 Rwy'n credu i'r next item of business, which is topical questions, and our first questions from Mike Rumbles. To ask the Scottish Government when passengers will see improvements as a result of ScotRail's recent remedial plan. Cabinet Secretary, Michael Matheson. ScotRail is investing £18 million to deliver a remedial plan containing a range of commitments that are designed to deliver improvements over the course of the next year. The key commitments include completion of the current driver and conductor training programme in the east of Scotland by the end of May 2019, which will allow more classic 385s, class 385s, trains and high speed trains to be operated. Recruitment of an additional 30 conductors may be available to operate services by July 2019, and recruitment of an additional 55 drivers may be available to operate services by May 2020. I expect to see ScotRail delivering sustained improvements through delivery of those contracted commitments. That needs to happen now for ScotRail to ensure that customers see improved reliability, fewer cancellations and more seats on the most badly affected routes. Mike Rumbles. Since the start of the ScotRail franchise, we have had three improvement or remedial plans. Three years ago, the Scottish Government published an improvement plan with 249 action points. Last year, we had another improvement plan with its 20 measures for improving performance, and today we have a remedial plan with another nine initiatives. Three plans in three years under two cabinet secretaries. Meanwhile, we have more cancelled trains in the north-east. Trains starting their journeys from Haymarket when they should start from Waverley, passengers are sick and tired of putting up with late trains, trains where you cannot get a seat and a substandard service provided. So, could the transport secretary explain why long-suffering passengers should have any faith in this third plan? The member is correct to say that there have been previous improvement plans. They are somewhat different from the remedial plan that is set out here, which is specifically to address issues. A remedial plan is specifically to address the issues relating to where ScotRail is in breach of the franchise agreement and to take very specific measures to address that breach in order to get out of breach. That is what the action set out in the remedial plan is intended to do. The member will also recognise that one of the issues that came from the improvement plan was the Donovan review, which set out a range of actions that ScotRail had to take forward in order to improve services and reliability across the network. The member will also recall that the ORR published an updated report on progress that ScotRail was making in taking those recommendations forward and highlighted that it was making good progress across a range of those recommendations, although there were still areas where further work had to be undertaken. Some of the areas where work has been completed under the Donovan review, which is a wider improvement across the whole of rail network. We have saw improvements, particularly in the Strathclyde electric area. However, that does not address the concerns and issues that those who are experiencing disruption on the east of the country have experienced due to cancellations, largely due to a lack of trained crew. That is exactly one of the issues that will be addressed through this remedial plan in order to address that matter, given that ScotRail is now in breach of the contract as a result of the levels of cancellations. I expect that the remedial plan to address those issues and what it has set out in it will address those issues on the east of Scotland. However, the wider Donovan review work about improving network overall is making good progress, as was highlighted by the report from the ORR late last year. I represent people in the north-east, and their service has deteriorated. Those plans have not worked. The remedial plan says that the company's performance is unlikely to reach acceptable levels until May 2020. This is one month after the Government can take action to terminate the contract. Will the Government take action to terminate the contract if performance levels continue to be breached by April next year? The reason that the timeframe is to May 2020 is that it takes around a year for the calculation of the figures to work through the system by the very nature of how those franchises operate. I frankly no longer believe that franchises are fit for purpose and serve the travelling public well, but, by their very nature, it takes a year for those figures to get out of the system. That is why the timeframe is until May 2020 for them to be able to deliver that. Alongside that, it takes over a year to train drivers. I can say to the member that, if ScotRail fails to deliver on the commitment set out in the remedial plan, which is now part of the contract, those are contracted commitments that ScotRail has now given as a result of the remedial plan, which is different from an improvement plan, they will be in default of the franchise. If they are in default of the franchise, at the end of the remedial plan, we are in a position where we can terminate the contract. That power is there. That does not remove the ability to terminate the contract if there were defaults in other parts of it, but the remedial plan now creates a contractual obligation on ScotRail to deliver on those improvements. Should they fail to do so, they will be in default of the franchise and the contract. At that point, the Government can make a decision on whether it chooses to then terminate the contract. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. I want the current franchise to succeed. Equally, we all have constituents who are bearing the brunt of these daily cancellations, delays, unreliability and severe overcrowding on carriages right across Scotland. That is and must be unacceptable to each and every one of us, but, given that this plan will take some time to implement—for example, that includes the recruitment and training of drivers, which is one of the key points in the plan—the reality is that commuters do not have 12 months to wait. They want to see improvements now. What is in the plan that fills you and should fill us with any confidence that passengers out there will start to see tangible improvements now, not in 12 months? As I said, they have to start delivering now in order to get out of breach of the contract and where they stand at present time. For example, as we see ScotRail completing its training of drivers and conductors, particularly in the east of Scotland, that will start to provide them with the cohort of staff that they require in order to meet the demands on services at the present time. The recruitment of additional staff will also assist them in removing the need to be dependent upon rest day working, which again has been an issue of contention in the past, which will provide greater resilience within the network as well. As we see more of the Hitachi 385s, which are late—it might not be into the summer now—that Hitachi deliver all those, but as we see more of those being delivered, we will then see increasing capacity on the network overall in terms of seats. We are seeing that feeding in at the present time and that will continue to be the case as more of the Hitachi 385s are delivered. Alongside that, we are making sure that the crew for the new trains when they come in are able to operate them on the routes that they are designated from. That will, as a result then, allow some of the diesel units that have been used on other routes at the present time that will be replaced by the Hitachi 385s, allowing them to be cascaded into other routes to provide additional capacity there, including both in the east and the fife and also in the Borders route as well. Alongside that, once more of the high-speed trains are introduced as well, that will again increase capacity on the network. Again, that has been delayed because of Wabtex failure to deliver on it. However, now you are not excuses, that is just a reality of where we are, but once the additional rolling stock is in place, it will provide substantial increase in the number of seats that are available at peak times on the busiest routes. That is why it is important that we continue to do everything that we can to ensure that ScotRail, Network Rail, Wabtex and Hitachi are all focused on delivering on their commitments so that passengers get the services that they deserve. That is where I am determined to make sure that they remain focused on doing and that we see the improvements happening sooner rather than later. Bruce Crawford fell by Colin Smyth. I thank the cabinet secretary for his useful answers to the questions, but half of my sterling constituents will be the first to say that the performance of Network Rail is simply not being good enough, a matter that I have written to the cabinet secretary about. However, what can the cabinet secretary do about Network Rail, whose signal failures in the sterling area last week caused huge inconvenience for my constituents? Is it not time that Network Rail was devolved to the Scottish Parliament so that customers can be absolutely clear about accountability and responsibility and where it lies across the network? The member raises an important point here. I have said in this chamber before that we need to ensure that both parts of our rail network are operating effectively. That is ScotRail, the rolling stock provider and the services to passengers, and Network Rail and the services that it provides in supporting infrastructure. Just last week, we saw, for example, in Haymarket, a repeated failure in a piece of infrastructure that caused massive inconvenience to travellers across the east of Scotland, which then rippled into the west of Scotland, a piece of infrastructure that had already failed earlier that week, refilling yet again. That demonstrates that we need to make sure that both the rolling stock service providers and our infrastructure providers are aligned. The member may recall from previous questions in his chamber on the matter that the ORR has issued notice to Network Rail because of their failure to be able to deliver recovery properly where there have been system failures in the infrastructure side. We have saw quarters where the levels of cancellations and delays that have been caused by infrastructure have been greater than that of ScotRail's. However, at the end of the day, passengers want the services that they deserve, and they want to be able to get access to train services as and when they require it. Both parts have to play their part in doing that. I have stated time and time again that we need to see the devolution of Network Rail to this Parliament in order to make sure that we can ensure that the way in which it has been managed and it is aligned is reflective of the Scottish route, to allow us to make sure that both parts are operating in an effective way rather than being decided upon and looted by Network Rail and how it operates here in Scotland. In doing that, we can make sure that we have greater accountability over Network Rail and greater accountability to the communities, the businesses and the public in Scotland for the services that they are delivering. Both parts of the system have an important role to play in addressing that particular issue. Colin Smyth felly by Stuart Stevenson. The remedial plan estimates that ScotRail's punctuality will not stop breaching until 2020, but there is no timescale for hitting the actual overall punctuality target. ScotRail paid hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to meet. Does the cabinet secretary honestly believe that the franchise will ever meet the 92.5 per cent punctuality target? At a simple yes or no? If the answer is yes, when? The remedial plan is not intended in order to achieve that particular target. That is the role of the wider Donovan review. ScotRail's forecast for achieving the 92.5 per cent is by the end of reporting period 13 in 2020-21, and they believe that they are on track in order to achieve that. Stuart Stevenson, I draw members' attention to my register of interests. Can the cabinet secretary give an indication of how long the Scottish Government will be accepting applications for the local rail development fund so that the benefits of our improved railway system can reach even more communities such as Ellen in the north-east of Scotland? I am aware of the interest in Ellen, and the local rail development fund was a £2 million fund, which was originally issued in February 2018 to provide funding to allow communities to appraise and potentially bring forward proposals aimed at tackling local rail connectivity issues. There were 10 organisations that were successful in securing some point £7 million from that particular fund. Given the significance of the interest that was reflected in the application process, we re-issued another opportunity for communities to bid for the remaining £1.3 million on 28 February this year. I encourage all members who have an interest within their constituency or their regions that those who are seeking to apply to the fund are available on Transport Scotland's website. Applications should be completed and returned by 28 June this year. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent BBC investigation, what action it is taking regarding its dealings with natural retreats and the Cairngorm Mountain Limited. That is an extremely disappointing situation, and it is important that we understand what has happened with regard to public funds. I have asked Highlandslides Enterprise, the Accountable Agency for Cairngorm, for a full account of the situation. I will be meeting with them to establish what more, if anything, can be done. Snow sports are an important part of our rural economy, and through our enterprise agencies we have committed £6 million towards infrastructure projects since 2014. It is important now that we all work together to secure the future of Cairngorm to benefit the local community. The Cairngorm mountain is crucial to the economy of Bad Nochans Drasby, and the community there has been expressing concerns for some time about the management of the mountain by natural retreats and the flow of money in and out of the Cairngorm. As this is a complicated web involving a public body, its interaction with private companies, can the cabinet secretary tell me what financial checks were made of both natural retreats and natural assets investments limited both before they gained the management contract and while it was running? Rhoda Grant is quite correct to say that the success of Cairngorm mountain is extremely important to the local economy in Bad Nochans Drasby, and the wider Scottish Snow Sports community. She is also correct to say that I believe that there have been concerns for some time amongst the local community. I am well aware of the nature of some of those concerns. With regard to the questions that she asked, I can confirm that HIE carried out due diligence financial checks for natural retreats. They reported that the NR turnover for the year in March 2013, prior to the procurement process, was £2.8 million. HIE was also assured by two forms of security, an intercompany guarantee and a personal guarantee from the main shareholder in the NR family. The second question related to the process after that occurred in relation to various other changes. I can confirm that appropriate checks were carried out at every stage and where appropriate professional advice was, I believe, sought. However, I want to reassure Rhoda Grant and all other members, as I mentioned in my original answer, that those are matters of concern to the public. There are matters of considerable public interest. I am seeking a full accounting from HIE on those issues and full answers to the questions that have been raised by the media and by local community members and others. Rhoda Grant Where Cairngorme mountain limited in breach of contract when they went into receivership, and if so, could Highlands and Islands Enterprise have cancelled the contract rather than had to pay the receiver to take it back into ownership? Given the community's desire to own the asset, will the Scottish Government now look at transferring it to them while ensuring that all monies owing to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Government are recouped from natural retreats? Michael Matheson If you forgive me, Presiding Officer, that is specifically a legal question, and I think that it would be imprudent for me to start to give off the cuff legal advice. I have already said that I am seeking a full response on all issues, but could I just say this? The HIE was faced with the decision of ensuring that it took action to enable skiing to continue if, of course, the snow conditions are permitted, and it took those obligations extremely seriously. It became aware that CML was in serious difficulty in October 2018, when a working capital loan of £1.8 million was being sought, but the company was not able to provide security. The HIE staff then sought to progress a managed exit, and the aim was not to end up in the courts, which could have prevented any operation at all on the hill. The aim was to continue to enable skiing and snow sports activity to continue, if possible, and if the conditions permitted on the hill. That, indeed, was something that I think the vast majority of local residents were very keen to receive. I am not saying that a question is not appropriate, but it is a perfectly reasonable question. I will ensure, Presiding Officer, that that question, together with any others, which it would be imprudent for me now to answer off the cuff, will, in due course, be answered, because we take those matters extremely seriously. Edward Mountain will be filled by John Finnie. Cabinet Secretary, given that it will probably take two years to get the funicular railway operational and, with the new snow factory probably in the wrong place, there is little to attract families to Kengel Mountain, can the Cabinet Secretary please confirm what actual cash funds are committed from today to support the mountain over the next two years? Cabinet Secretary? I was grateful that Rhoda Grant expressed her support for skiing the hill, and I hope that Mr Mountain has a similar view. I am afraid that I do not accept the sweeping judgments that he has made as correct. Quite honestly, it is simply impossible to answer a question about how much money is required until we know the facts. The way to carry out government is first to assess the facts and then decide what conclusions are relevant therefrom. That is important because, as the member knows, we are due shortly to receive the peer-reviewed assessment of COWI co-wee, the structural engineers, who have been examining, as their professional expertise enables them to do, the structural state of the Cairngong funicular and also what steps are required to deal with it. Until we have established what their recommendations are and until that review is peer-reviewed, it is by definition not possible to assess what action is required to remedy the defects in the funicular, far less make a budget. That is the task that we are engaging in. I am very pleased that there has been established by HIE and operated body locally. The funicular response group, which is chaired by local councillor and has a substantial membership on it, is lazing and working practically with the grain to find a solution to all those matters. My concern is to find a solution working with all relevant parties. That is what we will continue to do. The cabinet secretary reassured that all members wish to see a successful tourist industry in the area, but he took grave exception to my description of the situation as a shambles last time. I wonder if, in the interim period, you have time to reflect on your judgment of that and whether you have undertaken any assessment into the reputational damage caused to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and, sadly, perhaps wider implications for barnacing to highway 2. I fully accept that the situation is disappointing. I point to the fact that HIE intervened successfully to resume the responsibility of running the hill. If they had not done that, there would be no chance of any operations on the hill. They should be given credit for doing that. They have set up a local response group that works sensibly looking at the facts and dealing with their realities. Thirdly, and Mr Finnie did not mention that, although I appreciate his support for, I believe—I think that he expressed his support for the hill anyway. Thirdly, HIE also contributed to the procurement of snowmaker equipment, and those operating in snow sports in the various five outdoor resorts in Scotland, most of them recognise that snowmaker equipment has the potential to be game changing because it could extend the season, enable snow cover to continue when snow is relatively thin on the hill, as it has been, sadly, this year. Therefore, HIE's action last October in procuring that equipment, action that it had been working on for some considerable time, is something again that I think locally is welcomed. The priority now is not to seek a post mortem but rather to find a prognosis and a way ahead. That is where I shall be focusing my efforts, whilst ensuring that answers to perfectly legitimate questions such as those raised by Mr Finnie and Ms Grant and any others will be answered by HIE. Obviously, they will be answered by HIE, and I am due to meet them. Arrangements are in place to meet relevant HIE officials in the course of the coming weeks in order to deal with all those matters. Thank you very much, and that concludes topical questions. We are going to move on shortly to the next item of business, which is a stage 1 debate on motion 16542, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. I invite all members who wish to contribute to this debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.