Chamber and committees

Thank you, Karyn—that was really interesting. Other members will explore lots of the things that you mentioned, so, although it is frustrating, I will not follow up on any of that just now.

My question is for all the stakeholders and whoever wants to respond. The convener’s original question was about the adequacy and coherence of support. I am hearing that it is hard to make a judgment on the adequacy of the support because of how fragmented everything is and the need to pull it all together when reporting. I suspect that it would be for another committee to consider that issue, but it will inform our discussions on the job start payment.

The point about coherence is also of interest to us. We always talk about social security being a shared space between the Scottish and UK Governments. The area concerning job-search duties, Jobcentre Plus and so on is very much with the Department for Work and Pensions, while much of the area of employability and skills has been devolved to this Parliament.

That is where the question of coherence comes in. Do any of the witnesses have any comments to make about local employability partnerships? Do they involve the DWP? What is the role of work coaches and jobcentres in all this, and how does that knit together? Regardless of whether the services are adequate, the dots still need to be joined in a coherent fashion. Is that happening?

This will surprise you, convener, but I will forgo my question, because I am more interested to hear what the witnesses have to say.

I apologise, convener, but I am going to ask a question—I could not help myself.

Do any other witnesses want to come in? I see from my notes that there is a universal credit youth offer.

Wipe that from the record, please.

I like the idea of innovation, whether it is automation or whatever. I know that this would not work for 16 and 17-year-olds, but I am looking at the current universal credit rate for under-25s. For about a month, it is £316 for a single person. The job start payment is £331.95, so we are really talking about a one-month run-on of benefit. If someone is in the UK benefits system, the system will know whether they are under 25 and when they lose their entitlement to universal credit. One innovation could be a one-month run-on of universal credit, with someone knowing that before they accept a job. There could then be a financial transaction between Social Security Scotland and the DWP.

I am not saying that that would work; I am just trying to make the point that we need to innovate and be cleverer about how we do this. If anyone has any other ideas, it would be really good to hear those before we come to the end of our evidence session.

If not, that is okay.

:Can I just come in there, Emma? We have already discussed negative emissions technologies and peatland restoration as part of that pathway. What I am trying to explore is whether the Scottish Government’s rationale jars with you—in other words, given that this is its own political choice, whether you are fine with that and the alternative pathways are valid.

The one aspect that the committee has not really discussed is reforesting and tree planting—and I apologise for cutting across you earlier, but I just wanted to ensure that there was time to ask this question. My understanding is that the Scottish Government is front loading much of its tree planting, and that what is in this first climate change plan is actually ahead of what the Climate Change Committee has recommended. I guess that that will be welcome, but I just wonder whether you can confirm that.

However, in the work that the Government has carried out under what is called the CARBINE model, the benefits of reforesting are more stated, and the Government thinks that that modelling is more informed and that—and I say this with total respect, Emma, because I have no idea which I should opt for—the Climate Change Committee’s model is based on more limited knowledge and, therefore, is less accurate. Some comments on that would, I think, be quite helpful.

I will ask a question for clarity, in the hope that we can quickly move on to more substantive issues. I want to check that I am accurate in understanding that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to instruct the Climate Change Committee to give a briefing to a committee of this Parliament, due to the independent nature of the Climate Change Committee. Please correct me if I have that wrong, but I understand that to be the situation.

:I am sure that we can make that happen.

I will ask a few brief questions on agriculture, and in particular on the Scottish Government not taking the pathway advice in relation to production and livestock. Some of the narrative around that from the Scottish Government has been that reducing livestock to grow crops may not be best for Scotland’s geography. I am sure that there other reasons as well, but the Scottish Government did not take that option.

Emma Pinchbeck, could we have some brief reflections on the Scottish Government rationale for that?