 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I remind those present please to turn off their mobile telephones. Everyone is in good presence, so no apologies have been received. I would like it move to agenda item 1 on our agenda, which is to do with major transport infrastructure projects. I would like it to welcome Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, and we received an update from you, Mr 24, on the 14th of December regarding various projects. The minister is joined by Michelle Rennie, the director of major transport and infrastructure projects, and Graham Porteus, the head of special projects at Transport Scotland. Minister, you asked to attend the meeting and therefore we would welcome an opening statement from you. Thank you very much, convener, and thanks to the committee for the chance to provide an update. I think that at the last discussion that we had, the committee made it clear that they would like to be kept updated as frequently as possible. Any emerging issues being cited for the committee so that they could take recognitions of that, and that's the reason why I've asked to come back to the committee. In particular, the fourth crossing, which I know you'll hear about subsequently, and the AWPR. I'll mention where we're at with most of the transport projects that we have. It has been a busy time for the projects. There have been significant works being undertaken across all the projects over recent months. If I can start perhaps with the AWPR, just to say that, since we last had a discussion, which, if you recall, was around the Balmery tipperty part of the project, further progress has been made. It's a 58-kilometre site. The progress has been, during 2016 and early 2017, as follows. I advised previously in committee that phase 1 of the project at the Aberdein airport site had opened in August last year. That was ahead of schedule and is being used and providing benefit to local people. That was ahead of the contractor's planned autumn target and is already bringing those benefits. However, also in November last year, the contractor ARL advised us that it was unable to complete the Balmery tipperty section by spring this year as originally planned, due to seasonally-affected works. I alerted the committee to that change in December, and I would just like to provide a brief update on the progress that the contractor has made since then. The Stonehaven southbound slip roads are expected to open in spring this year, bringing again early benefits to the people of Stonehaven by taking long-distance traffic away from the town. At the major bridge over the River Dee, the south pier is now complete, and the north pier is in progress. Once completed, the works to install the bridge deck will commence. Those works, including the slip forming of the concrete deck using a balanced cantilever approach, are due to begin by late spring. Road surfacing works were recommenced last week in the southern section, and the road foundation works are due to be recommenced this week. The fast approaching spring season will also see the recommencement of the remaining earthwork operations. I think that there was some discussion last night in the media about utilities, and it's worth mentioning that I think there was some press activity. This project was unusual, and as far as we were well aware of some of the pressure on utilities, so I'd asked for all the utility providers to come in advance of the contract being let to a meeting so that we could discuss the ability to make sure that those utilities were undertaken, the diversions where they were necessary, weren't undertaken as smoothly as possible. That was an exceptional thing. We've done that on no other project. It's also true to say—and, of course, there will be elements of the commercial discussions with the contractor, which I can't divulge, but it's also true to say that at the contractor's request, we've helped out in addition to that with one or two, one in particular, substantial utility diversion, which, again, I won't go into the details, but again at the request of the contractor, I wrote to the utility, not a public utility provider, to help out with that. Utilities will always be a major feature of contracts such as this. As notified to the committee, the delay in relation to completing the Balmery to Tipperty section was announced at that time, but overall, despite the revised programme for Balmery to Tipperty, our advisers have independently confirmed that the overall programme of delivery for the works by the winter 17-18 period remains achievable. Of course, there are challenges with that, as there are with all successful major projects. It does require sound project management and, of course, sufficient resourcing by the contractor, in addition to a willingness to resolve any issues between the parties in a sensible way in me, undertake those discussions, as we do in all major contracts. Sometimes, of course, those can result in tensions, but both the contractors and ourselves are trying to do everything that we can to make sure that we complete this overall project on time. I think that I mentioned last time that the issue had arisen in relation to Balmery to Tipperty or any other delays, whether there was a penalty paid to the contractor, just worth repeating the fact that that is not how it works. It just means that it does not receive any monies, so it will be receiving monies just now for the airport section, which I mentioned earlier on because it is in use. The penalty is essentially that the contractors do not receive funding for that, but we are just to conclude on AWPR. Transport Scotland and I continue to work together with ARL to deliver the benefits of the project as soon as possible. I think that the next project that I would want to mention would be the Queensferry crossing, although I will not anticipate too much of what you will hear from those involved in that. The final day closure, I am sure that you will have seen, was completed on 3 February. You will hear more evidence later about the progress. I would like to take the opportunity to provide the committee with some detail on that and other major transport projects that you will have seen as I say the completion of the deck. What is now being undertaken are things such as the waterproofing of the deck surface, the surfacing of the deck to take traffic and, of course, the wind barriers. However, as I say, you will hear more about that afterwards, convener, so I will just move on to their projects, if that is okay. The A9 dualling design worked well and away on the 11 load schemes that make up the 80 miles of the programme, one of the biggest transport infrastructure projects in Scotland's history. You might have been aware that some of the residents of the villages of Kinderlach and Guy and Diwali have had concerns about some of the proposed options for dualling on the grounds that it will have negative impacts on the villages and their properties. The preferred route for that section was made public in December with the online option being chosen, but it is true to say that residents remain concerned and made representations to the Bitlachry Cabinet meeting, which took place on 6 February, the public meeting afterwards. I spoke to residents members of Transport Scotland's senior management team, subsequently spoke to some of them by telephone on 7 February to address some of those concerns. Residents of Burnham and Dunkeld remain in discussion with Transport Scotland around what has got a co-creative process to capture community input into the route options design and assessment, so we envisage this commencing after local government elections in May, allowing further progress towards identifying a preferred option. On 31 January, the academy 9 programme launched a Scottish credit and qualifications framework module that will assist teachers involved in STEM subjects to help to raise awareness about the A9 dualling programme in the areas of engineering, ecology, geology and sustainability. Their blog went live recently as well, the academy 9 glow blog. It also features extensive material on the A9 programme for use by teachers and pupils, and we look forward to supporting its use in schools across the length of the A9 in the coming years. On, specifically, the Concrated already section of the A9 dualling traffic is already using the south pound carriageway, some of you may be familiar with that, and we remain on schedule to fully open the 7.5km stretch of this summer, improving the safety of the route and providing better access to and from the Highlands. Also on the A9, a prior information notice or pin notice for the construction contract for the 9.5km section between Lunkartey to Burnham has now been published, and we hope to hold an industry in the coming weeks to discuss the scheme with potential bidders. Preparity works to facilitate that construction will begin later this year, with the main works contract scheduled to commence in early 2018. Design work continues apace across the rest of the route between Perth and Inverness, with a series of exhibitions currently under way. That also allows local communities to view the preferred routes for the 24km length section between Delradi and Sloct and the 16km Croubenmore to King Craig schemes. That is a further 40km of the A9 dualling programme. Lastly on the A9, work is also under way to identify contractors to carry out a series of advanced works across the entire A9 route in preparation for future construction. The opportunities are expected to be of particular interest to small and medium-sized businesses, including those based locally who would like to be part of the innovative and ambitious programme. The other big programme that we have, of course, is the A96 dualling, and a contract notice for design work. I think that the estimated prices for those, although there can only be estimates at the same stage of both projects, given that many contracts are still to be let, was similar at around £3 billion. A contract notice for the design work on the 26m stretch of the A96 from east of Huntley to Aberdeen, also known as the Eastern section, was published on 24 January. That major contract marks a further milestone towards the dualling of the A96 with all the investment and improvements that it will bring to the north-east and the highlands, and the timescale that we had mentioned for that was 2030, with the A9 by 2025. Transport Scotland has also completed the development and assessment of the preferred option for the 31km A96 dualling in Vanesda Nairn, including the Nairn bypass section, and has published draft orders for the scheme on 29 November for formal comment in the objection period ran for nine weeks and ended on 31 January. Effective engagement with effective parties is a key part of the statutory process, and it has been my experience that the more discussion that you can have in the earlier stages of the process, the smoother the rest of the process can become, and you can also enjoy the support of effective parties in many cases. As with all projects of that nature, we will engage directly with the objectors to try and resolve objections and have spoken to some local members of the Scottish Parliament who have issues that they have wanted to raise already in relation to the project. It is only when the objectors have come forward that we will be able to see whether a public local inquiry will be required to consider objections that have been received but not withdrawn, and ultimately ministers will consider the outcome of all the consultations and objections raised, including the recommendations made by independent reporters, if that happens. The objections that we have received so far are currently being assessed. However, in the event that we cannot resolve all those, then the public local inquiry will happen. We would expect that to happen late this year or early next year. On the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements project, the focus of construction has shifted now to completing the various structures across the project. We opened the Wraith underpass to traffic on 16 February. The project is a 560m long underpass. If the committee has had the chance to have a look at it, it is a very impressive development. It provides a direct link from the A725 Belsil bypass to the A725 East Cobride Expressway. We have had substantial feedback from local people about the benefits that are brought for them. It also receives positive media coverage and is delivering benefits to users of the A725. The full benefits of the interchange will not be obtained until the works on the M74 are complete. We have now reached the stage of construction where it is necessary to connect the new offline infrastructure, which is now almost complete with the existing online road network. There is a significant height difference, which is why we have had to put in place a 10-week diversion, which has added, on average, all that is projected to add, around 10 minutes delay, unavoidable at the stage of the project, but we are now, I think, two, possibly three weeks into that 10-week period. Although there have been delays, it has been effective. The diversion route allows the tie-in of the new M8 motorway, and it will be in place for approximately 10 weeks. Traffic on the surrounding roads has been heavier. The diversion itself is performing well and officials continue to work closely with SRP to ensure that traffic management is removed at the earliest opportunity that it is safe to do so. We had interest from members of the committee, including Mike Rumbles, at the last meeting on the Lawrence Girk bypass that has been taken forward. My colleague Humza Yousaf and I think that the committee will have received an update after our last discussion. I will just say one or two words about that. We had announced the £24 million package for the design and construction of a new grade, separated junction at Lawrence Girk. That was part of a package of additional investment alongside the Aberdeen City region deal. Transport Scotland appointed design consultants for the scheme in September and is taking forward the next stage of design development for the junction improvement, which is the options assessment, and thereafter will proceed through the relevant statutory procedures. The on-going essential design and assessment process to identify the preferred junction layout is programmed to be complete in 2018. Development and detail assessment of the prepared option will follow this, culminating in a publication of the draft orders in 2019 for formal comment. Obviously, a lot of development work has to be carried out, but we will continue to push forward the preparation stages to deliver that scheme as soon as possible. That will bring improved road safety and economic benefits to road users and the local community in the wider north-east. I thank the committee again for the opportunity to provide the update, and I am happy to try to take any questions along with my colleagues on any of those issues. Thank you very much. First question, Peter. Thank you for that update, minister. Just for the avoidance of any doubt, it says in our papers that the AWPR scheme is to be finished by the winter of 2018. You could read that two ways. That could be the winter of 2017-2018, or it could also be the winter of 2018-2019. For the avoidance of any doubt, when is the figure that you are going to complete this work? That is the winter that we are referring to, and it will go into the spring of 2017-2018. We said that the spring of 2018 initially won the contract. I think that the former First Minister announced that at the start. It is the winter that we are about to face—not the one that we are coming out of and not the one after that, but it is 2017-2018—that winter. We also would like to know whether we are on budget to meet that timescale, but are we on budget as well? Anecdotal evidence suggests that this project is running well over budget. Can you give us any clarity on that? Yes, I think that I can. I think that I mentioned already in the opening statement that we have independently had it assessed that this project can be achieved on time, so that is what we intend. In terms of the budget, again, maybe Michelle can come in on what we have actually spent so far, but the way that it is paid for is, obviously, over a period of time through a unitary charge. That does not kick in until we actually have possession of the roads. Some expenditure will have been incurred already on the road that is already opened, but the bulk of the expenditure will not begin until we have the roads opened. No, there is not an increase in the budget. We have not started to pay that yet, but I do not know whether Michelle wants to say more on that as well. I do not have the figures of what we have spent to date, but what I can tell you is that we are still within the total scheme cost of £745 million at this point. I am pleased to hear that. There are other issues that I need to bring up. I mean, my inbox, I am getting complaints on almost a daily basis from farmers along the route, and compensation claims that they are putting in, you know, for damage down to their property. It seems to be an absolute minefield getting to the bottom of that. I mean, this issue was brought up with Holmes up when he came up to meet with the folks in the northeast, but it has not gone away. No farmer expects to make money out of that scheme, but equally no farmer should be left out of pocket because of that scheme. That is exactly what is going on just now. Claims, absolutely relevant claims, are being kicked into the long grass. It seems to be taking forever and a day to come to a conclusion. In the meantime, there are a series of amounts of money outlying in farmers. The sad thing about this is that there was a real sense of goodwill between the farm and community and the contractors at one time. That is completely and utterly disappeared. They do not want to work along with them. Can I ask you to come to a specific question, and before you wrap up with that specific question, could you also just make, I am sure, the cabinet secretary is well aware that you are a farmer, but you might care to want to make a declaration? No, I am sorry. I need to make that declaration because I am speaking a bit farmer, so I apologise for that. However, the question is that there are two questions. One is that the fencing is completely inadequate. I know about fencing. I have been fencing all my life. Sheep will not be held in by the fences that are being provided along this road. I can assure you that. It will hold in cattle, it will not hold in sheep, and we need to get those claims sorted out a lot quicker than we are doing. Okay, thanks for that. I know that there are issues. I have been up to talk to some landowners specifically about the issue in the past, and it is probably right that it comes to me, not to Humza, to be fair. All I can say is that there is a process that has been set down for many years, and it has built an independence to the process, and proper legal, whether it is a district value or the land tribunal in Scotland, has proper procedures laid in place. It is not the intention to do it unnecessarily, and I have made the point, just as you have, that people should not be left out of pocket on this. That should be the basic principle that applies here. Sometimes, when there is a delay for perfectly understandable reasons from either party, then if we can do something to help with that, we will do that. The only way that I can respond is if the individual cases that you have—I think that I have probably seen some of them—if you want to refer them to me in Transport Scotland, if there is something that we can do that does not undermine the process that has to be gone through and it is an independent legal process, then we will undertake that on a case-by-case basis. I will make that offer if you want to get in touch with that. Just before I ask my question on the AWP, I welcome your final comment, which is not the least comment, which is the Lawrence Keog junction. I certainly do appreciate that. I do not know the members of the committee, and Laurie will certainly welcome that as well, so that was really good news. Focusing on the Aberdeen Western Proof for Root, to follow really what Peter is saying, here we are in the spring in March 2017, so what you are basically saying is that we should expect by March 2018 the project to be complete. Can I just confirm that? There is always a little bit of not quite sure what we are meaning by the seasons. I agree with your year. It is not necessarily the month. A season is a bit more elastic than that particular month, but I confirm, as I said to Peter Chapman, that is the period that we are talking about spring next year. Over the course of the winter, by the end of the winter next year, that is where we intend to finish. That is great. I just compare it to your forecast for the bridge, because we have a specific month that will lay people out there. I get questions about what month we are looking forward to. Approximately in March next year? Approximately. It could be a month, either side of that. I would accept that. Even May sometimes is referred to spring in some places. We are not looking to allow it. It is possible that it could be earlier than that and it is possible that it could be later than March, but we intend that it will be finished at that time. At this time next year, we should be happy? I think so, yes. That is our intention. It is also the intention of the contractor. Can I just come back to the point about the fourth crossing? I know what you mentioned in relation to that. The December date that was mentioned, as you will know, was mentioned not as the contract date. It was never the contract completion date, but we hope to have that finished when, in 2005, we had been told that the cables of the bridge would mean that we would have to stop HDVs from travelling on the bridge by 2017. That is why we said at the end of 2016. As it turned out, from the work that was done on the cables, that was not necessary and we still anticipate that we will finish that project by its contract completion date, if not earlier. Thank you. Just before we move on, Stuart has a question. We were joined briefly here by a delegation from the Roads and Transport Committee of the Senate of the Parliament of Kenya, and we would like to welcome you to our committee. I know that we are going to have some discussions later, but welcome to the committee. Stuart, if you would like to ask your question. I just wanted to focus on bar meditivity. The reason we were given previously for the reschedule was, essentially, weather. I just wanted to test whether the works that will be being undertaken in the plan in the forthcoming winter are as whether dependent as the works that were previously relayed by the winter that has passed, or whether we are then at the stage where there will be not be zero potential impact, but there is a substantially reduced impact of weather on that project. That is right. It is probably unfair to blame the weather. It is more true to say that it did not get as far advanced with the works before the winter came in, and it was the earthworks specifically that was the problem, and that will certainly have been completed before the next winter. I do not know if I am to make sure that I am getting that right if I can ask Michelle. That is correct, cabinet secretary, but it would not be correct to say that in undertaking 58km job in the outdoors in the north-east of Scotland, that weather will have no impact. It is about it being the right kind of weather for the activity that is under way at the time. For instance, heavy rain is detrimental to earthwork activities. Therefore, undertaking earthworks activities in the winter is a very risky operation in terms of productivity, but, equally, if you are laying road surfacing, very low temperatures can be problematic there. There is no particular risk with regard to weather at this point in time, but we will be working outside and we are always susceptible to the weather. Perhaps, just to close it off and allow others to ask other questions, what sort of activities are likely to be being undertaken in that more adverse weather period that we occasionally call winter? As I mentioned in the opening statement, you heard the recommencement of the earthworks, and then beyond that you would be using it to the preparation of the surface and the surfacing of the road itself. We will also be completing the structures over that period. That is in the winter of 2017-18. There is still weather risk, but we are beyond the major impacts that stop all the work when you cannot do the earthworks. Obviously, I received advice from Transport Scotland to talk directly to the contractor. I would be very firm about saying that you cannot say that you did not get quite as far before the winter of this year, which meant that it had to go substantially into next year, but you are quite close to it and that you can have the same excuse next year. That would not be acceptable for me, so I do not anticipate that happening, but that would not be acceptable to do that. Can I start with you? After your last appearance—I looked at the issue of earthworks and the difficulties of doing earthworks in the winter—it made me smile that earthworks have continued up the A9 at pace and seem to have progressed on. In fact, they have been going on every week that I have been going up and down the road. It seems not to be an issue on the A9, but it seems to be an issue on the Aberdeen road. Do you care to comment on that? That is absolutely what the contractor has said to us, but Michelle has a bit more experience in constructing boards than I have. We cannot make a general statement about earthworks full stop. Obviously, some earthworks happen during the winter period. The issue for AWPR was very specific about the geographical location and the number of watercourses in that area, the impact on those watercourses and the impact of the previous winter and spring on those watercourses. It was agreed between the contractor and the various environmental bodies that they would cease earthworks operation during the winter period to mitigate the effect on those watercourses, so that we could avoid any incidents like we had previously. It is also true to say that, on the A9, if you have been travelling up there, you will see the one bit that was still standing out right next to the river that the burner runs through and the bridge had to go across it. That suggests that that is the common factor. Watercourses are important. The spray and the spray catchment is obviously affected in the same way that the other rivers are. Can I go back and ask about utilities that you mentioned in your opening statement? You said that you have the utility companies, both public and private, together ahead of the contract to try to iron out problems. Is that a ministerial responsibility, Transport Scotland or, indeed, the contractor's responsibility? It is a shared responsibility. Transport Scotland has a role in relation to that, and I suppose that it exercises its powers on behalf of ministers. Obviously, if it says Scottish Water, we have a different relationship there because it is a public utility, but it is a shared responsibility. Given that we are going with the AWPR and, especially in the urban areas, or close to urban areas, we knew that utilities diversions, we knew that from the trams project was what was the most obvious. If you think about the timing of when we were looking at AWPR, we were right in the teeth of that issue with the trams projects where people essentially were digging up roads in Edinburgh, not knowing what was underneath the surface. For that reason, we took a very different approach and asked them to come in a precautionary approach. As to the different responsibilities, I think that that is my understanding, but I do not know if you want to add to that. I think that that is correct. Transport Scotland undertakes, and, as you can imagine, there are complex interfaces between utilities and all of those infrastructure projects. Work has to occur over a period of years in preparing those projects, and in agreeing the likely diversions that will need to take place. Those often require some years in the planning with utility companies. All of that work happens well before we ever award a contract. At the point of award, the responsibility for managing those utilities falls to the contractor, because it is important that he is able to liaise direct with those utility companies and make sure that their programmes tie in with his own programme for completing the works. You also alluded in your opening statement that there was an issue with one of the private utilities. That then appears quite complex to sort out, because, if it was Transport Scotland that was doing the groundwork for a want of a better phrase with them, an issue has occurred when the contractor has taken it over. If that adds costs to the project, who is responsible for those additional costs? The contractor, but I am not sure that I would agree with the role of Transport Scotland in relation to that. Again, I would have to caution that I am not able to be completely free with all the facts in it, because there is a commercial relationship here, but I will give my understanding, hopefully not too far on that, and Michelle can correct me. The particular private utility that was involved, I think that the contractor had some issues with trying to achieve the diversion that was sought, and they came to me and asked me specifically on this one utility, if I would try to intervene on their behalf, which were not obliged to do, as Michelle has said, but we did do that to try and affect that. However, my understanding, if there is additional costs that arise from elements to do with diversions, then it would fall to the contractor, but I am happy to be corrected. The issue here was not a cost one, it was a timing one, and it was about ensuring that the utilities were adequately resourced in order to meet the programme that the contractor had set out. On that occasion, the contractor was given a little bit of additional support from us and from ministers to be able to assist with his discussions with that utility company. If it adds to a financial cost, who would bear that, and not at liberty to say at this moment, and if not, when will we get that information? There is no suggestion at this time that those diversionary works will generate additional costs. Okay, but if the cost is a delay and one imagines, the cost then falls to the contractor, because they are not getting their payment for that part of the route. It is not online, they would expect a payment then. If they feel that that is not their problem, they have done everything that they could to mitigate that, do they have recourse to the Scottish Government for additional funding for that? The short answer is no, they do not. The contract that is signed does undertake to pay the unity charge fee at that time, and it is up to the contractor to manage the risks during the course of the construction of the contract. Of course, in different contracts, you will see that, if they think that there is something that has been outwith their control, they can raise those issues through different dispute or legal processes, but that is not the case in this particular case. It is their responsibility to manage the risks, and the risk is, as you have just said, that they do not complete. Crucially, it comes down to when the road is available, and we will only start paying for that when the road is available, and it is up to them to manage those risks. It is not quite as clear as I was saying, just get on with it and get it done, it is all your problem. As the example that you have mentioned highlights, we have that discussion with them, and we will try to help out. In the earlier example, they gave of actually being proactive in getting all the utility companies together and saying how we wanted to have this road done. The delay had been a long delay before this road was started through legal processes. We do get involved in that, but it is the contractor's risk to manage it. Would that be right to say? The biggest risk for the contractor is time, because time costs him money. Whatever he can do to mitigate the time effect on his programme is important to him. That is where the support that he got from ministers comes into play. What is critical for him is that the utility diversions happen when they need to happen in order to allow him to proceed with his work so that they are not holding him up in any way. Can I just follow that up? I understand that. What you are saying is that there were discussions with the utilities and there have been issues, but they are all resolved and they are not going to stop the project completing on time. I would not say that they are all resolved. The contract will still have to talk to all the different utilities. Many of the diversions have taken place, but there will be further diversion to take place through the contract. They have to manage that process. Just to tie you down completely on that, are you anticipating, or are you aware that any of the diversions that are required for the utilities are going to delay the project in any shape or form? I think that I have said two or maybe three times that we expect the contract to be completed on time. If I do not take a wee look at it myself and make a judgment, that comes from our independent assessors of that process, and they are saying that this can be achieved on time. However, there will be further risks to manage. We are still in perhaps the most crucial phase of the project. If you look at the fourth crossing, and to some extent the M8 bundle as well, or that seems to be through that part of the process and now coming towards the very end, this is a crucial part of the programme. However, it is up to the contractor to manage those risks, and we will help out to do that in order to try and complete this on time, and we currently expect that to be completed on time. Did you have a further question on that? Just a very short question. Given that it is in phases, do you expect any phase to be delayed, albeit that the overall contract should be completed on time? Do you expect to delay in certain phases of it? The phase that you mentioned is balmydy tipperty. That is obviously being delayed. We have also mentioned that we have brought ahead the airport junction when there is not any particular phases, which are still to be expected. It can change over time, but we are not expecting any changes to phases. Would that be right? No, that is correct. As a matter of public policy, Weleave is granted to utility providers, which facilitates their being able to put their utility connections over land and water for that matter. Is it a matter of public policy that the implicit deal is that in exchange for having that benefit to the utility companies, they have to play ball with public projects thereafter? Would it be an opportunity perhaps for the reckon for the longer term? I think that Weleave has been around for over 100 years, so it is not new that there is that implicit deal, and utility companies should take very close care to support public projects when they themselves are in the seat of a public benefit. I think that Weleaves, we could get into a big discussion on Weleaves. We could actually get into the situation where what you class as public benefit, whether it is housing and whether they should be moved. Unless you want a very quick answer on that, cabinet secretary. As the implicit agreement is perhaps better to let Michelle answer that? Utility companies have a number of obligations arising from things like new roads and street works act and other statutory obligations. With that, they have a duty to engage. The difficulty always arises where a one-party is reliant on a third-party performance in order for them to perform their own duties, and that will continue to be the case. Thank you. Unless there are any other questions on that, I think that we would like to move on. There are some questions on Prestwick Airport. John is going to start off on that. I think that most of us are very positive about Prestwick Airport. We wanted to succeed because there are jobs there and it carries a lot of freight. It has got the potential size of the runway and all that kind of thing. However, it did, as we understand, make a loss of £8.7 million in 2015-16, and that is covered by a loan. If it continues to make losses, how long will the Government keep lending? Is there a limit to how much loans would be given to the airport? We have made clear what we were doing in terms of loans at the time that we are shortly after we purchased the airport through the business plan that was produced. We also said that our intention is to see the airport return to profitability and return it to the market, because we did not necessarily want to add to our portfolio of airports. However, because of the economic and social implications for jobs in Ayrshire, if we had not done that, it would have been very substantial. Of course, we have to balance those costs with what we have had to put into the airport. I cannot speak to every part of what Prestwick Airport is currently doing in terms of trying to turn around its current situation, because it is commercially confidential. If we were not satisfied that the airport was trying very hard and had evidence for that, for example, the recent investment from Chevron, a company from the north of England that has taken out hangar space there, and some of the surrounding businesses at Prestwick, adding to a real aviation hub that helps us to have some confidence in the ability of Prestwick, along with other airports to bid to become a spaceport. If we were not happy with what they were doing, we would want to be asking serious questions, but we do not just hand over the money and think that that is it, and there is an ever-ending pot. Prestwick Airport management is well aware of that fact. There is a huge amount of work going on. I have been talking to him just in the last two or three weeks about its specific commercial opportunities. It is true to say as well that there are real difficulties in terms of passenger traffic. They had that before it was bought, and it has proven very difficult because of other events since then to boost that. They still have Ryanair, but they have had substantial success in terms of the MRO operations and freight as well. We understood and always said that that was going to be a long process. We do not think that there is an open-ended part of money that we should be handing across. We analyse each time that there is a request for especially capital finance and make sure that the public taxpayers money is being looked after, but we knew that that was going to be a long process before it started. There are a number of irons in the fire in relation to Prestwick, which we hope will be a fruition. It seems to me that, if it was even to break even, that would be a huge success. Therefore, the chances of them making a profit of £8.7 million to pay back the past loss and loan does seem a bit remote. Has the Government got to be a doubtful debt, surely? Has provision been made against this debt, or has it been held at full face value? We made provision in the budget that is going back three years on a three-year basis for those monies to be handed over. Despite what you say about the difficult nature of that, we still hold to the original intention that the investment by the taxpayer will be paid back. There is no intention of us writing off this debt at this stage. We intend that it will come back. We understood, and the record will show in various committees of this Parliament, that we said that this was going to be a long-term process. It was not going to happen quickly. Jamie, I think that you have a question. Sorry, I am going to bring you in, but Jamie first, by my head. I think that John Mason summed up the rationale behind our questioning, but if I could drill down into the numbers somewhat. In this year's budget, there are around £9.4 million of loans in the line for Preswick Airport. I think that, anecdotally, we are hearing that it will require around £40 million in total before either £21.22 or, some suggest, perhaps even sooner that number might be reached. I am intrigued by your terminology in this. You use words like it is a long process, it is an ever-ending pot. It will not be an ever-ending pot of money, but we should be a bit more robust in our analysis of this. How long is a long process? Is this a two-year plan, a five-year plan, a 10-year plan? I can see that the cabinet secretary appreciates the efforts of the management to try and turn around the business, but what is the cabinet secretary doing to measure the success or not success of that? Are there specific, measurable targets that they have to hit on an annual basis to then secure further years' funding? Has the Government said, look guys, you have got three years to turn this around? It seems to me that there is a lot of loose-word and we are not a very specific plan for Preswick Airport. I think that we are very specific initially when we first of all bought the airport and secondly when we at our request had a business plan drawn up, which was submitted to the Parliament's committees, and we are very clear at that time that it could well take more than 10 years for us to be turned around. It is not something new, I am not making this up. We have said this and we have also been very clear that, if there is an opportunity to take the airport back to the market beforehand, then the earliest opportunity we would do that. However, I think that there has been substantial benefit, even in the sums of money that have been used so far to have saved all the jobs that are there and the impact on the airport. It enjoyed cross-party support at the time. As to the on-going scrutiny that the Scottish Government and I appreciate the Parliament wants to have its own scrutiny quite rightly of that, but we have members from Transport Scotland or officials on the hold-call board who examine those things on a regular basis. I think that, if you were to ask the Presswick management if they felt that they were getting sufficient scrutiny from me personally, I think that they would say that they would. It is a very robust discussion to have with them on a regular basis. I cannot allude to some of the efforts that they are making because some of them are commercially confidential and you will know that until a deal is done, you cannot make some of those things public. On our part, there is absolutely close and robust scrutiny of what they are doing, and you will have probably seen through the number of parliamentary questions. There are also questions that have to be answered. I will often use those parliamentary questions to talk to the management of the airport and say that those are questions, in addition to the ones that I am asking you to be aware of. I accept that there is a real public interest in that, because there is substantial public money being used. We are not doing it lightly. We examine every request for finance. We undertook at the very start that this would be a long-term process, and I do not think that that has changed for us. I appreciate that answer. You talked about the portfolio. Of course, the Scottish Government does own a number of airports, such as Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Are you able to explain the rationale why, if you succeed in turning it round, you would go to the market? Why, if something is profitable and it is in public ownership, would you then dispense with it? That makes no sense to me. We do not see that it is our role to have that kind of ownership of an airport like that. I think that it is quite distinct from the Highlands and Islands airports that you mentioned, which are not profit making, which require Government support. We have always accepted that, and we have provided, certainly during my time as Transport Minister, substantial additional funds to those airports to help to improve them. However, it was never by design that we got involved in Prestwick Airport. We were faced with a situation of very substantial job losses, not just the direct ones, but the indirect ones as well. That is the purpose of our investment. We made it clear at that point, and we are obliged to make it clear under European legislation, state aid rules, the basis on which we are going in. We are also obliged to achieve a return on the investment that has been made. It was not a design that we wanted to own in the airport in the first place, and we believe that if we can turn this around as we expect that we can do, then it should be returned to the market. That was always our intention, and I know that there will be different views on that, but that was the basis on which we went into this. I understand that. Is it your position that state aid rules mean that you are compelled to return to private ownership? The state aid rules, I think that I would have to check on whether, because of the case that we made at the time for taking it over, we are obliged to do that, but we are obliged under state aid rules to make a return on the investment. It may well be that that is achieved by returning it to the market as well. That return could in turn see investment directed to elsewhere in an airport portfolio. It seems to be able to counter the direction and travel of the Scottish Government, which I personally and my party fully commend in relation to ferries and in relation to the public sector, but for rail and the interesting announcement over the weekend about bus travel, surely it is about trying to maximise income for the public purse? I think that it is being the standard for Governments of different stripes in both Scotland and the UK to act when there is market failure. If that market failure is corrected and there is a market case for somebody else to come in and make that investment, then it would mean, apart from anything else, that we can use that investment instead for the airports that you have referred to. There is only so much money to go round, so if we can use it for the airports that we know, we want to be involved in the first place, whether it is Stornoway, Shetland or other smaller airports in the Western Isles. If we want to spend our money on those things, we cannot also spend it on other airports, so if we can save the jobs that are there, which was the intention, and return it to a place where it can be a viable proposition for a private investor, that is what we said we would do. I think that that is what we should do, because that means that we concentrate on things that we have to do. Just to confirm that all the public money that is expended would be recued prior to it being returned to private ownership? No, I do not think that that is true to say that we have said that we will have to have a return on investment, so I do not know if there was a prospect of the airport being taken over. It would have to include a deal that allowed us to repay the taxpayer for the investment that we had undertaken. I am not sure how that would happen, because we do not have that in prospect. We do not have an offer to do that just now. That is a reasonable question, which we need to develop more on to find out how the investment is actually worked out and what level of return that you would expect. That may come later, but I think that the cabinet secretary's point that he is constantly scrutinising the management team of Prestwick Airport feels neatly, because it is our intention, cabinet secretary, to ask them to come and speak to the committee in May, which I think would help to inform the committee on that. If I could then leave that section there and move very briefly to the fourth replacement crossing, and Stuart has a question for you, cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. We have heard a bit about it, so perhaps that is just a fairly brief answer that is required. We are close to completing the project. Are we still on time and on budget? Budget. Again, I do not want to steal the thunder of David Climby, but we are still looking at around £245 million below the budget. If a discussion is about the extent to which that is attributable to lower than expected inflation and also good project management that has, to the extent that there has been any change, and maybe David Climby can speak to that, there has been no deterioration on that, so we are not expecting that to change for the worst. Again, on timing, and again, David will say more about this than I can, the latest from the contractor, and just as with Presswick Airport, we are in pretty regular dialogue, is that they still hope to finish in May. We, towards the end of May, that was the intention, and still have confidence around certainly completing it before the contracted completion date, which I think was mid June. I think that it's also true to say, and again, David could speak at a greater length on this than I, there have been higher than expected and more sustained levels of wind speed than they expected, there's no doubt about that. The particular problem that's caused is in the removal of the cranes that you see on the towers. That probably wasn't on the critical path before, but it is now, one I think has been either completely taken down or partially taken down, and the other two will be taken down concurrently to make up for lost time. Some of the other things that have to be done in terms of the windshield and the surface are not so susceptible to weather, as we were coming up to the lifting of the last piece of deck, which was delayed somewhat. There have been delays, as we've always said, by weather. No delays for any other reasons, I'm aware of. No deterioration in the budget position. I have made clear, both to Transport Scotland and to the contractor, that I don't want this done at breakneck speed. If there's any question of health and safety being brought into question, that's what should be the priority. However, the latest position that we have from the contractor, and as I said, David, we'd be able to get more information, as I expect, to finish that in May, although it is challenging. Thank you for that. When I was minister, they came and told me that it would be 3.4 or 4.3 million, so we're doing a wee bit better. On the opening, what can you tell us about the plans for how the bridge will be opened, both formally and in practice? Nothing much just yet, other than the fact that there is substantial discussion going on within Transport Scotland. Michelle is heavily involved in that, so she might be able to say more. We have had a huge number of expressions of interest from members of the public and organisations. There's a huge focus on that, but the plans are being considered just now, and I assure Stuart Stevenson that, if he thinks about the arrangements that went into the border's rail opening, which is a very substantial piece of work in its own right, we are undertaking that kind of diligence just now. I don't know if Michelle wants to say more about that. Thanks, cabinet secretary. We've had, as you can imagine, a number of suggestions and requests from the public about the sort of thing that they would like us to consider, the sort of people that they would like us to have involved, a number of requests from charities, the whole plethora of options. We are well under way now with arriving at some sort of a conclusion that we hope to be able to come forward with in the next wee while. Suffice to say, we'll be looking at something that can involve as many people as we possibly can, because we accept that it's a major iconic structure, it's a new Scottish landmark, and people want to be involved, and they're very enthusiastic about it. Even to date, we've had something like 68,000 visitors to the site in one form or another, so we want to be able to try and be as inclusive about this opportunity as we can. You will be aware, of course, of one suggestion that I've passed on, which would involve an interest from the north-east of Scotland. I commend it to you without providing any particular details at this stage. I'm actually very concerned, Stuart, that that interest is suggesting that you should be at the opening, and I'm sure, cabinet secretary, that that would not be the case. Can I just say that I noticed one word in there that caused me concern was the word hope, and I'm sure the committee will want to pick that up with the team when we question them next, because it wasn't a cast-iron guarantee, I think that you used the word hope twice. Now, I think that if everyone in the committee is happy—sorry, do you want to ask a quick question on that? It's really a more question for you than David Clemmie, because he's more on a technical basis, but I'm concerned about the number of vehicles, first of all, I can put it this way. The number of vehicles estimated to use the two bridges in the first year compared to the current level. I just wanted to ask, has any sort of political consideration from a political level, rather than a technical one, to allow both bridges to use cars and HDVs? Has there been any reconsideration of that, because I'm just a bit concerned about the congestion levels? One of the things to do, just to go back to the previous point about the opening, is that I think that a lot of people want to be able to commemorate, for the last time, being in a car on the Forced Road bridge, as currently constituted. A number of people have written on the very issue that you have asked about, but it was written to the act that the Parliament agreed the basis for the public transport corridor of the existing bridge. What we have always looked at, and I continue to look at, is whether, in certain circumstances, if there was a problem on the new bridge, how quickly and how efficiently you could bring into operation, we're not anticipating any problems. I hope there won't be any problems, but if there was something that arose, and bear in mind the additional wind protection, so you won't have the closures to high vehicles. So it would need a new act of Parliament, basically, if you wanted to do it on a regular basis? I think that that is a bit more technical. I'll let Michelle answer that bit. The original act was, and I'm sure it seems that we'll know this, was very clear about the nature of the basis of a public transport corridor. It may well be, and I think that it is the case, that you can satisfy that requirement, but you could still potentially use the existing bridge in certain circumstances. I think that that's where some examinations are taking place. I think that that's correct, and I don't have a lot more to add to what the cabinet secretary said. I think that we'll leave the bridge, because we've got a session on that next. Richard Wharton wants to ask a question on mightways further south. Morning, cabinet secretary. Under your stewardship, there have been many excellent projects brought about in the last number of years. The A9 dualling, I'm talking about the A96 dualling, the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements. If I could take them just short answers, short questions in regard to the A9 dualling, I anticipate that it will take up to eight years to finish this project. Could we have done it any quicker? No, there was some discussion about that, whether the timescale that we gave was to take account of the fact that you have to get the resources to do that, the money to do that, but in actual fact, when you examine it, and given some of the processes that I've talked about, public inquiries and design and consultations, no, I don't believe that it could be done any quicker than that. A96 dualling, again, I see that it's not anticipated to be finished by 2030, which is 13 years from now. Could we have done that any quicker? I think that, I'd like the officials to answer that, but I think that I suppose that if you wanted to truncate that, although you wouldn't have the same space, because obviously there's a correlation between the work that goes on in the A96 to come together apart from anything else, so I think that it would have been a bit too crowded to have done those two things at the same time, but perhaps Michelle would be able to answer that. Yes, thanks cabinet secretary. Another major factor here is actually the availability of the supply chain and being able to have sufficient market when you go to the market to construct those projects, that you're not flooding the market so that you can achieve a sort of value for money construction costs on those. So it's important for the civil engineering industry in Scotland that we're able to provide a pipeline of projects where we can, and with the three big projects finishing shortly, the AWPR at the Queensford Crossing and the M8M73M74, it's timely now to be able to bring forward the A9 projects next and again after that to bring forward the A96. So it works in a variety of ways and actually what it does is it sustains that industry in Scotland. It certainly has been a fantastic number, the last number of years, the amount of work that's going on and the number of jobs, construction jobs and being on some of the projects. I've had the distinction of going under the M74 and the new opening of the underpass at the Wraith and it's quite marvellous, but it was marvellous for a few days and then it was flooded. Why? There was a snagging issue which was, you'll know the Wraith underpass better than me, it's completely or substantially under the water table and one of the big projects, parts of the project, was to get the water pumps which were there in order to allow the construction works to take place and as you know it's substantially below ground and then essentially a large, it's not a pale, but structure which then prevented the water coming in. So they did, as you're right, they say a few days afterwards have an issue with some water ingress which they've stopped and they've done, they're doing some further work on finding the source of that. The actual structure itself remains under the water table, the pumps have gone now, but as I say it's not continued, it's stopped and they'll do further investigations. And you do get, if you remember back to the M74 project, each project's different, but that one was, a lot of it was on stilts and you had some collapsing of some parts of the surface which is not at all unusual. So you do get snags, the important thing I think as they've fixed it very quickly. Basically again, the point of anticipation of timescales of when work will be finished, when did we anticipate the M74, M73 project would be finished and what now is the anticipated time of getting all this all cleared away? Well the answer is the same for both, we said I think the spring of this year and that's what we intend to do. And just to say that you've quite rightly mentioned the number of projects which have been undertaken, you could have mentioned the hags to steps project as well, the M74 itself. These have been done, as with the borders rail on time. I was in Berlin yesterday, the airport there is six years overdue and hugely over budget. I think we've had a pretty remarkable record. Huge infrastructure projects are hard to bring in on time, especially when you go into rail, but we have had a pretty good track record and I can see the end of this in sight. I have to say that you have helped me and my constituents and the people of Scotland tremendously with these new projects and I was, especially, also had a couple of days ago, went round the diversion which was quite interesting but I can see the point of it. Is there anything else that you think has to be done in regard to those projects in order to ensure that they are completed? You never take your foot off the accelerator with all those projects and I think the M8 bundle, that's required a lot of work to make sure that we get this done on time working with the contractor. It's true of all the contracts and it's really pleasing to see that it's come on board in a way as it's provided a lot of employment and I think, as I said in the last time I came to the committee, it's perhaps not had the attention that it deserves. It'll make a major transformation in central Scotland, but the Queensbury crossings have dominated that agenda. One last question. An allergy of the cabinet secretary, because I've got two questions. Could you check in your rear view mirror just before you launch into a question and could you make it short, please? Peter Chapman asked about complaints. Have you had many complaints from people that run alongside those projects and how are we doing to resolve them? We have, not least from yourself and others, and I think it's true to say that you cannot undertake these huge projects without sometimes having those concerns, especially around diversions where people are used to travelling a particular route and they can't do it during the period of construction. We've tried to be as sympathetic as we possibly can be and we'll continue to do that. Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, we've got two more questions and I would like to try and get them both in, so if I could encourage the questioners to be short and short answers. Can I ask about any plans to dual B9 North, because it's only been dual as far as in Vernest, and before that happens, progress on the Berrydale breeze, which in the public inquiry has been concluded? When will that work start? When will it be complete? On the first points, we don't have currently plans to upgrade. We always examine the trunk roads and see where we can improve them, but we don't have plans to dual that, and I think that the road usage would be very hard to justify that level of investment. Certainly, there should be improvement, but not to dual standard. On the second issue, I don't know, as my colleague Amza Yousaf, that now takes over that particular project. It's not one of the major projects, very important locally. I was very pleased that we were able to bring it forward, Transport Minister, but we can either talk to Amza Yousaf and make sure that there is an update provided in writing to the committee just exactly where we are at. The public inquiry hasn't been concluded or Amza Yousaf can come to the committee. He's coming on 29 March, so I'm sure that we can make sure that that question is part of the thing. I'd like to go to the final question, which is from Mary. You mentioned in your statement at the beginning there about the Lawrence Kirk junction. A couple of weeks ago, we had an engagement event that was held in Lawrence Kirk with Transport Scotland and Amy. From what I understand, from speaking to the people there, it was very well attended. Mike attended on the day as well. The reception of that was quite well. I think that it went a long way to addressing a lot of the concerns that people have had and contacted me about why the project length and the different stages of the project too. It's just really to see what the plans are for future engagement with the community in Lawrence Kirk. Obviously, why do communities in the Angus and Aberdeenshire areas who are affected by the junction? It will be for Amza Yousaf to take that forward. My involvement, and it really was because it worked into the Aberdeenshire region deal, which I had been involved in, but I don't know if Michelle wants to say anything. I should just say that it is my view that I've been involved in these things now for a number of years. The more engagement you can have, and sometimes it's difficult, the better the final result will be. People are more accepting of it, but I don't know if you want to say more than that. Over the next year or so, we hope to undertake more work on options assessment for the junction itself. In doing that, we will continue our consultation with local residents and local communities. That will allow us to start the statutory processes during that period. As part of those statutory processes, built into those, if you like, there is a process for engaging with local communities and allowing us to be able to receive feedback, both formal and informal feedback, which helps us to adjust our designs and to make them more acceptable to those communities. John Scott wants to ask a question, and Stuart might just get one in very quickly at the end. John, if I can ask you to be brief. Cabinet Secretary, you wouldn't necessarily have this information at hand, but perhaps a few of your officials could provide it. With £6 billion projects with the A986, both those roads roughly have a rail line that mirrors the general route. There is very modest expenditure on the upgrade of both those lines. I wonder if a timeline has been prepared about the projections about modal shift, unfortunately rail to road, and what the implications would be for the road and rail networks of that. If that could be provided, please. John Scott, could you add your question to that and maybe they could be answered together? My question is quite a simple one. In planning for the Inverness to Nair and Dooling, are you interfacing with the plan new railway station at Inverness Airport? John Scott's last question is yes. That has been taken into account. On John's finish point, it will come back. It will be at Humza Yousaf that will take a relationship to the major projects that I am involved in. In relation to the city deal, the improvement works of the Inverness to Aberdeen line are meant to be complementary. I think that it is around £270 million, but as I say, it is Humza that is taking it forward. I am more than happy to come back to the committee and to remember about the extent to which we are taking into account modal shifts. There are two new stations, for example, proposed on that line at Kentor and Dalkross. That is obviously designed to encourage people to use the train in those locations rather than the road. It has been taken into account, but my colleague Humza Yousaf will come back and write if that is okay. I am under pressure for one more question, and I am minded to that very quickly. It is more than Michelle, really. In Lawrence Square, for many years, we have been on top of this. I know that you have to go through a process of options, but there is only one practical option, because we have to get the road from Fedicain. That practical option is the southern junction. Everybody really knows that is the one. It is where all the junction activity the Government has been involved with. Is there any way of speeding that process up? I can assure Mr Rumbles that we are going as quickly as we possibly can, but in order for us to complete the statutory processes in a robust way that ensures that we do not have to revisit them and add more time to the programme, we need to give proper consideration to each of the options. Okay, and I'm definitely going to end this session here. I'd like to thank the cabinet secretary if there's anything you'd like to say before you leave, or are you happy that the points that you wanted to put across have been made? I am happy with that, and I will if it's okay with yourself and the committee convener, come back to you when we have substantial updates. We can't always be as open as we'd like to be about developments, some of them are commercially confidential, but where we have, especially in the projects that you've previously expressed an interest in, we are not trying to keep anybody in the dark, sometimes we're not able to say as much as we'd like, but we want to keep the committee as aware. We see this as the preferred route for doing that, of course, if there's something substantial we would go to Parliament, but I will continue. Please, as with last time when I came and asked to speak to the committee, don't think there's some great revelation, but we will try and keep the committee as updated as we can, especially given where we're at with some very substantial projects coming to conclusion now. Okay, thank you Cabinet Secretary, thank you Michelle and Graham for attending the meeting. I'm going to spend the meeting briefly to allow a change over of witnesses, thank you. Thank you. Now I move on to agenda item 2 on the committee's agenda today, which is the fourth replacement crossing. I welcome David Climie, the project director and Lawrence Shackman, the project manager for the fourth replacement crossing team. David, would you like to make an opening statement on how things are progressing? Certainly, yes. We're very pleased to be here this morning to update the committee on progress made since our last appearance on 14 December. I can confirm that the project outturn cost range remains as £1.325 to £1.35 billion and that we continue to be targeting May for opening to traffic. We expect to be making an announcement on the precise date and the opening events being planned in the next few weeks following a further programme review of all finishing activities by FCBC, the contractor. While it has been a relatively mild and dry winter, we've still encountered regular windy conditions, which have continued to affect the stay cable installation, tower crane removal and tower fault work removal in particular. However, the contractor FCBC has continued to make significant efforts to mitigate the effects of the wind by resequencing, reprogramming and adding additional resources as and where possible. The site workforce has averaged 1,282 in the past 12 months and is currently running at nearly 1,350. Due to the changing nature of the works that we're doing now to completion, over 600 new workers have received a site induction since we returned to work in January. Focusing on progress on the principal contract, on the south side the roadworks are substantially complete with final landscaping and planting works continuing. Work on the local roads around Queensferry has also been virtually completed in the period. On the Queensferry crossing itself, all the deck units have now been lifted into place, with the last one being lifted on 3 February. I'm sure that you will have noticed from the media coverage that day that the focus was very much on the site workforce. It showed very clearly that they are highly dedicated, motivated and enthusiastic and were all of Scotland and indeed the world to know about the success of the bridge and to celebrate it. The final 400 millimetre gap between the south approach viaducts and the cable staid bridge was jacked closed on 27 February on the southbound side and 1 March on the northbound side. Final welding of the joints is currently in progress and then the final four deck concrete pores will be carried out to complete the main bridge deck. That will allow the inside of the boxes to be made weathertight and allow the installation and commissioning of the deck dehumidification equipment, as well as the on-going installation of electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems throughout the structure. On the deck finishing activities, all the stay cables have been installed on the south and centre towers and there are only two stay cables remaining to be lifted at the north tower. Work on installing the vehicle restraint barriers and the wind shielding has progressed well, with 80 per cent of the posts erected and 8 per cent of the acrylic louvers positioned. Deck water proofing commenced on 5 January in the central reservation and on 27 January on the main carriageway, and so far 8 per cent of the surface area has been completed to date. An initial delivery of deck asphalt was laid on 15 February, followed by 400 tonnes on 17 February, which was laid in about four hours and covered a 350 metre length of the southbound carriageway. That is being the first of two layers of binder course, which will be covered by the final surfacing immediately prior to opening. Three out of the four of the bridge expansion joints have been installed. Work started on removal of the first tower crane at the north tower on 21 January and has now well progressed, but this has been a particularly frustrating area for FCBC with no work possible due to wind between the 11th and 27th of February, as we needed a 48-hour window with winds below 25 miles an hour to remove the supports that attach to the towers and remove the crane mast sections. The temporary trestles and platforms on either side of the north tower were removed on 29 and 30 January and then 23 and 24 February. Once the tower crane is removed, the remaining concrete section of deck with the crane's mast was located can be cast. Those activities will be repeated at the centre and south towers over the next two months. On the north side roadworks, the main line A90 was diverted over the new emergency crossover alignment just before Christmas for northbound traffic and on the 20th of January for southbound traffic. That released the area for construction of the new southbound slip roads from the new ferry toll junction to the Queensferry crossing and for the public transport link to the Forth Road bridge. Work on Hope Street and Inverceering and the reconfigured park and ride facility of ferry toll should be completed by the end of this month. Work on the intelligent transport systems, the ITS, and the bridge control room fit out, are continuing to be progressed. Regular handover meetings have been taking place with Amy, the Forth bridges operating company, to prepare them for the operation and maintenance of the bridge and the approach roads after opening. Community relations continue to be extremely good with the north and south community forums meeting as a single entity for the second time in February. We have now had over 70,000 people attend an event relating to the Forth replacement crossing with nearly all of those being held in the projects, contacts and education centre. Of those, more than 20,000 of them are school pupils who have attended from all across Scotland. Thank you. Thank you, David. A very comprehensive brief. Mike, would you like to ask the first question? Thank you very much, convener. I would like to focus on the money, if you like, the budget for the project. After your last appearance, you sent a letter to the convener on 23 January, which was very helpful. You have confirmed again in your opening statement that the current budget is £1.35 billion. In your letter, you said that the reduction of £245 million in the project budget is due to two things. One, a reduction of £192 million for lower than expected inflation. The remaining saving of £53 million is a reduction in the allowance for risk and optimism bias. That brings it down to the figure that you have confirmed of £1.35 billion. In your letter, you said that at that budget of £1.35 billion, it includes a new estimate for inflation of just £45 million. I was really wondering now that inflation is rising again. Is that £45 million sufficient in the budget? Is that a result now because it is a fixed-price contract? The two questions that you have asked. Firstly, inflation is starting to rise, and you are quite correct. We are seeing that in the construction indices now. Over the past four years, what we have traditionally seen is that it initially gets a provisional index and then it has made a final index about three months later. In the past four years, we have seen a blip in the summer when the provisional indices had kicked up, and subsequently, when they had been made final, they dropped back again. We have not seen that this time, in that the indices are continuing to rise, and for the first time there is an upward curve on it now. The benefit that we have is that, because of the extent of the project, we are over 95 per cent complete, there is very little of the remaining money to be paid that is exposed to inflation. Therefore, the £45 million that we are talking about is very confident that that will not change and that it can be achieved. The second point that you asked, could you just remind me what it was? That is therefore the budget of £1.35 billion. That would not have increased, because it is basically a fixed-term contract. That is correct, yes. We still firmly believe that the £1.35 billion is a ceiling. That is the ceiling, and the reduction is down to inflation, and as you say here, reduced allowance for risk and optimism bias. That is correct. John Swinney, you got the next question. Thank you, convener. You mentioned that the weather had been a bit of an effect, and that was what, 16 days that you could not work because of the wind on the cranes. Has that been the only major problem? I do not think that the frost and the snow has been too severe. That is true. You have characterised the wind service being reasonably favourable. If you look out the window today, it is a beautiful sunny day. At the moment, it is blowing 40 miles an hour on the bridge deck out at the bridge, which means that there are a number of operations that cannot go on. It has been quite typical of the winter, in that it has been bright and sunny, but the wind has been quite an issue over the period. We have focused on the areas that affect the tower crane removal and the stay-cable installation. It is the stay-cable installation at the top, at the tower end, that is the issue. Down at the deck level that you have seen for yourselves, the work there can continue, even when the wind is blowing quite significantly. Obviously, the more wind shielding that we are able to install, the more benefit that actually gives the workers on the deck for carrying out those activities. The work on the deck is progressively becoming less wind sensitive, but it does not take away the issue with the trestles underneath the deck, loving to lower those onto barges and also to remove the tower crane. Particularly on the tower crane, I would just like to expand on that a little bit more, if I might. We started dismantling the north tower crane on 21 January. The key issue with the tower cranes is that, as you have seen up till now, the main jub of the tower crane is above the level of the tower. That means that, when the wind blows, the crane acts like a weather vane. Once the wind gets about 40 miles an hour and the crane cannot operate, the crane jub points the way that the wind is blowing, and what that does is it minimises the load on the mast. Once we start to lower the crane down, at that point, the crane jub is blocked by the tower from being able to rotate, so we actually have to lock the crane mast in its set position, which runs parallel to the bridge deck. What that means is that, if we get significant winds, that puts much more load on the crane mast than would normally happen. Therefore, there was a constraint when we were starting to lower the tower crane, which was once we were beyond the top of the tower, before we could take the next tie section to the tower out, and the next mast sections down, we needed a 48-hour window with no winds above 25 miles an hour. We were ready to start that operation on 11 February, and we just did not get that 48-hour window until the 27 February. When we did get it, which is nine days ago now, we have progressed very quickly, we have got three of the ties out, all of the jub is now removed from the crane and work can progress, but there is the potential that we could get a similar issue arising with the centre and the south tower cranes, so that could happen. We are not saying that it will, but it could. However, what FCBC has done to mitigate that is that originally they were going to do the cranes sequentially, so they would do the north and the south and the centre. They are now mobilising to be able to work on the south and the centre simultaneously, so that if the suitable weather comes along, we can make the most of it. Mitigation is in effect for those items. I mean, for somebody who does not know very much like myself, a layperson, presumably the cranes do have to be completely out of the way before you can open the bridge. Indeed they do, yes. Because you said that it gets filled in with concrete. That is right. Right, so is that the biggest risk weather-wise that there continues to be winds and that restricts the removal of the cranes? I mean, I do not know if there is issues around if it is very wet, does that cause a problem with the road surfacing? Wet is also an issue, yes, and more with the waterproofing that goes on the deck rather than the road surfacing itself, because the key to road surfacing is that all the various layers have to stick together well. You do not want the thing to start splitting apart and creating potholes. The issue with the waterproofing is that you must have a dry surface to put the waterproofing down. It is a spray-applied rubber membrane, so what you must guarantee is that you have a dry surface before you put that rubber membrane down. Therefore, you must have dry conditions for that. If you do not have a dry surface, what happens is that when you apply the asphalt on top of the waterproofing, you are applying the asphalt and it is very hot, and what it does is that any moisture trapped underneath the waterproofing vaporises that moisture. That creates a bubble in the waterproofing and actually pushes up and cracks the asphalt that you have immediately placed. What it means is that we can check immediately after we have put the first layer of asphalt down to make sure that there is no issue like that. There is a check within the overall process to make sure that it has been dry when it has been put down, but it is very important that it is dry. Those are the biggest two risks for the next two or three months that would be the wind and if it was very wet. Correct. The two rate determining factors are that the waterproofing goes significantly slower than the laying of the asphalt does. Once we have an area of asphalt to go at, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we have laid 350 metres of a single carriageway in about four hours. The asphalt can be placed much more quicker than the waterproofing can be applied. The two rate determining factors are getting the tower cranes down so that we can close the holes in the deck, which is wind-related, and then applying the waterproofing, which is water-related. So you are 99 per cent sure that we are on target for time? 98? 99 per cent. Did I not like that? You wouldn't like to put a figure on that. Perhaps. Are there your thoughts? The cabinet secretary, when he was here and talking about it, said the word hope three times. I think that we felt that that was fine at that stage. We are quite keen to tie you down to a period. Is it going to be ready before the end of May? That continues to be our target, and I expect it to be achieved. I cannot give you a guarantee. There are no guarantees. Let me, as an example, give you a long-range weather forecast, which I received in the Met Office first thing this morning. For the period from Sunday 12 March to Tuesday 21 March, remaining unsettled for much of the UK. It will be rather windy with showers or longer spells of rain. However, conditions are likely to become drier, brighter and less windy as we head into the new working week, particularly across southern and eastern areas. During this time, we will probably still see occasional bands of rain moving in from the west to affect mainly the north of the UK. Later in the period, it may well gradually become more unsettled and windy again across the country with gales in the northwest at times. Temproses will probably be slightly above average, but still with the risk of night frosts, especially in central and southern parts. That is the next two weeks for the period from— David, I have to say, I think that you have certainly done it first. I do not think that ever that a committee has had the weather forecast read to you. Maybe that is a distraction method. Can I just try and pin you down one more time? Is your hope more than hope? Is it a realistic option if things go well? No, absolutely yes. It is still a realistic possibility to get traffic on the bridge in May. If it wasn't, I would tell you. However, I will not guarantee it for the reasons that I have just outlined. I think that Gail will ask you a question on more mundane things than the weather. Good morning. Thank you for coming in. I think that it is worth mentioning in the front page of your update, along with the fantastic picture of the last segment getting lifted into place, that we now have the tallest bridge in the UK and the longest three-towered cable-stayed bridge in the world. That is quite something. I do not take it the wrong way, but I do not think that I have ever been as excited about a bridge as I am about this one. It is absolutely beautiful. You mentioned landscaping in your opening statement. I know that we did speak about this when we were visiting at the end of October. You also say in the update that last year you put in 40,000 trees and shrubs this year, a further 50,000, but the target is 400,000 trees and shrubs. Can you tell us a little bit more about where they come from, where they were sourced, what they are, what type of trees they are, and considering that you have quite a bit more planting to do, is there a timescale for the planting? Obviously, that is going to continue once the bridge is open. I will start. In terms of the landscaping and the supply of the trees and plants and so on, what we wanted to ensure was that we had Scottish provenance for all the plants and trees that were going to be supplied. We did not leave that up to the contractor. We placed a direct order with an English-based company, but all the provenance of the materials is from Scotland. Basically, it is a call-off contract. We told them that we might outline what it is that we want, and the contractor then calls them off in terms of what they want and paid for what they plant. There is a rate for planting trees, shrubs, grasses and so on. That guarantees that we get the right provenance of what we are planting. In terms of the programme, we have a planting season that runs from October through to March. That is the time when we are not going to put things in dry ground. Inevitably, that means that not everything will be done by March of this year, and therefore we will go into the next planting season, October through to the end of the year, in terms of finishing off the planting. There will still be some to be done at that point, but it is a relatively small amount. Just in the areas where the final road changes were made on the north side, so it is a very limited area in terms of that. I will just say that the contractor FCBC is responsible for maintaining all that planting through the five-year defect notification period. On the other two earlier contracts that were completed four years ago, all the plants and shrubs that were planted in those contracts have been maintained through all that period, making sure that there are any failures at all that they are replaced and that they are sourced through the contract that we competitively tended some years ago now. Can you tell me if there has been any new issues of concern raised by local residents or businesses during the last couple of months? If there has, how have we resolved these? I think community engagement, we are very much still ongoing with engagement with the communities, both on an individual level and with the community forums. In terms of the forums, we last met on the 28th of February, and that is the means of the local community groups and previous objectives to the scheme. In fact, coming together and representing the views of their colleagues and the residents of Queensfree in the Keithing Recife, etc. They are now focusing more on what will happen post-opening. I touched on the bridge users guide at the last meeting. They are keen to understand that. We have shared that with them, so they know how the road network is going to work to some extent. They are keen to know how it is going to be maintained and who will be responsible for it. We are in the process of setting up meetings to let them know that once we open the bridge, the role of the operating company, AME, the local authorities for the local roads and FCBC will have obligations under the contract for a period as I touched on for the landscaping, for example. Those are the main issues. They are also keen to understand the remaining activities and when they will be completed, and some of the other obligations that were placed in the fourth crossing act, such as the footpath cycleway that is being constructed from the A904 down to the south abutment of the bridge and back up the other side to form a bypass of the Queensfree junction. I am trying to give them an indication of when that work will be finished. Some additional works to improve footpaths on society road, which we said that we would undertake as the clear up process from the south side of the fourth and progressed southwards as the contractor is tidying up his site. That work will be undertaken during 2017. That is a brief flavour of the issues that we are discussing with the local communities. You have anticipated my next question. As a child, I was fortunate to go along and see the new fourth road bridge. What sort of things will we ensure that we will continue to work with AME and local communities to ensure that people can again commemorate one of the most iconic buildings? The three bridges together are absolutely fantastic. One of the key things is that the contact and education centre. We also touched on that at the last time that we are in front of this committee. We are fully intending to keep that going way into 2018 and engage with the schools. As we have been, David mentioned that we have now had over 20,000 pupils attend events in the contact centre since January 2013. We fully intend to keep that going. We will put a case forward to try to make sure that a similar facility is going well into the future. There is a little bit of work to do to flesh that out. I think that you are right. It is an iconic bridge and the whole situation is a world first having three bridges from three different centuries in the same location. There is work from Visit Scotland and Event Scotland. We are talking to them quite considerably in terms of the marketing of the area going forward for not only the local economy but also to market Scotland as a whole. So, there is a lot of potential there. The education legacy side of things could go on. The next question is on public transport and comes from John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Thank you for your update. We have had an update on public transport and I know that there has been engagement with the bus operators and some training already undertaken. We were able to indicate what the likely changes to bus service operations are going to be. The bus operators came in for a training day on 28 February. We took them through a comprehensive run-through of all the bus facilities. Bus hard shoulder running facilities are looked back on what we built as part of the two original contracts. All the new facilities being built around the ferritole park and ride, the fact that they will be able to use the hard shoulders on the Queensfree crossing when buses are wind affected on the existing bridge, for example. We gave them a comprehensive run-through and they seem to be really pretty impressed with what facilities they are going to be given. Obviously, going into the future, we would hope that the bus operators will have more services. We are looking towards having an education programme to try to ensure that the public is informed as much as possible about the potential for using bus as opposed to using car, in terms of getting to Edinburgh in the main. There is a programme that we need to set up or we will be setting up in the future to try and encourage people out of their cars and use the buses. That would help to stimulate bus use in the future. We are aware of the strategy and the fact that there is a public transport group. On previous occasions when you have been here, I have asked about the wider implications of that and I understand that there were engagements with the local authorities, the Lothians councils for instance. Is that on-going? I quite appreciate your obligation as to that crossing. Clearly, if you funnel people quickly into an area, there are potentially significant implications for the wider road network. The public transport working group met in the middle of December at the last meeting, and we have another meeting planned for April. A large portion of that group came to the bus training day, so all the relevant local authorities attended that event. In terms of working with them going forward, we see that public transport working group extending into the future. A fair bit after the crossings opened, because we are keen to see how all of the bus facilities work and to see whether we can meet all the requirements in terms of the reliability of bus journeys and, obviously, hoping to stimulate further growth in the bus sector. Aside from that, we will do monitoring in the future on the project as a whole in terms of journey time reliability. We will try to capture patronage in our before-and-after reporting, which we will do at intervals post-opening, one year, three years, perhaps five years after opening. We will get some feedback as to how the measures have been implemented, how successful they have been and how, hopefully, they have stimulated further journeys. I have a very small point. Can you comment on foot traffic and cyclists and how they all fit in in the new arrangements, please? Yes, they are obviously featured, to some extent, in the user's guide, which I have mentioned previously, but we will certainly be wanting to encourage people to continue to use the fourth road bridge for cycling and walking. Of course, as I mentioned before, we are freed from all the motorway traffic, if you like, which will be all on the Queensbury crossing. The fourth road bridge should be a much nicer environment for doing those activities, so, hopefully, it will be self-perpetuating, because it will be such a much more pleasant surrounding. We also have a lot more cycleway and footpath facilities built in at either end of the bridge in terms of the connecting roads, links into Park and Ride, to North Queensbury on the north side and South Queensbury on the south. Wherever possible, we have tried to improve on the cycle and footpath facilities. Many thanks indeed. Jamie, you wanted to ask about the user's guide a bit, did you? Yes, I wanted to move things forward a little bit from the information around the build, progress and update, and they have been very helpful and useful. As we move into more of the looking beyond the opening, we have a few questions around some of the water scenarios. I think that the main one is that, given that we do not have a definitive opening date, I guess that I have a question that is around the notice period that users will need around the opening. At which point will you take a view on that? I am not asking whether or not you will hit the deadline. That is a different discussion, but from a practical point of view, in four weeks' time, we are confident that we will be able to open so that users are aware of it. I think that we are getting really close to that point, to be quite honest. Certainly, I would expect that within the next three or four weeks we will be very close to that point. However, when you say that people will need to know, it is going to be fairly self-explanatory because what has happened is that we have built the emergency crossovers at either end of the bridge. It is not quite like shifting a set of points on a railway line, but in terms of the main A90, we will overnight change the barriers and that will divert traffic on to the new alignment, so that all the motorway traffic will be diverted from the Forter Road Bridge on to the Queensfordie crossing. For 99.5 per cent of the traffic, it will be literally that the barriers will move to either end of the bridge and they will be going on to the Queensfordie crossing. For the public transport, people like the buses, the taxis and so on, who will be able to use the Forth Road Bridge, that is really where the road users' guide is specifically directed to give them some more help on that. What we are intended to do is, in the four weeks before the final date, we will be doing some extensive publicity in terms of what is going to be happening, in terms of the traffic management, when the changeovers are going to take place and what they are going to look like, because we have done that very successfully throughout the works in the ferry toll area, so we intend to do exactly the same thing again for the main opening. Just from your answer, it sounds like from a road traffic carp on to you, it should be quite self-explanatory. Once the change takes place, drivers should be able to follow relevant signage, I presume all that would have been used, tested and so on. From all other users' point of view, you mentioned in the last visit to the committee that you would produce a guide. Any updates on when that will be produced, what sort of content will be in it, who it is going to, how it will be distributed, what type of users it is going to be distributed to, just so that we have got comfort, I guess, that all other users other than cars will be comfortable with the new method of travel? The road user's guide itself, we did actually send a draft of it to you after our last appearance. We have had some feedback from various people since then. The final version of it has now been produced, and the intention is that, in the four-week period before we do that, we will be distributing it very widely and making it available on our website as well. We are looking at a print run of probably around 10,000 as well as distributing it through all the various associations, local authorities, bus companies and so on that we deal with, taxi firms as well. There is a good plan there for making sure that we get this information distributed out. It is a very comprehensive guide, so that no matter what type of vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist or motorcyclist you are, you will be able to very clearly identify where to go. There is about 10,000 being printed and distributed, not to everyday households, but to specific user groups, is that right? That is right. I think that the immediate area will probably distribute them to individual households as well, because they are the people who will be most affected by the local roads, so I will make that very clear. Just on quickly on your public awareness campaign, has that included some above the line media spend on letting people know about the change? Yes, that is very much built into our overall comms budget. It is a fundamental part of the strategy of comms to make sure that it is well publicised. We have a good template for it and what we have done at very tall with all the information there, so we intend to build on that and expand on that for it. We will also have drop-in sessions for the public. They can call into the contact and education centre if they need any further information. We are certainly having some public meetings as well, so if anyone has got particular queries, we can answer those for them. Pisa, have you got a small question? I think that you have made it fairly clear that it should be pretty obvious to folk. When new roads are open, there are often bits of confusion. If somebody does get it wrong and they land up in the wrong bridge for whatever reason, how are you going to enforce that? Are there going to be any penalties for folk that do get it wrong in the first few weeks? I think that there will need to be a transition period inevitably. People can make mistakes clearly when things are new, but on the slip roads to the fourth road bridge, there will be very clear signage as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. That will be monitored also by automatic number plate recognition systems, a big brother to a degree, but the fourth road bridge does have an existing CCTV camera system, so that is monitored regularly as well to make sure of that. We intend to enhance police presence in the initial stages to direct people, as much as anything, not to try to be overzealous at the start, because we obviously anticipate things will happen. Perhaps similarly on the Queensferry crossing, one thing that we are considering is that it is going to be a motorway, so the normal speed limit will be 70 miles an hour. We are considering at the moment the possibility that when we do initially open it, run it at 50 miles an hour, because people are driving over it for the first time. There is always that tendency to look around at what is going on instead of focusing on where they should be going. We have certainly been talking with the police about this, and it may well be that for an initial period, again, just till people get used to using it, we might put a 50-mile-an-hour speed limit on it, because that would just seem sensible in terms of people getting used to it. That does not give you the right to a last nostalgic trip over the bridge. No, the A and P are. Sorry, Richard, you have a small question. People who do not know the area, what about SACNAV updating to say that this bridge is now open, because your SACNAV takes you anywhere it wants to go? That is absolutely true. I will make sure that, within our communication strategy, we are in contact with the SACNAV companies to make sure that that is dealt with. Just a supplementary question about traffic diversions. At times of high wind, the new bridge is able to cope with that, the old bridge is not so. Given that the old bridge is dealing with public transport and the like, is there the ability to easily divert that on to the new bridge? Will there be any priority given that the diversion is going to create a delay? Yes, a lot of thought went into how we would try and safeguard public transport and try to keep the journey times as reliable as possible when there were high winds. Single-deckers and double-deckers are affected by the high wind strategy on the fourth row bridge when the wind speed gets up to 50mph. In those situations, we have signage, variable message signing, which will indicate to buses that they should use the Queen's Free Crossing. In normal traffic conditions, they would just use the normal running lanes on the Queen's Free Crossing. Should the Queen's Free Crossing become congested and the variable speed limits are reduced down, then buses can use the hard shoulders on the Queen's Free Crossing and they will be directed to do that. They can bypass the slower-moving traffic just as they do on the 5-5-TS bus lane that we have in place at the moment. Therefore, preserving as much as possible the vehicle routing for buses and the journey time reliability. They will be directed from the ferry toll junction, if you are coming southwards, up to use the Queen's Free Crossing to then go into the hard shoulders. They run along the hard shoulders and then back off at the other end to their desired destination. Minimising the disruption. Will similar be available to, for instance, if there was an accident on the new crossing to divert traffic from the new crossing to the old bridge and if there was a wide load or something that was likely to slow traffic, could that be diverted as well? If there was to be an incident on the Queen's Free Crossing, we would remember that we have hard shoulders on the Queen's Free Crossing, so we have a much better facility for providing resilience should a vehicle break down or there be an incident. There is a lot more room for vehicles to get past in the first place, whereas on the fourth road bridge there is no hard shoulders and any incident culminates in a tailback really pretty quickly. We also have all the variable message signing. We have the lane control facilities to close lane with a red cross, which you have probably seen on the motorway network elsewhere in Scotland and the UK. We can control speed limits. If there was an incident that was of a long duration, I cannot really say definitively what a long duration is, but of a reasonable duration, it is possible, as David mentioned before, to reopen the emergency crossovers so that traffic could use the fourth road bridge. There are three more questions that Jamie-Morris wants to answer. Based on what you just said, I probably should not answer this, but is there central reservation on the bridge, or have you talked about variable lanes? Does that include the flow of traffic? Could you, for example, have a four-and-a-two or a three-and-a-three or a two-and-a-two, or what are the variation parameters that you have on that? The Queen's Free Crossing has a central reserve, and all the stay cables are in the central reserve, so there's no means of crossing over the carriageways. The bridge itself has two lanes in each direction with hard shoulders, and as I say, they've got lane control units over each lane at regular intervals, and variable message signing at regular intervals all the way through the project corridor to try and control the traffic, but no, we can't do four plus two or tidal flow conditions. We can't do that, I'm afraid. As a committee, any other questions? I think that Mike's got a question, and then I've got a question at the end, if I may. Thanks, convener. It's just coming back to money, because this morning the end date of the end of May has been heavily caveated both by yourself and the Minister earlier on. My question really is, what happens if the bridge isn't completed by the contractual date in June, because it's the contractual date in June that we're up against? Are there any more costs to the public purse if that happens, or do the contractors pick up the bill on a fixed price contract? On your first point, you say that it's heavily caveated. I took up this post nearly seven years ago, in April 2010. If someone had said to me that seven years later, I would have sat in front of a committee discussing a two or three-week variation in the opening date of the project. With the overall budget, in comparison to where it was when I joined the project, when it was £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion, I would have bitten their hand off. You say that we're caveating it. We're now on a seven-year project talking about a very small window of time. Are you therefore saying to us—and I'd be relieved if you are—that, in fact, in your opinion, you're 100 per cent certain that it won't go beyond the contractual date in June? I think it's quite difficult to ask somebody to be 100 per cent certain. I think that the question you've asked, which David maybe could just answer, is just if there is unforeseen circumstances, whether there is an implication to the budget's plan, because I actually think it's unfair to ask him to be 100 per cent, because you can never be 100 per cent on most things in life. Except that he just said two or three weeks, and that would mean that he would be certain that that would happen. No, no, no. I'd rather David ask the question on the money, if I may. Thank you. In terms of the money, if there is no overrun on the contract completion date, there is no risk to the public purse in terms of that being extra cost. Anything that runs past the contract date would be entirely down to the contractor, so there is no risk at all to the budget of going past the contract completion date. That's categorically 100 per cent. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you for that 100 per cent guarantee. David, I just want to ask a question to you. Is the first year going to be absolutely critical once the bridge is open? I'd just like some reassurance from you in the process of handing it over to the operator and the maintenance of it, and I'd like some assurances on what work is on going. There will be periods of hand-holding to make sure that everything works and people understand, and perhaps you could just explain a bit of that to me, please, David. Certainly. Obviously, you're aware that there's a fourth bridges operating contract. Currently, Amy is the holder of that contract, and that's led by Mark Arndt. He's the lead for Amy on that. I think he's appeared in front of this committee a number of occasions. We've had a very close relationship with the fourth bridges operating company and previously FETTA even before that, because this goes back right to the very design stage of the bridge. We involve them in maintenance of what they wanted built into it. This has been an on-going process very much since day one. Since Amy has come into position about two years ago, we've worked with them very closely. They come and they're technicians and their operators come and work and look at what we're building as we build it so that you can see exactly how it's being put together. They've come out within the last couple of weeks and they've been inside the bridge deck to see all the various structural health monitoring and the mechanical and electrical equipment that's being installed. As part of FCBC's contract, they have an obligation to undertake training of all the Amy operatives to make sure that they're fully familiar with everything, how it links into the bridge control room, how the structural health monitoring system works. It's not a case of the bridge opens the traffic and we just hand over the keys and walk away, and neither does FCBC the contractor. There's an on-going obligation. In fact, a need that we anticipate in the first six months after the bridge opens, there'll be a significant amount of tweaking and adjustment and so on of various things and items on the bridge itself. If the structural health monitoring is showing up some odd readings to get all that checked out, verified, if a sensor isn't working, it might have to be replaced, that sort of thing. So there's a whole period of effectively handover. It's not a one-day, it's about a six-month period. We've worked that through a great deal of detail. In terms of the governance of that, we actually had Mark Arant come along to our project board last week to give them an update on how he felt things were. We'd been telling him from the project side of things, how it was going, and we asked him to come along and give their side of the story as well. I think he gave a very similar picture to the one that I've just given you, that there's very, very good engagement there, working very closely together, that will only increase over the next few weeks and will continue beyond the opening to traffic. OK, thank you. If there's another question, is there anything further that you think you'd like to bring to our attention, or do you believe that we've covered the majority of it already? I think that we've covered the majority of it, yes, thank you. OK, David Kerr and Lawrence, can I thank you for coming and can I say that I hope we don't see you before May? Because if we do see you, there will be a problem. But I think I can guarantee 100% that we'd like to see you later in the year to pick up on some of the project and to see where there are items that could be of relevance to future projects for Scotland. But I'd like to thank you and your team and hope that May is when we get to drive over the bridge. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to briefly suspend, no, I'd like to conclude that part of today's meeting in public session and suspend the meeting to allow the committee to move into private session. Thank you.