Chamber and committees

I will touch on two further points, the first of which is IT. When I look at IT, alarm bells ring, given the £3 million that was, in my view, squandered on a not-particularly-great alleged improvement to our website and which we have discussed at some length in previous years.

I see that improving the Business Bulletin is going to cost some £300,000 to £500,000, which seems to me a rather large and excessive amount of money. [Interruption.] I am sorry—it is the Official Report project that is going to cost £300,000 to £500,000, while the Business Bulletin will cost £245,000 to £370,000. I am struggling to understand the demand for those changes and why they are going to cost so much. The Windows 10 replacement in 1,600 devices seems to be costing £143,000 to £396,000, which looks almost modest when you think about the work involved. I am trying to get my head around why the changes to the Official Report and the Business Bulletin are so expensive.

It is also reasonable to ask where else in the budget the money would come from to reverse that reduction. After all, we are scrutinising the Scottish budget. You have made a valid point about the council tax, and we might agree or disagree on that, but I am not seeing anything here about what should be done with capital. All you are saying is, “Oh, we should reverse that cut.” Maybe we should, but where should the money come from to do that?

That is my point: where should the money come from within the Scottish Government’s capital budget? For example, it has increased the capital budget for the police by 12.4 per cent. Should it not have done that? The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s capital budget has increased, too. Should that have not been done, either? How should the Scottish Government respond to what is, to be honest, a polemic?

On capital, you say in your submission:

“low investment is acknowledged to be one of the key impediments to growth both at the Scottish and UK levels ... public sector investment helps de-risk private investment and therefore cutting public investment will adversely affect overall levels of investment in the Scottish economy and consequently growth.”

What are the long-term implications for Scotland of the reduction in capital?

Yes. The figures in your paper are backed up by the Scottish Parliament information centre. For the highest rate, on earnings over £125,140, it expects that the mechanical income would be £56 million but that, post-behavioural change, it would be only £8 million. For earnings of £75,000 up to £125,140, £144 million would be raised on paper, but only £74 million in reality. Do you recognise those figures?

I want to go back to my first question, because you have not had an opportunity to answer it. It was about whether the budget delivers on the missions that the Scottish Government has set itself.

However, all else being equal, economic growth is a positive thing. Do you agree?

In terms of that—this will be my last question, and other witnesses can answer it as well—has the Scottish Government done enough in the budget to prioritise economic growth?

Chris, what do you feel? You have been critical of the Scottish Government not increasing the Scottish child payment to £30 although, obviously, it is going up to £26.70. Both the Scottish National Party and the Labour Party promised in their manifestos that it would be £20 by 2026 and it is already going to go up this year to £26.70, which is much higher than it would have been if it had risen in line with inflation. How do you feel about that and about the issue of economic growth?

China’s economy is growing at only 3.3 per cent.