Chamber and committees

No. I might bring Alison Irvine in to support me on the answer to this one. We need to wait until the CMA comes back with its view on the decisions that I have taken. We had thought that parallel processes might be open to us but they were not. On issues including harbour operating agreements as well as CMA issues, we are trying to make sure that everything is as robust as possible. That will also ensure that our legal position is strong and robust—I know that the committee has always taken a keen interest in that—in relation to the preferred option for a direct award, should we say that that is a go, and particularly in relation to the extension.

On the decision, if the due diligence indicates that it is not possible to go to a direct award, we would know that way before a year from now, because I am still progressing the diligence process along the timetable that I had anticipated. The extra time is in relation to the CMA in particular—but not solely—and we will use the opportunity to make sure that the operational side of Teckal compliance can be put into effect. We will certainly keep the committee informed about that timescale. I still have to go back to Cabinet to recommend that we can give a direct award and everything is in place. If we cannot do that, we will move to tender. That is the same position that I took last November, when I made the announcement to Parliament.

Alison Irvine can correct me if I have misrepresented anything or add anything else that she might want to add.

It is about maximising value for money through making all the improvements at the same time. We heard questions about route disruptions. It is more sensible to co-ordinate investment in a line—in particular, the route track investment by Network Rail—with other changes that are taking place. It is about sensible decision making—integrating the train fleet with the track improvements. Some things can be done in isolation; maybe the member is trying to pursue whether we can continue to do such things. Some of that has happened to date, and we are keen to do that where we can, but we are trying to take a sensible approach, particularly given the challenging finances, to make the most of co-ordinating investment where that is possible.

I ask Alison Irvine whether she has anything to add.

I am looking forward to Edinburgh being the epicentre of the Swiftie universe, and I am sure that those who go to the concerts will have a fantastic time. A lot of planning and pre-planning have been done on the public transport arrangements. I know that the City of Edinburgh Council is encouraging everybody to use public transport over those few days in particular. I also know that ScotRail is running additional services, and it has been advertising that for some time.

If I am allowed to plug the Traffic Scotland website, it has been sharing information, as has Transport Scotland, collectively. Based on Traffic Scotland’s social media, I think that there is a Swiftie in there somewhere. That is all in order to get penetration and ask people to plan ahead for their journey. Unfortunately, I do not have a ticket to Taylor Swift, although I have a ticket to go and see “Sunset Song” at the Lyceum. At the same time as I am travelling, the city will be full of Swifties so I, too, will be planning my travel in advance. I encourage everyone to plan what they are doing in advance and to look at the ScotRail, City of Edinburgh Council and Traffic Scotland websites.

I do not know whether Monica Lennon has a ticket for Taylor Swift—I see that she is nodding. I hope that everybody has a fantastic time.

I am conscious that I did not respond to you when you raised that in the debate, but that was part of what I thought was a very good, open debate on the fair fares review, asking “What is the art of the possible?” or “What can we do?”

I would caution the member that that idea has already been aired, discussed and suggested as part of how we might fund grass-roots culture. The concept of doing that is therefore out there. How that would be operationalised is another issue. You could say, for instance, that the spend needs to go into public transport, and I would say that that would be a preference, if that were to happen. However, Glasgow City Council might want to use that spend to help clean up after such events, which can obviously be disruptive. There is already a campaign—which I think is UK-wide; it is not just taking place in Scotland—to put levies on events tickets to help develop culture and music generally.

This is straying into somebody else’s portfolio but, considering streaming and how musicians actually get their income, Bruce Springsteen or Taylor Swift will generate a lot of income from concerts, which can increasingly become part of their firmament in earning their income, but a budding, new musician will not be in that position and will have fewer opportunities to get income through the traditional ways of selling.

The idea may happen. I am not in charge of it or responsible for it, but it has been thought of in relation to supporting culture, rather than public transport. That might be something that Bob Doris may wish to pursue with Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, who I think has already responded to those suggestions or will certainly be discussing that with the culture sector.

The processes depend on which type of procurement we might use, and progress depends on the availability of funding. The intention is to look at the potential for procuring at the same time as we decide whether to go down the mutual investment model route in relation to parts of the A9 that are in that territory. I have previously announced some of the design and build contracts in relation to the next stages of the A9 work. That process would be in parallel.

As for what could be done and when, just as I was honest and straight with the people at the meeting, I cannot say here definitively that the work will be done by 2030. Hypothetically, and depending on everything working to effect, it could be; that is what my official from Transport Scotland said in terms of the timescale. It could be, but it all depends, and there are too many variables to necessarily give you that absolute guarantee.

I would not push things with local councils, because it is for local councils to make decisions about things in their own areas. That is the whole point of our agreement in working with local authorities. We can provide enabling legislation, and we can provide regulations. When it comes to decision making, we have to trust our local councils to make decisions about their own local areas.

If local authorities want to use them, yes—but, if they do not, that is a decision for them.

As a Government minister, I am recused on the issue, and, at this stage, I do not think that my colleagues are in a position to answer. Mr Fairlie is leading for the Scottish Government on the issue.

Historically, there have been such groups. When I was a back bencher, as a local constituency MSP, it was me who pulled together all the relevant bodies to progress the issue, which we did at the time with Ms Gilruth, who was the then transport minister. I think that that is probably as much as I can say.

I will ask Alison Irvine to keep me right, and also whether she wants to come in. We want to make the improvements, but interrelated decisions will need to be taken. It might look slightly different from what it was originally but, as we have heard, the support and rolling-stock investment are on-going and very live. There have been some investments already.

For brevity, I say that I have answered a number of parliamentary questions from Douglas Lumsden and given as much information as possible on what has already been invested, but we are committed to making the improvements in the north-east in particular. He is right. It may take a different shape than was perhaps originally intended, but there will be further clarity when we have the rail decarbonisation plan refresh, in which the north-east will be a particular area of focus—as he knows, because he has taken a keen interest.

Some issues relate to side deals that are associated with the city region. Recently—in the past few weeks—my colleagues at Transport Scotland attended meetings on that with the relevant authorities. We will try to keep everyone, including the committee, as well informed as we can, when we can, but I might not be able to give you as much information as you want at this committee meeting.

I am actively looking at the issue. Just two weeks ago, I pulled together a variety of stakeholders, including ScotRail, Network Rail, the unions and those who have an interest in issues in relation to women and girls. The core issue is antisocial behaviour and people who are already drunk coming on to trains—I get that. However, the main focus of solutions has to be tackling antisocial behaviour. Just last week, I met the justice minister about that broader issue. I have been discussing it with a number of people, not least Mr Simpson. As we progress, I will keep the member and the committee informed as to what decisions are finally taken. Obviously, I will have to consult my colleagues, because that is a Government policy decision.