 I promote the consultation. Thank you and thank you everybody for rattling through. We got through all the questions. I'm moving straight on to the next item of business, but it's very tight with questions. The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on the enterprise and skills review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there will be no interventions or interruptions. I'll call on Keith Brown. Cabinet secretary, 10 minutes. Presiding Officer, today I wish to provide an update on the progress of the enterprise and skills review, which aims to align and improve our enterprise and skills system. In doing so, I am fulfilling the commitment that I made to Parliament in January to provide an update on the governance aspects of the review. Since January, there have been two debates within the chamber that have highlighted the Parliament's views on matters relating to the strategic board. On both occasions, Scottish ministers have been clear that we would listen to the views expressed. I have done this and I am thankful for the opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised. As well as talking about governance today, I also want to highlight our vision for a more productive and inclusive economy and the economic objectives that we want to achieve. When I published phase 1 of the enterprise and skills review in October last year, I set out the level of the challenge that the Scottish economy faces. In particular, the urgent action that is necessary as a result of the EU referendum. Despite those challenges, the Scottish economy continues to perform and I am delighted to note that we have recently progressed to the second OECD quartile for productivity. That demonstrates that the fundamentals of the Scottish economy are strong and that progress is possible with sustained and concerted effort. We have substantial natural resources, one of the most highly educated workforces in Europe, a long-standing reputation for innovation and an internationally recognised brand. We are world leaders in key industries of the future, such as life sciences, financial services and financial technology. As well as creative industries and sustainable tourism. However, the status quo will not deliver the economic step change necessary to realise our ambition to rank in the top quartile of OECD countries for productivity, for equality, for wellbeing and sustainability. Productivity drives the overall standard of living in our economy and the competitiveness of our businesses. A step change in productivity will deliver an opportunity to see higher wages, greater competitiveness and increased quality of life for everyone across Scotland. That review is exploring how our agencies can leverage the strong fundamentals of our economy to help individuals and businesses to realise their ambition, taking advantage of the rich opportunities that exist in Scotland. As just one example of our increasing effort, I will be committing £1 million next financial year and for the following three years to create a new Scottish public sector innovation challenge fund. I have asked Scottish Enterprise to lead on that and to work with partners to scale up the fund in 2017, 2018 and future years. That fund will use the public sector's demand for improved services to stimulate and support the development and commercialisation of innovations from indigenous supply chain companies. That approach will benefit everyone by finding innovative private sector-led solutions for complex public sector issues, improving services for citizens across the whole of Scotland, saving money and increasing opportunities for business innovation. The enterprise and skills system is fundamental to achieving our ambitions. Our agencies, sharing a common purpose and strong leadership, can create the conditions to increase productivity and help to deliver the skills that Scotland's people and economy need. That is why we put productivity growth at the centre of our vision of the enterprise and skills review. We recognise and appreciate the vital contribution at the four agencies that Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council make to creating a more successful country, delivering opportunities across Scotland that support inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Far from diminishing the role of the agencies, I want the review to set out how we can enhance the impact of the investment that we make on economic and skills development here in Scotland. We want our agencies to create some of the best conditions in the world for inclusive growth. That is why the review is exploring how our agencies can transform the services, skills and support that are necessary for business and individuals across Scotland to be successful. I want to create a system of enterprise and skills support that is greater than the sum of its parts. Many of the responses to phase 1 of the review highlighted the need for greater alignment in order to deliver greater economic impact, including Audit Scotland. Our commitment to create a strategic board will deliver greater collaboration, innovation and common purpose across the agencies. While support for the strategic board has been considerable, it was clear that there were concerns about how it would impact on our agencies, particularly in relation to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Funding Council. I agree that any new arrangement has to carefully balance the different interests of the regions of Scotland and the full statutory functions and responsibilities of each agency. That is why I asked Professor Lawn Crerar, chair of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to lead discussions with his fellow chairs and others to scope potential structures and functions for the new board and to consider how that would align with arrangements at agency level. I thank Professor Crerar for his considered and detailed paper. He has shown a great personal commitment and objective activity in taking forward this work. I have also reflected on his proposals and the views expressed in the chamber in the debates that I previously mentioned and, more widely, in determining the role, function and structure for the strategic board and its relationship to governance at an agency level. Similarly, I have tested all of that against what will best deliver our ambitions. My intention is to build on Professor Crerar's proposals and to establish a strategic board with the aims that he has identified and also with a further aim to deliver wider collective leadership based on common culture and values and which inspires and empowers delivery. The final aim recognises the need for a step change in the culture across the system and with those that they engage with. That must take the shape of fundamental meaningful collaboration that is reflected into data and day-to-day joint working at every level. The board that I can confirm today will be led by an independent chair from the business community who will develop a strategic plan underpinned by common evidence performance measures on which agencies can collaborate. Each agency will have a seat at the table through their chair, and they will be joined by strong, non-executive members drawn from wider economic and societal interests, including members with experience of business, local government, research and skills and the trade unions. We recognise the need for change following the phase 1 report, but I have listened to the views of Parliament that more can be done within the existing structures to drive change. Professor Crerar has also helpfully set out a way that he thinks that we can achieve this, and on that basis I do not intend to bring forward legislation to change the name, the functions or structures of the agency boards. I have listened to a wide range of voices over the last few months, including my Highlands and Islands SNP parliamentary colleagues, MSPs from other parties, I have spoken to the spokespeople for each of the opposition parties, I have spoken to the business community, and they have asked the business community in particular that, across the parties, that if we can, and as far as we can, if we can demonstrate consensus on the fundamental importance of business support and enterprise, that is of particular value to the business community. In particular, I have listened to this Parliament, and so I confirm today that the boards of High, the SFC and the other agencies will remain, but there is an absolute expectation that the agencies will work to align their delivery to maximise their positive impact on the economy. As I have previously promised, High will continue to be locally based, managed and directed, and the new arrangements will protect and enhance their unique service. As recommended in Professor Crerar's report, I will obviously want to work to develop the functions of the boards along with the boards themselves, consistent with their existing statutory basis, to ensure that they can collaborate effectively to deliver the strategic board's purpose and to achieve our overall vision. I also recognise the value in bringing the agencies together quickly to form an implementation board. That will also include some members of the ministerial review group, and we will develop the detailed work that is necessary to bring the strategic board into being. Phase 2 of the review began in November 2016 and is due to last for six months. In the coming weeks, I will publish a report demonstrating progress across all the areas during phase 2. For example, it will highlight work that visits Scotland are leading in collaboration with other agencies that will result in powerful, consistent messaging and identity, which can be used across different Government agencies, universities and business collectively and, individually, where and when appropriate. That narrative and campaign will use our natural and built assets, be it the renowned beauty of our landscapes and seascapes, our rich history and the culture of the pioneering drive across Scotland, across academia and industry, to show what a modern and progressive Scotland can offer to the world. Messers such as this one, which will support our international economic aims, will be crucial in helping us to deliver our collective ambitions. I am setting out the principles of the governance architecture today to allow us to rapidly progress those progressive initiatives across the whole range of the review. To repeat, the reform to the governance structure that I have set out here, as well as the supporting initiatives that I have laid out, remain a means to an end. The core purpose of this review is to drive a step change in the performance of our economy and to deliver strong, vibrant and inclusive growth. I am confident that those ambitions are shared by everyone in the chamber, and I hope that they will endorse them. Thank you very much. I now take questions on the issues raised in this statement. I will allow 20 minutes for questions. I have 16 people listed to ask questions. I say to Dean Lockhart that he was not in at the opening of the statement. I have had no letter or note of excuse for that, so you are slipping to the bottom of my list of questioners, as I would do to anybody else. I have the courtesy to be here when statements are read out as every other questioner was. I call Jackie Baillie, Ms Baillie, please. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advanced copy of his statement. I confess that I feel some sympathy. It has been a bad week for Keith Brown. On Tuesday, he announced the delays to the Queensferry crossing on Wednesday. He had to apologise for being con by a Chinese investor today, though he appears to have performed a series of spectacular U-turns. The Parliament made clear that it wanted to retain Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Funding Council in their current form. There was support for Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, too. I welcome the cabinet secretary's apparent change of mind to abandon legislating for a new board, but let me warn him that trying to exert control in another way does not respect the will of Parliament. I would be grateful if he would confirm that the new board is not statutory. I also find it strange that Keith Brown is not chairing the board, and he knows that is my view. John Swinney used to chair the strategic forum. The cabinet secretary's denial of chairing the board downgrades its importance and blurs the lines of accountability. Surely, if the cabinet secretary thinks that the economy is so important and I believe that he does, he should chair the strategic board. I first of all thank Jackie Baillie for her genuine and sincere concern from my welfare, but to come back to the points that were mentioned, it is also true to say that the Labour Party said to me recently in general questions that if we were to do as they have asked us to do, that would be a sign of strength and not of weakness. That did not seem to last too long. On the strategic board issue, it is important. It is not just the members of the chamber, but some other parties have also said that they would prefer, unlike Jackie Baillie, not to have a minister chair the board. It is not solely because of those representations, but some very strong representations that I have found from the ministerial review group and some very powerful arguments about having a strong business background chair could mean to the progress of the board. That is why we have taken that decision in relation to our ministers. Of course, we will input to the board. That is bound to be the case. On the other points that Jackie Baillie raised, no, it is not the case that this will be a statutory board. There is no reason, I think, why it cannot have as much possibly even more effectiveness by not being a statutory board. That does also meet some of the concerns of other members of this chamber. There is no way that I can conceivably meet all the concerns of every member and every party within this chamber, but what I do have to do is take a balanced approach to all the representations that I have received. I promised to listen, and I have listened, and I will continue to listen. I am sorry about that. James Dorn is followed by Liz Smith. Mr Dorn has short questions, short answers, please. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the dedicated, locally-based support, managed and directed by HIE, will remain in place alongside its role to work in close collaboration with the other agencies for the benefit of the economy? As I have said repeatedly, the Highlands and Islands do great work in the Highlands, and this Government has determined to support it to continue to do that work. I have also previously promised that HIE will continue to be locally based, managed and directed, and the new arrangements will protect and enhance their unique service. HIE will continue to have a board with its core functions as set out in statute, remaining legislatively unchanged. The new arrangements will not only protect the unique service that HIE delivers for our Highlands and Island economies, but through the collaboration that we are seeking with other agencies, that can enhance support that is available to businesses, employers and employees across the region. I warmly welcome what is a very substantial U-turn on the original recommendation to scrap the individual boards. In the case of the Scottish funding council, for which only part of its activities are directed at skills and enterprise, can you confirm that any formal collaboration with the other agencies via the new strategic board is for those activities only that the statutory and legal basis of the current SFC board will not in any way be diminished and that it would still be for Parliament to determine the allocation of funding to the Scottish funding council? Can I say that there is no intention to change—I think that Liz Smith have heard right—was the functions and structures of SFC, and that is the case, that is the intention to do that. The board will be remaining—I think that I should also say, and I did say in my statement, that we will work to develop the boards themselves. That has been part of the review that has been recommended by a long career. It was not specifically mentioned in relation to SFC, but we will continue to have a dialogue, as we always do, about the nature of the boards. The board will not be abolished. The board will stay where it is. We are not going in looking at the structures of the board in addition to that. The other point that I would make is that, in addition to that, what you could see is a strengthening perhaps of the board, because the chair of the board of the funding council will also set on the strategic board, as will the chairs of other agencies. I am not sure that that is picking up about all the points of concern that Liz Smith has expressed if I have missed one, then I am happy to respond to her in writing. I am afraid that there are no supplementaries. Richard Lochhead followed by Rhoda Grant. I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and for confirming that the HIE board will continue in its current form. Will he also recognise the important role played by HIE Murray in attracting the company cura to forests, saving local jobs with the potential to grow many more? Will he also confirm that HIE Murray will continue its good work in the times ahead, particularly given the threat to the Murray economy, posed by the hard Brexit policy of the Conservative Party? I can confirm those things, but, crucially, in relation to the last point that Richard Lochhead made, it was quite clear from both the phase 1 and subsequent discussions that, especially in the Highlands and Islands, the fear about Brexit, in particular in relation to European structural and other funds, where they have performed a function that the UK Government departed from in the 1980s, is absolutely crucial and there is an extreme level of worry about the nature of that support and whether it will continue post-Brexit. That is one of the major challenges that this review is seeking to address. Rhoda Grant followed by John Finnie. Thank you. While the retention of the High Board is welcome, a board with no power is useless, the parts of the statement that worry me is where the cabinet secretary says that agencies will work to align their delivery and that they deliver the strategic board's purpose to achieve our overall vision. If they have to conform to a Scotland-wide delivery plan, purpose and vision, how does that allow for local accountability and decision making? Therefore, can I ask who is boss of the strategic board or the High Board? Cabinet Secretary. I do not think that there is anything further I can say to answer what I suppose the concerns expressed by Rhoda Grant. However, I do not understand them. I have said that the board will remain as it is and will have the powers that it currently has. It is not going to be second guess in terms of its strategic investment, so it will continue to take the decision making that has had up until now. However, why anybody would object to the idea that our main enterprise and skills agencies should collaborate and align for the greater purpose of improving economic performance across Scotland? I do not know. It is my responsibility to make sure that that happens. It is also the responsibility of each of the agencies with their boards in Scotland to ensure that that happens. That is a perfectly proper and necessary ambition for us to have. I do not understand why I do not know whether it is a whole Labour party or just Rhoda Grant that opposed that, but in short answer to the question, I will have the powers that it currently has. John Finnie, followed by Tavish Scott. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement and for listening on the high board. The cabinet secretary will recognise the role that social enterprises play in economic growth, particularly in the Highlands Islands. If the policies to align the agencies will the cabinet secretary broaden Scottish enterprises' remit to encompass social enterprises, will he agree to meet me and green party colleagues regarding some continuing concerns? John Finnie, I thank John Finnie for his willingness to engage in the process. As I have listened to many members of the Highlands and Islands MSPs from my own party as well as MPs who have made very strong representations on that, I should make clear that it is the intention that the social function of the Highlands and Islands enterprise, as I have just said to Rhoda Grant, will remain. That function will remain. It is also my intention that that should be the same for the south of Scotland agency. It should have a similar power in relation to that. It is also my belief that Scottish Enterprise currently has the ability to do many of those things that John Finnie seeks. However, in order to make sure that we can bottom that out, I am, of course, more than willing to meet John Finnie and his colleagues. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of his statement. I too would welcome the U-turn, but I am struggling to square that U-turn with the sentence in his statement that he very carefully delivered, which says that the boards will collaborate effectively to deliver the strategic board's purpose and achieve our overall vision. If collaboration and delivering that vision is the purpose of the strategic board, then what are the boards of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the funding council going to do? The boards of the funding council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will do the things that they currently do. In fact, it may well be the case that they do substantially more. I mentioned, and I am grateful to Tavish Scott for the engagement that we have had on this, that there is also a stream of work that is going on in terms of regionalisation, which may well result in local areas, whether it is at agency board level or at some other level, taking on additional powers that are currently exercised by other agencies such as Skills Development Scotland. The potential there is for them to be more powerful than they currently are, but it is right, I think, for us to set out an overarching vision that is about increasing productivity, increasing exports, meeting some challenges that do not just apply in one part of Scotland, but apply to the whole of Scotland. The boards will continue to have the powers and the functions that they currently have. It seems to me that we can achieve a lot more if we can make sure that the boards come together. For example, I think that I have given an example before in terms of internationalisation. Sometimes there is not the collaboration taking place that should take place. I think that people in High told me during the consultation process that they had access to one person in SDI. High need to have more resource and more collaboration with the other agencies than is currently taking place. That is the purpose. There is no sinister purpose to the review. It is to increase the benefits for everybody. Jenny Gilruth falle by Douglas Ross. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that creating a strategic board will help to co-ordinate the activities of SE, HIE, SDS and the SFC, bringing greater integration and focus to the delivery of our enterprise and skills support? I absolutely agree. That takes up the point that I was trying to respond to Tavish Scott on. It is pretty clear from the overwhelming evidence that we had in phase 1 of the review of the need to better align the services and the support that our agencies offer in order to deliver opportunities across Scotland. Those opportunities support inclusive and sustainable economic growth. The review aims to help agencies to collaboratively transform the services and the skills and support that are necessary for businesses and individuals across Scotland in order for them to be successful. I want to create an enterprise and skills system, as I said in my statement, that is greater than some of its parts. Introducing a strategic board will assist the four agency boards to align their services, including, in addition, the south of Scotland agency board, to achieve greater collaboration, innovation and common purpose. I welcome the fact that SNP members have now found their voice on this issue, but sadly it was only after their ministers announced this U-turn. Can I ask, like Rhoda Grant, what assurances can be given that decisions taken locally in Murray and across the Highlands and Islands by the board of HIE will not be overruled by the new strategic board? Cabinet Secretary. I am glad that Douglas Ross was able to join after the statement had begun as well, so well done in finding your way to the chamber. I will excuse Mr Ross, he was trying to locate a colleague. In addition to what I have already said to other members, I have mentioned the fact that the high boards and, of course, the consultation and the different councils, including Murray Council, were involved in that consultation. I have had a number of discussions with them. That meets many of the aims that they have said to me in defending the continued existence of the High Board. That statement meets many of those aims, so I think that they will be pleased to have that assurance given to them and I think that they have expressed support. I think that Murray Council has expressed support for the strategic board. I am happy to check that, but I am fairly sure that there is a unanimous view from within the Highlands and Islands local authorities. They also asked that further development takes place in relation to the board. They had concerns about the continued current structure of the board. I am saying that I will only do that in conjunction and collaboration with the board, so I think that reassurance that Douglas Ross seeks has been provided. Mary Todd, followed by Daniel Johnson. Can the cabinet secretary tell me whether HIE will retain its much valued social role? Social responsibility, cabinet secretary? I think that that has been one of the strongest points. Members mentioned or quoted from all sides the words of Jim Hunter. Jim Hunter, when I met him, has a number of concerns, not all of which I recognise will be satisfied by that statement. Crucially, he pointed out that when Highlands and Islands and Highlands and Islands development board were first established, what there was a necessity to do was to create the capacity in order to take up business and entrepreneurial opportunities. That meant taking social and sometimes cultural initiatives in order to build that capacity. It is a very strong track record that I have been doing that. I have always said that that function should remain. I would hope that members would welcome the fact that it is also my intention to make sure that facility, extended remit, is available to the south of Scotland agency. Daniel Johnson, followed by Donald Cameron. I note that the cabinet secretary failed to answer Liz Smith's point about budgets. Will the Scottish Parliament continue to set the Scottish funding council budget, or will that be the responsibility of the new board? Will the new board be able to move money between those agencies? Will the chair of the Scottish funding council be a ministerial appointment, as is currently the case, or will that fall to the new board? Happy to reassure Daniel Johnson on both points. No, it will not be an appointment by the strategic board, as is currently the case by ministers. It will also be the case that the current budgetary arrangements will apply, not the case that the strategic board will allocate budgets as between the agencies. Donald Cameron, followed by Colin Smith. Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that the board of high will indeed retain all strategic, operational and budgetary decisions, given the terms of the motion passed by a majority vote of this Parliament on 18 January? Cabinet secretary. I believe that I have given that reassurance a number of times already, but, as has been mentioned by one or two members, with that caveat, I expect collaboration and alignment between the agencies and their activities. I think that both benefits them and it benefits Scotland as a whole. I have mentioned how High will tell you this, and some of the constituent councils in the Highlands and Islands area will tell you this as well. They believe that further support is required from other agencies, and it is important that that happens. I have given the one example in relation to STI, but it is true across other areas as well, not least, for example, in relation to data. I think that it is very important that we have a common function in terms of creating the right data that helps to inform the decisions. I think that the Highlands and Islands enterprise will be strengthened and extended in terms of what it does from the current position, and I would hope that the member would welcome that. Colin Smith, followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I refer members to my register of interests as a local councillor in Dumfries and Galloway? The cabinet secretary won't be surprised to know that I am disappointed that he did not cover the south of Scotland in his statement. I can inform the chamber today whether he will be accepting the proposal that the new south of Scotland enterprise body proposed during phase 1 of the review will be based on a boundary of the Scottish Borders in Dumfries and Galloway when we can expect a new body to be up and running, given that he has received a proposal from the local authorities for a body that could be established in just a matter of months. Can he give a commitment that the governance arrangements for the new body will mean that decisions will be made in the south of Scotland for the south of Scotland, as it would be disappointing if, like the Highlands and Islands, we needed a vote of Parliament to achieve that? No, quickly, I want to get everything in. I think that those three questions are there, and I hope to cover each of them. First of all, in terms of the boundaries, I think that discussions about the boundaries are a key part of the current phase of work. I think that I would agree with Colin Smith that it appears to be an emerging consensus that there should be based upon Dumfries and Galloway in Scottish Borders. However, there are different perspectives, and I also think that it is very important that we take the temperature of the new councils once they are elected to see if they are agreeable with that. When will decisions about the new vehicle be taken? Phase 2 of the review began on 1 November. We said that it would take six months for that, so final phase 2 decisions are likely to set out a programme of work that will be undertaken, obviously once that phase 2 is established. What he mentions about the functions and powers of the board, I think that I have covered that in the responses that I have given previously. It is my intention that it should be similar to those exercised by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I think that that answers the questions, but again, if the member wants to come back to me with anything that is something that is happy to do that. Oliver Mundell, followed by John Mason. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am disappointed that today's statement made no direct reference to the south of Scotland. I feel that we have had insufficient clarity on what that vehicle will look like. Can the cabinet secretary therefore confirm that the model will be similarly constituted in terms of its governance to High? Can he let us know how the interests of our region will be represented on the implementation board, given that there is no existing structure at the moment? I think that at least the last point is a reasonable point. I think that the other points have covered a number of times, but in relation to the last point, I think that it is very important that the implementation board has representation. I acknowledge the point that that is not currently a board that is constituted. However, I am sure that the member will want to congratulate the Scottish Government on being the ones that have taken forward a south of Scotland agency when no previous Government has done that. That will be an achievement for this Government. I think that both the review and the economy committee found that there was a certain amount of duplication and perhaps not the best use of resources amongst the different agencies. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that there will be an improvement on that moving forward that there will be more co-ordination than there has been? I think that that has to be around the point about collaboration and alignment. I do not think that there is any member of the boards that I have been talking about that would say that there is no duplication. If there is duplication, that is a pound that is being spent that does not need to be spent. We need every pound to work for the people of Scotland, so John Mason is quite right. We want to make sure that we address the issues of duplication and we will do that, especially in relation to some of the activities of funding council and Skills Development Scotland, where they would freely admit that there can be some duplication. It is quite right that we get those as lean and as effective and as efficient as possible and that we drive out duplication. Before I call Dean Lockhart, I thank him for his note and say that he has learned the hard way, but that business in here follows on. All members who watch out and not say just think that they are going to be taken at a certain time. You have all learned the lesson. I learned it once myself. It is a hard lesson, but it is there now. I now call you, Mr Lockhart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can assure you in the cabinet secretary that I was busy reading his statement, if that makes any difference. Let me start by welcoming the U-turn made by the cabinet secretary, and I agree with the cabinet secretary that we need a step change in the economy. However, this step change will not be delivered by tinkering with the organisation of the agencies. It needs leadership and clear policy direction and implementation by this Government. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Audit Scotland's conclusion when it reviewed the enterprise agencies? When they said that the enterprise agencies are performing well but the Scottish Government needs a clearer plan for delivering its economic strategy? The answer to that question is based on the very fact of the review. The review acknowledges the fact that some things, especially in relation to competitiveness, in relation to exports and the international-facing nature of our businesses, have more to do. I acknowledge that fact. I think that we have discussed previously the issue of the overarching economic strategy of the Government, which will be informed. It has to be informed by pressures such as Brexit, which is a huge pressure. We are only starting now to see, even today, that there will not be a trade deal at the same time as the Brexit deal. That has a huge implication, so we have to prepare ourselves for that. That is the purpose of the review. There is nothing more sinister in it than making sure that we establish the right infrastructure to ensure that we can take forward what we need to in terms of business support, data collection, economic activity and skills. That is the whole purpose of the review. I am grateful to Dean Lockhart for the engagement that we have had in relation to that. I genuinely hope that, because the business community is asking this of us, if we can come together, I will continue to seek further common ground where that is possible in order that we can all be facing in the same direction for the challenges that confront Scotland. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? There are no other questions. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 4783 on committee membership, motion 4784 on substitution on committees and motion 4945 on active conveners. Thank you very much. We will take those questions at decision time at 16.45. We will just wait a few seconds. I propose to ask a single question on parliamentary bureau motions 4783, 4784 and 4945. If any member objects, please say so now. No member objects. The question is that we agree my motions 4783, 4784 and 4945. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.