 Mwneud i'n gwybod i'r 14 ysgolion i'r Eisteddfodau Rhaol Iconwymae i'r Gweithgafodd Cyngor. Mae'r gwaith yn cael ei gwirionedd i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly, rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r ddweud. Item 1 on the agenda is to take evidence from the fourth replacement crossing project team on progress and developments in relation to the new fourth replacement crossing. I welcome David Climett and Lawrence Shackman and I would invite David Plees to make an opening statement. Thank you very much. Good morning. We're very pleased to be here this morning to update the committee on progress made since our last appearance here on 7 September and your site visit on 31 October. I can confirm that the opening to traffic date of the Queensferry crossing continues to be May 2017 and that the project outturn cost range remains as £1.325 to £1.35 billion. The weather has continued to be challenging but the contractor FCBC has generally been successful in mitigating this. The site workforce has averaged 1,242 in the past 12 months with a peak of over 1,400 during the summer and the autumn. Following her visit to site at the end of October, I'm sure that the members of the committee will have an appreciation of the size and scale of the works being undertaken and the degree of skill and dedication required from the site workforce to complete this outstanding project. Focusing on specific progress on the principal contract, on the south side the roadworks are substantially complete with final landscaping and planting works currently in progress. On the Queensferry crossing, 107 out of 110 deck units have been lifted into place, with one more to be lifted in the next few days and the final two in the new year. The Centre Tower deck fan achieved the milestone of the longest freestanding balance cantilever structure in the world in October, which has been verified and recognised by the Guinness World Records Organisation. That only existed for about three weeks as the closure units at either end have now been lifted and connected to form a continuous structure all the way from the north abatement to pier S2, leaving a gap of only 36 metres. On the viaduct's installation of a concrete deck on the south approach viaduct is progressing northwards from the south abatement with 36 out of a total of 42 concrete pours required having been completed. On the north side, all 12 concrete deck pours required have been completed and the travelling formwork used to construct them has been dismantled and removed. Installation of the large expansion joints at the south end of the bridge has just started. On the north side roadworks, the windshielding barrier has been installed on the west side of the ferry toll viaduct, which provides a good indication of how the finished Queensferry crossing will look. The new ferry toll junction is now in use, with traffic passing under the new over bridges and traffic on the A90 was recently transferred onto the new southbound carriageway between Admiralty and ferry toll junctions. Work on the reconfigured park and ride facility at ferry toll is nearing completion, with a new turning circle for buses currently being completed. With the completion of deck lifting in January, the focus will shift onto the deck finishing activities. Those include the installation of the crossing stay cables, erecting the windshielding and vehicle restraint barriers, fitting the motorway gantries at the towers, waterproofing of the concrete deck and the road surfacing. In addition, the three tower cranes, which have been a landmark on the skyline for so long, will be dismantled and the temporary trestles, platforms, cofferdam and caissons at each tower will be cut up and removed. Those activities are the more visible ones on the project and to the public indeed, but inside the towers, inside the piers, inside the abutments and the deck structures, work is progressing on the installation, testing and commissioning of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, as well as the extensive structural health monitoring system, which is so important to modern bridge structures. Community relations continue to be extremely good, with the North and South community forums having been combined into a single entity for the November meeting and going forward. We have now had over 68,000 people attend an event related to the FRC, with nearly all those being held in the Contact and Education Centre. Of those, over 19,000 school pupils have attended STEM-related activities from schools all over Scotland. Also, the level of interest and excitement around the opening of the bridge is continuing to increase and we are continuing to develop the plans for this, which we expect to be able to make an announcement on in the new year. David, thank you very much. I am sure that the committee would want me to reiterate our thanks for the visit to site, which we all found extremely informative, and it is probably not until you get there and get on to the bridge that you realise the enormity of the project. I very much would like to pass on our thanks to you. I think that Mike has got the first question. I can just thank you for your letter that was sent on the 20th of September to the committee. I find it very helpful because I have been trying to drill down on to the finance of all of this project. So, if you just follow me through, and I just wanted you to confirm these figures, the budget at the moment, as you said in your letter, is £1.35 billion. Secondly, when the tendering came out, it went up to a maximum of £1.6 billion. That was the tendering process, £1.6 billion. And then in your letter, you said there has been, therefore, a reduction, a saving of £245 million reduction in the budget, and it's been delivered due to lower than expected inflation, robust risk management and strong project governance. On the very next day, in answer to a parliamentary question that I gave to Ask Keith Brown, he confirmed that he actually allocated £529 million to inflation with an estimated inflation on an average per year of 5.3 per cent. The actual inflation over those last five years, which Keith Brown referred to, is actually not 5.3 per cent, but 1.9 per cent. So, in fact, £300 million, which was, in theory, allocated to inflation, hasn't been needed to be spent. So, you're quite correct when you say that £245 million, but actually there's a bigger figure on average inflation, which should be closer to £300 million, and my point is, you may not have said this, but I know MSPs in the Parliament have said this, that this is consistently coming in under budget. But, in fact, it hasn't come in under budget. If you take the inflation figure as it actually was, rather than it was forecast, it looks as though it's coming in over budget. Any comments on that? Yes, I have. I think that you have a slight misinterpretation of the figures, and, in fact, it's the way the figures have developed. You're right. So, I'm very happy to clarify that position. The budget has gone through several phases. Initially, when the project was first talked about in 2007, when it was thought that it was going to be, the fourth road bridge would be closed completely, there was a number put out that suggested that it could be £3.2 to £4.2 billion. There was then the further analysis of the fourth road bridge that was undertaken, which resulted in the fact that the fourth road bridge could continue to be used on a better prognosis for the cables, and therefore the managed crossing strategy was developed, which meant that the fourth road bridge would continue to be used, and therefore the width of the Queensferry crossing could be reduced. At that point, which was when the financial memorandum was introduced to Parliament, which was tied to the bill process, the number at that point came down to £1.7 to £2.3 billion for the budget. The £529 million that was quoted in the written answer to your question relates to that £1.7 to £2.3 billion. In fact, if you look at the financial memorandum in 2009, you can see that number clearly identified. What has been consistent through the project is the rates of inflation that have been used on the numbers. The lower end inflation has always been 2 per cent per year, the median inflation has always been 5 per cent per year, and the high end inflation has always been 8 per cent per year in all the predictions. What happened subsequently, after £1.7 to £2.3 billion, was that we went through the procurement process, and we got the bids in significantly lower than we expected them to come in at. That is the point where the £1.45 to £1.6 billion budget was put in place, and the £529 million came down accordingly, because the £529 million related to the £2 billion in the median of the £1.7 to £2.3 billion. The actual number on inflation was somewhere around 200, so the £245 million, which is now being quoted, is inflation plus the other activities. I do not want to confuse people with the figures, so if I can just read it that I have understood you correctly. What you are saying is that the £529 million was not to the point when the contract was tendered, it was the previous one. The figures. Even when you take the £1.6 billion tender figure, and that is what I am focusing on, because I am looking at how much this process has cost since the tender was accepted, the £245 million reduction is at least £200 million from inflation, if not more. Because I could not get my head round this issue, if it was a fixed-budget contract, how could it be coming under budget? Some might say that it is under budget, if you use the inflation figure. On a fixed-budget contract cannot come under budget, the only reason is inflation. Basically, the figure is the inflation reduction, is it not? No, it is partly the inflation reduction. I need to make it very clear that there is a difference between the element, which is the fixed-price contract, which is the principal contract. Which is the £790 million. That is the £790 million. That is the fixed-price principal contract. The entire project budget, which is everything from the start of the project in 2007, through and until the end of the defects liability period in 2022, is £1.35 million. So that is everything associated with the project. Convenience forbearance on this, because I think that it is an important issue that we need to get right if we are looking at the budget. What I would request, if you could, in writing to the convener, would be very helpful. Of the £245 million reduction, I would certainly like to know, and I know the committee would like to know, I am sure, how much of that £245 million is a result of a lower-than-average inflation level, and how much is a result of other matters, and could you identify what other matters they are? So, basically, of the £245 million, I suspect that the vast majority of it, 90 per cent of it, is inflation. I would like to know the exact figure and what the other figures are. Once we get that, we can make a judgment as to how effective the contract has been in monetary terms. I am sure that that would be very helpful to everybody, so I am more than happy to provide that. I think that it would be helpful, and I think that it would be helpful to see it on paper so that we can look at it slowly. John, I think that you wanted to make a comment on finance. Did you or was it on the next question? On the next question, yes. Okay, does anyone else want to ask? John, we will move on to the next question. We will make a comment. I just think that it is so exciting that we started at £3 billion, and we are now, whatever we are, under two. I mean, I think that that is just fabulous. So, you mentioned that the weather had been challenging, and I was just wondering if you could expand on that. I mean, I think that we have had quite a lot of rain, we have had quite a lot of wind, we have had some fairly low temperatures at one point, so have there been any real problems with the weather? As I said in my opening statement, the weather has continued to be challenging, and it always is going to be out on the fourth. I think that what is important to note is that we are beginning to move into a new phase on the project. In that, over the past 12 months, we have been very much focused on the deck lifting and everything associated with that. So, therefore, the impact of wind, particularly as we have discussed previously and when you have been on the site yourself, you have seen that. And the disadvantage that we have always had through that period is that we only have discrete work fronts. You can only lift in a particular place at a particular time. You cannot create a new work front. What will be happening into the new year once the deck lifting is completed is that it very much opens up the whole bridge structure to us, which means that it becomes more resource driven in terms of you can waterproof multiple areas of the bridge at any one time. You can work on putting wind shielding up in more than one area at a time. It does not have to be done in a specific sequence. So, we are starting to move into an area, and also a lot of the work is done, as I said, inside the deck itself, inside the towers and the piers. But with things like the waterproofing and the deck surfacing in particular, those become particularly sensitive to rain. You cannot waterproof on a damp surface and also to low temperatures. There is a minimum temperature at which you can place asphalt. So, therefore, there is some change in the challenges coming up. But, I think, overall, in the progress that we have made to where we are to date, we are generally where we want it to be. We will have two deck units to lift in the new year, both at the south end of the bridge. The weather downtime has been fairly significant over the period since the new programme was put into place, but we have continued to challenge FCBC and their designers to find alternative ways of doing things and ways of mitigating those weather effects, and we have been particularly successful in doing that. So, if it was very wet and very cold every day from now until May, which I suppose might have, would there be delays? Of course. I cannot say that there wouldn't be. I hope that January and February will not be a massive snow and ice. That would not be helpful, obviously. But the mid-eight is still realistic. There are weather constraints, obviously, and we are very aware of those, and we will obviously keep the committee advised as to how they develop over the next few months. Right. What are the key things? Are those the key things that you have mentioned already, the waterproofing, the asphalt, all that kind of stuff? Are those the key things between now and May? Those are the key things left to deal with, yes. Right. Okay, thanks so much. Stuart, do you want to come in with a very quick one? A very brief supplementary. Are the staff working on the bridge who would be engaged in the weather-dependent things, such as asphalt laying, staff that could work on other activities, not so weather-dependent, that might be inside the towers or inside the bridge itself? No, they couldn't. I mean, those tend to be very specialist activities, particularly road surfacing. You want to make sure that is put down by qualified people who know exactly what they're doing. So the last thing we want is any problem with road surfacing on the bridge. Similarly with waterproofing, it's very specialist subcontractors who do that. Richard Scott has a question to follow up, I think, then. Yes, ma'am, Mr Climie. I know that you've been so heavily involved in building the bridge in such an iconic structure it is, and I'm sure it will become one of the wonders of the world. You said when you made your opening statement that you basically will be planning in the new year on how to celebrate the opening. Could you expand on that? It's going to open in May, hopefully, depending on the weather. But when do you think that we will celebrate the opening and who possibly may open the bridge? I probably want surprises to know that we've had a huge amount of input from people relating to the potential opening events, what might be done, who might be involved, what has been done previously on similar projects, and we're gathering all of that together, to put together an effective package that will satisfy as many people as possible. Obviously, there's a huge public interest in the project. We're fully aware of that through the engagement that we have at our contact and education centre. Every time I've gone out to do a talk, the first question that I'm asked is when is the opening ceremony to be, and how can we come to it? Obviously, we're taking all that into account. We're also looking at how it might be tied in with charitable fundraising, because obviously it's an excellent opportunity to be able to do that. We also want to be as inclusive as possible in terms of how we deal with that. Lawrence is leading the committee that we formed to pull all that information together and make recommendations, and we expect to be able to make more detailed announcements on that, as I mentioned earlier, in the new year. I've got a picture in my mind of fireworks, the sprays, et cetera. I'm sure you won't be putting any on the bridge. I may try and spare David his brushes, because I think that he's telling us that something substantial is planned, but when there's an announcement, we'll get to hear about it. That's what I was leading to. One thing at the end of the day, you will have thousands of people who will want to come and see that, and I'm sure that you will plan it on a day that is suitable to most people. Thank you, Candida. David, can I just ask before Gail comes in on a question? It's linking back to the points that John made, if I may. You suggested that whether willing was the description that everything was going to happen in May. Can you confirm to me that you are satisfied that you have enough contingency time in the project to make May a reasonable option if things don't go quite as planned as far as the weather is concerned? I think I can say that, as I have said earlier, the programme is realistic and is achievable, based on everything that we've experienced over the past, looking at the activities that need to be done in the future, realising that we're continuing to engage with both FCBC and their designers to make sure that if things do happen, which have a greater impact than expected, we still continue to try to find workarounds where by no means sitting back and saying this is what it's going to be and it will be what it will be, though we continue challenge on that. So I continue to say that the May date is a realistic date and there is always the risk of weather attached to that. I would think that actually scheduling May would be very helpful for Parliament to know if there were key targets that were being missed prior to May. I just want to know, I mean you obviously will have thought of your exact timeframe now, you'll be done, I suggested, to days rather than weeks. How are you going to make Parliament aware of those as and when they occur, if you're missing a deadline? Because I think what will be unacceptable is if the date comes to a week before when it was planned to be opened and we don't know about it. I think that's perfectly fair, yes. And as soon as anything should happen that would jeopardise that date, we would immediately inform you. Gail, do you want to… Yeah, thanks. And I also want to place on record my thanks that letting us come in and view it and it was just great to be part of that, so thank you very much. My last time you were in, I asked about the school kids and the interaction with the education and the learning opportunities. And especially since now, even if it was only for a few weeks, you had a world record. It's still on record, which is a fantastic achievement as well. In October, I visited the Glasgow Science Centre and they have a lot of interactive exhibits and fun things for kids to do. And you talk about your education centre. Are there any plans to make that permanent or to have anything in somewhere like the science centre so that kids, obviously they're learning a lot about how the bridge has been built and how it works? And I just wondered if there were any permanent ways that we could continue that learning? Yes, I think that the simple answer is yes. We're very keen to do that. The contact and education centre that we have, that was originally put in place for the duration of the construction period. There's an intention that that will be used for a longer period, certainly for at least a year beyond that, because we want to be able to tell the whole story about the project. We've always been a developing story up until now. From the period from May onwards, we can tell the complete story of the project. What we've also done is we've also contributed to, I think, a pop-up exhibition that's been being done around Fife. We've contributed a lot of our material to that. And also we engage a lot with the institution of civil engineers. And we've contributed to a major exhibition that they have actually going on in London at the moment in terms of the bridge and the progress on the bridge. Lawrence, you might want to say a bit more. Yeah, I visited that actually on Friday myself, so perhaps that it's actually exists and it's serving a purpose. In fact, it's the most popular part of the exhibition from what the people were telling me down in the institution of civil engineers. But now, as David was saying, we're keen to keep the contact and education centre function going at least into 2018, then we need to have a discussion about what happens to the building after that. My personal view is that it would be great to keep that going and keep it as something that we can all reflect on and make sure that we encourage children into engineering. Great, thank you. Peter, I think that you've got the next question. Yeah, good morning gentlemen. And the concerns have been raised that certain contractors working on the bridge may not be meeting acceptable employment standards. And these concerns include undercutting the pay of joiners and other workers, as well as failing to meet health and safety standards. But even more specifically, can you explain how seven workers suspected of immigration offences were found to be working on the project as well? Certainly, yes. I'm glad to have the opportunity to address these points. Obviously, we take very seriously any allegations that are made regarding low pay, health and safety conditions, or the immigration concerns that you've mentioned. Let me deal first with the immigration issue. That was... FCBC, the contractor, was contacted by the Home Office saying that they had specific allegations against a specific company and seven named individuals of that company that they could potentially be working illegally. Now, the company in question was a second tier subcontractor to FCBC. And the Home Office made it very clear that FCBC was not the subject of the investigation and was not at all involved in the investigation. But they requested assistance from FCBC in being able to interview the employees of this particular contractor. And that was arranged to be done both with the Home Office officials and Police Scotland. That happened on Monday, the 21st of November. And as a result of that, the seven named individuals who were suspected were taken away and, I believe, subsequently have been charged. That matters now with the Home Office for further investigation. But I should also mention that the obligation in terms of checking the eligibility of employment always rests with the immediate employer. That is where the legal responsibility lies. Now, this was a second tier subcontractor to FCBC. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Home Office had no investigation into FCBC itself. FCBC checks all their directly employed employees to make sure that they are employed legally. And the Home Office also mentioned that this is, unfortunately, not in irregular occurrence, particularly on construction sites. They do get a large number of tip-offs to investigate them and occasionally they find that there's truth in the tip-offs. So it is true that there were seven illegal workers, that's correct. They've been removed from the site and the process is on-going. In terms of the other allegations that have been made, these are being subtly investigated. In terms of the health and safety criteria, everyone who comes to the site receives an induction on the site. The first thing that's done as part of that induction is within the UK construction industry, there's what we call the CSCS card scheme, which assesses the safety capability of individuals and is very much targeted at which particular trade they're working in. All contractors are required to have that or an equivalent. If they should be a foreign contractor and they don't have a CSCS card, then they're required to have a signed statement from their sponsor or employer that they meet all the safety requirements. In parallel with that, FCBC also have their own onsite training facility where they provide a lot of safety training and over 500 individuals have gone through that training as part of the project. Obviously, the individual supervises on the project very carefully check the capabilities of their employees and if there's any question about that whatsoever they can either get further training or they would be removed from the site. In terms of the low pay, if I can just go on to that as the final point you raised, there were allegations made about a specific subcontractor again, a Portuguese subcontractor. They have 29 people working on the site. As a result of that, the union wrote to FCBC with their allegations. FCBC immediately contacted that company and this company swanned the letter immediately confirming that they paid fully in accordance with the rates and in accordance with all rules and regulations. That information was sent on back to the union in a letter on 1 December. The union subsequently wrote to Mr Brown, the cabinet secretary, and asked him to investigate further. As a result of that, FCBC has actually taken pay slips from some of the individuals involved to do an actual check in terms of what they're being paid. All those investigations to date show that all the rates of pay are at or above the correct rates and there are no incorrect deductions being made. FCBC of their own bat decided to widen that further. They selected another five subcontractors at random and went out to them as well, wrote to them all and asked them to produce evidence as well. That evidence is currently still being gathered. But to date, absolutely nothing has been found to back up those allegations regarding low pay. I think that David John wants to drill down a wee bit more into that. Yes, indeed. David and my colleague Rhoda, I think, will come after it. You've given a very comprehensive response there and you'll be aware of the publicity that's around that, not least the comments of the regional secretary of UCAT, the construction union, which I'll not repeat in full, but it makes reference to the benefit of having a non-site convener and I would certainly concur with the view that a unionised workforce, particularly with regard to health and safety, is a positive benefit to the employer. Can you comment on the lack of a union convener on site and what some of the implications might be about that? I can, yes. The main union on the site is UCAT. They have had a convener on the site with the agreement of FCBC since the commencement of the project. In September of this year, they approached the FCBC project director. The convener came to see him and said that he was going to be promoted within the UCAT organisation, but that he would continue to fully support the workforce on site and he felt that that was adequate in terms of representing the workforce going forward, and that continues to be the case. So the previous convener that we've had all the way through is still regularly on the site. FCBC has retained an office for him on the site. We have an on-going redundancy consultation going on, because in certain areas of the project we are coming towards a conclusion. Where UCAT members are involved in that consultation process, the former convener is fully engaged in that. I personally have seen him in the office four times in the last fortnight. Although there isn't a recognised convener as such, the function is absolutely still being fulfilled on the site. Presumably, being diluted by the additional duties that that individual now takes on, can you characterise the relationship between Transport Scotland, the principal contractor and the trade unions with regard to the project, please? How are relations? Relations are good. I'm not aware of any issues on the site, which are problematic. Transport Scotland does not have a direct relationship with UCAT. It's a direct relationship between FCBC and UCAT on the site. As I said, the convener has an office within the same building as us. I think that there's a very positive relationship. The UCAT has been fully engaged in all the various processes that we've had on the site. We have five UCAT members who were specifically sent for safety training, for example. They did a 10-day training course over a 10-week period, and they are active members of the Bridging the Forth Safely on-site safety committee. There's a very active and detailed involvement between UCAT and FCBC, which I think is helpful and we're fully supportive of. To a degree, that makes us surprised at the statements that are made. I was going to say that it might be people's understanding of what's meant by particular terms. Let me phrase it another way. Would you prefer a situation that existed previously when the individual concern was there all the time, rather than splitting duties when they were elsewhere, albeit that that might be outwith your control? Would that be a better situation? I think that it's fair to say that I have no personal preference on the subject. I'm pleased that you're investigating those allegations and indeed doing spot checks on other contractors. What's the contractual obligations between yourselves and the Scottish Government with regard to those issues, about pay, safety and employment practices? How do you then pass those obligations down to subcontractors and, indeed, their subcontractors? What controls has the Scottish Government over you and how do you then implement that? Certainly. As I said, we take that very seriously. If you'll excuse a slightly long answer, I can give you absolute specifics on that. The main contract that we have between the Scottish ministers and FCBC, because it's Scottish ministers who are the client, I obviously represent Scottish ministers, so in the main contract between ourselves and FCBC, the specific requirement is as follows. The contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe conditions of labour which are not lower than those established for the trade or industry where the work is carried out. If no established rates or conditions are applicable, the contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe conditions which are not lower than the general level of wages and conditions observed locally by employers whose trade or industry is similar to that of the contractor, and shall comply with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. That's what we specifically have in our contract with regard to wages. FCBC then have various subcontracts and they have flowed that down within their subcontracts, and again, if I quote from their subcontracts and what they specifically require, the subcontractor shall pay rates of wages and observe conditions of labour which are not lower than those established for the trade or industry where the work is carried out. If no established rates or conditions are applicable, the subcontractor shall pay rates of wages and observe conditions which are not lower than the general level of wages and conditions observed locally by employers whose trade or industry is similar to that of the subcontractor. The subcontractor shall bear the social security contributions applicable to the subcontract works, social security payments for the subcontractors and his subcontractors, if any employees shall be made by the subcontractor and his subcontractors on time, and the subcontractor shall supply the contractor with written evidence of such payment on a monthly basis or when requested by the contractor to do so. Those are the specific main contract requirements and the subcontract requirements specifically with regard to payment of wages. If a subcontractor was paying a lower rate than those recognised by the industry, that would be a breach of contract, and they could be taken off the site. Are you happy with that? Next question is from Jamie Greene. No, I was going to ask a supplementary question about how to pass on it. I think that you wouldn't look here at the next question on number 11. Oh yes, this was about community engagement. I think we talked a little bit about this last visit. I'll also echo the comments made that we thoroughly enjoyed the visit to the bridge. It's just a seat and it's scale really brought it home, the work that's being done, and it was absolutely fascinating, so thank you very much for your hospitality. On the issue of community engagement, I see that you mentioned that you've merged the two groups from the north and south to meet. What will happen over the next few months in terms of community engagement? Have there been any substantial issues raised recently, perhaps since your last update, that you might want to share with us or the members of the community have addressed? Once it has opened, will there be any on-going community engagement or will that just stop now that the bridge has opened? No, I'm happy to take that question. The community forums have been going for a long, long time, so obviously we've got to know the local communities very well through the five years of construction and obviously communicated well with them before we actually started on site. It's quite pleasing to have all the forums finally joined together to make the one forum, which met on 30 November. We tend to look back over the past three months since the last forum, and we also look forward for the next three months to give them a heads up on what activities are likely to happen. We've also had them visit the site like yourselves as well, so they've got a good experience of what the bridge and the connecting roads actually look like. Some of the issues that they raised at the last forum were concerning the local roads and the final construction works around the ferry mure, around about, for example, and wanting to get that completed as soon as possible, and the contractor's making every effort to get that completed as far as possible by Christmas. There's some smaller issues. In fact, we haven't had too many complaints over the duration of the project. I think we're averaging seven a month across the whole of the five years, which is really quite low, I'm pleased to say. So there's some issues about noise, occasional banging sounds if work's going on on the works at the south approach fire duct late at night, which is a very rare occurrence. Generally, we have noise complaints, and quite often they're not actually attributable to the works, but they're fully investigated. But we're looking forward towards the opening. As we mentioned previously there, they're interested to know what's going to be happening with the opening and to try and engage with them as much as possible. We've actually produced a user's guide that will publish in the new year, and I can give you a copy of the draft if that would be helpful, which will summarise how people will be able to use all road users, walkers, cyclists, et cetera, can use both of the two bridges. So we discussed this road user guide, or bridge user guide, I should say, at some length. We also consulted with the community forum members to get their input into this document along with a lot of the statutory stakeholders that we have as well. That document is ready to go and will help inform people where they can and can't go, whether they're a learner driver or not, motorcycle user, that kind of thing, and hopefully people will find that informative going forward. Those are the kinds of things that we're engaging with the communities now. The other point you raised was where we keep going. We're actually intending to have a handover to the operating company, the bridge operating company, who's currently Amy. We will make sure that that's a smooth transition into the maintenance and operation stages of the project, and we fully intend to keep going with the forums well into 2017 as a minimum. That's very helpful. Thank you. I guess on paper some of the changes to the road network in both ends look quite complex, and certainly my recollection of driving out from the site and trying to navigate my way back across to Edinburgh was, I find it, rather confusing. Will there be any sort of dry runs of the process for different modes of transport in advance of the actual opening itself? The idea of the road network connections is that they should be self-explanatory and they shouldn't need a big educational process to take you forward, but this booklet will show you clearly what roads you can and can't go on and how you connect to the motorway as it will be, the new junction numbers, all that kind of thing. For one aspect of road users, the bus companies had our most recent public transport working group meeting only last Wednesday, and all the bus operating companies come to that meeting, and in particular stagecoach who travel their buses across the forth. We offered them a training session so that they could understand the nuances of the operation of the fourth road bridge and the Queensfri crossing, because we've built in features to allow for buses to be routed to use the Queensfri crossing's hard shoulders should wind effect the use of those buses on the fourth road bridge, because obviously that won't have wind shielding. So we will have a training session for bus users in particular. Richard, you've got a small question. I know that buses are going to go on the fourth road bridge. From time to time, you've got unusually heavy loads. What way are we going to be directing these on to the old bridge or the new bridge? We'll be using the new bridge because the new bridge is fully designed to meet the loading requirements of the modern design standards, unlike the fourth road bridge. Exceptionaly, if it was a wide load, a very wide load, and it wasn't a heavy load, then perhaps it could go on to the fourth road bridge with special permissions, but generally speaking, all the traffic will go on the new Queensfri crossing. So I take it that if there was an unusually heavy load, do we need to contact the local police to be directed on to what bridge they could use? If you've got an abnormally heavy load or an abnormally wide load, you have to report that to the relevant authorities, and then you're guided by where you can and can't go. Mary Ewing, I think that the next question is yours. Thank you, convener. It was just a question in relation to the A89 corridor study report. In the written update, it talks about how the findings from that report were passed to Transport Scotland officials who are looking at the second strategic transport projects review. I was just wondering if you could share the results of that study with the committee, and if you could give an idea or some sort of indication as to when the measures in that will be implemented? That was very briefly discussed last week's public transport working group meeting, and I believe that City of Edinburgh Council is going to do some further work on that to inform the outcomes of that report and report back to Transport Scotland. Unfortunately, City of Edinburgh Council was not present at the meeting, so I really cannot tell you much more than that. My colleagues who are looking at the wider strategic transport projects review have indicated that that is a project that would be part of the considerations of that document going forward. Aside from that, I really cannot comment any further. I am afraid. All right, so you cannot share any of the information that is in that corridor study report. Well, the initial report that I saw back in January this year was looking at potentially putting bus lanes along that corridor and enhancing the public transport aspects to and through the new bridge junction and looking at it all the way back to Goga roundabout and all the way through to the west side of the junction. There were quite a lot of considerations and I think that they needed to go back and look at some further traffic modelling to actually realise any benefits and any other further concerns. I have a feeling that we might have to wait for Transport Scotland to give us that information, but I think that it was appropriate to ask you for that. Rhoda, I think that you are next with a question before the deputy convener. A couple of questions. Firstly, about trainees and apprentices. You told us before that that was something that you were encouraging and developing. Can you give us an update on the numbers involved? Yes, I can give you a brief update. The numbers are not really changed significantly in the three months since we spoke to you in September. Basically, we have currently on vocational training, for example, we currently have 99 people undertaking SVQ training. On the project to date, a total of 558 have been trained. We currently have eight on-going modern apprentices who are progressing through the training. On the professional training, which is for chartered engineers and things like that, we currently have 14. The total to date is 71. The annual average that we have on the project is 32 compared to a contractual target of 21. We have touched on the long-term unemployed as well, that is something that we regularly report on. There are currently 53 people employed with us, who are unemployed at least 25 weeks prior to joining the project. There have been 166 people in that category employed throughout the duration of the project, and the cumulative annual average is 50 compared to a minimum contractual requirement of 46. It occurs to me that some of those will still be in training when the project finishes, and, obviously, you will no longer be responsible for that. Are there plans to allow them to continue their training so that they can complete their training and have those qualifications? Yes, there are. FCBC are particularly keen to do that, if they possibly can't. Obviously, the FCBC may have four companies. Only one of those companies, Morrison Construction, is regularly working in Scotland, but, certainly, I know that the project director, Michael Martin, is very keen to try to retain them and make sure that they can complete their apprenticeships even after this job is completed. Can I also just ask about blacklisting? It was something that we asked you about before, and you had given us students as you were keeping an eye out on that. Can I ask if that is still the case? You have obviously said that you have done the on-the-spot checks about wages and making sure that people are being paid the same. What are you doing to make sure that, indeed, subcontractors—and then their subcontractors—are making sure that they are not blacklisting any employees? I can give you the same assurance that I gave you three months ago, and also to previous committees. Every time when I am in advance of coming to a committee, I speak to Michael Martin. I specifically ask him the question. He categorically says that FCBC and its companies have never been involved in blacklisting. They do not blacklist, and they will not blacklist. That is the assurance that I can give you. We certainly have not been made aware of any specific allegations, and if we were to be, we would obviously investigate those thoroughly. So nobody has ever come to you and said that they feel that they have been blacklisted? Absolutely not. And if they felt that was the case, they could come to you and have that investigate? They could expect a fair investigation, yes. David Lawrence, that is all the questions that we have for you at this stage. Before I summarise on a few things, I would like to, at the end, ask if there are any points that you think we should be aware of in the form of a closing statement from you both or from one of you. No, I do not think that there is anything that I wish to add. I think that you have covered the various issues that have risen over the past three months, quite thoroughly, in your questioning, so there is nothing I would want to add at this stage. Can I first of all thank you for attending? I think that from today you have offered or Lawrence has offered us a draft user's guide in the new year to look at that before that goes out. You, David, also have undertaken to write to us in the form of a letter covering the financial aspects of the project that we can look at and scrutinise. I think that David, you have also undertaken to give us a list of milestones or key events that we should be watching for within the Parliament so that we know that we are on target for the May opening. I think that it would be appropriate for the committee to ask you to return in the early spring on a date in which the clerks will liaise with you so that we can make sure that there are no surprises, even if they are weather-related, before the opening in May. We will be asking you to come back again. I think that that really covers the points that were outstanding. I would like to thank you again on behalf of the committee for attending. I hope that you and your team on the bridge have a happy Christmas and we look forward to seeing you in the spring. I would now briefly like to suspend the meeting for a changeover of witnesses. Thank you. Good morning. The second agenda item is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work to provide an update on major transport infrastructure projects, initiatives and developments within his portfolio. I welcome Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work and also Michelle Rennie, who is the director of major transport infrastructure projects, and Graham Portier, the head of special projects, both from Transport Scotland. I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the committee for the chance to give an update to the committee on the major transport projects portfolio. As you have been hearing up till now, it has been a busy time for those projects, including the Queensferry crossing. Significant works are being undertaken across all the projects over recent months. As you have heard, as I have said, the Queensferry crossing is on schedule to open in May 2017, the usual caveat to having been given about weather, with significant milestones already having been reached, including the closure of the south and north decks in October and November respectively, and the construction of the north and south approach roads nearing completion and the centre deck fan being recognised. As long as freestanding balance can to lever in the world by the Guinness Book of World Records, that lasted for a few days when it was connected up and it lost that particular accolade. If I could just give the committee an opportunity to be updated with some more detail on the other major transport projects that are currently under way. The A9 dueling, first of all, design work is well under way on the 11 road schemes that make up the 80 miles of A9 dueling, one of the biggest transport infrastructure projects in Scotland's history. We have already invested at over £89.4 million in a £3 billion programme of work, and I do say £3 billion that is the figure that we have used, but of course, if this comprises 11 different projects, that can only be an estimate at this stage. I think that it is important to get that on the record at this stage, but that is the figure that we are anticipating being the ballpark figure for the cost of that project. That work that has taken place has been since the announcement of the project in December 2011 including recent ground investigation work, which is critical to helping to inform the design process. Local residents of the villages of Kindalacan, Guy and Diwali have been campaigning against the various proposed options for the dueling on the grounds that it will have negative impacts on the villages and their properties. Both online and offline options have been thoroughly considered with strong public opinion being expressed about both. The preferred route was made public this week, with the online option being chosen. Transport Scotland has written to both the online and offline campaign groups to inform them of the decision and published the assessment reports online. Residents in Dunkeld are currently in discussion with Transport Scotland around a co-creative process to capture community input into the route options assessment. Construction is also well under way on the £35 million A9 dueling concreta oraddi project, which is on scheduled open in summer 2017, with traffic already using the southbound carriageway and work under way to upgrade the existing road. In relation to the dueling of the A96 between Scotland's most northern cities, that is a significant undertaking that requires careful in-depth planning and design. That will ensure that we deliver the right scheme to help tackle congestion while providing better journey time reliability and road safety for all. The dueling will help to tackle congestion in towns along the route, reduce journey times, improve journey time reliability and improve road safety for all users. I am sure that you are aware, convener, of the particular challenge on the existing route, which is the different categories of traffic that use that route and the conflicts that arise there. The packages of preliminary engineering and strategic environmental assessment work that we have completed is the first step in developing a robust plan to improve connectivity between Inverness and Aberdeen. That demonstrates our commitment to investing in the strategically important route. The outcome of the preliminary work was presented to more than 2,000 members of the public at a series of exhibitions along the A96 corridor between Forrest and Aberdeen in May 2015. The next phase of design at East Ave and Aberdeen is split into three sections, the western central and eastern sections, with more detailed route options assessment work now under way on the western section between Hardmure and East of Ocobyrs. Transport Scotland has also completed the development and assessment of the preferred option for the 31-kilometre A96 dualling in Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass section, and published draft orders for the scheme on 29 November for formal comment. The objection period runs for nine weeks, which was extended from six weeks to account for the festive holidays and ends on 31 January. Further progress on the scheme will depend on the level and nature of comments and objections if they are received to the publication of draft orders. In relation to the contract for the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements project, that was awarded to the Scottish roads partnership on 20 February 2014. The main contract works commenced immediately thereafter. The new and improved roads are scheduled to open during spring 2017. As we move into the final stages of that project, the focus is shifting to completing structures, particularly the Wraith underpass, and it is becoming necessary to connect the new offline infrastructure that is now complete with the existing online road network. Although a significant amount of traffic management has already been implemented across the project, more is planned and there will inevitably be some delay and disruption, as there has been already as the project progresses to completion. I have heard some of the comments of committee members in relation to the visit that they had to the Queensferry crossing. I think that the M8 bundle is equally impressive, and if the committee wanted to, although I have not discussed this with officials, I am sure that a visit could be arranged. I am going up on a plane on Friday to have an aerial look at the project. I like the plane, there is not a lot of expense involved. The pictures from that will be posted, but there is a huge amount of interest. It is an extremely impressive project. It includes, for example, for the first time the achievement that the main road feel like between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be at least a motorway for the entire length and also complete the new Wraith junction. I just make that offer its entire up to the committee if they want to take that up, of course. In addition, we are continuing to progress the design and development of a number of schemes, including the A90, A937, Lawrence Kirk junction improvement, which I know that Mr Rumbles has a particular interest in, and I am happy to answer questions on that, as well as the A90, A96 Horrigan junction improvement. Following completion of the statutory process for the A737 Dalry bypass, four bidders were invited to participate in the competition for the main works in July 2016. Work is scheduled to commence before the end of the financial year 2016-17. On the Aberdeen western peripheral route Balmerie to Tipperty project, of course, it is the largest roads project in the UK currently. It has been over 50 years in the coming. I think that it is almost exactly two years, the 12th of December, was when we actually started work in relation to this. Good progress has been made during 2016, taking the 58 kilometre site as a whole. Phase 1 of the project at Aberdeen airport opened in August this year, which was ahead of the contractor's planned autumn target and is already bringing benefits to the local area. Road users, as I am sure a number of members will be aware, are seeing a lot of activity on existing trunk roads, particularly on the A90, where new traffic management measures have been put in place recently at Charleston. I myself visited the site at the end of last month to see the progress and was pleased to generally see good progress being made with sections of the new road already having been laid. The majority of the project's earthworks have been completed with the exception of some key local sections, particularly on the Balmerie to Tipperty section. As I indicated in my letter to the committee, some issues that have arisen with the delivery of the Balmerie to Tipperty section of the project, and if I could say a bit more about that now. Following the positive Supreme Court ruling in October 2012, the Scottish Government had indicated an outlined delivery programme for the whole project of spring 2018. The main project contractor, Aberdeen Roads Ltd, subsequently proposed opening the Balmerie to Tipperty section in spring 2017. At that time, he proposed the opening of the Crabston junction, as I have said, in autumn 2016, which has been completed ahead of schedule. We considered that proposal was challenging but achievable, and we would obviously have been welcome if realised. However, last month, the contractor confirmed to Transport Scotland that it was no longer planning or able to open the Balmerie to Tipperty section in spring 2017. The reason that timescale is no longer considered viable is that the contractor has not completed key earthworks in the area that were previously expected to be completed prior to the current winter period. Committee members will appreciate that certain construction processes are sequential, as you will have heard in relation to the Queensferry crossing, and that various critical works are dependent on earthworks being completed before they can be undertaken. Those include, for example, drainage works, road foundations and the realignment of some local roads. The intended completion of certain key earthworks in the Balmerie to Tipperty section after winter has a consequential impact on the programme for that section overall. Committee members will also appreciate that undertaking earthworks throughout the winter period can give rise to certain risks, particularly environmental risks around the control of run-off from the site and risks to weather-susceptible materials. Indeed, the committee will recall that there were a number of concerns raised by members last year about some of the contractor's activities through the winter period. Those concerns were primarily about water run-off from the site and water quality in local water courses. It is worth highlighting that, following the previous concerns raised by the committee members, including the convener, the contractor undertook positive mitigation work in that regard throughout 2016, working with other key agencies. That included the introduction of temporary work such as water treatment apparatus and PONs. In order to mitigate the effects of winter working this year, the contractor plans to keep earthworks to a minimum. The contractor had been undertaking extensive earthworks across the site into October this year, but that was scaled back with the onset of the winter season. As part of the Scottish Government's on-going scrutiny of the AWPR Balmeri Tipperty project, I have put detailed governance arrangements in place. Those arrangements are overseen at the top level by a project board involving Transport Scotland, the Scottish Futures Trust and the funding partners at Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils. At a day-to-day level, Transport Scotland closely monitors the project through a set of well-established, robust project management procedures that I have stood the test of time. Those include regular attendance on site by my officials within Transport Scotland, as well as detailed reporting requirements from the contractor to Transport Scotland's project technical advisers and on-site representatives. Since I received the Balmeri Tipperty notification in November, my officials and their technical advisers have interrogated the contractor's explanation of the position, taken into account the contractor's working methods and its stated assessment of the current position, particularly in respect of earthworks. My officials and their advisers have confirmed to me that, in the circumstances, they concur that the works in this section will not be complete by spring 2017. I should highlight as well for the committee's benefit that the project contractor does not receive payment for sections of the project until they are available and open to traffic. However, throughout 2017, road users will start to realise the benefits of the project in addition to those at the Crabston junction. That will happen as new local roads and slip roads begin to be open to traffic. As with all major projects, I will continue to closely monitor and scrutinise the project and remain firmly committed to delivering it with all the benefits that it will bring. Notwithstanding the developments in relation to the Balmeri Tipperty section, I would expect the contractor, which is an international consortium of construction companies with a great deal of experience, to deliver the project in the winter 1718 period. As committee members will appreciate on major civil engineering projects like this, there can be a factor in influencing the programme. Various specific dates are therefore difficult to predict. That being so, I am clarifying that the roads are scheduled to open to traffic in the winter period 2017-18. That will see the AWPR Balmeri Tipperty project provide the significant benefits to the people of the north-east. Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide us up to date and seek to answer any questions that you may have. I think that I am going to struggle on the M8 and the light aeroplane to get the costs for the committee to go on that with you through the convener's group. We may decline and we may have to use a more traditional form of transport, but I am sure that the committee would like to look at that. I just say that you have opened up this discussion to quite a wide area of interest to various members of the committee, so I urge committee members to keep their questions as short and focused as possible. Cabinet Secretary, if I may, ask you to keep your answers as short and focused as possible. I would like to thank you for the opening statement. Peter has got the first question. Thanks, convener, and welcome, Cabinet Secretary. My questions are about the Balmeri Tipperty delay, obviously very disappointing for the thousands of people that travel that road every day, and I travel it very regularly myself. My concern is that, given that there may be some delay over the winter period, why has this resulted in the knock-on effect of the road being delayed by nine months to a year? I can understand if the earthworks cannot be done over the winter period. That might cause some delay, but why almost a year of delay? It seems excessive. I mentioned that we expected it to finish within the terms of the main contract. We had, as I mentioned, set that out at the start for spring 2018. What then happened was that the contractors came forward in their bid and said that they felt that they could finish it earlier, which, of course, we were delighted to see. I stick to that fact that they are expected to finish by the end of the contract, but I think that it is also possible that they will finish substantially before that. The reason why there is a knock-on effect and the way that you have described is because of the sequential nature of the works, and in particular the earthworks. That means that those works will restart, of course, after the winter period. As to the practical reasons in addition to that, perhaps either Michelle or Graham could advise, but that is the essential reason. If those earthworks in key areas have not been completed before winter, that does set the project back, because other things that would have been done otherwise during the winter period cannot be done until those earthworks are completed, but that might be useful for Michelle or Graham to comment. As the cabinet secretary said, because those operations are sequential, we need to get the earthworks out of the way before we can start the road construction. And because, effectively now, that area is not available for use until the earthworks are complete, that gives us a period of about six months depending on, I suppose, how quickly spring comes in that part of Scotland this year, until we can restart construction there again. Well, I mean, have you absolutely ruled out any earthworks over the winter period? I mean, whether the weather conditions right now aren't bad, the soil conditions are reasonable, we might get an open winter, we might get some two or three weeks of hard frost, which is ideal for doing earthworks. Have you ruled out, you know, taking a more pragmatic approach and, you know, work away as long as you can, and if I'm, you know, I certainly wouldn't suggest that we work in very poor conditions and create problems, but as long as conditions are okay, why aren't we still moving ahead? I think I'd agree with the question in relation to the current period of weather that we have been pretty unexpectedly mild, but I'm not sure having taken the decision, it's that easy to reverse the decision that you've taken and be opportunistic about the way they can take and take out better weather, but again, Michelle may be able to answer with it. I think, again, the contractor has done this on the basis of his experience last winter, where he did try and undertake earthworks through the winter, and he had a number of difficulties which ended up causing him environmental problems, so I think that he's tried to take a responsible approach this year and he's decided that this is the best approach. Okay, I mean, one other issue I went to bring up, I mean, you were told by the contractor on the 9th of November that he was having issues with completing this. Two of my colleagues were on the audit committee on the 24th of November, and they asked specific questions of transport Scotland officials if there was any delay. On the 24th of November, they were told that everything was on track and everything was on schedule, and suddenly we hear a few weeks, a couple of weeks later, that we're facing a delay of nine to 12 months. What's going on here? Why was my colleague given the wrong information just a couple of weeks back? Perhaps Michelle can answer for the transport Scotland officials, but I would say, as I've laid out in my statement, the process that we follow is if a contractor, and this is true of many projects, comes to us and says there's an issue in terms of timescale or another issue. We don't simply accept that, and until we've agreed that, then we don't go along with the contractor deciding what they intend to do, so quite a substantial amount of interrogation was carried out in relation to what the contractor said. Some of the issues that you've raised in your previous question were interrogated as to what the possibilities were of still achieving that, and there has been experience in the past where we've managed to convince a contractor or provide a further assistance to bear to alter the contractor's view. So until it's agreed, that is the position that we have that it's on schedule. Until they agree, until transport Scotland agrees with the contractor that it's not going to proceed in the way that was scheduled, that is the position at that time, so that's the reason for it. On the evidence, I wasn't involved in that evidence-giving session, so I don't know whether Michelle has moved it. Again, I think that what the statement made at that session was that overall the project is running to schedule, and that was the case, and that is the case overall. There's a section of the project that is now running late, and as Mr Brown said, we found it initially on the 9th of November because it's quite a large and complex project. There's quite a lot of investigation that needs to take place in terms of what impact that might have, whether there are any mitigations that you can bring to bear, and whether the contractor has taken a correct decision there. We needed some time to establish all of those things before we were in a position to come and say this to you now. One more question, convener. Can you tell us what the impact this delay is going to have in the overall cost of the project? Who bears the cost? Is it the taxpayer or the contractor that bears the cost of this delay? Again, as I said in my opening statement, the way that those contracts work is that the contractor is only paid when a road is opened. We don't pay anything until that point, so for that period which is elapsed between the projected anticipated time as notified by the contractor of spring and whenever it opens, there will be no payments to the contractor for that. For example, in relation to the Craibstone junction, which I mentioned earlier, there's a payment now being received by the contractor who completed that early, but they're being paid that because the road is being used. Both in terms of balmyry tipperty, which is a discrete section of the project, and the overall project, payment is only made once people can use the roads. That means that they are forgoing that payment in the meantime. There will be no extra payment. When the road eventually opens, will there be an extra payment to the contractor because of that delay, or will the contractor fulfil his contract at the original price? The only payments that we make in relation to the roads being completed are those that were set out in the contract. As I said, they are only eligible to start, and it's called a unit HR's payment. Receiving those payments when the road is actually in use and completed. Obviously, cabinet secretary, there are advantages to the purchaser, the Government, in having a fixed-price contract. Equally, there can be disadvantages to the contractor, particularly if the Government is supplying pressure to speed things up as against what the contractor wants to do, because there might be additional costs associated with that for the contractor, which are of no interest to the Government. I wonder whether you have pressured the contractor in a way that has increased costs for them in a reasonable, proper way because you have contractual timetables, as well as contractual costs. Just how vigorous have we been with the contractor in making sure that they are living up to what they suggested was the timetable, which, of course, is much better than the one that the Government originally was looking for? If you go back into the history of the project, people in the northeast have been waiting for elements of the project for the best part of 50 years. We had the very protracted legal processes through different tiers of the legal system, which provided further delay. As soon as the final legal adjustment was issued by the Supreme Court, we had probably the fastest ever procurement process that has been undertaken for a project of this scale, and just to remind the committee the largest roads project in the UK currently. However, as you say, it was the contractor that came forward with the earlier date. The pressures should have come from the other side. It has not been the Government putting pressure in relation to that. We said at that time, in spring 2018, that the contractor, in a competitive bidding process, came back with, hopefully, an earlier finish overall, but also the staged completion dates. So, if there is a pressure being put on the contractor, it is the pressure that the contractor has put on themselves. Yes, we have interrogated and pressured in relation to the previous question when we are advised that they do not think that they can get the one section completed by the date that they give. We put pressure on them, we interrogate that, but the pressure that they will feel in order to get this and the different elements of the project completed is a pressure that they have, if you like, imposed on themselves. They put that into their bid. We had given them the overall date of spring 2018. The one other thing that I would like to propose is that you might, as I might be, rather disappointed at the relatively short notice of what is a significant change to their original proposed date. My experience of major projects in software, not in civil engineering, is that we always operated a rule of four. In other words, if you were delaying by a month, you had to give four months' notice of a month's delay. In this case, we look as if we were at least looking at six months, we might be looking at more. I wonder if you might agree with me and perhaps have officials speak to the contractor about giving much earlier notice, perhaps the rule of four, about changes in schedule. There is a reason for it, because if you have that amount of schedule notice of changes in timetable, you have some options in how you reconstruct things. If you get close to the delay, you essentially have a take-out or leave-out situation, which I do not think is generally very satisfactory behaviour on the part of the contractor. I think that it is a very fair point. According to your rule of four, you would have had to give us notice on the day that the contract started about a six-month delay. I have tried to explain why the six-month delay, or longer, as has been pointed out by other committee members, is because of the sequential nature and the nature of the winter intervention, which has prevented that. However, it is a fair point. We certainly want to have as much advance notice as possible. We want that in relation to the force crossing, the Queensferry crossing. I would say that this has been a contract that has been taken forward remarkably quickly, and that produces its own pressures for the contractor. However, it is a fair point, and the officials have heard the point made. You keep saying that this is a process that has been proceeded with quickly. However, if we just go back on the timeline of all of this, I will remember it very well, because I was in Parliament at the time. Of course, in the second parliamentary session, Jack McConnell announced that the Scottish Executive was going ahead with the project. It changed the Government in 2007. As you referred to, there was some legal action over the southern leg. There was no legal action over the northern leg of this. The controversy was simply about on the southern leg whether it went through Cuta, or Miltimba, or Miltimba and Bealside. That was it. You could have proceeded with this immediately when the Government came into power, and you did not. All I am saying is that there are not so reasons for delay, but I take it with a pinch of salt when you write to us on the second-last paragraph of your letter, and I quote your letter, the Scottish Government has pursued the AWPR project with vigor throughout its development. It was a considerable success to be able to begin the construction phase in 2015. Looking at it from my perspective, we should have started this project immediately in 2007. Could you explain to the committee why the Government decided that it would not proceed until all the legal processes were finished with the element of the southern leg? Cabinet Secretary, just before you go on, if I may remind committee members, please politely, a brief question will get us a synced answer. I very much take the point that you are making in my history, but the shorter we can keep it, the more I can get everyone in, because there are a lot of people stacking up with questions. Cabinet Secretary, could I ask for a brief response? I want to say in response to that 50 years and waiting eight years for a previous administration when this was not started, the construction, the legal process, I would completely differ from the point that Mike Rumbles has made, the legal process did prevent start on the project. I think that we have acted extremely quickly in relation to this project. I am very proud of the actions that the Scottish Government is undertaking. I would also say that this project remains immensely popular. People see the work that is on-going and they are anticipating the benefits. Of course, though I regret the fact that we are not able to get the completion of one of the sections as quickly as we would like, I hope that that is brief enough, convener. Can I just summarise something? I am a little bit confused. There was a briefing on the 24th of November as a result saying that everything was on time on budget. Although at that stage the Scottish Government knew that it was not going to be on time because it had been warned on the 9th of November, there was also a briefing to Aberdeen Council on the 2nd of November by the contractor, which said that everything was on time on budget, but they knew that that was not the case. Was that a wise move? I think that with respect, convener, perhaps goes to the point that was raised by Peter Chapman before. On the 2nd of November, we had not been told by the contract in relation to this. It is also true to say that, as I say, I was not partied to the witness evidence giving session to the Audit Committee. The point that was made was that the overall contract was on—I do not know that, because I was not there—but I would just repeat what I said before, until we have actually been notified, until we have interrogated that, we do not accept that the project is going to be delayed. That is why I have come before the committee to answer those questions at the earliest opportunity. I think that the difficulty people will see is the word overall slipped in when you talk about it. I think that people are always more welcome of delays. Can I just pick up on one point that Peter Chapman made as well about soil conditions? The contractor has had the ability to work on site and programme the visit. Brief investigations of the Met Office suggest that, in the last 30 years, the average rainfall in September was 36 per cent of the average total. October, 87 per cent, November, 75 per cent and December, 15 per cent—all perfect earth-moving conditions—would suggest, or nothing out of the ordinary, in fact less of the ordinary. Do you think that the contractor has been as diligent as they could be of undertaking the work when they were supposed to be doing it? I think that it is for the contractor to evidence those kind of assertions around the weather. I would just point out that Storm Desmond happened during the construction of the project, and that produced challenges across the UK. There have been exceptional weather patterns prior to the ones that you mentioned. However, I go back to the point that I did not slip in the word overall. I have qualified what I said by saying that I was not partied to the evidence that it was given. I am taking what is being said by Michelle Rennie just now that the answer to that question at the committee was about the overall project. I am not saying that I know that, but that is what I am hearing just now. Until—and it is true of all projects—we are notified, we do not simply accept it at that stage, we challenge these things. That is what we have done in relation to this example as well. Richard, I think that you had a small one before I move on to ready with the next one. Basically, can you confirm, cabinet secretary, the M8, M73, M74, is a fixed-price contract? Can I thank you for the work that you are currently carrying out and the help that you are presently giving me? I was invited by Humza Yousaf to a personal visit and I found it very informative. I would encourage the committee to go along and see the work that is being carried out in that area within my constituency. First of all, yes, it is a fixed-price contract. I can also clarify for the convener's benefit that the invitation was not to come up in the plane simply to visit the presser. Sorry about that. As Richard Lyle has said, he is not the only one. A number of other parties, some of those who are affected by it, have been extremely impressed by the work that is going on there. If the committee was able to go along, we would make sure and facilitate that. However, to come back to the basic point, yes, it is a fixed-price contract. I am disappointed about the aeroplane. Rhoda has got a question. I am not sure that I am not disappointed about the aeroplane, but there we go. Can I quickly wind back to one of the previous questions when you said that there would be no additional costs to the Scottish Government by the delay? Is there any penalties to the contractor for the delay? Not in that regard. The specific penalty, I suppose, if you like, is the fact that they will not receive any money because the road is not available for use. Can I ask when each stage of the project will be ready and open for use? Is there further delays to different stages, or is that the only delay? When do you expect each section to be open then? The three sections that were specified, or the three deadlines specified in the contractor's bid, were the Crabston junction, which was scheduled to open the autumn of this year and opened early in August, Balmerie Tipperty, as we have discussed, and beyond that, the overall timescale for the contract. I have also mentioned the fact that different elements, perhaps smaller elements, not specified when the bid was made, will also be available for the public. Certain slip roads and smaller junctions may be available in advance of the completion of the project, but the overall completion of the project, as I have mentioned, will be winter 2017-2018. First of all, can I just say that my constituency has all three motorways, the M73, M74, and it is hugely impressive. I drive around, but I would also add that, if the committee would like to come to the area and see it all, it is hugely impressive. My specific question, going back to the Aberdeen western peripheral route, just on the financial aspects that have been touched on by a couple of my colleagues already, but can you just spell out, presumably, if the contractor is taking longer than the contractor thought, they have equipment that will be sitting on site over the winter, or they have some staff that will be having to pay that they might not expect to. All of those costs have to be met by the contractor, is that correct? Yes, they would have expected that plant and those personnel to be on site in any event, but they would have been more productive than they were able to be over the winter period, I would accept that. However, yes, that is done under the contractor's own risk. The contractor would have expected and hoped to start receiving income for that section, as I said, in the spring of next year. They will not now receive that income, but they do still bear the costs of completing the work. I take your point as well that, exactly, that is the cost for them, the delay in the payment. Would it be worthwhile, Rhoda Grant, to touch on that, having fines, having bonuses if people are quicker or slower, or does that just complicate the contract? I think that perhaps the professionals involved in this may be the best answer, but every contract that you have, you have to have that balance and also allow some flexibility for the contractors. If you seek to be more prescriptive, it can introduce more risks into the project, but perhaps I am best to let Michelle answer that question, if I could. The form of contract on both the Aberdeen master and peripheral and the M8, they are both NPD forms of contract. The principles of those contracts are mandated across all Government projects, and they seek to try and balance the risk and the benefit of those projects. The intention of the whole procurement period was to try and get a better understanding of each of the bidder's apparent risks, and to see where those risks were best placed and what cost was associated with that. That went on for a considerable number of months to try and understand that better, and to get to the bottom of it, and then to get them to submit a tender where they have identified dates that we thought they would be able to deliver on at a cost that is proportionate to what they intend to deliver. In essence, to apply additional penalties would likely increase their risk and potentially impact on the public value for money for the public purse. If they thought that there was a 20 per cent risk of a penalty, they would just add that on to the cost effectively to cover themselves. Would there also be a danger that they would delay their completion date so that it is even more likely that they would meet it, presumably? I mean, when they were putting in the tender. Yeah, I certainly think that they would endeavour to try and cap off their risks, so that they will seek to take a responsible attitude to risk for their own organisation, and certainly they will try and come up with something that is achievable. I think that if there are penalties, there is always a potential that they will play it safe. Okay, thank you. Redi, you want to come back on a financial? Yes, just on that, it occurs to me that this might be cost saving for the contractors, because if they did, as Peter suggested, have people on-site, have machinery on-site and go with the weather, that would be a cost if the weather changed and they weren't able to use them, they would then have to pay them. By stopping altogether, they don't have to pay the people, they don't have the machinery-higher costs, so the way that the contract has been written and the way that they have approached this is saving them money rather than running the risk of accruing more costs to themselves if the weather wasn't helpful. We don't have—this isn't an open book form of contract, so we don't have access to what money is going in and out of the contractor's organisation. Nowadays, contractors operate a much more flexible approach, so it's not as though they will necessarily hire somebody who's going to come on-site for six months, regardless of what happens in terms of weather or other circumstances, and in most cases, they will be able to redeploy the majority of that resource on to other activities elsewhere in the site. It's not a situation where we have a lot of people and plant standing for six months that the contractor is or isn't paying for. I'm so too sad, convener, that the contractors will have to—they'll have taken on board the borrowings for this from institutions and so on, and they'll have to service that, so the income that they get from the road being open is extremely important to their financial wellbeing, so I think that that's the major incentive that they have—they will not be paid. I think that that's very important to them. Also, of course, there's a reputational risk if, as has been mentioned previously, they've deliberately sought to extend the contract for other reasons. There's a reputational risk there as well. Sorry, can I just ask a question, because I'm not sure—I think that Rhoda's point is a very interesting point—that if they decide that they are going to delay and it's an approved delay, they take the equipment off hire, so they're not faced with any risk or cost, so they're actually dispersing their costs or putting the cost back to a later time in the project by delaying the project. The actual benefit for them is just to hold their hands up and say, we're going to do this later. There doesn't appear to be a penalty from the Government from doing it later, so the risk of the contractor is minimised. They don't have the cost, they don't need the money that you're going to pay them until it comes. I think that that's the point that Rhoda's trying to make. Michelle, I'm not sure that you've quite answered that, perhaps you'd like to come back on that. I don't think that many contractors would tell you that they don't need the money that is likely to come as a result of completing a section of work. This is a big project, so the monies that we're talking about are substantial. Those are substantial risks that their organisations are facing, and those won't be decisions that anybody takes lightly. Our technical advisers have confirmed that the contractor worked well into October before, and there's only a few weeks of earthworks left that would have enabled them to continue through the winter period. The fact is that they just weren't able to complete those earthworks in the time, despite their best efforts. They are also conscious of the problems that they had from an environmental perspective last winter, and they really didn't want to get themselves into that position again. Peter wants to come in, if I may. My observation, just in passing on that, is because it's not an open book contract. You don't know whether the contractor is paying the subcontractors on the completion of the job or in piecemeal as they're doing it. The pressure on the main contractor, if it's paid in piecemeal, would be less, but Peter, sorry. I just want to come back. I still haven't had a clear explanation as to why, if we lose a couple of months over the winter period, and we may not even lose a couple of months, but if we do, why does that put the whole project back almost a year? It should, in theory, put it back by two months. You say that there's all this consequential work, but if we do get the earthworks done, then you get stuck into the consequential work, and that puts you back by two months. Where's the 9, 10, 12 months? Come in. I just don't get it. First of all, as I said, I don't think that there's enough to do. It will be 9, 10, or 12 months. I think that the intention is that the contractor will crack on with it as soon as they can afterwards, and it won't be two months over the winter that will be longer than that. That adds to the other end. They can't start those sequential works until that winter period is finished and they complete the earthworks. You can't obviously start doing the foundations for the road without the earthworks having been completed. That's the sequential nature of it. Just to come back to the point that you made yourself, convener, when this contract was let, if it was the case, there was an incentive for the contractor to down tools and just stop doing work over a six-month period. They wouldn't have put in the fact that they would complete sections of the road earlier. They recently put that in because they can make money from that. That's the incentive that they had. If we were to go to a different kind of contract where you impose or have the ability to impose penalties, that is factored into the bids that you receive. Those are the checks and balances that we have in this kind of contract. I'm going to leave that point there because I accept that contractors will hedge penalties in the overall price. Gail has now got a question on a slightly different issue. Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, you said that the project is being delivered by the non-profit distributing model. We've heard about the delay to the contractor date, and Stuart Stevenson touched about the changes in scheduling. Obviously, the challenges at the moment are particular to the project. Does that have any wider implications for the management of projects being delivered through the non-profit distributing model and what lessons can be learned going forward? To answer that one, you always want to keep under review the nature of the contracts that you elect and how they can be improved. The intention, of course, is in relation to NDPB models that we actually put in NPD models that the risk is transferred to the contractor, and that's what we've sought to achieve. However, you always have to look, as has been suggested, by some of the questioning from members. There are different models that you can follow. The second part of the answer to that is to say that that model itself, the NPD model, has been brought into question by the new guidance that has been issued under ESA 10 from Eurostat and the European Commission. That has meant that, for example, this contract is now allocated to the public sector—previously it wasn't—but it is now because of that new guidance. There is further guidance that is coming out from Eurostat. Of course, it is partially bound up with whether we remain within the EU, as well to some extent. We review, on a regular basis, the nature of the contracts and the contract model that we have, and work is going on just now to make sure that we have the best available model to us. The reason that the model was developed was because the previous PPP contracts that we felt had often given rise to unjustifiable profits and seeks to cap those profits and to show them among charities. I think that, unless there are any more specific questions on this delay, I would like to move on to slightly wider issues within your portfolio. Stuart Scott will start off with a question on that. Really, it is a broad question about all our major projects, obviously, inform us for our future decision making. I just wondered what to process that transport Scotland, in particular—perhaps the minister—has for learning the lessons so that every project that we come to, we do a little bit better than the previous one. My project management guru is a guy called Fred P. Brooks, who retired at the age of 85 a few months ago. He talks about making an omelet. He promised it in two minutes. If it is not set in two minutes, he will either eat it raw or he will wait. I think that there are lessons there to learn about whether two minutes is the right answer. The same thing applies here. I wonder how we deal with that. I can say that, in general terms, we do try and learn the lessons. They are different from different projects. Some of them we have had allocated to the public sector, which has been undertaken in a different way. You will know, as well as I do, about the different nature of the Queensbury crossing contract and how that came about because of pressures of time. We learn and review how we conduct those projects. I have mentioned one aspect in relation to NDPB, but if you look around the North East, the Bridge of Dawn project, not carried out by ourselves but delayed from memory by weather and other projects, we look at what happens in those projects. A number of projects in the UK are very substantially delayed. We look at those and try to avoid the pitfalls in relation to that. In general, we have a very good track record, which we also seek to learn from. When you get something right, you should learn from that as well. The M74 project is a hugely challenging project in engineering terms, largely an elevated motorway. We learned lessons from that and the M80 as well, which you were involved in yourself. Even which tend to be more challenging are the railway projects. We have less direct control in relation to those, so the Airdrie-Tobathgate line or the Borders line or Stirling-Allowark and Cardin. Stirling-Allowark and Cardin is a good point. It started off at a price of £6 million, at least for the Stirling-Allowark part. It ended up at £83 million, I should say, before my time. That was largely to do with the background of a very fragmented rail industry, which caused all sorts of problems. We seek to learn from what we have done before and work is always on-going to make sure that we do it both in terms of the finance side and in terms of the project management side. Just on a different aspect that perhaps more properly sits inside them, I will just make the observation at one stage that it was £91 million first, and we managed to claw it back. However, the thing that has delayed AWPR in particular was planning issues and getting the road orders through the process, even though, as minister, I split it into three bits because the injection was to one. Stewart, sorry, but I am mindful that the minister is quite pushed for time. There are a lot of questions taking up. I think that we have moved on from the AWPR. Is there a specific question? It is specific on that. I just wanted to know whether there is any intention on the Government's part to look at how the planning operation works and how we can make decisions faster while properly respecting the rights of objectors. It was three years in the system before we got a decision, and that seems extraordinarily long to an observer. Very briefly, convener, I confirm that it is extremely frustrating, but at the same time, the different levels of judicial review are there to protect the rights of individuals. It was very frustrating for all the reasons that the member will know. We will look at those things in future as to how we can make sure that the process is as quickly as possible, but they largely involve the protection of rights, either for groups or for individuals, and we want to continue with that. Minister, I have just mentioned that we are going to be looking at a petition relating to the junction improvement at Lawrence Kirk. There are two particular questions on that. Mike is going to start, and Mairi will follow. It would be particularly helpful to the committee to receive an undertaking from you regarding this junction, saying that if you can work that into your answer to help us with the petition, I am sure that the committee would be grateful. Mike. I understand the delays and the legal process and everything else, but I have to say my own disappointment with the letter that the committee received from the Transport Minister on 24 November when he was laying out the programme. That work will not begin on this until the very earliest of 2021. I just can't understand and perhaps you could tell us why it takes three years for the Government to identify a preferred junction layout. That has nothing to do with protests or anything else, road orders. The Transport Minister said three years to identify a preferred junction layout and another year to develop the preferred option. That is the Government doing that for four years, before two years for the draft orders and everything else. People do not understand why it takes the Scottish Government so long to do that. That is my main point. Once again, I would say that there is a long protracted history to this, which Mike Rumbles will know well enough. It has fallen to this Government to undertake some of the mitigation works in terms of the risks at the junction that we have undertaken, which have proven to be successful. For reasons that Mike Rumbles will be aware of, and certainly campaigners have made clear that they do not feel sufficient. We have looked at that over a number of years. The options assessment, and I should say that that will largely lie within the area of the Transport Minister who is involved in this, but I can say that the on-going design assessment process is programmed to be complete in 2018. That is as specific as I have just now, and the development of the detailed assessment of the preferred option will follow this, culminating in a publication of the draft orders in 2019. Mike Russell will know, I am sure, even better than me, the complications of that junction as to where you want to have a grade-separated junction at which end it should take place. There are also issues for a number of years as to development being bound up with that, which we have cut across by saying that we will go ahead and do this. However, those projects take time, and if you want to do it in the right way, especially in a complicated junction, that is why you have to spend time at the early part in doing the design work that is necessary. I do not know if Mishael will want to add to that. That is the official report. Could you please note that that was Mike Rumbles, not Mike Russell, that the Cabinet Secretary was referring to? Have you apologized? Sorry, Mishael. There is significant work already under way on the Lawrence Kirk junction in terms of developing design options. We need to consider all of the options before we get to a preferred route. In considering all of the options, there is quite a lot of technical work, there is site investigation, there is consultation with various landowners, there is all of that for us to arrive at the correct conclusion. We need to go through that process properly. To ensure that we are able to get through the necessary statutory processes successfully, we need to make sure that we have been through all of that process in the proper way and that we have given everything due consideration. That will take us to 2018, and we will then be in a position to develop the preferred route once that has been identified. The intention is that we will publish draft orders in 2019, and subject to the fact that there has been no objection to those orders, we can then start construction at the earliest in 2021. Right. Mary, do you want to follow up on that? Yes, because it was really just to follow on, and Mike's exact same question, because I think that that information is not clear to other people and I have certainly had a lot of constituents contact me about it since we had that information from the transport minister, and it really is just to outline the exact process and why it takes the time that it does, because I think that that is not understood by a lot of people and that is the information that we really need to hear and to have all of that laid out. You have got that information now? Well, I was actually going to be asking the cabinet secretary about that later on this afternoon as well to give you a heads up on that, but I think that we could do with that if you were able to even write to the committee to have all that information lined out, so the timeline between now and 2021 and those different timescales. I totally agree with that, and I think that we are very helpful, particularly over the three-year period this year and next year in 2018. If we could have that written down, it would be very helpful. I think that the cabinet secretary, I would summarise that by saying that it would be helpful because it would help us to consider this petition that has been around and open in various guises for a considerable amount of time, and I think that it is only fair that we get the petition as the information that they require and some clear guidelines on when it can be completed. Now, I would like to leave that particular judgment at the moment. Can I just ask a question before I go on to Jamie? I think that he has a question for you, cabinet secretary. Just on the A9, I think that you were suggesting that the overall costs were programmed. The figure that you said was at £3 billion. What I was wondering is that you said that that was split down into various sections, and what percentage leeway, plus or minus, had you allowed within that £3 billion figure for the overall cost? Will it be exactly £3 billion, less or more? I think that the point that I was trying to make is that we are nine years away from completion of the A9. We are 14 years away from the completion of the A96, and because those are broken down into discrete projects—I mentioned 11 projects in relation to the A9—all we have ever been able to do is to give a ballpark figure for £3 billion. The reason for that is that we do not know what is going to happen to inflation. We do not know how the future projects will come in. We have only done that in response to requests that we give a ballpark figure. All that I am saying at this stage is that it is only fair that we will be clear about that, as I think we have been. That will be determined by a series of contracts that are let. In relation to the AWPR, the M8 bundle and, as you have already heard, the Queensferry crossing, we have had extremely keen prices being received for those. If we can have that again in future, that may well be a reduction in the £3 billion. If it is not, if Brexit and we are starting to see inflation creeping up, if those things have an impact, then it could be different. That is the only point that I am making. The £3 billion is a guest that we have had to make at the very start of this project to give some guidance on that. I understand your answer. I think that what is important from the committee's point of view is to keep an eye on those costs and to be informed as early as possible as and when you see things changing. I think that we have made the same point is that the committee and I think that Parliament are not thankful to receive information that is can't be demanded or as a result of an earlier meeting. Just on the A9, I have one further question on it. Is it going to be a long stretch of road across, as I would say, one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland? But it is a long stretch of road and one of the issues is safety. I was wondering what thoughts you had because there were no on-road services on the A9. You have to turn off the A9 whether you believe that that is a safety issue that you should be looking at in the future as the development goes on or whether you are just going to leave things as they are. I think that we always have to be open to having representations made by HDV drivers organisations in the past for, if you like, online services. I think that the ones that have been reduced previously have been sometimes in relation to local demand, but there is also local demand because if you can't access those services on the road, you go into local community, which can be quite important to them as well. We always do consider those. It is, as you rightly say, a long road. You mentioned safety. I'm not sure and I'm happy to write to the convener and the committee in relation to this once having checked out further that the key reasons are safety reasons in relation to this. It's perfectly possible to have an online services junction, which can be very safe, but it does allow me to mention the fact that, of course, the average speed cameras have resulted in a dramatically improved safety record for that road, something that was bitterly opposed by a number of people at the time, but it's had a major effect on the safety of the road and also why, at the same time, it's introducing those cameras on the single carriage sections. We have increased the speed limit for HDVs, which have helped to reduce frustration as well, but I'm happy to come back to you, convener, if you would find that beneficial about the issue of services online. I think that it would also be helpful for the committee, cabinet secretary, if you came back with the figures relating to the cameras that you're alluding to and in relation to accident prevention. I think that the committee would appreciate that. Jamie, I think that you have a question. Thank you, convener. Although it might not be as exciting or interesting as some of the other members, in your opening statement, I heard the magic words, the arrived bypass, which made me say an internal hallelujah to myself, because it's words that the people of North Ayrshire have been looking out for for quite a while. On that very specific piece of work, and feel free to respond in writing if it's easier if you don't have all the answers today, but could I ask when that work will start, when it's estimated to start, how long it will last, the completion date and the overall cost of that project would be very helpful? I should say, in relation to that point and two of the previous points, the answers that I've given undertaken to come back to the committee with may come back from the transport minister, this is really his project now as well, but Michelle is able to answer some of the questions just now. Great, thank you. We're well under way with the procurement of Del Rai bypass at the moment, and we hope to have that procurement finished in the spring, and we'll start work on site immediately thereafter. We haven't finalised the construction period because that's something that we discuss with bidders through the procurement period, but I think we're expecting it to be in the order of two years at this point. So, just to confirm, that would be an estimated start spring 2017 for a period of two years. That's right. I think we're going to start some work in the spring and some preparatory work in the spring, and the main contract work will start in the summer. Do you have an estimation of the overall value of that project or that contract? No, we'll be able to finalise that once we award the contract. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions from the committee? Cabinet Secretary, we've heard a lot. Indeed, the term has been used, substantial road building programme, and I would contrast that with the relatively modest rail improvements proposed for the north. I wonder if any research has been done, and if you could share with the committee, research has been done about modal shift. For instance, at the moment it's much more attractive to take the train between Aberdeen and Inverness, it's much quicker than the road. Clearly, there'll be consequences down the line if that changes. Likewise, with the Highland Mainline, I would invite everyone to come and see the lengthy stretches of single track that exist in the Highlands and inhibit greatly the use of public transport. So has there been any work done on modal shift, particularly with regards to goods vehicles? There's certainly a view that, rather than jeweling the A9 if the Highland Mainline had been jeweled and electrified, it could take 250 to 300 HGVs a day off the road. With the proposal to up the speed limit at 50mph, immediately the road haulage is given a further competitive half-hour advantage over carriage by goods. I'd be interested if there's been work done about that and what the cumulative implications of all those significant road improvements that new roads are for your climate change targets, or our climate change targets indeed? Yes, there has been work done. I think that the latest work that's been done is perhaps best responded to by my colleague. I don't want to pass the buck to him, but he is a transport minister. In relation to the work that's been done so far, first of all I should say that the roads projects that have been described by and large will achieve the objective of all of Scotland's cities being connected by other dual-carriage-ware motorways, which I think that most modern developed economies would take as a basic requirement. In relation to some of the points that John Finnie raised, we have seen £180 million committed to, in fact, now substantially more than that, upgrading the Inverness to Aberdeen rail line, including potentially two new stations there. We've seen a new bridge north of Inverness, a new station north of Inverness, which has been completed. We have seen the area to bathgate line, the border railway, taking a railway into a new part of Scotland, certainly not seen there for 40, 50 years. We have invested substantially. In fact, I think—and I would want to confirm this if I can in writing—that the amount that we're spending on rail exceeds that that we're spending in terms of roads. In relation to the perfectly reasonable point that John Finnie makes about the HGVs, we had the pilot of a whisky train, which was taking whisky products from Murrayshire and taking those down as well to try to alleviate the pressure there. Work has been done, but for the latest work—a lot of this work was done through the strategic transport projects review, which I'm happy to furnish the committee with if they don't have it already, but perhaps I could ask my colleague to come back on the specific points that John Finnie has raised in addition to those that I've tried to answer just now. Thank you, that would be helpful. A general point, because you mentioned a station north of Inverness, and I presume that you mean Conan Bridge with that. For a very modest investment, you would improve what's a very inefficient rail network north of Inverness, the far north line. Would you accept the perception that, with regard to major infrastructure, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer? We've heard from Audit Scotland that the road network isn't being properly maintained yet the upgrades that take place are concentrated, as you said, in trying to join the cities where there's very little happening in the north-west, the west highlands. Indeed, I've asked questions about modal shift implications for that. The very modest upgrade that's taken place, for instance, of the A82 compared to that, so it seems to be all the eggs in that basket of that triangle. Would you accept that? No, not from the Government's point of view, because the Government, of course, is responsible only for the trunk roads, and some of the roads that you describe are local roads. I'm familiar with the rail north of Inverness and my family's from Brora, so they lived right by the railways that went through in Brora. It is the case that local authorities are responsible for, I think, 94 or 95 per cent of all the roads in Scotland. We just have the trunk roads. The point that you make about the A82 is that we are providing improvements. Poulpert Rock, for example, has been waiting for a project for 30 years and has now been completed. It's a really challenging engineering project, and of course the other project that we have is there—Tarbot to Inverness. I realise, even in saying those projects, I'm really stretching into the use of the territory. I don't want to do that. Having been a transport minister, once again, I would be happy to provide information or to ask Humza to come back on the points that John Finnie raises. I'm grateful. Thank you. John, it's a very short one, and then I've got one further one, if I may. The Cabinet Secretary will perhaps recall the opening of the new freight yard in Inverness that took hundreds of goods vehicles off the A9 for dry goods, but there's an equal and large opportunity for fresh goods. I wonder if the Government is contemplating any work that might help to get fresh goods on to the railway network and reduce further the freight on the trunk road network. Again, I would ask Humza Yousaf to come back on that point, if I could, but I think that the point that John Finnie raises is also about investment in the capacity and the efficiency of the rail network. If he can achieve that, it will become more attractive. I think that the member will also know that there are real challenges in terms of the rolling stock—I don't mean the locomotives, the actual carriages—there are real challenges in relation to that, but the more that we can improve the efficiency and the speed of railways, which is what we've sought to do, and you can't do everything at once, the more chance there is for taking additional goods. I will ask Humza Yousaf to add to his growing list of things to come back to the committee on. I'll go straight to the point. Back to the AWPR. It's really about the relationship between the contractors and the local farmers when the road goes through. I did write to you on this issue a few weeks back, and it still hasn't gone away. In fact, it's getting worse. There was a real wish to see this road to be a success, but the goodwill between the farming community and the contractor is rapidly disappearing because they're taking access where they shouldn't be. The getting compensation seems to be a long, tortuous process, and it really is a sovereign relationship between the contractors and the local farming community. I think that it's something that you really need to look at and sort this out, because it should be on a far simpler process to get compensation where compensation is absolutely due. Cabinet Secretary, before you answer that, if I may say, I think that that is a real constituency issue, and I would encourage you, if I may, to correspond directly with Peter regarding that. I think that as a general point, an observation would be that when you're doing the contracts, that it would be helpful if this process could be looked at and simplified in the future, and if I may, I'd like to leave that there. Before we wrap up this section, I wonder if I could ask you if there's anything that you'd like to add as a result of the discussions today? Not really, convener. Just to thank the committee for a relatively short notice, allowing me to come along and give this update, and I'll come back, try and make sure that we don't miss anybody's points. I'll come back either myself on those matters that relate to my portfolio or through Humza Yousaf. I'll undertake to look again at the issue that Peter Chapman has raised as I have other members as well. There's just one very small point on compensation. Those are often statutory processes. They do involve the payment of taxpayers' money, which we have to be careful about. I know that there have been frustrations. I've visited businesses that are very close to the new road for similar issues. We'll look into it again and come back to the member on that issue. I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary for a time. I wish him well in his aeroplane next week. I think that it would be more appropriate for an ex-marine to be on foot, but I'd take it that you'll be in the aeroplane. There are a list of things that you've been asked to come back to the committee on. I wonder if I could just add to that, whether you could provide a written update on the completion of the A9, A96, M8, M73 and M74 improvement projects, so that we can predict the opening times and any milestones that would help the committee to gauge the progress of those projects so that we can monitor to see whether they're being delivered within the timescale. The clerks will write to you directly about that. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee for your attendance and briefly suspend the meeting to allow you to move on. Three on the agenda is that the committee will consider two public petitions. The first committee will consider is P1236 by Jill Filtheringham on the A90, A937 safety improvements at Lawrence Curt. The petition was previously considered on 26 October when the minister agreed to write to the committee with further information on an indicative timescale for the design development and delivery of the proposed project, and we have heard more about that today. Members will note that a letter has been received from the minister, which indicates the Government's intention to identify a preferred junction layout by 2018, and provided that no objections are raised in response to the draft order, construction will begin in 2021, and that was confirmed by the Cabinet Secretary today. Can I invite members to make comment on the petition? There are three. I'm going to go to Mary first, because you were first to the minister, if I may. Okay, thank you, convener. I know that we'd heard from the cabinet secretary there, but I would be keen that we keep the petition open for the moment. I think that it was closed in the past, and I think that that's remained a big concern for the petitioner herself and for the people that have campaigned for the Lawrence Curt junction, because I think that work stalled after the last petition was closed. I know that there is a commitment, and the work will take place, but I think that if we are able to keep it open, even if it doesn't report back to the committee as regularly as it has done over the past few months, I think that it shows the committee's commitment to the Lawrence Curt junction and on that project progressing. I don't know how the rest of the committee members feel about that. Mike, you want to say something? I agree with Mary. I mean, I just do think that when we get the letter from the officials, we see what the problem is. I think that people out there do not understand why the Scottish Government are taking three years, even to get the first process through. They feel that it's been kicked into touch. If it's not been kicked into touch, and the Scottish Government is getting on with it, people need to know that. Therefore, we get this information on that three-year process. That would be extremely helpful. Once we get that information, that's probably all the information that we need. I'd like to keep it open until we get that, certainly. Do you have anything to add to that? Simply, there was a previous petition that was brought forward by Joe Fotheringham. It was closed. It didn't, in practice, lead to action. Therefore, we would be fair to Joe Fotheringham if we kept this open until we were absolutely sure that a project was going to result from this, while at the same time not gratuitously bringing it back for further discussion in the absence of progress unless we feel that the project is slipping when it would form part of a general thing. I, too, support keeping the petition open for the time being. There seems to be those people who have spoken. Does anyone want to speak against that process? There seems to be a consensus within the committee to keep the petition open, but also to push the cabinet secretary for that detailed time frame that he's suggested that is going to be available, make those details available to the petitioners as soon as we have them, and then to review the petition in due course when it's appropriate. I will give an undertaking to the two committee members whose constituency relates to make sure that it's kept on the agenda. Unless anyone's got any other reason, I propose we keep the petition open at the moment. Are we agreed? Secondly, the committee will consider PE 1598 by Guy Lindley-Adams on behalf of Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland. This petition was also previously considered on 26 October. Can I ask members to turn their attention to paper 6, attached to the annexile of this letter from the cabinet secretary, on the basis that we'd asked for further information? The committee has also received a letter from the petitioner on Monday, which was circulated to members and is available on the committee's website. Before we go into discussion on that, I would like to declare an interest that I have an interest in a wild salmon fishery and have views on sea lice. I accept that this is a big issue. It's a very important issue. As a committee, we are lacking enough evidence right now to make a decision on this one. We've all said that we would like to have a visit to a fish farm. I think that that would be useful in forming opinions on this. I think that we need to go back to the cabinet secretary and ask him for some more information and more details. That would be my position on the thing. I'm fortunate to have had a number of visits to fish farms over the years, but I think that it would be very beneficial for the committee to visit a fish farm. On the back of that, I think that we'd then be in a better place and more informed to deal with what we might want to put to the minister. I'm not entirely sure that the correspondence from Guy Linley Adams correctly represents some of the issues, but I don't want to go into any of the detail on that at this stage. Of course, I might concebably be wrong in that supposition, which I carry. Are there any other comments that committee members would like to make? I suggest, therefore, that we keep the petition open and that we visit a fish farm. As a result of that, visit and any further information that the cabinet secretary is able to give us, that we possibly look at taking further evidence from the parties involved, if that's appropriate. We all agreed with that. Thank you very much. That concludes today's committee business, and I close the meeting.