Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that we can draw on a lot of the work that was done in 2015. As I said at the start, if information can be pulled out and made public, I am happy to do that. We do not want to reinvent the wheel.

That work is on-going and we will keep Parliament updated on it. Jennie Barugh can take it from there and talk about the appointment of the financial adviser, which is the next key stage, following which there will be a judgment on the value for money test and whether we will go forward with the proposal. That will depend on market conditions and what the financial outlook is.

Probably not. We wanted it to be fuller, but we could get only what we could get, and we finally decided that something was better than nothing. It was not a full review; it was the lowest common denominator—what we could agree on. It was not unhelpful, but it was limited.

The £321 million is what I have set out—the 60 per cent. The figure that we have from the Treasury is just above that.

No other approaches emerged during that discussion.

We always take cognisance of any views; we gathered a wide range of views as part of developing the strategy. As I said earlier, we look at behavioural impacts. Studies undertaken by HMRC have shown us that, to date, there is still net inward migration to Scotland, but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We must make sure that we keep monitoring any behavioural impact beyond anecdote.

You mentioned SFE. Financial services are an important part of the Scottish economy. I have heard some of the anecdotes that Craig Hoy has heard, but the success and growth of financial services in Scotland is continuing. Recent investment in Glasgow by major players in the financial services sector is a vote of confidence. They would not be investing if they did not think that they would be able to expand and recruit in Scotland.

There is a balance to be struck in ensuring that we set the right environment for business growth. A lot in the budget does that, but we should not be complacent and we will continue to monitor any behavioural change. We are working closely with HMRC to do that.

In England, only Whitehall departments and the directly employed public sector will get the funding. Of course, the UK Government has based its calculations on that, which is why our Barnett share will not cover our costs.

There are two aspects to that, the first of which relates to the ministerial discussions that took place around the best option for reducing child poverty. There were various things that we could have done, such as increasing the Scottish child payment or using other methods, but we landed on the two-child cap mitigation on the basis of the evidence that third-party organisations had provided that that was the thing that we could do that would have a major impact. There is no scorecard available that compares that option with increasing the Scottish child payment.

The second aspect relates to the options for taking forward the mitigation of the two-child cap. Social Security Scotland is working on options for how to best do that and is working with the Department for Work and Pensions, because there are various options for delivery. Those options are being looked at and will be appraised, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will update the committee and Parliament at the point at which the best option is selected—

We will address that through the workforce plans to reduce the number of directly employed staff in the civil service, but we will do that in a managed and careful way.

The fact that we have a larger public sector with better paid workers is because of an investment that we have made over a number of years. The fact that nurses are better paid in Scotland helps with the recruitment of nurses. Recruiting nurses is really difficult, and paying them less is unlikely to help with recruitment, so we think that those are good investments.

Wales has a larger public sector as well. My simple point about employer national insurance contributions is: should devolved nations be punished or lose out on funding for that because we have invested in public sector services and staff over the years? I do not think that that is a fair proposition, and I do not think that the Welsh think it is, either. That is why we proposed that the actual costs should be covered rather than our just getting a Whitehall Barnett share. We have made our position very clear on that, and we have got to the position that we have got to. The discussion and debate will continue, not least this afternoon.

We believe that investing in our public services has also avoided some of the costly industrial disputes that we have seen south of the border, which have a cost to the public purse as well. These things are choices, and the choices that we have made are the choices that we have made.

You are right to say that the Government always balances its books. That happens on a year-to-year basis, so we have to manage the pressures. There is a whole debate about the constraints on borrowing powers—we are pushing for, and want, more flexibility around the fiscal framework, beyond what we have secured, in order that we are able to manage the headwinds that would come at any Government.

The medium-term strategy gives us an opportunity to consider the fiscal outlook. Given that the UK Government will set out the fiscal outlook in June, the Office for Budget Responsibility will be able to draw from the information that it has put in the public domain, which will set the fiscal outlook for the Scottish Government on the medium-term horizon.

On the spend side, as we have talked about many times at the committee, that will require us to ensure that there is headroom for commitments, whether they are on social security or any other spending. The sustainability delivery plan, which I have said will be published alongside the MTFS, will go a bit further than the outlook in the MTFS and will bring together in one place all the pillars of work across Government, including on the workforce, social security, growing the economy and so on. Public sector reform is another key pillar. That will enable the Parliament and the committee to see how all that work will impact on the ability, over the longer term, to ensure that we have sustainable finances and that we can afford the priorities that the Government has set out, of which social security is a key one.

I hope that, from that, the committee and Parliament will be able to see that we will be making absolutely sure that we can sustain the expenditure going forward.