Chief executive of NCVO, Sir Stuart Etherington, will tonight tell the Association of Jersey Charities that the island should follow the Scottish model of defining public benefit.

On Monday Jersey’s Chief Minister’s Department launched a consultation on establishing a charities law for the island, which has no charity register or regulator at present.

And tonight the NCVO chief will address the Association at its AGM in St Helier, giving his overview of the state of the sector and recent developments in England, as well as his advice on how a nascent charity law could best develop.

This latter includes suggesting that Jersey follows the Scottish model of public benefit, wherein the high-level principles are established by Parliament.

'Further legal clarification needed'

In his speech, Etherington calls the Charities Act 2006 “an important achievement for the sector”, but stresses that “further clarification of the law is needed”.

“There has been considerable debate about what charities need to do to show that they benefit the public, particularly those that charge high fees for their services,” Sir Stuart will say.

“But we think that further clarification in law is needed. There has been considerable debate about what charities need to do to show that they benefit the public, particularly those that charge high fees for their services."

He will go on to describe the role Parliament can play in outlining which principles should be used to judge public benefit, but stops short of recommending a comprehensive definition, saying that such a thing “would either be extremely long and ossify the concept, or so broad and vague that it would end up being practically meaningless”.

Scottish approach 'puts flesh on bones'

Sir Stuart will describe the Scottish test as “striking the right balance”.

He will elaborate: “It provides some guidance of public benefit without imposing a restrictive definition.

“The Scotland Charities Act says the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) must consider whether the charity's activities are disadvantageous to the public or whether they are too restrictive - for example, by benefiting a narrow group of people.

“So the Scottish approach puts some flesh on the bones and makes it a bit easier for people to understand the idea of public benefit. You have the advantage of looking at these issues afresh, and I would suggest that the Scottish model is one you should be looking at with interest.”

Last year Etherington suggested to Parliament that it "should look at public benefit again with a view to providing a clearer interpretation of what it means" - and called the route taken by the Scottish Parliament "worth looking at".

Want access to all civilsociety.co.uk content? Subscribers gain access to all expert advice, analysis, surveys, special reports and the full archive of content from as little as £43.20 per year. Find out more...