Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s remarks about amendment 22. In the light of her offer to work on something that would perhaps be better before stage 3, I will not press amendment 22.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 22 picks up something that came across in the evidence that we took at stage 1: third sector charities’ awareness of changes in the bill—if it becomes an act—and the effect that it will have on them. Concern was raised by some charities and, in particular, by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, that the communication between OSCR and them had not quite worked and that some charities were unaware of what was proposed in the consultation and in the bill. There was concern that, if the bill becomes an act, charities might not be aware.

Amendment 22 therefore puts a bit of gentle pressure on OSCR to do a bit more on communication, and it allows the Parliament to have the satisfaction of knowing that that has happened, so that the Parliament—perhaps, in particular, this committee—can review matters in two years’ time. I hope that that is helpful to OSCR and, more importantly, to the third sector.

When it comes to amendment 23, one of the striking things that came out in evidence was not what was in the bill but what was not in the bill. It would be fair to say that there was disappointment in certain sectors that the bill did not go further and faster. I understand that we had Covid and that the cabinet secretary has a lot on her plate, but there is an appetite in civic society generally for a more radical reform of charity law in Scotland.

I think that I am right in saying that, in the stage 1 debate, the cabinet secretary suggested that there would not be any further legislation in this area during this parliamentary session. Again, I understand that, but I am concerned that, once the bill becomes an act—before the summer recess, I hope—the issue will go off our agenda and may go off the Scottish Government’s agenda because other things are going on. Again, therefore, this is an opportunity for the Government to take forward what I know it wants to do, but at such a scale that this Parliament can at least see the direction that the Scottish Government is going in; then the next Parliament can take that forward, I hope, and bring forward more legislation. Amendment 23 represents an encouragement—a stick and a carrot, I hope—for the Scottish Government, which, I am sure, the cabinet secretary will welcome.

I move amendment 22.

I want to pick up on the issue of more rural areas. On our visit to the Western Isles, we were told that only one childminder covered the whole island. In seeking this expansion, how do we ensure that we do not leave those who live in rural island communities behind? Can you point the committee towards any good models in that respect?

I have a couple of quick questions, following on from Chris Sheldon’s comment on the two bills. I have the privilege of sitting on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which is looking at the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill. You have mentioned one area, but is there anything else that you think needs to be clarified between the two bills at this stage?

In what way do you see that happening? If you go to the Court of Session, what way do you see of allowing that without giving the trustees too much power?

That is helpful. Thank you.

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare that I am a member of the Church of Scotland, but I have no financial interests in that regard.

The bill includes new powers for sheriff courts, but the predominant power remains with the Court of Session. What are the pros and cons of that approach? In a previous evidence session, it was suggested that trustees should be able to decide whether their case goes to the sheriff court or the Court of Session, instead of that being prescribed. Does anyone have a view on that?

Chris Sheldon, just to absolutely nail that, is it your view that the bill should not contain a definition but should simply refer back to the one in the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 so that, if that definition changes at any point, we would not have to reopen the bill before us, as enacted?

That is helpful.

In the previous couple of evidence sessions, we have had evidence regarding resolving disputes through mediation or arbitration, which Mike Blair touched on. As he said, that can happen only if everyone is willing to take part. In principle, should such provision be in the bill, or should mediation simply be encouraged in guidance?

Joan, I am interested in what you said in your opening statement about some trusts not being covered in this bill. You mentioned some of the gardens around Edinburgh. Can you tell me a bit more about why you think that they are not included?