 I welcome everyone to the 20th meeting in 2015 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. Everyone present is reminded to switch off mobile phones as they affect the broadcasting system. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, you may see tablets being used during the meeting. Apologies have been received from James Dornan. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. The committee will decide whether to take agenda items 3 and 4, consideration of the committee's approach to the proposed private tenancies bill and its draft budget scrutiny 2016-17 in private. Are members agreed? We are agreed. We now move to agenda item 2, where the committee will receive an update from the minister for transport and islands, Derek Mackay, on current transport projects and policy issues. Can I welcome the minister and Aidan Gricewood, director of rail and Michelle Rennie, director of major transport infrastructure projects at the Scottish Government? Can I invite the minister to make an opening statement? Okay, thank you, convener. I have a comprehensive opening statement, which I am sure will lead to questions. Can I share the progress on transport and our contribution to the Government's objective of sustainable economic growth? First of all, I am sure that we are all delighted to see the opening of the Borders railway, the longest domestic railway to be constructed for over 100 years. Since opening, thousands of passengers have travelled on the new Borders railway line to the extent that ScotRail is adding extra carriages to some of their trains. The Winshborough tunnel reopened after a six-week closure of the line to passenger services on Monday 27 July, as planned by the Egypt team. That is the most significant piece of engineering work on the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line since the Victorian era. That is happening against the backdrop of the largest investment in the road programme that Scotland has ever seen. On the AWPR, the main construction works officially got under way in February of this year after the First Minister took part in the groundbreaking ceremony. The next phase of works in the A93 is expected to be completed by November and involve utility companies diverting their services, clearing the way for the main AWPR works. This summer, a major milestone was reached by the £500 million M8, M73, M74 motorway improvement project when the new rail bridge, weighing in excess of 2,000 tonnes, slid into its final position over what will become the new M8 motorway to join the existing Cutty Sark rail bridge at Burgundy in Glasgow. Before replacement crossing is being built on time and under budget, the deck lifting has now started. Back in May, the traffic lines at Pulpit Rock were finally removed for the first time in over 30 years. The viaduct, which now carries traffic over the shores of Loch Lomond, is a remarkable engineering achievement. The First Minister recently launched Scotland's economic strategy. This is the overarching framework for a Scotland based on prosperity, fairness and participation. Transport plays its part in all four priorities. Around innovation, we have been making progress in technology such as hydrogen and fuel cell sector. The key funder of the Aberdeen hydrogen bus project, which has seen the establishment of Europe's largest fleet of hydrogen-fuelled buses supported by the state of the art green hydrogen production and refuelling facility. We are also working with a range of transport partners on integrated transport and smart ticketing. We will have further opportunities with procurement and franchise arrangements going forward. On internationalisation, we are working with our airports and their airline sector to improve Scotland's aviation connectivity. We have a Team Scotland approach here, which has achieved some remarkable success. On inclusive growth, we suspend over £1 billion on public transport and other sustainable transport options, which is about providing people with access to the transport system. The new ScotRail passenger rail franchise operates over 2,270 trains each day, delivering 93 million passenger journeys per year and is the single biggest contract led by Scottish ministers, with a total value of over £7 billion over the 10-year period. Members are well aware of the commitments around significant improvements in innovation as part of the rail franchise around improved services, trains and facilities. It will also be a lever into improved smart technology as well. Since 2007, we have invested over £15 billion in transport, including roads and railways. In the ferry network, six new ferries have been introduced to the CalMac services. That is an investment of over £100 million. A third hybrid is currently under construction in the Clyde, and two large ferries are currently out to tender for delivery in 2017-2018. Members will be very mindful of the debate in the chamber yesterday around island communities on timetables, the roll-out of ARIET, the extension of their discount scheme and progress in aviation. It was steadily increasing investment in low-carbon, sustainable and active travel, delivering on our manifesto commitment. As I wrote to you, the national transport strategy of 2006 set a framework for transport in Scotland up to the period 2026. It is setting out transport vision, high-level objectives and key strategic outcomes, and this document is being refreshed in partnership with COSLA to be complete by Christmas. I am happy to go into questions on infrastructure projects, but I would finally want to celebrate, as we all would, the fact that the Forthbridge was officially recognised by Inesco at the World Heritage Site this summer. That has been supported by Transport Scotland as well. I could have gone on longer, but I see that I am testing your patience, so I will draw my remarks so close and open up to questions. Perhaps I could kick off with some questions on high-speed rail. The Scottish Government is engaging with the High Speed 2 company and officials at the UK Department for Transport for Transport on the development of a UK high-speed rail network. Transport Scotland announced in early September that a report jointly commissioned by the UK and Scottish Governments on high-speed rail route options to Scotland will be completed by the end of the year. Are you still on track, if you pardon the pun, to meet that publication deadline? Can you give us any flavour of the, without obviously breaching the embargo of any of the themes that are emerging from that piece of work? I can answer the question by saying that I cannot give you a flavour, because it is exactly as you describe an emerging piece of work, so it would be inappropriate and premature to do that. However, we are on track to have that piece of work complete by that timescale, and it should put the Cabinet Secretary in a position to say more next year. Once we have issues and information around the high-level costings, route options and other detail, then I am sure that we will be happy to share that more widely, but yes, that piece of work is on track between the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland. If you are not able or willing to share with us and accept that it is probably more likely to be the former, rather than the latter, the content of that piece of work, can you give us a little bit more on the process that the Government will be engaging in as those plans are developed for an Anglo-Scotland high-speed rail? A lot of the decisions and work that will come from the joint study will need to be considered, so that would be future issues that we would need to look at such as route options, costing and everything else that lies behind that, such as how it is paid for and how it could progress. All that will emerge from the joint study, and it is really important on this issue to work in partnership with the UK Government Department for Transport, the experts that they have with Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government, because we do not accept that it would be good enough for high-speed rail to physically go to the north of England and not physically come to Scotland. That is a high-level principle that we want it to physically extend to Scotland, because you could go on and ask about the Edinburgh to Glasgow connection as well. We have said, again, as principle, that we would want both cities to be connected. Again, that is a high-level principle that we would want to achieve. How we achieve that can only be determined once we have got the joint study. Again, that will set out the options, the high-level costs, and then serious negotiations follow from that. How is it structured? How is it delivered? How is it paid for? What would that look like? Of course, that would be a hugely expensive yet worthwhile infrastructure investment that will reduce journey times to London in a way that makes it more competitive and useful to use rail travel to get to London and, for example, air travel. There is a lot in this, big investment and a lot of work to be done. I have not been obtuse about sharing information from an emerging study, but it really is a case of we have to get the space for that report to conclude and keep partnership working with the UK Government in the spirit that we have done to try to take it forward in a constructive manner. I am not withholding anything from committees just that it genuinely is an on-going piece of work. Officials at the Scottish Government have done some indicative work on what the level of investment required would be for in order to extend high-speed rail to Scotland. Any sort of detail or figures would be premature, because it is this current piece of work that will inform that. It will give high-level figures and options in terms of route as well, but it will lead to further discussions. Anything else is a rough estimate and a guesstimate. We know that it is feasible to have high-speed rail come to Scotland, but the more technical and detailed issues are now under investigation and appraisal. That is fine, but my question is whether you might not be in a position to share that work with us today, except that this discrete piece of work is on-going. My question is whether the Scottish Government has done any early preparatory work on what the cost involved would be, even if it is not able to share that work? Has that work been done? Michelle might want to say a bit about Dorot or Aidan. In fact, it sounds that it is railways—major projects, but railways—and I will let Aidan cover that. That is work that has been taken forward by HHS2. The commission is from DFT and Transport Scotland, and that has been taken forward by HHS2. As the minister said, there is not a definitive point where the on-going work is an emerging work. As we get towards the end of the year, that is where we get to a point where we can crystallise upon a number. Even that number, given the nature of long timescales around something as big as high speed, would inevitably be indicative in itself. It would be at a point of maturity associated with the level of detail that the business case has got to at that point. However, we cannot share anything at this point. There has not been any definitive indicative number that we could use at this point. I am not sure whether that is a yes or a no in terms of whether the work has been done or not. No, we do not have an indicative figure in terms of the Scottish Government. Can I also assume that you are not in a position yet to tell us whether the financing route would be the traditional capital expenditure route or the non-profit distribution model? That will be determined at a later stage. Is that correct? That is correct. In terms of the Inverglasgo high-speed railway that you mentioned, is there anything that you want to put on the record at this stage? Again, it is the aspiration that we want both cities to enjoy the physical benefits of high-speed rail should it come to Scotland. Therefore, we are looking at the connections either between the cities or how the high-speed rail could potentially connect to both. Clearly, there would be no sense in progressing with that until we have a decision on the wider high-speed rail issue. I cannot report anything further on that because everything will be informed by the current joint study. We can expect further details on that proposed scheme at the same time as the study is published or at a later stage. Decisions about the Edinburgh to Glasgow connection would flow from the decisions of the joint study and any discussions that we would have with the UK Government. I will pass to my colleague Adam, who has some questions. I would like to focus on network rail. The office of rail and roads has raised concerns about network rail's performance in Scotland and its impact on passenger services. How is Transport Scotland working with network rail and Abellio to improve that performance? We have regular meetings with network rail and Abellio's ScotRail. One of the innovations that we have in Scottish rail at the moment is the connection, the new deep alliance that brings network rail and ScotRail together. I think that that is good for accountability and the ability to make decisions and investments. I hope that that will pay dividends in the months and years to come. On the ORR's criticism of network rail, I think that it is valid. Network rail has been in some difficulty across the UK in some of the projects that it has been delivering. In Scotland, we would want even greater accountability, transparency and devolution of network rail to Scotland to get on and make some of the decisions that we would like to see taken closer to home. However, if there is any breach or departure from what we would expect as a Government, there are regulatory matters and franchise agreements when it comes to Abellio ScotRail. In terms of network rail, we hold them to account for any discrepancy or impact on service. We have had, despite the criticism and progress in the Winchborough tunnel, which was a major piece of engineering work that will make a difference to the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme. There are success stories, but there have been concerns about network rails' wider performance and the on-going costs of some of their projects. We monitor it very closely. In terms of what is happening south of the border, there are a number of reviews of the rail sector and network rail by the UK Government. We will monitor that very closely. However, in Scotland, all our rail commitments will be kept. There will be no impact on our current programme, but that said, we are watching performance very closely and are very mindful of the experience south of the border. They are having to go back to basics to use that term on their investment programme because of some of the disruptive issues there. That is not the case in Scotland. Monitoring by Transport Scotland is one thing. Engagement by Transport Scotland is another, and I understand that the UK Government has asked Nicola Shaw, chief executive of High Speed One, to review the operation of network rail UK-wide. What involvement has Transport Scotland had in that review? What impact might any changes to network rail's structure or ownership have on Scotland? Ministers, not just officials, will have engagement and involvement this week when myself and the Cabinet Secretary meet Nicola Shaw. That will be helpful. Of course, officials engage with the Department for Transport in any wider review, sharing our expertise, our experience and the issues that we see as pertinent to Scotland. However, I say again of interest to the committee that we do not think that, on this occasion, it is good enough just to have London-based reviews and London-based and Westminster-based control. We see real merit and further devolution of network rail coming to Scotland, indeed this Government and this Parliament, so we can make decisions for ourselves around how network rail does its business. For example, the current review is looking at the issue of potential privatisation of network rail. That is not something that the Scottish Government would support, and therefore it is a good example of how we might like to do things differently with network rail within a Scottish context. The regular engagement, regular involvement, regular participation with network rail, but the more accountability we have, the better. That is why I say again that the new alliance that we have has empowered Scotland more in terms of the rail sector to get on with investment and operational decisions. Of course, we will participate in any review and I watch closely the outcome of those reviews through the Department of Transport as they relate to Transport Scotland and ministers regularly make contact with UK ministers on all transport matters. I hope that that answers Mr Ingram's questions. I am pleased to hear that and perhaps we might get some feedback from your meeting in due course. Network rail is currently reviewing its control period for capital investment programme. Does that have any implications for the development of the rail network in Scotland? I think that in terms of the current control period, to be clear, there is no impact. The commitments, the enhancements that we have programmed for are not impacted by the decisions south of the border, but of course there are wider financial issues, spending review and financial pressures that all government departments would be under the moment. No, in essence, we are carrying on with our rail commitments, as described for the current control period. As I said, we will participate in any on-going review coming from Network Rail. Minister, you mentioned in the opening statement about the national transport strategy, the refresh of it, and you wrote to the convener last month to let the committee know of the plans. From that, we understand that review will be carried out in conjunction with COSLA, as you said, but will be limited in scope, only considering two aspects. Why have you decided to limit the scope in such a way, given that the publication has not been updated in nine years? I think that that is a very good question and a very good point. There was no plan for a refresh or a review at all, as it happens. I thought, as Minister, that it was a good time to have, not just because I was a relatively new minister, but I felt that you are right that it required a refresh. However, the reason the scope is limited is really by necessity. It is not just the time constraints. A new Parliament may wish to reconsider a more in-depth review of the national transport strategy, and that would be the next Parliament's right, and the next minister, whoever that may be, will be right as well. In terms of Scottish Government, though, the high-level objectives have not changed. The transport strategy as a whole has not changed. The infrastructure investment plan is not proposed to change. With all that in mind, what I wanted to focus on is, although the world has moved on over the periods in the last publication, I felt that there was an opportunity to update it. We are not revisiting the fundamentals of the major investment plans. That work has been done. It is about ensuring that it is up to date and has clarity around responsibility, and it reflects today's society and today's transport issues. That is why I felt that a refresh was more appropriate to a comprehensive review. I am doing that in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It is an ambitious timescale. That is a civil service code, for that is really difficult. The instruction that I have given is that I want it complete for Christmas so that it is up to date and refreshed. It makes it clear about transport responsibilities, captures current progress and is absolutely right that there is an opportunity to revisit it more comprehensively in the future, if any Government or Parliament wishes to do so. That would unlock all the other consultative mechanisms that you would probably want to deploy for a wholesale review. That is not a wholesale review, and I have been clear about that. It is purely a refresh, but it is a much-needed refresh, I would argue. I presume that that is the reason why it is not going out to consultation. The time limit is given that it is not touching on anything fundamental. Those will remain the same, so that is the reason why a consultation is not taking place. Exactly. If I embarked on a wholesale consultation, for example, the kind of consultation that the national planning framework, when I was planning minister, I had the pleasure and joy of undertaking went through parliamentary scrutiny, public scrutiny, full comprehensive consultation. I think that it would have raised expectations if it went through the same process, but the beauty of that is that if a comprehensive review is conducted in the next Parliament, it could, for example, be done in tandem with the national planning framework for the next national planning framework. I think that there are synergies that can come from doing it in the next Parliament. For the current exercise, I do not want you to think that there is no consultation, because there is. There is the involvement with our democratically elected councils through COSLA. There is engagement through the stakeholder group as well for the national transport strategy. There will be other sectoral opportunities as well. For example, when I have the active travel summit imminently, I will raise the national transport strategy there as well. There is an opportunity to engage, but for the purposes of the refresh, it is more of an update than a revisiting of the fundamental issues. You mentioned the stakeholder group. What role will they play in the process, and who will make up that group? I am happy to share the composition of the stakeholder group and its remit, if that is of assistance to the committee. Its role is to advise and support. In a sense, challenge what we propose through the national transport strategy as well. It is wide-ranging from across the transport community. It will engage, but it is very much sectors that will engage with the strategy. I propose that COSLA also engage as well. One of the biggest issues for me is that if we outline what we are doing as a Government through the infrastructure investment plan, I think that it is clear what our transport investment plans are and our general strategy is. It has been communicated through the Government's economic strategy as well. However, I think that one area of weakness that has existed is around clarity of local transport responsibility. If we take bus provision or whether there is gaps in service, I want people to be clear how that can be resolved. I think that the national transport strategy can do that. I will not be changing the law necessarily, but I will be changing Government priorities and making it clear where responsibility rests. That is why it does not need more consultation, but it certainly needs more clarity. I hope that that explains more of that engagement. However, there will be engagement through the stakeholder group, and I will share the membership composition with the committee. The first is air passenger duty. The programme for government indicates that you are currently consulting with aviation stakeholders on how best to reduce air passenger duty should the relevant powers be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Can you set out how any such reduction in air passenger duty might work, and what the impact of that could be on Scottish tax receipts? The commitment that we have made publicly is that we would want to reduce the burden of APD in Scotland by 50 per cent in the first instance and then abolish it as resources would allow. The exact mechanics of that, how you would do it, how you would implement the reduction, will be a matter for the Government to consider, but through the new stakeholder group that we have established, that brings together airlines, airports, other business interests as well as environmental representatives as well. We will look at the structure of that reduction and come back with the administration. The implementation date is April 2018, which has been shared with the stakeholder group and other interested parties. We will move towards that infrastructure for that implementation date. High-level objectives are reducing by 50 per cent, leading into total abolition as resources allow. Beyond that, I cannot say any more, because it has not been determined and will do it with the engagement of the new stakeholder group. You are surely in a position to have an estimate of what the impact on tax receipts would be of a 50 per cent or 100 per cent reduction. The earlier estimates came from the work done for Scotland's future. I do not want to do it off the top of my head, but we did have a rough cost estimate around that. If I said from memory, I think that the total amount generated from APD was around £200 million, so a 50 per cent reduction would suggest £100 million, but please allow me to check those facts and come back to the committee. I am sure that, since the work is a couple of years old, now it may have changed, so it would be useful to have an update on that. The next subject that I want to cover is the junction on the A90 at Lawrence Carc. Myself and the local member, Nigel Doane, have been working for something to push that on the committee's agenda and trying to push it up your agenda. When it was last mentioned in Parliament during the debate, you gave some encouragement on that area. I wonder if you could provide a progress report on the development of a grade-separated junction at the A90, A937 at Lawrence Carc, including how that might be funded and when you might expect this work to take place? Mr Johnson is absolutely right. Both he and other members have been pushing that issue towards me. I wish that some extra resources were passed towards me from the UK Government as well to match the aspirations of Conservative members, but you are right. Yes, I believe it when I see it and we will see how that fits in with the overall spending exchange. I am delighted to hear it as I look forward to further resources to assist with our capital programme. It is a serious issue and a very serious point. Lawrence Carc junction is absolutely on my radar and is a priority piece of work that we would like to be able to undertake. The current position is that I had a meeting with interested parties, that was the local authorities and the private sector as well. We have made progress on the technical solutions and we can continue to move forward on that. On funding, which is a critical question, I do not have an answer to that as yet, although I have established a co-ordination group to see how people can contribute towards that potential junction. That involves the local authorities, of course Transport Scotland and potentially the private sector, because the junction would also unlock economic opportunity and address development constraints as well. It is not just as simple as saying to the Government, can we find the cash, although I wish that we could do it as simply as that, but we are looking at trying to innovate and get contributions from other partners, such as the private sector and the local authorities. That might be by the way of developer contributions but I also do not want the funding package to be so complex that it cannot reach completion or even the beginning of construction. I am continuing to work with that. I have established a stakeholder group and we will look at the costings of it. Mr Johnson is well aware of the substantial financial commitments that we have made around the road network. For example, the A9, which is a substantial investment in the dualling, thereof as well as other commitments. I say again that Lawrence Kirk is a priority to looking at how we can progress with it and the stakeholder group and the co-ordination group, as I should say, we will look at how it can be financed and work is under way on that. I cannot give a timescale because it does all come from that financial commitment. I welcome the fact that the minister is probably the first transport minister in 10 years who has taken the matter as seriously as she does, but the danger is that that also raises expectations. I think that we have a work to do to ensure that those expectations are fulfilled. The next question that I have covers the subject that you have just touched on a moment ago. It was essential to ask for an update on where we are with the AM8 completion project, the A9 dualling and the construction of the AWPR. I think that, to some extent, you have covered that, but is there anything further that you wish to add? Only that all of these projects are going well. With all of them, when work appears on the ground, people see things happening and then believe that the work is under way. That is the good side of disruptive works happening. The downside, of course, is that investment works. Multi-billion pound investment in the road network from the Queensbury crossing, the A9 and the motorway bundle, as described, will also cause some disruption. I apologise for that disruption, but surely everyone can agree that the investment is worthwhile and the long-term benefits of improved infrastructure, improved journey times and reduced congestion are well worth it. All of those projects are going in a satisfactory manner in terms of their completion dates in the work under way, so I would not want to add anything specific, but I am happy to take any more questions. On the issue of the impact on the ground, I have already written to the minister directly on a couple of cases that have been brought to my attention. Of course, the public relations work that was carried out in conjunction with the Fourth Ridge project is something of an exemplar of how that might best be achieved. Are you able to give me any further reassurances that that same standard will be achieved in relation to the construction work on the AWPR? Yes, I am, and I would expect the highest levels of engagement, community engagement and showcasing through exhibits and consultation on the work that has been undertaken. Mr Johnson is absolutely right. He challenged me on, was it the case that we were closing down communication and consultation on the roadworks on the A9, having done such a good job? I checked with officials and it was not true at all, and I was happy to convey the message that we fully expect full consultation, engagement, showcasing and exhibitions from the previously successful Transport Scotland project. Full co-ordination of that continues, and if it is not being received at local communities, I would want to know about it. Again, on the AWPR, there is a slightly different issue. The project was recently reclassified by the Office of National Statistics as being under public sector control, and that has since been highlighted by Audit Scotland. The Scottish Government indicated in July that that would have no implications for the cost or project timetable and that it would seek to have the project reclassified back to the private sector. Can you provide an update on progress to have the project reclassified as private, and are you confident that your project remains on time and on budget? Yes. I am totally confident that the project remains on time and on budget, and that will be the most important matter for residents and businesses in the area, so I can categorically say that. As to the wider matter of the accountancy exercise, that is something that the finance secretary continues to engage with, and I am sure that we will report to Parliament any changes as a consequence of those discussions, but in terms of the current programme, yes, it will continue to be unaffected in terms of the work being delivered on budget and on time. Thank you very much. Siobhan, did you have a supplementary question? Yes, we were on the AMA completion project. We are aware that there is a lot of work going on at the rate interchange at present, and that there are average speed cameras of 50mph. I was just wondering if not today, Minister, but if you have facts and figures about those who are observing that, or how many people have been fined for not observing the average speed, because there are a lot of people on the road working on that project at the moment. Obviously, you will be aware, and just for safety reasons, as a local member in that area, I would like to know if people are observing those signs. I think that that is a very fair point. So, while we are all accepting and welcoming the investment and the work that will improve the capacity of the AMA, M73 and M74, we are all worth well projects. Those, of course, are live roadworks, and as 100,000 vehicles pass through a live site, of course, is a concern for safety. Safety is never compromised, and the average speed cameras have been deployed successfully in other parts of the country to try and manage driver behaviour and keep the road safety risks to a minimum. I am happy to share that information with the committee once I have some information on their deployment. However, a high-level commitment around safety is continuing to be maintained. I am happy to, at some point in the future, give a fuller report on the progress of those works. Thank you. Can I ask you about active travel, an issue that you have taken close interest in since you became transport minister? You mentioned the active travel summit. It is now five years since the original version of the cycling action plan for Scotland was published. Currently, 2.6 per cent of journeys to work in 1.7 per cent of journeys to school are made by bike. There are five years to go to meet the vision of 10 per cent of everyday journeys by bike by 2020. Is that strike whose being to use the civil service speak an ambitious target or one that you can achieve with appropriate commitment and investment? I think that, convener, it is particularly ambitious. It is not a target, it is a vision. You referenced the cycling action plan. The next iteration of it will be published at the end of 2016. However, as you have referred to, there has been a great deal of action around infrastructure, spend and behaviour change programmes, such as those around community links, the cycling and walking paths, bike ability training within schools as well. The financial commitments that I have made as transport minister as well. We had record investment in the last financial year, and I have committed to increasing on that record investment within this financial year. I know that that has been welcomed, but many within the active transport community will want us to do much more. The active travel summit will bring together local authority partners, so I can impress upon them the priority that the Government believes should be attached to active travel, as well as the other schemes that the Government is currently supporting. This week, I had the pleasure of opening the new route 78 on the national cycle network, which goes through the Highlands and is a particularly beautiful route, which, of course, is part of the route that is separated. It is beautiful to go through the Great Glen, but it is also part of the route that is separated. I know that much of the cycling community will want more separated routes. Even looking at road design, when we are designing new roads and infrastructure, we think about pedestrians and cyclists. It is not just the active travel budget that matters, but the cross-portfolio interventions that we can make. I also had a meeting with other ministers on specific active travel such as health and sport, as well as focusing on what other Government departments can do around the walking and cycling strategies. It is not just about money, but a range of interventions should allow us to achieve that vision. There is evidence of culture change elsewhere in the world where there was quite a rapid uptake in active travel, particularly cycling, when the right interventions were made. In partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders, I know that there is much more work to be done, and I will continue to attach a high priority to it as transport minister. Can you provide an update on the implementation of the national walking strategy? The walking delivery forum will convene for the first time in November 2015, and officials will work closely with PASS for all to support the delivery of the strategy that has been outlined. I understand that that will be chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport because of its involvement in the national physical activity implementation plan. How is the success of the strategy in terms of its implementation going to be monitored and reported on? I would have to come back to you more of the detail on that. It is health colleagues that lead on that particular issue, but I would imagine that there will be full monitoring of it, which can be reported back to the committee. However, in terms of the cycling action plan and the support that transport Scotland and my officials will engage with, we will certainly play our strong part in that wider strategy. Minister, I just want to ask a few questions around the Borders railway. I echo your earlier comments. Certainly from my part, I welcome the opening of Borders rail and I was monitoring the media comments, which were very positive from the public, and it has been well used. Just before I focus on the specifics, effectively what you were doing there was, and there was cross-party support, as you recall for this project, winding back some of the beaching cats, which across Scotland you will know that there are some rail lines that were there in beaching days and now are no longer used. Have you had a look at reopening other old rail lines in a longer project? Secondly, not just for passengers, I am keen in looking at freight only lines. You will know from our freight inquiry that we went to Rotterdam to look at the freight-only railway line that they developed from Rotterdam to Germany, which on memory was around €4 billion, which I am not suggesting that you spend in the next few weeks, but certainly was a world-breaking project and received considerable European funding, which has a particular interest in. Before I touch on Borders, have you had your plans to look at reopening old lines, particularly on the routes of the old beaching cats? Mr Stewart, it would probably be as excited as I would be at the prospect of reopening lines that had been closed through that process. Mr Stewart might not know, but my home town of Renfrew is the largest town in Scotland without a railway station, but it has a railway line. It used to have far more going to even Paisley as well as Glasgow. It is just one example of many communities that I think could benefit from rail extension. Rail is a real success story in this country now, is it not, with increasing patronage, improving access and connectivity, and making a contribution to the environmental agenda and reducing emissions. Government would be keen to extend rail lines further. Borders is an example that could go further itself, but it is now down to available resources. Rail services are 75 per cent subsidised in terms of the overall package, the overall cost of rail, and infrastructure costs are significant. It really is down to financial availability, but if you take a project such as Borders, we are constantly asking whether it can be extended further. We will keep an eye monitor the feasibility, the current usage and consider regularly a range of bids around enhancement of rail infrastructure, but the main issue around it is availability of resources. The Government has made substantial commitments around rail investment, some of which you know very well on the Highland Main Line and Aberdeen to Inverness commitments in current control periods, and we will have further work to do on the electrification strategy and seen through other programmes. We have a very—I do not want to use the term ambitious again, because I will not read too much into it, but—a bold and imaginative plan around rail investment, but in terms of looking again at reopening previously closed lines, it would be nice to do, but we would need the available resources. I think that all parties could agree on that, even Alex Johnston, the Conservatives, but he rushed to privatise it no sooner than we reopened it right enough, and I am sure that at that point we might disagree. However, there is now cross-party support for rail in Scotland that I am not sure existed some years ago. I do not need an answer on that, but it is important to flag up the importance of freight only lines, as you know from the Rotterdam example that they used the 10T funding, which needs to be part of the trans-European network. I have been an advocate for many years on the fact that I do not believe that we are using the full amount of European funding that is available. Frankly, that has been something that successive Governments need to perhaps look at, but it is perhaps something to just flag up, because clearly getting freight off our roads on to rail is crucially important, and having point-to-point freight only lines are crucially important in the development of this. I look very closely at the committee's freight investigation, the inquiry, and that is why we are doing more work on freight generally, as well as waterborne freight, rail freight. I was able to say at the parliamentary response that I gave on behalf of the Government that there was one really good application under way and out of subject to planning and other considerations as well. If that one project comes off, I think that it will be particularly good to showcase what can be done through rail freight, and we will see through the recommendations that we can that were recommended by the committee. Thank you. I am conscious of time. I must concentrate on the boarder's rail specifically. Whilst it is an excellent project, you will know from customers that there has been some feedback about overcrowding concerns, particularly peak times, when there has only been two carges on. Are you emphasising to the operator the importance of meeting its contractual obligations here to make sure that it allows sufficient capacity so that we do not have unhappy and dissatisfied customers on this excellent project? Yes, I am, and I have had very close involvement to it. Some of the figures that are now in the public domain such as approximately 56,000 journeys to and from the seven new stations in the first two weeks is very impressive, and that figure has become 126,000 over the period. It said that there is unprecedented interest in the railway, but of course it is unprecedented because it was not there before. It does go above the more positive estimates, but the simple answer to the question is, yes, I have impressed upon the operator the need for extra carriages, and extra carriages have been deployed to address the demands around that. In some instances, that has meant doubling the amount of carriages that are servicing the stations. There is other work that can be done around peak times, such as publishing timetables that can indicate which times and which departures have been busier than others, so that the occasional traveller can know when are the busiest points as well. Looking to the future, there will be even more rolling stock in Scotland as we have the deployment of the Hitachi trains coming to Scotland and the other enhancements that are outlined in the franchise. In terms of the immediate day-to-day operation of Borders rail, which has been widely welcomed, there is an expectation that I have impressed upon the operator to address the demand, and I have been able to do that in large measure. If I look at the wider issue, how much pressure are you putting on Ibello to ensure that we tackle issues over crowning capacity problems and key lines? For example, Ibello to Glasgow is well known, and most of us use that on a regular basis. There is a great source of dissatisfaction from passengers at peak times on overcrowding. What are you doing about that, minister? That is a very important issue in Scottish rail. I think that it is a very fair question. It does not have the same instant fix, because this is now about the national issue of available rolling stock, but that is exactly why, in the franchise agreement, we have committed to new trains. I would say to the committee that, for the first time, not only will we have new trains, we will have more trains in Scotland in the years to come because of the franchise agreement that we have. That will bring the 17 new Hitachi trains, and there will be other trains in deployment as well. The new trains, particularly for the Edinburgh to Glasgow route mentioned by Mr Stewart, will also have more seats. More trains and more seats will improve the capacity of the rail network, particularly at peak times. That is the pinch point that the member is quite right to raise. I can say that, particularly in relation to those central belt routes, eventually we will have up to 50 per cent more seats at peak times from December 2018. We cannot magic up the trains now, but I am sure that members will appreciate the investment plans with the franchise agreement. That will address that issue in quite a substantial way, which we are trying to future proof for further increase in demand and patronage for the railways. That is all the more reason why we have to see the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement project through, because that is about deploying the new trains and electrification and the enhanced stations as well. Of course, some of the platform work needs to ensure that we can take those trains, so bringing all of that together takes time and I am sure that we will continue to support the railways sector. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I am sure that you will not mind me saying as an islander that I very much welcome the indications that you gave of the continuing investment in new ferries. Although they come under a lot of criticism, sometimes with possibly some merit, if I say that CalMac have got an affectionate place in the heart of Highlanders and Islanders, the red, white and black ships plowing through our stormy seas often bring a wee smile to our faces when we see them. Even the names have resonance, the new hybrid ferries, the halyg and the walking var. The names have got resonance. For instance, my father as a young man worked on the previous walking var and the halyg was named after Sorly McLean's great poem, so we very much welcome that investment and also you are overseeing of the successful roll-out of RET. In combination with the forthcoming islands act, you mentioned the debate in Parliament yesterday. I would kind of almost paraphrase a previous Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, in saying that islanders have just never had it so good, but that brings me on to my question. It is just to ask if you could provide an update on the procurement of the next Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contract. Convener, I knew with that compliment that there had to be a difficult point. I was accused yesterday of being in the chamber on the island's debate. I have been animated when talking about ferries, but that is Mike McKenzie's version of being animated in that kind of islander style. I think that this is a very important issue in terms of the procurement. It has to be conducted in accordance with the law and the regulations, but I want more than that. I want it to be conducted with confidence, and that is why I have established the independent procurement reference panel so that other people can engage with the wider process. I should say as well to Mr McKenzie that irrespective of the outcome of whichever of the two bidders is successful, the vessels remain in public ownership. At the timetables are set by Scottish Government, the fares are set by Scottish Government and even the very branding that you described going through our waters is owned through our agencies by Scottish Government. So all of that remains the same. We are going through the tendering process due to be complete by the end of May next year. This is a very complex tendering exercise. There are two bidders, which have been named as CalMac ferries limited and, of course, Circle Caledonian ferries limited. Those bids will be analysed as we go through the different iterations of the initial invitation to tender, the interim invitation to tender—that is due later in the autumn—and the final invitation to tender, which is due to issue on December 2015. There will be involvement of the panel that I have described, which is a range of representation. If I can, because I know that other members have asked this, if it is possible to make the announcement before the end of May, I would do so, but we have to go through this very complex procurement exercise in a coherent and fully compliant way and then report back in due course. Members will also be aware that the waiting has focused on quality and cost, and there were discussions with the trade unions to give them a degree of certainty and satisfaction over the summer months as well. I hope that that is a useful update on the procurement exercise. I am sure that a lot of Islanders will find that reassuring. If I could just touch on the procurement reference panel that you mentioned and wonder if you can explain a bit more about that panel, what its function is, what its composition is? There are a range of stakeholders involved, be it local authorities, island users group, there is trade union representation as well. It is to give that extra layer of oversight, but I can assure members that the decision on the outcome of the tender rests with ministers cannot be shared in whole or in part with any other party. That would be a matter for Ministers, but if to give oversight and an understanding of the processes that we are going through, as well as visibility of the ITT, the invitation to tender, the interim invitation to tender, and also the final invitation to tender. They will be involved all the way through the process and have committed to publish the independent procurement reference panels, meetings and findings as well. Can I ask a specific question on CalMac, which I assume is a MacKenzie's admiration for? I want to ask about specific compensation payments that have been made to passengers since 2012. Does the minister have a rough idea how much compensation has been paid to passengers for delays since 2012 from CalMac? I do not have that figure to hand, but I am sure that you asked parliamentary questions about the wider figure in terms of payments and issues relating to penalties to CalMac itself, but I am happy to report back to the committee. I do not have it to hand. I asked the question, as you probably know, last month, and the answer is £305,758. That does appear to me to be a very large sum, and, as you know, that is made under the EU passed to rights regulations. Under the new tender, will that figure reduce all that goes higher? It is too unpredictable. I do not think that you can predict the figure, because it will be down to a range of factors such as disrupted ferries and so on. I do not think that you can reasonably predict such a figure. Were you surprised when you sent me the answers to that question? Not necessarily, because the nature of ferry services is that they can be disrupted, and there are technical issues around whether it is whether there is disruption or whether there is another reason for fall, or if you take the industrial action over this summer. Different factors can play into why a service has not been delivered. It is highly unpredictable. Of course, any minister or any member would want to keep it to a minimum. You want services to operate 100 per cent of the time, which is totally reliable, and you never have to pay out compensation. Of course, there is a matter of the mechanism between CalMac having to recompense Government through the arrangements, if there is non-delivery of a service. It is a complex matter. Of course, the aspiration is to keep it to an absolute minimum, having every sailing work perfectly, but there are many factors that in fairness do not allow that to happen. What happens in terms of the budget? Is that £305,000? Does that come out of CalMac's budget? Or do you compensate as Government CalMac for the figures that you are paying out? Well, the financial arrangements with CalMac and any operator are quite complex in a franchise or in a service agreement. If there is non-compliance, Government has the ability to negotiate to hear the case on why something has happened or simply to take payment from the operator or a share of that payment. Equally, if we vary the contract or very provision of services such as I have done and propose to do with the enhanced timetable for the CHIFS contract, Clyde and Hebrides ferry services contract, it costs Government through Transport Scotland and we would pay CalMac back. It is quite complex, as I have discovered on inheriting the transport brief, but it is focused on delivering a service and supporting our customers and trying to minimise any disruption. We have also got to be reasonable about that as well. I would not propose to change the penalty mechanism going forward. I do not think that Mr Stewart is suggesting that either. So, in the new contract, is there anything specific about compensation payments? There would be the ongoing continuity of the current arrangement. Perhaps you can get back to us because you will not, in the final question because I am conscious of the time of your, perhaps you can get back to the committee and confirm after 305,000, how much of that has been recombinciated by the Scottish Government or how much of that has had to be delivered from CalMac's own budget? I am happy to share more detail on that and come back to the member in the committee, but I would put that figure in the wider context, of course, of the overall transport budget and the investment to ferry services, which since 2007 is now over £1 billion, so let's put that figure into context. Thank you. When you wrote the statement, you mentioned the smart ticketing system, which is obviously a feature of the new ScotRail franchise and hopefully will be part of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contract as well. What more information do you have about that development and the rollout of it Scotland-wide? Again, it is very complex. I think that all Governments, all Ministers, all Members have had the aspiration to have smart ticketing and one device or one card that could work across a range of transport modes. I hold that aspiration. The Government has a commitment to fulfil that pledge. I have been particularly active on that. My aspiration is that any smart and integrated ticketing scheme is cross-modal, cross-operator, cross-boundary and on a national scale. If you thought anything that I said earlier was ambitious, that is particularly ambitious. The reason for that is that private operators, for example, in the bus community, will want to guard their commercial sensitivity and might not want some of those aspirations. However, with the ScotRail—a Bellio ScotRail—has expertise from their other operations on smart and integrated ticketing. Some of the bus operators do low-laying buses, for example, on their smart device. They can have the timetable, the cost of the service and even payment on that. We are moving towards an opportunity of technology that exists in today's world. We can achieve that. If I can sort out the mechanics and bring everyone to the table, we will hopefully be able to say more about that in the national transport strategy. I have met the confederation of passenger transport—that is the bus community—because I think that they have the furthest, terrible pun. They have most to do on this front because we can compel it through the franchise for rail, which we have done through the ferry franchise, which we will do. It is making that connection with buses. I have said to the bus community—because it is a mixture of private and public—that I prefer for it to be done voluntarily. However, if need be, I could use legislation or conditions of grant through our other funding schemes to the bus community or other mechanisms to compel everyone to participate in that. However, it is a high ambition to have it across all modes of transport, cut across boundaries, cut across private and public sector and be a national scale. Most people are using devices now, so it does not need to be an old-fashioned card as many see it. We are looking to the future and trying to future proof it. However, it is a huge task, but it is one that I am very focused on trying to deliver and overcome the barriers by using all the different levers that the Government has at our disposal. In terms of actual progress, there have been some around the Government's entitlement card for national concessionary travel. A Bellio ScotRail is working on its solution. The Glasgow Subway, of course, is its new smart card. Some bus operators have smart technologies, as I have described. My task is to try to pull all that together in a coherent way, so it is as simple as possible for the travelling public and a passenger who just wants one, rather than all those different schemes trying to bring it all together. I have commissioned work with officials and I have an imminent meeting with the Bellio ScotRail and the bus industry as well, because I think that that is one of the best connections that can be made, and I will happily report to future progress on that. I accept that it is going to be a complicated challenge, and I do wish you well on it, because I think that many people want this to happen in members of this Parliament. I accept that it is complicated. I accept that you are doing a lot of work on this matter, but when would you like to see this, at least starting not to be completed, not to travel across Scotland, but maybe having a pilot somewhere? When would you like that? I could give you a pilot tomorrow, but I do not think that that is good enough, because there are loads of examples of really good practice, but that is my problem, that they are too siloed, they are too isolated. It might work for some passengers in one part of the country, and I say that Lothian Buses is a good example for the bus network, but nothing happens if you get off the bus and onto a train, so it is about joining up journeys, and that is where the work has to be undertaken. For that reason, I cannot give a timescale yet. There are commitments around the fulfilment service, but I have gone beyond the previous commitment and the principles that I have outlined. If I can get the active participation of the bus community, and I think that I now have it, then I think that I can make more progress. I have not been shifty about this and not setting a timescale, as I would be making up a date if I was to give you a timescale, but after a period of maybe six months, I could report back to the committee on the progress that I have made, because right now, live and active discussions are underway. That will allow the plans that Bellio ScotRail have, and they have ambitious plans around their technology and the bus community as well and what I can expect from them in bringing it all together through Transport Scotland. However, I am very clear that individual schemes are not good enough any more. We have to bring that together and integrate it, just as we want to integrate transport itself. Thank you minister for the offer of coming back to the committee in six months' time on that issue. We will have to make sure that we align it with the period before we go into the solution. Adam, you have some questions. Yes, I would like to raise some questions about the press week airport minister. Ryanair recently announced that summer 2016 schedule includes new routes from both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, but no new routes from the press week airport. Given what might be regarded as a limited commitment from Ryanair, the only airline that operates from the press week airport, are you confident that the airport can return to profitability in a reasonable time scale? I think that there are a number of issues there, and Mr Brown leads on the press week airport because of my constituency interest at Glasgow airport, but I can say that there is a new five-year plan that has been worked on at the moment. Ryanair has maintained their commitment to Glasgow press week airport and said that it will continue there. Of course, not just passenger flights, but I understand that maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities are also there, and that is welcome. It helps to make the point about the press week airport that is not just about passenger numbers. There are air freight issues there as well, and there is the potential of the spaceport too that they are taking forward a very positive bid on. In terms of the commercial deal that we have with press week not to disadvantage any other Scottish airport, we are focusing on trying to support the airport in terms of growth, but it is wider than just passenger growth and Ryanair has maintained their commitment there. The current review of the business plan should inspire confidence as to its future. In terms of business development, the senior management team recently stepped down at press week airport. Permanent replacements are still to be appointed. Can you provide an update on the appointment of permanent senior managers and how you expect their appointment to develop the business at press week and take it forward to profitability? Members will be aware that Mr Richard Jenner has been appointed the interim chief executive officer and there will be other recruitment process under way. The point is well made by Mr Ingram around the issue of ensuring that the board has the skills, the capacity and the expertise to work with the business community to expand the offer at press week airport. There would be an expectation in the appointment there of people who can deliver that aspiration. When we embark upon recruitment exercise, we look at the variety, the skill base, the expertise and the business acumen as well. We are increasingly confident that that will be there for the period going forward. The previous senior managers completed their tenure at the end of September. Do you envisage the interim manager and the former Richard Jenner? How long do you anticipate him being in that position prior to the appointment of a permanent management team? Mr Brown has closer day-to-day involvement with those matters. It is more of a question for him with that closer involvement because of my constituency interest and I would not want to prejudice the recruitment process either. If members want further information on those timescales, I am happy to have Mr Brown write to you on that. Everything that I have seen, I am certainly more confident of the direction of travel for the board and the management of press week airport and as they review the business plan, I understand from those involved that there is plenty reasons to be positive. Of course, there are other bids and live discussions under way as to the commercial nature of the airport. I can ask you a few questions about buses, but the wider issue that I would like to link is with air pollution. You will be well aware from the good work that Friends of the Earth have done that there are concerns that around 3,500 people are dying prematurely because of air pollution. Clearly, we are all concerned about the scandal around Volkswagen cheating software. We know that the bulk of the pollution comes from road traffic. I was looking at some work that the Herald had done that showed that, if you look at Hope Street in Glasgow, nitrogen dioxide was 62 per cent above the European legal limit. Defra in Westminster has looked at arguing that pre-2015 diesels, cars, lorries and buses should be banned from key cities, including London and Leeds. Clearly, we have very similar problems in Scotland. What should you do when you are looking at reviewing and consulting the powers of local authorities on the operation of bus markets to put some conditionality that buses in particular in urban areas—I am not talking about long-distance routes—should be non-diesel. If I flag up some good examples when I visited Stagestorch in Venice when they have a fleet of green buses running on electric, which I would applaud the work that they have done, what should you view on this general issue? Obviously, we have to look at integrated planning. It is no point having one policy in transport when we are finding that the NHS is under strain because of the great problem of air pollution, because frankly, we are not doing enough about diesel pollution, particularly in our cities. It is a very valid point. There is a range of works around decarbonising the transport network. In terms of government departments working with each other, the national planning framework 3, which I know that the member was involved with, is scrutinising. It looks across portfolios to focus on the decarbonisation agenda. On-road, for example, we are looking to completely decarbonise the road network by 2050. That means moving to issues such as electric vehicles. In that front, for example, there are a number of charging points across the country for electric vehicles. We are trying to stimulate support for electric vehicles. Staying with vehicles just for a moment, cars, the VW issue is of great concern to the Scottish Government. We have written to the UK Government to request that a task force be convened so that we can take a cross-government approach to that very issue, because it will have other powers that we do not have around enforcement. There is now a whole panoply of issues that have been exposed as a consequence of that emissions expose. That is of great concern. On-road traffic, local authorities can take a degree of action now around quality bus partnerships and, potentially, quality contracts for buses. However, for quality bus partnerships and other restrictions, local authorities are already empowered to make decisions at the most local level that are right for them. That can be around the quality of air and emissions and the quality of vehicles as well. However, to further support that, the Government consulted on our air quality strategy, which will make further decisions around low emissions zones, which can do some of the things that Mr Stewart has suggested. A non-aviation that you just touched upon, there is further work that can be done around technology and ensuring that flights are going or fuller rather than empty. As a practical example, the UK Government has more of a role around the civil aviation authority, but aeroplanes can become cleaner as well. On public transport, I am trying to encourage more people on public transport. That is a commitment that the Government makes to over £1 billion every year. I refer to my opening statement. On the transition from older diesel buses into new technology governments through the Scottish Green Bus Fund and the Bus Investment Fund and how we incentivise, potentially, through the Bus Services Operators Grant, the bus community to move to cleaner, greener, newer buses. The Aberdeen example is a good one of hydrogen buses. I witnessed, just in Parliament, a week or two ago new electric buses that may be deployed in Scotland as well. With our limited funding, we are trying to encourage public and private providers to move to cleaner, greener forms of energy. The regulatory power local authorities can act now and could potentially do even more following on from the air quality strategy. Of course, I agree with the minister when he says that we need to get people using public transport, but if it can play devil's advocate if you are waiting for a bus in Hope Street in Glasgow, there is no point going on a bus if it is a diesel pollutant that is causing air pollution issues. The minister will not have in his head the number of buses in urban Scotland that are diesel, but clearly we need to do action somewhere to the smoking bang here. The minister probably did not listen to Radio 4 yesterday in the afternoon, which had an interesting debate about the use of diesel in our cities. One of the commentators—I am not necessarily saying this is my position—was making a comparison of the smoking bang and saying that he saw no case for lorries or buses being diesel-powered in our cities in the future because of the effect that is having on our health service. That is a radical move, but clearly we need to do more. When it comes to conditionality—in other words, funding for buses—can the minister do more to try to ensure that buses are not diesel-powered in our cities? I am not talking about long-distance routes in our cities in the future. There is a different way to approach that, but just before I come to it, I will explain if Mr Stewart was listening to Radio 4 yesterday afternoon and that explains why you were not at the islands debate in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament where I expected to see you, but that is choices. I did not realise that the minister had changed to become the Labour chief whip, but if he wants that job, I am sure it would be open to him. There are some jobs that I may aspire to in government if I have never thought of that one, but I think we will leave it there. On the serious issue of emissions, the other way into this is not necessarily just to ban diesel from certain areas through funding. We are actually trying to incentivise the funding package to allow for and support cleaner, greener buses. There are European regulations that stipulate what buses will be allowed on our roads. In addition to that, we have been encouraging operators to move to hydrogen vehicles or electric vehicles—other forms of greener transport—but, as well as that, there are powers to restrict the type of vehicles because of the remissions in the pollutants from certain parts. It is a good example to raise around the cities or those areas that clearly have had a health impact or air quality as a particular issue. There are powers that are there and they will be strengthened as a consequence of that Government consultation that I referenced earlier. There is also a very careful balancing act. I entirely accept the health issue around pollutants and the impact that they cause. I also know that, if we were disproportionate in our approach or did not work in partnership with the bus community and they simply pulled a number of routes, I think that that would also leave people exposed in a different way. We absolutely have to get more progress in that, but not in a way that undermines people's quality of life or accessibility or connectivity as an indirect and unintended consequence of that view. I am a final point. Could the minister have a look at an article that Sunday Times did about the use of emission cameras? I do not know if the minister has come across that, but it is basically an ADAR system, which is an emission detection and reporting device. It is a bit like a speed camera, but instead of measuring speed, it measures emissions. That has been introduced European-wide, and DEFRA is certainly having a look at that. For example, if I could use my Hope Street example again, you could have cameras that can measure emissions from individual buses, lorries and, indeed, cars. Of course, there are current systems that measure pollutants. I am merely saying that this new system is distinctly designed to measure diesel pollution. I am certainly highlighting the minister looking at the use of this product across Scotland. Okay. I think that you mentioned in the opening remarks that you are intending to launch a consultation with a view to perhaps new legislation with regards to local bus markets. As you are aware from my correspondence with you, there are a number of issues with the private operators and operating socially necessary routes. We have had to have interventions from the passenger transport authorities to subsidise routes. Is this an area that you are looking at in terms of going forward? Well, I have made it clear to—what predated some of that was my willingness to work with Ian Gray on his bus bill. I think that it was largely misunderstood—it is not fair that Ian Gray is misunderstood largely misunderstood—but I said that I would work with Ian Gray as Mr Stewart—he broke it and facilitated the meeting—to work with him on some of the issues that he raised. He decided not to continue with his bill, but I have put the bus community very much on alert that, if I feel that they are not delivering in a way that we would expect, then we may take action in the future. What I propose for the meantime, though, is an immediate change to how operators engage with local authorities. I will imminently—later this month—definition of it imminently—lay in Parliament a change to regulation so that there is better. More time for engagement between operators and local authorities when they are changing bus routes through the registration process, and I will revise the guidance on how that should be done. That is the first action. We are also looking at how we can improve on quality contracts. We know that we can give bundle routes a greater degree of control over routes and support quality bus partnerships, which there should be more of in Scotland. There are no quality contracts in Scotland and some quality bus partnerships, so it is about strengthening what is there at the moment and tightening up on operators engaging with local authorities. However, I have made it clear to the CPT—the Confederation of Passenger Transport—that bus operators expect them to do their bit. Mr Ingram is also right. Where is a gap in service? Where is a social need? Local authorities or regional transport partnerships can intervene. That is not a nice to do. That is actually their function, and I think that some do need to be reminded of that, which is why it will feature my national transport strategy so that people are not left isolated in what is a mixed market in terms of bus provision. Mike Ingram, you recently announced a review of the office and the role of the Scottish Roads Works Commissioner. Can you explain why you thought such a review was necessary and how you hoped to see the role of the Roads Works Commissioner develop? I felt that, with the opportunity to appoint a new roadworks commissioner, there was also an opportunity to see how the post and the role could be improved. Because of the role that there is—it is arbitrar, it is a regulator and a forcer—there is much that it can be done as a keeper of the roadworks register as well. I am taking the opportunity to look again at the role and see if we can do better, better co-ordinate, maybe even strengthen the powers to have a stronger role around that and what is the relationship with Transport Scotland as well as part of that review. I will have a new commissioner, they will do the work and at the same time conduct a review to see how we can do better, because I am of the view that we could probably do more with that role. I am sure that all of us that use the roads observe that road traffic is at a new peak, but also that more trips have been delayed due to congestion than previously has been the case. Can you maybe indicate what Transport Scotland is doing to reduce travel demand and to combat congestion? Certainly, there is a massive investment programme and that will address some of the capacity matters and the pinch points and improving road infrastructure particularly. Within some of that it will be about prioritising public transport as well and also making public transport more attractive, whether that is road or bus, encouraging active travel as well. There is a range of other Government initiatives such as car sharing. If you have fewer cars, that would be more helpful as well. Car sharing and travel plans through the local authorities. The roadworks themselves will cause some disruption. I said in my earlier comments that it is regrettable that there will be congestion as a consequence of major investment, but we are even able to, although it is not compromising on safety, adapt some of the works as well where there has been pinch points or extra demand on the system to adapt the work programme or adapt routes. Traffic Scotland also provides information and congestion on road network 2. Last time I was at committee, I was celebrating and it had over 80,000 Twitter followers. I can report now over 90,000 Twitter followers. I am only at 9,000, which I think is a controversy in itself, a ministerial, a personal account. However, the fact that there is so much information out there is trying to give real-time information about where the congestion is. The long-term investment plans help with capacity, investment in the roads. I am well aware of members' concern about the legacy of repairs to the roads infrastructure as well, but we spend over a quarter of a billion pounds every year on the maintenance of the trunk road and motorways. However, I am aware that there are legacy issues as well as the condition of the existing roads, as well as the commitments that we have made on new roads. However, you have to look at the M73, M74, M8, the AWPR work, as well as, of course, the complete M74 missing link, as major steps forward in addressing that strategic congestion. However, encouraging people to use public transport is another way forward as well. The final point of make-around congestion is that people could just pay close attention to the transport advice that is given, because sometimes it is road incidents, collisions and driver behaviour that sometimes causes some congestion, as well. To be very mindful of that advice, it is offered through Transport Scotland. In winter, of course, it brings its own challenges around transport disruption. I can ensure all members that the full range of winter preparations are very much under way, and I will make a statement to the Parliament fairly soon. I understand all those winter preparations. That was a very comprehensive answer. Thank you. Do you have any further questions? Minister, do you have any final remarks that you would like to place on the record? In that case, I thank you for your evidence this morning. I thank you also for your commitment to provide a series of updates to the committee on a range of issues. Can I just remind you what those are? The establishment of a stakeholder group to support the national transport strategy, progress on major trunk road projects, an update on the active travel summit and the national walking strategy, the smart ticketing scheme, compensation to CalMac passengers and the impact on tax receipts of reducing and then possibly finally abolishing air passenger duty as that power comes to the Parliament, and your offer to liaise with your colleague, cabinet secretary, on ensuring that we have an update on the appointment of a new senior management team at Glasgow Presswick airport. Once again, I thank you and your officials for your attendance this morning. We now move into private session. I now close this meeting of the committee.