Chamber and committees

Who would be liable if there was a breach: OSCR or the Scottish Government ?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That is helpful.

Obviously, I hope that this situation will not happen very often but, as we have heard from evidence in previous sessions, at the moment, there is a lack of people who are willing to volunteer to be trustees. It might be an issue for OSCR more than for you, but do you see OSCR as having a bank of people who are ready to step in if required? If not, how do you expect OSCR to find those people at fairly short notice?

I will move to the issue of interim trustees, which is something that OSCR can now deal with. If OSCR appoints an interim trustee, will that person be remunerated, or is it a voluntary role? If there are costs connected to that, is OSCR liable for those, or is that the charity’s liability?

You touched on this issue in one of your earlier answers to Pam Duncan-Glancy. The provisions in the bill that relate to charity mergers are restricted to legacies but, in England, the equivalent provisions relate to both legacies and gifts. Why have we not gone down that road, in order to allow both legacies and gifts to be included with regard to a merger?

I suppose that that would just make things clearer. It is not a negative thing; it seems to be positive. We might be able to look at it later.

My other couple of questions will be quick, as I am conscious of time. From all the evidence that we have taken, the requirement for charities to demonstrate a connection to Scotland seems to have received pretty welcoming support. Why does the bill not have an absolutely clear definition of what that means? Instead, it leaves it open to some interpretation. Is it too difficult to define legally? What was the reasoning behind that?

Thank you. That is helpful.

You will be aware that the Information Commissioner has raised some questions about data protection issues. Have those been addressed sufficiently in the bill or in related evidence, or does the bill need some tweaking?

Martin, from a regulator’s perspective, are you happy with how the bill deals with that area?

Is there anything that we can learn from how things work down south in that regard?

Thank you. With my second question, I will again start with you, Alan, but feel free to pass it on.

The bill uses the terminology of a “connection to Scotland”. I know that the bill provides some guidance in that regard, but, as I understand it, there is no clear definition of what that means. From a Law Society or legal perspective, are you happy with that terminology or do you think that it should be more defined in primary legislation?