 Felly, rydw i fynd i ddweud weithio I을cedrfrydau sydd yn dweud eu cyllidegau gyda'r galler мыth oedd yn lleioi i'r Gwylwyddiadau Oedon i'r deimlo, Jagarini-Dave Llovac, MPB. Rhyon i'n fawr, mae gennym ni'n mynd i'r cwmffinidigau a'r cyffredinig, Gylian Martin. As фawr ydw i, mae Gwylwyddiadau sydd y sydd ymgrifithu sydd i'r cyfrannu cyrryliadau might have in the completion of Aberdein Weston Peripheral Root and the other infrastructure projects throughout Scotland. Milesstalk The Scottish Government has been working to manage or eliminate risks associated with Caryllians difficulties since July last year. We have contingency plans in place for affected contracts, including the Aberdein Weston Peripheral Root where the contract contains a mechanism for there remaining two joint venture partners to deliver the project. I expect that work to continue. We understand that Balfour, BT and Gallaf for Try will now take the necessary steps to jointly deliver the remainder of this project. We will continue to work closely with ARL to assess and mitigate any impacts that may arise as a consequence of this announcement. Separately, we understand that Network Rail has contingency plans in place to deal with the situation and that those plans will be implemented. I am convening a high-level meeting with Government officials and agencies this afternoon to discuss key actions and consider plans. Furthermore, we understand that Skills Development Scotland is working closely, as is the minister with Caryllian's training provider in Scotland, Tigers, to understand how modern apprentices will be affected. SDS has advised me that the contingencies are in place to help in a potential redundancy situation. Gillian Martin, I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Caryllian were, of course, employers to thousands of people, including those employed on the AWPR project. They also have many subcontractors, much smaller firms, who will be concerned about any knock-on effect to them. What work has been undertaken from the Scottish Government to help those employees and smaller companies throughout Scotland who might now face a very uncertain future? First of all, our thoughts are with all those who will be concerned for the jobs, and we will do what we can to support them. I advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on a telephone call yesterday morning that the Scottish Government, through its PACE initiative, stands ready to provide assistance in those circumstances. However, we are also continuing to progress discussions with the liquidators and the UK Government regarding the measures that they intend to put in place regarding the private sector. I mentioned Network Rail and the UK Government-backed contracts in Scotland will be supporting Caryllian employees and to secure the completion of those contracts. Companies and individuals in the supply chain working on public sector contracts have been asked to operate as usual, so there should be no immediate impact on those projects. A cross-governmental meeting has been convened today to identify ways in which further support can be offered to those affected by yesterday's announcement. That will include representatives from key departments and agencies, and we also stand ready, as I have said, to offer assistance through PACE. It is also true to say that more information is coming in all the time, and we will take forward that information. In addition, we have in place advanced plans to establish a helpline through Scottish Enterprise to help any companies further down the supply chain who want to get more information on the situation. Thank you to the cabinet secretary for that answer and for the assurances that he has given, and obviously the work to deal with the situation is on-going. However, the AWPR works on one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Scotland. We will see huge benefits for the north-east. In the north-east, we are all saying that it is nearly ready to be completed. What steps can the Scottish Government take to ensure that the other partners within Aberdeen Rose Ltd can carry out the rest of the work without any delay to the completion date? Gillian Martin might have seen that the two other contractors involved, Balfour, Beattie and Gallifordtry, have in fact advised the stock exchange of their intention to do exactly what she says, which is to continue on with the contract, which is their obligation under the contract that we signed with them as Aberdeen Rose Ltd. The consortium is responsible for delivery of the project, and we have spoken to them requesting that they set out how they propose to fulfil their contract obligations for completing their work. We understand that they will now take forward the necessary steps to deliver the remainder of the project. It is a complex process, and it may take some time to conclude. However, I want to reassure the member and others that the AWPR contract is designed to ensure that the project is completed. Meanwhile, Transport Scotland will work closely with ARL to assess and mitigate any impacts that may arise as a consequence of this development. Dean Lockhart Thank you very much. Let me first associate myself with the concerns expressed by the Cabinet Secretary for the Thousands of Employees of Corillian and Associated Companies who will be facing an anxious time. The Cabinet Secretary mentioned that the Scottish Government has been working to manage or eliminate risks associated with Corillian since July last year. Can he provide more information on what actions the Scottish Government has been taking to mitigate those risks? I have mentioned the major contract, which is Aberdeen, Western and Peripheral route. As each of the profit warnings were issued to Corillian, we put out statements saying exactly what we foresaw as the way forward, which was the continuing obligations and commitment of the partners to see through that contract. We have ascertained that that is a position of the contractors and they have confirmed that. In relation to some of the other contractors, so Registers of Scotland have taken action to ensure that those services that are provided previously by Corillian can be provided by others. Network Rail advisers in relation to two of the contracts that they have, Waverley and Litification on the shots line, again, they have contingencies in place. Of course, they let the contract, we don't. They have contingencies in place to make sure that those contracts will be completed. As you would expect, as soon as the first of the profit warnings were issued back in July, action has been taken not directly by the Government at the centre but by the different parts of the Government, which have been involved with Corillian, to make sure that we mitigate and eliminate where possible any risks to those contracts. Jackie Baillie will be followed by Patrick Harvie. There are many questions to be asked about the collapse of Corillian, but our immediate focus should be on jobs and services. Gillian Martin was right to highlight the question of the significant number of employees working for companies that Corillian's subcontracted work to. Will the cabinet secretary meet FSB Scotland and others so that businesses that are subcontractors beyond those employed on the Aberdeen western peripheral route can be provided with reassurance? Can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber how many contracts Corillian has in Scotland for facilities management services, as opposed to construction, and would he explore the option of returning those to the public sector, if appropriate? In relation to the first point that Jackie Baillie raises, which is a very important point, which is about the status of some of the subcontractors in smaller companies, I would say that the vast bulk of the contracts that are in relation to the Aberdeen western peripheral route have been let by the consortium and not by Corillian directly. They have let one or two contracts and we will look further at those contracts, but the vast majority are in the name of the consortium, so those should proceed as previously. In relation to any question from the FSB to meet, we will do that, although we would hope that the helpline, which I mentioned, which has been established by Scottish Enterprise, might satisfy any questions coming from that side of things. In relation to the other contracts, I am happy to provide Jackie Baillie with a list, it is a very short list of the contracts that the Scottish Government or its different agencies have mentioned that the Registers of Scotland are involved in. In fact, I am happy to provide any knowledge that we have of other organisations, you will know about the West of Scotland Housing Association and Glasgow Langlands, I am happy to provide such information as we provide. In most of those cases, though, it is for the individual organisations or agencies that are concerned to make sure that they have alternative arrangements in place. As I mentioned in my previous response, I think that in almost every case that has been done, there are alternative arrangements in place. Whether the agencies and bodies concerned have decided to bring those in-house or seek another provider, that is down to those agencies. As I say, I am happy to provide Jackie Baillie with as much information as possible about those contracts. I very much welcome the cross-party concern and attention that has been given to the impact on the workforce. I hope that the cabinet secretary will continue to keep Parliament updated on that. However, the longer-term context also needs to be recognised. The story of what has happened with Carillion is intimately bound up with many, many years of domination of a model of delivering public contracts through the large, profitable companies when the public sector bears the risk and often is expected to bail things out when they go wrong. Carillion has been part of that, as has Galliford Try, which the cabinet secretary mentioned. Its share price has come under pressure in recent days as well. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the dysfunction that the system represents, both in relation to the PFI and the Scottish Government's own NPD model? Does he agree that the Audit Scotland review of the NPD model, which is due to take place, I believe, later this year, needs to take account of the events of recent days and ensure that we avoid and eliminate the kind of risk that is reoccurring in the future? I will say first the volume response to Patrick Carvie that it is not possible to eliminate all risk attached to it. Of course, long before PFI came along, many of those kind of projects, roads projects and others, were tendered and delivered by the private sector long before PFI was even conceived. About to nobody in my opposition to PFI, I have a conviction, a conviction for refusing to pay my toll on the Skybridge, the first and perhaps most notorious of the PFI projects under the Conservatives. I opposed, in every way possible, the PFI contract that my local authority took out for the new schools back in the early 2000s. The fact is that whether it is a Tory or Labour administration, the constraints on public sector borrowing have meant that we have to find ways in order to fund vital infrastructure projects. The NPD solution was one that we put forward in order to mitigate the worst effects, the worst and most obscene of the profits that Patrick Carvie talks about, and that is why we have done that. Of course, it has to be the case, which I think is the fundamental point of Patrick Carvie's question, that in any incident like this, Governments should learn lessons. We should look at what has happened and learn lessons and I am happy to give that undertaking. Mike Rumbles to be followed by Richard Lochhead. I want to focus on the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary who has twice said in response to previous questions that he understands that the other two members of the consortium will take up the slack in the contract. Could he just confirm that there will be any delay in the completion of the contract, because there is obviously going to be a timescale involved with that? When does he consider the Aberdeen western peripheral route, what month does he consider the AWPR will be open to traffic? I have said that twice, and it is not just me who is saying that the contract will be picked up now by the two remaining contractors. That is what the contract itself says must happen, and I think that it is to the credit of those who devised the contract that it has that guarantee within it. It is also what the contractors themselves are saying that they have given the commitments in terms of the stock exchange. They very quickly, as has happened in other joint ventures south of the border, had to give the information to the stock exchange. I would say that, in relation to whether that will cause any delay, there is nothing because of what I have just said that necessitates a delay to the project because of that process. It may well be of course that, even in terms of the previous questions about the employees concerned, those employees, formerly of Carillion, will be taken on by the project themselves, because many of them serve vital parts of that project. Of course, we will be interested to see and encourage the contractors to do that. There is nothing in the nature of the change that has happened that necessitates a delay, but, of course, we will keep an eye on the further developments as they take place. As I say, information is coming into us all the time. It did come overnight on Sunday night in terms of the final announcement in terms of the liquidation, although we had the profit warnings previously. We will continue to work on that and to work with the contractors to make sure that we deliver the contract as previously stipulated. Richard Lochhead, followed by Peter Chapman. All our thoughts will be with the Carillion employees and the subcontractors and suppliers, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware that Carillion also have the contract for servicing MOD properties in Scotland, including 650 properties in Murray, connected to RAF Lost in Mouth, as well as the accommodation at Canlos Barracks. Although I welcome the assurances given by the MOD so far that there will be minimal disruption to servicing the MOD properties, will the cabinet secretary explore those assurances when he speaks to the MOD or his officials do and return perhaps to the Parliament or to members with MOD properties and their seats with more information so that we can give that assurance to the families that their homes will be serviced and maintained going forward? The member raises a good point. It is the case that the UK Government has substantially more contracts in Scotland with Carillion than the Scottish Government has, and that is one of those contracts. I refer Richard Lochhead to the assurances given so far by the MOD, which says that it should have no direct impact on defence of the services that are provided to the armed forces in their families. Housing that is provided under the contract will continue to be serviced, cating facilities provided for and buildings and offices cleaned. I am happy to, as the member suggests, seek further information from the MOD. In the telephone call that I had with the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday morning, I said to him that we have PACE, which is the UK Government through Job Center Plus, involved in. If there was a case of any of the contracts for which the UK Government is responsible in Scotland resulted in potential redundancies, we would make sure that PACE was deployed in order to help those employees in that situation. Peter Chapman, followed by Lewis MacDonald. First of all, let me say that my thoughts are with the workers and their families who are clearly having a very difficult time with this just now. I welcome the Government's contingency plans to help to mitigate this collapse. I was going to ask if, as far as the AWPR is concerned, there would be a delay. I am pleased to hear that the cap secondary says that there will not be a delay, but I wonder whether it will add extra cost to the AWPR. I would also like to say that I am very concerned about the subcontractors working on the contracts right across the country, not just in the AWPR. Will they be paid or are we facing many small companies going bust because of this? Finally, the workers that are working with Carillion on the AWPR, will they now be taken on board by the other two members of the consortium, or are they now unemployed? I think that some of those questions I have sought to answer earlier, but in relation to the last point, it is likely that the two remaining contractors will require the work to be done that was previously done by the employees of Carillion. It is a very good chance. I would not want to be too definitive. There are around 70 plus direct employees of Carillion employed on that contract, plus about 190 employed on other terms, including some agency staff. It may well be the case that, of course, they are coming towards the end of that contract that they will have to have all that resource there. I think that the UK Government has said in relation to some of the other contracts that CHIPI will apply in certain circumstances. We cannot give a cast-on guarantee on the workers, but I think that there is a good chance that many of those will be re-employed. For those who are not, we have offered the assistance that I have previously mentioned. In relation to cost, it is the same question in some respects in terms of timing. We do not think that there are any costs associated with this. The member may have seen reference by both the remaining partners of a whole in the project now between £40 million and £80 million. That is for them to consider with the banks and lenders that are part of this consortium. That is not for the Scottish Government to fill that whole. We will look to see if there are any additional costs. We do not expect there to be any, but we are having dialogue with the companies that are involved. I undertake once again to keep Parliament updated as things progress. If I can squeeze the last two questions in, Lewis MacDonald will fall by Jamie Greene. Clearly, as the cabinet secretary has said, the two remaining partners are taking up the slack. He will, I am sure, agree that the failure of one of the three partners has been extremely serious. Indeed, the failure of another would be catastrophic. Has the Government, in the past six months, done any assessment of the impact of the Aberdeen-Western Perlwyr contract on Carillion, which has now gone out of business? Has the Government done any assessment on the potential impact on the other two partners in the consortium? I would, without speculating too much on a very hypothetical situation about potentially a second partner coming out of the contract. In relation to Carillion, we have undertaken the checks that you would expect us to take, not least when that was signalled by the public profit warnings. We carry out those checks, and we carry out checks on the contract to make sure that it is progressing as it should be. I want to make no bones that there is no information to suggest that that would happen, the eventuality. Although was it to happen, the remaining contract would be the one that was responsible for taking things forward. That is the nature of the contract, but that would be very unfortunate. I have no information that that is going to happen, but I would confirm to Lewis MacDonald that we carry out checks of the nature that he has described. Last year, Carillion was awarded a contract to deliver electrification of the shot's rail line. It is a vital part of ensuring connectivity in the central belt. The cabinet secretary previously mentioned that contingency plans were in place, but what guarantees are in place to ensure the continuation of delivery of the project? Does he anticipate that the contract will be awarded to either another firm or, in some way, the Government would be able to support the existing team that is delivering it? If it is to be awarded to another firm, what timescales is he working to transfer such contracts? If I can just clarify for Jamie Greene that the Government did not let that contract, that is let by network rail. I am not denying that the Government will stand behind that and be paying for that contract in one way or another, but that contract is let by network rail. Of course, we have been in touch with network rail, and network rail has given us the assurances that I think the member seeks. That project has contingencies in place and they expect the project to continue as before. I am happy to see if there is any further information that I can provide to the member, but the assurances that are provided by network rail project will be completed. I thank the minister and members for their variance, but there was a great deal of interest in that particular topic. We will move on.