 I just, for the record, note that we've been in private session, and have taken item 4 on the agenda, so we have not wasted our time before welcoming the Cabinet Secretary. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary, Derek Mackay, and congratulate him on his new position. It has been so many things happening in the last few days, and it seems a long time since you were appointed Cabinet Secretary, but you're very welcome. I'm very pleased that you're here on the first occasion in front of this I'm sure you'll be here many times. With you is Alistair Brown, the Acting Director of Financial Strategy. She's got Mackay, the Deputy Director for Financial Program Management, and Andrew Watson, the Deputy Director for Financial Strategy. I know you want to make an opening statement. After you've made an opening statement, then I'll say a word or two and we'll start the questioning. You might want to tell us why you've been slightly delayed too and how things are this morning. Okay, thank you very much, convener, for welcoming, a very warm welcome to this opening session of the finance committee. I appreciate your co-operation, the reason for my slight lateness as I was having a phone call with the chancellor, which I thought would help the conversation and discussion this morning. Indeed, when I accepted the job of finance secretary, I was aware that I was inheriting the post at a time of great opportunity, but it was also going to be a period of increasing complexity and uncertainty. I think that it's fair to suggest that the level of constitutional and fiscal complexity has increased significantly over the last week. We are, in many ways, in uncharted territory. While many political choices lie ahead of us, I hope that we can all agree that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament must come together to ensure that we continue to manage the public finances competently and in the interests of the people of Scotland. I come before you today in that spirit and commit to working with all members of this parliament, particularly those in the finance committee, to ensure that we achieve those outcomes. I'm also engaging closely with HM Treasury and my counterparts in the other devolved administrations, in the interests of our economies and the public finances. The First Minister made a number of statements yesterday in which I associate myself. In particular, I will adopt an approach to the public finances of Scotland that is focused on stability in our economy, reform and improvement in our public services and continuing to serve this Government's vision of a more inclusive and equal society. Convener, the events of the past few days are likely to have a material impact on the public finances, but we cannot let it distract us from the immediate business of government. Even prior to Friday, the powers devolved under the Scotland Act 2016 represented a paradigm shift in the way that we run our finances and set our budgets. No longer are we dealing with a budget that focuses almost entirely on expenditure. The coming few years will see not only new powers over rates and bans for income tax and new powers over demand-led social security arrangements, but it will also place a greater emphasis on revenue forecasts, block grant adjustments and budget reconciliations at more so than it in any previous budget. The rules have changed and it would be helpful if we could consider and agree today how we might best work together to consider how those new rules are to be reflected in the written agreement and in our processes, both in terms of the 2017-18 budget and for the years beyond. First, as I set out in my letter of last week, if the committee would find it helpful to receive informal briefings from officials on the Scotland Act powers and on the associated fiscal framework agreement, I would be very glad to arrange that. Beyond that, I think that it might be helpful to differentiate between the issues for the long-term future of the budget process and issues for this year in its own right. In the longer term, we need a robust and credible budget process, which adequately balances the need for accurate and efficient tax forecasting and collection with the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny. We need to deliver the principles promoted in the original financial issues advisory group recommendations, whilst not being blind to the fact, for obvious reasons, those recommendations were made in entirely different context. In that regard, I agree with the relevant recommendation in the previous Finance Committee's legacy paper and suggest that we not only establish a working group involving representatives from the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, but potentially invite contributions more widely from Civic Scotland to consider what process model would best reflect the extra requirements flowing from the new fiscal powers. Such a group could helpfully include the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which will become an increasingly integral part of the budget process. If the committee is supportive of such an approach, I suggest that we invite our respective officials to work together to develop some options for a group for our joint consideration later in the year. In terms of the immediate priority of developing an effective process for developing and scrutinising the draft budget 2017-18, my letter to the committee sets out the Government's view on a range of issues associated with the new budget cycle, particularly in the first year of those new powers. My overarching priority is that the people of Scotland must have confidence in our collective ability to use the newly devolved powers efficiently and effectively. In my letter, I set out the view that publishing the draft budget after the Chancellor's autumn statement would represent the most effective way of managing the risks and volatility presented by the relationship between the autumn statement related OBR forecasts and the Scottish budget. Such an approach would improve the accuracy of budget forecasts and allocations, reduce the need for revisions to forecast and allocations ahead of the budget bill and, in my mind, enhance the overall credibility of the budget process. The events of Friday and the days since and the telephone conversation I have just had reinforced my view on those questions. While the Chancellor appeared to rule out an immediate emergency budget in his statement on Monday, it is not yet clear what a future UK Government's fiscal plans will be or precisely when they will set them out. Despite the new Scotland act 2016 powers, almost 60 per cent of the revenues generated in Scotland continue to be determined in Westminster. The block grant adjustment will not be determined until the autumn statement and it seems clear that the OBR forecast from the March UK budget this year will be subject to significant change. As a consequence, UK Government plans will continue to have a material impact on the fiscal position in Scotland. It will therefore be important to take appropriate time to consider those plans ahead of our own budget, including whether it should cover the period beyond 2017-18, given the potential timescales around the UK's proposed exit from the European Union between now and the end of the current spending review period in 2019-20. With that in mind, I would invite the committee's views on the budget timetable and, specifically, my preference that the Government should publish the draft budget only once the position for the public finances in Scotland and the UK as a whole is made clear through the chancellor's autumn statement. I would be happy to discuss those matters and issues and any other matters that the committee might have in mind. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Before I come to a question, I want to make one point about what you have said. It deals with the budgetary model. I want to re-emphasise the point that you have made that this is a parliamentary process, and it is designed as a parliamentary process, and the committee fulfills a fundamental role in that process. The nature of that relates back to the founding principles of the Parliament. It is therefore fundamental that the Parliament leads the tripartite review, and I welcome your comments in that area. Therefore, I want to agree with you that the clerks should discuss with their officials over the shape of that review process to see what it may look like in order that the committee can consider the matter at its business day, the review activity. I also want to thank you for the constructive approach that you are taking in working with the committee. There will be many questions that people want to ask you, but I look forward to working with you on the issues that we go forward. The clear first question that I really have to ask you is what is your and the Scottish Government's assessment of the potential impact of the leave vote, both on the Scottish budget and on the Scottish economy? Purely on the financial impact, clearly there is a significant impact on the economy right now in terms of economic turbulence. That will lead into inevitably public spending decisions and tax decisions. The chancellor has said as much in the conversation that I have just had that what has been said publicly, although there is not an emergency budget proposed, that there will clearly be a significant shift as the UK Government responds to the economic turbulence and the change in circumstances. However, for Scotland specifically, clearly there will be an impact in a range of whether there is an exit on funding streams, on wider economy and on investment decisions. Companies right now will be thinking, and some will potentially put on pause some of their investment plans, so that will have an impact on the wider economy and then, in due course, Government's fiscal decisions. It has had quite a serious impact already, and I think that it will be prolonged. The chancellor has said that he believes that the UK will be a poorer country as a result. The predictions that have been made are obviously of some concern, but there will be inevitably an impact on Scotland. That is why the Scottish Government, in pursuing our ambitions, is trying to sustain Scotland's position and place within the EU, but will be working to deliver stability and work through all the other potential consequences. Some partners and stakeholders in Scotland are clearly trying to give that continuity and stability, as we speak, but there will be a profound impact in this country. I am sure that members will ask further questions about, potentially, individual funding streams, such as structural funds or other areas where clearly Scotland has played a major role. We will get into those wider things, but just to focus down on the assumptions that you have been making, I think that you have been in post for something like five weeks now. Presumably, the assumptions that you are making about the budget that is about to go into train have changed significantly in the past five days. Therefore, the attitude that you will be taking to that will also have changed. I do not think that I could fairly say or you would believe me if I said it, convener, that I forecast this outcome. However, let us say that it has somewhat vindicated the letter in that there were a number of factors that were very variable in terms of the timing of the budget. It is far too soon to say what the actual impact will be, because we do not know—nobody knows—the long-term impact of this decision. However, I would reflect on the fact that there were already variables and impacts that we had to consider in setting out the budget timescale for Scotland. I think that the added uncertainty that is now being created by the vote and the fallout has vindicated my position that we needed extra time to ensure that we had an accurate and credible budget process being able to take into account all the relevant factors. We are highly dependent, as my letter goes into great detail, on forecasts, on tax revenues, on the position that is relative to the UK, and on the decisions that we will then have to make in taking forward the budget process. Of course, I respect that committee. It has to be a fully transparent process, and I want to co-design how we deal with that this year and what is clearly a transition year. I also co-design the solution for the future as well as recognising that the Parliament's powers have moved on and recognised by the previous finance committee and the wider issues that now affect us. The term co-design is a very useful one. Can I take the vice-communist and then I will take Patrick Harvie? It is interesting to hear the cabinet secretary talk about the impact to the EU, given that many would suggest that the impact of withdrawal from the EU would be an order of magnitude smaller than if it were Scotland withdrawing from the UK. Do you take any lessons from the thought process that went through in the independence referendum to the experience that you are going to have to withdraw from the EU? I am surprised that Mr Johnson wants to get into Scottish independence, but I suppose that the difference that I could point out is that, at least in Scotland, when we put the choice and offer to the people, we had a plan in the white paper that appears to be no plan. The UK Government is in a fair to save, and even Alex Johnston would agree to go through some turbulence at the moment, not that the Labour Party is escaping that situation either, but in all seriousness, a comparison would make it good if you put the offer to the people that you have a plan. What we are dealing with now is the immediate fall-out of that decision. We are striving to secure Scotland's position and working in the best interests of our people by delivering strong, competent Government, pursuing Scotland's interests and, for me, looking ahead to the challenges that we will face, and this committee will have a huge role in shaping our processes as we adapt to the circumstances. We already had problems with timescale, and we are aware of that. They are discussed in the letter that we have in front of us. The changes that have happened in the past few days, what does that do to the pressures both for yourself and for Parliament in terms of fitting that process within a timescale? I thank Mr Johnston for those comments and the recognition that we already had important issues to wrestle with. There was already transition and change and uncertainty in how we go forward, and that was pre-EU referendum vote in terms of the forecast that we would rely on and expecting further change. For example, we were already expecting somehow the chancellor to allocate a further £3.5 billion worth of cuts to his own budget, and we have to deal with that. In terms of timescales, what that result has done is added uncertainty to the shape of the UK Government. The chancellor does not know whether he will be the chancellor or who his successor may be, but he knows that there will be significant financial adjustments as a result of the decision. It follows that there has been impact on budgets and a wider economy to which we will all have to respond. The chancellor was of the view—anything can happen between now and then—but the autumn statement is likely to have such adaptation. Therefore, it is wise to wait for that position to understand Scotland's budgetary position, not just because our spending power will change but all the forecasts will change and the information that we rely on is more significant than ever. In terms of our immediate spending pressures, it is too soon to say, but we will know that the timescale has significantly changed and there is now more weight on the chancellor's autumn statement. I suspect that that probably will not be the end of the matter, because the long-term consequences of the decision remain to be seen. Last year's process was truncated. We are now in what the cabinet secretary himself described as a transitional year, and it seems that the process in this unique and difficult year will have to be truncated again. Are we at a stage where there is serious concern that must be raised about whether we can adequately analyse the budget in the timescale that we have and whether there is a danger that the Government may be allowed to progress matters without proper scrutiny from the Parliament? No, I think that if you look at potential scenarios of timescales, I think that it is still perfectly possible to have adequate scrutiny of the Government's budget, but surely all members of the committee would appreciate that you would rather have an accurate budget than an inaccurate budget that is subject to so much change that I would just respond to every question by saying that is likely to change. I think that you must have an accurate and credible proposed draft budget. I will not spend my contribution this morning saying that I did uncertainty to the economy, the likelihood of change and all of that is down to the Conservatives' Government's choices, but the reality is that all of the budget timing issues has come from when the UK Government has chosen to do its spending reviews when it has chosen to determine its budgets because such a large part of our budget, and this will continue to be the case, comes from the block grant and decisions of the UK Government, so we are still in large measure in their hands in terms of large financial decisions that we should take. The room for manoeuvre we have in other taxes because of the fiscal agreement, financial agreement still relies on us to make sound decisions flowing from what the UK Government proposes to do. I accept the point that we must have clear finance committee and parliamentary scrutiny of our proposed draft budget, but it has to be a credible, accurate proposed budget so you know what you are studying is reasonable and is likely subject to all the political negotiation that will be required with the position of the Government in the Parliament given proper time. I will give you a pledge of maximum involvement in how we design this process going forward. What we have not solved before this joint working group, if it is agreed to consider, is another issue, not just around the reliability of forecasts or the outcome of UK spending decisions, but also the fair ability of the Government to make tax decisions that do not necessarily encourage bad behaviour because we want to be able to raise our taxes. There is also thinking around how the Parliament's scrutiny process adapts to the fact that we are no longer just a spending Parliament but a tax-raising Parliament as well. Thank you Cabinet Secretary for your statement. I do not want to talk about Scottish independence, it will not surprise you to learn. I want to talk about effective parliamentary scrutiny, and you used the word just now that you want parliamentary scrutiny to be adequate. With respect, I want it to be better than that. I want it to be a lot better than that. I want it to be as effective and robust as it can possibly be. That is not in the Government's interests, but in Scotland's national interests. It is, of course, for the Parliament to decide what effective parliamentary scrutiny is, not for the Government to decide that, as I am sure you would agree. I wonder what you can say now to reassure me, as a new parliamentarian, that the process that you are proposing, which is that, as I understand it, a draft budget will not be given to this committee until after the autumn statement can result in the most effective and robust parliamentary scrutiny at possible. The autumn statement is, of course, misnamed. The autumn statement is these days often given in the winter, only a fortnight or so before Christmas. Are you proposing that a draft budget would be given to this committee before Christmas or only in the new year? If you are proposing that the start of the parliamentary process with regard to budget scrutiny is delayed, are you also proposing that the end of that process can be delayed so that we have more time in the spring? Does the clock still stop at the same point in the calendar? Mr Tomkins raises a number of excellent questions. Let me just take a binary position in terms of what is adequate. The opposite of adequate is inadequate. I do not want an inadequate budget process, so we share a view on the standard of scrutiny that should be undertaken for the budget process. I am just striving to ensure that this committee gets sight of an accurate, credible budget rather than rushing anything, considering the UK Government's position right now. The UK Government cannot even say—I understand the reasons for that—when the autumn statement will be, it is difficult for me to give you my proposed timescale, but I can give you the pledge that, as soon as we reasonably can publish a draft budget—if that is what is agreed by the committee and you are right that this is a parliamentary agreement—it is a protocol that as soon as we reasonably can publish a draft budget after the chancellor's autumn statement, we would do that. I am not trying to delay publication of budget for any other reason and I want it to be credible. I want it to be based on spending decisions that have a material impact on those decisions by way of tax, revenue and spending. The timing is in part in the UK Government's hands. I expressed that view to the chancellor this morning. It is an uncomfortable place to be to have to wait for this, but it is more significant than ever. The timescales that you suggest might be right, but I do not know, because the UK Government does not know when the statement that they will give will be. They cannot say to be fair even who the chancellor will be, whether it will be George Osborne or whether he will have a successor, but they will want to make their decisions, and ours should follow from that. In terms of the autumn statement in the winter, apparently civil servants can redefine many things, including our seasons, and it could well be in the winter. The sooner, the better, frankly, so that we can all get on with greater certainty with what we want to do. There may be further budget variations after that. I am not proposing to wait for further events. I am saying that that is now the most significant event. As time goes on, the previous budget process—this is why the Parliament has to change—does not fit with the new timescales for forecast, whether it is the OBR or the Fiscal Commission or anything else. It just does not fit with what we would seriously rely on to design a credible budget. I say this year that that is why we are very much in transition this year, and I want to co-design with this committee what will work best for the future. That should look at timescales at the other end to finish my answer here. I think that we will have to look through the overall timescale at how the committee conducts its business, how intensively the committee sits and calls witnesses and plans out its work and engages with other committee. It is very much a matter for the committee. We will be supportive within that, but there are other drivers at the other end of the process, such as the intimation of the Scotch rate of income tax or other things that we will have to do to fit with the rest of the formulaic approach and how that budget is set by the Scottish Parliament. That was partly reassuring, but not quite as reassuring as I would ideally have wanted it to be. I very much welcome your pledge to co-design the process with the committee. Perhaps we can get a little more specific about what you have in mind, albeit that that cannot possibly commit you, but to give us an indication of what you have in mind. How long do you think it would be after the autumn statement that you will be able to bring a draft budget to the committee? Are we talking about a week or two or are we talking about six weeks or seven weeks? Are we talking about something that could realistically start before the Christmas recess or can't realistically start until after the Christmas recess? You did not address my point about whether, if we are not going to start until later, whether we still have to finish at the same time. Is there any way in which we can extend this process later into the spring or summer? I suppose that we will have to look at what has to be done before the… That is partly why we have to redesign how we do our business, because there are other parts of the parliamentary process that we need to undertake, certainly at the other end, for our stakeholders as well, and the process that the Parliament has to go through for the staged approach of the budget as well. I think that all that will have to be considered. The unknown determinant is that, when the UK autumn statement will be, what I am pledging to do is to turn that around into a Scottish budget as quickly as I can. I do not think for one minute that we will not be doing anything until the chancellor's autumn statement. We will plan and undertake to deliver the budget, but it will be what we do not know is the scale of adjustment. If I can look at the timetable at the other end in partnership with you, because the committee will help to determine that, I will happily do that to see whether we can extend it at the other side. In terms of exact timings, my understanding from a significant shift to publication of a budget in the past has been around three weeks, but we are on unprecedented times. However, I would try, as best I could, for all the reasons that you understand, to get a published draft budget out in a matter of weeks after the chancellor's autumn statement. What I do not know is the scale of change that any chancellor will propose, but I will work very hard to get that budget produced as quickly as possible thereafter, if the committee agrees with that approach. In those times, we have to work together on a cross-party basis. That is what I am proposing. Equally, we have a huge political difference with the UK Government, but we are also trying to deliver stability and continuity and sound government at the same time in terms of financial matters in the Scottish budget. I am trying to be as open-minded as I possibly can be, Mr Tomkins, whilst recognising that some of the other determinants in the process are already set. That includes when we have to execute other functions as per the budget process. I am sorry. Good morning. You used the word unprecedented a moment ago. A great deal about the situation feels unprecedented, feels unique. I remind you that your party formed a minority government in 2007, and not very long after—not a matter of weeks, but not very long after—faced the beginning of a financial crisis that clearly was going to have a profound impact for years to come. Part of what your predecessor did in his approach to that was not merely to rely on budget scrutiny, but to have plenty of upfront discussion across the political spectrum about the broad brushstrokes, about principles, for example, about whether everyone would be agreed on trying to retain maximum employment, even if it meant a pay freeze—that being preferable to laying off large numbers of people in the public sector. Those broad brushstrokes were agreed in advance of the development of the budget, not as an alternative to budget scrutiny when the budget was there. I am just wondering whether that is going to be the approach that you will take as well in the current situation, and whether your own Government or, to the best of your knowledge, the UK Government has made the assumptions about the long-term impact of the current situation, for example, on the value of the pound. Are you working on an assumption that that might be a permanent correction, or do you have other scenarios that you are developing and trying to explore what the implications will be? On the first issue, on the matter of principle, the Government has been elected on a manifesto that I think that the First Minister has been clear on. We aim to achieve in full, so that is what we are working towards the delivery of our manifesto. There is not a significant matter irrespective of the timing of the budget, and the other impacts on the budget have also got to build a majority for the Scottish budget as well. I expect those discussions to happen in advance of just publishing what the Government proposes to do, so there will be on-going engagement. On the longer-term economic impact, it is fair to say that the result and the impact has come as a shock. Therefore, UK Government, commentators and economists are all looking at it. I am very mindful now more so than ever that forecasters and economists will come up with models, but they are only forecasts. There is an impact. There will be a short, medium and long-term impact this much, we know. If I boil it down to what the chancellor has said, he has said that the UK will be poorer, and that is his position. He said other things such as the emergency budget. He said publicly that there may be increased taxes and reduced public spending as well. From memory, I think that Alasdair Darling, when he shared a platform, took a similar view. There is consensus that there will be a short, medium and long-term impact on the economy, but everyone is working to stabilise the impact. Within Scotland, we will look at the impact every day and every week on what we can do to assist. Of course, we are pursuing the agenda of continuing Scotland's place in the EU. I can say that there have been a number of inquiries from people—political and business—as to how they think that they could fit in that context in Scotland. There is a huge financial challenge, but there is also opportunity as well in terms of sustainable economic growth and the impact on fiscal policy for the UK and the Scottish Government. Of course, we are looking at scenarios. There are also immediate inquiries that we will undertake to give people reassurance around some of the funding streams that are EU-related. Does that assist? I mean, I think that there are clearly several different kinds of impact. One will be about EU funding streams and clearly that is not going to be taken away altogether, but there will be an impact before the Brexit negotiations are complete, no doubt. Secondly, on the taxation system in Scotland, which is developing and what the impact of the current financial crisis will be on the revenues that come from devolved taxes. Thirdly, on the continuing financial relationship with the UK, where sadly there is no detriment principle in relation to massive gambles that the UK Government chooses to take with the economy. It is clearly too early to disaggregate all three of those and to start pinning them down, but they are all going to be based on a range of different scenarios. I wonder who is most responsible for the UK Government or the UK Government for making the assumptions that will inform the decisions that we make. A great number of the assumptions that we would be making would be based on what the UK Government does, so we will be undertaking our own work and we will have a different agenda. The UK Government will make its assumptions. I will be able to say more about just some of the immediate decisions that the Scottish Government has taken in light of this. Mr Harvey referenced devolved taxes and I will be able to say a wee bit more about that in the outturn statement this afternoon because it does have a material consideration in that. There are some immediate decisions that I will say more about in relation to the outturn statement because it absolutely relates to devolved taxes on what has happened in the last financial year and what we should do going forward. On the question of the timing of the budget and the implications for budget scrutiny, in the last Parliament I convened the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and we had a situation that was unsatisfactory. It was met by all the subject committees where we were doing budget scrutiny in advance of the budget being published. We are now facing a scenario that I entirely understand is not of your making, cabinet secretary, and we all understand reasons why it has come around. We are facing a scenario where the subject committees might have perhaps a matter of weeks if that, in which to scrutinise the budget and report to the committee as they are required to do. In terms of making calls for evidence and consulting with stakeholders, maybe a matter of days, given that it might fall over the Christmas recess, have you thought at all about how that process might be enhanced or made credible, given the very, very short time that it is likely to be available for subject committees to scrutinise the budget? I think that if we deliver some innovation here, we can think differently as to how we approach scrutiny. There are other things that the committee could focus their attention on. It relates to Mr Harvey's view on pre-budget engagement as well. There is room potentially to help to guide public policy and to guide government on priorities as well. Why should it just be the case that the Government publishes our budget and then you scrutinise it? Is there not a role to help to guide government even before we have published a draft budget? We could be creative and innovative around engaging in the process. In those transitionary times, we can do things differently on how other subject committees engage, how proactive they are, how intensively they look at the budget and how they programme their work. If we have more clarity on what timescales could look like, the budget process could have absolute priority for those committees at that point. There may be an opportunity for committees that might not be too popular but to sit more often during that period or to look at the process. I used to be a member of the Finance Committee, albeit briefly when I was first a member of Parliament. It is not always the case that the budget is produced and there was intensive screening. Sometimes there was a period of active screening, so I think that there is a way that we can do things differently. I am trying not to curtail the length of time. It is just inevitable following the issues that have arisen. I am saying that we should co-operate to innovate to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny. Subject committees could plan out their scrutiny ahead and we will look at how much time they can be given, bearing in mind Mr Tomkins' point on that. Can we look at any further extension at the other end of the process? I think that that is a helpful response. We can explore further with the cabinet secretary and his officials. My second point relates to the comments that you were making earlier about the economic impact of the Brexit vote. Do you think that there is a danger of us talking ourselves into the recession here? There has been so much conversation about uncertainty. We sometimes forget that we are still in the EU for the time being. There is a yet unknown timetable to leave. The fundamentals of the economy are still sound. In fact, perhaps what we need is a bit more positivity and reassurance about some of those issues, rather than a lot of doom and gloom from politicians that might just lead to a situation in which we exacerbate an already troublesome situation. To be fair to me, convener, I did not mention the word recession. It was Mr Fraser that mentioned the word recession and said that no one should mention recession. I am awful, but I have a happy positive disposition in life and I think that I am rather generous right now to the UK Government as well. Mr Fraser also said that this is not a mess of the Scottish Government's making. No, it certainly is not. I would not just easily throw back its conservative mess, but this is the point where we have to work together. Nobody wants to impact negatively on our people or our economy. That includes for the whole of the UK, not just Scotland in light of how Scotland would. I agree that we should get on with the job, deal with the situation, deliver stability as best we can, and be pragmatic about the challenges that we face. Of course, we have different political aspirations. We have a different view on the outcome of the referendum, but I think that there was a degree of consensus even yesterday in the chamber about pursuing Scotland's interests. There is a degree to which we should work together and be positive in delivering stability. From my point of view, from the Scottish Government, we should take the opportunity that is before us in terms of the positive European view of the people of Scotland and the opportunity that exists. I will not be talking Scotland down. I will be using my role to try to enhance our position, protect our position and deliver it as much protection as we can for our people in light of circumstances. My advice to Mr Fraser is that, if you want to join us in talking up to Scotland, I will be first to welcome that. That includes in the parliamentary plenary session this afternoon. I hope that the cabinet secretary will not be talking anybody down rather than just Scotland, but we will see. My final question is a slightly distinct matter. Last year, the predecessor announced that there would be a review of business rates. Are you able to tell us when a remit for that business rates review is likely to be published and how extensive is that likely to be? Will it just be tweaking some of the process issues such as the periods for rate evaluations or will it be much more fundamental looking at whether the current system should be replaced with something more radical that is currently existing? Mr Fraser, I am not sure how much time we have at this committee, convener, but I could go into more detail. I think that it is probably more helpful if I write to the committee on the current position in relation to the review of business rates, because I could say more on that I am increasingly populating the membership of the review that I have met with the chair. I can say more about the remit and the direction of travel. I am happy to write to the committee to more fully update on the review and the direction that I have given, and then the review can go on and explore. The timescale was summer next year for reporting back. Business rates are certainly an area that the committee would be very interested in. I would be happy to give you more detail in writing about the work that has been undertaken. That includes membership, as I said, which I have progressed since probably last you considered it. I counted your three questions and they are all complete. Just bearing in mind that the uncertainty that we have already touched on both economically and politically, I am moving on to a slightly different subject, what are your thoughts at the moment on having enough long-term confidence to do a three-year spending review? I think that, convener, I would want to say that, as it stands right now with the degree of uncertainty that exists, with the volatility that exists, I think that it would be unwise to publish a three-year spending review at this time. We are proposing a one-year budget and not delivering a three-year spending review at this time. As it happens, the UK Government had published a three-year spending review, but it is clear that it may revisit that as it approaches the issues that it faces. I believe, convener, that it is fair to say—I think that I have been perfectly transparent when I say it—that it would be unwise to publish a three-year spending review. I am looking at a one-year budget and not the publication of a three-year spending review in light of all the circumstances that we face. If we had greater certainty around a three-year spending review, we could proceed with that, but I do not think that that would be the right thing to do at this time. That said, clearly the Scottish Government will not just take a short-term view on the budget, but will consider the long-term matters. It is also the case that—this is just a point of accuracy and technical correctness. I do not want to lead down that road, but the publication of a spending review does not necessarily have to wait to the budget process. It could, in theory, be delivered at any point, and you could have the opportunity to consider a separate scrutiny approach of that. If I were to publish a spending review at any other point other than the budget process, I want to be clear with the committee that that is my thinking at this time that a three-year spending review publication of would be unwise at this time. Therefore, I am working to a one-year budget, and I am sure that everyone would agree that that is a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. That is very helpful. I think that we have to be absolutely clear that that is now the proposal, because I think that that is a step beyond where we were an hour ago. Your proposals will not include this year a three-year spending review. That is correct, convener, and I hope that that assists you with realising that I am not asking you to scrutinise a three-year spending review, because I will not be publishing one. I am proposing a one-year budget. Good morning, cabinet secretary. This is certainly one holy mess that the Conservative Government has got us into. I think that you are doing pretty well in trying to outline to the committee plans to take forward our plans to reform and to scrutinise Scottish Government budget spending and proposals. However, in your discussion with the chancellor after his reappearance this morning, did he give you any kind of indication about in his autumn statement whether there will be any kind of plans or provisions to make adjustments because of the situation with the EU? The public perception of this during the debate was that suddenly all of this funding that came from the EU would be maintained and spending from the UK, and it is probably too early to do that. However, has he given you any kind of indication at all so that the British public can be absolutely clear what the UK position is going to be with respect to budgets and whether they can expect things like an extra £350 million a week for the national health service? Is that being nailed in the head by the chancellor, for example, or is it still doing the rhythms? First of all, Mr Coffey, I do not think that even the chancellor could say that it will be his statement in the autumn that he made the point to me that it could be him or his successor. He can only speak for his perspective at the moment and his intelligence from within the UK Government, but he has said publicly that he predicts. It would not be a surprise considering what he said during the European referendum that he expects taxes to go up and spending to go down. He also prefaced that saying that he thought that the UK would be poorer as a result of the vote. Obviously, he is trying to give stability and continuity to the UK as well and calm the markets and has a range of contingency plans in place with the Bank of England should that be required. I suppose that there was an attempt for reassurance within that, but I think that he has been quite clear. I say that other people have concurred about the impact on tax and spend, so, yes, he expects it to have an impact. Of course, what the chancellor said during the referendum and after may be some of that will be subject to change, but Mr Coffey referenced on the £350 million to the NHS and other positions that I could add on immigration. Much of what was said before the vote will transpire to be totally inaccurate. I will have to stick within parliamentary parameters of language, but I think that many of the things that people were told during the referendum will turn out not to be true, but unfortunately an economic impact has turned out to be true. The scale of financial adjustment that we will have to wrestle with, we do not know, and the chancellor does not know, but I raised the subject. I mean, I said, you know, is it reasonable to assume that there will be a significant shift in the autumn statement? Of course, that is what I am saying to this committee, as an important material consideration in our thinking about our timetable process. Is that a reasonable position to take that there will be an impact in the autumn statement, and he concurred that, yes, there would be. It might not be a matter for that chancellor, but there will be a shift in public finances and tax policies as a consequence of the vote. I think that the approach that I am outlining in that light is a reasonable one. Does that answer your question, Mr Coffey? Yes. It is interesting, cabinet secretary and convener, that we cannot find anybody who admits to making that claim now that there would be all of this funding in extra money made available to the NHS, but that is, I suppose, the nature of the debate during the referendum. I could ask a certain question just about how we, or whether you, in plan to engage with the devolved Administrations on their respective impacts, perhaps on Wales and Northern Ireland. Also, the Republic of Ireland, who I will be considerably affected in their view—I think that that is quite clear—are you reaching out to those Administrations? I know that you are extremely busy doing what you have to do, but what kind of association are you planning to have with those? The First Minister and Fiona Hyslop cabinet secretary and other ministers are clearly engaging with counterparts. Before the referendum was taken off, and after, I have engaged with my equivalents of finance ministers and devolved Administrations, including the chief secretary to the Treasury and the chancellor. In terms of the devolved Administrations, we have engaged and I am planning to meet them later in July. That should include Northern Ireland finance minister and the Welsh finance minister. I also had the pleasure of meeting the Irish equivalent of public expenditure minister as well, so I have been engaging with devolved Administrations and the Irish finance minister as well. I look forward to on-going constructive engagement where we have shared interest. As I said, there is a further meeting scheduled in Wales between the three devolved Administrations finance ministers later in July. Of course, they will want to protect their position. I will certainly pursue Scotland's position on what is in our best interests, but there is a great deal of frustration as to what has happened. I was engaging with devolved Administrations before the vote, because I wanted a good strong relationship between the devolved Administrations. The timetable that you are suggesting for us is broadly shared by the devolved Administrations too, because they are facing the same situation that we are. They are looking at the same timetable for their own scrutiny processes. Sometimes we wrestle with similar issues or similar positions in terms of how we engage with the UK Government, but we are completely different devolved Administrations with different tax and spend mechanisms, budget processes, parliamentary scrutiny and everything else. Although we have many issues in common, there is not a similarity in approach. I have not discussed with them their timetabling issues, but we certainly agree on a number of issues of principle. Thanks a lot, convener. There are two questions from me. You noted in your letter, cabinet secretary, that £3.5 billion of public spending cuts have come down the line. Obviously, you have correctly assessed that there is going to be a material impact of the leave vote. You also said that this is a different budget and that it is not a spending budget. We have also got to consider the implications of tax. I just wondered what your policy intent was in terms of the tax-raising powers. Do you intend to adopt a tax-neutral approach or to raise taxes or reduce them? As it stands, convener, we outlined in our manifesto what our tax position would be, and that is our current proposition. Like with any Government or any Administration, we will have to look at all the budget issues, the spending pressures and the impact of the chancellor's autumn statement. As it stands, the manifesto that we were elected upon is the one that we are aiming to deliver. That has a range of proposals around income tax and other measures. Is it tax-neutral? Is it going to put taxes up or reduce taxes? As it was stated in the manifesto, I think that members would benefit from the full briefings that I have had in terms of the financial agreement between the Scottish Government and UK Government vis-à-vis the fiscal framework. There is a clear understanding of the impact of tax decisions between Scotland and the UK Government. We will, through our spending power, have generated more income through our tax position. That would be the position. Your policy intent is to raise more money from taxes. As it stands, the position that we have outlined in the manifesto is a prelude to the budget, but as it stands, we had a policy on income tax and a policy on council tax and other positions, which, through those decisions and what the UK Government said it was intending to do at that time, would increase our spending power for more resources for public services. To now say in isolation, I know that this is now incredibly complex because of the way the fiscal framework operates. It is no longer just the case that the Scottish Government raises those taxes and therefore we have more income, and it is as simple as that. Everything is now relative to what the UK Government does, the impact on the block grant adjustment, and therefore it is more complex. I am not trying to be unhelpful, but putting words into my mouth is not necessarily helpful in the context of accuracy. Our tax proposals will increase the spending power of the UK Government as it stood because of the position that we have outlined and what the UK Government said that we are going to do at the time, particularly income tax thresholds, and then separate it to that council tax. That is the spending power of the Scottish Government. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to spend anyone else's money. I am clear on where you stand. Going back to the point that Murdo Fraser raised about budget scrutiny and how the curtailed timetable would compromise the ability of the committee and the subject committee to scrutinise the budget, you will be continually running and updating your forecasting models. Is there information from that that you would be able to make available to the proposed working group and subject committees to help informers ahead of the publication of your spending plans? I do not necessarily think that that would be particularly helpful putting in the public domain forecasts that will have so many variables at almost. I think that that would create further uncertainty in our modelling. We will obviously have to work to a programme, but let me consider that further what information we could share with the committee, but what I would not want to do is if I am not publishing a draft budget, why would I publish a whole host of scenarios that would give a degree of credibility to scenarios that might not turn out to be accurate? Let me consider what I could share with the committee in real time, especially in light of trying to be helpful and transparent, but not in a way that sets her running. I accept that. I would not be proposing that you publish any information that fuels uncertainty, but anything that would help inform members and people involved in the budget process would be helpful. I think that that is a very important point to say. I think that Murdo Fraser and James Currie for the question that Adam Tomkins did earlier, in terms of the level of information that would be made available to the committee and to the spending committees in the absence of a draft budget. We have not talked about that detail in that timescale, but I think that that is an important point. I think that it will recur in the discussions of the committee, so I just underline that point. Clearly, recent events are having a media, and let us just call them wide-ranging effects on the Scottish economy. Is the Scottish Government discussing options to stimulate investment? Is there any money that could be found to allocate to that? I am sure that, first of all, I want to say that Cabinet Secretaries across Government are engaging with key stakeholders, and that is right across sectors to understand impact. To take on board sensitivities and intelligence as well, not just in the business community, but much wider than that also, the First Minister has outlined the position on the creation of an expert panel in relation to the EU. Beyond that, from ministerial meetings hours after the result, then into an emergency Scottish Cabinet on Saturday, we have been tasked with engaging with stakeholders to assess the position to support, to provide continuity, to convey the Government's message to hear from all sectors, and equally to try to seize any opportunities that might exist. There have been inquiries, for example, from people interested in operating from Scotland in the event that Scotland could continue its place in the EU, but the rest of the UK takes a different decision. In terms of budget allocations to do that work, Cabinet Secretaries and Departments would be expected to get on with it within existing resources, because our budget for this financial year is set, but civil servants and Government will adapt to circumstances and, clearly, we will all adapt to the opportunities that arise. I would consider any request for additional resources or variations, but I would expect departments to find it within existing resources to be able to get on with that kind of work that Ash Denham has suggested. I just wanted to ask you about the impact of a delayed budget on the wider public sector. Obviously, there has been discussion about timescales and looking at the end of the process. Of course, you will know as a former leader of a council that councils legally need to set their budget around 10 March. Last year, because of a delayed budget, there was a number of alterations and corrections that were being made to local authority budgets right up until just a week beforehand. Obviously, there will be concern there. I know that there was concern amongst colleges last year who get their budget through the Scottish Funding Council. I am equally aware that health boards have historically set their budgets around the June period, but their contribution to the health and social care budgets are not finalised until they set their own budget. I am interested to know what assurances you can give or what action you can take to allow public sector organisations and local authorities proper time to effectively plan for their financial year ahead and what information to outline or otherwise that you can do to allow them to do their job properly. Mr Bibby has helped to answer part of his own point in that you were able to say that timing is important. Of course, you said that alterations and corrections feature as well. I can say if we rushed ahead with a budget, knowing everything that we know now and assessing what we do not know, but knowing everything that we know now, if we were to set to premature a budget, there would be an immense amount of corrections and adjustments that would have a material impact on the final outcome. I think that it is my judgment that getting an accurate, credible budget is the right thing to do and the most prudent and effective thing to do. Of course, other delivery partners and stakeholders will want certainty from figures and they will want a direction of travel. In the perfect world, I would like to be delivering a three-year spending review to give that certainty, not just around a direction of travel but also strong messages around public service reform and transformation that we will have to return to. It is about stability and clarity, a credible budget and not one that has to be corrected with all the necessary adjustments, because we went too soon and there was a seismic shift and potential financial issues. I accept the point, particularly for local authorities and other organisations that depend on our spending decisions, so if I can give any early clarity, I will try to do that. Of course, I want to work in partnership with local authorities and others, but I know that they would appreciate accuracy as well. That helps to make the point that Adam Tomkins raised earlier about the process at the other end. I am mindful of local authorities, so I have to debate, set and plan for their budgets and other organisations that will want good timesaw to do before the start of the new financial year. The burden that we have collectively is to try to make the timescale's work for absolutely everyone but also to deliver good, competent government and sound financial decision making in light of all that. In terms of the wider public sector, we are all evaluating the position and the situation at the moment. We will have to deal with the level of uncertainty, but we will be very clear with our organisations and with partners and stakeholders what we can do. I say again that just because there will be a one-year budget does not mean that we should take a long-term approach in that transformation that has to happen in any event. Cabinet Secretary, I have a good time. There are two areas that I want to touch on, two questions, one around spending and one around tax. I will go on at the spend one first. Obviously, the situation is in a period of uncertainty, and they are certainly more likely than not to be a pressure on the public sector spend. There were a couple of issues in the legacy paper that I think are related. I just want to get your view and comments on that. One was round about outcomes-based spending in terms of big spend departments focusing on understanding better the relationship between the money that we are spending and the outcomes that we are delivering for that. The second one, which I think is related, was round about preventive spending or preventive investment understanding how we spend money up front to deliver a lower cost through reducing the symptoms or the effects of lack of investment up front round about what has been talked about in the Christie commission. As a further point to that, there was a letter sent to your predecessor back in March of this year round about the preventive issues where a number of points were raised. It was really just to understand if that was something that was on your agenda and if we were going to see any response back to that letter. Those are helpful questions in terms of the outcomes-based approach, so the Government has put a great deal of weight on the national performance framework, the outcomes that we would like to achieve in calibrating Government towards those priorities and the outcomes. We are looking very closely at that work and how we report it as well through Scotland performs and how people have that in mind, so we will continue to look at that focus. Also, when I am looking at the budget ahead and you want to scrutinise this, how are departments aligning their funding to the outcomes that we want to achieve? Incidentally, I think that it was a Labour member in the chamber that asked the question and I wasn't there to be able to answer it, but there was a round table approach focusing on what the outcomes for the country should be. It was a round table in looking at some of that. I want to continue a cross-party approach and help to establish what the national outcomes should continue to be, but I have a clear focus on that and aligning resources to priorities rather than just asking what does your department want to do, but what are we trying to achieve? There is a great deal of work in that, especially when going through a budget exercise, that is the opportunity to help to focus the mind, so that work will continue as well as our approach on prevention. Again, I was on the finance committee when we looked at prevention. There is a great deal of political buy-in and consensus around making the right spending decisions to have the right preventative approach, so we want to continue with that. I could list a number of manifesto commitments for policies that we have adopted that fit in with that thinking very nicely, but I think that there is more work to be done on prevention. I am not aware of any outstanding correspondence, but if there is on this subject, I am happy to come back in writing on what the member has raised. The point was on taxation and specifically on the issue of additional rate tax. I know that that clearly was a discussion during the election campaign. I know that some work was done about the behavioural impacts of that tax. It is a very complicated area, because of the interplay between tax, dividend, capital gains and the ability of people to move tax base at that level. However, there are a lot of layers in that, and there is no one answer to all those people in that bracket. They all get completely different circumstances potentially. I do not know if there were any thoughts as to do some more detailed work to further understand the potential behavioural impacts of different segments within what may be called that additional tax bracket. Again, a very interesting question. A number of members of this committee will take a completely different approach on what we should do with that particular tax leaver, but our manifesto position was clear. However, we want to understand tax behaviours and what certainty we could have from income generation if a particular tax proposition was taken forward. Therefore, we will ask the council of economic advisors to consider that matter. I am happy to return to the committee with whatever advice we ultimately receive on what a proposition might happen to achieve by way of tax behaviours. Members will recall that we said through the Scottish Parliament election that it was pointless to raise a tax if it did not generate the income that would have been counterproductive. We are happy to explore the thinking around that and return to the committee with whatever intelligence that we have. Very briefly, on the issue of tax behaviour, you said in your letter to the convener of the 23rd of June that protecting future revenues that may be under some circumstances eroded by tax avoiding behaviour. I wondered what you envisaged or what powers you had or what actions you envisage to attempt to influence tax avoiding behaviour. Of course, we would look at that in your bottom line as to pay your taxes. We would work very hard to be proactive in pursuing people to pay what they are due to pay. The culture and the devolved taxes that we have seems to be quite effective. Revenue Scotland is doing a very good job in pursuing and receiving the income that is due from those devolved taxes that we currently have as a consequence of a previous Scotland act, but what I am saying is that we will be proactive around tax avoidance, compliance and enforcement. Of course we will, but what I am indicating in the letter as well is a matter for us to consider jointly around if you take the position of the UK Government. Of course it is a totally different budget process. It announces the budget and then there is all the scrutiny. We have a draft budget and scrutinise it and then vote on it. What we have to be considering is any future process that, as well as all the enforcement, I have just spoken about, as well as the expectation of compliance and the culture that we create, I think that we have to have a mechanism where the Government can securely and safely be able to outline a tax position and address bad tax behaviour where people avoid it because they knew what we were going to do. I just want that ability to be considered as to how we do that. As I said, going from a Parliament that scrutinises how we spend money to a Parliament that generates money through tax decision and spends money. I just think that we have some thinking jointly to do around how we protect the position of taxation in Scotland in a way that does not encourage bad behaviour. You describe in a situation where the chancellor south of the border can sometimes surprise people with taxes and you feel that you are flagging up tax changes in advance. Do you want the power to be able to surprise people with tax changes? I am not far too cynical, Mr Johnson, on what my intentions are. I am sure that we could all agree that if we want to be able to generate tax that we have a degree of flexibility to do that with proper transparency and accountability. It is already the case that, as the member knows, we go to the chamber with redacted papers on what we may have to set as a tax rate. All that I am indicating is that we might want to look at the overall process going forward, not necessarily in this transition year, except that it is too tight for that. However, as part of our joint work, we should look at whether our model is not perfect and what would we adapt. We should be clear that we should not create a system that encourages bad tax behaviours, which means that people escape what they should be paying. I think that we should take that issue very seriously. It is not about surprises, it is about prudent management of the public finances and a degree of equity and fairness for all. I raise two points with you, cabinet secretary, that I would certainly like a response to the first is in the fiscal framework. It seems to me that paragraph 88 of the fiscal framework is more required than ever. This is the paragraph that says that the UK and Scottish Governments have agreed that appropriate and reciprocal information sharing arrangements will be put in place by both Governments as well as by the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission to undertake their respective responsibilities. Given the circumstances that we are in, are they in place and, if not, how quickly can they be in place? To defer to Alasdair Brown, who can give you a more technical answer, my understanding is that some of the detail is still under discussion because we are working some of those issues through. The agreement, in principle, is, as you have read out, convener, from the fiscal framework agreement. There is agreement that there will be information sharing arrangements. We are working on the detail of that with the HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. In addition, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is discussing with the Office for Budget Responsibility what information that the tax forecasters need to share. Given the circumstances that we are in, is there something that a degree of urgency would now apply to? It is certainly on our side, and let us hope on those two. We are certainly taking those discussions forward as quickly as we can. There is a system of governance, as we call it, in place so that, if for any reason we do not make the progress that we expect to, we can refer the matter up. I just use those words again, a degree of urgency, I think, is required on that. The second point that I would like to put to you, cabinet secretary, is this. I have been very struck in reading up into your position too, and so have I. I have been very struck by the principles that FIAG set at the outset of devolution as to why we have the arrangement that we have. If I can bore you for two seconds with what they are, the FIAG principles are these. First, they are to provide opportunities for the Parliament to comment on expenditure priorities and to influence the executive's preparation of budgets, to provide the opportunity for the public to have an opportunity to put their views to subject committees, as well as individual MSPs at an early stage in the process, to provide sufficient time for the Parliament to consider and debate proposals fully, to provide a balance between the requirements for parliamentary scrutiny and the needs of the executive, to provide some degree of certainty so that on-going activities can continue without prolonged uncertainty, to provide an efficient mechanism to deliver financial motions to be debated by the Parliament, to provide a meaningful role for subject committees and the finance committee, to deliver timious decisions on tax varying power in the budget, as well as the interim spending approval and budget amendments, to engage all MSPs, to facilitate the executive's formulation of proposals, and to provide for the right of amendment. It seems to me that, while we can debate how that happens, those are sound principles and they are principles that underpin what this Parliament is about, and many of them have been expressed in one way or another in this meeting today. I am keen to know whether the Scottish Government still accepts those principles, and if you agree with me that they should underpin the work that we are going to do in co-designing the process going forward, both this year and in future years? Broadly, yes. As long as we all understand that those principles were created in a time when this was just a spending Parliament, and absolutely, as they relate to that, yes. That is a pretty good starting position to then embark on our joint work, so I am not abandoning those principles. I am just saying that we have to adapt, in light of the fact that our tax powers and our maturity as a Parliament has changed, and our ability to be adept to circumstances will also have to be taken into account. I think that that is a good starting position. I very much think that, as our clerks' internal discussion with you, those are the things that I hope will underpin how we take this forward. I think that things have been expressed by the committee today, as things are of importance to them. I thank you very much for that. That has been a lengthy but very informative session. We are now going to move on immediately to item 2 on the agenda, which is the temporary appointment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. We have a copy of your letter regarding the resignation of Andrew Hughes Hallot from the Scottish Fiscal Commission. On behalf of the committee, I say personally that, as somebody who has known Andrew Hughes Hallot for a long time, I want to put on record our appreciation for the work and significant contribution that he has made to the work of the commission and to Scotland in general, and to pass on our best wishes to him. Cabinet Secretary, you have written to us about this matter. The letter has been circulated, as I understand it. If you would like to make some opening comments, but it appears a clear matter, and I think that the view that you have expressed to us at the committee should meet your nominee early in September, but accepting the need to get somebody into post now would seem to be reasonable. Would you like to say a word or two about it? I concur with your words on Andrew Hughes Hallot. I am grateful for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on the interim appointment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I would like to record my thanks to the committee for its understanding and willingness to consider this issue at such short notice. I wrote to the committee last week to inform me that Andrew Hughes Hallot extended his resignation from the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I am very grateful to Professor Hallot for his service to the commission and the valuable contribution that he has made to the commission's work over the past two years. My immediate priority was to ensure that the commission has sufficient capacity to discharge its functions in relation to the 2017-18 Scottish budget. Having discussed the issue with Lady Susan Rice, chair of the commission, I decided to make an interim appointment to the non-statutory commission at the earliest opportunity. I wrote again to the committee yesterday to notify you of my decision to appoint Professor Charles Nolan of the University of Glasgow to serve as a member of the non-statutory commission up to 30 March 2017. Professor Nolan will bring a wealth of relevant economic experience to the commission, having held posts at the Bank of England and several academic institutions, and intend to commence the process of appointing two members to the commission with effect from 1 April 2017 when it is due to be established as a non-ministerial department and office holder in the Scottish Administration. In accordance with the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act, the process will be regulated by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life. While I make appointments, I will be subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament and look forward to answering any questions that the committee may have. I will take comments that I would declare an interest to somebody who is even in a minor capacity employed by the University of Glasgow. If there are no comments, the committee approves that, and we will look forward to meeting Professor Nolan in the summer after the summer. Is that acceptable? Those circumstances, thank you very much, cabinet secretary. It is good of you to come. Thank you to your officials. I am sure that we will see you again before too long. I am going to move the meeting into private session and then I think that we will take a brief comfort break. Time for a cup of coffee, presumably. We will start again within two or three minutes, if we can.