 Fyllgoi ei ddweudio am y 15 ydyn nhw y gweithio 2018 i gweithio Gweithio Rheolwgysgfaenol a Gweithgoi Gweithio. Rwy'n meddwl gyda chi'n ddim iawn i'r fawr, ac mae'n amser o'r ddweudio ar y gyrfaeth ym Llywodraeth, y gallwn gweithio eich gyrfaeth ym Llywodraeth. Felly, yn ymwyaf, rydw i'n gweithio i'ch gael eich gyrfaeth i gyrfaeth ym Llywodraeth? I register, french, shows me as the honorary president in the Scottish Association of Public Transport and the honorary vice president for Rail future UK. On a very nice president of All North Line Johnfor Cass party group in rail and a Member for the parliamentary RMT group Rydwg, y ffordd y byddwch ein gwneud o gwerth gwrthu'r polisi yn cymdeithasau ymddangos yng Nghymru a'u gael. Mae gen i gael eich cymdeithasai yng nghymru gan gan gymryd. Argyll Eilin, Yrraedd Bai Llywodraeth, Margrit Hawn, Llywodraeth Ffereys, Polisi a Ynghyddon ymdraeid, Llywodraeth Janer Boyle, Llywodraeth Sustannabol, Llywodraeth Tyff, Argyll Gwladannau ac Gary Cox, Llywodraeth Argyllai. With that, Minister, would you like to make a short opening statement? A brief opening statement indeed, I shall. Thank you convener for allowing me to start this session with a brief overview. It will be brief. In terms of our trunk road network there will be no surprise, since my last update we of course had that severe winter and experienced that severe weather. As a result of that we had extended period of freeze, straw, snow, rain cycles, this ar hyn, However, that accelerated the deterioration of localised sections of a carriage. We local roads felt that as well. In our own responsibility transport scotland's trunk road response led to re-prioritizing £6 million towards over 90 patching or larger resurfacing schemes across the network. The trunk road response also included deployment of additional maintenance crews and road signage aeth appetite and focused media update. A number of areas in the Trunk tiers Network were particularly affected. We've discussed them in a recent members debate in Parliament. I don't want to be over-b跳wer into some of the weather challenges or some of the highlights on our roads. We've pushed forward with essential upgrading. The iconic route velocity alongside the side of Loch Lomong, Tarbott and River El Faruna is progressing and yn cael ei gwybod i ddwelltyn nhw'r wrth-gwil. Felly, sefydlu fynd cael ei gwybod i ddwelltyn nhw'r cyffredig iawn i'w gwabag, ac ond gwneud i ei gwybod mewn ffordd. Oedden nhw'r cyffredig iawn, a byddai'i ddwelltyn nhw niechol, ac i gwaelio'i wirio fryd iаюc ysgrifennu dechrau mediau ers am laedau Rhysusulion, a i gwaelio i ddwelltyn nhw'r gradd separatio ar gyfer A982, Llongman Roundabout, AWPR a'r schemes. Transport Bill we intend to bring forward and introduce to the Parliament next month. I have already very publicly said that they will have some measures around buses, of course responsible parking, smart and integrated multimodal ticketing, as well as low-emission zones, RTP finance, some elements on the Scottish Roadworks Commissioner and, indeed, a technical legislation or proposal on the Scottish Canals Board as well. Within the £5 billion that is spent on the Scottish Rail Network, there will be major investment in new and refurbished rolling stock over £475 million being invested in ScotRail's rolling stock, which will deliver major enhancements to train facilities increasing seating capacity by 23 per cent by 2019 and further to that once we can run eight car services as well. We recently published our rail enhancement and capital investment strategy in March this year and taking measures to tackle overcrowding. The committee will be well aware of the continued measures that we and ScotRail take to improve performance right across the network. At times of ferries, we have provided money to CMAW, a Caledonia and Maritime Asset Limited, to allow them to purchase three passenger vessels that serve the Northern Isles. That will guarantee the lifeline connections to and from working in Shetland. We have, of course, committed to roll-out to the Northern Isles RET, which has already been a major success on the west coast. We have continued discussions with the Orkney and Shetland Council on their internal ferries in a long-term solution. There have been some challenges, it would be fair to say, in the Clyde and Hebrides network in the start of summer, largely due to the issues with the clansmen. However, our and the Calmax number one priority is to maintain and ensure sustainability of lifeline services. The NTS review, which I am not going to go into any amount of detail here, but the national transport strategy review is very much on-going progressing on schedule and, of course, work-starting on the review, early work-starting on the STPR review, which will follow after the NTS review and engagement with local communities, has been central to that NTS review. I am pleased that we have covered from north to south, east to west in that regard. We are pushing ahead also with our commitments to decarbonise transport and do our part. The transport is a large submitter of CO2 emissions. There are a number of strands that we are looking to take forward. In that regard, low-emission zones are one of the key ones. I am delighted that Glasgow is being the first city to introduce low-emission zones by the end of this year. That will be followed by the three other largest cities and other quality management areas. I am happy to talk to the detail of that in a bit more detail. Active travel, of course, is another part of that. Active travel, our commitment to double our budget from £40 million to £80 million, well underway. We have made some good announcements in that regard in terms of the most recent increasing our community links funding, but there is still a lot more that we are looking to do and we will be doing, and indeed we are happy to update the Parliament. I think that I will leave it at that as a quick run-through part of the portfolio that we are relevant from the last conversation that we had, but, of course, there is much more. I could talk about it and I am sure that we will get into the meat of. I am happy to take questions. Thank you, minister. The first question is going to come from me on a subject that you did not cover in the opening section, so it is probably appropriate that I raise it now. The Edinburgh Glasgow improvement programme and the cost for this project, original cost at £742 million, projected now, I believe, at £858 million. The office of road and rail regulation are very concerned about this £160 million increase. That is a huge increase, minister. Could you give us some explanation on why that has occurred and whether you think that that demonstrates good project management? I have been to this committee previously to talk about Egypt and express my disappointment, the way that rail projects have been delivered. Network Rail is important for me. The committee will be aware of that, but to restate the record, Network Rail is a reclassified body under the Department for Transport. I would love to have greater control. It is important to say that its infrastructure, its engineering and its timetable functions are still headquartered in Milton Keynes in England. I would like to have greater control over that. That is not to say that there are not things that we can do. If you remember, we instigated the Ernst and Young report when we first started to hear of the enormous cost rises across rail projects, Egypt being one of them. One of the things that we did to try to minimise that was to have better governance. We have the major projects portfolio board that was chaired by my chief executive, Roy Brennan, of Transport Scotland. That stricter governance certainly helps to flush out some of the issues that we have seen. Some of the projects that we have seen have cost increases, and some of them are because of the intervention that we have seen in cost reduction. I think that Highland Mainline is an example of where we have seen tens of millions of pounds of cost reduction. I am not pleased by the fact that Network Rail has anticipated final cost, but I should say that I have not been given the absolute final cost on that, but the anticipated final cost has risen to that. I suppose that we should give some reassurance to the committee, because we are all, around this table, wanting to see Egypt complete and the other major projects complete, that there is still network rail and fairness to the master within the financial envelope of control period 5. In fact, it will come in underneath that financial envelope of control period 5. That contingency was built in there, but I am not happy about that. That is why, for the next control period, I have instructed a different approach to major rail projects. You used the word there, anticipated final position. Are you anticipating that the prices are going to go up and that this is not the end of the bad news story on cost increases? That is the term that is anticipated final to cost, because Network Rail has not written to me formally to say to me that this is the final cost of the project. I will press them for that. They say that they need a little bit more time to go through whatever processes they absolutely have to do. That is the anticipated final cost that has been touted in the media that the ORR confirmed at Network Rail, but they have not written to me to give me what their final cost is. I reserve judgment until they do that. I am surprised that you phrased it in the way that they have not written to you. Surely you should be writing to them and pushing them very hard on that answer, and if you have been pushing them very hard, are you convinced that they have given you the right answers? Of course I push them hard. Every time I speak to the MD of the ScotRail Alliance and Network Rail, I know that they are in the midst of appointing a new chief exec. We talk about major rail projects, but at the same time they are coming back to me to say that they are the anticipated final costs and they intend to come to me with the final costs. Until I get the final costs, it would be wrong for me to hypothecate, to speculate, to crystal ball gaze into what that final figure would look like. I would prefer to be told from them, but the anticipated final cost in itself, the anticipated final cost, I am not happy about the fact that it is risen by the number, it is risen in Network Rail, and I know that I am unhappy about that. Sorry, just one further question on that, Minister, before I move on to John with the next question. You say that they have not written to you. How many times have you written to them pushing them on the final cost? I do not know how many times I have written to them, but I speak to the MD on a regular occasion, probably weekly I speak to the MD of Network Rail, but at the same time I am understanding that they have to go through a process to get the final cost, so I am happy to give them the time and the space that they need to get that final cost. I have always promised, if you look at the previous transcripts that I have come to this committee, that I would update the committee first when I got the final costs, so when I get those final costs, of course, the committee and the Parliament will be the first ones to know. Is it right that ORR is doing a review on this project, and can I just have a clarification of your input into that? Sorry, could you repeat that? The ORR is doing an investigation into this project. Are you inputting into that? Yes, I meet with the ORR on a regular basis. In fact, I think that I am meeting with them possibly later today as well, so for having a conversation around that, the ORR, I have to say, has been excellent in this. The independent regulator is the right person to come forward with a report without putting words at all in their mouth. They have been kept up to date on what our plans are for CP6 and how we intend to take that approach. I am sure that the committee can question them in their own time if they wish, but I think that conversation with the ORR has been very positive. My official book, Reeves, reminds me of course that one of the reasons for not having the final cost yet is that negotiations are still very much on-going between Network Rail and other stakeholders around the claims that they have made. You will remember that when I came to the committee to previously talk about Egypt, one of the major issues for the rising cost has been the delay because of the issues around regulatory rail compliance. Those discussions and counterclaims are still on-going, so that is why the final cost is that I have to give Network Rail the appropriate time to go through those negotiations. Once I have that final cost, my commitment has always been to let the committee know. John Swinney, if I remember correctly, when Jacobs came in and did a study, they reduced the cost of Egypt at the beginning because we were lengthening the platforms at Queen Street station and that reduced the cost in other ways. At that time, we are criticised for spending less money in Egypt, but now clearly you are being criticised for spending more. Can you tell us how Queen Street station is progressing? I was delighted to be at Queen Street station recently to see the extended platform 1. Going well and the timescales that we have publicly announced are the ones that we are still of course intending on pushing Network Rail to what I would say around Queen Street is difficult. Going there and seeing it for myself, you are in a confined city centre space. You do not have an open building site as you might have in other construction projects, you have a very confined space, and within that you have still got to operate a train station. Therefore, I can understand why people's experience of Queen Street is not the best, but where I do take comfort having spoke to transport focus on this is that King's Cross, when it was getting redeveloped, was the most unpopular station and is now the number one popular station. I am hoping that when Queen Street's building works are complete, then it is one of the most popular stations in the entire UK. Thanks very much. Moving on to the rolling stock side of things, as you probably know, we had a very detailed session with Alec Hines last week, and I do not want to go over all of that again. I suppose my overall question would be, are you happy with the way that ScotRail has dealt with the rolling stock situation? There are issues with the windscreens and the new electric trains, therefore there are more diesels running, therefore there is a delay in introducing the quicker service, but overall do you think that they are handling that properly? Do you know that I have never been shy of coming to this committee and where ScotRail has had failures, for example previously in performance, being very explicit about how disappointed, how angry and frustrated I have been about that. I have to say, on the issue of the 385s in particular, of course there are things that could have been done better and managed better potentially by ScotRail, but really the delay has been in the manufacturing, so how touchy is the manufacturer. They have apologised repeatedly, not just to me, but also to the First Minister for the faults that they have had. You have to have some understanding, of course, and I do have some understanding that it is a new plant in Newton-A-Cliff, there is a new workforce in Newton-A-Cliff, et cetera, et cetera, but even with that accompany the global footprint of Hitachi to have some of the most basic problems that they have had around supply chain, for example. For me, I am just not acceptable. I am not satisfied, but I would not put the blame squarely at all on ScotRail. They have a job to do to try to mitigate some of those delays so that passengers are not the ones that lose out and I am pleased that they have come to find some rolling stock of 365s for this summer, which will make a big, big difference. It is a disappointing position that we are in, but from a Government point of view, I can give every committee member every reassurance that we are pushing Hitachi, not just myself but, in fact, from the First Minister herself, to intervening on a number of occasions with Hitachi to get the message across that we expect them to deliver on their promises. Moving on to the financial impact of this, are Hitachi paying at all? Are there penalties, compensation or ScotRail having to find extra money to bring in the 365s? How does that all work? Undoubtedly, with those things, it ends up in the hands of lawyers. ScotRail will put in for liquidated damages. Hitachi will make counter claims and those things will drag on and be settled by lawyers orders. If it has to go to courts, it will be settled by courts and so on and so forth. For me, that is an issue that ScotRail and Hitachi have to sort out. My immediate concern is making sure that there is rolling stock there for passengers and ensuring that, not only is there what we have currently, but where can we make enhancements, and hence why the proposal to bring through 365s is very welcome. Indeed, we pushed a bellio hard on that. We had to find a plan B, a plan C and a plan D. I have to say that when we spoke to the head of a bellio in the Netherlands, in fact, that message was communicated very strongly. I am really pleased that ScotRail has managed to come to as I said, to bring forward this proposal of the 365s. Although it is going to be a stop-gap measure, one that will be welcomed by passengers and commuters. That is my job in terms of the who pays and liquidated damages, although I keep an interest in that. Of course, it is an issue between ScotRail and Hitachi. You are not anticipating that the public person will have to pay any extra around the rolling stock? Not for the 365s, but they will not be paid by ScotRail. Of course, if they claim off Hitachi and so on, that will be a conversation that they would have to have with the manufacturer. Richard, do you want to come in and then Jamie Greene afterwards? On the question that you put in earlier, convener, Network Rail is based in the headquarters of Milton Keynes, you said. So what responsibility do you personally have for Network Rail? Network Rail is not accountable to me. It is reclassified body under the Department for Transport. The infrastructure, engineering and timetabling functions are headquartered south of the border, so they are not accountable to me and not accountable to this parliament. Under the Department for Transport, Secretary of State is the accountability. There is a genuine and sensible conversation to be had with all of those around this table and all political parties about where we think that it would be sensible for Network Rail to be devolved. Scotland, in my position, would be full control of what I desire, but I understand that that is not the position of everybody in all the political parties here. What I would really like to do is have a cross-party conversation about where they think that it would be sensible for Network Rail to be devolved. As they overspend, who pays the bill? You? Essentially, it would be the answer, but they are not anticipated to go over the financial envelope for control period 5. Ultimately, if they overspend the Scottish taxpayer, if we have committed to those projects, we would have to find the funding for that. I will double-check with my official, but that would be for us to find the funds. Jamie Hepburn Thank you, convener, and good morning, panel. The first electric trains were due to begin operation December 2016. Here we are two and a half years later, and there is not a single class 385 carriage operating on the network. Can I ask the minister specifically when he thinks the 385s will be running live on the network with passengers? Secondly, when he thinks we will be achieving 42-minute journey times between Glasgow and Edinburgh, there seems to be slippage on that as well. Thirdly, can I press him on the cost of the leasing of these 365s? I cannot imagine that it is cheap to lease a train these days. I am surprised that the minister did not answer Mr Mason's question on the cost of it, so I wonder if I could press that a little bit further. Let me try to give some reassurances to the member. There is obviously something that I can go into detail on. Some of it, of course, understandably is commercially sensitive, and I will come to that in a second. In terms of the electric trains, it should be said that over 30 per cent of the services that operate between Edinburgh, Falkirk High and Glasgow Queen Street are electric since December 2017. That will rise to more than 90 per cent when that interim fleet of the 365s comes into place. That answers his question directly. The vast majority of them should be electric on that route when the interim 365 trains are introduced later this summer ahead of the 385 fleet coming in. That answers that element of the question. On the 42-minute journey time, I am confused by the premise of his question. I do not think that there has been a slippage in that. December 18 is when we expected the start date for the introduction of the 42-minute fastest journey time, and we are still getting signals from Network Rail and the ScotRail Alliance that, by December of this year, we will have 42-minute journey times being introduced. I think that when Alex Hynes was in front of the committee, he reaffirmed that already. We are already delivering on journey time improvements, it should be said. There are some services at the moment on those electric services that are achieving 44-minutes journey times. We are not far off 42-minutes, and, as I said, the expectation is that that commitment of December 18 is still forthcoming. On the last question of his costs, I thought I did answer the question in the sense that Mr Mason asked me with the Scottish taxpayer to put the bill for that. I said, no, Scottish taxpayer would not put the bill for that. That is because we have come to an agreement in our arrangement with ScotRail. It is commercially sensitive and commercially confidential. In that regard, I am happy to go back to see what I can legally say and perhaps write to the convener in the appropriate manner to then share with the rest of the committee. I have to be careful, as I said, because it is a commercial arrangement, but the main thing to say out of that is that the Scottish taxpayer will not be funding the significant or the bulk cost of those three, six lives. You managed to slip three in under the guise of one there. I would like to bring in John Finnie and then Cape Fort. It is not really a question to follow up to the response. With the greatest respect, the minister did not answer my question. The first question is when will the three ffais be in introduction live on the lines with passengers? He is welcome to write to us perhaps later, if he does not want to go into detail now. Secondly, I am glad that he clarified the December 18 date, because our briefing papers say that the introduction of the 42 minute train times has slipped to 2019, so that is helpful clarification. Thirdly, if he could write to the committee with the cost of leasing the three, six, ffais again, I do not think he answered that question. He is right, of course. I should have mentioned three at ffais. The anticipation is still introduced later in summer. The anticipation is in relation to the windscreen issue. The update that I can give the committee is that two windscreens or potential solutions to the windscreen problem are fitted to one train set, one on the front and one on the rear. One is a variation of the curved windscreen. The other windscreen is a flatter windscreen, which will need a flat aperture in order to install it. It will be important that, of course, as Lef, the train drivers are very much involved in the testing of those trains. Is that unit in Scotland now, or is it on its way? That train set is due to come this week, and drivers will now be able to test and see whether they are reassured. If they are reassured, all the other processes that we are working with fall into line and we find a solution, it should be said that whatever the solution is, whether it is the slightly less curved windscreen or the flatter windscreen, the manufacturer in Scotland is ready to press the button on getting them in as soon as possible. If all that falls into line, then, as I said, we'd expect entry into service by late summer of the three out of fives. I'm going to move to John. It's a brief point for the minister. I'm very keen that you sit there and answer all questions about Scotland's rail, and I have a slight frustration that, because of the answers that you understandably give in relation to network rail, that's not the case. For that reason, Scottish Greens do support the devolution of network rail. I want to ask you about, excuse me, the funding mechanism. Most recently, when I was in touch with your officials, this was the decision of the UK Government for the forthcoming control player to unilaterally change the formula, I was told—I hope that I got the figure correct—that it was 440 million, was the shortfall, a uniposition to give an update on that, because it would seem to me that, if that is the correct figure or anything approaching that figure, then there's an opportunity for that to be more constructively invested, ideally in the Highland Mainline. I'd be very happy to take a written answer on that, but if you've got it, please disclose. 400 million shortfalls is the one that made—previously, it was a higher shortfall, in fact, from the UK Government. I'm happy to speak to the member as well offline, but he's absolutely right. The funding formula changed unilaterally and included things, for example, although the integration of BTP is going ahead. It still included BTP functions that are now being devolved. There was a lot of discussion between myself, Derek Mackay, Her Majesty's Treasury and, indeed, the UK Government's Department for Transport, but we're not at a resolution. I think that there's not much further we can take it. In effect, Scotland has to accept a 400 million shortfall due to a unilateral decision to change the funding formula, and it's not one that I'm happy about at all and anything that I can do, but the member's helpfully supporting that would be—anything that I can do further to that, I certainly will. The review group, which the minister announced recently, what is the minister's intentions when it comes to the West Highland Mainline in order to get as much traffic and freight off the A82? Well, I know that the member has been really involved in freight issues around the A82, and in fact, it was her own summit that helped us to gain and gather some more views from stakeholders, which allowed us to, of course, make the announcement of widening the Tarbet and Bananas scheme, which is welcomed by stakeholders there. So I know her interest in this issue. What I would say is really delighted about the West Highland Mainline review group. It's first meeting, I think, is next week. First meeting of that group is next week. I could furnish the member through the committee, of course, as appropriate, with the details of who attended that meeting, the minutes, so on and so forth of that meeting. I think that it will have a transformative effect. On that line, there are some really key challenges. The journey times, the rolling stock, timetabling, so on and so forth, but taking a focus look at that, like we are doing, for example, with the Far North line, I think, will make a big, big difference to that line. Freight is a big part of that too, and she'll know that there's a huge opportunity around timber, for example, as well as other freight goods. We're looking at that with great interest. The next question is from Mike Rumbles. My question is focused on high-speed trains, so we know that 54, class 43 high-speed trains, that's the old Intercity 1-2 Vives, will enter service later this year right across Scotland after substantial refurbishment. My question is this really, what's the expected lifetime mileage capacity of a class 43 train, and therefore what's the average mileage of these trains? I don't have the answer to hand, I'm afraid, but again, I could furnish you with that. It should be said that train refurbishment of older rolling stock is not uncommon, and in fact many in the rail industry will tell you that when a train is refurbishing, I'm pleased that some of that refurbishment work, of course, happening here in Scotland, can have the same effect of new rolling stock. In terms of the exact mileage and so on, I'm afraid that I don't have that information to hand, but I'd be happy to write to the committee again through the convener as appropriate. I did write a parliamentary question to you three weeks ago, and you said that you don't want to hold that information, so I expected that you'd have it by now. At least, what's the life expectancy of these trains? We're introducing 54 across, do we not know what the life expectancy of the trains are? Yeah, so we have them underwritten in my understanding for 15 years in terms of the lease, so I expect them to perform their function for 15 years for the least time that we have them. I'm sorry that he's disappointed that I don't have the mileage capability of HSTs to hand, but that is not something routinely that I would have to hand, but I will endeavour if I can get it to him, I will, but I'll speak to, of course, Network Rail and the ScotRail Alliance on that and try to get them that information where I can. We expect them to perform to their capability for the time that we have them for the lease, and they will make a transformative difference. This is the first time we will have an intercity high-speed network between Scotland's cities. ScotRail are leasing this whole fleet of 54 trains. We don't know what the mileage capacity is of those trains. We don't know what their life expectancy is. I find that amazing that, minister, particularly your officials haven't told you or haven't been able to tell you what that is, because it's a pretty fundamental question. I'm surprised that we don't know the answers. I'll pass over to my real official Bill Reeves, but I don't think it is a fundamental issue. I think that the fundamental issue is whether the trains perform to the function that we want them to perform for the period that we have them. The answer to that is unequivocally, unequivocally, yes. I can pass to my officials who will tell you that, of course, they are being refitted with new engines, new doors, being rebuilt, refurbished, and they will go into the detail that Bill Reeves can do some of that, of course. My job is to ensure that the trains that we're getting are capable of going at the high speeds that they're going at safely and, of course, that they perform for the time that we have them. The answer to that is absolutely yes, without having to know the exact mileage capability of them, but I'll pass to Bill Reeves and probably go on to more technical. I don't think that there is anything such as a mileage capability for a train. The question is, do you keep it re-engineered, do you keep it as good as new? Those trains have already had new engines fitted recently. We're putting new power-operated doors on, we're putting control-emission toilets. It would be worth it if you were interested in going to have a look at the extent of the re-engineering on those carriages, where they are stripped right down to the metal, all corrosion is taken out, new metal is put in place. From colleagues around the rail industry, there is a widespread appreciation that the carriages are about to come and the refit they're getting will make them amongst the most popular in-city carriages anywhere in Britain. I don't recognise the concept in engineering terms as an engineer of a limited life, a limited mileage for a fleet of this nature. Let me put it this way, if you don't recognise that. There are people listening to this conversation who would be surprised. If you were going to buy or lease a car, you would... It's not the same. I'm asking about leasing the train and you can't give me the answers. The normal person who was going to lease a vehicle would want to know what the life expectancy of that vehicle is. Yes, they would want to know that. Excuse me. I'd appreciate it not being enjoyed by members of the committee. I'm the convener of this committee and I will direct the way it goes as far as who will answer the question. I would ask for all members to give a certain amount of leeway to other members to ask questions in the same way that other members will give them the same leeway. This is Mike's last attempt at this question before we move on to Sir Colin. Could I ask members please to let him ask the question and then we'll move on to Colin. Mike. To me, it is a basic... I'm a lay person at this. It's a fairly basic question and very many people would want to know. We're having 54 trains into service across Scotland. They're old one, two, five inter-cities. You're refurbishing them. People should know. The public need to know that you've got a grasp of this. How long do you expect these trains to be running for? What's the average... I've tried again. I mean, I've tried a written question. I haven't got the answers to three weeks ago. I'm trying now. I'm not getting the answers to. I would genuinely like the answer to this. What's the life expectancy of these trains and can we judge it by the mileage, please? I've probably talked to thousands of passengers in my time and I can't recall a single one asking me the mileage capability of a piece of rolling stock. So to say that the public want to know, I think the member is slightly out of touch with the public. What they do want to ask me around, what they do want to ask me about is when new rolling stock comes in, will it be capable? Will it be safe? Will it deliver journey time improvements? And the answer to all of those questions is an unequivocal yes. Now my director here very kindly has offered you to go in to see some of the refurbishment on the train that's taking place. If you have technical questions for the engineers, we have no problem in setting that up for the member, or indeed any members of the committee, or indeed if the entire committee wishes to go in to see the refurbishment of the trains. I'm sure that's something we can arrange and a detailed discussion with the engineers can be had. As far as we're going to go on that, Colin, yours is the next question. Thanks, convener, and good morning to the panel. It's been reported that the UK Government may be about to make an announcement on the future of the east coast mainline, either to bring it back under public control or allow it to continue in private hands operated by stagecoach and virgin trains. Minister, have you been involved in any discussions with the UK Government on the matter, and what is the preferred option of the Scottish Government? I spoke to the Secretary of State and expressed to him my disappointment that he didn't give me advance notice of the announcement now in fairness to him. He counterclaimed that, of course, he had to tell Parliament first and foremost, but the impact of any change to the east coast franchise, of course, would be significant on Scotland, so I was disappointed not to receive the advance notice. In fairness since then, he has committed to speak to me in advance of any decision or announcement that he makes so far. I've not had anything from him, and therefore the member is right. He's very public about the options. The options are, as he knows, potentially going for an operator of last resort-type model or running it as a not-for-profit franchise. I have to say that I don't have a preference for either in the sense that my main concern is the service. There is no diminishing in the service for Scottish passengers, and indeed there is not an additional cost to the taxpayer for that. My key issue around this, because it is a UK Government franchise as opposed to Scottish taxpayers that are affected, is to ensure that there is no diminishing in that service. However, I am, in some respects, agnostic to which of the options. We go down, certainly. There is a case for looking at and examining greater Scottish involvement in that franchise, but again that's a conversation that I would have with the Secretary of State. Minister, when this franchise was publicly run, it delivered £1 billion to the UK Treasury. It had record passenger satisfaction. It kept fares down. It engaged the workforce in private hands. It's failed not once, but three times surely the Scottish Government has a view on keeping the franchise away from the failed model run by stagecoach and Virgin that is failing to deliver for passengers here in Scotland. Surely you have a view that it should be under public ownership? I respect that he and I have a difference in that, but the ownership question is frankly a bit of a red herring. There are, of course, public franchises that may well cost money in rail terms, and there are private companies that will deliver so on stagecoaches in this current East Coast franchise. My understanding is that although they didn't deliver the premium that they promised to do so, they have still delivered premiums to the Treasury. It's not a case of costing the taxpayer. I can double check on that and the money involved in that. However, for me, if there is a better model to run this through OILR, that is an option that should be on the table and should be explored, and not one that I would discount. My point is, from my perspective, because it is not Scottish taxpayers' money that is involved in this. The concern for me is making sure that there is no diminution in the service. I should also say to the member that it is worth noting that it is our Government that is bringing forward the proposal for a public sector rail bid. In fact, we are putting together that public sector rail bid and his party, although it was his predecessor, have been involved in those discussions. I have the trade unions that I would respectfully say that no other political party has ever allowed for a public sector bid or to bid for Scottish rail contracts. We are the first to bring that forward, something that I am very proud of. You acknowledge that a public bid is not the same as public ownership. Why is it that you are so opposed to the public ownership of our railways? If you speak to people who are involved in British rail, for example, they will tell you that it was not necessarily always the nostalgic view of the railways that Colin Smyth and other members that believe in wholesale renationalisation have. I am not saying that I am against that, hence why we have committed to bringing forward a public sector rail bid. We think that it should compete with private entities as well, so that the private model can work, and the public model absolutely can work as well. Therefore, it is important for them to compete in that space. Jamie Ewing Thank you, convener. I know that we have lots of other subjects to go on to, so before we move off of rail, last week in committee, Alex Hines said the following. In this five-year control period, which Network Rail is regulated by, we are due to underspend in Scotland. That is not part of the result of the fact that the investment programme is on time and on budget. Given what we have talked about today in terms of delivery of projects and the increasing costs of projects, does the minister agree with that statement? What is the value of this underspend, and what happens to the surplus cash? Alex Hines Again, I can write to the member with a bit more detail on the specifics. If you remember my opening answer to the question on Egypt, I did say that some projects had reduced and cost a high-level main line. We have been an example of that, with tens of millions of pounds reduction in the projected cost of the high-level main line improvements. There have been some programmes where there has been an increase, and some programmes are projects where there has been a decrease. I also said that the reassurance for committee is that it is coming within the financial envelope for control period 5. What can be done in that period is a number of enhancements and improvements, and we can look to accelerate those, because we know the rough level. We do not know the absolute level, because we have not had the final cost, as I have already mentioned to the committee. Once we have an idea of what the anticipated cost may be, we can move forward with a whole range of potential enhancements, which we are already doing. For the purpose of brevity, if the committee would like more detail on that and the member would like more detail on that, I can furnish them with that. Alex Hines Do you know how much Scotland will have underspent by in this 5-year control period? It is network real, not that it has got real underspent. Secondly, it is worth saying that this goes back to the question of anticipated final costs versus final costs. Until I get the final cost, I would reserve judgment and say that this is the exact number of millions that have been underspent. Once I get the final costs, the committee first of all will be the first to know, because I have committed to doing that. Secondly, attached to that, we can let you know how much is left within the spending for control period 5. Alex Hines Very brief one before we move on to John Finnie. John Finnie A very brief one and a short answer, I am sure. Just when the 125s do finally come on to the Aberdeen-Edinburgh line, what can we expect as far as travel times are concerned, are they coming down significantly or what? John Finnie We are committed to a 10-minute reduction in journey time and that is still the plan that is dependent on other enhancements and improvements, but we are looking for a reduction in journey time of around about 10 minutes. John Finnie I have a series of questions about Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd, and you have Scottish ministers on that. It is about proposals that they have about air traffic control. I have met Prospect the Union, who represents air traffic controllers. I have also met representatives of Cornyn Elin-Shar, the Western Isles Council, who has indeed written the committee. I would like to quote to you, I think, as an opening from something that Prospect has said, Prospect the Union. Prospect supports high ales' need to modernise its infrastructure to keep up pace with regulations. That will require significant investment. However, any centralised monitoring system will be dependent on a reliable, resilient and secure communications infrastructure between the mainland and the islands, which simply does not exist. High ales are gambling on that and Prospect believes that that is gambling with people's safety. That is quite a damning indictment. What do you have to say about that, minister? John Finnie A couple of things. First, the engagement of Prospect is absolutely vital. High ales are engaging with Prospect. I think that they have a further meeting in June and then in July. I think that they are going to invite them as part of a key stakeholder in terms of taking this proposal forward, so that is to be welcomed. I am also just to meet with Prospect, I think, next month or later this month. I will get the date to the member, so I am keen to hear from air traffic controllers. The second thing to say in all of this is that safety will never be compromised. That is my number one priority in this job. It is the direction that I have given to Hyal. It is the Hyal boards number one. Even if you did not believe that it was our priority, of course, a change of this scale would have to go through the regulator, the CAA, who would also have to be very convinced of the safety case for this. That proposal is actually to enhance safety. I can give the member a couple of examples. With the exception of Inverness, controllers at Hyal airport cannot currently see planes at night. I do not have every member knows that, but they cannot currently see planes at night, but the new surveillance system will mean that controllers can see the aircraft at all times. At present, for example, wildlife, which includes birds, which may cause damage to aircraft, they can only be detected visually, better mind what I have just said. The new system will have infrared sensors, which will make detecting wildlife easier. That is important to stress that the proposals and projects that have been taken forward to enhance safety as well as the issues around recruitment. Where prospects are absolutely right to raise concern and other members have raised concern with me on this, is in and around the communications infrastructure, the digital infrastructure that we needed for remote-to-air traffic control. It is worth saying that this proposal is a 10 to 15-year proposal. We would be absolutely confident that we would have the communication and digital infrastructure in place in that timeframe. However, what would also be built, even if we had all the communication infrastructure in place, is that there is no way that the CAA would not sign that off without a number of backups or levels of redundancy in the system. If something failed, what would be the next level of redundancy, and then if that failed, and then if that failed? So there would be, from talking to Hyal, six or seven levels of redundancy built into the system. So I hope that that gives the member some element of reassurance. What I would say on the air traffic control proposal, if members would find it useful, I am sure that I could ask Hyal to come in and give a technical briefing to the committee, because it may well help to reassure them around some of the concerns that they have. I thank you for that response, minister. Everyone wants safety, and I do not think that there is any suggestion from any quarter that that is not important. I am sure that, while you are talking about the enhancements that that proposed system would bring, you are not suggesting that the existing system is anything short of no. You are also the island minister, and I wonder should Hyal, with its social responsibility, its lifeline services, be considering long-term costs on their budget when reaching this decision, or should they also be considering the impact on staff and communities? That is a tight balance that I acknowledge, but could you comment on that? If that is so important, and I do not think that anyone doubts that it is, why has there been no public consultation undertaken by Hyal? Surely that is a significant gap. A couple of things to say. He is absolutely right that the impact, the socio-economic impact of Hyal's proposals must be taken into account, and that is something that they are actively engaging with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as well as local authorities, because those are high-skilled jobs and if they are no longer on the island that clearly has an impact. Two to three to four to five highly skilled, highly paid jobs no longer being on an island can have an impact, so that is very much part of the conversation that has been had. The second point that I would make is that this is absolutely about the sustainability of air services in Scotland and in two islands. The member will not be probably surprised to hear that there is huge competition for air traffic controls, and they can be paid six-figure sums, tax-free in the Middle East or the Far East, in some cases, for their services. Therefore, retaining them on the islands and looking at the future and the projection of air traffic controllers that we can put in training programmes and skill programmes and we should do that, but retaining them here in Scotland is going to be a huge challenge if we are not willing and we are not able to, as we are not, to pay them the lucrative sums that they get in, for example, the Middle East. Because of the retention issue, it is worth mentioning to committee and they will be aware of that. I am sure that some members, for example, the Stornoway airport had to close for a period of time because of the issues that they were having around retention of air traffic controls. That proposal is very much about enhancing the safety. It is right that the current system is absolutely safe but enhancing the safety, but also ensuring that the sustainability of air services is key. In terms of consultation, I will pass to Gary Cox, who is an aviation official here, but there are a number of engagement processes that Hyal are going through and it is a 10-year programme. Having conversations with the local authority and the unions is probably the right place to start with some of this, but Gary, do you want to add? I think that, John, you have another follow-up question. Maybe we could launch that now and maybe Gary could come in because there are a couple of follow-ups as well. Clearly, you are supportive of the proposal. Do you have a view formed where that centre should be, if that is the direction of travel that is going to go and the issues of not only recruitment but retention? Yes, that was made clear to me by prospect. Surely that we should be redoubling our efforts to keep individuals rather than trying to always find a technical solution? I agree with him, but if any of us would be in a different position if we were all being offered double our salary, tax-free and sunnier climates, it is difficult. There is only so much we can do without an astronomical cost. The islands are a beautiful place to live and work, and that is why many of the air traffic controllers choose to base themselves on our islands, because they love the lifestyle, they love our islands and so on and so forth, but there is undoubtedly the major hub airports of the world, a real challenge, and the expansion of air services only means that that challenge is going to become even more acute. With respect, he is right that we should do what we can to retain air traffic controls. Doing that wherever the remote tower is located will in itself be a challenge, and that will not be easy. In terms of my own view on where the air traffic control centre should be, I do not have a view on that. There is a process under way at the moment with involving independent consultants, which I will have engaged with, to look at a number of issues, staffing issues, wider location issues, including transport, public transport issues, connections with road and rail, availability of housing, technology, digital connectivity, the economic social impacts, feedback from staff and stakeholders will also be essential to that. My understanding is that the independent report on the location of that should be available in the summer, late summer and autumn time, but that is a piece of work that Hyal is taking forward. Gary, do you want to come in to add any? I think that that pretty much covers it. There are just a couple of points to add. In terms of the public consultation and consultation engagement with the airlines, other airport customers and local authorities, Hyal is very clear that this is not just a technical project. It is very much at your hearts and minds, and there is a lot of work to do to take people with them on this 10, 15-year journey. They are very clear that community engagement, consultation with local authorities is a key part to the successful delivery of this entire project. Just to add to the point that the minister made about air traffic controllers, what we are beginning to see from controllers around the Hyal network who have been out to see this technology operating in Sweden and doing at Nats in Svonec, they are coming back in many cases hugely enthusiastic about the opportunities that this technology brings, and they can see this as being essential for the future of air traffic control. It may well be ultimately when Hyal has this up and running in 10 to 15 years' time that Hyal becomes a centre of expertise. It could become a training organisation for people coming into the industry adopting this latest technology. We are saying that once controllers are experiencing this new stuff and its capabilities, they are coming back quite enthusiastic about it. I think that in terms of the location of the digital centre, clearly Hyal are conscious that staff need that clarity, and they are very keen to progress that and make a decision so that staff around the network have as much notice as possible and that they do not want to leave this until later on in the programme. I have a couple of questions that are related. First of all, we have four airports with no air traffic controllers, only information service provided, and I just wonder if any thought is being given to improve the provision there, in particular getting licensed precision GPS approaches, which the UK at the moment only has a single airfield where that is the case, I am not certain, but I think that it might be big and whole. Is that being looked at? Similarly, at the stations where there is an air traffic controller that is affected by this, is consideration being given to retaining an air flight information service officer at these stations so that if the central system is unavailable, it is still possible for that local person to provide a procedural non-precision approach and thus keep the airport open, provided the weather would permit that. I might pass to Gary for some of the technical, but it should be said that Hyal made it clear that Baratairi, Islay and Campbelltown will not be affected by these because of different levels of air traffic usage, so not all airports are being affected by the proposals that are being taken forward. Again, I think that Mr Stevenson, if nobody else would find a one-to-one conversation with Hyal around the technical detail on this, is probably quite helpful. If I may, before you pass over, I really was asking the point, which is possibly one for you rather than for Mr Cox, at those four airports, whether we are looking at opportunities to improve the service that is there by GPS use, which in particular would enable those airports to be used in poorer weather than they currently are. Again, that is a policy issue. Yes, improvements can be made and they are suggested by Hyal. I will look at those always open-minded. I am always bound by the budgetary constraints that I have, and that would have to be taken into consideration. It is important to emphasise that the current approach that is taking at Hyal airports is safe, and people's safety is absolutely ensured. That is just about enhancing that, and GPS technology is not one that I have discounted at all. I am happy to bring you in, but I would ask if you could answer it briefly, because I have another question on this particular subject. Absolutely, and I am always nervous with Mr Stevenson's great expertise in aviation issues. I think that the FISO point in terms of back-up, which is very interesting, will feed that back to Hyal. It may well be that the retention of a FISO at some of these airports is one of the levels of resilience that the minister spoke about, so we are happy to pick that up. Good morning, panel. Minister, I think that certainly from my point of view and certainly from the island's point of view as well, there is a lot of criteria that is going to go into where this is actually going to be cited, and you mentioned a lot of it just now. If it is a 10 to 15-year project, I think that the worry is that the criteria that you mentioned point to one place that it could possibly go, and I am not going to predetermine that decision, whereas in 10 to 15 years time the infrastructure in other areas will have improved so that a decision that is correct just now might not be a decision that is correct in 10 to 15 years time if it is such a long project. I also wanted to touch on the public consultation aspect as well. I do not know any regular passengers that have been consulted about this, and I would quite like perhaps the minister or on behalf of Hyal to find out just who exactly has been consulted in terms of chambers of commerce, businesses and, as you said, members of the public that use the airports regularly. I think that the point that Gil Ross makes is a fair one in relation to connectivity in a 10 to 15-year plan, but I think that equally, Gary's point in our conversations with the unions has been that they want as much notice of where this location of the remote air traffic control centre could be, and I think that certainty for the staff is hugely important. Knowing myself how long from inception to completion road projects can take because of the various statutory process that you have to go through—potential for objections, public, local inquiries, all that kind of thing—yes, some things can change within 10 years, but dramatically what is due to change in 10 years is probably someone like that, or I would have been cited on that. We already know about the major, for example, the drilling projects on A9, A9, A96 and everything else that is going on, but there is not a point that is lost on us, so I think that it is something to reflect on. Again, we can get you the detail on consultation, but in my answer to John Finnie, I mentioned that it was appropriate, I think, to absolutely write that, first of all, the unions are the ones and their traffic controls are the ones that are consulted with and the local authorities as well. There has been quite a level of engagement from the board and, indeed, the chief executive with them from stakeholder forums, such as the Convention of the Highlands and Islands, right the way through to one-to-one conversations with stakeholders. Wider public consultation, I think, will come thereafter, but again we can furnish you with some of the detail on that. John, if you have a very short question— It is much a comment and it is to thank the minister and the official for the response and to take some reassurance from it, and I think that it is good that prospects are involved. On the project board, it is just to ask that you will keep a close watch on this, because Hyal's experience, also in relation to the leveying of car parking charges, the need to improve their community engagement minister, and I would be appreciative if you would keep an eye on that, please. Yes, I will. I cannot promise the member that I will still be the minister for Transport and Islands in 10 years once this comes through its fruition. I certainly hope so, but the Minister for Transport is only as good as he is in winter. I think that I will keep a close eye, of course, on the time that I am in this portfolio, because he is absolutely right that the purpose of my job is to be the island's man within the Government, and therefore the impact on the islands that might be somewhat negative in relation to the loss of high-skilled jobs. My assurance is to ensure that the positives are accentuated, and that is the sustainability of air services to our island. Yes, I will keep a close eye on that, and I am happy to report back to the member a few wishes on the conversations that I have with Prospect, because he clearly has a good engagement with the Union. Many thanks indeed. Kate Forbes. Great, thanks very much. I have a question on community transport, which is obviously quite important, where there are no commercial or local authority subsidised services. The first question that I have is quite technical one, which may or may not be answerable, and it is also about our reserved matter. There have been a number of community transport operating groups that have approached me with concern about whether they will still be eligible for a section 19 permit to continue operating. I appreciate that that is a reserved issue, but I wonder if the minister has had any involvement with the UK Government's intentions around that. I know well about the section 19 and 22 permits and the proposal for alterations of the guidelines around that. The UK Government, members are right, of course, that it is a reserved matter. I have written to the UK Government on my reservations around the proposals that it has. Perhaps, again, the easiest thing to do—I do not think that there would be an issue with this—would be just be to provide the convener with the copy of a letter that I sent to the UK Government highlighting some of my concerns on the section 19 and 22 proposals. In fairness, the UK Government, from the conversations that I have had, they are not unaware of that. My understanding, if I remember correctly, is that it has put some funding forward in order to try to give some reassurance to the community transport that might be impacted by the proposed changes. The easiest thing to do in this would be to give you my letter that I submitted to the UK Government on the consultation. Thank you very much. I do not believe that there is any statutory requirement for local authorities or Government to support financially community transport groups, but, in 2013, the Scottish Government announced a £1 million scheme for new or replacement community transport vehicles. Has the Scottish Government got any plans for either repeating that scheme or other ways of supporting community transport operators, which, as I say, are filling gaps left by local authorities? I thank all those who have been involved in community transport over the years, because there is no doubt at all, particularly in remote and rural areas. The saving to the public parts because of the work that they do is probably immeasurable. I have a good relationship with the community transport association and I am very pleased to do that. There is some support in relation to the community transport association, the direct funding that we give them. We also work with them to find out where the challenges are and where they can be best helped. When the community transport association came to me very early on when I was appointed, it was clear that there was an issue around D1 licences, which is a minibus driving licences, and the cost being prohibitive. We funded a scheme to help with the cost of D1 licences, so where we can be supportive and helpful in relation to community transport, we absolutely will. As she described, the £1 million payment in 2013 is a one-off payment. It is a regular payment that we have made. I have budgetary constraints at the moment, so it is not in my plans to have another £1 million payment as we did in 2013 for replacement vehicles. My hope is that the 2013 vehicles that were purchased, the timeframe four or five years onwards, should not need replacing quite at this stage, though I appreciate that other vehicles may well be. It is not in my plans at the moment, but we are providing other support. On the national concessionary travel scheme, does that apply to community transport services? Based on the first answer, are there any plans on extending it? I get asked this on a regular occasion when I go to the CTA conference. It is probably one of the number one issues around this. I absolutely appreciate that it is a big issue. There are some difficulties with extending it across all modes of community transport. Community transport and the concessionary scheme include community bus services that are also local bus services that are available to the general public. There are a number of community transport links that are funded or get national concessionary travel, but the stipulation is that they have to also be open to the general public as well. The difficulty with extending it further to that is that there are a number of difficulties, but just to give you one, for example, roughly, if I remember correctly, there are a number of two thirds of vehicles used by community transport are cars. Therefore, you can imagine the difficulty in expanding the national concessionary scheme to cars and the drivers of cars, and that is two thirds. The cost element too, having engaged with Age Scotland, who have regularly engaged in the concessionary travel scheme issue, with us, community transport. If we include all community transport within that, you are talking about an £11.2 million increase in the budget, and that is just not sustainable considering at the moment the trajectory of older people that would fall within the scheme over the next 10 to 20 years. We are already looking at sustainability challenges that we have talked about at this committee that would only add to that pressure. Thank you minister. The next question is from Jamie Greene. I would like to talk about ferries minister. People in the Highlands and Islands have suffered a catalogue of issues with regard to the CalMac phrase. As you are aware, there have been complications to repairs of major vessels and a lack of available alternatives. Some of these changes have included single vessel timetables and delays to summer services as well. The minister is quite keen, often and publicly, to criticise ScotRail when things go wrong. Is he confident that CalMac is currently delivering for our island communities and is the current fleet fit for purpose? I have also been disappointed in the start of the summer season, but some of this, of course, is unforeseen. The issues around the clansmen in terms of the propulsion system and also the tail shaft are absolutely unsafe for the clansmen to be into service. That is understandable, I think, by most people. Therefore, when one vessel is having to go into dry dock or an even extended dry dock and maintenance, we have to or CalMac has to move around vessels across the network in order to ensure that lifeline services are protected. That is the priority within the contractor and lifeline services. When it comes to additional capacity, which I think is an absolutely fair question, when it comes to additional capacity, there are a couple of things that we can do. One is, of course, clearly to build more vessels when that is happening. The member is very aware of the two vessels being built at Ferguson's. Above and beyond that, we have built eight vessels since we have been in power for the past 11 years in government. A number of vessels have been built and a number of vessels will be built. Frankly, we need to excuse me even once 801 or Glensanix and 802 are complete. We have to continue to build more vessels. We have committed to the next vessel being for the Islay route, which again, the member is probably aware of, is hugely popular because of whisky tourism specifically. The second thing that we can try to do is find in the open market some additional tonnage of vessels. That has been tried. The two summers that I have been transport minister, the direction has gone out to our colleagues at CMAL to look for additional tonnage. That comes either at a huge cost or, indeed, the vessels that are on the open market are scarce because there is not a lot of vessels in summertime generally around. There are issues because people do not want to give them for short-term lease or, indeed, there are issues because, as again, the member will probably be aware, they might not fit into various ports and harbours that we have because all the ports and harbours are not standardised across the network as well. There are things that are absolutely out with Calmax control, which is within Calmax control. The area that I have been disappointed in, I have to say and Calmax know this, is the engagement with communities when something goes wrong. Everybody that I have met and talked to in an island community or represents an island community, they tell me that they understand and completely understand that vessels can break down, can need extended repair, etc. What they are unhappy about is the lack of communication, which is something that I think Calmax has to address. I have told them that in no uncertain terms. Based on that response, that sounds like quite a perilous situation in that respect, because we have a fleet of vessels that could go offline at any moment due to, as we have seen, unforeseen technical issues. There is very little capacity within the Calmax fleet at the moment to meet the requirements of lifeline services, and it sounds like there is very little available in the open market in terms of short-term replacement vessels. Again, I ask the question, is the minister notwithstanding the fact that there are vessels coming down the line at some point in the future, is he confident that the current fleet is fit for purpose and will deliver for islands? Yes, I am. That does not mean that there won't be issues. The older a vessel is, the longer it will have to spend in dry docking, and that is understandable. However, the current fleet is capable of delivering for our island communities. It should be said that, of course, Glen Sannocks in 802 knows that once they come on to the fleet, they should make a significant difference. An additional two vessels in Glen Sannocks will be the first of those to come on, and he knows the revised timetable for that. Once that comes online, that should not stop us from every year looking at the potential for additional tonnage. The current fleet answers the question directly for purpose, but clearly the more vessels we have and the newer vessels we have in the fleet, the better for the resilience of that fleet. I will bring you back in after Kate. Obviously, the building of the new vessels is fantastic and can't come soon enough. On the vessel deployment plans for how vessels are going to be moved between routes, is the minister confident that CalMac is engaging with communities to recognise what the current demand is and future demand with a view to when there is additional capacity, ensuring that vessels are deployed in ways that meet demand? Yes, I am, but clearly for members—I know that the member has islands in her constituency—that if she feels and her stakeholders feel that that engagement is not good enough, then one, of course, she should feed that back to CalMac. I know that she has regular engagement with the interim chief executive director, Robbie Drummond, so she is right to do that. Clearly, if any member came to me to say that their island communities were feeling that the engagement was not at a good enough level, then, of course, I can speak to CalMac and ensure that that is better. What has made it better is, first of all, having a director for communities and then also a community board. The individuals in the community board, in fact, is some state called us from her constituency on that community board. They are going to make a big, big difference to ensure that the community's voices are very much heard within the governance structure of CalMac. It is tricky, because the communities rightly are experiencing a fantastic boom, and that is coming in part and a large part for the introduction of RET. The growth in our islands and the capacity issues are even more acute because of that. There are competing demands, so we have announced, for example, that the next vessel to be built after 801, 802 will be the Islay vessel. Now, there will be some communities that thought that their community should have been first. The member is nodding ahead, and I have no doubt that someone is in her constituency. When I announce the next vessel after the Islay vessel, I have no doubt at all that other communities will think that it should have been next in line. What I have to do is weigh up all those priorities as best I can and make a judgment that is inevitably going to make some people unhappy, but some people are happy. For example, if I take Malaga Armadale as an example, great engagement with the stakeholders is there. They have a real understanding that there is not an overnight solution, but what they want to see is incremental improvements over the next five years. Certainly, a new vessel, undoubtedly in the long term, is part of a solution. As I say, we are going to have to continue to build vessels as the years go on in order to make sure that the resilience of the fleet is better. I ask members, because there are a few questions to get through yet, to try and keep the questions as short as possible so that the minister can respond appropriately. In your previous answer to me on the new Sannox and 802 phase, you said that I would be aware of the revised timetable. In the chamber last week, you said that the timetable to which we previously publicly committed is still the timetable that we have. You also used the words complexities with regard to the new workforce and the fact that you were keeping your eye on developments. They do not sound overly positive words. What are those complexities and developments and when do you anticipate those two firsts to be in service? The winter 1819 was the revised timetable. You will remember that, of course, it was due to be in place in late summer autumn of this year. The revised timetable, which I updated Parliament about, continues to be that winter 1819. Mansa is no different to the one that I gave in the chamber last week. There are complexities at Ferguson's. I think that the member may have visited Ferguson's if not having spoken to the owners of Ferguson's. They are very open-minded to MSPs and MPs coming to the yard to see for themselves the work that they have done. However, there is a new workforce, the investment that has gone into the yard is into the millions. The complexities of the vessels of the first LNG vessels to be built in a UK shipyard mean that there are complexities that no other yard or workforce would have had to deal with previously. I just put that on the table because it is important to recognise. There is a wider objective. We want the delivery of vessels to be as timuously as possible. We also want to secure commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde as best we possibly can. We want to secure jobs as well as the yard. There are three major objectives—the vessels, the jobs and the yard—that we have to look at. We have regular engagement with Ferguson's. However, if there is any change or any further revision to that, I would be coming to Parliament with that. Thank you. Those are probably just fairly brief questions on Recythe Zebrugge. Before asking them, I know that the 1998 Scotland Act to Schedule 5E3, Marine Transport, says that, as a reserve matter, financial assistance for shipping services that start or finish both outside Scotland. Given that constraint, what has the Government been able to do working with DFDS with a view of retaining, restarting Recythe Zebrugge service, or what other companies has the Government been working with? I will try to be brief as possible. I am really disappointed with the announcement from DFDS. I engage with DFDS and the chief executive of the company of the European Head of DFDS on that issue. It would be fair to say that he was, although apologetic to get at this position, simply saying that it was unsustainable, particularly with the fire that took place on the vessel, which would now be out of service for months. We have also spoken to fourth ports. The fourth ports, I have to say, were very upbeat. They think that there are other routes that can be explored and I will continue those conversations with fourth ports. In terms of financial, we have supported this route to the tune of many millions of pounds over the years. Indeed, previous Scottish Administrations have done so, too. We are restricted by what we can do in terms of that particular route, because of state aid rules and de minimis funding and so on and so forth. However, whatever we can do to get further routes and exploit further routes between Scotland and the European continent, we will do them. We have a number of grants that could potentially help with that—the water-borne freight grant, for example, being just one of those. The next question is from Richard Lyle. I would like to ask you about the electric vehicle purchase scheme. We want to phase out diesel petrol cars by 2032 for three years for now. The electric purchase scheme is anterosfree electric scheme loan, administered by the Energy Savings Trust and funded by Transport Scotland. Can I ask you how many people have benefited up to now on the scheme? Yes, I do have that, because I remember reading it in my brief last night. Yes, as of May 15, 505 electric vehicles have been supported through the low-carbon transport loan scheme. It has had some oversubscription in the last year. In 1718, a total of 497 applications with a total value—excuse me—of £15 million were received against the budget, which is £8 million. A bit of oversubscription shows the popularity of the scheme. The member will be very aware of the programme for government announcements that we have made on the expansion of the uptake of electric vehicles. How to further expand that scheme? You have just anticipated my next two questions. Basically, along the lines of Mr Greene, I previously asked you about chasing up housing associations and encouraging the housing minister through the building programme to encourage builders to now install charging points as they have done with solar panels and telephone connections and Wi-Fi or whatever in the past. Where are we with this? Myself and the housing minister have a regular conversation in this regard. I know that he is exploding without putting words in his mouth the possibility of what could be brought forward legally around planning legislation when it comes to developments, not just housing developments but commercial developments, making sure that they have the appropriate cabling infrastructure to allow for electric vehicle charging points. On the flip side of that, without having that legislation in place, I have been pleased to see that a number of commercial operators have already committed that every house that they build from now on will have that in place. I still think that legislation should explode and Kevin Stewart is taking that forward. I am pleased to say that, even in lieu of appropriate legislation, there are already commercial developers who are taking that forward. Lastly, the saying that £15 million would really be needed, you only had eight. So what are you pressing for in the next budget, which is a wee bit away, but if we want to really encourage people to move off a diesel petrol car to electric cars, we have got to provide some incentive. So what are you doing to provide that incentive? I suppose that, in some respects, I would say that there is a few things. I do not actually have to wait until the next budget in that we are able to take forward some of those programme for government initiatives within the budget that we currently have, but I would expect, in the not-too-distant future, to be able to make announcements around that particular loan scheme, which will be extended and expanded where I can. I am delighted that Dick Lyle is doing his part for decarbonising transport. There are also two or three other measures that I am looking at, which are above and beyond the loan scheme, which, again, if I can just watch this space, because people will be making those announcements in the near future. Briefly, John, and then I am going to go on to John Finnie. I would ask brief answers to those questions. I think that, in Perth, there are plans to introduce a filling station that would supply both electricity and hydrogen. Does the Government still open to hydrogen cars as well as electric cars? Yes, without a doubt. We are technology neutral. The market will dictate which way this tends to go. We have some hydrogen schemes already, such as the hydrogen bus scheme and Aberdeen, for example. We are doing some good work with hydrogen, with the Orkney Islands councils in relation to ferry vessels, but also, potentially, other vehicles and vessels. We are technology neutral, so do not put all your eggs in one basket and let's see what the market dictates. Thank you, convener. A couple of quick questions about the Northern Isles Ferry services. The fact that it has been alluded earlier—or, in fact, it was not a big apart—was not a ferry procurement policy. That is yet to be announced, but last month Scottish Government funded CML purchasing three of the Northern Isles vessels. Is that not a bit premature? No, no, no. I would try not to conflate the two. I suppose that I can understand from perception why it might look like that. The reason for purchasing the vessels were really twofold. One was that the lease expiry was coming up, and we want to secure those vessels for that, whether it is tendered or whether it is directly awarded. The second thing is that it would be a suspend to save measure. I cannot go into the exact detail, because, again, it is commercially confidential, but it is fair to say that we are saving millions of pounds from purchasing these vessels, as opposed to longer-term leasing arrangements that we could have entered into. That direct saving, I should say, is directly funding the RET scheme, so that is a suspend to save measure, but it does not pre-empt whether I directly award or tender the Northern Isles Ferry service. That is good news. A brief question that I have posed to you twice in the chamber now, minister, and that is with regard to ferry procurement, whether you have given thought—well, I know that you have given thought—whether you have come to a conclusion about involving CalMac and, importantly, the trade unions in the ferry procurement policy. I think that that would be a very positive step if you would take it. Yes, and I will, and I have been committed on both answers to this question, to absolutely do that. I think that it is a very sensible and reasonable step for the member to propose. First, I absolutely have to come to a final decision on Northern Isles, whether to procure or to tender, so I went up to Shetland and Orkney a couple of weeks ago or maybe a few weeks ago now and spoke to stakeholders there, including the unions, I should say, but also to councillors and other stakeholders. I will come to a final conclusion on this later this month, so it will not be a matter of weeks and weeks that the member is waiting for me to come to a final conclusion on that. Once I make a final conclusion on that, we will then absolutely engage with unions, with stakeholders, with the public, on what their expectations are for the specifications of the future of the NIFs contract, whether that is directly awarded frankly or not, and the clear message already coming from stakeholders is capacity. So, clearly we have got to look at how we can increase both for freight and for passengers. That is the number one issue coming forward so far. The last question is from Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. Yes, the 18-month extension to the procurement was announced in February 2017. Can you tell us why such a long extension was required? You also talk about capacity, which is very relevant at the moment. Would you agree to look at a proposal from Pentland Ferries to extend the route that he currently has from Caithness to Orkney and look at a Caithness to Shetland route as well? There are a couple of things. On the 18-month extension, it is absolutely needed because if we go down the tendering route, then all of the processes that we have to go through for tendering in terms of pre-qualification, the invitation to tender etc etc, they all need a period of time. Therefore, if we did not have an 18-month extension, there would be a real danger of the service finishing and of not being a service. The 18-month extension is a kind of worst case scenario, but it is really tight, hence why I have to come to a conclusion on this by the end of the month, so that we can then progress whether it is direct award. Even direct award will take time, if that is the route that we go down, we will still take time that we have to go through in order to satisfy tech-ell exemption and so on and so forth. On the second question, on a regular dialogue with Pentland Ferries, on the roll-out of RAT, I spoke to Mr Banks and his family just a couple of days ago. They did not raise this proposal because we were talking on a different matter. If the member or indeed Andrew Banks or indeed any operator wished to talk to me about expanding their services, they can do that, but it is worth noting, of course, that that is not within our current contract, any other routes, other than the Aberdeen routes that she knows of and the Scrabster-Strom-Ness route, which she is familiar with. If there was a conversation, we would have to look at the budgetary implications, et cetera, et cetera of that, but I have not been approached, I have to say, by Pentland Ferries on that. Thank you very much, minister, and that brings us to the end of this part of the committee meeting, so I would like to briefly suspend the panel to allow a change over. I would like to ask all members of the committee to be back within five minutes, please, so we can complete the next stage. Thank you. Thank you very much. We are now going to move on to agenda item two, which is the Parking Code Practice Bill, which is UK Parliament legislation. It relates to the committee's consideration of a legislative consent memorandum lodged by Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity. The LCM relates to the Parking Code Practice Bill, which is currently being considered in the House of Commons. As a lead committee, we are required to reflect upon the memorandum and then consider whether we are content with its terms. We then will report our findings to the Parliament. I would like to welcome back from the Scottish Government the hums of use of the Minister for Transport in the Islands, George Henry, the head of road policy, Ann Cairns, a Solister and Sharon Wood, the senior road policy officer. Minister, would you like to make a brief opening statement? I have the emphasis. I am grateful for today's opportunity to address the committee in respect of the motion lodged by the cabinet secretary. As you know, the UK Parking Code of Practice Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 19 July. We will shortly begin its Westminster committee stages. The bill aims to regulate practices of the private parking industry via the single code of conduct that will replace the system of self-regulation that operates in private parking industry with more effective regulation that balances fairness to the motor and public, with the rights to landowners to manage their land. Some of the provisions within the bill are reserved, however the majority of those fall within the legislative competence of this Parliament and, therefore, an LCM being required, perhaps worth specifically concentrating on the areas that are covered by the motion. I will happily address any other queries during the questioning. LCM covers two areas—the development of the parking code of practice and the delegation of functions. In terms of the development of the code of practice, I think that the most significant of interest to the general public will be to improve the operation and management of private parking facilities by regulating how operators enforce parking matters. The code is expected to provide good practice and guidance on the handling of appeals against parking charges imposed by or, indeed, on behalf of private parking operators. Currently, private parking operators can charge parking, but only those operators who are members of ATAs accredited trade associations such as the BPA, British Parking Association and the IPC, the independent parking community. To maintain access to keeper data, operators must adhere to the trade association's code of practices. Such code of practices are developed within the industry. However, audits that have been undertaken between trade associations and the DVLA have identified inconsistent and questionable activities by some operators. In terms of other provisions within the bill, delegation of functions, the UK and Scottish Government do not have a say in the development and maintenance of the code of practices that are currently used. A Cegreg Knights bill does seem to address that issue directly and also includes measures to allow the Secretary of State to enter into agreement with another public authority to perform any of the functions of altering the code. Extending that provision to Scotland will enable Scottish ministers in agreement with the Secretary of State to alter the code in the future if there are specific issues affecting Scotland that the code has not already addressed, although, as I indicated consistency of approach throughout Scotland and Wales is fundamentally the aim of that work. Out with the issues of the bill to conclude, convener, as you know, a modern Fraser's recent proposal is similar to Cegreg Knights, however, there are some differences. The first on keeper liability, which currently does not apply to private parking in Scotland, and the second on the issue of single independent appeals body in order to save time. It is fair to say that I am very open minded to looking at those proposals, but how we can further take them forward with the member and my officials, principally George Henry and Sharon Wood, to have been involved in those discussions. We look to take them forward as constructively as we can. Thank you, minister, and thank you also for prompting me. I should have welcomed Murdo Fraser to the committee, so I apologise for not doing that at the outset. There are several questions relating to this LCM, and I would like to start off with Mike Romba, followed by John Mason. I hope that you do not consider my questions, and this fear is to be out of touch, minister. What are the differences between Scotland and England with private companies requesting information from the DVLA? What are the differences? Should people expect that a Government agency keeps their personal information private and not sell it on to private companies? In terms of the differences in the law in Scotland and in England and Wales, how will the LCM resolve that? The law on private parking charges in Scotland and England and Wales is similar in practical terms. Sir Greg Knight's bill in the LCM aims to support that consistency for the benefit of the motorists and parking operators. The main difference is the issue of keeper liability for charges, which is in place in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland, to recover charges, it is necessary to establish who entered the contract with the parking operator while in practice. What does that mean? Who it was that parked or drove that vehicle? Keeper liability is an issue. I am also aware of the context that we are currently in, and this has only enhanced in relation to data, data protection, data security. In that regard, my grumbos is in touch with public mood. That is important for us to take forward when it comes to discussions on keeper liability. There are serious questions around how we ensure that individuals are protected while those landowners, trade associations and others absolutely have the right to find out who it was that, in some cases, broke their contract and are liable for penalty. There is a fine balance to find there, and that is why I am happy to take forward any issues around keeper liability as constructively as possible. My question is that, in Scots law, there is a private contract between another individual company, and yet that company is able to ignore data protection laws and ask the DVLA for that information held by the Government, by an individual citizen. That strikes me as not perhaps correct, and I really want to find out from your minister whether you believe that is the case. If we agree to the LCM, are we allowing that to happen in this age of data protection? My official George Henry has come in a bit more detail, but the LCM does not address the keeper liability issue. That is an issue that we are going to have to take forward separately, and we are happy to do that constructively with mudfrees and others that have an interest in that. Clearly, data protection will absolutely be a part of that, but it is not what is covered in the LCM that we are taking forward. Just now, perhaps, John Henry will come in with more detail. I mean, just to come in on the point, it can only be car park operators who are members of an accredited trade association who can obtain information of keeper liability for as part of their process. Under data protection, under the proposed code of practice, it will need to apply with all the laws that are there at the moment. Moving forward data protection, then, therefore, should not really be an issue with the proposed code of practice. I am confused, because if an individual, if I give my details to the Government, the Government agency, I expect the Government agency to keep that confidential, but I understand that it sells that information or it charges another individual or a company for that information. It strikes me that that is not protecting our data. Whoever the driver of the vehicle within Scotland is, as it currently stands, when they enter into a car park, they enter into a contractual agreement with the land owner, and the terms and conditions should be clearly defined. Arrangement, is not it? It is a private arrangement. That is my question. It is a private arrangement. We all know that. So why is the Government selling that information that it has about individual citizens? A couple of things to say. First of all, we do not have keeper liability of Scotland, so this is a question about whether we take this forward. All of those considerations around data should be taken into consideration and will be taken into consideration. I would say that George is absolutely right that you enter into that contract with the credited trade association. It is only right, then, that if you break or violate that contract, that they are then able to get information on who it was within the confines of data protection law, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Therefore, how could they find out who was parking that vehicle, driving that vehicle and so on and so forth? There is a balance. If the member is absolutely correct, there is a balance that we have to get right within Government, and that would be part of the consideration if we chose to take keeper liability forward. It is important that there is not what the LCM is addressing here. Does the Government make a profit, and therefore will the Scottish Government make a profit from selling that information on? We asked my officials to come in on this. I am not entirely sure whether the UK Government or the DVLA would, because it is not under my control or a function under my control. Certainly the Scottish Government would not make a profit on this. DVLA is a reserved agency of the UK Government, so it is not. No, seriously. If we are giving an LCM for the UK Parliament to pass a law and it is making money from the motorist, I am struggling with this one. There are other questions. Do you have other questions on that? You suggested that you might have more than two. Some of the answers to the other questions might help you, so we will move to John. I will come back to you at the end, if you want. Thanks, convener. It is more of an overarching question for myself as to whether it should be an LCM or whether we should be doing our own legislation. Within the briefings that we received, it says that the bill makes provision on devolved matters with only a few clauses relating to reserved matters, so it sounds like it is largely dealing with devolved areas. We are also told that, at the moment, private parking is largely governed by contract law, which, as I understand it, would be slightly different in Scotland from south of the border. Given those points, would it be better for us to legislate in the whole area ourselves, or why go with an LCM? There are a couple of reasons. One is that there is a consistency and approach around the approach that is taken in England and Wales in Scotland, which merits that the LCM is being brought forward. I think that there is a good reason to have some level of consistency around appeals around the code of practice. I should say that there is logic in that, there is sense in doing that. Therefore, I think that the LCM should absolutely be passed. It is also, of course, that bill is now making its way through the Parliament, it seems to me, considering our own parliamentary timetable. I know how constrained that is, taking a couple of bills through the Parliament myself at the moment. I do not think that we need to necessarily duplicate where Sir Greg's Night bill does not address issues. I would say that Murdo Fraser's bill has come in and is helping to fill some of those gaps, and I am more than happy to work constructively on that. However, I think that there is a sense and a logic in having a code of practice that has a consistency between England and Wales in Scotland. In exorbitant charities, we need Murdo Fraser's extra amendments in order to ensure that that does not happen to unfortunate motorists. The code will cover that later point. In terms of wheel clamping, I will go on to my technical expertise from my officials, but my understanding from reading on this is that we have laws against wheel clamping in Scotland, so that does not exist as a practice or should not exist as a practice in Scotland, but I will just look towards the legal experts to make sure that I am correct. They are nodding their head, so it sounds like I have got it right. I am right in saying that the police, insurance companies and also some read-only car parts have access to DVL to get your personal data for your car registration. People can tell me over the phone what colour my car is, what type of car it is because I have given them my… Everybody now has access to the DVL information, am I right? Well, most people. Again, I am not sure how you would define it or not, but the point being is that it would have to be part of accredited trade associations and BPA or the IPC in that regard. There are data protection measures in place, but I will go back to my point to Mike Rumbles. We are in a place in a space at the moment quite rightly where there are questions around data protection, how widely it is shared and so on and so forth. Any consideration that we give to extending Keep a Liability up here in Scotland, we would have to take all those matters into consideration. For what it is worth, Mike Rumbles' points made at the beginning of this were absolutely considerations that we have to take and the ones that Dick Lyle also brings forward are the ones that I absolutely have to take. People are understandably more nervous about giving out their data now perhaps more than they have ever been. We know the recent legislation on GDPR and other such data protection measures. I think that there are issues for consideration, but there are at the moment checks and balances in place, which I am generally content with, but I would need to look at them in more detail if we do intend to extend Keep a Liability, which I am supportive of. Minister, the next question is from Stuart Stevenson. I have just made the observation that cars are the only vehicle where ownership details are not published. Aircraft, ships, I can go in and buy a birth death marriage certificate for anybody, so I do not get this one. However, my question is on section 6 of the cigarette night's bill, which essentially is the part of his bill, which basically I have no great issue with the bill as a whole, which just simply allows the powers that are granted with this bill to be devolved to Scottish ministers. I note that the bill does not affect the executive competence or legislative competence, it is simply about a code of conduct, but there is one thing that it says, and that is that it allows the Secretary of State to cancel that delegation to Scottish ministers at any time. Is the Government comfortable with that provision, or is that a standard provision of administrative devolution? I might look towards my legal expert and the Caerns in that regard. I have to say that the conversation with the UK Government and the conversations that I have had with the Department for Transport on this have been very constructive. Although he is absolutely right, it would enable Scottish ministers an agreement with the Secretary of State to alter the code if there were specific issues affecting Scotland, we would expect it to be taken forward in that spirit. In terms of the legal aspect of it, I might ask perhaps more appropriately our legal adviser on the Saan Caerns to come in on that. It does include the ability for the Secretary of State to delegate the functions to the Scottish ministers, but it is not just the Scottish ministers that would be other public authorities. You are correct to say that Subsection 4 allows the Secretary of State to cancel the agreement at any time, but I imagine that, as regards the Scottish Government, there would be consultation about that before they take any such step. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate for it just to be cancelled if they were talking about another public authority. I should say that we are also getting involved in the working group, and I think that Shan attends on a regular basis for us. There is good conversation and consultation at the moment with the UK Government in relation to the code of practice, what it should look like, et cetera, et cetera. The relationship does not in fairness future proof, of course, but for what it is worth, I do not have any difficulty in saying that I think that we would be treated in this regard with the delegation of functions as a constructive partner in that process. Thank you, convener. This is an issue of considerable interest in many of my constituents. I have got many hundreds of cases from individuals who have been hit with unfair penalty notices, and I know that other members will have similar experience. It is an issue not just in Scotland but in the UK-wide, which is why I think that having a UK-wide code of practice actually makes sense. I have recently concluded a consultation on the proposed members' bill. There were five elements that I consulted on. The first was capping of penalty charges. Second was the better regulation of the signage in car parks. The third was the regulation of the appearance of penalty charge notices. The fourth was creating an independent appeal system in Scotland, and the fifth was keeper liability, which the minister has referred to. My reading of Sir Greg Knight's bill—I should say that I met Sir Greg Knight in Westminster in February and discussed it—is a code of practice that could potentially cover at least three of those elements. However, I have been interested to get the minister's thoughts on how far and how broad the scope of a code of practice would be in addressing some of those concerns. I think that the approach that is taken by Sir Greg Knight is one that gives us a consistent framework across England, Wales and Scotland. I am very supportive of that. Of the five issues that he has consulted on, the only two that we would have to take forward in consultation and in conversation with Murdo would be around the independent appeals process and keeper liability. I think that Sir Greg Knight's bills are addressing the other issues that he is looking to address. On the two that he mentions at the end there, the keeper liability and independent appeals process, I am very open-minded and favourable to both. I think that we can work on that. Passing the LCM would be a good step in getting some of the other issues addressed and moved in line relatively quickly. On the other two issues, as I said, we should then turn to what we already are, having a constructive conversation. I should have said at the start that I very much acknowledge and thank the minister for the constructive engagement that I have had with him and his officials in this. I hope that we are planning to meet in the near future to discuss the next steps. There does not appear to be any more questions. At this stage, I think that I would like to ask our members to content to recommend that the Parliament agree to the draft motion and approve the legislative consent motion. That is agreed. Thank you very much, everyone, and the witnesses for attending and also for the minister for attending. That concludes today's committee business.