 Nighting group, preens two. Welcome to the 16th meeting in 2018 of the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. Could I ask everyone present pleased to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? We're going to move straight on to agenda item one, which is major transport infrastructure projects update, and before we move on to this section I would like to invite any members to declare any interests relevant to this item. Does any members have any interests? Llywyddyn, mae'n gyddu... Mae angen ddatblygu. Rydw i'n cynghain i chi ddim y cydweithio cyd. Rym ni'n ganddadu cydweithio am y gyfrifysgol yng Nghymru, fe allan o gyfrifysgol cydweithio mae'r cyfrifysgol yng Nghymru yn diolch i UK. Fy cadre, mae hyn yn fwy o bach. Rym ni'n ganddadu cyfrifysgol yng Nghymru, fe allan o gyfrifysgol yng Nghymru. Mae'r eu gymhiliau ddechrau ar gyfer y digwydd i chi, i chi ddatblygu i chi, i chi ddod i'u gweld eich gweld eich 화ud ddiwrnod o phwysiol yn eich gweld ar arweig ar gyfer y gweld dyma gan maes yomem ac chi'n meddwl i chi. Rwyf i chi'n gweithio'r leirio gyfrifheirio mwy o'r columnu ei wneud i和fnerd i chi i ei wneud i kitiau atweithio'r gweld a Michelle Runney, yn y wneud i chi'n meddwl i chi i'w digwydd i chi, i chi'n meddwl i chi gan gyntaf i mi allu ar y cyfrif Oddi? Ie, dweud ar y cyfrif Oddi ac efo'r cyfrif Oddi, dwi'n gallu'n gweithio ar y canllun bai wnaeth o'r cyfrif Oddi, ddau i'r cyfrif o'r lleidig iawn, cyffredig iawn, a agen i ni oedd hynny'n uneddaid gyffredig iawn i'r cyfrif Oddi i'r cyfrif Oddi o'r lleidig iawn, ac i hwnnw ein gwasanaeth gyhoedd fel mawr cyfrifioddau cynhyrchu voldafu. First of all, the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Roots Balmery to Tipperty project. As I've previously advised, the AWPR at 58 kilometres in length is the longest new roads project currently under construction in the UK. It's the equivalent of building a completely new road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and when it's complete, it will provide substantial benefits across the whole of the north-east, boosting our economy, increasing business and tourism opportunities, improving safety and cutting congestion, as well as improving opportunities for public transport facilities. In the statement that I made to Parliament on the 22nd of March, I advised the following consultation or that following consultation with Transport Scotland's technical advisers, it would be prudent to anticipate a late autumn 2018 opening date. Whilst I fully appreciate the contractor's continued ambition to target a summer 2018 opening, Transport Scotland's technical advisers on-site remain of the view that a late autumn 2018 opening may be more of a realistic date. I also confirmed at that time that we would continue to work with the contractor to identify whether any further sections of new road could be opened in advance of the whole of the project. I'd like to reassure the committee that where that is possible, without impacting on the timetable for completion of the overall project, we will endeavour to ensure that those sections of road are opened. It works our progressing well and, for example, we saw the Balmery and Black Dog junctions opened at the end of April and the beginning of May respectively, and works nearing completion on the River Dee crossing. Elsewhere in the project works progressing well, we are now at the stage where we can start to consider plans for a suitable event to mark the opening of this very significant project, I think, first proposed 65 years ago. I look forward to being able to provide further information on this event, the opening event, in due course. Meanwhile, I'd want to take the opportunity, if I can, convener, to thank those residing in the north-east for their continued patience, while those essential works are being undertaken. The A9 dualling programme continues to make significant strides forward with the news that the second section between Lunkartey and Passive Burnham is expected to be awarded in the summer. The contract for advanced tree clearing works for the A9 Lunkartey to Passive Burnham project is expected to be awarded early June, with works commencing on site soon after this, and that will help to de-risk the main construction contracts, ensuring that this important seasonal work does not unnecessarily delay the overall construction programme. Draft orders for five of the remaining dualling schemes were recently published. Those represent collectively 36 miles of the 80 miles to be dualled, and it is expected that the draft orders for a further three dualling schemes will be published in the coming months. The dualling programme is one of the biggest transport infrastructure projects in Scotland's history. We remain committed to completing the work by 2025 and we remain on target to meet that commitment. Of course, that project is not just about the building of the road. My colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution, Derek Mackay, recently attended the launch of a tourism app being taken forward by Transport Scotland's A9 dualling team as part of the Government's innovative CivTech challenge, which looks to new technology businesses to solve technological challenges. The Highland Discovery app has been developed to promote the less visited rural heartlands of Scotland and will help tourists to navigate the many visitor attractions and facilities in and around the A9 corridor. The app focuses on small community facilities and businesses and also includes an in-car audio channel offering Scottish stories and songs. Design work continues on the A96 dualling Inverness Dabardine programme. The work that we are progressing includes a rolling programme of regular engagement with local communities and other stakeholders to ensure locals, road users and businesses affected by the work are kept fully informed. More importantly, that will ensure that the vital feedback that we receive is taken into account as we develop our plans. So far, 11,500 people have visited public engagement events on the A96 dualling. As part of that programme of engagement between 27 February and 2 March, local communities and road users were able to view and comment on proposed changes to the options that have been developed for the 46-kilometre A96 dualling hardware scheme. Nearly 1,400 people attended the drop-in sessions over four days and the feedback that was received was extremely important to the team as they continued the route options assessment process for this section of the A96 dualling. We are currently on target to identify a preferred route option later this year. Building on the early meet-the-team public engagement events held in November 2017 on the 42-kilometre A96 dualling east of Huntley to Aberdeen scheme, which was attended again by more than 1,000 people, we expect to present the options under consideration to the local communities later in the year to allow them the opportunity to provide important feedback, which will help to shape a preferred option, which we hope to identify in 2019. Along with our commitment to dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025, dualling the A96 will ensure that the road network between all of Scotland cities is of dual carriageway standard at least by 2030. Since the M8 Bundle project fully opened the traffic on 1 June, we have seen significant journey time savings across the central Scotland motorway network. Finishing works are currently on-going and are expected to be completed in the coming months. The committee may be aware that part of the laggan construction group went into administration on Monday 5 February. Laggan formed 20 per cent of the construction joint venture that is charged with the delivery of the project on behalf of Scottish Roads Partnership. Ferovial Agroman is the other partner, and the contract makes Ferovial Agroman jointly and severely liable to Scottish Roads Partnership in respect of its obligations and liabilities. The obligation is now on Ferovial to deliver the outstanding construction works. Approximately 10 laggan employees were working on the project at the time of administration. Five have moved on to new employment and five have been re-employed through the project. Laggan is not part of the Scottish Roads Partnership, the DBFO company responsible for the on-going maintenance of the project for the next 30 years. The administration will therefore have no impact on the operation of these roads. Quickly on Prestwick airport, since the Government purchased the airport in 2013, we have been clear that the airport must operate on a commercial basis at arm's length from both the Scottish Government and ministers. That allows the senior management team at the airport the freedom to pursue the business opportunities that align with the strategic direction of the business. It is my view that the airport is moving in the right direction. For instance, recent CAA figures show that, in 2017, the airport recorded an increase in passenger numbers of over 3 per cent to approximately 696,000 when compared with the equivalent 2016 figures. Although that is a relatively modest increase, 3 per cent clearly demonstrates a move in the right direction. The airport also recently performed well during the adverse weather, while conditions across the country were certainly challenging. Prestwick has remained open and operational throughout the period. There are also a number of flight diversions from other airports that are quite lucrative forms of business. I am also pleased to hear that the committee has taken up the offer that I made to visit the airport, and I understand that that has been arranged for 4 June. I think that that will give the members a really good opportunity to tour the airport and to hear first hand about the improvements that have been made. Finally, I thank the committee for the opportunity to update you today, and I am happy to take any questions that you may have. Obviously, the biggest project, as you said, the AWPR is very close to my heart. We desperately want to see it in place. It is going to be a huge boost to the economy, as you rightly say. However, we hear that it is delayed again, and I would like to explore with you some of the reasons why it has been delayed from spring of this year to autumn of this year. Could you inform us what the reason behind that delay is? The reasons are really those that are set out in the statement to Parliament. The reasons that are largely given to us by the contractor include weather effects, in particular storm Frank, which, I am sure that the member knows, had a huge impact on people living in the north-east. They have never seen a storm like that. Many people say for a period of months that some of the ground that was being worked on was absolutely inaccessible because of flooding, so that had a major impact on that. The contractor also says that he has experienced delays in achieving utility diversions. That is one of the reasons that he has given. He has also mentioned the fact that the collapse of Carillion has an impact on the supply chain. Those are the reasons given by the contractor. The dates that were set out were those that were set out by the contractor. We let the contract, obviously, and those were the dates that they provided. As you say, it is regrettable that it could not be done earlier, but having first been proposed 65 years ago, it is good that we are now at the stage. On a huge project, if you think about the motorway length between Edinburgh and Glasgow, that is the size of the project, the biggest in the UK. You will also know, I am sure, from your local observations the extent to which the road is getting very near completion. However, there are other processes that we have to go through, such as a road audit, before the different sections of the road can be formally open to the public. We are advised by the contractor that good progress has been made. I should say that they also stick to their estimate of summer, but we are sticking to what we believe is a more realistic date of late autumn. I know that, on your opening statement, you slipped in the word late autumn, because I think that in the last time that we discussed this, autumn was the term that you used. Late autumn, to me, means that there is still huge concern. It would tell me that there is a more slippage in the system, and you are just softening this up for another announcement sometime soon that it is delayed again. That was quite revealing to me that you said late autumn, and I think that the last time you were in front of this committee it was autumn. Can we be sure that this road will be open in 2018? I think that you overestimated my willingness or the ability to manipulate the committee in that way, but no. I am sure that I mentioned when I spoke to Parliament in the statement late autumn. That is not to suggest that it will necessarily be late autumn. The contractor is still saying to us both sides of the contract partnership as they believe that they can do this by the summer. We think that it is quite an aggressive programme that they have to achieve that, and we are also keen to make sure that this road is done safely. We have said autumn, it is not because I think that it will be late autumn, but that is what I said previously, I am sure, in my statement to Parliament. We will try to complete this as quickly as possible. We will also try to open parts of the road as quickly as possible. There is no attempt to soften up the committee. We want to get this road done as soon as possible. We are well aware, as you yourself have pointed out, of the huge benefits that incrementally will produce as different parts of the road open. There is no attempt to soften up the committee here. We want to get this road done as quickly as possible. That is good. I am sure that everybody does want to get it open as quickly as possible. There is one other issue that I do need to bring up. We welcome the fact that the Belmerey tipper, I bet, is open even though it is single track either way. However, there is an issue there. The issue that I need to bring up is signage. There are local businesses, and there is one business in particular that has had huge problems since they opened in that part of the road. They are almost marooned on the old A90. The signage is absolutely unacceptable. This is a hotel restaurant business, and it has seen an absolute plummet in its clientele in the last few days, simply because folk cannot find it. I went in and passed it on Monday in my way down here, and I missed the turn-off. It meant a 10-mile detour all the way to Belmerey and all the way back, and I eventually found the way in. It is hard for somebody that knows the area. Anybody who does not know the area. What is happening is that their business has fallen off a cliff. It is simply down to a lack of suitable signage to allow folk to find the place. I think that we need to be aware of that, because there will be other bits of the road opening. In a similar manner, I assume, over the next weeks and months, we need to get our signage far better. Those are businesses that are really to suffering, times are tough anyway, and this is making a huge difference. I implore you to take that on board. I have been speaking to the AJL guys in the past few days that promised to improve the signage, but it has not happened yet. I am tempted to say that this is more of a constituency question, and it may be something that you want to take up with the cabinet secretary afterwards. I am sure that the cabinet secretary has taken on board the importance of signage. Maybe, just for the record, you could acknowledge the fact that signage is important, and then we could perhaps move on to the other questions. I will be very brief, convener. It is a constituency matter that some members have raised with me. It was looked at last night by not just the contractors, but Transport Scotland, and we will get back to you on their findings in due course. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. The next question is from Stewart Stevenson. I have just got a wee sneaky one. The new road will be called the A90. Is that correct? Yes. That is fine. It is something that I have not heard before, although maybe I have. One of the issues that has engaged us, which the cabinet secretary referred to in opening remarks, is the collapse of one of the partners to this project, Carelian. We have seen widespread effect in the public sector, perhaps particularly south of the border, on Carelian-led projects. Does the cabinet secretary think that the approach that the Scottish Government took has largely protected the project from the collapse? Is that one from which we can learn lessons, or indeed other Governments in the UK could learn lessons? I think that it is certainly the case that the way that we have constructed the contracts, and in this case, with three partners in the partnership that is delivering the project, has been very helpful in that regard. If one partner falls by the wayside in the way that Carelian has, then the other two project contractors are jointly and severally in the legal language obliged to take that up. It does not come back to the public contracting authority in that sense. That has been good. However, I would also say that we are duty bound to look at what lessons we can learn from that. The very large project, or the successful bid, was from three very large companies. There is also an issue about the extent to which we make sure that Scotland's SME sector is able to access those contracts. Transport Scotland is doing some work on that just now. Although we can feel quite satisfied at the way that the contracts have been constructed in protecting the public purse and the progress of the project, we should nevertheless take whatever lessons we can from what has happened in this particular situation and see if we can apply those to future projects. I note to press comment today, cabinet secretary, that 78 per cent of public contracts in Scotland go to SMEs. Is there scope for increasing that number particularly in your area of interest? Although I imagine that most projects will be led by large, large companies. If you think about this particular project, you had a situation in which one of the main contractors, Carillion, established subsidiary companies, particularly in relation to contract staff and transport fleet provision. I am not sure that that really is in the spirit of SMEs, so it is that kind of thing that we want to look at. However, you are right to say that the bulk of the work will end up with subcontractors, and the bulk of that will be with SMEs. Given that we have 98 per cent of our businesses in Scotland, we want to see whether we can increase that proportion from the figure that you mentioned. Right. Just a slightly different thing, which I think that we can probably deal with relatively briefly. I understand that Aberdeenshire Council is asking the contracting consortium for help to deal with repairs on local roads, because a lot of the traffic that would have been on the A90 has gone up really quite to local roads. Is the Government involved in that discussion at all, and are we in a position to make any comment on what we think the expected outcome might be? The Government is involved in the extent that we occasionally get correspondence about it, but, as the question suggests, that really is a relationship between the contractor and the local roads authority. They are often private agreements that are reached between the two, so the Government does not have a direct input to that. We know that there is a discussion between local authorities and the contractors in relation to local roads, but that is a matter for the two parties concerned and not for the Government. You have got a brief question. In a debate in the chamber a few months ago around future technology on travelling on roads, the Transport Minister admitted that, for example, the M8, M73 and M74 had not been particularly future-proofed in that respect, although it was very fit for purpose for current car usage. There had not really been thought given to things like dynamic lane or speed management, electric charging points or lane usage for autonomous vehicles, for example. In terms of the AWPR project or any other large road infrastructure projects that the cabinet secretary is looking after, how much future-proofing has gone in to those large investment projects to ensure that they are fit for purpose in light of tomorrow's potential technology? I think that that is probably something that would be good to hear from Michelle, but I would say that in each of those projects, whether it was the M8 bundle, if you think about the actual layout or geography of that road, or if you think about the A9 or the AWPR, those all involve expansions and capacity and the footprint of the road. By definition, they are more flexible in order to take forward future developments, but some of those projects were quite a number of years old in the design, if you like, and they should be as adaptable as possible. I think that they will be because they are, as I say, represent expansions. If you have, for example, on the A9, a dual-carriage way as opposed to a single-carriage way, it is more able to take adaptations to it to accommodate some of the things that you have mentioned. Of course, it is our ambition for the A9 to be the electric avenue that will be able to have charging points along its length, but I do not know if Michelle wants to come back in on that. As the cabinet secretary said, significant work is under way on the A9 to look at the provision of charging points and the like. Across all of our schemes, we include provision for an intelligent transport system to be able to give immediate online, real-time driver information to drivers as they are on the network. The likes of the Forth or Crasment Crossing makes provision for our managed motorway where we can control the amount of traffic and volume of traffic going on and off that section of the network. All of that helps to alleviate congestion, improve journey time reliability and the like. Going forward, we will continue to look at what adaptations we can make to our future schemes. However, as members will appreciate, the preparation and the statutory processes for those schemes take some years. Technology is currently moving at a pace, but nothing has been arrived at as a conclusive measure for the use of autonomous vehicles or the use of new technology. We are continuing to work with partners right across the world to look at where that might end up, but we do not want to prejudge the outcome of that work. Before we leave the AWPR, cabinet secretary, you mentioned that there were problems with utility diversions. I think that that was in November last year. Could you just explain what the issues were there? I mean, I'm assuming that the utilities have been there for some time and the planning for their removal should have been undertaken at the beginning. I just don't understand why it would be a delay. I didn't mention that we had problems with utility diversions. What I was saying was that the contractor and saying why they've delayed has mentioned utility diversions. You are right, convener. At the start of the project, I gathered together all the utility providers in a meeting in Aberdeen and said to them that we wanted to make sure that there was no question of any delays. If you remember, at that time, we were on the teeth of the Edinburgh tram situation. That had by far been the biggest issue there. People didn't know what they were going to find when they dug up the roads of Edinburgh. I got the utility companies together to say that we have to make sure that this is done as quickly as possible, but we had a whole day event on it in Aberdeen, which at that time was quite unusual. However, the contractors believed that they had issues in terms of utility diversions, so we are investigating that currently. Can you indicate which utility it was? The one that sticks out my mind—I don't think that it is just one, but the one that sticks out my mind would have been the one where the oil pipeline was a big issue for them, and getting the permission from the utility provider in that case was an issue. Once they mentioned that to us and it is their responsibility to get those utility diversions, I intervened on their behalf with the provider to try and ask for things to be hurried up in relation to that. I reported that previously to the committee. I would have to refer back to the record. It is interesting that you said that you tried to head it off at the pass and it had failed, but those things happened. I think that the next question is on a new subject, and that is Conan. Good morning to the panel. Can I turn to the issue of Presswick airport, which you touched on in your opening comments, cabinet secretary? Can you provide the committee with an update on the current level of Scottish Government financial support for the airport, including the total loans to date, expected loans for future financial years, and when you anticipate that the airport will break even and begin to pay those loans back? We have said since the very start that we enjoyed a relative consensus in the Parliament on the Government's move to take ownership of the airport although we do not have that consensus any longer. We mentioned that it was going to be a long-term recovery for the airport, and the reason for that was that so little investment had been carried out previously and that a great deal of work had to be done to get the airport back into the correct state. The committee has previously reported that the investment in the airport is done on a commercial basis in the form of loan funding, and that attracts a market rate of interest in line with state aid rules. The last financial year, we provided loan support of £8 million to the airport. By the end of March this year, we had therefore provided a total, if you roll that together with previous years, of £38.4 million to the airport and loan funding, and the budget for 2018-19 allocates further loan support of up to £7.9 million, meaning that there is a potential total loan funding of £46.3 million to the end of March 2019. We have also made clear, in previous statements to the Parliament, that further loan funding may be required for Peswick airport. Any confirmed facility would need to be based on a robust business case and subject to the availability, of course, of necessary budget provision. We have not set a time limit just to come back to the member's points about the return to profitability or for the repayment of the loan support provided, but we have said that that is what we intend to achieve, but we have not set a timescale for that. One of the issues at the moment is obviously the current pay dispute involving workers at Peswick airport. Given the scale of the financial input and the fact that the Scottish Government is the main shareholder in Peswick, it is appropriate that staff at Peswick are being offered a pay rise that is below the Government's own public sector pay policy and the airport still does not pay the living wage? I will not comment on any particular dispute, but when we say the words that the airport operates at a commercial and move from the Government, there has to be some meaning to that. There has to be the basis on which the airport is able to take those decisions, but the airport, as the member implies, also has to be aware of the Scottish Government's position on the living wage. My understanding is that they currently play the national living wage and that it is their intention to move to the living wage. I am sure that the member will be aware that the way that those things are approached by the living wage foundation and by the poverty alliance who carry out much of this work is that it is not necessarily the case that everybody that they speak to will be paying a living wage at day one, but they will have a plan for moving towards paying a living wage, and that is, as I understand it, the intention of the airport to do that by 2020. Cabinet Secretary, the Government is the main shareholder in Peswick airport, and this is a Government-owned company that does not pay the living wage. Surely that is wrong. You mentioned the fact that it is an arms-length company, but you are on public record. Rightly my view criticising the UK Government for failing to intervene on the proposed RBS bank closures and the point that you made in Parliament was that the fact that the UK Government were the main shareholder in RBS and they should be intervening, so why aren't the Scottish Government intervening to make sure that staff at Peswick are being paid the living wage? If it is playing to the convener as best I can, I do not know any other ways to state it. It has to operate. It has to do so by state aid rules and the basis on which the airport was bailed out at commercial remove. I think that it is a commercial remove from the Scottish Government, but it is the case, as with many other organisations. The member mentions UK Governments or other companies that maybe do not pay a living wage. In each case, I would be very pleased if those companies that currently did not pay a living wage had a plan to get to the stage where they did pay a living wage, as Peswick does, and I am pleased that they are doing that. The legal requirement, as you know, is that they pay a national living wage. Far better, of course, and I know that the member and I differ on this point, if this Parliament had the ability to insist on payment of a real living wage, and then, of course, this question would not arise. There are a few people who want to come in, and some people, Richard, you are next. I have Gail, Mike and John. If it is on the living wage, if we can stay on this, I will bring John Finnie in and then come to you, Richard. You will come. To pick up on the points raised by my colleague Colin Smyth there, I am quite unusual to hear you commending the national living wage, which, of course, is short of the real living wage that we do not hear, but what I find confusing is that you are using the term, if I noted you collectively, commercially removed shortly after detailing the tens of millions of pounds that the Scottish Government is providing. I think that there has to be a moral responsibility, as we have raised issues about funding going to companies that have historically blank listed or don't treat their staff well. Is there an opportunity to revisit this, commercially removed or not, to have a situation where we don't have people who quite legitimately are presumed to be Scottish Government employees, not in receipt of the real living wage? I don't recall commending the national living wage, but I've obviously checked the official report in relation to that. I don't think that the national living wage is what people should be paid. I think that it should be the real living wage, which is what I said in the response to Mr Smyth. We want to see as many people as possible. Of course, in Scotland we have, I think, 81.6 per cent of employees paid the real living wage, which is the highest of any of the countries in the UK. We want to keep driving that up, and I want to see the airport paying that living wage, and they have a plan to do that. That's what's important. You'll know the way that these things work. It's very often the case when the Living Wage Foundation goes on to speak to organisations to encourage them to pay the living wage, what they are interested in doing is getting to a stage where it's paid, and sometimes there's a process to achieve that. That's what Presswick are undergoing. In relation to the fact that the Government has billed out the airport, as has been said, yes, we did that because hundreds of people would have lost their jobs. In fact, depending on the assessment that you took, thousands of people would have lost their jobs. We've done that to save jobs in the first place, but having put the money in, the capital monies that have gone in to try and help to turn the airport around, we are at a move from the commercial decisions that the airport makes. Yes, there's a moral responsibility here. We will continue to put the moral and the economic argument for payment of real living wage. I'm pleased that Presswick at least have recognised that by the plan that they have to move to paying everybody the real living wage. You don't see any leverage connected with the monies that you put over, because a lot of people would presume that that would be significant leverage. You'll get this presuming that you meet the legitimate terms and conditions that we would expect if Scotland was unemployed. I think that, as you say, there is moral and other leverage in terms of the arguments that we're making. We've done that over a period of time with Presswick. I'd like to think that that was part of what helped Presswick get to the place that it is at now, where people will be paid the real living wage. I think that it's by 2020 that they intend to do it. I'll meet with the non-executive members of the board next week and, again, I'll put those arguments to them. I think that there's not just a moral case, there is a moral case for paying somebody a wage that they can live on, but there's also an economic benefit to companies doing that as well. Can I move on to Richard Ritchard? You know what I've said in the past, I believe, that Presswick is the dual in our crown, and basically we should do as much as we can to support it. But I note also for the comments that he made earlier. Passing the numbers are up 24,000 and eight people on last year, but they've actually fallen 216,331 since 2014. You've also said that this airport is open and bad weather. It can cope with other things. You're going to meet the board next week. I look forward to visiting it on 4 June. I'll be pressing these points. What is the board doing to encourage more airfrates, more aircraft? It's only been operated by Ryanair. As I said before, I was in at 1 Thursday night at 11 o'clock, and I was the only person of the public in that building on that night before a flight came in. So what are we doing to improve and encourage people to go to Presswick and airlines to operate out of Presswick? Sorry for the long rant. You answer that. There's an answerary question, which links into that from the deputy convener. I'd like to just bring her in, if I may, at the stage. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Michelle Cameron's address comes right on the back of Richard Lyle's question. In February, Ryanair announced that it was closing its base in Glasgow, and it was reducing its flights from 23 to 3. Should we not be seeing that as an opportunity, as Richard Lyle says, to be increasing the flights out of Presswick, given that it's Ryanair in question? I think that on the last point raised by Gail Ross, if you go back two or three years in the reverse situation that occurred where Glasgow would have felt that Presswick were taking, if you like, business away from Glasgow, and people know that Ryanair moved around quite a bit. They've also had major cutbacks at Edinburgh, then reinstated many of those additional routes as well. That is part of the extremely competitive nature of what airports—in Scotland, the airport sector is extremely healthy. Yes, if it's an opportunity there, then it is for the boards and those who work at the airport to make sure that they exploit those opportunities. To come back to Richard Lyle's point, of course, that is the ability of the members that will carry out the visit to ask the board directly what they are doing, but from what I know the board is doing, yes, there is a lot of work done on providing incentive packages for new routes and new business to come in from passengers, and yes, they are finding that difficult to do. There is no question of that. However, they are seeing substantial success in terms of maintenance operations with the company Chevron on site and operating at capacity. They are taking flights which are diverted from elsewhere, which is very lucrative. They are also getting more business in terms of fueling for aircraft as well. It has always been the case that Prestwick does not have quite the same composition as Glasgow and Edinburgh and other airports in Scotland. They have other things that they can offer and they have sought to increase as they have done in the business that they have in these other areas as well. However, there is no question that there is real pressure in terms of passenger traffic. It would be best if individual members of the committee take the chance and meet the board to find out in more detail what they are doing to try to address that. This is a wholly-owned item that the Scottish Government is separate from the owners who own other airports. There are landing fees. Can, like Prestwick, undercut Glasgow and Edinburgh on landing fees to encourage more airlines to go there? You will find that all airports have discretion in terms of landing fees, and they can use that as a package to attract new routes. That is fairly common practice in the industry. However, that is again a decision for the board. It goes with that they can offer marketing support. The Scottish Government has to be agnostic between the airports. If we were to be involved in a package supporting a new route to Scotland, we would have to be neutral as between which airports. You have seen the work that we have done to get direct flights to China, Edinburgh and a number of flights to Glasgow and Aberdeen as well. We do not just support Prestwick airports, but we can support them as well as other airports. On the loan, the information that you have just given us this morning about the loans to Prestwick, you have just told us that up to now it is £38 million and that there is another £8 million coming down the line, which takes us to over £46 million. You have also told us that the Scottish Government, although it owns it, operates armours length, and it is a commercial decision that the board makes. I am a bit puzzled why we are plowing another £8 million of taxpayers' money into Prestwick airport. Obviously, if it is making commercial decisions, then it should be able to raise money commercially. Is it the case that they cannot do that, or is this just a case of a taxpayer's money bid, and are we going to be loaning even more money? We are going to be loaning more money. I have mentioned the potential to additional loan funding for next year. Beyond that, it will be, of course, according to budgets. Yes, it is the case initially that they could not raise that money elsewhere. Infertil, when they sold the airport, they sold it to the Scottish Government for £1. That tells you quite a bit about the financial situation that the airport was in. I think that whenever we do make these loans, we make sure that it is, for example, mentioned about the condition of the airport and for those who have been to the airport before it was bought by the Scottish Government. Since then, you will see the change in infrastructure that is there round about the hotel, especially at the front of the airport and in the main passenger area at the front as well. There was a huge backlog of work to be done in terms of maintenance and improvement of the airport. A lot of the money that has been drawn down has been drawn down for that purpose. Realising capital assets. It may well be that future loan funding helps to provide further facilities. Hangar space is, of course, the open question of a spaceport. Presswick is in the running to be designated or when a license for a spaceport. It is a different kind of airport from other airports. We do provide the funding and, yes, they would have struggled to get funding from other commercial sources, although the money that we loan is loaned on commercial terms. I will follow that up by just asking if that is the case. It cannot raise this money commercially and it has come to the Scottish Government for this money and you are loaning it to them on commercial terms. That is a concern to me because, thinking about the taxpayer, what position if you could give us an idea when do you think the taxpayer will get this money back, if ever? That is my question, really. Our intention, and we have said that from the start, is that the taxpayer will get this money back. I suppose that there are two ways that that can happen. One is if we can get the situation where we turn it around such that the income is coming in and we are getting the money back because we are having to pay the money back just now. That is the basis of the loan. They have to repay it on commercial terms. If they can then get the business through that allows them to pay that over the term of the loan, then we get the money back at that stage and far more besides, they continue employment of hundreds of people and hundreds of others that are reliant on the airport for their livelihoods. The second way, of course, is if it was to be the case that the airport was purchased by somebody else, we would make sure that the taxpayers' interests were looked after and that eventuality as well. The cabinet secretary said that things are heading in the right direction in your opening statement, but since the Government took ownership of the airport in the past four years, passenger numbers have fallen, aircraft movement numbers have fallen and freight volumes have fallen. The cabinet secretary says that more money may be made available if he is happy that there is a successful strategic plan in place. Given the relative lack of success and progress so far, how confident is the cabinet secretary that the current structures and strategies in place are heading in the right direction and that we will be able to turn the airport around? On the face of it, it does not seem to be doing so to date. I think that the member rightly points to the fact that, once the Government had bought the airport, it was losing passenger traffic hand over fist, it was losing routes, it was losing freight traffic. It is bound to have continued on that trajectory, but what I am saying is that we are seeing increases—I mentioned the increase in passenger traffic and freight traffic. It also has a much more business-focused approach to it. Infratil had other interests as well as Presswick airport. We have now got a very focused approach in Presswick airport. We have satisfied ourselves with the strategic case that has been made by the airport. Of course, individual members will get the chance—I think that the member may have taken the chance already—to ask directly the boards of their plans to do that. Yes, we believe that it is worth investing in the benefits to Scotland or worth our investment at the level that I have mentioned. That being said, I am aware that there are commercial opportunities there for the airport to grow. Specific around private aviation, which is often purported to be one of the elements where the airport could see growth. However, there is a problem there in that the airport is not allowing private operators to come into the airport to run their businesses. A lot of the companies that were there, when the state ownership came into place and effectively lost their businesses because of the state aid rules, still want to use Presswick airport and come back to provide competitive services such as ground handling services to what has already been offered to customers. Lack of competition is, in fact, inhibiting the growth in jet aviation at the airport. I appreciate that there is an arms-length situation there, but I press on the cabinet secretary to take that up with the management team that they should and ought to be more flexible to private companies coming to the airport and reinvesting in it, especially the ones who used to be there before the public took ownership. I cannot do that. The particular case that the member mentioned was a contractual decision taken by the airport for reasons that have to satisfy themselves are commercially sound. From the information, because the issue was raised by other people at the time, and I looked into it at the time, they are both entitled to take that decision and I think convinced that that was the best commercial decision for the airport. However, I do not get any sense that they are turning away private sector business, including private jets. I think that they are doing that. If you look at the investment that I have mentioned Chevron already and other companies, they are quite open. If the committee members have suggestions to the boards and the executives about further opportunities, I would expect that they would want to take those up. I cannot comment on the individual contractual case that is mentioned, but I am satisfied that there is a very welcoming approach to the private sector and there should be. Of course, the committee can further satisfy themselves with that when they meet with the board directly. I wonder whether it will be helpful in connection with the question that we have just had, if the cabinet secretary can confirm that there remains a private flying base, there is a light aircraft maintenance company on there, business aviation aircraft is welcome, and AvGas, LL-100 and AvTour JP-4 are available, thus providing all the facilities that private aircraft might require at an airport. I have forgotten about AvJ-2P-4, but yes, I mean these things are here. I think that I mentioned earlier on that these are, especially in terms of refueling, lucrative activities for the airport, as it is if a plane is diverted from another airport because of weather reasons. That is lucrative business for the airport, and they are very well aware of that. I did have a suggestion before that we took over that they might want to brand themselves as something of a resilience airport for that very purpose. That also would require capital investment. There are other things that the airport does, which the committee members can ask about when they meet with them directly, which are probably not best for the public domain, about the different facilities at the airport. However, there is nothing in my mind that says that the company, the board, is turning away private business. In fact, exactly the reverse is keen to welcome it. We are going to leave that there and move on to Kate with the next question. Thank you very much. I would like to take the questions on to the Queen's Ferry crossing now and ask if the cabinet secretary could provide an update on progress in completing the minor works on the crossing that was highlighted in Michelle Rennie's letter to the committee in January? Michelle Rennie is here, but the snagging works that I mentioned and which I mentioned in previous committee meetings are in progress. Of course, it is the case that key members of the previous consortium left when the completion of the crossing itself, in terms of its opening, at least, happened. To some extent, the transfer of responsibility for the crossing from myself to Humza Yousaf is now an operational road, so he has those responsibilities. From memory, I think that the snagging works and other works that we have done have to be completed by September, and that is in progress. Kate, are you pushing on the snagging list of where it is? I get confused, cabinet secretary, if it would be quite helpful, that when we ask the dividing between Humza Yousaf and you on this, until the work is actually complete, my understanding is that it still falls within your portfolio, and that is Humza's position on it. I was just confused about whether Michelle would be in a position to give us an update on the snagging. I do not mean to cut across your bowels, but would it be useful to have a position of where we are on the items? I think that what we provided to you was a list of target dates that the contractor gave us, and I think that we described at that time that none of those dates were contractually binding other than the September date, so I think that what we can say is that snagging works are progressing and that they are intending to be complete by September. Maybe it would be possible for the committee—I think that your letter is dated 8 January 2018 with the snagging list—maybe it would be helpful to the committee to have an updated list of where we are on all the snagging issues that were referred to in that letter. There are issues that, when you come over the bridge say on 7 May and 21 May, we are back to one lane travel again. One of those is a bank holiday day. I have to say that reducing the bridge to one lane on both directions on a bank holiday perhaps seems an odd day to me, but it would be quite useful to have an updated list for the committee. On the fourth road bridge, which is now a public and active travel facility, there has been some talk of car drivers continuing to use that bridge. What are Transport Scotland, Amy and Police Scotland doing to ensure that that is not the case? Quite right, that is the designation of that bridge, and that was always the intention, in fact, in legislation that it would be a public transport corridor. I was just pointing out that the traffic that uses that, including buses, has legal ability to travel on the new crossing as well if they choose to do that, but the advantage would be far less traffic on the bridge. We have had the reverse happen where some car drivers have wrongly used the public transport corridor, so we have reflected a bit on how it is working and the company that operates it and the process of enhancing the existing signings to make sure that where it is happening it is not happening because of any confusion that might be in the minds of drivers just to provide additional clarity and to support the compliance with its public transport corridor designation. That work is programmed by the end of this month and the early next month. Of course, the police always have the ability to enforce those restrictions and they will continue to monitor and patrol the fourth road bridge where operational demands allow. I think that they have taken a very consider and sensible approach to it so far, but it is not going to be a continued excuse for people to say that they are unaware of the restrictions that are on the bridge, but there has obviously been a period of change that we are going through just now. The additional signage will help that situation. There are no penalties for drivers for using the wrong bridge. There are no penalties for car drivers. If they are charged by the police, then yes, I will be plenty with that. Going back, there is a piece in the herald today around contractor court cases. I do not know if I have been able to see it yet. I wondered if the Scottish Government was aware of the cases and whether it was likely to be involved in any way. We are aware of them, but no, they are, I think, disputes not unusually, to be honest, between different elements of the contracting partners involved and that is really for those contracting partners to resolve between themselves, but we are not aware and it will not have an impact on the budgets for the bridge. The next question is from John Scott. Thanks very much, convener, and moving to another subject, which would be high-speed rail, HS2. We understand that there have been some discussions between Transport Scotland, Government, Network Rail, HS2 and so on about once there is high-speed rail to Manchester and Leeds, I think, on how that will impact on Scotland and how we move forward from that. Are you able to give us any updates on that or comments? I can to some extent, so I had conversations with the Secretary of State for Transport. I think that the last time directly was last year, and I have made the point consistently to the UK Government that simply saying that there will be benefits from high-speed rail south of the border and that Scotland might benefit from that is not the benefit that we are seeking or the sole benefit. We have made the case that high-speed rail will have to come to Scotland. If you think of either the east coast or the west coast main line, the west coast main line in particular, on which around £9 billion was spent just a few years ago to upgrade it, now substantially at capacity, if you improve high-speed rail to the midlands and do not improve it beyond that, you are still going to have those choke points. The only way that we can see to resolve that and the work that has been done jointly with ourselves and the UK Government is to, if at least, introduce elements of high-speed rail north of the border. There has been a joint working group, which is called the North of HS2 to Scotland working group, and it comprises a partner, which the member mentioned. It prioritises a short list of potential infrastructure enhancements on both the east and the west coast main lines that merit further study. We have commissioned ourselves a feasibility study into two of the better performing options among those that have been previously identified by the work. We have already carried out to help to improve jake train journey times, capacity, resilience and reliability on services between Scotland and England. The studies will focus on the east coast line south of Dumbart towards Newcastle, the west coast line between Glasgow and Carsthears. Our arguments, too, are underpinned by the UK Government's own commitment. I think that it was Patrick McLaughlin, as transport secretary, who spoke to his party conference and said that it would be a three-hour committee to a three-hour journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow and London. You cannot achieve that in our view, and that is not challenged without elements of high-speed rail in Scotland. We are using that as a basis for our discussions with the UK Government. If I am understanding you correctly, there would be different stages in that. If there are elements of high-speed rail in Scotland or at least north of Manchester and Leeds, the high-speed trains would be able to come all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh at varying speeds. One of the fears has been that they would be going slower through Cumbria, I guess, and the south of Scotland, where there is a lot of bends and so on, than the present west coast trains that are designed for that route. Am I correct understanding that that is the interim solution, but in the longer term we want full, proper high-speed rail all the way to Scotland? Exactly right. We have said that, but what we can reasonably be expected to hold the UK Government to is its commitment to a three-hour journey time. It is possible to achieve that three-hour journey time with less than full high-speed rail all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow, but we have that ambition to have full high-speed rail all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is not possible to achieve it without some elements. You mentioned either gradients or bends in certain parts, especially in the south of Scotland, especially in the west coast rail line. That is where it comes in stretches of high-speed rail, which allow high-speed trains to run at full speed if you are going to meet that three-hour journey time. I say that that is not the solution. There is a number of options, and I am happy to furnish the committee, convener, if you want me to do that, with the options that we currently have so that you can see where the working is. If I can one more question that, I think that would be great if we could get something like that. Broadly speaking, on finance, would the UK Government pay for anything from Manchester to Carlyle, and would we pay for any improvements between Carlyle and Glasgow and Edinburgh? The Scottish Government would pay for it under current arrangements. From the discussions that we have had and they are not complete, it would likely be consequentials that would flow from the monies that are spent south of the border, and we would expect to use those consequentials to pay for, and perhaps additional monies to pay for, high-speed rail north of the border. It is just a little question that relates to a previous UK Government commitment, and when I say previous, I mean quite a long time ago, on what is now HS1, where part of the channel tunnel project promised that there would be international trains run from both Glasgow and Edinburgh through the tunnel, and indeed the rolling stock was in fact purchased, but subsequently sold without any of those trains having run. In considering that, has that subject returned again to part of the discussion between the Governments, because clearly the attraction of being able to get on a train in Edinburgh or Glasgow and decant in Paris, Brussels or as the new HS1 route has just started to Amsterdam, would be quite attractive and highly supportive for things like climate change rather than flying? As in many things, the member's memory is far longer than mine, but I do recall those rolling stock being bought, commitments being made and then being ditched pretty much overnight. I would not say that there has been a minister-to-minister discussion on the issue that I have raised with my officials, exactly the point that the member mentions. Not just the attractiveness of being able to get on in Paris or Brussels to go to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, for example, but the ability to do so perhaps on a sleeper train would be very attractive for many people. It involves, as the member might be aware, even from the preliminary inquiries that I have made of officials, some major work, especially at St Pancras, in order to see you not least with Brexit, how you facilitate immigration and things like that. I think that that would be a tremendous thing to see, but no, we are not involved in direct discussions with the UK Government on that subject. Thank you, so we do now move to the next question, which is Mike. I want to focus on the initial question on the route selection for the A96. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, as well as myself and other members from the north-east, were at a meeting with the SAVE Beniki campaigners, so I know that the Cabinet Secretary is very well aware of this issue. They are saying that they are very concerned, as we approach the choice of the route, that they are concerned that desktop studies are going on, and only after a route is selected is a site study work done, and they would be very concerned that this is not sufficiently comprehensive to address all the issues in what they call a proper manner. Are they right that this is the process that will be undergone? Is it just desktop studies that are going on, or is there a site study work being done on each of those routes so that the decision makers have all the information that is available to them? Can I just ask if that relates to the Beniki stretch, that specific question? Yes, I think that there is much more work going on. As the member knows, we had, apart from anything else, that presentation from the action group that I had hoped to perform now to go to visit the site itself, but I had to call off at the last minute, but that is getting rearranged in the diary, so I can see for myself the particular issues around there. However, there is also a ground investigation of the work going on, perhaps in the process issue. It would be best to hear from Michelle, rather than me, but certainly I want to have heard, and not just heard when we met with her along with herself and others, but the representations that I received beforehand wanted to see more about that. They have also raised the issue of whether what is called a co-creation process can be put in place. We are looking at that just now. We have one example of having undertaken that on the A9 project, so we are looking at that. That would represent far more than a desktop study, but it is perhaps best to hear from Michelle, if that is okay. There is a variety of different work happening right across the A96 development. As you will appreciate, it is quite a complex programme, and it is reliant on detail about what happens locally, whether that is about the topography of the land, the sites of special scientific interests, any particular features, flooding, hydrological surveys, geology—a whole variety of things are taken into that mix. Although a desktop study might not appear on the face of it to be sufficiently detailed to somebody who is not familiar with that kind of work, a phenomenal amount of information can be gained as a consequence of a desktop study. That is not to say that the people who are involved in that work are not familiar with the landscape that they are dealing with, and they are not familiar with the issues that that landscape involves. In the development of all those projects, Transport Scotland and our technical advisers, who you can imagine are pretty experienced in that kind of work, take a whole variety of factors into account in arriving at conclusion. The process that we follow is the process that is outlined in the design manual for roads and bridges, so it is a best practice, if you like, in terms of the development of road schemes. We follow that across all of our projects. If I could just follow Michelle's reply. I am surprised—there is only a person involved with this—that, on all the projects—you are quite rightly taking a long time to decide on the most appropriate route to recommend to the minister—it is surprising to the campaigners and people who are involved with it who want to protect the iconic Benahee—that it is being done by a desktop study. You are saying that is the standard practice that you always undertake when you are developing routes. It is just surprising to me that when you are making the final recommendation to the minister that the teams have not been out on the routes themselves. The teams have been out on the routes. What do you mean by a desktop study then? I suppose that is what we call it. We produce reports on the basis of all the information that is available to us. Not only do we do that, we have a significant amount of engagement with local communities. As you have heard in the cabinet secretary's speech, that involves speaking to thousands of people right across those routes. I suppose that the term desktop study is misleading because it suggests that something is happening in isolation in a darkened room almost. That is not what is happening. There is a lot of engagement and a lot of knowledge gained about the area. Some of that information is gained through reference to details that are already there. Thank you very much. That is exactly what I wanted. The term, as you have just expressed, might give a wrong impression to the delay of folk. My final question in this area is both on the A9 and the A96. Are there any current known issues that could lead to delays in either of those projects? The cabinet secretary was saying that everything seems to be on track in your opening statement. The biggest uncertainty is always the issue of public inquiries. If you have quite a number of those, that can start to extend the timelines. However, the way in which we have approached it, and I will go back to the last point, I mentioned in my opening statement that we had had more than 1,000 in one case and more than 1,400 in another case on the A96 in terms of public engagement. Part of the benefit of that is obviating in a way the need for public inquiries if the people who are consulted feel that they are happy with what is proposed. On the extent to which we can minimise that, of course, it is a part of the democratic process, and we always observe that. However, if we can put enough information out there that it does not result in a public inquiry, that helps. However, that is probably always the biggest risk to public infrastructure projects, public inquiries. If you think back to the Billy Denny power line, that was the longest public inquiry in the Scottish District last year, but we do not expect that, based on our current projections, to affect the 2025 or 2030 opening dates. I am going to go to Kate, John and Peter first. On the A9, you mentioned the earlier answer to Jamie Greene around the electric vehicle charging points. Are they being considered currently as you are progressing with the jewelling project, or will that be a project separate to the jewelling? I said that I had called it the electric avenue. That shows my age. That was an old song by somebody called Eddie Grant. It was an electric highway, I think, where we are talking about. Both things are being considered together. Just incidentally, on the A9, we are also looking to try and capture the active travel route, which is there, which has not been well maintained in previous years, to make sure that that is part of the future contract, so that it is well maintained. I do not know if you want to see that. That is right. The two things are being progressed in parallel. People are presumably off the A9 and into some of the smaller villages that you mentioned down that highway. Depending on where the charging points are. Have you noticed any increase in traffic on the A82 with the jewelling works going on on the A9? I am afraid that I am not able to give you that information at the moment, but I am quite happy to supply you with something afterwards. John Finch-Everett, I think that at a previous committee meeting, I raised the issue of the co-creative process with you, and I think that I have written and been grateful for the positive response that I received. It is not necessarily reflected by, as I understand, the approach that is taken by transport Scotland officials who seem considerably less enthusiastic about that level of public engagement. Is it something that you would be, because I know in response to Mr Rumbles that you suggested that that might be an option for the stretch of road there? Of course, the frustration that a lot of people have is that notwithstanding their engagement, this is going to happen. Something is going to happen anyway. Your officials should they be picking up more positively on this? To be fair, it was the officials that proposed this in the first place. That is where the suggestion came from, from transport Scotland. The instance in which it is being used currently is the first time, so we are trying to learn lessons from that. It is true to say that some things have taken longer to put in place than we expected, and we are quite keen not to undermine the target dates that we have for those projects. However, I would also say that the instance that has been done already is a part of the A&I that has, and is applied, I suppose, to some measure in nearly all of the A&I, but around Dunkeld that area, the conflicts in railways, communities, their use of roads, on and off roads, which are there, small villages and settlements next. It is a very complicated series of challenges that we have, and I think that is why it is well suited to a co-creative process, so that people feel that there are going to be some tough decisions at the end of it, but they feel that they have had their say and they have maybe changed the decisions based on what has come out through that. I think that we are, to some extent, feeling our way through this process, and that seems to me to be the place where it is most appropriate, where you have a number of large conflicts. I am not sure that that is the case across, say, a 96 in different areas. It may be, and I have said and I have said to Transport Scotland that they should maintain an open mind, but I have to say that it was Transport Scotland that came up with this idea in the first place, but we do have to keep an eye on how long the process takes and try to make it as quickly as possible, if we can do that. It is not about whether you have a co-creative process or not so much. If we need to have one, it is more about the timing of the co-creative process and where you can best use that kind of a process. As Mr Brown says, it is particularly useful in the scenario that we have on the A9 at the moment, although we still have to learn the lessons from that process. We are at a much earlier stage of project development. The advice that we are receiving is that it probably would not be as useful at that point because we still have to go through the process that we are going through just now in order to arrive at a preferred route option. It was not my intention to come in on this issue, but since the cabinet secretary offered that as an option to Mr Rumbles, I am just concerned that there is a potential for tokenism here. There is the possibility of a more in-depth system of engagement, but we will decide when it is appropriate. I appreciate the time imperatives, not least in respect of the contract, but also on another issue that I have raised about roundabouts versus grade, separate to junctions, the overall journey time imperative. However, you either have meaningful engagement or you don't. I would have thought that someone from the Dunkeld experience would have been in a better position to understand the benefits or perhaps otherwise of that system. Perhaps if you could have a longer conversation about why it has taken longer than it is expected, including the appointment of consultants and some of the reasons behind that stretching out, that would give a greater understanding, but it is not a question of whether you are either for engagement or not. Engagement is carried out in a number of ways. The public exhibitions that are held are very well attended and are very open to anybody. A lot of people get the information they need from that. In the case of Dunkeld, there was a complicated series of conflicts, if you like, and that is why we found it to be appropriate. It is not unreasonable to say that this is the first time that we have done it, but we want to learn lessons from it. It is not a prejudice against doing it again. If you think that it is appropriate to do that, or if another level of engagement is said through public exhibitions and discussions in community meetings, it is not the right way to do it. If it is not enough, we will keep that as an option. We should have the ability to learn the lessons from what we have done so far. Peter, you want to come in. Fairly detailed questions. Maybe Michelle's remit. It is about the A96. Is the option Q still on the table, which is the one that goes via Meldrum? It would obviously help Aberdeen Bamfroad as a consequence of looking at that route. Is that option still on the table, or has that been ruled out? I heard that it had been ruled out. I cannot give you an update on precisely what options are still here at this moment in time, but I am happy to write to the committee and provide that detail. John Finnie is the next question. Cabinet Secretary, we looked at existing projects and discussed some past projects. I would like to ask some questions about the strategic transport projects review. I understand from my papers that Transport Scotland issued a contract notice on 10 May. Are you able to set out the timescale for this exercise and how Parliament would become involved, please? That would be for Michelle to answer. That is a convener in Humza Yousaf's remit. I think that the committee asked about that recently last week. It is Humza that will take that forward, not myself. The major transport projects that I am responsible are the ones that I feel like I was responsible for previously and continue those until they are completed. Transport is in the Humza Yousaf area. Do you want to come back on that, Michelle? We anticipate that the next strategic transport projects review will be available in 2020. A commitment has been made to completing it within the lifetime of this Parliament, so we are still on track to making that happen. It will happen in parallel with the national transport strategy. There is a significant amount of consultation going on with both. We are still on track with all of that. We will only be in a position to, if you like, retrospectively question you on issues. You could not comment on future major projects. I am responsible for a series of major projects, so the fourth crossing, the A9A96M8 Bundle, previously pressed with airport. Transport generally is the remit of the Minister for Transport, and he will have the responsibility for the STPR going forward. That is the only point that I was making there. Some confusion. I get confused—I share John's confusion—of a major transport projects. Major transport projects, cabinet secretary, still fall under you, or do they fall under? I have mentioned a number of times previously to the committee the specific projects that I have mentioned. Major projects other than that come under the remit of Humza Yousaf. I think that I did offer previously, and I think that we did write to the committee with that clarification, but I am happy to do so again, convener. What would be helpful as major transport projects are identified is that committee knows who is responsible for them, because it may be that some of those are passed to you. I think that that would be helpful to know. I am going to bring Gail in. I am sorry, John. Do you want to come back on that? I do see those questions for you, cabinet secretary. It would be devastating to know that I am… Can I maybe make it a more political level, then? The cabinet clearly has a number of priorities. There are priorities around the climate change, the issues around low-carbon infrastructure, and part of the Government's commitment was to establish a just transition committee. We talked about the electric vehicles in the A9. I am trying to understand how all the issues come together. I understand demarcations in portfolios, but, for instance, I will give you an example. I appreciate that this is not your portfolio, but if we have a commitment with trains that are diesel for 15 years, but ScotRail is quite rightly trying to future-proof any upgrades of car parks with electric vehicles and the Government has a commitment around that, then you are going to have people perhaps plugging in electric vehicles at a station with a diesel that would be rolled out elsewhere and pulling up at that station with a commitment. It seems that there is an awful lot of things that have to come together, and, whilst accepting that that might not have manifested itself into individual major projects, which we can discuss with you in the future, are you able to discuss how that will be pulled together? Certainly. First of all, I should say that the STPR covers far more than major projects. There is a very large number of much more minor projects, and it is Hamza Yousaf that is taking that forward. You mentioned the just transition group. Because I am responsible for trade unions, I am involved in discussions with the trade unions about just transition, which, in case other members might be unaware, is just the transition between very labour-intensive industries and automation, moving them to much less labour-intensive and making sure that transitions are as fair and as effective as possible for people involved in it. Yes, the discussions that we have are certainly at cabinet, so the climate change targets, the environmental legislation being brought forward by Rosanna Currie. That will have benefitted from discussion among all cabinet secretaries beforehand, and we will have covered things, just as you mentioned electric charging points. On a bigger scale, how many ways would you intend to do or what the prevalence of electric charging points should be or the electric highway idea? Those things are considered together, and they are considered at cabinet. I am just making the point that the responsibilities for them being taken forward are in this case with Fergus Ewing and Rosanna Cunningham. On the diesel trains, if that is what the members are asking, of course, with the electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow line and the introduction of electric trains there, there will be a roll-out of some of the diesel stock to other parts of the country. Sometimes that will be more efficient, the diesel stock, and of course the ability to have just electric trains on the network really requires us to electrify the entire network, and that would take some time and some money to put it mildly. We, of course, have the ambition to get as much of the network electrified as possible. In my own area, for example, both Stirling and Dumblain have substantial progress that has been made, but it is also true in shots in other parts of the country as well. We have had that electrification. I just want to get a handle, too. You are responsible for on-going contracts—the M8, Bundle, all the different other things—and big contracts. Who decides the future big contracts, such as a new bypass in Ayrshire and a new road going to Stranra? We have now completed MA, Greensfield Crossing, AWPR and all the A9. What is the next big project that you can take care of, in complete, on time and on budget? Who decides—the First Minister decides. The large-scale transport projects, with the exception of the ones that I have mentioned, which I have answered questions on previously to this committee a number of times, are the responsibility for HUMSA use of as a transport minister and Fergus Ewing at cabinet level. The projects that I am responsible for are the ones by and large because the First Minister saw having been involved with him for a number of years beforehand and seeing those through to completion. You mentioned the M8, Bundle, the A9, the A96, the Greensfield Crossing, and the Presbych airport, because they have been involved in that previously. Those are the projects for which I am responsible for new projects and the contracts that go along with them. All the major roads projects that we have discussed today are in the north of Scotland, and that is fantastic news for that part of Scotland. You can travel from Inverness on trunk roads for 200 miles south, and not see a village or a town or have to drive through them until you hit Ayrshire or Dumfries and Galloway. If you are travelling to the busiest ferry port in Scotland at Cairn Rhine, you will have to travel through village after village after village after village at 30mph to get to that area. You know from your role as economy secretary the massive impact that has on the economy of the south of Scotland. It is the lowest-paid economy part of the country. At what point do you get involved, as the economy secretary, to make sure that the economic case for the A77 or the A75 is taken into account when it comes to determining what the future strategic roads are, given the lack of investment in those roads over many years? I would refute that. You are right to say, as Patrick McLaughlin once said, that the problem of the transport infrastructure in Scotland is that it has not had investment for decades. He was speaking three or four years ago, but he is speaking as somebody who was a transport minister back in 1989. I think that it is right to say that there is a legacy of under investment. If you just heard the litany of different projects on which you were responsible, including, for example, the Borders Railway, the biggest piece of rail infrastructure or rail line built in the UK for over 100 years, I do not think that it is true to say that the south of Scotland is not featured in those things. Also, the Mable bypass plans, the Del Rai bypass, the work that is being carried out at Dunragett. There has been work that is carried out, but the future projects will be those that are taken forward by the transport minister. Of course, in terms of the economic impact, there is a much wider discussion. The south of Scotland enterprise partnership and what will become the south of Scotland agency will be involved in that. As cabinet members, we have all met previously in the south of Scotland. We have had representations. We are all party to those decisions, but in terms of transport projects, we will be taken forward by the transport portfolio with Humza Yousaf and FGSUM. West of Scotland transport study and the output from that will be included in STPR2. I just wanted to get clarification on why that is happening. Is this review something that would have been happening anyway as part of your governmental term or has something prompted it? We undertook a review in 2008 of STPR1. That review recommended 29 strategic transport interventions at that time. Those interventions have largely been delivered or in the process of being delivered. Because of that and because the world has moved on from then, it now seems like the right time to look at what our future national transport strategy is and, on the back of that, identify what the strategic transport projects going forward ought to be. That will be considered across a multi-modal function, including buses, active travel, ferries, right across the range. It will consider everything. I am right in saying that when you go on to dual the rest of the A9 up to Scrabster, it will be Mr Yousaf and Mr Ewing that I will have to interact with for that. I think that I will let them answer that question, convener, if I can. Of course, you will know about the work that we intend to do at the Berrydale brace. Briefly, John and Jamie, so John, if it is a brief question. Yes, thank you. I get that the responsibility is at the most strategic level, but how do you address the understandable concerns that are the length and breadth of the country that, although perhaps the major infrastructure is being enhanced all around it, the other infrastructure, which I accept, will tell me is the responsibility for local authorities, is not being maintained, repaired or replaced? Surely there comes a tipping point where all the benefits of having, if you would view them as benefits of having, dual roads are going to be lost if everything off it is a substand. I do have to meet your expectations and say that, of course, it is not just a political division of responsibility, it is a legal one. Local authorities are the roads authorities, so when I was a local authority leader, if the Government had come in and said that we were going to do this to this road, I would probably say yes, thanks for the money, but we will take control of that because we are the responsible roads authority. There are sometimes distinctions there, so part of the proposals in the Asia growth deal are for us to be involved in a road, which is not our road, and also one that you may be familiar with yourself, the long and roundabout part of that project is not in the Scottish Government's remit, but we are working with local authorities. I have previously made, as a transport minister, that they offer two local authorities where they have, I think, just an example you have given of, say, a dual carriage where a major road is butting on to local roads, as it will inevitably do, that we should look to jointly work in those areas as well and make an open invitation to councils to come forward to the Scottish Government if they want to do that. That was some time ago, and it is obviously some time since I have been a transport minister, so I do not know the extent to which that has progressed, but that offer is there, two local authorities for that joint working. I think that what is really quite encouraging in some areas, I think again that the Aershires is the willingness of local authorities to work together across their boundaries to, more effectively, look after the roads. 96 per cent of the roads in Scotland are local authority roads, about 4 per cent are Scottish Government controlled roads. In our committee papers, we have a very helpful table provided around snagging works in the Queensbury crossing. It details the work item of an on-going or planned work and it has a target date. We appreciate its perhaps an estimated date. I put in a freedom of information request for the same piece of information for the M8, M3 and M4. I was helpful given half the table and a list of works, but my request for target dates was met with the response that the Scottish Government did not have the information that I requested and therefore they refused my request under FOI. Could you explain why you have it for the Queensbury crossing but not the other piece of infrastructure project? Would you consider producing a list of target dates for the snagging works on that piece of road? I think that it's best if I let Tim Wishaw into that. I suppose to put it most simply, the two projects are let on quite different forms of contract and there are different requirements in each form of contract. We can only give you information that we hold. The contractor on the M8 has told us that he intends to complete the works, the any outstanding works this summer, but he hasn't given us a detailed breakdown of how he intends to complete those works. I'm going to relent Stuart. I may regret it, I hope not. Stuart, it's a short question from you. It is short. I just wondered if in project management terms it would be normal for the Government to have access to the work breakdown structure that is an integral and very detailed part of the project management system. We tend to have access to, I suppose, what you would call a strategic programme on these major projects, where there are effectively fairly minor works. It would be less likely for us to have that information. Actually, the contractor needs the flexibility to be able to move his resources around the site as whether conditions and resources allows. I guess from back, I can just say to the previous discussion that we've had at this committee about the nature of contracts and the extent to which you want to be prescriptive. You can be endlessly prescriptive and you can also work to absolutely minimise risk, but you'll see the cost of projects starting to go up, and perhaps the willingness of contractors to come forward to bid for them to reduce as well. We do have to strike a balance. We're always willing to look at how we do that, but we do have to give contractors—we found it—the balance that we have just now given them that discretion is very important. Queensferry crossing was funded in a very different way, of course, with direct government funding. Finally, we can't release information that we don't have, obviously. That neatly leads on to the question that I have regarding your experience of major contracts that you've mentioned already today. A lot of those contracts are overseen by partnership or joint ventures, which then rely on subcontractors, in many cases small SME businesses. Do you feel that those businesses are getting a good deal and are benefiting from the Government's business pledge in 2015 to make sure that their invoices are promptly paid, or do you think that they're not getting a good deal? I think that we have—the Government has a very good record of paying promptly where we've got the responsibility to do so. Sometimes, of course, that's done by local authorities. I'm aware of a couple of particular instances where it's been three or four days late. That's happened, but I think that, Jen, we've got a very good track record in ensuring prompt payment. Also, there is investigation of project bank accounts as a means of trying to further improve that. There's also a lot of discussion about blockchain technology if that can be used to make it more efficient and effective. I think that we have a good track record in relation to that. The business pledge, where it's down for individual companies to sign up to that, then they have to look to their—that's part of the business pledge, as you mentioned—payment terms. Beyond that, you brought a question about whether SMEs are getting, if you like, a fair crack of the whip. I think that we've been conscious that, going back many years now, some of the contracts that have been let by the Scottish Executive of the Scottish Government are of such a scale that the financial and legal expertise that's required is beyond the ability of, certainly, small construction companies to take on. We're very keen to see if there's any more we can do to make sure that they don't feel precluded from doing that. As I mentioned before, the AWPR, if it's the case that even previously big players like Carillion or Balford, Betear, Gallaf or Tray don't want to go forward on their own, then it's very unlikely that SMEs are going to attempt that. I think that that's one thing that argues for the 12 phases of the A9 rather than one huge project. We're trying to do those things by framework agreements, but I mentioned previously, after the Carillion situation, much of which we don't control—it's down to company law, down to pensions regulation and so on—that we do want to have. I've asked Transport Scotland to have a further look at what we can do to maximise not just the involvement, where we've got very good involvement of SMEs, but it's a power relationship between the subcontractor and the main contractor that's of particular interest. Within that, there are particular issues like retentions, which are always being discussed. We are looking to do more, but 78 per cent, if that was a figure that was previously mentioned, is indicative of the efforts that have been made so far, but I'm sure there's more we can do. I understand that SMEs can't necessarily compete with joint ventures that are put together, but they often work for the joint ventures that are awarded the contract, and whereas the Government will pay the joint venture, sometimes SMEs, I suspect, might have to wait a long time, well with outside the business pledge that the Government has signed up to. Are you comfortable with that, or do you think that there's more work that you could do on that? In Transport Scotland, on our major projects, we have included project bank accounts in all of those major projects, so that goes some way towards reducing the amount of time that it takes for SMEs to get paid once the initial payment is made by the Government. We've also, on the A9, looked at what work we can award directly to SMEs, and with that in mind, we have procured a framework contract for smaller works, for accesses, for demolition, for utility works and for some preparatory works. That has a variety of benefits. It helps us to de-risk the main contracts, particularly where those are seasonal works, and they're affected by things like the bird nesting season. And it also gives direct payment to SMEs without there being anybody between Scottish Government payment and the SME directly receiving it. We will continue to look at where we can intervene in that way for all of our major contracts. We also continue to, and we ask our main contractors on a regular basis to give us details of any issues that are arising with SMEs, but more widely we see a variety of subcontractors working across all of our major projects, so whilst I appreciate that some SMEs do have difficulties, one can only presume that others are benefiting as a result of these major projects because of their repeated involvement. I'm going to push you, cabinet secretary. Are you happy that the Government is doing enough to help SMEs when they are subcontracting to joint ventures? I think I've said a couple of times, not least since the collapse of Carillion, that I've asked Transport Scotland to look at what more we can do and will continue to do. It's never the case. I think you're satisfied with all that's been done. I think you have to continue to look at that, that the situation changes in any event, that the collapse of Carillion has changed the situation, so no, we always have to look at what more we can do. Sorry, my final question is just on joint ventures, sometimes the assets of the joint ventures that are set up to run these contracts exceed the, sorry, are less than the money that they're being paid, so if the joint venture falls, there aren't enough sufficient funds there to pay the SMEs. Do you feel that you've got that in hand and that's not an issue that can happen? Since we've been alerted to the Carillion situation, we have altered our financial checks on companies so that we are doing financial checks much more frequently to ensure that that situation doesn't arise. I guess the proof of being in the pudding is as these projects are delivered. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary and thank you very much Michelle for coming to the committee today. I'm now briefly going to suspend the meeting to allow the change over of witnesses. To move the committee back into session and move on to agenda item 2, which is the annual report. This relates to the committee's consideration of our draft annual report. The report covers the work of the committee during the parliamentary year between 12 May 2017 and 11 May 2018. Now, I would like to invite any comments that anyone has. Mike, you want to go? Thanks, convener, and it's quite good that we're discussing our draft report in public session because we normally discuss draft reports in private session and sort of public an idea of what we're talking about when we do look at draft reports. So, if I could start on page 3 when we talk about meetings and in it it says in the second sentence, in general, items taken in private were to consider the committee's work programme, approach papers and draft reports. I'm just wondering whether we could be more specific rather than say in general because, in fact, as far as I'm aware, we only take items in private, which are the committee's work programme, approach papers and draft reports. So, it just removed the first two words of that sentence. Yes, I mean I think we had, we've had informal meetings so I think, but yes, I think that's right. I'm going to go through all Mike's and then I'm going to come to you if I may, John. Mike, do you have any other questions? No, no, that's fine. Okay, John. Thank you, convener, and thanks as ever to our valued staff for their work in this. It was just simply in relation to the heading, convener, Implications for Scotland of the UK, Leaving the European Union, and my well-documented frustrations about our inability to hear from the UK Government and that. I think just as it's there and I'm sure members will have a diplomatic form of wording, but I think we should say that we remain hopeful of hearing from the UK Government or something of that nature. I think it would be appropriate to ask committees to draft something to reflect the request that we've made for meetings, yes. Thank you. Stewart? Paragraph 31 on page 10. In the light of the evidence that we've just heard in the last line, this is in relation to the AWPR, we should add the word late before autumn 2016. That's my first point. It's a second point. There's just some dispute about that because the cabinet secretary said, he said this in, but the question was that he actually didn't say it late when he made a statement on the 22nd of March. He said it today. There's two things. First of all, we need to look at the actual wording that he used in the previous report and anything that was said today is out with the reporting period. What the cabinet minister said was that he had said in his statement to Parliament late rather than his saying it. I'm not in a position because I've not explored the official report. I'm only making the point that's what he said today. But with the clerk, the official report and reflect what it says in the official report. I don't want to make a big issue of it. Let me move on, if I may, to paragraph 49. I just think that the grammar is slightly a further session on public transport representatives. I think that it probably means a public session with public transport representatives. Is that correct? I'm getting nodding heads there. I go to paragraph 50. That is under the heading equalities. The committee mainstreamed equalities issues throughout its work in the parliamentary year. That's correct. I'm not sure that the, for example, is appropriate at the beginning of the next session because I don't think that that was about mainstreaming. That was a very specifically focused thing on equalities rather than about mainstreaming. I'm open to other views on that subject. We'll look at the wording for that. That would be fine. I've missed one. Paragraph 41. The committee subsequently took from, and then it doesn't say it. I think that it means took evidence from. Thank you, convener. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, we are quite adamant that human rights should be mainstreamed throughout all the other committees as well. I would quite like it if we could see, under the equalities heading and other heading on human rights, how we've mainstreamed those through the work that we've done as well. Thank you, convener. I'll try to keep them brief. Paragraph 2. I wondered if, when we list the matters that the committee covers, we can include, after transport and infrastructure projects. Obviously, we heard from the cabinet secretary today on a number of infrastructure projects that, I think, differentiate itself from the transport brief. That's okay. Can I just come in on that, convener? I think, and the clutch can advise, that what is said there is the formal form of words that reflect the motion that Parliament passed in establishing the committee. The clerks are explaining to me that it doesn't, they think that it's a reflection of our remit, it's not a formal wording, so I think that we could put major transport infrastructure in. I mean, transport would cover major and minor, so are we saying transport brackets including both minor and major projects? The word transport includes everything that we did today and everything that we did with arms of use. We'll look at the correct wording, if you're right, to reflect the fact that it does both major and minor infrastructure projects. I'm very relaxed about the wording, I just wanted to include the concept. Page 8 inquiries. I wonder if it's worth noting in the similar vein that we talked about, UK Government's representation to provide evidence sessions. I wonder if it's worth in this section commenting that we did ask retailers who are a substantial part of the salmon industry to appear, but that none chose to accept that invitation if that's worth commenting on in the report. Is the committee happy to do that? Page 11, paragraph 37, review of legislation on small land holds in Scotland. I notice and perhaps I'm missing it, but nowhere in the report does it mention crofting. I wondered if there was a reason for that. We did take evidence, a lot of evidence this year on the subject matter, but nowhere do we refer to any work that we've done on that subject. Is that perhaps a good place to include it? I'll ask the clerks to double-check that. It is in paragraph 2 that we've taken evidence on it, but I think that the evidence that we took on crofting mainly fell in the previous year, but we'll double-check and if it doesn't, we'll make sure that it's reflected in the report. Thank you. The years do tend to roll into one convener, but thank you for clarifying. Page 14, paragraph 49, on engagement innovation. I think that this was around one of our live streaming sessions, which was very useful. Facebook Live allowed the public to comment directly as evidence was taken. I would just like to perhaps change that to something around suggestion of Facebook Live allowed the public to provide commentary via Facebook as evidence was being provided. In other words, that comment was not part of the formal proceedings or did not input directly into our deliberations. That's right. My final point is on the next page, page 15, on equalities. Just to back up what Gil Ross was saying around the work that committees do to improve accessibility to the work that we do, I wondered if it was worth noting that none of the committee's public sessions or public meetings were indeed either live, subtitled or BSL interpreted. However, the official report retrospectively does make written accounts of the meeting, but I think that there's a comment to be made around our perhaps lack of accessibility to many members of the public. At that direct feedback, I got from a session with members of that community in recent weeks. Do other members of the committee have a view on that? I would probably like to know more, convener, because I think that the point that Jamie makes sounds a perfectly valid one, but I think that the point being made is that there is the official printed report, but of course that's not accessible to everyone and there is subtitling. I would want to kind of know where are the gaps, because doing it in real time would be a very substantial commitment that might not be proportionate, and I'd like to understand what the real need is. I agree with the point that Jamie's making, and I think that Stewart's reiterated that maybe that's something that we should consider. Whether we put that in the annual report, I don't know, because if we start putting everything in the annual report that we didn't do, it could become quite lengthy. Can I make a suggestion to the committee? I think that it's a valid point that Jamie raises, and it's something that would be appropriately raised at the convener's group meeting when we discuss it across all the committees in the Parliament to try and find out if there's a way to resolve that. Rather than put it in this report if the committee would be happy that I raise it with the other conveners in the Parliament at the next appropriate meeting, is everyone happy with that? Thank you. Are there any other comments? Usually when I'm saying this for people watching this, usually when the committee considers a report we go through it on a page by page line by line basis. My question really is that you have made observations on it, and one or two members of the committee have made comments, other comments which we will include in the report. Is the committee happy, subject to the changes that have been raised today, that I, once those changes have been made, put the report out in the committee's name? That's a great thank you. The final item on the agenda is agenda item 3, which is subordinate legislation to do with plant health export. Just for completeness, I would like to make a declaration before we consider this, that I am a member of a farming partnership, but I do not export plants or seeds to my knowledge. I'm just making that observation, Peter. I will follow your lead convener and say that I am also a partner in a farming business, but I likewise don't get involved in export and seeds in any way. This is consideration of agenda item 3, which is one negative instrument concerning the export of plants. No motions to a null have been received in relation to this instrument. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to this instrument? That is agreed, and that, therefore, concludes today's committee business, and I now close the meeting.