 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on a strategic transport projects review 2. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased today to provide an update on the second strategic transport projects review. The final report was published on 8 December last year. That marked the culmination of over three years' work by Transport Scotland and their consultants. I want to express my gratitude to stakeholders across the country, particularly those at local and regional authorities for their input to this process since the outset. Also to the public and indeed our young people of Scotland who provided an excellent range of entries for the school's competition. It was also a great pleasure to meet and discuss the review with some of the pupils from Musable Grammar and also from Stony Hill Primary School here in Parment last month. The final publication of SEPR 2 represents a key milestone for transport planning in Scotland. In it we set out a 20-year framework for capital investment to drive the change that we need to reach our ambitious and essential net zero goals. The era where catering for unconstrained growth in private car use is now well and truly over. The majority of the recommendations directly contribute towards achieving a reduction in both emissions and dependency on the private car. While we won't be able to deliver them all immediately or all at once, I am pleased to say that we are already making progress on 38 of the 45 recommendations. Collaboration, stakeholder engagement and public consultation have all been fundamental and at the very heart of this three-year process. Right from the very outset in gathering problems and opportunities to the detailed appraisal undertaken as part of the later stages of this work. Following publication of the draft report, which I announced to this chamber a year ago, there was a statutory public consultation. 45 recommendations had been informed and tested throughout several previous rounds of engagement. As such, we were confident that the final consultation would be around refinement and affirmation of those, rather than suggestions for wholesale change. Of course, I was encouraged that this was the outcome. The consultation included 30 information sessions and attracted 424 responses. That invaluable feedback was considered in detail and fed directly into the production of the suite of final reports. I will now touch upon what STP R2 recommends. There are four key areas of investment that will help us to make truly transformational change to how we travel in Scotland. Those are decarbonisation of public transport, improving active travel infrastructure, improving improved connectivity in rural and island communities and mass transit in our biggest city regions. In the first of those key areas, we are pressing on with our plans to decarbonise Scotland's rail network and building on the £62 million that was already awarded to bus operators last February for zero-emission buses. We are already supporting implementation of the vision for EV charging with the £60 million public electric vehicle infrastructure fund that will draw in commercial investment so that the future charging network works for everyone. Providing greater opportunity for people to walk, wheel and cycle is our second key area. We want to work with local authorities to deliver ambitious active travel infrastructure projects. Our investment in this mode has risen significantly in recent years, from £40 million in 2017-18 to a record £150 million for 2022-23. Thirdly, there is a focus on improved connectivity in our rural and island communities. As well as significant investment in poor infrastructure and strategic road connections, our commitment to our islands includes investment in new vessels for Arn, Eila and the Sky Triangle. Furthermore, the review recommends the further investigation of potential fixed-linked connections at the sound of Harris and Barra and between Mawl and the Scottish mainland. Our fourth key area is centred on delivering transformational change in public transport infrastructure. At its core, we plan to transform public transport across the Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow city regions by introducing a new mass transit system in each. That will offer a real alternative to the private car. Elsewhere, we will invest in rail, particularly between our major cities, and offer buses. Far greater priority are many routes in urban centres across Scotland. I know that there will be some who will be disappointed by the lack of inclusion in the recommendations of their favoured local rail or road projects, such as extension of the border railway or construction of a rail line north of Aberdeen to Fraserborough and Peterhead. However, it is also important to stress that there remains a route to consider projects that are not included in the 45 recommendations. On the basis of those, I am demonstrating a robust business case and subject to appropriate funding being available. Although I have been at pains to note that none of the recommendations involve increasing capacity for more cars on our roads, feedback from stakeholders has stressed the importance of a reliable and resilient strategic road network. Recommendations for strategic roads focus on safety, climate change adaptation and resilience. For safety improvements, there will be a primary but not exclusive focus on rural sections, with exact locations to be determined by further on-going work. Some recommendations include essential maintenance and upgrades, not least for the south-west, where measures have been identified to address long-standing calls for targeted improvements on the A75 and A77, topics that have often been discussed in this chamber. The recommendations that I have described represent an ambitious plan for investment for the next 20 years. However, clearly, 20 years is a long time, and it is therefore important to remain agile in order to address needs that may arise or become more prominent. We had intended to publish a delivery plan alongside STPR2 to set out how and when each of the recommendations are envisaged to be delivered. However, due to the fiscal and budgetary uncertainty over the past few months, that has not been either practical or possible. The fact that we are constrained by reliance on the UK Government for Capital Grant allocation, as well as its limited capital borrowing powers, has added to the uncertainty here. All of that has resulted in a decision to take more time to create a fully informed and accurate delivery plan. It will continue to be developed over the coming months, informed by the draft budget for the coming financial year, with intention to publish in the spring. I am very proud of the vast amount of work that is going into STPR2 and of the direction in which it is taking us as a nation. That is reflected in the supportive and positive comments that we have received from a number of stakeholders, including STP, such strands and ScotRail. We know that change will not be easy for people to make, but it is why this review focuses on creating the infrastructure connectivity and on delivering the transport note modes that will help people to change how, why and when they travel. Transforming Scotland's transport requires a cohesive national effort and a repositioning of the type of transport investment that the Government makes. By doing so, we can really deliver significant and lasting benefits for the people and businesses in Scotland, creating a Scotland that is less polluted, less congested and is healthier. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call Graeme Simpson. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for advanced sight of his statement, which should have been delivered when STPR2 was released at the end of last year. The document did not set the heather alight then, and his statement certainly will not have done that today. We have no idea when key routes vital to the economy and to road safety, like the A96, A75 and A77, will be upgraded. That is what people want to know. The cabinet secretary mentioned the Glasgow metro system. That may extend to where I live in East Kilbride. I do not think that there is a cat and health chance of it ever happening, but if my natural cynicism is misplaced and I am wrong, then what is the timescale? The cabinet secretary mentions further investigation of potential fixed link connections at various islands. If locals want that, is he today committing to such links? Finally, on rural transport, rural residents tell me that bus operators are shifting their older diesel buses from city routes to rural routes. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give that electrification of buses will extend to all areas? Let me try to deal with a couple of those issues. As the member will recognise, he made reference to four areas of the trunk road network, the A96, the A75 and the A77. He may not be aware, but I would have thought that, as the transport spokesperson for the Conservative party, it is that the A9 and A96 are not within scope of SDPR2 because it is part of the previous SDPR2 process, but I am sure that having pointed that out to the member, he will recognise— Members, we need to listen to the cabinet secretary. We are already carrying out the review of the A96, but I am sure that the member will eventually get a grip off as briefing these matters. In relation to the Glasgow metro in the timescale, it will come as a matter of surprise to the member that the leadership team, who have already been brought together to look at developing the plan for the Glasgow metro, is already taking that work forward. Further work will be set out over the course of creating the business case for the metro over the course of this year. If the member is sceptical to be taken forward, it may come as a surprise to him that some of that work has already been undertaken by the leadership group, which has been chaired by Transport Scotland. In relation to the island fixed links, we have set out within SDPR2, which I am sure that the member has taken the time to read. It says that we will take forward further investigations in looking at the fixed links options within the islands that have been referred to and to consider that against alternative options such as the existing ferry links and the benefits that it would have to public transport and the cost to the taxpayer. On his final point in relation to older buses, I recognise the point that the member is making, because much of the electrification that we have saw in relation to the bus network has largely happened within our large urban areas as it stands alone in Aberdeenshire. There has been an expansion of, if I recall correctly, the stagecoach network into some of the rural areas. I expect that, as we see further roll-out and support of the decarbonisation of the bus network, there will be more of that to move out into our more rural areas as well. However, it will be critical that we have the right grid infrastructure to support what will be the necessary electrification to support greater use of electric buses within our rural areas, including within the member's region. I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of his statement. The track record of this Government and cabinet secretary on transport projects is one of over-promising and under-deliverance. It seems that with STPR2, he may surpass himself by under-promising and under-delivering. Like new ferries and new trains, we have a strategy that is usually and there is still no sign of a delivery plan or budget. However, what communities already know is that there will be no dueling of the A9 by 2025 as promised in the last review and probably no dueling of the A96. In this review, none of the modest projects planned for the A75 or A77 will happen in this Parliament. A rail link to Glasgow airport has never been so far away. The cabinet secretary knows full well that the route that he claims outwith STPR2 for Borda's rail and North East rail has no meaningful budget. Given this Government's record on delivering transport projects over budget and over time, why should any community believe the cabinet secretary when he does eventually get round to telling us when the projects on STPR2 will be delivered? What will he do this time to avoid the failures of the past? Member made reference in particular to the Glasgow airport rail link. I do not know if the member is aware, but the Glasgow metro scheme involves connection out to the airport, which is part of the recommendations in the STPR2. I want to reassure the member that the work that has been undertaken had been her intention to publish the delivery plan alongside the STPR2. However, the budget uncertainty that was created by the UK Government in the autumn of last year has delayed that whole process, which has meant that we have had to delay the way in which we can take forward the delivery plan at work. However, I want to reassure the member that, as we undertake that work over the course of the next couple of months, sitting alongside our own budget process, it will do so in a way that helps to give as much indication as to the timeframe that is going to be undertaken in taking forward the various projects that are set out within the STPR2 plan for the next 20 years. The STPR2 makes commitment to improve journey time specifically on the Glasgow Carlyle rail line, and the cabinet secretary rightly mentions the A75 and A77 arterial routes that are needing improvement based on safety and efficiency. Can the cabinet secretary please comment further on the process for which Glasgow Carlyle line will be improved? When will we see shovels on the ground to take those recommendations for the A75 and A77 forward? First of all, I recognise the member's long-standing interest in upgrades in the south-west of Scotland, including on the A75 and A77. As is set out within the STPR2, there is a recommendation 40, which is about improving access to Stranran. The port of Cairn Rhine, which is part of the rail investment programmes that we are looking to take forward, is part of what will be in the delivery plan that has set out will be taken forward over the course of the next couple of months. Within that, it will also provide details on the work that we then intend to take forward with the A75 and A77 as part of our wider capital spending programme within the delivery plan for STPR2. 2017 report said that, unless a roundabout was built at the Tullabarness, there would be no safe gaps to join the road to the A90 by 2023. Since then, the Government spent just £67,000 on safety measures at the Tull, and this week saw yet another accident at this notorious junction. In April 2019, the then transport minister said that upgrading the A90 between Ellen and Peterhead would be part of the STPR2. Last June, the current transport minister said that safety work at the Tull can now be undertaken as part of the wider STPR2. Yet the Tullabarness is absent from STPR2. Will the cabinet secretary commit to doing what is needed, or does STPR2 mark the end for road safety at the Tullabarness? My thoughts are with anyone who has been involved in a road traffic accident at this particular junction. I am aware of the long-standing concerns and issues that have been raised around this particular junction, and that there have been some additional safety measures introduced, including the vehicle activation signs, which have been introduced to that. However, the provision in relation to improvements on key parts of our trunk road network are covered by recommendation 30 in STPR2, which is about focusing on the trunk road and motorway safety provision, which could include areas right across the network, including within the A90 itself. There is provision in STPR2 for specific areas. The way in which that will be taken forward is against all the other areas across the trunk road network that require improvements, particularly where there is the need for safety improvements to evaluate which of those should act to be progressed and within which time frame. I want to reassure the member that where there are requirements to improve safety on the trunk road network, STPR2 and recommendation 30 makes provision for that to be able to take place. I call Alasdair Allan to be followed by a new baby. The cabinet secretary mentioned the commitment to examine the case for fixed links on the sound of Barra and the sound of Harris. Aside from the obvious benefits, there is another incentive given the maritime and coastguard agencies reclassification of those waters and the potential implications for the type of replacement vessels that are eventually required. Is the cabinet secretary able to give an update on that aspect of the issue? I am, of course, aware of the need to consider how we can carry out replacements for the vessels on the western hills and, for that reason, STPR2 has made this recommendation to undertake further work in developing a business case to better understand what will be the benefits, the costs and also the challenges associated with providing fixed links across the sound of Harris and the sound of Barra. In part, the reasons that the member made reference to and part of that process will look at evaluating the cost benefits of a fixed link against continuing with the existing ferry network and how that would impact on the public purse. Of course, it will be very important as we consider this process that we engage with local community to allow them to express their views and the impact that it would have on their respective areas. As I mentioned earlier on in terms of the timescale for taking that forward, that is exactly what will be set out within the delivery plan in the coming months so that both the member and his constituents have a clear understanding as to the process that will be taken forward in considering these potential fixed links. In a recent article in The Herald, the leader of Glasgow City Council, has called for bold leadership and detailed progress on a Clyde metro project. She will not find that in the statement today or in the review documents, despite its fine words and laudable aims. Instead, there is a vague recommendation to continue to work with regional partners. This feels like history repeating itself from a Government that has overpromised and undelivered for the west of Scotland. Given that the SNP has scrapped three proposals to link Glasgow Airport with the city centre via Paisley over the last 16 years and seem incapable of delivering such a link, why should anyone believe that this Government is serious about a Clyde metro project? I thought that it was a very good article by Susan Aitken. I think that she highlighted the very considerable work that Glasgow City Council has taken forward with some of their regional partners in the connectivity commission and the very ambitious proposals that they have set out on that. That demonstrates great leadership from Glasgow City Council and Susan Aitken in particular. I thought that that article reflected their great ambitions and I am sure that the member will agree with me on that. What I can say to the member is that that key recommendation, one of the key recommendations that came from the connectivity commission, is directly within STP R2. That is for the Clyde metro, which is a hugely ambitious programme and which is a multi-billion-pound investment programme to help to improve connectivity right across the Glasgow city region, which will help not only to improve connectivity between towns but also within key areas where transport connectivity at the present moment is very poor, particularly in some of our lower-income communities, where the plan is to look at how we can connect them much more effectively through the Glasgow metro proposals. That is why it is one of the key recommendations in here. Given that the proposal around a city metro is a hugely ambitious programme, I am sure that we recognise the fact that it is in STP R2 to demonstrate how ambitious STP R2 is. One of the objectives of STP R2 is improving safety and resilience. I take on board the comments that the cabinet secretary has made about the A96 dualling being a commitment of the previous strategic transport projects review, but it is the biggest transport concern of my constituents in Aberdeenshire East, thousands of whom have expressed safety concerns in the A96 review consultation. There has already been a great deal of scoping and planning work undertaken in the last parliament, so my constituents will be expecting me to ask. Once the review is complete, is there scope for the project to be reactivated and the dualling completed? Again, I fully recognise Julian Martin's long-standing interest in representing her constituents on issues relating to the A96 as well. The member will be aware that the public consultation and the initial preso work reports on the A96 corridor review were published at the end of December last year. We are now pushing forward with the next phase, which is further detailed work to inform the remaining stages of the review. Those include what will be a robust appraisal of the 16 retained options, including a climate compatibility assessment, with outcomes expected to be announced in the first half of this year, which will then be for final public consultation before a final outcome is decided. I can assure the member that the transport minister will ensure that there is an opportunity for MSPs who represent the areas that are affected by the A96 to have an opportunity to feed into that particular process. I call Beatrice Wishart to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and for dispensation to leave early today. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Advanced Sight of the Statement. Last week fair, I received good news of a successful bid for UK levelling up funding to replace its ageing lifeline ferry to mainland Shetland. STPR2 does not look at internal ferry services, which, despite what the Cabinet Secretary says about focusing on improved connectivity in rural and island communities, are rapidly ageing and some need imminent replacement in the northern isles. I also note the positive responses in the STPR2 consultation to fixed links for Shetland. Will the cabinet secretary therefore ensure that the Scottish Government now works with local authorities and interested groups to progress feasibility studies into such projects for Shetland and pursue local solutions with fellow island groups? I am sure that the member will recognise that there is a significant amount of investment that goes into helping to support our island authorities in delivering the local ferry network. I think that in the region of £130 million over the course of the past five years alone to help to support and sustain the local ferry network, they are not within scope of STPR2 because they are local services in the same way that they are for any other local authority in terms of local transport provision. We continue to look at how we can work with local authorities, including Shetland Council, on helping to support them and work with them on how we can improve connectivity and resilience in the transport sector in our island communities. We will look to how we can continue to invest in our northern isles services as we look to make sure that those who live in our northern isles, such as Shetland, have resilient ferry services. I cannot say that I am impressed with the description of the Glasgow-Curlyo line in STPR2 and which runs through my constituency as a diversionary route. It is key to the people of Ayrshire and beyond that the same level of investment is afforded to this line so that more communities along that line can benefit from the economic and social advantages that rail travel brings and which are currently being enjoyed elsewhere in Scotland, such as electrification schemes and the reopening of former local stations. Could you give us some positive news perhaps for local people that this line will be electrified in the near, short, medium or long term? He will be aware of the work that is on going just now between Glasgow Central and Barhead electrification programme, which is presently being taken forward and is due to be completed, if I recall correctly, by the end of this year. Then what we will be looking to do in the next control period is further electrification of the network, including potentially down to the member's constituency. As the member will be aware, we have given a commitment to decarbonise our rail network by 2035, which will involve looking at decarbonising electrification routes across the network. However, what I would say to the member is that any electrification programme has also got to be tempered by the fact that there are some new technologies potentially coming to the market, which could also see the potential for hydrogen fuel cell-powered trains also operating on our network, which might be in some other parts of our existing rail network. However, I assure the member that the route to the member's constituency would be part of our wider programme of work over the course of the next 10 years to decarbonise Scotland's rail network. I call Finlay Carson, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary really has a nerve standing up here regurgitating the same old lines, the same empty rhetoric that we heard when he visited four years ago. The people of the south-west from every political background are sick of the reviews, sick of reports, sick of broken commitments from this SNP Government who have only delivered 0.05 per cent of the recent national infrastructure spend on the south-west. Before the cabinet secretary reminds us, we are all aware that infrastructure is devolved. We also know that the UK Government has provided £5 million for the A75 on the table to support a business plan, which would rightly see the two Governments working together on a route that is of huge importance to the whole of the UK. Will the cabinet secretary put his constitutional grievance to one side if people have done that, because no one in Galloway cares where the money comes from? When will the residents of Crockett Ford and Spring Home be able to sleep safely in their beds? When will they get the bypass? If the cabinet secretary is honest and serious about delivering, tell us today and tell us now when it is going to happen. I recognise the member's long-standing interest in this issue on behalf of his constituents. He has often made the case very forcefully for investment in the south-west of Scotland. However, I am not entirely sure whether that £5 million figure is entirely correct from the engagement that we have been having with the UK Government. It turns out that that so-called £5 million turns out to be £2 million—potentially £2 million—and it is dependent on what it is to be used for in terms of some feasibility work. The member said that it is important that we are accurate and honest about this matter, but I am sorry, but it appears that the member's figure I am afraid is not correct. Could you hear the cabinet secretary, please? It is not correct, which is why I am correcting him on that particular issue from the engagement that my colleague Jenny Gilruth has had with the UK Government on that issue, and we are seeking further clarity on that. There is a very clear commitment to seeing upgrades in both the A75 and the A77. The details on taking forward the various recommendations that are set out in the delivery plan will be brought forward in the coming months. Sadly, it is delayed because of the challenges that we have had with the UK Government over the autumn period, which has had a direct impact on the—well, look, it is just a fact. There is no point, there is no point. Excuse me, could we have less cut-out sedentary chitchat? We need to hear the speaker who has it. It is just a fact that the budget process was delayed by the UK Government, which has had a direct impact on our own budgetary preparation process, which then had an impact on what we have been able to take forward—or delivery plan. Had that not happened, I would have been in a position where I would be able to publish the delivery plan alongside STPR2. However, I hope that the member will take the reassurance that I have given him about our commitment to take that work forward over the course of the next couple of months, so that he can see the detail on what the time frame is. I can squeeze in the last two questions that I had previously asked to speak if there are brief questions and answers to match. Mark Ruskell, do you follow by Evelyn Tweed? Can I welcome STPR and the vision behind it? Can I just speak up for Scotland's strategic road network? One of the biggest and most costly impacts on our road network, of course, comes from lorries. There are massive climate emissions that come from lorries as well. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how STPR can support a modal shift from road freight to rail freight? There is an important issue around helping to increase and expand rail freight. One of our recommendations within STPR2 is to look at increasing movements of freight on our rail network. We have provided some £25 million, which is specific ring-fence funding for rail freight for the period up to 2024, which is part of the grant scheme that we are providing. We are seeing the benefits of that being delivered right now with the Highland Spring new rail freight facility at Blackford, which is removing at least 10 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads in the first 10 years. Of course, we want to see more of that, and that is why the recommendation within STPR2 is to look at how we can increase the level of rail freight in the Scottish network. To ask the cabinet secretary whether improvements to the reliability of rural roads, such as the B829, will be considered as part of STPR2 to improve accessibility and encourage economic growth within those communities? If I am correct, I believe that that road is a road to Stonachlachar from Aberfoyle within the member's constituency, which I am very familiar with over many years. It is a road where there have been challenges for flooding, over an extended period of time. However, it is a local road, which is the responsibility of the local authority. Therefore, any plans to take forward upgrading work to that particular road would be a matter for the local authority. That concludes the minister's statement. I apologise to those members who additionally had asked to put a question, but we have run out of time. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.