 Felly, mae'r next item of business is topical questions. We'll start with question number one from Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the UK Government ahead of the triggering of article 50. Minister Michael Russell. Yesterday, the First Minister met the Prime Minister and I met the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I can report today on the eve of the day article 50 will be triggered that, while we discussed a range of subjects, we still have no substantial information in the detail of the article 50 letter. Moreover, the national press was informed of the date of triggering article 50 without any attempt to inform the devolved administrations. Christina McKelvie. I thank the minister for that very dreary answer. Does the minister agree with me and think that the Prime Minister has any rational, sensible or logical reason to stand in the way of a decision of this Parliament to hold a referendum on independence if, as the UK Government admitted and confirmed yesterday, the terms of Brexit will be clear before the UK leaves the EU? Minister. No, the timescales are clear and set by the article 50 process itself. Therefore, there is no rational, sensible or logical reason to stand in the way of a legitimate decision of this Parliament. Christina McKelvie. Thank you again, Minister, for another despondent and absolutely terrible response to this Government. Last night, I received a copy of a report by the Human Rights Consortium Scotland. Mary Snowden, the co-ordinator at the consortium said, and I quoted her, that this new report says that individual's rights must be safeguarded in the wake of the vote to leave the European Union. Without the EU pushing forward those rights, those organisations are concerned that legal rights may be reduced and that progress on achieving greater rights for disadvantaged people will stall. They are calling for greater participation in the decision making around Brexit. Greater participation would be very welcome indeed. Does the minister agree with me that the intransigence of the UK Government in failing to reassure EU nationals resident in our nation should be a clarion call to us all that for hard fought for rights could be so easily pushed away? I do agree, because the issue of the nationals from other EU states is a crucial one. It is absolutely astonishing that we stand today on the eve of the triggering of article 50 with no reassurance given to those EU nationals, nor any reassurance given to the Scottish and British citizens who are resident in other countries in Europe. Those are two sides of the same coin, and it is ridiculous that we are in this situation. On the wider issue of human rights, it is important that members of the chamber realise that Brexit and the threat of Brexit has consequences. Yesterday, I attended a round-table meeting chaired by two standing council members, Alan Miller and Graham Smith, on the issue of human rights and social inclusion. Through such engagements, the Scottish Government is very aware of vast, well-versed concerns across academic and third sector bodies of the possible erosion to human rights and social protections that is presented by Brexit. We will continue to work with those bodies and with Civic Scotland to ensure that the key principles set out by Alan Miller in particular are observed. First of all, there should be no regression. Secondly, there should be continued progress. Thirdly, there should be freedom to lead best practice, but what a vast amount of anguish and difficulty is being caused by this process, which is utterly unnecessary because the people of Scotland did not vote for it. Adam Tomkins The United Kingdom Supreme Court in the Miller case a few weeks ago unanimously ruled that within the United Kingdom, relations with the European Union, like other matters of foreign affairs, are reserved and that the devolved legislatures do not have legislative competence in relation to withdrawal from the European Union. What is the minister moaning about? I hope that, in time, Adam Tomkins will reflect upon the attitude that he has taken in this debate. He may think that it is his duty to be an apologist for the UK Government for a hard Brexit and for a hard Britain. His real role in this chamber is to represent the electors of the area from which he comes. I am afraid to say that, if he chooses to be an apologist for the UK Government, he chooses to ally himself with a Government that is working against the interests of those people who elected him. Lewis Macdonald Thank you very much. Alex Neil reminded us last week that there are, in effect, two Brexit deals to be done. One to cover the UK's exit arrangements from the EU and the other on the successor trading relationships between the UK and the EU. Mr Russell will be aware that nobody outside the UK Government has offered a public opinion, a public view that both of those deals can be done in 18 months to two years. Does he not prefer the evidence of Sir Ivan Rogers, who recently retired as the UK permanent representative to the European Union, who said that the view in Brussels is that it will be at least the summer of 2020 before any agreement can be reached between the UK and the EU, and it may indeed be the early to mid 2020s before such an agreement is in place? Is it therefore not wrong to simply take the word of Theresa May to an unrealistic time table for the completion of trading arrangements between the UK and the EU? The First Minister has been very clear that there is a matter for negotiation here in terms of the conclusion of the negotiations to the point where an informed decision can be made. That is absolutely vital. I notice that the Tories keep trying to change their mind on this. That is the vital point, the point at which an informed decision can be made. I accept that many people doubt the wisdom of the Prime Minister's position, the wisdom of the Prime Minister's position, the one for whom the Tories wish to be the apologist, but she is leading those negotiations and she says unequivocally, both can be done, both will be done during that timescale. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is absolutely right for us to say that that is also the timescale in the article 50 process, and therefore we will go along with that. I hope that Labour might, even at this very late day, wake up to the fact that the best position to be in on this is to argue for the position of Scotland, not to argue for the position of the Prime Minister or anybody else. I noticed yesterday that the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland had just woken up to the fact that she should ask the Prime Minister there should be a differentiated option. The stable door has closed. What we should be arguing for is for the right for Scotland to choose, and the Labour Party should be on that side today. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to report that the Queensferry crossing will not be ready by the revised completion date of the end of May. I receive regular updates on progress towards completion of the Queensferry crossing, as indeed does the rural economy committee. However, following my recent appearance at the Wreck Committee on 8 March, I asked FCBC, the contractor, to carry out a thorough review of their programme through to project completion. That work has indicated that adverse weather conditions, particularly wind, has had an impact on the removal of the construction cranes, and therefore on the estimated completion date. Transport Scotland is currently assessing that review carried out by FCBC and I expect to receive a report from them this evening. I have agreed to provide a detailed update to the committee tomorrow morning. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. I also thank him for advising Parliament that there has been widely rumoured amongst the workforce for some time that an extension to the works will be required. It was reported in the Dunfermlyne press that a worker on the bridge was saying that the bridge contractors were asking for the completion of the bridge to be extended to September. Clearly, that will have been met with dismay among my constituents, as I imagine by the cabinet secretary's constituents. Can he give us any better update when the bridge is likely to be completed? Does he recognise that this is now the second delay that has been in the completion of the bridge? We were promised by the First Minister previously that it would be completed by the end of last year. We were then told by the cabinet secretary that it would be completed by the end of May. We are now looking at a further delay. When will it be ready? I have to say that, as I have just said in response to the first question, that information is being analysed by Transport Scotland as we speak. I will be able to report in detail, as I have done throughout the project, to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I should also say that this is a 120-year-old lifespan project. The bridge will be there for 120 years. It is very important that we both get it right and that we do it safely. I am sure that Murdo Fraser is aware of the conditions in the forth. For example, it has taken 65 days to take down one of the cranes that would normally have taken 15 days because of the consistently high winds. As soon as the wind speed goes above 25 miles an hour, it is not possible to work on that. That has contributed to that. I will provide a full report when I have the detailed information in front of me from Transport Scotland to the committee in the morning. However, as I say, this has been a seven-year project, around a bit a quarter of a billion pounds below budget, and that will not change. I thank the cabinet secretary for his further response. I am aware of the weather conditions on the forth. Indeed, thanks to the cabinet secretary, I had a visit to the top of the north tower some time ago last summer. However, would the cabinet secretary accept that politicians should not make promises about the completion of projects that they cannot deliver on? Over the past few months, on two occasions, the existing crossing has had to be closed because high-side vehicles have been blown over, causing massive disruption to the lives of my constituents. If there is to be a further delay in the new crossing being open, what additional measures can be put in place to prevent further disruption from vehicles being blown over? For example, could we have Transport Scotland or police staff stationed at the end of the bridges in severe weather to try to stop high-side vehicles irresponsibly crossing the bridge in those conditions? To the last point that Murdo Fraser has made, I know that that point is being reviewed by my colleague Humza Yousaf who has responsibility for the fourth road bridge, and I am happy to discuss that further. Murdo Fraser makes my point for me when he refers to the two trucks that were blown over on the existing fourth road bridge. That exemplifies the state of the wind. Of course, as he will now know, having been to the top of the towers, the new bridge is substantially higher than the existing bridge. In fact, I am disappointed because I did offer last year to go to the top of the tower with Murdo Fraser because I knew that he was a bit worried about it and, unfortunately, I did not get the chance to do that. However, I am grateful for him. He will know that, if he would let me know, I would certainly have been there. However, I think that he will have experienced at first hand that the weather conditions at the top of that tower are substantially different from those even on the fourth itself. That, of course, does account for the fact that we have had that weather. It has been the consistent say of high winds, which have been the particular problem in relation to that. As I say, I will fully update the committee tomorrow. Once I have had the response from Transport Scotland, I cannot report on rumours or comment on rumours that have been raised in the press. I have to go on the contractors information and Transport Scotland's assessment of that. Once I do that, I will be able to give a definitive position to the committee tomorrow. I am grateful to the convener of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to come along to do that tomorrow. Angus MacDonald Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could the cabinet secretary provide details on the number of jobs created in the building of the bridge and what the wider economic impact from building the bridge has been? Briefly, that is not really the subject of the question, but very, very briefly, cabinet secretary. Well, Presiding Officer, I think that there is a direct correlation in as far as there are now an extra 200 people on the bridge working on the bridge to make sure that we can get that done as quickly and as safely as possible. That takes it to around 1,500 people currently directly employed in the construction of the Queensferry crossing. Since 2011, more than 10,000 people have worked directly on the project, with many more employed in the supply chain via subcontract and supply orders. Up to 31 December, Scottish firms have been awarded some contracts or supply orders on the fourth road crossing project, with a total of about £335 million out of a total of £688 million. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer. The chamber will well remember that, this time last year, when 27 days were lost on the bridge due to adverse conditions, that correlated with a six-month delay in the future opening date. Nobody expects the bridge operatives to work in unsafe conditions, but will the minister advise the chamber as to what tolerance will be built in for the new completion date? If that is broken, will he come back to the chamber and advise us on a further delay still to come? Of course, I am always happy to come back to the chamber to provide updates. I should say for Alex Cole-Hamilton's information that one of the issues in relation to last year—this is a difficult point to get across—is very important. If there is a substantial delay, say for example in relation to the cranes, that means that the other things get concertinered and bunched up into a smaller timescale. The cranes comprise part of the surface of the bridge itself just now. Once they are taken down, a lot of other work has to be carried out. If there are 1,500 extraordinary number of people working to get the bridge complete and they are all trying to do things in the same space, that means that they can have a concertiner effect. However, I am more than happy to come back to the chamber at any time. I will provide an update to the committee—a detailed update to the committee tomorrow when I have the full information, but I am happy to come back to the chamber as necessary. Thank you very much. That concludes topical questions.