..to the 7th meeting in 2016 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Efo'r proseddentau therod, byddai'n ei ddylch o'r pethau hyn. Apologies have been received from Rhoedde Grant an Peter Chapman... ..who have used the substitutes, Alexander Burner and Neil Bibby. I would just ask them at this stage if they could make a declaration of any interest... ..to this committee that may come up during the course of the meeting. So, Alexander, can you please lead on that? Thank you to the committee for having me here today. It's a pleasure to be a substitute for Peter Chapman, giving me overlap of many of the subjects with the Environment, Climate Change and Landform Committee, which I set on, so it's good to see another committee in action. And I refer the committee to my register of interests. Thank you. Neil. All relevant entries to the clue. Okay, we'll move straight on to agenda item one. And that is to take evidence from the Minister of Transport and Islands on the issues within his portfolio, which relates to the committee's remit. It's hoped the committee, the session will provide the committee with a no-view view of the key current and forthcoming projects, policy initiatives and developments within the Scottish government. So, I'd like to welcome the minister to the meeting. I'd also like to welcome Michelle Rennie, Bill Reeve and John Nichols. John Nichols, who I believe is standing in at the last moment. So, welcome to the committee, and I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you for that, convener, although you've just promoted me to cabinet secretary, but I shan't take that promotion just yet, I don't think. Thank you very much. I'm pleased to be my first appearance at the committee, the programme for government, as detailed by the First Minister, provided details on our wide-ranging transport commitments to a growing productive sustainable economy with more jobs and indeed fair work. Transport is, of course, very much key to that. So, I'll try to focus very briefly, if I can, convener, on some key areas. In 2016-17, we will continue to deliver a range of network improvements, improvement works through our key rail projects, including the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement programme, the Aberdeen to Inverness line, the Highland Main Line, Stirling, Dunblane, Alloa, electrification and the redevelopment of Dundee station. However, as the committee will be aware, our independent to Ernst and Young detailed report goes into detail about how some overruns are associated with those projects. That is not a situation that I am content with—in fact, one that I am extremely dissatisfied with. We'll be speaking and have spoken to the UK Government railway minister about that. In my opinion, it's not acceptable a situation that network rail are able to overrun those costs without having the levers in my hands and in this Government's hands and in this Parliament's hands to do much about it. In August, I was pleased to see that the work on Queen Street tunnel was completed on time ahead of schedule, in fact. On budget, that has been unprecedented project, both in terms of engineering terms and in terms of the scale of operation that is required to keep people moving and services diverted via the underground platforms during those works. In terms of roads, we are going to substantial programme investment in road improvements and maintenance that will continue in the coming year. £1.4 billion of investment in the road network will include work to dual the A9, the A96, as part of the Scottish Government's commitment within the £315 million Inverness in Highland City region deal. We are taking forward plans for a single carriageway road connecting Inches and Smiths in the Highland capital. Programme of investment also includes the completion of the Queensferry crossing, the largest freestanding balance that can to leave on the world for a short period of time, which is expected, of course, to be fully open to traffic by May 2017. The M8, M73, M74 motorway improvement project will be complete by spring 2017 and the Aberdeen western peripheral route by my day tipper day project open to traffic in winter 2017. In terms of the buses, convener, fair to say, there are some challenges facing the bus service industry with patronage over the years having declined. I am committed to working with bus operators, passengers and commuters, community transport providers in order to reverse that trajectory of decline. Part of that will be making travelling on bus easier, and part of that is securing that nationwide multimodal smart ticketing. The coming years will also start work to deliver three months free bus travel to those receiving the new jobs grant, as well as free bus travel for modern apprentices aged under 21. In terms of ferries, part of my role, convener, has been travelling around the islands, getting to know Scotland's 93-inhabited island communities. Travelling to these islands has never been so popular. Tourism has increased vastly and greatly. Part of that, of course, being to the roll-out of RET. Later this year, we will publish a new study, considering potential arrangements to reduce ferry fares on ferry services to the northern isles. We have recently published Scotland's first accessible travel framework, as well this year in September. Having travelled on the ferries, there is a lot of work still to be done to make our ferries more accessible for our disabled travellers. In terms of that accessible travel framework, those with a disability—I am sure that the whole committee would agree—have every right to have the same travel rights as anybody else, so I am looking forward to progressing that as part of my agenda as well. That, of course, is the environmental challenges that we face. I would say that, in terms of transport, we still have work to do in order to ensure that we are also contributing towards the Government's efforts, the wider Government efforts, to reduce CO2 emissions. What we are doing is making sure that we continue to drive the use of low-carbon vehicles, such as buses. We are also trying to incentivise the use of electric cars with the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points across Scotland. That is a record number that we have across the country. We are also maintaining record levels of investment in cycling and walking for the duration of the parliamentary term. In terms of update to the committee on a few aspects of the transport portfolio since last June, I would like to point the committee towards the fact that I announced a review of the national transport strategy when we had the historic transport summit in Dumfries in Galloway. That review will be completed within the term of this Parliament and is much overdue. We want to set out the kind of transport network that we want in Scotland in 20 years' time, how we will get there and identify the best way to address those strategic challenges and realise the opportunities along the way. On top of that, I would say that safety is paramount. I will conclude on those points that safety is paramount across the transport modes that we use. Therefore, a lot of work, a lot of detail and a lot of attention of mine is going into making, in particular, our roads safer. Figures last week showed that road casualties reported to the police in 2015. The casualties fell by 3 per cent between 2014 and 2015, the lowest number since records began. Road deaths down 42 per cent compared to the 2004-08 baseline. However, it is fair to say that, again, the committee would agree that one fatality in our road is one fatality to many, particularly when young lives are involved. We will support the member's bill that proposes to ensure that seatbelts become a legal requirement in all dedicated school transport in Scotland. The winter preparedness launch earlier this week, convener, is to ensure that, during periods of difficult weather and challenging weather, that our roads are maintained safely, that people travel safely and, of course, that we mitigate any disruption. For the first time this year, there will be the ability to monitor gritter's live as they go around the country treating roads on our trunk road network, which I think will allow people to plan their journey well ahead and well in advance. The very final point that I would make, convener, is that the transport job comes with its challenges. Some of those we are seeing, and I am certain that we will talk through some of them in terms of ScotRail's performance, which I do not find to be at an acceptable level. However, there are challenges across the portfolio. However, if we get transport working and working for the people of Scotland, the businesses of Scotland and the communities of Scotland, we can help our economy and grow, but we can tackle some real issues around social isolation and deprivation about that inequality that exists in our country. I am committed to doing that. I welcome the opportunity to take questions and hear some feedback from the committee, but I thank you, convener, for this opportunity. If I could say at the outset that this meeting was set up with the expectation that the review of the major rail projects would be available to the committee, unfortunately you have managed to give us the executive summary only. We have not been able to see the rest of the report, which I believe is to be published this afternoon. We have also received correspondence from Network Rail as late as last night prior to the committee meeting. The questions that you will be asked by the committee will be in the knowledge that we are basing those questions on the executive summary that you provided us, but with the disappointment of not having the ability to consider the whole report. I think that the first question on this is going to Stuart. Since I am going to be asking questions about rail, let me just make my declaration of interest that I am the honorary president of the Scottish Association of Public Transport and the honorary vice president of rail future UK. These are in my register of interests. If some of the questions that I asked appear to be outside the remit of those who are attending committee or, indeed, answered in the report that we have not yet got, it would be helpful if either the questions could be answered later in writing or referred to this afternoon. I want to start by looking at how Network Rail manages projects or perhaps at the shortcomings in their doing so. I will ask an obvious standard thing that companies that deal with government—I have experienced this—have to normally be qualified to the quality management standard ISO 9000 of week 9001. Is that the case where Network Rail is working with government? Thank you. Just to address the convener's point, if I may, I will look into the reasons why the report was not given to you in advance, but, of course, when that full report is given to the committee, if the committee wishes to call me back, of course, I would be made able to that or, indeed, if you were to write questions to me, I will make sure that they are answered. The executive summary provides a good level of detail on what the full report has to say in that regard. In order to the member's question, I will look at the exact intricacies of what he is asking, but I would say this much. That is somebody who has taken up the job in the last five months. I am astounded at the lack of leverage, control that the Scottish Government, Parliament and, indeed, this committee has over Network Rail, even though, of course, the Scottish taxpayers' money that is going into these major rail infrastructure projects, that is why I would be hardly surprised to the member that I would call for the full devolution of Network Rail and, indeed, the devolution of particularly the infrastructure projects. The fact that, in the centre and London network, major rail infrastructure projects are for Scotland, are decided, are the discussions around the development, the design, all happens in that corporate centre, I do not find an acceptable situation whatsoever. So long as Network Rail stays in the debt cap that is agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, there is very little that can be done. That was detailed in the Ernst and Young independent report, which talks about the fact that Transport Scotland, and by default, the Scottish Government lacks effective commercial leverage to penalise or reward Network Rail to drive project performance. That is not an acceptable situation to me, so I have raised it with the UK Government railway minister. I know that, in fairness to the UK Government, it is facing the same issues. In fact, to a worsening degree whereby the debt cap has been breached, therefore projects have been cancelled and scaled back, and we are not at that stage. For me, the reclassification of Network Rail has thrown up some challenges that I have not adequately been dealt with. Well, just since the minister mentioned reclassification, can I just ask a financial question? Does that affect the operation of the Barnett formula now that it is no longer independent of Government but in the Government's balance sheet? I have asked that exact question to the railway minister, because we need certainty going into the next control period of how future rail projects will be funded. I asked the UK Government rail minister Paul Maynard that exact question. Can we get some certainty over how we will be funded in the future considering reclassification? I have not, as of yet, had an answer to that, but, in fairness to the UK Government minister, the meeting was last week, and he has promised to write to me on that issue. Once he does, I am happy to share that with the committee. Well, let me just return minister briefly to the subject of standards. I referred to ISO 99001, which are quality management standards. There is also ISO 21500, which is the project management standard. It is comparatively new. If you are not aware of the answer to that, can I at least encourage you to press the UK Government to require ORR to adhere to those standards or some other publicly auditable standards so that we have a baseline against which their project management performance can be measured and against that, which those who do conform to those standards are measured? I am certainly happy to have that conversation with both the Government and the ORR. It is fair to say that Network Rail's insistence is that many of those projects have overran because of compliance issues. ORRs completely disagree with the—without putting words into the ORR's mouth, of course—do not accept that there has been a difference in compliance standards that they have requested from Network Rail, whereas with my meetings with the chief executive and the chair of Network Rail, they suggest that there has been some difference in terms of the requirement for them in terms of compliance. There is a disconnect between what has been said to me by the ORR and what has been said to me by Network Rail, but I think that the suggestion that the member makes in terms of a standard that should be acceptable across all the stakeholders who are involved in major rail infrastructure projects is an eminently sensible one. Specifically, where we are just now, how is Transport Scotland seeking to manage in the context that we have, the major rail enhancements that Network Rail is responsible for, particularly in the light of the concerns about delays and the increased costs? That is key to the recommendations in the report. One of some of those recommendations that we have already started to take forward is that having a major rail projects board across the portfolio is key to that. That will look at each of the projects in the control period, look through the governance, look through where there might be potential slippage issues, obstacles and make sure that Transport Scotland and indeed myself have an overview of that. That is what we will do. That is one of the recommendations. There are many recommendations in the report and it is fair to say that we welcome and accept all those recommendations that are in the independent report. For me, there is still a question mark, though, over how much leverage we can have when Network Rail is not directly accountable to this Government, this Parliament and indeed this committee. Nonetheless, minister, while we may lack the leverage at present, are you satisfied that we are in a position to identify the shortcomings so that we can make others aware of those shortcomings and, through others, exercise leverage if we cannot directly do to ourselves? Yes, I am. Let me make it clear, although Network Rail infrastructure projects are not devolved and I will be seeking that devolution. That does not mean at all that I will tolerate any further slippage, be it in terms of additional costs and timescales. That pressure is being put on Network Rail. Of course, we will work closely with it and other stakeholders to ensure that we get the best value for money for the Scottish taxpayer. Absolutely, the member is correct that the lessons that we have learnt here and that are summarised in the executive summary but are also detailed in the full report are ones that we would happily share with partners across the United Kingdom. That is the point that this is affecting the compliance issues. The electrification issues are not unique to Scotland by any stretch of the imagination. They have had serious impacts on rail projects right across the United Kingdom. I am going to give you a wee break from Stuart at the moment because I know that he has got other questions that he wants to ask that are coming on here. Can I ask you, minister, a question? With the reclassification of Network Rail in 2014, the ORR did a report in October that was published in October 2015. It intimated that it had written to Network Rail in March 2015, and it was clear that Network Rail were missing milestones. 36 per cent of their milestones that were laid out were missed. It went on to raise various issues. No doubt that you will have seen this report and acted on it. Can I ask you what monitoring Transport Scotland has done to ensure that those milestones are being constantly monitored? To me, it seems that, as a client, if things are not being achieved, you put in extra monitoring. I would like to know what extra monitoring was in place and what extra reporting there was to the minister. I thank the convener for the question. Egypt would be an example of a project where there was additional monitoring. I will get the detail to the convener in that. Effectively, establishing a client group and being involved in sharing a project board of Egypt allowed Transport Scotland to have more of a say and, indeed, closely monitor how that project was developing. That gives us a good example of what we should be doing across our major rail projects. That would not have stopped and has not stopped cost overruns from happening. What frustrates us is the delay in information being communicated from network rail about potential slippages, potential compliance issues and potential issues with electrification coming far too late in the day to Transport Scotland, as you quite rightly say as a client, to be able to act on it. That, to me, is not an acceptable way of working. I have said that to Sir Peter Hendy, to Mark Kerr and the chief executive network rail that closer lines of communication are absolutely key. There is an attitude there within some elements of network rail that, as long as they are not beaching the day cap, then overruns are just a natural part of what we do. In fairness, I understand what you are saying, but in a commercial world, if you see milestones being missed and areas being missed, it is beholden not to rely on the supplier to supply the information. It is on you to get the information from the supplier. We had an example that was given to the committee on one of the bridges where there was some European designation and whether a gantry had to be inches higher and delayed on making the decision, which caused an overrun. What I want to know and understand is that the Government and the Ministers responsible for this are paying close attention to the detail. It is fine to blame the person at the bottom, but sometimes the blame will start at the top. I wonder if you had a comment on that. Absolutely, in terms of Transport Scotland, there are things that we can do to ensure that we are monitoring closer every single project and closely every single project that is being funded by Scottish taxpayers. Money hints why we have established that projects board portfolio wide, but we do rely on network rail as the contractor to ensure that when they give estimates that those estimates at design stage, at developmental stage, are well detailed. The fact that, the years on, they can come back and say that compliance issues that I think—not being a transport expert—should have been cited on those issues well in advance at design stage, at early stage, to come back years later to say that that is now costing an extra x million pounds. I do not find that an acceptable situation. I would go as far as saying that, if it was not for Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government's interventions, we realised that things were not going as well as they should have been on Egypt, that we would not have got to this position of having this report, of having this information detailed to us about where the cost overruns are happening. That is not an acceptable situation. I make that absolutely clear, convener, from the offset. I do not find what has just happened, what is detailed in this report, to be an acceptable situation. Yes, there are improvements that network rail must certainly have to make. I think that there are questions there for ORR, but if the question is, are the things that we can do in Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government better, I would say absolutely hence why we are taking some action in terms of, as I say, that portfolio wide project board. I want to, on the final part of the executive summary, if I may just quote it to you from the ORR, is that, on the basis of our findings, we cannot be satisfied that network rail is doing everything reasonably and practical until the EIP is sufficiently finalised and there is evidence of the improvement based on the EIP. Could you confirm to me that you were satisfied or that the Government was satisfied that it was finalised and that the improvements were appearing? Because if they are not, then the report to the ORR does not seem to have been actually actioned on. I am confident that the measures that we have put in place will give us a greater level of scrutiny, will allow us to monitor much closer each of every single one of those projects. If you are asking me, do I absolutely nail my colours to the mast and that each of these projects will be done on time without any further delay, without any slippage, the work that we have undertaken to do that should mean that those projects come in on time, come in within the new budget, new budgets that we are discussing with network rail. But until I have full devolution, until we have leverage over network rail, there is no way that I can absolutely make that confirmation. Stuart, do you want to come back with that? The project board is a key part of what oversight we are going to have in future. One of the things that appears is that a lot of the problems arise from failures to understand the technical issues associated with projects on the part of network rail. Has our project board here got the capabilities to engage at that technical level and understand the issues early enough to reign in and control network rail and to interact in a way that will make things a bit in future? Yes, I will ensure that it does, but I do not think that the problem was that the engineers did not understand that certain compliance issues had to be adhered to. I think that there are some serious questions and the recommendations in the report reflect this around the project governance and what was being listened to from the engineers, what was done in past projects being applied to future projects. I think that around governance is where a lot of those issues can be addressed. I do not think that the knowledge of network rail engineers—I am not saying that the member is suggesting that, but it is not the knowledge of the network rail engineers—was the issue. People know about the compliance issues at the ORR and the compliance specifications that the ORR sets out. It is our job now with the major rail projects board to ensure that those compliance issues are factored in as early as possible into the developmental stage of major rail infrastructure projects to avoid the situation from happening again. I suppose that the final question that touches on all this is that, given that there are cost increases in the projects that we are undertaking, is that going to diminish our ability to undertake other rail projects? Of course, it is within the debt and borrowing cap that is agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and that has not been breached. There is some headroom, despite the cost overruns that is identified by the report. There is still some headroom, but, of course, as the member alludes to, that does have an effect on future budgets. To say that it would not have any effect would be absolutely incorrect. It will have an effect on future payments as we do the debt repayments. Yes, there is the possibility that it will have an effect on future budgets. How that manifests itself will be a discussion for future spending reviews and future discussions. I have two more questions, if I may. One is on the executive summary that you kindly gave us. Can I ask you to identify—there are various things identified regarding attitudes and the way in which things are reported to Transport Scotland—how you are going to combat those now that they have been identified? As I have said, the first thing that we have done, which is that we have not waited and wasted any time, is that the major rail projects board, which will look at projects, not just one project in isolation, but look at the scope of the projects across. It will be for me to examine the report in detail and work with Transport Scotland about what we can do, but having a closer relationship with Network Rail will be key, despite the devolution discussion and the argument of having a closer relationship with Network Rail. I think that, for future, if I may convener, one of the most important lessons to learn is how we do our age loss and control process in the future. I do not think the way that it is done currently is suitable for Network Rail as a reclassified body. Asking for early cost estimates years and years before a project is even near construction and then being surprised when there is cost overruns, for me is not a sensible way of moving things forward. Immediately, I am instructing a review of how we do our age loss process for the future control period, control period 6 and control period 7. I think that there has to be a better way of doing it. Having had that discussion with the UK Government railway minister, we barely diverged from our opinion that the current way of doing major rail infrastructure projects simply is not suitable for the circumstance that we find ourselves in now. That neatly leads me on. Do you have a timetable for that review? And when we can expect to be seeing the next period, the next tranche of age loss being put forward for the Parliament to look at? I am just discussing that at the moment with Transport Scotland, but once we define the timetable, I am more than happy to write to the convener and make sure that you have that. I think that it is important that we understand that programme, so that we can start to monitor it. Are there any other questions? Because Gail would like to ask a specific question without getting too much tied into a constituency issue on the far north line. Good morning, minister. It wouldn't be me if I didn't ask you a question about the far north line. First of all, I would like to draw the committee's attention to my register of interest, where I state that I am Vice President of Friends of the Far North Line. ScotRail recently published the performance improvement plan, and it mentions the possibility of timetable adjustments on the far north line. That either fills me with dread or fills me with hope, given the fact that currently Inverness to WIC takes four and a half hours. Can you ensure that there will be no further timetable degradation, particularly with an increased journey time, on the far north line as a result of that? As a member would know, timetabling is of course a matter for ScotRail, but I will certainly press the case with ScotRail. In my opinion, the performance of the far north line has not been an acceptable standard at all. I have seen the performance figures. Having spoken to those who are involved in Friends of the Far North Line, they feel that they are neglected and have been neglected in terms of train services and rail services. I can understand why they feel that that is the case. Having spoken to ScotRail about the performance of the far north line, I have an assurance from ScotRail that they understand that the performance on the far north line has not been an acceptable standard and therefore are keen to work with stakeholders to improve that. I will certainly communicate that message. I do not want to see any further diminishing, any further degradation or any further any more delays to the far north line. I am happy to press that with ScotRail. I am, I think, at the member's insistence due to meet with Friends of the Far North Line in the coming period. I will be looking forward to hearing from them about some of the improvements that they think can be made to that line. I thank you for your answer. We also have the Network Rail Scotland Root study and they laid out four key interventions for the far north line. I know that it is something that Friends of the Far North Line will be bringing up as well. Can I get an assurance that you will at least give those some consideration? Yes, I am open-minded to them and I know some of them. Indeed, other MSPs, in fact, including those around the table, have mentioned some of those improvements. As we go into that control period 6, notwithstanding what I have just said to the convener about how we do things differently, I think that it presents an opportunity for, obviously, future investment in our railways. The far north line should absolutely be part of that consideration. No, I am not closed-minded at all. At the same time, the member will understand that there are competing demands in investment in our railways, so I will have to weigh those up with the cost and the benefit that they might bring. I have also written to the minister about the cancellation of trains on north-west lines where they go through and do not stop at stations. If I get more than one letter on that, I am sure that we will all get letters on it. I would ask the minister to bear that in mind. It is very frustrating if you go past a station without stopping that you are trying to get out at. On that note, the next question is on Borders Railway, and it is from John. I will do constituency stuff. I will just mention that the cuts on the Airdrie Bathgate line have not been acceptable. However, my questions are on Borders Rail, and I have got three points to make on that. Borders Rail, I think that everybody accepts, has been a big success, but there have also been some challenges along the way. So maybe to start with the challenges, two of the points that have come up and I also co-convened the cross-party group on rail, so we are looking at it there again. Two of the challenges or criticisms have been that the rolling stock was far too old and was never going to be suitable for this line. Would you accept that and what is going to happen about it? Secondly, there was a considerable cutback in the number of dual track sections that could have been on the line, and that means that if anything goes wrong, it is very hard for ScotRail to recover from it. On those two points, can you give us any comments or reassurance? Sure, I can. I think that the first point to make is the opening remark from the member that the Borders Railway has been a success. We had a member's debate yesterday, led by the constituency MSP for part of the line, of course, Christine Grahame, about adopt a station scheme. Every member that spoke across a political divide started the remarks by saying that the Borders Railway has been a great success, a million-plus passengers in its first year. We know that the establishment of the Borders Railway is the longest new rail line in a century, and 50 years of campaigning from grass-roots campaigners has been a real success, notwithstanding the success of course that there have been performance issues. ScotRail is fully aware of that, and I have asked for and asked at the time for an improvement plan on that, and that is already very much under way. On the specifics of what the member asks, from the Scottish Government's perspective, we put forward the specifications on what we expect in terms of a new rail service, in terms of the frequency of that service. It is then for ScotRail, in this case, who of course won the bid, to procure the appropriate rolling stock. What I would say about the 158s yesterday has certainly been issues. A lot of those issues have been because of the radiators involved in the 158s. Therefore, when going up the steeper gradients, particularly in hot days, getting hotter, overrunning and then causing issues. Again, I accept what the member says. Those things should be considered, and ScotRail should have considered them now. They accept that the performance in the Borders Railway has not been to the standard that we expect as a Government, and that they expect of themselves. Already, they have started some work on improving some of that. Some of that work includes, well, actually work to the radiators, making sure that that technology is updated, removing any blockages and so on and so forth. Every train will be met on the platform by an engineer, so it can be looked at there and then. A £14 million worth of refurbishment and improvements on the actual rolling stock and the infrastructure is going to be incredibly important to driving up that performance, because we can focus on the rolling stock, which we should do to an extent, but also some of the performance issues that are related to, for example, axle counters, signalling problems and signalling issues. Those issues are being addressed as we talk. Again, from the member's debate yesterday, not to, hopefully, to misquote, but Christine Grahame made the point, as did Rachel Hamilton MSP, that in the recent month, month and a half, they feel that the Borders has been improving. They have had less in their inbox. That is anecdotal from those MSPs, but the improvements that Network Rail—I am sorry, ScotRail—have put forward, I think, are starting to bear some fruit, but I will be keeping a close eye on that. The second point that the member spoke about was to do with double tracking and so on. I read an interesting article from David Spavey, the rail consultant on this very issue, and he was critical, as some others have been, of the forecasting methodology that we use and the Transport Scotland use, in saying that, if it was predicted that there would be this many passengers, the layout of the rail line might have been different. I have taken that on board and asked the team to review the forecasting methodology. In some rail projects, it has worked, but clearly in some parts and borders railway, some of the estimates were way off. The forecasting, as the name suggests, is not an exact science, but there should be the amount where some of those figures were off or, to me, disturbing. I have asked for a review of how we do forecasting in the future. Moving forward, again, in the same discussion that I had with Gail Ross at MSP, where there are improvements that are suggested to the Borders Railway, I have met with the campaign for the Borders Railway. They have suggested that some passing loops and where they think double-tracking might well improve. I am open-minded. We have a control period coming up, again, the HLOS process. I am always open-minded to that and continue to have discussions with relevant stakeholders about how we can improve that performance. You touched on what was going to be my second point, which is about the forecasting. It does seem to be a regular occurrence, or the feeling is that it is a regular occurrence, that, when we look at a project, the number of passengers using a line has been regularly underestimated. I think that that was true in the Airdrie Bathgate line, which has been better, and I think that it has been true in the Borders. I know that individual stations do not always meet expectations, but the overall level seems to be. I am encouraged that, if the minister is saying that, it seems to me that other future projects might be held back if there is an underestimating passengers, plus the problems on the Borders that it cannot cope with the number of passengers. I think that that would be my concern as well. I mean, I would share the member's concern. I get communities up and down Scotland putting forward their case for their railway infrastructure project that they want to see in their communities, and each of them are as passionate as the campaign for the Borders railway. For me it would be wrong if we dismissed them because our forecasting methodology was really far off. That is why I have instructed that review to take place. I want to reiterate that forecasting is not an exact science by the very nature of it, but I think that there are some lessons there to be learned. I would like to reiterate that the Borders railway has been a great success in something that all of us should be celebrating. My final and third and final point, if it has been a success, we have more passengers wanting to use it. One of the answers has to be longer trains. Can you give us any timescale when we might get up to three trains instead of two? We are increasing capacity on that line as electrification progresses and the cascading of rolling stock across the network takes place. For example, we are already investing in the refurbishment of the trains, but for peak services next year in 2017 we will see some additional capacity. As electrification continues, we will see additional cascading of the rolling stock across the network, which will improve capacity. By next year, we will see some peak times initially, some increased capacity on Borders Rail, but the member makes the point that the success should be a driver to ensure that continued numbers can use the line. I will ask for a follow-up on that if I may. Have you set yourself a target date when you can see whether there is quantifiable improvement in the near future, so that you can report back to the committee and specifically to John on when the improvements will be achieved? I monitor PPM figures daily. I look at them every day and go online. I look at the improvement where it has been made and where it has not been made. For the improvement plan across the network as a whole, the committee will be aware, and I expect questions on the improvement plan that Scotland has put for the network as a whole. I am looking towards the end of the year to give Scotland Rail some time. They have put forward the improvement plan, they understand the strength of the feeling that I have on their performance and they understand the serious consequences of their performance. It does not improve, but it would be remiss of me not to give them the time to put forward those improvements. I will do that and I will update the committee on whatever regular basis that they wish to have that update on. We are anecdotally from the MSPs in that area, and the board is specifically seeing some improvement, not quite at the standard that I would like it to be at. Moving on to Scotland Rail performance. As you say, I have made it abundantly clear in a piece on STV that was picked up this morning. I think that Mike has some questions for you. The Scotland Rail performance improvement plan, which was mentioned as we have received—we have not received the Scotland Rail performance improvement plan—is a summary. I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to make sure that we get a full copy of this, and their response was, and I quote them, you asked if Spice could obtain a copy of the full report of the performance improvements plan sent to Transport Scotland by ScotRail. Only the summary document is available. You said in your opening remarks that you do not find ScotRail's performance to be at an adequate level. We cannot do our job on this committee if we do not see the material, the report that is sent to you. I quote from the summary that we have in front of us from Phil Verst, the managing director. He is saying, our train service punctuality and reliability has moved from just above 90 per cent to 89.6 per cent in recent months. That drop of just under a percentage point is why Transport Scotland has asked us to produce this plan, to bring it up to the level that we expect it to be. I find that astonishingly complacent, and it does not chime with the comments that you have just been making to the committee now about how you do not find this performance acceptable. Phil Verst, in his remarks that I have just quoted, seems to be suggesting that the only reason that you have asked them to produce this report, which we have only got the summary of, is that the fall of 0.4 per cent in punctuality and reliability is the only reason it has been done. I just cannot understand why we have not got the information that you have got. Let me try to give the member some reassurances if I can, because I think that he raises some very valid points. On the improvement plan, the fact that it is published, which is not in the norm practice, the fact that the campaigners' MSPs and others have called for it to be published, a version of that has been published. The reason why the information that has not been published is that I will check for that. I will check if it is commercial, confidentiality or sensitivity. I will check and I will come back to the member. However, the point is that the improvement plan that is online does detail the improvements that ScotRail is going to make. There are the key improvements that we expect ScotRail to make, some of the key improvements that we expect ScotRail to make to improve performance. However, let me try to delve deeper into the point that the member makes, which I think is a very valid one. Of course, the contractual obligation is to meet specific PPM targets throughout the franchise, and those increase year upon year. PPM, again, I am sure that the member is aware, is that measurement of trains arriving at destination within five minutes of a timetable. That is one measure. Statistics are certainly important, of course, because they help us to measure that performance, but all I have to do is look at my Twitter feed and see where people complain largely about capacity issues during peak hours. Of course, capacity is also measured. That does not necessarily chime with PPM. PPM is a measure for punctuality and reliability, as the member knows. However, there are also issues around capacity. What that plan details is not just how there will be improvements to the PPM figure, which is important, but how we will also ensure that we will do work around the capacity issues that are making commuters journeys uncomfortable. Having spoken to ScotRail, it is under no illusion the strength of the feeling that I have that the performance is not an acceptable situation. Of course, there are serious consequences of that. That does not improve. PPM is part of that. It is a measure, but it is not, for me, the only measure of success and, indeed, a good commuter experience on our railways. I am frustrated that we are hearing what you are saying to us now, which is fine as much as you are not satisfied with ScotRail's performance. I have a quote from me in the press, which you indicate strongly. I cannot square in the circle when Phil Verst of the Managing Director has produced this summary of the ScotRail performance improvement plan. He is under the impression that he has only been asked to produce the ScotRail performance improvement plan because his company has failed by 0.4 per cent. That is what he has actually said. It does not square with what you are saying to us now. I want to make sure that the message that you are giving to us is being given to ScotRail. I think that, again, the member is raising a very valid point. I cannot speak on behalf of Phil Vester in ScotRail, but I can say from the discussions that I have with him that he understands that this is not just about PPM. For example, when I went to Atrium Court, the ScotRail officers in Glasgow, I was taken into a control room, which is measuring a variety of different criteria about the passenger commuter experience from capacity to the cleanliness of toilets on the train right the way through to PPM figures. Of course, some of the recent investment that we have made in rail, when the Government announced £100 million capital stimulus—£3 million of that coming to our railways—was not just about performance and improving PPM, although that is important to us. Some of that is about addressing the capacity issues. Phil Vester, without putting words in his mouth, is very much aware that not only do I expect him to reach the PPM target, which is important, but it is a contractional obligation, so I do not want to go away from that. They are not far off it. It is still going to be a challenge with an autumn-winter period coming up to meet their contractual obligation, which you would understand would be one of my priorities to ensure that they meet that contractual obligation, because that is why we give them the money to run our railways. However, aligned with that, Phil Vester understands and ScotRail understands that I expect immediate and medium-term and long-term solutions to the capacity issues that frustrate so many commuters every day. Some of that is already being done in terms of the additional trains coming on the Glasgow suburban route and, indeed, future plans for high-speed trains. If I can give the members reassurance that it is not my belief that ScotRail is complacent about that, they understand the seriousness that has made this approach and they also understand the seriousness of the consequences if that performance does not improve. That is one small point to that, convener. We mentioned the borders railways. If I can give just one example. I travel up to Aberdeen and the trains that were specially painted to advertise the borders railway were the bigger and more modern 170 trains, I get them running to Aberdeen. However, they were, I assume, specifically designed for the borders railway, yet they are not being used on the borders railway. Any comment on that? It is a one-to-five-eight that are used. Operating three to six train formations respectively. I can look at the specific issue, if the member wishes, but I am confident in saying that one-five-eight and class 170 trains are used on the borders, but I am notwithstanding that. I still think that the rolling stock issues on the borders are not ones that I am satisfied with and we are working to make improvements on them. I go back to the point that what ScotRail is saying to us, to giving us the impression that what you are saying to them is not what you are saying to us. I do not get that impression at all when I speak to ScotRail. If you have ScotRail in front of your committee, I am sure that they would confirm that they understand the seriousness of which I expect them to take the performance issues. That is not just PPM, PPM is an important contractual obligation, but capacity issues, reliability issues, skip-stopping, which was mentioned earlier on. Those are all issues that I want them to tackle. I think that it is clear that in the not-too-distant future we will be having to look at this again. It is unfortunate that there has been a gap in speaking to ScotRail and to the minister, and to get the two closer together would be more helpful. Neil, I think that you wanted to follow up on the issue of targets. It would be helpful to get some clarification. Phil Vester, the managing director of ScotRail, has talked about a PPM with 90.3 per cent. Minister, in the chamber on 22 September in your answer to me, you said that the public performance measure target at ScotRail is 91.3 per cent. In the franchise agreement, it says that from the first day of the fifth franchising year onwards, the PPM target is 92.5 per cent. I think that it would be helpful if we can get clarity on what, as it is today, is the PPM target, and could we also know a number of targets in the franchise agreement PPM benchmark tables on improvement plan, performance level breach, performance level and default performance level are all redacted? It would be helpful if we could get information on what those targets are. I do not think that any of the figures that have been mentioned by the member are incorrect of neither that I gave or indeed where the breach happened. Of course, it has to be reminded that PPM is monitored daily, and the PPM figure, also what we have on top of the PPM figure, of course, is the moving annual average figure, which is often used as well. Some of those have been seen in the press. I am not accusing the member at all of this, but in the press, journalists have picked one figure and compared it against a different figure, so they have used the MMA figure and compared it to a PPM, which is not the correct way of doing it. For clarity on the specific question, you are absolutely right that the contract puts obligations of increased PPM figures to be met by ScotRail, Biobelio. The contract expects a PPM of 91.3 by the end of 2016-17, so the railway period is also the end of the financial year. The PPM is expected to be 91.3 We called for an improvement. I instructed an improvement plan to come forward when the PPM was at 90 per cent. Therefore, if there is a fall of 1 per cent below what the expected PPM is for the contract, that can trigger the improvement plan. That is why I triggered the improvement plan. That is different to the moving annual average, which takes into account what the average was the year before at that specific time period. That way is able to take into account, for example, seasonal variations winter-autumn, which might be different to summer. That is where we are. I expect that improvement plan to get ScotRail to that contractually obligated point. On the second point that he mentioned, I have, hopefully in my public statements, but also privately to ScotRail, made it clear that not only is the performance not at the acceptable standard and neither is the contractually obligated standard, but there are some very serious consequences if that performance has not improved. The member highlights and alludes to some of those consequences. They have a target for year 2, which is 91.3, as I mentioned. The improvement plan is to get them to within 1 per cent, so that 90.3. If they go down to 87.3, that would be a breach. If they get to the 84.3 level, that is a default. Three consecutive periods of default can result in termination of the contract. Let me make no doubt about that. That is an option that we have. In fairness, I do not suspect that it is an option that I will have to use. I have looked at the improvement plan. I have seen the commitment of the ScotRail team to improve. I am going to give them that time now that they have put that performance plan to do that while monitoring on a daily basis how things are improving. Thank you, minister, for that answer. You mentioned the improvement plan and the fact that you monitor PPM on a daily basis. Obviously, the improvement plan was submitted on 16 September, but in the four weeks after the improvement plan was submitted, punctuality was actually worse than the four weeks prior to the improvement plan submitted. My question is, and I think that passengers would be keen to know, do you have full confidence in ScotRail and their improvement plan? Yes, I have confidence in the improvement plan. I have to give ScotRail the time and the space to enact on that improvement plan. Bearing in mind that the target of that 91.3 is for 16-17, so the end of that financial year. I have to give them the time and the space. Bearing in mind—I am not here at all to excuse ScotRail's performance. I do not find it acceptable, but bearing in mind that we are not going into that winter period, the moving annual average seems to be stabilising in the last period at 89.67, as the member alluded to. It would also be fair to say that the current period is only 10 days into the current period, and it is done by every 28 days, and it is only 10 days into that period. Currently, I checked the PPM figures for this period at 90.6. I am going to hold off judgment on how well ScotRail is doing, but I will give them the time and the space that they have put forward on an improvement plan. However, I would like to reiterate that performance worsens, for example. There are some very serious measures that I can take and I will take if necessary. You say that you have confidence in the plan, but for passengers to have confidence in the plan, they need to know when these improvements are going to happen, similar to the question earlier. Passengers to take these reassurances seriously need guarantees. How will passengers judge the success or failure of this improvement plan? Will the PPM target a 91.3 per cent be met by the end of 2016-17? Or will passengers have to wait longer to see the PPM targets? I do not want passengers to have to wait longer to see improvements. I expect improvements to be starting to be seen on the railways immediately. For example, that is why some of the improvement works are starting and have started already. Let us take capacities. It is an issue that I frequently get asked about, and, as I said, it comes up on my social media feed on a regular occasion. I have told ScotRail that, of course, there are medium-term solutions to the capacity in terms of high-speed trains when they come to us later on in the franchise. However, there are some immediate improvements that can be made to capacity. Some of what we are doing, for example, on the Glasgow suburban route, seven new trains will come forward already. On to the network, and other three will come on gradually by the end of 2016. That will be 1,500 additional seats every day on that very, very packed commuter route. I am hoping that some of those improvements will already be seen. Of course, you are absolutely right. There will be some improvements that will be more medium and more long-term. They will see, for example, 23 per cent, almost a quarter more additional capacity by 2019. However, I do not expect commuters to have to wait to start to see some of those improvements. Some of those improvements should be seen, but I would like to thank commuters for the patience and the tolerance. I would say that a PPM figure, having almost 90 out of the 100 trains coming within five minutes of their destination, is a figure that is what we are striving for, but I also accept the point that, even if that is the PPM figure, there can still be inconvenience to passengers even when trains are, for example, 60 seconds late. I think that that is an issue that we have to look at as well. Do you think that they will hit their PPM figures by the end of this year? The improvement plan is for 2016-17, so that is when they are expected to hit the PPM. I expect them to hit them by the end of 2016-17. That is why the improvement plan is put in place. In terms of Scotland's own internal targets, that is for them to come up with. I know that they understand the severity of the issue. I failed to say that you would only have to pick up the newspapers over the past few weeks to see that they are feeling the heat on this issue. Yes, the target is for the end of 2016-17 that period, but I will assess at the end of this year, calendar year, how those improvements are going and, if I am not satisfied, we will continue to have very robust discussions with Scotland. Mike Rumbles said that we have only seen a summary of the improvement plan that has been published. We have not seen the full improvement plan that was submitted to the Government on the 16th of September, so passengers and the committee cannot see the full range of changes that are going to be made. There has been talk about trains being classified as golden trains. We do not know what the golden trains are and what the non-golden trains are. I am also interested in following the question from Gail Ross about timetabling changes. There are significant timetable changes. Further to the question from Gail Ross, you confirm that none of the planned timetable changes will result in longer scheduled journeys for existing services? The reason why we make—if I am sure that I know what he is talking about and if I am not addressing the issue, please come back if I am grasping the wrong issue—the changes that are being made because of the electrification programme that we are taking forward. Of course, there is disruption involved in some of that. In the same way that there was disruption, for example, we had to do necessary work at Queen Street Tunnel. Now, as long as we can communicate when those works are taking place, what effect they will have on commuters journeys and work with commuters to ensure that as much as possible their commuter experience is still a smooth one, then we will do that. However, there is never a convenient time to do works on our railways. Our railways are constantly busy. They are more popular than they ever have been before. So trying to minimise any disruption is absolutely what we will try to do. In terms of the improvement plan, the key measures that Scotland are taking place are at detail in that improvement plan. If there are more details that are required, I am more than happy for the member to write to me, of course, to write to Scotland directly, to ask, for example—excuse me—the detail of, for example, the golden trains, I want to minimise disruption for our commuters as they travel. I do not want them to see any further increase in the disruption to their journey. I am very robust in my response to ScotRail in order to see those improvements. Even if the improvement plan is enacted 100 per cent and those targets are made, that does not mean that that is the end of the story. There are still improvements that have to be made above and beyond the improvement plan to make the commuter and passenger journey a much better experience. Transparency is very important here. Passengers would welcome the additional information around timetabling changes and golden trains and other proposals. You have told us what is happening and is unacceptable. You are aware that 20,000 passengers have signed a petition calling for action on the railways. We have seen trains overcrowded, delays, cancellations, but just two years ago, the Scottish Government said that this was a world-leading contract. Does the Government still believe that it is a world-leading contract? I remember that question that was asked at First Minister's Questions by Kezia Dugdale to the First Minister. I refer the member to her answer. The ability for us to have a railway that leads on these islands and beyond that in terms of the European continent and wider, yes, the contract absolutely has the ability to do that. What I would say is that there are challenges on the railways and I want to tackle those challenges. I want to improve the performance, but what I should say is that the rail revolution has described my predecessor, which would take place, of course, when we get those high-speed trains, when we get those longer, faster, greener trains. I think that absolutely will be the envy of many commuters, but that does not take away from the fact that there are major challenges that must be tackled, which I am focused and determined to tackle. I know Transport Scotland and, indeed, ScotRail are looking to do and are looking to take on. I would say that, when I look at the passenger survey, the satisfaction with the railways in Scotland is at a greater level than satisfaction, for example in other parts of the United Kingdom. That does not satisfy me, because I want it to be better than it currently is. I met with those campaigners that he refers to, the 20,000. Obviously, I have not met with all them, but I met with a group of them from 38 degrees. They told me how the performance issues were affecting their journeys to college, their journeys to their apprenticeship, their businesses. For me, regardless of whether the passenger survey is telling me that it is better than that across the UK, if it is still affecting people in their everyday lives, that to me is an issue. I am determined to tackle it. Yes, I believe that the franchise, of course, was awarded to Abelio, and they can make a railway service that works for the communities and the people of this country and provides a great service. We are not seeing that currently. There are steps that are being put in place, and I am determined to work with ScotRail and others to better performance on those railways. I think that you have heard from two members of the committee now that they would really like to see the supporting document behind that executive summary. I think that that is a clear request, subject to commercial confidentiality. I would ask if we could liaise afterwards on how to make sure that that is available to the committee. Stewart has a question, and then we are over to Richard. That is a very straightforward, simple question. The square system that Transport Scotland has for monitoring a wide range of issues in the network and operation, is that still in use and thought to be of value, because it was once described as a world-leading monitoring system? I will ask that question just in terms of the convener's request and the committee's request. I do not view the improvement plan as a summary document. I view it as the key improvements that ScotRail is wanting to make. While all the information that has been passed us might not be in that, I will check the reasons for that, and I will liaise with the convener to see what can and cannot be published. The measures that are highlighted in that document, which has been made public for the first time, are the key improvements that we expect to see from ScotRail. In terms of the member's point about the squire monitoring regime, yes, it is still used, and, as the member knows only too well, it assesses many criteria and the infrastructure right through to, again, the cleanliness of the toilets and so on and so forth. Where there is a failure to meet those criteria, then, of course, there are financial penalties, and those financial penalties are reinvested back into the railway. That is still used. What I would say is that I had an approach from Kevin Lindsay Aslef's main person here in Scotland. He approached me a number of weeks into my role to say that he did not think that the squire regime was tight enough in terms of auditing when it comes to a second person on a train. Therefore, I gave him endeavour to see how we could tighten that squire regime, so we have done that. I am always happy to take advice and feedback from all sources about where we can improve our monitoring regime, but it is still a leading auditing and monitoring regime that has resulted in financial penalties, because the very high standards that we expect to be maintained in our railways at times have fallen below that expectation. Good morning, minister. We now move the trains to planes. I just want to say on trains, if I may, before we move on to planes. I thought you were indicating that you had a train question. I thought we were moving on to planes. We probably will be, but I just want to see if there is anything that we can do on trains. There is one further question that I think is important considering the publication this morning of headlines saying that the public sector is ready to take over the ScotRail franchise. I would like to specifically ask what contingency plans does Transport Scotland have in place to provide ScotRail services as operator of last resort and any possible longer-term plans for public sector provision of ScotRail services? The commitment to enabling a public sector bid was one that we had in our manifesto as a political party, and now the legislative framework is there for that to happen. We are now already having conversations internally about how we would look to manifest and put in place the structures around that public sector bid. It is something that I am committed to doing. We should have that in place by the time there is a break clause, not to say that break clause will be enacted, but of course we have to be prepared in that circumstance. What I would say is that we have the operator of last resort here, which would essentially end up being Scottish ministers. There are mechanisms in place in order to take that contract forward if it was terminated early. I can give confidence that our railways would continue to run if the contract and the franchise were terminated before due course. I do not see us going into that territory, as I have said to members already. There is an improvement plan there. I will be looking to see and make sure that that improvement plan is enacted upon and we get the necessary ppm figures back up and we also see improvements in our railways. We have the option of the operator of last resort that I do not expect me to be running our railways in the near future. However, there is a public sector bid that we have committed to facilitating. So the contingency plans are in place? Yes. Are there any other questions on rail? Now, Richard, we move on to our place. Thank you very much. Minister, the Scottish Government bought presswick airport for a pound or Glasgow presswick airport. Basically, what I want to ask you is can you give us an update on the implementation of the Glasgow presswick airport strategy vision, the progress towards returning the airport to profitability and also eventually to the private sector? I can. I thank the member for the question. It means challenging. There are no two ways about it, but what we are committed to doing is getting Glasgow presswick back to being profitable and back into the private sector. There are a number of avenues that are being pursued on that front. He will know about some of the work that has been done in our own space port. It is an exciting programme. We are working, waiting for clarification from the UK Government, which I am sure will be coming in terms of what the licensing regime around space port will entail, what capital expenditure will come with that, if any, and so on and so forth. That discussion is on-going, so there is a potential in regard to the space port. Of course, while we are doing that, we continue to attract routes and looking to attract routes to presswick and Ryanair, which have increased their footprint recently and announced that recently in terms of presswick. We also noted an MOU signed between the Scottish Government and the owners of Heathrow when it comes to the expansion of course, that announcement yesterday on the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow. Part of that discussion is about basing a logistics hub potentially in Heathrow, which will come with additional jobs. There is also the conversation that is happening between, as has been reported in the press recently, between the high-level international consortium and the owners of presswick. Again, looking to secure the work that is progressing. There is also work that we have done, for example, with Chevron, which is the lease of the 747 hangar, which will come with jobs to presswick. We are pursuing commercial opportunities. We are pursuing other opportunities, such as the space port. I think that there are opportunities there with the Heathrow third runway as well, but it is not to say that it is still not challenging. There are a number of avenues that we are pursuing. As I said, as soon as we are able to return presswick back into the private sector and make it commercially profitable, then we will do that. Is anyone interested in buying presswick? Who would you contact in the Scottish Government? I do not know if that was a direct request from the member, but Keith Brown is the Cabinet Secretary who... No, I am being serious. Someone approached me last week and asked that question. I just want to double-check that it is yourself. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport leads on presswick, but I and Keith work very closely. In terms of a Government minister, they could have discussions, but there is a management team at Glasgow Presswick. I can furnish the member with the details, probably in the first instance, with the management team at Glasgow Presswick. I have some questions on Heathrow, which we will do just straight after we have done the first bit on presswick, if we may say. If I could try and stick to presswick at the moment. I think that Gail has got a question for you. With regard to the strategic vision, the capital plan does not include the cost of replacing the existing primary radar, which I believe has to be done within the next five years. Can you give the committee an indication as to what alternative finance options are currently being investigated? I will write to the member because I do not have the details very much on the specifics of the radar, but I will be more than happy to furnish the member with some of the full detail. She is right in terms of what she said. There is still significant capital investment that is needed for presswick, regardless of which route we end up going down spaceport or commercial viable airport. That is being met by the Scottish Government, and we are committed to doing that so that we can return presswick into a profitable airline. On the specifics that she asked for in terms of the financing of the radar, I will furnish her with that information. I have a question about fifth freedoms. When presswick went into decline in the mid-1970s, the UK Government revoked the fifth freedoms that allowed panam, KLM and SAS to make intermediate stops at presswick, which is what fifth freedom is about. I think that there are still restrictions in relation to freight, and I wonder if it is possible to check whether fifth freedom restrictions are causing a problem. I know that, for example, there was freight for a while flying into presswick, then being trucked down to Stanstead and put on another plane, whereas the plane itself would, of course, be perfectly happy to go all the way and drop off and pick up at presswick. Listening to Stuart Stevenson is always an education, so I will go back and I will check on the issue on freight. I am not aware of the restrictions that he is referring to in terms of fifth freedoms, but going back to his opening remarks, my parents, for example, have a great emotional attachment to presswick. They came here as immigrants from subcontinent, and presswick was the airport that they landed to in Glasgow before Glasgow Airport existed. I think that people rightly want to see presswick be successful, and it is going to have to require a mixture of freight. Of course, the military operations that are there, commercial viability and, indeed, any other opportunity will be pursued, but on the specifics that he asked about again, I will be back in touch with him, but I do not know of that restriction that exists on freight. Just before we move on to Heathrow, I am sorry, could you just clarify something for me, minister? I did not quite hear your answer. Did you have a target date for returning presswick back to the public sector? As soon as possible is what I said. I think that, unless there are any other questions on that, we will move on to Heathrow, and I think that John has got some questions on Heathrow. Good morning, minister. Minister, if I noted you correctly, you said earlier—comendably said earlier—that we still have work to do on CO2 emissions. We know that aviation is the fastest source of greenhouse gases. How is the Scottish Government's extreme enthusiasm for a third runway compatible with the aims of the Paris agreement? I thank the member for the question and commend him for pursuing this agenda, as I know he has done over the time. In my opening remarks, I said that, as transport minister, I know that I have to make sure that me and my department shift our weight when it comes to the very ambitious targets that we have in CO2 emissions. I would say that there will not be a surprise to the member that that has to be a balance to that. A choice will be made about airport expansion, or third runway at Heathrow. We chose the Heathrow option to support the Heathrow option because of the clear benefits to Scotland, not just in terms of the route development, but also because of the additional jobs that it will create and the opportunities for SMEs. I would say a couple of things. One is that the airport commissions itself, the studies and the variety of studies that have taken place in terms of the airport commission, have shown that Heathrow expansion would not breach EU air quality law or, indeed, necessarily impact the meeting of carbon targets that the UK has set themselves and international agreements that we have set ourselves so long as they are offset by other actions. That is the key point. We are ambitious for our airports to secure, for example, long-term routes. They have had great success in that. The Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example, great connectivity to the Middle East—three carriers now from the Middle East, Qatar, Etihad and Emirates. The airports want to see penetration into the west coast of America, into the subcontinent and far east. We share those ambitions of connecting Scotland globally but we have to also make sure that, if we are doing that, we have to offset it by other measures to ensure that we are helping in that effort to reduce CO2 emissions. Similar to the APD cut that the member has set views on, the APD plans, for example, are subject, as we know, to strategic environmental assessment that will then be published for consultation in 2017. Realising that everything that we do across Government has an environmental impact helps us to understand how much we have to offset that in other areas as well. We have to do some of that. I am committed as one of the members of the sub-committee on climate change on how transport can do that and mitigate that. We do not know the full effects of the expansion of Heathrow and what that will have in terms of routes to Scotland and wider. That will still be up to market competition and discussions as that construction and as the runway is constructed. Minister, I acknowledge the work that has been done and there has been good cross-party consensus on climate change. However, if it is challenging and you have acknowledged earlier on that it is challenging at the moment, how much more challenging is it going to be if there is 260,000 additional flights a year? You have talked about offsetting those measures. Can you give any indication of how those measures will be offset, even of a proportion of what Scotland would do to offset them? Of course, that is not a Scottish issue, it is not a UK issue or a European issue. It is a global issue. If we are to meet the challenges of the Paris agreement, it is a very modest global addition to flying. Are you and the Scottish Government enthused about all those additional routes? Scotland is leading from the front, remember. We have those global climate change targets, those leading climate change targets, and in the overall target the member is aware of the progress that we have made on those overall targets. We take our leadership and global leadership role very seriously. That does not mean that we do not, for example, want to be ambitious. I am not saying that the member is not, of course he is, but I am saying that there is the ability to want our businesses to be globally connected through aviation, but at the same time to ensure that we meet our commitments. The member is absolutely correct that this is an international global effort, and I would go back to that airport commission study that said that, as long as there are offset measures, EU air quality would not have to be breached. In terms of the specific question to me, how can we offset? First of all, we have to look at what this Heathrow expansion means for Scottish missions, because we do not know the full detail of that yet in terms of the additional routes that might be coming to Scotland and some of the Scottish airports. We will factor that in as we mend those discussions happen, but there is plenty that we are looking to do in terms of transport from incentivising the private car to be an electric vehicle. A lot of work is going into the incentivisation through the grant schemes that we have, the loan schemes that we have for electric vehicles, right the way through to the work that we are doing in terms of making sure that a bus fleet is meeting those Euro 6, are the cleanest engines and low-emission vehicles as possible on our buses, right the way through to the work that we are doing on ferries. We know that the vessels being procured at Ferguson's commercial shipbuilder are again hybrid in terms of their technologies, so they are cleaner ferries. Right across the transport portfolio, we are ensuring that we are doing what we can to contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions. Where there are transport initiatives that might increase emissions, as in support for Heathrow, we have to ensure that, as a portfolio, we work harder to offset those. There has not been terribly much discussion about the route development fund, the £10 million. Again, are you able to give any more information on that, where the routes would be developed, additional sites that would be connected to Heathrow? It is far too early to say some of that, but a couple of the discussions that we have had with Heathrow have been very positive in that they understand that we want connectivity with Heathrow, not just for Glasgow and Edinburgh, but we want to see airports across the country, and some of those airports, such as Dundee, Inverness and others, have connections to London, but there might be an option there in the future. I am saying that Inverness, Dundee and so on— Any new airports flying to London? Would there be any new airports flying to London? No, those airports fly to London, but we are talking about Heathrow specifically. Discussions would be for those airports to have it. It is far too early a stage at the moment in the discussions about Heathrow to say exactly what slots will be available, exactly what routes, but what we have made clear is in our discussions we expect Scotland to at the very least proportionally benefit from those new opportunities that exist. In terms of route development and international long-haul route development, I have mentioned some of the markets that I know of that Scottish airports are very keen to attract. Those are the Far East, the subcontinent and indeed the west coast of America, where we do not currently have the penetration that we would like to have. Again, we are at very early stages, I would remind the member that construction is not expected until another few years to begin. Could you ask about the term short-haul, because perhaps I am just a bit confused and not picked it up correctly, but Mr Brown, the Cabinet Secretary, when he talked, he asserted that additional long-haul flights into Scotland could reduce short-haul within the UK, but then went on to add that, of course, people flying to Scotland would wish to fly onwards to London Heathrow. What is the balance there? Quite clearly, if you have got £10 million to route development, a further incentive of £10 reduction per passenger, there is going to be a significant rise in flights to and from Scotland. I think that the member is right when he uses the word balance, and that is what we are trying to do as a Government. People want to be connected to hub airports, Heathrow, Sheepall, Dubai. People want to be connected to these hub airports for a variety of reasons to visit those cities and then move on to their onward journey, because it gives them a range of other travelling opportunities. There is a balance between connecting to those hub airports, and Heathrow being one of the world-leading hub airports is important, but also being able to attract direct long-haul flights is part of the Government's ambition and an ambition that is shared with the airports and one that we strive for. As regards construction at Heathrow where it to go ahead, there has been some assurances given to the Scottish Government about money coming to Scotland and respect of that. What does that say about the integrity of the procurement process that would apply at Heathrow? I think that there are opportunities. I mean, it wouldn't surprise the member that, when a construction project of this magnitude takes place, our interest is to ensure that as many Scottish SMEs would be able to benefit from that, and I don't think that anybody would begrudge that. We expect that to still be an open process, but what we'd expect is that Scottish companies, a certain portion of that supply chain, would be ring-fenced for Scotland. That is possible as far as we are aware to be done, but within that framework we can't dictate which Scottish companies must be able to procure, and in those contracts that will be part of an open, competitive, tendering process. I wouldn't shy away from the fact that we had very robust and long discussions with Heathrow over the opportunities for Scottish SMEs, but I make no apologies for the fact that we managed to secure what we have managed to secure from Heathrow for Scottish companies. I have one final question. I don't want to interrupt your flow too much, but it's quite helpful if you look at me occasionally just because there are other people who want you to come in. Please ask another question, and then I'd like to move on to the next person if I may. Thank you. The final question on the 16,000 new jobs that has been trumpeted by the Scottish Government, often without mentioning by 2050 and from new capacity, are you able to give any breakdown at all on how those jobs would be configured and where they would take place, minister? We have, for example, spoken about the fact that we expect the logistic subs to be based here in Scotland. We have mentioned about the fact of the amount that we expect Scottish companies to be able to procure in terms of the construction and through the supply chain. There will be jobs associated with the supply chain. There will be jobs undoubtedly associated with the addition of long-haul routes, short-haul routes and opportunities around that. There will be options of job creation with what we have spoken about in terms of pressed work and the ability for pressed work to be involved in some of the manufacturing as well. I don't have an exact breakdown of those 16,000. That comes from the overall picture of jobs that are likely to be created from the Heathrow expansion and a portion of those, as you said, 16,000 of them being realised here in Scotland. It is a good commitment, and one that I think members would welcome. There is just a portion of the 16,000 new jobs? No, no, no. A portion of the overall 280,000 jobs that have been created as part of the Heathrow expansion. A portion of those, which is a 16,000 figure, which you rightly cite, would be here in Scotland. I am grateful for that, Minister. Thank you, convener. Thank you. Jamie. Just a very quick follow-up. You mentioned route development, and it is just a quick supplementary on that. Having sat in meetings with both airlines and airports on proposing new international routes, the feedback that I got very much from those meetings is that it is up to the airport to present the business case to the airline and not the other way around. I wondered very specifically what measures both the Scottish Government and your capacity and your portfolio, but working with other ministers in the Government, are doing to support airports in Scotland to build feasibility studies and robust business cases for new international routes. Part of why we are keen to have an APD cut, and obviously the exact mechanisms and natures of that APD cut will be something that will be decided by my colleague, Cabinet Secretary Derek Mackay. Very close conversations happening with the airport and the aviation industry, as you would imagine, would be a further incentive, but in terms of what the Scottish Government can do, my previous ministerial role was Minister for Europe and External Affairs. In that, I was involved in many of the discussions around, for example, bringing the Qatar Airways flight to Edinburgh Airport and met with, for example, the chief executive of Qatar Airways in Doha at the request of Gordon Dure to see how we could facilitate some of those discussions, but where we can primarily add value is through our agencies. Marketing in terms of Visit Scotland and marketing a route in country is hugely important. I know that it was hugely important to Etihad. When we were first having that discussion with bringing Etihad to Edinburgh, the marketing of that route was essential to them. Being able to provide money, which of course has to be stated, compliant, etc. Providing that money for marketing is key for airlines, but any other assistance that we can give that we are able to give, of course, has to be within those legislative boundaries. If we can give any of that support, I have a very good relationship with other airports, so I would be more than welcome to welcome those conversations about that. Minister, much of the benefit to Scotland of a third runway that he throws is predicated on access to landing and take-off slots. There, of course, commercial items bought and sold. In the last 10 years, there was a pair of slots sold for £100 million. There is huge commercial value to those. For Glasgow and Edinburgh, there are train options for travel to London, but for Inverness and Aberdeen, the only realistic travel options to the south and beyond is by connecting at Heathrow. At the moment, we have services there, although, when British Midland was taken over by BAA, we saw part of what happened, Virgin ended up with the slots on condition, the operated services, Red and Brown, Aberdeen, but it was only for three years, and the moment the three years were up, the slots were reallocated elsewhere, so there is still a huge value. The new runway will be a short haul runway of 2,200 metres, not capable of taking long, big transatlantic planes. Will you continue to press the UK Government for one of the planning conditions for the new runway to include dedicated peak-time landing and take-off slots for Inverness and Aberdeen, for whom it is vitally important? Or are there other ways in which we can protect access to slots, not simply for three years, five years but in the very long term, because it is vital to those two particular significant airports? I think that the member articulates it better than I possibly could about the importance of trying to secure those slots but also presents well the challenges, because it is a competitive market, as he has demonstrated, by the sale of those two slots that he mentioned. Yes, we are in continual discussions with the UK Government about protecting slots for Scottish airports. The ones that he mentioned, of course, and others, will continue to happen. There is not yet certainty over that, and I think that he understands that, but those discussions will continue. I think that we are going to come down to ground now and stop talking about aeroplanes and talk about bicycles and cycling. John has a question for you on that. I would like to give a brief question of a mate on the cycling action plan for Scotland. There has been a lot of commendable progress, and I know that there has been some very positive promotion. Cycling Scotland's second progress report on the plans says that it is going to be very unlikely that we are going to achieve the targets by 2020. It also recommends a year-on-year increase in expenditure on cycling until it reaches 10 per cent of national and local transport budget and a renewed focus on the development of segregated on-street urban cycle infrastructure. There has been some progress. Can you tell me how you intend to take those recommendations forward, please? Yes. I would welcome the member's acknowledgement of the progress that has been made and, of course, equally commend the Green Party for, obviously, pushing this agenda often in Parliament and making sure that it is high up the Government's agenda. In particular, the member won't begrudge me for saying that his colleague Alison Johnson, I think, played a leading role in some of those conversations. I would just like to reiterate that we are seeing record investment in active travel. If I can take a couple of the issues that he mentioned in terms of the CAHPS review, yes, it is challenging to meet that 10 per cent vision. I would say that it is an aspirational vision. I wouldn't like us to scale back on that. It is important to have ambitious visions. We have seen some progress on it. Again, as the member mentioned, I am bored with the statistics as such, but one statistic that I would pull out is that we have seen an increase in journeys that people are taking their bike to work, but not at a level that I think it should be higher than that. I wouldn't roll back on the 10 per cent vision. I want us to continue to work towards that 10 per cent vision while recognising challenges. I want us to continue in regards to the investment and let me give some reassurances on that. At a time where euphemistically we talk about financial constraint, we know that we have an autumn statement due and then a spending review from the Scottish Government on the back of that. We will certainly see what the financial position will be, but I can give him a guarantee that I will fight if there is any extra expenditure and that we will fight for a portion of that to come to active travel. I think that the agenda is hugely important. We have to be able to show leadership on that, so that 10 per cent target should maintain. He alluded to the 10 per cent request from some for 10 per cent of the budget to be allocated towards active travel. I just wish that it was as simple as that, but it is not. We have, because of the contractual commitments that we have from the ScotRail franchise, the CalMac franchise and the dualling of the A96, as well as many others. Those projects alone and the billions of pounds are contracted projects for us. It is not simple to just whack off 10 per cent of a budget and say that that is going to be spent on active travel, but what I can promise is that record level that he talks about will be maintained through the parliamentary term, where there is an opportunity for me to pull out the purse strings of the former transport minister who now is in charge of the money, then I will certainly make that. The final point that I would make, which he articulated well, was the importance of cycling infrastructure and in particular segregated cycleways. I was delighted to be able to announce the winner of the Community Plus project, the Lynx Brush project in Glasgow, south-city, because it is only 10 minutes away from my house, which of course had no bearing on the decision. Nonetheless, it is a very ambitious project and it is going in the right direction, so I think that segregated cycleways are an important part of realising our vision. Minister, you did talk about the commitments, and they are understood in at least the two dualling projects. We have heard representations during a workday to the committee that some modest changes, for instance to the A96, where the existing system whereby roundabouts are used, rather than the more complicated junctions, would greatly reduce costs. If you could reduce costs on that, you could direct more savings to active travel such as cycling. Would you undertake to look at that, please? I will certainly look at any evidence that is put towards us. If there is any way of saving money, you can bet your bottom dollar that, as a Government, we would try to do that without compromising the integrity, safety and viability of a project. Those are important caveats. I am not a civil engineer, nor do I have that background, but I have found in this transport job that even when things seem like a simple solution, they are often certainly more complicated. However, I make an undertaking to look at what is being proposed. When it comes to major trunk road infrastructure projects, it is important to realise that we take active travel into consideration. The M8, the M73 and the M74 being a good example of that in terms of the cycling infrastructure and the walking infrastructure that goes alongside that improvement project. Can we do more? Can we look to do more? I think that there is not a reason why we should not explore other avenues when it comes to infrastructure projects. We are at the early stages of some of those A96s, for example, due to being completed at 2030, progressing in terms of the design phase. However, if we can supplement more active travel initiatives into those projects, we should be open-minded to that. There is another cycle project on the other side of the city, the Bearsway project in Easton-Bartonshire. Obviously, the SNP Government has got a policy of promoting cycling in Edinburgh, but the SNP councillors have rejected that particular expansion in Easton-Bartonshire. Would you like to comment on that? I would say that, of course, as the member would be aware, he would be the first to rightly be up in arms if I was trying to overturn local authority decisions that were made. We trust councillors to make the decisions that are pertinent to their local wards and the councils that represent them. However, notwithstanding that and having said that, I think that segregated cycleways are a very important part of realising our vision of 10 per cent cycle journeys and active travel journeys made by 2020. What I am looking to do in the back of Not Just Bearsway has been a couple of examples where I think that we could work closer with local authorities to ensure that they help us to realise those very ambitious targets that we have. While I cannot intervene—I think that the member would understand that—in individual local planning decisions, nor would he expect me to do so, I put on record my commitment and my belief that segregated cycleways are an important part to realising our vision and a commitment to work closer with local authorities to see how we can help to achieve that. I have the active travel summit coming up in a week's time, and I hope to be able to detail with some more information about how I will look to do that. We are going to come on to trunk red projects, but, just before we do, can we just talk about the national transport strategy? Jamie, I think that you have a question. Thank you, convener. We have obviously spoken about a large number of different transport means this morning, and it is quite apt as we come to closing this, that we look at the national transport strategy in general. As a committee in one of our off-site days, I think that the theme that came up often was that there should be a joined-up approach to transport in Scotland. I just wondered if we may touch on that. I would like to ask specifically about the national transport review, and if you will confirm that it will be quite comprehensive and all-encompassing in looking at a number of different areas concerning transport in Scotland, including things like ticketing, payment methods, including smart cards, but also just looking at how services connect and join up together in terms of how ferries connect to trains, how trains connect to buses and so on. You know, this committee is the connectivity committee as well as the rural economy committee, and I think it is quite important that we stress the importance of rural connectivity as part of this meeting and the importance that transport is not just forgetting from A to B, but it does have social repercussions in terms of getting and connecting our villages and towns across Scotland. I just wondered if you would confirm that, but also in detail outline the timetable for that review and how the public will be able to consult or how external stakeholders can take part in that review. That would be most helpful. I think that the member articulates very well some of the challenges that we face and some of the opportunities that we could realise if we get it right when it comes to the review of the national transport strategy. It is a funny thing when you are appointed as a minister, you do not overnight of course become an expert in transport, so my approach has always been to listen to the experts as much as I possibly could, try to gather from them their expertise. One of the big issues that has come up, particularly in rural areas, was the the current activity through different modes of transport, as the member has just mentioned. Getting off the ferry and getting a train and getting a bus to where you need to get to should be a lot simpler than it currently is. Part of that, I hope, will be the smart ticketing and the roll-out smart ticketing in Aberdeen and the leading the way in some of that smart ticketing in terms of initiatives. There is still a lot of work to do and I am committed to the national roll-out of that of course during phases, so that will be incredibly important. I would also stress exactly what the member has said. There is a reason why I, as a junior minister, sit under the cabinet secretary for rural connectivity in Fergus Ewing. Some people might have thought that my job might more pertain to, for example, infrastructure, and there is an element of that of course. I also have a close relationship with cabinet secretary Keith Brown, but there is a very deliberate reason why I am under Fergus Ewing and his cabinet secretariat. Indeed, this committee, because we realise how important transport is to rural connectivity, as well as the other connectivity issues in that portfolio. In terms of the specific question in regard to the review, I can give an undertaking that will be as wide scoping a review as possible—a real meaty review. That is why it will be over a period of two to three years. I have not detailed the timescale and we are still having those conversations, but I welcome feedback from members. The reason why it is going to be throughout the parliamentary term, as I have said, is because I need it to be detailed. Could I do a review within 12 months? I am sure that we probably could, but it is not something that I would like to do at all because it would not be comprehensive at all. It has got to require engagement. Every meeting that I go to, people give me ideas of what should be in that national transport strategy review. Can I encompass them all? Probably not, but can I try to take as many of those transport priorities with us as part of the review as possible? I will absolutely do that. It will be important to do that from a sectoral point of view but also from a geographical point of view as well. The period between now and spring 2017 is almost the pre-engagement that we are doing before the actual engagement as part of the review takes place. As I say, I am already meeting with stakeholders, passengers and commuters and those who are operating our transport operators, as well as regional transport partnerships, leaders of councils and so on and so forth. I am meeting with all those individuals and organisations to see what their priorities are and to hear from them. However, if the member ever wishes to have a sit-down session with me about what he thinks some of the priorities should be, I would more than welcome that. I am very grateful to the minister and I am sure that some of us would be very happy to do that. Very selfishly, if I could ask a short question. You may be aware that the reports that Trun is bidding for the iron fairing to replace their Drossan route, do you have a view on that? Yes, I do. I have made that view publicly. Of course, we continue the work that we do with the Drossan task force. A good amount of work has been done, but it would be an abdication of my responsibility if I did not look at every single option that came towards me and came to my table. I have had South Ayrshire Council as well as Associated British Ports make that approach. I have ignored Ayrshire Council and Peel Ports, who are the owners of a Drossan, to say that the ferry should stay at a Drossan. I have also been to Arran, I met with the various organisations and community groups and business forums, as well as had elected members from John Scott right the way through to Kenny Gibson, approached me about why they think that the ferry should go from their terminal. What I am saying at the moment is that I am not closed minded. I do realise the significant challenges, but the opportunities that that route can present. The Drossan task force work will continue. Drossan remains the port, but it would be remiss of me not to give consideration to other options that come under my nose. I think that Richard Scott has a brief on it. Monday I was asked by a senior citizen who had a travel pass why they cannot use it on the trams in Edinburgh. Can you answer that question or can you get back to me on that one? Yes, I will get back to you on that one. I am trying to remember. I have some correspondence from you. If it is not from you then it is perhaps from another MSP on that specific point. It is something that we are looking at in terms of the national travel concessionary scheme, and it is something that is constantly under review. Let more people go on the trams. You mentioned smart cards. I think that there has been some concern that Strathclyde might go off and do its own thing and the rest of the country do something else. Are we happy about that? I would not be happy if that was the case, but I had a conversation with SPT, senior management, a couple of weeks ago. Again, without putting words into their mouth, they understand the vision that we have for a national smart card to be rolled out. There are some discussions about the ePERS that is used, but I have to say that my discussions with SPT were constructive, and I hope to continue them in that constructive manner. Yes, it would be a source of frustration for me if there was a separate system in one part of the country and a different system in another part of the country, but that was not the intimation from SPT. The dialogue is constructive. We are going to move on to major trunk road projects. There are two specific questions in specific areas. If I ask Alexander to lead on the first one, please. Thank you, ministers, about the AWPR. It is good to see progress going on up there and experiencing the improvements at DICE personally the other day. However, we have had a number of issues caused by contractors all around the route, ranging from watercourse pollution, run-off, flooding, damage to DICE and fencing other environmental damage. I know that CEPA has got concerns over it, and they have raised an enforcement notice. Certainly, the residents and people affected by it have on-going concerns. If a minister would like to comment on that, what he is doing about it and whether he would like to respond, I think that they have requested to meet with him, whether he could give a response to that as well. Thank you. The important thing to say about AWPR is that we are still scheduled to open at the date of winter 2017. He understands that the real benefits that will make to the communities that he represents as well. It is a project that we are rightly proud of. Every transport and every infrastructure project comes with its complications, and he mentioned some of those there. Some of them can be with the appropriate amount of foresight. We can mitigate those. Some come as the construction phase goes on, so he has mentioned some of those. I am more than happy to give him a note in terms of what we are doing to mitigate the very specific measures that he mentions, but I have no problem with meeting with that. I am more than happy to discuss that with the member to meet local groups or to meet wider stakeholders to hear their concerns. Generally, what I hear about AWPR is that it is fairly positive. There are some things that we are keeping an eye on as well, but I am more than happy to meet with the appropriate stakeholders. Richard, last time I gave you the floor on the subject, it was quite a long time, and I am very conscious that the minister has given a lot of his time. The minister, when he started the statement, said that we are spending over £1 billion on roads. You are actually spending £500 billion of that billion in my area or areas beside me. A brief progress update on the M8, M74, M73, A725 upgrade, and I also thank you for allowing me to visit with you those areas a few weeks ago. I was delighted that you were able to join me in a project that will have great and significant impacts on the travel between Glasgow to Edinburgh and, indeed, some of the surrounding towns, villages as well. The impact on local residents, I would like to thank them for their forbearance. A construction project inevitably leads, unfortunately, to disruption. I thank the residents in your constituency and, indeed, other constituencies that have been affected. My personal thanks to them for their forbearance and their patience and that is somebody who uses that route himself. My thanks, first of all, to them for that. Secondly, my thanks to those who are working on the project, who are still due to open in spring 2017, as he saw when he was visiting the project with me. That visit was particularly enlightening to me because, again, the member will have seen that a large portion of that workforce are EU citizens and demonstrated the importance that EU citizens bring in terms of the contribution that they bring. We are on budget on time, which is the two things that any transport minister wants of infrastructure projects, so that is good. We are making good progress, certainly, on that. However, where there are issues, again, I am open-minded to hearing them from members or for, indeed, groups and organisations in the community. I am very happy for you to say that. I am in constant dialogue with SRP, Scottish Roads Partnership and Transport Scotland in regard to acoustic barrier ffencing. I was told that none would be constructed yet, as we go along the AMA, we now have outside Maxim Park, Dakota hotel, 300 yards away from it, past the Bell bridge, 300 yards away from the properties that are possibly affected, on the A725, a quarter of a mile away from the properties affected. However, I am still not getting an answer why we are not. That is all on the M8. On the M74, the only acoustic barrier ffencing that has been erected is by new developers who are putting up new houses. However, in the rear of Burnaker Gardens, which is right on top of a hill, the M74 is down here, and the Burnaker Gardens is a number of yards up. 10 yards away, I am not getting acoustic barrier ffencing. I have sent you something like 10 letters in the last couple of weeks, and that is maybe the letters that you are thinking of. I still am no answer to this. I was only getting an answer, of course, as you would imagine, to the correspondence that he sent. There are thresholds that determine where noise barriers and where noise mitigation measures should be implemented. If noise level rises by one decibel, then the noise barriers above those thresholds are provided. There are thresholds that exist. What I would say to the members is that there is on-going monitoring. After one year, in terms of the construction and the opening of the project, there will be on-going monitoring at one-year period, at a five-year period, at a 10-year period and at a 15-year period. There are opportunities, even if mitigation and noise barriers, noise mitigation measures are not there and not in place. There are opportunities after that for them, but I must emphasise the point that that is if thresholds are breached, then mitigation is required. The exact examples that he gave, I will go back and look at them, but the likelihood is that, because thresholds were breached, that is why mitigation is put there now. If he seems to be indicating, if he believes that not to be the case, then I can look to provide him with some of the data and the statistics around that. You gave a commitment a few minutes ago to visit an area in Aberdeen. Where my area is, it is 37 miles down the road from this place. I am asking you to visit with me. You gave a reasonable commitment to me to visit St John the Baptist's primary school. The only primary school in Scotland that I know that runs parallel to a major motorway. I was giving that commitment that you visited. That commitment was then rescinded not by you. I am asking for a commitment that you will visit Burnaker Gardens in St John the Baptist's primary school with me in order to highlight the problems that have been highlighted to me in a first year convener by saying, Scottish Road partnerships say that we will give you a better quality of life for road users and local communities. The people who stay at Burnaker Gardens and the people who use the St John the Baptist's primary school are not getting a better quality of life. They are getting more and more nice. We have got a long way to go. I very much appreciate that this is an area that Richard feels passionate about. I think that a simple undertaking that you would be prepared to visit with him and look at the site would be extremely helpful in us expediting the rest of the business that we have in front of us. In that case, yes, of course, any visit with my colleague Dick Lyle is one that I would be happy to take up. Thank you very much, minister. I would like to ask John some questions on the accessible transport plan. I will keep it to one seeing where time is probably against us, but yes, the accessible transport framework and just really the whole issue of accessibility to transport. I mean, I do see stations being improved with ramps and things, which is great, but I see others where not a lot is happening. I think that most of us accept Glasgow subway will never be fully accessible, and some people feel that, say, Waverley, since it was upgraded, has become less accessible for people than it was before. I suppose that I am just looking for a commitment on accessibility to public transport. I know that it is not going to be overnight, but is it a priority for yourself? Huge priority, and you are right that it will not be overnight. The accessible travel framework is a 10-year framework, but the important part of the framework is that it was designed by those with disabilities for those with disabilities. I have to confess to the member that I was pretty shocked at some of the testimonials that I heard from people when we were doing the lunch. An acceptable situation were those with a physical disability, for example, were shuffling on their backside downstairs in the middle of a busy railway station because the lift was broken and nobody had told them that the lift was going to be broken. So, to get to a job opportunity, having to do that, that lack of dignity being imposed upon them because the suitable facilities weren't in place, is an unacceptable situation. So, lots of measures in that accessible travel framework, I'm very proud of it, but I'll only continue to be proud of it if it actually realises changes on the ground, which we're very committed to doing. Thank you, minister. The final area that we're going on to now is the Lawrence Cork Junction. There are two members with questions on this. I'm sure that the minister is well aware of the background to this petition that has been on-going on and off, I think, since 2005, looking back to the papers. It would be very helpful for the committee if you could give some undertakings to the people who are going to ask the questions so that when we come to consider the petitions after your evidence to the committee, we have a clear understanding of your position on it. I think that Murray has sat very quietly and is ready to speak on that. Thank you, convener. The last issue that we're going to look at today, but by no means the least. I know that the minister is aware that this has been a very long, on-going issue in my constituency. I very much welcomed the announcement earlier this year. I believe that that is in part due to all the hard work that was done by the petitioner, Jill Fotheringham, who is petitioner, will be hearing next, as the convener mentioned, but also MSPs. I know that Mike has campaigned on this, as well as my predecessor, Nigel Don, and both Aberdeenshire and Angus councils have worked hard on this as well. Initially, of course, the safety concerns are on-going, but it's also a significantly inhibited development in both Aberdeenshire and Angus. In spite of the announcements that have been made by Government, and I did ask a parliamentary question about this back in June, I think that there is still a lot of concern by my constituents and people living in the area that there is a fear that it still may not go ahead and they are not too sure exactly of the plan. I ask the minister today for that categorical assurance for the people of my constituency that the junction will be going ahead. If that can also give an idea of the timescales when that can be delivered and where the plans are currently sitting at the moment. Yes, I can give a confirmation that the grade separation at Lawrence Kirk is something that we've not only committed to but announced £24 million for the design and the construction of that, so putting our money where our mouth is. That's incredibly important for us, for all the reasons that the member has articulated better than I can possibly articulate. I just want to join her in thanking campaigners such as Jill Fotheringham, like those other MSPs that she has mentioned from across the political divide, who have pushed the agenda much-needed grade separation at Lawrence Kirk for the efforts. In terms of where we are, she may have seen that we appointed design consultants in September, which means that we are now stepping up the work to deliver this much-needed scheme. There is still a lot of work to be done, as she will be familiar with. What I will look to do instead of going through it in the conscious of time, what I will do is I will ask my colleagues to write to her and any other member that has an interest about what the general process is when it comes to infrastructure projects, bearing in mind that many of the members here are new members, new MSPs or indeed others. I would just like that information. What I can do is start to go through it. What I can't do—and I will have to just emphasise this—is to give you an exact time scale of when that will take place. The reason for that is because, within the statutory process, if there are, for example, objections to a certain part of the scheme, then there may well be a need for further consultation, further discussion, local inquiries, and so on and so forth. I could not tie us down to an exact time scale on that. However, what I can do is get her the process by which a major infrastructure project, such as Lawrence Kirk, has to go through. Can I ask you to get your officials to direct that information through our clerks in the committee so that they can make sure that it comes out to the committee members? I think that what would help Murray is that he understands that there are processes and that, if there are objectives, it delays. I think that what would be helpful for all concerned is some target dates subject to a fair wind of when they can see shovels on the ground. One understands—and I think that everyone in the committee and everyone is realistic enough that there is a process to go through it, and there are knock-on effects, if it does. However, that would be very helpful, and I would ask if that could come to the clerks. Do you want to follow up on that? I was just going to ask exactly that, just to give the sort of indicative timescales providing there were no objections, because I do completely understand that objections can delay these projects by a number of years, depending on the nature. However, I would also ask the minister to ask if the Government are taking a strategic look at road and rail in the Angus North and Merns area, particularly because we have a lot of major developments happening with Montrose south regeneration. The port is doing incredibly well there, too, and we have the planned investment from GSK. There is huge growth potential there, and it is just to ensure that that is being looked at. On the target dates, of course, I will put those through the clock of the committee, and all going well, the target for the draft orders would be 2019, but I am reluctant to nail that to the mast because of the various, as I said, there could be objections and other such things as well. I will feed that information through the committee and the convener as appropriate. In terms of the wider transport issues in the area, there are a few opportunities. There is a review of the national transport strategy. There is also a follow-up from that review of the strategic transport projects review, the STPR, which is a document that pertains to the major infrastructure projects on our trunk roads that we look to do. There is an opportunity there as well. Of course, there are conversations at very early stages that are happening with the local authorities in that area about potential city deals and region deals. There are opportunities, if the member wishes to feed into, that we can look at the transport needs of the area that she represents. Mark Hew would like to. I would like to say that this whole issue of the campaign for the Great Separated Juncture at Loneschirk was never a party political issue. I wanted to put on record the support that I got as a local constituency member at the time for all the regional members who also supported the group, so it is only about saving lives this issue. I have to say that we are exactly the same position as we were in 11 years ago. Jill Fotheringham, who was Campbell at the time, that is why the names have changed. The first petition was that we got an agreement from one of your predecessors at the time, Nicolle Stephen, as Transport Minister, that the Great Separated Juncture would be the very next junction built after the four-fold one was completed when we had a 50-mile-an-hour and speed camera at four-fold. The 50-mile-an-hour zone was only meant to be a temporary measure with a speed camera at Loneschirk until that Great Separated Juncture was built. That temporary measure was put in 11 years ago and her petition was dropped. I do not want to go on to details, but other Transport Ministers then decided that actually there was not a programme there and that there was no commitment to start the project, and that is what prompted it to relaunch the petition in 2009. We are exactly in the same position. What would be immensely helpful, and we are all understanding the issues of when a project starts and what can delay it, but the key issue here is not the end date. The key issue is for you to give the green light to the go-ahead start date. That is what we are all holding our breath for in the north-east on this issue. If you could just give a commitment to a start date, that would be tremendously helpful. I hear what the member and Mary had said previously, not coming from the area. You are well able to represent and articulate the feelings of a local community. What they do not want is another false dawn only for the project to be pulled, so let me feed that information, as I endeavoured to do, through the convener. There are, as I said, a target date for draft orders in 2019, but let me see if I can, with all the caveats—please, if I may, emphasise that point—with all the caveats that you will understand, let me see if I can put in some information, because you are absolutely right. If people have seen false stars before, I can see why there might be some scepticism, but I hope that the fact that we have made a commitment in terms of the finances involved in this, and the fact that design consultants have been appointed, that gives people some reassurance, but I accept what the member says. Thank you very much. I am sure that you will not be held absolutely to the dates, but we look forward to getting that information. Just before we finish, I would ask if there is a statement that you would like to make to close the session before I have a few things to say, if I may? No, thank you very much, convener. I found this a very valuable session. Indeed, I covered a lot of the portfolio. There are a number of things that I have endeavoured to get back to, and of course my officials have taken note, but I am always here to be able to take feedback questions, but let me just reiterate on the issue where we spent a significant amount of time, that I want to see improvements in our transport, particularly the current and immediate priorities to see those improvements on our railway network. They are not an acceptable standard. I will continue to work with all the stakeholders, primarily ScotRail, but also our passengers and commuters to see and to realise some of those improvements. There are lots of issues for me here to consider and, of course, open to coming to the committee anytime the convener and committee members wish me to do so. I would like to thank you, minister, and your officials for coming with you. You seem to have been able to answer all the questions with only a few notes passed along the chamber, but I thank them for attending. There are issues that we have asked for further information on, and I am grateful that you said that you will supply them. The clerks will be in contact with your department to make sure that we get those information and we work together on it. Yesterday, when we met in the corridor, you said that you were looking forward to coming to the committee. I said that I hoped that you were not looking forward too much. You have been here for two and a quarter hours. I thank you very much for your time, and we will take you up on the offer to follow the developments of the issues that we have raised today at a later date. Thank you very much. There will be a short pause now while we allow the witnesses to go. I am sorry, but I was just going to reconvene the meeting. The second item on the agenda are public petitions. There are two public petitions. The first one that the committee will consider is P1236 by Gill Fotheringham on the A90 to A937 safety improvements. The petition was previously considered by the Public Petitions Committee and Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. The Transport Minister has given us an update on the Lawrence Kirk junction, and I could turn you to the papers that support this, but, in light of what the Transport Minister has said to me, until we have the further information that he has volunteered to let us have, it would seem appropriate for me to suggest to the committee that we allow the petition to remain open and consider it once the minister has given us that information. Does anyone have any comments that they want to make on that? I absolutely agree with that, because, as Mike said before about the previous petition, when that had been closed, I expected that there would be other developments. Until we see it progress a bit further, we would get that extra information from the minister. I think that it is important that we keep the petition open. Can I take it that we are agreed that we will keep the petition open? The second petition is the committee's first consideration of P1598 by Guy Linley-Adams on behalf of the Salmon and Track Conservation Scotland. There is a paper providing details of the previous consideration by the petition, by the Public Petitions Committee, for your consideration. I would like to invite comments. I will want to make a comment on this, and I would like to remind members of my declaration of interest that I am involved in wild fisheries. I think that it is an important issue, and the important thing that we need to understand on the back of this is what the Scottish Government's position is on all this. It is all very well. We have a lot going on. We have Seeper's position, and we have various people's position. The important thing is to know what the Scottish Government's position is, and I suggest that the next step is that we ask on that until we receive that that we keep the petition open. Does anyone have a contrary view to that, or can I take it that you will support that view that we write to the cabinet secretary and ask his opinion and to give us further advice on this matter, and in the meantime the petition remains open? If Seeper, and I believe from reading the notes, identified that this is a matter of animal welfare rather than environment, what the implications that will have on any other similar case that comes up, not just salmon lice, but puppy farming for example, that is an animal welfare issue rather than environment. Are we setting a precedent by acknowledging receipt of this? There are two sides to it. I think that there is the side that the wild fish will actually are being affected, and also the cage salmon, but in this particular case it is the wild fish as a result of the farming of the salmon. So by default then, if because this involves a natural wild animal as opposed to a commercial venture that is where we cross the line? But the cause of the problem lies within the committee's remit. Aquaculture actually falls within the rural economy and connectivity committee, which is why it is before us. So we all agreed that we write to the minister and ask for further information on this subject. That concludes today's business, and what I would like to do very briefly is to go into an informal closed session just to explain to you about the couple of meetings that I had yesterday. It will take no more than five minutes, but I would like to conclude