Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Mr Young wants to come in.

This question almost takes us full circle back to my first line of questioning. I referred to investment in trading in carbon from 2018-19 to 2022-23. More than £3 million was invested in woodland in 2018-19, and the figure was £9.5 million in 2022-23. There were similar figures for peatland—investment rose from £19,000 to £1.6 million. Those are still relatively small figures, but we can see the increasing trend. I do not fully understand the numbers, but I can see the pattern in them.

During other lines of questioning, prior issues units—I apologise if I have got the terminology wrong—were mentioned. That got me thinking about the pipeline of future investment. Is that the best way to think about PIUs? We have estimates for each year, but lurking behind those is potential investment for future years. I want to be sure that that is what is meant by PIUs. Have I understood them properly? How can the committee see what potential future investment is lurking positively in the background, so that we can see the pipeline of potential investment based on incentives that might or might not be given and those kinds of things? Have I understood that correctly, Mr Paterson?

Right. Maybe I have misunderstood things. I just wanted to make sure that there was not something that the committee should be looking at. We cannot track such investment. We cannot say that, in the next five years, we estimate that there will be investment of X, Y and Z based on what a future pipeline of investment might look like. Does that not exist in a public forum?

Therefore, although the trend is upwards, it is all still at a relatively modest level.

I do not wish to make things more complicated than they have to be. I think that what I am hearing from you is that some of the yield will be in, for example, year 5, year 10, year 15 , year 20 and so on, and that those investing can take some of that yield now by selling PIUs on to others, which will allow them to do some of the work that must be done. This might be overly simplistic, but are PIUs a way of getting money out in the early years for gains that will come in future years? Have I got that bit right?

I know that that is a very simplistic way of looking at it. In that case, I have a different question. Sorry about that, convener.

I am sorry that the witnesses do not have in front of them the table that I am looking at. I suppose that we will soon have estimates for 2023-24 under the woodland and peatland carbon codes. However, no one is citing what future investments might look like. If we were talking about housing, for example, we would know that there was £X million-worth of investment in the background, how many units that might represent, what the yield might look like and so on. How can we track what future investment might look like? Is that quantified anywhere?

Okay. I appreciate your trying to answer that question as best you could, based on what I was asking you.

Good morning, and thank you for supporting our evidence session this morning. This is a relatively straightforward—and, I think, non-contentious—question to start with. Different benefits have qualifying deadlines and cut-off dates for when people can apply. The bill seeks to repeal the Covid measures in relation to deadlines. Do the witnesses believe that, with that provision removed, there will still be sufficient flexibility for applying late or after the deadline for benefits?

I was impressed by our witnesses’ answers to Mr Balfour’s question about what more they would like to see in the bill. Ms Collie rightly called for greater financial support and greater consistency in that support across groups. Ms Cahill spoke about improved pathways, which would have a financial implication, although not as much as direct financial support. Of course, it is not for committee witnesses to say where that money would come from, and they should champion the corner of the people they represent. I am, however, conscious that the Scottish Government spends £1.1 billion more on entitlements for those who are vulnerable and needing support than it receives from the United Kingdom Government. Clearly, there is a divergence between the funds that are available to support those who need extra help and the extra help that is required because of the UK situation. Genuinely, I am not drawing you on any of that; it is just the context to my question.

What advice would you give to the Government or the committee? With the limited budget that we have, we and the Scottish Government have a difficult job in weighing up how to determine in what area to invest any money. If £10 million were to become available—Ms Collie, I am afraid that that is not the situation—some would argue that the Scottish child payment should be further increased, others would argue that the entitlements for that benefit should be increased and some would suggest spending it on a wholly different area, such as carers. How does the committee or the Scottish Government reconcile those competing demands? You should make those demands, and I would expect you to do so—and you do it so powerfully, passionately and persuasively—but how do we reconcile those tensions?

I ask because of the political choices that Mr Balfour referenced. The Scottish child payment will have an impact on some households that are in poverty and have a disability, but not on others, so we would be able to see the ones that we need to focus on. I think that Mr Balfour was floating the idea of targeting an additional resource.

Ultimately, we get money to people of working age who need it, in Scotland and across the UK, through the benefits system, predominantly through universal credit. Has either of our witnesses looked at the sufficiency or otherwise of how universal credit recognises disability in households in relation to addressing poverty?