 Rwy'n c nhw i'r gwineithio cymhwytaethion y ryeiddiadau hwnnw i ddwynd i'r mewn cymorth, i ddweithio bod y cyfnod oherwydd sefydliadau i'r ddechrau eu gwirioneddau, yn strategiaeth mwy o'r unrhyw gyffredigau, chi'n hynny i'r wneud eu cymddiadau a ddych yn cyflwgr cwnio i g spreadidau, ei wneud. Rwy'n молosod yn ddwygen yn â'w pwyllydd ym mwy o ddwyndiaeth. Gweithio'r yswedd iawn yn ymdw i atoffgoi i ddweithio llawer o iddynau, of interest and that is to allow committee members to declare any interests they have that are relevant to the work of the committee. You have been provided with background information in a note from the clerk on this issue. Let me start off by firstly declaring that I jointly own a registered agricultural holding of under two hectares from which I derive absolutely no income. I will now go round the table and turn starting with the community and then deputy convener asking each of you in turn to declare a relevant interest. I have an interest in a farming partnership with an ancillary residential property letting business. I also have an interest in a rodden line fishery on the river Spay. Full details are disclosed in the register. I am a member of the Scottish Rural Parliament and I am also a member of the board of directors of North Highland College. I am vice convener of the friends of the North Highland line. I am a co-op party member and unison member as well, which might have some bearing at some point, but I do not think that they have a huge bearing on the work of the committee. Mike, I have no irritable interest to declare. I have nothing. I have to declare on a voluntary basis that I am a chartered accountant and a member of ICAS. Richard? I wish to register that I visited Taiwan last year, paid for by the Taiwanese Government. I am the only president of the Orberson bowling club and I am the member of the showman's guild. Yesterday I had to register a badge that I have received from Scottish Racing, which entitles me to enter any race course in Scotland. That badge is worth between 1,000 and £1,500. Lucky you, chairman. I have no formal decoration. However, I did voluntary register and participation in internet business at owning domains. I have a strong background in the connectivity area. Emma? I have no financial register of interest. It might be something that comes up in the future, but I am a partner in a bed and breakfast, which is part of the tourism industry in Dumfries and Galloway. John? I have an extensive list on the register, but none are relevant to this committee, I would say. Peter? I am a partner in the farming business, Peter Chapman and Co. I am also a director of wind turbine business, Red Boker renewables. I am a member of NFUS. I am a director of the A&M group, Alvarino North and Marts Group, and everything is declared in the register of interests. Thank you very much, colleagues. Of course, you will need to make declarations at the appropriate point in future meetings when things come up. We now move to agenda item 2, which is the choice of convener. The procedure has been explained in the paper 2 that has been provided to members. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative Union is part of the eligible for nomination as convener of the committee, and I invite Peter Chapman to nominate a member for the convenership. I have great delight in nominating Edward Mountain for this position. I know that Edward will be an excellent chair of this committee, and I have no problem in putting his name forward. Are there any other nominations for the position? Are we agreed then that Edward Mountain is our convener? We are agreed. Congratulations, Edward. I will now swap desks with Edward so that he can convene the rest of our meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you all for making me convener of this committee, and I look forward to working with you all closely over the term of this Parliament. The committee's next task, I understand, is to choose a deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener. I believe that John Mason has proposed that Gail Ross should be our deputy convener. Is that correct? Do we all agree that Gail Ross should be our deputy convener? I agree. Good. I would like to congratulate Gail on her appointment, and again, I look forward to working with you closely over the course of this committee. The fourth item on this agenda is the consideration of a negative instrument, and that is the common agricultural policy direct payment, Scotland amendment number two, regulation 2016. Paper three that we have had as a committee summarised the purposes of that instrument, which is to extend the deadline in Scotland in which farmers can apply to the common agricultural policy subsidies 2016. I should also advise members that the instrument was considered yesterday by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. In its report, that committee draws to the attention of the Parliament that the instrument had come into force on the 18th of May, the day after it was laid in the Scottish Parliament, and that this breached the required 28-day period between laying of an instrument and it coming into force. However, the DPLR committee found the failure to comply with the requirement to be acceptable in the circumstances. The reason for doing so are outlined by the Minister for Parliamentary Business in his letter to the Presiding Officer, which you have seen dated 17 May, which is at Alex A to the paper three that he received. The committee will now consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting to the Parliament this instrument. Members should note that there have been no motions to a null have been received in relation to the instrument. Do members have any comments in relation to the instrument? Just simply, in relation to the 28 days, I think that it's always slightly uncomfortable when a piece of secondary legislation has to be tabled and come into operation almost at once. However, in the circumstances that the Government found itself in, it was necessary in those circumstances. Just as the DPLR has indicated that it accepts, there were good reasons for it. I think that we might similarly find that that is the case also. We don't want to see that statutory instrument run on and on. It needs to come to a conclusion and we know where we are. I think that we are discussing the instrument and we can come on to maybe how it works later, but thank you for that comment. Are there any other comments? Does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? The final agenda item 5 is in consideration of the approach to be taken to the development of the committee's work programme. Members will see from the papers provided that it's proposed that we invite Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, to give evidence on the issues that are relevant to his portfolio and the committee's remit on 29 June. We have had an informal briefing from Spice in advance of that meeting. I'd also like to add that it appears that responsibility for certain major transport projects such as the fourth replacement crossing will be the responsibility of Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, as opposed to Mr Ewing. Given the recent announcement that the completion of the fourth replacement crossing is to be delayed, the committee may therefore wish to consider inviting Keith Brown to give evidence on 29 June. At this stage, it is also proposed that we hold a business planning meeting towards the end of the summer recess to allow detailed discussion of our approach of priorities and work programme. To help inform this approach, I would like to hold a brief discussion with members on 29 June after we have given evidence taken from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity to obtain their individual views on areas of work that they would like to be pursued by the committee. Can I invite comments on those proposals? I don't think that there's any point in us wasting Mr Brown's time. We heard a statement from him recently. I think that we were assured that there would be updates, but apart from that, I think that the plan of approach is appropriate. Can I maybe disagree with that? I think that it's one of the biggest infrastructure projects going on. If we're going to have responsibility for transport, I think that we need to start the way that we mean to go on and at least get an update ahead of the summer recess. There will be two months when no questions can be asked on this at all, so I think that it would be a good idea to have them there. I'm relatively neutral on the subject of the bridge, which will still be delivered a month ahead of the plan schedule. However, if members wish to hear from Keith Brown, more fundamentally, I'd like to support the approach in developing a work programme that you're proposing. I think that that makes sense. I would urge that the clerks communicate with us all individually about the date that we might have for our day. Speaking personally, the diary is filling up. I've got two away days in the last week before we come back, and I suspect that that's probably the week that we're looking at. I won't be alone looking around the table in that regard, so I think that it's important, even though we don't know what we're going to do. However, I might like to suggest that we consider, not necessarily decide today, linking it to a visit that's relevant to the business of the committee. I'm not—this is not meant to be an exhaustive list or even a list of suggestions—a visit to a farm, a visit to a rural business. There are quite a range of options. I have no fixed views on the matter, but I think that if we're going to spend a day sitting in a darkened room, it might be a lightened to some extent if we actually touch the real world as well, if we can. Can I just say that I absolutely share that opinion? I share the opinion that we need to get it in the dairy sooner rather than later, and I also share the opinion that we need to make sure that it's an equitable travel distance for all of us to make sure that it's relatively easy, but to see an item that would be of interest to us all would be very useful, I think. I agree with Rhoda. I would like to see that Keith Brown comes to the committee. I think that it's an important issue. It's the biggest transport project that we face in Scotland, and there are lots of questions that we need to ask them. I've got lots of questions that I'd like to ask them, certainly. Just from a personal point of view, I agree with Stuart. I booked my holidays for the last 10 days of August, so I won't be around for that. Okay. Let's see how you mean to go on. I think that that was excellent. You were telling us in advance, nothing else. I think that it's important that we have all of our ideas, probably, as well as what the ministers might say. Presumably, we can ask the ministers anything we want, but rather than us starting to raise ideas today, we'll do that in a fortnight's time, if we have. Is that what you want us to do? My idea was to spend some time with the clerks, with each of you, to find out what issues you would like to raise, so I'm fully aware of them, and then to make that known to the rest of the committee as well. That's fine. I'd like to hear from Keith Brown not just about the fourth crossing, but about lots of other transport, because I'm particularly interested in that. We can ask him about all his responsibilities. Yes, because we've got rail links, and although I live in the city, I do like going out of the city, and I've got a lot of issues that I can start raising with them. I think that it would be wider than just the bridge itself. If we are going away during recess, I, as somebody who lives in the central bell, am more than happy to spend two or three days away if we want to go to a more remote place, because I think that we should get out of the central bell, and this is an opportunity if it's during recess. Thank you, convener. I agree with much that's been said. I think that it is important that we get Keith Brown in front of this committee, because the rail link, for instance, from Aberdeen to Edinburgh is an important issue that we need some answers on, as well as the bridge, and, obviously, Fergus Ewing needs to come and speak to us, and we need an update on where we are and the CAP payments, for instance. I also think that it's a good idea to get out and about, so I reflect that as well. Much of what's been said, I think, is the correct way forward, and I agree with what you're saying that we need to get our own thoughts into the clack of the committee, and then we can move forward. Sorry. I thought you were going down the line. I didn't know when I was caught my eye. If they want to speak, just catch my eye. I certainly agree with John Mason, and I think that Keith has come along to talk about the bridge, but I also have a major infrastructure situation in the MA M74 in my constituency, so I've got quite a number of questions that I'd like to ask in regards to that also. Perfect. That's within his responsibility, so that would be fine. As I'm thinking about declarations of interest, I am now Fergus Ewing's parliamentary liaison officer, so I suppose that it's relevant that I declare that. I just remember that. In my area, we have major connectivity that needs to be looked at, roads, rail, broadband. It's everything that a rural area needs help with, so I would urge us to explore that. Thank you. Sorry if I can go to Jamie. I think I'll echo what Emma said. It may be helpful if we were able to define what areas the committee will cover specifically. Connectivity is more than just broadband, roads, rail, ferries. It could encompass a whole wide range of subject matters, and for that reason that may encroach in a wide range of ministers, or cabinet secretary. I think that it may be mapping up those areas of responsibility that the committee will have with the relevant ministers. That would be a nice exercise to have. Around the room, each of us will have interests in one or more areas of that, so I think that I would find that very helpful if we were able to define what the objectives of the committee would be over the course of the session. Okay. John. Just for the buoyance of doubt, convener, of course I'm not suggesting that the largest infrastructure project isn't the subject of detailed scrutiny by this committee. What I was suggesting was that I doubt we're going to learn terribly much in the fortnight between having had a full ministerial statement with the opportunity at everyone, but I think it's very important that we do hear from Mr Brown. Like John, I'm very keen that we have a focus on rail and the opportunities that associate with particularly the limitations, as Peter alludes to with some of the infrastructure there, but also our ferry infrastructure as well. Yeah, I mean I broadly agree with everything that's been said so far. We've all got different interests and that's what makes this committee so interesting. I think that we definitely do need to define the role and the remit of what we're actually responsible for, because not only will we cross over ministers, there's also some crossover with other committees as well, so I think that we also need to discuss how we're going to interact with those other committees and how we're all going to work together in that. Do you want any other comments? Can I just say on that that I actually agree totally that the remit of this committee could be so big that we could be completely lost in it, and I think it'd be a very good opportunity for the clerks to get together and draw out a map of all our responsibilities. I think then that at a later date the committee should actually consider where we're going to react with other committees and look to see if there's some joint working that we can do with other committees to make sure that the specific areas that are relevant to us but also relevant to them are covered. So that would be something that I think we could legitimately ask the clerks to do for us and to bring it up. I very much take the point that you've all made about getting out, about early planning and also about making sure that we take note of everyone's interests and those very much will be on the work agenda and we will be back in touch with the clerking team and myself to try and make that work for everyone. I think that there is broad agreement that calling both the Cabinet Secretary and both Cabinet Secretaries in relation to the infrastructure project of the Forthbridge and any other questions that want to be raised and also focusing on farm payments and any other business that wants to be raised would be appropriate at the next committee meeting. So I believe that we're agreed on that unless I hear any—oh well, are we agreed on that? If the—given that it's in two weeks' time, what your process—what you'd like the process to be for submission of questions in advance to the ministers to give them time to adequately research and respond or—so for example, you may have a very specific issue about a piece patch of road or a specific rail line or a specific bridge. I think that each of us may have individual points to asking on the day what the process should be for submitting those. Sorry, can I just slightly help you with that? My understanding is that—and it's right that members of the committee can ask any question that they specifically want—but the clerks will help with some questions on topical issues that they think may assist us in putting questions to the minister, but it shouldn't be limited to that. It should be—the members should ask the questions that they think are important and relevant. Sorry. No, I was just on the other side here. Just rather, obviously, if it's a relatively local issue, it may be helpful to a member who wishes to raise it if the minister is aware that it's going to be raised. But that, I think, is a matter between the member and the minister rather than the minister for the committee. We can—if you want an answer—on a local issue. The one thing that I would say is that we're going to be quite short of time on that committee day. So I think that the bigger issues are the ones that we should be concentrating on, but you will determine what the big issues are. Have you mentioned, convener, given that we've now concluded that we wish two cabinet secretaries here, and I assume that if it's possible for them to be here, it would be two separate sessions, will we be considering an earlier start then? We're still to actually work out timings that they're available, so once we've got timings that they're available, what we'll do is we will come back to you and let you know the timings, and we want to have a pre-meeting prior to them coming in, so we'll come back to you as soon as we know. I think that concludes the business of today's committee meeting, so I'd like to close the first meeting and look forward to seeing you at the next meeting on 29 May. Thank you very much everyone for being here.