 Fy enw'r cyntaf mwyaf, wrth gwrs, dwy'r gweithio i'w deimlo iawn i ddweud o'r disoedd yn 2017 o gyffin yn eu cyflogau gwneud a'r Comitig Gwyrtuig. Fy enw'r gweithio i'w ddweud o'r disoedd i'w ddweud i'w ddweud o bobl amser yn olygu. Mae'n ffwrdd y gallu gwyliannol yn un o'r gyffin, ac mae'n fath i'w peth yn Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu Gwyrtu to attend today. The first item on the agenda is a transport update. Before I go and introduce the people giving evidence, I would like to ask members if there is anyone who would like to declare an interest and I know Stuart would like to start off on that. I just remind members that I'm the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport and the honorary vice president of Rail Future UK. You said that you wanted to identify whom at the time, despite being задачural. I just stopped by to discuss, to hear from you, what might do each gyda'r cymaint, ac mae'n hynny'n gweithio'r cymaint o'r ffordd ar gyfer y gwasanaeth a'r projekte. Mae'n hynny'n gweithio'r gwasanaeth yng Nghymru, John Nicholls, y director, y fawr, y maritwm freight ac y canaeys, Bill Reeve, y director y Rhael, Heather Cowan, y headwch, y strategiaeth a'r ffondi Europea. Ffaraeis iaith pwyntad pwyntd yn ddullon wong stallion? That's the emphasis so subtle, Mr Convener, that I will take the hint certainly. Ngham favorites Arkadran ddarfodary i'nfelwadur gyda bwysig, Perfect, Of course there will be many issues that will delve in to the time of discussion undoubtedly. On the fairies, I thought it would be worth mentioning that since I lost appeared in front of the committee on the transport in general in March I announced I have announced recently a scheme to significantly reduce fares on the Northern Isles ferry service that will be rolled out in the first half of 2018. A road equivalent tariff will be introduced in the Pentland Firth routes, my apologies, while a variant of the RAT scheme will be brought in on the routes from Aberdeen to Kirkwall and Lerwick. That will see passenger fares cut by an average of more than 40 per cent while car fares will be reduced by an average of more than 30 per cent. My overriding priority, obviously, is to provide the best ferry services possible. On 2 February 2017, I made a statement to Parliament announcing that a policy review would be undertaken into the future of procurement of light-line ferry services. On 20 July, I further informed the Scottish Parliament that the policy review would be extended beyond its autumn timeline to ensure full compliance with Teco and to allow more detailed consideration of the complexed stay-aid rules, particularly on the fourth Altmark criteria. I also committed to publishing an interim report on setting out emerging findings from the review, including the implications of our three lifeline ferry contracts, namely Clyde and Hebrides in Northern Isles, and Gareth Dunwne. I will be doing that in the next few weeks. On roads, we have published our future intelligent transport strategy, which was published in November. It has been developed in the context of increasing in-car technology, developing and data management. We are firmly committed to continually improving and using technology to improve the experience for the road user. We have also, since my last appearance at the committee in terms of transport in March, completed a number of major infrastructure projects that we can delve into, such as the Queensfarray crossing, the improvement works on the M8, the M73 and the M74, but above and beyond that, we are also taking forward projects that we have committed to in the long-term, for example, the new 7.5-kilometre section of dual-carriageway between King Craig and Delradi, which opened late August, a significant milestone in achieving the Scottish Government's ambitions to introduce more than 80 miles of new dual-carriageway on the A9. We are also pushing ahead with our safety measures on our roads, as well. Members will be aware of average speed cameras recently going live on the A90 in that 51.5-mile stretch between Dundee and Stonehaven. We are very confident that that will have the same safety reduction benefits that we have seen on the A9 and on the A77 as well. I know that you had an update a few weeks ago from Alex Hines on major projects. I am more than happy because of the brevity of the opening statement to go into detail during discussions on projects from Egypt right the way through to the other major projects and where they are at. I thought that it might be worthwhile to give a brief update on our opening statement. Our ambition is to have a public sector bidder for future Scottish rail franchises. We have obviously made the necessary changes to the legislation. We have been holding cross-party meetings and I am pleased to say that every single political party has been involved in those discussions, as have trade unions and others. We are at the stage where we are now giving consideration to what the appropriate vehicle would be to take forward a future public sector bidder. There is also an ongoing discussions convener with the UK Government on railway funding for control period 6. It might be something that I can delve into in discussions, so I won't go into my opening statement other than to say that there is a significant shortfall between the industry's aspirations in Scotland and what is currently on offer, but those negotiations are live. It is worth touching on the fact that, since my appearance in March on transport, there has been a programme for government. A number of the commitments that the programme for government has made are about decarbonising transport at the heart of the First Minister's programme for government. We are progressing with that ambition to phase out the need for diesel and petrol cars by 2032. That is eight years ahead of the UK target. Significant work has been done internally to see how we have reached that target, which will need an increase in infrastructure as well as behavioural change and so on. Again, I am happy to elaborate during our discussions. Low-emission zones will be part of the decarbonising transport too. I am delighted to have Glasgow announced, as the first, with Scotland's four biggest cities by 2020 and then other air management quality zones thereafter. We are also continuing to support active travel, the doubling of the active travel budget. I am particularly proud of how we spend that so that we get the most bang for our buck, which will be incredibly important on the back of a very important Liberal Democrat amendment during the recent active travel debate. Clearly, we will be looking at how we target those in the early years as well for cycle training. Of course, there is the issue around buses, which again will elaborate in more detail if the committee wishes to talk over. As I have said many times before, I am not content to preside over or manage decline, so we have a number of consultations that are on going from concessionary travel, which has just closed right the way through to the measures that we wish to take in the transport bill around buses, which include but are not exclusive to local franchising, municipal-owned bus companies, open data and enhanced partnerships and smart ticketing. With all that, I have tried to be as brief as I can in my opening statement in a very broad overview. As I say, I am really happy to take questions on those issues or any other issues in the transport portfolio. Before we go into a series of questions, there is one incident that has arisen as a result of something that happened last night in the deputy convener. I would like to ask you a particular question on that. Thank you convener, good morning panel. Minister, can you update people in the North Highlands as to what the current situation is with the landslide on the line between Inverness and Buley, please? Yes, I can. Obviously, an unfortunate incident that has taken place because of the recent weather. There has been a landslip that has seen 30 to 40 tonnes of material from the embankment fall onto a line, as you said, just at Dingwall now. As of last night, straight away, of course, engineers were on site. You might well have seen some of the pictures on Network Rail, ScotRail's social media accounts that show the extent of the damage done. I should say that that material actually did interact with some rolling stock on the line at the time. Thankfully, nobody injured as a result, but it clearly damaged done to the infrastructure and indeed that piece of rolling stock. There has also, as of 8.02 this morning, been a further landslip in the vicinity as well. In order to safely work on the line, members would understand that it is important that that line is closed today. Clearly, when it is safe to open it as soon as possible, the Network Rail and ScotRail will make that decision to do so. At the moment, they need to ensure that the line is safe to work on. I can provide the member and ensure that the member gets—any other member that has an interest in this gets an update where appropriate, but it is absolutely likely—well, if the line is closed today—whether it will be open today remains doubtful, whether it will open today remains doubtful. Clearly, the member will understand that 30 to 40 tonnes of material on to the on-to-the-day rail line is clearly safe days as part of that. The next question is from Stuart Stevenson. I want to ask some questions on Egypt and then I will continue to explore what is happening on the 385 rolling stock. First, on Egypt, there have been a number of delays and I wonder if the minister could update us on what is being done to minimise the effect of any further delays and respond to the delays that there have been. I share every single member around this table's frustration at the delays on Egypt. What I did when those delays first came to my attention as a transport minister was to look at the governance of our major projects. Clearly to me, the governance and the way that major projects have been funded and then for delivered has not been as efficient as it should be. One was to create this portfolio board that was just chaired by the head of Transport Scotland to have a closer integration alignment between all the stakeholders involved, so the fund of the client and the network rail are the contractor who is delivering those projects. What we have seen is that that flushes out some of the problems earlier. That is a plus, but the negative is that you still have to deal with the issues that are flushed out. There are some positives around that. There has also been some political action when it comes to Egypt in particular, when it comes to 385s. There is regular dialogue between myself, Mark Kerr and Alex Hines. There has also been intervention from the First Minister, as the member will be aware, when it comes to meeting with the ScotRail alliance, but also with Hitachi when it comes to 385s. I have also looked at the next control period because we clearly want to learn lessons for future infrastructure projects. For the next control period, I have suggested that we move to a more flexible pipeline approach, which will demonstrate better cost estimates for projects at a more developed stage as opposed to very early cost estimates where we just have to make up the funding shortfall as we go along or the cost increases as we go along, which for me is just not a good place for the Government to be, but clearly not a good place for the Scottish taxpayer to be either. Thank you for that. Clearly, Network Rail of Sun Success is reopening the new forest station and other upgrades on Inverness Aberdeen had to be welcomed, but right across the GB network, we have seen Network Rail having difficulties, although we are seeing some improvements. Are you satisfied that Mr Karn has got a grip on what is going on at Network Rail so that we will not see a repetition of the kind of delays and changes that have had to be made as a result of their projects? I have fairly regular dialogue now with Mark Karn, and that certainly helped. Mark has promised me his personal intervention and personal attention when it comes to Egypt, in particular, but also some of the other projects that we have, which we may discuss. I have been pleased to have to say and reassured by his personal intervention that it certainly has seemed to make some difference. My argument to Mark Karn and others has been that, if he knew that bringing staff up, for example, from other projects or if he knew that there was a problem with staff turnover on Egypt, that should have been dealt with many months ago. We might not have been in this position, but we are where we are. His personal attention, I believe, is now helping to rectify the situation and certainly stop any further slippage, but that does not mean that there will not be. We will continue to flush out where we think there are some issues. However, having the partners, the network rail, the ORR, the regulator, the bellio, aligned and integrated along with the trade manufacturer, where that is appropriate, having them integrated on regular conversations and regular calls, which may well just seem like absolute common sense to you and I. However, the fact that it was not happening to a level that it should have, the fact that it is now happening, we are seeing results of that. We are seeing that there is now another major role project—I know that you are talking about Egypt—but in other projects, such as the Highland Mainline, we have seen that we have managed to reduce costs while still preserving the same outcomes. We are seeing some success as in other projects. We just want to ensure that we can get the right result for the passengers travelling between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the intermediate stations. Well, they will be travelling at some point on 385s. Alec Hines indicated that when he appeared before us that he could not commit to a particular date, that was happening, although he was suggesting early next year. My personal sources suggest that Hitachi are having some difficulties with productivity at their Aos plant where the 385s are being built. Are you aware of that or are my sources wrong on that matter? Fundamentally, given that it appears that Hitachi is the source of the delays, will costs related to that bear upon Hitachi? That is a good set of questions. I was in Newton, Ecliffe, visiting Hitachi on Monday, so I went down to sea for myself. As a former transport minister, the member knows only too well that you will hear various versions from different sources and different stakeholders. I decided to take a look for myself at the 385s and speak with the senior team at Hitachi in Newton, Ecliffe, so I did so on Monday. In fairness to Hitachi, what I would say is that they are up front that there have been some issues around the scheduling of their programmes. They are working on a number of projects. Again, the member will be aware of intercity trains and so on and so forth. It is a new plant. Again, the member is aware of that only a few years old. It is a very impressive plant in terms of the size and the scale of the workforce. They are saying that because of that and because of the training that is needed in the vast majority of their staff or workforce coming from a 50km radius of Newton-Ecliffe, they have had issues around the programme scheduling and delivery. It is fair to say, as the member suggests, that some of the problems and issues have come on the manufacturing side, but it is also very fair to say that, clearly, as it is well documented, there has been delays with the electrification process. It would be unfair and it is probably unhelpful that there is finger-pointing between Network Rail and Hitachi, whereas what I have said to all the partners is that, frankly speaking, we will deal with whose fault it is when the time comes. Let us get the trains, the 385s that people expect. Let us get them built first and foremost. Let us get them tested. Let us get the approvals and the type approvals. Let us get them on into service. I am running here in Scotland to get passengers on them. His final part of his questions about penalties is that there is a mechanism for penalties available to Bellio ScotRail and, as I said, those discussions within the contract. The franchise agreement will take place. I have no doubt about that. However, my overriding priority, of course, is to ensure that there is no additional cost to the taxpayer, as the member alludes to, but I really want to get the 385s here so that passengers can enjoy the experience. That needs a brief answer, if I may. Is it fair to say that the delivery of the 385s is now the key point on the critical path to getting Egypt to where we want it to be? Yes. It is clearly one of the primary factors and vital components of that. The member is undoubtedly aware that there is more to be done than just getting the 385s on the line. Also, when it comes to that wider ambition of short and journey times for December 2018, there are other factors such as SDA and so on and so forth, which the member is aware of. It is fair to say that the delivery of the 385s is a critical part of the Egypt project. I am going to bring in Roderyn. Can I just say that all answers were required to be answered fully, but briefly, it is really good, Minister, without being rude to you? Roderyn, can I bring you in? John, I notice that we have got through two questions of a lengthy session, and we are 20 minutes in already, so Roderyn, if I could bring you in. Just very briefly, how many of the trains had to be returned to the manufacturer? Sorry, how many of which trains? The 385s. So I am not following. How many of them have to be returned? No, have any of them had to be returned to the manufacturer? Oh, not that I am aware of them. We have received a delivery of the 385s most recently, but I will look to more of my director of rail. I am not aware of any being returned. There are issues arising on testing. That is what you do testing for, which will require some work to address some of the issues that have been found on testing. Some of that work will take place in Newden Acliff, some of that work will take place in Scotland, but I am not aware of any trains having been returned. Following on from Stevenson's line of questioning, could you just talk us through where we are going now with the Glasgow Edinburgh line? Am I right in saying that we will see some electric trains from early December, and then will it be a mixture of electric and diesel? As we go through the year, will that gradually change? Are we confident then that when we get to December 18, it will be eight-car trains for 42 minutes? Yes, again, in the interest of brevity, I honestly was not filler-busting at all, but in the interest of brevity, we can lay out the Egypt milestones if you push in writing, but yes, he is absolutely right in what he says. There will be a couple of 380s that will run so passengers by the December timetable of this year will be able to experience electric trains, electric service, they will run in two separate diagrams. Thereafter, of course, we are at the moment testing 385s and they will be introduced when it is safe to do so. If the testing comes back clear, if there are approvals, the type testing, they will solely start to be phased. Alex Hynes and his last appearance at the committee gave an idea of how many 385s roughly there would be by February. Then, of course, there is the May timetable change, and there is a phased approach, exactly as the member suggests. To answer his question again, in the interest of brevity, we are still aiming towards December 18 for the 42-minute journey time. I think that when we get to railways, we could all talk a bit longer than we are probably allowed to. My other point, though, was on Glasgow Airport, also obviously rail-related. Can you give us any update? I think that we have been hearing slightly confusing signals, some people saying that we are going ahead with the plant of a tram train, and then there has apparently been a Jacob's report suggesting that, say, there are problems with that. Can you give us the Government's view on that at the moment? I hope that there has not been too much confusion in the sense that myself, and in Glasgow City Council, the comments that I have seen have been fairly aligned. What I would say is that, of course, the Scottish Government and the UK Government are putting money towards the city deal is for the city deal partners to come forward with the projects that they wish to see funded. In terms of the rail link and the airport access project, as it is known, what the Scottish Government has said is that, on the receipt of the outline business case that we received, we would commission an independent report, which was done by Jacob's. That independent report, which again I must stress an independent report, has asked questions of the airport access project in and around the costs, and in and around the impact it would have on other services, namely, if I remember correctly, the Ayrshire and Inverclyde services. That report has then gone back, of course, to councils involved. It is for the councils to come back to give us answers and reassurances around that. Now, what the council has said from the comments that I have seen, which I think is eminently sensible, is that, as well as looking to address the questions that the independent report has told up, let us not be closed-minded to other options where we can use that £144 million that is earmarked for the rail link, where we can use that money in perhaps a more cost-effective, efficient way, while still solving the problem of Glasgow Airport Access. I am very open to that approach. I will continue with a high-level meeting. The member will remember before the local elections that I called the main partners on the table. I will continue with that approach, but I think that the comments from the councils involved have been eminently sensible. They have my support in that. We want to find collectively a solution to airport access, and we will work with city-deal partners to move that along. Minister, we found out just today that ScotRail's punctuality was down for a third month in a row. The latest figures, as of 11 November, show that only 83 per cent of trains arrived within five minutes, compared to 86 per cent in the same period last year. Even the annual moving average has fallen over the last three periods and is now standing at 90.8 per cent. Only 0.1 per cent above the level required is acceptable. Punctuality is obviously heading in the wrong direction at the moment. My question is really, what is being done to ensure performance improves? I concur with the member's disappointment and frustration whenever there is a dip in performance. Alex Hynes again made this point at his last appearance in the committee, that there is always a seasonal effect on the railways, regardless of whether that railways in Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom are always autumnal effects. I know that some members in the committee had a shot, as it was, on the simulator that showed the effects of leaf falling adhesion on railways, which is a serious point. We expect that, when it comes to autumn time, there generally is a dip in performance. That is not to excuse a dip in performance. We continue to monitor that, and the PIP, the performance improvement plan, is a live-evolving document. That continues to be there. I would say that, from the figures provided by ScotRail, autumn effectively, their consideration came earlier than it usually does. Therefore, they have now seen 80 to 90 per cent of leaf falling, and they are expecting to exit autumn. That means that I will be looking very closely over the next period and the periods to come to ensure that performance reflects that. If performance does not reflect that, it continues to go in the trajectory that Mr Rumbles rightly points out, that would give me huge cause for concern. Therefore, we would have to look at what further actions we need to take as part of the performance improvement plan. The reason that I am not pressing the panic button is that, since the performance improvement plan was put forward, we have seen market improvement. Even our harshest critics would have to admit that there has been a marked improvement in the performance, since the performance improvement plan, to the extent where ScotRail became the best-performing large operator in the UK, where it received record best satisfaction rating at 90 per cent. Although the moving annual average, as the member rightly says, dips likely were still in and around the region of 2.7 to 3 per cent ahead of the UK average. If that continues to decline, I will simply—clearly that will not be acceptable and we will have to look at measures that we take. However, the reason why I am not pressing the panic button is that we expect that, after the summer months, where there is an upturn, the member would imagine that, when you get into autumn tail end of September, October, November as we are now, you would expect to see some dips in performance. However, we will be keeping a close eye on it. Of course, if members wish more detail on performance in the next three periods, then of course we will look to make sure that the committee is provided with that. Mike, I will let you come back to get a brief answer from the minister. I understand, but we are comparing the same period in the year to the same period last year, so I understand what is saying, but it does seem strange. You mentioned that we are slightly ahead of the rest of the UK, but of course we are being told that ScotRail's right time, arriving on time, is 52 per cent. It is 7.5 per cent below the British average. So my same question is what is being done to increase right time arrivals. Again, to try to answer briefly if I can why it is different this period compared to last period is because of what Alex Hynes and ScotRail have said already that autumn has come earlier this year, so that is why perhaps you are seeing that. In terms of the second part of his question on right time, the reason why there is the industry standard measure is PPM, which is four minutes and 59 as opposed to right time, which is two in a minute, is because there are some passengers understandably that need longer when it comes to getting on and off trains. Those with mobility issues, which I know the member has a great interest in, mothers and fathers with prams and others, so they can and also sometimes that time is needed in relation to onward connection. So that is why the standard industry measure is PPM. Also, the reason why we focus on PPM and not so much on right time arrival, although I appreciate that that is also important to people, the reason is that we have a focus on journey times and improving journey times. Now, if we did not have that focus and the focus was on right time, there would be a temptation to increase journey times and I think that that is not a place that I want to go. So the standard industry measure is PPM, we will continue to use PPM and that is the standard industry measure across the United Kingdom. Raider. Can I just ask how many months in the length of the contract have Abellio ScotRail met the contractual obligations? I don't have the number on the top of my head, so I mean probably better that I write to the member with that detail. Minister, if I could remind you if you could write to the committee, so we can then pass it on rather than write to the member directly. Sorry, just John. Good morning minister. Minister, I'm a regular user of ScotRail. I think it's a really good service and I value the work that staff put in. Of course, any organisation learns from complaints. Last night I was in touch with Mr Hines about a number of issues, not least the complaint system, and if I just read you a message sent to me by a constituent, online complaint form to complain about online access when travelling on their service. A few weeks later, get an email telling me that online complaint service doesn't work. I get a print-up of this and it's headed up customers relations query, and it says in line 3 that emails to the inbox are not monitored. Please refer to the contact details below. I'm hoping that this is a blip, but given that this is an important customer satisfaction as an important aspect, would you undertake to take a personal interest in this aspect, please? Of course I will. The member will know, of course, that it's Transport Minister. I can't micromanage the business that he's not expecting me to do that. What he is asking is very, very reasonable that we're service falls below the expectations, right expectations, I would say, of commuters and passengers. Clearly, the complaints procedure, the delay and repay schemes must be able to reflect that, to adequately compensate passengers. If he doesn't mind, I'll take the details that he has asked me to look at and investigate. Again, I'll report back to the committee on that. Thank you, Richard. Good morning, minister. For my first question, I only need a two-word answer. Last week it was made out that Abelior making people redundant, making people redundant. So what is it? Enforced redundancy or voluntary severance? It's voluntary. He'll know that through the franchise agreement there's no compulsory redundancies. My understanding also is that it's not affecting frontline staff as clerical management and others, but if nobody takes up the voluntary package, then nobody would lose their job. There's no compulsory redundancies. Right, so we've cleared that up and I've actually put out an amending motion down in regard to that comment. What discussions has Transport Scotland had with Abelior about the ScotRail voluntary severance scheme, including any assurances that it will not impact on safety or customer service, because the TSSA union has raised concern about the Abelior launching this voluntary service. So what assurances can we give the union and also the travelling public? I'm pretty sure I'm due with a meeting for the unions in the next couple of days or potentially maybe next week, so I'll speak to them but also hear their concerns. I never dismiss the concerns of unions. I have a very good relationship with whether it's the TSSA, RMT or ASLEF. I'll listen to what they have to say, but what I will do is in turn reiterate what ScotRail have said to me. I've spoken to them about the voluntary lever scheme. They say to me that it has a specific audience—management, admin, clerical staff and those who work in corporate functions. The scheme is not applicable to frontline staff. They also, of course, confirmed their policy, which I reminded them of, which was no compulsory redundancies, remain in place for anybody who currently has a job in the business. If they want to continue to work in the business, they will continue to have a job. Clearly, in any organisation or industry, there are not just modernisations but efficiencies that are looked to be found. Where people can be retrained and they can develop their skills, then clearly if that is done in line with the staff in line with unions, then that is an agreed process. I would say that this was my predecessor, Keith Brown, who absolutely insisted that, as part of the franchise, no compulsory redundancies, there should be a key element of that, and it continues to be so. Thank you, convener. Minister, although I raised that to First Minister's question, it seems very clearly said that voluntary reaver scheme. I certainly have not suggested other than that. You have suggested that these are mainly administrative support functions. Do I take from that if there are issues with cleanliness and non-functioning toilets? Again, an issue that I have written to Mr Haynes about last night. That is unconnected with the reduction in cleaning staff at certain locations. That is not related to those schemes. However, people are encouraged to leave. Clearly, non-functioning toilets and long-running trains and cleanliness, that starts to become a public health issue if it is not properly run. I agree with the member entirely that we have a very robust process in place. He will know about the squire regime, which is the most robust regime on the islands in terms of expectations of train functions and operations, particularly one of the things that is measured during the squire regime is cleanliness of toilets. He is right to raise that as an issue. He knows the reason why there have been some financial penalties on ScotRail, because they have not met the very high thresholds that are within the squire regime. Let me reiterate what ScotRail has told us. The specific audience for the Voluntary Leaver scheme is management, admin and clerical staff, and all those who work in corporate functions. The scheme is not applicable to front-line staff. I would just reiterate those marks. Minister, as you brought that squire regime up, can I ask you two questions on it? First of all, could you tell me how much is currently sitting in the squire fund and what applications you have had from ScotRail to use that fund during the course of the next period? I noted that Alex Hynes might have been the convener who asked the exact same question when he arrived. I do not have that information about the exact amount in the squire fund because he will know that it continually increases and evolves. We hope that it decreases because we want them to meet the squire requirements. If the convener is okay, I will make sure that he gets a written response fairly quickly. I am not aware of any particular schemes that ScotRail has suggested to Transport Scotland at this moment, so if the convener is content, I will write to him unless my director of rail wishes to add anything in particular to that. I think that it is simplest if we give you an update on current schemes under way, and you will appreciate that the number varies every period, according to how the inspections have gone, but we will give you a current statement of funds in the fund and current proposals for its use. If we can leave that, you will come back with the amount of money that is in the squire fund and a list of all suggestions by ScotRail made in the last, should we say, six months for use of the squire funds so that the committee can see whether how that is being used. You are happy to do that, minister? Yes. I am, of course, happy to do that. I am not entirely sure whether it is always a formal written submission or a list of schemes that ScotRail will give us or whether it is done through a regular dialogue and conversation, but either way, we will compile a list with the agreement of ScotRail and provide that to you. Yes, it would be very helpful to see exactly what, because my understanding of the squire fund usage is that it is up to ScotRail to make suggestions to Transport Scotland how the funds should be used, so I think that what I would like to see so the committee can understand it is what applications have been made. Minister, the next question falls to me as well, which is that media reports indicate that the UK Government has proposed a change in the formula used for calculation the proportion of funds allocated to Network Rail Scotland. Can you just tell me when you became aware of that and what impact it could have on rail development in Scotland? The question of when I became aware of that actually goes to the very heart of the issue and the heart of the frustration that I feel around this. We received the formal funding offer from the Treasury after close of business the day before I had a statutory obligation to publish the statement of funds available. That was the 13th of October. The fact that there had been no engagement or discussion around unilaterally the UK Government deciding to change the funding formula from the devolved settlement previously agreed to one now based around in Barnett, the fact that we have received formal funding offer from the Treasury the night before were due to spot the public statement of funds, again, goes to the heart of my frustration and my annoyance. Again, the convener will be aware that I find that funding offer to be £600 million short of what the industry tells us that it needs. I can go into the detail of why that funding offer does not meet the expectations of the industry itself. It is fair to say that the fact that we received the formal funding offer the night before the 13th of October for me is the very problem that we face. Alex Hynes, when he came to the committee about two weeks ago, was asked this specific question. I went back and looked at the official report and I think that the question that Jamie Greene put to him was, is it your understanding that the proposal when we were talking about how the funding was split between operations, maintenance and renewal of the network, that there will be enough money required for the maintenance of Scotland's tracks and the argument is around how much additional money will be given for additional upgrades. Alex Hynes answered simply with the word yes. It appears that this issue of funds is about what extra funds would be required to upgrade the network, not to maintain it. Is that your understanding or have I misunderstood the evidence that Alex Hynes has given the committee? When it comes to railway funding, there is the maintenance operations and rules part, which is important. That is for the safe maintenance of our rail network. Then there is the enhancements part, but enhancements should not be looked at as the evidence that you have read out suggests that it is not just all around new pieces of infrastructure and kit, like the border railway. What it also means, of course, is necessary upgrades in order to meet current growth demands and capacity issues, as well as future demand. For an example of that would be the package of works around the east coast mainline, which are absolutely necessary. We know that the east coast mainline is bursting to the seams. It needs urgent attention. As part of that, for example, we will do a series of works around the east coast mainline, which include, for example, the construction of East Linton and Rest and Stations, so that they are necessary. When it comes to that, there is no difference between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in respect to the need to budget for maintenance operations renewals plus enhancements. Where the disagreement comes is in some of the figures and the facts that are used. Let me give you some examples, convener, if I can. The UK Government is looking at the drawdown of debt for control period 5 and using a figure of £3.1 billion. I have no idea where it has that figure from. When I spoke to the chief secretary of the Treasury along with Mr Mackay, she also did not seem to be able to give me an answer of where that £3.1 billion is. The figure that we agreed was £3.3 billion. That is also the figure that has been agreed at, having confirmed it with Network Rail, that the drawdown at control period 5, at the end of control period 5, we are working to is £3.3 billion. Already, there is a £200 million gap that has come out of nowhere. Add to that the fact that, when it comes to looking at refinancing and financing costs, the UK Government has, on the one hand, used where it suits them, a figure of £11.17, and on the other hand, where it suits them, they have used a figure of 9 per cent. There is not consistency in the figure that is being used. The third point, which is a really easy point to understand, is that the ORR, the 2005 settlement pre-SMP-led Scottish Government, was based on ORR advice that we should be funded 11.17 per cent because that reflects the size and the scale of the Scottish Rail network. The fact that the DFT has now moved to 10.4 per cent, that is what the funding offer would be in relation to the DFT grant to England and Wales, unilaterally, without picking up the phone, without writing me a letter, without the courtesy of even engaging in conversation, to me shows a lack of respect first of all, very best it shows for an afterthought, but it has real consequences here, which has seen us fall £600 million short of what the industry tells us they need. After the conversation with the chief secretary of treasury and highlighting the inconsistencies of figures, in fairness to her, she promised to go back to look at those inconsistencies and come back to us. I am hoping that they do that and that the revised offer certainly gets us closer if not to that £4.2 billion figure. I go back to what Alex Hynes said and I want to read you one particular statement that he has read. Perhaps you could answer me in a very simple answer yes or no whether it is right. We have more than enough money to maintain a safe and reliable network. The issue is how much is available for the next control period for enhancements. That is what the live negotiation about is. Is he wrong when he says that yes or no? He is saying that there is enough money and he said that network rail has successfully argued the need for that money. I am unclear. There seems to be completely two different views. Is he right or is he wrong? No, there is not two completely different views. You are incorrect in that. He is absolutely correct that when it comes to renewals, the money that he has argued for for renewals, which is simply replacing like for like, if that is what you wanted to do, which would make no sense at all, because you would obviously want to upgrade, enhance for current growth capacity plus future growth capacity, then if that £1.9 billion for one element of railway funding is there, that is not what the argument between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is about. That is not where the difference exists between us, whether or not there is money there for renewal of the network, the difference or the argument, the tension between the two Governments comes from the fact that when you look at the overall rail package, there is not one part of it, there is no point in looking at just one part of a funding settlement, when you look at the entire railway package, the funding falls about £600 million short because of the various inconsistencies that I have already mentioned on the record. Now, in fairness to the chief secretary of treasury, and I am trying to be helpful here, the in fairness to her, she has listened on a call between myself, her, Derek Mackay, she has listened to her argument about inconsistencies, she has promised to go back to look at those numbers and she has promised to come back and consult with us further. I appreciate the fact that she has done that. I am hopeful that that will take us closer to the number if not to the number that the railway industry needs, but if you were to ask Network Rail what the industry needs, they would not say that for the entire rail package that they would simply need £1.9 billion, that would be incorrect. The renewal side of it perhaps, yes, but the entire railway package, if anybody suggests that we should be thankful that we are simply getting the money that we need to operate a safe railway and no more than that, then I think that that would be a very difficult position for anybody to hold. I think that it is a question that I have to take up with Alex Hines because the evidence that he has given is very different to what you are saying. It is not different at all. I am sorry, convener. I have to come in. It is not different at all. I have just said that Alex Hines is correct when he talks about renewals. What I have said to you, convener, respectfully, is that when you look at railway funding, you must look at the entire package. Alex Hines would have no difficulty in saying that. In fact, having read and I have his transcript in front of me, he obviously is talking about renewals because he has been asked about renewals. If any other member has asked him about the entire railway package, of course, enhancements are a necessary part, not an add-on, not a desirable part but an absolutely necessary part of railway funding. There is no difference, convener, in any suggestion on the record that there is a difference how we would challenge robustly. I am going to park it there and refer for the committee who can look at the evidence. I am going to move on. That might come in and then get moved on to Peter. Just listening carefully to your evidence, minister, I just wanted to clarify in my own mind what you were saying. Did you ask the chief secretary of the Treasury what criteria she used for moving from 11 per cent down to 10 per cent? Did you ask her that? I did. I have to say from my conversations with Liberal Democrats that they have also been helpful in the sense that they have told me that they would like to see Scotland's railway appropriately funded as well, and I appreciate that very much so. When I asked that exact question, we were told that they were moving to a Barnett-based formula because they were moving towards funding the railway through Grant as opposed to the debt financing that has been previously funded to them. The point that we made to them was that we cannot literally make that decision to entirely fund the railway through Grant and therefore have an implication that I have spoken about in terms of a shortfall without any consultation or conversation with the Scottish Government. If we are moving away from that 11.17 per cent, which has been agreed by the ORR to a Barnett-based formula because we are moving towards a Grant-based system as opposed to a debt financing, we cannot do that unilaterally because it clearly affects the Scottish railway in the railway network. Peter, the next question is yours. No Scottish statement of funds available has been published yet for period six. When do you expect to publish this and what impact is the delay in publication having on the periodic review process? I will keep this one brief because I am not going to capitulate on the figures that have been offered by the UK Government. If that means delaying the statement of funds available, then I have written to the ORR to give them the reasons for that. We are in the middle of a live negotiation. I am not going to be pushed because I have a deadline to produce the statement of funds if I am not content, satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations. I cannot give them a date because that will depend on whether or not the chief secretary of the treasury is able to rectify the inconsistencies in the funding formula. If she is able to do that, we will publish that now. Any uncertainty to the rail industry is unwelcomable. We want to give as much certainty as possible. Therefore, I will take the chief secretary of the treasury at her word that she will look at the inconsistencies that we highlighted and that she will come back to us sooner rather than later, which will allow me to publish that statement of funds. You say that you will not be pushed, but what implication is this having on the periodic review process? You have not answered that bit, the question. Yes. I will ask my officials to come in. We will ensure that progress is made through the periodic review process. We fully expect Network Rail to publish its draft strategic business plan for Scotland in December. I schedule it, so they are saying to us that that will not be affected. They still have plans to publish that in December. Perhaps my director of rail might want to add to that. We will publish the height of output specification for the next control period in the summer. By the appropriate dates, Network Rail understands our specification for the next control period. We are working with Network Rail colleagues on the development of the pipeline of projects that the minister referred to earlier for the next control period. Development activity in this control period is fully funded. Our instructions to Network Rail are to carry on developing on the basis that funding will be resolved. I have asked to be drawn to my attention any issues that were causing any delays, and I have been told that there are none so far. We are watching that very carefully. We continue to work collaboratively whilst the final fund settlement is resolved between Governments. There is obviously a debate about funding shortfall in your opinion, and there is a funding shortfall. The UK Government has highlighted Barnett consequentials from the HS2 project as one way of boosting expenditure on rail in Scotland. Can you provide any details of the amount that the Scottish Government is receiving in consequentials from this project and whether the intention is to invest this sum of money into Scotland's rail network? The member will be aware, if he is not already, that consequentials are determined at a departmental level, as opposed to a programme level. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate the financial impact of individual spending decisions such as HS2. It is fair to say that the UK Government is part of the discussions and live negotiations. I have talked about consequentials from HS2 as being part of the funding for CP6, additional funding for CP6, and I accept that. Of course, all Barnett consequentials will be gratefully received. I think that the difference in the difficulty is that you cannot plan a railway based on Barnett consequentials. You do not know how much is going to come, you do not know when they are going to come, and as I say, they come as that lump sum as opposed to individual, broken down by individual spending decisions. It is not a way to plan a railway, but if consequentials come, of course, people will consider them as part of the package and they will be received and gratefully received. You have no idea what those consequentials may amount to. You must have some indication of how sums are involved in that. I am not convinced that I have full certainty in the figures that are being quoted when it relates to HS2. We work closely with the HS2 team and with the UK Government. If you are asking me my opinion from having dealt with major rail projects, whether or not I have certainty on the figures that are involved and what the Barnett consequentials will be and what year they will come to us and what the amount will be each year, I do not have that certainty. It would not be a sensible or prudent way to run or fund a rail network, but if the member wishes to pursue his colleagues south of the border to ensure that those consequentials from any HS2 spending comes to Scotland, then, of course, as I said, they will be gratefully received. Just on a technical point, can the minister confirm that Barnett consequentials are, of course, annual allocational funds? The basis of funding for railways is on control periods, which are five-year periods, and the statement of funds that we await would address a five-year period. To move to a system whereby we only know year by year what the funding would be available would be to critically impede our ability to plan for the long term. I agree entirely. That is the point. You cannot plan for a railway simply based on consequentials that come year on year. I have a five-year control period, which members are aware of, and everything that the member says I would agree with wholeheartedly. We are going to move on to the next question. I am asking questions about ferry, so there are a number of them, I am afraid. Can I start with just asking for an update on the services procurement policy review? When is that the outcome of that likely to be known? I mentioned on the end of July that the policy review would be extended beyond its autumn timeline. What I will do is provide an interim report, and I said in response to questions from Tabish Scott that that would be in the next couple of weeks, in the next few weeks, including the implications for our three lifeline services. The reason why I need a little bit more time is because, again, without going into detail, because I have not at least the interim report, I will need more time in order to complete my engagement with the European Commission and various institutions and authorities around state aid rules, particularly on mark IV. There is a need for a little bit more time, and that will invariably necessitate contract extensions. Can I push you a little on what you mean by a little more time? Are we talking months or are we talking years? There are a couple of retendering processes that are on hold at the moment, including Gwrwch and the Northern Isles. When is that likely to— Yes. Months, of course, as opposed to years, and perhaps I should have been clearer on that, but the member is entirely correct that we are facing pressures around most immediately Gwrwch, Danone, and then thereafter, the Northern Isles ferry service. We are in discussions around legally how we can extend those further and we are having those conversations. Of course, when I release the interim report in the next few weeks, I will make mention of what we are going to do on each three of those contracts, including the most pressing one, which is Gwrwch Danone. I think that I have a general question on this, potentially tomorrow, from Rhoda Grant's colleague. Again, I will be saying similar, because time is running out in terms of the extension that we have applied for, and we will be looking for a further extension thereafter. I also think that the ferry group from Danone is in the Parliament tomorrow as well. You touched on your opening statement on RAT for the Northern Isles, and that is obviously very welcome. One of the issues that I raised with you previously was RAT on cabins. There are increases in cabin costs. Now, when you are going to Lerwick, a cabin is reasonably essential. Have you given any thought to how you negotiate with Northlink to reduce those costs or, indeed, to freeze them? The member makes a good point that I have travelled from Aberdeen to Lerwick, and she is right that cabins are, certainly, most desirable. The reason why RAT has not been reduced is because of the capacity constraints. We took detail to model the impact of any RAT reduction. Members will know that there has been some capacity constraints on some of the very popular chif routes where RAT is being rolled out, particularly during the peak summer months. We want to do our best to try to avoid those similar capacity constraints, but she will know that, because of the reasons that she has already articulated, the use of cabins is extremely popular. If we were to reduce RAT on cabins, the capacity constraints would be even more acute, particularly during the peak season. We are in discussions with the provider circle at Northlink. We have done the first phase, and we are going to complete the first phase of the RAT roll-out, as I have already said in my opening statement, in the first half of next year. Where we can make further progress on this, particularly on the cabin issue, and also in consideration of future contracts, then that is something that we should look to do. On RAT, you worked with Pentland Ferries to reduce fares on that journey, and I think that that was very welcome. Western Ferries serves Gwrope to Danun. I do not know if you are having similar discussions or do not expect you to give detail of that, but are you having similar discussions with them? John Nicholls will keep me right in terms of our lead on Ferries, but my understanding is that if we introduced RAT on Gwrope to Danun, it would probably increase the fare, so therefore we would have to look at an RAT variance, which we have not done for Gwrope to Danun. It has not been a pressing issue in terms of Gwrope to Danun. There are a number of issues around Gwrope to Danun that she will be aware of. The fare level is not actually one of them that is pressing. That being said, in the interest of fairness, of course, if we got to a position where we were going to roll out RAT or a variant of RAT on Gwrope to Danun, then clearly any other operator would have to be part of that discussion in the same way that Andrew Banks has been in terms of Pentland Ferries. On freight—I am going as fast as I can, convener—on freight, we have taken evidence, obviously, on the islands bill, and that is an issue that has come up again, the cost of getting freight and services to the islands, cost of postage, deliveries and the like. Maybe I will ask you to take that away and give it some thought. I know that there is a review on going, but it is a big issue that has come to us. I acknowledge her interest in the fact that she has asked on a number of occasions. It is a live issue whenever I travel to many of Scotland's islands. The reason why the ferry freight fare review is continuing to go on is because I am not satisfied that we are at a position that will help our island economies, so we are doing some further work on that. I will take that away. Finally, if I can turn to the new ferries, the delivery of the new hybrid ferries, there is a third-party review into that. When will—what is the timescale for that review? When are we likely to hear? At the moment, we are at the stage of looking at the short list of candidates of who can carry out that third-party review. This is a model that we have used for, for example, infrastructure projects that have shown signs of delay to get an external peer review to give us a better idea of timescales and timetables. I do not know exactly when that will take place, because once we have appointed either the individual or the appropriate consultant to do that third-party review, once that organisation or person has been appointed, would it be fair for them for me to then update the committee on what they suggest the timescales for that review would be? I think that we would have to do it in partnership with them. It is a tried and tested approach to infrastructure projects that have been delayed. I should say that the caveat to this is that, having been at the launch yesterday of the Glen Sannocks, this is a good news story for commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde and the workforce in the Clyde. If we remember where Ferguson's was to where they are now and how yesterday went, they have come a heck of a long way. I know that members across the table will support them in their efforts, but she is absolutely right that we need to ensure that there is no further delay and that we try to nail down the timescale of the two ferries that they are building for us. Rhoda Dyr. I will let you do this last one. You pushed it quite a long way by not looking at me. There was a lot of questions on ferries. There will be an impact to the delay and delivery of those two new ferries and given the capacity issues in the summer and sailing issues in the winter, what impact is that going to have on the communities that we are looking forward to being served by those ferries? Currently, the communities are served and they will clearly be better served with a longer vessel and more capacity and so on and so forth. I know that it is disappointing from those who are on Arran in particular this delay. They were expecting that vessel to be there in the summer and will be closer to winter time. There will be an impact, but to give some reassurance that they will still be served with the level of service that they have at the moment, we do not see a diminution in that at all, but clearly I will be speaking to the stakeholders on Arran to hear from them directly on what they feel the impacts will be and that will include their discussion with the Arran Economic Group, who I have a very good relationship with. Just before we move on to Richard's question, just because you were at the launch yesterday of the Glend's Sanox ferry, could you just confirm to me, is it 19 or 20 that it is coming into service? It was unclear from the reports that I read. Winter, 19 is likely. That is right. Winter, 18, 19, so we say 2019, so I will just look towards my colleagues. Yes, it is due for delivery in winter, 18, 19. Thereafter, there will be a period of crew familiarisation and getting to know the vessel by the operator, so it is not possible to specify a particular entry into service data at this time, but obviously we will. Without pushing it too far, winter, 18, 19 probably goes through to probably March or April 2020, if you take the winter period. Can you try to define which period when winter will end so that people will know in your calculations when the ferry will be in service? It is not good enough just to say winter, it is too big a period. There are some things that I have control over, convener. When winter finishes in Scotland is certainly not one of them, but I take a general point. I should have been perhaps clearer. When I talk about summer and winter, we talk about the ferry timetables, so essentially the winter timetables. So it could be into March? The end of March technically is the end of winter. 2020. No, no, 2019. 2019. So that is why you are absolutely right to ask the question that can you narrow that down. That is exactly why we want to do the third party review, that third party peer review should hopefully be able to nail down a more exact time range than the winter, 18, 19. Thank you, Richard. Yeah, just a quick question. A recent visit to Orkney on the ferry, I actually asked to see the cabins and I thought they were excellent. Can you confirm to us, I was given a price, you know, just out of curiosity. Basically, can you give us the tell the committee or write to the committee what they charge for cabins? I mean, I could. It would depend on the time, again, winter, summer, peak, off-peak. So is it similar to if you go and stay in a hotel in a particular time of the year or better, depending on how far you advance book, there's a different price? There's various offers and discounts and pricing structures and so on and so forth. We could probably get a broad outline and send that on to the committee of the members. It would be interesting to see how it compares with the Caledonian sleeper. All right, sure. Fulton, I think that the next question is yours. Thanks, convener. Thanks, minister on the panel. The Transports Audit Scotland published their review on Transports Scotland ferry services in 19 October. How do you think, push your view on the six recommendations, minister, and how do you think that Transports Scotland intend to take those forward? I do. I did welcome the report at the time that it came out and I continued to welcome it. It should be said that one of the parts of the report that wasn't given so much coverage was that Audit Scotland said that ferry services are performing well and customers are generally happy with their ferry services. I think that's been reflected on the experience that members have had with our ferry services up and down the country. I would hope also. There was also the main line in the Audit Scotland report that was given public airing was around the amount of significant investment and how to make that sustainable. We have significantly invested in our ferry services in the £1 billion value of the CHIFS contract. The two vessels are coming in at just almost £100 million as well. The main recommendation that I would say in my opinion is that there has to be a long-term review of ferry services. We have the ferries plan up until 2022 and we also have annual reporting in terms of vessels and deployment. I would say that there is a very good recommendation from Audit Scotland to look beyond that timescale as well. I would want to say too much now, because I am very aware that Audit Scotland is in front of the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee tomorrow, so it will be discussing that report. I certainly welcome it. Transport Scotland established a research and evidence working group where I remit to ensure a wider national transport strategy review. The results of the call for evidence are yet to be published. Can you provide an update on the review of the national transport strategy, setting out key milestones in the process leading up to the publication? On the first part of the question, I will perhaps in a second refer to Heather Cowan, who is leading this far in terms of Transport Scotland. What I would say in the national transport strategy review has been a very collaborative approach that has been taken. I have been really pleased with that approach from local authorities by the stakeholders involved in the discussion. We have a number of working groups with over 60 stakeholders involved in that, and a number of those working groups co-chaired by those stakeholders and headed by those stakeholders. I am right in saying in terms of the evidence and research group that I think is chaired by an academic as well. We have external stakeholders also chairing some of those working groups. When I co-chaired a recent event with COSLA, I got some good feedback from them. On the milestones that you talked about, I have a note here that, for the sake of brevity, perhaps it is better that I send on to the convener with the key milestones of the national transport strategy review. Some people have said that it does not have to be such a lengthy process. When you are looking at the 20-year forecast of our transport priorities, I think that taking time in a collaborative manner is the right way to go. On the research and evidence group, we have had the responses to that. The members of the group are still doing the analysis. They intend to do one-page brief reach of our working groups, and the intention is to publish that later this year. When? Before December 2018. It is still on-going. We are waiting for that. Before December? Before December this year. Okay, thanks. How does the review of the NTS tie in the strategic transport projects review? You get asked fairly often in a fair question task. A lot of people have an interest in strategic transport projects review because it relates to their constituency or the regions that they represent. I am not mentioned right. I have a fair idea. The NTS will be done because it is that 20-year forecast. The STPR will follow that, but what we have done is do some preparatory work in parallel with the NTS review as well. So an example of that would be the Borders appraisal study, or the study that we are soon to appoint consultants for in relation to the A77 and the A75 focused on the Ken Ryan ports. Some of that STPR work has already taken place, running in parallel, but the bulk of that will be done as a follow-on from the NTS review, which informs the STPR. Thank you. Can I, sorry, just for a point of clarity Heather, you made a comment that it would be published before December this year. That intimates it's imminent. Did you mean before the end of December? Sorry, I just want to give you the chance to correct that. Yes, that clarification would be helpful to me. Convener, thank you, before end of December this year. Thank you. Okay, I think I've preempted something Stuart was going to ask there for. So I'm going to move on to the deputy convener, Gail Ross, with the next question. Thank you, convener. Minister, last week we heard from several representatives of the food and drink sector, and as you know, the Ambition 2030 strategy aims to double the value of the sector in the next, well, 12, just over 12 years. But they did mention that there was going to have to be some improvements in both road and rail infrastructure. So how are you going to develop the strategic links so that there is a smooth transition to what we're trying to achieve in 2030 between the policy areas about transport and food and drink in indeed other sectors? The member will be aware that whenever transport issues are discussed at this committee, I look over the transcripts and the evidence that's taken in great detail, and I thought the evidence provided by food and drink representatives were very helpful and aligned very well with what we're doing. A key focus for us in not only the current control period, but certainly in control period 6 will also be freight, so moving freight from the road on to rail. And I think we're on the cusp of some very, very exciting projects. I think there are some real wins to be had in terms of the timber industry, but also food and drink and the whisky highway is another classic example of that. When I was on the day 95 speaking to those in the northeast, a real desire from the industry to, of course, receive some assistance with that and moving freight from road on to rail. In terms of road infrastructure too, I mentioned in my previous answer the study that we're about to appoint consultants to on the A77 and the A75, two roads that I would say need some attention, absolutely correct. They're receiving, of course, the already work that's going on, Mabel bypass and so on and so forth, but the message from Stena and PNO is very clear that we need more investment in that road. Again, the study that we're taking forward will help us to determine that. In terms of the second part of our question, before I came on, I had a look at the various working groups that we have, and I'm pleased to say that a number of organisations that have a shared agenda in this are on those groups. Specifically, we have a group called a working group that's entitled Enabling Economic Growth, and the Scottish Food and Drink Federation is represented as a stakeholder on that group. In terms of our partnership group, which is one of our groups that feeds directly into the review group, which I chair, we have the Confederation of Business and Industry, the Freight Trade Association, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and so on and so forth. I think that's how it's integrated into the NTS review. John Lennon, I think that you could have said that. You mentioned a couple of roads there that you saw as priorities, and I just wanted to throw in the 82 at Loch Lomond. I do feel that that is a major route in this country, covering really from the central belt to the whole of the western Scotland. Would that also be one of the ones that you would be looking at? I shouldn't have started this, I feel. We are obviously taking forward the Tarbot and Tyn barnan scheme. Not only that, we have listened to what the community has said in terms of widening that scheme from six metres to seven metres and even beyond. We are working very closely with the community to get some good results on the 82. Our colleague Kate Forbes, MSP, recently had an 82 summit, which I attended, which, again, was very constructive. What I would say is that all of the interventions that members ask us to consider will be part of the SDPR2 process. Clearly, there will be some that will be included. Clearly, there will be some that will not be included. That is the nature of every community that I travel to. I want some element of investment in the trunk road that might pass through the community. That is understandable, but we also have to weigh that up against our budgetary considerations and also where we think that the priority is in terms of growth and need. He is absolutely right that the 82 is an arterial route, not just for the local community, but especially during summer period and tourism season as well. The next question is from Mike Rumbles. This is a focus on active travel, minister. I know that, as we were grateful that, three weeks ago, the Parliament accepted my amendment to active travel unanimously, so everybody was agreed with it to give the opportunity for cycle training for all our children. I know that it was only three weeks ago, and I know that it is short. It is not a long period of time. However, with your vast array of civil servants, when do you think that you will be in a position to let the committee know, perhaps, or the Parliament, to know when you might be able to give us an idea when that might be rolled out? Also, if I can just add to the question, it is very welcome that the budget is being doubled from £40 million to £80 million for active travel. In addition to that, can you set out how the Government's active travel funding will be distributed in the next financially? However, I am far more interested in the first part of the question. I do not know why the member is so surprised when his amendment passed with the vast array of Liberal Democrats in the Parliament. I am not surprised that his amendment passed. I was delighted to support that amendment. He has asked me during a general question as well on the specific issue, and I am pleased that he has raised this question once again during my committee appearance. Last week, I said to him that, on the back of his amendment passing, I met a number of active travel stakeholders—not just cycling, but a number of active travel stakeholders—who specifically discussed the fact that we have a shared desire to have more of our young people receiving that bike ability and cycle training both on-road and what is done in the space of the school playground. Those plans are being developed. Forgive me, it has only been a few weeks, so we need some time to develop that. That also goes to the second part of his question. The doubling of that, there is a temptation in the first year to continue along some of the existing programmes about beefing them up slightly, including community links and community links plus projects. My direction to my officials is that there should be some space to innovate and to look at where else we can try some out-of-the-box thinking when it comes to increasing active travel rates. As he mentioned during the active travel debate, if my memory serves me correct, we are not where we want to be in terms of cycle rates and the vision that we have for that 10 per cent journey in 2020. Forgive me for this. It is a slight lack of detail in terms of a specific amendment, but he will also be very appreciative of the fact that his amendment is actively being discussed and is driving change in terms of policy. It will certainly be part of the consideration of how we spend that additional funding. I am very pleased to hear that. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Okay, the next question is John. Thank you. Two very brief questions on finance, if I may minister, connected with active travel. Will local authorities be required to match Scottish Government funding under any new arrangement? As regards the walking, cycling and safer streets budgets, will it be retained at ring-fenced capacity in the future? In terms of the second question first, it is already ring-fenced. Obviously, it will have to go through parliamentary approval processes, but I see no reason why that should no longer be ring-fenced. My expectation would be that it would continue to be ring-fenced, but obviously we have a budget bill that has to be approved by Parliament and so on and so forth. The answer to the first question. I am hesitant to move away from the match funding criteria, because we obviously get more bang for our buck if other stakeholders are also increasing the match funding. What I also do not want to do is increase or double the active travel budget, but we are essentially subsidising local authorities' funds. If they cannot meet that 50 per cent match funding and some authorities can match it, I would want them to raise their ambition also to what the Scottish Government is raising it to. I would like to keep that 50 per cent match funding criteria when I can for community links and community links plus projects. Where there are other schemes that require unique contributions, I am not close-minded to them again with the increase in active travel, but I would be hesitant to move away from that 50 per cent match funding criteria. The evidence for community links and community links pluses that we are not undersubscribed for applications of active anything, very much oversubscribed particularly for community links. The geographic spread of those projects we need to look at, and we are doing that already because we want to make sure that there is a rural obviously as well as an urban focus on active travel. Again, if local authorities in rural areas are struggling with perhaps expertise—I know that local authorities are coming to us and saying that we struggle with having the actual expertise and the human resource to work on active travel—if we can assist with that, it is not something that I am entirely close-minded to. That is very reassuring. You talked about the encouragement on the back of what Mr Rumbles talked about there, about encouraging young people. Obviously, I want to see increased numbers involved in active travel, but, of course, with those increased numbers there will be increased exposure to some of the risks. Briefly, if you can comment on opportunities that are taken to reduce the risks to those involved in active travel. For instance, there is some concern about that there is not a uniform interpretation of the existing guidance in respect of 20-mile-an-hour limits for local authorities. Do you see a benefit, for instance, and you will clearly work out why I am asking this in a default position of 20-mile-an-hour in built-up areas? I would be interested to take some of that conversation off-line, because, obviously, the member has previous experience in terms of police. He would have attended an imagined number of road traffic incidents, and there is no doubt that he has been a number involving cyclist, so his own experience would be deeply helpful. In some of our consideration on that, in terms of his general point, I agree entirely that the safer we can make our roads, the more confidence people will have to use them. In particular, the more confidence adults will have to have their children use the roads. We heard that during the active travel debate, and I think that it was Brian Whittle MSP, but a number of MSPs made the same point that they would have confidence for their children using the roads if there was infrastructure and segregated cycling infrastructure. I am a big proponent of that, and I have even been critical of those in local authorities that have made decisions that have been unhelpful. In terms of a specific question around 20-mile-an-hour zones, I touched on this in yesterday's road safety members' debate, where his colleague Mark Ruskell spoke. His colleague Mark Ruskell was obviously taking forward a bill. I have promised to meet Mark Ruskell fairly soon to hear the consultation responses. I have to say that there are some challenges around a blanket 20-mile-an-hour approach, which local authorities tell me about, notwithstanding that, the principle around reducing speed limits in order to make our roads safer is one that is very difficult to argue with. Therefore, I am going to keep a very open mind to Mark Ruskell's bill as it moves forward. There are other issues to look at. I mean, often, psycho helmets are spoken about as well. There is a debate in the cycling community around that. I wear a psycho helmet whenever I cycle. His colleague, Patrick Harvie, when he cycles, does not wear a psycho helmet. He has reasons for that. I am not dragging Patrick into this conversation. He has reasons for that, and he explains them to me. I do not necessarily agree, I have to say, but there is a division in the cycling community around safety measures. We have to also balance those as well as doing what the consensus agrees with in terms of infrastructure and looking at speed limits, too. Fulton, I am going to bring you in there. Just a brief supplementary on the active travel issue, will there be any input from the Scottish Government around when it is a wholly local authority decision and a wholly education decision? The reason why I bring that up was at a public meeting just last night at North Lanarkshire Council, relating to increasing the distance for eligibility for children who travel to school from two miles to three miles for secondary school and one mile to two miles for primary school. One of the things that came up in that, one of the responses that the council were giving was, well, the Scottish Government are all for active travel enemies, so you can just still take your bikes. You can imagine what the parents were thinking about that, but there is obviously all the safety issues. Will there be a role there for your ministerial role in helping local authorities to respond to that? I would not imagine so in the sense that, obviously, we want to see an increase in active travel. That does not mean that local authorities could simply use that as an excuse for cutting services. That would be incorrect. We have to recognise that there will be a number of reasons why not every single people could cycle. We want to try to work with our additional budget to make cycling more affordable, but he will know that, from the statistics that we already have, cycling is still, unfortunately, seen too much as a middle-class activity. We need to make sure that other social economic demographics also have access to active travel, as well as those in higher economic brackets. There are a number of reasons why people might not be able to cycle to school, and there might also be accessibility issues. Again, we are working to see how we can try to mitigate them, but there might still be accessibility issues. We know that not everybody could cycle to school, but we can make it easier than we certainly will. However, our aims around active travel would be foolish to use them without talking about specifics in the general, to use them as an excuse to cut services or reduce services. Thank you, Minister. We seem to have got to the end of the questions. Roughly a timing was where I would hope to be, so thank you very much for your answers and thank the committee for their questions. I would now like to briefly suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow the witnesses to leave before we move on to the next subject. Therefore, I spend the meeting five minutes.