 Rock your place. Welcome to the first meeting of the citizens and participant participation and public petitions committee of 2024. I should say this morning just because of the prevailing weather alerts, several of our colleagues are joining us online, as are all of our witnesses this morning. So I imagine we'll have a particularly kind of exciting time as we try to negotiate the technology with all of the various participants. The first item of our agenda this morning is just a declaration of interest. Unfortunately, my colleague Morris Golden is not able to attend today, so we're joined for the first time by his substitute, Oliver Mundell, and although Mr Mundell is no stranger to the work of the committee, this is the first time he's attending as a substitute, so I invite Oliver just to make the declaration of any relevant interest. Thank you, convener. I have no relevant interest to declare. Thank you very much. The second item is just to agree that we'll take item six and seven in private later on. Mr Torrance, are you content with that online? Yes. Thank you. Colleagues are here too. Agenda six relates to the evidence that we're about to hear in relation to the inquiry, and agenda seven relates to our pre-budget scrutiny work. Agenda item three this morning is our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. As colleagues and those following our proceedings in relation to this inquiry will know, we're joined once again by Edward Mountain MSP, and Edward is here in his capacity as a reporter from the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee on this matter. So good morning to you, Edward. I don't know what an Edward committee would do if there was such a thing. It would be brilliant. I'm sure it would have a very full agenda. We are joined this morning by Graham Barn. Good morning to you, Graham, from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. Welcome to you again to our proceedings. Later this morning we're going to be hearing evidence from current and former Transport Scotland officials. Since we last considered this matter, people will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition has provided an update to the chamber on the Scottish Government's plans for dualling the A9. The committee has also received material from Transport Scotland with information on the advice provided to ministers between 2012 and 2023 in relation to the A9 dualling programme. As the SPICE summary of evidence notes, these documents range from brief extracts of draft budget proposals for ministerial consideration to lengthy briefing documents for major parliamentary announcements. My goodness, there were plenty of them. There was certainly a lot of material to digest. I think it's just worth remembering that the committee, while interested in the circumstances of everything that has gone before, is also concerned to ensure that we deliver on the aims of the petition, which is actually to ensure that we have the A9 project completed, the consideration to the memorial for the victims of those people who have perished during this period. Mr Barney, are you content just to move straight into questions this morning? Yes, I am, convener. Just before we begin, I would like to offer my apologies to you. I obviously never got the memo about the dress code for this particular online committee, so I apologise for that. Well, I think you look very fetching and very smart, Mr Barney. I don't think you need to be concerned at all. Mr Ewing? Yes, convener. With your permission, if I may, could I raise one matter at the outset of today's public session, which is this, that in the documents that were furnished by Transport Scotland, Transport Scotland did maintain initially that for an unspecified period I was the lead minister in the Scottish Government in relation to infrastructure projects. That is wrong. I was never the lead minister here. I was, of course, bound by collective responsibility and I was, for a while, copied into some material. That practice of receiving copy material ceased in 2018. I took this matter up with the help of our clerks and then directly with Transport Scotland and that led to Transport Scotland acknowledging that this statement, this assertion that I was the lead minister was in error and they kindly apologise for this mistake on their part and I'm happy to accept that apology but to make this clarification on the record. Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that's appropriate and that is now on the official record of the committee and that brings us back to the questions that we can now and in the conversation we can now enjoy with Mr Barn. Can I start off just with a more general, is that product placement you've got in your mantel piece there, Mr Barn? I'm looking at the cost, amog, but I assume there's no sponsorship fee being paid. I was just making myself ready for perhaps a lengthy requirement and some caffeine to keep me going during this. Just to start off, do you have any views on why Transport Scotland failed to meet its original 25 deadline for the A9 dualling programme? What's your overall impression of why that just did not happen? I have no evidence to back up this at all but I believe it would be the political will to provide the funding required to do the job just wasn't there when required. As straightforward and as simple as that? That would be my assertion, yes. Why do you think—was that a lack of direction? I'm not sure it was a lack of direction. I think there was a promise made to do the A9 and once that had been made perhaps there wasn't the rigor around ensuring that certain things had to be done at certain times to ensure that target was met. I believe the target was achievable. It was difficult and challenging but it was achievable. Perhaps other political priorities took over and funding might have been diverted away or funding was never there in the first place to be able to take forward the sections to allow it to be completed within the timeframe. I asked this because this is a theme to which I might return with other witnesses but in the 2007-11 Parliament I was the convener of a hybrid committee that was established in relation to the Queensferry crossing and that parliamentary committee was responsible for identifying the route and the design of that project and in a sense offered to government with the support of parliament a project which was then an agreed project in terms of what it was it was going to deliver which then had to be taken forward by the government in order to ensure that it was then completed. When I talked about a lack of direction do you feel that there was clarity around what it was that the A9 project would encompass at all points or was there a vagueness as it seemed potentially to me in some of the documents I was reading about different sections and how these were going to be progressed and that all of that allowed things to just drift slightly? I think there's certainly convener there's elements of truth in what you say is that when the promise was made there probably wasn't an exact plan of the exact route that the A9 would take and land would have to be purchased and all a number of public consultations would have still have to have taken place after that but perhaps there wasn't the rigor in ensuring that that was all carried out timely to ensure that the target was met and once there's drift in anything on a project of that size and scale it's very difficult to make up very quickly so that's the issue is that I think there was a promise made and almost from a political standpoint job done rather than okay that's the easy bit done the difficult bit now is delivering on that promise. Interestingly that that was the issue with the Queensferry crossing in that the committee obviously anticipated the need for public inquiries at various points in relation to the route because the route was by far the more complicated aspect of that project not the actual bridge itself. Turning then before I move into colleagues to what seems to be at the hub of much of what I've I've read do you think that the current approval processes does the industry indeed think that the current approval processes for major road and other infrastructure projects in Scotland have proved fit for purpose and if not what needs to happen to make them so? Is that a question to me, convener? Yes, yes. Right. I think that there are too many occasions where the statutory processes that we go through tend to slow down critical infrastructure projects across Scotland and that's not just purely in talking about roads here that's on other critical infrastructure too. I think the planning system needs to be looked at seriously to try and ensure that the country has the infrastructure it needs in place in a time that it needs it and so this is an ongoing issue for any large major infrastructure project is all the statutory processes that have to be gone through and some are absolutely correct that we go through them but they can be used to slow down projects along the way. Right. Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring in Mr Ewing. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Barn. I wonder if I could ask you three questions all really looking forward to seeing how best we can get the completion of the promised dualling done for the A9. The first is that in your evidence last June, Mr Barn, you kindly set out changes that you felt would need to be made to the procurement process and I believe that, broadly speaking, you advocated inter alia that then you see for contract, a type of contract used elsewhere in the UK be adopted and we've recently had a briefing from the transport cabinet secretary that this has now happened in relation to the retender of Tomaten Moy and I wonder if you're able yet to say if industry is now satisfied that the form of contract which is now apparently being used with Transport Scotland, and this is very welcome, having accepted the thrust of your arguments last June as industry's voice, if you feel that the contract which is now proposed to be used is sufficient and satisfactory to your members. I would like to thank Transport Scotland for taking that leap because it is a large leap for Transport Scotland to change the NEC for which they have done so. They have their own specific terms and conditions but that's not unusual. Many clients will amend the NEC to suit their own needs. What I would say is that the fact that they have a number of contractors who have bid for the Tomaten Moy section that is encouraging and that tells me that the contractors are content with the terms and conditions that have been offered by Transport Scotland. Contractors were always moan that it's not perfect but the fact that they have bid for it is a huge step forward because we didn't have sufficient numbers bidding in the past. Well thank you and it's I think a tribute to your advocacy that this welcome change has apparently come about and perhaps the committee's evidence in public helped to encourage that process. The second question I wanted to ask was this that my understanding is that the level of profit routinely agreed or provided in past contracts has been around about 3% which does seem to me to be a very thin return for work which inherently will still involve quite a considerable risk element even though some risks now have to be shared rather than past solely to your members. I wanted to raise an issue that I know you're aware of which is that in the civil engineering sector in Scotland and throughout the UK there are many many other types of work available. I believe it's very substantial works in the railway infrastructure electrification thereof that pump storage contracts projects rather in three or four locations in Scotland may tie up civil engineering capacity for much much time to come that of course there are also green ports renewable civil engineering work onshore wind and so on as well as routine hospitals schools and so on. Now the reason I raise that is do you feel that Transport Scotland really need to revise their view as to the appropriate and fair level of profit and if they don't is there a risk that your members go after other work which may well be more profitable than roads contracts and I raise that simply because you know my concern is that we may have a willingness now for the Scottish Government to provide finance for the dueling but there may not actually be sufficient willing capacity in the civil engineering sector to actually perform the work. Thank you for that question. Just a couple of points will come back to you on that is that the level of profit of 3% historically contractors would be doing somersaults if they actually could achieve regularly 3% on lots of infrastructure jobs historically and this was the reason why contractors were no longer bidding for Transport Scotland work is that in recent years all the major road building projects and Queensford crossing Aberdeen Wesson peripheral and many more the principal contractors all lost money on them and so that's why we had a situation where until things changed they decided that it wasn't a good use of their resources to bid for Transport Scotland work. We now have that change in using the NEC4 contract which does allow for greater sharing of risk and with greater sharing of risk you have the opportunity to make money and if they make 3% they will be happy with that I am sure they would want to make more but they would be happy with that. To answer your questions on the situation in the wider marketplace we have a situation with civil engineering which is in the main public sector work is that we go through times where the clients have the upper hand and therefore they can be quite hard-nosed about the sharing of risk and the profitability that contractors have to do but we have rare occasions where contractors have the upper hand and there's plenty of work and they can choose who they wish to work for. I believe we're now going to go through perhaps a decade or a decade and a half where the contractors have a great choice of work that they wish that they have choice of so they can choose who they wish to work for and to give an example of that I had a meeting yesterday with SSE who were laying out their workbook and the numbers are astonishing that just one client SSE so they're looking at a spend of £20 billion in the next five years in the north of Scotland and then a further £20 billion up to 2030 so we're looking at a potential spend of £40 billion by one particular client in Scotland in the next six seven eight years or so that is a phenomenal amount of money that's one that's one private client spending more in the Scottish Government will spend on infrastructure in total in that period of time. In addition to that Scottish Power have just announced that they have a framework coming up for the upgrade of the energy systems and that they have of £5.4 billion over the next 10 years so purely alone in the transfer and generation of electricity we've got £45-46 billion being spent by just two clients in Scotland that is phenomenal numbers you then take on top of that where network rail and transport Scotland will be spending about £3.5 billion to electrify the the rail network and you have Scottish water within the next two years spending annually £1 billion per annum on their infrastructure that is a huge spend for the civil engineering sector in Scotland now what I think will happen is unlike any time that I've been involved in it is that Scotland is busy whereas England and Wales are less so so you may find a drift of contractors moving from England up into Scotland to deal with this work and that's what's going to have to happen because we just don't have the capacity to be able to do all this work in Scotland so that's just to give you a flavour mr Ewing of the industry is incredibly busy and will be for some substantial time so we have a meeting seeker that's high level meetings with all the major clients and one being transport Scotland and we have a meeting on Friday of this week with transport Scotland where I will give an overview of the sector and I do this is every meeting that we have with with all clients including transport Scotland so transport Scotland will be made aware if they don't already know and I suspect they already know just how busy the sector is going to be and how difficult it may be to get the supply chain in place that you need to deliver your work if you're not prepared and understand that you have to be competitive to be able to secure that supply chain to deliver the work that you require well that's really helpful and I was keen to raise this issue because I do think that you know we blithly assume that if the money is there the work can be done that assumption may prove to be very naive and optimistic in the light of what you have said with particularly with the grid work which I should have mentioned as being 40 billion which is just phenomenal astronomical and we may be left as the kind of Cinderella of the civil engineering sector for roads projects that's the concern I wanted to raise if you get sort of closed down that second question by just putting it to you that the solution really is that transport Scotland must work more collaboratively with industry as partners not as sort of passive recipients of the occasional piece of work when the government decides to get round to it but work as partners with the Scottish government so that they can keep abreast with the ever-changing commercial realities and challenges that may make it difficult for the Scottish Government in future to achieve the dueling of the A9 because of capacity and other more competitive more financially attractive work to your members yes that's correct okay sorry so could I just ask in relation to that then is that the major consideration the capacity issues to a delivery of the project by 2035 or do you believe in notwithstanding those capacity issues that you've just identified 2035 up to be an achievable date it depends on how you wish to procure the delivery and the dueling of the A9 I would say that they have to engage and ensure that they have long term relationships with with contractors to ensure that they have the supply chain in place when they need it and that will require them to do to do two things it will require them to to have that open relationship with contractors which sometimes they find difficult to do and that may be because of contract law and procurement law around it but they have to have a genuine believable in the eyes of the contractors pipeline of work so the contractors will go yes I will commit resource to transport Scotland because I can see that they have got 78 years worth of work that they are committing to me but in in the past we've had procurement going out for for a section at a time and that's quite difficult because you're procuring for a section at a time you then hang around for a couple of years while all that goes through before you can actually get any diggers on to the site so I think a different approach will be required but that does require the and I keep going back to this the political will to ensure that the money is in place so the transport Scotland officials can with some degree of certainty have that conversation with contracts and say yes I the money is in place for this particular project and we can work on a long-term relationship with a pipeline of work that you have faith that it is going to be coming out when we say it's coming out okay thank you I just read into some of the narrative in response to that question that that atmosphere is not one that potentially has been widely apparent in the conduct of the progress of this project today? Yes in the past so there has to be changes in behaviours I believe on both parts and there has to be greater trust between transport Scotland and also contractors about transport Scotland so it does need a change in behaviours if we are to deliver that within the timeframe but I just want to emphasise it is possible to do that it is possible to do that but we have to be aware that the world is a different place than it was say 15 years ago. Mr Chowdry, thank you convener a very small question would you estimate the completion date for of transport Scotland's programme to be accurate if not exact estimate would you give? I can only believe that transport Scotland have looked at it and they can do all the statutory processes they can buy whatever land they need to buy in the timeframe that they can do it all so at this stage and it sounds like a cop out to you and I'm sorry about that but at this stage the information I have in front of me all I can do is yes I think that's achievable but it means lots of other things achieving targets that the contractors have no control over to happen to make sure that that target is met. Mr Torrance, good morning to you are you able to join us with an insightful question? Thank you convener and good morning Mr Barnes. Mr Barnes, can I go back to your original answer about planning for the A9 and the due of it? Is it not very difficult for governments to do long-term procurement and planning when they only get a year on your settlement and they do not know what that settlement will be? I'm sorry Mr Torrance but that's beyond my aerial capability I don't understand the settlements that you're talking about all I can say is the consequence of delays and statutory processes impacts upon obviously the delivery of these projects so you can say that this is a date that you have in mind and it may well be the officials believe it's going to take them two years to do the statutory processes but if it turns out the statutory processes take four years to do it then it's next impossible for a contractor to you know make up two years when we start to go on to the project itself so that's why I'm saying is that it needs a lot of things to fall in line within the timeframes that transport Scotland officials have calculated to be able to say that this will be done on time everything being equal and we get all the statutory processes done within the timeframes that we expect them to be done in then I believe that contractors can build that road in the timeframe that has been stated. Thank you for that answer Mr Barnes do you consider estimated budget of £3.7 billion for a full A9 duelling programme from 2023 to 2024 prices to reflect the current market reality and if not what do you consider as a realistic figure for a duelling of A9? Again that's hard for me to to answer that directly I think where we are with there's a lot has happened around construction inflation which has been eye watering in some cases I think we're now getting past the real high levels of construction inflation what you do have however is that resource is very very tight and very scarce and so by resource I mean people and so where you have a shortage of anything you tend to have a price increase so where there is price volatility still is around people and what we pay people to do the work and it is a very labour intensive to do these major projects you have very very skilled engineers and specialists involved but also you have again very well paid operatives who are actually working plant and equipment and doing the work on the ground as well so that is the unknown is where wages are going to go where there is a definite lack of people and with a lack of people and a rising workload what you find is that there's lots of poaching goes on between contractors and organisations and that just pushes wages up as we go through through this so I think whilst the budget has been set and given a figure for that I'm I'm not part to how transport Scotland got to that figure but where we are in terms of construction costs I think it's not an unrealistic budget but it becomes unrealistic if we don't do it in the time frame if there is drift in all of this and where you have drift you have the the issue around increases coming through on the budget so it's a very long winded way of saying there's nothing in that it tells me it can't be done for that figure as long as it's kind of done in that time frame if it drifts beyond it you're then at the mercy of increasing costs thank you for that mr bars mr bars could I ask about time frames and you just mentioned about a lack of people in the construction industry there how could that affect the timescale but also as somebody who uses the A9 a lot the environment round there in the weather conditions a lot of the time of year make it very difficult for people to do any work at all so how would that affect timescales that should be factored into the thinking around the procurement process is that we we do understand and the procurement process the delivery of a lot of the work is is scheduled around things like weather it's also scheduled around a lot of the time of nature requirements we can't go into water at certain times of we can't go into rivers at certain times of the year because of spawning we can't cut down trees at certain times of the year because of nesting birds so all of that is well understood and so that's all part of a scheduling so that that should already have been factored into how we go around and do these and how long it will do how long it will take to do each section because they'll understand what are some of the key issues around weather some of the key difficulties around how it engages with overhead lines and power lines and there are some sections where it engages very closely with rail and how we deal with that as well so all of these challenges should have been are understood not should be they are understood and they will be factored in but things like weather who knows what the weather is going to be like and it can have an impact on that and you can only lay tarmac above a certain temperature if it gets too cold you can't lay tarmac so where we are on the A9 we are at the mercy of the weather but that comes down to the contract and the sharing of risk along the way or it's so in terms of for a contractor the sharing of some the risk around whether is helpful but if the weather affects us then you know it might delay issues but it shouldn't be many years I would say that if we have any kind of weather related problems it'll be months it won't be years thank you very much for your answers I have no further questions convener to Torrance I'm very delighted to bring in our colleague I report her from assistant committee Edward Mountain convener if I could just say because Graham mentioned the word spawning and that reflects salmon and on the A9 which covers the river spay on the bottom part of the spay I have a wild salmon fishery so there is some interest in salmon but I don't think it's it's particularly relevant but I wanted to make it clear at the outset just a declaration from the Edward committee that yeah the Edwards committee I have no lab notes the A9 but Graham I want to go back to the comment that you made about statutory processes I mean we saw it on the AWPR where there wasn't any really pre-work done on some of the infrastructure adjacent to it and we had huge delays on that because gas pipelines and electric lines were all discovered and then there were delays I don't understand on having been a surveyor for 15 years the compulsory purchase process is fairly straightforward on the A9 it's probably the easiest one in the world because there aren't that many landowners along it until you get done killed why do you think the statutory process is holding this up where there are few landowners a few infrastructure assets running along the edge of the A9 that could be affected why do you think that's been a hold up I think the fact that it runs through a national park it could have a key issue around statutory processes because it is going through an area of that's designated as a national park there are more consultations have to take place as a consequence of that and and there are many interest groups along the way as well that have to be consulted and and can delay if they if they don't feel that getting the answers to the questions that they're asking so I think it is a difficulty it's a long linear road and I agree with you that in terms of the landowners there's not huge amounts of them in the northern parts of it but the northern part of it is going through a national park which has its own particular issues okay as we found out probably on the 400 kv line that went down it so there's going to be pressure on the national park just go back to if we can sharing risk you mentioned the importance of that I mean on the awpr and the Dauradi to king craig sections of roads that I saw being built when I was in the previous session of the parliament there were huge risks to the contractors and a lot of contractors as we know dropped out and wouldn't take part in it will the first test to see whether the industry believes that transport Scotland are really sharing the risk when the first problem comes up on the A9 and there's a massive increase in cost which is bound to happen in some section yes there always be some discussion between contractor and Clyde on jobs like this where we are just now is we're in procurement at the moment for that that section of the A9 so the contractors are aware of what the terms and conditions are and what the the risk sharing profile is and they will be pricing that accordingly at the moment so we'd we I have no site because I'm not allowed to have any site because it's a procurement process so I don't know what each individual contractor is thinking around risk but they will be pricing that and it'll be interesting to see what the three different contractors prices are if they are close to each other and what the differences are now I won't never see that but presumably Transport Scotland who are marking it they will see that and they'll have an understanding of how contractors are pricing risk along the way once they have awarded and the contractor there's a contract there's a contract in place in that case for the client and the contractor to have a discussion if they feel that the risk is unfair but but by that time the contractor will have signed up to it so you know I think the contract is all important here okay um on it thank you and just when we listen to the cabinet secretary talk about the A9 project is going forward it was very much made clear there'd be several sections happening at once I it wouldn't just be one section at a time otherwise they would never meet the 2035 deadline is there a contractor big enough to do all of that work would you say it being multiple contractors and therefore does it put off the bigger contractor because they're not going to see a long-term project or for them going into the future I think it will be done in multiple stages along the way um I just think that's the way that the procurement will go um whilst there may be one you know vast contractor that might be interested in it all what we have to understand is who's actually going to deliver it because these very very large contractors are managing contractors they don't actually employ directly themselves so they have to have a supply chain of contractors who actually physically do the work and they subcontract packages of work out so it'll be lots of different contractors vans and lorries and plant that you will see working on the road whether or not it's one large managing contractor that's delivering it on behalf of the client but I suspect given what I've said around the scale of work for SSE that's going on they're already ahead of the game they're already talking to these much larger massive international contractors and why they're talking to see her now is they understand the needs of supply chain to deliver it to help their principal contractors deliver their work and the reason why I think the A9 will get done in the timeframe is because the A9 is critical to getting all the equipment up and down into the north of Scotland to allow SSE to upgrade the the network to ensure that the demand for for twice the demand for electricity that we believe is going to happen in the next decade is actually able to be delivered so the A9 is absolutely crucial for the economy not just of Scotland but the whole of the UK. If I could just ask one brief question at the end so one large contractor managing contractor with all the other people working underneath them that's a joint venture by another name do you think the subcontractors will have the confidence that their risk will be minimised under this because that's one of my big fears that they won't? Yes and it's within the power of the client to ensure that the terms and conditions that they agree with the principal contractor are shared and down the supply chain so we have exactly that with Scottish Water so that they the terms and conditions that they have within their framework contractors are applied down through the supply chain and the the client regularly checks to ensure that it's the case so that that is a way that Transport Scotland can do that to make sure that supply chain is fairly treated is they could write that into the terms and conditions of the contract and they may have done so already on the tomato and tomato section I'm not aware of that because I haven't seen the T's and C's. Mr Ewing briefly you wish to just come in finally. Yes just to pursue the issue raised before about framework long-term contracts for your members so that they have guaranteed work a pipeline or a preparation pool as it might otherwise be termed of work over seven or eight years contrasting with the current time when I think I believe it's the case there's no road contracts in Scotland at all if we want to get from where we are now to framework contracts should we be advocating to the Scottish Government that this be deployed would you in that respect argue that for that to work there needs to be much more clarity about the work that will be available over that seven eight year or 10 year period and therefore would you welcome three things one early clarity on the MIM contracts which are to be used for the central and northern sections of the A9 because that's still subject to a caveat to review in 2025 as I understand it secondly early process to made orders on the A96 in Vanessa to Alder including the name bypass section so that that forms part of that preparation pool as it is also a firm commitment of the Scottish government and finally would you agree that because disruption is a practical factor in relation to how the work is best carried out in the A9 and because you can't do everything at once otherwise the A9 will have to be closed which is just not possible would it actually help to spread the disruption across the network and would that point to industry desiring that the A96 contract go ahead concurrently with the A9 rather than the ludicrous prospect of having to wait until the A9 dualling is complete I think how you schedule in work is has to be thought about seriously if you were to say to contractors we're going to you're all going to be working on the A9 all at the same time we would find a way but there would be disruption but we would find a way to do it but the sensible thing would be is to to minimise in ways that you could minimise that is to ensure that you have other bits of work going on that keeps your pool of contractors that you're working with busy and so it needs a bit of thought it needs a bit of collaboration and sometimes it needs it needs commitment around other projects as well so we're talking about the A9 here but you mentioned the A96 there now there is a political promise has been made about the A96 let's see where that one goes we've got the rest and be thankful which is another probably half a billion pound project that needs to be done as well so it's how all of that gets fitted in along with the all the other all the other road projects that may or may not come to market we talked about or you mentioned a framework I think a framework approach is a good way of doing things it has sorry is used by Scottish Water they have a framework of contractors and it's used by SSE and it's also used by Scottish Power so frameworks are ways of ensuring that you have contractors that have the skill set that you need and what the contractors who are on a framework like about a framework is they have some sort of security and understanding of working with the client so they can make investments in people and equipment to ensure that they've got the work the ability to deliver on the work that's coming in a three or four year time now Transport Scotland do have a framework they have a we'll have two frameworks that I'm aware of but the main framework they have them talking about here is the trunk road network framework so you have a framework that has a me and bear on it and so that allows those two contractors to make the skills delivery and investments they need to ensure that our trunk road network is maintained to a standard that's acceptable thank you okay thank you and mr barn thank you very much for joining us again this morning you've you've given us more time than we had anticipated that you would you would have to do but those answers I think have been extremely helpful so thank you again for joining us and we may we may speak to you again but we certainly look forward to reflecting on everything you've had to say to us today thank you very much thank you I will be better dressed the next time you speak well there's a challenge for yourself we'll vote on that I suspend briefly thank you thank you and we're back and in the interim our colleague Oliver Mundell has had to leave us to to to join another commitment I apologize to our colleagues who and witnesses who are joining us now with that last evidence session which I hope were you able to hear you were able to hear but it was obviously very interesting so we're back and we are now joined by Alice Nerven interim chief executive and Rob Galbraith head of project delivery at transport scotland we also welcome Roy Brannan a former chief executive of transport scotland and Michelle Quinn who's both a former director of major projects and a former interim chief executive of transport scotland so a very warm welcome to you all as I just commented you will have observed our previous discussion with Graham Barn and I just want to emphasise that our inquiry is is twofold one yes we have an interest in the events that led to the delays and to why we are where we are today in respect to the project but of course the aim of the petitioner is the delivery of an a nine completed a nine route and one or two other issues including a memorial and our focus is very much on on ensuring that we deliver on that and so this is not really some sort of a kangaroo committee court of inquiry into events of the past we are interested in them as they reflect on where we are today and how we can ensure that we do complete the project going forward and if you're content we'll move straight into questions and I was going to start with Fergus Ewing thank you convener good morning to to our panel witnesses I think it'd be simpler if just one person perhaps answers a question rather than all four otherwise will be here till five o'clock but but I'll leave that to you convener in any event I wanted to pursue first of all the the issue that you may just have been hearing as raised by Graham Barn namely congestion of work Graham painted a very very clear picture that the future is not going to be like the past that grid work that rail work that pump storage work possibly involving tens of billions of pounds is going to be available and frankly my concern is that roadworks may be the tail end charlie and the reason I'm concerned about that is because we have seen tomatomoi tender fail and we've seen a lack of interest in bids which led to that failure and we've seen belatedly but welcome the transport scotland changing the policy which is deterred bids and competitive interest so that any c4 is being adopted and sharing of risk is now being agreed so I wanted to really ask how can we ensure that in Scotland we will be able to do the roadwork provided of course the finance is available will the capacity is a will the capacity be available and don't we not need also for transport scotland to adopt in a full throated way and recommend to the to your political leaders in the Scottish Government that meant that the framework contracts be used that a preparation of pool of work be provided over a long period so that companies will will proceed knowing that they're likely to have work over eight years not one or two years and you know if you're employing specialist engineers and so on what what prospects do they have if they're only guaranteed work for one or two years I mean it makes no commercial sense whatsoever and that's the situation that we found ourselves in in the last few years sadly so it's good that you've moved on the anyc on sharing of risk that's really good and I think we all welcome that across the four main parties at least but will you now move to provide a preparation pool over a long period and mr barn mentioned some of the main candidates there which we would all agree with and secondly the framework contracts be used so that companies can have that long-term relationship with partnership arrangement and security of knowing that they will have work for their staff and for the company to perform over over as long a period as possible and perhaps I'll come to the to the current holders of all this in that respect so Alice Naven if I can come to you and perhaps between you and Rob Galbraith if you could just think how you might choose to respond to mr Ewing in the first instance okay I can do that good morning convener good morning committee thank you for inviting us here today so I think to pick up on a few points in that question mr Ewing yes there's a recognition that there's a lot of construction work in preparation and in planning out there across various different sectors so as part of our work to deliver the roads aspect of our portfolio we do a lot of engagement across those sectors to understand that you'll also as you've recognised they've made a significant step on the NEC Alice I wonder is it possible to move the microphone slightly nearer we're just it's just a little bit hard to hear that slightly but it's slightly but we'll we'll do the best to cope with that slightly better yes okay apologies for that I can hear you loud and clear so I just I just said we are aware of the extent of planned and proposed construction work that's out there some of the stuff that was talked about across the energy sector across the rail sector which is why we do as much of the market engagement that we undertake can you hear me now mr Calgo following you yeah yeah okay good so in terms of the capacity we keep a really close eye on the market we do a lot of market engagement as mr Barnes recognised we have regular engagement with SICA and we're meeting them again on friday in terms of the framework proposition I would just caution that for the types and the sizes of the contracts that we have kind of in consideration on the a nine which is the primary one a 96 and the 83 we're also referred to they're off such a scale that a framework would be quite would not necessarily be the most appropriate contract and we've also got to take into consideration the the way in which these projects are to be funded as well which also has a bearing on the procurement routes that we would take there's no doubt that improving contractor confidence helps to make the market much more attractive across those different sectors and that's something that we work as hard as we can to do and we've it there just now unless we want to Mr Galbraith is there anything you would like to just offer by way of a reflection on that question it might be just to expand slightly on it so the the contracting approach that's been set out by the cabinet secretary in december involves a number of individual design and build contracts and then two mutual investment model or MIM contracts so those mutual investment contracts are large packages so will the not frameworks in the sense that mr Ewing is describing they are large packages of work that allows a contractor to make resource plans over an extended period and so they do create some of the opportunity that mr Ewing is relating to okay mr Ewing well i do find that alasraffins response a bit disappointing because things have got to change otherwise we i think will find grave difficulty in getting the work done and that's having listened to industry for some time now and looking at the history which has been pretty sad i wonder if you could i could turn to the mutual investment model because the the outline plan which the cabinet secretary set out recently said that mutual investment model contracts is subject to quotes further decision making in late 25 based on an updated assessment of expected market conditions i mean can you say what this means and is there not a worry that it's a caveat which may mean that actually the the rug could be pulled on this process and doesn't that if that is the case and it must be the case because that uncertainty is there i mean doesn't it defeat the purpose of what we're trying to do which is engender confidence in the sector that there will be the work for several years to come and if that is correct and i you know i respectfully i think that must be correct would it not be better for the Scottish Government to revisit that and bring forward the decision about MIMs as soon as possible because you've had years to deal with this and frankly i don't know anybody that understands why so little progress has been made over such a long period so specifically will you consider advising ministers to bring forward this 225 assessment and will you look again at how confidence can be engendered in the sector over a long term period whether if you whether through framework contracts or other means such as by the provision of a proper pipeline preparation pool with timetable of when the work and the rest be thankful the a96 and other key projects essential projects in scotland can be done okay so again just to pick up the point the first point there in terms of bringing forward the MIM decision from 2025 just to provide some level of assurance to the committee that it's part of reaching the decision that the cabinet secretary outlined on the 20th of december we considered a number of funding and procurement routes we considered a full design and build option we considered a full MIM option split into different sections the most optimum option is the one that was set out on by the cabinet secretary on the 20th of december that is optimum in terms of market capacity we consider it to be optimum in terms of level of disruption and we consider it to be optimum in terms of the financially challenging financial situation that the government currently finds itself in so 2025 has been set as a kind of a next stage in that kind of decision making process that will allow us the time to understand whether market conditions will come more in our favour whether the cost of money will improve because over and above everything else you'll understand that we all have a duty to ensure that there is best value that there is value for money for the taxpayers and at this point in time the advice and the advice which was accepted was that to take forward a full MIM project now was not the best course of action so in there I've forgotten the second part of your question Mr Ewing sorry well it's to the the the basic point is trying to engender confidence so that we have in future what we haven't had in the in the immediate past over the last three years of this parliament anyway or nearly three years which is confidence and a stream of work going forward but just taking that point to um Alison Irvine just to finish with this this point for the time being convener if there's time for me to come back to entirely different matters I would appreciate that but other members will want to have their shot I mean I've spoken to companies that I'm not going to name any of them that are involved in the provision of private capital whether through MIM or other means is it's not really important but there is a massive appetite to provide private capital to the Scottish Government because it's recognised as a secure long-term form of investment and I know having spoken to three of these companies that there is in Britain and Europe a desire to provide private capital that means there's the potential for competitive interest and for Transport Scotland to get a good deal because there's competing interest to provide that capital and it involves less risk than investing in for example a private plc so is now not given that that appetite exists now and I've heard to Transport Scotland officials and knowledge and corroborate that in the recent briefing we had is now not the time to strike forward and make progress rather than kick the can down the road because that's what my constituents have seen happening for nearly the last three years and they're sick and fed up with it so you know I say again Alison Evans will you not therefore look again and urged and re urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the timescale here because people are worried and very skeptical indeed about whether when 25 comes along we will actually see rapid rapid moves into procurement of the middle and northern sections which involve my constituency thank you well I'll invite you to come back on that okay thank you for that so yes we are aware that there is significant private finance interest in the potential work on the programme because we've done quite a lot of market testing and through the use of the advisers that we brought on board we've also done a lot of engagement with the Welsh Government we've used in the Mimitec approach. Mr Cannell if it's okay I would suggest that I bring in Rob now just to talk a bit more about what we've done on that. Mr Galbraith. Yeah so just to pick up Mr Ewing's last point there I completely agree that there's a high level of appetite from the lending market for opportunities such as A9 MIM contracts would provide the competition that that would create is around the premium the profit margin and effect that lenders would put on the money that they're lending but it's it's that's not the sole element of price for the cost of borrowing what we have to look at is what's a total cost of borrowing because the least risk borrowing is usually government debt and so government debt prices drive the borrowing market prices and right now government debt prices are higher than they've been for a while and that's pushing the total overall cost of borrowing higher than it would have been 18 months two years ago. That's not such a factor for long-term contracts long-term borrowing the interest rate levels out that's the point that's been put to me by industry that says that Transport Scotland don't seem to have understood that. So just to be clear the advice we've got from specialist financial advisers is based on the price that they would expect to be achieved in the market for this type of borrowing at the expected financial close dates so it's specialist market advice. Okay thank you just since we're on this area can can I ask just a question before I come to Mr Chowdry obviously we've received a lot of briefing so this is partly a reference to historical material we've received but in 21 and 22 the costs that estimates from Transport Scotland for completing the project range between £4.5 and £6.25 billion. In December the cabinet secretary announced a total programme cost of £3.7 billion at £23.24 prices so I'm just keen to try and understand how we've arrived at £3.7 billion. Have we lost? Oh no are you still with me? Everything went blank in the committee room there but I'm just keen to understand how we've arrived at £3.7 billion having had those two earlier cost estimates quite recently prior to that. I can address that if you wish colleagues to come in so the £4.5 and the £6.25 billion that you're referring to are two things that are different so their their outturn prices I think one will be for a capital funded design and build option and the other will be for a resource funded private finance option. Both of them include operation and maintenance costs and they include future indexation. When we quote the £3.7 billion at April 23 prices that doesn't include forward indexation and it doesn't include operation and maintenance costs that's what we call a total scheme cost estimate which is a specific technical meaning and it's for preparation and construction of contracts. Right okay well that that's quite interesting then in terms of of where we might end up. Mr Choudhury. Thank you convener. Good morning panel. I'll ask the same question what I asked Mr Bratt. How confident are you with the timescale if not what would you say will be the estimate time you guys thinking? Who's going to commit to the timescale? Alison Irvine thank you. Alison please proceed yeah I think you're on mute sorry you you you you you you are back with us. Okay good thank you for that. So the 20 the earliest completion date by 2035 has been subject to quite a lot of assessment worked by the team. It combines what we think is the most realistic in terms of market capacity, financial availability and levels of disruption along the route. That doesn't mean to say that it's not without risk because I don't think any of us would go into a project of this size and scale without recognising that there is risk but we do believe that that date is achievable and there's been quite a lot testing of that date. Has reasonable consideration been given to the key reasons for failure to deliver the project by 2025 resurfacing? We're in a different place now than we were back in 2011-2012 when the original 2025 timescale was set out. We have substantially completed the statutory processes and we just got one section around Dunkeld where that work needs to be completed. That takes out a major element of risk associated with the delivery of the of the programme. We're now into the territory where the risks are around delivery so I would say that in terms of looking back the work that has been undertaken over the last number of years which has got us to this position puts us in a much stronger position to manage that overall programme and that overall delivery. We'll be taking steps, as you would imagine, to make sure that we've got the resources in place in Transport Scotland to do that, to make sure that we've got the governance rights associated with that so that we can be as open and transparent as possible, that we're keeping stakeholders, landowners and other partners involved as we go through the programme. That is certainly the intention. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Oh sorry, Mr Galbraith. You'd like just to join us on that response as well, thank you. No? No, sorry, I had a note but that might have been relation to the last question. That's fine, thank you. Oh, Roy Brannan. Apologies, Roy. Sorry, our notes are slightly crossing-wise. Mr Brannan. No problem, convener, no problem. I just wanted to pick up on that point around, and Graham mentioned it as well, around the statutory processes. I think Alison covered it well there, but we've got 92 per cent of all the statutory processes are now through and completed. I think that way back in 11, when the original timetable was set out, we were estimating around about six years to complete the statutory process, and Rob can maybe say a little bit more about why does it take a road project that length of time, principally because we follow the guidance in the design manual for road and bridges, which is applicable across the whole of the UK, and that's a three-stage process. One in terms of corridor options, then routes, then a preferred route, and that preferred route to statutory order process. The reason we do that is that we try and get through the statutory process in a place where those that we are procuring a land from feel as if they have been well engaged and we come through the other end without the need for a public local inquiry. In this case, we were about one to two years later than we programmed for those statutory processes, but it has resulted in a more engaged approach with 300 landowners. The complexity of the scheme is such that a lot of people think that it's much more simple than what it really is, but only one public inquiry. Kelly Cranky was the only public inquiry. Lunkarty, we had a public inquiry, but Network Rail pulled out at the last minute, and the others were written evidence only. In my experience in over 30 years now in driving transport projects forward, that's unusual to get to a point where you've acquired all that land potentially with the mid-order stage without significant amount of disruption through public inquiries. Last point around this, the complexity, Graham mentioned that we had one national park. We actually have 14 sites of scheduled monuments, 12 SSIs, seven sites of conservation, and two special protection areas along the full length of the corridor and 142 ancient woodlands. It's a pretty complex process to go through that period there up to 19 to complete those statutory processes, to get it in a place now that we move straight into construction. Just to answer Mr Ewing's point, I think that's what the team are doing. The team are now in a position where they have set out a clear plan to the market that the next three schemes are going to be capital. We'll take a decision in 25 around the availability of money and the price of that money to continue on the next two schemes in the mutual investment model. While you are there, I referred earlier in the previous evidence session to the Queensferry crossing project where I was convener of a hybrid committee. That project saw the appointment of the internationally renowned engineer, David Climie, who was employed understandably on a significant salary, but he was employed to manage that project all the way through. Given the complexity and the timeline associated with the project, was there ever thought given to whether or not there should be an overall figure appointed to manage that project? Would it have helped in any way to potentially have had a parliamentary committee that was working with Transport Scotland, as we did so successfully in the Queensferry project, just to try to navigate the different processes that might potentially have been political obstacles along the way? Thanks, convener. I was a chair of the board of Queensferry crossing for the last few years of its construction, and Michelle was the director of major projects and SRO for the project. On the first point, it was a slightly different statutory process, if you recall, so there was an active parliament required for the crossing, different statutory processes involved in taking forward the A9, so that's why the parliamentary scrutiny is different. In terms of the right individual to lead that project forward, that has been Michelle. Michelle was the director of major projects running not just A9, AWPR, Queensferry crossing and a host of others, M8, M73 and M64 at the same time, most of them successful completion on time and under budget. I think that for this next stage, there is a discussion that I'm having with Alison and the team now is about how do we set up the next level of oversight as we go through this construction period, so whether it's a David Climie-type project director for these next sections, now that we've got 70 of what that programme looks like, that's something that will be considered by Alison and the team going forward. That's interesting, and perhaps then, Michelle, I could just turn to you and good morning. Given that there were so many projects operating concurrently, do you have a view as to where the A9 sat in that kind of complexity? I think throughout that period, we were doing everything that we could to progress the statutory processes. We took forward some of the early schemes, concrected already and the like. If you cast your mind back to that time, we had a number of different projects on simultaneously right across the country actually at that time and actually just turning back to some of the evidence that you received from Graham Barn, we had a lot of interest in our projects at that point in time and depending on how you look at it, I suppose, despite or because of the terms and conditions that we had, because I had regular engagement with the construction industry at that time. What they were absolutely clear about is the way in which we procured projects, the clarity that we gave around that procurement and around the time that we gave them to understand precisely what their risk profile was going into those projects. We allowed them time to do their diligence. What we need to remember here is that during those procurement periods, which were nine to 12 months in some cases, those contractors undertook their own design. They had opportunities to get significant extra information through additional ground investigation. They had an opportunity to work through what their programme was because they have expertise in that field and are able to do that and we respect that expertise. At the point that they submitted tenders, they absolutely assured us that they had done sufficient diligence and were satisfied with the sufficiency of their tenders. In that scenario, we felt it appropriate to award contracts to the most economically advantageous tenders. At the point at which we make an award, we are all locked into those terms and conditions. It is our responsibility then to enforce those terms and conditions and to ensure that the public purse does not take on any additional risk at that point. That is what we did. I suppose that the thing that I am not sure is coming through in a balanced way here is the fact that there is more than one party and that there is more than the client involved in that process. It is important that the contracting industry does not get so competitive with itself that it underprices projects in any way because that puts us all in difficulty. It creates risk for everybody. It creates risk for these projects, which is unnecessary. I welcome Graham Barnes' statement that they are pricing those contracts accordingly. We accept and Transport Scotland has acknowledged and, as a result, changed the terms and conditions in their contracts. We accept that the macro environment has changed, that there is the kind of competition that Mr Ewing mentioned earlier. The NEC4 contracts reflect that, but it still requires responsible tendering and responsible bidding. I would like to take this opportunity to urge contractors to bid in that way as we go forward to ensure that we have a successful delivery frame on that. I have a number of other questions, but I am keen to bring in colleagues too. David Torrance. Thank you, convener, and good morning to panel members. Just on that point, what discussions did Transport Scotland have with civil engineering industry and financiers before deciding on a hybrid procurement approach? How confident are you that this approach is deliverable? Alison Robb is going to lead on Alison. Or Robb is going to get his hand up first. He is keen to jump. Robb. Thank you. We had a market consultation going back to the beginning of 2021. I think it was that we have kept going with financial lenders, with large-scale DVFO contractors and with contractors who would have more of an interest in the design and build market in order to get an understanding of their appetites, what they are looking for from contracts. We believe that the hybrid, while not necessarily giving each of those parties everything that they would have wished for, at least give them something that we understand would be attractive to them. We have had early discussions since the statement with at least one of the lending parties who are continuing to express an interest in participating in future MIM contracts, for example. Mr Torrance? In the evidence earlier on, we heard about adverse weather conditions and the lack of workforce in the construction industry. Will that have an impact on the 2035 completion delay for the A9? Are those factors being built into all? Yes. Those factors are considered when we look at the construction timetables and durations that are required. With any contract, the kind of thing that can always affect ultimate completion is if you have a very bad winter, for example, in the last winter of construction, because that can just affect your ability to get things finished off. Everybody is always at the mercy of that last piece, but we have made provision within overall durations for not working during the expected periods of poorer weather and for not cutting out certain kinds of work, for example, when surfacing that was referred to earlier. You would not attempt to carry those out over the winter months, where you would expect temperatures would not support that kind of activity, so that is all built in as part of construction planning. Thank you for that. No further questions, convener. Thank you very much, Mr Torrance. Edward Mountain? Thank you very much, convener. If I can look back to start with, most people's perception is that if there is a budget within a government department, it will be spent. Roy, did you have the budget for the A9 improvements, and if so, what was the hold-up in spending it? That is Mr Brannan. So what was to you, Mr Brannan? I think that question was directed to you. Yeah, that's fine. We're trying to work out the mic unmuting here that's going back and forward, so thanks, Mr Mountain. Yeah, I think that given the stages that we were at in terms of prep and design for the statutory processes, we did have the budget, so as we were progressing those schemes through the statutory processes, there was enough funding in place to provide the necessary support for our framework consultants, which we used developing the scheme to support that work. So that work is all around GI, the engagement with the communities, buying the land, setting up, looking through the forms of tender, et cetera, all of that was in place. As the schemes, two of the schemes, came forward early, Luncote and Del Rady, we were able to get the money available in terms of capital for building them out. I guess the big issue that's been apparent from 2014 was the not-for-profit distribution model. ONS classification meant that that came on in the books of Scottish Government, so it was no longer a resource option for government to continue to proceed with that as a model for procurement. It wasn't until MIM, Mutual Investment Model in 2019 that SFT had gone through that process that identified a new resource revenue model to take forward. That brings in the question of affordability going forward. Have you got enough capital? Have you got enough revenue? I look after about 40 per cent of the total government capital budget at the minute, which covers all offshore wind, all the other investment that we talked about earlier. The key thing here is now ministers have agreed that the next three schemes are going to be capital, decision-taking 25 for the remaining five schemes as a revenue-supportive model. Sorry, just clarify that for me. You have the money to do the prep, but you didn't have the money to do the work. Is that right? To actually build it? Did you hear that? Sorry, Mr Brannan. Yes, it's just that we're having a problem with the mic. We weren't at that point building anything, so we were still going through the statutory process. That was the forward look in terms of financing, so that said, in budgets into the future, we didn't have a requirement at that point because we weren't building anything. We were basically going through the statutory processes. For the two schemes that were ready to be built, the capital was there and we built them. Okay, so just looking at those schemes then that are ready to King Craig, which may have been opened on budget, certainly wasn't on time. It was opened on the right day and then closed again for another three months afterwards. The AWPR, the contractor said on both of those that they ended up losing money because there was extra costs. Do you think that put them off ever looking at the A9 again till you came up with this new contract? Well, I don't think so because we had a contractor that bid for Lunkarty that came off the back of one of our previous contracts. I'll be bringing Michelle in on the AWPR, but I think she covered the evidence quite well earlier about the process that you lead up to any signing of a contract. In that case, design, build, finance and operate, you make sure that those risks and the understanding of what's required in a contract is transparent and then you require the market, the contractors to bid accordingly. In that case, the risk transfer was very clear at the very outside of the job, but if it didn't turn out the way that the contractor anticipated in terms of their tender, I guess that's the job of the client is to protect the public post because the contract was signed on a particular basis, but Michelle, you might want to add a bit more. Michelle Quinn. Thanks, convener. Again, it comes back to responsible bidding and getting a keen understanding of the risks that are being passed to the contracting party and ensuring that those risks are priced appropriately. In some cases, we have seen that happen and we have seen that happen very successfully. In other cases, it has not happened and it has not happened for a variety of reasons. However, at the point that the contract is awarded, we are all locked in to our duties and responsibilities at that point. We have no, as the public sector, we have no remit to, at that stage, renegotiate what the risk profile would look like. Arguably, nor should we, we wouldn't see a renegotiation have had the risks panned out in a different way. I think it's important that we recognise what everybody's role is in this and understand what happens when a contract gets locked down. In the event that a contractor pursues a claim and is due that claim, that claim is paid. We are senses that we fairly operate the contracts that we have and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Whether those contracts pan out the way that contractors originally anticipated they might is a different matter. Whether contractors fully go into those contracts with their eyes open is a different matter. What I can tell you from my personal experience is that before entering into some of those contracts where I have questions myself about the diligence that had been undertaken and the level of understanding, I have met senior representatives from contractors, asked them whether they are satisfied that they have undertaken that diligence, asked them if they have absolute clarity about the level of risk that they are undertaking. They have assured me that they have and I'm not sure what more we can do as a client organisation once we are at that stage in a process, but we do recognise that the macro environment has changed and we have changed to reflect that. Just very briefly, if I could just say on a comment that Roy made earlier about 300 landowners over 80 miles of road on the A9, that's probably every compulsory purchase practitioner's dream that it's as few as that because it's relatively simple. But just turning to the future, I want to push on something that Convenor mentioned if I may and that's to Alison. You suggested about having the equivalent of a David Climey for the A9, the A9 project is 3.7 billion on government figures. Could well increase that on 2023 figures by the time it's finished in 2024, that's probably going to be closer to 4.5 billion. Are you going to have an overall supremo making sure all of it works and we get it done because it's clearly out with Transport Scotland's ability to do that, I would say with their current staff. That was a very evenly coo question to Alison Irwin if you'd like to respond. I'm going to disregard the beyond Transport Scotland's capability at the moment. It's appropriate now that we've got this well-defined plan that I consider the resources that we have in place to ensure that we deliver on this for ministers and as Roy set out earlier that's exactly what we are doing at this point in time. Okay, thank you. Mr Ewing's going to come back in but just a couple of things. There are just a couple of things I'd like to go back and this is slightly circular back to the slightly more historical aspect of all of this. I mean we're very grateful for all the material that you were able to supply to us which was quite high when it was all stacked up took quite a bit of adjusting but one aspect of that that I wrestled with slightly was that there was a conviction that there was a project that could be delivered by 2025 for a great deal of the time throughout all the written submissions and evidence that we got by way of the inquiries that we and the material we asked for. Somewhere around 2018-2019 there is a change and it's at that point that discussions seem to emerge about different funding models for the project which haven't featured in any of the kind of narrative that I read up till that point but what's not clear to me is where does the direction for that consideration of alternative funding models come from? Does it come from ministers and civil servants down or does it come from Transport Scotland up and I was unclear when I read all of this why suddenly at that point and who was leading the kind of opening up of this whole area of discussion where was the direction for that change coming from? I'll start and then I'll put Roy's put his hand up, I'll maybe defer to Roy first and then I'll pick up anything that I need to when you go. Roy, thank you. Roy Brannan. Yeah so I think that the timing in 2018 so we were we were we were pushing on through the statute processes clear about what was required in terms of construction and because the NPD kind of disappeared in 2014 and we didn't have a new model for delivery the kind of budget profile for TS is a close-in executive agency it's set by ministers so and it's set within the context of the wider capital programme that ministers are taking forward so 18 into 19 the infrastructure investment plan a range of things that were required to be delivered and a range of models to deliver that and MIM was at that point the first time it was considered as a new revenue model to take forward in 18 when we updated our ministers we were clear at that point the time it would take us to get advisors in to develop a new model the mechanisms of how the construct would be between the special purpose vehicle the equity share that would mean that the 2025 date on a revenue finance basis would not be achievable but if the capital was was available at the scale it was and that was competing for lots of other projects then theoretically practically you could still deliver in that time frame because we were I think Robo correct me here but I think we were originally anticipating a six-year kind of construction period for for all the schemes at that point but so that was a kind of thought process so Transport Scotland's capital budgets considered in the wider budgets of the government different models for financing all those projects a revenue finance model potentially coming forward through MIM to be able to deliver a nine but at that point if that was the route then 2025 wouldn't be achievable because of that it does sound as if some of the initiation for this came from within Transport Scotland I mean I'm assuming when you say updated our ministers you don't mean you get rid of the ones you didn't like and got you wins I assume by updated your ministers you meant that you were you were briefing them accordingly because I know that at that point we've gone from Mr Neil and Mr Brown who I think Keith Brown who had a number of projects that he was having to manage simultaneously and it's round about then that I think Michael Matheson comes in and so in essence the the kind of genesis of because there is a suggestion that this is where a degree of drift and delay crept into the whole project in terms of momentum and I know other events then unfolded two years later with the pandemic and everything else but it's not clear to me wasn't clear to me whether there was ministerial direction and oversight of this with the same degree of kind of focus at that point as there had been before no the 100% was I mean every minister that we've worked to has been very well engaged on the A9 program I think it's just a simple dint of the fact that we we needed to find a route an affordability route and a procurement route and at the time that Mr Neil had decided that we were going to take it forward MPD was available to us and it was available right up to 2014 and then ONS classified it differently that became on the books of the Scottish Government clearly you can't then take that forward to finance a big project like this and and we STFT worked through that process to identify a different model which is based on the Welsh model so ministers were fully engaged in that process but it was captured within the wider budget setting for capital so you know this was competing for capital versus all the other projects that were in the IIP. Just one final question to our witnesses. Becanon House, your big office is in Glasgow, Inverness is 168 miles away. As from two or three years time the A9 the biggest project that the Scottish Government will ever undertake and I trust also the A96 from Inverness to Dern and their bypass will be going ahead. Don't you think that given that almost all your spend is going to be in or around the Highlands or in Inverness to A996 that it's time that you actually move some of your staff so that they're based in Inverness and would that not engender rather more confidence in Transport Scotland in the Highlands than frankly there is at the moment. Is that for Alison Irvine do you think in the first whoever? Alison I think that might be for you. So I'll start to pick that up so just for awareness over the course of the work that we've done over the last few years on both the A99 and the A96 we have had local presence in the area. I do however think the points are well made Mr Ewing about central belt bias and that's something that we are working hard to go against so to speak or to improve our kind of standing in that respect. I can't commit at this point in time however to move the offices of Transport Scotland and I'm sure you will appreciate that but that's not to say that I don't recognise the point that you're making. Well thank you for that answer but what do you mean by presence because I know that there have been certain companies involved, Jacobs and Atkins and so on, that have had a presence, an office in the north although I think one of those companies at least pulled out of their Elgin office because of the lack of progress on the A96 but I mean have you actually got what do you mean by presence that Transport Scotland has got in Inverness please? Sorry I didn't see Inverness I said alone I mean in the area that was concerned Rob I don't know if you're able to help me out here in terms of the level of the detail about what we had in place over the last few years. Afraid I don't have that information to hand directly I know that we've had during design development phase in particular we've had local teams based in the likes of Inverness in order to be accessible to a range of people they're engaging with and I'm afraid I couldn't quote numbers that's something we can perhaps provide in written form afterwards. Well you'd be very welcome. Thank you now that's been quite complicated technology I'm very grateful to you all we've run on quite a little bit from the time that we had anticipated and there's lots of other things that we would have been very happy to discuss as well but I thought I might just give you the opportunity Alison through your colleagues is there anything further that you would just like to volunteer for the record this morning at this point? Right okay I think we're on mute. So first of all I would say thank you for accommodating the need for us to appear virtually today. The impact of Storm Drosslin on the transport network has been quite significant. I am looking through the key things that I think we've covered and things that Mr Barnes picked up and I don't think I've got anything to add. I'm looking at the rest of my colleagues who are who are not giving me any indication. Roy Galbraith. Thanks just to mention briefly I think it was in relation to your own question convener around the the source of looking at resource funded models so just to be clear the Scottish Public Finance manual requires consideration to be given to private finance models for major infrastructure projects and that would normally be considered as part of the development of a procurement strategy for an individual project or programme of projects as we're looking at in this case so it's part of standard practice if you like. Sorry is that in relation to the events around about 2018? So that's back down to the things that you're picking up in the papers of 2018. Right because you appreciate it is just this sense at that point because one of the things I think many people have been keen to identify is why there was a very clear track line towards delivery of a project by 2025 and at what point all that started to I don't know become less clear and murky and to me coming to this as my only connection with A9 is that I use it from time to time so coming to this and looking at the paper it just struck me that it was around about 2018-2019 that this drift seemed to materialise not communicated to the public or to the wider world who still thought 2025 was the project delivery date and all was in hand but it looks to me at that point as if there's serious reservation and doubt about it all internally and my I just wasn't clear whether that was emerging from the ground up or from the top down. And I think as I've alluded to it's it'll the the points being discussed will have come through the work that was being carried out to deliver the Scottish Public Finance manual requirements as part of looking at the procurement strategy so there was always the option under that procurement strategy to continue or to choose to use design and build capital funded for completion of the whole programme but there's a process that has to be gone through so that you take a holistic decision rather than a piecemeal decision. Okay thank you very much I'm not sure I've fully understood or kind of come to got an appreciation of what happened at that point but I understand just before we go David Torrance has indicated he'd like to come back in again finally David. Thank you convener, convener, when the committee takes inquiries and takes evidence there for us to benefit the aims of the petition, I found a statement by Edward Mountain earlier on about the ability of Transport Scotland, I found that not helpful at all and I really think it doesn't help our cause at all when the members of the committee make statements like that. Okay well that's noted for the record thank you Mr Torrance. So thank you all very much for joining us this morning, really I'm very appreciative of you working within the restrictions imposed across the country today and for everything you've had to contribute so thank you all very much indeed thank you. I'll now suspend very briefly and then we'll move on to the rest of the agenda thank you Mr Mountain I assume you'll now be departing. I would apologise if my question was taken as a statement. Welcome back we now move to agenda item four which is the consideration of continued petitions and the first of these is petition number 1862 which is to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities. This is lodged by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell, Naomi Bremner on behalf of the EU's economic task force and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities in keeping with the island Scotland act 2018. Now we just last considered this petition at our meeting before Christmas on the 20th of December and at that meeting we heard from all three of the petitioners themselves and during that evidence session the petitioners spoke about ways to ensure that island residents can influence and truly feel part of the decision-making process specifically the importance of including local island knowledge as an essential criterion in the skills matrix for appointments to public boards. Now having had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence we heard and we did have a brief discussion informally after the evidence session last month do members have any comments or suggestions for action Mr Ewing? Yes thank you convener may I suggest that we write to the ethical standards commissioner the western Orkney and Shetland islands councils to seek their views and the action called for in the petition specifically the suggestion that island knowledge should be added as an essential criteria for the skills matrix for boards delivering lifeline services to island communities and the processes for encouraging island residents to apply for these roles and also in addition to write to the minister of transport to seek a response to the four suggestions set out in the background information of the petition to ask what consideration has been given to developing a more structured role for local councils to suggest potential candidates when vacancies arise on public boards delivering lifeline services to island communities and to seek further information on the methodologies being used to encourage more applications from island residents and give them confidence to engage with the recruitment process for example use of video conferencing technology to participate in interviews rather than the the requirement to actually physically travel involving an awful lot of time and expense which is a deterrent in some cases as we've heard. I think that that point was made very well in terms of the ability of individuals to participate in the interview processes that's quite a comprehensive list of suggestions are your colleagues of any additional suggestions Mr Chowdry. Thank you very much. I think we should write to community councils as well island community councils get them involved. I'm happy to include that in the list are we content thereafter with those suggestions if Mr Torrance can just nod his head then I'll know that he's content as well thank you very much we are. So we'll keep the petition open and take forward the action as the committee has agreed. The next of our petitions is petition number 1876 to accurately record the sex that people charged are convicted of rape or attempted rape. This petition has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Black when Lisa McKenzie and Kath Murray who I think I may have seen some of those despite my wonky eyesight in the gallery this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish government to require Public Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court service to accurately record the sex that people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape. Now we last looked at this petition on the 6th of December last year and we took evidence from two of the petitioners Dr Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa McKenzie and during that lack that evidence session we heard the petitioners concerns about a lack of ethical leadership from both the Scottish government and Police Scotland in regards to the policy of recording of crime statistics and the impact this may be having on wider public policy decisions and allocation of resources. We also explored the issue of public trust and statistics and whether there may be local variations in the way the police record record data on rape and sexual offences. I think we all felt there were some specifically important issues raised in this evidence session and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Mr Chowdry. I think we should write to Police Scotland to seek a clear explanation of how its policy on recording the sex of preparator of crimes aligns to the organisation's values. Also further information on whether a consistent approach to recording crime data is being taken across Scotland in particular whether there is a central database for recording information on rape and sexual offences. Thank you Mr Chowdry. Does anyone have anything else? I mean I do feel that there did seem to be a gap between warm words and operational practice in terms of Police Scotland's approach to all of this and I think these questions need to be put very directly to them. Is there anybody else who would like to come in or make further comment? So we're content to take this to keep this petition open and now to take forward some of these issues with Police Scotland quite directly along the lines Mr Chowdry suggested. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. The next of our petitions this morning is petition number 1896 which is to provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle. Members may recall that this petition was lodged by the Parliament's youngest ever petitioner at the age of just seven in primary school. I have to say it's been open so long, it's almost now heading off to secondary school and that is Callum Iceded and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable reusable metal bottle and we last considered this petition at our meeting in the 19th of April last where we agreed to write to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and to the First Minister. We requested information about the methods of water provision in each local authority run school and how authorities are meeting their sustainable requirements. We were particularly interested in whether local authorities would be interested in participating in a national procurement exercise for reusable metal water bottles. The Scottish Government received responses from 26 local authorities and a summary of those findings have been provided as a written submission but the summary reveals that the automatic provision of reusable water bottles to pupils or the use of single use bottles is not an authority wide policy in any local authority area. Fifteen responses noted that single use bottles are available in schools and of those thirteen also offered reusable plastic cups and the remaining two provide reusable water bottles. Thirteen councils indicated that they would be interested in taking part in a national procurement exercise and twelve councils clearly stated that they would not. Of those that Mark knows, six already provide reusable water bottles. Sue Weber, who was present with Calum Astead and his family, is unable to attend the meeting this morning as she's convening stage two proceedings in our education children and young people committee elsewhere in Parliament. However, she has asked that her support for Calum's petitions and ongoing campaign work be noted on the record. So we come back to what's still quite a vivid memory for me of Calum Astead presenting his petition with so much emphasis on education and change of practice in the next generation. He came forward with a petition that was designed to achieve a material and practical change and there does seem to be interest at least from thirteen heroic councils who are interested in looking at a national procurement exercise and I wonder then if their colleagues, Mr Torrance, do you have any suggestions we might make this morning? Thank you, convener. Consider that those thirteen councils have expressed an interest in a national procurement exercise. I wonder if the committee would like to write to a cabinet secretary for education and skills to ask whether, in light of her response from the local authorities, she will consider progressing the petition's aims with the thirteen councils that indicate an interest in a national procurement service. Are we content? Mr Shoudry? Thank you. I would also like to, I think we should congratulate the petitioner because I think it does have a lot of benefits environment and I think it will encourage kids to drink more water as well so I think we should congratulate the petitioner as well. Absolutely, I think we should do that again and I think just in writing to the cabinet secretary we might point out that while Mr Eystead is not an aging individual as am I and other members of the committee he is set to leave primary school eventually and it would be nice if we were able to take forward to some extent the aims of his petition. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next of our petitions is petition 1941 to stop the destruction of headstones within community cemeteries lodged by Councillor Andrew Stewart Wood calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemeteries. We also last considered this petition on the 19th of April 2023 and at that point agreed to write the Scottish Government. Their response states that once finalised the new burial regulations will set out minimum standards for all burial authorities in Scotland and work alongside existing guidance and a burial code of practice. Regulations will also be brought forward to introduce inspection for burial cremation and funeral directors with inspectors inspecting against the legislation guidance and codes of practice. Two public consultations have taken place in relation to this work. The committee has also received a written submission from David Brunton, outlining concerns specifically about the Scottish Borders Council Cemetery Improvement programme, and he states that the guidance has not been followed in practice and that the use of individual notices for signalling planned works and cemeteries needs to be enforced. He raises concerns about listed building consent not being obtained prior to works being carried out and poor communication when seeking information from councils about their rationale for taking stones down. Colleagues will remember the evidence session that we did have and the quite graphic illustrative examples that were provided to the committee of the way in which headstones had been routinely destroyed in cemeteries without reference to any of the family's concern. However, there does appear to be progress being made by the Scottish Government in this regard. It throws up a number of issues beyond even the ones that we are considering here, of which I am aware. Do we have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Torrance. Thank you, convener. In this case, you know how I like to close positions down when the Government has actually gone into consultation, but I would actually like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the consultation, on the burial regulation, specifically to ask when the consultation responses will be published and the work it intends to prioritise as a result of the responses that it has received. Yes, I think that there is quite widespread interest still and this is represented to me by colleagues from all parties around the country in relation to how this is going to progress. Mr Chowdry. Yes, I don't know if there is any linkage of the family because if something goes wrong with the stone, do we have the contact details of the family? I think we can, but I think also we know that we have evidence to that effect and it's very, very fractured, I think, depending on individual practice. The answer to that was, I don't think there is any national database of these matters. Can we ask anyone then to see if that can be provided? We can certainly see whether anybody has given any thought to whether that might be an option. Are we content to proceed on that basis? We are, thank you. That brings us to petition number 8, 1948, to improve the way that unexplained deaths are dealt with. One of our more sensitive and long-standing petitions, lodged by Alex O'Caim, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review their practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to the support that is offered to family members. We last considered this petition on 19 April last as well when we agreed to write Police Scotland. In advance of this meeting, the clerks have engaged with the Criminal Justice Committee's clerking team to consider areas of overlap between its work programme and the aims of this petition. The Criminal Justice Committee's action plan includes work on trauma-informed training across the criminal justice sector, with the committee receiving updates on progress towards the further roll-out of training every six months. It is also taking evidence on the victims' witnesses in Justice Reform Scotland Bill, and then it will take evidence on the Police Ethics Conduct and Scrutiny Scotland Bill. So, Police Scotland has submitted a response to the committee, which explains that identifying relevant complaints received about the way unexplained deaths were investigated was not possible, because the professional standards department database cannot be filtered to identify specific complaints relating to the investigation of unexplained deaths. However, the submission does note that professional standards department investigations west maintain an additional index of such complaints in the west command area, which has 13 complaints recorded. Of those complaints, one had been referred to PIRC for a complaint handling review. A national complaint investigation model has been implemented, which aims to improve future recording and analysis capabilities. The investigation of death national guidance was, at the time of the Police Scotland's written submission, with senior management for review prior to consultation taking place. So, do members of any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Torrance? I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the key issues raised by the petition are being considered by a criminal justice committee in particular. Tram informed training is identified in the committee's action plan as an issue to pursue with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and the Republic of Physical Services. It is undertaking scrutiny of the Police Ethics Conduct and Scrutiny Scotland Bill, and it is undertaking the scrutiny of the Victims and Witness Bill. The Scottish Government has published a Tram informed justice knowledge and skills framework in 2023, which underpins a key aim of the Victims, Witnesses and Justice reform Scotland Bill to embed Tram informed justice records to justice systems. In closing the petition, I wonder if the committee could write to the criminal justice committee to highlight the issues raised by a petitioner in 7 New Bonner, and I wonder if the clerks could assist the petitioner in submitting written evidence to the criminal justice committee for the scrutiny of the Police Ethics Conduct and Scrutiny Scotland Bill, particularly on the complaints process and the codes of ethics. I think that additional link is an important one, and I'm content. Colleagues, are we content to act on the suggestion of Mr Torrance? We are, and I'd like to thank the petitioner and all those who have been concerned in the progress of this petition. Our colleagues elsewhere are taking forward, as Mr Torrance has said, some of the issues contained within, and we'll seek to facilitate engagement between the petitioner and the justice committee as he proposes, so we're all content with that. We are. We moved to petition 2004 to abolish the use of public-private partnerships in Scotland, lodged by Lynn Kickenburg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland, calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of PPPs and commit to a new model for financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland, which is safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. We last considered this petition on 3 May, 23. At that point, we agreed to write the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust. The response from the Scottish Futures Trust states that the model proposed by this petition would require a renegotiation of the fiscal framework to enable Scottish ministers to borrow finance capital expenditure. The response also offers information on the mutual investment model, MIMS, as crept up in our earlier evidence session. The mutual investment model, which we know from our work in relation to the A9, is an option being actively pursued by the Scottish Government. In its submission, the Scottish Government offers a response to the petitioner's recommendations, stating that the use of private finances allowed for the delivery of much-needed schools, hospitals and other key infrastructure. The Government also states that it is working with Audit Scotland to develop clear governance and decision-making process on the use of the mutual investment model. We have received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights cross-party support for seeking alternatives to public-private partnerships and expresses concern that the Scottish Government is not fully aware of the financial, social and environmental costs of PPPs. Members will have noted from our papers that, in addition to the working group mentioned by the petitioner, the Public Audit Committee is due to take evidence from the director general, Scottish Exchequer, on matters related to infrastructure investment. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, first, a working group, which includes MSPs from all parties, has been established to explore alternatives to PPPs. Second, the Scottish Government has provided a response to the recommendations proposed by Jubilee Scotland under continuing to work to improve the financing models at its disposal. In closing the petition, perhaps the committee could write to the Public Audit Committee to draw its attention to the issues raised by the petition ahead of the Public Administration Committee, taking evidence that you have alluded to, convener, from the director general, Scottish Exchequer. Thank you, Mr Ewing. Are we content, colleagues, with the suggestions made? Mr Chow? I do have a comment to add. Considering the concerns surrounding corporate confidentiality and lack of accountability surrounding PPPs, perhaps the petitioner may wish to consider how the FOI reform proposed by Katie Clark's member's bill could affect the accountability of private companies delivering public services. Thank you. That observation is there for the petitioner, subject to the progress of the member's bill, of course. Are we content? We are. That brings us to agenda item 5, which is the consideration of new petitions. As I always do, because there could be people joining us or who are joining us online, in advance of consideration of each new petition, we write to the Scottish Parliament's independent research body SPICE for their view and to the Scottish Government. We do that because previous experience was that, if we did not, at the first meeting when we considered the petition, that was what we then did. It is a matter of routine practice in order that we can have as informed a discussion as possible. The first of our new petitions is petition number 2052 to ban child circumcision unless it is medically necessary, with no less invasive solutions available. This has been lodged by Taylor Rooney and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give boys the same level of bodily autonomy and protection that was given to girls in the prohibition of female genital mutilation Scotland act 2005, which banned all forms of female circumcision. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that it recognises non-therapeutic male infant circumcision on religious grounds and notes that NHS guidelines are in place for this practice. The Scottish Government states that it does not regard male circumcision as comparable to female genital mutilation. The petitioner's written submission argues that children's bodily autonomy and religious rights should take precedence over the beliefs of parents as children may not follow the same religion in adulthood. He states that male circumcision shares many of the negative effects of the most common forms of female genital mutilation, including loss of sensitivity, and that regardless of potential benefits he feels that it is unethical to cut into healthy children's genitalia. We have also received submissions from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Scottish Owl Bite Society, and both argue that circumcision is important for religious and parental autonomy, with parents acting the best answer for their children within the established and legal medical frameworks. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities referenced UK-based research that found that over 80 per cent of respondents would consider prohibition of Brit Mila to be at least a fairly big problem. The submission explains that because of its centrality to Jewish life, denying Mila to a Jewish boy undermines his sense of wellbeing and his right to cultural heritage and identity. The Scottish Owl Bite Society notes that Shia Islam categorically condemns mutilations of all humans, especially children, and that there is a crucial distinction between its practice and genital mutilation. Coincidentally, I am aware that it is quite common practice in, for example, the United States, where I understand that the overwhelming majority of men are circumcised at birth. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government recognises non-therapeutic male infant circumcision on religious grounds and does not regard male circumcision as comparable to female genital mutilation. I think that is a very clear direction from the Scottish Government in terms of the aims of the petition. Given that that is the case, I wonder if colleagues are minded to agree and to close the petition on that basis. We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, but clearly, as a committee, we can only keep a petition open if we think there is an opportunity to advance the aims of the petition, and I think the direction received by the Scottish Government is quite clear. Petition number 2053 to stop the cuts to community link workers and help to secure their long-term future with GP practice teams. This petition has been lodged by Peter Causton on behalf of Scottish GPs at the deep end. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of current community link workers serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial years and take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland. This is an issue that colleagues will potentially have had raised with them by GP practices within their own constituencies. We have been joined in our consideration of this petition by our former colleague Paul Sweeney. Welcome back to the committee, Mr Sweeney. The petitioner tells us about the support community link workers provide and expresses concern that, without a change in the way that these posts are funded, health inequalities across Scotland are at risk of widening. Members will have noted from our papers that, while the Scottish Government have announced additional funding covering the next three years to preserve the existing community link worker programme in Glasgow, the petitioner remains concerned that the call to secure long-term funding for this programme has not yet been addressed. Before we turn to committee members for any suggestions for comment or action, can I ask Paul Sweeney if he would like to contribute to our thinking? Thank you, convener, and it's a pleasure to return to the committee today on such an important issue. I'm really pleased to be here to support this particular petition and I was pleased to work with community link workers and the GMB trade union over the summer period in opposition to proposals from the Glasgow health and social care partnership to cut the number of community link workers in Glasgow from 70 positions to 42. The Scottish Government stepped in and awarded the Glasgow city health and social care partnership the money to maintain the level of community link worker posts in the city, so it may in the face of it seem that the ask of the petitioner has been met. However, this intervention was only made after some months of uncertainty and significant distress amongst the workforce and associated GP practices. Indeed, the latter ask of this petition to secure the long-term future of these roles is the fundamental issue before the committee today for consideration. It is clear to me certainly that the current model of yearly funding awards for community link worker posts across the country does not provide sufficient job security or forward planning capacity for the workers or consistency for the deep end GP practice teams, for whom these community link worker posts are crucial as a part of their wider teams efforts to support vulnerable patients. Link workers play an invaluable role in communities, particularly those with high levels of deprivation. Working with patients on personal, social and financial issues, which are not necessarily clinical, such as housing benefits, loneliness, isolation and debt, does not only improve outcomes for the patients, but it helps to free up valuable GP time, which, as we all know, is as hard-pressed as it is to support other patients with clinical needs. The value of these roles is not merely anecdotal. Indeed, as the petitioner has highlighted and already put to the committee in his submission, there is a proven social return on this investment. For the Alliance community link worker programme in Glasgow, 7,800 people were supported in 2022 at a cost of £2.1 million, which generated around £3 million in gross value added. That included £800,000 in cost savings, £500,000 in tax revenues and crucially £18.2 million in wellbeing benefits for communities in Glasgow and West Scotland. That equates to an £8, £79 benefit for every £1 of public money invested, which is a very impressive ratio. The positive impact community link workers have on patients on GP surgeries and on the local area, which the service has provided has clearly demonstrated. Long-term funding is therefore necessary to make sure that the positive impact is sustainable and best given effect to allow GP surgeries to plan ahead and to give the workforce the basic job security that I think we all agree is reasonable. Therefore, I would encourage the committee to keep this petition open and invite further consideration from the Scottish Government in terms of reviewing their current model for funding these roles within health and social care partnerships, with a view to looking at a longer-term funding model and perhaps considering taking submissions from the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership, the trade union that represents these particular workers, the GMB and also deep-end GP practices that could perhaps describe and detail the benefits that these posts provide to their practices, just as a starter for 10. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. As I think you suggested superficially, one might take the view that with the Glasgow position having been resolved in the short term, at least the aims of the petition have been realised, but I would, myself, like to suggest that we do keep the petition open to write to Health and Social Care Scotland and I think also the organisations that you identified, the three there, which was deep-end, the GMB and also the Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership in respect of this, and also the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland seeking for their views on the petitioner. I think also to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health highlighting the petitioner's submission and seeking further information on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking, particularly with reference to considering future funding models, so that we ensure that there is a clear and consistent provision of community link workers across Scotland. I thank Mr Sweeney for his suggestions. Colleagues, are there any other suggestions or are we content? Are we content to proceed on that basis? We'll hold the petition open as suggested and seek further information and evidence on that basis. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Petition number 2055 to support the exploitation of live animals as a priority lodged by Ann Mulherne, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to stop the exploitation of live animals, specifically from Scotland to any country as a matter of priority and until such time ensure that animals are treated humanely during transit and where animals are to be slaughtered after arrival, this is done in a humane manner into a high standard. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that it is committed to banning live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter. It welcomes the UK Government's announcement that a bill will be introduced to ban live exports and states that it will work jointly with the United Kingdom Government and other devolved administrations to implement this. It would appear that there is a UK-wide approach and that the Scottish Government expects and hopes to work with the UK Government on the way forward in respect of the aims of this petition. I wonder if colleagues have any suggestions for action, Mr Torrance. Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under the rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the UK Government has introduced an animal welfare livestock export bill that aims to ban the live export of animals that are destined for slaughter or fattening for slaughter from Great Britain. The Scottish Government has confirmed that it will work to implement a ban. The aims of the petition will be achieved. Are members therefore content that we close the petition in the light of that? We are. Petition number 2057 to promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents lodged by John McMaster. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the frequency and duration of parental contact is equal to promote the use of parenting arrangements to require the evidence of accusations from one parent to another are provided within 14 days of any civil action and to raise public awareness of the importance of both parents in a child's life. The petition states that the purpose of the petition is not to take any of the necessary protection away, but to prevent abuse of the current systems that are knowingly abused to alienate children. The SPICE briefing provides information about the Children's Scotland Act 2020, most of which is not yet in force. The act says that the court must look at the impact of any court orders on the child's relationships with their parents and other important people in their life. The briefing notes that it stage one report in the Children's Scotland Bill. The Justice Committee stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting as it could cut across the key principle of the welfare of children being paramount consideration. The Scottish Government's response reiterates this view, adding that, where parents cannot agree, it should be for the court to decide what parental contact arrangement is in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis. The submission also outlines your parenting plan, which is a guide for parents with a joint agreement to structure and record discussions about the future care and welfare of their children. It is noted that the Government provides funding to the Relationships Scotland, whose network provides family mediation services in shared parenting Scotland. Work is also under way to improve judicial case management, which will lead to court cases being resolved more quickly. Section 30 of the 2020 act will require the court to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child's welfare that a delay in proceedings would post. An important issue raised, but some quite informed responses received. Do members have any comments or suggestions to make, Mr Chowdry? To write to the Law Society of Scotland, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, British Medical Association, General Medical Council to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. Include the potential resources implication this could have for medical professionals. Thank you. I'm just slightly confused, Mr Chowdry, whether we're talking about the same petition. No, that's not the petition we're on. We're on petition 2057. Shared parenting. I think you might just have jumped on to the next petition. I'm fairly certain you have. So can I withdraw that suggestion in respect of this petition? Thank you very much. Mr Torrance. Thank you, convener. On petition 2057, I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders. On the basis of that, the Justice Committee staged one report on the Children's Scotland Bill, stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting as it could cut across the key principle of welfare of children in the environment and consideration. The Scottish Government is in agreement with the Justice Committee's comment on shared parenting. The Scottish Government works to promote parenting agreement through your parenting plan and work is on going to resolve family and civil partnership cases more quickly. Once commenced, the 2020 act will require a court to have regard to any risk of prejudice to child's welfare and delay in proceedings would pose. Of course, we can also draw to the attention of the petition of the fact that, should over a period of time they feel that this has not led to these issues being properly addressed, there's an opportunity to bring a fresh petition at that point. But are colleagues content with Mr Torrance's suggestion? We are, so we thank the petition. It is an important issue. There does appear to be work underway that addresses directly issues raised, but, as I said a moment ago, were this not to lead to a satisfactory outcome of the issues raised in the petition, then we would be very happy and the committee would be very happy to receive a petition again in the appropriate course of time. Petition number 2061, I think that Mr Chowder might have been the petition to which you had focused your attention, is to require solicitors to ensure capacity of vulnerable individuals by having a medical professional co-sign legal documents. This is the final new petition we're considering this morning and it has been lodged by Laura Johnston brand and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help prevent coercion of vulnerable frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual. I have been aware we have had a couple in the gallery with us all morning and they've stuck it to the end so I'm going to conclude that they are here in respect of this petition so thank you for joining us. The petitioner explains that while terminally ill in hospital her father was asked to sign legal documents affecting the value of his estate. The family raised their concerns with the Law Society of Scotland with a solicitor thereafter being found guilty of misconduct and fined. The spice briefing notes that while there is no general requirement under common law to have someone assessed before they enter into a legal agreement, the Law Society's vulnerable clients guidance makes it clear solicitors cannot simply rely on the presumption of capacity. In its response to the petition the Scottish Government state that it is already best practice for a solicitor to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a client's capacity. The response goes on to note that the question of a golden rule similar to that which operates in England and Wales has been considered by the Scottish courts which ruled that such a strict requirement is not necessary. We've also received a submission from the petitioner responding to the Scottish Government's view and this petitioner remains concerned that the Law Society's rules are insufficient in deterring solicitors from taking actions that they shouldn't and notes that the complaints procedure can be a long and distressing one and that it is challenging for members of the public to navigate with solicitors facing minimal consequences even when complaints are upheld. We've had notes of interest in this petition from Alec Rowley and from Leanne MacArthur. I've also had representations made to me by Claire Baker and Finlay Carson MSP so I think there is quite a wide range of interest amongst colleagues on the issues raised by the petition. I know that during our period of consideration ahead of these matters today colleagues have exchanged views. I think some important issues are raised here. I believe that this is a petition that we do want to keep open at this point. Are there any suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Chowdry, you'd like to offer a suggestion to us now? Sure. Let's repeat what I said earlier. To write to the Law Society of Scotland Mental Health, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, British Medical Association, General Medical Council to seek their views on the action call for the petition, including the potential resources implication this could have for medical professionals. Thank you. I'd like just in responding to the writing to the Law Society, just following on from the submission that we have received with the notes that we have got and the Scottish Government's view that this golden rule that obtains elsewhere in the UK isn't necessary in Scotland, why it is that the Law Society feel they are satisfied that the current arrangements are sufficient. Clearly across the rest of the United Kingdom that's not the judgment that's been reached and individual circumstances can be very detrimental and quite tragic in fact in terms of the outcome currently. So I do think important issues have been raised in this petition and I'm not really terribly satisfied with the kind of brush-off response we've received so far so I think we do need to drill down and interrogate a bit further in respect of all of this. Do colleagues share that view? Mr Torrance, why are you waving your glasses to say something or just waving your glasses? Thank you. So we are going to keep this petition open and drill down a little bit further right to the various organisations as suggested by Mr Chowdry but quite specifically I think to the Law Society on all of this and maybe I would just like to have some indication from the Law Society of if they can give any indication to us of the outcomes of their operational practice as it currently stands you know what can they point to that they believe means that that is satisfactory given that there is a much more stringent application of practice elsewhere in the UK. So thank you I hope that for our colleague our petitioner in the gallery it's been a long morning for you that I hope that you're content that we're keeping the petition open and we'll be pursuing the aims of it and of course as petitioners you will be kept abreast of any information in relation to the progress of the petition. That brings us to the end of our public session this morning which will commence again on the 7th of February and I thereby close the formal part of our meeting.