Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise, convener. I was just—

I have a comment, convener, which I think it is appropriate for me to make at this stage. I am not remotely seeking to undermine your role as convener. You mentioned how the committee feels about the evidence that we have heard, and we will convene in private to discuss and reflect on that. I would not want a narrative to be given in public as regards what the committee considers our position to be before we finish the evidence session and then come to a considered view as a committee. I think that it is appropriate to put that on the record, because we are in danger of painting a narrative that not all of us will share.

Yes, they are.

My question follows on from Monica Lennon’s question about one-stop shops being able to advise home owners on what they can do. I will take a slight segue: as part of the committee’s post-legislative scrutiny work and efforts on deliberative democracy, we convened a people’s panel to make some recommendations about how we could do more on climate action and climate change.

One of the things that the panel wanted to see in relation to climate action was a one-stop shop for members of the public—not just home owners—to go to for advice on what they can do to make a real difference on climate change. I am conscious that £4.3 million was available for climate action hubs last year; it is £5.5 million this year. I have just checked this on my phone: that is £450,000 for Glasgow alone. I was a wee bit unaware of Glasgow’s hub, but I will go and find out more about it, now that I am more aware of it.

How do we ensure that we get value for money for that spend? How do we ensure that the hub is well connected in every community? There is no point spending close to half a million pounds in Glasgow if communities are not aware of the hub’s existence. I sit on this committee, but I was not aware of it—although that is remiss of me, of course.

Kersti, could I roll something else into that, as a follow-up question, rather than coming in again later? For me, not as an MSP but just as a citizen of Glasgow, if I am at a local sports centre or health centre—or wherever I go—that is where I want the information made available to me. It is a matter of ensuring that climate action hubs are accessible to as many people as possible, and that information goes to the people, rather than have people go to the information.

There is also the issue of longer-term funding, but that is probably a question for the cabinet secretary rather than for you, Kersti. The people’s panel was hoping for a longer-term commitment to allow the hubs to develop their networks and expertise.

Okay—thank you.

My question has been mostly answered, but it gives me an opportunity to use an acronym that I was not aware existed until preparing for today’s meeting: LULUCF—land use, land-use change and forestry.

The cabinet secretary alluded to the Fiscal Commission’s report. That states that it is 40 per cent per person more expensive to meet our climate obligations in Scotland because of the nature of our landscape. That is where a bit of partnership working with the UK Government is perhaps needed so that we—that is, Scotland but also the wider UK—can do everything that we need to. Have there been any discussions in relation to that to date? If Scotland does reforesting and peatland restoration well, will that help the UK to meet its overall climate change targets? Is that a joint endeavour?

Convener, I—

My question is on whether we have universality or targeting. The current approach is not universal, because universal credit is not universal; it is about blanket coverage for those who are in receipt of universal credit.

The Scottish child payment is straightforward to administer and impactful—I think that that is clear. Maybe my numbers are a little bit wrong but, if we increase it by another £5 a week, that would cost another £90 million a year. If we had £90 million a year, should we put it all into the Scottish child payment or increase the best start grant and best start foods, pay a clothing grant twice a year or provide a Scottish child payment summer supplement rather than spreading it across the year? There is a debate about whether to target the money more or whether to make it as universal as possible and about how Government and Parliament look at that.

That is very helpful. Perhaps Mr Werhnam could add a little bit to that response. Once universal credit is fully withdrawn, would there still be a negative impact if there was a tapered benefit run-on? There would obviously be a cost to that. Could there be an opportunity for the DWP and the Scottish Government to talk about that being an in-work incentive to get someone off universal credit? Could there be a co-produced plan for a benefit run-on that is financed by both the Scottish and UK Governments?

I will be brief. First, I thought that Professor Patrick gave an eloquent narrative on the two-child cap without actually mentioning it. It was a more eloquent one than any politician has given, and I thank her for putting that on the record.

My question is on the relationship between targets and monitoring. The Scottish Government modelling work that Mr O’Kane mentioned showed a fall in relative child poverty levels in Scotland from roughly 26 per cent to 19 per cent. However, the discourse on that was about the target being 18 per cent. The benefit of the progress that had been made seemed to dissipate and be lost among the discussion of lived experience.

Professor Patrick spoke about monitoring and comparing evaluations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I represent Maryhill, but I am also interested to know what is happening in Merseyside and which factors make a difference there. It would be helpful if Professor Patrick could say a little more about how we could do that.

Professor Dorling mentioned how significant comparisons could be made by considering those issues across Europe, too. I hate alliteration, but I have already mentioned Maryhill and Merseyside, so I might want to know what is happening on child poverty in Marseille, for example. What are European nations doing, and how could we learn from each other? I ask Professor Dorling to say who could commission such work. If the Scottish Government were to do so, it could be accused of not being impartial in that process. If the issue is so significant that learning about it could benefit public policy, we would want to see robust independently led academic study not just in the UK but beyond it. I am sorry; I hope that that is brief enough.