Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Communities Committee, 04 May 2005

04 May 2005 · S2 · Communities Committee

Item of business

Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Lamont, Johann Lab Glasgow Pollok Watch on SPTV

Members are right that the issue that the committee and others have flagged up is important. I am not quite sure that we have reached a conclusion yet, but the issue is certainly worth exploring further. However, I suspect that if things got to the stage of the regulator having adopted the kind of role to which John Home Robertson referred, the matter would need to be decided by courts at a level much further up the hierarchy than the Scottish charity appeals panel.The appeals panel is designed to provide a cheap and straightforward means whereby a charity might appeal a decision that has been made by either OSCR or a body to which OSCR has delegated powers. It was envisaged that the appeals process would be simple and quick, with many cases, for example, being dealt with by correspondence alone. The decision was taken to prevent the panel from awarding costs to parties in order to facilitate the provision of a simple, quick and inexpensive system. Requiring the panel to consider awarding expenses would considerably lengthen and complicate the process. Matters would only be exacerbated if the panel were also required to consider compensation. If the proposed changes were made, we would also need to set out either in regulations or in the bill how the panel would decide what level of expenses or compensation to award and how any consultation that might be required would impact on decisions. In addition, any decision on expenses or compensation that was made by the panel would itself need to be subject to appeal. As I have already pointed out, the result would be a much more drawn-out, complicated and expensive process for all involved and an increasingly less flexible appeals panel.I am concerned that amendments 78, 79 and 110 would allow the panel to award costs and compensation to the appellant but not to OSCR. Such a move would take us into the complicated issue of how financial loss and the level of compensation should be assessed. There might need to be an assessment of subjective issues, such as how charitable donations have been affected by the decision. In some cases, that could provide an opportunity for vexatious or frivolous complaints and for protracted procedures, which would impact on the panel's workload and greatly increase administrative costs. Indeed, OSCR's actions at earlier stages could also be inhibited.However, I recognise that we need to wrestle with the issue of expenses and ensure that we provide the level playing field to which Donald Gorrie referred. I recognise the strength of the committee's feelings on the matter and I undertake to consider the issue again before stage 3. In the meantime, I urge members not to support the amendments.