relation to powers that Oscar could have to appoint interim trustees in specific circumstances where there's no trustee to be able to be found or not willing to act. I wonder if the panel has any experience of that in their roles previously or where you think that that would be a helpful measure in an emergency situation to support and stabilise a charity? We might need to do some more digging into where that has come from, but no one has anything to add on that. Finally, there's also a point with regard to maintaining a register of charity mergers and to make it easier for legacies to be transferred in a situation where the original legacy was made to a charity or has since merged or a charity has changed its name. Do you have any concerns or issues with regard to that or is that a tidying up measure, as we've heard as well? We certainly welcome that at Chaz and we recognise that people often make wills many, many years before those wills might be executed and sometimes there is a difficulty for executors in identifying the intended recipients of a legacy, so we would welcome that. If that helps to reduce any ambiguity or reduce the need to test those things in the courts, that would be very helpful. Charities rely hugely on legacies to be able to deliver services. Is there anything that we've not captured around that legacy issue that could have been improved or is it straightforward enough? Increasingly, we see charities looking towards that charitable legacy giving and whether or not that will become a greater issue in the future potentially with the impacts of that and potentially fewer charities. It is a very live question among charities as to how legacies might change in the years ahead as generational wealth has changed, but whether it's one where there's any answers in legislation, I'm not sure, but I could certainly reflect on that point and come back if there is. We'll move finally to Jeremy Balfour for his last set of questions. Good morning to you. I'll go back to the questions that I asked the previous panel. I suppose all three people in my room are fairly large charities, but do you see additional costs coming for you in regard to new proposals in my bill? Or do you think that these would just be things that you're already doing anyway? Certainly the lack of detail means that it's difficult to assess fully the administrative and the financial burden that will be placed upon charities regardless of their size. However, I think that it's inevitable that there will be additional administrative activity that has to go on in order to support the suggestions and proposals being put forward in the bill, so there will inevitably be a cost associated with the delivery of that. The ability of charities to be able to deliver that will be very much dependent on their structure and whether or not they can absorb it into their existing activity or whether or not it would have a further impact on their need to either fund raise or social alternatives in order to be able to meet administrative burden. Shona, can I ask you a question? Obviously you're dealing with smaller charities. Are you concerned about the administration cost around this? I think that we're always concerned about the impact of additional requirements on small organisations, whether that's statutory or otherwise. It's balancing the requirements to be open, transparent, fit for purpose, with the capacity that the organisations have to deliver that. I think that that's always a perspective that we have in mind. When we ask for information, the degree of information that we ask from the organisation depends, to some extent, on the detail that varies according to the size of the organisation. It concerns me, but it depends on capacity to deliver it and put that in place. Many of the organisations that we deal with do not have employed staff. It is all done by volunteers. Anything that makes it more difficult for them to deliver their services and their purpose is challenging. I think that sufficient support from OSCR and SEVO have been praised for the work that they do to help small organisations particularly, would help offset that. That's where I think that the focus should be on how those organisations support the very small organisations to deliver any additional requirements. If I can follow up on that and say that we would like to see some kind of financial limit. If your charity is below a certain figure, you wouldn't have to do the same amount of work as if you were a bigger charity. Do you think that that could work in practice? I think that that would be well worth investigating further. I think that there is a degree of reporting that is required and that varies according to the size of the organisation. I would certainly be interested in that. My final question to the whole panel is that we know that there is going to be a further review of charity law once the spirit has been passed. Is there anything that you think should be a mis-bill that is not a mis-bill? Some of that stands out. That would make the life of my charity and my trust easier. I think that there is an opportunity in the bill to just further clarify what the purpose of Oscar is. It's very heavy on what Oscar does, but it's also important to remember why Oscar exists. It's therefore a very important purpose, which should be to promote public confidence and charity generally. It might be an opportunity for the bill to be amended to introduce a specific general duty on Oscar to make sure that that's one of the things that it does. My view is that, with regulators, it is important to be clear about why the regulator exists as well as what the regulator does. Would anyone else like to come in on that specific point? I don't really want to put anyone in the spot. I'm a strong advocate for ensuring that the legislation that we look at is robust and absolutely sound. Ensuring that the primary legislation provides enough of a structure in order to hang any further secondary legislation or guidance on it. I think that whatever the final draft looks like, it has to be robust. It has to be able to provide that structure and that ability in order for the secondary legislation or subsequent guidance to be able to be followed up upon and for it to provide real clarity around what the purpose and what the intention is and, most important, how it seeks to deliver that. I don't have any further questions. To finish our question off this morning, I'll move back to Deputy convener Emma Roddick. I just wanted to go back to Shona, because I know that we've touched on quite a few different issues that are affecting specifically rural island, Gaelic and small organisations. I just wondered if there were any specific issues that she wished to raise today that we haven't touched on already. Thank you for the opportunity to do that. I think that I'll refer to what we put in our submission about encouraging the use of Gaelic in returns, in names of organisations and generally promoting awareness and understanding of Gaelic in Scotland. That would be my other ask. I really just want to take this opportunity to thank all the witnesses for your evidence this morning. What we've heard this morning will be very helpful in our scrutiny going forward. That concludes our public business for today. Next week, we will continue to take evidence on the bill. We will now move into private. Can members who are joining us remotely please use the Microsoft Teams link in their calendars to join the meeting? I close the public session.