Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, you are best placed to decide, but perhaps Marie McNair might want to add something before other witnesses come in.

I suspect that some of my MSP colleagues will ask specific questions about that. I do not want to poach other people’s questions. I will ask Richard Gass a specific, brief follow-up question.

The Scottish Government has a statutory duty to maximise devolved benefits. There is no specific statutory duty on the UK Government. Glasgow City Council has a very good track record of trying to do some of that stuff, although it is not the council’s statutory duty to do that.

Are you aware of any work at the point of transition? Moving from being a carer who receives a payment into retirement, losing that payment and possibly qualifying for pension credit is a key point of transition. Is no one taking direct responsibility to check that? We know who those people are. It could be checked as a matter of course. Am I being naive in thinking along those lines?

Thank you very much.

I will give a brief introduction, to tee up the discussion. There is a more general debate around targeting and universalism to tackle pensioner poverty. I am keen to hear whether you think that there are specific groups that are at greater risk of pensioner poverty. We have heard about carers, and I note that most non-white UK citizens, with the exceptions of Indians and Bangladeshis, are less likely than the rest of the population to take up universal credit. Which groups are more likely to be at risk of pensioner poverty, and what would a meaningful strategy to address that look like?

Finally, are some groups more likely to be just above the pension credit threshold? Someone who is disabled, a carer, or in a black or minority ethnic group would be more likely to be in the squeezed group who are just above the threshold, and would be disproportionately impacted by where the line is drawn. Are there inbuilt structural inequalities in pensioner poverty?

I will not come back in, but will let the discussion take its course.

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.