Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have no plans to do that specifically, but we are cognisant of the need for people to understand the system. Making sure that people understand the system—there is work emanating from the tax strategy to help to do that—will ensure greater levels of compliance. There will be higher levels of compliance if people understand their obligations and how the system works. That is definitely a major pillar of the tax strategy and the work that is being taken forward to help people to comply with their tax obligations.

The First Minister said that a range of options was available to the chancellor. Everyone accepts that, but she chose not to take those options but instead to hike employer national insurance contributions. That is something that you have just said you think is problematic, so I presume that you would have liked the chancellor to use another option and that you think that something else should have been done.

A range of options were open to the chancellor and could have resulted in a better outcome than the one that we have. That is the position. No one supports a reduction in funding for Scottish public services.

Do you mean if we were making such decisions here or if we were sitting around the UK Cabinet table?

It could have looked at various things, such as wealth taxes—it could have looked at raising funds in a variety of ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer boxed herself in, leaving very limited room for manoeuvre. I suspect that she would not have wanted to do what she has done, having boxed herself in. She probably did not want to do it, but because she would not unpick the constraints that she had put on herself, she had, by her own actions, left herself with very little room for manoeuvre.

Within the policy—if there had been an absolute decision around the UK Cabinet table that the Government had to use ENICs and that there was no other way—the Cabinet members could have chosen to do that differently. For example, they could have chosen to make sure that the public sector across the UK was fully funded, but they chose not to do that. They could have given exemptions to third sector organisations. They could have looked—

On the first point, I will look to see whether that work can be concluded more quickly and provided earlier than June.

In response to the second point, I note that Ivan McKee was clear in a media interview yesterday that it is important that the summit was not a stand-alone, one-off event. It followed a lot of work with public sector leaders, so that everybody understands what is being asked of them and so that we are not expecting business as usual.

We need change and reform, so to incentivise them we have put in place the invest to save fund. I am sure that expectations about bids, about the pace of change and reform, and about the fund’s delivery are topics of conversation. I assure you that Ivan McKee is very hands-on and focused on that work and is more involved in considering the details than ministers have been previously. He is working with leaders across the public sector to improve the work’s pace.

Although the word “strategy” is mentioned, reform is not a long-term aspiration; it is about releasing savings, doing things differently, sharing services and improving public services within the fiscal envelope that is available to us, so that they deliver for people and help them at an earlier stage rather than just addressing problems. It is about getting more upstream, which is what yesterday’s event focused on.

No, Michael. The First Minister did not say that, at all. He never said that he would cut £636 million.

This might be a kind of student debating point but, at the end of the day, the First Minister—

Yes.

Ivan McKee has been on a data-mining mission to address the gaps where data does not exist. You are right in saying that, without data, it is very difficult. Sometimes, it is the data lying underneath that you really need, instead of just the top-level data. We absolutely get that.

There is a tension between public bodies getting on with doing X, Y and Z, and feeling that that is their domain, and, because we are funding them to do this, our need to know that they are delivering in the most efficient way. Everybody has to play their part in ensuring that we are optimising the efficiency of every single organisation, whether through reform, shared services or digital. The interrogation of that perhaps takes place at a deeper level than previously.

No. If there is a range of options to be had, a range of options would be put in front of us. No other options were available that would have the same impact on child poverty. Nothing else emerged in the discussions with child poverty organisations that was going to have that impact. We were given a very clear steer by child poverty organisations that this policy was the one thing that would make the difference in reducing child poverty levels. They had previously pointed towards an increase in the Scottish child payment, which would have been the other obvious option, but they said to us that, rather than do that, with all of the issues around cliff edges and its rubbing up against disincentivising employment and so on, targeting the poorest kids through the mitigation of the two-child cap was the single intervention that we could make that would have the biggest impact. It emerged in a way that there was—