Chamber and committees

Clearly, the Scottish child payment has made a difference. We hear that directly from stakeholders and in some of the evidence that I quoted in my introductory remarks with regard to the importance of the payment.

It is clear that there are calls for the level of the payment to be further increased, and I appreciate where those calls are coming from. It is important, however, to add a bit of context. I remember that, when the Scottish child payment was initially launched, campaigners were asking for £5 per week per eligible child, and we are now at £25 per week. I hope that that shows the committee the very serious consideration that is being given across Government to see what can be done to increase the payment.

The challenge, as the committee has heard in previous answers this morning, concerns the financial situation in which we find ourselves, and the current context. As the First Minister has made clear, we will look at what we can do on the Scottish child payment, and on any other anti-poverty measures, to see what more can be done, but it will always have to be done within the current financial context.

We will consider an increase very seriously in the run-up to the next budget, along with the other asks—and there are many—that people would wish us to take forward in relation to these issues, but it would have to be done within the financial reality of the situation that we are in.

That comes down to the legislative background of how the Scottish child payment was set up. I remind members that the benefit was established within 18 months, which was the quickest delivery of a benefit anywhere in the UK. That shows the importance that the Government placed on the benefit at the time. To do that, it was necessary to deliver it as a top-up to current reserved benefits. Someone needs to be in receipt of universal credit, for example, to be able to receive the Scottish child payment. Given the legislative underpinning of the Scottish child payment, it is therefore not possible to allow payment of the benefit to someone who is not in receipt of, for example, universal credit. It is not possible, given the way that the Scottish child pavement was set up. However, I hope that I have explained to members why we set it up in the way that we did.

The number of individuals who are being sanctioned is of great concern, particularly when you look at the numbers pre-pandemic, post-pandemic and during the pandemic. For the sake of time, I am happy to provide written information to the committee on the sanctions that are currently impacting people. The Scottish Government is greatly concerned about the impact of sanctions on people, and it is imperative that we have in place something such as the Scottish welfare fund to assist people, which is why we remain committed to funding it. It is delivered by local authorities, which are responsible for ensuring its promotion. We work with local authorities on that, and we consider with them, as always, what more can be done to ensure that people are aware of it.

I recognise Marie McNair’s point about the type of individuals who can be impacted by sanctions. Some of them are in the priority groups that we have identified in “Best Start, Bright Futures”. It is a concern when anyone is sanctioned, but the fact that the people who are getting hit hardest are some of the most vulnerable in our society is of even greater concern.

It is very important to ensure not only that we have the benefit in place but that people know about it and are encouraged and assisted to apply for it. I am happy to provide the committee with the most recent levels of uptake. From memory, the number of people who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment is now greater than was set out in the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts.

I hope that that demonstrates the further work that the Government has done on the Scottish child payment, but—as the committee heard from Neil Gray—we do not rest on our laurels. We know that there are more eligible people out there, and the example of those who require the payment is why we take seriously the local delivery work that Social Security Scotland does in assisting people with benefit applications. We have a continuing commitment to provide welfare and advice support. We want to ensure that people are supported and, critically, that the process is made as simple as possible.

We are always looking for ways to increase benefit uptake, and we are very happy to work with the committee if it has suggestions about what more we can do. I share Paul O’Kane’s concerns and his enthusiasm to ensure that the Government is pressed as much as possible on that.

I can give you examples of some of the work that we have been doing, and if the committee requires any further detail, we can go into that, too.

I highlight, for example, some of the impact assessments that are undertaken when policies are being developed and on which we work very closely with stakeholders. It is very important that we have the analysis and modelling to support “Best Start, Bright Futures”, because we can use that to see what impact we are having through our policies and to challenge ourselves as to what more we can do and whether the money is being used for the best opportunities. The modelling also has to take account of impacts from elsewhere—and outwith the Scottish Government’s powers—on child poverty levels, but the modelling itself is very important, because an evidence-based approach is critical.

Another example is social security. Clearly, a great deal of work goes into the development of social security policies with those with lived experience as well as with stakeholders to ensure that we deliver the best possible benefit in the best possible way that can reach the maximum number of people. Earlier, we touched on the issue of take-up. Clearly, we are very committed to that; after all, we have a benefit take-up strategy, unlike the UK Government, which does not.

The monitoring for “Best Start, Bright Futures” that we have already discussed will pick up the impacts of that. The Scottish Government is investing almost £3 billion, which would be having more of an impact if we did not have high inflation, the UK Government’s welfare policies and other external factors that are impacting on people. That modelling work will pick up the fact that, although the Scottish Government is making an impact, it is clear that we would be making more of an impact if the financial context was not so difficult.

I hope that that explains the position to the committee in the time that I have available, but I am happy to provide more information in writing about how that modelling is done, if that would assist.

The 2005 act retained the concept of designated religious charities, or DRCs, which existed under preceding legislation. The rules in the 2005 act recognise that many religious bodies operate effective self-regulatory mechanisms by having an internal organisation with supervisory and disciplinary functions and seek to avoid overregulating such charities.

However, the 2005 act places restrictions on whom OSCR can share information with and for what purpose. In general, information can be shared only with public bodies and office-holders for the purpose of enabling or assisting in the exercise of either OSCR or the body’s functions. As a DRC is not a public body and the information to be shared by OSCR would not be for the exercise of its own function, it is not currently permitted.

The bill does not seek to change that original policy intent of the 2005 act. It seeks to address a practical issue identified by OSCR and the DRCs around the ability to share information. Amendment 18 will enable OSCR and the DRCs to share information if necessary for any purpose connected with the exercise of OSCR’s functions or for the purpose of enabling or assisting the DRC to exercise any supervisory or disciplinary functions that it holds in relation to its component elements.

For example, when OSCR receives information from an auditor or independent examiner in relation to the accounts of a charity that is a component part of a DRC, OSCR is currently unable to share that information with the relevant DRC. That DRC, in turn, is then unable to fulfil its regulatory functions. This small amendment will allow DRCs to fully exercise their functions in respect of their component parts, thereby improving and enhancing the regulation of those charities. The amendment makes sure that the current arrangements with DRCs can work properly and that the original policy intent is not hampered by the inability to share information when necessary.

I hope that the committee will agree with the approach that is being taken here and will support amendment 18. As the current position is that some charities are designated as DRCs, the bill needs to ensure that they can exercise their functions as intended by the 2005 act.

I move amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 to 20 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Amendments 3 to 12 refine the record of mergers provisions as introduced following discussions with OSCR about how they will work in practice. They do not alter the fundamental intent of the provisions, which is to ensure that legacies left to charities in wills are retained for the charity sector and that so-called shell charities do not clog up the register simply for the purpose of collecting legacies.

Amendment 3 will provide that a transferee charity has a choice as to whether or not to notify OSCR of the merger rather than being under a duty to do so. Notification of the merger may be done at any time after the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of the transferor is complete. Although we imagine that, in most cases, transferees will want to notify OSCR of a merger, we do not think that it needs to be a specific duty.

Amendments 4 to 11 will provide that the key date that will trigger the rules on redirection of a legacy will be the date on which notice of a merger is given to OSCR, instead of the date on which OSCR records the merger. That will mean that there is no risk of a legacy being lost due to a delay in OSCR recording a merger—for example, when a merger is notified just before a bank holiday and the testator dies during that weekend. OSCR must still keep a record of all charity mergers that are notified to it, and the record can be used as a reference point to establish what has been notified and when.

The amendments will also provide that a transferor charity will not need to have formally wound up or dissolved in order for the rule on redirecting legacies to apply, which should avoid disrupting any winding-up processes that the charity might have commenced, having already transferred all its property to another charity.

Amendment 4 will also give the Scottish ministers the power to clarify what is meant by notice being given. In most cases, the giving of a notice will be instantaneous, using email or OSCR’s online system. However, where notification is sent by post, there might be a need to make specific rules around when a notification of a merger should be treated as having been given—for example, when delays occur due to postal strikes.

It might transpire that there is no need to bring forward regulations to clarify that type of point. However, given that section 12 introduces a new process, I want to ensure that any unforeseen issues relating to notification that arise in practice can be swiftly addressed, particularly once OSCR has established a process for dealing with merger notifications.

Amendment 12 corrects a referencing error in relation to the definition of a will.

I move amendment 3.

I am happy to take that away and to provide an update to Mr Briggs and the committee, and we can address that at stage 3, if necessary.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 4 to 12 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

After section 12

The rationale was to ensure that we provide OSCR with the powers to do what it needs to do, such as in the example that I gave in my introductory remarks of a women’s refuge. If there is a threat to a trustee or a trustee feels that they might be threatened if their information is published, that information can be withheld. We are still upholding transparency, but we are respecting the specific circumstances in which a trustee, for understandable reasons, might not wish their details to be made public. Amendment 1 simply ensures the policy intent of the bill without imposing on OSCR what it might perceive as an additional burden.