 F contest uwch i sicrhau ni wedi gweld cyd- от質 yn y cyfrifiad yw gwend seasig. Felly dosglonio chi wedi ei ddylch adael y symud syloru ac adaelbarth. Naen wych am inspirationyn y pansedd Electri ac Llywodraeth Cymru waspwydduaeth myn byddol. Myn Rhyngidweitogaeth Rodin会er yn yll logsion syrru i chi ychydig mewn gweld cyrom cardioannu, a chersan amser yn ei cyfrifiad, os ydych i chi, allan tunedu iddyn nhw i chi d confrontedor. a'r projekts o'r ffobl yn ymdwg, ac mae unrhyw o'r cyfan yn ei ddweud. Felly, mae'n gynllun o'r clywbeth ffobl yn y bydd y cwmniadau a chyfodol yn gwybod i'r cyfreithiol cyflwyng. Felly, rwy'n dechrau'r cyfrifwng yn 30 wrth gwrs. Felly, efall, rwy'n dechrau'r cyfrifwng Ceth Brown. Felly, efall, rwy'n dechrau'r cyfrifwng ymddwg a'r cyfrifwng ysgrifwng ysgrifwng. David Climbay project director at the fourth replacement crossing, Lawrence Shackman, the project manager of the fourth replacement crossing team, all from Transport Scotland, and Michael Martin, the project director for the fourth crossing bridge constructors. Would you like to make a brief opening statement? Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the chance to come along and provide you with further information on the progress of the Queensferry crossing and the other projects, AWPR, A9 dualling, A96 dualling and the M8, M73, M74 motorway improvement project. It will be a brief update, and then I would obviously welcome any discussion and questions from myself, David, Michael and Alasdair and Lawrence. On June 20, I was pleased to advise the committee that the Queensferry crossing will open to traffic on Wednesday 30 August. That followed the fourth crossing bridge constructors confirming that they would be in a position to open the crossing to traffic for the first time on the 30th due to the excellent progress that has been made over the past weeks. Since my appearance at this committee on May 31, I am pleased to update you on the significant progress that has continued on the north approach roads and on the crossing itself. To start with the crossing, the installation of wind barriers is close to completion across the full length of the structure. The Allymac hoists, or Allymac hoists, depending on how you want to see it, have been removed from the tower top to deck level at both the south and north towers. Those were the lifts at each tower used by workers throughout the construction of the crossing, and preparations are currently underway to remove the hoist at the centre tower. On the north side, the final construction works and paving of the ferry towed junction and slip loads are progressing to completion as planned. Final surfacing of the junction took place on the weekend of the 3rd and 4th of June, and finishing works are currently in progress. Between now and the opening of the crossing, our focus will be on completing the waterproofing and final road surfacing and all activities on the towers and cables above road level. On the 20th of June, I was also delighted to be able to announce the opportunity that the public will have to take part in the Queensferry crossing experience, which will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for 50,000 people to cross the Queensferry crossing on foot before it becomes part of the motorway network. I think that he will agree that the project has really captured the public imagination and there has been a tremendous demand to take part in that experience so far. We received evidence of that with over 195,000 entries since the ballot opened on June 20. The ballot will close on the 12th of June, July 5, so for those who wished to apply, there is still plenty of time. Everyone has a chance of being one of the final 50,000 people to walk over the new bridge. I encourage people to submit an entry so that they can share it in that experience. It is quite clear to myself and to those involved in the construction that the people of Scotland have taken the bridge to their hearts. There is a great deal of anticipation and excitement about the opening celebrations, as can be seen in the excellent public reaction to the Queensferry crossing experience. We are not going to be able to accommodate everyone, but it will be a hugely enjoyable event for all those involved. On the other projects, the opening of the M74 Wraith underpass in February, the new-improved M8 M73 and M74 progressively opened during spring and were fully open to traffic on 1 June 2017. As is normal with those types of projects, final landscaping, finishing and snagging works will be on-going until the autumn, but that will not affect peak traffic flows. Since those new roads fully opened over three weeks ago, the contract has been focusing his resources on the installation of motorway gantries and signage, and those works have been undertaken overnight to avoid impact on road users, and there has already been substantial progress. Almost immediately after opening, the benefits of what is a £0.5 billion project became apparent. The significant new road capacity has already started to deliver economic benefits right across Scotland due to the strategic nature of this part of the motorway network. On the AWPR and Balmery tipperty project, the recent months have seen extensive activity taking place across the site, so the Stonehaven southbound slip road opened in April 2017, bringing early benefits to the people of Stonehaven by taking long-distance traffic away from the town. Earthwork operations have also recommenced allowing the contractor to continue with the Balmery tipperty section so that it will be completed at the same time as the remainder of the project. A significant milestone was reached on the project when the 1,000th beam was lifted into place at the new global junction on 21 June. We still need another 183 beams that are anticipated to be in place by the autumn. Elsewhere, road surfacing and foundation works are continuing at pace, and the new major bridge over the River Dee is taking shape with work on the deck progressing well. Officials at Transport Scotland and I are continuing to work together with the contractor Aberdeen Roads Ltd to deliver the benefits of the project to the people of the north-east at the earliest possible opportunity. It has also been a busy period on the A9 dualling programme, with the king-crated Alradi section currently under construction, and the Lunkrty Tabas Pass of Burnham project now in procurement. A significant amount of construction work is both underway and being planned. On the king-crated Alradi project, traffic was switched on to the newly upgraded carriageway last weekend to allow the final phase of works to be undertaken, including the removal of any remaining temporary works and the completion of site-wide finishing and landscaping works. That section is on target to be fully open to traffic during summer 2017 as planned. Following a successful industry day on 10 April, procurements commenced on the next section of the A9 dualling programme with the publication of the contract notice for the Lunkrty Tabas of Burnham section of the dualling. Six pre-qualification submissions have been received, and the bidding process is expected to commence in July 2017. Advanced works are scheduled to start on site later this year, with the main construction contract expected in spring 2018. Design work on the remaining nine schemes of the A9 dualling programme is progressing well with over 90 per cent of the dualling programme having now reached preferred route status. Design work is also well underway on the A96 dualling programme. Last November, we published draft orders on the 31-kilometre Inverness to Neon, including the Neon bypass section. Last week, we presented the options under consideration for the 46-kilometre section between Hardmere and Focobars to local communities at a series of exhibitions. Over 1,800 members of the public attended those exhibitions, and the vital feedback that the engineers receive will help them to inform the further design and assessment work as we look forward to identifying a preferred route option for this section next year. We also expect to start route options assessment work on the section between East of Huntley and Aberdeen later this summer following the procurement of design consultants. The fruits of the Government's commitment to infrastructure investment are now becoming plain for all to see with projects like the M8 bundle reaching completion. The scale of our ambition to deliver sustainable economic growth for Scotland can be seen right across the portfolio of projects from the Queensferry crossing to the A96 dualling programmes. In delivering those projects, we have supported jobs and enabled businesses to grow right across the country. The A96 dualling programmes will further augment that successful approach. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to update you on the projects, and I am happy to try to answer any questions that the committee may have. For your not-so-short opening statement, Rhoda, if I could ask you to lead off on the first question. Are you confident that the fourth replacement crossing will open on 30 August? Yes, I am confident. I have had substantial discussions with the contractors and those from Transport Scotland who are overseeing this, and others can speak to this as well. I have been assured of a high degree of confidence that we can open on that date. I do not think that anything is 100 per cent in life, to be honest, but we would not have announced this if we were not very confident of being able to open on that date. Are there contingency plans in place if you do not? It is best for others to talk to that, but we always have contingency plans, especially in a project like this. Yes, I would say that we need to talk to that one. Yes, we do need to have detailed contingency plans. I mean, I think both Michael and myself, we walk across the bridge, I walk across it at least once a week, I think Michael does it at least twice a week, and I think we are both very encouraged by what we have seen in the progress in the last few weeks. I think that now the fact that we have announced this date, 30 August, it really acts as a great focus for the entire workforce to know that that is the target date. We are all very committed to meet that. Obviously, yes, we have contingency plans should something occur that is completely unexpected, but we are confident that we can achieve 30 August. Given that that is nine months later than originally planned for the opening, nine months is quite a long time in a contract of this size. We have heard about whether, on the like, are there other aspects that have led to this delay? I do not think that it is nine months at all. I think that we had an original date by the end of last year, and then we have the contract completion date, which is June, so essentially 10 weeks behind the contract completion date. You can look pretty close to home to find out major infrastructure projects that have gone well past that. We saw the aircraft carriers coming out of Versaith, which are substantially delayed, far more so. I think that at least twice in some accounts, three times over budget. In the round, what you are saying is a project here, which is 10 weeks after its contract completion date, although you are right to say that we had an earlier target to try to achieve that when we had the pressure of the existing crossing being undermined by the cables and the dampness, which is in the cables. That is not the same issue as it was when we first stated that date. As I am sure that the committee will know, the main reasons for not being able to open when we would want to have opened was because of the weather. In particular, over the past few months, the high winds that are prevented are, for example, taking down the cranes that were there. Those are the main reasons for the weather conditions. The next question is from John. You outlined the Queensford crossing experience, which is the weekend, when the 50,000 people are going to be crossing the bridge on foot. That sounds quite exciting. As I understand it, the bridge is going to open on Wednesday. It will be open for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, then closed against Saturday, Sunday. It seems a little bit odd to open it and then close it again. What was the thinking behind that? I will again ask those who have arranged these events to comment as well. First of all, the thinking was that we had said to the committee and to the public that we had a window in which we anticipated having the bridge open to traffic, which was between mid-July and the end of August. It is vital and important that we do that, given not least the previous question about the time that we have had to open the bridge. I think that it was important to do that, but it is also for logistical reasons. The weekend that can be set aside for this once-in-a-lifetime experience is so that we can accommodate both things. First of all, the opening to traffic and the window that we have previously stated. Also, we can have this chance, which will possibly be the only chance that people will have to walk over the bridge over the course of that weekend. There are further elements that I should say, which I am not able to disclose to the committee at this stage. The official opening programme that we have, we have stalled to go through some security issues before confirming those, but it might make it more obvious why the schedule of events that we have are constructed in the way that they are. It is mainly for logistical purposes and to make sure that we do open to traffic on 30 August, as we said that we would within August. I do not know if— The other key point that I would just add is that it also gives us the opportunity that we have talked in the past about the emergency links that we have in the emergency crossovers at either end of the bridge. What it does is it lets us effectively try all those. If we open the bridge for two days and then close it, that means that we have to use those emergency links. What it does is it lets us and the operating company just see how those emergency links work in practice. If, in future, we have to transfer traffic back on to the fourth road bridge, should there be some sort of major incident on the Queensferry crossing, we will have done it when it is not a critical time. It also gives us the opportunity to try all those emergency links at either end of the bridge. Fair enough. You mentioned the official opening. If you cannot tell us, you cannot tell us, but is that likely to be that weekend or is that going to be later on at some point? I am not able to confirm that just now, but as soon as I can, and it should be very shortly, I will certainly let the committee know exactly what the arrangements are. Last question. Will you mind if I just ask a question on that? I understand and David is a very clever answer on testing the systems at that. There will be a cost, I am assuming, for moving the barriers, getting traffic on, putting the barriers back, getting the traffic back on to the bridge, i.e. for opening it and then closing it. Who is going to bear that cost? That is covered by the project budget. That is something that we always anticipated would have to be done. This full testing programme has to be carried out not just on the emergency crossovers but on the entire ITS system, the structural health monitoring system, so that is fully included within the budget that we have for all of these operations. Okay, so it is covered within the budget. I accept that. What is the cost of it? The specific cost of the actual… I could not give you that in detail. I do not have the breakdown of exactly what that would be. I think that it is an interesting question that will be a cost and I think that the committee would benefit from hearing from it. Perhaps David, we could ask you to let us know that in due course. There will be other costs as well. That will not be the biggest cost that we have for this, so we are happy to provide a full account of the costs, perhaps at the point in which we know all the opening celebrations, the detail of that. I would just say that none of this cost will impact on the £245 million of savings that we are making in this project already. I hear that and I welcome to say a breakdown, of course. John, do you want to come out of the next one? Thanks, convener. Yes, my final point was just… Can you explain how the handover of the bridge works? When will AMA assume responsibility for the management and what role does FCBC have on-going for five years? Yes, I am happy to explain that. As you correctly say, there is a handover of what we call section A completion, which is when the bridge is formally handed across to FBOC. It is not a line in the sand when suddenly we just hand over a set of keys and it becomes FBOC to operate. There will be a phased handover over a period of between three and six months, gradually as the remaining snagging work and so on is completed. As you correctly said, there is a five-year defects liability period, which FCBC has. If issues arise on the bridge, which is down to the original construction, then it is up to FCBC to come back and fix those. It will have to co-ordinate with AMA at that point, because AMA will be responsible for operating the bridge and, therefore, to get access to the work and so on, that will have to be co-ordinated through AMA in the five-year defects liability period. There is a transition phase between three and six months. At that point, it is fully operated by AMA and supported by FCBC when necessary. Richard Browne. You have already spoken about putting up new gantries and signage on different other projects that I know well, but I want to ask you how and when you tend to publish changes to road layouts prior to opening of the crossing. Will there not be a confusion that you have opened it, then you have shut it, then you are opening it again? What signage, what policy systems are going to be in place in order to ensure that people know where to drive to? The definitive answer is from David Browne in a second, but I travel that road all the time. I travel that last night. If you travel the road just now, you will see how, on both sides, you come to a point where you are either going to go one way or the other. I do not want to minimise or oversimplify that, but it is a question of having barriers there, which directs you one way or the other way. As a convener has pointed out, of course, there will be a cost to that, but I do not think that it is going to be for road users, if it is done in the correct way, too complex. It should be valid. For example, if you are coming from this side, you can see where the road currently goes off, so you will be directed to go that way and subsequently that will shift back. To get a more technical answer, perhaps David can answer. Certainly. The whole concept is that it should be as easy as possible. The phase approach that we are using to open it is going to assist in that. Once I have pedestrians and cyclists, they will always use the fourth road bridge, so they never move. The pedestrians and cyclists do exactly what they do at the moment. The only thing that changes is the actual road traffic. What we will do is that all the road traffic initially will switch on to the Queensferry crossing. I explained that in some detail a month ago when I was here, because we still have to complete the last slip roads at the north end of the fourth road bridge to allow that to operate as a public transport link. For an initial period, everything that currently uses the fourth road bridge, other than pedestrians and cyclists, will use the Queensferry crossing. We will then have a countdown from that to the Queensferry crossing becoming a motorway and the fourth road bridge opening as a public transport link only. The only traffic that will then be diverted off of the Queensferry crossing would be buses and taxis. The large majority of the traffic will continue to use the fourth road bridge. We have prepared a very detailed user's guide that will lay all that out in a lot of detail with diagrams, pictures and so on. That will be issued out four weeks in advance of originally opening the Queensferry crossing. We will be publicising it a lot both on our website and also distributing it to local communities as well. You may give us an idea of contingencies in place to deal with any collision or traffic or driver confusion during the period after opening. The one thing that confuses me is that we have to have two bridges, so all the cars are going on the Queensferry crossing, buses and taxis can go. What happens if someone, a driver, makes a mistake and goes down the wrong way or goes into the wrong lane and goes along the wrong bridge? Will that driver be charged? Let's face it, nothing is 100 per cent. There will be cases where people in maybe the darkness or whatever will confusingly go down the wrong lane. What are we doing to ensure that there are no collisions, driver confusion and so on? If you remember at the last committee meeting, we said that there is nothing to prevent public transport from using the Queensferry crossing. They are entitled under current regulations to do that, so there is no comeback on them, but they will be guided. It will be to their benefit to use the fourth road bridge because it will be an easier access through to Edinburgh and back out again. That is not an issue, but I think that people common sense will dictate that they will want to use that as to the reverse of cars going on to their fourth crossing. The main road will be clearly signed to go over the Queensferry crossing. Should someone make a genuine mistake, there will be automatic number plate recognition cameras on the slip roads going on to the fourth road bridge, and obviously if someone goes there, their number plate will be taken and it will be followed up on. In the early stages, I am sure that there will be a lead-in period with some allowance for a genuine mistake, but there is enforcement that can be put in place there, but I am sure that it will be monitored sensibly. If people do a genuine mistake, you will let them away with it, but if you believe that people are doing it, as people do, will there be a fine for people going down the wrong bridge? What else can I say? The section of the fourth road bridge that is the public transport corridor is clearly signed as such at the start of that bridge, so there are prohibitory signs. It is very clear that he stated that you are doing something wrong. Just like if you were going the wrong way down a one-way street, it is exactly the same principle. You are breaking the law with the obvious consequences of that. There is also CCTV coverage on both the crossings, as well as the automatic number plate recognition systems. Any vehicle that is going on the wrong bridge will also be spotted on CCTV, and it is really an issue for the police to enforce that. Current users to go on to the new crossing because that is a faster speed limit, so it is in driver self-interest to follow those rules. The next question is from me, and it relates to the last meeting where the cabinet secretary said that the cabinet secretary correctly stated that, as this was a live contract, there were discussions on going about the subject of liquid damages and the point of passing the contractual date. The issue was that no longer than a day and a half—I think that it was two days after that—we read in the papers that it was costing the contractor £100 million a day for every day that they went over the date. I am absolutely sure that everything that I read in the papers is not true, but could we discuss liquidated damages and are we in a position to clarify if there are any and any damages in relation to late completion of contracts? Just before David comes in, I am going to say that there is absolutely no question that it is £100 million. That would have put about £3 billion on the project, so no problem. I understand that, but the papers have been flashing figures around, and I wondered if David O'U, the cabinet secretary, could clarify it. Certainly, yes. In terms of the liquidated damages and the numbers that have been bandied around the papers, I think that the £100 million that you mentioned was linked to an announcement that was made by Galliford Try in terms of their overall results, and that there was about a £100 million loss that they were taking attached to some projects. I think that 80 per cent of the loss was identified as being related to two construction projects, and I think that it was suggested that there were two in Scotland, and one of them obviously could well be the Queen's Ferry crossing. That is where the £100 million came from. It certainly does not bear any relation to liquidated damages or anything like that. In terms of the liquidated damages, if we still have a commercial contract going on, we are counting towards the end of that contract. Commercial discussions are taking place, and therefore I cannot really comment in detail about how those are progressing, but they are progressing in line with completing those discussions very shortly after the contract is actually completed, which again is a very positive aspect of the whole contract, in that the commercial discussions will be closed out very shortly after the construction is completed. You are not in a position yet to tell us about any damages or penalties. Can you tell us which you were reluctant to do at the last meeting whether any extensions have been granted to the contractor? As I said, that is part of the overall commercial discussions that are taking place. There is a lot of toon and froing on that. Part of that does revolve around the extensions of time that are allowed to be applied for under the contract, and that is certainly part of the discussions that are currently taking place. So, I am not in a position to answer either of those. It would be inappropriate for me to do so when there are commercial discussions continuing on exactly that subject at the moment. They will obviously hang forward to another meeting of this committee, which no doubt you will be attending. John, I think that the next question is from you. Good morning, panel. Cabinet Secretary, I wanted to ask about public transport, in particular the promotion of the use of cross-four bus services following the opening of the fourth road crossing. I am presuming that if there is any that it would need to be in advance, obviously, of the opening of that promotion, perhaps you could roll it into how the public transport strategy will be rolled out, please. Yes, and I think that it is worth saying that it is important to say that this committee and the coverage that this committee gets for its questions, and this was a question that was raised last time, does help us to raise that profile and just to underline the point that, first of all, in relation to active travel, both pedestrians and cyclists will have no change to what they currently have. I think that there was some confusion about that last time, and that is going to be absolutely no change for them, apart from the fact that for one weekend only they will get the chance to walk over the new crossing. Beyond that, of course, if that is what is meant by your question, Mr Funny, that the existing bridge becomes a public transport corridor, which means that it will be open to taxis, it will be open to buses, and it should allow for much more ease in terms of the crossing because of the absence of general traffic, which should make it easier for them. We have a public transport strategy, which I think that we have previously furnished the committee with, I think, as to how we intend to promote that further, but I do not know if you want to come back on that ones. We have had the last meeting of our public transport working group back in April, and we gave them a full thorough analysis of the connecting roads and the two bridges and how they will operate for bus traffic. We also had a bus training day earlier in the year for all the bus operating companies, took them through the whole project, all the nuances of how the buses can operate, the various features. Also, we have got the ferry toll park and ride site, which is now completely open, and feedback from the bus operating companies is very positive about that. I just wanted to touch on the active travel as well. We are actually preparing a leaflet for cycling and walking over the fourth road bridge and the surrounding area as well, which will accompany the user guide, so there will be a separate leaflet for that. Coming back to the public transport working group, the feedback from the bus companies was that they are keen to see how the bridge will operate, and then they are planning to look at their marketing strategy after the bridge is open so that they can get a better feel for how it will operate and then how they can go forward in terms of promoting some of the routes that they have at the moment and potentially looking at new routing as well. Does that suggest that a forum at which that can continue to be discussed after the opening? We have got the next public transport working group meeting scheduled for October, so that meeting will look back at how the initial operation of the bridges is going, see if there are any issues there, hopefully there won't be. It will also look at the original strategy. We have an undertaking to review all the potential projects that were thought of five, six years ago as part of that strategy to see whether they should go forward. Some of them we have already incorporated into the project and we will look at those in terms of the benefits that they bring months and years ahead. That meeting will be important to look back at what we have done and also to look forward at where some of the interventions potentially could go and to close them down if at all possible, but you are right. We will reconfine that group whenever is necessary in the future to make sure that we can revisit the public transport aspects of the project, look to see if we can improve those and make sure that they are operating effectively. I apologise. As things stand at the moment, it certainly would be the bus companies that would determine routes to an extent. What role do you see for government in the promotion of increased use of public transport, given that this is going to be a dedicated bridge? I think a very active role. We have mentioned the improvements that have been part of the project to the very tall park and ride, but we have also invested substantially in the whole beef park and ride, which is also there. We are working with five council who are looking at the precise park and choose possibilities. That was something for which there was plan permission granted back in 2013, but that will increase the capacity for those who wish to stop their journey by car in advance of crossing the forth and to go on to public transport. We have invested heavily in the active travel route when we get on the other side of the forth and on the south side of the forth. Both in terms of money and the activities that my colleague Humza Yousaf undertakes, we are keen to promote moving people to either active travel or to public transport where possible. Thank you very much. Jamie, you have a brief follow-up, I think. Yes, just before we move on to the next question line. Can someone confirm which bridge emergency services will use? Ambulances, fire engines, et cetera. The second very brief supplementary if I am permitted is, are there any plans to change the name of the crossing? Answer the second question, because it is easier. No, there are no plans to change it. Do you mean the new Queensferry crossing? Yes, the forth replacement crossing does not roll off the tongue. It is the Queensferry crossing, so you have the Queensferry crossing experience. I do not know if you remember that we had a, perhaps before your time in the parliament, we had a big open competition to which we received around 7,000 suggestions. My own favourite, Kevin, did not make it to the shot list, but Queensferry crossing is the name. Bridgimic bridge face, then. That was another one that... Sorry, do you want to go to the more boring question? The emergency services. Services can use either bridge, it would be crazy not to let them use either bridge, so that is a given. We are going to head further north now, and Stuart, you have got the question. Thank you very much. I move on to the AWPR, which my constituents and my colleague Gillie Martin, who will be before us shortly, also has a very big interest, as others do. Just if the minister could perhaps provide an update, but also including in that update perhaps some comments on the reports that a farmer has been somewhat inconvenienced, he states by what is going on. Indeed, how we are managing the interaction with communities that are adjacent to the works. I suppose that one might think that it is inevitable that there is going to be some disruption, but I think that communities will want to hear how we are dealing with that potential. Happy to do so. We have had, I think, those questions raised at the last meeting of this committee on a similar subject, so I have given some update on some of those aspects of the project that I have opened already and, of course, the timescale for which other parts of the project will open. However, in relation to interaction with farmers, the contractor ARL has provided reassurance that it is endeavour to carry out as much of the works as possible by daytime, but it has had some times to carry out those things at night. As for access to farms and for night time working, of course, those things are done in conjunction with the local authority. When our road like this is built, it is a contract requirement, as I am sure that access to land for farmers has to be maintained. That must be done either providing a permanent or temporary arrangement, but there are sometimes, nevertheless, occasions when access is not possible, but the contractor will always endeavour to make sure that those are kept at an absolute minimum. There have been, as the member mentions, isolated issues and, without naming any individual farmers, I can confirm that the contractor has confirmed that it will maintain temporary access to fields until new access tracks have been completed. They have also agreed that a minimum of 14 days notice will be given should any change to such arrangements be necessary. It is very regrettable if it does have to happen, but I think that on a project of the scale it is unlikely that it is impossible for us to complete it without some disruption. We just try and minimise that disruption. The bottom line is that it is required that the contractor gives prior notice of interactions with businesses, in particular farmers who are adjacent to the works. Over and above that, they have agreed voluntarily that it will give 14 days notice should any change to those arrangements be necessary. The other question that I suppose on the AWPR is, are we on track? Yes. As with the Queensferry crossing, I rely on the advice that I get given to me by officials who are in relatively constant dialogue with the contractors and are also out on site to see the progress that has been made. My advice is that we can complete this project along the lines that we have previously mentioned. Obviously, we had the delay announced to the Balmery tipperty section. I should say that, in relation to all the times that we have, those are times put on by the contractor, not by us. They are part of the building process. We did not seek, for example, the early completion of the Balmery tipperty, which has not happened, although other aspects of the contract have been completed and people are currently benefiting from those. In relation to the overall contract, which we had said over the course of the winter 2017-18, we hold that that can be achieved. On that, cabinet secretary, you came in and explained that it had been a particularly wet period last year and that contributed to the delay, as we have had a particularly dry winter, and I think probably a pretty dry spring. Have we caught up? Are we ahead or are we just now back on time? In relation to the Balmery tipperty part of it, it was the fact that we couldn't conduct those earth-moving activities over the course of the winter period, so you cannot really catch up for that. We have said that it was not going to happen over the winter period, but you are right to say that we have had better conditions since then and that good progress has been made. However, I do not think that it is at this stage that you can give to use somebody else's phrase of running commentary on exactly where they are at different parts of the project. What we are talking about is the overall completion date. Where we can, and we have done this, we have opened some aspects early, but we are sticking to the overall completion date, which is, of course, over the winter 2017-18. However, there has been good progress made on the project. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. Stewart said that there has been some disruption. I can put it much stronger than that. There has been huge disruption concerning the farmers that this road has gone through. Let me say for a start that we welcome this road, and everybody wants to see it finished. There was a huge amount of goodwill when we started down this project by the farmers, which this road goes through. Unfortunately, that has been lost to a large extent. I can understand why. I have mentioned this on many occasions, but again, ffinsing along the whole line of this road to a very poor standard, and now that the stock is on the fields that we are seeing is breaking down already within just a few months of stock being on the fields, problems with ffinsing. One property—I am not going to name names, but one property that has had no water supply for seven months because of this road—absolutely unacceptable. Another occasion is stones and general rubbish dumped in a field and covered up over with a thin layer of soil and completely unacceptable behaviour. The problem is that everything like this, when this happens, the problem is getting it sorted out. It takes forever. The relationship between the farmers is concerned, and the contractor is now very bad. If things were sorted out, we could go forward. However, the complain and the complain and the complain are just an absolute nightmare to get anything done. The biggest problem is that the initial goodwill that was there has disappeared. It is going to result in huge problems going forward with all the other roads. The questions are coming. The agents are now sick and tired of the whole thing, and this is going to impact on A96 works and A9 works, because the goodwill that was there has disappeared. That bad feeling will transfer on to all the other roadworks that is going ahead in the north-east. I would like your comment on that, because that is a very sad state of affairs. To give you a chance to marshal your thoughts, Peter, would you like to just make a declaration and just say that everyone knows that you have farming interests? Exactly that. Sorry about that. I do need to declare that I am a farmer in the north-east, but the road does not directly impact on my business at all. Thank you. Sorry, Peter. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to respond to that? Well, just very briefly, Mr Chapman has raised issues at previous meetings of the committee. It is not in my interests if people are getting very frustrated by the interaction that they have with other contractors or managing agents. I think that they have to give the contractors a chance to remedy the things that you have described should not be happening. If they do not, then what I have said before is that if you want, having not had the satisfaction of a proper response as the individuals would see it, then please come to me about it. I am happy to step in. Whenever anybody has written to me, I have had a discussion with Transport Scotland. I am happy to do that. It is a genuine offer. I would say, give them the chance first of all, if they do not deal with it, they should not be putting topsoil over a rubble or whatever it is. Nobody should be cut off from their water supply for seven months. Please come to me and I will try and help with that. Thank you for that offer. Jamie, I think that you are going to move on to another road project. I will not labour it too much. You have provided a good update in your opening statement on the A9 dualling and A96 projects. Obviously, they are quite long-term projects, 25 and 2030, substantial pieces of road to be dualled. Just as a general overview, do you see any major delays or problems on those or are we on track in terms of keeping to the rough deadlines that we have given that around 10 per cent of the A9, for example, will be ready by this summer on a simple maths equation? Does that mean that the rest of it will be done by 2025? No, we do not have any anticipated change to the date. I appreciate the point that has been made about what has been seen in terms of construction on that, so of the 11 phases that were completed by the end of the summer. What is true, and it is very important, is the advance work that has to go on before we can get to the stage of construction, and we have made very good progress with that. That can include public inquiries and all sorts of planning processes, and we are very involved in what is called a co-creative process currently with one group in one of those routes in Persia. When I gave my opening statement there, there was a lot of progress that has been made in getting them to the point of construction. That is not always the longest part of the process that has been seen in the AWPR previously over many years, so, yes, we anticipate being able to finish that in 2025. We have given just a say—we did not ask about budget, but we have always had to say, because people have asked for a global figure, and we have said around £3 billion. Now, I am not suggesting that there is any reason to change that, but it has always been, if you are talking about 15 or 14 years ahead and you are talking about 11 phases, it is a bit of a ballpark figure. I would acknowledge that, with the same figure being applied to the A96, but we have no reason to change either our estimate currently on budget or timescale. That perfectly leads on to my next question. How does that work then? Obviously, you have a long-term ambition here, which will cross not just over a number of budget years, but a number of terms of Parliament. How do you come to put a figure on that when it comes to requesting money from the Scottish budget each year to ensure that you are meeting the relevant prorated part of the overall budget? It is not always clear how that works in these long-term projects. In relation to the A9, each phase gets to the stage where it is a construction contract that has to be let. It is much more definitive for us in terms of how we accommodate that within the budget, so it will go through the normal budget process. Say we had, for example, three phases going through in the course of one year, then we would have to accommodate it in the budget. However, we have given the commitment, so the commitment is there already in the capital programme to say that this is baked into our figures in the future. However, it is essentially a living, I think, discrete contracts because they are each being done in phases. You can only ever, and there is a lot of demand when you announce the fact that we are going to be the first Government to actually dual the A9. People want to know roughly what that is going to cost, and to answer that, we said, well, the best guess, and it has to be a guess at the stage, for the reasons that you have outlined, is around £3 billion. Nothing has happened since we announced that, which I think was 2011-12, to change that estimate. However, it will become much more refined as we get closer to the 2025 date. I am supplementary in your opening statement. You said that the Concrete to Dalradi part of the A9 would be completed this summer. I then heard you say the end of the summer. Can you be more specific since we are in the summer? Just about the summer, you are right to say that we said that it will be in the course of the summer. There is nothing to suggest that it is going to be delayed from the time that we said, and we do tend to give seasons rather than months these days. If I said the end of the summer and that is not correct, I will come back and confirm that to you, but there is no perceived delay to what we had originally said in relation to that. It could be finished next week, given that that is the summer. If the sun appears, I do not know if you want to say any more about that. I think that it is to bear in mind that the traffic was switched on to the newly constructed dual carriageway, one of the sections, in order that it can make the final phase of works to be undertaken, including the removal of temporary works. That will go on. We are on target to open in the summer. If it is an Indian summer, it is going to be open in September. That is my wedding. Can I just ask a question? I know that the Deputy Committee has a question as well. It is one of the functions of the King Craig Dalrady route, or refurbish works, is that people have used local raids, the old A9, as a rat run to avoid the 40-mile-an-hour average speed cameras. There have been accidents on it. Have you learnt from that when the next section is done? Will you be making sure that the speeds on adjacent roads are monitored carefully to make sure that they are not being used and likely to cause accidents? We have to take each case on its merits. If we were to apply restrictions to surrounding roads, some of which have a different speed limit in the first place from the existing A9 and, of course, eventually the dual carriageway where it will be 70, I think that we would get a substantial public reaction to that. It is also true to say that a lot of that has not been through rat runs. We have directed traffic through those routes because we have had to do that at various points because of the roadworks that are taking place, but we do try to take into account the impact on both neighbouring communities and neighbouring roads, and we will continue to do that. I do not know if you want to add to that. To be absolutely clear, if you continue from Avimor and go on the old road, the old A9, to King UC, you miss out the 40-mile-an-hour average speed cameras. There are restrictions. I am not suggesting that the restrictions should be changed on speed on those roads. What I am just saying is that the police should be more aware because there have been an uplift of accidents on those roads. I wonder if that was something that you would be picking up on other parts of the A9 where that may happen. We will certainly take that on board. We do, before we apply those restrictions, have consultations with the police and surrounding communities, but we will certainly take that on board. From all our projects, we review them at the end of them, undertake a lesson to learn, and any of those could be taken forward to the next schemes. We will look at that, and any lessons to be learned will be taken into account during the next stages. In consultation with the police, as the cabinet secretary said. The deputy convener, Gal Ross, has a question. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have driven up and down that road many times, as you can imagine, and there are some sections of it that it looks almost impossible to dual. Do you have an overview of which sections are going to be most difficult? Yes, I think that, while the ones where—you will know the road very well—there are geological challenges, there are certainly environmental challenges, there are challenges through existing infrastructure at various points to railway that comes very close to the road. There are some real pressure points. I mentioned the co-creative process, which is around the Dunkeld area. That is because there is the interaction of so many different aspects to coming on and coming off the impact on local roads, as the convener has mentioned as well, but once the project is completed. Further north, it tends to be more about the geological and landscaping challenges, but in some areas it is about how local communities will access the road. The other one that is kind of lacking, for example, is the closeness of the railway coming right next to the road and how the local communities can access the road in a safe way. It can be very expensive to provide access at some point, so if you have a grade-separated junction, it can cost between £20 million and £30 million sometimes. We also have to take into account the cost on the public purse. It is a really challenging road. If you have travelled it as I have for many years, not as frequently as you would have done, people will be well aware of the challenges there, but none of which has been insurmountable. We are pretty much there with nine of the eleven phases, and it is also on what to do with the other two. The final question is from Richard Lam. To the subject of the M8, M73, M74, the majority of which is in my constituency, first of all, can I say, cabinet secretary, the point that you made to Peter Chapman, that you have been excellent in the help that you have given me each time that I have contacted you, you have put up with me, you have helped, and can I say a personal thank you, a personal thank you to Humza Yousaf for the work that he has done on the M8? I can also do a special mention for Scottish Road Partnership, Ian Bamar, who has been excellent over and Transport Scotland to have worked with me over the last couple of years, because I have had some of the problems that Peter Chapman said he had, but he solved them, and I would suggest to Mr Chapman that he takes up your offer. Anyway, all major roads associated with the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvement project are now open, as you said. Can you provide an update on how the scheme is working and what work has currently been undertaken to complete in particular, and I am not complaining, landscaping, signage, removing traffic cones and footbridge opening on the A725? I thank you for your comments, and we will try and help us in our interests to try and help these things. I am well aware that, just as Peter Chapman has mentioned, there have been real pressures on some areas—signage, the diversions that we have had to have had, some of which have got to be changed very quickly. I am sure that Alasac can answer on the A725 issue, but can I just pick up on the point that you mentioned in relation to the Scottish Road Partnership? It is something that is not discussed much at this committee, but the work that is put in by the people concerned, and I think that even you who have had major challenges with that road will recognise the level of activity, sometimes quite frenetic activity that goes on there, has been tremendous. It is the case that we will finish a project in terms of allowing traffic on to a completed project when we know that we still have snagging, landscaping, and in relation to especially the M73 part of that where it joins the M74, what we have got is a new road being tied into an older road and some of the surfacing on the existing roads not being up to scratch, not least because of the work, the traffic that is going on it from the work's vehicles. We have brought forward some planned maintenance in relation to that as well. It is not part of the project, but it is important to give a complete picture. There is still work going on in terms of the approach roads and surrounding roads, cone removal maintenance and landscaping, but the other point is just to say, and if I can just very quickly before coming to Alasac switch back to the Queensferry crossing, this may well be, we are all hoping, the last time that Michael has to appear before the committee. We do not know, maybe there is some further reason to come, but I would like to acknowledge publicly if I can the work, the huge personal effort that he has put into that project and of course all those that work on the project with him because I get to see it up close over a long period and I am well aware of, if I can use the word toll in relation to a bridge, the toll that it takes on people so heavily involved in this, there is a lot of pressure involved in this and I would want to publicly thank Michael for the work that he has done and all his colleagues. I think that since opening over the last three weeks, the contractors now continued work focusing on the installation of gantries, as you mentioned, and other signage works. These works have been undertaken overnight to avoid any disruption to the peak traffic and substantial progress has already been made on these and the final landscaping finishing and snagging works will go on till the autumn and however this again shouldn't affect any peak flow traffic. Again, the cabinet secretary has made me the offer of contacting him in regard to, I drive that roundabout that area, the signage for Bilsil and Coatbridge, as you come off the M8 from Glasgow on to the old A8 needs to be improved, the gantries are looking well, but basically I think if some signage and also the maybe a situation where on some parts there is not a specific enough clear speed limit sign to remind people what the speed limit is. That was a statement, not a question, was it? Thank you. We seem to have come to the end of the questions and I'd like to thank you, cabinet secretary, and your team for coming in. I also look forward like everyone does to the opening of the Queensferry crossing. I think it will be an exciting event and a long-awaited event. I'm not sure whether Michael Martin will be excused for the meetings because I feel that the committee may want to seek once the crossing is open a further session with you, cabinet secretary, the project team, Amy, to look back and also to look at the future management of the project, but I do hope that we're not going to have another meeting between now and the 30th of August. Well, we can't because we're in recess, but I hope that it's all going to be good news from now till then. Thank you very much. I'm briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses, Jen Jover. Good morning again. We're now going to move to agenda item two, which is the update on the common agricultural policy payments. Can I welcome Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity? Annabelle Terpy, the chief operating officer for rural payments. Eddie Turnbull, the head of agriculture and rural communities information systems, and Andrew Watson, the deputy director for agricultural policy implementation at the Scottish government. We have a fairly busy agenda with a stage two consideration to come, so this meeting will finish by 11 am. I therefore ask all members and, if possible, the cabinet secretary to keep questions and answers as concise as possible. Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement of up to three minutes, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning to everybody. Annabelle Terpy is the chief operating officer for rural payments. She leads on making sure CAP payments are being made and leads our network of area offices. Eddie Turnbull is the head of information services and is responsible for the provision of IT services to the directorate. Andrew Watson, who was appointed in March as the head of agricultural policy implementation and is responsible for CAP scheme management and RPID status as a paying agency under the CAP regulations. I welcome the opportunity, convener, to have a further update to last month's on CAP payments. I hope that you have found the weekly updates that we provide to the committee officials useful. Today, we begin making payments worth £6.7 million to farmers and crofters under the Scottish upland sheep support scheme, that is SUS. This pillar 1 scheme is a particular importance convener to hill farmers and crofters and is targeted at sheep production on the poorest quality land. Payments will begin arriving in bank accounts this week and will be made to around 1,050 eligible producers by 30 June. We also expect the vast majority of farmers and crofters to receive all their basic and greening payments by that date. I appreciate, however, that members will wish to question me and my officials more closely on that. I thought that it would be helpful to set out for members the exact details of all the payments that farmers and crofters have received under the 2015 and 2016 schemes to reassure anyone labouring under a misapprehension that farmers have not received any money this year. 99.9 per cent of the 2015 CAP pillar 1 payments worth £342.9 million were made by the extended deadline of 15 October last year. That means that over 18,000 businesses were paid by that date. Since then, we have been working through the tail and we now only have 25 claims outstanding. On the 2015 LFAS payments, 85 per cent of payments have been made with approximately 1700 claims remaining to be paid worth £3.5 million, but it is worth remembering that 11,056 LFAS recipients effectively received up to 90 per cent of their entitlement through the loans provided in March 2016 worth £54 million. On 2016 pillar 1 payments, it is worth bearing in mind that, convener, that over 13,000 farmers and crofters effectively received 80 per cent of their entitlement through the national loan scheme. That meant that £275 million was paid out earlier than might have been expected through payments in November last year. Since then, payments have been made on the balance due to farmers and crofters. As I close the business last night, convener, we have made BPS and greening payments to over 84 per cent—that is 15,115—of those currently estimated to be eligible. Eligibility is key here. 319 businesses have received 90 per cent payment with the remainder receiving full payment—that is 14,796. We have made or initiated payments valued at 311 million. Payments take six days and, in some cases, two to clear. That represents around 82 per cent of the total payments that we expect to make. Even at this stage, it is not absolutely possible to guarantee with 100 per cent precision what level of payments will be made by the end of this week because of the complex interactions between IT functionality, the validation of claims that must be validated in line with the regulations and the processing of payments by our offices across Scotland. However, the latest figures show that good progress is being made on a daily basis. We have the processing capacity to make tens of millions of pounds of payments each day to put that in perspective. As at the Friday 16 June, we had made only 58 per cent of payments, but by last Friday that had risen to 76 per cent. On a daily basis, the percentage reach can increase quite significantly by 76 per cent. The equivalent figure last year at the same point was 65 per cent. It is clear that we are seeking to minimise any financial penalties flowing to the Scottish Government. For this reason, we have written to the commission to ask whether a repeat of last year's penalty waiver would be possible and that application is under consideration and not yet finally determined. That forms part of the prudent risk-based approach that we are committed to covering all contingencies. However, in conclusion, our absolute key focus and motivation is to ensure that the vast majority of farmers and crofters receive their payments before the deadline. Arpid staff in offices in Edinburgh and across Scotland are working very hard. We are seeing good performance from the IT system as part of that action. That is what our stakeholders are entitled to expect, and we will spare no effort in the coming days. I thank you for the opportunity to make this factual opening statement. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before we go on to the questions of which there are quite a lot, I would just like to go round the table to make sure that if there are any declarations of interest, I think that Stewart will be the first. I have a registered agricultural holding of under two hectares. I received no financial benefit from scent. I am part of a farming partnership and is shown in my declaration of interest. I am part of a farming partnership and it is in my declaration as well. The first question then is to Stewart. Thank you very much, convener. Cabinet secretary, we are going to kick off by a series of questions from various members on the technical assurance review and the Government's response that has been provided forms the basis of the questions that I and others probably intend to ask. My question, however, relates to something that appears to be not addressed in the review, but has been something to which the cabinet secretary has made quite a few public references. That is one of the areas where we have not published everything and I accept that we properly should not do so. That is where there are some matters that, if we were to publish, might open up the possibility of evil forces being able to attack the computer system related to security and structure and so on and so forth. I simply wonder to what extent the minister has been able, via his officials or otherwise, to interact with the contractor to make sure that those matters, which were not publishing details of, are nonetheless being pursued to ensure that we have the most robust system possible that can reasonably defend against cyber attacks and so on and so forth that we have seen in the NHS across the UK and indeed just in the last couple of days across Europe, not particularly in the UK. Thank you, convener. Yes, we have taken the Fajitsu report very seriously. We have, of course, shared in a private briefing session the report with members of this committee and Papal in an attempt to be helpful. We have also published and made public the key findings of the report, but we have not published the full report for two reasons. One, because information contained within it relates to the private contract, to future negotiations of that contract and information, which is of particular commercial confidentiality. Secondly, because I have been advised by the chief officer regarding information and the disclosure of information in the Scottish Government that there are potential threats to cyber security of so publishing. Having received such advice, I think that it would be foolhardy for any minister to then publish a document having been advised by the top person in Government that to do so would risk a cyber attack. I think that I did here in the news this morning, alongside my news of my impending drilling, convener, as we are now enjoying. We also heard news of a serious cyber attack to be serious throughout the world. Therefore, those are not fanciful issues. Those are ones that we must take very seriously indeed. Now, I do not want to abuse the time following your admonition, convener, so if there is more technical information that is required, then Mr Turnbull is certainly really on top of this and is happy to provide technical information. However, I stress that I want to be as co-operative as possible. If I could publish the whole report without threat, I would do that. I brought forward those key findings earlier, I think, than perhaps might have been done 10, 15 years ago by any Government. Therefore, I have tried to be as open and transparent as it was possible to me to do so, but perhaps Mr Turnbull could… I bring Stuart in first to see whether he can jointly answer the question. Just to be clear, I am not seeking technical information because I accept the reasons why there are constraints and what not. I simply want to be sure that our technical responsibility and the minister are pursuing technical issues in this area with our supplier to ensure that issues have been identified. That is the bottom line, cabinet secretary. I can ask that, because just yesterday I met, I think, the sixth time with the UK president of our contractors, CGI Steve Thorne. I saw various undertakings from that meeting, which I can go on to describe, but I also discussed with him the Fujitsu report, and I confirmed to the committee that the supplier accepts the overall findings of the report. There are some points of detail that have been questioned, and those will be worked through between the Scottish Government and Fujitsu. Steve Thorne has provided confirmation that he says that I am pleased that my team has worked successfully and in close collaboration with your officials in the input into a key report of the CAPFutures programme. It is positive that the overall conclusion of the report, conveners, is that the architecture is fundamentally sound and that the IT platform should be retained. That is very important, because it provides some reassurance to those out there, particularly farmers and crofters, who think that the whole thing is useless and should be scrapped. That is not the case. It is fundamentally sound. It is working. It is not yet working to the strict time limits, and we have had that acceptance from our contractor of the findings of the report. I do not know whether Mr Turnbull has further comments to add. As it is not technical questions that you are asking, maybe I could bring Mike in and then there may be a chance for Eddie to come in on technical issues. This is, as you say, a selective publication, the response that you have published. However, it is not all about computer security and commercial confidentiality. It is clearly that it is not about that. You have made the decision to not publish critical comments that the report has made. In the last committee meeting here, when you were before the committee at the last session, it was said to you that many quality from the report, many quality assurance and governance practices have been knowingly sacrificed. That is a major criticism of the Scottish Government. Why has that criticism of the Scottish Government not been published? I am not quite sure about the particular phrase, but I entirely accept that the Fujitsu report says that the remedial action is required, that criticisms are made. I have never, I do not think, denied that. The whole purpose, convener, of commissioning the report was to get an expert third party contractor view about whether or not the IT system was fit for purpose, because there were genuine questions from farmers and crofters. Does that work, or should we scrap the whole thing? That was the fundamental purpose. Also, what remedial action do we need to take? There are technical aspects in which there are defects. I entirely accept that. I think that the use of the word sacrifice seems to me to be perhaps a bit strange. I do not quite recognise that, but we do recognise that there are specific technical issues that need to be remediated. Of course, there is, because if there weren't, the system would be operating perfectly. Mr Turnbull could perhaps answer that with a bit more precision, if that would help, convener. Let me say from the start that clearly we have not suppressed anything in the key findings of the report, which I agree has read verbatim are critical of a number of areas that in the past have led us to the point where we have a system that does need remedial action. There is no doubt about that. I would hope that the committee would see that those key findings that have been published explain the situation quite clearly that we find ourselves in. I would suggest to the committee that the most beneficial thing for this committee would then be to see the improvement actions that we are taking against those key findings and get some assurance that we are acting on them and that we have a plan of action going forward that will ensure that farmers get paid on time into the future. My view of this was exactly as the cabinet secretary said, that we wanted to have everything open, a watch and all, look at the architecture that has been developed to this point in time to understand the processes that we are not working on to an industry standard and to correct those processes. I believe that we have been doing that since the review, which took place back in January and February. In fact, some improvement had actually been made before the review anyway. I would advocate to the committee, clearly I understand the public interest in this but it must be about how we are improving rather than the state of the system as it was reviewed at a point in time. Can I just come back and just say from a point of view that not everyone in this committee took advantage of the briefing by Eddie on the Fujitsu report? A lot of people may already have seen the futures technical assurance review that you released. I think that the issue here, if I can use an analogy and I hope it's an appropriate one, is that this identifies if it were you were going along a road and there's a ditch and there's a problem. This identifies how deep the ditch is. The problem is, reading that, you get no indication of just how deep and how big that ditch is that we've got to cross. I think that's what we're trying to identify here. I wonder if you could be clearer when, cabinet secretary, when you think more of the technical assurance review as produced by Fujitsu will be in a position to be made available to the public. Yes, absolutely. I've sought to be as transparent as possible as a committee. I've appeared before this committee on numerous occasions. We provide weekly reports of all the figures. We have been transparent and that's what I want to be and I will look again at as we make progress whether we can release more of the information. I don't want to withhold any of it. I think that we have provided what we can at the moment for the genuine reasons I mentioned and they're very serious reasons. I could not have acted in any other way in accordance with the responsibilities that I have. It would have been full-hardy, frankly, to disregard evidence of a cyberattack, a potential cyberattack, at a time when, frankly, there's a whole plethora of these attacks facing the world, public and private sector. It would have been the height of irresponsibility for me to do so. That's why it's the front page of the newspapers today and one of the lead items in the news that this is happening throughout the world plainly. The reason for that incidentally is that because this report contains much detail about the actual nature of the systems used, so if we supply all of that information, we facilitate the role of a hacker. It's not very complicated. Having said all that, convener, let me say that some of the actions—I think that Ms Tupe would probably be able to answer this—that some of the criticisms made in the report have already been and are already tackled and being tackled. For example, in the last four releases of IT, the progress that we've made has been made with far fewer defects and issues, and that has been the case because of the excellent work that those officials and the team that was led by Lindsay Granick and 4CGI have been doing. Incidentally, I have visited 10 arpad offices myself and I plan to visit another five again in August. I did make available to you, convener, and the members of the committee the offer to visit an arpad office to understand some of the practicalities involved. I gather that you decided not to take that offer to yourself and the committee members up, but I would be happy to open that offer again. I think that speaking to the people in the arpad office, particularly the leadership of the arpad office, would help you to understand, if I might, without meaning any disrespect, that some of the process is better. However, I would be keen that maybe Annabelle O'Ready could explain the progress that we've made in answering some of the Fujitsu issues. The questions are stacking up and that was quite a long answer. I would like to let Mike Comeback in. I've got Rhoda and I've got Peter, and we're on question one. Mike, could I ask you to be a brief— Very briefly, convener, thank you for that. The reason I'm pursuing this point is that it's nothing to do with cyber attacks or anything like that at all. It's about being open and transparent, and it's not open and transparent. I've made the point that many quality assurance and governance practices have been knowingly sacrificed. That is a major criticism that people need to be aware of. The reason I asked that question, and the minister didn't seem to even recognise that that was in the report, was that if the minister and the team don't recognise an independence report on this, how can we be satisfied that you are actually addressing those issues if you don't publish it? Because we have the full report, we've gone through it with the fine tooth comb, and because we've examined it thoroughly. I have to say, we did make an offer to, and you've mentioned this, convener, to all members of this committee in Papal, and you have had a briefing about the full report. You have had access to this, and I appreciate that it's on the basis of confidentiality. I would like Mr Tumble to have the chance to explain the good work that he's been doing on this. I can offer again what I offered earlier. Clearly, how do you measure improvement? You have a baseline, so the baseline is just, as the member has suggested, to say that things were suboptible. If we are working on an improvement plan, we have to look at where we were and where we want to reach and then manage and monitor that progress. That is part of the work that we're doing. That requires us to clearly discuss that with our supplier so that we agree what a baseline is and how we will move that forward. I'm sure that members appreciate that, so I would be content to come back to this committee and step through the plans that we have to give you some confidence that we are acting on the detail that's in the report, if that would be helpful. However, I can actually demonstrate that there has been improvement with the— Very briefly, if I'm not mistaken. Very briefly, then. I'll do so. We've had a number of releases of software since the turn of the year. The release that was planned to be in place at the beginning of January didn't, in fact, wasn't implemented until towards the end of February. That's one of the reasons why we are challenged in terms of our payments, but thereafter, when we've applied better process, better governance around that, subsequent releases have been delivered on time. That's an important fact. Actually, the number of defects that we carry forward into the live environment, which is not uncommon in a system, but the number that we carry forward has been decreasing. Even when in the live environment, we have cleared those within a couple of weeks. If the committee would find it useful, I can provide those figures in detail. Can I just say that the committee will consider that? Right, do you want to come in with a brief question? A very brief question. I mean, I'm not confident that this system will ever work, but I understand that you are, so can I just ask the very simple question, when will it be fit for purpose? The answer to that question is that it is working just now. It's not fit for purpose. You asked me when will it be working? It is working just now. No, I asked when it will be fit for purpose. It is fit for purpose, and at this moment in time, it is processing the claims that it requires to process. The point that I would make about the Fujitsu report, the key point is that it was about sustainability. It was about would it meet future needs? Would we be able to roll over an application year from one year to the next, with the minimum of testing that would be required? The answer to that is we would not achieve that. There is more effort that we have to put into that than would be ideal, but the remediation that we are taking means that, as we move to subsequent years, we will have a platform that will be sustainable going forward and should be capable of bringing on new schemes or whatever new policies that we decide to implement. It's not doing its job now because the Cabinet Secretary has had to go back to Europe to ask for an extension for payments. If the computer system was fit for purpose, he wouldn't be doing that. Or are you saying that year on year we're going back to Europe asking for an extension? No, we have made the application to Europe as a prudent and precautionary measure if it is required. That application is in the course of determination and we hope to hear that outcome shortly. However, I would stress that we first of all, the staff payments this year went much smoother than last year. Secondly, we have paid 99.9 per cent of the payments last year. Cabinet Secretary, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop and I'm going to have to make this as general comment to everyone around this table. We have until 11 o'clock. I would ask people not to repeat questions or repeat answers and I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave that question there if I'm going to have any hope of moving forward through the entire agenda by the time. I'd like to move on to the second question and I would remind people once more. Finally, please try to answer the question quickly. If you don't answer the question quickly, it may seem rude but I am going to have to butt in to allow every member to get their questions in. John. To move on the report on the 2015-16 European agricultural accounts audit, I think that it's something that we have only seen a summary of that's been made available. I'm wondering if the full recommendations from that report can be or will be released. Andrew Wharton deals with the audit matters, convener. We have provided an update to the PAPOS committee on the key points from the audit. If that's not been made available to this committee, you can obviously check that following the discussion. We have set out information about the findings of the audit. The main points are also reflected in the subsequent Audit Scotland report from May this year on CAP IT, which sets out some of the issues there. There is a degree of information about the audit in the public domain and it's available to you. It's only the key points and not the full report. I think that the idea was that we would set out the key findings, because that's the easiest way to digest the substance of the report. If it's helpful to provide more information, we can clearly look at that. I'm quite happy about a report being given to the committee confidentially, and then we can question it in confidence. That happens frequently at the finance committee. I don't have a problem with that. If we don't even see the report, then it is more difficult to ask the questions. The Audit Scotland has mentioned a figure of £60 million as a potentially penalties. I think that there has been some disagreement with that. Can we have any comment on that figure? Is that just a nightmare scenario or is that realistic? We do feel that the figure of £60 million is speculative. I think that the Auditor General herself said that it wasn't her best estimate. It was a possible figure. We do not believe that there will be penalties of £60 million. Last year, the Auditor General, convener, as I recall, estimated that the costs would be in the range of between £40 million and £125 million. I have previously said that our indicative figure at the moment, that it is not an estimate because these matters are not assessed until much later in the process of audit. Our best estimate at the moment is around £5 million, not £40 to £125 million. We made those points to the Auditor General. We felt that the predictions that were made in 2015 were inflated. We feel that the update report this year has an inflated figure as well. However, we are working extremely hard to mitigate those penalties by doing everything that we possibly can to do. It was just to follow that up. The £5 million that you mentioned was for 2016? It was for 2015 last year. That is now a definite figure. That is still not finalised. The process is very long and cumbersome. I do not think that we have time to go into it. No, that is fine. Do you have any idea when we would get a final figure even for 2015? We would expect the C to finalise that figure late summer early autumn. On the whole issue of potential penalties and the spirit of the transparency theme that we are having today, the Scottish Government wrote to the European Commission on 21 June seeking an extension to the payment deadline. Can I ask a simple question to the cabinet secretary? Was the First Minister aware of your intention to send the letter last Wednesday prior to sending the letter? Yes, it was reported to the cabinet prior to the fact that we were contemplating doing that. It was raised as a possibility—I am sorry, I probably should not have said that. It was discussed in the cabinet, but it was raised as a possibility that something we may do was not decided until the date of the letter of the application that we actually make a formal application. The reason for that is that the protocols, as I understand it, and Mr Watson can give more detail to the committee because I appreciate that this is a perfectly legitimate area of concern. The protocols are that there is an initial engagement and discussion which initiated at the end of May about these matters leading to the formal application on 21 June. As with all those things convener, there is quite a lot of work that leads up to and paves the way and prepares properly for a formal application being submitted. Cabinet secretary, last week, prior to the letter being sent to the cabinet secretary? I cannot remember which cabinet it was, and I bear in mind that we are not all in attendance at all cabinet meetings. I think that there was certainly one where the FM was a way in Aberdeen. I think that it is a recall where she may not have been privy to the discussion. So whether she was at cabinet or not, was she aware that you were going to send the letter to request an extension? It was in contemplation that it was being considered. The final decision about making the formal application was one that obviously was not taken until we made the application because we did not wish to make an application unless we believed that it was a prudent and necessary step. Sorry to press, but who made the decision to send the application? I think that you have got as much from the cabinet secretary that he can give you. It may well be an unclear answer, but I am going to move on to the next question, which is which is Gail Ross's question. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am going to touch on the Audit Scotland report that is just being published. I know that Papples committee are doing it tomorrow, so I will be very brief. Unfortunately, I won't be there to question you tomorrow. The annex in the 2017 report touches on the recommendations that were made in the 2016 report. One of the four recommendations has been completed and three are work in progress. When do you expect to have completed all those actions? Well, they are all in hand and a great deal of progress will be made by the end of the financial year. I think that it is important to remember that some of the recommendations are not calling for specific acts but for continuous improvement and things like transmission of skills and so on. Substantial progress has been made. We accept all the recommendations in the report, incidentally. We are pleased that it recognises that some progress has been made, although we point out other areas where it perhaps does not recognise that some other progress has been made. I was going to ask if you accept all the recommendations, but you answered that, so thank you. The line that it says is likely that the rural payment system will not be functioning as anticipated until SAF 2018 at the earliest. Do you agree with that statement? As Mr Tumble has said, the system is working, otherwise we wouldn't have paid 99.9 per cent of the payments plainly. It's pretty obvious that it is working. It's not working on time. It's not working on time, so I think that this is really important to understand. In answer to the question, we already have an operational system that is delivering benefits, but we do have more work to do to put payments on the timescales that we want to see and deliver remaining functionality. I expect to see very significant progress over both this year and next year, as our programme of continuous improvement continues. Sorry, cabinet secretary, just to clarify, the 99.5 per cent is the 2015 payments, not the 2016 payments. 99.9 per cent, actually. Fine, I accept your correction and I accept clarification that it was last year's payments. It was 15 last year, that's right, yes. Sorry, Gail. Just a quick follow-up to Jamie Greene's question. Cabinet secretary said that the application to the EU was made on the 21st. That was the same day as we were debating cap in the chamber and no mention was made of that. That was the day before the First Minister did not answer questions. I'm assuming that when that application was made, you knew in the chamber last Wednesday, the First Minister knew on Thursday when he was answering questions. Neither of you told the Parliament about this. How can we believe that you are being open and transparent if that is the case? Sorry, cabinet secretary, for your answer that, I think, just on a factual point, unless I've got my facts wrong, the debate actually took place on the Tuesday, did it not? On Wednesday. It was Wednesday. Sorry, I've stand corrected. So the debate was on the Wednesday, the letter was sent on the Wednesday. Sorry, I've stand corrected, cabinet secretary. Well, the debate was made and I provided the speech that I did in response to the Conservative motion and I dealt with the matters that were before it and I wanted also to speak to the motion that I put forward. We have made absolutely clear and the First Minister has made clear and I'm making clear now that this is taken forward as a prudent measure and that's the right thing to do. So why I did? There was two opportunities to let the Parliament know. There's no question of hiding anything. I made a five or six minute speech in which I dealt with the motion that was in front of me. No, no, Peter Richard was next. We've got a, in response to the question, who I, what, where. You made a comment earlier which intrigued me that you have offered that this committee could go into any office to see how these systems are working. Now I think I've got an office near me in Hamilton, am I correct? I've never, I know of no invitation. Have we been asked, you know, if you're going to ask, did the First Minister know this? Can I ask the convener, when did we get an invitation from the cabinet secretary to go and see this, these offices? And if we did get an offer, why weren't we told? Truthfully, I'm trying to find and speak to the clerks. I will come back to you, Richard. You know, if Jamie is getting quite upset about the First Minister, I'm getting quite upset that we've not been told that we can engage. I want to see this system, I want to see how it's working and can you, Annabelle, can you, if the committee are not going, I'll be more than happy to come to Hamilton along with yourself or anyone else in order to see it's only five minutes across the road. Can I clarify? It was an offer that the cabinet secretary made when he came to a meeting and I believe and was followed up afterwards. It's up to the committee to discuss whether they want to do that. I am going to move on to the next question, which is Peter. Before we do that, we need to bottom out this question about the debate. The debate on the Wednesday, I specifically asked the cabinet secretary if he was going to make the payments in time and if he was going to ask for an extension. I specifically made that request in my speech before the cabinet secretary spoke, so to say that he answered all the questions is absolutely not correct. And there was also the opportunity the next day at the Highlands show when the minister spoke to the assembled industry at QMS breakfast and there was an opportunity to say then exactly what was going on and again that wasn't made, that wasn't done. So in the spirit of openness I'm afraid to say that is not happening. In this case that certainly did not happen. I'll just make that point. The question is will 95.25% of pillar 1 payments be made in two days time by the end of June? I mean I try to be as transparent as possible. Here I am for the umpteenth occasion. We provide weekly reports. I was dealing with the speeches. It's quite a robustious debate as I recall and I wanted to speak to the motion to the amendment in my name to get across some of the positives about agriculture in Scotland and that's what I did and I sought to answer as many of the points as possible but you know with respect the speeches were fairly short. It was a short debate and there is a procedure for providing information to Parliament and I scrupulously regard it, implement it and have regard to it and that procedure actually is not in an ad hoc speech in a debate on an opposition party business. That procedure is to write to the committee convener and to inform them of what happens and I do that with great regularity and I will continue to do that and moreover I mean I hope that members will agree because they haven't said but that you know making this application was the prudent thing to do but one that should only be done if it was felt that there was a reasonable possibility that the flexibility saw would be necessary in other words one shouldn't make an application unless it's necessary and because we are fairly close in our opinion to achieving the 90% target we may fall a few percentage points short convener but because it has looked as though we're fairly close to achieving the target one didn't wish to proceed with an application unless it was necessary and it only really became clear that it may be necessary fairly recently and that's it and I'm very happy incidentally to share I think I can share the I'll double check this the terms of the letter to the commissioner to the commission with the committee if that would be of any assistance convener I want to be as open as I possibly can but I really think you know if the criticism is that I didn't mention things in a political speech and in a political debate a you know about a letter that was sent out in the same day I think we are leaving into somewhat fanciful territory cabinet secretary I'm sorry both you and Peter have had a chance to bat that around I would like to drag you back to the question that Peter has now asked you is and I believe that was will you have made 95.25% of pillar one payments in two days time I obviously we've given this particular thought and we have made substantial progress our central forecast is that we will make around 90% of payments in other words we will fall short by a few percentage points we are making a large number of payments each day to achieve that and I expect convener this is very important for the farmers and crofters that are listening to this or to the reportage of this that I expect that the remaining payments will be made fairly shortly after the 30th of June in other words they will not be made within the deadline but fairly shortly thereafter and we expect that virtually all the payments the eligible payments will be made by the end of august in respect of pillar one the deadline of 30th of June is very important for the EU and for penalty determination but it's not it obviously what farmers want to know is when they will receive the balance of their money and let's remember because it seems to not be reported frequently it let's remember that most farmers and most crofters have received most of their money in respect of the basic payment and the alfass loan scheme and I think that that pragmatic step does need to be stressed as it of course it's a it is a very important measure for the for those farmers and crofters and that's our primary concern right so I'm just going to remind everyone again please could we answer the specific question as directly as possible and and I understand the points you want to make understand everyone wants to make points I'm trying to urge you please to answer specific questions Mr Chapman the next question given given that you've said you will meet miss the 95% the deadline how how big do you think the penalties will be from the EU because of that well it's impossible to to be precise about what the penalties may be but we are very confident that they will be far lesser than the 60 million figure that the Auditor General has opined as soon as we have further information on that we will of course share it with the committee okay Peter did you want to just say that the 60 million is but is about non-compliance it's a different figure the 60 million isn't about isn't about nothing missing payments it's about non-compliance it's a different figure no it's about penalties okay the next question is from jamie so the cabinet secretary's explained pillar one payments and the projections for those can I ask when all pillar two 2016 payments will be made we've got a schedule for that and I looked at it earlier this morning and I'm hoping that anabelle terpy will have it in front of her because we've got a large volume of statistics in front of us but pillar two just while she finds the relevant document pillar two payments are not subject to the same time schedule pillar one payments the deadline is the payment window is December to June pillar two payments do not have that particular deadline as I'm sure the member will be aware I mean generally speaking these are payments which are aimed to be paid in the autumn convener I mean in the interests of saving time I'm very happy to provide very quickly that schedule in writing if that would assist so in terms of our current payment schedule for pillar two we are looking at ELFAS summers 2017 I think I believe actually we've repeat we've said these figures before these dates before to the committee rural priorities in 2017 AXNFGS in autumn 2017 beef efficiency scheme in autumn 2017 and LMO land manager options in autumn 2017 and I would like to point out though that we are working with our suppliers to make sure that these can't that these can't be delivered and we will of course update the committee and indeed Papels if there is any slippage in them cabinet secretary we've heard summer an autumn constantly mentioned it's very difficult to get a handle on those dates so when you write to the committee would it be possible to give to give months rather than than generic periods sorry Jamie your next question yes we will do that thank you cabinet secretary and to reinforce that point so that farms are businesses and quarterly deadlines are quite vague so most specifically would be helpful are there any farmers across us who are or have been eligible but have received no 2015 ELFAS payments no 2016 ELFAS payments or indeed no loans so indeed are there any farmers who are eligible for money who have received nothing well we're checking this out but the primary information is that I'm not aware that there are any cases of any of any such non-payment but Andrew is that your understanding yeah so I mean in terms of 2016 ELFAS loan scheme started in March we're confident that all eligible customers have either been offered a loan or given the opportunity to provide more information to enable them to then receive a loan so yes cabinet secretary is correct okay and so anyone who was eligible for a loan has been offered a loan anyone who's wanted one has accepted one therefore anyone yes so these are opt-in schemes so it's up to the the farmer or crofter who's been indicated that they wish to take up the offer of a loan yes okay thank you writer the next question is yours can I ask when the 2015 payments will be made in full across pillar one and pillar two okay do you want me to take that please do you yeah so um for bps greening and young farmer um for the 25 claimants still to be paid we're looking at early summer 2017 I appreciate the member the convener's point about month so I will confirm that um but early summer I would say is july um for there are eight still to pay for the vcs so that's the beef and sheep schemes and again that's early summer for ELFAS we've got the 1700 still to pay um and again we're looking for them to pay to pay the majority of them we have fixed all known defects in the system I'm pleased to say um so we're looking to pay the majority of them and again we're looking to do that in july um for rural priorities we are now down to what I would call the tail so these are very complex cases where quite often we are looking for more information there may be disputes over the information between different applicants or there may be legal issues that are in play but we've got 30 still to pay for rural priorities and we have 50 to pay for land management options and we're going through them steadily thank you can I just ask how much money is still outstanding that hasn't been paid either as a loan or as a substantive payment um okay so net of loans we have got um just over we've got 162 000 euros for bps for um sheep and beef um the figure I have got here is that we have got 500 000 sorry these are pounds 500 000 pounds to pay I want to confirm that number so I will again I'll give you this in writing for ELFAS net of loans all of those figures from scribbling but for ELFAS net of loans it's 3.5 million for rural priorities it is 90 000 pounds and for land management options it is um 400 000 pounds thank you very briefly um Annabelle you've told us before that the 2015 and the 2016 payments cannot be made at the same time how are the 2015 payments currently handled are they holding up the 2016 payments are they being done manually no so for bps and for vcs and ELFAS they will go through the system so what will happen in July is we will take it's because of debt management the system if because of how we manage our debts we can't run them through the system at the same time so it's actually a an official's policy decision around debt management rather than the system just to be very clear so what is going to happen in july is debts will come off for bps 2016 and then we will load the 2015 on so that's why that's because we've fitted known defects for rural priorities and LMO they are manual payments so they will carry on thank you Richard have you yeah sorry I'm going to bring rich din and then just a quick question um I've got like figure figures in front any and you may want to write to a committee or even for a company visit you can tell me pillar one 30 payments are still outstanding the basic payments screening in young farmers scheme I'd like to know how many people were in that beef and cheap 36 payments still outstanding rural priority scheme 42 payments still outstanding land managers option 50 payments I'd love to know how many what was the original figure you know I know what's outstanding but I'd love to know what the original figure you may want to write this I will write to confirm but for bps it was 18 300 and I believe 21 and for I can give you the percentages for sheep and rural priorities we've paid 99 so I will give you the actual numbers but to give you a scale of it so you're saying this is a very small first one was 18 first one was 18 000 and there are only 30 payments of 25 25 25 of that 18 000 just to pay so this this is what we would consider a normal tale I noted people who haven't been paid paid that's not you know they will still they will not be happy with that description but this is these are cases that are genuinely complicated where there might be disagreements over land there might be two people who have claimed the same land we're looking for information for people so yes thank you bring redder back in and then move on to the next question just as a point of clarification in your answer to yes of course you said that you were running the 2016 payments and then you are going to reload the 2015 payments did I hear you right that it's to do with debt management so we have to load the debts on for each scheme year because of the way I totally understand no it's a so I can write I can write and clarify I think we've got the fact that you can't run the two at the same time I think that's what eddie told us at the last design rather than by any issue with the system if members want to visit sochton house all one of the arpad offices then these sorts of matters can be discussed and I did follow up the verbal offer at the committee with you convener and you rejected the initial offer I understand in writing but I'm certainly happy to review the offer today right Richard thank you uh Mike would you like to ask the next question thank you convener I'd like to focus on any knock-on effects because of the focus on the cap it project on other issues such as I want to focus specifically on the beef efficiency scheme does the Scottish Government's focus on the cap it and payment issues mean that other schemes are being neglected leading to hundreds of farmers withdrawing from them such as the beef efficiency scheme and therefore will there be an underspend on the beef efficiency scheme budget as a result of these dropouts a great question I'm not sure it would be well obviously we we have responded to concerns raised by farmers and through the nfu and made amendments to the scheme in response to that the take-up has been high in terms of the number of cattle but lower in terms of the proportion of overall farmers convener that's an individual choice but I wouldn't say that the take-up has been this is my view and others may disagree but I don't think that the low take the lower take-up than we perhaps hoped um still a substantial take-up I don't think that has been if you like a causal result of any difficulties with the cap it payment I think it's been because farmers chose that they they weren't persuaded that the you know the um the responsibilities and the compliance duties under the BS uh so if it were worth taking in respect of the financial compensation although there are differing views I mean I've spoken to some farmers who think the scheme is very good and others who are very critical of it so why have 330 sorry more for that yeah why have 330 farmers your report is saying that 330 farmers are withdrawn from the scheme I mean that's the point I'm making I'm happy to come back and deal with that on another day or in writing but you know I just don't think it's to do with the the topic in hand today but I you know I may be wrong and if I'm wrong I certainly would want to correct the record to convener but I don't think that that the decision of those individual farmers although it's a matter of speculation why precisely they chose not to stay in the scheme but I don't think it's the result of cap it issues to let Mike finish the question which he hadn't quite finished before you answered say might would you like to finish the question and then cabinet the point I'm trying to make is it's not about I'm not suggesting that it's to do with the capitis scheme at all so that's a red herring what I'm trying to get at is why have 330 farmers left the government's own beef efficiency scheme is it because it's too complicated what you must you must have a view as to why those 330 farmers have left I would like to know what your view is well there were certain issues with the scheme which we dealt with and it's important that I make this clear because we had dealings particularly with the NFU for example the timing for issuing tissue sampling tags particularly in relation to spring-born calves which are often sold in the early autumn sales and also health and safety issues in relation to tissue sampling bulls not a task for the unwary you may think and we reached agreement with industry to resolve these by first issuing an early selection for producers of spring-born calves who have recorded all their calving details on the system by the 9th of June 309 producers took advantage of this and a sampling selection is currently underway and we also reached agreement to allow blood sampling of bulls by a vet in place of tissue sampling now you know these are highly technical matters and they weren't ones which I primarily with respect came here today to thinking I was going to be addressed addressing them but I respect the question and I will undertake to reply in writing to Mr Rumbles to see if we can provide any further information in response to his question which I accept is a perfectly reasonable one cabinet secretary thank you and I'm sure you'll direct that response to the committee say so we will have benefit of it the next question is Peter it's about it's it will you might you might need to be ready for this question either but it's about the fact that elfast isn't supposed to continue after 2017 and we're now supposed to move on to a system of areas of natural constraint support the NFU doesn't think that the the Scottish Government is up to speed and will be able to to move on to the new system and therefore we're going to have a parachute system of 80% of the elfast payments going forward into 2018 is that a result of the the focus being on the cap id system and the cap id system taking up you know everybody's time therefore the way forward for new schemes isn't being isn't being you know isn't being done no it's not the decision to go for the elfast 80% parachute option was the decision taken substantially on policy grounds and I think it's been a decision that's been welcomed for clarity and secondly you know we I'm aware that the commission is looking at requests by the EU Parliament to to permit that year's payment to be made at 100% so there is a possibility that the parachute option is deferred by a year and I hope that that takes place thirdly we want to continue to make elfast payments it's a very valuable payment as I'm sure those who know hill farmers are very well aware of but I'm unable to give assurance on the elfast budget for 2019 convener because as despite repeated requests the UK government have still not guaranteed that elfast will be funded in 2019 and I did raise this in my initial brief meeting with Mr Gove last week and the final question is from well not actually the final question but ultimate question is John Finnie. Good morning cabinet secretary, we could be all day on the subject of Brexit but I suspect with two minutes. On the issue of Scottish government's handling of the existing arrangements and some of us would like to see a future scheme that had more concentration environment priorities are you able to talk about any future arrangements and are you confident that the mechanisms are there that would support them however they've come about I appreciate there's a lot of uncertainty. Well the Scottish government strongly believes that the environmental schemes are many cases that serve valuable purposes and we therefore want to continue them and when I met with Mr Gove last week I expressed some concerns about the lack of clarity about the continuance of funding post-Brexit and of course until we have a clarity about what the budget is it's a bit difficult to start making arrangements about allocating it but in response briefly we do recognise there should be environmental schemes and that will be very much taken forward by myself working closely with Rosanna Cunningham. Athena's now indicated and because she has an answer question I will give her the penultimate question. I mean I'm pretty ignorant about IT systems but as this one appears now to use a word like tweak perhaps that's not big enough word to make the payment system work will the system be able to operate whatever the arrangements are I mean you're looking into this with payments that come once we're out of Europe but perhaps come from the UK will the system be able to adapt to it so we're not in another position where there are delayed payments to farmers? Well that's extremely good question I mean plainly the system was devised in the expectation that the UK would remain within the European Union and therefore it was devised to meet the requirements of compliance with the reformed common agricultural policy whether to be a totally different system of financial support then obviously the current IT system would need to be considerably adapted to be able to cope with it and it's by no means clear that it could the key thing about the current system is that it records digitally each land holding and that is of great value because we have moved from paper to digital records of each farm holding and there's I think 54,000 and 5.5 million hectares so I hope the answers in the affirmative it would be an extraordinary waste of money if one of the consequences of Brexit is that there would be a requirement to purchase new IT systems that really would I think cause real further concern on top of the existing ones. Thank you cabinet secretary there is the last question which I'm going to ask it is just a yes or no answer so we'll keep within the timescale that I gave will we need a loan system for payments for this coming this current year i.e. in 2017 will we need a loan system yes or no well I'm afraid I have to I'll give you an answer I've prepared an answer because it's a very important question but please let me answer it in this way because I think it's important and this is in no way dodging the question first of all we aim to complete the functionality of the cap IT system so that loans are not required but a judgment will be made shortly as to whether a further loan scheme is necessary if it is then there shall be a loan scheme for the basic payments as there was last year the question of whether it is necessary will be determined following the outcome of the further discussions with CGI who I met yesterday and whom I pressed for assurances on delivery effective delivery of the IT systems on time to enable Timious payment. We shall provide convener clarity on this as soon as possible but in either event we will make sure and this is the key thing that farmers continue to receive the majority the substantial majority of payments to which they are entitled within the payment window either by full payment in the normal course or by a loan payment scheme I expect to announce our decision on that matter later this year probably in September. So thank you cabinet secretary and I'm sure the people that have been listening to that will make up their mind whether that's a yes or no but the committee would really appreciate being kept up to date on the response from the European Commission on the request for an extension to the deadline for payments and an indication as soon as they are known of potential fines which may emerge from the failure to meet payment deadlines. We'd also request that the cabinet secretary come back to the committee in the autumn to provide an update on the issues that we've discussed today and at that stage I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary Andrew, Annabelle and Eddie for coming to this meeting and briefly suspend the meeting to allow witnesses to leave. Thank you. We now move on to agenda item three which is subordinate legislation. This is the consideration of a negative instrument as detailed on the agenda. Members should note that no motions to annull have been received in relation to this instrument and there have been no representations to the committee on these instruments. Are there any comments that the committee members would like to make? I take that that there's no comments there therefore I have to ask the question is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to these instruments. That is agreed. We'll now move on to agenda item four which is the stage two debate on seat belts on school transport bill. Now just to say there'll be a formal procedure which we will go through now and I will start off with the first question. The first question is that section one be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next section is the dedicated school transport service on school trips. I'd like to call amendment one in the name of Gillian Martin grouped with amendments two, three and four. Gillian Martin to move amendment one and please speak to all amendments in the group. This committee's stage one report recommended that no distinction should be made between travel on dedicated transport from home to school and that on a school excursion and that it would welcome an amendment to the bill to ensure that the duty to ensure the fitting of seat belts extended into such provision. As you will know I consider the safety of children in school transport to be an area of utmost priority. As I intimated at stage one I shared the committee's sentiments that extending the scope of the legislation to cover school trips aligns with the ethos of what we're all trying to accomplish with the bill. Amendment one and the other amendments in this group achieve that aim. I think the committee's aware that in practice vehicles used for school trips are almost university supplied with seat belts already. This is because robust national risk assessment guidance advocating this already exists. Feedback from stakeholders is that this is rigidly adhered to by those booking such transport, often teachers who belong to a closely regulated profession. However, we have listened to the views of the committee, parliamentarians and other stakeholders who felt that creating a legal duty for seat belts in home to school transport means that equivalent practices for school trips should be put on a statutory footing. The amendment replaces the previous definition of a dedicated school transport service in section 2 in the bill, adding the new element of transport used for school trips or excursions, defined in subsection 3 as a school trip transport service to the existing coverage for home to school transport. Again, those must be vehicles provided for the sole purpose of carrying school pupils. As with home to school transport, public buff services will not be captured as they are outwith the Parliament's legislative competence. There are obviously different kinds of school trips. The new definition of school trip transport service therefore captures journeys that begin and end at the school on the same day, such as to a local swimming pool, or those over a number of days or weeks such as skiing trips overseas. The intention is that the commencement dates for school trip provision would be the same as for home to school provision, so that would be 2018 for primary schools and 2021 for secondary schools. The bill, as amended, incorporates existing statutory definitions of school education from the Education Scotland Act 1980, as amended by the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, which can include early learning and childcare provision. Therefore, the legal duty, as amended, will extend to nursery classes in schools, whether provided by local authorities or independent or grant-aided schools. However, we anticipate little or no change in practice here. The general use of minibuses, which already have to be fitted with seatbelts under existing UK regulations, and the common approach of using specialised restraints for very young children, mean that that should not require great transition on the ground. Amendments 2 and 3 are consequential to amendment 1, reflecting the new definition of dedicated school transport service. They delete the terms primary education and amendment 3 from section 3 2, as those no longer appear in the bill and replace them with the term school education. That term takes the meaning given in section 135 of the Education Scotland Act 1980. Amendment 4 is consequential to amendment 1, and amends the long title in order to reflect the expansion of the bill's coverage. I move amendment 1. John Mason would like to start, followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much, convener. I cannot speak for the whole committee, but many of us will be enthusiastic about the amendments, because we spent quite a lot of time previously at the committee discussing the question of school trips. We feel that they logically should be included, and I am very glad that you have been able to find a wording that fits for that. In particular, I witnessed something on polling day. It was always at 8 June. I was visiting a school, and the school choir was heading off to sing at a church. They were going on a double-decker bus, which I found interesting. I suspect that it did not have seatbelts, although I did not check, but it showed to me that there certainly is a need to include school trips alongside the other travel. I think that the main question that perhaps you can answer in your summing up, unless you want to intervene on me, is the phrase education or training, because it says in subsection 3 from a place where the people receive education or training. I wonder whether that would include the likes of trips to Alton Towers and the likes of that where they were going to take part in a church service, because those events in themselves would not appear to be education or training. I think that this is a really major change to the bill, and I would like to congratulate Julian Nardin for bringing forward those amendments. I think that it makes the bill a much more effective bill, and I will certainly be supporting them. Thank you. Jamie, you wanted to... Thank you, convener. My only comment and, again, something that maybe it can be addressed in summing up or of our intervention is the general consensus that the inclusion of what happens between being dropped off at school and collected is equally as important in terms of safety on buses. However, one of the concerns that I have had throughout is any legal requirements that may put on schools that contract with bus operators or private coach companies. In other words, if an excursion takes place for whichever reason, whether it is an educational training visit or a social visit, would any changes to inclusion of those excursions in the bill add additional legal requirements on schools, both public, independent and so on? That is something that has not quite been addressed. It may be a legal issue that needs to be discussed in more detail. What I would not like is for this inclusion to add increased or unintended consequences on schools that have direct contracts or take out ad-hoc or one-off contracts with bus hire companies, because that was never really the intention of the original bill. This was more about local authorities ensuring a safe supply of children on buses. In bringing forward, as John Mason has said, a school transport service, whether she would be minded to, at stage 3, extend the definition beyond education or training to include participating in a sports event on behalf of the school. I know that the world has changed a bit. I went to the biggest school in Scotland. On a peak Saturday, we had 42 separate sports teams, about half of whom would be travelling to participate in sports competitions with other schools and about half would be receiving from other schools. We had 15 rugby 15s, 12-foot-wall 11s, 12 hockey 11s and three cross-country teams. While it is less today, it will still be an issue. I wonder whether, having addressed the issue of school trip transport, we might consider whether it should also include such events that are of a similar character. The deputy convener would like to add, and then Christine, if I could ask you both to be brief on your issues. Very brief, convener. Thank you very much. I wonder if Gillian Martin, in your summing up, if you could address the financial memorandum and if this amendment makes any changes to that at all. I would just caution against adding a list from education or training or for sports purposes, because then you begin to—I would ask the member to consider putting in something with some flexibility to receive education or training or for purposes connected, usual purposes connected with school activities, something like that that gives you flexibility but not to start to put a list in principal legislation. That is all the members that have indicated that they wish to speak. Before I ask Gillian Martin to wind up, minister, is there anything that you would like to say at this stage? Just specifically, convener, thanks for the opportunity to give the Scottish Government's response to amendments 1 to 4. We welcome the work that the committee has done on this particular issue. I congratulate Gillian Martin for getting congratulations from Mike Rumbles. It took me six or seven committee appearances for that praise, and she has managed to do it in just a couple of shows. On the serious point, I would be very much welcome the committee's contention that the bill should extend to school trips that it very much aligns with. The overall aims that the Scottish Government has of keeping children safe while travelling in vehicles to and from classrooms. Given the different nature of this provision, from that used for home-to-school transport, some investigative and preparatory work was needed ahead of stage 2 to scope what that would mean on the ground. I welcome the detail that Ms Martin has given in her opening remarks but also the reflections and wise advice and commentary that has been given by the committee and by the contributions that have just been made. From a Scottish Government's perspective, we very much stand ready and willing to help with the implementation following the passing of any act. The committee will be aware that we intend to work very closely with Ms Martin, young people themselves and a range of stakeholders, on the creation of guidance to accompany the commencement. We have heard that national risk assessment guidance already advocates vehicles with seat belts being used for school excursions. However, we will consider any alterations or additions that are needed as a result of the new element of provision that the bill would now cover. Again, as I said, I welcome the committee's call for this amendment and, indeed, Ms Martin and the team's work in bringing it before Parliament. The Scottish Government strongly supports those amendments. Minister, thank you. I am not going to ask Gillian Martin to wind up and, if I could ask, when you conclude to press or withdraw the amendments. I thank all the members for their constructive comments throughout the sole process and their useful additions to the constructive debate today. I would like to address some of the points that were made by some of the members. First of all, I might have done it in reverse order because that is how we have written it down with Gill Ross about the financial memorandum. If those amendments go through, there will have to be a new financial memorandum looked into between the period of stage 2 and coming to stage 3. The bill is now wider than it was, if that answers your question. To take Jamie Greene's point, when we were looking at the amendment, which was obviously that the committee was keen for us to do, and I was very keen to take forward, one of the things that we did is we reached out to the Head Teachers Association and to the teaching unions as well to get their feedback on just how onerous this would be on schools. We actually had overwhelming support that it was the right thing to do. I really do not have any concerns in that regard. I think that it was overwhelming that they were already doing it, and they did not really see much change in their practices. It was important that, whenever we make amendments to the bill, we reach out again to the stakeholders and we got full support from the stakeholders. I thank Gillian Martin for letting me intervene briefly. I accept that the majority are perhaps already doing this. We all expected that to be the case. My question, however, is more of a technical one. If, by including discussions during the school day, will that add an additional legal requirement on schools that have individual contracts with bus operators themselves outside of local authority contracts? Therefore, any financial money that is being made available to local authorities to meet this requirement will any of that financial resource be available to individual schools that have an additional financial burden to meet the requirements of the legislation? I guess that comes back to my answer to Gail Ross about this. There is going to be a new financial memorandum, and it is going to take that into account. Obviously, a new financial memorandum will take into account all the issues that you address, and I will be able to address that stage 3, even when we are looking at a new financial memorandum. I want to pick up in some of the comments that, as I suppose broadly Stuart Stevenson, John Mason and Christine Grahame were making around the types of trips that it covers all trips. As you will know, the curriculum for excellence is a broad definition of education. The schools make decisions on the types of trips that they see as being good for their pupils, and the definition of education lies with them. Things like going to Alton Towers, although not all of us agree that it is educational, my own thoughts on that. However, the earth sports events will all be covered as being a school trip. The school sees fit to have a school trip that comes under education. I agree with Christine Grahame's points on that as well. If we started to put a list there, it would be problematic. It is an umbrella definition that covers all school trips. I hope that that answers your questions. In many ways, the characteristic that I think helps to make this succeed is that there are so many nuances on how school transport is delivered across the country, and we need to allow flexibility. I welcome the acknowledgement in the committee's stage 1 report about how flexibility is key and should be retained from many elements of school transport position. To conclude, I invite the committee to approve my amendments 1 to 4. Sorry, just technically for me, if you could please say that you wish to press the amendments in your name. I wish to press the amendments. Okay, so the question is for the committee is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question then to the committee is that section 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would like to call amendment 2 in the name of Gillian Martin, which has already been debated with amendment 1. Just ask Gillian Martin to move or not to move that. I move the amendment. The question therefore is that amendment 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Good. I would like to call amendment 3 in the name of Gillian Martin, which again has already been agreed. Sorry, it was all agreed. Sorry, thank you. To call amendment 3 in the name of Gillian Martin, which has already been debated with amendment 1. Gillian Martin, can you move or not move that? I move the amendment. Okay, the question therefore is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The next question is that section 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I would like to now call amendment 5 in the name of Radar Grant, which is grouped with amendment 6. Radar Grant is asked to move amendment 5 and speak to both amendments within that group. Thank you, Radar. Okay. Can I move amendment 5 and speak to 5 and 6? When we took evidence on the issue arose about the wearing of seat belts in a car, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that seat belts are worn for children in their vehicle, but it is clear that that responsibility could not be borne by a bus driver. It would simply be dangerous. Road traffic legislation is also reserved so that the bill cannot legislate on the wearing of seat belts, hence the bill only covers the supply of seat belts. There are also concerns about the duty of care and where that fell with regard to the wearing of seat belts. The Scottish Government responded saying that it would be for courts to decide where the duty of care fell. Therefore, the bill is not clear as it stands as to who needs to promote the wearing of seat belts. It is simply not right that it would need to be tested in court after an accident. My amendments mean that the Scottish Government must issue guidance on what the expectation is of authorities with regard to the wearing of seat belts. It might be that the Scottish Government recommends monitors to ensure that that happens, but it could ask authorities to engage in an education programme with young people promoting the wearing of seat belts. That was certainly an issue that the youth Parliament felt, because it felt that young people should be involved proactively in wearing seat belts rather than being forced to wear them by a third party. Those amendments mean that the Scottish Government needs to give guidance on how to promote their use and monitor their use. That means that, when the act comes into force, it will be evaluated to see whether it is having the intended impact. If not, we can look at it again and prevail on the UK Government to act on reserved legislation. In her opening remarks, Rhoda Grant talked about local authorities might engage monitors and the phrasing of the two amendments both use to monitor the wearing of seat belts as a particular phrase. I think that there is a bit of ambiguity as to what the distinction is between engaging monitors and monitoring the wearing of seat belts. Is that a statistical monitoring? I think that, as Constructed, it is ambiguous. I think that, in the intent that Rhoda has expressed through her amendments to ensure that we get the best possible practical outcomes and that local authorities are keeping an eye on those outcomes is one that I absolutely can sign up to and I suspect others that it will do so. I am just not entirely certain that the construction of those amendments fully and unambiguously addresses that need or that there may be other ways in which that can be achieved that go in a different direction from simply putting something on the face of the bill. I would be particularly interested to hear what the member in charge has to say and perhaps what the minister has to say on that. I am looking at amendment 6 that Rhoda Grant has inserted in section 2 before issuing such guidance, the Scottish ministers must consult A, each school authority be such other persons as they consider appropriate. I do have a slight concern around that. It is the intention of that, therefore that every school in Scotland must be consulted or is it the local authority that must be consulted before guidance can be issued. This place is a burden on the Government to do that. The second part to be such other persons as they consider appropriate, I find it very vague. It is a little bit unclear as to the intention of section 6 to A and B. No other member has indicated that they want to speak. Minister, would you like to add anything? First of all, thank Rhoda Grant for many of those amendments. Before us today, it is clear that she shares her commitment that safety in relation to school transport is, of course, a top priority and that we all have a combined responsibility to do all that we can to keep our young people safe. The Scottish Government shares the sentiment that the member is trying to seek with those amendments. We have committed to creating non-statutory guidance, education and awareness-raising materials to accompany the commencement of the legal duty. We therefore have no issue with the principle of school authorities looking at guidance that is issued by Scottish ministers. However, we know that school authorities take child safety very seriously and pay great heed to good practice in this area, so it is questionable whether statutory guidance is necessary. Additionally, there are some specific issues that are drafted that may cause difficulty, which have been picked up by both Stuart Stevenson and Jamie Greene in their contributions. I would just like committee members to be aware that amendment 5 and 6 involve the issue of seat belt wearing, a reserved area of law that Rhoda Grant referenced. Therefore, legislative competence restrictions may need to be examined more fully and further legal consideration may be needed before we are comfortable supporting those changes to the bill. On the detail of the amendments, I would agree with Stuart Stevenson's contribution in relation to the term monitor, but to add to that, I would say that amendment 5 and the word monitor has the potential to cause difficulties with interpretation. That is very close to the widely used and accepted term bus monitor, which stakeholders involved in dedicated school transport are familiar with. Therefore, there seems to be a risk of the amendment being interpreted as creating a legal duty for bus monitors on every journey, an issue on which the committee's stage 1 report stated that flexibility should be retained. Additionally, amendment 6 subsection 2a creates a duty on Scottish ministers to consult every school authority in Scotland in the creation of guidance. To add to what Jamie Greene has said, the Scottish Government has had in-depth discussions with local government and grant aided and independent school sector in the creation of those measures. That will continue with guidance and implementation. However, there are around 100 independent schools in Scotland, many of which are not represented by the Scottish Council for Independent Schools. Therefore, it may not prove feasible and indeed workable to compel Scottish ministers to categorically consult with every school authority across the country. As I have said, we will continue a dialogue with those in the sector, but we need to proceed carefully here. What I am prepared to commit to is looking at the issue of statutory guidance again and working with the member on this before stage 3. If we conclude that it is possible to do something in primary legislation about a guidance duty, which is within legislative competence, we will work with the member on an amendment to achieve that and to address some of the detailed wording of the issue. However, we may well conclude that there is too much risk in creating statutory guidance, as opposed to issuing non-statutory guidance. If we conclude that any amendment in this area was difficult for legislative competence reasons, we would, of course, let hold a grant no of our conclusions before stage 3. Therefore, with those reassurances, I invite Ms Grant not to press on amendments at this stage and give her an assurance that we will look to work on those matters with the view to bringing something forward at stage 3, which meets our mutual aspirations. Before I ask Ms Grant to wind up, Gillian Martin, would you like to… Yes, I would like to thank Rhoda Grant for bringing in those amendments before this day. In June, pupils actually wear seatbelts when they are fitted. It has been a crucial concern for the committee and all of us as we are bringing this bill forward. I welcome her useful ideas that she has tabled in relation to future guidance. However, I agree with the minister what he said about specific terms of the amendments that are currently drafted. I reiterate the point about the term monitor in amendment 5. Experience from discussions and stakeholders highlights how the common interpretation of that in relation to school transport is generally a personal act as I supervise on the bus, although I appreciate that that is not exactly what Ms Grant has meant. Any interpretation is at odds with the committee's stage 1 report in relation to flexibility on such issues. We know that school authorities can and do use bus monitors. However, they have the freedom to choose other methods as well. I simply want to repeat the minister's reassurance about our willingness to work with Rhoda Grant ahead of stage 3 in this issue. I would also ask her not to press the amendments for the moment. I would like to ask Rhoda Grant to wind up and to conclude by pressing or withdrawing your amendments. I think that I need to be clear that, where it bus monitors, it would have said so in the amendments. There may be another word to look at monitor, maybe assess the wearing of seat belts or the like, but that is what it has meant. Neither does it say in the amendment that people should not employ bus monitors that would be up to government and indeed the local authorities to decide how best to encourage and engage with the wearing of seat belts. I think that the amendment is clear in that regard. Jamie Greene and the minister talked about the consultation with school authorities, and that would be authorities in charge of education plus the independent schools. I take on board that that is quite a wide consultation, but one assumes that the Scottish Government has a mailing list to which they email any changes to allow them. I do not think that it is overly onerous. I would imagine that information is going out that way. However, I have listened to the concerns, and I wish to have some consensus around that, because I do not believe that we are at odds at all. I will not press the amendments at this stage, but I hope that I will work with the Government and the member-in-charge to try to get those amendments in the form that everybody is happy with and achieves the aim that I am trying to achieve by them. Just to clarify, you wished to withdraw the amendment. Can I ask if any member wishes to object to Rhoda Grant withdrawing the amendment? That is a question that no one has disagreed. The question is that section 4 will be agreed. Are we agreed? I formally have to ask you in relation to amendment 6, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 5. Do you wish to move it or not to move it? Therefore, we are not moved, but I would like to now move on to section 5, and I would like to call the amendment 7 in the name of Peter Chapman in a group on its own. Peter Chapman, please move your amendment and speak to amendment 7. Thank you, convener. I would like to move the amendment in my name. It is a very simple amendment, in my opinion, and it is fair to say that within this committee we agree that it is right to support the aims of this bill to transport kids to school as safer if seatbelts are fitted and worn. I just felt that it was important that these measures are brought in as soon as possible. Therefore, I move that instead of these measures being brought in over a period in the case of primary school children in 2018 and secondary school children in 2021, it seems a long time to wait until 2021. Therefore, I move that both primary and secondary school children are brought into this bill and it comes forward at the same time, namely before the end of 2018. That would still give some flexibility to the Government to introduce the bill at any point in 2018. The amendment would still allow the minister discretion to commence the provision at different points for primary and secondary education so long as it was brought in before the end of 31 December 2018. I just feel that 2021 is a long time away, and if we agree that it is a good thing that we do this and that we all do it, why not bring it in quicker? Therefore, I move that we bring the date forward until no later than the end of December 2018. Richard Lyle, you've indicated that you wish to speak. I don't accept Peter Chapman's amendment. Basically, as I say, over the years, previously as a councillor and the council I was in, we tried to get them to bring in. I can see where it is coming from, but the Scottish Government has took forward extensive stakeholder engagement during this process. The feedback to the Government has been that the transition relation to secondary school provision will be greater, possibly due to more double-deckers being used, longer timescale aims to stop the need for contracts. I quite remember people who have made contracts and that would break the contract and could actually cost more, so that would mean a significant financial impact in school authorities, particularly councils. I think that the Scottish Government has been consistent with these dates. The member has been consistent with the dates. I think that, with the greatest respect to Mr Chapman, his amendment is not required, so I'll be against it. I have some clarification, and it is probably more a question for the member in charge or, indeed, the minister. We had evidence that a lot of local authorities have already implemented the provisions of the bill, and those who have not are in the process of doing it. Would Peter Chapman's amendment cause any of the unintended consequences that Richard Llyw was talking about, or would you expect that the legislation or the intentions of the legislation would maybe be in place by that date? Are you aware of problems that would cause a problem where local authorities would not be able to comply? I am sure that the member will address that when she speaks. Mike Rumbles, your next question. I support the amendment by Peter Chapman. The evidence that was presented to the committee was quite clear, and I felt that local authorities were pursuing this, regardless of the legislation, quite frankly. There was a question right originally whether we needed the bill because local authorities are moving so quickly to adopt it. Actually, it is a good thing that the bill has been brought forward because it is encouraging local authorities to ensure that that happens. I just think in my bones that if we send a message out that we want to delay this until 2021, that sends the wrong message out. I think that Peter has put a very sensible suggestion. It does, as I understand it—correct me if I am wrong—that is the primary school deadline already in the bill, is it not? Therefore, I think that we should move forward on that basis. I think that it does not give any excuses to local authorities to slack finishing that 100 per cent coverage that we require. The final member has indicated that he wants to speak. He is Jamie Greene. Please, just to support Peter Chapman's amendment in the sense that, again, this was the original deadline for primary school. Anyway, I certainly feel that bringing secondary up to meeting that same deadline does not present any problems and we should be ambitious with that target, so I will be supporting the amendment. Thank you. Minister, would you like to say anything at this stage? Yes, I would, thank you very much. I will let Ms Martin speak regarding the commencement of legislative measures that she has brought before Parliament, but I thought that it might be helpful to outline the approach that the Scottish Government took and has taken in reaching out and bringing stakeholders with us as the devolution process for these powers was undertaken. There is a wide range of stakeholders and agencies involved in school transport from parents, teachers and pupils themselves to local government and indeed the bus industry. Earlier, we took the view that a partnership approach to shaping the bill's proposals would be key. That is why we set up the not so imaginatively titled seatbelts and dedicated school transport working group. However, my predecessor Keith Brown announced the plans for future legislation in 2014. Ministers were clear that the implementation dates of 2018 would take place for primary schools and D-2021 for secondary schools. That is what had been committed to and that is what our partners have been working to. I would take some exception with the phrase that Mike Rumbles used that it would be delayed. It is not delayed, it is the timetable that was agreed at the time. Accelerating those dates could lead, as Richard Lyle and others have suggested, could lead to contracts having to be broken. That could lead to significant practical difficulties for councils and, as Rhoda Grant suggested, perhaps unintended consequences. Will it lead? Do you know of cases where that will cause a problem? Information to hand, but I am more than happy with Ms Martin. One of the officials has that information if we do not, of course, providing it in the future, but I do not have it to hand whether or not there are particular local authorities. Would they have to break their contracts? I am simply suggesting that it could be an issue, but I respect her desire to get a little bit more information certainty around that point. Of course. I understand. I said a four-year delay. I take the point that you have been working towards this date. It is not a delay as such. I agree that this is an important piece of legislation and I congratulate Julian Martin for bringing forward this bill. However, the one thing that I was making the point was, if it is such an important bill, which I think it is, why wait until 2021 to have it implemented? I think that it is an important bill. Julian Martin has a lot of work on this bill and I think that we should make sure, as a Parliament, that we actually advance the date from 2021 to 2018. I accept that it is not a delay. What I am talking about is an advancement for child safety on our buses. I will make mention of that very point just towards the very end of my remarks to try to give some assurance both. Yes, of course. In regard to the point where a council has different contracts, if a contract is coming up for renewal in the next couple of months, that does not stop them from bringing that in quicker. There is intention to set a date of 2021, but am I correct in suggesting that that does not stop councils bringing in quicker as we know that this bill has become law? Yes, that would be my understanding. I have a feeling that there is another intervention coming, so I am happy to accept the intervention. Minister, I would have thought if the suggestion was that this could have contractual implications then you would have had that information at hand. Clearly, the work of a lawmaking establishment on this cannot be shaped around what potential implications it may or may not have. We make decisions in good faith in shape law. Presumably—I am no expert in contract law—contracts will reflect that, so that in itself should not hinder the work of the establishment. I thank the member for the contribution. My point is that the contractual difficulties that could potentially—and we will try to get you some more certainty around that as has been requested—is one potential effect. The other point that I am trying to make is that there has been a lot of work that has been done. This is not a date that was arbitrarily plucked out of the air. This is work that was done by my predecessor, Keith Brown, bringing together a working group of the industry and local authorities to say practically what are the issues that have to be worked through. Again, Ms Martin will touch upon the fact that, of course, in high schools you have more school buses and so that is why one of the reasons why—not the only reason why—there is perhaps a later commencement date. However, to try to give us some sort of reassurances and commitments around that, because there is a shared ambition that we all have, I would say a couple of things. First of all, it is worth remembering that the committee's stage 1 report describes the commencement dates in our quote as reasonable and practicable. That is what I am talking about, what is practical, what is what to be able to do practically. It is important that we do not forget what the stage 1 report said. It is hard for me to understand what has changed between the stage 1 report and perhaps stage 2. However, what I will say is that I completely understand the motivation behind Mr Chapman's proposals. As I said, we all have a shared ambition in this. To that end, I am more than happy to give a commitment that I will engage further with local authorities to ascertain if the practical issues that led to the two-phase approach to commencement dates are still as stark as they were previously. If the local authorities can give me more detail, more certainty around commencement dates, then I am no reason why we cannot work through bringing those dates forward. However, I give a commitment to re-engage with local authorities. With that commitment in mind, I would invite Mr Chapman not to press amendment 7 today, and I will let him know in advance of stage 3 what we get back from local authorities and local government. If he is satisfied, we can move together on this if he is not satisfied. Of course, he would have the opportunity to bring it back to stage 3. Thank you, minister. Before I ask Peter Chapman to wind up and press or withdraw his amendment, Gillian Martin, would you like to say something? Yes, I would. Thank you, convener. As the transport minister just said, the implementation dates were decided on for a number of reasons and to mind for very good and practical reasons. They were also decided in consultation with stakeholders. With any new legislative measures, there will be an element of having to adapt and absorb the changes that have been implemented, and that is to be expected. Preparation for the powers has been devolved. The Scottish Government has done the right thing by listening to the views of those that these measures will affect and come into a general consensus around some of the specifics. In answer to Rhoda Grant's very legitimate point, local government has told us that there are still some councils who have already signed contracts for 2021, based on the 2021 commencement date for secondary school transport. Richard Lyle is absolutely correct that breaking contracts and forcing councils into a situation in which they have to break contracts is something that we do not want to do. I am grateful for your intervention. Is it within your knowledge that contracts would be broken? Local councils have told us that they have made the range contracts up until 2021. The assumption is that some of those contracts might be around bus companies that might not have seat belts fitted, so that would probably be the case. However, in reference to what the transport minister has said, we are willing to go out again and ask councils specifically and re-engage with our stakeholders to see if that has changed. On a matter of law—I am not a lawyer, but on a matter of law, as I have understood the law—contracts cannot be broken if the law has changed. The contracts are not broken. The contracts to be legal must comply with the law. It is as simple as that. To answer that, one of the stakeholders that we have engaged with has been the bus companies. We have to recognise the fact that one of the strong voices in supporting the bill has been around bus contractors as well, who have been working towards the 2021 date. For those businesses that perhaps have plans in place to be able to bid for the contracts of 2021, I certainly think that it would be quite unfair for us to change the goalposts on that. However, if we find out that it is not a problem, I will read it out. I am unclear, but there were two members asking me to intervene. Do you choose who you would like to take first? Well, I think that Stuart Heddy has handed up. Stuart Stevens has handed up first and I will take Christine Grahame, of course. I might regret that decision in the chamber. No, I merely wondered whether the member-in-charge is able to tell us whether contract law is part of the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, whether there would be a risk to effect in contracts that, in good faith, have been written in a legislative area for which we are not responsible. I think that we have to be very careful that officials cannot speak during this debate. It would be up to the member to answer the intervention, so Gillian, it is for you to answer. The bill in force would supersede contracts. The contract would have to be looked at again, but I refer you to my other comments about the fact that one of our key stakeholders in this has been bus operators as well. We have made these consultations with people around the table in our working group and 2021 has been the day. Gillian, sorry, I do not mean to force you, but Christine Grahame offered an intervention. I do not know whether she wants to withdraw it or whether she wants to take it. I am sympathetic to what Peter Chapman says, but I do not think that I am in a position to take a view on it until I have clarification that this would not be practicable because you have not got information from all the local authorities. My understanding is that the member is giving an undertaking to this committee to come back prior to stage 3 so that Mr Chapman is up to Mr Chapman whether he proceeds with his amendment law with up-to-date information about whether or not this date is practicable in terms of contract and all that stuff for secondary transport. Is that the undertaking by the member? That is why I would press Peter Chapman to withdraw his amendment at the moment, because I personally do not feel that all stakeholders have been working towards the 2021 date if we were to accept this amendment without consultation with them, that would not be a good place to be. Why is there a one-year delay between prime and secondary? It is very unclear. It is not a delay, but there is a staged implementation. 2018 is the implementation for primaries, and 2021 is the implementation date for secondaries. As has been rightly pointed out, a lot of secondary and local authorities have already done it. However, we are talking about a lot more buses and different types of buses. The majority of primary schools use many buses, for example—that is certainly true in my constituency—whereas the types of coaches that are involved in secondary travel may include, as Richard Lyle pointed out, things like double-deckers, which are not genuinely loosed for primary school transport. That is why there is a three-year staged approach on that. We have made an offer to answer Christine Grahame's point that we would not want to make any kind of recommendations on this until we have spoken with stakeholders on whether it is possible and to what degree there might be breaches of contracts having to be broken on this. Am I allowed to proceed any more? I therefore invite Mr Chapman not to press amendment 7. Peter Chapman, would you like to wind up? As you conclude, would you either press or withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. I listened with great intent to what has been said. During the process of this discussion, we learned that already over 50 per cent of local authorities have put this in place. That is where I start from. The second bit is that I cannot see how it is more difficult for secondary school schools to put their legislation in place than it is for primary schools to put their legislation in place. If it is okay to be in place for primary schools in 2018, I remain to be convinced as to why that is more difficult for secondary schools. I heard what Richard Lyle had to say that we may enforce breaking of contracts and that possibly is the case, but we are speaking of it. It is still 18 months down the road. The end of 2018 is still 18 months away. I would argue that there is time to do this and put it in place. I welcome the support that I got from Jamie Greene and from Mike Rumble. There is obviously a division within this committee. I would argue that we have seen that already, but I am minded to press ahead and I would like to press ahead with my amendment. Thank you, Peter. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? That means we move to a division. I would like to ask all those people who are voting in favour of the amendment to raise their hands please. I would like all those against the amendment to raise their hands. I would like to say that there were six in favour of the amendment, five against the amendment and therefore the amendment is agreed. The question therefore is that section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question then is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I would like to call on amendment 4 in the name of Gillian Martin, which has already been debated with amendment 1. Gillian Martin, can you move or not move that amendment? Move the amendment. The question therefore is that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That ends the stage 2 consideration of the bill. I would like to thank members and ask them if they could wait behind briefly, but that concludes our meeting today. Thank you.