Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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?

That is very helpful. I have a final brief comment. I must reflect on the comments that both witnesses have made on pressures on social services provision and meeting the care needs of families or individuals who live with a disability. We will perhaps draw that to the attention of the lead committee, which looks at that kind of thing as a matter of course. I just wanted to reflect that I have listened to what has been said on that issue.

It does not solve the quandary that the Government and the committee find ourselves in, but you have made a persuasive argument.

Thank you. I have no other questions, convener, but I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses for championing the issues so passionately. It is very helpful to the committee.

Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Balfour, for the namecheck. In the earlier session, I suggested an imaginary extra £10 million. It has doubled in the space of half an hour, and Mr Balfour is playing with an extra £20 million that does not exist.

I want to ask a wee bit about what is not in the survey. I get that there are data issues and massive restrictions on what you were able to collect and analyse. The Scottish child payment has been mentioned, and I had a wee look at it. The interim review of the Scottish child payment from July 2022 indicates that 16 per cent of people in receipt of or applying for—I am not sure which—the Scottish child payment at that point had a disabled person in the household. It might therefore be that we already have a benefit that supports those who live with disabilities, when there is a child in the household and the household is on benefits. In fact, that report suggested that, because 8 per cent did not want to say whether there was a physical or mental issue in the household, there could be underreporting and it could be that up to 24 per cent of Scottish child payments go to households with a disabled person.

Ms McFadyen suggested that the Scottish child payment has had an impact, but it might also have an impact on disabled families. I know that I am asking you a question about something that is not in the report, but was that on your radar at any point? It is quite a significant positive impact, but it also begs the question of what we are doing for households that are in poverty and where there is a disabled person but there are no children. I get that; it is about consistency of approach. Do you have any comments on that, Ms McFadyen?

That is very helpful. In other words, removing the Covid qualification presents an opportunity to provide clarity on what the other reasons for applying late might be. Do you agree with that, Vicki Cahill?

That is helpful. My understanding is that Social Security Scotland does not routinely collect data on households with disabilities claiming the Scottish child payment. Perhaps it has to improve its data collection on that. Do we know the split between disabled households that live in poverty and have children and those that do not have children?

That is very clear. I do not have any follow-up questions, because you have made your point eloquently. The committee will reflect on that.