Chamber and committees

I come to the bill without having heard all the evidence that other committee members have heard. What was the rationale for enabling OSCR to remove someone’s details of its own accord? Would that have been done when there might have been a risk to the person who was registered? I just want to understand the Government’s rationale in lodging an amendment that would mean that OSCR would not have that power.

Thank you. I am just trying to understand. Amendment 1 removes OSCR’s unilateral power to make a decision to remove someone’s details, perhaps without their consent. Are there scenarios in which that power would be required? An individual might not see the risk to themselves, but there might be a wider risk meaning that action would need to be taken.

What discussion was there with OSCR on the provision? Was OSCR concerned that it would require that unilateral power?

Thank you.

I engaged in this discussion in the stage 1 debate, when I said that I shared several of the concerns that Jeremy Balfour and a number of churches have raised. The argument has been well rehearsed in the chamber and elsewhere. There is a challenge. Obviously, the Government has agreed to a year’s grace period for the implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, but there is serious concern about the fact that, rather than a solution to the issue being put forward, we have simply had a pause.

There is a balance to be struck. Part of that balance is about ensuring that we have transparency with regard to who has a controlled interest in land and property. If we can ensure that information on trustees is transparently available via the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator process, and thereby remove the burden from churches, it might be worth considering Jeremy Balfour’s amendment in more detail. The Church of Scotland passed that deliverance at its general assembly just last week. We need to take cognisance of that.

I am keen to understand the definition of “religious charity” as outlined in Mr Balfour’s amendment. Is there a legal definition of a religious charity? I am playing devil’s advocate—pardon the pun—but I just want to understand whether, for example, someone could set up a religious charity to try to mask the fact that they own land. I am not saying that that would happen; I am just trying to understand whether the term “religious charity” relates to a church or religious group or whether the definition is wider.

New forecasts from the Scottish Fiscal Commission show a concerning gap between eligibility for, and uptake of, the Scottish child payment. It is projected that more than 60,000 families could miss out. That disparity is most pronounced among children between six and 15. It has been estimated that only 80 per cent of that age cohort will take up the payment, compared with 92 per cent for under-sixes.

The Scottish child payment was unanimously supported across the Parliament, but the payment has the ability to change lives only if people are aware that they are entitled to it and—crucially—are supported to apply for it. If the First Minister is serious about tackling poverty, as he says he is, will he investigate and address that concerning disparity between eligibility for, and uptake of, the Scottish child payment to ensure that it has the fullest impact, which we all support?

It is clear that Parliament needs to see details of phase 3 of the learning estate investment programme, which is now overdue. Too many schools across Scotland are currently in desperate need of upgrading.

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, it has been estimated that it could cost up to £160 million to rectify Renfrewshire Council’s monumental error in the calculation of the school roll for the new Dargavel primary school in Bishopton. Indeed, in answer to my colleague Neil Bibby, the First Minister said that the cabinet secretary would enter into discussions with Renfrewshire Council to try to resolve the situation and to avoid any detriment to the learning resource that is available to the council. Can she confirm whether those discussions have taken place? Can she assure members that there will be no detriment to the learning estate investment fund allocations to Renfrewshire in order to resolve the error, given the need for new schools across the local authority area?

I asked the previous cabinet secretary a similar question in October and I think that we heard a very similar answer. It feels like we consistently have the same response from the Government.

I am aware that the cabinet secretary has committed to a wider review of charities in Scotland. Will she commit to reviewing multiyear funding as part of that process?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on phase 3 of the learning estate investment programme, including in relation to the planned date for the announcement of the successful projects. (S6O-02321)

That was very helpful.

We are particularly interested in the issue of employability and the extent to which the provision of 1,140 hours has taken people back into the workforce. We have some interim data on those going back to work, particularly on women—especially mothers—and, from some of the tables that we have been provided with, there is a bit of a sense of a drop-off in people returning to the workforce when their child turns three. There is also a slight increase in people going part-time—in other words, changing their working patterns to accommodate the childcare offer instead of the other way round. Have any of the panel members done any analysis, ahead of the summer 2024 report, to look at what the impact on three and four-year-olds has been?

Do you want me to move on to question theme 2 and blend the two together, convener? It follows quite naturally.