Chamber and committees

Does that mean that funding for citizens advice bureaux and other organisations will be cut? The advice shop in Edinburgh gets money from the City of Edinburgh Council or the Scottish Government to offer advice and assistance at tribunals. Will that funding be reduced in due course because such organisations are no longer able to give advocacy services?

Cabinet secretary, your portfolio has, to say the least, a very large remit. Indeed, I was interested to note that you are responsible for the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and charities. It is perhaps not the most sexy subject for discussion, but a number of people have contacted me over the years to ask whether any thought has been given to reforming OSCR. For example, a charity with two people has to fill out almost the same number of forms every year as the National Trust for Scotland or other very large charities. I know that, earlier this year, OSCR ran a consultation, which has now concluded, but is any thought being given to charity law reform? It might not sound exciting, but such reform would make it a lot easier for many people to engage in the local community.

I would be grateful if you would do that.

If anything positive has come out of the past 18 months, it has been the relationship involving local government, the Scottish Government and the third sector, particularly with regard to homelessness. In Edinburgh, for example, a very positive three-tiered approach was taken, and it really worked. The third sector talks a lot about future proofing its funding. It often receives only one-year funding. Indeed, when I worked in a third sector organisation, whether we got our redundancy notices every December depended on whether we had money coming in the next year. It was not the most ideal place for any organisation to be in. I know that it is difficult to forecast funding, but are you doing any work with your colleagues, particularly Kate Forbes, on a two to three-year funding package for the third sector to allow it to plan things better?

It is a very complex issue. I am not sure that I totally followed your answer, but that is more to do with my understanding. Would it be possible to write back to the committee, putting your response in more layman’s language? If we are seeking to promote benefits that are now devolved to a new agency, I would find it helpful to know who is going to pay for that. I appreciate that the subject is very complex, and that it is not easy to give a one-word answer, but some kind of letter back to the committee would be helpful.

I will follow up a point made by Pam Duncan-Glancy on the divergence in policy. Under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, we diverge in policy on terminal illness. Was there a problem with the DWP at that point? Did it react negatively to that? Is it aware of that divergence? Is there a way we can build a relationship around policy difference? Does it seem to be working okay at the moment?

Good morning, cabinet secretary, and welcome back to the committee.

Either last week or the week before, we heard evidence about take-up. As you will be aware from your work on the committee, a lot of benefits are still not being taken up, but it was suggested that, if we were to run a campaign in Scotland to encourage more people to apply for attendance allowance or any of those benefits, it might have a financial cost to the Scottish Government. If more people were to take up benefits, would that have to be funded by the Scottish Government or would it continue to come out of the Westminster budget? Have you had discussions on that? Do you have any clarity in your thinking with regard to running take-up campaigns and the costs that might come from them?

It was on terminal illness. Our definitions north and south of the border are different. That was obviously a change in policy, so I wonder how the DWP and the UK Government reacted to that change.

I will start with Jen Ang, if that is okay. You will have heard the previous witnesses being asked this question. Obviously, and as you have described, we already have lots of laws in Scotland. Many are to protect people from torture, rape and other forms of abuse. The previous witnesses said that there are still gaps in the law that legislation such as we are discussing could fill. I do not want to put you on the spot, but can you outline some of the gaps and how the legislation would fill them?

Both of your answers are very helpful. There are obviously different religious teachings in different faith groups, so it is not a standard thing. However, there will also be those in different faiths, whether they be of the Christian faith, Judaism or the Muslim faith, who give different teachings. Some would argue that celibacy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a lifestyle that should be followed outwith marriage. I have had conversations with people about these issues—not, I hope, in a judgmental way. I have listened to them and have sought to pray and advise them. Would you see that as a legitimate thing for a minister or counsellor to do without necessarily trying to change someone’s identity? I am talking about giving them pastoral support and prayer as they work through the issues as individuals.