The processes depend on which type of procurement we might use, and progress depends on the availability of funding. The intention is to look at the potential for procuring at the same time as we decide whether to go down the mutual investment model route in relation to parts of the A9 that are in that territory. I have previously announced some of the design and build contracts in relation to the next stages of the A9 work. That process would be in parallel.

As for what could be done and when, just as I was honest and straight with the people at the meeting, I cannot say here definitively that the work will be done by 2030. Hypothetically, and depending on everything working to effect, it could be; that is what my official from Transport Scotland said in terms of the timescale. It could be, but it all depends, and there are too many variables to necessarily give you that absolute guarantee.

I would not push things with local councils, because it is for local councils to make decisions about things in their own areas. That is the whole point of our agreement in working with local authorities. We can provide enabling legislation, and we can provide regulations. When it comes to decision making, we have to trust our local councils to make decisions about their own local areas.

If local authorities want to use them, yes—but, if they do not, that is a decision for them.

As a Government minister, I am recused on the issue, and, at this stage, I do not think that my colleagues are in a position to answer. Mr Fairlie is leading for the Scottish Government on the issue.

Historically, there have been such groups. When I was a back bencher, as a local constituency MSP, it was me who pulled together all the relevant bodies to progress the issue, which we did at the time with Ms Gilruth, who was the then transport minister. I think that that is probably as much as I can say.

I will ask Alison Irvine to keep me right, and also whether she wants to come in. We want to make the improvements, but interrelated decisions will need to be taken. It might look slightly different from what it was originally but, as we have heard, the support and rolling-stock investment are on-going and very live. There have been some investments already.

For brevity, I say that I have answered a number of parliamentary questions from Douglas Lumsden and given as much information as possible on what has already been invested, but we are committed to making the improvements in the north-east in particular. He is right. It may take a different shape than was perhaps originally intended, but there will be further clarity when we have the rail decarbonisation plan refresh, in which the north-east will be a particular area of focus—as he knows, because he has taken a keen interest.

Some issues relate to side deals that are associated with the city region. Recently—in the past few weeks—my colleagues at Transport Scotland attended meetings on that with the relevant authorities. We will try to keep everyone, including the committee, as well informed as we can, when we can, but I might not be able to give you as much information as you want at this committee meeting.

I am actively looking at the issue. Just two weeks ago, I pulled together a variety of stakeholders, including ScotRail, Network Rail, the unions and those who have an interest in issues in relation to women and girls. The core issue is antisocial behaviour and people who are already drunk coming on to trains—I get that. However, the main focus of solutions has to be tackling antisocial behaviour. Just last week, I met the justice minister about that broader issue. I have been discussing it with a number of people, not least Mr Simpson. As we progress, I will keep the member and the committee informed as to what decisions are finally taken. Obviously, I will have to consult my colleagues, because that is a Government policy decision.

From activity in the Parliament, you know that there is an interest from Ferguson Marine in the SVRP. As the committee knows, responsibility for the company lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic. However, when it comes to our assessment as an overall Government, everything has to be looked at in the round, and that has been done, particularly in the development of business cases and in relation to the accountable officer assessment and legal advice. Very strict issues surround ferry procurement generally, as well as particularly in relation to any one company.

Planning for any reorganisation can take place. What I want CMAL and CalMac to focus on is the successful operational delivery of the six ferries into the ports and harbours that will be receiving them, ensuring that that works well and ensuring that small vessel replacement procurement is well under way. It is not that we do not want to make changes. My intention is to review what things will look like, as advised and informed by the committee, and depending on what is practical and doable.

There are lots of different things to consider in relation to organisational change. There are issues around taxation, VAT and assets, and different organisations will have different structures relating to what they have. Anything that is brought into the public sector more directly becomes a public sector asset, and that bring issues around whether that is the best value for money to ensure that we can invest how we want to invest.

Although I am saying that the situation is complicated, that does not mean that we cannot or will not look at it—we will. However, my main focus just now does not involve getting tied up in various aspects or different issues involving organisational change given the effort, energy and time involved in that. We are at a key point in the delivery of our services and the new vessels, and putting them into action, and I want the management to be focused on that, rather than on the reorganisational aspects if that is required.

I do not think that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity is looking at the issue in the way that the member has set out. There is a specific issue in North Lanarkshire that is to do with decisions that have been made by the council, which I am not sure has been replicated elsewhere.

I would be concerned if a local authority decided to use the young person’s bus pass as a substitute for providing school transport, which—as I recall from my time as education minister, a long time ago—is governed by education legislation that sets out the mileages for school transport, as the member has said.

I can try to find out more about that, but I think that there is a specific issue in North Lanarkshire because of decisions that were made by the council. I stand to be corrected if anyone wants to give me examples of that happening elsewhere. I have concerns about that, because it is not sustainable in operational or financial terms, nor is it sustainable if we consider the environmental aspects, in that it could lead to more people using their cars. I hear what the member has said, but the situation relates to a specific area—

I do not need to do that—I have taken advice, and I am not allowed to discuss that particular area.