Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not deny that there are delays. The principal reason for that is the two things that I pointed out to the convener: first, the ONS reclassification of the non-profit-distributing model in 2014 and a one to two-year delay on statutory processes.

I could not say for certain what the parliamentary choreography was around that, I am afraid. I was not there. Nor, frankly, am I in a position to say why that was or was not done.

There is review all the time.

Yes—absolutely. I will speak about my role and my view of officials. If they have anything to add to what I say, they can do so.

It is probably worth pointing out that a slightly different approach has been taken since Ms Hyslop and I took over the running of the transport brief. Previously, the transport minister took direct responsibility for the bulk of the portfolio responsibility as it stood, and the cabinet secretary had an oversight role. I now have explicit responsibility for parts of that, and there is an ever-so-slightly slimmer junior ministerial role. I think that that is working well. It provides a better connection between the minister and the Cabinet, and it helps to relieve a little bit of the pressure on the junior minister, which is a significant role.

Ms Hyslop and I work together on that. On the explicit responsibilities, I have responsibility for major projects investment, and she has responsibility for major projects delivery. Those two things together mean that we both work on the A9. We have done so to date, and we will do going forward.

On governance structures, we regularly meet the director of major projects and his team to receive updates on our priorities in respect of the A9 and on a range of other major projects, such as the Rest and Be Thankful project. I also meet Transport Scotland directors twice weekly for operational updates.

A regular rhythm of advice is received. Ms Hyslop and I very much share responsibility and, of course, I report to the Cabinet. The Deputy First Minister has a role in all of that, as well, owing to her finance responsibilities.

Would you be interested to know about internal officials governance?

That is a perfectly understandable question, which I have asked myself from time to time when I have been reading all my papers. I will hand over to Rob Galbraith to ensure that I am absolutely correct, but those are different ways of expressing costs. The £3.7 billion is the total scheme cost estimate. As I have said, we compiled that figure so that it could be directly comparable to the 2008 figure, which was also a total scheme cost estimate. The higher numbers—the £4.6 billion and others—are the outturn costs, which take account of inflation and other issues that can bear down on costs.

Before I put anything on the record that is not accurate, I will hand over to Rob Galbraith to try to explain that.

Mr Ewing’s advocacy on these points is very effective and it is absolutely heard loud and clear. From my perspective, I cannot make decisions based on regional competition; I have to make decisions based on what is right, what presents value for money and what is best for the people of Scotland. I should say that I consider that the dualling of the A9 is one of the most important pursuits in respect of what is right for the people of Scotland, and that is why I have been determinedly trying to work on this optimum delivery plan.

On certainty, Cabinet has agreed to my plan. It has understood the point about 2025 and MIM decision making and our view that 2035 remains possible should capital be made available in the case that MIM is not suitable. The Cabinet has collectively agreed to manage the financial pressures that that will create, and that delivers a degree of certainty that we have not had to date.

Mr Ewing is right to point to the capital budget for the Government. When Roy Brannen was here, he pointed out that we have about 40 per cent of capital spend, the vast majority of which is in transport. I will give you this year’s draft settlement as an example. First, it is being eroded but that does not speak to where we have come from; that is just me speaking about where we are going. I always have to balance objectives. This year, I plan to invest over £1 billion in roads, which is up 26.2 per cent. That includes a year’s worth of progression against the A9 optimum delivery plan; critical work on the A83 Rest and Be Thankful; £47 million to protect the integrity of the M8 Woodside viaduct and other projects. I appreciate that those major projects are not directly applicable to the committee’s inquiry, but they demonstrate that, every year, there are priorities to balance. However, I end by saying that the A9 dualling is a key priority.

There are two points. First, Transport Scotland and ministerial presence in Inverness, and anywhere where we have major developments, is important and I always encourage that. We have a suite of engagements planned from the start of the new year as we complete the delivery programme.

I do not currently have any plans to relocate Transport Scotland’s office from Glasgow to Inverness. We will have Transport Scotland officials who live in Inverness and surrounding areas, but I am not planning to relocate offices. However, I believe that the presence of ministers and staff in the areas in which we are working is vital, and I will continue to encourage that.

That is a really good point and one that I considered closely. One of the things about transport and net zero being in the same portfolio is that I have the same budget to try to balance between these issues.

My view with the A9 is that it is a long-standing commitment. It has a safety imperative. It has the opportunity for economic regeneration—actually, it is more than that; it is economic prosperity. With my climate and environment responsibilities, I will always seek to find the finest possible balance between those competing interests. We will need roads in a net zero Scotland. Yes, I hope that they will be driven on by low-emission electric and hydrogen vehicles, but we will need roads. They will need to be safe, and they will help to ensure the economic prosperity of the country.

I probably cannot do that single-handedly, but I can certainly note that, alongside the considerable points that have been made to Fiona Hyslop and me about the need for rest opportunities. I will do my best to advocate for that.

On your first point, I have been considering the best way to make sure that there is strong parliamentary engagement on the next steps. I looked at the committee that you convened in respect of the Queensferry crossing. As you say, that came from the need for an act of Parliament. I will come back to the committee with views on how we ensure parliamentary engagement. It might not be this committee, although I will let you know. I envisage that it would probably be the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee or similar. I will come back when we have more certainty on that, but I definitely want Parliament to be more fully engaged in the next steps.

In respect of the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing statutory processes, I will ask officials about timing. The problem is that the timing of these matters is out of our hands, as I am sure that you appreciate. If an inquiry is decided on, we cannot control the length of that although, because we have had the co-development process and because the proposed route takes into account a number of suggestions from the community, I hope that that will lessen the likelihood of objections. I cannot eliminate the possibility and nor should I, and nor can I control the timing should an inquiry go ahead.