³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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?

I get all that, and although that answer is very helpful, I am slightly concerned that work that landowners are doing anyway and that has a cost to it will be subsumed under what will be a new endeavour for the land management plan, and that it will be quantified as a cost of the new endeavour rather than an on-going cost that exists anyway, as Mr Carlow has outlined.

Mr Clark, it sounds to me as though those tens of thousands of pounds are moneys that will be spent anyway on all the things that we would expect responsible large landowners to do as a matter of course. Will you say more about what happens already and whether there is a cost to that? Are we perhaps double-counting some of the costs?

Thank you. I will go to Tara Wight first with this question, as it is easy to forget that we have a witness online, and I want to make sure that we do not do that.

My question is about identifying breaches in land management plans. You will know that the Land Commission suggested that the new land and communities commissioner should be able to instigate an investigation into potential breaches of community engagement obligations within the drawing up of a land management plan. It also suggested that there should be a more general power for the new commissioner to act where they think that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of any kind with a land management plan, irrespective of whether there has been a complaint. What are your views on that?

That might be the general view of all witnesses. We will hear from one more witness on that, and then I will ask a follow-up question. Max, do you concur with what Tara said?

This is my final comment. You are almost suggesting a risk-based approach to that proactive work. That would flag up a potential risk if some landowners do not have track record of complying with best practice already. Do you want to say any more about what that risk-based, proactive work of the commissioner might look like? You mentioned some things already. Is there anything else that we could consider?

That is very interesting. I am tempted to ask more questions, but I will not, because of time.

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?