 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the Aberdeen western peripheral route update. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson. Cabinet secretary, 10 minutes please. I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the AWPR, the most extensive road construction project in the UK. I'm proud that this Scottish Government is delivering this long-awaited project, working with our partners in Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. It's expected to generate over £6 billion in additional income to the north-east of Scotland and create over 14,000 jobs in its first 30 years of operation. It will boost the economy, increase business and tourism opportunities, improve safety and cut congestion, as well as improve opportunities for public transport facilities. The bypass was first proposed in the late 1940s, and it took until 2007 for this Government to progress this project in a meaningful way. After one of the longest public local inquiries ever held in Scotland and legal challenges submitted in May 2010, and subsequent appeals, the AWPR contract was awarded in December 2014 to Aberdeen Roads Ltd or ARL, a joint venture company comprising Balfour Beattie, Carillion and Gillyford Try. As construction progressed, the contractor cited delays attributable to factors including the accumulative effect of weather events and the well-publicised collapse of Carillion. On 22 March this year, my predecessor Keith Brown made a statement to this Parliament advising the potential for a late autumn 2018 opening. Despite assurances from the contractor, its target was to open the project by August 2018. Contractors are often ambitious with their targets to motivate and challenge the workforce, but, as events transpired, their more cautious view has proved correct. We have worked tirelessly with the contractor to establish further measures to ensure that the project is not only delivered at the earliest opportunity but also to identify if sections of the new road could be opened in advance. The sections that are already opened to traffic include the Cribstone to Dice section, Junction, the 7-kilometre section between Black Dog and Park Hill and the 12-kilometre section between Balmedy and Tipperty. Drivers are already enjoying significant benefits as a result of those improvements. However, in May, ARL reported a technical issue on the dawn crossing structure. Menardifex were identified while post-tensioning a small number of concrete panels. Those have subsequently proved to be more extensive than originally anticipated, albeit in a localised area of the structure. Repairs have continued alongside construction work with ARL reporting that remained on target for a late autumn opening. However, last Friday, October 26, Transport Scotland was informed that a greater scope of work would be necessary to repair the defects. The contractor has undertaken a full investigation into the defects, and that has been the subject of rigorous independent challenge. He is working hard to repair the defects and, on Monday of this week, the contractor reported that it was targeting a December opening date for the whole road. However, it was unable to provide a definitive date for the opening of this section, as there are a number of factors that could influence this date, including technical issues and other physical factors such as the weather. We will continue to work closely with ARL to ensure that everything that can reasonably be done is being done, and we will provide a definitive date for the opening of this section as soon as possible. Safety remains our top priority, and there has not and will not be a risk to public safety or the safety of the men and women working on this project. While the issues reported require time to remedy, it is important to recognise that they were found because of the rigorous quality control and design checks that are built into the project. It is also important to note that the costs of these repairs lie with ARL and will not impact on the public purse. ARL will only receive payment on sections of the road that are open to traffic. Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that those works are completed safely, to the required quality standards. The River Dawn crossing section will not open until Transport Scotland officials and I have confidence that this is the case. I believe that the chamber and the public as a whole will understand and support this position. For some months now, Transport Scotland has been working with the contractor to investigate the potential to open the 31.5km section from Cribstone to Stonehaven and Charleston with ARL. In order to do that, a variation will be required to the original contract. Earlier this week, I spoke to Peter Truscott, chief executive of Galliford Try, to receive an update on the progress that they were making in discussing the variation with their lenders. Mr Truscott confirmed ARL's commitment to the project and offered assurances that it is doing everything possible with the right level of resources to open the road at the earliest opportunity. The clear indication from Mr Truscott was that ARL was making the necessary changes to the AWP contract to open this section. Despite those assurances, I was disappointed to receive a letter from Mr Truscott yesterday morning that cast yet more doubt on this mutually beneficial solution. The letter suggests that ARL has yet to agree to open this section of the road and, furthermore, apparently has yet to even advise its lenders of the draft terms that have been on the table for a considerable time. That is despite verbal assurances to the contrary on Monday. This kind of inconsistency is frustrating efforts to progress the opening of the curb stone to Stonehaven and Charleston, as it will require the lenders agreement in order to take it forward. In agreeing to the substantial change to the contract, the Scottish Government has a duty to protect the public interest, always maintaining a balance between opening sections of the road, releasing appropriate payment to the contractor at a time when it is dealing with the financial pressures of an overrunning project and maintaining the right level of incentive to finish the job. Additionally, there have been some inaccurate rumours circulating in the north-east media that this section of road has been ready to open for some time. Despite daily discussions to progress this, Mr Truscott's letter confirms that there is no contractual mechanism to allow it to happen. I have been urging the contractor to conclude these deliberations for some time. I repeated this to him on Monday and I have reiterated it in writing today. There is now time for the contractor to stop deliberating and start acting. It now has to take necessary steps to open the majority of the road and let the people of the north-east enjoy the benefits that they have been so patiently anticipating. I therefore asked for unequivocal confirmation that the agreement is being progressed and when it will be concluded. Transport Scotland has been accused of a lack of transparency over opening dates. As has been repeatedly made clear, Transport Scotland can only advise of the expected opening date when ARL reports that it is ready, which was expected until very recently to be late autumn. It has been impossible to be any more specific while remedial work at the dawn was on-going and in the absence of ARL's agreement to open further sections. It is a matter of public record that ARL has advanced a commercial claim in relation to the project. That claim is not related to the current issues at the dawn or opening sections of the road. I fully appreciate that this has been a challenging project for ARL, not least with the collapse of its delivery partner, Carillion. It is well known that that has presented commercial pressures for the contractors. However, there is a fully exceptional infrastructure project waiting to be used by people and businesses of the north-east. Clearly, that needs to remain the single focus of all parties until the project opens to traffic. Transport Scotland will continue to work positively with ARL towards a prompt resolution to its current technical issues. I am fully aware of the eagerness with which the people of the north-east are waiting for their new road. It will be nothing short of transformative for the economy and the community as a whole. I trust that what I have said out here today will leave no one in any doubt as to the efforts that are being made to open further sections of the AWPR as fully to road traffic when possible. That will continue to be the case until we can get consideration of this with ARL. Thank you. I have about 20 minutes to allow questions. Those who want to ask a question, please press the request-to-speak button. I would ask people to be concise. I know a lot of people want to get into that. Liam Kerr, followed by Colin Smyth. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has only been in the job a very short time and has no history in this area. Let me remind him that the SNP said that the AWPR would be open in the winter of 2017-18. It then said that it would be open in March 2018. This year's programme for government was late autumn 2018. Now we are told that, again, at the 11th hour, there are further delays, and the cabinet secretary cannot provide the people of the north-east with a firm opening date. Today's statement lists various structural, contractual and communication problems. It makes clear that his latest teaser, that it might be December, is clearly never going to happen. Decent businesses would have predicted those kinds of issues and delays months ago and made provision. It is a disgrace that the Scottish Government has failed to do so, but it is all too predictable, given that it blames everybody except itself. I ask the cabinet secretary, given that one would assume that he has interrogated the contractor as to the bridge delays, the contract delays and the alleged lack of communication, what is a realistic time for this road to open in full? Furthermore, according to his statement, this whole project is characterised by a loss of control between ARL, Transport Scotland and the cabinet secretary. People will feel that the Scottish Government has lost its grip on this process. Are they wrong? In relation to his final point of answer, no. The reality is that it is about rich to get lectures from Conservative party members in here who, over decades within the UK Government, failed to actually deliver on Aberdeen at Western Peripheral route. I take absolutely no lectures from the Conservatives when it comes to delivering on infrastructure in this country, and in particular within the north-east of Scotland. The member says that we should have anticipated these types of problems. The reality is that a road that is 58 kilometres long that has over 100 different structures on it, it is difficult to anticipate every technical issue that may arise when it comes to dealing with some of the particular types of projects. That is a major infrastructure project and there will always be challenges with major infrastructure projects and technical issues that will arise. The member will be well aware of the reasons as to why there have been delays, part of which has been because of weather events, which have had a significant impact on the contractor. Alongside that, the moving of some of the utilities that had to be undertaken by other agencies in time for them to carry out some of the work that they have been carrying forward. However, the most recent delays have been coming about as a result of a technical issue with this particular bridge. The issue about opening up the section that could be opened is an issue that has to be agreed with the contractor through a contract variation. That contract variation has been on the table for the contractor to agree to for a considerable period of time. That is why it is now time for them to agree to that to allow the section that can be opened to be opened up to traffic as quickly as possible. At the same time, they make sure that they make progress on the technical issues, on the bridge, on the River Don, but they do so in a way that assures the safety and quality of that work. That is exactly what is going on just now. Colin Smyth, followed by Maureen Watt. I also thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. It was in 2003 when the First Minister, Jack McConnell announced plans for an Aberdeen Western peripheral route. 16 years later, it is just not good enough that the transport secretary cannot give Parliament today a firm date when this road will open, other than to say that the latest promise of late autumn 2018 is now worthless. In his statement, the cabinet secretary says that there are technical issues on the Don crossing. The Government previously reported that these were minor. Today, the cabinet secretary says that they are extensive. What guarantees can he give that those extensive defects will, in fact, be repaired by December? Are any of those defects similar to those that were identified when the Queensbury crossing was built? In other words, has there been a fundamental problem with the pouring of the concrete? Do we have the details of what those defects are? The cabinet secretary says that there are contractual problems with the opening of the 31.5km section from Crabston to Stonehaven in Charleston. Contracts, of course, are a two-way process. What lessons has the Government learnt from those contractual arrangements to ensure that we do not see this lack of flexibility repeating in future projects? The reality is that this is not the first and it is not the last major transport project that has been laid under this Government's watch. I understand that the final cost won't be more to the public Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament today what will, in fact, be the final building cost of this road? Let me deal with the issues in turn. On the defects, the defects will require more detailed remedial action to be undertaken to deal with those issues. That is what ARL reported last Friday to Transport Scotland in dealing with the River Don bridge. What we have within Transport Scotland is we also have our technical advisers who have got oversight of this work to make sure that it is being conducted to the proper standards. On the contract point that the member raised, that type of contract has been used for the delivery of other roads in the past in a very effective way. The M83, M74 and M80 have to step by step in my constituency and deliver those types of roads in an effective way. There is a way in which this matter can be dealt with. As a variation to the contract, that offer has been on the table with the contractors for a considerable period of time, and it is for them to agree that with their lenders in order to open up the section that is available to do so. That is why I have called on them to make sure that they take that forward as quickly as possible. On the contract and also the points that the member was making in relation to how we manage those types of contracts, Transport Scotland has got a very good track record on being able to deliver very complex infrastructure projects. We saw that from the Audit Scotland report recently with the Queensferry crossing and the way in which that was handled. They are taking the same type of approach with that particular road to make sure that it is delivered to the best quality and to the highest standards, and it will serve the people of the north-east for the years ahead. However, I am assured that I will continue to put pressure on the contractors to open up the section of the road that can be opened and to get that agreement with their lenders sooner rather than later. I have been trying to pursue that for a considerable period of time with them for on this particular issue. I have 11 people wanting to ask questions. I have 11 minutes, so I want people to be concise and fair to their colleagues. The cabinet secretary has heard the calls for the ADWPR to be opened as soon as possible, or at least those parts of the routes that appear to be finished. Although I have not been around since the 1940s, I have been waiting for this all my life, and it has taken an SNP Government at last to construct it, so I am prepared to wait for a few months longer for this major construction project to be fully completed. However, what can the Scottish Government do to ensure that Aberdeen Road's limit gets agreement with its financial backers to partially open parts of the route as soon as possible, as I understand that that is possibly where the blockage lies? It is unfortunate that there have been particular technical issues with the dawn crossing. I want to give the member assurance and all members an assurance that the contractors along with Transport Scotland are working hard to resolve those as soon as possible. As I mentioned in my statement, I spoke to the chief executive of Gillyford Try, Peter Truscott, earlier this week, to make the very point to him about the need to make sure that sections of the road that could be opened are opened as quickly as possible, and that they were making progress with their lenders for that very purpose. I was disappointed that some 40 hours later I got a letter from him saying that they have yet to put it to their lenders, despite what he had told me on Monday and the work that had been taken forward by Transport Scotland over a period of time to try to get this agreement. That is why I am now seeking to have a meeting with the board of ARL to look at what further action it can take to make sure that we move from the deliberations that have been gone over this matter to action in getting this particular section of the road completed and to make sure that they are doing everything possible to address the defects that they have identified on the dawn crossing. Peter Chapman, followed by Stuart Stevenson. The minister will be aware that the stagecoach group has already postponed a planned bus route linking rural north-east communities to Aberdeen airport using the AWPR. Every day that this road remains closed costs the north-east economy huge sums of money. How can any business make long-term plans, given the symbolic delivery of this road, and will the minister apologise to the business community for the extra costs and disruption caused by the continuous delays? Given that the member's view is that there are costs being incurred by the north-east economy every day by this road not being opening, what would have happened had the Conservative Government acted decades ago on building the bypass not to support the north-east economy. We know the reality is that, when it comes to the north-east economy, all the Conservatives are interested in draining money out of it into the London Exchequer rather than investing it into the north-east economy. I will take no lectures from the north-east Tories on making sure that we do the right thing by the north-east economy and investing it in it. I assure the member that we are doing everything possible to make sure that the contractor agrees to this contract variation so that we can get the bit of the road that could be opened up to traffic ASAP. I hope that the member, whom he gives the impression that he is committed to the north-east of Scotland, will get behind the Scottish Government in making sure that the contractors get on to doing that, when they are deliberating about it, start committing action to getting the road opened ASAP. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Lewis MacDonald. Can I welcome the rigorous checking of the dawn crossing that revealed that it was not currently fit for purpose? Opening a Duff bridge would not have been a good idea under any circumstances. Can the cabinet secretary tell me if he has had any communication from the Conservatives in the light of what Liam Kerr demanded for a contingency plan that suggests, as he seemed to, that we should be opening this bridge when it is not yet safe? Cabinet Secretary? I am not aware of receiving anything from the member, Mr Kerr, on the matter in particular. However, if he does have a particular plan, I would be more than interested in hearing it, but he can be absolutely assured of one thing that we will not do. We will not risk safety in regard to the work that has been conducted at the bridge. We will make sure that that is carried out to the highest quality in a timely fashion. We are working with the contractor to make sure that that is a case and that it is a bridge that will serve the community in the decades ahead. What we will not do is we will not get into serving an arbitrary date that could compromise that work that has been carried out. I know that members might want to have a date that will be set. The contractors are very clear that, given the technical nature of this, they cannot give a specific date, because a key part of the work is whether it is sensitive. Had that remedial work not been necessary, we would not be in this particular position. However, given the nature of the remedial work that is now required, it is whether sensitive. That is why the contractor is not able to provide a specific date. However, as I have said, when we are in a position to give a specific date, once it is being provided, by the contractor, we are in a position to tell people about what that date will be. Lewis MacDonald, followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary has appeared to confirm that the section of the road south of Crabeson is physically finished and that the only obstacle to opening that section is the contractual dispute between the Government and the contractor. If the contract is structured in such a way that he cannot compel the contractor to move forward with opening this section, can he tell Parliament what incentives or penalties that he could apply that would produce that result and also what arbitration mechanism exists within the contract to allow him to force the issue? As I mentioned earlier, this is a sale of a contract that has been used previously for the delivery of major road infrastructure projects. The member raises a reasonable issue. After the opening of the AWPR, if there are lessons that can be learned about how we draft some of those contracts in the future to address the type of issue that we have identified with the AWPR, that is clearly a lesson that we should learn from. However, there is a solution, and the solution is a variation to the contract. That has been on the table with the contractor for a considerable period of time. The contractor then has to get agreement from their lenders in allowing that variation to the contract to be applied. There is nothing to stop the contractor doing that now. As was confirmed in the call that I had with Gileford Tries chief executive on Monday, I was left with a clear impression that it was with its lenders to then receive a letter, 40 years later, to say that it is not with the lenders as yet. That is simply unacceptable. It should be able to put that to the lenders to get that bit of the road open. It is not a contract that prevents it from happening. There is a mechanism that would allow that to happen through a variation. That is why we want the contractor to move in that sooner rather than later. I hope that all MSPs for the north-east will be very clear in saying to the contractor to put it to their lender to allow that section of the road that could be opened up sooner rather than later. Minister is guilty of continuing to mislead the public with this statement. Does the minister accept that the section of the road from Stunhaven to Westhill is physically ready and waiting to be opened? It is the Scottish Government that has mishandled the contract for opening sections of the road when they are physically ready. When will it take responsibility for this and stop blaming the contractors, the weather, public safety and anybody but the Scottish Government for messing up this contract in the first place? Mr Rumbles rarely raises to the occasion. This is yet another example of where he has failed to even raise to the occasion. As a so-called north-east MSP, he wants us to ignore the issues of public safety in relation to those matters. I actually think that Mr Rumbles, your behaviour and your comments are utterly irresponsible in those matters. Rhan, come in here and try and suggest that I am missing a point of order. It is my opinion that counts, but I must be able to make it to you. This is not a debate, Mr Rumbles. It is a robust exchange in my view. Please sit down. I have ruled. I suspect that Mr Rumbles does not want to accept the fact that we are in a situation where the section of the road that is complete and could be opened requires a contract variation, but to agree that contract variation note is a contract between the Scottish Government and ARL. The reality is that ARL has to agree to the variation in that contract. To date, they have not put that to their lenders. I know that Mr Rumbles often gets things wrong, and yet again he has just demonstrated that he is getting it wrong and letting down the people of the north-east, but he can be assured of one thing. Given his own party's track record within the Scottish Executive and delivering for the people of the north-east, we will certainly take no lessons from liberal Democrats in these matters. Mark McDonald followed by John Mason. I welcome and support the efforts from the cabinet secretary to get the crepes stone to stone haven section open as soon as possible. He will be aware that, if that opens prior to the dawnbridge being finished, traffic wishing to connect northbound from crepes stone or southbound from Parkhill, we will have to divert through Kirkhill, Putmeddon or Wellhead's industrial estates and potentially Dice village as well. Can I ask that he takes steps now to liaise with local authority transport officials to ensure that appropriate traffic management is in place to ensure that residents and businesses are not disrupted as a consequence of any traffic movements that take place as a result of that? The member raises an important point. If the section does open, there will have to be temporary traffic management measures put in place in a number of different points. Work has already been undertaken by Transport Scotland. Working with local partners to identify what traffic management arrangements would have to be put in place. One of the things that I have also sought assurances on is that the necessary plans will be in place as quickly as possible so that they do not unduly cause a delay to the opening of the section that could be opened at the present time. The member raises an important point on behalf of his constituents. That is an issue that Transport Scotland has already given consideration to make sure that the interim traffic management arrangements are appropriate to deal with any additional traffic. John Mason and I will take Alexander Burnett if you are both brief. The cabinet secretary said in his statement that the cost of those repairs lies with ARL and will not impact on the public purse. Later on, he said that it is a matter of public record that ARL has advanced a commercial claim in relation to the project. Could he just explain how those ties are tied together? Cabinet secretary, if you could also be brief, please. The cost of the Aberdeen Western peripheral route is a package that is £745 million. That continues to be the case. The remedial work that is being carried out, for example on the River Don crossing, is work that has to be carried out within that contract. The cost of that is borne by the contractors, given the additional work that they have to undertake. As is often the case with the major infrastructure projects, there will be additional costs that contractors may not have foreseen as a part of the work that they are undertaking. That could be costs that are associated with weather, ground conditions that were not identified at an earlier stage, which has resulted in them incurring additional costs. That commercial claim relates to some of those additional costs that the contractors have incurred as a result of unidentified factors that have come up during the course of the construction phase. That is often the case with many major infrastructure projects, and the AWPR is no different to that. That will be dealt with in the same way that those types of commercial claims are normally dealt with through the different parties, as has been the case in the past with other major infrastructure projects. Mr Burnett, you must be brief for going into the next stage. Thank you, Mr Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I ask the Scottish Government why constituents are still contacting me regarding the impact the AWPR has had on their land and homes, with matters brought to the contractors' attention many months ago that are still not being acted upon? Whilst the cabinet secretary cannot offer any progress on the opening, can he at least reassure constituents that progress will be made on defective works and compensation claims? In relation to compensation claims, they are a matter that has to go through normal due process and will have to be considered through the parties who are involved in lodging any claim and then considering any claim of payment. If there are specific areas where the member can identify that there has been a lack of progress by ARL in relation to remedial works that are meant to carry out in relation to other individuals' land in the area, I would be more than happy for the member to write to me with that information and to ensure that the ARL border is brought to their attention to take action on the matter. Deputy Presiding Officer, I rise to make a point of order to ask whether you believe that section 7 paragraph 5 of the code of conduct has been breached during this statement of questions and answering. I would ask you to look at the official report and let me know, please, whether, in your view, the code of conduct can be breached. I am happy to do so, Mr Rumbles. I just do not want to eat into the next debate, but I will do so and we will report back to you. I now will have to move on to the next item of business. Can I just let the front bench's change please, please?