 Yn ystafell ymbyddai ystafell 3, o'r ysgolwyr Cynonau Ysgolwyr Ddiogelysgol yng Nghymru. Yn y ddiwrnod o gyflawni, mae'n mynd i'r ddod o'r byd ystafell 2, ysgolwyr S&P Bill 20A, ysgolwyr The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage three. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. After that I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. that, in the special division after the debate. Members wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function if they are joining us online as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the martial list of amendments. We start with group 1, minor and technical. I call amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 5 and 9. Cabinet secretary, cyffinodwmaeid dŵr a chynnywllio'r dylen i dapu eich dlexu yn eu FC. Maen nhw'n​​a dros flu grain y gwath. Networks EndDP ynddill. is for charities to obtain consent before going ahead with those changes. As a result, we no longer need to make provision in paragraph 4 of the bill's schedules about how the 42-day period is to be calculated in a case where the charity ends up agreeing a different name with Oscar from the name that they originally sought to consent to. I move amendment 4. We welcome all the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary and, just for clarity, we will be supporting them all as we go on this afternoon, and we will not be speaking to them. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament has agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 4. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. Question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move on to group 2, register of persons holding a controlled interest in land. I call amendment 3 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, in a group of his own. Jeremy Balfour to move and speak to amendment 3. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suspect that this is the only slightly controversial part of this afternoon that is going to take place, but I do think that it is a really important issue that we are going to debate over in the next few moments. I do hope that the chamber will take serious the concerns raised by churches and faith groups across Scotland. What we are seeking to do is to exempt Christian Charities Church's religious bodies from a previous piece of legislation passed in this Parliament. Of course, there is already precedent for that in that Scottish Charitable Incorporated organisations were excluded from that. The reason that we are seeking to do this is not because the churches and religious bodies do not want to be transparent and open, but it simply comes down to whether it is reasonable and appropriate for them to have this. Perhaps this can be best illustrated, Presiding Officer, by submission made by the Scottish Episcopal Church at stage 2 of the debate that we had in committee. They pointed out and they gave one example of why one diocese here in Scotland. We said that there were 50 congregations, five diocese trustees, compromising 50 church buildings, 40 rectories, 25 church halls, which equals 100 properties in total. With each congregation having a minimum of three associates, the number of registrations required would be five times 115 times three, which I am sure you know, Deputy Presiding Officer, equals 1,725. If you multiply that across the seven dioceses, we are looking at a large number of transactions that have to take place. That has to happen every time somebody steps down and another person is reappointed in their place. That will mean that a lawyer will have to be instructed to do that and that will cost money. We were told in the stage 1 debate that it would cost over £100,000 per year for the Church of Scotland. That is money that could be used to fund social work, to fund good causes, to fund other activities of that denomination and of churches. Every trustee that will be part of that is already on the register under Oscar, so their names will be there for people to see and to know, and there is no hiddenness happening. I am deeply concerned that limited resources are going to be taken away from those organisations, not to do what they are set up to do, but simply to pay lawyers to do more legal work. I am also concerned that there is a liability issue here. If they do not do that and if there is an oversight by somebody not doing it, they will open to legal action against them. On behalf of all parties that we want to see, we want to see more people coming forward to take up those positions. I believe that this would be a major step forward if this amendment was passed this afternoon by this chamber, and I ask all members to consider it seriously. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I wish to make a brief contribution in relation to this amendment. I am sure that that will not come as a surprise to the Government, given my interests at stage 1 and stage 2. On the issue of the controlling interest of land in relation to religious organisations and churches, those issues were raised by my colleague Rode Grant at the time of the SSI on the amended regulations earlier this year, and I will refer back to some of the points that she raised at that point, which I do not think have been fully addressed by the Government. What is fundamental here is transparency, proportionality and accuracy. We all want to see a register of charity trustees, which the bill is seeking to put in place, but also a register of persons holding a controlled interest in land that is transparent and accurate. As I have said already, the bill firms up that register of trustees with Oscar, making it clear who is in control of the charity and who is responsible for it, and that is, of course, very welcome. However, there is an opportunity to deal with concerns that have been raised by many churches and religious bodies in relation to the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land. I do not view the amendment as making organisations exempt from the register of persons holding that controlled interest, but rather seeking to record their interests more accurately and reducing the burden to individual office bearers. The Government has, of course, exempted skills, charitable incorporated organisations based in England and charitable companies limited by guarantee, arguing that they are covered by alternative transparency regimes with Oscar. Why, then, would religious charities not be covered by the new transparency regime that will list the trustees of individual charities that we are considering in the bill? Those are the trustees whom we know will collectively make decisions on the assets of the charities in line with the democratic structures of their organisations. Indeed, at a cursory glance prior to coming to the chamber, I was able to access the financial income and expenditure of the churches in the community where I live and some 37 pages of entries just from the Church of Scotland from across the whole country. To further that example using the Church of Scotland, it would contend that the regulations, as they currently stand, do not achieve the aim of transparency and who has the controlling interests in respect of the land that they own. They actually argue that the opposite is the case, because, as members will know, the Church of Scotland will have to record individuals who hold congregational offices, such as the minister, the session clerk and the treasurer, and they are deemed by those regulations to be the people who exercise control or have significant influence over the land. The governance of the Church of Scotland is designed to preclude individual control. Indeed, I am sure that we remember from our history lessons that that was the whole point of the reformation. No single individual, including those named office bearers, has control over decision making in relation to land, so the register would then be inaccurate. We could argue that it would not be wholly transparent or that it would create that level of transparency that we all intended when the legislation was passed, albeit that I was not a member of the Parliament. It would not make far more sense for the organisation to be registered as the organisation that holds the controlling interests to better reflect the accuracy of decision making processes and the decisions that will be taken on the land within the organisation, given that the details of all those organisations are publicly available and that their trustees will, by virtue of the bill, be on the charity register. I will finish where I started with my colleague Rhoda Grant, who said at the time of the SSI that the legislation was designed to close tax loopholes and to create transparency about who the beneficial owners of land are, especially when that land is held in companies that are registered in tax havens, but it should not put an unacceptable burden on Scottish churches. I think that there must be a solution that we can find that has balance in transparency, proportionality and accuracy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I just contribute briefly to the debate on this amendment in the name of Jeremy Balfour and declare my interest as a member of the Church of Scotland? I echo what Mr Balfour and Paul O'Kane have said in relation to the importance of the amendment that is before us today. The Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 provides that there should be transparency in terms of persons having a controlling interest in property in Scotland. That is a perfectly legitimate and credible policy outcome sought by this Parliament at the time. The problem is that that legislation has unintended consequences. I do not think that it was ever intended when that legislation was put forward that we would see churches and charitable organisations, religious charities caught in the way that they have been as a result of this legislation, and we have all been approached by church groups raising their concerns about this. The Church of Scotland has a presbyterian structure. Essentially, that means that decision making is devolved to a local level, to local parishes and local curc sessions that are elected by the members of the individual churches. Therefore, the titles to properties held at a local level are in names of those individual curc sessions, and those curc sessions change regularly. Sometimes they can change as often as annually. There will be a continual churn and cycle of the names of people involved. As has already been pointed out, there will be an enormous administrative burden put upon local churches of having to comply with those particular regulations in relation to persons holding a controlling interest in land. The Church of Scotland says that it currently has a title to 5,000 properties across Scotland in local areas such as church buildings, church halls, mansas and other properties in my own. Each one of those 5,000 properties will require to be registered in the name of three office bearers. That is a huge burden to start with. Every time there is a change in those office bearers, which might happen on an annual basis, they will all need to be re-registered. Again, that puts a huge burden on the Church of Scotland and other churches across the country. As members will be aware, the Church of Scotland is presently going through a reorganisation, amalgamating presbytriae, amalgamating a number of parishes, reducing the number of places of worship due to the decline in the number of worshipers and the decline in the number of ministers and is already facing quite significant financial challenges. To put on the Church of Scotland at this time, the additional financial burden that Jeremy Balfour has referred to would seem to be entirely inappropriate. I cannot say that there is any public policy interest in pursuing the requirement that churches and other religious charities should have to comply with those particular regulations. It seems that it is simply bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I would support the amendment that is being put forward by Jeremy Balfour. I would say to the Government that the Government is not minded to support this amendment. I think that it really needs to tell us what other mitigations it might put in place to try to address the issues that have been identified. I know that it has been suggested that there might be a delay in the regulations being brought forward, but all that does is postpone the inevitable. I mean that these additional burdens will still come in and will last until time in memorial with an annual cost to churches and local church sessions. If the Government is not going to support it, and I hope that the Government will, if they are not prepared to support this amendment, please can they tell us what else they are going to do to try to install this problem? I think that the arguments that have been set out this afternoon are eminently sensible. We have heard about the Church of Scotland. It is designed to preclude individual control, but the Government is going to require those organisations to state who has that individual control when that individual control does not exist. I do not understand why the Government is pursuing this when there is a perfectly practical solution to this, to avoid double registration and double reporting, to reduce the burden, to make sure that we do not discourage volunteers from coming forward to operate within those organisations and to reduce costs as well. I think that Murdo Fraser's last point is also incredibly sensible. I understand that the Government is probably going to push ahead with its proposals, but it has got an obligation to make sure that it does not cause an undue burden to those organisations and therefore that they have proper, meaningful mitigations in place. We cannot deal with the consequences when those organisations are already going through quite significant turbulence. I hope that the minister will have a last-minute change of heart, but, if not, we need mitigations in place. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. From the outset, the bill has not been controversial, but this section has certainly been. The churches and faith groups that really have great concern over this have been quite clear. I state from the briefing that the Church of Scotland has put that the Church has sought to explain those points on countless times to the Scottish Government and offer constructive solutions. They say quite clearly that they have been disappointed that the Scottish Government has not recognised the willingness to work with them and that they have been unable to appreciate their situation. It is clear, as has been stated in the debate, that there are going to be unintended consequences. Ministers accept that, because they have already said that there will be a year extension to this for churches and faith groups. As has been stated by others, I think that it is important that there are mitigations in place around this and whether or not the cabinet secretary will look at reviewing this before it comes into place. I do not know where the Government whips and the Green and SNP whips are today, but whether or not this could be supported, because I do not think that it is controversial that these regulations can be excluded from this bill at this stage. Certainly, throughout stage 1 and 2, we have made these arguments on a cross-party basis and as have church and faith groups. I think that it is important, because, as Fergus Ewing stated in the debate at stage 1, it is clear that these will have financial impacts. None of us in this chamber want to see more money being used by our charities for legal costs. We want it to go to their purposes and for churches and doing good in our society. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the concern across party on this and that mitigation and review can be brought in early, especially given the one-year extension. I think that she will tell Parliament about it soon. I am afraid that I cannot support amendment 3 in the name of Jeremy Balfour for the same reasons that I could not support it at stage 2. Charity regulation is fundamentally in place to ensure and maintain public trust in the operation of charities. The register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, known as the RCI, was an essential part of the land reform act unanimously passed in 2016. The purpose of the RCI is to improve transparency in relation to land and property assets irrespective of what type of legal entity owns them and to ensure that there is a dire length link between the property and whoever exercises a controlled interest in that property. This bill seeks to increase transparency in relation to charities and is not about the RCI. All parties supported the introduction of the RCI, which is a key part of our land reform strategy. Much progress has been made by the Parliament on delivering greater transparency in relation to individuals who have control over decision making in relation to land. The RCI regulations are a complex piece of legislation and this amendment risks unintended consequences. I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees with me that those provisions were put in place to find who the beneficial owners were, who offshore their companies, who hide behind legislation and who do not pay their taxes. At no point did anyone think that churches would be caught up in that legislation. I would appeal to her to look at this again, because what is happening with the delay in acting in that part of the legislation is that the people who seek to hide their companies offshore and avoid scrutiny in Scotland are allowed off the hook, while people who are volunteering for churches are being held to account in a way that was never intended. I appreciate the concern that has been shared by members, but I still believe that it would be a backward step for land reform if members were to support this amendment, which would reduce transparency of ownership and control for some of the largest organisations in scope of the RCI by the number of property titles they hold. Just last week, the chamber debated the need for further changes to address concentration and transparency of land ownership and to support more communities into land ownership. That amendment would cut across that need for transparency. The information that will be available on the Scottish Charity Register under section 2 of the bill is charity trustee names. The RCI relates to transparency in ownership and control of property, and, as such, it requires additional information to simply a list of names. The two registers require different information. They are not the same, and the people who own or tenant the land may not be the same people as the charity trustees. It is not correct to say that the two registers will contain duplicate information, nor is it required further to be any financial cost to make us submission to the register. It is one of the areas that the Government and others are working very carefully and closely with the churches on to see what more can be done to simplify this process to ensure that some of the concerns around the need for legal representation are allayed during this process. Addressing the concerns is a very important part of that, returning to some of the aspects that Murdo Fraser talked about is an issue that I take very seriously, and that is why there is continuing engagement to ensure that we find the appropriate way to support stakeholders and to deal with the issues that members have raised today, but for that not to be done through a carve out, as is being suggested in this amendment. The Scottish Government has already extended the transitional period for compliance by 12 months to 1 April 2024, providing more time to those who need to register with the RCI, a move that gained the unanimous support of this parliament. So, while I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by religious organisations about the RCI, this bill on charity regulation is not the place to change the obligations of the RCI, and I urge members not to support the amendment today. I thank our members for their contribution of this. I should perhaps also declare that I am a member of the Church of Scotland. If I can just respond to a few points made by the Cabinet Secretary in her comments, I think that the issue that perhaps the Scottish Government omission here is in regard to control of property and who controls property. If I can give an example when I, in a previous life, was a Baptist minister, the title deed of the Church of the Manch was always held in the name of the minister, the church secretary and the treasurer, and they were the people who would sign the documentation. In regard to the control of whether that church or that manch could be sold, it was down to the church meeting, it was down to the local congregation to make that choice. The trustee, the owner, the people who would have a name did not have that power to take that decision. The decision was made by the church. When we are talking about who is owning the land, it is not in regard to three individuals whose names are on a title deed. It is a local congregation or a denomination. I think that that point is really important to make. I think that the cost issue is a big one. The Episcopal Church, in its submission to the committee at stage 2, made it clear that, in their view, that would have to be done by lawyers. I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said in her remarks today, but I think that further progress has to be made in regard to that, or we are simply lining the pockets of lawyers. I understand that there is this one-year period, and if the amendment falls this afternoon, I do hope that the Government will not just engage in conversation. Engagement is important, but unless it brings about some change in what is happening on the ground, it is just simply talking for talking's sake and does not get us anywhere. We have this 12-month period. I hope that there can be significant movement by the Scottish Government on that to make sure that there is transparency and openness, but that churches and religious organisations from all faiths can get on and actually do what they are about, which is helping those within the local community. I move the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division, as this is the first division of the stage. I am going to suspend briefly for around five minutes until our members access the digital voting system.