I have already announced what we have done most recently.

There are lots of issues.

The new scheme has to go through its processes. It depends on whether there are objections. We are working hard to ensure that, when the made orders are published, the scheme does not have to go to public inquiry and so on. As we know from other road building programmes, it depends on whether there are legal objections that would delay the scheme. It also depends on budget issues, but we are getting the case set out on what is required and when. We expect the cost of the development to be between £405 million and £470 million at 2023 prices.

The useful website that I referred to earlier has a good timetable that gives the relevant stages in the process and estimates of how long they would take but, as I said, some of that is variable and dependent on whether there is a public inquiry and objections.

I do not know how long we have been in this evidence session, but I have tried to marshal myself carefully in relation to the period that we are in.

It is £40 million of investment, which is a lot of funding, so we have to prove that it is doing what we want it to do. We know that it has helped to save people money in the cost of living crisis, but we want to see a modal shift. Reading the report that was published today—I gave the committee early sight of some of the findings—the evidence that there has been a massive increase in rail use is perhaps not as absolute as everybody assumes. There has not been that increase, so we need to make a robust analysis of that policy.

The Government announced the extension of the scheme after the ending of the Bute house agreement, not before it. That might give you the reassurance that you seek, Ms Lennon.

I know that the unions have championed the policy from the start, but it was a Scottish Government decision to implement and extend it. On the day of the announcement of the extension, I spoke to ASLEF in particular, to try to get its support and that of all the unions. As a Scottish Government, we have also done that with RMT.

In order to prove that the policy is a success, we need more people to choose rail. I encourage everybody who is benefiting from those reduced fares to encourage more of their work colleagues, neighbours and friends to use rail. We are supportive of the policy and we would like to see it extended but, taking an objective view of the figures that we have to date, they are not as convincing as I would have liked them to be. We have to face the reality of where we are and bear in mind that 79 per cent of public transport journeys are made by bus. We have spent quite a lot of time on bus challenges and we need to make good decisions. I want the policy to be successful, but I need the unions and all MSPs who are supportive of the policy to encourage more people to actively use rail.

As I said, patterns are changing, and it is interesting that we are seeing an increase in rail use for leisure. We still have hybrid working, and it might be that, because people are working from home, they are choosing to use rail more at weekends. With that influence and change, it is hard to compare what was already an increasing return to rail after the pandemic, but we are particularly interested in modal shift.

Convener, I hope that that answer stays within the tramlines that you wanted me to keep to.

I was about to bring in George Henry, who will, I hope, help to illustrate what this could mean in practice, which might bring it to life. I know that, conceptually, this might be quite a challenging area, but we do need to move with the times, convener, and there are already automated vehicles in use, so we need the framework legislation, but we also need to set it out in a sensible way and anticipate what the implications will be.

Yes, it does.

I think that that is where the user-in-charge aspect becomes quite important, because it means that somebody else is in the vehicle. The vehicle might be automated, but there will be times where there might be an instruction from, say, the computer that there needs to be a transition and a person needs to take over, because of whatever circumstance. As for deployment of people and the issue of drivers working, I think that there is likely to be a transition, with control going to a user in charge instead of the vehicle just driving itself, with no other human there.

With regard to socialising the issue around the implications for jobs, we all have a responsibility to raise such matters. Last June, I think, the Parliament had a debate, in which I took part as a back bencher, on artificial intelligence and what it means generally. We cannot give you all the answers, because it is a developing area, but if we do not prepare for it and anticipate things, the market will just take over. That is the interesting aspect—that is, how you regulate in this sphere—and that is what the UK Government has done after the law commissions’ quite extensive study of the issue and report.

That would be allowed if the UK Secretary of State were to use his powers under clause 50 to do that. That would be a policy decision in that hypothetical situation.

We agree with you, because we think that, conceptually, it is the same thing, whether the act involves you as an individual or the automated vehicle. However, the UK Government is saying that there is a difference and that, because there is an automated driver, the offence does not apply in the same way. You are right; that is why we agree with you that—

Yes, that is correct, because the problem would be with the vehicle and the manufacturer of the vehicle. The issue with clause 50 is about changes to devolved legislation. It would give the UK Government powers over speeding or other aspects that would be offences.