Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will take the point slightly further on. The power to update in clause 16 is described by the Hansard Society as “very open-ended”. On the issue of

“whether a change in technology or a development in scientific understanding has occurred—for example with respect to Artificial Intelligence, Genetically Modified Organisms, or Net Zero”,

the Hansard Society questioned whether it should be within the scope of that ministerial power to update REUL in those areas and assimilated law

“to take account of changes in technology or in developments in scientific understanding”,

in which areas, these days, we see large movements. Is it reasonable for ministers to be left with such ministerial discretion in those instances?

Thanks for that, because that gives us a proper background to the whole issue and not just support. Sometimes, we can say that we support something but that is more about putting a signature on a line and that is the end of it.

How much impact might the introduction of the Scottish child payment have had on what you have just described?

I am the member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Anniesland.

I have a specific, more technical question for Bruce Adamson. What is the commissioner’s opinion on and response to the extent to which the Scottish Government’s plan to tackle child poverty supports a rights-based approach in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? How does the Scottish Government’s plan resonate with the convention?

That makes sense, but people have different ideas about what is user friendly. We have heard evidence that the cost of accessing the register should be set at a level that encourages and enables use by all potential users. Will charges differ for different types of user? People with different income levels or resources might have better options for access if the costs do not vary widely.

The way that the registers that would be set up by the bill would operate will not be entirely clear until detailed regulations are made. Is the minister able to give the committee early sight of those regulations, either now or at some point before the stage 1 debate, which is anticipated to take place in the next six or seven weeks?

So we are waiting to hear about that as well. As I said, the stage 1 debate is anticipated to be within the next six or seven weeks, so I was trying to get an idea about whether there was any movement but you are still holding on for that at the moment.

On the risk that the register could contain inaccurate or out-of-date information about individuals, is there a commitment to introduce a more user-friendly corrections and dispute resolution process?

That makes sense and, therefore, I am not 100 per cent sure whether my next question will fall under the same provisos.

Several stakeholders have called for there to be links between the registers set up by the bill and Companies House. The committee understands that that is being discussed with the UK Government. Will you update us on any progress?

Thank you very much for that. That is useful to know.

The Scottish Government has proposed that updates to the register of statutory pledges—for example, when a statutory pledge is discharged—will be voluntary. Given feedback that creditors will want to minimise the information that is provided to reduce the risk of errors and that the English experience is that creditors are notoriously slow to deal with discharges, do you think that that is a realistic approach?