Seòmar agus comataidhean

I noted Mr Barn’s comments on that. I think that we would all welcome what he set out in respect of that very busy pipeline of work in Scotland in the next 10 to 20 years. I absolutely welcome it, and the Government does, too.

That speaks firstly to why the upgrade of the A9 is so important. As well as the safety points that I made at the start, there is also the issue that the A9 is a key economic route connecting Scotland. It is an arterial route—the spine of Scotland—and it will be critical to facilitating the economic opportunities that you have spoken about.

The delivery plan that we have set out now provides a degree of certainty on the direction of travel. I know from my engagement with industry on this issue and other matters that having a clear articulation of the Government’s direction of travel is one of the most useful things in creating certainty in the market. The move to the NEC4 contract as amended will be welcomed by industry. I think that Mr Barn welcomed it, and I hope that its use will do as Mr Ewing says and make matters attractive and hopefully speedy.

Finally, we already have close engagement with industry, and that will continue as the market becomes busier and busier, as Mr Ewing rightly pointed out will be the case.

I think that that is a very fair observation. I will seek to answer all your questions, but please do come back to me if I miss any of them.

I would just start by saying that there was always an understanding that the A9 was a complex project. Indeed, I said as much in my statement to Parliament. It is actually 11 complex projects, and it is evident right from the early papers that Alex Neil received that it is complex in the statutory processes that have to be gone through, in its design, in the procurement approach, and then, of course, in the way that it is funded.

Convener, you mentioned 2017-18 as being the point at which, in your view, it was accepted that the target date of 2025 was not doable. For the record, I would refute that; I would say that it was not until late 2022 that ministers were finally advised that there was no practical route to completion by 2025. I accept that, as time goes on, there is a diminishing likelihood of completion by 2025. That is plain, as that would require ever more capital up front and ever more disruption on the route.

The advice from 2017 that you are thinking about and referring to is the advice that ministers received on moving to a new private finance model and the advice that developing such a model in and of itself would take so much time that we would be pushing beyond 2025. There was always an understanding that an entirely capital-funded approach, with increasing levels of disruption, remained possible, although I accept with a diminishing likelihood.

There are two sides to that question, and I will try to take them both. I might briefly pass to officials to explain some of the work that was done on developing an alternative private financing model.

You are right, five years is a long time. As I said, Scottish Futures Trust was involved. MIM was developed by the Welsh Government and has been adapted for use in Scotland. I do not just identify the ONS reclassification as the key issue; I also see that there were delays in statutory processes. I am happy to come on to why I think that that may have saved us some time in the end, by meaning that we had only one public inquiry, albeit I would prefer that those processes been quicker.

The new point that I want to make is that there was not a vacuum of work during that time. Work was progressing. The statutory processes work has been progressing to the point where we now have 92 per cent ministerial decisions in hand for those. We brought forward work on the Kincraig to Dalraddy route, which was completed in 2017. The additional section of Luncarty to the Pass of Birnam began in 2019 and was completed in 2021. Of course, work was on-going in the background to develop a new private finance model.

I do not know whether any of the team want to say something about that five-year period and why such work takes so long.

With all respect, I think that I have answered that question. I said that there has not been a formal internal review, but we review on an on-going basis what we think the reasons for delay are, as they emerge, and I have identified the two key ones that we attribute the delay to.

Sorry, Mr Golden, can you elaborate on that slightly? Is this the statutory—

I will try to clarify this. Late 2022 was the point at which a submission came to ministers advising that there was now no possible route through to completion by 2025. That would have been received by Ms Gilruth and Mr Matheson, and Ms Gilruth updated Parliament after the Christmas recess in respect of the timetable and the Tomatin to Moy procurement problems that we had faced. Late 2022 was the point at which the advice arrived that said that 2025 was no longer doable. However, I recognise that there was a diminishing likelihood of it in the months leading up to that, and I think that that would have been reflected in advice as well.

I apologise to the committee. I want to clarify that, when Mr Golden asked that question before, he meant the statutory processes. I know that Mr Barn spoke about his view that that had slowed down the process. I understand that view. Mr Barn’s objective is to get projects moving and moving well, and I appreciate his perspective.

I go back to the point that statutory processes are laborious—there is no doubt about that—but, as we all know from representing our constituents’ interests when major infrastructure projects are happening on their doorstep, they are really important in ensuring that the right processes are gone through, that thorough consultation happens, and that people are really engaged in the development. That pertains to roads just as it does to a whole suite of other infrastructure projects, not least energy projects. The issue is being grappled with just now, and it will increasingly be grappled with as we seek to upgrade the grid.

I have been clear that I think that the statutory processes took a little longer in the case of the A9 than we expected. They are a very important part of democratising infrastructure development, and I would not like to suggest that there should be any shortcuts around them. I say again that, to date, we have had only one public inquiry in a major and complex project. In some ways, that is a success of the deep engagement that there has been. I do not know whether there are any technical reviews.

I will briefly add to that for the committee’s awareness, although it may already be aware of this. I hope that the committee will be comforted to know that MIM has managed out some of the worst excesses of private sector profiteering that were apparent in historical private finance initiative deals. The way that it works has been designed to not allow for that.

Thank you, convener—you are quite right.

It is certainly my intention that there will be ample opportunity for recharging along the route. That sits closely alongside the work that I am doing in another part of the portfolio on the roll-out of electric vehicle chargers and our ambitions to go from around the 2,400 mark—that might not be the right figure—up to 6,000. There is a lot of interest in the availability of service stations and other rest opportunities along the A9 and I understand that. I know myself when I am driving it that I would welcome the opportunity to stop safely. There are also issues for women and other vulnerability issues in being able to do so.

The provision of service stations and so on is not directly Transport Scotland’s responsibility. It is funded to deliver its statutory obligations, and the delivery of service stations is not one of them. However, that issue is raised with Ms Hyslop and me a lot, and it is certainly my intention to do what we can to encourage the development of such facilities along the route, because I acknowledge their importance.