Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

Before I come on to that, I put on record that we will publish further research on the impacts of income tax policy on businesses and competitiveness in Scotland in this year.

The larger public sector with better paid workers means that we have more nurses, teachers and police officers. I think that it is a good thing that we have more front-line staff who are able to treat us, keep us well and keep us safe, and that—

I think that the evidence was from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and other organisations. In the discussions that ministers had with those child poverty organisations, they kept coming back to the point that mitigating the two-child cap was the main thing that could be done. Since then, further evidence has been provided—by, I think, the Fraser of Allander Institute—that we might, in fact, have underestimated the number of children who would be lifted out of poverty through the work on the two-child cap.

I commit to our doing so, and I am sure that the Minister for Parliamentary Business will assist us in that process.

I am sure.

Before this goes out of my head, an opportunity exists with digital and artificial intelligence that can transform the way in which services are delivered. In 10 years, things will probably be unrecognisable from how they are now. The question is, what do we do with the workforce whose roles have perhaps been made redundant? One of the opportunities that the public sector needs to consider is upskilling that workforce for other roles that are still required. That might not be the full story, but it is one opportunity. There are good examples of that having happened.

There are also good examples of cost avoidance. I think that it was the National Records of Scotland—no, it was the Scottish Public Pensions Agency—that used digital to avoid recruitment. It assumed that we would have to recruit a large contingent workforce at huge cost in order to do a fix on pension payments; instead of doing that, it found a digital solution. That is exactly what we need to look at. Recruitment should not be a default in order to fix a problem or deal with the build of something.

I think that that is achievable, but not without a cost, because that money could otherwise have gone to pay negotiations or front-line services. Whether it is recruiting more people or doing things differently on the front line, everything has a cost, and that has to be acknowledged first and foremost.

At stage 1 of the budget, we had a choice. Instead of putting money out to portfolios, I could have held it back. However, it is the same money, so, regardless of whether I had held it back or it had gone out to portfolios, there was not a magic bit of money. I decided to give it to portfolios to give them some resilience in the knowledge that we might end up in a place that was far from optimal with regard to employer national insurance contributions. It will not be easy, but, with support from my officials, working with Richard McCallum and his team, portfolios will be supported to manage supporting the cost of 40 per cent of ENICs liabilities.

It will be for local government to manage that, and the 32 local authorities will have their own responses as they set their budgets over the coming weeks.