 Darbyn y pethau, osod, mae'r iaith yn eich ddifeladau, mae'r dduaeth ei w фosiwch. Yn gwrsiau, mae'n ei wneud o'r problema ぷertym. The good news is that we did have some time in hand this afternoon. However, we now have no time in hand. We might have a little discussion with business managers later if we run out of time, but if we can resume at topical question, we start at question number one from Monica Lennon. Dwi gynnig ar gyfrydgyrchu'r gwrth, ac mae'n gwybod gwybod hwn sy'n cymryddu'r ysgol mewn i d tracing o'r adeiladau mae'r rhanfaith cynnig oedlai'r syddion nodi. Felly, mae'n gweld sus驷 ni lookd byddai cyfraid, ac mae'n gyfrifio ar gwrth mwy o'i cynnig i'r cyffredinws. Oes i'r cyfrifio ar gyfryddiad cyflugau maen nhw i'r cyfrifio a'r cyfrifio isu sy'n cael eu gwyrdechrau ullwg. cymdeithasasteb a'r Feithio sgiliaid.' Mae'r ffordd o wir nadolig Monica Lennon. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that answer. I accept that the Scottish Government is committed to limiting the amount of processed meats eaten by pupils at school. Does the cabinet secretary accept the scientific evidence of a link between nitrites in processed meats and biocancers? If he does, does he agree with me that school meals should be nitrite free? There is very clear scientific evidence that suggests the level of red meat consumption that is appropriate and consistent with a balanced diet, and that is the advice that the Government is following. Monica Lennon is correct to highlight the approach of the Scottish Government in relation to school nutrition. Back in 2008, we introduced regulations in relation to school nutrition, which were regarded as world-leading. They were updated in 2013. We are doing a similar exercise in response to the commitments that we gave in our manifesto in 2016, and in relation to updated scientific advice that emerged in 2017. That work is under way within the Government, and the Government takes that advice very seriously. I welcome the work that is under way. The link between nitrites, processed meats and biocancers is a hugely important public health issue. Given the Scottish Government's commitment to becoming a good food nation, will the Scottish Government back the experts, ignore some of the industry spin that has been taking place and ensure that Scotland becomes a world leader by making sure that meat in schools is nitrite free? The argument that Monica Lennon makes here is fundamentally about the quality of food and produce. What is beyond dispute is that Scottish red meat, consumed to an appropriate level if individuals wish to do so, is perfectly compatible with a balanced diet, provided that it is consumed within the limits that I have expressed. That is the foundation of the advice that the Scottish Government has accepted from the short-term working group that we commissioned to undertake this activity. That is the basis on which we have consulted on the regulations. We have had more than 1,350 responses to the regulations, and we are considering the feedback from that consultation exercise. I anticipate that we will be able to finalise the report on the views offered in the consultation by the end of March 2019 and then proceed to the formal regulations at that stage. Willie Coffey, to be followed by Brian Whittle. I ask the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that more children have access to school meals that are healthy, nutritious and made from local Scottish produce, which, as he knows, has been the position in East Ayrshire for some years now, and where at least two schools now have the Eat Safe Award. All food and drink provided in local authority schools must meet the standards that are set out in the Scottish school food and drink regulations. It is on the basis of that commitment that we are updating the standards to be based on scientific evidence and to ensure that we have the highest quality produce consumed in our schools. In addition to all those commitments, the Scottish Government has committed £1.2 million over the financial years 2018 to 2021 in the Food for Life programme to assist 32 local authorities in achieving a catering mark award in their primary schools and nurseries. That is part of our commitment to ensure that we have the high-quality produce of the type that Mr Coffey cites that is provided in schools in East Ayrshire. Brian Whittle, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Given the issues that are currently in the education of young children in terms of obesity, diabetes and other health-related issues, the cabinet secretary would accept that eating good, solid, locally procured food has a positive impact on children's health, on attainment, on a carbon footprint and supports the rural economy. With that in mind, only 16 per cent of the central Excel procurement contract is procured from Scotland. There is something really positive that we could do right now that could impact the health of our children. There is good progress that has been made in the dialogue with Scotland Excel on improving the levels of Scottish produce that are served in our schools. That is an implicit part of the agenda that we take forward. The regulations that I consulted upon or the information from the short-term working group covered a range of different issues to ensure that school nutrition was of a higher quality and contributed to better health and wellbeing for individual young people. That work is part and parcel of the approach that the Government takes to ensure that we have the highest quality of nutrition in our schools. Fresh, unprocessed school meals can only be cooked by councils that keep open their school kitchens and invest in their catering staff. What is the view of the cabinet secretary of the decision made by the Tory-led Perth and Kinross Council to abolish their catering service, close down their kitchens and move to frozen, cooked, chilled, processed food in their schools? It is a proposal with which I am familiar locally and it causes me a great deal of concern, because it undermines the quality of produce that is able to be delivered in individual schools. It also affects employment and sustainability in a number of localities. I hope that the local authority reflects carefully on all those questions as it comes to conclusions on that point, because from what I have seen, I have not sufficient confidence in the arrangements that have been set out to justify the changes that have been made. To ask the Scottish Government what economic benefits could be realised following the full opening of the AWPR. During construction of the AWPR contract, it has already generated benefits for local employment and local businesses. Since opening the major part of the road in December 2018, there has been overwhelmingly positive feedback from the north-east, which demonstrates the transformational impact that infrastructure can bring about in people's daily lives, the quality of their environment and the economy as a whole. We have been seeing story after story, especially in social media, from people and businesses using the road and seeing substantial improvements to their journey times and reduced congestion across the city. After more than 65 years of waiting, the project is now fully open to traffic. Social media this morning has been overwhelmingly positive, with comments about shortened commutes, as well as about Anderson Drive being so quiet today that the last of the road is open. The project is anticipated to provide substantial benefits across the whole of the north-east and provide a boost to the economy, increase business and tourism opportunities while improving safety and reducing congestion. It is anticipated that the project will generate up to 14,000 jobs over a 30-year period as a result of opening up significant development opportunities. It will cut the journey times across Aberdeen by up to half at peak periods and reduce traffic volumes on Anderson Drive and connecting roads. That should reduce transport costs for businesses and provide an unprecedented opportunity for a local authority to provide greater priority to public transport to speed up journeys and improve reliability in the city area. Maureen Watt. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Cabinet secretary, as you said, the western, Aberdeen's western bypass was first mooted some 65 years ago. Generations of Tory Labour Lib Dem Governments did absolutely nothing, but, as of 2007, the SNP got on with the job of delivering this new bypass for a open today. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the full benefits of this tree transformational infrastructure project, not just in economic terms, can be realised over the long term? Cabinet secretary. The member makes a very good point. There was a lot of talk about the Aberdeen western peripheral route, but it is the SNP and this Government that is delivering it for the north-east of Scotland. Demonstrating our commitment to the north-east of Scotland alongside the significant investment that we are also putting into rail in the north-east and the investment that we plan for the drilling of the A96. Demonstrating our commitment to the north-east of Scotland, helping to support the economy and to help to create employment within the area. Transport Scotland will, of course, be undertaking an evaluation of the project, in line with the Scottish Trunk Road infrastructure project evaluation guidance. That will allow us to evaluate, after one year, how it is performed against the criteria that was set at the initial stages of developing the project and then at year 3 and at year 5, to assess the development and impact that it is having on the local area. The main areas that that evaluation will include will include the scheme's objectives of operations, environment safety, economy, integration, accessibility and social inclusion. Transport Scotland will continue to monitor how use of the road is affecting the rest of the road network within the north-east of Scotland. It is very clear, Presiding Officer, that the road is starting to transform the north-east of Scotland today and will continue in the future. Maureen Watt. I thank the cabinet secretary again for that answer, but can the cabinet secretary tell us what it is about the nature of a fixed-term contract that the contractors just do not get? Will he do his utmost to ensure that taxpayers are not held to ransom by the contractors for mistakes that they have made along the way and delays that they have made in realising the full opening of the route today? Cabinet Secretary, there are five more questioners. I will be very clear about the need to make sure that we protect the taxpayers' interests. I must confess that I have been concerned at times from some of the narrative from opposition parties that appear to accept that on the basis that a contractor states that they have a claim that in some way it automatically has merit and that it must be paid by taxpayers. One thing that I can assure members in this chamber is that we will act in the taxpayers' interests and to protect the taxpayers' interests from any errors or mistakes or additional costs that are being incurred by contractors as a result of their own mistake. Let us not forget that Aberdeen roads limited spent two years preparing to submit a tender for the project. It has been into the project with its eyes wide open and what we will do is to continue to hold it to that contract in the taxpayers' interests. Peter Chapman, to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I need to declare an interest as a farmer. First, I would like to say a very much welcome the complete opening of this road. It is long overdue and it will be a huge asset to the north-east economy. That is for sure. However, there is still a huge question mark as to whether farm tractors are allowed on this road. I have received clarification that the Balmeney tipperty bit of the road is open to tractors, but there is confusion about the rest of the road. Given that tractors can travel on the A90 all the way from Aberdeen to Perth with no issues, and given that the AWPR is also a dual carriageway and not a motorway, why can't it travel on the AWPR as well? The decision around classifying the AWPR as a special road was made several years ago, which made clarity around the arrangements for agricultural vehicles being on the road. That was a decision that was made back around 2014. If the member thinks that there is a lack of clarity around it, he is in fact wrong. There is clear guidance on the special status of the road, which is not allowed to be used for agricultural vehicles, for very good reasons. It was set out at the time when that was considered. However, what I also welcome is the grudging, or just the late acceptance of the Tories at the congratulators in getting the road complete to help to benefit the people of the north-east of Scotland, including the farmers in the north-east of Scotland. Lewis Macdonald is called by Mike Rumbles. Like other members, I am very glad that the road is finally complete, and Michael Matheson is not to blame for the 12 years of delay under the SNP Government. I am glad that he focuses on the issue of cost as well as the other aspects of this important project. The information that is currently available on the Scottish Government website states that the annual unitary charge to be paid to the contractors—Mr Matheson has mentioned—will average £48 million a year, and that the total unitary charge will come to £1.45 billion over the next 30 years, and that the contractors will receive their last unitary charge payment in 2048. Can the cabinet secretary tell us whether any or all of that information will now require to be updated? Let me say first of all to the substantive point that the member has made. There are no plans for any changes to be made to that, as it stands at the present time, because the way in which the contract is formed is that the contractors are only paid once the road is accessible to vehicles. That continues to be the case. I have been very clear with the contractors that they entered into a contract at the time, which they gave due consideration to and went through all of their own expert advisers, and they entered into that willingly. What I am determined to do is to hold them to that contract, and that is exactly what we have been doing. Those who have been calling on me just to get on with it, just to get the road opened. What I have been doing is making sure that we act in the taxpayers' interests and not allowing contractors to try to hold us over a barrel and a gun to their head to extract more taxpayers' money for a road that they were already getting paid for. We will continue to take that approach when we discuss those matters with them. I think that he has been a bit unfair in suggesting that it was some sort of 12-year delay. The member knows very well about the legal challenges that were made to that particular contract. The delays at that cause are ending up in the Supreme Court, which resulted in years of delay in allowing the road to be built. However, what we have been clear about all the way along, we were determined to deliver for the people of the north-east, and that is exactly what we have done with the AWPR. Mike Rumbles Is the public purse exposed to all of the £250 million that is cost-over on? That is exactly the type of attitude that does not act in the interests of the taxpayer. That is Mr Rumbles. In effect, because the contractor may have a claim, he automatically presumes that it has some form of merit. It is not unusual in major infrastructure projects for contractors to have some sort of claim that they have run into additional costs as a result of delivering the project. There is a process for that to be gone through, and that is exactly what will happen with that particular case. What I can say is that, despite the claims from the contractors, they have been unable to substantiate their claim to date. As I have said in this Parliament and also in committee, any additional claim coming from the contractors must be one that is evidence-based and can be substantiated. To date, they have failed to do so, and we will continue to defend the public taxpayer's interests in this matter rather than cave in in the way in which we would do if we were to listen to people like Mr Rumbles. Thank you very much. I apologise to Gillian Martin and to Liam Kerr as that concludes tropical questions.