³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

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?

I will try my best, convener. My first question is really brief.

Martin Booth from Glasgow City Council said that he thought that up to 25 per cent of children in Glasgow who should be getting the Scottish child payment are not. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that figure?

I think that it goes beyond late registration, Mr Wightman, but I might need to reread that section of the bill myself. That was very helpful, and the committee will go back and look at the issue.

Do you agree with sites of community significance being caught within this, irrespective of size?

So we should just leave that alone, then, and be silent on it in this piece of legislation?