 Felly, wrth gwrs, mae'n edrych yn gweld yn dweud y ffordd y Ffadig Cfgol Llywodraeth Cymru. Felly, regent y byw yw'r eich cyfrifod mewn sylwedd yn y cyfrifod bwysig, a ddod yn cael ei gwrsau cyffredinol, ond mae y cyfrifod ddweud yn cyfrifodd ar y ffordd ar gyfer cyfrifod yw'r ffordd yn y format digital. Agenda item 1, I would like to welcome James Dornan and Mike McKenzie as new members of the committee and invite them to declare any relevant interests. I refer members to my register of interests nor other interests to declare them. I have nothing to declare other than to refer members to my register of interests. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Gordon MacDonald for his very worthwhile contribution to the work of this committee and wish him well on his new committee. The second item on the agenda is to seek the agreement of the committee on the choice of convener. All the members of the Scottish National Party are eligible to be chosen as convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, and I would invite nominations for the position of convener. I would like to nominate Jim Eadie. Thank you, Mike. There are no other nominations. Can I confirm that Jim Eadie should be appointed as convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee? Can we agree that? Thank you very much. At this point, I will hand over the chair to Jim so that we will do a quick swap. Thank you very much. I am delighted to take on the position of convener of the Infrastructure and Capital. I am delighted to take on the position of convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, and I look forward to working with our excellent clerking team and members across the committee to take forward our work programme in the coming weeks. Agenda item number three for today is to seek the agreement of the committee to take item six in private. Can I ask members to agree to take this item in private? Thank you. The fourth item of business today is to hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities and the Minister for Transport and Islands, and their supporting officials as part of a general update on transport matters. I am delighted to welcome Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Investment and Cities, Derek Mackay, Minister for Transport and Islands, Neil Langhorne, Sustainable and Active Transport Team Leader, Roy Brannan, director of trunk roads and bus operations. The prize for the longest title is for Stuart Leggett, strategic impacts manager in trunk roads and bus operations at the Scottish Government and also Aidan Gracewood, director of rail at Transport Scotland. Good morning, gentlemen. If I could kick off our evidence session by asking the minister, what is the Scottish Government's view on the UK Government's decision to reprivatise the east coast rail franchise? Happy to take that, convener. First of all, congratulations on your appointment. Would it be possible to make a short statement first of all? Would that be okay? Yes, that would be. As I say, congratulations on your new post, convener. I look forward to working with you in the committee as we have done in the past. I am delighted to be here with Derek Mackay, our new minister for transport and the islands and to provide a general update on transport matters. I hope that we will not forget to come back to the question that you asked just at the end of this short statement. I think that you will know that our spending plans are focused on sustaining the economic recovery through investment. We intend to deliver more than £3 billion of investment over 2014-15 and 2015-16. That investment will support around 40,000 full-time equivalent jobs across Scotland. That, of course, is despite cuts of 26 per cent to our capital budgets in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16. Ongoing investment in transport connects regions and people to economic opportunity, and that contributes to our national social cohesion and helps to reduce the disparity between the regions of Scotland. Our investment in Scotland's transport infrastructure, such as the Queensferry crossing or the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, all play a key role in creating the best possible conditions for business success. We continue to make excellent progress in delivering our infrastructure investment plan. The Queensferry crossing is currently over 50 per cent complete and about 80 per cent of the contractor's procurement has now been completed. It is on schedule to be delivered in 2016. We have secured a further £50 million in savings, which means that the five-mile stretch of dual carriageway between King Craig and Elradi on the A9 will be the first of the 12 dualling schemes to be brought forward, and it is due to being completed in 2017—six months earlier than previously anticipated. Construction is also under way to deliver significant improvements to the M8, M73 and M74. When the full programme is complete, road users can look forward to more than 80 miles of new road surface and that is equivalent to around 200 football fields for those who count the road surface in that way. Other transport major projects that are advancing as planned, track laying, has commenced on the border's railway and is on target for completion by the end of 2014. Service commencement is also on schedule for September 2015. On 5 November 2014, Network Rail announced the award of a £250 million Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project Alliance contract, which will deliver the Edinburgh Glasgow Eligification by December 2016. Contractors are on site, and the first physical works, which include piling, are already under way. On 28 October, speed limits for HDVs on the A9 were increased from 40mph to 50mph on single carriageway sections between Perth and Inverness. We are also making more improvements to safety of the route, with average speed cameras now installed and operational between Dunblane and Inverness. We are keen to address issues on the northern section of the A9 as well, as part of the necessary statutory process for the burial braze scheme. Local people and road users were invited to a public exhibition in Buriedale on Wednesday 26 November following Transport Scotland's publication of the draft road orders to address the hairpin bend and steep hill. Preparatory work on the Aberdeen bypass is nearing completion with full construction due to start shortly. It announced in early November that the advertisement of £70 million worth of subcontracts for the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the Balmerie to Tipperty project, which is part of that project now. That package itself totals around £221 million. Just last week, I was delighted to announce that we had now been able to bring the completion date forward to winter 2017. That is quite unprecedented, since overcoming all the legal challenges back in October 2012. We have done all we can to accelerate the procurement and construction of the AWPR and Balmerie to Tipperty project. Hard on the heels of that comes news that the preparatory work for the Hadigan scheme is now underway, and that will ensure that that improvement scheme is ready to go as soon as the AWPR is finished. The site work for the scheme is expected to be completed by the end of the year, with draft road orders expected next summer. Construction work to remove a notorious bottleneck on the A96 at the Inveramsey bridge will start before the end of the year. I believe that that forms an impressive package of transport infrastructure improvements that we are delivering for the north-east in particular. Alongside the transport infrastructure projects that I have mentioned, we are successfully taking forward many transport initiatives. The Government is committed to public transport and to our ambitious climate change target of reducing carbon emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. We have made further progress in these areas, for example, through round 5 of the Scottish Green bus fund, which saw the Scottish Government allocate £3.7 million towards the cost of purchasing another 83 low-carbon emission buses. It should also mention that there was news this week that Alexander Dennis in Falkirk has attracted a new contract for around £300 million to build buses in Canada. I would like to think that we have helped to play a part in that by some of the contracts that have successfully won in relation to the Green bus fund. That will bring the total number of low-carbon vehicles in Scotland's eco-friendly bus fleet to 209. The Scottish Government is committed to improving bus services in Scotland. That is why we are providing over £3 million worth of funding over the next two years under the second round of Transport Scotland's bus investment fund. 13 projects, including interchange hubs and community transport, will receive grants, helping to improve the standard of bus services, increase patternage and thereby achieve a greater modal shift. As you will be aware, the two rail franchises have now been successfully awarded. The existing Caledonian sleeper service will be transformed with new rolling stock operational by 2018 and locally sourced catering. The new ScotRail franchise will provide at least 80 new trains with 23 per cent more carriages across the network. New electric trains will be delivered for services between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and smart ticketing will be rolled out over the network. A dedicated mobilisation team in Transport Scotland has been put in place to ensure a smooth handover from First ScotRail to Abelio and to Serco. The Scottish Government aims also to get more people making active travel choices to improve their health and to benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse gases and pollutants. During this year and next, we are increasing our expenditure on cycling and walking infrastructure by a further £27 million to deliver projects that promote active travel for everyday journeys. I recently unveiled the Scottish Government's long-term vision for active travel, which aims to encourage more people to walk and cycle for everyday shorter journeys. It focuses on areas such as infrastructure, transport integration, cultural and behaviour change, as well as community ownership and planning. That vision was very much a collaborative effort between myself and the active travel stakeholders. That is a brief overview, convener. I hope that it is helpful to the committee. To come back to the question that you asked about the view that we have of the decision of the UK Government to, as has been termed, reprivatise the east coast mainline, I suppose for many people that raised eyebrows because it was a very successful franchise that was obviously directly operated, but it was returning substantial amounts of money to the treasury and was well received, well regarded by users. However, it was in the end, despite the fact that it comes into Scotland, a decision for the UK Government. What we did was to make sure that we were consulted and we put forward the interests of the people in Scotland that will use those services. Can I just ask you on that point what input did the Scottish Government have in the specification of the new intercity east coast franchise? We asked to be consulted, which happened in relation to previous franchises. Our response to that was to make sure that we maintained the services that were there. It is quite hard to see how the various things that we asked for, in relation to things like Wi-Fi, frequency of services and improvement of services, is quite difficult to see, even though the contract has been announced or the successful bidder has been announced, exactly how successful we have been in terms of our representations. That level of detail is not available, but there are some issues. For example, we wanted to continue to make sure that the services continue to go through to Aberdeen, perhaps more services to Aberdeen. We are still waiting to find out how effective our contribution or our representations to the UK Government have been in terms of the final package of services, but it seems from what we know so far, and Edin would be able to answer in more detail, that most of what we asked for seems to have been accepted as part of the basic package, and we will find out more in the coming weeks. Is there anything more that you can say in terms of how you intend to monitor progress in delivering those requirements to ensure the quality and frequency of the service in that part of the coast? Is it as good as it should be? We have no role at all in relation to that. Obviously, we can make representations and we can take up issues that are given to us from users and other stakeholders, but the monitoring of it will be done by the UK Government. It is its franchise, and it will be the one that is responsible for monitoring. I do not know whether you want to say any more about that. That is right. In terms of the actual roll-out of more frequent services and the sheer quantum of extra services to Edinburgh, for example, and the number of four-hour services, which was one of the things that we made representations about and the speed at which those are delivered. That is, again, the detail that we still need to get from the Department for Transport. As part of that, there will be milestones in terms of delivery, and they will be responsible for making sure that the franchisee meets those milestones. Adam, you would like to come in. I wonder what some of the asks that you made of with the UK Government obviously are significant features of the ScotRail franchise, like the payment of the living wage, taking on apprentices, no compulsory redundancies, and those types of issues. Were they asked of the UK Government to include in the East Coast franchise? Can you ask the Minister for Transport for Responsibility to answer that question? That is certainly something that we have been exploring in terms of the successful bid, and we are unpicking the successful bid, because some of the information that we have comes through the press release that talks about training. If you ask specifically on the living wage, we are yet to determine whether the UK Government's Department for Transport decision means the living wage for those workers. We have clarity in our franchise that it absolutely does include the living wage, but we have not yet got that clarity from the outcome of that specification. What we do know from what we have submitted is important in terms of the transport requirements have largely been achieved, but we need to see the full detail, of course, but we will always be ambitious and seek more for Scotland, particularly in relation to the employment matters. We do not have that detail, but we were quite specific around the living wage and can expressly say that it has been delivered in terms of our franchise, but it does not seem clear for that route by the UK Government. Alex, you have some questions on the ScotRail franchise. Thank you very much, convener. The success of real travel in Scotland has been quite spectacular in recent years. Just to look at the figures that I have in front of me, in 2004-5, there were 64.2 million passengers, and in 2012-13, only nine years later, there were 83.25 million passengers. Has that increase in passenger numbers actually allowed you to secure a better deal for the taxpayer? It stands for the reason that it has. It is hard to be specific about how that has been achieved. I think that the latest figure is actually 86.3 million, because we have had some more figures since the last one that you mentioned. Obviously, it does because when people look to bid for the franchise, they take into account patterns because that is part of their revenue, the fare box that they receive. Obviously, that makes it more attractive to bidders. My view would be quite hard to say exactly how much more attractive it has made at two bidders, or how to specify exactly how that has benefited, other than to say that it is obviously the case. Given the very healthy interests that we had in the franchise process for ScotRail, giving what I think was an exceptional deal that we managed to get substantial savings for the taxpayer in terms of the subsidy payments that we have to pay, so yes, there is obviously a correlation between increased usage, the attractiveness to bidders, and the keenness of their bids as well. How will the performance of the new franchise be monitored during the course of the franchise, and what kind of penalties will be applied if they do not achieve the objectives of the franchise? What you will know of the current regime is that the penalties can be applied in a number of ways, but you have a range of different ways of monitoring, so the Office of Rail Regulator will look at things like performance. I myself and now Derek will receive regular updates in terms of monthly performance, how they have achieved their performance. We have had some exceptionally good months in the last couple of years, and then we have had some issues around, say, the Commonwealth Games when we all knew there was going to be an impact because of the way that we configured the train sets to make sure that we maximised the availability in the areas of the biggest pressure. We also have the squire regime, which has criteria in terms of cleanliness of the rolling stock and how suitable they are for customers, so there is a whole range of different monitoring processes. Within that, there are penalties that can be applied. I must say that my view in the past, and Derek will take his own view on it, is that the penalties are often not a very good solution because what happens is that if the ORR applies a financial penalty, that simply goes to the treasurer who is taking it to the Scottish Rail Network, so we would rather see other remedies normally be applied than the financial ones, but they are there, and they do act as an incentive to the operator to make sure that they comply with what has been specified in the contract. I do not know whether Derek Orain will come in on that, Tom. In your opening statement, Minister, you spoke about rolling stock and replacement of rolling stock. I wonder if you will be able to provide any additional information on new and refurbished rolling stock that is due to be introduced during the new franchise period, including when new trains will enter service and whether rolling stock that is replaced will be redeployed within ScotRail or whether they will find themselves just being knocked down into other franchises? You are right to point out the fact that within the rail industry across the UK, it is often a cascade effect that happens, but I do not know what you want to come in on that rolling stock. On the specifics, there is the new electric rolling stock that is obviously tied in with the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme. The first four trains are going to be manufactured in Japan in the beginning of next year. There are another 76 units that are going to be manufactured in Newton-A-Cliff and the New Hitachi factory. They will be rolled out and tied in with the infrastructure improvements through the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme, so the longer electric rolling stock on the Edinburgh Glasgow route and the Stirling Dumblain route as well. That is the new electric rolling stock and then there is the refurbished high-speed trains that will be coming on at the end of 2018. That is written into the contract too, so that will be refurbished internally and there will be new livery, extra luggage space, cycling space and so on. That will come on stream at the end of 2018. On the subject of rolling stock that might be displaced in Scotland, will that find itself, if it is at the end of its life simply being scrapped, but the rolling stock that is still usable, will that simply go into the marketplace and find itself redeployed across the whole United Kingdom? There will be an overall increase in capacity of well over 20 per cent across the network as a whole over 10 years, so that is consistent with what you are saying in terms of the passenger growth that we have seen and we are encouraging in the next franchise. With all the electrification going on, there will naturally be a surplus around diesel rolling stock and opportunities for cascading that to the rest of the UK network or beyond. That is the way that the industry structure through the Roscoe goes and that is the mechanism that works. Cabinet Secretary, you are obviously aware of the correspondence that we have had recently about my asking for improved services and trained services in my own constituency, particularly on the Glasgow to Comarant to Dumfries line. Your response was that there will be improvement in services but we have not yet got clarity on that. Perhaps I could ask your successor when we are likely to have clarity on improvement, for example in terms of frequency of service on these lines, not just in my own constituency but across Scotland. I can maybe not give too much more encouragement other than to say, as you would expect, that there is enhancements within the services part of the franchise in terms of capacity and ways of working on quality of service. However, as to the timetabling, we will be looking further at that in partnership to see what amendments can be made. Any specific request for improvements will be considered and taken up in a partnership approach. We will continue to look at it clearly before implementation to set out what the timetables look like. However, we will take on board and I am sure that all correspondence and notes of interest in how timetables and routes can be improved will be taken forward and properly considered with a very constructive partnership approach. I am sure that my MSP colleagues will take that as an invitation minister to have some more asks for you, presumably. It was not necessarily a bid for more asks, I was just saying that we are at the stage where we are in discussion with the timetabling with a successful bidder. I also have another railway line in my constituency that qualifies for the great scenic railway scheme, the Glasgow to Stranrar line. Could you provide any more information on the scheme, including projected improvements in passenger numbers, as part of the scheme? We have a range of ideas to take forward in terms of the scenic routes. It includes improved wi-fi, better design in terms of the views that can be seen from the train's better facilities, ambassadors on selected routes and Scottish produce on selected routes to promote Scottish food and drink. In terms of the ambassadors, they will attend the Visit Scotland Tourism training course. We hope to support specific lines. In addition, some steam special services will operate in specified lines to promote local attractions and grow tourism, but that is particularly on the borders route. We will take advantage of the tourist offer in Scotland and integrate that into transport in a way that is better than what we had before through the use of ambassadors information, Scottish produce and destinations in a sense of place as part of the travel network. That in itself should encourage more people to use the trains to take advantage of the tourism offer, as well as the transport function, the main reason, of course, for using the trains, so we will have better integration than we have had before. It is worth mentioning the fact that this was something that we did not really have to push the bidder on. They were very keen to do this, and they have really fleshed out—obviously, we encourage that kind of thing—but they are very keen to do this, and it has been extremely well received in those local areas where the Great Scenic railways are proposed. As Derek says, apart from anything else, the borders will be a new service, so that will be an increase in patterns in any event. I think that this has been extremely well received in those communities where it is to be implemented. If you combine that with what we have mentioned before, a sleeper service with Scottish Produce—a gateway to Scotland—it is one of the best aspects of the new franchise. The cabinet secretary knows that the particular line that I mentioned has concerns about passenger numbers and the need to build traffic on that railway line. This marketing exercise is what I presume it is, basically, with enhanced service, presumably, as well, should deliver results. When would we know that how is this going to be evaluated on an on-going basis? First of all, I think that it is worth saying that the line that you mentioned in particular will also be helped by the establishment of the community rail partnership, a very active rail partnership. It may well be the case that it is up for community rail partnerships to decide how they take those things forward. They will act as the best promoters and marketers, if you like, of this new service. You are right to say that passenger numbers in that route have been a problem ever since the change in the ferry port, but this is a way of adding a new dimension to that, given a different reason for people to want to travel that line. As to the timing of it, I do not know whether Derek Orr didn't want to come... It is a roll-out, and that sort of detail is still to be announced in terms of the refurbishment of the stock. It takes quite a while, and we do want to take all the stock out at the same time. It will be a gradual roll-out in terms of the routes that will become part of the great scenic railways, offered with the marketing starting in advance of that. From 2015, you know that from the off, they will be starting that process. I look forward to it, maybe take a trip myself, report back ministers. Can I also ask about another feature of the ScotRail franchise, which was the availability of reduced fares for jobseekers? That is a particular interest again to my constituency, which is perhaps a wee bit peripheral in the city, in terms of being in the city region. Glasgow is obviously a key job, I suppose, for people in the west of Scotland. How do we intend to take this particular initiative forward? It is not just people who are seeking work, but perhaps it is the ability of people to take jobs if fares are not going to be excessively priced for such people. There is the wider issue of pricing of fares in terms of linking it to RPI in terms of peak and off peaks. RPI is less than 1 per cent for standard charging over the period, but specifically on jobseekers, that is correct. There is the element of reduction for jobseekers and the detail of that is yet to be determined in terms of the eligibility process and so on. We will work through that detail, but we are committed to providing that discount as part of the franchise. The advanced fares of £5 between cities. It is part of the wider part of the air quality agenda that you start to make it as easy as possible for people to access jobs. I think it is Derek Wright that says the work that we have done now for a number of years to bear down on price increases. I know that it is an issue for people who have substantially lower increases and have been true of the rest of the UK. You are going to see real terms cuts in terms of some of the fares going forward, so we are well aware of that. The bidder has acknowledged that by those most likely to benefit jobseekers in particular being able to get cheaper fares, especially given the fact that you will then also help model shift as well. If it gets people into the habit of using public transport at that stage, if they are just drawing the jobs market then it is a good thing. It is a very innovative thing. I should say that in relation to the £5 fare between the Scottish cities, that loves to be an advanced fare. I hesitate to use an example of one of the airlines, but you would really have to be in to make sure that you have booked that in advance to get the advantages of that fare, but I think that it is a huge bonus to people between any of the cities in Scotland that the £5 fare will be very popular. The final question that I have to ask this morning on this area is what criteria will you use to decide whether to exercise the option to extend the franchise by three years? We would look at performance in the round and all levels of performance, but essentially we enter the franchise in good faith. The break option is if there is reason to break if we are not satisfied with the performance to the customers of Scotland. Although we would look at a range of measurements to make that judgment, essentially we would expect to fulfil the period of the franchise and use the break option only if it is required and deemed necessary by the Government at the time. Obviously there is a lead-in period in terms of making that decision and then actual implementation, but we enter the franchise in good faith. James, you have some questions on the new Caledonian sleeper franchise. Thank you, convener. Can I first of all start by congratulating the cabinet secretary and minister on their new portfolios? I have a number of questions around the sleeper contract, but before I do I have to say that I think that given the way the contract reads it does appear as if it would be a good deal. I agree with Robert Samson from the passenger focus who said that it looked like it was going to be a good deal for passengers. However, given the contract went to Serco and there are some issues around about Serco, I do think that we should be looking to deal with them. They entered the partnership with Inverloch i Castle Management and Albert Rew to manage and operate the sleeper services. Can you explain who will be responsible for which aspects of the sleeper service? What's the last part of the question? Can you explain who will be responsible for which aspect of the sleeper service? I will turn to a fish or the muck. Serco, that are for the contract, so they are the responsibility for all aspects of the contract, even though they have agreements with the two organisations you mentioned. Serco are the ones that we will hold to account for don't move the contract in all its aspects. The division of the management will be decided by Serco, that's fine. A number of financial issues that were raised with Serco before. What guarantees do we have that Serco can hold to the contract, given that, for example, they were suspended for six months from a building for UK Government contracts? We've sought financial reassurance around the company and the provision of services, and we're satisfied at the moment with the reassurance that's been given around the finances. For any reason, the franchise wasn't able to be delivered. Of course, the Government has options in terms of operator of last resort, if that was required, but we don't believe that that will be the case, that notwithstanding the financial challenges that you've identified, we've been reassured, and I've been reassured that they should not affect the service that's forthcoming. Just for clarification, you have contingency plans in place? Yes, of course. Ultimately, operator of last resort would be there, but there's a range of options within that. Essentially, there are questions about the financial capability and risk that there are at the moment, but we don't believe that they will affect the franchise. It's true to say that we have bonds and guarantees in place, as well, but, as Derek Rowley says, we regularly do with all franchise holders, we check on the financial standing of the operator, and we are satisfied with the assurances that we've had. In relation to the fact that they were barred from taking up contracts by the UK Government, that had stopped prior to this process coming to a conclusion. We couldn't have, for example, said that you've recently been barred from the UK Government from taking up contracts, so we can't let you do this contract. We couldn't have done that if it had expired, so we're then able at the stage that they want this contract to take up government contracts. If, for example, as has been suggested by one or two people that we were to say, no, because we don't like your recent track record, then we would have been liable for they could well have launched a complaint about that and sought compensation for their bidding costs and other costs as well, but we were satisfied at the time that the contract was let, they were not under the stricture from the UK Government that you mentioned. Do you see that the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly have both got the contracts, since that's what that would explain? As does Glasgow City Council. Yes, it's got a longer run one, to be fair. The last question I have on this is the full business case highlighted risks associated with locomotives that will be used by Circle to haul sleeper services. Can you offer an assurance that sleeper service reliability and punctrality will not be adversely affected by the introduction of these locomotives to the sleeper service? We've since sought that reassurance and we've got our own technical experts in terms of just looking at the nature of the locos that they're using and the extent of the refurbishment and therefore assurance around reliability and punctrality performance that we can expect from that franchise. Can I just stick with the issue around the credibility of Circle, given that they are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? I've had to repay over £60 million to the UK Government and were banned from bidding for UK contracts for six months. Obviously, all of that, you would expect to undermine public confidence in their ability to operate flagship services. As part of the Scottish rail service, what further reassurance can you provide to the public that Circle is indeed a company that is capable of delivering? First of all, Circle are now quite a different company. They've had some substantial changes and actually quite a degree of contraction in terms of the contracts that they're involved in. I think that the company has made statements about that and it's not really for me to get involved in obviously an ongoing investigation, as you mentioned, but what we can do in relation to this is, first of all, to make sure that the process that we've gone through is a robust one, and so we make checks on all the bidders, as we did with Circle, as to their financial standing. If you want to preclude somebody from bidding for a contract, you have to have very good grounds for doing that, which are robust and can stand up to challenge. They were not the grounds to preclude Circle from bidding for this contract. We have sought guarantees, Aiden can perhaps talk about that in more detail, in terms of the financial guarantees that we have. We require bidders to be insulated from the wider group in terms of their ability to run this contract as well. I think that those are the assurances that we have, and as I say, we do continuously monitor that, not because we're particularly concerned about Circle, we do that for all contractors in relation to this. There was an issue previously on the stock market for another franchise holder where we sought further reassurance. We seek reassurances, but they are not just verbal ones, they are financial ones as well. I hear what you're saying, cabinet secretary, and I'm sure that people will be reassured that the Scottish Government has sought and received those assurances from Circle, but they are a company experiencing considerable financial difficulties. I think that it's right that the Scottish Government should do that. I think that the public would expect them to do that. I just ask you, finally, on this point, what contingency plans are in place should Circle withdraw from the franchise? There are a number of options that are available to the Government. As we saw in relation to the east coast mainline, the Government became the operator of last resort. We have, for example, shelf companies, which you could then bring into being. You have to assemble the expertise to order to run a rail service directly, but we don't believe we're in that situation. The contingency plans are fairly well laid out in the legislation and in practice by the UK Government. We are bound by the same legislation and we've taken the same precautions, but we don't believe that those are going to be necessary. We believe that Circle can fulfil the contract. Mark, you have some questions on high-speed rail. Just to ask ministers what engagement you have had and Transport Scotland officials have had with the high-speed rail to company and UK Transport for Transport on high-speed rail issues, particularly the feasibility of high-speed rail coming to Scotland. We've had a number of discussions over recent years. I've talked to three different Securities of State trying to get the dialogue with high-speed rail to the company themselves. We have had discussions with them about what we've done during those discussions is to make clear that there seems to be a tendency when UK ministers talk about this, they talk about the benefits of high-speed rail coming to Scotland. What we've done is to make clear that what we want to see is high-speed rail coming to Scotland, not just benefits that might add on from high-speed rail south of the border. Just now, we have a relatively constructive dialogue and we await the outcome of the joint study that has been undertaken and in which we are cited. It's been undertaken by HS2 and we'll wait and see what they come forward with. We've been very clear. I think that it might be true of most of the parties in the Parliament as well that they want to see high-speed rail coming to Scotland. That's where the real benefits come in. We've also made the point to them that doing it in this relatively piecemeal fashion, announcing add-ons and so on, is perhaps not the best way to go about the contract. There are many reasons to suggest that it would be more straightforward, not uncomplicated, more straightforward to start a high-speed rail link from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London from the north. We don't have quite the same weight of issues that they have, especially coming out of London. It's also true to say that you don't have to start a railway line of that type in one point and move from point A to point B. You can do it along the line that we're doing in the border. Those are the points that we've made to them. We are pleased that we have the dialogue with HS2 that we asked for, but, as I say, we await the outcome of the joint study. What's the Scottish Government's views on the comments that were made by the chairman of the HS2 company, where he said that it was much more likely that upgrades of existing rail lines would be much more likely than the HS2 company coming to Scotland and comments that the joint discussions between the two transport departments on high-speed rail lines are running behind schedule? My view on those comments, of course, David Higgins has to take a steer from the department for transport, so the much more important issue behind that is the political one. If we can get buy-in from all the political parties to the principle that high-speed rail should come to Scotland, then I think that it strengthens the hands of David Higgins. Someone we've got a lot of time for we know, but he will have to say what he has to say given the political direction that he gets. I think that he's well aware of the situation in Scotland, the benefits that would accrue. It's very obvious to most people looking at it that the real benefits in terms of economic regeneration and also in terms of modal shift come if you come all the way to Scotland. That's when you get, if you can get sub-three-hour journey times from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London, which it may be possible to get if you were to do some of the refurbishment that's been talked about. We have to wait and see what the joint study says, but if you want to get real modal shift it really has to come all the way to Scotland. The central belt of Scotland is the second most economically active area of the UK after the south-east of England. There are real benefits to the rest of England and the rest of the UK if you have that link all the way there. My point is that I've said this directly to the UK Government and others that we really want to see high-speed rail come all the way to Scotland. That's where the real benefits come, but behind that it's not pretend otherwise. It's the politicians that will be driving this and I think it's the politicians that we all have to convince that this should happen. Thanks for that. You mentioned the central Scotland area of economic activity and have been plans for an Edinburgh-Glasgow high-speed rail line. Are you able to give an update on planning, on feasibility for that Edinburgh-Glasgow high-speed rail line? We are looking at that just now, as I've said previously to the committee. It was our idea that obviously that's predicated in large part on the idea of a high-speed rail link coming from the south. That's what makes sense for it. I think that we want to see some more information from the UK Government before we take much further the possibilities of high-speed rail between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It makes sense to make it part of a high-speed rail network. That's what we want to see. That fundamentally affects the viability of that. I think that that's what we want to see and obviously the joint study that I mentioned before and hopefully a new direction from the UK Government coming out explicitly in favour of high-speed rail to Scotland would help us with that type of process. Finally, if I remember correctly, and apologies if I'm wrong, but the budget line on high-speed rail from last year to the upcoming budget has reduced. Are you able to tell the committee why that is the case? Again, it's tied in with the minister's previous answer about waiting for the results of the joint study. It was always just planning work, so the budget was planning work. The actual scale of investment that you need to take forward would be in hundreds of millions and plus rather than the few million pounds that you're talking about. I think it's down from four million to one or two million from recollection, but essentially that's planning work involved in the business case development that we're talking about and taking forward work. Subsequent to that, but we're waiting for the results of the joint study, in order that we can give a fully informed picture to ministers around the options. To assist Mr Griffin on the question between Edinburgh and Glasgow, in any event there's major investment through the programme and the project between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Whilst it's not high-speed rail, that improvement project will be substantial nonetheless, but any future investment and that answers the budget line question all hangs on the joint study. UK Government making a view and a decision and then the partnership decision and knock-on consequences for us, but there will be improvements to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Glasgow to Edinburgh nonetheless through that improvement project. High-speed rail is all connected to the joint study in terms of the UK position. Mike, you have some questions on the A83 and major trunk road projects. Thank you, convener. Given the vast territory of the Highlands and Islands, I hope you'll indulge me just slightly. I'm the only member here with an interest in that area. Just before getting into the questions, I would take the opportunity of giving a bit of feedback to the ministers on the delight about the increased frequency of the service, the rail service between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That's the first significant improvement to that service for very many years, so people are really pleased at that. I'll move on to the A83, rest and be thankful. The one observation that I would make before asking the ministers for an update is that, in comparatively recent times, I remember clearing the landslide seemed to take days. Now that seems to take place in a matter of hours, so I think and I know that I could convey that people in that area are thankful for that. To ask the minister for an update on that, and also, while we're in that area, Pulpit Rock, my heart used to sink when I arrived at Pulpit Rock and a frown would come over my face these days again after many years. My heart is uplifted. A smile comes to my face as I see the progress, but it would be interesting to hear exactly what progress is and when we can expect completion of those works along with the adjacent Cranelaric bypass. I wonder if the minister can provide some updates in those areas. Thank you very much, Mr Mackenzie, for that. A smile comes to my face when I hear of the challenges in A83 and rest and be thankful as well. It's a significant challenge with the impact of weather and the landslides on the transport network. The task force will continue to meet to look at the options available to us. A number of measures have been put in place to try and minimise disruption and ensure that the route when blocked is reopened as quickly as possible. Some of the short-term measures have been very helpful, such as the netting and some of the other physical approaches. Roy, can you cover the specifics that you have asked about? Thank you very much. It's hardening to hear the feedback in terms of the speed of response, because it's a massive team effort to try and keep the road open. The first thing that we have to say is that our fantastic landscape topography means that we just can't stop landslides from occurring, including the climate and how we adapt to it. It's an on-going battle that we face, not just at the rest, but across the whole of Scotland. As well as we've got the A83, we've also got Glencoe, we've got Sky, we've got lots of other locations. We undertook a study some years ago that identified and risk assessed exactly where those high-profile areas are. We've got a good understanding of what we're faced with. The approach is really about hazard risk, either reduction or mitigation. At the rest, as you know, we've undertaken a study, quite a detailed study, that looked at a range of options to try and reduce the risk associated with the rest. The option that it was chosen to take for was the red option, which was using alpine netting to protect the debris flow channels and reduce the risk that occurs from large boulders and large debris making its way to the road and potentially having a fairly significant impact on traffic. We've completed all 14 phases of that netting now at the rest. The last landslide that we had at the end of October was the biggest slide that we had for some significant time. The netting, in our eyes, worked as expected. It withheld the biggest largest boulders that we've ever seen, some of them the size of small cars from making their way down onto the road itself. What we saw in the pictures that were tweeted out and communicated more widely was a slurry, the mud and water that had made its way down to the carriageway. Obviously, the OMR, the old military road, is working very well in terms of trying to mitigate the impact on the distance. The times vary in terms of when you join the back of the queue, but certainly removing that additional distance for travellers into Ergyll and Bute is welcomed, I think. It is a partnership approach with the local community, with all the stakeholders, with the tourism bodies, to try and ensure that the message is very key and that Ergyll and Bute is still open for business, even as we deal with these incidents as they occur. This year, we are spending an additional million pounds at the rest itself, which will be on drainage, some planting preparation works, additional monitoring, again leading the way in terms of the UK and the world, in terms of monitoring landslides and trying to get an early point in terms of identifying the trigger of when we expect landslides to occur. We are also, more widely down the 8 to 3 spending, about £5 million on the other site, so Glen King last, which is further west, Loch Shearaw and Cairndown, which was the scene of our landslides some years ago, which nearly took out one of the houses. Further afield, the part B of the study that they undertook improving some of the bends, resurfacing and some of the other issues that had occurred over a number of years further down the 8 to 3. This year, the minister announced the re-trunking of a significant part of the trunk ward from Kenneth Craig to Campbelltown, which shows the commitment in terms of the amount of investment that we are trying to put into the road. That is what we are doing on the 8 to 3. More widely, the 8 to 2 schemes progress on the Puput Rock and Cranelaric. I do not have in front of me the exact dates of when the Puput Rock is due to open, but I can provide that to the committee once I speak with my colleague Ainsley McLaughlin, director of major projects. Thank you very much indeed. It is a pretty comprehensive response, so thanks for that. Moving a bit further north, there seems to be a rumour emerging that the A9 cameras, average speed cameras, may not, in fact, be switched on. I wonder if you could give some clarity on that. Well, as a new minister, I saw that press coverage as well. I have checked, and they are on, and they are operational. It is as straightforward as that. We can go into the debate around it, but they are absolutely operational. Thank you for that. It might be worth covering some of the main issues that pertain to that. Obviously, there are people who are in favour of the cameras and those who are not. Can you just sketch out the main arguments, please? I am happy to go into the experience of it and turn to the experience of the cabinet secretary. Well, I think that this issue has changed over time. I think that, sitting on a lot of the feedback that I am getting now, people feel that it is a less stressful drive, that they feel more at ease on the road. There have been expected small increases in journey times. It is too early to say in terms of some of the other aspects. We will have to wait and see what the safety camera partnership publishes after three months. I remain convinced that it is the right thing to do. We said before that, based on the evidence that we have—it can never be totally conclusive—if you can eliminate two fatal or serious accidents a year, the cost of that, apart from the personal cost of the individuals involved, which is huge, is around £2 million per fatal accident, £4 million reduction, if that was to happen over a period of years. However, it was also necessary to do, because we would have to put avid speed cameras on those parts of the road that were being duelled in any event. You would do that for the safety of the workforce. I have already mentioned an opening statement. The first of those will start next year. I believe that it is the right thing to do. A lot of those people who have raised concerns have raised concerns. For example, more recently, there was a concern raised about whether traffic was going off the A9 to go and use other routes. We have seen, I think, a 5 per cent increase in the usage of the A9. I do not think that that has been borne out by the evidence that we have that people have been doing that. It is hard that you will know the route better than I do, but even in my knowledge of the route, I cannot think of shortcuts that would help you in relation to that. It certainly would not get you there faster. It was the right thing to do. Obviously, we said that it was a pilot, so we will evaluate it over time. However, it was the right thing to do in terms of increasing the safety. It does not stop and it does not hinder and it does not delay by one day the dualling of the A9. We will do that as quickly as we can do. I know that people will say that they will do it as quickly as they can, but I would say that we said that in relation to the AWPR and that we are doing that. We have said that in relation to a number of other projects and that we are doing them quicker than previously estimated. We will try to do that as quickly as possible. I accept the point that many people who are concerned about the average speed cameras have made, which is that the best solution here is to do the road. We are doing that and we will do it as quickly as we can. I have to commend the Scottish Government for taking an evidence-based approach to that. I know that a number of constituents that I am in contact with are actually quite happy with the situation. If I can briefly convene her, I will move on to my final question, which is about the Stornoway Allopull ferry route. I am sure that you will be aware that due to the construction of the new links band, the ferry is having to come off that route and divert from Stornoway to Oog and Skye. I think that the main concern at the moment seems to be that CalMac perhaps has not consulted that well, as it may have done. Could you comment on that and perhaps give a bit of reassurance? It was right to take the decision to do that. What you are going to end up with at the end of the process is a fantastic £43 million ferry, which can take both passengers and freight, and you are going to have improved port facilities in either port, both at Stornoway and Allopull. It was right to do it at this time. However, I am aware of the criticism that there could have been in earlier consultation, whether it is by Seamall or by CalMac. In any event, I have said to both CalMac and Seamall that this should be done as a matter of course. Perhaps information came out before they were ready to finalise their plans in order to alleviate any changes that should be made. However, I have made the point that both the CalMac and Seamall should consult as early as possible, but I do believe that it is a right decision to have taken. Once the new boats are in operation and so on, that you expect a much-improved service of passenger experience? I have been on the new vessel. It is a fantastic vessel and I think that people are obviously very keen. There is no diminution to the service just now. Of course we are serving that route both in terms of passengers and freight, but this new ship will have vastly better fuel consumption figures if you take the combined passenger and freight services just now. It is more efficient and more environmentally friendly. It is a very attractive vessel, so it is something that people will notice. I know that they are very keen to see it happen as soon as possible and I will get that chance very shortly. I believe that it also marks the fact that we are investing substantially in that route and for the people on the islands. If you will indulge me, ministers, I was going to jump around a few of the road projects just briefly. The first one was, on the subject of the E9 speed cameras, would it be possible to have some indication of the number of penalty notices that were issued in the first days and weeks after the cameras were switched on? I tried to mention that earlier and saying that we do not publish them. The safety partnership will publish those figures and we do that in a set period, over a period of time. I think that it is a three-monthly period. Perhaps Roy can come in and tell us, but there is no provision for us to go and say, give us an early snapshot of what happened in the first few days. We should get that information fairly soon, but they have a set process for doing this, which we are not going to deviate from. Do you want to mention that one? Yes, the safety camera partnerships own the data. They are now operating the system. We installed it, but the partnerships now look after it and they manage it and operate on a daily basis. They will not release those figures because it brings into potential jeopardy the whole operation of the safety camera system. What they have agreed to do, and there is a meeting today—actually, the chair of the road safety group, Stuart, sits beside me—there is a meeting today of the safety group. They will be working towards dissemination of information in a quarterly basis. By January, they will provide some kind of performance statistics on exactly what the system is doing. On a different subject, please forgive me if you mentioned this earlier, because I got very excited when you gave us a completion date for the AWPR. Did you give us a similar date for the completion of the AWPR? No, I did not give you a date. As was previously mentioned, do you have the dates for that? I can come back to the dates, but there is no change to the previously published dates for that. If you have been there recently, you will see a huge amount of work going on. We have to go very deep at the Wraith interchange, for example, because there are ground conditions, but there is no change. There is no delays to the programme. On the subject of the AWPR, as I said, I am delighted that we now have progress and we have a potential completion date. However, as you know, there are always people who have concerns about junctions, and we are still dealing with one of the junctions that was improperly designed 30 years ago when looking for a conclusion. Does the minister have any views on the local campaign and the concerns that there are regarding the junction at Stonehaven between the A90 and the Fastlink, as it is designed? No, that decision was taken in 2005, I think, but I know that there is a campaign locally that people prefer a different route. Some people prefer a different route, but that question was raised recently in the Parliament by Nigel Don. I think that at that stage, the last thing that we are going to do now is to reopen that issue, which would require new road orders to be made, possibly a legal challenge to it, given previous history, I do not know, and a substantial delay and cost to the project, so we do not intend to deviate from that. I had not heard as part of that concerns about the junction, it was more about the route that was being taken. If you want to pass on those concerns about the junction, I am happy to look at those, but I have not had any express to me. I will take the opportunity to communicate on that. On another subject, just this very week, there has been further news about intentions by the UK Government to make further improvements to the A1 Northland Newcastle. As you know, there has been a huge amount of work done on the A1 to the south to upgrade it to Motorway, and there is now largely an East Coast Motorway network within the United Kingdom. Given that the UK Government has now committed to a further section of ddwlan in that area north of Newcastle, is there an opportunity here for the Scottish Government to work in conjunction with the UK Government to look at completing the ddwlan between Edinburgh and Newcastle to give Edinburgh and the east of Scotland full access to that east coast motorway network? First of all, even if it was a case that we were to say that it would be something that we wanted to do, that would not affect the ddwlan between Edinburgh and Newcastle, because parts, even if the project goes ahead, which has been announced this week by the UK Government, will not complete the ddwlan south of the border, so it will not be ddwled to the border from the south. Our view on it is that the A1 is assessed regularly, it performs well, it is below the national average in terms of accidents per kilometre. What we have said is that we have provided information to the UK Government, or at least said that we are willing to provide information to the UK Government on the information that we hold in relation to the road. We do keep it under review, but it serves its purpose just now. If it was the case, we were told maybe a year or so ago that the intention of the UK Government was to ddwlet to the border in its entirety. That seems to have changed now, where it has also taken a decision that will result in them having parts of the road ddwled. I think that we have a substantial section of the A1 ddwlet, but not all of it. Given its road usage and given the financial constraints that we are under, we do not have a plan to ddwlet the A1 down to the border, just as the UK Government will not have a plan to ddwlet from south of the border. I can just come back to the previous question that Mr Johnson asked to say that the M8 bundle will be spring 2017 for completion date. Thank you, convener. In addition to these major trunk road projects, the STPR laid out a number of other smaller-scale road improvements that would tackle things such as improving connectivity, reducing journey times and tackling congestion. There is a notable one in my constituency, the Mable Bypass, which I know has been progressed up to the point. I think that this summer it will achieve shovel-ready status. The question arises. Given the success that you have had in terms of keeping the major projects to budget and even under budget, and appropriately on time as well, when would it be possible to advance some of the smaller projects, or is that on the cards? I am just looking for a little encouragement for people that these projects will actually come on stream in the not-too-distant future. Obviously, I know the Mable Bypass situation and also the current situation going through the main street and how close to traffic, sometimes very heavy traffic passes to even individuals on very narrow payments. I think that, in relation to that project and a number of others, what we have said is where we think that there is real merit. We have gone through the process, as you have described, of both the planning and the road orders process to get them to a stage that is not at yet with Mable. I think that there are some planning issues from memory still to be resolved there, but when we get to the end of that process, if that road is then ready for it, we still have to look to get the money to do that. In the past, that has often been allowed by consequentials money. We will find out today whether there are any consequentials. I am a little bit sceptical. I will be given, I think, Daniel Alexander said on TV the other night that this was really the detail of previous announcements, but sometimes we have had consequentials money which has allowed us to take forward projects, which were a bit further behind. Our priorities are, as you quite rightly mentioned, those big projects. The A9 and the A96 will end up with a situation in which all Scotland's cities are joined by either motorway or dual carriageway. I think that that is important strategically. Where we have the possibility—there are other ones—Berrydale Braise, which I mentioned previously, Mable bypasses another. I do not know if it was the Lawrence Curt junction that Mr Johnson was referring to, but it is one that has been mentioned before, although we think that there is an issue about developer contribution there. It really does depend on the money becoming available. Given the background, which is the 26 per cent cut to our capital projects, what we are increasingly having to do is look at innovative ways of financing this. Both in relation to the M8 bundle and the AWPR, it is through not-for-profit trust, non-profit distributing trust that we are tackling. Those different ways are trying to finance it. The two things that can help us advance some of those less substantial projects, if I can put it that way, are if we had to happen to get money from consequentials or some other unforeseen source, or if we can figure out new ways to attract funding in. We are constantly examining those. That is perhaps a bigger part of the job that I am now doing than it was previously in terms of capital investment and infrastructure. We are looking at that, and we are well aware of the projects, such as the one that you quite rightly mentioned, the Mable bypass, where there is enough local support for those things to happen. The updated version of the cycle action plan was published in June 2013, which included the shared vision for 10 per cent of everyday trips to be taken by bike by 2020. I wonder if you could tell the committee if we are on track to meet that target and what are the current and future plans to assist in meeting that target. Part of that is about behaviour change. If you can maybe talk a bit about not just the infrastructure programmes but how you are carrying out the behaviour change that is required? If I can start, convener, I think that that is a very important question. There has to be a behavioural shift in a change that is not just about infrastructure, although infrastructure is important. There has been the updated action plan on-going work with local authorities. Employer schemes are also to be supported in terms of active travel. This year, a further development around infrastructure is the national walking cycling network, which prioritises that in terms of the planning process and infrastructure that can be delivered. There has been a very successful cycling summit in partnership with local authorities and various pots of funding to support active travel. I think that there is a package of measures that should further progress active travel, but that shared vision is a shared vision and is a longer term one, but there has to be that behavioural shift where people see it as more attractive to get out of the car and on to the bike or walk, particularly on those short journeys where it can be achieved. It is a mixture of infrastructure, behaviour and promotion. Mr Brown might be able to add more to what you have said. We also have the national walking strategy. As Mr Mackay has mentioned, we have had the cycling summit. The first one that we held last year, which I took the decision to cycle to, it was 17 miles and I am just about recovered now, but that was also about telling people that it was held in Edinburgh, which is perhaps the city that has done more than any other in terms of trying to improve both infrastructure and improved behaviour. I also encourage cycling. I think that the other big thrust of what we are trying to do is through the school, so increase training for children at school and where we can rolling out the idea that it should be on the road training, because in the past it would tend to be playgrounds and which are not always reflective of the pressures that you get on the road network. We have tried to encourage it through schools if we can get somebody involved in cycling at that age and hopefully continue throughout their lives. We are looking further, along with my colleagues previously, Paul Wheelhouse, Alasdair Allan in terms of schools and Shona Robison in terms of health. For the first time, I think that some cross portfolio work can go on to see how we can encourage that. Also areas where you have large preponderances of students in an urban setting and trying to change behaviours there as well. I would say that the infrastructure really goes hand in hand, because one reason why, if we are honest, there is an inhibition on cycling to school will often be the fears of parents about the safety of their children. If you can improve cycle routes to schools such that it gives the parents additional reassurance, then the infrastructure improvement that you have made can lead to changes in behaviour as well. However, you are right to say that it is two things together. Some of the infrastructure work is one of my own constituency between Tilly Cewdry and Alva, a fantastic facility that is open there. There is one in Stirling where we are expanding the national cycle network. That sometimes is more a case of attracting people to come to the country for recreational purposes for cycling but also people within Scotland seeing these opportunities opening up, knowing that it is safe, knowing that it is designed for their purposes. That starts to change behaviour when people start to say that they will take a cycling or an active break rather than some other form of break. The two things link well together. Where are we in relation to the target? Are we on track to meet the target of 10 per cent by 2020? I think that you mentioned that it started a shared vision. That was a shared aspiration. It is not just down to the Government, it is between the local authorities and all the different agencies. It is true to say that what we expected would happen has happened, which is that the early investment in behavioural change has to take time to work through. That is what we are aiming for, the 10 per cent by 2020, but it is a question of the early hard work that has been done. We want to start seeing some real progress towards that shared ambition soon. Transport Scotland published their long-term vision for active travel in Scotland 2030 in November. Cabinet Secretary for Transport said that it was a document that sets out how we hope that Scotland will look in 2030 if more people are walking and cycling for short everyday journeys, allowing us to reap the benefits of active travel. What is the status of that document? Where does it fit in with the policies that are part of the cycling action plan and the national walking strategy? The cycling action plan and the national walking strategy stand on their own merits, and they have the detail in there to see how we can move forward. The idea behind that, and it was my own idea, was to try to get all the stakeholders in and try to think out with even that. That was last year, so seven years before 2020. Thinking longer term, thinking about some of the examples that we are often confronted with in the Netherlands or Denmark, how would you want it to look in 2030? What would the achievement of your ideals mean, how would it look? That was the idea behind that. I suppose that it is to try and feed into what the decisions that we take now to see how we can achieve that. It was a great deal of emphasis, for example, on 20-mile-an-hour zones, not all of which are in our gift. That will be up to local authorities to implement those, although there is a demand on the Government to make it easier for that to be achieved. The 2030 thing was that it took some time to do. We had some fantastic buy-in from the stakeholders and all the different organisations, and obviously everybody, to get to that finalised vision, had to make a bit of a compromise, but I think that it is a very good exercise. For Transport Scotland, but for planning officials across the country as well to say, actually, that is what we are trying to achieve, that is how things might look if we get planning by design right and these things right as well. That was the purpose of it. It does not undermine what I think helps us with the walking plan and the other targets that we have before. Is your view that every strategy is complementary and they all fit together in a complementary fashion? I think that the vision that we came up with helps to inform that strategy. It just gives a picture. I suppose that a few are an official in the Government and there are officials here who can speak for themselves, but if you are constantly working towards the next five or six years and you are looking at specific projects, it maybe helps just to have that vision further on in mind as you are doing those things. Just staying with sustainable and active travel, this is an issue that this committee has looked at as part of its scrutiny of the draft budget and the allocation of expenditure on areas that can be expected to impact on our climate change emissions and the attainment of our climate change targets. It is an issue that I also asked the Deputy First Minister, now our First Minister, about when she came before the committee. That was the perceived lack of clarity on how much money is actually being invested because it strikes me that if there is a good story to tell and the Government maintains that they are doing more than ever before to invest in active travel, we are missing an opportunity to make people aware of that investment because a lot of the investment and expenditure is incorporated in different budget lines in the draft budget. One of the things that Sustrans said to us in written evidence and I quote, and Sustrans are highly respected in this area as you know, at present it is well not impossible to accurately ascertain how much money will be directed towards active travel as the figure is so buried away within other funding ports. This situation must be resolved imminently. This is an issue that I have raised in the chamber with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. I know that there is a willingness to try and provide further clarity but we do not seem to be making the progress that the stakeholders would like to see on this issue. I will take that up with Sustrans, convener. There was a question that I cannot remember of which member had asked it where we did, whether it was myself or whether it was Mr Swinney who gave as clear as we could make the account of where money was being spent. The start, you mentioned sustainable and low-carbon transport, I think, as well. Maybe that is where some of the confusion has come in. There are different pots of money, I accept that point, but I take the point that you made on board. I will maybe check out that response that was given previously because my recollection that it was a very clear account, for example 2014-15 through to 2015-16. In terms of sustainable and active travel, we are talking about £34 million being spent compared to a previous amount of £25 million. Total funding to support active travel 2012-13 through to 2015-16 is likely to be around £100 million, although some of that depends on discussions and decisions that we are able to take in relation to future transport funds and local authority grants. That is also a complicating factor because, with Sustrans, we give money, which they often have to get match funding for from local authorities. If I can provide that to myself, convener, for the committee's benefit, and if you think that there is further we need to travel in terms of making sure that we make that as clear as possible, I am happy to do that. We are obviously in the middle of the budget round just now, and I will pass that on as well to the Deputy First Minister. Can I move on to the issue of one that is close to the hearts of all Edinburgh MSPs, and that is the Edinburgh trams. The trams are now up and running in the city, which is obviously something that we all welcome. The First Minister announced that there would be a public inquiry on 5 June, and the then Deputy First Minister announced on November that that inquiry would be placed on a statutory footing. Clearly, there remain a lot of questions that the public would like to see answered and explored through that inquiry why the project incurred delays, why the cost is considerably more than originally budgeted for, and why the tram project was not able to deliver the network that was originally envisaged when it was first mooted. Can you provide an update on the inquiry into the project, including when you expect it to report and how much you expect inquiry to cost? First of all, you are right that the latest information that we have is the decision that was taken by the First Minister to convert that to a statutory inquiry. That goes back to the previous decision where we proposed a non-statutory inquiry because we believed that it could be more quickly dealt with and also would not have the same cost attached to it potentially. However, it was very clear from Lord Hardy's early experience that some of the witnesses that he wanted to have or people he wanted to speak to would not appear without the backing of a statutory inquiry. It is not just a question of using a legal force to make people appear. It is to give assurance to people as well in relation to other legal action that might be taken. If it is, as we have said, it will be a properly independent inquiry, then both the timescale for it and the cost will be determined by the head of the inquiry, in this case Lord Hardy. All I can say is that Lord Hardy, I know, is well aware of the urgency with which people want to see this being dealt with. He knows that and he is making as much progress as he can, but the length of the inquiry will be determined by, as is the case in all statutory inquiries, by the person leading the inquiry. Obviously, if you are talking about over a decade of material, huge amounts of material, many individuals who are no longer on the scene, if you like, are local to the area who have gone elsewhere. I think that you can see the complexity of the inquiry. All I can say is that Lord Hardy himself is well aware of the need to do this as quickly as he possibly can, but, having said that, he will want to do it in a proper and efficient manner. There is nothing further that you can say about the cost at this stage? No. I generally could not give you an estimate of the cost. Obviously, we have seen other inquiries become very expensive for very different reasons and delays for different reasons, but, as I say, I think that I do take some comfort from the fact that I know Lord Hardy wants to deal with this as quickly as possible, consistent with doing it in the right way. Okay. Thank you for that. Adam, do you want to ask about the Borders Railway? Yes. Is there anything that you would like to add to your opening remarks where you mentioned the Borders Railway Cabinet Secretary in terms of an update in progress? The project remains on time and budget. Is there anything that you want to add to what you said? One thing that I would like to add, if I could, given the chances, is just how exciting a project this is. It is true to say, and I think that Mr Johnson might appreciate this in relation to the AWPR. We did not perhaps understand exactly how sceptical local people were about whether this would happen until they actually saw construction on site, but, since that has happened, the level of enthusiasm and interest in this project has really grown. I went down to see the phenomenal track lane machine that is used to lay the track and the level of interest there, and support for the project was huge. I think that what has happened, mainly due to the intervention of the former First Minister in terms of making sure that we exploit fully the tourist potential of this since then, has also added to that interest and excitement. Obviously, my responsibility was to make sure that the project proceeded and that we got on with it as quickly as we could and stayed within the budget. Those things are happening. We expect very shortly to have the line completed in terms of the track laid. Beyond that, what we then have to have are the stations constructed and the driver training, which is essential on any new route. However, the interest and the excitement about this project is certainly building now, and, of course, in September next year that will come to a head. Even from members in the Parliament here to say how excited they are knowing the area to see trains returning to this area for the first time in 40 years, it is building. It is a complex project. There is a lot of work going into it. We all know that it has had a troubled history in the past, but it is to use the overused pun that is well on track and very exciting. James, do you want to ask about the fourth replacement crossing? It is a much similar question. If you could give us an update on the construction progress on the Queens Bay crossing, confirm whether the project remains in time and budget, and if there are any other comments you would like to make. Well, under budget, I mentioned in my opening statement the recent £50 million reduction in the estimated cost, but even that takes you down to around about 1.4 below that, in fact, £1 billion. I think that when this project was tendered, it was between £1.75 and £2.25 billion, and we are now down at £1.4 billion. As I said, it is on schedule. It has always been the case that the anticipated completion date was December 2016. Again, like the other projects that I have just mentioned, I get regularly asked because people can see the approach roads in either side taking shape. Is it almost ready to open? If you cross the existing fourth road bridge, you will realise why it is not about to open very shortly, unless you had a special type of vehicle that James Bond used to use. People can see the towers coming out, and they can see the real progress that is being made there. They can see the progress with the approach roads. Sometimes the programme goes back and forth. It is true of all those big programmes, especially when you are doing something like a bridge over a body of water, but it is well under budget and it is on schedule from completion December 2016. I am delighted to see the bridge coming on and the success that the project has been. In the early days of the project, some of the prices that were being banded around were so high and so wide of the mark, but they may even have threatened the future of the project. How did we manage to get that so wrong, and what have we learned from the change in the cost of the project as it goes along? It is an interesting question, because at the point where we started to see substantial reductions in the estimate, it changed from being that this is too expensive to be why you are getting it in so cheap. There must be some issue here, but you are right. I think that if you go back to 2005-2006, some of the comments in the media were that £5 billion or £6 billion were talked about for the crossing. Some of the earlier work that was done before I was imposed by John Swinney and Stuart Stevenson helped to get a type of bridge that could help to bring the price down. Part of the reductions in the cost are associated with the fact that, because of the nature of the project and the fact that the Scottish Government had to underwrite it and pay for it from current revenue, the Scottish Government also had to underwrite both inflation and the risks associated with bad weather. I think that we all know what has happened with inflation over recent years. That has certainly helped. There has been some very tight project management by Transport Scotland and others. I think that those things have been genuine contributions to driving down the price. It is an example that we use for other projects to see if we can do that. However, there are things about the fourth crossing that are distinctive in terms of, as I have said, the Government underwriting the inflation. Had inflation been substantially higher than the Scottish Government would have had to take on board that cost. There are things that are unique to it, but there are things that have been done that have made that a very efficient project. If there is no reason to believe that the market misread it or that we had the wrong price from the start, I think that we have a very keen price and we have made sure that we stuck to that and where we could have reduced that. On winter resilience, winter is almost upon us and many people around the country will be bracing themselves for, perhaps, transport difficulties. Transport Scotland launched its ready for winter campaign in November and there are improved preparations for dealing with severe weather on the Trunk Road network. Are you satisfied that Transport Scotland Network Rail and bus operating companies are prepared for the severe weather? Can you give us an update on the improvements that have been made to their preparations? There has been a range of improvements and preparation is key, of course, in winter. Today or this morning was the first major frost. I think that we have experienced so gritters were out and were dispatched to deal with that. The partnership approach always assists across the public sector with private operators as well and, crucially, as Mary Fee knows, with local authorities. In terms of the public information campaigns launched by the cabinet secretary, one of the campaigns was launched in my constituency as it happens at Snow Zone at Brayhead. In terms of that, there are more sources of information and sources of information in the way that the public and the travelling public would want to access them through apps and Twitter. I think that we have got over 60,000 followers to Traffic Scotland. In relation to that in my first week in post, I was able to visit the National Traffic Control Centre to look at the multi-agency work that is going on in terms of the co-ordination, should there be pressure points and incidents? Of course, it is not just snow and ice, it is wind and rain and flooding can cause major disruption as well. In all of that, there is increased preparation. One of the first questions, of course, I asked when I came in to post is what is our stock of salts at and they are at a satisfactory level, a higher stock now than before. In every sense, we are putting in every effort to ensure that we are prepared, that necessary information is out there, that we have updated new ways of working and technology so that more people can access information, including whilst they are travelling in a safe way. All of that leads me to the conclusion that we are satisfied with the plans in place, but, of course, with a severe weather incident, we have to be adept at what we are able to do. Partners continue to work very closely on the forecasting and the approach that we will take. So far, it has been a relatively mild winter. Long may that continue, but we will ensure that we are fully prepared for the period ahead. I hope that answers the member's question. A particular problem in the past has been the provision of real-time information. Perhaps you can explain to the committee what improvements have been made to that. Of course, people need to access information safely, as well as the Twitter feed and the websites. We also have the radio facility, where we can centrally record and broadcast hot spots and difficulties that passengers and travellers may be experiencing. We have more up-to-date live information, but it is disseminated than before. There is a range of different sources where that can be used. Mobile apps are increasingly used and we will put further investment into that ahead. It is a mixture of being prepared, full cognisance of the warnings that have been issued or all our agencies understanding what is going on in the transport networks across the country and conveying that in whatever method is appropriate. That is internet, media, multi-agency organisations through the communication channels, the multi-agency approach at the control centres, and ensuring that there are good lines of communication direct to the public. I am not sure how old the radio broadcasting service is, but I have also volunteered to do a broadcast myself. I understand that the cabinet secretary has done so, but if there is technology out there to be used, we are certainly exploring it to ensure that all the real-time data and information that we have on what is happening, what the weather forecasts are, where the issues may arise, is out there for public consumption. I will take on board that advice from Mr Johnston. What is the nature of the broadcast that you and the cabinet secretary are recording? That was more ingest. The serious broadcasts are daily, where our operators record traffic and travel information, including weather warnings. That can be passed to commercial operators. We are simply volunteering our services to assist with that broadcast, which should be required in terms of public information. However, there is a permanent base to have pre-recorded updates based on information or live updates that can then be sent to the commercial radio operators to ensure as wide saturation of our warnings as is possible. I ask if there has been any progress made since the publication of the ACOM report on the Glasgow Airport surface access improvements and some of the recommendations in that report. In my previous role as Minister for Local Government and Planning, of course, Scottish Government signed up with UK Government and the local authorities there the city deal. Within the city deal was a key project around surface access to Glasgow Airport. In my current role, I will continue to meet with the airport and our agencies to discuss how we take that forward. Essentially, as a city deal project, the local authorities will determine how they choose to take forward their city deal projects, but they will continue to work closely with Glasgow Airport and any other partnership to address it. However, it is now a city deal project in terms of that surface access as a project in terms of that transport option, but there will be further discussions direct with Glasgow Airport. On one of the recommendations, the previous Minister's preferred option was the tram train option. I wonder if you are able to comment on the feasibility of delivery on that. Have you had any discussions with Network Rail since their pilot project between Rotherham and Sheffield? After it was delayed for a year, it is now delayed again because of the signal issues between the tram and train networks. If that option is still deliverable, how discussions with Network Rail have gone on that? Mr Griffin will be aware that that was just a view of the minister. If memory serves me correctly, that was the best option from the report that came out top in terms of a best option. Our officials will be happy to support the city deal partnership in taking the project forward, but the city deal is a funding package that essentially allows councils to take forward their proposals. Glasgow Airport access through rail is now their proposal. We will be as supportive as we can be. We will study all the necessary information, but it is no longer the case that Transport Scotland or the Scottish Government leads the project. That is what city deal in terms of empowering local authorities and allowing them the financial freedom to get on with it creates the conditions so to do, and we will be as supportive as we can be. Can I invite the panellists to make any concluding remarks? I do not have any concluding remarks to make, convener, but, as ever, I, myself or Mr Mackay, are happy to come to the committee at any time to address the issues that are of concern to you. Can I thank all of the panellists for their evidence this morning, not just for bringing a smile to Mike Mackenzie's face, but for answering all of our questions so fully and comprehensively? I now briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave. The fifth item for today is the consideration of the negative instrument on notice of potential liability for costs. Discharge notice Scotland order, 2014, SSI 2014-313. The purpose of this order is to prescribe, under the housing Scotland Act 2014, the form of notices of discharge of potential liability for costs issued under the title condition Scotland Act 2003 and Tenement Scotland Act 2004. The committee will now consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting to the Parliament on this instrument. Members should note that no motions to annul have been received in relation to this instrument, and I invite comments from members. In that case, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? Thank you. That concludes the committee's business in public today, and we will now move to private session, as previously agreed.