���˿���

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?

I am going to talk about some of the blobs in my local area. We know that local authorities are tasked with expanding and enhancing nature networks by 2030, and there is a specific commitment for urban areas, which is obviously of interest to me as the MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn. I note that Glasgow is seeking to designate a further 250 hectares of nature reserve within the city. I will talk about two areas in particular, because they are in my constituency. First, the project at Hamiltonhill clay pits has been transformational for the local area, but was also carried out in partnership with wider urban regeneration, which is something that I want to raise with you. Secondly, Cadder Woods, which is also on the Forth and Clyde canal, was a dumping ground for old cars and was used for fly-tipping, but it has real biodiversity merit, as well as potentially being an asset for the local community.

Bruce Wilson and Dr Brown might be best placed to respond to these issues. The nature network commitment can have a dual purpose by boosting biodiversity, in the way that Mr Wilson was talking about, and by enhancing the local environment for communities. It is not about nature being over there; it is about having corridors for communities to enable them to enjoy the environment. How do we achieve that dual purpose in the strategy? More importantly, how can we monitor to make sure that the strategy is delivered and is not just about the blobs on the map that Mr Wilson talked about?

You go first.

I have a follow-up question. I see that Glasgow City Council has 37 species action plans, and I know that it is trying to expand its nature networks, but I do not know whether anyone is measuring the impact of those on biodiversity. Clearly, you would expect the impact to be positive, but is anyone measuring the impact using an agreed methodology?

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.