 I have time to move on to the next item of business, and the next item of business is a committee debate on motion 118, 7, 5 in the name of Bruce Crawford, on a revised written agreement with the Scottish Government on the budget process for members who wish to speak on the debate against press request to speak buttons. I will now call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Five minutes, Mr Crawford. Thank you for the knowledge, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to speak as the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee on this important debate this afternoon on the written agreement between the committee and the Scottish Government on the new budget process. First, I put on record my thanks to members of the budget process review group on producing such a high-quality report. I put on record my thanks to the clerks of the Finance and Constitution Committee who undertook their activities assiduously, which enabled the whole process to come to a successful conclusion. The report marks the biggest overhaul of the budget process since 1999, and in the report's recommendation, on which the new written agreement is based on, to write a little background on the group's work that met 11 times between September 2016 and June 2017, that the commission research received written and oral evidence from a range of academics, local authorities, economists, public balladies and the public voluntary sector. The group published its interim report in March 2017 and a final report in June 2017. During the course of its review, it considered the effectiveness of the existing budget process, the impact of the fiscal framework and the effectiveness of multi-year budgeting, median-term financial planning and outcomes-based scrutiny. To put all of that into context, up until the Scotland Act of 2012, the Smith commission and the Scotland Act of 2016, the Scottish Government's annual budget mainly consisted of an allocation of the block grant, a block grant provided by the UK Government provided by the Barnett formula. Now we are in totally different territory where around 40 per cent of the Scottish Government's annual budget comes from taxis agreed by this Parliament. Another 15 per cent of social security spending is, as we know, currently being devolved, and further taxis are also due to be devolved in future. It is therefore only right, in light of the new powers, that we adopt a new approach to how we scrutinise the Scottish Government's budget. The group, I believe, has come up with an approach that will work well and should stand the test of time. There are four key areas from the group's final report that I would like to highlight. First, the recognition that single-year budgets make it more difficult for devolved public services to adopt medium-term priorities and develop plans to address future challenges. The group therefore recommended that there is a presumption that the Scottish Government carries out its spending reviews around the equivalent time of the UK spending reviews. Secondly, the introduction of an annual fiscal framework out-turn report is to be published each September. That will provide the reconciliation between the forecasts for both adjustments to the block grant and the revenues for devolved taxis with actual out-turn figures. Critically, it is the difference between out-turn figures for the block grant adjustments and the out-turn figures for devolved taxis, which will determine the final amount of tax revenue that is available to the Scottish Government. Thirdly, and I think that it is important, the introduction of a medium-term financial strategy published prior to the summer recess each year will set out the Scottish Government's expectations and broad financial plans and projections for the next five years. Finally, and very importantly, it will accelerate the shift towards a much more outcomes-based approach towards the scousené of public expenditure. That will provide the means for evaluating the environmental, economic and social outcomes that are being achieved by public spending. Those are an ambitious set of recommendations that will require significant collaboration between the Government, the Parliament, Scotland's public bodies to deliver. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all, facing us as politicians in particular, will be cultural, where we can move from judging success based on the number of police on the streets or the number of nurses in our NHS to measuring the actual sustainable outcomes that are being achieved by public spending in Scotland. I finish by putting on record the committee's appreciation of the constructive engagement that we had with the cabinet secretary and his officials in revising the written agreement. Of course, that was all helped hugely by the sterling work that was undertaken by the budget process review group. I would just remind the chamber once again about the role that was undertaken by the clerks of the committee in helping to facilitate all of the process. It was crucial. I therefore move the motion on behalf of the finance committee that the Parliament agrees the revised written agreement on the budget process between the Scottish Government and the Finance and Constitution Committee. Thank you very much, Mr Crawford. I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee convener, all the members and indeed the budget process review group experts for their input and engagement that has led to the recommendations that are before us now. In fact, a great deal of improved practice from my point of view is finance, and for moving that along in light of the new powers that the Parliament now has. The decisions that we take collectively about public expenditure and tax-raising are among the most important that we are responsible for impacting the economy and our public services, the environment and our citizens. Therefore, I think that that progress is welcome. The procedures that we follow in taking such decisions and ensuring that they are robust and transparent and they are set within that appropriate and sound financial and constitutional context is key. I have experienced at first hand the strength of those budget arrangements, and I have a great deal of confidence in the recommendations going forward, particularly around transparency, the consultative approach and that sense of responsibility, reflecting the scale of issues that we have going forward. I think that our practices now and going forward will compare very well with other legislatures. The budget process is detailed in the written agreement. I think that strikes an effective balance between the respective roles of both Government and Parliament. The process reflects the importance of our committee structure with some new innovations within that, allowing for detailed scrutiny, pre-budget engagement and a longer-term approach in terms of multi-year budgeting, reflecting on the spending reviews from the UK Government. I think that it is right that we have reflected on all of that and will update the written agreement in the most substantial way since the creation of the Parliament, but it is staying true to those original principles and priorities. Greater engagement from civic Scotland and citizens in the development of public finances. However, there is a burden of responsibility in all parties, particularly on those in the Opposition, with the enhanced powers, the longer-term view and the update to the written agreement. Reflecting on the new financial powers that we have coming from the 2012 and the 2016 Scotland Acts, leading to the recommendations that the budget process review group has focused on, we have been able to begin some of that work. I think that it has been welcomed by the finance committee in particular, but clearly the recommendations going forward will require everyone's participation, including Government, in setting out the medium-term financial outlook before the end of May and in further reports such as the new fiscal framework outturned statement in September. As the updated written agreement makes clear, the subject committees will be in a position to put forward their views on the budget prior to firm spending proposals being published through constructive dialogue with ministers, public bodies and other stakeholders, and I look forward to that further innovation. Under that revised process committees, we will write to ministers at least six weeks prior to the publication of the budget setting out their views on the delivery of funding, of existing policy priorities, any proposed changes and crucially how those should be funding. Something that I'll be particularly interested in, of course, taking into account the longer-term perspective on devolved public finances in Scotland. More debate time, more involvement up to stage one, including the involvement of conveners and, as I say, a timing and a rhythm that fits in with the UK spending review context as well. In conclusion, 2018 will mark the first year of this new process and I look forward to working with the Finance and Constitution Committee and colleagues across the chamber through this year's budget process, and I commend to Parliament the proposed updates to the written agreement. I'm sorry, I have to be very tight with the time. Commodore Fraser, to open the Conservatives, for minutes, please, Mr Fraser. The revised written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government is, as we've heard, the latest stage in the whole budget review process. The final report of the budget process review group was produced in June last year and it had some very helpful recommendations about how we improve budget scrutiny in this Parliament. The written agreement seeks to implement some of those recommendations and contains proposals for changes to standing orders to facilitate those. One of the primary reasons behind the need to revisit our budget process was the changing timescale for analysis of the budget. Members will know that it was previously the case that the draft budget would be produced in September, well in advance of final budget votes, which would take place in February the following year. That gave all committees in Parliament ample opportunity to take evidence on the draft budget and then produce their own reports, which would be submitted to the finance committee, which would then produce its own report for chamber debate. The timescale started to change with the growing importance from the perspective of the UK treasury of the autumn budget statement, which tended to occur as late as mid-November. The importance of the UK spring budget as an event therefore diminished, and that process was then formalised last year, when, for the first time, the UK's budget was presented in November and the spring budget statement became this year more of an update on the economy and public finances. From a UK perspective, that change makes perfect sense. There never was much logic in a budget being produced in March when the start of the financial year was just a few weeks later on 6 April. Having budget decisions taken and announced in November allows much more time both for parliamentary scrutiny and for a proper consideration of the issues prior to the start of the financial year. What it does, however, is cement to the challenges that this Parliament faces, in that we are now tied to budgets in mid-December, with just a few short weeks allowed for both committee and parliamentary scrutiny. One of the key recommendations of the budget process review group, which is documented in the revised written agreement, is of the need for a full year approach to budget scrutiny. That, as the cabinet secretary has just said, will require subject committees to take a new approach to the way they scrutinise the budget, and in particular require, in advance of the draft budget being published, that committees consider budget issues and make recommendations. Although that is a welcome approach and indeed a necessary one, I would have my own concerns about how that will operate in practice, and the challenge for very busy committees, in particular, to find adequate time in their work programme to ensure that it is done properly. I think that that is an issue that the convener's group in particular needs to be very conscious of. I very much welcome the proposal that budget scrutiny should be output and outcome-focused. Too often in this Parliament, we spend our time debating inputs, how much money we are spending, how many nurses we are employing, how many police officers we are, rather than considering outputs and outcomes. There is not always a direct link between what goes in at one end and what comes out at the other. Indeed, there is some evidence that suggests that, on occasion, lower outputs can lead to greater outcomes, so that particular shift is welcome. The other recommendation that I would mention briefly, which I think is something that we need to progress, is the notion of an annual finance bill. With the devolution of greater tax powers, we are finding more and more tweaks to tax legislation that is required to be made. Rather than doing this on an ad hoc basis, it surely makes sense to provide a single legislative vehicle on an annual basis for revenue-related changes. It could also, as the review group pointed out, help to raise public understanding and awareness of the budget. In conclusion, this is a welcome agreement, which implements some important and serious recommendations. The proposed changes to standing orders are required to implement those recommendations, and I commend them to Parliament. Thank you very much. I call James Kelly to open for Labour. Four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I echo the words of the committee convener, Bruce Crawford, in thanking those members of the budget review group for the substantial amount of work that they have carried out in bringing forward the changes to their written agreement? They are very important and are fundamental to the budget process. They will bring about substantial change, and it is very much necessary. There are two main reasons for that. First of all, relating to the budget timetable in recent years, as Murdo Fraser has outlined, there has been an increasing tendency at Westminster to prioritise the latest statement in the year, culminating in the formalisation of the November statement, in effect, being the budget statement. That meant, for recent budgets in the Scottish Parliament, that the amount of time that we have had to scrutinise the budget has been constrained from mid-December to mid-Febru, when previously the budget would have been published in September. It therefore requires another look at how we do the budget in order to give proper scrutiny and opportunity. The second reason that it is important is that, because of the substantial tax changes that have been made, as Bruce Crawford pointed out, 40 per cent of the money in the budget is now raised directly by the Scottish Parliament. We need to have much more focus on that. Part of that also means that some of the tax revenues are included in the budget by way of forecasting, and that will continue to expand when that gets allocated into the budget in 2019. There is a big process around forecasting, reconciliation and adjustment, because, ultimately, your forecast figures will never be totally accurate. You need a process that keeps up with that. From that point of view, the mechanisms that the budget review group has put forward are very important. First of all, in relation to a multi-year focus tying in with the publication of the spending review, I think that it makes great sense whether you are budgeting in a public sector organisation, a private company or the Scottish Government, if you are able to do it over a longer period of time rather than simply focusing on the one year. The multi-year focus is really important. It is also important to have appropriate scrutiny, and, as others have said, to look at outcomes and outputs. Some people think that it is just a case of agreeing the budget lines and allocating £10 million to this line and £30 million to that line. Particularly the budget holders very much celebrate the allocation of the money to their budget, but we do not do our constituents a proper service if we do not scrutinise not just how that money is spent but what it delivers. The new focus on outcomes and outputs is very much welcome from that point of view. I noticed that the cabinet secretary said that there is going to be a lot more debate time, so I am looking forward to the opportunity to hold him to account on his proposals. I think that there is a big job for committees to do in building that into their work programme. It gives more power to committees, so I hope that committees will take up that opportunity. In summing up, I welcome the new written agreement and the work of the budget review group. It focuses on the job of how the money that goes into the budget delivers the challenges that we want to see in this Parliament in order to achieve the objectives of the Scottish Parliament. I echo the comments that others have made, and in particular those who have praised the work of the budget review group and the construction of the new agreement. I do not want to repeat points that have been made already, but the focus on multi-year budgeting is a welcome return to that longer-term perspective. We have moved away from that, which used to be the norm in the Scottish Parliament. Returning to it will be important. The fact that it is expressed in the agreement is not only a statement of Parliament but an agreement with the Government, I hope, indicates that that will indeed be a return to normal practice. As well as the shortened timescale, which will produce challenges for parliamentary committees, we also have to acknowledge that the Scottish budget is now a fundamentally different kind of exercise. It is not merely the expression of a spending Government, it is a budget that needs to capture the political tensions as well as the opportunities of a Government that has both taxation and spending powers in areas that have developed and which I hope will continue to develop in the scope that those powers can be exercised within. That creates challenges for parliamentary committees, which have specific narrow remits. In the past, in budget scrutiny, committees have been encouraged, or indeed required, to produce proposals that are only relevant to their own remit. A range of spending decisions may come forward, or a range of spending alternatives may come forward from parliamentary committees that can only be matched by some taxation policies. There may be a cross-party agreement on certain additional spending priorities or alternative spending priorities, but no agreement on how they should be funded. Therefore, it is important that committees feel able to express themselves both on the spending as well as on the taxation aspects, and that those taxation aspects of the Scottish budget should not only be possible to be commented on by the finance committee. All committees will have to take part in that process in a collegiate way, if at all possible, rather than those issues being seen purely within formal committee remits. Finally, as I have made the case in the past—I will make it again one more time on this occasion—it is not only the Scottish Government's proposals, which require to be fairly and democratically scrutinised in public and on the record. Particularly in a period of minority Governments, I believe that scrutiny needs to be brought to bear on Opposition party proposals as well. That has not been captured yet, it may be something that we need to feel our way toward a means of ensuring that Opposition party proposals are also subject to fair democratic scrutiny on the record as part of our budget process. I call Adam Tomkins to close the debate on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Four minutes, please, Mr Tomkins. It is my pleasure to close this debate, as the deputy convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I, too, would like to put on record my thanks to members of the budget process review group for all their work on coming up with such wide-ranging and important recommendations that will ensure that we have in this Parliament a budget process that is truly fit for purpose in light of the Parliament's new and increased tax-raising, or indeed tax-lowering powers. Under this agreement, the Scottish Government will provide a long-term perspective in the sustainability of the public finances, and parliamentary committees, as we've heard, will have the opportunity—which we all hope they will take—to influence the formulation of Government spending plans. It's worth reiterating the four core objectives of this new budget process, as recommended by the group. First, to have a greater influence on the part of the Parliament on the formulation of the Scottish Government's budget proposals. Secondly, to improve transparency and raise public understanding and awareness of the budget. Third, to respond effectively to new fiscal and wider policy challenges, and fourthly, to lead to better outputs and outcomes, as we've heard, as measured against benchmarks and stated objectives. We are here, Presiding Officer, because, as we've heard, the Parliament's fiscal powers have grown significantly both in the 2012 and in the 2016 Scotland Acts, and this has generated, as the convener said in his opening remarks, the biggest overhaul of budget process since the creation of this Parliament in 1999. It is clear that the increased fiscal powers that have been devolved to Scotland significantly empower ministers, but it must also be the case that it significantly empowers us, as MSPs, to hold ministers to account, and that is what the force of those proposals is designed to achieve. The optimum time, Presiding Officer, for the Parliament's committees to influence the budget, is when priorities are being set. Any later, and it's too late for effective parliamentary scrutiny. That's why this agreement is so important in terms of managing that effective parliamentary scrutiny and not squeezing the time that is available for budget scrutiny in the way that Murdo Fraser and others have described. That's why the commitment on the part of the Scottish Government, a commitment that we all welcome, to publish annually a medium-term financial strategy, is so much to be welcomed. The other element of this, which I would highlight, and indeed which has been highlighted by a number of contributors, including James Kelly and others, is the importance of outcomes-based scrutiny. That's one of those pieces of jargon that's very easy to switch off from. Outcomes-based scrutiny is a horrible phrase, but it's important because it provides a means for us as MSPs to evaluate the economic and social outcomes being achieved by public spending. This is something that has been underplayed in budget processes since this Parliament was created in 1999, and we can no longer afford that luxury. It involves bringing financial and performance information together so that the impact of spending decisions can be better understood by all of us and indeed by the people that we represent. For all of these reasons, we are entering a new period of devolution in which our Parliament is responsible for raising much of the revenue to fund our public services. That requires all of us, Government and Opposition, to rise to the challenge of using these new powers wisely and to manage the inevitable risks with a pragmatic and reasonable approach. Can I finish by echoing Bruce Crawford's view that the biggest challenge that we face in managing all of this is cultural? That outcomes-based scrutiny approach will allow us to evaluate the economic and social outcomes being achieved by public spending, and that is critical. As politicians, we must all of us concentrate on how we make the best use of our public finances to deliver better public services for us all. I therefore support the motion in Bruce Crawford's view tonight. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on the revised budget process. The next item of business is consideration of motion 11991 on the budget process standing order rule changes. I call on Claire Hockey to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Standing orders set out the high-level rules governing the budget process. However, the specific details are covered in the written agreement between the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Scottish Government. Following the update to the written agreement, the Finance and Constitution Committee has asked the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to propose some changes to standing orders. That will ensure that Parliament's rules accurately reflect the budget process. Today, we are proposing several changes. We are recommending that parliamentary time is set aside for a committee debate prior to the stage 1 debate on the budget bill. That is a feature of the new budget process. We are proposing an update to the rules on the timing of budget bills. That reflects the fact that the budget bill will now normally be published prior to Christmas recess. We are also proposing new deadlines for lodging amendments to the budget bills. Normally, the Parliament is asked to vary the standing orders to extend the deadline for amendments to the budget bill. The proposed new rules set out more realistic lodging deadlines. Our suggested rule changes will also remove a requirement to lay certain reports and financial documents that are no longer required under the new budget process. Finally, there are some minor consequential changes to other standing orders, for example, updates to the remits of committees to reflect the new budget process. In conclusion, the committee believes that it is important that standing orders accurately reflect how Parliament's new budget scrutiny arrangements will work in practice. For that reason, I am pleased to propose those changes today. I move motion S5M-11991, in my name. We have just heard the debate on the changes under the new budget process, as well as a proposal for rule changes that were done by the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As a member of both committees, I am very happy to support the work that has been done. I have no difficulty with the changes to standing orders that have been proposed in that motion. However, it raises an issue in relation to the operation of another of our standing orders, which is not being changed. In that case, it is rule 8.5.6, which gives the member the discretion to decide which amendments that are lodged to a debate will, in fact, be taken in the chamber. That is something that I think members of all committees—all committees with a remit on spending areas or taxation areas within the scrutiny of the Scottish Government's proposals— all committees have a responsibility to be aware of that. They will in future not be a draft budget process, so it is important that the new process replaces as robust scrutiny as we are doing away with. The guidance that is being given by the Finance and Constitution Committee to other committees draws attention to the fact that alternative revenue in spending proposals can be lodged through reasoned amendments to the Scottish Government motion on the general principles of the budget bill. The Government will still be in a position to amend the budget, but committees will now have the opportunity to bring their proposals through reasoned amendments at the stage 1 debate. Given that it is not possible to address that explicitly in standing orders, it is important that we ask you to confirm that it will be your intention always when committees have agreed a reasoned amendment that that will, in fact, be taken in the chamber and that the bureau will be asked to allocate enough time to ensure that that happens. We have a dozen committees that are in the position of scrutinising spending aspects of the Scottish Government's work. We might even have more if functions that are currently operated at the EU level are operated from this Parliament. The stage 1 debate needs to allow adequate time for all of those reasoned amendments to be put for debate and to a vote, and I would ask you to confirm that that will be your intention for the operation of the new process. I thank Mr Harbey first of all for the advance notice and also say that I recognise the important point that he raises. While I would need to consider, any Presiding Officer, I would need to consider the terms of any amendment submitted, I can assure the member that I am sympathetic to the point raised. I see it as part of my role and I would hope that any future Presiding Officer would see it as part of their role to ensure that all members have the opportunity to discuss the issues that they regard as of political importance. It is also the case that any reasoned amendment would have to have secured the cross-party support of a committee to have been adopted by that committee, and I think that that is part of the guidance that all Presiding Officers take into account when selecting amendments. I will certainly bear the member's comments and minds, mind when considering selection of any reasoned amendment submitted on behalf of a committee. In terms of the time allocated for the debate, I would support the member's point that sufficient time needs to be made available for that to take place and that is something for the bureau to bear in mind. Thank you very much. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of a legislative consent motion and could I ask Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move or just to move motion 1212 on the Holocaust return of cultural objects amendment bill UK legislation. We turn now to decision time. The first question this evening is that amendment 12076.1 in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend motion 12076 in the name of Keith Brown on Scottish National Investment Bank, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is the amendment 12076.2 in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12076.2 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 19, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 12076.3 in the name of Andy Wightman, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 12076.3 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 26, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the motion 12076 in the name of Keith Brown on Scottish National Investment Bank, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is the motion 81875 in the name of Bruce Crawford on a revised written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government on the budget process, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is the motion 9191 in the name of Clare Hawke on the budget process, standing order rule changes, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is the motion 12112 on the Holocaust Return of Cultural Objects Amendment Bill, UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Alec Neil on dog attack figures. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.