���˿���

That is really helpful. Andrew Thin and Donna Smith, do you have any reflections?

That is a point well made. What do you think, Mr Campbell?

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?

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?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to talk about action at a local level, because we are scrutinising how the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 has driven change at a local level. We have heard some positive evidence in the past few weeks that it has done that, but what is the Scottish Government’s position? To what extent do you think that the act has driven that change, and how is any change monitored?

That is helpful. I will ask a couple of mop-up questions, because you strayed into some further lines of questioning that I was going to pursue.

There was a suggestion last week that the local child poverty action reports are very important, but that more detailed guidance would be helpful. You spoke about refreshed guidance. Was that in relation to the local child poverty action reports? We normally hear about having fewer reporting requirements, so it is quite refreshing to hear organisations and authorities say that the reporting requirements help to drive change, but there could be more detailed guidance on that.

You also mentioned the pathfinder initiatives. Glasgow, for example, is using the funds that it is receiving for a no-wrong-door initiative. How do we share best practice? If something works in Glasgow, it might not necessarily work in Dundee, but there could be a kernel of an idea that could be picked up and developed elsewhere in the country. Will you say a bit more about the guidance for that reporting, and a bit more about how we identify what works and adapt it to elsewhere in the country?