Chamber and committees

I apologise, but I was talking about investment. We are looking at different outcomes and at how we leverage in finance to do some of the environmental work. I do not want to ask someone else’s question, convener, but I was clarifying that the trend appears to be up but that the level is still relatively modest in global numbers.

Thank you. I apologise for cutting you off, Mr Young.

It is always dangerous to ask a question when I am not quite clear on the context. You mention return. Is there a yield on that? Can you quantify it in percentage terms? Would 5 per cent be an impressive yield for such a financial investment? What are we looking at? I get that investors might want to do the right thing, but there is a financial imperative—they want to make money.

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?

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.