Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?