You will not be surprised to hear that I want to look at annex 3. On page 67, it clearly says that, because of the slow development of the ARP, it is impossible to

“fully assess the costs and benefits to industry”.

It goes on to say:

“All figures”—

that is, on the carbon reductions and costs—

“should therefore be treated as provisional”.

On page 72, the chart setting out what it is going to cost says that the benefits to the environment over the period are worth £9.6 billion and, over the same period, the net costs are £90 million. However, the problem is that the costs of the agricultural support scheme, if you tot them all up as it rolls forward, are £12.8 billion. So, none of the figures match up. Can those people who have considered the plan tell me how much it will cost farmers and the industry more widely? I cannot work it out.

Dave, you anticipated the question, because you smiled. I will come to you first, because you must know the answers.

If they have heard previous evidence sessions, the panel members will not be surprised that, for my second question, I am directing them to page 67 of annex 3, which talks of the agricultural pathway and tries to give some idea of what needs to be achieved. The problem is that it says that no benefits or costs have been worked out, because the ARP has not been developed and it is not possible to develop it at this stage, so the annual budget for farm subsidies will run forward to 2040, which, clearly, is not in the budget at the moment. Do you understand from this climate change plan—which, to be a plan, must be properly costed—what its proposals will cost farmers and crofters? It can be a yes or no answer if you want. I will go along the whole panel, starting with Lorna.

In summary, you are saying that we have a plan without a route map of how to get to where we must get to, and we have no idea of the cost. It sounds like a good plan to me.

Does anyone have the answer?

I agree with the cabinet secretary that there should be a separate transport committee in the Parliament to overlook these projects.

The final section of the A9 to be dualled will be the northern section. Yet again, that means that the Highlands come last. According to the programme, 50 per cent of the dualling will be done in the final five years, but not one bit of the A9 dualling that has been carried out so far was carried out on time. Why should the highlanders believe that you will stick to your timetable? Will you outline the contingency plans should you not reach the deadlines that you have set yourself?

I am pleased to speak to the stage 1 report on the bill. I congratulate the committee and its clerks on progressing the bill and congratulate the minister on organising various meetings across the crofting community to discuss it. I attended one of those meetings, on a relatively bright summer night, and it was interesting.

However, there is a bit of déjà vu here. In 2017, during the previous parliamentary session, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee produced quite a lengthy report on the need to make changes to crofting law. In that report, the REC Committee made it quite clear that we needed a statement of crofting policy that would not only lay out the aims of crofting but cover keeping the associated language going and keeping the crofting population and culture in place across the Highlands.

The REC Committee found key issues. Some of those have already been addressed and others are dealt with in the current bill, but it is still apposite to remind the Parliament of them. They related to the election of crofting commissioners and the management of absenteeism. There was a call for a new entrants scheme, which does not seem to have gained any ground at all, and for definitions of different forms of croft ownership, including owner-occupation and various other forms. The committee also called for the mapping of crofts, which also seems to have stalled slightly, and raised the issue of so-called “slipper crofters” who have shares in grazings but do not actually own crofts.

The 2017 report was clear that sufficient time should be allowed to ensure that a new bill would be passed before the end of the session in 2021, but that did not happen. It is therefore surprising that we are discussing the current bill only as we come towards the end of the current session. I hope that we will have sufficient time to get all the amendments through.

I agree with the current committee that there needs to be a fundamental review of crofting in the next session of Parliament. The committee has raised issues relating to the Crofting Commission, mapping and, as I have just mentioned, what I have termed “slipper crofters”—that is, people with grazing shares but no crofts.

The bill represents the low-hanging fruit of crofting law reform. I would have liked to see more of a definition of the cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits of crofting.

I would also have liked to drill down into the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, the Crofters Commission (Delegation of Powers) Act 1888, the Crofters Common Grazings Regulation Act 1891, the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 and the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. When we look at crofting law, we have to have the text of all those acts open at the same time. For people like me, who are trying to help crofters, that makes it difficult to understand which act is apposite to the matter that is being dealt with. There needs to be proper reform of those acts. I would like them to be drawn together to help to make crofting vibrant, understandable and enforceable.

As regards the merger of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, I am aware of the expertise problem. The Government is pretty sanguine about it, but I would like to see some clarity when we come to stage 2.

I thank the Rural and Islands Committee for its work. I agree with the general principles of the bill, but I feel that opportunities have been missed here. I reiterate that a new bill will definitely be needed, which is what the REC Committee said back in 2017.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her earlier answers, but I am slightly confused. Robbie Drummond worked for three days of that year and seems to have been paid £35,000 for each day that he worked, which is high by anyone’s standards.

Can we have a definitive answer, cabinet secretary? Did you agree to that or not? Do you think that £35,000 a day is appropriate? Those are simple questions.

Sorry.

I have enjoyed listening to this discussion on the climate change plan.

I would like to drag the witnesses back to page 82 in annex 3, which deals with the costs—you have, no doubt, looked at it. The net costs of the climate change proposals for peatland do not even meet 50 per cent of what the actual costs will be. Can you explain what the actual costs will be to reach the Government’s target of 400,000 hectares of peatland restoration by 2040? Perhaps you could give me that figure, Peter, on a cumulative basis—based on interest, not on today’s rate of £1,000 a hectare, which the Government is working on. That is just so that people in Scotland understand what the real cost is going to be.

With respect, that is a politician’s answer. I am looking for a yes or no answer. Are you confident that the plan that is laid out by the Government is properly financed, and can you see the finance in that plan? Yes or no?