Chamber and committees

Thank you.

On the single authority model, when we were up in Orkney, we had very constructive discussions with the council about its plans in that respect, but I did not think that it was quite clear where, if councils were to move towards such a model, any future discussions on a funding formula would take place, especially with regard to health and council funding. Is any work taking place on what that might look like?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us. It was interesting that David Wallace acknowledged from the outset the concerns around processing times. Our constituents are certainly talking about that. I looked at your social media feed last night and, clearly, that is where a lot of traffic and anger are. What parts of the process are contributing to that long process time? Is there a difference between adult disability payment and child disability payment, and how they are being managed and processed?

So it is not necessarily an issue about capacity in the organisation and processing time?

Have you reviewed the information that you provide to clients during that period? A lot of people have said that they have been asked to provide information seven times. Have you reviewed how people are kept informed of where they are on that journey, including how long it may actually take, so that expectations can be managed?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us. I will start with a question about the challenges for businesses, because we have been hearing about flexibility and potential flexibility in business. I want to find out what you believe the current challenges are for employers and how they might impact on efforts to provide a more fair, flexible and family-friendly working environment. I do not know who wants to kick off. Maybe we could start at one end of the panel, with Rachel Hunter.

It is now more than nine weeks since the Edinburgh tram inquiry report was sent to the printers, more than nine years since the inquiry was announced and three years since it stopped hearing evidence. It has cost Scottish taxpayers more than £13 million, which includes the chair being paid more than £1 million.

I know that the First Minister cannot comment on the inquiry’s findings today, but will the Scottish Government agree to Parliament debating the inquiry’s findings, in Government time, when they are published? What review will be undertaken of the delivery of the inquiry—it is vital that lessons are learned for future public inquiries—and of what has gone so wrong in delivering this one?

I declare an interest as chair of Heart Research UK’s heart of Scotland appeal board.

As other members did at the start of the debate, I thank our clerks on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, who have helped us with the passage of the bill. I also thank those who have given evidence to the committee. It is often humbling, when I meet with charities and the third sector across Scotland, to see the work that they are undertaking in our communities and how vital that work is. As a country, we would not be who we are without them.

Our charities have a combined income of more than £15 billion and employ more than 200,000 people, which shows us why the bill is so important. Parts of it are concerning, however—I refer especially to the points that have been raised with regard to our churches and faith groups and the potential unintended consequences of the bill. I hope that, as other members have said, the cabinet secretary will be mindful of those.

Although we have welcomed the one-year delay, the concerns about bureaucracy and additional costs are still very much there. I hope that we will see those issues taken on board, and any necessary amendments lodged in the future, in order to prevent such issues costing our charities any money, because that money needs to go to the front line during difficult times. The arguments put forward at stages 1, 2 and 3 still stand.

The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 has been in place for some 18 years, so it has been necessary to modernise it in order to ensure that our charities operate more transparently. We welcome that, and the fact that the bill brings our charities law in line with reforms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, as my colleague Jeremy Balfour said, it has felt as if the bill has been inspired by OSCR.

There is now an opportunity, with regard to potential reforms coming forward, to do something radically different, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary will now work to put together a proposed review during the rest of the current session of Parliament. That is important, given what it could mean; Paul O’Kane outlined some potential reforms that the Labour Party would like to see around the regulation of charities. However, we also need to look at the overregulation of charities in Scotland.

During the stage 1 debate, John Mason, who I do not think is in the chamber, made some important points that could be taken forward for the fully volunteer-run charities that we have in Scotland. Charities that have an income of less than £25,000 face the same bureaucracy and regulation as charities with thousands of employees and millions of pounds of income. I do not think that that is fair, and I hope that in future parliamentary sessions we have the opportunity to look at the deregulation of how charities in Scotland operate and the opportunities that that could present for resources to go to the issues that charities want to campaign and make a difference on.

That is why the consultation did not attract as much engagement from those charities. They are looking after village halls and church halls across our country. They are small charities and do not have the individuals to take on those roles. I hope that, in the future, a potential consultation, or the proposed review, will look at that issue, which could realise the potential of many small charities across our country.

We will support the bill at decision time, as we have outlined. At this stage, we are content with what the bill will do, but it has to present an opportunity for us all to look at how we support our charities. The third sector in Scotland has done so much that we can be proud of, especially during the pandemic. I hope that that is the learning that we can take forward from the bill, so that we as a Parliament look at how we can do more to help our third sector in the future.

From the outset, the bill has not all been controversial; however, section 2 certainly has been. The churches and faith groups that have great concerns about it have been quite clear. The Church of Scotland’s briefing indicates that it has sought countless times to explain the points to the Scottish Government, and to offer constructive solutions. However, it asserts, quite clearly, that it has been disappointed that the Scottish Government has not recognised the church’s willingness to work with it, and that the Government has been unable to appreciate the church’s situation. As has been stated in the debate, it is clear that there will be unintended consequences. I think that ministers accept that, because they have already said that a year’s extension will be granted for churches and faith groups.

As has been stated by others, it is important that mitigations be put in place, whether or not the cabinet secretary will consider reviewing the provisions before they come into effect. I do not know where the Green and Scottish National Party whips are today, but I wonder whether amendment 3 could be supported.

It is not controversial to exclude from the bill, at this stage, the provisions that we have discussed. We have made arguments on the point throughout stages 1 and 2 on a cross-party basis, as have church and faith groups.

This is an important point. As Fergus Ewing stated at the stage 1 debate, it is clear that the measures will have financial impacts. None of us wants more money to be used by our charities for legal costs; rather, we want it to go towards their purposes and to churches doing good in our society. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the cross-party concern on the matter, and that mitigation and review can be brought in early—especially given the one-year extension that I hope the cabinet secretary will be telling Parliament about soon.

No, go for it.