Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I was very open minded, convener, about what we might cover, so I will not add anything. I just thank you all very much.

If I remember correctly, convener, I think that upwards of 80 papers were sent to the committee. I have read a selection of them, and I have read summaries of a selection of them. I have also read the written statements from previous ministers.

Well, it is a combination. Ministers rely on advice from officials on the appropriateness of a certain path forward and the available options, and it is then for Cabinet to agree that funding be brought forward for whatever that might be.

If I could identify one key issue that pertains very closely to what you are asking about, it would be the reclassification in 2014 of the non-profit-distributing model—that is, the private finance model. As a result of that decision by the Office for National Statistics in 2014, the financing model that we had previously thought would form part of the funding package was no longer available to us. It was not until 2019, when the Scottish Futures Trust advised that the mutual investment model was a suitable replacement, that that private finance option became open to us.

Officials would advise us on that sort of thing. They did a huge amount of work to prepare for a MIM, but the fact is that when the original private finance approach fell out of the realm of possibility in 2014, it had an impact on the timetable. I would sit that alongside a slight delay in the statutory processes as the two reasons that I believe the project has been delayed.

A formal review has not been done within Government. I am very clear—and I hope that I have set it out clearly today—what my view, which is shared by my officials, is of the two principal causes of delay. The inquiry will add to that work as well.

Since becoming the cabinet secretary in 2023, my focus has been on getting the optimum delivery plan sorted, moving to that NEC4 contract as amended, and progressing interim safety measures in the meantime. Has there been a formal review inside Government? No. We have quite a well-established view of what the two principal causes of delay are.