 Good morning and welcome to the third meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can I please ask all people present to make sure that their mobile phones are on silent? Stuart Stevenson has submitted his apologies for this meeting. The first item on the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. The committee has asked to consider taking item 4 in private. This is where we will consider appointing a reporter to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee discussions on the environmental implications of aquaculture. Are all members agreed? We are agreed. We will then move on to agenda item 2, which is major transport infrastructure projects update. I would like to invite any members present to declare any interests if they have them relevant to this item. Does anyone have any interests? No. We are not doing railways, so… No, I don't think it's relevant. This evidence session is an update from the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work on the progress of major transport infrastructure projects, which he is responsible for. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Michelle Rennie, the director of major transport infrastructure projects, Alistair Graham, the head of planning and design at Transport Scotland and Roy Brannan, the chief executive at Transport Scotland. Before I ask the Cabinet Secretary to make a short opening statement, I'd just like to draw people's attention to the fact that there was an error in the papers produced for the committee as far as the completion date of the APWR, which was referred to the winter 2018. It should have referred to the winter 2017-18. Technically, we will still be in the winter of 2018 when we complete the project, but I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary will clarify that, and I'd therefore like to ask him to make a short opening statement, Cabinet Secretary. I'm not sure that I can clarify the committee's remarks, although we did prepare a pressurly in response to one of the members of the committee's assertions about that timescale, and that's not the timescale that we're working to just to confirm that. Thank you very much for the chance to provide the opportunity to update the committee on the major transports projects portfolio. It's been a very busy time for the projects, and there have been significant works undertaken across all of the projects that we're going to discuss in recent months. First of all, I would bring the committee's attention to the announcement that was made on Monday of this week, alerting bridge users that the fact that the Queensferry crossing will become a designated motorway from 1 February. That represents the latest successful milestone in what is a remarkable project. As members will be aware, the Queensferry crossing was opened in a phased manner to allow road users and local communities an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the new road layout, while at the same time gradually increasing speed limits. Now that road users are familiar with the new environment and corresponding speed limits, we feel that it's appropriate to implement the full managed crossing strategy and to designate the new crossing as a motorway. In effect, that will mean that the changes to the types of vehicles will be made that can use the new bridge, with non-motorway traffic no longer allowed access to the Queensferry crossing. I came across the crossing this morning, and of course the existing fourth road bridge was closed to high-side vehicles, double-deckers in particular, and that was the buses that use that as a public transport corridor, so that's one of the benefits of the replacement crossing. The change also provides a monumental opportunity for cross-force travel for all modes of travel. It will include the full opening of the public transport corridor, notwithstanding the wind issues that we're experiencing, for buses, taxis and motorcycles up to 125 cc, and allow pedestrians and cyclists to use the dedicated public transport links and the fourth road bridge. In order to assist road users to understand the new road and bridge layouts, an excellent road user guide is being published this week and will be made widely available at the libraries, petrol stations, bus and train stations and tourist information offices along the fourth corridor and across the east central Scotland region. In addition, the guide is also being published online and is being promoted via social media. The 70-mile on earth speed limit was implemented on the Queensferry crossing on 19 December. This phased approach introduced final traffic arrangements on the new bridge, allowing traffic to move gradually from 40 to 50mph and now finally 70mph. During this period, we've monitored the new structure to be undertaken safely, while allowing road users to become familiar with the network and layout. Since opening, traffic volumes have generally returned to the previous levels seen on the fourth road bridge, and the traffic flows have improved as the speed limit has been raised first of all to 50mph. Early indication suggests that that is also the case with the increase of 70mph. An initial journey time assessment has been undertaken for the fourth corridor between the M90 junction 2 Admiralty and the M9 junction 1A in both directions. The free-flow journey time for this route since the transition to 70mph has typically been about 90 to 10 minutes, and that's a slight improvement on journey times around 10 to 11 minutes, regularly observed prior to the raising of the speed limit. That may be a small improvement. It's too early to say conclusively that journey times have improved significantly. It's anticipated that there will be further improvements when a managed motorway is brought into full operation towards the end of this month, and traffic Scotland will continue to monitor traffic levels closely. Just to remind the committee that this is a replacement crossing, it wasn't built to increase capacity, although it does have that effect given the public transport corridor nature of the existing bridge. Moving on to the Aberyne-Wesson peripheral route, Balmery, to Tipperty project, if I can provide the committee with an update following the announcement on 15 January that Carillion has filed for insolvency. Carillion construction limited had a one-third chair in the AWPR construction joint venture responsible for delivering the construction phase of the AWPR project. As members of this committee will be aware, news of this insolvency has created a major impact on the construction industry. On the Monday morning after Carillion had made their announcement, I had a phone call with David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to reinforce our commitment to work with the UK Government to best mitigate the impact of that announcement. I then met with high-level government officials across government and agencies to discuss key actions and to consider plans going forward on Tuesday 16 January. Following that meeting, helplines were set up for employees and companies who may be affected by the liquidation of Carillion. On the 17th, I had a constructive meeting with representatives from the STUC, UNITE and GMB unions and assured them that we were doing all that we can to minimise job losses. I would like to provide my assurance to the committee that I will continue to be in close contact with the liquidators and the UK Government regarding the measures that they intend to put in place regarding private sector network rail and UK Government-backed contracts and to secure the completion of those contracts. I reiterated that the Scottish Government has been working to manage or eliminate risks associated with Carillion's difficulties since July last year, and we have contingency plans in place for all the affected contracts, including of course the AWPR. Should it be necessary, we stand ready to support any affected employees through our PACE initiative, which aims to minimise the time that individuals are affected by redundancy. We also recognise that it is a very worrying time for Carillion workers and my thoughts are with those affected by the announcement, but we have been working closely with the Aberdein Roads Limited consortium to understand the impact of the announcement on those people employed by Carillion. In this regard, I understand that steps have been taken for Carillion personnel who were due to remain on the project to transfer to the remaining joint venture partners for the project. Unlike some other projects that you may have seen reported elsewhere in the UK, where essentially the gates were locked on the announcement, the NPD form of contract used for AWPR caters for a number of different scenarios, including a situation such as this with Carillion. As a result, I am pleased to confirm that, unlike some of those other projects, work on this project will continue. I can also confirm that the announcement generates no direct additional costs to the Scottish Government as each partner of Aberdein Roads Limited and its construction joint venture are joint and several reliable for the performance of the contract. I may have been advised by Aberdein Roads Limited that the remaining construction partners, Balford BT and Gallaford Tri, will now take the necessary steps to jointly deliver the remainder of the project. I have previously advised the committee that the project was due to open in the spring, and indeed work is well advanced. In fact, there is a road along the 58km length of the project. You can drive it now, and I intend to drive it the next two or three weeks. However, whilst the situation with Carillion does not in itself affect project delivery timescales, members will appreciate that, given the scale of the issue and the potential for a loss of confidence in the supply chain, we have been contacted by one party in the supply chain. There is the potential for that loss of confidence. It is important that we now take the necessary time to work closely with the ARL to identify any impacts that it can identify on delivery. We will then consider what we can do to mitigate any issues that may arise as a consequence of that. That might take some weeks to determine, but I am happy to provide further updates to the RAC committee in due course. It continues to be a busy period on the A9 dualling programme. The work is continuing across the route, and road users are already benefiting from the new dual stretch between King Craig and Delradi, which is open to traffic at the end of September last year, with the construction contract for the second section between Lunkarty and Passard Burnham, expected to be awarded during the first half of this year. The procurement of an A9 advanced works framework is also under way. At the same time, design work on the remaining nine schemes of the dualling programme is well advanced, with over 90 per cent of the dualling programme having reached preferred route status. In total, over the last couple of months, we have published draft orders for four dualling schemes, representing around 30 miles of the 80 miles to be dualled. Draft orders were published for the Kili Cranky to Glengari project at the end of November, and those for Pitlochry to Kili Cranky, Glengari to Dalhwini and Dalhwini to Crubanmore were all published in December. There will be no let-up in the design work, as we expect to publish draft orders for further dualling schemes over the coming months. It is not just a project about building a road that is part of an ambitious dualling programme, where we have developed, for example, the academy nine education and training programme, with the goal of getting local pupils ready for local jobs, as the A9 dualling programme will create. Design work is also well under way on the A86 dualling Inverness to Aberdeen programme. We have published draft orders on the 31 kilometres Inverness to Nairn, the Nairn bypass section, and expect to identify later this year the preferred option for the 46 kilometre section between Hardnure and Fockevers. Route options assessment work is also under way in the 42 kilometre section between East of Huntley and Aberdeen, and we expect to present the options under consideration to the public later this year for feedback, with a preferred option to be identified in 2019. Following the opening of the Wraith underpass in February 2017, the M8 bundle project fully opened to traffic on 1 June. Significant journey time savings have been experienced across the Central Scotland motorway network, with road users enjoying peak journey time savings of 20 minutes on the M8 and 15 minutes at the Wraith interchange, as well as more reliable journey times, enhanced safety and reduced admissions. Finishing works are on-going and expected to be completed in the coming months. On presswick, I am aware that the committee is likely to have some questions in relation to presswick airport. I am happy to discuss those in more detail, but I should restate that the Government's wish remains for presswick to grow into the successful and vibrant business that we believe it can be. You may know that the airport's annual report and accounts were published on 15 December, and that contains some positive statistics. Passanger numbers rose by 8 per cent, aircraft movements increased by 8.2 per cent, turnover increased by 11.5 million to 13.6 million, and an increase from 11.5 million to 13.6 million, which is an increase of around 18 per cent. Operating losses were 7.8 million pounds for the 12-month trading period, compared with 8.7 million pounds for the previous 12-month trading period. We have had increased revenue from military activity, and gross revenue has increased by 33 per cent over three years in that regard. However, we have always acknowledged that there is no quick fix, and it will require a sustained effort over a number of years, and I am keeping developments closely under review. Finally, I thank the committee for the opportunity to update you, and I am happy to try to answer any questions. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before we go into the questions, could I just say to the committee that there were one or two people who wondered if they could ask questions on the Queensferry crossing. We had not produced a briefing for that on the basis that we thought that fell within a different minister's portfolio, but if there are committee members with questions on the Queensferry crossing, I would like to take them at the end, so I will introduce those and let anyone ask the questions. Those who have questions, please do that at the end. Cabinet secretary, there was, as I think we alluded to, some confusion on the winter of 17, 18, and the winter of 18, as far as press release. You then slipped the word spring in for opening this year. Was that a slip, or could you clarify, just for me, whether it is winter 2017-18 or spring 2018? I think that given exactly as I said last time, we had a discussion, if you recall, about the spring, and May was mentioned and April was mentioned at the time. I think that part of the confusion is because when we announced this project, it was the former First Minister, we said that it would be done, we were aiming for the spring of this year, the contract that has tried to finish this during the course of the winter, but as to the final completion date, as I say, we are involved in discussions with them, we are coming towards the very end of the contract and I am happy to update the committee in future on that. We will move to the first question, which is Peter Chapman. I would just like to explore that just a wee bit more, because there has been confusion about the opening date. I would like Keith Brown to give us a real definitive answer. Are we saying that it will definitely, that full road will be open, and let's give you the benefit as a doubt and say the end of the spring of this year, which would be May of 2018. Can the cabinet secretary tell us now that this road will be completed by the end of May 2018, so there is no confusion as to where we are with this? No, I think that I have to go back to the statement that I made, which is that we have to discuss with the contractor. That is still our intention and we have no intention of trying to change that date. If we can get it done in that date, then that is what we intend to do. What I would say is that the discussions that we are having are not having about winter next year or anything like that. What we are actually discussing are some of the roads being opened earlier than the date that you mentioned and to see what date we can get for the completion of all parts of the road. It is in our interests to do that, obviously the commitment that we have made to do that, but it is also in the interests of the contractor that they will receive no money and they will be under some pressure from the lenders to make sure that they start to receive some income. They have a big incentive to do that as well. That is the discussion that we are having. Until we have had that discussion and to bottom out any other further consequences that there might be from the Carillion fallout for the supply chain, then we are not able to give a definitive date. As I say, people—and Mr Chapman will know this from his own local experience—can see the extent of work that the road itself has been done, so he can see the work that has been done there. We are coming towards the end of this. We cannot be definitive until we have that further discussion with the developers about the latest situation with Carillion, but as soon as we do have that date, I am happy to provide it to the committee. I have concerns. I must admit that I do drive that road, not the new road, because we do not get on the new road, but the bit from Mintla to Stunhaven I drive twice a week. I see the amount of work that is going on. I also see the amount of work that is still to be done. I have severe doubts as to whether we can even make that target. I will leave that with you. That is the perception, as far as I am concerned. The Carillion liquidation is an issue as well. I know that you made a statement to the Parliament a week ago, but in a situation like this, a week is a long time, as you say, and things have moved on. You assured the chamber last week that the Carillion issue would have no effect on the completion date and no effect on the cost. Is that still the situation or has things changed in the week since? I think that what I was saying last week is that the announcement by Carillion in itself has no impact on the costs to us directly, because the costs that complete the project still fall on the remaining two partners in the joint venture. There is also nothing in that announcement from Carillion that in itself should mean that there should be a delay to the project, because, for the same reason that I mentioned, the two continuing contractors are obliged to do that. There is more that I can say if the committee wants to know about the employees of Carillion who have been taken on some of them by the other contractors, and that is in order to try to see through the project. Just to reaffirm that the two remaining contractors have a very acute interest in doing this as quickly as possible, the one area of doubt—the member is quite right to say this—changes over time. What they are now looking at, they have not just told me, they have had to tell the stock market the two contractors that they are going to complete this project, but there are issues in the supply chain, so it is a question of some of the payments. The vast bulk of it seems to be pretty secure in that it was the ARL, the consortium, that let the contracts, nearly all of the contracts, apart from, I think, two contracts. There are two contracts, one for Labour and another one, I think, for fleet services, which were let directly by Carillion, so we are bottoming out that. Also, whether there is an issue in terms of the confidence of the supply chain, if some, for example, subcontractor start to worry about payment, some of that is working its way through. Both in terms of the two remaining contractors and what the official receiver appointed by the UK Government is saying to the subcontract chain is of importance. I think that there was a quote that we got from the contractors that are currently there about changing—the situation is changing daily, I think that they said that, so we are just keeping tabs on that. In its own right, the announcement by Carillion means that the two contractors will take over both the costs and the responsibility for delivery of the project. I would like to bring Mike in, if there may, and then come back to you, Mike. I just want to iron out the completion date, because we seem to be—all that has happened now and so far in this meeting is that we seem to have thrown confusion in there. As far as I understand it, ministers have always said, yourself included, that it will be completed by your aiming for the winter, and the winter finishes in five weeks' time. Peter Chapman, my colleague, has just mentioned the end of spring, and would that go on to the summer? What I am trying to get at is, for no other reason, that drivers, commuters, and people who live in and around Aberdeen who want to use this route, need to know for their own planning purposes when ministers think—I mean, I am not trying to die you down to a date—that this project should be completed and that drivers will be able to use it. If it is drifting towards the summer, then I think we should say so and let people know that. Can the minister be a little bit more specific as to when he thinks that commuters can use this route? I hesitate to answer, because I answered the member's question in the chamber, and he put a pressure to say, completely misrepresenting what he said. All I can say is what I have said so far. In fact, the idea that this has not been said before—the last time that I updated the committee, I think that my words were, we are talking about spring next year. I understand the member's point that, despite the fact that local people have been campaigning for the road for 50 years, they want to get a definitive time. The contract has been going on actually for a relatively short period term in terms of the size of the contract that was for many months, the biggest roads project in the whole of the UK. We are talking about that period. That is what we are talking about over that period that we mentioned last year. I think that we talked about the convener and I of April and May last year. We are talking about that. I cannot be definitive until we bottom out what other implications there might be coming from the contractors that might affect that. We are not talking about that. I can only assure the committee that the idea that it is going to go into the winter of 2018, which was way back when I gave evidence or appeared before Aberdein City Council, fairly unusually, was very concerned that it was done before the spring of 2019 in order to allow the Hodigan to move forward, which it will do as soon as the project is complete. It has been brought back in from that time. As I have said and as a former First Minister said at the start of this, this was after, and Mike Rumbles will remember this, when the legal process was set aside and completed. I said at that point that we are aiming for spring 2018. We are not changing that. I am not saying to the committee today that there is a change to that, but we have to have that discussion with the developer. We are in that very final stages of the programme where we have to try to boil it down. I understand the member's eagerness to have a definitive date. We have waited 50 years for this and we are trying to get it finished as quickly as we can. As soon as I have a more definitive date, pending discussions between Transport Scotland and the contractors, I am happy to provide that to the committee. I would just like to say that I would hate to issue a press release that misrepresented you, because I am trying to be absolutely straight. I am now confused as to when people, myself included, are able to use this road. You said in your opening statement that parts of the road could be opened earlier. Specifically, my question now is focusing on the fast link between Stunhaven and Charleston. Is that element going to be open earlier than we might expect before we see the whole road open? Can you give me an idea of if that is going to be the case? I am happy to do that. First of all, on the press statement that you should have said, I had not answered. I said that it was the same as I had said to the committee before. That was the point that I found to be misleading. If I say that, I am still confused as to your answer now. I do not think that it is helpful to look back on the press statement. Let us try and see if we can get an answer to the question now. There are lots of other questions. Cabinet Secretary, could I push you to try and answer that question rather than look back at the press statement? If I may, please. Can I say that, first of all, Crabston and Dice have already opened an open sometime ago. It would be useful to have the officials. There are a number of roads that may open prior to the completion of all works. I do not see how you want to come in on that. In terms of the completion date, we are still working to the same programme that we were always working to. The announcement about Curellian last week was a blow to the construction industry in the UK, never mind the AWPR project. It would be naive to think that there would not be any impact on the AWPR project. As Mr Brown said, from a contractual perspective, there is no automatic right to any additional time. Boss, we are discussing with the contractor what elements of the scheme that he can open as quickly as he can. We will then look at what other impact, if any, that there might be on the programme for final completion. I will bring Fulton in there and then go back to Peter. I was just checking. I had a quick google search where we were talking. I found a daily record article for 2012. I wonder if the cabinet secretary recognises it. It is talking about a quote from Alex Salmond in there that I know he mentioned. The quote is here, work is expected to begin in 2014 and be complete by the spring of 2018. That is a direct quote from the article. That was the day, or some point, in 2012 anyway. October 2012, do you recognise that article and its time scales that you are working to? I certainly do. I do not know the article but the time scales and there are various other public statements that were made exactly consistent with that. I would say and acknowledge that I have previously had to come to the committee and say that the Balmery tipperty section due to weather and other circumstances was not completed according to the contractor's programme and I did give the commitment that would be completed at the same time as the overall project. There is no question that it was 2015 that we had an extraordinary weather at that time which everyone will know about as well. I am not saying that this is a seamless thing, these projects are big projects but that was what was stated at the start of the contract, both apparently in the daily record and elsewhere as well. Peter, a wee bit more about the Carillian situation. How will the payments due to Carillian up to its liquidation be managed and in what effect make this have another two partners? The two partners have made a public statement as they see it about the impact of the Carillian if you like withdrawal and they see themselves as having a very substantial financial impact but that is for the partners themselves and the lenders involved in the consortium to manage. There will be no impact on the contract payment structure in ARL limited. They receive payment as I have mentioned once the roads become due and to go back to Mike Rumble's previous question if a part of the project is opened early they will start to receive payment for that part of the project. The contract with ARL has built in provisions that both the remaining construction partners are jointly and severally liable in relation to the completion of the project but also in relation to payments they will be liable for that. As I said most of the almost all of the contracts that have been let, subcontracts have been let by the consortium themselves rather than Carillian with the two exceptions that I mentioned previously. There are possibly two subcontractors that may end up out of pocket or severely out of pocket because they were subcontracted directly to Carillian rather than to the consortium as a whole. Is that correct? Not quite. It is correct but I would say that at least one of them is a subsidiary of Carillian itself. It is one of the Labour agency staff. It was a subsidiary of Carillian. Richard, I think that you wanted to ask some questions. I come on and come in. Can you confirm that you have just changed your statement a lot about Carillian workers? We have three firms who are working on this. Two of them have now taken over. Are they taking on the Carillian workers and because of that will that not also, to my mind, not delay some opening? I know that you have not got a crystal ball. The road will open when it opens. That was always my view in the M74 and the M8. Another tasty for a date on opening in regards to that area, a previous big contract in Scotland. Can you give me assurances that a few seconds ago you said some. Is it going to be all Carillian workers that are going to transfer over to the earth to companies to finish off their part of the contract or is it only some? I can acknowledge the 100 per cent track record that the member has in predicting that those big projects would open when they opened. That has been true in every case so far. He is right to say that I cannot give the guarantee about all members. I think that half so far of the 76 directly employed Carillian staff have been taken on by the two other contractors. I think that the implication is that many of the others—there is about another 130, I think, of other staff as well—some of them are agency staff—can't confirm at the stage that they have been taken on. We have no power. The Scottish Government has no power to instruct the two remaining contractors to take them on. What we have said is that we want to do—and this is part of the discussion that we are now having with them—if there is something that we can do to mitigate the impact on any staff that might be affected by this. We are interested, and also in terms of subcontractors. You will be aware that we had the recent problem of the BP pipeline, so we have said to be a separate helpline to the effect that any company is experiencing a cash flow situation because of that. We will be willing to talk to them about how we can help. The same is true for the employees. I think that we should know in fairly short order how many are being taken on in totality of the Carillian staff. I am happy to be corrected by the officials who have more up-to-date information. Around half of the full-time employees so far, there is a strong expectation that far more than that will be taken on because the work still has to be done. The two remaining contractors want to get it done as quickly as possible, but I cannot be more definitive. That is good enough for me. The next question I would like to ask is, could the liquidation of Carillian result in Scottish-based suppliers to AWPR projects not being paid for goods or services provided? A comment that Peter made a few minutes ago. If so, what is the Scottish Government doing to assist those companies and can we help them in any way? I have mentioned the helpline. We have established one for the companies that might be involved and also for employees that might be involved. We have also asked the private sector of the big business organisations if they can let us know of any companies that might need some assistance or might be impacted by that, not just for the AWPR but for the other contracts as well. I have also mentioned conversations with the trade unions if they are aware of any other situations. We have a big interest in the apprenticeship programme that Carillian had, many of whom we are responsible for helping to fund. We have taken that action and made it clear that we stand willing to help. The key thing is keeping people employed and getting the project done. It is not directly a responsibility to take on, but we have made it clear that we want to help, and we have given it public information to that effect. Can you clarify something for me? The receivers who are dealing with the liquidation, does the Scottish Government have to deal with them regarding the specific money that is owed to Carillian for work that has been completed at today's date? I am assuming that, as at the date of liquidation, there would have been an assessment of all the works and the money is due to the partnership at that date for that work that is completed. If you can clarify that, and whether it is the Scottish Government speaking to the receivers or the receivers speaking to the other members of the partnership. I think that both things are happening, but the receivers being appointed by the UK Government, so Scottish Government officials are not necessarily transport officials but procurement and other officials. Until recently, it may still be the case when in daily phone calls with representatives from the UK Government and the receiver as well, and they are trying to manage that process. The receiver takes a decision, they have been appointed to do that, but we have been involved. I think that it is worth saying that neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government has got complete line of sight on all the work that Carillian was involved in, especially in the private sector, so it has been fed into by other parties. We have a direct relationship with the receiver, but it is in conjunction with the UK Government. I do not know if that is the question that you were asking about. The second question was just at the date that it was placed into liquidation. I am assuming that you have an assessment of all the work that has been carried out so that you can assess how much money is due on the bit that has been built to that date. They do not receive payments for anything that is not complete, apart from I mentioned Crabstone and Dice, so they receive money for that, but they do not receive money for any other works, and maybe Michelle can give a more technical answer, but they will not start to receive the unitary payment or a proportion of it until further works are complete. I think that it is just important to clarify that the part of Carillian that forms part of the ARL, the Special Purpose Vehicle for AWPR, is not insolvent. However, the part of Carillian that undertakes the construction work and is part of the construction joint venture for AWPR is insolvent. Any monies in terms of unitary charge for the Crabstone and Dice section that the Scottish Government pays is paid to ARL, and ARL has the part of Carillian that is not insolvent. For the purposes of AWPR, it would be ARL that needs to be in touch with the official receiver. There could be monies due to ARL that is owed by the Scottish Government, which equates to work that has already been undertaken by the parts of the ARL that could include Carillian. So there could be money coming to Carillian and the receivers of Carillian as a result of works that are on-going. That is correct. As Mr Brown said, the Scottish Government is in touch with the official receiver in any case, and we remain available should they get in touch. Colin, yours is the next question. Good morning to the panel. Given the liquidation of Carillian and concerns over other companies such as InterServe and the recent breach of EU rules around NPD projects, do you think that the time is right to review the operation of the NPD programme and the use of outsourcing companies? I am not sure what breach of the rules has been referred to, to be honest. There were recent rules around the funding of NPD products that require additional funding from the Government on a range of projects, obviously, some time ago. Given that issue and given that the current challenges with Carillian concerns over other companies such as InterServe, is it not time to look at that whole model again, and in particular specifically the use of outsourcing companies? Well, there is not much that we have done in the Scottish Government in terms of outsourcing. I mean the vast majority, especially the service-based contracts of those let by the UK Government and in some cases the West of Scotland housing association and there is a PFI project, which Greater Glasgow Health Board signed early in maybe 1999-2000 period. So we have not done much in terms of the Scottish water still in the public sector of prisons, we have not gone for the privatisation of those prisons in many other aspects of what the UK Government has done, plus Carillian and I think also InterServe are both involved quite heavily in defence stuff, which obviously would not apply to the Scottish Government. There wasn't a breach of the NPD rules. There was a reclassification by the EU. ESA 10 was the instrument whereby they reclassified and issued further advice, and that was the one that resulted in the Aberdeen Western peripheral route coming back on to the public balance sheet. I think that the one area that I would say that we do have to be very aware of is that we are looking to do transport in Scotland in particular, but I think that it's going to happen across Government, although it's dead because it's responsible for procurement, is in relation to some of those projects and them going to very large companies. If we can do more to try and make sure that more local companies, if you currently do very well in terms of the subcontracts for those contracts, we are looking at how we can do more to try and make sure that local companies have greater access to some of those contracts in future. Of course, in general terms, we will always keep those projects under review. The member might be aware that the whole NPD process is part of a review about how we finance those larger projects in any event. Thank you, Mr Van. I have a particular reference to the need to look again at some of the impact on smaller companies that tend to be at the very end of the chain once those contracts are given to big companies like Krillian. There are also shared concerns that we continue to use companies like Krillian who, frankly, practices in terms of workers leave a lot to be desired. Krillian has a long-standing issue around Blacklist. Recently, we have seen reports whereby workers on the projects are having to pay up to £25 just to receive their wages because the company is using umbrella groups to employ those workers. Do we not need to look at some of the working practices that some of those companies have again when they are awarding contracts? First of all, in terms of the awarding of contracts and employment law reserved to the UK Government, it has been for some time and, of course, it was the decision of many of the parties represented here that should continue to be the case. There was one public contract that we were involved in where a company was, if you like, themselves Blacklisted by the UK Government. We were then able, under law, to say that we will exclude you from consideration for that contract. We were then put back on to an approved list, so we had to—we have no choice. If we exclude a company, we can be—there is not the backing of, for example, the UK Government or the EU having said that this is a company that we should not deal with because they have been Blacklisting or so on, we can be subject to legal action for that. That would not be a response in terms of taxpayers' money. We have taken much stronger action in terms of Blacklisting in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, even though we have quite substantial constraints in terms of our powers. The member will know the EU regulations in terms of companies that have been involved in Blacklisting and how they can remedy that situation that is laid down by the EU. We are not able to take a daily like for us to be able to take that kind of action, but currently that action in terms of excluding companies, procurement laws and actions on Blacklisting is reserved to the UK Government. What obviously is not reserved is the decision by the Scottish Government to outsource these big projects to these large companies. I move on to another concern that we have, and that is around the consortium that has the contract for the AWPR-accepted responsibility recently for silt pollution in the Don and D rivers. That resulted in a penalty of around £280,000. Given that concerns had previously been raised about that issue, the new cabinet secretary gave specific assurances to the committee on 14 December 2016 that mitigation measures were being put in place. How did that pollution happen? I am not sure what massive outsourcing is. I really do not know what projects are being referred to, so it would be useful to have that so I can respond more accurately if that is required. In relation to the two incidents for silt pollution at the Don and D, we, the Scottish Government, take our environmental responsibilities very seriously. Following both of those incidents, we have continued to work closely with CEPA, which of course is a Government agency, and the contractor to ensure that water courses on site are protected from construction activities. Following a period in June 2016, where there was extremely heavy rainfall, if you recall, the contractor voluntarily suspended activity across the site for two weeks to put further mitigation measures in place. It is an extremely unfortunate occurrence and measures have been put in place to ensure no further recurrence. We welcome any measures that have been agreed by CEPA and the contractor where they result in a positive impact. I should say that the offer of enforcement undertaking is a matter for the contractor and CEPA, and we are unable to comment on that specifically. However, of course, we have enjoyed the contractors to make sure that this kind of incident does not take place. One more question, and I would like to move on to Jeremy Greene. In December 2016, cabinet secretary, you said that the committee is part of the Scottish Government's continued scrutiny of the project. I have put in place detailed governance arrangements, which are overseen at the top level by a project board involving Transport Scotland, which is trust funding partners at Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. What additional governance arrangements need to be put in place that were not in place to prevent this particular pollution happening? Of course, I have already mentioned the role of CEPA, so we have made sure that we have worked very closely with CEPA to make sure that oversight role is overseen by them. They are the experts in relation to that. In addition to that are the project management processes that are in place to oversee. We have people on-site virtually all the time—perhaps it would be useful for Michelle Ryan to add to that—to look at what has been done on-site in order that this kind of eventuality does not happen. I do not know if you want a comment for that. That is precisely the case. Specific measures were taken after those events. Indeed, CEPA provided dedicated staff to work together full-time with the contractor to both on their proposals for future works and on any mitigation for any events that had already occurred. I should also say, convener, that in relation to that incident—and again, I cannot mention too much about the legal aspect of it—the offer of enforcement undertaking resulted in around £280,000 of environmental benefits for communities. It does not excuse what happened and we should avoid it, but that was recompense made for the damage done to some extent by the contractor. I thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and the rest of the panel. Following on from what Mr Smith asked, notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's comments that there are fewer managed service contracts in the Scottish Government, without being specific to any existing contractor or contractor, what general measures in terms of resilience or planning the Scottish Government is undertaking outside of any normal due diligence that it takes prior to awarding a public contract around the potential for any other failures of such organisations such as Carillion, in other words, what measures are going into ensuring that, if this was to occur with another contractor, the Government has adequately prepared for such events? I would say in the first instance that we keep our ears pretty close to the ground. This is true across all sorts of contracts that I have been involved in, so any information coming to us from whatever source, either publicly or otherwise, we will take on board and investigate that where it is necessary. Also, in relation to the NPD projects in particular, there are obligations, very onerous obligations, on the contracting parties in terms of the stock exchange and financial reporting, in which they have to be very explicit about the situation that they are in, so that there is on-going diligence, if you like, acting on any intelligence received. There are certain reporting obligations both to the financial markets but also to the Scottish Government from the parties involved as well, and perhaps the officials could say more about that. That would be over and above the diligence that was done. For example, when we had the first three-profit warnings from Cirlian, action was taken at that point, not just in relation to the AWPR, so we immediately get asked by the public and interested members what is the situation here. We make our own inquiries based on that and take action to mitigate any further risks. The biggest action, of course, as you have mentioned, is at the start of the contract, where we make sure that there is a contingency if one of the contractors falls over in this way, but the officials might be able to talk more about the financial diligence in me. We routinely undertake financial health checks on a variety of different companies at the points where we make decisions about bidder selection and contract award and now also throughout the contract delivery period. In the event that we think that there is any particular risk, we look at what contingency measures are available. They range across a variety of different things. In the situation like AWPR, we have a joint venture situation in which the other joint venture partners can come in and take up that mantle. In other situations, we have frameworks or other procurement routes to be able to deliver the same services that we would have got on the original contract. Is the cabinet secretary or Ms Rennie aware of any other companies that the Scottish Government is worried about or currently investigating into its financial status outside of Crelian? I think that we continue to review a range of companies. In terms of the major projects, there is no specific risk to any major project at this point in time. John Swinney has changed the subject of Prestwick airport. You mentioned the cabinet secretary in your opening remarks and gave us a few figures. The fact that turnover and usage are increasing is positive, although I think that that might be reflected in other airports as well. If I caught you correctly, you said that the loss had been £7 million, which was an improvement. However, even if the loss reduced by £1 million a year, we would still be making losses for quite some time. Can you give us a little bit more of a feel? Is there any likelihood of this being passed over to the private sector in the short term? Is the Government still optimistic that the loans that have been made will eventually be recovered? On the point about being passed over to the private sector in the short term, I think that we have always said that we are willing to listen as we have always been to interest from the private sector, but I do not see any immediate prospect of it transferring to the private sector. I think that 7.8 was the exact amount of the losses this year down from 8.7 million before. That is a lot of money. There is no doubt about that. Although it has to be set next to what the cost of closure of the airport would be in terms of the employment and the costs social and financial of that level of unemployment. I mentioned last time that I was at the committee about a company called Chevron at the airport, which had taken one of the hangars for which, obviously, that produces a revenue stream or rental income for the airport. That has been extremely successful, so it is now looking to take on further accommodation there as well. We have said that it was always going to take a long period of time. Part of that is because Members who are familiar with the airport will know that the previous owners of Infertile had not invested substantially in the physical built environment at Preswick for a long period of time, and we have been trying to catch up with that to try to improve it. I was down in Preswick airport the week before last, and I see substantial improvement physically. I mean, they have had things like the whole duty-free area being refurbished, but the actual appearance of the airport is substantially better. They are shifting focus to some of the other areas, such as freight, the military flights, which are mentioned, and rental income from some of their other facilities. They are doing that quite effectively, but it will take time to do that. I cannot say when that will turn a profit, and I cannot also say when that will revert to the private sector. Both of those things are our intentions, and loans that have been made have to be made on the basis that they will be returned with interest paid. You specifically mentioned freight. The figures that we were showing in 2007, I think, Preswick handled more freight than Glasgow and Edinburgh combined, and by 2016 it was handling less freight than either Glasgow or Edinburgh. Although you say that closure would mean a loss of jobs in Ayrshire, but, presumably, could Glasgow and Edinburgh handle all the work that has been done at Prestwick and handle the freight and the passengers, or is there other work at Prestwick that could not be handled by Glasgow and Edinburgh? I do not think that you would get Glasgow or Edinburgh, and it is not for me to promote Glasgow or Edinburgh or Prestwick over and above one or the other. I do not think that you would get Glasgow or Edinburgh to say that they have reached capacity in terms of freight or passengers. The one thing that I would say about the 2007 figure that you mentioned is quite rightly, but there was a period of decline for the airport that most of us, I think, would be familiar with. It is also true to say that there is an inextricable link between passenger and freight, and as far as much of the freight going in and out of the UK goes in the holds of passenger jets. If you do not have that growth in passenger numbers, then you do affect the level of freight that involves them, but, despite that, we have seen an increase in Prestwick. On the point that I have made about the general improvements at Prestwick, I would make the offer, convener, to the committee that, if they wish to go and have a tour of the facilities, it might be useful to see that, because it is just me saying it just now, but if you go down and experience it for yourself, especially if you have been familiar with the decline of the airport over previous years, you will get a feel for that one. Roy Brannan will be happy to arrange that for the committee, but, yes, I think that John Mason is right that there has been a decline in freight from 2007. Of course, we did not have control of the airport, but what we have seen more recently is an increase in freight. I certainly would take you up on that offer, and I would like to visit Prestwick so we will, since I was there. My final point would be that, overall, are you satisfied that we are making the progress that the Government was hoping would make, albeit gradually? We are very explicit about that. That would be a long-term thing. Of course, you want to see more progress being made, but I am confident, especially with the management team that is saying now that they are actively looking at realistic opportunities to increase the revenue and reduce, if you like, the losses that have been made and turn that into a profit. Richard Browne. What discussions are we having where there are airlines in regard to Prestwick? I was in Prestwick, picking up my daughter and grandchildren one night, and I was the only person there at 11 o'clock at night waiting on the flight coming in. Very few flights coming in. If you look at the graph, the passenger numbers have fell from £2.5 million to under £500,000, based on what I am looking at, maybe slightly up. We have other airports. I am getting emails every month. Glasgow is fantastic. Edinburgh is fantastic. Let's build an extra runway down in London. For those who go to London, you travel 20, 30 or 40 minutes out on a train, cost you a fortune. I have to say to you that, since we upgraded the M74, the new extension, now the old extension, you can get to Prestwick in about 20 minutes and a half an hour from where I stay, because it is excellent roadways. Why are we not promoting Prestwick? It is a dual in the ground that we need to promote, because there are plenty of slots, plenty of air space. What is the problem? First of all, we are promoting Prestwick. The responsibility for trying to attract additional passengers lies with the airport, but they have to be distinct from the Scottish Government. I know the activity that they are undertaking trying to do that, but just to go back to the point that Richard Lyle is going from his home to Prestwick airport, he will pass Glasgow airport. No, I don't. I am not sure about the route that you take, but in any event— Sorry. Can I just stop that there? Let's not have a discussion on routes and how we get to it. Can we maybe just build on Richard's question and ask how to promote passenger numbers, cabinet secretary? I think that you have quite rightly identified the biggest challenge that they have, but there is a huge amount of working on it. Some of the offers that they have made to try to attract more business in, perhaps Roy Browning could talk more about that, because Roy is on the holding company, which runs the airport despite being chief executive of Transport Scotland, so it might be useful to hear from Roy. I think that the first thing that you are right, Mr Lyle, is that it has a huge potential there. It has 2.1 million people within 60 minutes of the airport, a third of the people that travel there just now travel by train, it has its own air bridge direct to the airline and it has very good connections to the M77. All of that is factored in to the executive team's promotion and marketing of the airport. They work tirelessly as an executive team to try and attract additional services into the airport, but the market in peer-type airports across the UK is very similar pattern. All kinds of passenger numbers declined from 2007, so the heady days of 2.5 million are some time away now. What I would say is that I would refer you back to the accounts that were published just before Christmas. There is a short increase in passenger numbers over the last year, so it is heading in the right direction. The strategic plan that was set up last year, 2017 to 2022, has a strong focus now on business growth across all revenues. Presswick is not just about passenger numbers, it is about a mixed bag of operations. That is why it is really important for the committee to come down and see it first hand and see exactly the extent of the landholding, the facilities there, the operations that are done in terms of fixed deployment services, military aircraft coming in and refuelling. There is a huge potential for Presswick to become a real driver for economic growth in that part of the country. That is what, certainly, my role is the non-exec director on the whole co-board and also Chief Executive of Transport Scotland. Working with Andrew Miller and his team is all about trying to make this a success, though. I am going to bring Jamie in at this stage, please. Mr Brannan's comments segue nicely into my question. According to my briefing papers, the former CEO, Ron Smith, departed at the end of October 2017. It is said here that he left by mutual agreement. Call me cynical perhaps, but I think that few relationships end so amicably. Can I ask who's decision was it that Mr Smith departed? What reasons were given for his departure and how has that impacted the management team's ability to deliver on the strategic plan? I think that, well, Roy will be much closer to this than I am. We don't have responsibility for those kinds of appointments, not for his appointment. I don't know if you want to comment on that, Roy. Yeah, just picking up the cabinet's comments. That's a matter for the upscore board. It's an arms-length company. They run it at arms-length from us. He left by mutual agreement and Stuart Adams is now in, who's got over 40 years with experience as a chief executive across the aviation industry. Andrew and his team felt that that was the right thing to do to take a different direction. He was only there for 17 months. Have the upscore given either Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government any reasons for such a prompt departure? No, other than that, Ron is instrumental in developing the corporate plan, the strategic plan 2017-22. Stuart Adams is now in to look again at what more can be done across all the different avenues. As I say, it's a question for the upscore board rather than the whole co-board of the Scottish Government. Have they indicated when a new permanent CEO might be appointed in terms of timelines? Does that represent perhaps a shift in direction for the strategic plan in terms of turning around the airport or, indeed, presenting it back to the private sector? Again, it's an issue for the upscore board and Andrew Miller as a chairman in particular, when he appoints his executive team. The team are working across all six strands of the strategic plan, and I'm sure that Stuart will be putting his endeavour into all of those six strands. I appreciate much of the answer that I've just received as it refers me to, the upscore. However, we don't have the benefit of having them here, given that this is entirely funded by the public person and has ultimate responsibility lines up through Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. I would be hoping that the members of the panel would have some more oversight into what's happening at Presswick rather than just referring me to the upscore. I don't find that particularly helpful, I'm afraid. I think that you'll find that we're obliged to do it in that way. That was the basis on which we were allowed to invest in a Presswick airport when we did. There are certain obligations on us, but I would say that the visit that is being referred to might help to answer some of the questions that Jamie Greene has about the direction of the you'll be meeting if you have the chance to go with the executive team and others and have the chance to put those questions directly to them. Happy to take them up on that offer. Just on that visit, we'll get a chance to discuss that as a committee after that. Can I just follow on from what's been said? We've heard about the increase in the facilities at Presswick airport and the investment there. In fact, I was looking back at the accounts, just looked through an old set of accounts in 2016. The Scottish Government invested £26.8 million into it. In 2017, we'd increased the investment to £37.9 million, a roughly £11 million increase, costing us £745,000 to service. However, the value of the assets in 1 April 2015 was the same value as the assets on 31 March 2017. That was two years later. That strikes me as odd. Could you explain to me why there has been no increase in the value of the assets despite a massive increase in funding? No, I can't. That's information that would be held by the obstacle, but it may be that I can certainly speak to the experience that I've had of going there and seeing the difference in the facilities. For example, the frontage of the airport. I've mentioned the duty-free areas, and I think that there has also been recently an upgrade in terms of the security as well, but I don't know if you want to comment further on that, Roy. I don't have an answer to that, but I certainly can endeavour to get an answer to that and provide that to the committee in due course. It seems odd to me, if you're signing off a set of accounts, that the opening value is the same as the closing value when you've invested a further £11 million in the project. I mean, I don't understand that, so that would be grateful for you to clarify that to me. The other question was what a lot of the profits that have been made have been done on fuel conversion. In fact, the fuel trading figures there have gone up by over 100 per cent. Is that a fragile way of increasing the turnover of an airport, seeing that the price of fuel, as we know, and the price of oil, does go up and down? I don't think that it's so much the volatility of the price, which determines the opportunities there. It's the willingness of carriers to use you for that purpose. I think that that's the big thing that they're going to have to get fuel from somewhere. There is actually some interesting issues around the issue of price as well and where you can source it from. Again, it's probably best answered by the upskull, but it's been involved in some pretty robust discussions with the suppliers who are trying to improve their margins in relation to that. I know that the committee has previously had representatives from Presswick, and they're probably better placed to answer some of those specific questions. I don't know if Roy wants to say any more about the fuel situation. In terms of fuel, it's— In the context, freight, other aviation property, car parking, concessions and passenger numbers are all about flatlined. The only increase in revenue in 1617 was due to freight, so it does obviously play a pretty important part. Roy, I'd like to hear that. In terms of fuel, the biggest increase is obviously the additionality that's come from military planes flying into Presswick to refuel fixed-based operations, so private jets and other aircraft that's coming in. They have to go somewhere to fuel if they go across the Atlantic, and Presswick has been very successful in attracting that additionality to the airport. That's seen a huge increase and they hope to grow that as they will do on all the other streams, whether it's car parking, revenue from passengers, the operations of the property itself. Once Chevron continue on with their maintenance, repair and overhaul, we anticipate they'll see more work coming through that facility. So, as I said at the start, it's not just about passengers, it's about actually growth in a huge range of activity, and I think when you come down, hopefully Andrew and team will be able to communicate exactly what their plans are. Maybe I could just part the final question and say when I come down, which I very much look forward to taking you up on that offer, I would love to see the investment property, because it seems to be declining in value every year. Peter, sorry that you want to— I have a very specific question. It just falls on from exactly what you've been saying about growing the business. One of our great success stories, export success, is Scottish food and drink, and the biggest food export is Scottish salmon. We export thousands of tonnes of salmon every year to America, and that salmon, as I understand it, is all trunct down to Heathrow airport and flowing to America from Heathrow, four or five hundred miles further south than where we are at Prestwick. I see a huge opportunity for the Prestwick airport to grab some of that freight business. I've already written to Keith Brown on the subject, and I wonder how actively you are looking at that, because I think there's real opportunities there. As Peter Chapman said, we've discussed it previously, and I think I mentioned that time, we have looked at this previously ourselves as well. There's a huge increase in, for example, fish farm salmon in Scotland, and there's a large international demand for it. As the member says, some of this is transported down to Heathrow, which can't make sense in terms of the environment. However, much of it is transported, as I mentioned earlier, in the belly of passenger jets to the Middle East, and the economics of that are something that you have to overcome. It's also true to say that the way that it's done just now is because it goes to certain points where there's distribution centres, so if it goes to the US, it goes to one point but there's a huge distribution network that follows on from that. Nevertheless, as I said, I've investigated this before, after we had the discussion, I spoke to the management of Prestwick airports when I was down there recently. To try and move things on a bit, I've asked them to conven a meeting with suppliers and others. Many of them, and you'll know that it's better than me, are pretty fixed on the way that they currently haul their product. If you remember all the huge problems at the channel tunnel, we again at that point said that Prestwick was there, other airports were there and the economics of it didn't stack up. Plus, the suppliers wanted to use the haulage networks that they had, notwithstanding the problems that they had at the channel tunnel. Just to assure the member that this has been actively looked at, and I've asked them to convene some of the producers to make sure that we can properly investigate any opportunities that might be there. The next question is from John Finnie. Before asking it, it's been a mystery to me, convener, not to declare my membership of the RMT parliamentary group. Sorry, I didn't pick that up. Sorry, thank you. Morning panel. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to ask you about high-speed rail, please. There was a report commissioned in 2016, and I understand that there's joint working between the Scotland and the UK to progress. Are you able to provide an update in the development of plans to extend high-speed rail services in Scotland since the publication of that report? Do you have a view for those who are critics of that level of investment, even enthusiasts for rail, in that particular level of investment, on a single scheme? We, of course, are not responsible for the investment. The UK Government is responsible for that, and, as the member said, there's been a recent reported substantial increase in the high-level costs of the current proposals for HS1 or HS2. Our position is that Scotland should benefit from this, and it shouldn't just be in terms of whatever benefits happen south of the border that might feed through to, say, reduce journey times north of the border. There are two aspects to that. One is reduce journey times. We think that that will improve the attractiveness of rail travel, especially if it is a view of air travel. Journey times are important for that purpose, but they are probably more important as the capacity issues on both the west coast and east coast mainlines. That is why we think that there has to be investment. There was a commitment made by the UK transport secretary to have journey times in Scotland reduced to three hours. It was made at his party conference. We noted that, we have investigated that and we know that it is not possible to have those kind of journey times without investment in high-speed rail in Scotland. Not the same perhaps as a fully high-speed rail line all the way to Edinburgh Glasgow, but there has to be high-speed elements to it. We have used that to have a discussion, some joint investigations with the UK Government as to what the feasibility of that will be. Those discussions are on-going. It is true that we will get some benefit. Of course, we will from improvements from London to the Midlands, but we want to have improvements to the network here in Scotland. That is the current basis. I do not know if Roy wants to add a bit more to that. We have the North of the High Speed 2 working group, which comprises the DFTHS to Transport Scotland and Network Rail. We have narrowed it down to two options. On the east coast and the west coast, the First Minister made an announcement just before Christmas that we would take forward a more detailed feasibility study now to look at the feasibility of those two options. On the east coast, we are looking at a new high-speed line between Dunbar and Newcastle, which would potentially reduce the journey time to an hour on that section, which would bring those two cities, the northern powerhouse, much closer together to Edinburgh, and then, in equal terms, make it Edinburgh, Scotland to Glasgow, to London, sorry, three years, 25 minutes. On the west coast, a cord that touches rather glen castares and then down to the border, and again, improving at a high-speed rail link, provide that opportunity to get down to about three and a bit hours to London on the west coast. Tenders are back just now. We will hopefully award a contract for that feasibility study, and I would be happy enough for the team to report back to the RAC later on in the year on the outcome of that. Faraf 5, that is, in layman's terms, a completely new line or an upgrading of the existing, because there is concern that the existing facilities infrastructure could lose out due to the approach taken in respect of high-speed. So, if you take the east coast, this is a new high-speed line. Now, I might get this wrong in terms of speed, but it could be up to 250mph line speed off the existing line. If you know the existing line already, it's very close to the coast, it's been moved already, it's probably going to need moved in two, three decades. So, this is a new high-speed line separate from the existing line, which would provide the opportunity to run both high-speed trains but also the local service enhancements that they would be looking for. Okay, thank you. I wonder if I have a question to the cabinet secretary. It is about the carbon assessment of infrastructure. My colleague Patrick Harvie raised issues at the Finance and Constitution Committee, and he received a letter back from your colleague, the cabinet secretary, Mr Mackay. It is positive news. The percentage of the Scottish Government infrastructure spend that is low-carbon is moving from 21 per cent to 29 per cent, so consequently high-carbon down from 23 to 12 per cent. That excludes local Government expenditure that the Government has no control over. How can you maintain that trajectory, particularly with the road building programme that you have planned? I think that the road building programme, in our view, has been confirmed by a previous UK transport secondary. There has been completely insufficient investment in Scotland's transport infrastructure for a period of decades, and that is related to the roads as much as anywhere else. We have had a large road improvement project over a number of years now, but we think that that is necessary. It is also necessary, of course, for low-carbon vehicles, buses and even bikes to use roads as well. We felt that that was absolutely necessary, but that has been matched by our investment in rail, whether it is improvements to services, new rolling stock, new stations, new lines in relation to the border rail as well. I think that, from some time ago, our ambition was to have all of Scotland's cities connected by at least dual carriageway, if not motorway. That marks a point once we have completed the A9 and A96 when that will have been achieved. I think that, even in anticipation of that, some of the big projects that we have had, such as the M8 to the M8 bundle that Dick Lyle talks about, the Queensferry crossing, we are seeing that shift moving towards some of the things that the First Minister has talked about in the programme for government towards low-carbon. I think that you will see that increase over current years, but we did think that it was essential to make those investments in the road network to make up for what had been decades of under investment. I think that you will see that shift increase over coming years. Cabinet Secretary, there is going to be the same time lapse with regard to outwith that triangle, because a lot of the road infrastructure that is not in there has not been maintained or upgraded. Is there not going to be a further six billion in two roads? As you have mentioned, the vast majority, I think that 96 per cent of the roads in Scotland are under the control of local authorities, and it is for them to take action on their roads. Although there are some areas in Inverness that you will be aware of at the Longman roundabout, where we are working with a local authority, where you have a conjunction of local roads and trunk roads, proposals in Ayrshire for a similar scheme, but those roads are the responsibility of local authorities. You would not want us to be telling local authorities how to do their business. I do not want you to be spending £70 million on a roundabout just to get people five minutes quicker off a bridge. I think that the public do not get that the infrastructure where they are, they do not get the differentiation between Government trunk road responsibility and local authority responsibility. Infrastructure is crumbling out with that triangle. Nevertheless, whatever the public's perception is, there is a legal definition of a road's authority. We are not the road's authority for those roads. We cannot go in and start working on those roads. We are not able to do that. In relation to the Longman, of course, we have responded to requests from local partners, including local authorities, as to the projects that they wanted to prioritise. I am equally critical of them, but thank you very much indeed. I will leave that one there if I may, John, and move on. The next question is from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned quite well, more than mentioned, when over some detail, the dualling of the A9 in A96. John Finnie has just touched on it there as well, so I won't linger on it. If we start off with the A9 dualling project, it says in our briefing papers that preferred routes for 36 miles of the 80 miles have been identified, but you said in your opening statement that 90 per cent have been identified, so I think that that is considerably more than we have been told about. I would like to ask about the 10 per cent. Obviously, if you travel the road, you know that there are some quite difficult bits to get a dual courage way in. When do you envisage 100 per cent of preferred options being identified? It's for that later on this year, but perhaps it's Michelle that would know about the vacancy. It's £200 million of new projects being procured at present from a lunkarty in particular, but do you want to come back on that, Michelle? As you said, there's over 90 per cent of the A9 dualling that's now preferred option status. The one section that doesn't is between Burnham and Dunkeld, which we're currently working with the local community in a co-creative process, and we hope to identify a preferred option for that one later this year. I'm sad that one of the options being proposed that you may have seen on social media is a very unusual process. First, we've ever done it called a co-creative process, being undertaken with local authorities, and the children's parliament is given the suggestion of an egg-shaped roundabout that has a guinea pig farm in the centre of it, so we're looking at all possibilities and all suggestions. That sounds fantastic. I should just say that in that particular section, and the member is quite right to say, why is that one the one that's an outlier, if you like? Well, if you think about the Dunkeld railway station, if you think about the local roads and the constraints on that, that is one reason why whatever you do there is going to be contentious, and that's why we've taken a bit more time on it. Okay, thanks for that. For both dualling projects, the A9 and the A96, how do you engage with communities along the route to make sure that, obviously, it's minimum disruption and that you're doing what is best for those communities? If I can try first of all, I think that that's one reason, not the only reason, that we've done it in a phased way, so the 12 phases of the A9. If we tried to go out to a public consultation on the entire length of it, people, as you would know better than me, could be just swamped by all that, a large part of the road that they might not be familiar with. It is in manageable chunks, and that allows us to undertake pretty substantial consultation. Recently, I met the Monarchy group on the A96, and it allows them to be very focused on the particular parts of most interest to them. We do that, and of course that goes right the way through the consultation process, public exhibitions, writing to local interest groups, community councils and local authorities, if necessary, through a public local inquiry, so there's a huge amount of engagement involved in those projects. As John Finnie mentioned, it's £3 billion per project, A9 due to be completed in 2025 and A96 in 2030. I know that it's very early, but at this point in time, are you on schedule and on budget for who you would want to be? It's a spring or autumn question, but I think that it's quite a general one. I have said before that at the stage of the project, all we could do is give an indicative figure of £3 billion. On the A9, you've got 12 different phases. You're going to the market 12 times, so we had to give an indicative figure. We've done that, but we have been specific about 2025. That is our intention, and there's nothing that's changed in our intention or in relation to the A96 in 2030. Some people said when we first announced that about how far away it seemed. If you look at the processes that you have to go through in terms of PLIs and so on, that is quite a tight timescale, and it always was. We said that from the very start, but there's nothing as things stand to come to change your mind on those target dates. There are a lot of questions in this section. I'd just like to push through them as quickly as possible to make sure that we get everyone in. John Finnie, would you like to go first, please? Thank you, convener. Cabinet Secretary, a question about consultation. Although not supportive of either of these projects, I'm very supportive of the co-creative process that's in place in the Dunkeld area, and I think that that's a very constructive way to go forward, particularly the engagement of young people. In the timescales that we're talking about, of course, they're going to be the people who are going to be using these facilities. In relation to consultation, would you envisage using that co-creative process for the A96 on a specific issue that I've raised with you previously, if not in writing? If that consultation suggested that rather than a grade-separated junction around about, which is a significant savings in that, were a preferred option, is that something that would be taken on board? I certainly would be taken on board. I think that the thing with the co-creative process that I mentioned is the first time that we've done it. I'm not keen that if we have a co-creative process that takes substantially longer than a standard process that jeopardises the long-term targets, we'll get credit signs for that, I'm sure. We do have an eye on trying to make sure that we proceed with the project. It's also true to say that we're trying to learn from having done this the first time, but yes, if there was a demand and there's been talk of this with another member not currently present about whether that could be used for one or two of the more contentious parts of the A96, whether that could be transplanted, we are willing to look at that. If that results in a suggestion for a roundabout grade-separated junction, of course, we'll look at that. I would say that a roundabout, and I'm conscious of something to say, transport exports, a roundabout does introduce a level of disruption to a journey which a grade-separated junction seeks to alleviate, so there's a prone con on both sides, but we would take forward any suggestions that are made as part of that process. Thank you. That's very reassuring. Thank you. I was going to ask questions about the MA M73-74, and I think it's testament to Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government that we're talking about this towards the end of the meeting, and that indicates that there has been very little issues after the completion. I can also testify, given one of the areas that it goes through, that it is bringing benefit, but I suppose my concern going forward is how do we ensure that the benefits that were expected are realised, and particularly the areas that it runs through. A lot of those areas, including my constituency, are very deprived areas. How do they benefit from that? Have you got any thoughts on that, Government Secretary? I think, to be fair, there have been issues subsequent to their completion. I'm sure that Mr Lyle would testify, but I think that the member is exactly right that those areas are hugely beneficial to the area, and you will know better than me at the Wraith interchange, for example, the transformation that's been affected for people using that. There was a report done by the First Minister, or in fact somebody from the chambers of commerce at the opening, by Will Hutton, or a comment made by Will Hutton some time ago, about the extent to which the proper transport links—this is real as well as road—between Edinburgh and Glasgow and points in between, if they could be made as efficient as possible, that could become a real powerhouse, mainly to do with labour and mobility and so on. So that's where I think some of the huge benefits will come from, from the roads being improved. It's a bundle of roads. Again, we were questioned when we did that to put these different, sometimes disparate, works together, but then you can get more for your money if you do that. It was a difficult project because, unlike some of the other projects that you've discussed, it was all online. The Aberdeen Wesson peripheral route is almost entirely in its own space, whereas it was online, one of the busiest roads in Scotland. It does mean that, of course, Main Street Scotland, if that's how you want to refer to the motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow, is now a motorway the whole way. Those are the reduction in journey times, the reduction in environmental damage, because traffic jams are one of the worst things for producing fumes and so on, and the relative ease with which you can move goods and people around the country or where the benefits will come from that area. Of course, during its construction, there were substantial benefits from the employment that it produced directly as well. As I was following on from that and to clarify my original point in terms of constituents that have came to me with feedback, they're talking about better journey times and less congestion, as you mentioned. It's a longer-term concern that I have because, obviously, it's just up, it's just running, and everybody's behind it, but what I wouldn't like it to become in the future is almost a bypass for some of those towns that are there, you know, a sort of Coatbridge, Airdrie, Baleshill bypass. I'm sure that's not the intention of the Government, and I'm just wondering if you can look at ways that we can avoid that happening, so that every part of the network gets equal advantages in improving the communities. It might be useful to hear from some of the experts how we do try and take that into account before we commit to some of these major projects, but you're right, it is a dilemma that you face, the classic to be Route 66 in the States, where they've got the efficient road service, but many communities suffered as a result of that. However, I'm aware of, from a time of transport minister, any number of communities demanding bypasses, they want to have a bypass, and sometimes afterwards, the consequences of bypassing can be quite substantial for local communities. However, we do try to take that into account through the assessment that we do. I don't know if somebody else wants to come in on that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As an engineer on top of the charges, Transport Scotland, I'll try and answer that, but we do look beyond traditional transport economic modelling now, so we look at the wider economic benefits of all our transport schemes and traditionally in the past it would be about engine efficiency, journey time savings, accident savings, but now we will look much further than that. Again, a useful example is Borders Railway, where the blueprint for Borders Railway brought those benefits much wider than just the linear transport link between the borders and Edinburgh. The points we all made, I think when we did the opening at Maxime, Maxime, the chap that was in charge of Maxime started to suggest that there would have been an increase in business activity towards that location because of the fact that the strategic network had been unblocked. We are catering for strategic traffic, but we are all very mindful of business growth in the local area as well. Richard? Yes. Before the AWPR, this was one of the massive biggest projects in Scotland, in my area. Many members in this committee were fed up with me continually asking questions about it, but in the time that they dealt with both Mr Brannan and Michelle Rennie and yourself, cabinet secretary, responded diligently to all the questions, letters and complaints that I had and my constituents had. I personally thank the three of you for that. I know, cabinet secretary, you mainly were instrumental in getting all the traffic cones removed that were sitting on the M74 after the day that opened. Basically, in your right, sometimes you went down to the race interchange and you were going one way, one day, and the next day you were going the other way, and it was very confusing for a lot of car drivers. We had to remember that people were working and people were using that, and what you have done was absolutely fantastic. I will compliment you. Here is the bad bit. Shawhead fly over. Between my colleague and my constituency, there is still a site of building materials and fences that has been there for the past six months. I see Michelle nodding her head. When is that going to be removed? There still is a factor of, and with the greatest respect to my colleague, there are no signs for bell sill on the way out of the M8 coming out for Glasgow 4. The three gantries that you have put up, you could put a sign that says bell sill cope bridge, and when you come to the burgundy roundabout, you could put a sign that says bell sill. There are more signs for McKinnon mills than there are for bell sill. I want bell sill back on the map coming out for the M8, and you have asked me about that. You already know about this. I want to compliment you on the work that is done, on how the journey times have improved, and on fantastic roads. The question has to be asked, what lessons have you learned from that? In the comments and discussions that I had with Transport Scotland—I will cut this down—it is that, based on the contract, there was no leeway to vary the contract any, based on that contract, as it was set. Particularly, I will raise the factor of tree felling, tree reinstatement. I think that there are still some areas that need to be currently. Roy Brannan and Michelle were out in the area still looking at noise reduction, and there are still some areas that need to be tidied up. I will finish at that, convener. There are a heap of points that you have raised, many of which are constituency issues, which I would be very happy for Michelle or the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the committee and writing so that you can have those answers relating to the signs and the storage parts of the tree felling. I think that there was a general overarching point, cabinet secretary, about lessons learned. Do you want to pick up on that very briefly, if I may ask you to do that, please? Yes, I think that Richard Ellman is a very good point. After each of those projects, and going back to the point that was made previously by Colin Smyth, how do we learn from this, I think that there is a tension between cost, between delivery dates, between the nature of the contract, and how tight it is. You have made the point about how we can make sure that traffic management is done in the best way possible, and the consultation happens about it, and giving flexibility to the contractor. Those are real tensions and different awarding authorities take different approaches. We look at that, and I think that you are right to say that in relation to that project, which I think was a fantastic project, which has resulted in long-term benefits to the roads network, especially in relation to diversions and traffic management, we have some lessons to learn from that. Thank you. I am going to move on to Mike Rumbles next, and then Jamie Greene. Yesterday, on 990, the Government made some welcome announcement about 99 per cent of drivers now of being the speed limit because of the average speed cameras between Aberdeen and Dundee, and that is welcome news. I think that everybody would like to see that, and also everybody wants to see a reduction in the number of road accidents. Is there an assumption being made that, because drivers are now staying within the speed limit, there is a reduction in accidents for those three months of October, November and December, it would just have been helpful to make the connection between the two, as well as the information about drivers obeying the speed limit, whether we could have the statistics about whether there has been a reduction in accidents between October and December last year on that stretch of trunk road? That is a perfectly fair question. It is actually more to do with Humza Yousaf, because it is not a major project. From my experience on the A9, there was a time lag between the figures that you mentioned in terms of speeding and in terms of accidents. I do not think that, other than the fact that, when the information becomes available, there is any issue with that, although it is issued by the police, rather than by my recollection. However, I am happy to ask my colleague to see if that information can be provided. That would be very helpful. The clerks will contact you just to confirm that that information will be requested by the committee. Jamie Greene I apologise to the cabinet secretary if this is a matter for the transport secretary, but I will pose the question with the benefit of the panel that we have. The briefing notes say that the project for the MSN 374 was completed in the spring of 2017. Does the cabinet secretary have any views, however, on the fact that the overhead gantries are not in full use at present, that the information matrix boards are not fully operational? There are no speed or safety cameras in operation and, indeed, none of this has any mains power that has all been run off of diesel generators. Could the cabinet secretary or anyone in the panel outline a timetable for when this motorway network will fully be operational, including all of its safety features? I think that it is one for me rather than for arms of use, if we can get the detailed response from the officials on that. What I would say is that this applied also to the Queensferry crossing. If we were to wait until every part of the project was finished before opening the road, I think that we would come under substantial pressure. I know what has happened from members of the committee and other members in the public to say why not open the road and do those things as you can do them. It is always the case that this is not snagging work. I think that your point is about work that would always have to be done in terms of the gantries and so on, but we do try to get the road open as soon as possible for a public benefit. We anticipate that some work will take place after that, but I do not know if it would be yourself. I think that the first thing to be very clear about is that before we open the roads, the roads are deemed safe for operational use by an independent road safety auditor. There is no risk to the road user of using the roads at all. In addition to that, as Mr Brown said, there are always works that are not necessary for the safe operation of the road but would be preferable to have complete at the earliest opportunity. With that in mind, the contract is set up in such a way that there is a milestone, if you like, for opening the road for full usage, and then there is another milestone after that, which is final completion. With those milestones, there is an associated payment. Until such a time, as all aspects of the road are fully complete, the contractor does not receive full payment, so he is fully incentivised to complete that as quickly as possible. The programme for completing any of those jobs is a matter for the contractor. It is his programme, and it is up to him to manage and resource that programme. The contractor for the MAs currently estimates that around April he should be complete. It is then up to him to make sure that that happens, but he will not be receiving the full payment until such a time as he has. Just to clarify, the current presumed date is April 2018, for the aforementioned additional features of the motorway system to be completed. That is what the contractor is projecting. Thank you. Just to remind the committee at the outset, the cabinet secretary mentioned the queen's ferry crossing. If there are any questions that any of the committee has on the queen's ferry crossing now is the appropriate time. Maybe I could just ask a small one, cabinet secretary, just to clarify the budget for the queen's ferry crossing. I have struggled to find this out, and maybe just a quick answer from you will clarify. That covers all the costs to the existing road network from one side of the crossing to the existing road network on the other side of the crossing. That is what the budget covers, and there has been no other work put in any other budget. Is that so? No, in fact, it is a diverse. It also covers substantial works on either side to the existing road. Yes, I am saying right the way across to the existing road and where it forks off the existing road and joins the road again on the other side. All that is covered in the budget price that you have given us. Yes, and I think that there were three distinct elements to it. I think that the underlying question is re-salting some part of the budget away to some other budget. Not that I I was not suggesting that. I was just trying to ascertain because there was quite a lot of works in the lead-up and the lead-off from the new road. I just wanted to make sure that that was all in the budget. Yes, I think that we were clear that there were three distinct elements to it, and we priced each of those, and they have come down, of course, over the time. I do not know whether that is Michelle or Roy, but it is the best place to answer. All the works associated with the project are included within the budget that we have been reporting to the committee. Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions, Mike? Great, the road is now open. When will the whole of the works be complete, not just a snagging, but, you know, I don't necessarily want to ask the cabinet, but the officials, when will the whole work be completed? When do you think it will be completed? I think that the committee has received a letter from us outlining the programme of works between now and next September, and we expect that all the works that we currently know about will be complete by then. Cabinet Secretary, can I just ask that we received, as a committee, a letter saying that the responsibility for the Queensferry crossing now passed to Hamza Yousaf, and you have mentioned it at some length this morning. It would be a help of clarification for future meetings if we know who we are to direct our questions to. Should there be any questions to post this meeting, say just a letter to confirm that to the committee, it would be very useful. Okay, just now, it's relatively straightforward. The major projects, including the Queensferry crossing and my responsibility, the project is coming to an end, as you can tell, so I'm still answerable for that part of the project. As to the day-to-day running, then it sums the use of responsibility for that, but I'll write and give a written clarification if that would suit me. It's just at odds to the letter that we received, but it would be useful to have clarification. I'm sure somebody will come up with this question. Any more snagging needing to be done, any more road closures needing to be done, or is it now all fully opened and running well? I think that's pretty much laid out in the letter, but I don't know if you want to add anything to it. Yeah, it's just as laid out in the letter. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's all the questions we had. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to thank you for your attendance this morning. I'm Michelle, Alastair and Roy, and I'm now briefed again to pause the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave. I'll bring you back to order, if I may, and we'll move on to a gender item three, which is subordinate legislation. It's the consideration of two negative instruments concerning the management of fishings. There have been no motions to a null received in relation to the instruments. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to these instruments? That is agreed. The committee now will move into private session. Thank you.