 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1788 in the name of Bruce Crawford on the timetable for the Scottish Government's draft budget. 2017-18 can invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I would save a little time in hand so I will make allowances with interventions. I call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Ten minutes, Mr Crawford, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is my maiden speech as the convener to the Finance and Constitution Committee. I can safely say, Presiding Officer, that there has been a steep learning curve over the past month. I also concede that I hadn't anticipated spending quite so much time considering the timetable for the draft budget. There are too many areas on which I want to cover today on behalf of the committee, Presiding Officer. First, there is an immediate issue of the 2017-18 draft budget, and secondly, there are a number of issues arising from the new financial powers, which will have a significant impact on how we conduct our budget scrutiny this year and beyond. On this specific matter, the committee and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance have agreed to establish a budget process review group. The group's work will include examining the impact of the new powers. I am delighted that a number of senior public finance experts, including the Auditor General, have agreed to join the group. Along with the Cabinet Secretary, I welcomed the external experts before they began their work at their first meeting last Thursday. The group has a huge challenge in considering the impact of the new powers and redesigning the budget process, together with its timetable, prior to the publication of the draft budget for 2018-19. In regard to the draft budget timetable for 2017-18, it may be helpful to the Parliament to provide some procedural context to the debate. Under the terms of the written agreement, the Scottish Government is required to consult with the finance committee on a revised timescale for the budget process if it believes that it may not be able to publish the draft budget by 20 September. As a result, the cabinet secretary wrote to the committee on 23 June, indicating that his preferred option would be for the draft budget this year to be published after the UK autumn statement. As we know, the UK autumn statement will be published on 23 November, and the cabinet secretary has indicated to the finance committee that he intends to publish the draft budget three weeks thereafter. That will take us to the week beginning 12 November. The committee recognises that this is a challenging timescale but emphasises that this is the least necessary in order to allow some evidence taken prior to the Christmas recess. The committee has sent the cabinet secretary a draft timetable for scrutiny of the draft budget 2017-18, which fully demonstrates this point. In order to fully understand the financial and fiscal context in which we are operating, the committee took evidence from the Fraser and the Institute on its excellent detailed and challenging report on Scotland's budget two weeks ago. One of the main themes of that discussion was the potential impact of Brexit on the public finances at the same time as the new-packed tax powers are being devolved. As the Fraser of Ander Institute report points out, delivering those new powers in normal times would be challenging enough, but, I quote, they are being delivered at a time of significant fiscal challenge and economic uncertainty. The Fraser and the Institute report includes a number of hypothetical scenarios for the resource block grant arising from the autumn statement. If the UK Government announces on 23 November a further reduction compared to what was set out in March this year, the Scottish block grant could bear significant consequential effects. One of the report scenarios is for a further cut to the resource block grant of around £200 million for 2017-18. As the Institute report points out, given the budgetary commitments that the Scottish Government has already made, a further reduction to the block grant of £200 million implies that unprotected areas of spend could potentially experience a real-terms cut of 2.2 per cent between 2016-17 and 2017-18. The FAI report further points out that an added challenge is that, in these areas, I quote, have borne the significant share of the burden of fiscal consolidation since 2010-11. The committee therefore recognises that the Scottish Government faces significant challenges in preparing the draft budget, while there is so much economic and fiscal uncertainty arising from Brexit. The committee also recognises that a number of subject committees have already begun their budget scrutiny in advance of the draft budget being published. That is an approach that we and the previous finance committee have encouraged as part of a move towards more outcomes-based financial scrutiny. For example, I know that the Education and Skills Committee has begun to scrutinise a number of public bodies within its remits. That work includes seeking information on those public bodies' performance against the outcomes expected of them by the Scottish Government. While the committee supports a move towards a more flexible approach to financial security scrutiny, which might be carried out throughout the year, that should not be reviewed as a replacement for scrutiny of the Government's actual spending proposals. The committee recognises, though, that this year is different given the unique set of circumstances that currently exist as a consequence of Brexit and the imminent devolution of further tax powers. The committee therefore sought to work with the cabinet secretary in considering what level of information could reasonably be provided to support scrutiny prior to the draft budget being published. The cabinet secretary informed the committee on 7 September that he would be willing to produce as much scenario planning information as possible. There followed an exchange of letters between the cabinet secretary and the finance committee. Let me get clear to the cabinet secretary today. As we did in our letter on 21 September, the committee would find it unacceptable if he confirms that he is not prepared to publish any such information in advance of the draft budget being published. However, moving forward on a more positive note, it is also important to emphasise that the Government has agreed that arrangements for scrutiny of this year's budget process should not be viewed in any way as setting a precedent for future years. Part of the important work that the budget review group will now do over the coming months is to examine the effectiveness of the scrutiny of the draft budget for 2017-18. Finally, I want to touch briefly on some of the very important complex issues that the review group will have to grapple with as a consequence of the operation of the fiscal framework. The deputy convener will also address some of the issues in his closing speech. The process will be highly complex, and I am no expert. However, it is essential that colleagues across the Parliament are well aware of how the money that will be available to the Scottish Government is calculated each year. There are a number of elements to the process that are worth highlighting. The budget will increasingly depend, which is obvious from the settlement, on the money that we raise through the devolved taxes, as well as the block grant from Westminster. As the money that we raise increases, there will be a corresponding reduction in the size of the block grant. However, that will not necessarily be a zero-sum calculation, as the reduction of the block grant will be dependent on the impact of the relative performance of the UK and Scottish economies on tax receipts. If, for instance, the Scottish economy outperforms the UK, the Scottish budget should benefit, but it will suffer if we underperform relatively against UK economic growth. The size of the annual Scottish budget will initially be based on forecasts, which will then be subject to a reconciliation process. The annual adjustment to the block grant will be based on forecasts prepared by the Office of Budget Responsibility, while the anticipated tax receipts will be based on forecasts prepared by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That is quite a complex set of information that the review group, the finance committee and indeed this Parliament will have to grapple with. It is the understanding of the interrelationship between the forecasts and the subsequent reconciliation process, which will be one of the main challenges that face the budget review group in due course, the finance committee and this Parliament. Obviously, we wish them well. Those are challenging times, and it is essential that we redesign our process to ensure that the Parliament can rise to meet the challenge. I am looking forward to hearing the contributions of the various members of the finance committee and others today in this important debate. I look forward to hearing the response to my speech from the cabinet secretary. In the meantime, I move the motion in my name on behalf of the finance committee. I welcome Bruce Crawford to his position as convener of the finance committee. I very much agree with him on the point about the joint approach that we are taking on the longer-term look at the budget approach in the Scottish Parliament in a partnership style. There is a strong record of co-operation between the Scottish Government and the finance committee, and as a former member of the committee, I am looking forward to maintaining and strengthening that relationship in this Parliament. We have a highly transparent approach to budget scrutiny that dates back to 1998, in which I believe provides much more satisfactory arrangements for holding the Government to account than is the case at Westminster. As I have previously set out to the finance committee, even before the EU referendum result, there was already a strong reason for publishing the draft budget after the UK autumn budget statement, a legacy issue from the previous term that required to be addressed. The referendum result has given rise to significant additional economic and financial uncertainty, a point that the chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised just yesterday at his party conference speech. This week, the chancellor has also warned us that we should expect that the UK economy is heading for a roller coaster ride over the coming two years or more during negotiations to leave the European Union. The uncertainty continues, and it will not be until the 23rd of November that we discover what all this really means for the content of the autumn statement and the accompanying economic forecast set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Both could potentially impact on the overall spending power that is available to the Scottish Government, both positively and negatively, in terms of Barnett consequentials and the calculation of the block grant adjustment. It is also conceivable that the chancellor could set out changes to tax policy, welfare and pay, all of which we would want to consider and respond to. Publishing our budget before the autumn statement, of course. James Kelly. Thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. In terms of the actual figures, you have a £30 billion budget, and you heard Bruce Crawford say that the Fraser Valander Institute reckoned that the variable in terms of change could be in the region of £200 million less than 1 per cent of that budget. Do you agree that that is a reasonable assessment? I think that that relates to the point about uncertainty. The reason why it is called uncertainty is that I am uncertain as to what the chancellor might do. I do not think that even the chancellor has clarity as to what he might do, because he will be reliant on the OBR forecast that drives his decisions and that, in turn, affects the Scottish budget. I say again that publishing our budget before the autumn statement would also mean that forecasts of tax receipts here and at the rest of the UK level would need to rely on economic data published alongside the March 2016 UK budget. We would have serious concerns over the validity of such data in light of the economic upheaval following the EU referendum outcome, which I am afraid that I do not have time also covered in the letter from the finance committee, saying that the resulting economic and fiscal uncertainty arising from the Brexit vote means that there is now an arguable case for delaying the publication of the draft budget until then. It therefore makes sense, in my view, to defer finalising and publishing our spending plans until we have the additional clarity that the autumn statement should bring. Having set out the factors that will influence the timing of the Scottish Government's draft budget this year, I can today confirm my intention to publish the draft budget 17.18 on 15 December 2016. That is in line with the aim that I set out at the committee on 7 September that I am committed to producing a budget as quickly as possible after the chancellor's autumn statement and that we would work incredibly hard to produce a draft budget in those three weeks after the autumn statement. I am acutely aware of the potential impact that this will have on budget scrutiny in the traditional sense, so I was heartened to read the convener's recognition that a number of committees have already adapted their approach to budget scrutiny ahead of any draft budget publication to ensure that effective scrutiny continues to take place. Back in 1999, when the written agreement was designed, the Scottish budget was almost entirely funded from the block grant from Westminster, and only around 10 per cent of the budget was funded from taxation. The increased scale and complexity of fiscal responsibilities that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government is adopting is hugely significant. I will make further progress, then I will take an intervention. The changes over the next few years will take us to a position where over 50 per cent of our budget will be funded directly from taxation. The arrival of those new powers necessitates a long overdue and absolutely essential reform of the budget process, as opposed to just further minor adjustments. I welcome the work that is now being undertaken on that joint approach. I am very supportive of the establishment of the joint working group to look at the budget process with that external advice. It is important to ensure that we develop a process that balances the time required for proportionate and effective parliamentary scrutiny, with the need to ensure that the information that is being scrutinised is as accurate as possible and based on the most up-to-date forecast information. I reiterate my willingness to provide the committee with additional strategic information to assist committees in preparing for the autumn statement and the draft budget. On 7 September, I offered to provide further work on updated economic financial modelling, which could provide analysis that demonstrates the impact that changes in economic performance would have on the Scottish budget. I can go on further about the detail that the Finance Committee was requesting, but I certainly intend to honour the commitment that has been made to the Finance Committee on providing further information. What I cannot do is provide a draft spending plan and budget—that would be a draft budget—but I will hold true to what I promise the Finance Committee on happy to take an intervention. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving weight. He knows very well that the committee looked at that letter from him at the beginning of September and said that what it amounted to was unacceptable. He also knows before he gets to his feet today that a majority of this Parliament has already formally recorded a request for him to put scenario planning information within decorative figures into the public domain by the end of the October recess. We could have pushed that to a vote. We could have sought dramatic headlines at the end of the day and a vote at 5 o'clock, but we have bent over backwards, I think, that the committee has, to give the cabinet secretary alternatives to producing a draft budget because we understand the difficulty that he is in. Is he not going to say anything following the position that he offered at the beginning of September to go further than he has gone so far and allow Parliament to do its job in budget scrutiny? What I have said to the chamber is that I will honour the commitment given to the finance committee on sharing as much information as I possibly can, but I cannot produce a scenario plan that is a spending budget, a draft budget, without having all the information that will come from the chancellor's autumn statement. That point is recognised by the finance committee, so I will again say that I will produce as much information as I possibly can, but I cannot produce a draft budget that would be credible because of the uncertainty that exists in the system. I will continue to work constructively with the finance committee and share as much as I can to give as much certainty as I can, but that does not mean that we can produce a draft budget. That will come in a credible way through the channel that has been outlined via the finance committee draft timetable. I hope that members will appreciate a very positive approach to trying to share as much as I can, to support scrutiny of the Parliament and to welcome the fact that many committees are already undertaking pre-budget scrutiny. I think that that is a very helpful approach within the Parliament. I thank the committee convener, Bruce Crawford, for setting out fairly the committee's position in his opening speech. As someone who has been noted for his loyalty to the Government, I appreciate that it has not been an easy job for him to reform personally, but the role of a committee convener is to represent the committee's view, even where one might hold different personal opinions, as I know from my own experience. I listen with great interest to the finance secretary's response this afternoon. The finance secretary essentially had his choice when he came to the chamber this afternoon. He could either listen to the will of Parliament, as expressed in a number of signatures for Mr Harvie's motion, which is the majority of Parliament, offer concessions and offer to meet Parliament and the finance committee halfway, or he could try to brazen it out. I regret very much that he decided to take the latter path in the debate this afternoon and decided to brazen it out. I listen very carefully to his response. The key point that we need to stress is that this is not actually an issue about the timing of the draft budget, because the finance committee is not calling for the finance secretary to publish his budget before December. Much as we would like the budget to be introduced in September, we entirely recognise the difficulties that would cause both the Scottish Government and the parliamentary process. What this debate is actually about is whether sufficient information can be provided by the Scottish Government prior to the publication of the budget to allow effective parliamentary scrutiny. It is clear that neither I nor the other members of the finance committee from all different parties are satisfied with the cabinet secretary's response. In a letter from the committee to the cabinet secretary of the 21st of September, language is used that may well be unprecedented in the communication of this sort. What the matter revolves around is the level of information that can be provided to subject committees prior to the budget being published. As Bruce Crawford reminded us, when the cabinet secretary came to the finance committee on 7 September, he said, in response to a question from Mr Harvey, I am willing to provide as much scenario planning information as I can. Within his subsequent letter to the committee, the finance secretary declined the committee's request to publish indicative budget figures or scenarios at the level of individual portfolios or programmes in advance of the draft budget to assist in stating that I think that this would risk creating some confusion. The concern is that the finance secretary has now gone back on his word to the committee and he is offering less to the committee than what he previously promised. This is what led the committee to write in the very strong terms that we have seen. We have seen, as Patrick Harvie already referred to in this debate, all Opposition members have signed up to motion in Mr Harvey's name, calling on the Scottish Government to do what the finance committee called the Government to do to publish budget scenario planning information and illustrative figures before the end of the October recess. I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary, if he will not do so in the course of this debate, will reflect upon the stated view of the majority members of this Parliament and hold true to his original promise to the finance committee. That is not merely an academic matter. Effective democracy requires appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the actions of government and nowhere is that more important than in relation to scrutiny of the draft budget. The OECD, in its best practice for budget transparency guidance, states that the Government's draft budget should be submitted to Parliament far enough in advance to allow Parliament to review it properly. Our record as a Parliament in the past in this area has been excellent—indeed, far better—than Westminster. Last year, the introduction of the budget was delayed because of the outcome of the UK Government's spending review was being awaited. At that time, we were told by the Scottish Government that this would be a one-off, and it is therefore very disappointing that we are seeing budget scrutiny being truncated for a second year in a row. I do not think that there is anybody—well, if Mr Swinney was to give me an intervention as the former finance secretary, I will— Mr Swinney. The point that I am simply making to Mr Fraser was that the budget process was delayed this year for the same reason that it was last year, and that is the delay to the UK autumn's statements. It is exactly the same reason. I do not know quite why Mr Fraser is working himself up into a lather about this particular point. Mr Fraser. Perhaps if Mr Swinney was still a finance secretary, he would be treating the finance committee with a bit more respect than his successor seems to be. The point surely is that the autumn statement is going to come at the same time every year. Are we going to get into a pattern of delaying the Scottish Government's budget on an annual basis? Clearly that is not acceptable. What we are trying to do is find a compromised position that allows the committees of this Parliament to do their job properly, to give them the information that they require to at least start their work on budget scrutiny, and they are unable to do that at the moment because of the lack of information being provided. I think that it is worth looking at the question of risks to the Scottish Government's budget and the advice given to the finance committee by its own adviser. His actual words were that the impact of the autumn statement on the overall Scottish Government's budget was likely to be at, I quote, relatively minor. Those were the actual words that he used. He suggested elsewhere that the overall impact on the budget, as Mr Kelly said in the intervention, was unlikely to be higher than £200 million. In the context of course— The member sent these last minute. I am sorry, Mr Crawford. In the context of an underspend revealed in the latest Audit Scotland report of the Government's consolidated accounts of double that figure, £400 million. I will just bring my remarks to a close. There is a very simple way for the Scottish Government to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of Parliament, and that is for the cabinet secretary to keep his word to the finance committee. He needs to provide enough information to Parliament and to the subject committees to allow them to do effective and proper scrutiny work. To do otherwise, frankly, is to show contempt both for the work of this Parliament and for the work of the finance committee. I am pleased to support Mr Crawford's motion. Thank you. I call Kezia Dugdale. I told him that Labour Party and Mr Dugdale five minutes are thereabouts. The most important responsibility that Parliament has is to set a budget that determines how much money is available to spend on the NHS, the most precious institution in this country. The budget allocates funding for nurseries, schools, colleges and universities, the institutions that will give our young people the skills that they need to compete for the jobs of the future and, indeed, to grow our economy. It decides how much money our councils receive, which has major consequences for the funding of vital local services such as social care. In an age of austerity, a Government's budget requires even more scrutiny than ever before—not less. Yet less scrutiny is exactly what the SNP is attempting to deliver here. Derek Mackay's decision not to publish the draft budget until December will severely limit the ability of the Parliament's committees to scrutinise the budget properly. In addition, by refusing to publish as much information as possible in advance of the publication of the draft budget later this year, Derek Mackay is treating this Parliament with contempt, particularly since he is going back on a promise that he has previously made to this Parliament. The late publication of the chancellor's autumn statement has consequences for the budget. Of course it does, but it is not sufficient justification for Derek Mackay's refusal to publish indicative figures and budget scenario planning information. In response to an earlier intervention, the minister did suggest that we were looking for absolute figures. Of course we recognise that that is unreasonable, but what we are asking for is indicative figures, the ability to look at different scenarios—that is all that we are calling for today. As the finance committee confirmed the consequentials from last year's autumn statement impacted just 0.5 per cent of the Scottish block grant. Given the cuts that we face, that is not an insignificant amount of money, but it cannot be used as an excuse for avoiding scrutiny of the Government's spending decisions. We are only having this debate this afternoon because the convener of the finance committee, a member of the governing party, rightly, would not accept the finance minister's attempt to avoid parliamentary scrutiny as much as possible. To quote Bruce Crawford, it is unacceptable that the finance minister is not prepared to publish any such scenario planning information in advance of the draft budget. I am pleased to support Patrick Harvie's motion, which urges the Government to come forward with its budget scenario plans, before the October recess. I have yet to hear anything from the cabinet secretary in response to Patrick Harvie's intervention as to whether that clarity will be provided. The motion that the last count has received the support to a majority of MSPs across the chamber. I can say to the cabinet secretary that there is an irony about the two debates that we are having this afternoon. We support the Government's efforts when it comes to debating the impact of Brexit on Scotland's economy. We have lent the First Minister our support to do that. Each time that we have a vote in this chamber on an issue such as higher education, the First Minister takes that message out of this Parliament and goes to other European countries and presents it as the will of this Parliament. How can it be that the First Minister can rely on the will of the Parliament beyond it but not listen to the will of the Parliament whilst we are in it? I ask Mr Mackay to reflect on the seriousness of that particular motion that has been put forward today. The Parliament must hold the Government to account for the budget that it seeks to pass, and the Labour Party will certainly do that. There are three very specific questions for the finance secretary. Will he commit to producing a three-year spending review so that public services and all organisations that are dependent on Government funding can plan ahead? Will he guarantee that next year's draft budget bill will revert back to being published in September, as in previous years? Will he support Labour's calls for the Scottish Fiscal Commission to independently scrutinise all Scottish Government accounts, including spending commitments? The Labour Party will not vote for any budget that meekly passes on cuts or even doubles down on it, as is the case with local government. The First Minister promised voters that she would be an anti-asterity champion. Instead, she has become an administrator for that austerity. So, when the Scottish Government presents the budget to Parliament, Labour will place amendments to introduce a 50p tax on those earning over £150,000 to invest in our schools and nurseries, and we will also seek to add a penny to income tax to pay for public services, making decisions for Scotland that the Tories would never make and using the powers that we have all argued for for this place. That, together with our other tax proposals, will enable us to stop further cuts to the public services that we all rely on. With a full range of powers that the Scottish Parliament now has, the Scottish National Party Government faces a clear choice—accept a Tory budget from Westminster or go our own way with proposals to grow the Scottish economy and protect our schools and hospitals. More and more cuts to Scotland's budget harms our country's growth, risks jobs and prospects for our young people. We need to invest to provide the next generation of Scots with the chances that they need to succeed. If the SNP minority government does not accept those proposals and forces another austerity budget on Holyrood, we, the Labour Party, will vote against it. If they want support, they will need to look to the Tories for that. Labour will not and cannot help the SNP past and austerity budget. I said to the member that I gave her a bit of leeway on that, because it was about the scheduling and timetabling. I expect that the debate might wander a little, but I will keep a look out not to wander too far from the topic in hand. I will go to the open debate. It is four-minute speeches. Are there abouts? I will give room for interventions. Kate Forbes, who is followed by Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Judging by the Conservative Party conference yesterday, we are all in for a treat, as Mr Hammond takes us for a roller coaster ride. He and Ms May are after all stationed at the controls, while she promises to push the button on article 50. He is ready to reset the economy in the autumn statement. This is not a normal year, and so I think that we are all agreed that it cannot be a normal budget process. New fiscal powers introduce greater risk and reward to the Scottish budget at a time of economic uncertainty following the referendum and unknown plans at the hands of a new UK chancellor. Yes, there are some clues. The Fraser Valander Institute suggested that a weaker economic outlook and rising inflation means that the chancellor is even more likely to cut the Scottish budget by up to 6 per cent, perhaps, by 2020-21. However, those are clues. Unless Mr Hammond chooses to enlighten us now with one stroke of the pen or one word in person, we are dealing in clues until his autumn statement on 23 November. Mr Tomkins Given that she quotes the Fraser Valander Institute, I wonder if she would also agree with the Fraser Valander Institute when they say that the role of Parliament and the need of civic Scotland in scrutinising and influencing budgetary plans should be strengthened and not weakened. Precisely, I would agree with that, but I would also say that scrutiny should not be judged solely in weeks but by the focused attention to the budget. Cabinet Secretary has already said that he will assist in that process as much as possible by providing modelling and as much information in advance of the budget. For this Government to publish detailed numbers or scenario plans, which are essentially the budget in advance of the autumn statement, when Scotland's relative performance is more important than ever before at a time of economic uncertainty and entirely in the dark about the UK Government's spending plan, it would not just be unwise, it would be downright irresponsible. This Cabinet Secretary has a responsibility to the people of Scotland to manage our finances with prudence and reason, which I think is precisely what he is doing. I am fully in agreement with those, like Mr Tomkins, who argue that scrutiny is more critical than ever, and I do not underestimate the time pressures on the finance and subject committees. I am a member of one. To ask members, like me, to scrutinise numbers, we know we are incorrect, and then to do it all again when we have the right ones, is not effective scrutiny nor a good use of parliamentary time. As I have just said, scrutiny should not be measured solely by weeks but by effectiveness. It must certainly be based on highly accurate and up-to-date forecasts. I am not one to quote the Tories, whose councillor said yesterday, that when times change, we must change with them. It is to the credit of members in this Parliament that every subject committee has already adapted its approach to budget scrutiny, be it through high-level pre-budget scrutiny or extra committee sessions, it is happening already. This is not a normal year, this cannot be a normal budget process. Our budget timetable was designed nearly two decades ago, and the original principles of the financial issues advisory group should underpin the budget process every year, but how we apply those principles must adapt to the changing economic and political climate. This Parliament is noted for its adaptability to change and its scrutiny of the Government's budget in sharp contrast to Westminster. We have the opportunity to do both, to refocus our efforts by adapting our timescale for more effective scrutiny, and I think that there is a responsibility in all of us to the people of Scotland to get on and to do that. The Parliament has been criticised in the past for its poor standard of scrutiny, certainly before the current sitting, it was lacking. Governments do not tend to like scrutiny, while this one certainly does not. It is absolutely vital that laws and budgets are put through the ringer so that we end up with better legislation and better spending plans. To do that, MSPs need to have adequate time in which to carry out our vital role. For Derek Mackay to give the subject committees two weeks, no, in which to scrutinise his draft budget is frankly ridiculous and unacceptable, and we can see how Parliament feels by the strength of support for Patrick Harvie's well-crafted motion. Derek Mackay had an opportunity today to give concessions his chosen not to take it, and that is disappointing. It must have pained Bruce Crawford to write the letter that he did to the cabinet secretary. Mr Crawford clearly takes his role seriously and needs to be commended for acting the way he did. Derek Mackay can bleat all he likes about the timing of the autumn statement, but it is a pathetic excuse. As the adviser to the finance committee, absolutely. So what does Mr Simpson make of the Northern Ireland executive delaying their budget until after the chancellor's autumn statement? The Welsh Assembly haven't. You are the finance secretary of Scotland. Let us deal with Scotland, Mr Mackay. Let us deal with your responsibility to this Parliament. As the adviser to the finance committee stated, if you had published the draft budget prior to the autumn statement, any changes afterwards would likely be relatively minor and marginal. You are the finance secretary of Scotland in your answer answerable to Parliament. No. Mr Mackay owes it to us as members of committees to allow us to do our job effectively. He's a former council leader. He should know that people need time to consider things like budgets. They also need a heads up on what is likely to happen. It was quite reasonable for the finance committee to ask for scenario planning information. Mr Mackay initially said he'd help and then performed a screeching u-turn. I say this to Derek Mackay. You're not there to be a road block. You're there to help smooth the way. I once had high hopes for Derek Mackay, particularly when, as a council leader, he agreed to speak to a meeting of Conservative councillors at my invitation. But those high hopes are dwindling. It comes to something when an SNP committee convener tells a Government minister of his own party that his behaviour is unacceptable. Derek Mackay would do well to heed the words of Bruce Crawford. He should reflect on the matter and, when he has, he should conclude that, as I said at the start, proper scrutiny is essential. Two weeks doesn't allow for that. Scotland used to be one of the world leaders when it came to the time allocated for budget scrutiny, second only to the United States. Derek Mackay is taking us to the bottom of the pile, and that is simply not good enough. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I must say that I found Derek Mackay's response very disappointing. That is a serious debate about how best Parliament can scrutinise the budget. The committee had reasonable discussions with him. Mr Harvey again offered them a reasonable way forward. To be honest, what we got was seven minutes of absolute waffle. The bottom line is that we have a £30 billion budget to consider. The finance committee was looking for scenario planning. What that involves is that you have an optimistic scenario, a middle scenario and a pessimistic scenario. You produce one scenario at £29.6 billion, £1.30 billion and £1.30.4 billion, and you run all the high-level figures through. It is disingenuous of Mr Mackay to try and pretend how difficult it is. Do not forget that a lot of that information is already in place. The Government budget holders do not sit with a blank piece of paper each year when it comes round to the budget. They go back to the previous year's budget and start with that. Do not forget that, in terms of the Scottish budget, 55 per cent of the budget is made up of staff costs. They are not going to vary a great deal year to year, and there are other fixed costs. We heard in the programme for government that the Government makes a number of spending commitments that will roll over into the budget, so there is no excuse for not being able to produce different scenarios with high-level indicative figures. When we discussed the matter at the committee, I favoured publication of the budget along the normal timetable. I was not convinced by the cabinet secretary's arguments. However, the committee reasonably gave Mr Mackay a way forward and asked for scenario planning and indicative figures. Mr Mackay at the meeting gave the committee the impression that he was prepared to go along with that and to provide that solution. Therefore, it came as something of a shock and a slap in the face to the committee when Mr Mackay wrote to the committee, refusing to provide that information. Where that leaves us now is in a position where we are not able to carry out proper scrutiny. How can the Subject Committees, in a matter of two weeks, properly scrutinise the budget? That really weakens and undermines the process. The irony in all this is that this comes at a time that this is the most important budget in the history of the Scottish Parliament. We have more powers at our disposal than ever before, but at this time Derek Mackay is seeking to cartail and to close down the debate. Never more than any time before should we open the budget process up for scrutiny, for looking for ideas and involving more people. It is difficult to do that when you reduce the timescale. I say once again that Mr Harvey's motion, which has the support of the majority of Parliament, gives Mr Mackay a way forward. He should seriously reflect before he stands up to respond, because if he does not respond positively and look to address some of the issues in Patrick Harvey's motion, his Government will be seen to treat Parliament with contempt. I am grateful that the smaller parties have a chance to participate in what is a relatively short debate, but it is a debate that I thought was important for us to have. I argued in the finance committee that this debate should be brought to the chamber, and I want to pay tribute not only to Bruce Crawford and the way in which he chaired the committee seeking consensus. That was not easy, and I recognise that. I also recognise the difficult position that Mr Mackay himself is in, and that the Scottish Government is in. I do not pretend that this is easy, not for a moment. It was important to recognise that the opposition parties could have insisted, instead of a committee debate with a motion saying that we should have a debate about the timetable, that we could have insisted on a substantive debate with motions and amendments and votes at decision time. We did not do that. We could have insisted in agreeing a letter demanding a draft budget be published in October as one of the earlier proposed timetables set out. We did not do that either. At every stage, we have sought to give the cabinet secretary an incentive but also an opportunity to bring forward a budget process that is up to the job. The letter that Mr Mackay referred to earlier, telling us what he was able to talk about, largely indicated that he was willing to expand on information that is already in the public domain or set out some of the choices that the UK Government might make. We can all speculate about that, just as the Fraser of Allander can, but what we need and what our subject committees need is the ability to consider the choices that the Scottish Government will make in response and how that will impact on many of the things that we all care about. There are things that we are anticipating in the budget when it is proposed that I will disagree with and things that I will agree with. I want to see radical investment in much greater childcare in Scotland. I want to see the investment that has been needed for so long in a national infrastructure priority for energy efficiency. I want to know as our subject committees are meeting, taking evidence ahead of the draft budget, I want to know whether those things are under threat, what the impact will be if the Scottish Government's budget is indeed cut or others might be concerned to know whether the Scottish Government's existing tax plans will have to change as a result of that, whether on income tax, air passenger duty or local level. Local councils and other public bodies around Scotland are trying to make their plans right now, trying to look ahead and they are all having to do that under the assumption of the worst-case scenario, because there is nothing else out there. I want to express gratitude to the members who have added their names to the motion that I lodged. Again, I reinforce to SNP colleagues that I have deliberately brought a motion to express the support of members who share that view, not to force a vote in it, but to give the cabinet secretary the opportunity. I hope that he takes that opportunity in his closing speech to give us more information about what he is going to put into the public domain. I tried to express in my opening remarks a willingness to continue to work with the finance committee to share as much information as possible, and that continues. I hear the request for scenario planning. There has to be room for agreement around something short of a budget, which members have said they do not expect, but enough information to allow fuller scrutiny. I say that genuinely to Patrick Harvie. I think that there is room for agreement around that, and I will continue to work on it, listening to the voices in Parliament. Mr Harvie? I agree that there is room for agreement, and I agree that we have to accept something short of a budget, but that is what we were discussing a month ago. That is what we were discussing a month ago at committee on the record, when the cabinet secretary told us that I am willing to produce as much scenario planning information as I can. It is after that commitment has been withdrawn and the committee has agreed that that is an unacceptable position. I know that we are short of time. I want to express respect and understanding for the position that the Government is in, and we have to acknowledge regrettably that something short of a draft budget is going to be necessary. However, we need more detail. I would like to hear a commitment from Mr Mackay in his closing speech that he will accept the will of the majority of Parliament and publish that scenario planning information with illustrative figures by the end of the October recess. That is what Parliament has asked for. I think that not only MSPs but all the people that we serve and the organisations whose livelihoods and work and public service depend on the public spending plans that the Government is going to bring forward. I think that we all have a right to expect that. I have always thought that Bruce Crawford was a very wise, sensible and reasonable man, and that was confirmed this afternoon. I see him squirming in his chair as I give him that recommendation. However, it comes to something when somebody of Bruce Crawford's stature is prepared to put forward such a powerful case and use phrases such as unacceptable behaviour. I think that that is something that the minister should pay heed to. We all accept that the circumstances have changed with the new powers and welfare and tax plus the autumn statement Brexit, but I think that that makes the case for more scrutiny, not less scrutiny. It makes the case for having a more detailed discussion with the country, not less. Of course, we understand that they cannot produce a draft budget with all those variables in place, but let us understand a bit more of the detail. After all, the SNP Government is expert on everybody else's responsibilities. We have projected for the next 20 years the cost of Brexit, but we cannot predict the budget just a few weeks ahead. We need to have a bit more perspective and understanding. Fraser of Allander, which the minister has repeatedly quoted his report, has repeatedly done so. He has made some projections over five years. He must have some credibility if the minister spends quite a bit of his time giving credit to that report, but it seems incapable of using all the might and the resource of the Scottish Government to produce anything in comparison with the Fraser of Allander report. I think that it would be helpful if the minister paid heed to what has been recommended today on scenario planning with indicative figures by the October recess. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do. I have seen a bit of movement from the minister today. I hope that it certainly is a bit of movement towards that position so that we can have greater scrutiny and debate. The hesitation, the resistance that is clear from the minister, I fear, is an indication of an uncertainty about their manifesto commitment. Some of the things that were worked out months ago in advance of the election, such as the spending on health, the £500 million extra on health, what does that mean in terms of the headline budget? In terms of police spending, the real-terms increases in police spending, what does that mean for the final budget? The childcare commitment, one of the biggest and boldest commitments of this Government. I would like to see some profiling on that to see if we can test whether some of the predictions that have been made about the roll-out of that can come true. On air passenger duty, what is the real price of that cut? Finally, one of the biggest things that Fraser of Allander has pointed out is what are the protected departments and what are the unprotected departments in some detail. We can fully understand what the implications for those unprotected departments will be. The First Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that Fraser of Allander reports at question time in this Parliament that the cuts could be £1.6 billion. We need to see some of the detail of what that could mean for those unprotected departments before we get to the final publication of the budget. That is some of the detail that this Parliament deserves to see. I hope that we have seen some movement from the minister today. I hope that he pays heed to the wise words of Bruce Crawford so that we can come to some acceptable compromise on that, so that it is no longer unacceptable in the eyes of the committee. I now call on James Dornan, who will last speak in the open debate when we move to winding up speeches. Before I make some comments about the role of the Education and Skills Committee, I would like to comment on one or two things that have been said earlier on. I take on board Patrick Harvie's comments about whether we could have went another way. I also take on board the sincerity of why he went this way. I look at some of the politicians from the other parties and see people playing political games with that. Kezia Dugdale gave us some of her top lines from her failed manifesto. Graham Simpson used it to attack the Parliament and praise the Parliament for the exact same things that he attacked him on, just prior to that. We get Willie Rennie scaremongering about the consequences of the Scottish National Party's manifesto commitments. That is not what that should be about. My colleague Kate Forbes made a very good contribution. She was talking about effective scrutiny, not being about time, not being about weeks but about the quality of it. She is quite right. How can we possibly scrutinise something when we do not know how much money we have to spend? Surely it is more important that we have the budget there and then we can scrutinise it closely. If it means that we have to work longer or work more often as a committee, that is what we have to do. We have already said that Bruce Crawford very kindly talked about the Education and Skills Committee having done work in the pre-budget scrutiny. It is quite clear that we are not alone in that. We have agreed to undertake that scrutiny in the performance of four public bodies this autumn prior to the expected publication of the budget. The body is a Skilled Development Scotland, Scottish Funding Council, SQA and Education Scotland. We have recently written to all those bodies asking them to set out performance and delivering outcomes, how outcomes are measured, how they have adopted the Christy principles of reform and how their work contributes to the Scottish Government's climate change target. We expect a response by 14 October and we will be hearing from the bodies in November. That is all the stuff that we can be doing in the run-up to the budget coming out from the Cabinet Secretary. Our work has fallen on from the work of a predecessor committee that looked at the same bodies last year. It has also influenced by the finance committee's guidance to subject committee's issues at the beginning of the summer. That is not something that we just popped out our head when we were thinking, what can we do, what can we do while we are waiting on the budget. The purpose is to hold those bodies to account for their spending and strategic decisions and to help to ensure that their continuing performances are the highest quality. The committee is keen to get a good understanding of how those bodies have delivered outcomes and positively affected the lives of people of Scotland. We also put the committee in a good position to evaluate future spending decisions. As well as writing to the bodies involved, I have written to a number of stakeholders and experts seeking their views on how the four public bodies perform. It is also important to hear from the people who deliver and use public services. We will accept relevant submissions from anyone in order to help to ensure that everyone is able to speak freely. We have agreed to publish submissions anonymously if an individual asks us to do so. Along with my colleague Grossgear from Patrick Harvie's party, the Greens, we will speak to teachers here in the Parliament tomorrow about their direct experience of those bodies and the impact that organisations have on teachers themselves, their schools and the outcome for their pupils. The committee will soon publish a short survey again with a focus on how the bodies deliver outcomes. Members of the committee also plan to undertake a number of visits to get a real feel for the work of those organisations. The purpose of the engagement work is to get a well-rounded understanding of the public bodies and the work that will support the committee's scrutiny. We want to include as many people as we can in the process. Let me make it clear here. On the committee, there are two Labour members, two Conservative members, one Green member and one Lib Dem member. They have all signed up to the pre-budget scrutiny. They all see that as a way forward. They have all accepted the timetable that has been put forward in front of us. For me, that is what highlights here that this is not about the very important issue of the scrutiny of the budget, which we have to accept is out of our hands, because if it was not for the Brexit vote and for this autumn statement that is going to be coming, which could have a devastating impact on the Scottish budget, then we would not be in this situation in the first place. The cabinet secretary has said that he will work closely with the finance committee. Let's hold him to his word on that, but at the end of the day, let's support him in doing so. We now move to the closing speeches. I call on Alex Rowley. Around four minutes please, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's debate has been fairly consensual in that there is an acceptance that the Government is not in full control of the situation in terms of the UK Government's autumn statement. I would have to say that when I looked at the papers last night, I looked at what the finance committee was saying and what Bruce Crawford was saying. I did think that today we would be able to reach consensus in terms of being able to provide as much information as possible, and that's a point that I'll come back to. The OECD principles of budgetary governance states that a national parliament has a fundamental role in authorising budget decisions and in holding governments to account. They state and go on and say that Governments should provide for an inclusive, participative and realistic debate on budget choices by offering opportunities for Parliament and its committees to engage within the budget process at all key stages of the budget cycle. That is the concern that has been raised by all parties in here today. We are not going to be able to do that with this year's budget. Clearly, we are not able to do that and achieve those principles in last year's budget. The Spice who wrote a paper on budgets said that overall their paper at least says that the Scottish process, when measured against most of the criteria that was set out, is relatively favourable. Scotland is in line with best practice when it comes to the time allocated for budget scrutiny. The committee structure in place for dealing with the budgets and the involvement of the finance committee in ordinary legislation. Scotland is also better placed than many legislators in that it has some capacity for obtaining expert advice and research on financial matters. In general terms, our Parliament would be up there amongst the best, but given what's happened over the last two years, we are not. I think that no-one here today has suggested that that is the fall of the Scottish Government and clearly the autumn statement. That raises a couple of questions. Bruce Crawford did talk about a budget process review group and that review group will be looking at what has happened over the past two years. The minister might want to say something more about that so that, to Kezia Dugdale's point, when we come to next year, we don't want to find ourselves in the same situation. I hope that he also picks up the point that Kezia Dugdale made in terms of a three-year budget cycle, something that most of the rest of the local government, the third sector, are calling for. I'm a bit lost because the minister, when he went to the finance committee on 7 September, Derek Mackay and I quote, I'm willing to produce as much scenario planning information as I can. The question is what's changed because then he goes on to tell the committee that he will not be publishing any such scenario planning in advance of the draft budget. The legitimate question that people are asking is what's changed. Some have suggested that he went back and his officials told him that that would be too difficult, but we need to know what's changed. That is all the committee are really asking for. In my final few minutes, can I say that yesterday I met with a groupie local government leaders right across Scotland who are agonising right now looking at their budgets and looking at where the cuts are going to have to take place. One of them said to me, well, we've been told by Derek Mackay that things are likely to get much worse in the coming years. Given that we're talking about real people here, depending on public services, this situation is not satisfactory. I think that that's all that the parties are asking today. True, Farron, thank you, Mr Brown. Not to go back on your words, you told the committee you would look at scenario planning and bring forward that information. I would urge the minister today to do that. I call in Adam Tomkins. Around four minutes, please, Mr Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are a parliamentary democracy. We do not elect our government directly. Government emerges out of Parliament and is accountable to Parliament and not the other way round. Effective, robust parliamentary scrutiny is the very lifeblood of our democracy. Any attempt to dilute that effectiveness to undermine this Parliament's ability to do its job of holding the Government of the day to account for its policies, decisions and actions should therefore be tested against the highest standards, and if they are found wanting, resist it. The cabinet secretary's proposal is not to publish until the middle of December manifestly fail this test. The current finance secretary first brought his proposal to the finance committee in June. On that occasion, his excuses for seeking the evisceration of effective parliamentary scrutiny included that this Parliament, in comparison with its predecessors, has increased spending powers, particularly as regards social security. However, as those responsibilities are for later years in this Parliament and not for the current budget cycle, it was obvious that the cabinet secretary was pulling a fast one or, if that is not parliamentary language, pulling the wool over the eyes of the finance committee. As the committee has said in its letter to Mr Mackay of 21 September, we did not consider that the reasons as set out in June would have been sufficient to justify delaying the publication of the draft budget. It was only much later, and in some evident desperation, that the finance secretary turned to the SNP's favourite excuse for inaction, Brexit, as the all-too-convenient hook on which to hang his shugly plans. I do not believe a word of it. What I do believe is the advice of the finance committee's independent adviser that the effects of the UK Government's fiscal decisions on the Scottish Government's budget are likely to be minor, marginal and limited. When contrasted, when contrasted, absolutely? Bruce Crawford. On a number of occasions, a number of members have raised that specific point, Mr Tomkins, but we also accept that, following the Fraser Valander Institute report, the committee adviser's perspective has changed a bit as a result of that particular report. Adam Tomkins. The margin that we are talking about, as James Kelly and others have pointed out, repeatedly through this debate, is a margin of about £200 million and a budget of more than £30 billion. That is relatively minor, in comparison with the devastating impact on effective parliamentary scrutiny that Derek Mackay's proposals will have. When you consider the relationship between the marginal impact that the UK's autumn statement is likely to have on the Scottish Government's budget against the significant impact on effective parliamentary scrutiny that his proposals will have, it is obvious, Deputy Presiding Officer, where the balance of public interest lies. The Cabinet Secretary's plans are disproportionate, they are unnecessary, they are profoundly disrespectful of this Parliament's authority and, frankly, they are unworthy of him. As Audit Scotland has said, effective parliamentary scrutiny is critical to ensure that decisions being taken by Government are thoroughly tested and independently reviewed, as they go on to say. It is necessary for us to see a step change in budget scrutiny. Well, there is a step change in budget scrutiny, but it is not quite the direction of the step change that Audit Scotland had in mind, is it? Those proposals, frankly, are unworthy of this Cabinet Secretary and they should, Deputy Presiding Officer, be resisted. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought that this afternoon's debate was helpful and constructive and very useful. Adam Tomkins, of course, cannot help himself but adds a bit of colour to the debate, some of which I would challenge around the budget that we face and the Chancellor's autumn statement being marginal. That is not the impression that I get from the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has spoken about resetting fiscal policy, about economic turbulence. Of course, this Tory Chancellor has abandoned the economic policies of the previous Tory Chancellor, who he has replaced. There is a great deal of economic consensus that the decision and the vote around Brexit will have a profound impact on the UK economy. Of course, the Scottish economy, thanks to the Tories playing party games, will look at the mess that has left the UK economy in, so there will have to be a response to that. However, there was wise advice left to the Scottish Parliament from the previous finance committee to address those legacy issues about wise use of forecasts and making decisions as close to those forecasts as possible. I think that that information is helpful. That is why I immediately embarked on the transformation of our scrutiny processes to recognise the powers that we have, the increased complexity and the role that Parliament should have, which should be respected. That is why we have embarked on the joint working group that has representation from the Scottish Parliament, the Government and very well respected external witnesses and participants as well, of course. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would take an early opportunity to explain to Parliament exactly what he will publish between today and 15 December to allow Parliament to do its job. Derek Mackay I will do that and I appreciate that intervention, because what I have heard from members is a view that this is not about drafting and publishing a draft budget, but I request to publish more information to take forward the debate that we have had at the finance committee. I was able to repeat my offer that I am happy to provide the committee with additional strategic information to assist committees in preparing for the autumn statement and draft budget. I will commit to producing that information by the end of the October recess. I have been grateful for the interventions and comments of other members and, in that information, I have outlined in previous correspondence what I think would be helpful for Parliament to consider around current spending, around the outcomes, focus and other areas, but I will include a set of high-level analysis of the Scottish Government's financial position and how possible UK tax and spending scenarios arising from the autumn statement will impact on our available resources. That is what members have repeatedly told me that they are looking for, and I will provide that within that timescale that has been requested. I would like to make some further comments if I may. The reason for doing that properly is that it is really important to produce credible information, not just to produce something for the sake of it, but something that is incredibly accurate so that we are scrutinising the Parliament's using the Parliament's terms to scrutinise a credible budget. Kate Forbes is absolutely right. It is not just about the length of time but the quality of scrutiny as well and what is being scrutinised, being robust, accurate and close to those forecasts from the OBR to the autumn statement and, of course, the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. We will allow those statutory duties to be done before we look further at that role. In terms of the question around the three-year spending review, we are one year into that, so there will be two years remaining, and past that one-year budget, I have already said publicly, that I would look at a multi-year spending review, but that is after this one year that does not set a precedent. Also, that joint working group will look at the entire process in that constructive way and then produce recommendations by next summer, and that can inform the future way we do business. I do not say that that sets a precedent, but we are in unprecedented times in terms of the uncertainty that we face with the increased complexity that is now in place in terms of Scotland's budgets. I hope that the recognition that it is not just Derek Mackay and the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, have taken the same view on that level of uncertainty, and that has informed its position to defer the budget, not even until later in the year, but into next year. I have set out a timescale that I said that I would keep to around three weeks post-chancellers autumn statement, and I absolutely will hold true to that, having outlined a budget date. Having made the commitment to give as much information as possible, repeatedly, to the finance committee and again within Parliament. I do think that that information should be sufficient to address a number of concerns that have been raised. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. One last chance, because the cabinet secretary keeps using the same language as he used in the letter that the committee has described as unacceptable. Will he publish as much information as he can about the spending plans that the Scottish Government is considering in the wake of the impact, or is he only going to publish information about what he thinks the impact is going to be? Derek Mackay. I think that I have been quite clear that what Parliament asked for was high level scenario planning, and that is what I have said that I will provide within that timescale. I am happy to write to the finance committee and, of course, Mr Harvie will take a great interest in that, but I have repeatedly said that I will not publish a draft budget, I cannot publish a credible draft budget or a number of draft budgets, but I will publish that scenario information that I have pledged to in keeping with what I have said to committee. Of course, to take that forward in a mature and rational way, because as we embark on using those new powers to the Scottish Parliament, I think that it is important that we do it in a credible and robust way. That does, of course, involve proper parliamentary scrutiny, but that process should be sound, Presiding Officer. I now call Alex Johnson to wind up the debate on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Around eight minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been a worthwhile debate that has been useful in highlighting some of the challenges that this Parliament faces in revising its processes following the devolution of significant new powers. Before I comment on some of the contributions that we have heard this afternoon, I want to briefly focus on two issues. First, I want to make comment on the need for some level of scenario planning to be published to support parliamentary scrutiny in advance of publication of the draft budget. Secondly, I will briefly return to some of the complexities of this challenge, which the convener mentioned in his thoughtful opening speech. On the issue of scenario planning, Finance Committee members made it quite clear at our meeting on 7 September that, in agreeing to a draft budget being published after the UK autumn statement, that there would be need for some level of scenario planning to be provided prior to that. The cabinet secretary responded, and I quote, I am willing to produce as much scenario planning information as I can. The committee therefore finds it unacceptable that the cabinet secretary then went on to suggest that he is not in a position to publish any such scenario planning. We have, of course, during the minister's closing remarks, heard a further extension of this form of words. Unfortunately, I believe that it will take some further time to work out exactly what has been offered and what the outcome of that is likely to be. The committee considers, however, that, without such information, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient opportunity for the subject committees to scrutinise the Government's spending proposals. Presiding Officer, if I may now briefly turn to how we address the complexities of the budget process in future years. As we have heard, the budget process review group will have the unenviable task of unraveling those complexities and designing a new process that meets the Government's emphasis on accuracy and the Parliament's emphasis on robust scrutiny. That, I am sure, will involve a number of trade-offs and, in all probability, an element of compromise on all sides. There are a number of issues that the committee has raised with the Scottish Government and which the review group is likely to consider. First, data sharing. The fiscal framework makes clear that both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fiscal Commission should, and I quote, have access to the necessary data, information and models held by the UK Government to support policy development and produce forecasts of a comparable quality to those produced by the OBR. That raises issues of both timing and transparency. It is essential that data is made available timeously in order to maximise the time available for parliamentary scrutiny and that that data is published while recognising the need for taxpayer confidentiality. Secondly, the levels of budget information are crucial. One of the benefits of budget scrutiny is that it has led to much greater levels of transparency in the level of budgetary information provided by the Scottish Government. The level of information that is provided regarding the operation of the fiscal framework will be vitally important in ensuring effective scrutiny, especially in relation to the calculation of the adjustments to the block grant, the methodology and assumptions used to calculate forecast tax receipts, the reconciliation process and the use of the new borrowing powers, including the operation of the Scotland reserve. Thirdly, timing of the publication of the draft budget. The committee has indicated that the reasons set out by the cabinet secretary's letter on 23 June, which predates the EU referendum result, would not have been sufficient to justify delaying the publication of the draft budget until after the autumn statement. One of the key challenges of the budget review group will be identifying an optimum time for the publication of the draft budget, which can address both the relative accuracy of the numbers and the time available for scrutiny. Finally, the review of the budget process does offer a real opportunity to improve financial scrutiny. In particular, the committee is keen to develop the move towards a more outcomes-based approach to the budget scrutiny, which our predecessor committee began during the last session. That should involve much more scrutiny of the impact and effectiveness of how public bodies are spending public money before considering how it should be spent in future years. It should also result in an all-year-round approach to financial scrutiny and far better linkage between the audit and the budgetary functions. The committee has, however, made it clear that this new approach should not be viewed as a replacement for scrutiny of the draft budget document. As I come towards the end of my contribution, I think that it is appropriate that I make some comment on some of the things that were said during the course of this debate. Some speakers, out of frustration, perhaps strayed into the area of discussing the budget itself. With notification today that the budget publication is still some 10 weeks away, it is understandable that that frustration should have come about. Others, however, chose to demonstrate the level of tolerance that the finance committee has held for the cabinet secretary. Patrick Harvie, in particular, set out the fact that we have much to be concerned about in the committee and in this Parliament. In the very simplest terms, the committee has offered a compromise to the cabinet secretary and it appears at the moment at least that the cabinet secretary has not yet accepted that compromise. It is vital, therefore, as we go forward, to understand that if a compromise is possible, it must be reached quickly, because the worst possible outcome is for this stand-off to continue to the point where the publication of the draft budget arrives on 15 December and we have made no progress in advance. That concludes the debate on the timetable for the Scottish Government's draft budget 2017-18. It is now time to move on to the next item of business.