 I welcome everybody to the fourth meeting of the Public Audit Committee in 2023. The first item for the committee to consider is whether to take agenda item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. The principal item on our agenda this morning is consideration of the 2021-22 Audit of the Crofting Commission, which has been laid before Parliament, and upon which we have got evidence session this morning with three witnesses. I welcome our three witnesses this morning, Stephen Boyle, Auditor General, Pat Kenny, who is a director, audit and assurance for Deloitte, and Kirsty Reid, who is an audit manager for Audit Scotland. We have questions to put to you, but before we get into those questions, Auditor General, could I ask you to make a short opening statement? I prepared this report under section 22 of the Public Finance and Accountability Scotland Act 2000. The report brings to the committee's attention progress made by the Crofting Commission during 2021-22 following significant weaknesses identified in the previous year. I reported to you on those issues in October of 2021, and my last report noted deficiencies in governance, leadership and business planning that had been identified by the Auditor's Deloitte. This committee subsequently undertook its own inquiry into those findings. I am pleased to report that the Crofting Commission has worked quickly to address the recommendations and has implemented all the recommendations made by the Auditor in their 2021 audit report. Governance arrangements have been revised, roles and responsibilities are now more clearly defined, leadership and relationships have improved and medium-term financial planning has also been strengthened. I welcome this early progress. The actions taken will take time to bedden, and it is important that the commission's board, the chief executive and their sponsor team continue to work together effectively to ensure that those improvements are sustained. I will continue to monitor the Crofting Commission's progress and report further in public as required. I am joined this morning by Pat Kenney from Deloitte and Kirsty Rydd from our performance audit and best value team, and the three of us look forward to answering your questions. I will go straight away to questions and invite the deputy convener, Sharon Dowey, to put the first question to you. Your report states that the Auditor has assessed all 41 recommendations from the 2021 audit report as being fully implemented by the commission. 34 of the recommendations were in relation to the significant weaknesses in leadership and governance arrangements identified in last year's audit. It is a lot of recommendations, so are you content that the significant issues have been adequately addressed in what seems quite a short period of time? I cover a number of those points, and I will certainly turn to Pat Kenney in a moment to say a bit more about what he and his colleagues in Deloitte found. It is absolutely case that 41 recommendations are no small amount of effort required to address the scale of challenges that the committee heard during its own evidence last year and as set out in the audit reports. The scale of progress is significant. In Pat's own annual audit report that he prepares on the conclusion of his audit, he maps all those recommendations, the progress, the management action taken and the judgment that Deloitte has reached on the progress. We can come in to set out in more detail across the various themes as you wish. I think that that is a time to set out my introductory remarks. For 12 months, further on, we have seen evidence of progress, better relationships, better documentation, more clarity around roles and responsibilities, stronger business planning. I can go on about the topics. The point that we wish to emphasise today is that it is not a terribly long period of time with which to say that all the issues and the scale of the issues that you heard about last year are resolved and there would not be a repeat. However, there is far stronger basis for optimism and the progress against those recommendations that we have seen. I will pause. Pat will certainly comment on the range of those recommendations and the progress therein. As the Auditor General mentioned, the key thing will be the sustainability of the recommendations. I was impressed by the desire of the commission to get things right. They really did get their sleeves rolled up and they were. I detected strong commitment to addressing the weaknesses. I was satisfied that I had the evidence, the audit evidence, to confirm that all the recommendations had been implemented. However, the key thing will be for the Auditor General to continue to keep an eye on it going forward and to ensure that sustainability is fully delivered. I think that that will be a key imperative. I know that some of my colleagues have good questions about sustainability and keeping up the momentum. However, there are a lot of recommendations in a short time scale. If they are successful, which we hope they are, do you think that there are lessons learned there in good practice that could be shared with others? I have not seen a volume of recommendations from an Auditor of 41 recommendations for improvement and that volume to be delivered together with the evidence. I think that it is important that Pat makes that there has been a willingness to accept the recommendations. There has not been a defensiveness, as we occasionally see on the back of audit reports. Whether that translates into good practice is something that we would want to see sustained evidence of progress before we would reach a judgment that that progress can act as a template for other public bodies. There will be some bits that are very successful, but we want to be a little cautious for a period of time yet before we advocate that that is the model that should be applied elsewhere. Pat will have a perspective, I am sure. I absolutely agree with that. I was very impressed by the total lack of defensiveness in terms of the recommendations and the acceptance that they had to put things right. However, the key thing is that I have now handed over the audit role to a new set of auditors, but I have emphasised to them that you really have to keep an eye on that in terms of that sustainability dimension. It is far too early to say that we are completely satisfied and that matters have been completely put to bed. That ongoing momentum, sustainability is absolutely essential, and it is very important that the auditor keeps a close eye on that going forward. It strikes me that it is a six-page report, and a lot of it is reflecting on the recommendations and lessons that were put at the point of the last section 22 report on the Croft and Commission, and on the committee's own conclusions. I wonder whether it would not have served transparency a little better if you had the 41 recommendations listed and some kind of tracking of how they had been progressed so that we had a sense—I do not know whether you alluded to that being something that was part of the internal audit, but as far as the published document before us is concerned, that is obviously not captured. I wonder whether that is something that you would consider. I apologise if that is not something before the committee. The annual audit report that accompanies the conclusion of the audit, which is the document that all auditors who are appointed by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission prepare for public sector audit, sets out in detail the recommendations. We chose not to replicate that in our own section 22 report, but they are there for transparency purposes. There is a published document that is available on Audit Scotland's website that maps the recommendations that were already in the public domain together with the auditor's judgment on the management action that has been taken. Okay, maybe it is just me. I just thought that for completeness it will be useful given the scale of the recommendations and the breadth of them. Seven were on financial sustainability, the other 34 were on governance and transparency. It might have been useful to capture that here, but I hear what you are saying. Craig Hoy has got some questions. Morning, Mr Boyle. Obviously, the report is optimistic and I think that it reflects a significant amount of work that has obviously been done by the Crofting Commission. I suppose that looking forward, my concern would be how could that be sustained. Paragraph 20 in your report says that the progress that was made by the commission over the last year is welcome. The activity and actions taken will take time to bed in and this must remain an area of focus for the commission to ensure that the improvement is sustained. You say that I will continue to monitor the commission's progress to consider further reporting in public as necessary. Just in terms of the use of that word, in practical terms, do you still need to see happening before you would have surety that this has been a turn-around rather than just a good plan that could subsequently be badly executed? I guess that part of the conversation has already been set out in our report. There has been significant progress by the Crofting Commission in a short period of time, and it is that short period of time that won't necessarily allow us today to give absolute assurance that all of the issues that are identified are tackled and will not recur. The committee will recall that your predecessor committee took evidence on the Crofting Commission in respect of concerns in 2016. I am not running an alignment between what we have today and history, but it can perhaps illustrate that events can reoccur. The Crofting Commission and its sponsor team, the non-executives and its team all have to work very hard to make sure that there isn't a repeat of the issues that were featured in the report last year. We can say a bit more about some of the steps that have been taken that give them better cause for progress. Last year's report and the committee's own report rightly featured on the lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities, how that was affecting relationships between the commissioners and the executive, the dynamic with the sponsor team. The new framework agreement, the new code of governance that is in place, gives greater clarity and can allow for the sustained progress that we expect and hope to see along with some of the other steps that they are taking on workforce planning, financial management and so forth. All of those points are in the right direction, Mr Hoy, but it is going to take a bit more time. That is why I am allowing for further public reporting. Given the committee's own interests in this and the scale of the issues, it is something that I want to see and I will take a view over the course of this year's audit. Just in those terms, my concern would be that, whilst the focus of yourselves and the press and the public are on the organisation, they can have a process of quite effective window dressing. How long do you think it will take that quite intense process of scrutiny? How long would you effectively want to remain on their backs for to make sure that they do not fall back into bad old habits? You have experienced this. Every audit of a public body is designed to be effective and robust. We will always bring to the committee's attention matters of public interest through our audit work. As Pat rightly mentioned, there is a change of auditor this year. In the public audit model in Scotland, we rotate typically every five years, this year every six years, allow for an extension as a result of the pandemic. New auditors will always come in with a fresh perspective. They are required to do so by auditing standards every year to reset their expectations of management, quality and so forth. The incoming audit team, facilitated by the very thorough handover that they have had from Pat and his colleagues in Deloitte, will do that work. It is very central to the code of audit practice that we have in Scotland. It requires external auditors to take a view on governance, leadership, financial sustainability and the issues at the heart of the matters that the committee has considered over the past 12 months. I will take a view at the conclusion of the audit as to whether that progress is being sustained and, if necessary, a report from it. Thank you. Willie Coffey has got some questions to put. I wonder if you could say a little bit more about the impact of all of this on the crofting community itself. Clearly, there has been a heck of amount of work that has had to be carried out by the commission in putting in place procedures and so on and the code of corporate guidance and all that that you referred to. What about the impact on crofting services as a whole? Do you have any sense of the response of the crofting community to all of this and how they feel about it? Morning, Mr Coffey. That is an important point. Sometimes we can forget or risk forgetting, I should say. As we are looking at leadership, governance matters and so forth, this is a public body that is set up to provide a service to Scotland's crofters, crofting communities, and a very important role that it has. I recall from the evidence last year, and I will bring that in a moment, just to say a bit about some of the performance of the organisation that might touch on the heart of the question that you are answering. Last year, we said that in spite of some of the issues that the performance of the crofting commission had not been noticeably impacted by the events that had unfolded. They had still, allowing for Covid, performed largely as expected. This year's report sets out in a bit more detail, say as the performance of the organisation. Pat can speak to that as he wishes, but it is fundamentally at the heart of it that there was always a huge risk of distraction from the effectiveness of the organisation because of the issues at play. There are a variety of performance. We have seen that some are meeting their performance targets, other areas that they are not. Before handing to Pat, I would say that what is a positive feature of the crofting commission's annual reporting accounts is that they are showing an alignment to the national performance framework that we have not seen everywhere. Again, there are signs of progress about the overall arrangements in the organisation. I will pause there. Pat may want to comment about the organisation's performance in any detail that he wishes. The business case that went to the Scottish Government, which we referred to for enhanced staffing of the crofting commission in 2022-23, that business case did accept that there was a need for improved action and improved outcomes by the commission in five key areas. That included regulation in terms of regulatory processing, enforcing of duties and crofting development. I think that there is that recognition that there was a need for improved outcomes and that funding was approved. That was about 550,000 additional funding to allow more focus on those key outcomes. Again, I think that the auditor going forward, the key objective there will be to provide assurance that that additional funding has delivered those improved outcomes that the business case was based upon. In terms of the crofting community itself, have they been part of this process as a whole, sharing some kind of engagement with the recommendations that have been made? Have they expressed a view in whatever forum they are able to about how successful they think the changes, revisions and the new code of guidance are to deliver the services that they require? I am always keen to hear what their views are in a process like this. We will share what we know about this. Pat might know a bit more about the extent of organisational engagement. Perhaps one event that I would point to is that there have been elections this year for new commissioners. That is an opportunity for the crofting community to formally engage, bring forward their plans, their agenda for the role that crofters will play in the running and management of the crofting commission. That forms an important part of their governance arrangements. Not to digress too far, I hope, but you will recall that there was some concern about blurring of boundaries between the role of commissioners and the operational management of the commission. We have seen revised training arrangements and induction plans for new commissioners, so that those boundaries are clear. However, the point that you make is absolutely vital, Mr Crawford, is that the community that the commission serves is able to have its voice about the role, success and outputs of the commission. Pat might know more than I do. If we do not have any more detail to hand, we can come back with further information. I know that there will be another engagement campaign following the elections. I think that that is something that the new auditors would follow up in the next audit cycle, but I think that we could come back with more detail on that. My other question is about the code of guidance, the corporate code of guidance and so on. It seems to be saying right things and clarifying roles and responsibilities. Is it just a little early to form a view about the effectiveness of that? Does that mean that, in time to have a look at it, will someone have a wee look at that and subsequently to make sure that it is working? We absolutely will, as part of their consideration of the effectiveness of governance of the commission over the next 12 months. I think that it is welcome progress on governance. At the heart of many organisations' challenges, there tends to be a lack of clarity around governance and a lack of skills or effectiveness. All those factors have been considered by the Crofting Commission through not just the core but the new framework agreement as well, which sets out roles and responsibilities with far greater clarity than previously existed. Your own evidence-taking heard from the judgments that we made in the audit about—I forgot the precise words, but the relationship of primacy or most importance was previously thought to be between the sponsor team and the chief executive as a much more rounded set of arrangements with the convener and the commission through the sponsor team. There is transparency around that, too, so engagement with the sponsor team is now communicated at every board meeting, so that the role of the board and the sponsor team with the overarching core of corporate governance and the framework agreement gives them a better platform to progress. It is not a tier-clean bill of health, Mr Coffey. I think that it is the point that I am looking to make this morning that they put a great deal of effort into it as time elapses. If there is a challenging management decision and governance event, that is where the framework will be tested, so we are not quite at that place yet. That is something that we plan to keep a close eye on over the course of the audit years ahead. To re-emphasise the point that it would be useful for us to see what interaction there has been between the commission and the Crofting community is because, although the arrangement of direct elections is something many of us would welcome, it has got to be more than that, it has got to be an ongoing relationship. It may be that we need to speak to the Crofting Commission about that, but I think that any perspective you get on that would be very helpful. Colin Beattie has got some questions. Before I ask the questions that I am thinking of, the elected members of the commission, what is the process for that election? I will bring Kirstian, who has looked into this in a bit more detail than I have at my fingertips. Before I pass on, the make-up of the board of the Crofting Commission has changed, but the committee may recall that it is comprised of both commissioners who are directly elected and those who are appointed by the cabinet secretary. There is a combination of those factors. The timing, frequency and the election arrangements may no more. If we do not have a disposal today, we will come back to the committee. I guess that, in responding, you could touch on how the elections are held, and do they have a large participation? Are there competitions for the positions? Elections to the commission are held every five years, and it is done by a postal ballot out to all registered crofters or owner-occupier crofters. There are six regional constituencies, as I mentioned in the report, and at the elections in the start of 2022, all six constituencies were contested. There was a contest in every one of those. All crofters and owner-occupier crofters are eligible to stand for election if they are over the age of 16, and all registered crofters are eligible to vote in those elections. Are the elected commissioners all crofters? By and large, yes. You have to be a crofter or an owner-occupier crofter to stand for election. There is a provision for a crofter to nominate someone who is not a crofter to stand for them, and that nomination has to be set out in the election paperwork to show that they are a nominated person to stand. As far as my where, all the members that were elected last year are registered crofters. Okay, that's interesting. Let me turn to the questions that I've got here. Sponsorship. As you know, sponsorship has been a big issue with the Scottish Government, and a fairly recent report from the Scottish Government on sponsorship indicated large number of weaknesses. Turning to the crofting commission, how strong is the sponsorship support that the crofting commission is getting? Do you consider it to be adequate? Do you consider it to be strong? I would perhaps rephrase my answer slightly. It is more effective than it was last year. You took evidence from the sponsor team and from two director generals from the Scottish Government in terms of the sponsorship arrangements. There are two components to answer. One is about the interaction with the crofting commission's sponsor team. Those roles and responsibilities are much clearer than they were 12 months ago, and prior to that, they were set by the new framework document and the code of governance. That is giving what we would say normal, effective sponsorship arrangements are happening between the crofting commission, its executive and non-executive, and that is being set out transparently for the board as well. The relationship of consequence is no longer directly with the chief executive, it is broader. Everything that we have seen and the partners team have seen through the audit is that that is operating effectively. I caveat my response somewhat, Mr Beattie, because the effectiveness of sponsorship arrangements in the round that the Scottish Government deploys for its sponsored bodies. Many recommendations were made in the report that was produced by the Scottish Government. As I noted in my section 22 report on the Scottish Government, I still have some reservations about how effective all those recommendations will be or whether the Government yet has the skills and capacity to deliver upon all those recommendations, given the volume of change of personnel and the scale of recommendations. Although we are noting progress and a framework platform within the crofting commission, I think that there is still work to do across the piece for sponsorship in the Scottish Government and its bodies. Will you be revisiting that yourself? Yes, we are keeping a close eye on it. I am very mindful of the recommendation that the committee made in its report on the crofting commission's interests in me undertaking further work on sponsorship across the piece. I am taking that into consideration as we go through the next stage of our forward work programme. Whether we dedicate a specific piece of work on sponsorship or continue to report largely through the audit of the Scottish Government is something that I will be consulting with colleagues and engaging with the committee on further. Just coming back to the crofting commission and its engagement with the sponsorship, are you satisfied that the changes that have been made within the crofting commission adequately reflect the proper relationship that they should have with the sponsorship unit? Yes, that is what we are seeing so far. There is an impact in comment on this. Again, we will be closer and see how this relationship is working. However, the changes, the right governance documents and the transparency of the interaction that they are having with the Scottish Government—together, as Pat mentioned rightly, the proper processes and business cases that have been prepared for future funding arrangements—all have progressed on a sponsorship dynamic that we would expect to see and one that is operating effectively. Pat, can you comment on more detail on what you have seen? Yes, it is fair to say that there was clear and obvious tensions in the past. The initial report that I published identified several examples where the relationship was not working, as it should have done, in respect to blurring of roles. When I signed off my final year of audit, it was clear that those tensions were not there any longer and that the relationship was on a level that you would expect from an organisation of that type. However, I say again that the key thing would be that that is sustained going forward. I do think that there is a risk that, as the Auditor General mentions, there may be a difficult decision conflict. That will be the key litmus test, I think, as to whether those new governance arrangements are fully operational. Far too early to say that it is totally fixed, but the tensions that were there in the past are not there now. I am fully taken on board the caveats about sustainability in terms of the progress that has been made. It is very welcome and excellent, but sustainability is an issue. As with any sweeping changes such as they have brought in over a short period. Are you aware of whether the Scottish Government's public bodies unit has been involved in any of this? We certainly know that the sponsor team has been actively involved. I mentioned a few minutes ago that training is a significant part of the revised arrangements to support the induction and effectiveness of new commission members and new public board members. What I do not know is whether public bodies have been directly engaged with the public bodies unit directly engaged with the Crofton commission. However, given the prominence with which training and induction features, it is safe to assume that the Scottish Government has brought wider expertise and resource into the committee. If that is not the case, I will come back to clarify that to the committee. Just one last point on the sponsorship side. Remind me who the sponsoring body is? It is the agricultural and rural economy department that is the sponsor team that oversees the Crofton commission. In the committee's report on the 2020-21 audit of the Crofton commission, I recommend that the Crofton commission and the Scottish Government put plans in place to regularly review the revised framework agreement to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Do you know what plans are in place, if anything has been put in place? I need to check on the deputy convener about the timescale for the review of the framework agreement. All framework agreements have a timescale that is subject to review, and that can vary. I will need to check our records and come back. However, if colleagues are in agreement, I will come back to the committee to clarify exactly what that timeframe is. I think that it is not in the written report, but it is something that was alluded to earlier on. That was about the increase in grant aid that has been provided for by the Scottish Government to the Crofton commission. Did you say that it was £550,000? You also said that that was in part to address an enhancement of staffing capacity. I suppose that my two questions are, one, could you perhaps describe in a bit more detail what those job roles are? Was it to fill vacancies? Was it to increase capacity? Have there been particular log jams where things have not been dealt with as speedily as they might have been by the commission, and that is an attempt to address that? Secondly, are there other non-staffing costs that have been met through that increased level of grant aid that has been provided for? I am happy to start on that, convener, in action. I will bring Kirsty Anpat with the name of anything else that they wish to add. We have a figure of £700,000 was the increase in the Crofton commission's budget for the current financial year 2022-23. That takes its budget from £3.3 million to just a shade under £4 million for the year. £140,000 of that was identified to address inflation and wage pressures. The figure of £560,000 has been used to support workforce changes. Pat can comment about the business case for that, so there is an increase in staff for the Crofton commission. Some of it is to support its regulatory effectiveness, some of it is back-office functions and there has also been a restructuring of its senior management arrangements over the course of the year. Pat, and I think that Kirsty might want to say a bit more about that. Is there any significant budget changes? That is, in the context of the Crofton commission, big changes that that is supported by a business case and that is something that we are aware of, that there was a business case to support that scale of change. Pat and then Kirsty can say a bit more. The £700,000 figure in total, as the auditor general mentioned, £140,000 of that was to cover core inflation and the balance was really for staff enhancement. The major components of the staff enhancement figure were eight additional front-line staff for regulation and registration and two senior posts to form a new senior management team. There was a reconfiguration of the senior management team. I do not know if you recall in the initial report that I published, I suggested that the previous senior management team was too large for the size of the organisation. They had nine roles, I think, from memory and that has now been streamlined. There are now four senior management positions and changes to the level below a much better strategic and operational split in terms of the staffing structure. The two new senior management positions were a director of crofting regulation and a director of corporate services. Those two roles with the chief executive and the officer and solicitor now form the senior management team. To me, that is a structure that is much more in line with what you would expect for the size and scale of the organisation and is comparable to other similar types of organisation in the public sector. I hear that. From my simple perspective, are you saying that there has been a reduction in the size of the senior management team but that it is costing more money? There has been a reconfiguration overall. The previous senior management team, although it was nine, included more junior members of personnel. I think that B3 grades is the typical grade. What has happened now is that the team has been consolidated, but there was additional funding for those two new senior positions. Is that a net increase in the budget to pay for senior management? The overall impact per the business case, as I mentioned, was a 560k increase in staffing, but a lot of that, as I mentioned earlier, was to improve the five priority outcomes that had been identified when improvements were required. In overall terms, there was additional funding for staffing overall. I think that we haven't audited this yet, so that will be something that we subject to audit during the 2022-23 audit. In overall terms, the business case is £560,000 to increase the workforce. Pat Wright mentioned that the majority of that is for increase in regulatory posts, but there are 14 new posts in total across the organisation. An aspect of the change is to restructure the senior management team. However, I do not think that it is a case that the increase in funding represents primarily to support senior management staffing salary changes. The majority of that is about investment in the regulatory team. All of that is caveatic, convener, because we have not audited this yet. That is something that information has been provided to us. It will absolutely be part of our audit for the year ahead. That is quite reassuring. For the purposes of today, although you said that you did not think that the majority of it had gone on to the senior management team, what is in rough terms or in exact terms, if you have got it, what is the division of additional resource that is going into those front-line posts versus which it is going into the senior management team? As I mentioned, it is our understanding that there are 14 new posts. What we do not know is how far they are in terms of recruiting to those posts, but the division relates to eight new regulatory posts as well, together with a streamlining of the senior management team within the organisation. I emphasise the point that Pat McNeill makes, that this is a small organisation. The senior managers who are identified and are set out in name, job, title and salaries in the Crofting Commission's annual report and accounts are not large salaries for senior managers. In other parts of the Scottish Government, they would be considered to be relatively junior grades, but, because of the small organisation and the span of responsibilities, they are identified as senior managers. It is a reasonable step that the commission has taken to better align the size of the senior management team with the scale of the organisation that it is. We will look into all of that filler over the course of this year's audit. I think that there will be an interest and a public interest in the proportionate increases in the salary levels from the regulatory team that is presumably working on the front line dealing with that side of it and those who are in strategic senior management positions. I think that there will also be an interest in what the net outcome is in the new structure compared with the previous structure. I turn to a final point, which is to pick up something that you spoke about earlier on. We have new commissioners in some elected, some appointed. We were interested in understanding what training and development they have been given. In answer to Colin Beattie's questions, you mentioned about the role of the public bodies unit. There is obviously an expectation that training will be provided, but we identified that in our report as being something, especially with the expectation that there would be a new cohort of commissioners elected. I think that we were interested in understanding what the quality of training is that has been provided to them. I will happily start, convener, as they see fit. From my understanding, one of the first things that the training has set out is the clarity of roles and responsibilities. Together with a clearer understanding of the framework agreement and the code of corporate governance, together with the wider support that the Scottish Government provides—Mr Beattie mentioned the public bodies unit—there is a programme of learning and development and training that the Government has been working on. It has a governance hub for new public board members. It takes members through range of scenarios and accountability arrangements. It informs them about the role of the committee and so forth. That is the package that is available across the piece. We understand that there is also a dedicated training plan specifically for the crofting commission members. They understand more clearly the respective roles of commissioners and staff, which was a feature of previous reports. All the building blocks are in place so that new commissioners, together with existing commissioners, have a clearer understanding of who is responsible for what, and they can avoid some of the pitfalls that brought us to preparing the report together with the recommendations that we have made previously. I will stop in case a colleague wants to come out with a bit of detail that supports that. I do not have any further detail at the moment. I think that that covers it all. Okay, well look, thanks very much indeed. Unless any of the committee members have got any further questions, I am going to draw that session to a close. Thank you very much indeed to Pat Kenney, Stephen Boyle, Auditor General and Kirsty Rydd. We have appreciated your input this morning. I think that there are some things that we may want to follow up, but that might be with yourselves, but also with the crofting commission as well. Thank you very much indeed to Fire Evans. I am now going to close the public part of this morning's meeting.