Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I have a series of questions on the role of the land and communities commissioner that is proposed in the bill, but I will group them together, given the time constraints.

Should the work of the proposed land and communities commissioner be a stand-alone role—I spoke about that a little earlier—or should it be incorporated into the work of the existing commissioners? Are the functions of the Land Commission up to date and fit for purpose in light of the proposal for a new commissioner with regulatory powers?

I know that there is a lot in there, but it is really about where the new commissioner would sit within the Land Commission. Would they be accountable to the Land Commission or independent of it? What would that relationship be? There may be a slight grey area around how they would plug into that wider system. Do you have any thoughts in relation to that? We will go from left to right, starting with Gary Campbell.

That is helpful. You are suggesting that it is absolutely possible to deliver at scale and to attract investment in crofting, but that there are barriers to rolling that out.

Mr Thin, what is your view?

That is quite helpful, Mr Thin.

Further to that, do you think that if landowners across the country knew that there was a theoretical chance that a land and communities commissioner would say, “You’ve been selected at random as one of 10 this year. Can we have a wee look at your land management plan and your evidence for how you have sought to comply with that?”, it would focus their minds? Whether there is a complaint or not, they may feel that they had better just get on and do it, because they could be the next one to be selected.

Mr Campbell, your request to make the commission a statutory consultee will be ringing in members’ heads after the evidence session. You have been very clear, forceful and focused on that point. Therefore, you think that it is a worthwhile thing to do, but it is not a role that you would like to have yourself.

I am in danger of asking a silly question, but it would not be the first time. Mr Campbell, when you speak about community right to buy and lotting, you say that we should look at the opportunities to use the land, or part of it, for crofting. You contend that that could build sustainable communities and retain people in an area, or expand the population, and that there is a community sustainability advantage in having more crofts or expanding crofting concerns. Are you talking about those who are already running crofts expanding, or are you talking about new entrants to crofting? If the latter, how would they be identified?

Yes, I think that that point was in your written evidence. I have no further questions on that.

That was a maybe, was it not? [Laughter.]

Mr Thin, do you have any comments on that?

I have explored this issue with other witnesses over the past few weeks. I want to turn the whole thing on its head slightly. I will put to one side for a moment the issue of how the role of a land and communities commissioner would sit with the Land Commission more generally.

On who conveys a complaint and whether they would then investigate the complaint, any commissioner would surely have to take a sample-size survey of all land management plans across the country, whether it was 10, 15 or 20—pick a number, I suppose—and then delve into the quality of those plans and general compliance with them in order to have the expertise to, say, share best practice across the country or identify thematic issues. With regard to a specific breach, surely a commissioner should have a discretionary power to investigate and, if we beef up compliance in the act, to take compliance action accordingly.

I have been asking witnesses about that more general picture in the past few evidence sessions. I am consistent, if nothing else, so I am keen to know witnesses’ views this morning. Mr Campbell, what is your view on my suggestion?

That is very helpful. I did not know that there is a Scottish land matching service. I have learned something, which is always important when we scrutinise legislation.

To go back to land management plans, on reflection, having heard what you have said, Gary, I wonder whether there should be an obligation for land management plans to consider potential future diversification over, for example, 10 years, which the deputy convener spoke about, rather than five years. Land could be screened for its suitability as a crofting venture, irrespective of whether that is in the strategic interest of the landowner. Could that be done when the land management plan is drawn up? Theoretically, that could provide a significant amount of additional land for people who go to the Scottish land matching service because they quite fancy establishing a croft. They could then watch out for future lotting arrangements and declare an interest.

I am trying to work out how we make sense of it in a way that would make a practical difference through the policy that you would like to see propagated. Do you have any reflections on that, Gary?

I would like to have a line of sight on the discussions with Glasgow City Council. As an MSP for a Glasgow constituency that has significant poverty, I am keen to be kept up to date on those discussions. I also note that Mr Booth spoke about data sharing issues with the DWP and Social Security Scotland as one of the barriers.

In Glasgow, the local authority tries very hard to put automation in place. For example, council tax and housing benefit are used to automate, by and large, the awarding of the school clothing grant. However, because there are different qualifying criteria for free school meals and the education maintenance allowance, those cannot really be automated. Has the Scottish Government thought about standardising or aligning the qualifying criteria to allow for maximising and automating the uptake of some of these really important initiatives?