Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was helpful. I should note that I spoke about the Government having to tread carefully because of exposure to the public purse, rather than having reluctance, and perhaps that is why there has been a prolonged period of consideration. I suppose that time will tell on that.

I am interested in the line of questioning about ESS looking at systemic issues, because it cannot deal with individual cases. That got me thinking a little more about how SEPA or Scottish Water would do that in the first place. I could be wrong, but I would have thought that, if SEPA or Scottish Water saw a pattern in the complaints coming in and investigations, those public bodies would do significant analysis of that to identify what was systemic in that.

That is vital information to inform ESS before anyone gets to ESS. As we know, complainants have to go through Scottish Water or SEPA in the first place, exhaust all the appeals functions there and then go to ESS. What relationship is developing? We must get to a stage where if, for example, it becomes self-evident that a community group that Dr Fifield supports is dealing with something systemic, that can then be evidenced by work that SEPA or Scottish Water has done in advance. What does that relationship look like?

In future, when the commercial sector withdraws and services are tendered and replaced at a subsidised level, would it be worth tracking those subsidies over time? If the partnerships and the franchises are successful, a sustainable model would not see subsidising done in that way. It would be done in a more proactive, strategic way.

That is useful clarification, Professor Ulph. I absolutely get that and would never try to draw you on the merits of policy intent, but politicians have to make informed decisions on costings, because there are lots of things that we would like to do but we always have to be able to afford them and budget for them—not just from year to year, but in the longer term. That is why this evidence session is particularly important.

On the baseline data, the Scottish Fiscal Commission notes with regard to the adult disability payment that

“the average award level for new applications has not yet stabilised”.

By “average award level”, do you mean the number of award applications that are successful, the level of award or a combination of both? More importantly, when would you expect that to stabilise? Would that become more baseline data on which you would advise the Scottish Government about modelling work for any future changes?

I do not have any more questions. That was really helpful.

I have a brief supplementary question to Mr Balfour’s question, which I thought was really important.

Clearly, ADP and PIP are two different things but they are being run similarly at the moment, with the same criteria. Professor Roy has outlined why we could have greater uptake here under the same criteria, depending on the culture and systems that we put in place to encourage applications. However, once the migration of PIP to ADP is complete, the Scottish Government will review the criteria, including, for example, the rule about a person’s ability to move 20m. The reason for not reviewing those criteria now is that, in Scotland, one qualifying household could be assessed under the criteria for PIP while another could be assessed under the criteria for ADP. Once all are assessed together under ADP, there will be new criteria.

Will the Scottish Fiscal Commission have a role in doing further modelling work to see what the additional benefit would be to disabled households in Scotland and what the additional costs would be in budgetary terms? Would you expect to be actively involved in that?

I love your comment that you do not just make the numbers up. I am glad that you put that on the record.

Convener, I had another question, as you know, but I realise that you need to manage the time. Perhaps I could come in if there is time at the end.

I know what the convener is hoping to get on the record from the Fiscal Commission. I will ask that question and then put my other one.

By 2028-29, the Scottish Government expects to spend around £1.5 billion more on social security than it receives in funding through the block grant adjustment. The whole forecast, of course, is based on the best evidence that you can get. How uncertain is that figure?

Does the Fiscal Commission build in a tolerance level in relation to that £1.5 billion? I absolutely get the point—your forecast could be dramatically blown off course by a significant policy change at a UK or a Scottish level, or by an unforeseen event. Does the Fiscal Commission build in a 5 per cent tolerance or a 10 per cent tolerance? I do not even know whether that is a thing, as this is not my area. If your forecast is £1.5 billion, would you say that that could be 10 per cent higher or 10 per cent lower, based on a range of judgments? If so, what is the tolerance level around that?

Thanks for putting that on the record.