 Welcome everyone to the second meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Everyone is reminded pleased to switch off your mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. As meetings are provided in digital format, of course tablets may be used during this meeting. We have received no apologies because everyone is present. Gender item 1, decision on taking business in private. The first item today is to seek the agreement of the committee to take a gender item 4 and any future consideration of its work programme in private. Are we all agreed? Yes. Could you just make it clear the reasons for taking the work programme in private? I think it's important that the public knows why we take issues in private. Because I think at that stage might the important thing is to have a free discussion and therefore we can identify what our work programme is without constraint and then make that available for everyone to see exactly what we're doing. Item 2 is to hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity on the range of issues within his portfolio that relate to the committee's remit. We are going to ask the Cabinet Secretary to define that remit or his remit so that the committee does understand exactly what their role and his role is. It's hoped that the session will provide the committee with an overview of the key current and forthcoming projects, policies and initiatives and developments by the Scottish Government. I'd like to welcome Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity. I'd also like to welcome his supporting officials, Donald Carmichael, the director of transport policy, David Barnes, the chief agricultural officer and Trudy Nicholson, the acting deputy director for connectivity, economy and data division, all of whom are from the Scottish Government. I would invite at the outset the Cabinet Secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener, and congratulations on your assumption of the important post of convener of this committee. I welcome to all the members of the committee some new and some not at all new. I'm very pleased to appear before the committee as the new Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity. The First Minister on appointing me urged that I drive forward the rural economy in Scotland and as someone who has represented a constituency, which in geographical terms is largely rural and has done so for 17 years, I am absolutely determined to fulfil that role. Rural Scotland is the home of many diverse small businesses. It's the source of so much of what we eat and drink. It's the foundation of our green energy revolution and it's the cradle of much of the culture, the history and the landscape that are integral to how we as a country view ourselves and also to how we are viewed by others who invest here, increasingly interested in investing in rural Scotland. It's important to say this. It's also the home of many from other countries, including EU countries, and they are all most welcome. My portfolio spans many of the key industries that make a difference. It's the backbone of the rural economy, of agriculture, of fishing, of crofting, of aquaculture, of forestry, of field sports, of food and drink and also of services that are vital to the rural economy, namely transport and connectivity. I'd like to begin by saying a few words about progress with the issue that has occupied a great deal of my time and rightly so over the first month of my tenure, namely cap payments, and separately on the outcome of the EU referendum. On cap payments, as I made clear convener in my parliamentary statement on 31 May, resolving the current CAP payment situation is my immediate foremost priority, and I'm pleased to be able to update members on our progress in fixing it. Balance payments worth over £60 million went out over the last weekend. Further substantial payments were made yesterday and will be made today and tomorrow. I can now say that most farmers and most crofters should have received most of their due payment, but anyone who is not in that position should already have received a substantial loan payment unless they chose to opt out of the loan scheme or their claim was ineligible. Payment performance this year has, convener, fallen short of the very high standards that the Government has delivered in recent years. We are learning lessons and will do a full review. However, the overriding current task is to get the last of the payments out to farmers and crofters. I've said that I will return to Parliament in the autumn to report on our progress on objectives for CAP payments. I would also be happy to come back to this committee to discuss these lessons with you more fully and crucially what we do to minimise the risk of these happening again. I'd also like to say a word about the EU referendum. The European Union provides and has provided significant support to Scottish rural communities. It is a key market for our food and drink that we produce. The majority of Scotland's overseas food and drink exports worth £1.9 billion went to the EU in 2015. Last Friday, I was at the Royal Highland show where I spoke to many, many people, most people to whom I spoke on the Friday when I attended, were shocked by the referendum result. It creates greater uncertainty for Scotland's farmers and crofters as for all other sectors of society. However, we are still firmly in the EU, trade and business should continue as normal, and we are determined that Scotland will continue now and in the future to be an attractive place to do business. For now, everything continues as normal in terms of the systems that are running. The cap regime remains in place and payments continue to be made. The First Minister is taking all possible steps and exploring all options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted, to secure our continuing place in the EU. She also made clear that the Government must be fully and directly involved in all decisions about the next step that the UK Government intends to take. Moreover, we will be seeking direct discussions with the EU institutions and its member states, and that work has begun. On Monday of this week, I attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg and met the French, German and Irish ministers and also with the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan. I raised the concerns about the farming community in Scotland. I had the opportunity to stress that we are open for business working to protect Scotland's role in the EU. It is vital that other nations understand Scotland's position, just as it is vital for our farming and food industry, that we work quickly to safeguard the links and relationships that benefit them when it comes to trade. In conclusion, I look forward to continuing to take part in vital work with the EU convener and to working very closely with the committee as it takes forward your programme of work. As we go into some questions that we would like to ask you, I wonder if I could start off and ask the cabinet secretary what proposals the Scottish Government has to address the challenges of living in rural areas in Scotland. Well, as we both know convener and many other members of the committee of all living in rural Scotland, we enjoy many advantages. We live in beautiful landscapes, we have strong communities and strong communities' spirit and community activism. We have higher economic activity and we actually have lower unemployment rates generally than those living in cities. It is no surprise therefore that the various indices show that a great many people are very satisfied with rural living, but there are many challenges and there are many pockets of poverty and significant rural deprivation. There is a low wage economy in some areas and in some sectors, that is a feature of some of the sectors. Those are matters where we are working in partnership. Our support for the establishment of the rural Parliament has allowed communities to identify key priorities. Indeed, I was able to engage with people behind the rural Parliament at the Royal Highland Show. We are investing over £80 million in community-led local development across rural and coastal Scotland to build social and environmental capital through the implement of local strategies. We are working with stakeholders to review the fuel poverty action plan, including the fuel poverty eradication target. That will include recommendations from the rural poverty task force and working group, both due to report their findings by the end of this calendar year. We will make the most of new powers being devolved by extending the eligibility of winter fuel payments to families with children in respect of the highest care component of the DLA. We are exploring other ways to issue payments early for eligible householders who are off-grid. That is a very serious challenge for many people who live in rural Scotland. I know that many members including Mr Mason and his grant have raised those issues, including an ad infinitum. Those are just some of the issues, convener. By no means all, it is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but just some of the issues. There is definitely a curious egg of great many people who have terrific lives, fulfilled, busy, active lives with relative comfort, but match with a significant number of people who do not enjoy that. That is a real challenge for the rural economy and one that, working with colleagues who have primary responsibility for driving forward the anti-poverty measures, we will of course be determined to challenge. Thank you very much. I have a question from Peter. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, we all know how difficult the last six months at least have been for the farming industry, not least because of the debacle with the IT system and the fact that it has proved to be not fit for purpose. We know that there was a scathing report by the auditorium that highlighted poor management, poor overview and conflicts of interest. A system that has not been proved to be fit for purpose has caused real problems. I am pleased to hear that the balance payments are now going out. That was one of the big concerns, obviously, that the last bit of the payment was obviously going to be the most difficult bit to achieve. Now that we are doing that, that is great. Is the cabinet secretary still confident that there will be no EU fines coming along down the road? We know that the deadline has been put back to 15 October for paying 95 per cent. Are we confident that we can at least achieve that and that there are no possible EU fines coming down the road for the Scottish Government? It is a fair point that Mr Chapman makes, convener, that there have been very difficult times for farmers. There have really been times when all sectors of farming have had severe financial pressures or almost all sectors, but that has been the case over the last period. I am very pleased to say that, as at 28 June, payments have been initiated to over 16,400 farmers and crofters, and over the past week, we have injected a further £67 million into the rural economy by making balance payments to over 13,500 businesses that have received their first instalment. Since I came into this post, convener, this has been the number one priority. I said that on 31 May, that is what has happened. I have sought to do everything within my power to take this by the scruff of the neck and get the money out to the farmers for 215. That has been the first priority. We have substantially achieved that. However, every day, I receive individual emails from farmers to which I reply myself, passing them to David, who can answer any technical questions. However, I am confident that the hundreds of people working throughout the country, busting a gut to get those payments out, have really played a blinder for Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the terrific work that they have been doing to transform the system since I came in and to deliver a marvellous effort. We would all recognise that many of the people in these offices are themselves of the farming community, whether they are working or have an interest in a farm or have relatives that do so. They care passionately about doing that. On penalties, I think that we have made a great progress. It should be said, convener, that there has in the past been a history of relatively modest penalties in the scheme of things at the Scottish and UK level. In other words, it is not the case that there have been no penalties incurred in relation to the administration of these payments. There have been. Scotland's record until this year was significantly better than other parts of the UK. This year, that has not been the case. We will make a detailed statement about this when we come back to Parliament in the autumn. I am very confident that the worst predictions of the Auditor General will not come to pass, so I am happy to provide that assurance. However, it would be better since we are not at the deadline yet for some purposes of 30 June that we postpone a detailed consideration of this matter until perhaps after the recess. I do not know if David Barnes wants to add anything or whether I have covered everything at this point. I remind committee members that if they have any interests to declare, it would be useful just to briefly declare them. I am sure that Peter would have wanted to declare that he was an interest in a farming partnership. However, if we take that, that is now declared. However, if it comes up again, I would ask members just to... Thank you, convener. I accept your rebuke. I should have said that I have an interest in a farming partnership, and I have an interest in directorship of Aberdeen and Northern Marks Group, and I have an interest in a wind farm company as well. I apologise profusely, but it slipped my mind to say that. Having any of that has farming interests or having difficulties with their cap payments, then please do contact me and I will do what I can to speed things up. Mike, you have a question for you. Thank you, convener. Minister, you are quite right to reassure the farming community and agriculture community that nothing will change over the next couple of years as far as subsidies are not something. However, in two years' time, when we are leaving the common agriculture policy, in two years' time you are likely to have entire control personally over farm subsidies for the future. If you could say something that might reassure people in the long term about farming subsidies, because there are going to be issues raised like pig farming, dairy farming and don't get subsidies, those people will be thinking that maybe with the freedom that you may now have that you might want to change the system. I would like to know what your initial thoughts are on the whole issue if we have total control of the money that goes out of subsidies? That is a fair question and it was one that was asked by the specialist journalists from the Scottish Farmer on Friday of last week when the shock of the news was being considered by everybody. I think that, in principle, I would want to make absolutely clear that the Scottish Government recognises the huge contribution that the financial support payments make to the rural economy as a whole and to farmers and crofters in particular. That is part of the existing system. It is a system that we support and, in principle, we need to be able to provide whatever reassurance that we can to farmers and crofters and those in local authorities and others who are involved in rural programmes, the rural development programme, which in itself is a massive programme between 214 and 220. We will continue to provide a ballast of financial support that has been a key part of supporting rural life, so I can give that in principle commitment. What I can't do is to give any assurance as to what we've received from the UK Government. I have no idea what the UK Government's view on this is. I do believe that points were put to the UK Government prior to the referendum as to whether there was a plan of any sort. So far as I know, there was no plan B unless B stands for the Christian name of an individual. So there is no plan whatsoever that we have been presented with by the UK Government, but I don't really want to go into the politics of the thing because I think really what people that live in the rural communities want is facts and assurance as quickly as possible. That will be difficult to provide because, of course, if the terminus Rq of the article 50 trigger is not going to be until October, then by definition, since it's been indicated that there will be no informal talks by the commission if that is stuck to, if that position remains, then it will be quite simply factually impossible to provide more information other than, in response to Mr Rumble's question, a clear statement of principle from the Scottish Government that we must continue to provide the ballast of economic support to the people that are the backbone of our countryside. So I give that support, that principle commitment, but I regrettably, for circumstances that I think Mr Rumble's and myself both deeply regret, just at this moment in time, we cannot go much further than that. But we will, of course, be exerting pressure on the UK Government to come up with answers quickly. And lastly, I would say that the EU is a reserve responsibility, and therefore, the funding responsibility to fill the reserve function follows the nature of the fact that it's reserved. There is a lack of a devolved capacity here for the budgeting facility, which is entirely a reserved function. The EU recognises the UK as the member state, and the member state speaks on agriculture and is responsible for finance. So it is for the UK Government to come up with clear proposals. It is primarily, as a matter of simple law, their responsibility, and I urge them to do so as quickly as possible. I just wanted to pick up on the IT aspects of the cap payment that Peter Chapman raised. I will say that I have, with my wife, a registered agricultural holding of the massive three acres, and we receive no cap payments, so I don't think that it's relevant to the discussion. However, I've said that on the record for anyone who has an interest. I spent three years lecturing on computer project management to postgraduates at Heriot-Watt after retiring from 30 years in IT and before being tapped in the shoulder to come here. I used two projects from the public sector as our course projects. One was the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the BACL, of the early 2000s and late 90s, and an earlier one, 10 years back, the London Ambulance Service. It's quite clear that the public sector is not terribly good at big IT projects, and that's quite independent of political leadership. The private sector is not necessarily any better, by the way. You just don't hear about it, and you probably don't want to. However, I wonder whether there is an opportunity for across-government the Government to consider, in the longer term, setting up an expert panel to look at the generality of how we manage large IT projects. I know that the Auditor General is doing intensive look at how the project was managed, but I think that there is fundamentally more to it than perhaps the Auditor General may be covering. I would encourage the minister to be quite positive in his response to me that we might take this and possibly create world leadership on what is a problem that is pervasive in the industry that I used to make my living in. I have no immediate plans to be involved in world leadership. I am going to be focusing largely on the cap payment issues in the short term, at least. I think that Mr Stevenson, convener, has a too modest dimension, but he was involved in the implementation of a new IT system for a major bank in Scotland, as I understand it, and was told to do it on budget or on time in a two-sentence remit. I think that, speaking from experience, it is a fair comment that Governments on all sides of all borders, frankly, seem to find it difficult to implement IT systems on time and on budget. There are many reasons for that. I did notice that the Auditor General in her report on the cap issue said that she is preparing wider comments on IT generally, and I think that that is to be welcomed. I hope to be engaged with the Auditor General and colleagues across Government, and I would therefore respond to Mr Stevenson's question in the positive spirit that he mentioned. I think that there are certain basics, though. It seems to me that one of the problems with IT systems is that the specification is not properly defined in the contracts, perhaps because it has not been thought through or for other reasons. Another problem is communication of the IT system to those who have to operate it. That is a particular problem in relation to agriculture, because the IT system was operated by a set of experts, and the people who are administering the system are expert in the CAP system and how it operates. They are truly expert in how it operates in great detail. However, they are not IT experts, so I think that this was identified by the Auditor General in her report that one of the particular problems was the difficulty of people in the 17 area offices, three of which I visited and spoken to staff at great length about this, that they did not feel confident in the IT system and the solutions may not have been properly communicated to them. Those matters became evident to me in the first couple of days from the job, and steps were taken to address that. I think that the steps have had relative success. For example, ensuring that the top people who are able to communicate how the IT system should operate are able to communicate that directly to the senior staff of the area offices. There are various ways to do that in management terms, but those steps have been taken at my behest since 20 May, when I was appointed to this role. However, I entirely accept that Mr Stevenson has raised a useful suggestion, and I will take that back specifically to colleagues. If I may, I will report back and I will write to you, convener, as to what the official Government response is, because plainly it crosscuts a number of directorates, including this one. I know that it is keen to come back, but if it is very, very quick, no, very quick, because it is a big issue and there are lots of questions stacking up around the table. I would just suggest, if I may, that the minister has perhaps illustrated one of the issues. You cannot complete the specification at the sign of the contract, it is just not possible. If you have, the project dies, because it is an essential part of projects that there is change. If there is not change, the project is going nowhere, and the important thing is not so much to nail the specification down as to nail the process for dealing with change. To quote Ovid, I add parvum, parvum, magnus, acrovus, erit. In other words, add a little to a little and there will be a big pile. That is from the mythical man month by Professor Fred P. Brooks 40 years ago. It is still valid. I think that we will take that as said, if I may, and move on to Emma if I may and then come to Peter. It is a question related to what Mike Rumble said about the EU. It may sound local to Dumfries and Galloway, but it actually has national implications. It is about last year that Dumfries and Galloway secured £5.6 million of EU rural development funding, and it was the highest allocation in Scotland. I hope that the cabinet secretary can maybe clarify or just tell us a little bit about whether this may be the last EU money that the area receives and what comment he has or any reassurance that the UK Government has given to replace it through the block grant. In a way, Emma Harper's question is just a variant of Mike Rumble's question, and the answer is the same. The payments that have been received and she mentioned the figure in Dumfries and Galloway are plainly essential for the farming community in that part of Scotland, as I learned when I visited the Dumfries area office in the first week of my tenure. They cover, incidentally, an enormous swath of Scotland, enormous land area. Of course, it is essential that the payments continue. If she suggested that there will be no more payments, that is not correct. We are still in the EU, we are bound by the rules, and that will remain for at least two years plus whatever period elapses prior to the terminus aqua of the two years that they trigger. It may be in October, in which case we have a further two years in the EU. I would have thought that the date of exit from the EU, if that is what the UK Government decided to trigger, would coincide with a financial year. However, who knows? Nobody can be certain about what the UK Government will do in those matters, because they have not sold us. However, there will be a further couple of years where we are still in the EU, plus a little bit at minimum. There could be a lot longer if the trigger is not exercised for some time to come. Again, we do not know. I think that this illustrates very clearly that Ms Harper has raised on behalf of her constituents a matter that is of extremely concern. There is a complete absence of clarity at the moment, and it is useful that the proceedings of this committee can highlight the practical need to demonstrate to farmers in Dumfries and Galloway, as in the rest of Scotland and the UK, just how important it is for some real progress to be made from the UK Treasury in making some clear statement of intent, which I would expect would have to be issued in the next few days a convener. That would be a personal view. In other words, the questions that are being asked today in this committee are being asked everywhere in Scotland and everywhere throughout the UK, and no sector is more impacted than the farming sector, because it is the area where the EU has pretty much total legislative responsibility for the administration of the payment system. If you look at other sectors of the economy, it could be argued that they are less directly affected, although they all are reliant on a single free market and free movement of people, but the farming sector is different. It relies almost entirely on the revenue of the people that work in it on EU payments, and that is why I am very grateful. I think that many members may share my concerns. Whatever party we are in, the lack of clarity is dispelled, and certainty is brought forward by very clear statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as quickly as possible. That is an important subject, and I am mindful of the time, but I would like to take one more question and then maybe if I would like to ask Mr Barn's question myself, so if we go to Peter to start with. I just want to follow up on my initial question. Although I have been very critical of the IT system, I have never been critical of the people in the area offices. I know the people in the area offices have done their utmost to make their system work under very difficult circumstances, so the criticism has never been pointed at them. I just ask the Cabinet Secretary whether he can at this stage say more about the process of learning lessons from the problems of the IT system and whether he will be able to give farmers a firm timetable for the making of the payment of 2016. As far as learning lessons go, I have said that we recognise that there is an essential need to learn lessons and a need for review. I have had a number of discussions with civil servants about that. We have made improvements to the management system, to the control system, to the reportage system, and all of that will have to be looked at in detail in due course. In addition to that, we need to learn the lessons from the people that are most closely involved. When one wants to learn how to do things best, ask the people that are doing it at the coalface. In that case, there are, for example, several professional agents who around the country are professionally employed by farmers to complete the necessary forms. A, they are complex, and B, the consequences of making an error, even an inadvertent obvious innocent error, can be absolutely swinging. It is essential that we learn from those who are involved in it, and there is an agents forum. I am going to make arrangements to meet with the agents forum to get the benefit of their advice and make sure that they input into this. I am bound to say that the response of the commissioner, Phil Hogan, has been exemplary. He has responded and, in fact, I met him 30 minutes before I actually became the cabinet secretary before I was sworn in. He reassured us at that meeting that there would be good news to follow. There was. He acted swiftly. It does ironically show, actually, just how helpful and the EU flexible it can be in some circumstances. That is important. The real flaw of the EU cap payment system is the way in which it penalise inadvertent errors. I have known this as a constituency MSP for 17 years, and I am sure that colleagues will have seen the same thing, that the fines that are meted out or the loss of support payments for a simple lack of a tick in a box or a minor discrepancy with a few ear tags, the consequences are so horrendous to make all of us feel that this is just not right. One of the few examples in society of a manifest clear palpable injustice. I mentioned that because Commissioner Hogan has been taking through the council proceedings and attended one of them on Monday, the yellow card system, so that this form of entirely disproportionate punishment comes to an end. I just mentioned that. I think that it is important to recognise that the EU does not get a lot of credit for some of the things that it does because it does not really hit the radar of the press, but in this instance Commissioner Hogan has delivered in relaxing the penalty compliance regime, and I think that he is also in the course of delivering for fairer treatment from farmers. Those two factors will obviously be relevant for the lessons learned process that Mr Chapman quite fairly raises this morning. I did ask about 2016 payments, cabinet secretary, if you have not answered that bit. That is perfectly true. I will bring forward, as I promised, proposals in the statement that I promised to make, and I will make after the recess. The reason I cannot do that now is because we have been busting a gut to get the 215 payments out, but I can assure Mr Chapman and all the committee members that we are looking carefully at 216. We cannot have a 215 again. It will not happen again. I am determined that it will not happen again, and that is the starting point. Everything else flows from that. Over the summer, I will be ensuring that, when I come back to Parliament, I give a statement that is convincing, robust and tackles the problems that have so bedeviled and beset the farming communities with real stress and pressure over the past few months. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I now, before I ask my question, just make a declaration that I have an interest in a farming partnership, and I, within that partnership, cabinet secretary, still await my payment, so there is no doubt where my position is. That is clear at the outset. Can I just ask the cabinet secretary if it is possible, please, to come back to the committee if it is not possible to give the information today on the total costs of the IT system, the extra staffing costs, because I believe up until after Christmas summer, 75 extra staff were taken on. I believe that that number may have increased, and I believe that the extra work that the cabinet secretary alluded to that had been undertaken by the staff in the offices by the end of February had exceeded 2,500 hours, so that we know what the actual cost of this has been to the purse in Scotland, and therefore we can move forward on that. That is a perfectly fair request, and it is one that we will comply with as soon as we can. I prefer to wait until we have broken the back of the two 15 payments, so I am confident with that, but I will certainly come back as soon as I possibly can with answers to that. Of course, I would say that it is quite right that there has been overtime. Overtime has been necessary in order to make sure that we break the back of getting the payments out. When you have a job to do in the private or public sector, then overtime is a fact of life. I make no apologies for insisting that the managers of various offices throughout the country do everything that they can to get the job done, even if it means a bit of overtime, although I fully accept that that means some extra costs. However, we will come back to the committee with details of their anent. Thank you very much. The next question is going to be from John on, I believe, crofting. Okay, thank you. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Yes, I would like to ask about crofting, cabinet secretary. Now, you will be aware of a number of controversies at the moment involving senior personnel and indeed the issue of commons grazings. Clearly, I would not anticipate that you would comment on any live proceedings, but are you able to give a general view on the state of crofting and perhaps tell the committee about plans to reform crofting law, which has seemed to be very complex, and did you say how the national development plan would be put together, please? Yes, that is an absolutely fair question from Mr Finnie. Starting off, I want to just express our support for crofting in Scotland. It is a unique form of tenure, it is part of the history and culture of parts of the Highlands and Islands, and we want to keep that. Also, active crofting means that people can be sustained on the land in the most remote parts of the Hebrides. I know that Rhoda Grant has always been active in campaigning for crofters. First of all, I want to make a commitment that we want crofting to continue. Secondly, I had prior to the referendum been involved in addressing the stakeholders of a group that are looking specifically at the issue of the move from less favoured areas to areas of natural constraints in 2019. That good work was prefaced on the continuation of the EU, but that good work was informed by the full participation of the SCF, the NFU and with many individual crofters whom I know and the pleasure of meeting again. I also met the SCF at the Royal Highlands show and indeed yesterday again. First of all, we support crofting, it will continue, it is not under threat from the Scottish Government. And secondly, to answer the other questions, we will bring forward legislation. I am keen for the committee's input in that process, it will be an open process. I think that it should cover areas such as sustaining housing, looking at the existing mechanisms of grants, looking at other possibilities such as the loans scheme, looking at how commercial lenders can actually grant mortgages on crofts, for example. Is there a way that that can be done by slight amendment to the law? Housing is absolutely imperative, of course. A great deal has been done, both by this administration and our predecessors, to be fair. It is a shared belief that crofting is a valuable part of our heritage, so other parties have been supportive as well, which I recognise and value. I cannot, as Mr Finnie says, comment on existing live cases, one of which might be before the relative tribunal at the moment. However, I am aware that there is disquiet amongst many crofting communities, many of whom have written to me. Although I cannot make any specific comment, I can say that I am seized of the issue, I am aware of it and I am looking to have and I am having and will continue to have discussions with all relevant stakeholders, including the Crofters commission, whom I expect to meet fairly soon. I hope that Mr Finnie and his party, as I expect they will do, will play a full part as supporters of crofting in how we continue with the form of tenure, the way of life, supporting it, seeing in what ways the Shucksmith reforms, not all of which have been implemented, might be taken forward and in what other areas the law should be changed. I am no expert by any means, there are not many experts in crofting law, there is a crofting law group of course who we will also consult, but I am very keen to address the immediate concerns of the crofting community in an appropriate way, in due course, but I think that the matter is effectively sub-udicae at the moment, so just of today I cannot really comment on that further. However, I very much look forward to working with Mr Finnie, his party and with all members really in the task of further bolstering and strengthening our support for the crofting communities in Scotland over the next five years. If you would like to come back quickly. Thank you for that cabinet secretary. Another brief question ever may that again you may be restrained in what you can say, I am due to meet the chief executive of the Scottish Rural Colleges tomorrow and about the facilities at the crofting community, the farming community and indeed the public health sector in the north of Scotland have. I am interested in the transfer of the facilities from Drummond Island and Burnesty UHI and whether the facilities will be like for like. Are you able to comment on that, please? Well, I did meet with the SRUC chairman and chief executive very briefly at the Royal Highland Show last Friday and I wasn't able to have any detailed discussions. I have asked, I think, through my office for clarification, I should say that I am the constituency MSP for this, so I have two hats here and I have to be careful about handling of this, but I'd be very keen to ensure that the solution that is provided to the loss of the postmortem facilities at Drummond Hill with a plans, welcome plans for replacement postmortem facilities in, I think, the Beechwood campus, UHI, will be plans that will be seen as sufficient in every respect in terms of the operation of the postmortem facility and the relevant back-up staff and facilities and I'd be very happy to work with Mr Finnie in order to assure that objective, which I believe has been an objective to which the SRUC have given their support, so I'm happy to continue a dialogue with Mr Finnie on that matter. I'm grateful that Cabinet Secretary is going to look at crofting law, but can I suggest that there is maybe a need for some very quick action dealing with the worst parts of the legislation? I think that the 2010 act has caused a lot of the problems that we're now seeing manifest themselves, so can I maybe suggest some quick action putting right some of the wrongs, but a broader look at crofting law on the round and simplification going forward, but that will take time and we've got problems here and now that need to be dealt with, so I maybe just leave that with him. He'll be aware that the Crofting Federation had asked for five actions on crofting as part of their manifesto in the election and I believe that the SNP had accepted those five actions, so one of the actions was about crofting development and he'll be aware that crofting development was transferred to high and that became crofting community development, not actually crofters development. A lot of individual crofters have received no development funding since then. Is he giving thought to how you actually help crofters develop their businesses and how they can access that money and indeed if that function would be returned to the commission? First of all, I know that Rhoda Grant is steeped in crofting and has been an activist in pursuing this over a number of years, quite a lot of years I think, so I'm very happy if she wants to write to me setting out specific proposals, then I would treat them very seriously and I'm happy to meet Ms Grant in order to take that forward. I think that we've probably come from a shared general approach about many of these aspects, so I just wanted to say that. Secondly, we have in our manifesto, our party's manifesto promise to reform crofting law and we will do that, but we need to give careful thought about the way we do that, so I don't think that it would be wise to make specific commitments today, but obviously we have regard to timing issues when we consider that. Thirdly, we do provide a great deal of support for crofting in various ways. 4,000 crofters claim cap subsidies, for example. In the new Croft House grant launched in 2016-17, there's 1.4 million of annual assistance, helping to build or improve approximately 35 to 45 croft houses, so that would be in the category of going directly to individuals rather than the general point that Rhoda Grant was making about. People operate businesses from houses these days, if they have access to broadband, which is a problem that will come on to them. People have a house and they have their own home, so they can do lots of things. Many people run businesses from homes, but I accept the general point about business support. The crofting agricultural grant scheme will provide £2 million of assistance in 2016-17, helping an estimated 800 crofters each year to invest in agriculture. The crofting cattle improvement scheme, which is the bull hire scheme, offers a subsidised rate for crofters to hire bulls, and that in itself is the subject of a lot of debate and parliamentary time over the years, rightly so, to protect that scheme from threats of extinction, from wheresoever those threats come, I do not know, but plainly I mention that today because we recognise that it performs a valuable role. The crofters and small holders' skill boosting to 2016-19 is a new three-year project to increase primary agricultural skills for 1,200 participants. That is for existing and incoming crofters because we also want—again, I know that Rhoda Grant and John Finnie and his colleagues in my party have been wanting to see how we can attract more entrants, and if they come in, obviously they need to have skills. If I could praise the work that the SRUC and Lantra do, and I spoke at a Lantra event at the RHS fairly recently, I am not able to give a full answer to the question, although I have covered some of the specific schemes that we are introducing. Some of them will meet the category of business, some will cross-cut, some will not, but I will ask my officials to go back and see if I have missed out on anything, and I am always happy to receive constructive suggestions about what more we can do to support crofting in Scotland, so please do not be shy. I think that that concludes the questioning on crofting. I am going to admit now to making a mistake, which is a very dangerous one, which was to ignore the deputy convener who should have come in before the section on crofting, so I apologise on record and now give her a chance to ask her question. There are a number of changes for the legislation through the Land Reform Act, but I believe that you have a number of responsibilities in your portfolio, namely for the tenanted farming sector and the agricultural holdings. I would like to ask a couple of questions in relation to those. Obviously, they are widely welcomed by the tenanted sector. What specific objectives the Government has for the sector? Does it wish to see an increase in the area of tenanted land, and if so, by how much? What the timetable is for a point in the tenant farming commissioner? What the timetable is for bringing forward the secondary legislation on agricultural holdings that is in the Land Reform Act? What plans the Government has to address the recommendations from the Agricultural Holdings Legislation Review Report and the Raggy Committee Stage 1 report that were not taken forward in the Land Reform Act? Well, thank you very much. I was not actually, but I always rely on several servants to do that, but it is nice to see Gail here today. I respond by saying that, first of all, we obviously want to see a vibrant tenant farming sector. I think that that is a shared objective for many years, including it really encompassing all parties to be fair, although there are very different views about how that should be achieved. We do want to see the tenant farming sector succeed. We want to see opportunities for new entrants and other people who want to farm to be able to access tenant farming opportunities. I had the pleasure of meeting about 10 new entrants under the Forestry Commission scheme at the Royal Highlands show. Interestingly, some of the questions that they had were about access to finance. In other words, questions that were not perhaps so directly related to farming, but more general running a new business, which you would expect. It was an extremely useful discussion. I must say that the Royal Bank, who took part in that discussion, immediately offered to provide individual help to the individuals involved, which would go beyond perhaps the normal approach to small businesses. I place on record my thanks to the Royal Bank for that immediate offer of support, but we would like to see new entrants. We would like to see progression routes for people tied into grazing lets, which provide insufficient business development opportunities. We want to enable those whose businesses are a combination of both rented and owned to make the best use of land to strengthen their business. We want to provide those tenant farmers who want to leave the sector with the right opportunities to enable them to do so in a fair way to all concerned. We want to see above all the use of the land in Scotland maximised. I would like to see, convener, whether we see this remains to be seen, but I would like to see the two sectors of landowners and tenants continue to work together and to reach an agreement that the objective of which is to see as much activity in Scotland in the rural economy and the encouragement of new tenanted arrangements wherever that is appropriate and possible. There were various other questions, which I will be reminded of in a moment, but I think that one of them was the timetable for bringing forward the secondary legislation. I am able to tell the committee that a number of commencement packages will be brought forward to implement the agricultural holdings provisions of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016. It is the intention that the first package will be brought forward before Parliament this autumn and will be followed by the second package. The first commencement package will deal with the sections on widening, asignation and succession rights for tenant farmers. I know that my officials are due to meet with the clerks of this committee and two other committees tomorrow to discuss the timetabling. We will then publish our intended approach on our website, along with advice for tenant farmers and their landlords on how best to plan for the forthcoming legislative changes. I am aware that there are a number of significant pieces of work that will have to be borne in mind and carried out by tenant farmers in particular in relation to the amnesty provisions. We are therefore keen to ensure that we provide as much clarity to the tenant farming community and to everybody else as to what is required and that will be very much part of our timetable. I will write to the committee during recess to set out our intentions for the implementation of the rent review system, which will include information about how we are approaching the necessary testing of the system to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The legislation that was passed in the last session of Parliament moves to a test that includes assessing the productive capacity of the holding. All stakeholders have stated in public that it is vital that the extensive testing system of the new rent system is carried out to ensure that it is fit for purpose prior to commencement. The committee in its previous life indicated that it would want to consider carefully the new system to when it was brought forward. I am sorry that this is a long answer, but there were several questions. I am looking forward to working fully with the committee about all of these matters in the way that those members who were closely involved in the legislation—I was not actually one of them, but I have been squatting up on it—will be fully involved. Lastly, I have already met the Scottish Tenant Farm Association and the Scottish Land and Estates. I am aware that their members did quite a lot of work together, which is a good thing to see if they can find as much agreement as possible in an area that is highly sensitive and highly controversial, but where the ultimate objectives of the best usage of land, convener, are pretty widely shared. I hope that that answers all the questions, but I am not quite sure. I think that there was one Cabinet Secretary that you might have missed, and that was about the appointment of the Tenant Farm Commissioner. The lead for the implementation of part 2 lies with Rosanna Cunningham, but I will liaise with her regarding this matter. It is expected that the process of approving the Tenant Farming Commissioner's ministerial appointment will take place in the autumn of this year. I think that Rosanna discussed this with the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee yesterday, and the detailed involvement of Parliament is likely to be confirmed after the summer recess following further discussions between Government and Parliament officials. I think that it is quite clear that this is going to form a major part of our business, and unless there are any other questions and considering the shortness of time, I would like to move on to the next question, which is on forestry. Thank you very much, convener. Just by way of context, forestry is obviously a very important industry for many quite remote and sparsely populated rural communities, providing local jobs. In that context, I have two questions. First, are we still confident that we can plant 100,000 acres of forestry in the 2013-22 period, which has been the stated aim for some time? Related to that, the last forestry strategy was published in 2006. I wonder what progress there is in considering any new strategy that may update that decade-old strategy. First of all, we are absolutely committed to achieving the target. The target has not been achieved. The target is ambitious. I think that it is welcomed by all the parties, and its 10,000 hectares per annum has been the target, and 100,000 hectares of trees between 212 and 222. We are absolutely committed to planting more trees, and I have had meetings with senior people in both the Forestry Commission, Forest Enterprise and the Scottish Government. I am used to meet representatives of the forestry private sector, Stuart Goodall and David Suleman. I am determined to work in the public and private sector together to achieve the target. The forestry sector as an industry turns over £1,000 million a year. It is a great Scottish success story. Many of the leading companies started off as family companies. They are rooted in rural Scotland. They are not about to leave any time soon. They deserve our support. They will get our support. They and the public sector must play a part in increasing the plantings, and I am having a meeting, a further meeting about that later today. Of course, forestry is a resource that also provides recreation and biodiversity and contributions to climate change. The planting of more trees is a substantial contribution to that issue as well. I have been involved over the years, and this is an issue in various ways. I am delighted to have the opportunity to drive forward this post. I think that there are a great many opportunities in the processing sector, in the construction industry, in the use of wood in Scotland, which is a common place in many other European countries, involving the university sector, which has done a huge amount of research in things like off-site construction, which, given the Scottish weather, is a pretty sensible idea. In many other areas, I think that we have not reached the potential of forestry. We have some of the best people in the world involved in it in the public and private sector, and I intend to give a lead to all of that work. Again, I would be happy and delighted to have the full involvement of this committee towards achieving that and those objectives. I am mindful of the time, and there are a lot of questions. I ask members of the committee—I do not want to miss anyone out at the end, especially those who have been waiting specifically on questions—to try to keep their questions as short as possible. I would like to push you a bit more. You say that you are committed to the 10,000 hectares per hour in planting targets, but we have failed miserably in the past few years to achieve that. We have only done roughly half of that over the last number of years. I wonder if you can be a bit more specific in how you intend to hit the targets in the future. First of all, we have created 4,600 hectares of woodland in 2015-16, and that is compared to 700 hectares in England and 100 in Wales. Scotland has created 83 per cent of new woodland in the UK in 2015-16. Secondly, we have by far the most ambitious target. Mr Chapman is absolutely right that the target has not been achieved. How are we going to achieve that? We need to find ways to look at the administrative system, the grant system, the overall funding and the way in which the work is done and by whom we need to encourage investment. We need to work with public private sector collaboration, as we do at the moment, to deepen and strengthen that. All of that is designed to secure more planting of trees. However, it is also combined, if I may say so, convener—this is extremely important—to a related issue. That is that there is an increased demand for forestry. I am trying to remember the exact figure, but I think that the consumption of forestry is now about 8 million tonnes. I think that I am right in saying that I will check these in case I have misremembered this, that that output of 8 million tonnes is about twice that it was 15 years ago, which in itself is an indicator of success. Why is that? It is because companies such as James Jones, BSW and Gordon and my constituency and others have been commercially successful in investing in modern computer-automated equipment to get every single piece of a tree cut, not wasting anything. Secondly, it has been because of the success of our biomass sector in Scotland, encouraging the use of appropriately locally located biomass schemes, especially in the Highlands and Islands. That creates more demand. Thirdly, the panel products sector, with a big investment in my constituency, as the convener well knows, is £95 million to replace the existing facility there, will create a huge extra demand because the output is going from about 400,000 tonnes a year to 600,000 or 800,000 tonnes a year. We have the existing demand and we are talking about a commercial activity here. The problems of forestry in harvesting are, A, the price of wood has been relatively low and therefore it is difficult to stimulate the market, but that has been addressed by stimulating the market through biomass and through panel products. Secondly, the inaccessibility of many of the mature trees that are ready to be harvested but cannot be economically harvested because of insufficient roads or single track roads or a combination of the two. Therefore, access to the timber has been a problem. Increased activity means in itself, and I was told by the investors, the ultimate owners, at Brookfield, a company owned in Canada, who is making this investment in Scotland, that the radius from which trees will be taken for the Dahl Cross plant will widen because they are increasing their output by 200,000 to 400,000 tonnes or something of that order. In response to your question, Mr Chapman, the way that I see it is very much myself as the public sector leader working very carefully with the commercial side very closely in order to see how working with them we can work towards meeting our targets. It is a challenging task. I do not think that it will be achieved in the first few years necessarily, but we will see. I will come back to the committee and hopefully prove myself wrong with what I have just said. However, it is a target that we will certainly work towards and the opportunities to achieve it are there commercially. Unless, of course, if we have no access to the EU as a result of the decision taken by the good people of England, then what will happen to all those good things, all this investment by companies made in Scotland? That is the threat that has existed since last Friday, I am afraid to say, but we will be positive. We will play the cards as they fall and we will advance Scotland's interests and continue to do so, especially in the forestry sector, where there are tremendous opportunities ahead. I may be chastened for saying to you, after your kind words, at the beginning of welcoming me, if we can keep the answers as short as possible because there are a lot of people around this table who are desperate to get questions in and have sat around waiting. I am going to skip one of the questions that is on fisheries because it is a big subject. I would ask if the cabinet secretary would be happy to respond to questions that we submit in written form after this meeting that we have been unable to raise at the meeting. I am afraid that fisheries will have to be one of them. The next person to ask a question is the deputy convener on food and drink. One of our favourite subjects, I am sure. In our manifesto, we committed to bringing forward a good food nation bill. Can you tell me what is likely to be included in that bill and when it is likely to be introduced? We have, as Gail Ross alluded to, achieved extraordinary success in promoting Scotland's high-quality food and drink. The target that was set by my predecessor was to achieve years in advance. I would like to pay tribute to Richard Lochhead for his championing of the sector, in particular to enormous success. Harnessing the spirit of Scotland is not all about signing checks for grants and loans. It is about harnessing the spirit of Scotland in an area where we have so much to offer. The way in which Scotland is seen as a high-quality food and drink promoter or exporter has radically changed over the past decade. That is a great thing that we have achieved under the powers that this Parliament has with the leadership of Richard. We are determined to carry on this work. We are going to consult on a good food nation bill in 2017 next year. I hope to build a cross-party and stakeholder consensus convener. We want to enhance the national food policy with the vision for Scotland to become a good food nation where people from every walk of life take pride, pleasure and benefit from the food that they buy, serve and eat day by day. Work in shaping the course of this bill will involve colleagues and stakeholders in a number of areas across Government, including health, food standards, waste, social justice, agriculture, education and procurement. Since I want to be brief, I will leave it there. Thank you for being brief. Connectivity is the next question, which is obviously going to be a burning subject. Jamie, if I could ask you to lead on that, please. Thank you, convener. I have an additional question that I shall submit in writing around dairy farmers, of which I have some feedback from the industry from last week. I will submit that in writing to the Cabinet Secretary. Thank you. On connectivity, just a few very brief questions. Is the target of 95% by March 2018 actually achievable? How will the Government fund the remaining 5% of people who are out with that target? Out of that 95%, how many of those will actually have access to speeds that meet the universal service obligation of 10Mbps? Okay. Well, thanks for that question. I just want to say at the start that in my job title there is the word connectivity. The reason for that is that the First Minister has identified that making Scotland a digitally connected nation is an objective that has moved away way up the political agenda. It is now at the top of the agenda. We must have connectivity in rural Scotland, and that is the starting point. I just wanted to make it clear. It is not an easy task, of course, particularly for those who live in the remote parts of Scotland. That is absolutely the case, but we have set out an ambitious target once again, and we are determined to achieve it. A great deal of progress has been made with 410 million investment in the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband programme, which will deliver fibre broadband coverage to at least 95 per cent of premises by the end of 2017. The deployment is progressing well. I can inform Mr Greene that by the end of March 2016 the total number of premises that have access to fibre broadband was over 590,000. The programme has already met its initial coverage target of 85 per cent of the whole of Scotland six months ahead of schedule, but we want to reach 100 per cent coverage, so we are committed to delivering 100 per cent superfast coverage by 2021. He mentioned 10 megs, but our current broadband contracts are defined as being an excess of 24 megs. That is different from what I gather to be the universal service obligation proposals in England, which is at 10 megs. We are more ambitious than it would appear, our friends down south, but I await clarification on what their eventual plan is going to be. Therefore, our commitment to provide 100 per cent superfast coverage by 2021 will deliver solutions should we succeed with this, far in excess of the minimum speed threshold currently proposed by the UK Government for the USO. We are more on the non-track, we are ahead of track. We have exceeded the initial target, but we appreciate that if you have not got broadband, it does not really matter. You are not going to be particularly assured by saying that your neighbour has got broadband or that people that live in Glasgow or Edinburgh have got broadband are you, and I am sure that all of us as representatives of people of Scotland receive a number of communications on a regular basis from people who understandably are very keen to promote this. There are a large number of technical ways in which, particularly reaching out through community broadband Scotland and others, we plan to achieve the target. The BT contracts in the Highlands and Islands reach 84 per cent. The south of Scotland one is 96. There is a bigger, if you like, rural proportion of people in the Highlands and Islands that will not get their coverage from the BT contract. That means that the community broadband Scotland proposals, the other proposals and Trudia Nicholson is familiar with all of these and could spell them out to the committee if the committee so wishes, will need to be deployed. There are different options here and I am keen to share with the committee, not just make decisions, but share with the committee an approach to making decisions. Therefore, if the committee would like a briefing about the matters from Trudia Nicholson and her team, and indeed from others such as Stuart Robertson of HIEs, who is working as the head of the contract there, I would be happy to arrange that if the committee would be interested in that. The devil is very much in the detail here and I am determined to work with you to get this right. Sorry, that was slightly long. I think that the devil is being in getting short answers to short questions. Without being rude, there are a lot of people who want to follow up on that. Again, I think that we are going to have to follow up on that beyond the committee. There are three areas that I would like to get very quick questions in, so we have covered the most of it. John wanted to ask a question on transport and then I would like to touch briefly on the islands bill and HIE, please. Cabinet Secretary, I have a very short question on emissions. What additional action will the Scottish Government take to reduce transport emissions in the coming years? I think that we have taken a number of measures, including promoting our walking and cycling plan. There has been a substantial increase in funding from about £22 million to £38 million. Those figures are broadly correct. We encourage people to use alternatives other than the car, including Schenck's pony and the bicycle. We are investing substantially in rail transport throughout the country, not least in the islands, where the biggest ever investments for a century are being made in Perth and Aberdeen lines. Around the country, there is a hugely ambitious investment programme in the rail service. I am not directly responsible as the minister for tackling the climate change issue, but I am confident in the transport sector that we have been making significant progress. Of course, we are always ready to see what other opportunities we have. I think that I have promoted electric cars and charging points throughout the country, and we have got the detail of this somewhere in the briefing notes, but I will shut up there because I have to be brief. Can I ask about the islands bill? When you are proposing to bring it forward, what do you propose to include in it? What powers will be set aside for islands specifically? If I can come back to the member, because I am not cited specifically on the precise answer to her question, Rhoda Grant will be aware that Mr Yousaf is taking forward the islands bill, and I will write to her with the detailed response. I have got a big folder here, a lot of which I have read from quite early this morning, but that was not one of the bits, so unless my officials can, there is a challenge to them. No, we have not got the right officials here either, sorry about that, but we will get back to you. We are determined to promote the economies of the islands, and one of the pieces of unfinished business from my point of view is to connect the islands to the national grid. That is very close to my heart and Rhoda Grant because, of course, for the Western Isles there is so much fuel poverty that if we could harness the power of the wind and then use the financial gains from the power of the wind to end fuel poverty, which is within our grasp if the UK Government will just agree to complete the work that Ed Davie and myself did, that would be a terrific thing. The islands bill will probably include not just details, mechanics and mechanisms, but a vision for the kind of progress that we want to see in our islands, particularly tackling fuel poverty in some of our islands. I know that Mr Yousaf and Mr Wheelhouse are well-sighted on those objectives. I thank you. We look forward to receiving a response to the committee on that. John has waited incredibly patiently and I would like to give him the floor now, please. Okay, thanks. Just a very quick supplementary on the transport issue. You have got connectivity, cabinet secretary, in your title. For us, connectivity means all the transport. Can you clarify for us how much you are responsible for transport? Mr Yousaf is responsible for transport other than trunk road construction programmes. I am just being brief here. I can send the committee the formal list of competencies as set out by the Scottish Government, so we will do that. Broadly speaking, Mr Brown will deal with taking forward the trunk road programme. Mr Yousaf deals with all of transport issues. Of course, Mr Yousaf reports to me and I report to the cabinet on all of the matters of transport for which Mr Yousaf is responsible. On HIE, I understand that there is a review going on at the moment, and that also covers Scottish Enterprise and some other bodies. I am really just wondering where you think we are going with that review, because I understand at the moment that the remit of HIE is slightly different from the remit from Scottish Enterprise. Despite the fact that you are the Minister for Rural Economy, HIE would include some urban areas such as Inverness and does not include other rural areas such as the south of Scotland. It could appear to be disjointed at the moment. The purpose of the review is to look at the whole structure and to assess how effective it is. That is not only at Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but it also includes other bodies such as Skills Development Scotland. Mr Mason is quite right that HIE has a slightly different role and function to Scottish Enterprise. It has a social remit for social development, which, as I understand it, is not part of the formal remit of Scottish Enterprise. It also has different limits in respect of assistance that it can provide, such as account management, which it does so at lower levels of turnover of companies than would be the case for eligibility within the Scottish Enterprise. I do believe, as a Highland MSP for 17 years, that HIE has performed extremely well. I have worked and, given that I am responsible for HIE but not SE, I will continue to work very closely with it. I think that the review is an opportunity to learn how we can take the best of what we are doing at the moment and see whether that can be applied at other parts of Scotland, such as the south of Scotland. I am aware from engagement with, for example, Borders Council and from the general work that I have done in the Borders and Adam Friesen-Galloway. We want to make sure that they are best served by the Enterprise economic development functions. Those are very much two aspects that we want to learn. If other rural areas could be treated better, in a sense, because it appears that rural areas in the Highlands under HIE get a bit more attention than rural areas that are not under HIE. That may look to be the case on the face of it. Once you get down to individual villages and people living in individual villages, I am not sure that everybody would necessarily agree with that, but that is life. We want to, in this review, look at how we can get best practice everywhere in Scotland. I mentioned the south of Scotland because I am aware that this is an argument that has been voiced by Emma Harper and others as local representatives. We want to capture those views. Once again, I would reach out to members of this committee and their colleagues in various parties to play a part in the review. Just before we bring this session to a close, if there is anything that you would like to add as a result of the questions. Before we do that, I will clarify that there will be questions that we would like to submit in written form. I am grateful for you acknowledging that you will answer those posts of committee. Is there anything that you would like to add as a result of the session this morning? I think that I have an ample opportunity to speak at great length, I have to say, of which I took full advantage. I do look forward, though, after 17 years of hearing the day when Mr Stevens' comments are very quick, but I am sure that they will always remain unpredictable and enjoyable. On a serious note, I will be very keen to continue to work with all the committee of whatever party over the next five years. I think that where the cabinet secretary works well with the committee, shares information, provides briefings, works in that kind of manner, I think that that is really all for the best because whatever political differences we have, I think that there is probably a lot more that unites us when it comes to driving forward the rural economy. I will take it from your comments that that allows me to sometimes chase you a little bit harder for shorter answers, but thank you very much for your time. There will be another five-minute break, just a five-minute break now, before the next person comes in. The third item on the agenda then is evidence session with the cabinet secretary for the economy, jobs, fair work and on projects initiatives and developments within his portfolio and which relate to the committee's remit. I welcome Keith Brown as cabinet secretary for the economy, jobs and fair work. He is accompanied by David Climey. I apologise, I have been corrected. That is the second time that I have been corrected this morning. We will try and improve. The project director of the fourth replacement crossing team and Graham Portiers head of special projects, both from Transport Scotland. I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I want to take long. I know that you have had quite a lot of business already to deal with. First of all, I congratulate you on your appointment as convener of this committee and to all the other members who have been appointed to the committee. I also wish you well on scrutinising the Scottish Government on its rural economy and connectivity programme and policies. I hope that today's session will further help to clarify the split that exists in terms of portfolio responsibilities between Fergus Ewing, who you have been speaking to, Hamza Yousaf and myself. My appointment as a dedicated cabinet secretary for the economy is, as much as anything else, intended to give a clear signal of the Government's focus on stimulating growth and protecting and creating jobs and on promoting Scotland as a great place to do business, none of which will be deviated from as a result of recent events. We will listen carefully to businesses and search for constructive ideas about how they can support economic growth. The Scottish Government believes that we have to recognise the essential role that transport in particular plays has to play in supporting our economy. Despite what has been pretty relentless budget cuts over recent years, both in terms of capital and in terms of revenue, the Scottish Government is committed to the largest transport investment programme that Scotland has ever seen, worth more than £16 billion since 2007. Just to tie that into how it relates to the economy, it is a case that, if you can improve your transport links, you can improve the productive potential of the economy. It is that part of the four eyes, if you like, that we are focusing on the infrastructure side of it in relation to transport. Fergus Ewing said this morning that, in relation to last week's vote, it is our view that the Scottish Government has to be fully and directly involved in any and all decisions about the next step that the UK Government intends to take following the EU referendum result. That is to ensure that any exit that may happen would not have an impact on existing or planned major projects. It is worth mentioning in passing that most of the major projects that we are involved in employ a substantial number of EU nationals from outwith the UK. I will give a quick update, if I can, on the major transport projects in March. I made a joint announcement with the UK Minister for Transport welcoming the publication of HS2 broad options for upgraded and high-speed railways to the north of England in Scotland. A steering group has now been created to progress with the ultimate aim of delivering a three-hour rail journey time between Scotland and London and on easing the severe congestion on cross-border routes. As far as the Queensferry crossing is concerned, and as I announced to the Parliament on 8 June, it is expected to be fully open to traffic by mid-May 2017. The project is not late. We are not going to be able to meet our target date of the end of this year, but the project itself is not late, and the revised completion date will have no impact on the budget. A technical briefing was held for MSPs by the FRC project team on 10 June, and that has now been shared with your clerking team. The Queensferry crossing is one of the most technically challenging building projects that are ever undertaken in the world, and its location means that it is very weather-susceptible. In my view, credit has to be given to the more than 1200 people employed on the project and the work that they have done so far. Construction on the Aberdeen-Western peripheral routes and the Balmerie tipperty project is well and away, and the new roads are on programme to be open to traffic in winter 2017, with the Crabston and Dice junction scheduled to be open by autumn 2016. That project will provide substantial benefits across the whole of the north-east and will provide a boost to the economy. It will increase business and tourism opportunities, improve safety, cut congestion as well as increasing opportunities for improvements in public transport facilities. In our view, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to upgrade Scotland's trunk road network, which includes, during the entire length of the A96, some 86 miles of upgraded road between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. Transport Scotland is also just awarded a design contract worth up to £50 million to Mott Macdonald's Sweco joint venture to take forward the route option assessment of the western section that is between Aldern and Fogherbers. The route option assessment for the eastern section, Huntley to Aberdeen, is expected to commence later this year, with the central section to follow in 2019. As a result of that project, road users will not only enjoy the benefits of improved journey time and reliability, better connectivity between destinations but also, and crucially, improve road safety for all those who use this key artery connecting two of Scotland's economic hubs. You will know that one of the features of that road is the extent to which very different types of traffic use it, agricultural traffic and conflict switch can arise. Estimated at £3 billion, the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness represents the biggest transport investment in Scotland's history, as well as the on-going construction of the 7.5-kilometre king crated already scheme. We are working hard to identify preferred routes for the dualling schemes, having already let the public see the proposed designs for three sections earlier this year. As we continue progressing design work, we will be carrying out ground investigations across the programme over the next few months. The M8 M73 M74 motorway improvements project has already generated £226 million worth of investment in the economy through subcontracts and is providing employment to over 1,000 people. Significant progress has been made on the construction of the new M8 with major structures such as the North Calder water bridge and the Brayhead rail bridge at Bargary now in place. For those who have passed that route recently, the new route is clearly visible to regular commuters. Tomorrow, we will see the closure of the B756 Belsall to Arringston for approximately 11 days to carry out the widening of the M74 motorway bridge over the road. With those initial remarks, I am happy to try to answer the committee's questions. I thank you very much. John, I think that you are going to... Thank you. Good morning, cabinet secretary. One of the least technical questions I had hoped to ask at the time of the ministerial statement, but it was not called with regard to the fourth replacement crossing. Can you confirm whether the existing commitments regarding the existing facilities continued use by public transport will still be honoured as a result of this delay? By that, do you mean that the existing bridge, the fourth road bridge, will be used as a public transport corridor? Yes, indeed. That is still our intention. I think that we always have to keep an open mind in relation to those things, but nothing has changed in the original statement and that will be used as a public transport corridor. The incident that has happened since we made that statement is, of course, the problems that we had with the bridge most recently. Just to say in relation to that, as well as repairing that fault and other aspects that might have had that vulnerability, we have done what is called a full health check on the bridge for the first time in that depth in many years. The bridge is in good condition. The biggest issue of course was the deterioration of the cables, which was the reason why, back in 2005, we said that the new bridge should really try to be opened by 2017, because the experts have said that is when the deterioration of the cables may have become crucial such that HDVs would have to come off the existing bridge. That work has now been very successful, the dehumidification that has taken place in terms of the cables, so that is no longer the issue that it was, although it is still an issue that we keep an eye on. Notwithstanding the fact that we have had that incident with the bridge, the work that we have taken subsequently should secure the long-term future of the bridge and is our current intention, as stated previously, to use it as a public transport corridor upon the completion of the new bridge. I want to explore a little bit of detail about the timescale and what has caused the change. I suspect that it might be the project director who might want to answer that. I think that it is important to allow the committee and the lay people that we of necessity are an understanding of why a few days out of the schedule at one point will lead to many months delay. Now, as someone who ran major projects, albeit in software, I think that I know, because there will presumably be periods during which, if we slip into them, there are activities that cannot be undertaken. I hypothesise that, for example, you might not be able to so effectively lay asphalt in winter, but it would be helpful to have that understanding so that people can see why a few days lost lead to months of the end date moving back. I say first of all that, obviously, David can comment on the comment about asphalt, but I think that it is the case that when you lose the time that you lost in April and May such that you cannot do the thing that you intended to do on that day, it sometimes means the things that you want to do the next day that you cannot do. That is why you see that effect running through the programme. I am sure that David could explain it much more carefully. Given the fact that David has been up and down the towers many times, maybe I can understand why the convener called him David Clyne rather than David Clyne, but David would know the detail of that. Can I just clarify? I was not attentive for having asphalt except as a hypothesis on my part. I think that you have outlined the principle of it extremely well. Clearly, I think that since September of last year, I have come to report to your predecessor, the ICI Committee, on a regular basis. When I came to see them in September last year, at that point, we were already saying, and as we had done consistently from the start of the project, that weather was always the biggest challenge. It is an exposed location and we have some very technically complex operations to do out there. In September last year, we were at the point of saying that the contractors are now telling us that they need to have an average winter. When I came to report to the ICI Committee again at the beginning of March, the way that I characterised it then was that things had not gone as well as we had hoped, but at that point the contractor was still telling us that it was doable, which I think was fair at that time. I think that view was encouraged during March in that we had a particularly settled spell of weather. We put up 12 deck units in that period and that seemed to suggest that we turned a corner and being optimistic, which I think was the right thing to do and keep the target very much in mind, the contractor said, yep, we can still get there for the end of the year. April and May was a significant setback. We lost 25 days due to weather over that period of time, significantly more than we would expect it to do. It is not just that the weather stops you working, but it loses the momentum in terms of the regular operations. The people go out there and expect to do something if they do not get it done that has a knock-on effect. What happens is that losing time in April and May means that a day lost at that point pushes the activities that we would expect to complete the deck lifting by around September. That pushes the end of the deck lifting back to about November. November is a lot worse time out than the 4th of September, so therefore we can have deck units out there, but we might not be able to lift them. As an example, we had a day in May when we sent a deck unit out to bring it back in again, because the wind just would not allow us to lift. We did that three days in a row before we finally got the deck able to be lifted. By November we are also at the point where we have the longest cable stage to handle. As they get longer, they get more difficult to handle. They are obviously clearer. They are longer. We have to use a crane. We have men in a man basket by the side of the towers who are instrumental in actually installing those cables, and the baskets themselves are particularly wind-sensitive and you get some acceleration effects of the wind around the towers. Those are all areas where the contractors gained knowledge and experience since they started the lifting of the decks back in September of last year. In May they came to us and said, look, we just do not think that we can get there in December. We challenged that very strongly, as you would expect us to. Obviously, it was important to try to hit the target, but looking at it in great detail, as we have with the revised programme, the other effect that it has, as you alluded to, is the fact that we have a sequential series of operations. We have to finish erecting all the deck units. We cannot start putting waterproofing and asphalt onto the bridge until all the deck units are lifted and the bridge is fully connected together. That means that if we cannot erect all the deck units until November-December, it puts waterproofing and asphalting into January and February. Traditionally, that is not the time of year that we would want to be doing that sort of work in Scotland, and if we have to build in additional time within the programme. That, in a short version, is how we go from what appears to be a 25-day delay to what the contractor is now saying mid-May, but I would emphasise that we are pushing the contractor very strongly to better that date if it possibly can be done. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary about the pollution incident that happened in AWPR. We had heavy rain. Can I just stay on the FRC for the moment? That is another section. You said that you did have a question on the fourth road replacement crossing. I will go straight to Mike, if I may, and ask you to hold that one at the moment. You said that the five-month delay in the completion date has no impact on the budget, which, to me, begs the question about the original contract. If a five-month delay in employment contracts, the cost of staffing or the huge cost that is going to be involved, I just do not understand, because it has not yet been explained, why that has no impact on the Scottish budget. It begs the question, was the contract a good use of public money that the contract was made, because there must be an awful lot of leeway in the contractor's profits here? I am struggling to detect a hint that you are happy that we are making, in excess of a quarter of a billion pounds reduction on price, but that is the case and we will go through the technical reasons for it, just to say that, if you go back to the late 2000s, the estimated cost, going back to, in fact, the Labour and Lib Dem administration before 2007, the estimates were around £5 billion or so. Then, of course, there was a real urgency to crack on with this, and various options are looked at, including the design and what we eventually came to, which managed to get the cost down to something that we could afford, just to remind you that the Scottish Government pays for this sort of current budget, so there is no assistance that was given by Westminster in relation to borrowing. It is not the ideal way to have gone about this project, but such was the urgency of the project that we did it in that way. We went out of tender, and I think that I am writing saying that the tender range for it was £1.75 to £2.25 billion. The bid came in below that since then, because of progress that was made, we managed to work down that figure, such that £245 million less are savings that were made from the original budget. That is a good thing, and I think that points to very effective project control. I am very admittedly a very good bid in a time that was difficult for the construction industry, but I think that it is generally a good thing that we have that saving. Perhaps David would want to come back on the technical answer to Mike Rumble's question. Certainly, just a little detail on the contract that was awarded to fourth-crossing bridge constructors, that was a lump sum fixed price contract with the only allowance for extras being inflation. Scottish ministers took the risk of inflation, so basically it was a £790 million lump sum fixed price contract only subject to inflation on top of that. That means that the contractor effectively takes the time risk. There was a set date in the contract for the completion of the work, which is June 2017, but there was always the ambitious target set, which the contractor felt they could meet of December 2016 for having traffic on to the bridge. They have already allowed for the fact that the contract itself runs June 2017, and they have allowed for that within all their budgets. What is not changing is that contract period remains exactly as it was, and how the contract or ministers finances within that contract period is entirely for the contractor. There is no option for them to come back to us as a client to seek more money. I am just making no political point at all. I am just generally trying to find out from a layman's perspective why that occurred, but your explanation to me is a good one, and I just wanted to assure you that that was the case. I am just trying to find out, because as a layman, I did not quite understand if there was a five-month delay on how it was not costing any more money and the profit of the original company. They must still be making a substantial profit, I would imagine, but that is for them. I would like to say that David, to respond to, was on the inflation thing, because, unusually, because of the way that we went about this project, and it is not true of so much of other projects, that the Government took the inflation risk and, of course, you have seen what has happened in terms of inflation. That has been part of what is there, but it is locked in now, so that saving will not be changed and any additional costs that will accrue come down to the contractor. I would just like to ask is that, now that we are going into potentially another winter working scenario with the added risks and problems with working in the winter, when we have had two fairly benign winters without anything but strong wins, is, first of all, that you are absolutely convinced that there is going to be no pressure put on the safety of the workers by working during the winter, and that you are still, having borne that in mind, going to be able to complete the bridge on the timescale that you have given? Yes, just to say, first of all, convener, that the point of its safety is a critical one, and apart from the tragic death that we had most recently, an excellent safety record has been applied. I know that from Transport Scotland, but also from the contractor, in particular, Michael Martin, who ends up the entire project, an absolute commitment to safety. I have seen it every time I have gone to the bridges as well, whether you are going by dingy to get to the towers or however you are accessing the site. It is very strong in safety, and we have made clear to Transport Scotland that they also should make clear to the contractor as we have done that safety has got to be the first consideration. Interestingly, Michael Martin, who heads up very experienced individual, when he meets every new start that comes to the project, and he is often asked in those discussions about the big target to get it done by a certain date and a certain price, he said that the big target is to get it done safely. There is an institutional cultural commitment to safety, and we will not apply any pressure to jeopardise that. Having said that, having explained that to the contractor, not that I think that we had to, but that they understand that, they have said that the mid-May date that they have given us for next year is achievable. The reason why, and I have to take what they tell me, I am not going to make a commitment to the public or to this committee that is not based on what I am told by the contractor. They have the benefit now of the experience. I am told that it may surprise people that it is a real learning curve for them, because there are not that many comparable projects like this. They have learned a great deal in terms of the weather, some of the stuff to do with deck lifting, the cables and so on, which gives them more confidence in their ability to project forward. That is the estimate given to the contractor. We will be applying pressure to make sure that date is met. Of course we are, but that is our job to challenge, but it will not be in the basis, and it will specifically be on the basis that there is no question of jeopardising the safety of anybody on the site. If we can move on to the Aberdeen western periphery route. I was asking the question about the heavy rain that we had in the AWPR, which resulted in pollution coming off the site and suspension of work for seven days. Can you provide an update on the pollution incident that did occur? As I said, it resulted in the suspension of work for a week. What action is being taken so that that will not occur again? We are facing a similar overrun that we have seen with the bridge where you lose a week, but it may be overruns considerably more at the end of the project. It is just an update of where we are, whether it is likely to happen again and what effect it will have on the end date for the whole project. Thanks for that. It is worth saying that, although SEPA, of course, was involved in this because of the effects of the very heavy rainfall that happened, the decision to suspend work was taken by the contractor in this case, but working very closely with ourselves and SEPA. As you will know, I am sure very well that it is not just this recent period of heavy rain that we have had in the north-east. It has been a factor now for a number of months, going back to last year as well, where we have had very heavy rain. However, I would say that some of the same concerns in relation to the Queensferry crossing do not apply in relation to still very complex projects with the bridges in different sections of roads and the route that is being proposed. It is still very trying, but it does not have the same sequential effect in the way that you might think in terms of the fourth road crossing. For example, at the sharp end of the fourth crossing, you have often got two people working in a very confined space, and you have got to try and there is not much that you can do to influence that to speed it up, if you like, because of the constraints here. That is not the case in relation to the Aberyne-Weston peripheral route, so it is the case where they experience delays, as has happened in this case. They have the opportunity through applying additional resources, which they have done to catch up that time, but perhaps it would be useful to hear from Graeme Porteous, who will be more familiar with the detail of it than I am. The contractor volunteered to stop work in order to make sure that the mitigation that he had in place was increased. In working hand-in-hand with SEPA, they have now gone back and reviewed the whole of the site and are starting up in an incremental process again working in various places, provided SEPA are happy that the mitigation is secure and safe. The cabinet secretary is correct that they can introduce more staff, but it is not a sequential operation. Therefore, at this point in time, as far as we are aware, the contractor has had no impact on their programme. Can I ask if there has been any impact on any of the schedule one species within the river? Let's check that and write back to you. You can be there on that particular issue, if that's okay. Any other questions on that road? Now I am going to let Richard have the floor a wee bit, because he has been sitting very patiently because he had a series of questions that he would like to ask on the M74. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. As a constituency member for Irvingson and Vilsal, the M73 and M74 either run through my area or run along the border. We have a particular problem. First of all, I welcome the money being spent and the jobs being created, and I welcome what has been done by SRP, the Scottish Road Partnership. However, I have to say that there has been a problem with the Scottish Road Partnership in communication with my constituents along the M74, particularly just after the Hamilton services, where it backs on to houses where we are now extending the road to widen the road. We are taking a lot away of a lot of trees, a lot of foliage. We are going nearer to the houses and we are causing complaints of noise, cracking in the buildings. I know that several people have been in contact. Before the election, I had a meeting along with constituents with SRP. At that time, it was agreed that we would continue to update us. I am not getting the updates that I want and need. We also have a particular problem, where I think that the one and only primary school that runs immediately next to the M74 is now coming nearer to that primary school, and it is being highlighted by the teachers that went down to the school. I have organised and asked Humza Yousaf to come along and visit it with me, and he has agreed to do so. I am sure that you will check that that is done. We have a situation in which the Sir John Baptist primary school, Nardinston, indicates a danger that, if a car comes off, the road is slightly higher. If a car came off that road, it could unfortunately fly into the playground. The school has taken the situation to remove the children from that playground in the school to other parts, but they still are asking for some form of fencing or higher fencing. Across the whole route from the Hamilton Services Wraith interchange to certain parts, along that route residents are asking for sound barrier, implementation of fencing, et cetera, or some form of sound barrier mitigation, because of the fact that, now, because you have removed all the vegetation, all the trees, the noise is getting beyond what was said that was going to happen. I apologise for a long question. Can you give me an assurance, an update, on what is happening in the gas terms on the phone? Yes, first of all, the issues that you have raised have been raised before, both by yourself and by other members, and I have been investigated previously. I have certainly asked Transport Scotland about those who, in turn, have spoken to the contractor and received assurances. I think that what I am getting from the questions that you are now being asked is that that assurance is not proven to give the degree of assurance to your constituents, as you have mentioned. Now, what I would say is that, if there has been a falling-off in the updates, I will make sure that that is rectified, although it is, I think, only once since I have been in post, but I will make sure that the regular updates that you experienced before are continued. Also, in relation to the meeting that you mentioned, whether it is Humza or myself, we will make sure that that meeting goes ahead. It is very important to keep that dialogue and communication open. The estimates that have been done in relation to barriers—either sound or physical barriers—for other reasons have been pretty technical and have been pretty stringent, and they have been reexamined since. Given what you say about the continued concerns, it is only right that we continue to have that dialogue. The meeting will go ahead, and the updates will continue and will keep the dialogue going as we go forward with this project. I welcome that assurance and I am satisfied with that. I can also turn us through to something that has come out of the blue—a new trunk road. I am all for road building in some ways to improve roads, but, in my area and my constituency through Holytown, there is now a proposal to build a connecting trunk road from Holytown road through to Eurocentral. My view is that the M8, the M74, and the Holytown bypass is sufficient in order for traffic and lorries to get into Eurocentral. That is the views of my constituents. Now, completely left field, there has been a proposal to build a new trunk road from Holytown road into Eurocentral. I can have a discussion with the officials later to go over it, if you do not know exactly where it is. That is causing quite a lot of concern in the Holytown area, especially with residents who believe that—and we all know what happens with satnafs—big lorries go the shortest route and basically get to a situation where I will brief it. Can I have a look at this problem also, please? In the interests of brevity, convener, I will ensure that you get a response from the officials, but just to say that any new road does not just happen, so any proposal for a road will go through all the statutory process. There is no question that, if there is a new road affecting your constituents, they will not get the chance to have their say in that. I can make that assurance and, as I say, I will make sure that the officials write to you with the latest up-to-date possession and listen to the issue. When I said that you could have the floor, I did not realise that it was for such a long time. I have learnt something at this meeting. I would like to take a moment to pause and welcome the MPs from Sri Lanka to the committee meeting. You are very welcome. Having dealt quite exhaustively on the M74, I wondered if we could go on to a question on Presswick Airport. Cabinet Secretary, if I may just clarify on the M8 work, do you have a very brief idea of when that will be finished? Anyone who does the commute from the west coast to Edinburgh will know how horrendous it has become. It would be really great to get an idea of when that will all be finished. I hope, first of all, to say that it is a bundle of different works. You have got the race interchange, for example. The M8, the M74, the M73 and the schedule to completion date was 2017 next year, so that is when the—but they may well be finishing at different points before that period as well. On Presswick Airport, I wonder if you could clarify the Scottish Government's view on the current performance of Glasgow Presswick Airport, predicted performance and whether you still intend to return the airport to private sector ownership or any general comments that you would wish to make on Glasgow Presswick Airport to the committee. First of all, one of the questions that you asked, which is whether it is our intention to return it to private ownership, is whether it was our intention to acquire the airport on that basis. We made very clear in public statements repeatedly that that would be potentially a long-term aspiration given where the airport was when it was acquired—a lack of investment for many years, tailing off in passenger numbers. We understood that that was a long-term project. What we are doing now is putting in place the necessary arrangements to allow the airport itself to recover its passenger situation. It is an atypical airport, as I am sure you are aware, in terms of the different activities that go on at the airport. Whether it is the maintenance and repair of aircraft, or some of the other activities that go on around the airport, it is not quite typical. Of course, the other aspect has been the interest from Presswick in a potential spaceport, which has perhaps changed a bit, given the UK Government's announcement about how it intends to go about allowing or licensing potential spaceports. A very challenging situation, but just to repeat what we said at the time, it was absolutely crucial for us to acquire that based on the impact that would have happened in the Airshire and West of Scotland economy had we not done so, but it is our long-term aspiration to return that back to the private sector. Do you have a potential timeline on that? I am mindful of the time, if you may. Do you think that the term long-term is very open-ended to be great? Sorry, I cannot be more specific than that. Emma, I am afraid that you are going to be the last question. I will be really quick then. I am aware that there is an opportunity to look at feasibility for the Borders Railway extension and some developments in Strunar harbour. I am just wondering if you have any updates on Mr Swinney's promise when he was cabinet secretary to hold the transport summit in Dumfries and Galloway? Yes, I think that I am going from memory here, but I think that John Swinney has made the statement that he will continue with that commitment to have that transport summit. I think that he himself could be wrong on this, but I think that he personally wants to remain involved in relation to that. Whether it is John Swinney or somebody else, that is going to go ahead. In relation to the Borders Railway feasibility study of the extension, again, that was a commitment made by the First Minister, in fact, indeed made in the election to have that feasibility study. We had said previously that we will support the council and other interested bodies should they want to have a feasibility study for the continuation of the Borders Rail. I think that we have now gone further and said that we will make sure that a feasibility study happens. That commitment remains in workers on going within Transport Scotland to see how that is best done. However, just at the last point, the Borders Railway shows how hugely beneficial to local and rural economies it can be if it can invest in infrastructure like that. Mr Brown, is there anything further that you would like to say? I would hasten to add that there are a lot of questions that potentially could have been asked. Due to the shortness of time, it has not been possible to get them in. We would like to submit those as written questions, and we would ask that you respond to the committee with answers to those questions as soon as possible. Is there anything further that you would like to add? At just one point, of course, we will respond in writing to the other questions, which have not had the chance to be asked. I am sure that David Climby will recoil on horror as I say this, but if the committee wishes to do as its predecessor committee did to visit the Queensferry crossing, I am sure that that can be accommodated. I should update the committee that I have had, as yet, no response to my offer to Murdo Fraser to come to the top of the towers at the bridge. However, if the committee in all seriousness wants to visit, and I know the previous members have done that, you can get a real appreciation of what is going on on-site. Of course, we will do that in a way that does not impede progress, but I am happy to make that offer to the committee. I am sure that we will consider it, and I am sure that I will be refusing to go to the top of the towers, however badly my mispronunciation of your name was. However, thank you very much for the offer, and I am sure that we will consider it. That concludes this part of today's meeting. I would like to suspend the meeting just to allow the committee to move into private session, if I may, please. Thank you.