Seòmar agus comataidhean

So you are open minded about reviewing the level of fines that could be levied.

I do, convener—I am inspired by your line of questioning. We heard evidence that large landowners who are doing their job properly do all this community consultation and meet all the requirements of land management plans anyway, because that is what good landowners do. However, the same landowners tell us that it is going to be really expensive to do what they are already doing anyway. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on the idea that many of the costs that are associated with land management plans are the costs of activities that good landowners are probably already doing anyway?

My colleague Mark Ruskell made an interesting point about local place plans. Cabinet secretary, I think that you made the point that I would have made, which is that having an additional focus on local place plans might create inequity in the approach, given that they are not consistent and that not every local authority has one. However, I draw your attention to the 10-year strategic plans that local authorities should have for their areas. What will be the relationship between a 10-year planning document and land management plans? I ask because community consultation is a core aspect of 10-year local authority plans and we would not want local authorities to assume that community consultation that took place in relation to a land management plan would suffice in relation to the job that they should already be doing directly with the communities that they serve.

It sounds as though the Government is open minded but has not made a final decision on whether the list should be extended. One reason for extending it would be to give anonymity to some who would like to report a breach, because of the power imbalance that can exist in some rural areas. Those people could, for example, go through their community council or an enterprise agency to report a breach.

Another way to address that issue might be to allow the new land and communities commissioner to have the proactive power to instigate their own investigation if they believed that there was potential evidence of a breach. Would you like to see that?

I will return to it and put in my final question along with it, because of time constraints. What are your thoughts on the land and communities commissioner having the power to proactively instigate their own investigation if they have reason to believe that there could be non-compliance or a breach?

More generally, what are your thoughts on general monitoring of compliance across the board, not just to catch landowners who might be non-compliant—although that would clearly be welcome—but to identify best practice and share good practice and expertise on what an effective and compliant land management plan looks like?

I have a brief question about Claire Cairns’s point about someone getting carer support payment until they retire and then not getting it in retirement. I assume that lots of people who stop getting carer support payment at that point might qualify for pension credit but do not necessarily apply for it. That appears to be a key point of transition, where, as imperfect as pension credit is, you would expect the UK Government, Scottish Government or local authority to do a wraparound income maximisation exercise, say to the individual that, because they have moved into retirement, they no longer get the carer payment, and see whether they qualify for pension credit. Does anything happen on that?

Thank you. That is really helpful.

You are right, Mr Stachura. The Scottish Government should do more about pension credit-linked entitlements, and I note that the Government has indicated that it is keen to do so. I asked the cabinet secretary whether Social Security Scotland could look at taking a more proactive role, although it is not a statutory duty, and I think that there was some positive news on that.

There is some delayed positive news, too. I also sit on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and I note that every house will have to be energy efficient and to have appropriate heating and everything else put into it. That will take a while, but sectoral investment plans will come out. We keep talking about a just transition to net zero, and area-based schemes will clearly be the way to go, along with leveraging in private investment.

Are you aware of any discussions with the Scottish Government about how we can achieve that just transition in relation to fuel poverty and energy efficiency, not just for pensioners but more generally in society, including in low-income areas where fuel poverty is more prevalent? Do you have any comments on how we can be more proactive on that?

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?