 We are now going to move into the public session of our formal meeting today, and I would like to welcome those people watching and taking part to the 16th meeting in 2019 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask everyone to be pleased to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent. This is a gender item 2, which is a transport update. I would have to say that we are somewhat later starting, which was, I believe, due to traffic problems this morning. The Cabinet Secretary, no doubt, will update us. What I would say to committee members before we go into this is that I will try and structure the meeting such that we do get on to the broadband issues that some people have raised, but there may be questions that we don't get to, and the Cabinet Secretary, I'm not sure, will be happy to acknowledge at the outset that we may ask him to write to those. With that in mind, I'd like to welcome the panel this morning, Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. With Alastair Graham, the head of planning and design, Alison Irvin, the director of transport strategy and analysis, Chris Wilcott, the director of aviation, maritime freight and canals, and Andrew Mackie, the head of rail franchising for the Scottish Government. Because we are so short on time, we will go straight into the questions, if we may, and the first question is going to be from John Finnie John. Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. If there are some questions about the delivery of the new ferries, can I ask if you have received the response to your letter to Ferguson Marine setting out the new programme and the cost of the MV Glen Sannocks and Hull 802 in ifness? If not, when do you expect to have that information, please? I apologise for the delay in arriving this morning. Of course, if there are any outstanding questions that need to be responded to after this session, I'm more than happy for us to provide a written response, if that is the committee. On the question raised by Mr Finnie, the director for economic development, the Scottish Government received the response at the beginning of May to request for further information from FMAO on their planned programme. She has since had to go back to them for further details around their time plan for the continued work on both the vessels and also the costs that are associated with them and are waiting for further details to be provided by FMAO. An initial response has been provided, but further information has been sought from them. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. CMAO has rejected a claim for additional costs from Ferguson Marine. Assuming that Ferguson Marine continues to claim those costs, how will the dispute resolution progress and what impact will that have on the delivery of the ferries? The committee will be aware that we have appointed someone independently in order to look at both sides of the dispute between CMAO and FMAO to try to provide ministers with an impartial independent view on the dispute between both parties. That work will probably take in the region of around four weeks to be complete. The process has already started. In terms of any costs that are attributable to CMAO, if that was the outcome, it would have to be through the normal process of loans from the Scottish Government to CMAO. However, at this stage, the premature for us to say that that is something that is in position around at present time, given the independent review that has been undertaken at present moment. Are you able to express any view on how confident you are about the fixed cost of £97 million being realised? It remains a fixed-price contract for both vessels. That remains the sum for their construction. However, anything above that would have to be fully attributable and identifiable as any additional costs that have occurred as a result of actions in the part of CMAO. At that particular point, the independent review will allow ministers to have an opinion in evaluating both sides of the dispute in this matter and to consider coming to a decision on the issue. However, if there are any additional costs that taxpayers have to meet through CMAO, it would be through the normal process of how loans are provided to CMAO for construction of vessels. What implications would that have for further ferry investments, because there is much needed with a growing, ageing fleet? In the longer term, if you could, what were to be improvements in the ferry service? At this stage, we are not anticipating any immediate impact on our ferry procurement programme at the present time, but we will have to wait to see what the final outcome is of any independent review and whether any additional costs associated with that for CMAO. I do not want to prejudice that and prejudge that, but that will have to be dealt with at that particular point. It has the potential for having an impact, but at this stage we have not arrived at that particular point. On services, for example, it is disappointing that we are in this position with the Glen Sanox and Hull 802 being so delayed. It means that we are not able to provide additional services that we would have wanted to. For example, on Arn and Campbelltown route, there was the intention of having two vessels throughout the year. That has not been possible as a result of the delay. The additional vessel 802 has been deployed into the Outer Hebridey service, which is no longer possible at the present time. That has been delayed and has an impact, not to try and help to mitigate some of that. You will be aware that, last August, we had the £3.5 million resilience fund, which was provided to CalMac to assist them in maintaining their existing vessels to try and help to improve reliability. We will provide a further £4 million in this financial year in order to allow that to continue to be supported, to try and help to mitigate some of the risks that are associated with vessels going off service. It has had an impact on our ability to provide greater resilience in some routes and enhance services in some routes as well. Will you undertake to keep the committee updated on developments around this issue? Of course. I am more than happy to do that and to make sure that you are kept informed as progress is made. When did you last visit the yard to inspect progress on the two vessels? Can you confirm to the committee that work on both vessels is currently on-going? I personally have not visited the yard. My ministerial colleague Paul Wheelhouse is. Alongside Derek Mackay, who is engaged with the trade unions, the advice that we get on progress relating to the two vessels is through CMAL. They also have an independent, appointed individual who undertakes valuation of the progress that has been made with the vessels and the work that has been progressed at that particular point. That information is then fed back to ministers as well on giving them an update on the progress that has been made. My second question was, can you confirm if work on both hulls is taking place? My understanding is that work has been undertaken on the Glen Sannocks, but I could not give you exact details on the A02. I do not know if Chris could give you details on that. The last figures that we had from CMAL indicated that people are still working on both vessels. So the resource has been spread across? In terms of the last figures that we have had from CMAL, which are probably a couple of weeks out of date, there are people still working on both A01 and A02. Is CMAL on-site monitoring progress, or is the Government just sending people periodically? CMAL has a permanent presence on-site. Can I ask about the potential impact of the cost on this? I appreciate that there is an independent arbitrator involved in identifying the cost overruns. We already know that the cost overruns are in the tens of millions already, notwithstanding any additional future cost to the build. If it is found that there is liability on the part of CMAL for an overrun, given that this was a fixed cost design and build contract, is it your opinion that those cost overruns will be met by the Scottish Government, that is to say, by the taxpayer? Why would it be in the form of loans to CMAL? How does that relate to the loans that have already been given to Ferguson? Is there any correlation between the two? The loans that were given to Ferguson, one was in relation to providing them with working capital for it, and the other part of the loan was in relation to helping them as a business and to diversify and develop their business. That is the purpose of the loans that were provided on our occasion. I will ask Chris to cover the exact process of the CMAL funding and the loans arrangement that would be necessary. The independent reviewer has been appointed to look at the dispute between both FML and CMAL to give ministers an independent view of the dispute between both of them and to give them an evaluation of that dispute. If there are found to be liabilities in the part of CMAL, then that is a matter, as I mentioned to Mr Finnie, that we would have to consider being providing CMAL with funding for in order to meet that. However, I do not want to get into speculating about the costs of that, because the process that we have set in place is one that we want to have undertaken partially, independently and to give ministers an informed position, so that we can then make a decision relating to the findings from that independent review. I will ask Chris to mention the process of any loans that had to be provided to CMAL. Just on that point, it is a technical point that the way that we fund the construction of vessels is through loans to CMAL that are then recovered through time through the charter agreement with the operator. That is just the standard way that we would fund vessels. We would just have to revisit that funding. I think that the cabinet secretary's point about it being premature and keen to maintain the integrity of the work that is on going. I am completely unclear when those loans were first announced—the £47 million that were lent to Ferguson Marine—we were told in the Parliament that they were to develop further business and allow the Ferguson Marine to expand. Are you now confirming that those loans were working capital to allow them to build the ferries, because the two statements do not tie up together? There are two separate loans that were provided to CMAL. One was in relation to developing the business, and that was to diversify. The other element was to support them with working capital. So there were two loans of £47 million? No. There was a loan of £15 million, which was provided for the purpose of working capital. There was a loan of £30 million, which was provided for the purpose of helping to develop and diversify the business. By default, that is an admission that the £97 million was never the fixed price, because if you have just said that you gave an additional loan directly to the yard, not via the due process, which presumably would be via CMAL, why did you give the money to Ferguson, not to CMAL, to give the money to Ferguson? It seems like an anomaly in terms of how these things are funded. No. The funding that has been provided for the two loans for the companies has come through a different route altogether. That is why the finance secretary is involved in it, because it was funding that was provided through agencies for the purpose of supporting the business. For example, if it was not doing ships or something else, it was about supporting that as a business and helping to support shipbuilding in the lower Clyde and helping to support them as a business. The financial, given the nature of the work that they were getting into and developing that idea, had financial challenges around working capital, and that is why the loan was provided as well. There is a measure in that for that money to be recovered to a taxpayer as well, because it is a loan. The loans that are provided to CMAL are a separate process altogether. It has just been outlined to you how we fund the construction of ships, how we have funded them and how we continue to fund them through CMAL. I think that we are really at the heart of this. What matters to folk is that the ferries are delivered. They are clearly way overschedule. CalMac, when they were previously before the committee, explained the extent to which that would put pressures on the existing fleet, given that the current vessels and operation of those routes are aging and on occasion go offline. Can you give us any indication or give people living on our island communities any indication as to when they might expect the new ferries in operation? You must have a rough idea. I completely agree with you on where we are with those two vessels, certainly not where any of us would want to be. We want to see those vessels being utilised and on routes at the present time. As it stands at the present moment, the indications are that they expect both vessels to be completed next year, one in the earlier part of the year or, I think, prior to the summer and one later in the year, which they are indicating. However, there are still some questions around their ability to keep to those timescales, which is why I mentioned to my response to John Finnie that the director of economic development is going back to him seeking further details and assurances around the timeframes that they have set out. I know why we went and saved Ferguson Marine, and I do not want to get into that, but what I want to ask is that we order two new ferries that are now delayed. The fleet is getting older, and we know that. What plans do you have to order future new ferries? Do you have any plans to order future new ferries? The ones that are on order now are delayed. Should we not be ordering other ferries just now? The next ferry that was due for replacement was the ferry that operates on the Eiler route. The design or specification for that particular vessel is on-going at the present time, so that process is on-going. With a view to finalising the specification of that, we are then looking to put that out to procurement. That is the next vessel that is planned. You may be aware that we are also undertaking the wider work that we are doing around the review of our ferries plan with a view to developing a new ferries plan. The present one goes on to 2022, and we are undertaking a range of work in preparing for the next stage of the ferries plan. However, the procurement process for the next ferry to be replaced is on-going at the present time, so that work has not come to a halt just waiting for these two ferries to be completed. That is fine. The process—we are scoping out some of the process at the present time. There is some evaluation work that has been undertaken already on the ferry services in Orkney, Shetland and the western hills. We are also carrying out a piece of research at the present time on RET in order to feed that all into the process. It is due to be discussed again at the Islands Transport Forum in August of this year, which is chaired by the Islands Minister, Paul Wheelhouse. We should then be in a position in the months ahead to set out what the timeframe will be for the normal public consultation exercise. I would say to him that a number of the stakeholders who have an interest in these matters at the present time are already engaged in the process in looking at some of the scoping work and some of the issues that need to be addressed in the next ferries plan anyway. Cabinet Secretary, just on a comment that you made earlier that both ferries were going to be delivered next year, could I ask you please to write to the committee and let them know dates, because it seems odd to me and I am struggling to understand how a ferry that was launched 18 months ago and is floating is going to be completed at the same time as a ferry that does not have bows or a stern on it at the moment. If it is truly at the same time, I am confused. I am not sure that is what you meant. We have not got time to probe further on it. Please could you write to the committee with the exact dates as soon as you know them when those ferries are going to be delivered? On that basis, I will have to move on to the next question, which is Peter Chapman. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Good morning. The AWPR is now fully open and very welcome. Are there any snagging works on going and, if so, how long might these last and what impact might they have on the travelling public going forward? I am glad that you are enjoying the benefits of the AWPR and all the feedback that I have had from people who are staying in the north-east is that they are very much welcome the new road. As you would imagine, with any major piece of infrastructure, there are always snagging works that are tidying up work that has to be completed afterwards after it is opened. That is the case on the AWPR, so I think that there is some planting stuff that is still to take place, some bits of work around junctions with local roads and so on that have to be updated. However, my understanding is that that work will be carried out over the course of the summer months. Once that work is complete, that will be the outstanding snagging and tidying up work complete. There has been some criticism, and rightly so, I believe, on the signage on the road, not being particularly clear, not being particularly beneficial to drivers around a barrier of the road. Is there any work on-going? Is there anything being done to look at the signage and see how it could be made better? I am sorry, I missed your second part of your question on delays for the snagging work. Most of the snagging work will not involve any delays. Any where there is a need for a bit of a road closure, it will take place at night time and it will be on a limited nature. I would not expect it to cause any particular difficulty for those using AWPR. The process for any major road of this nature is that a detailed audit is undertaken of the signage that is put on the road before it opens. That has to go through a standard process of it being checked and to make sure that it is compliant with the requirements for road signage of a road of this nature. That was carried out prior to the AWPR opening and the signage is all compliant with what is meant to be put in place. If there are specific issues about particular areas of signage that people get concerned about, I would always be happy to ask for that to be looked at. However, the process that is set down for major roads of this nature is that the signage went through the audit process, complied with that, and the appropriate signage is all in place. However, if there are particular issues that the member wants to draw to my attention, I am more than happy to make sure that they are looked into. The AWPR contract has told the committee when it came before us on 5 December that it had lodged a claim against Transport Scotland for additional costs incurred in construction of the road, primarily due to delays in the delivery of utility diversion works and extreme weather. Can you tell the committee what is happening about that claim and how that is being addressed? The claim is still outstanding. The most up-to-date information that I have from officials is that, as I have said in Parliament before and at this committee, it is down to the contractors to substantiate their claim. What they have not been able to do as today is to provide a sufficiency of evidence to substantiate it. Therefore, the onus is still with them in order to demonstrate additional costs and evidence to support that. There is an on-going dialogue between Transport Scotland officials and the AWPR companies around this matter, but the onus is still very much with the contractors to provide that evidence, and today they have not done so. We are operating a little bit in the dark with this, because nobody on the committee, for instance, knows what level of claim the contractors have put in. I could understand it if it was a commercial and confidence claim, whether you are dealing with a contract that you are about to award. That is perfectly fine, but this is work that has been completed. I think that the public and MSP would like to know what level of compensation I will be talking about. I do not want the old Parallon, Tunisian and Pinsine, but I would like to know what level of claim they have lodged against Transport Scotland. Those are commercially sensitive, but it is important to keep in mind that the onus is on the contractors to demonstrate any additional costs that they have incurred. It is not for me to sit here and accept any form of liability without them substantiating the evidence to support any such claim. What I am prepared to do is to make sure that Parallon is kept up-to-date should any final outcome be arrived at in relation to their claim. I am not going to get drawn into providing figures if the companies who have lodged a claim choose to do so. That is a matter for them, but it is a process that is normally dealt with in confidence because of the commercial sensitivities relating to it, given the potential impact that it could have on these companies in themselves. However, the onus is very much on them to demonstrate liability and the evidence to support their claim. I will follow that by saying that we were told that this was a fixed-term contract. A fixed-price contract? The layman would normally assume that a fixed-price contract is just that. It is a bit puzzling, therefore, what grounds it could have if it is a fixed-price contract and the contract has been completed and delivered and the price is being paid. I am just trying to get a handle on if it is a fixed-price contract. Why would they be putting a claim in if it is actually a fixed-price contract? That is really a question for them, because it is a fixed-price contract. From the taxpayer's point of view, it protects the taxpayer in that this is the construction project that you have been asked to undertake. The onus is on them to demonstrate any liability that has resulted in them drawing in additional costs. Clearly, the collapse of Crelians had an impact on them as one of the main contractors who were part of the joint venture. Weather events have had an impact on them, the timeline which has had an impact on them. However, any additional costs from the taxpayer have to be evidenced and demonstrated, and today they have not been able to do so. I think that we need to have them back in that case, don't we, convener? I am sure that the committee can consider that in due course. The next question is from John Finnie John. Cabinet Secretary, I want to provide us updates on the A9 and A96 dualling projects, please. The A9 is the point where one section is being complete, and the second section is under construction at present time. Balford Beauty secured that contract last year. Progress has been made on it. We have of the remaining sections, and 95 per cent of the orders for the route have been issued. Some will potentially go to public local inquiries, others will not. The one section that is out remaining is the one at the Tay crossing area, which is past the Burnham, which is a co-creative process that takes longer to undertake. However, we would expect the preferred route on that particular section to be finalised by the end of this year, which would mean that all parts of the finalised route have been agreed. Progress has been made, and it is at the point where we would expect it to be at this particular point. Are you a fan of the co-creative process? We want to evaluate it, given that it is the first time that it has been utilised. It is more time consuming. It is a longer process, but we want to learn from the use that we have made of it in this particular section on A9 and to evaluate how it could be used at some point in the future. However, there are clearly merits in it. We want to understand how we can make more use of them. In relation to the A96, will that be helpful as well? I want to stick to the A9 on the co-creative process, as you knew I might. I have been assured of an evaluation of that for a long time, and there is great frustration, particularly in the A96 that this level of engagement is not being afforded to other communities. When will that evaluation be complete, and when can you roll it out to ensure that there is maximum citizen involvement in major capital projects? As you will be aware, that particular section has not been fully completed yet. The whole process of the co-creative process is not at an end yet, because the finalised route choice has not been made. That is by the end of this year. That should be completed. There is a consultation exercise being undertaken with the route options that came from the co-creative process, and other options that have been identified. That starts this month. In the next couple of weeks, there will be events for members of the local public to come along and become involved in that, and to feed into that process on the identified routes. Once we have completed the route selection process, we are then in a position to carry out an evaluation of the co-creative process and what lessons can be learned from that, and how it can be utilised at some point in the future. However, it adds a significant amount of time into the process itself, so we want to make sure that we learn from that as part of the process. I wonder perhaps, prior to going to the A96, if I can draw your attention, that the committee received an email from a member of the public, and it was regarding the A96. The member of the public's concerns were, and I will summarise them here, that the project of the A96 has been pursued in isolation from wider transport developments in Moray. There is limited co-operation between Transport Scotland and Moray Council on tackling key transport pop-ins in towns such as Elgin and Lossymouth. The public transport benefits of the project are overstated. They are also going to say that the A96 is a series of local roads, used primarily for that rather than the N10 journeys, and that fuel drilling of the A96 was rejected by a wide range of community organisations. When you give an update, if you could say whether you believe that the co-creative process that is being applied across the A96 would have addressed some of those concerns, and can you comment on those concerns that basically this is a major product in isolation to others? The co-creative process is looking at the particular route options and engaging the community in that particular process. That is how it is utilised on this particular occasion. In relation to the A96, there has been a rolling programme of engagement over an extended period of time in A96. So far, there have been 5,700 people participating in the process, attending events that have been organised in order to look at the whole issue during the A96 that has been undertaken by Transport Scotland and its colleagues, which has resulted in a significant amount of feedback from local communities on that whole process. I recognise that, undertaking any major infrastructure project of that nature, there will be those who are not happy with possibly taking place in the first place, those who are not happy with the decisions that are made around which routes are in, which routes are out, and then which route is finally chosen. I recognise that, but I would strongly dispute any suggestion that there has not been an opportunity for communities to be fully involved in the process and to feed their views into it. The figures that I have just offered you in terms of the number of people who have attended events that have been organised in relation to the process around the A96 demonstrate the level of public input that we have had so far to that process. Can you give evidence that that public input is reflected in any decision making? Of course, a significant percentage of the public who do engage feel that it is academic because this big juggernaut of government is going to do what they are going to do anyway. We can evidence it in what is going to be undertaken just in the next couple of weeks, where part of the public engagement programme, which is going to be undertaken, is going to very specifically not just look at the routes that remain as a choice of routes, but also to give details on the routes that have been excluded and why they have been excluded so that those sort of disputing that some routes, some particular online routes taken forward, setting out the details as to why they have been excluded as well. It is not just a case of just pushing on with the routes that it is now down to, it is also explaining the routes that have been removed from the process. There is an opportunity for the public to understand that and to feed back into that process and to make the responses known as well. John, I am afraid that I will have to bring in some other members who want to ask on this subject. The first one is Peter Chapman. On the 96, there is great concern about the routes that are still on the table as far as going around and bypassing Enverruri's concern. I met with a group just the other week, a very professional and had a very well argued case that, during the existing route, was far and away the best option. I challenge, I have asked, I do not know if you are aware, but I have asked for a meeting with yourself as soon as possible to discuss this. I would invite you to allow these people to come and speak to you because I think that they are very professional people, they have a very well argued case and I think that it needs to be heard. This is in particular about the Enverruri bypass section of the 96. I have already had engagement around that very specific issue. I have also answered questions in the chamber in this matter just in the last couple of weeks. Part of the public consultation process that has been undertaken in the next couple of weeks will set out the very clear reasons as to why the online route that you referred to has been excluded. The key part of that is because of the space that is available to create the carriageways, the number of houses that would have to be demolished, gardens that would have to be removed from those who live adjacent to the road as well, not to create the carriageway size that is necessary and embankments that are necessary. There are very good practical reasons as to why that route has been ruled out. Those who are involved in this campaign have an opportunity to feed into that public consultation process in the next couple of weeks, which will explain that in detail. There is a process for those individuals to engage in that and I would encourage them to do so alongside those who are in favour of other routes. That is not the online join to allow them to express their views as well and the process that we have in place is one that is robust, thorough and detailed and one that is also fair and allows people to express their opinions. Mr Chapman, I will have to ask you to try and take that up with the cabinet secretary at a later time because of the shortness of the time. Maureen, you want to come in briefly. Cabinet secretary, can you confirm that it still is the Government's intention to make sure that all our cities are connected by dual carriageways? In relation to parts of the A96, is it not the case that there is the equivalent of nimbyism in relation to roads that I have got the dual carriageway as far as my place? Really, it does not need to go any further and it is important that we get on with this work, regardless of our number of landlords around Inverruri who do not think that it should go any further. Can we understand that there is obviously a difference of opinion here? Can I ask you to give a very short answer to that? The dualing of the A96 is a major part of our transport infrastructure and helping to improve the local economy as well, given the economic benefits that come from better connectivity. However, there is a very robust, thorough process to consider all the routes. I am very conscious that when you are upgrading or putting in a major piece of infrastructure of this nature, there will be those who will not be in favour of particular routes and those who are not in favour of at all and those who are in favour of particular routes and are in favour of the development. However, it is a thorough process that will consider all of the issues, as it has been doing, and those who have opinions in it have an opportunity to use the consultation process like any other member of the public to express their views. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The next question is on the Queen's Ferry crossing. You referred to a definition in a question that Peter used about snagging. Can I confirm that your definition of snagging is the same as mine, which is minor defects or emissions in building works for a contractor to rectify after the completion of the project? By and large. Perfect. There were 23 on the list that was submitted to the committee, I believe, earlier this year. Could you just say whether those are all going to be completed by October of this year? The contractor is still working to that timetable. For example, painting of the cable guide pipes is now complete, the snagging on the windshield is complete, the tower lifts, where there has been an issue in terms of the construction of them. We'll come to tower lifts and a mission from the contractor is hardly snagging, so if we could leave them and come back to them, second part of my question, the rest of them. The lifts are presently being manufactured, given the previous technical issues. The underdeck painting is now under way, architectural lighting is now operational, and commissioning of internal mechanical and electrical equipment is progressing well, and the contractor is continuing to make good progress with the mobilisation of a workforce, which was a challenge forum around some of the issues and works that had to be undertaken, and is still working to complete it on timetable this year. So October this year? That's the timetable that they're working to. Of course, as you will appreciate, there are some pieces of work that are weather sensitive that could have an impact on the completion of that work. For example, some aspects of the painting work is weather sensitive. So if they get the weather, that allows them to complete it all by October, they'll be in that position, but there is always a potential for delays if weather has an impact. Okay. Cabinet Secretary, going back to the comment that you made earlier about the lifts, if we could look at those specifically, the lifts weren't put in. That seems to me when the bridge was opened, it could not be classed as snagging. It seems if a major part of the contract wasn't actually built, that was more than snagging. Would you agree with me? Will you understand the reasons why the lifts weren't installed? Well, I can understand that there would always be a reason for something, but what we were told there was just minor snagging when the contract was completed, but actually the admission of one of the main parts of the contract either were no lifts. It's rather like saying that a house is completed apart from minor snagging, but there's no staircases. It would be difficult to live in a house without a staircase if you had to live up stairs. The difference is that you can use the bridge without having the lifts in place. So you still believe that there was minor snagging? So the bridge is perfectly safe and able to be used without the lifts being in place? Well, it's a bit different from a staircase in a house. Okay, so the next issue that I've got on the bridge, which was highlighted earlier in the year, were cars that were being damaged by ice that was dropping off the cables. And it was reported that cars were hit by ice and there was significant damage. Could you explain to me how you're resolving that? So my understanding is that some contractors have been appointed to monitor this particular issue, to identify the exact source of it and to then look at what mitigation might have to be put in place if that is the case. Okay, but on other cable bridges such as Queen's Ferry Crossing where it is cold, they have identified this problem before. Should this not have been something that we should have foreseen on the Queen's Ferry Crossing? I can't comment on other bridges, but in relation to this bridge, it's not something that was anticipated and that's why the contractors are looking at trying to identify the exact source of it and what appropriate measures could be undertaken to try and address the issue. So, I mean, it's of concern that last winter wasn't a particularly cold winter and we have had colder winters in 2010 and 2011 where the problem could have been significantly greater, which would have resulted in the bridge being closed. Do you foresee that this is something that could happen in the future? Well, that's why the contractors are looking to identify what exactly the source is and to look at what measures can be put in place. Clearly, if there's an issue where there is ice gathering in particular points on the actual bridge frame, then it may be that they have to take measures in order to address that. Okay, so can I ask when those contractors would be due to report? I think that part of the challenge is around the time when they can actually identify where the ice is exactly forming, but they've got work in place just now to try and identify where they believe it may be occurring and to look at what measures can be put in place. But I can't give you a timeline specifically as to when that matter will be resolved, but I'm more than happy to keep the committee up to date as to when it has been identified and what measures have been undertaken. I mean, it would be of serious concern if we had to wait for more ice to form before they could identify where the problem is. You're not suggesting that's the issue, is it? No, I'm not. I'm just saying that it may take them a bit of time in order to identify exactly where the main areas of risk are and what appropriate measures can be put in place, but they're already taking forward work in order to try and identify that, and I'm more than happy to keep the committee informed of progress. And can you just confirm to me when you believe the lifts will be completed? Well, the work is all due to be completed this year, and they're under-manufactured at the present time, so the most up-to-date information that we have from the contractors is that they expect it to be completed this year. Okay. I have to say, and I'm going to move on to the next question that actually a mission of lifts to me seems more than the minor snagging, which is what we were told was outstanding, and it's certainly, you know, I think it's fundamentally difficult, and it would be difficult to identify the ice if people can't get up to the top of the bridge to see where it's forming. Colin, yours is the next question. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the cabinet secretary. Can I turn to the issue of rail in an update on the implementation of the first of the two ScotRail remedial plans on performance? The remedial plan itself was called for to improve performance, but the agreement doesn't actually introduce any new performance requirements, so what would happen in the event of the plan being implemented in full, but performance was still below breach as it currently is? Would that constitute an event of default? As I told the committee previously, yes, it would. So can I just clarify what the performance requirements are within the remedial agreement? So the purpose of the remedial agreement is to get them out of the position of breach. If they don't implement the remedial plan effectively and they remain in breach, they then fall into default. So the plan runs until 2020. At what point during that time do we actually have to see improved performance? I mean, if performance continues to fall and it continues to be clear that it won't rise above breach level by the end of the plan, when will you intervene? What action will you take? Do you mean in relation to the areas of breach that the remedial plan is to address? That's what the remedial plan is for. Yes, the remedial plan is to improve performance, but if it becomes clear during the course of that plan that performance is not improving and that it continues to be below breach level, which is currently below breach level, what action will you take? Will you simply wait until the end of the plan to see if we are above breach level or will you intervene earlier if it's clear that performance is not improving? For example, one of the aspects that is set out within the remedial plan is to complete the training of crew by the end of this month. The most up-to-date information that we have from ScotRail is that they are on track with that. That will have an immediate impact on passenger services. For example, those services that have been cancelled as a result of a lack of train crew due to train crew training will no longer take place. That is a specific problem on the eastern part of the network. We will see improvements as a result of that. In fact, over the course of the last three weeks, we have saw improvements taking place. The levels of cancellations that have occurred as a result of train crew training have been reducing week on week as they complete the training programme. There is a practical example of the benefits that will come from the implementation of the remedial plan. I would not expect no improvements to occur, given that they have already started to occur as a result of implementation of that. The breach is specific to the breaches in the east sector as a result of cancellations due to a lack of train crew. The specific purpose is to get them out of that position. The progress that we have saw in the last couple of weeks would indicate that we are already starting to see some signs of that. I am not sure that the breach is very much around the east of the region, but just on a general point, when you last came to the committee, you indicated that you believed that, at this moment in time, ScotRail should be hitting a performance target of 92.5 as part of the breach. When you were at the last committee meeting, you indicated that you believed that that would be reached by March 2021. Do you still stand by that? That is still the target that they have set. Is that your belief that they will hit that target? I want to see them reach that target and we will continue to press them to make sure that they do that as best they can. I think that once all the rolling stocks are in place and they have their train crewing issues resolved and if we see greater resilience within the infrastructure, yes, they can. However, while you still have 65 per cent of all cancellations and delays as a result of infrastructure issues, that will inevitably have an impact on their ability to reach that target. As I have said many times, we need to see both parts of the railway playing their part in order to make sure that passengers get the best service that they can and that they can reach that target if that happens, if both parts play their part in delivering a more consistent, reliable service. The remedial plan itself does not say that they will reach that target on that date, although it is a different one. It says that performance will still be below 90 per cent at that point, whereas a donovan review says that they will reach that target. The remedial plan is not to get them to that point. The remedial plan is to get them out of breach. The projections within the remedial plan, to be fair, do say that you will not reach that target across Scotland at 92.5. I am just wondering why there is a difference. I explained that last time because there is a difference between what is in the remedial plan and what was in the donovan review. The work that needs to be undertaken in the donovan review is going to take a longer period of time in order to be implemented, which is why the target within the donovan review is a different one. I am unclear. You said that it was possible that they could reach the target, but the question that you asked was whether they would. Do you think that they would? Do you think that that is a yes or no answer? I think that they can, and they will, if all parts of the rail network plays its part, including network rail, to make sure that we get greater consistency on the network, particularly in the structure. That is the point that I have been laboring for months upon months upon months. ScotRail, to me, is doing a good job. I was in the train a couple of weeks ago on time. It didn't skip-stop. Excellent conductor. Yes, they have problems, but the major problem is the fact that we do not control network rail. If a signal is down or there are problems, there are 950 trains going to Glasgow Central every day, 950. If a signal is down or there is network rail, something is wrong there, what are we doing to get control of network rail? Or do you think that we will never get control of network rail? The Wilkinshire review is taking place at the present moment. Our view is very clear about the need for the Scottish network to be in control here in Scotland, so that decisions around timetabling and all of infrastructure matters are decided here, not in Milton Keynes, as it stands at the present moment. What I will repeatedly say, including the convener, is that the reality is that network rail plays a key part in delivering reliability on our railways. Not just ScotRail or Bellio franchise, but network rail. If we look at today's performance alone, the impact that network rail failures have actually had on ScotRail's performance has been very marked. Signal failure, points failures, signal failure—I think that there was stuff in the line—we had a major signal failure busby yesterday, which occurred, which went on for hours. It had a major impact on what had been a very good day's performance that all of a sudden just dropped right off as a result of it. Those who want to just point their finger at ScotRail and Bellio and at the Scottish Government miss the point—they miss the point that both parts have got their part to play. We can do everything that we can to make sure that the rolling stock is upgraded, which we are doing through the new Hadachi trains, with the new high-speed refurbished trains coming online, which are delayed again as a result of Wabtec, but when 65 per cent of your delays in cancellations are due to infrastructure failures, we cannot ignore that, because it has a direct impact and bearing on the experience that passengers have. That is why the ORR has also recognised that network rail's performance is not good enough and why they have issued them with notice in order to address that. If we are serious about it and about delivering better services for the public, as I have repeatedly said, we need to see both parts of the railway system playing their part. We will do everything that we can to make sure that ScotRail is playing its part, but we need network rail to also deliver. If you are pressed today to make promises that they are going to meet that stat of the other, it all depends on network rail, does it not? A major part, yes, which I do not control. I will move on to my next question. I think that I proved my point in the regard to network rail and how ScotRail is saddled with network rail. Abelio was issued with a second remedial plan that was noticed by Transport Scotland on the 8 February 2019 for failing to meet customer satisfaction targets set out in the franchise agreement. Can you provide an update or again on the development of a second remedial plan action by Abelio in this time dealing with improvements to customer service? We have received the draft remedial plan from ScotRail, which arrived on 3 May, which is being evaluated and assessed in the same way that we did with the initial first of the remedial plans. That work is on-going at the present time. It will then look to having that embedded within the contract, which is a contract requirement forum. We will also have a published version of what is contained within that remedial plan to address areas of deficiency that it is meant to address. Some of the things that are actually included are carparks and litter, the state of the outside of the station, and sometimes even these carparks are not even near the station. Do we really assess ScotRail on how a carpark looks? I am just concerned, Richard. I do not mean to cut you off from Phil Thrae, but we have lots of questions. Yes, there are other people who have asked questions. I am asking my questions. Mr Lyle, could I ask you to answer that question briefly so that we can move on to the other questions so that all the committee gets a chance to get in? Yes. The remedial plan relates to the national rail passenger satisfaction survey, and it is a wide scope of areas that are surveyed by transport focus. That is station facilities, including carparks. Separately to that, we also audit ScotRail through the squire system for carparking, etc. Jamie Greene, you have a brief follow-up, followed by Mike Rumbles. It is very brief. You will be aware that this week is Mental Health Awareness week, and ScotRail recently announced that we are going to train 50 of their staff on mental health first aid. That is something to be welcomed. Are you aware of any other publicly funded or subsidised travel operators across your portfolio who are looking to do the same? At the present time, no, I am not. Is that something that you would perhaps press upon them to think about? I would want to encourage them to do so, but the work that ScotRail is doing to undertake is a positive one, and it sends out a very strong message. I would like to encourage them to look at extending it beyond the 50 that they are initially serving out to train them on mental health first aid skills. Mike Rumbles. I would like to move to cycling, if I may. The cycling action plan for Scotland said that 10 per cent of every journey is to be made by back by next year. The latest figures that we have are that journeys to work have risen from 2.3 per cent to 3 per cent, but there is a wide variation in that. Obviously, that target is not going to be met, but the whole part of it has targets, is that you want to work towards them. It is practical issues about how we do this, and I know that Parliament suggested in Parliament last year that we should be giving school children access to cycling proficiency, but the latest figures show that most children do not have access to that. How do you think that you can, as Cabinet Secretary for Transport, really make a difference to try and get the target to 10 per cent in practical terms, rather than just setting a target? I think that that is what you want to do. I agree with you in terms of being able to achieve this target within the time frame that we now have for it being achieved is going to be extremely difficult to be able to do. I think that you are right in saying that we have solved variations. For example, in places such as Edinburgh, we see that the number of residents are cycling to travel to works increased to 9.8 per cent, so there has been a marked increase there, but the average that it stands is around 4 per cent, so we are well off the target where we want to be. A number of key things that are important are here. There is no doubt in my mind that cycling infrastructure is an important element of helping to encourage and support people to be able to cycle and to choose to cycle, particularly parents trying to encourage their children to cycle. The doubling of our active travel budget to £80 million a year, which keep in mind, is £80 million from the Scottish Government, which is much funded by the local authorities. In any given year, we could have up to £135 million being invested in cycling infrastructure. That is a key part of helping to support people to take an active travel option, such as cycling. We can see in some of our cities—for example, we recently visited the south side of Glasgow, where we can see the major cycle way that they are putting in there, and their plans to have other major cycle routes throughout the city to make cycling easier, which has been supported through our active travel budget and funding from Glasgow City Council. That is a key part. Infrastructure is an important element. A second important element is proficiency around it. You are right that some local authorities are more proactive in supporting cycling proficiency than others. I would like to see a more consistent approach to cycling proficiency being taught at schools, so that young people have confidence in being able to cycle and have the road sense that is necessary in cycling as well. One of the things that I want to take away from where we are with this particular target is to look at how we can better achieve an increase in cycling that sees more people confident in being able to choose to cycle to work over and above what we are doing at the present moment. That is a piece of work that we are presently looking to undertake. I understand entirely about infrastructure, but it has to be there, and that is obviously your focus to try to achieve that. A lot of strides have been made, but the Scottish Government has an agreement that we have to get our kids into that way of cycling. What we are talking about has really joined up Government. I know your focus, as I say, on the infrastructure, but obviously the Cabinet Secretary for Education is focused on schools. Have you had discussions with him about trying to get our schools to lift cycling proficiency in our schools? It is about joining up Government, is it not? It is not just about education, it is also about sport and physical activity, so there is a health element to it that we should recognise. There are a number of portfolios that have an interest in this matter, and we have had some initial discussions around how we can try to address those issues, particularly on the health side and the sport side. Would you take it in as a catalyst for that? I am more than happy. I have already identified this area where I think that we need to do more. The £80 million that we provide a year, about two thirds of that is capital investment, the rest of it is revenue funding. We support a range of other organisations and initiatives to support walking and cycling as well. For example, just up from my constituency office, we have the Active Travel Hub, which is funded through this particular scheme to help to support people in getting information advice if they are looking to take up an active travel option, which has proven very popular. There is clearly more that we need to do. I accept that, and I also accept your challenge that it needs to be taken up on a cross-portfolio basis. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I was trying to catch your eye. Sorry, you did draw it to a close. I would have liked to bring in John Finnie, because I know that he has a question, but I am sorry that I am so pushed for time. I am going to ask John Mason to ask his question that you would like to ask, but could I ask you to do it very succinctly? I would like to get a small bit in on the R100. John Finnie. Can you give us an update on the national transport strategy and the strategic transport projects review, and will Glasgow Metro be part of that? The NTS process is on-going. The public consultation process will start in the summer, which will allow people to feed into that. We have had engagement with stakeholders and a range of other interested parties up until now, but it will be more extensive over the course of the summer months, which will then allow us to look at finalising the NTS by the end of this year. Part of that will then allow us to have in the STPR2 process. We have already started some of the work around STPR2. For example, the Borders Transport Corridor study, the work that we are doing in the south west of Scotland, and the stuff that has been done in Argyll, are all the pre-appraisal work that is necessary to feed into the STPR2 process. We have just completed or in the process of setting up the regional transport working groups in different areas, which have brought together different stakeholders within different regions, to feed into that process, to identify the transport issues and to feed into the STPR2 process, which will be completed in this lifetime of this Parliament. That work is on-going and the consultation and summer allows people to feed into the NTS process specifically, and then the STPR2 process is moving forward as well. And Glasgow might not be forgotten about? No, Glasgow won't be forgotten about, Falkirk won't be forgotten about, Hazel won't be forgotten about, Lanarkshire won't be forgotten about, the Highlands won't be forgotten about, the North East won't be forgotten about, because it is a national process, so all parts of the country will be taken into due consideration, Mr Mason. I'm sure somebody will scrutinise the official record to find out who you did leave out. Who ever missed it? On that. The Highlands will be included as well. Cabinet Secretary, can I just say at this stage that there are other questions and some very important questions on climate change, which we unfortunately aren't going to get to, but the clerks will write to you with some of the questions that the members have on climate change, because it is a very important subject. We are going to move on to the R100 programme. I would like to welcome Robbie McGee, who has now joined the panel, and I'm going to ask Gail Ross to ask the first question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Cabinet Secretary, could you or your officials provide the committee with an update on the completion of the R100 tendering process at the convener's group last week? The First Minister implied that it would be later this year. The First Minister is correct that it will be later this year that the procurement process will be complete. The dialogue process is being complete. The companies who are involved in the procurement process are working up their bids due to be submitted by the summer. The summer of this year will allow them to be evaluated, which will then allow us to look at appointing a preferred bidder later in the year. Without prejudice in that process at all, can you give us any insight into the delay? There have been a couple of factors for the delay. Earlier in the process, one of the bidders at that point raised a complaint under the code of conduct about one of the other bidders breaching the code of conduct, which then had to be investigated, which cost a delay in the process. We then had, as we took forward, the gain share process that we had from the DSSB programme. There were a number of areas that were identified where additional investment could be put into. What then happened was that the commercial market then identified areas that matched into some of the areas that we were planning to go into. The UK Government then changed their position slightly around how some of their funding could be used around the gain share element, which then meant that the properties that were in had to come back out. We then allowed the company's time to take that back into their modelling process. There have been a couple of elements that have had an impact on it. What we are keen here, but the core of all of this, is about getting the best possible deal for delivering a superfast broadband that we can. This is the only project of its type in the UK of this size. It is a complex project, so it has resulted in some real challenges for the industry. It has had to look at some of the real geographical challenges that it will face, including the civil engineering challenges that will go with that. As a result, it has asked for a bit of extra time in order to undertake those evaluations more fully. Rather than push them to the point of disengaging in the process, we have sought to give them an additional time in order to allow them to go through it more thoroughly and to keep them engaged in the procurement process. To date, that has been effective and that is why we have given them an additional time and why the process is certainly behind the original timeframe. Can I just make a really quick request that you, if you are able to write to the committee to tell us what the gain share has been at the end of the process? I am more than happy to do that. Can I just clarify? We were expecting the contracts to be awarded and agreed in February, then they were delayed until May, then the announcement was that they would be made in the summer and now we are later in the year, so that has obviously passed the summer. I am just trying to understand at a specific period when we think the contract will be announced and be made public. Who has got it? We would expect it to be in autumn in the later part of this year, so once the process has been completed in it, we are in a position to look at awarding a preferred bidder. My problem with seasons is that they stretch for three months. Could you give me some clarity whether it will be the end of autumn? You understand my deluct and still always give you specific timescales when there are issues that we fail to get the other one, so autumn is the closest we will get. It is going to be autumn and we would expect it to be around the September, October period. That is the timeline that we are on just now with the contractors. I need to emphasise that we are trying to give them the additional time that they need in order to undertake the procurement process as thoroughly as possible in order to get the best possible deal that is part of this procurement process. I am going to let you ask one brief question and then I am afraid that we are closing on time. The timescale is obviously slapping. Even prior to these delays, Audit Scotland said that it will be difficult to deliver the 100 per cent superfast broadband by 2021. It is pretty obvious that the timescale is not going to be agreed to. The other thing that I would like to clarify is that by 2021, to me, means by the end of 2020. Is that what you believe? No. No. You believe that that is by the end of 2021? That would be by 2020. 2021 is the year 2021. Is there any chance that we can do that? Peter, just to add clarity, the First Minister, when I asked that question, made it clear that the timescale that the Government was working to was by 2021, which she intimated would be May time, i.e. the election. That is what she said at the meeting. I think that she is right. When can we realistically expect the R100 to be complete? I think that the member raises a reasonable point, as was highlighted by the Audit Scotland report, is that it is a challenging timescale. It is a difficult timescale in which for us to achieve, and given the nature and the complexity of the contract and the civil engineering that will be involved in some of the rural areas, it presents challenges for the contractor. We have a more accurate picture once we have the final tenders from the companies, which will then give us a clearer outline of the time frames that they believe that they can achieve within. What we are not doing, given the nature of the R100 programme, is that we are not working to the UK Government's target for full fibre, which is 2033 to all premises in the UK. If we waited that long, it would be far too long, which is why we have stepped in in an area that is wholly reserved for the UK Government in order to make sure that we have the right digital connectivity in Scotland, and that is why the R100 programme is so important to our rural communities and also to our economy in making sure that we have the right type of digital connectivity in the country. However, we are certainly not waiting for the timeline that has been set out by the UK Government of 2033, and that is why this is a very ambitious programme. Cabinet Secretary, I thank you for that. We are, unfortunately, out of time, but I would like to thank you and the officials that you brought with you to give evidence. I would normally suspend the meeting, but because the meeting is pushed, I would like to move straight on to a gender item 3 and ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if you and your officials could leave quietly. I would appreciate that. Moving on to a gender item 3, which is the annual report. As a committee, you have received the annual report in your papers, and we are struggling for time. Therefore, I do not think that there is any reason why the committee should not consider agreeing the report by email if the committee was minded to do that. However, if the committee wants to make any general comments on it, I could take a brief general comment, or if the committee is happy to deal with it by email, I would be happy to promote that as well. Does anyone have a reason why we should not do it by email? Are we agreed, as a committee, to approve the report by email? We are agreed. Therefore, what I would like to do is suspend the meeting and move the committee now to committee room 1 for a video conference with the right hon. Michael Gove, which will start at 10.45. If I could ask the committee to move there, I would be very grateful. I now suspend the meeting.