���˿���

Good morning. I am really interested in this line of questioning. The demand-led spend that any Government makes is potentially open-ended for the longer term and must be a risk. It is right for the Fiscal Commission to step away from the policy decisions on that, but to map out the financial exposure of the public purse.

That is helpful because, for example, we can see that the mitigation of the bedroom tax is now baked into Scottish Government spend for the longer term and, soon, winter heating mitigation will also be baked in. We look forward to your statistics on the two-child cap, which will soon be baked into future spending, as well.

On the issue of a risk register for Scottish finances, does the Scottish Fiscal Commission take a longer-term look? There are fiscal framework implications in terms of policy spillover from the next steps that a UK Government might take in relation to its spending decisions. There has been a lot of rhetoric and comment about the cost of disability payments in England and the rest of the UK, and the UK Government is wrestling with that. There is quite a lively debate about how much it is possible to humanely squeeze those payments to get lower expenditure in England, and about whether that is appropriate, policy-wise. I would say that it is not, but that is not the point.

The point is that, if the UK Government goes down one road in the rest of the UK and—rightly or wrongly—gets many people off of disability payments, the policy spillover will have a direct financial consequence for the Scottish budget because we will receive less in block grant adjustments. Does the Scottish Fiscal Commission map out the implications of UK Government policy and draw to the Scottish Government’s attention future potential implications for the Scottish budget, be they in relation to disability payments or anything else that a UK Government might wish to do?

Briefly, should that be in your remit, Professor Roy? The Scottish Government works up the numbers. Others might say, “Well, it would work them up—it’s marking its own homework, so perhaps the Fiscal Commission should be doing that.” Should it be in your remit?

It might not matter in those terms, in relation to what you say about the aggregate position of the Scottish finances, but it certainly matters in our scrutiny role here, when we are trying to work out the long-term implications of UK decisions for policy decisions that the Scottish Government makes, as we are trying to do today.

Professor Roy articulated the position very well, but what I am trying to get at is that the winter fuel payment change was like a bolt out of the blue. It would not have been reasonable to have forecast what the risk was in relation to that, because most people did not expect the UK Government to do that. However, there is an expectation that there could be a squeeze on spend on disability payments in the UK.

Does the Scottish Fiscal Commission identify the risks of potential UK policy changes—because those are in the public domain and are being floated, if you like, proactively—then cost some of that and give it to the Scottish Government, or does the Scottish Government say, “Here are three things that have potential policy implications for Scotland—go and cost up our fiscal risk in relation to them”? Does any such proactive work happen, Professor Roy?

It might not matter in those terms, in relation to what you say about the aggregate position of the Scottish finances, but it certainly matters in our scrutiny role here, when we are trying to work out the long-term implications of UK decisions for policy decisions that the Scottish Government makes, as we are trying to do today.

Professor Roy articulated the position very well, but what I am trying to get at is that the winter fuel payment change was like a bolt out of the blue. It would not have been reasonable to have forecast what the risk was in relation to that, because most people did not expect the UK Government to do that. However, there is an expectation that there could be a squeeze on spend on disability payments in the UK.

Does the Scottish Fiscal Commission identify the risks of potential UK policy changes—because those are in the public domain and are being floated, if you like, proactively—then cost some of that and give it to the Scottish Government, or does the Scottish Government say, “Here are three things that have potential policy implications for Scotland—go and cost up our fiscal risk in relation to them”? Does any such proactive work happen, Professor Roy?

Good morning. I am really interested in this line of questioning. The demand-led spend that any Government makes is potentially open-ended for the longer term and must be a risk. It is right for the Fiscal Commission to step away from the policy decisions on that, but to map out the financial exposure of the public purse.

That is helpful because, for example, we can see that the mitigation of the bedroom tax is now baked into Scottish Government spend for the longer term and, soon, winter heating mitigation will also be baked in. We look forward to your statistics on the two-child cap, which will soon be baked into future spending, as well.

On the issue of a risk register for Scottish finances, does the Scottish Fiscal Commission take a longer-term look? There are fiscal framework implications in terms of policy spillover from the next steps that a UK Government might take in relation to its spending decisions. There has been a lot of rhetoric and comment about the cost of disability payments in England and the rest of the UK, and the UK Government is wrestling with that. There is quite a lively debate about how much it is possible to humanely squeeze those payments to get lower expenditure in England, and about whether that is appropriate, policy-wise. I would say that it is not, but that is not the point.

The point is that, if the UK Government goes down one road in the rest of the UK and—rightly or wrongly—gets many people off of disability payments, the policy spillover will have a direct financial consequence for the Scottish budget because we will receive less in block grant adjustments. Does the Scottish Fiscal Commission map out the implications of UK Government policy and draw to the Scottish Government’s attention future potential implications for the Scottish budget, be they in relation to disability payments or anything else that a UK Government might wish to do?

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I was trying to find out a little bit more about fixed-term tenancies, because there were some things that my notes did not tell me. There are short limited-duration tenancies, which last for a maximum of five years. Those can be converted to limited-duration tenancies, which last for a minimum of five years and a maximum of 10 years. There are also modern limited-duration tenancies.

That made me wonder whether, from the 2003 act onwards, there has been no such thing as a short-term tenancy, because the tenancy could dribble on, by custom and practice or by arrangement, for 10, 15 or 20 years. If that is the situation, should we look again at whether waygo is fit for purpose? Should resumption be considered? Perhaps I am being a daft laddie, but I wonder whether that situation is a wee bit different.

I was meant to be asking a very brief question, but I ask Tom Oates to respond, with the convener’s permission.

Does that need to be clear on the face of the bill?

Your view would be that if both parties could enter into a negotiation in good faith without having to have recourse to the tenant farming commissioner, that would be perfectly acceptable, but that it is a fall-back position.

It might have been helpful to let you speak for longer, but this is really important, and I want to keep the questioning moving.

I want to ensure that I do not misrepresent you, Hamish. I think that you are suggesting that reviewing and changing the compensation for tenants on resumption could theoretically weaken the position of some tenants, which would be an unintended consequence in the legislation. I am not trying to summarise that as your entire position, but is that one of the aspects that you are perhaps hinting at in what you were saying?