Chamber and committees

Are there any other suggestions?

I do not want to come in on that point. I did not bring my wallet, Mr Balfour.

I am sorry, but I am wee bit like a broken record. Earlier, I spoke about people who are in receipt of carers payment before retirement, then in retirement and in the transition. They have been flagged up as a group who have potentially to do extra work around claiming pension credit. As flawed as pension credit is, I would prefer that people have it to their not having it.

It is self-evident that, if we are lucky enough and God spares us, we will all end up at pension age. There is—as we know—a massive number of people out there who are one, two or three years before retirement age, and the chances are that they will qualify for pension credit.

There is not a big-bang event that happens when people retire. Proactive work should be taking place, led by the UK Government, because that is its statutory responsibility, but it should be done in partnership with the Scottish Government, Social Security Scotland and local authorities, to track some of that stuff and to have a coherent strategy to make sure that individuals get what they are self-evidently entitled to.

Are there any comments on that, or is there good work out there in our communities that we could show the UK Government and ask it whether it could marshal some of it and do something proactive. It is the UK Government’s statutory duty to make sure that those things happen and that people get what they are entitled to. That is not extra money—it is money that is lost to people who deserve it in the first place. Do you have any thoughts on good work, or what more we could do? I imagine that following this meeting we will want to make representations to the UK and Scottish Governments.

Convener, I do not want to put words into Mr Stachura’s mouth, but I was hoping that he might say that he was keen to seize the opportunity that our net zero ambitions could present for tackling pensioner fuel poverty, so that we can make representations to Government along those lines. The opportunity is there.

Yes—they would not necessarily be to catch the landowner out but to see what is happening out there in the real world and make recommendations about how land management plans can be improved more generally.

That was a helpful conversation between Mr Fleetwood and the convener. The debate is really about the cost versus the affordability of land management plans.

We have heard evidence through our scrutiny that good landowners will already be doing all the things that you would expect to see in a land management plan. That will now be placed on a statutory footing. Landowners come to the committee and tell us that they do the consultation anyway. Is it not the case, convener—the question is for Mr Fleetwood, of course—that good landowners would have nothing to fear and that the work to draw up a land management plan, including community consultation, should already be taking place, if they are a good, responsible landowner? What are your thoughts on that?

That is helpful. The committee has to contrast cost and affordability with what best practice looks like out there.

Does anyone else have thoughts on that?

It does help. I have a final brief question, which I will ask more about later. Is that an argument for a proportionate approach to what the new commission would deem to be an appropriate level of endeavour to produce a good-quality plan rather than an argument against land management plans? Is it more about being balanced in how we take this forward, rather than about not taking it forward?

The provision says that there should be a reasonable grounds test. The commissioner could say, for example, that they have not had a formal report of a potential breach from a group that has a statutory right to report it, but that something has been brought to their attention and that they have reasonable grounds to investigate—there will be a permissive power to investigate. Are you fine with that, Max?

Okay. Sarah, I want to know whether you have a view on my follow-up question.

The bill will be amended and I imagine that it will be enacted, and we will be left thinking about what the quality of land management plans across the country will be—whether we decide on 3,000 hectares or 1,000 hectares. We will also be left wondering what outcomes we have achieved. Should the new commissioner do a bit of sampling of land management plans to ensure that they are of good quality and that they have positive outcomes, rather than waiting for a breach? What about a proactive role for the new commissioner? Maybe a sample survey of various landowners’ land management plans could be carried out to drive up good practice.

There will also be some plans that do not cut it—not because of wilful acting against the interests of communities but only because landowners have not got it together. What are your thoughts on a proactive role for the new commissioner?