Chamber and committees

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.

You have probably guessed the final part of my question. You say that you need a bit more time. The Scottish Government is committed to reviewing all of this in the round, but it cannot do that unless it is confident that it has robust baseline data. Quite rightly, you need a bit more time, but the committee needs to plan how we wish to scrutinise all of that. What do you think “a bit more time” looks like? When will things have stabilised so that we have that baseline data?

I apologise, Professor Roy: I am almost treating you as though you are a politician, which you are absolutely not. If I had asked this question of a minister or a cabinet secretary, invariably my colleague would have said, “The financial year 2024-25.”

Once Social Security Scotland gives outturn figures for all of that and they can be verified, validated and analysed, are you good to go on this? If so, what is the timescale for that? We would ask that question of the politicians, but the politicians would have to ask others. I feel as though we are asking the experts directly.

I am sorry, Dr Brown—I am not seeking to target you in relation to this—but will that be measured in the same way if there is a project in Aberdeenshire or Dumfries, for example? If different methodologies are used and there are different agreed outcomes in each area, how do we have a national strategy and how do we report on the national plan?

I have a small follow-up question, if there is time, convener.