Chamber and committees

That is helpful, because, in evidence, we are hearing about modest numbers, but the activity with regard to woodland has trebled in four years. To an outsider, that looks like significant growth, but it is still relatively modest, given what we have to do.

I will move on. It was helpful to get everyone to set the scene, but it might be that not everyone will need to answer my next question. We are keen to know what is motivating different actors to engage in the area. What is making investors get involved? For example, what is motivating land managers to develop and certify projects, and what is motivating investors and buyers on the market side? What is getting those investors involved and land managers to come to the table and play games? What are the driving factors? A couple of witnesses might want to get some of that information on the record. Mr Paterson is nodding at me, so I suspect that he wants to come in.

On diversification, Mr Paterson talked about revenues. Does any witness have anything to add that is not already on the record?

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.

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.

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?