Seòmar agus comataidhean

That identifies a really key point, as far as I am concerned. As I said at the beginning, the statutory process taking a little longer than had initially been anticipated when planning is certainly, in my view, one of the reasons for the delay.

I would caveat that by saying, again, that this is a project of great complexity. When Roy Brannen was in front of you, he discussed the number of sites of special scientific interest, the national park—all the things that make it a complex project. Although the statutory processes took too long, in my view they are a very important part of democratising infrastructure development and engagement with the public. I was going to say that we have been lucky in the sense that we have had only one public inquiry, but I would not put it down to luck. I would put it down to the quite robust and deep engagement that was had with communities. That may have meant that it took a bit longer, but we may also have saved time as it meant that we fewer public inquiries. I do not know. All I am saying is that I think that deep engagement is the right approach.

I will definitely go to Rob Galbraith on some of the close details on costs, because it is very easy for me to use the wrong figures when I do not have them in front of me.

On why a hybrid approach was adopted, I mentioned earlier that it was always expected that a combination of funding techniques—if I may use that horribly untechnical term—would be adopted because that allows the Government to best use the resources that it has to achieve its objectives. It recognises that capital can be in short supply—that has been the case increasingly. All members who have had cabinet secretaries in front of them to discuss the budget will have heard us talking ad nauseam about the restraints and constraints on capital budgets that are increasingly being felt.

The hybrid approach allowed us to spread the financial burden between the Government’s capital budget and revenue budget. The size and scale of the A9 also lends itself to a combination of funding techniques. For example, we can make progress in the plan that we have set out on a capital basis with the first three southern sections, and the northern and remaining sections well suit being bundled into MIM baskets.

I will hand over to Rob Galbraith for some of the cost details. However, I will be absolutely up front that capital is, in the long run, the less expensive way of completing major projects, but capital is not as readily available as a combination of capital and revenue.

The advice that I have is that we are looking at a total scheme cost estimate, which is a defined way of measuring, of £3.7 billion. I am just checking my notes. When that is adjusted for inflation, that is the equivalent of £2.45 billion, which is well within the original estimate of £3 billion at 2008 prices. That relates to what Rob Galbraith explained about the way that we compare spend. The advice that I have is that, comparing apples with apples in respect of the 2008 estimate, the £3.7 billion in spend nowadays should be within the original budget.

That gives me some comfort. I do not want to misquote Mr Barn, but I think that he was asked about how realistic the funding proposals are and he said that they are not unrealistic, which I will take to mean realistic. I will check that—I have the transcript of what he said here.

I will take the last part first. If the market conditions that prevail in 2025 are not suitable and mean that we cannot go forward with a MIM contract, we have contingency that the 2035 date could still be met via capital funding, provided that capital was available. I do not know what will prevail in 2025, but I know that, if I am in post, I will be determinedly pushing for capital to be available should MIM not prevail. However, my preference is that MIM will be available.

It is absolutely right that a Government creates staging posts for consideration of prevailing market conditions at the time. That is how we discharge our duty of prudent public spending. It would not be correct for me to make that decision now. The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 times in the past two years, and they are at an all-time high. Now would be a particularly bad time to enter into borrowing at the current cost, so we very deliberately created the opportunity in 2025 to allow us to assess the market conditions, which are—fingers crossed—predicted to improve. We are in a particularly sticky spot just now, but I have to robustly defend the Government taking the chance to assess the conditions at the time and then make the decision.

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.

Thank you very much for inviting me along to the inquiry.

As you have noted, the committee has already received a written submission. Members will also have heard my statement to Parliament, which I delivered just prior to the Christmas recess and which was very much about what you have just been talking about, convener—a forward look at completion of the A9. The committee has also taken a considerable amount of written evidence from ministers and from current and former chief executives of Transport Scotland, along with a range of stakeholders.

Given the extent of the first-hand evidence that has been collected on historic events, convener, I expect that, today, I can add most value by doing just as you have suggested and looking forward. That said, I absolutely want to be able to assist the committee with its retrospective look, too, to the extent that I am able. As I noted in my submission, I have considered all the previous written statements and have taken advice from my officials on the period leading up to my appointment last year. I hope that you will appreciate that my reflections will be just that—reflections, not first-hand experience.

That said, I am very pleased to have published the refreshed delivery plan for the A9, which was, as I have said, delivered in December not only to foreground certainty of delivery but to balance delivery very carefully against the need to minimise disruption, to take account of market capacity and, indeed, to work within the financial constraints that we face.

My final comment is about the criticality of safety and how important that issue has been for me. I put on record my heartfelt sympathies to everybody who has lost a loved one on the A9 or who has been injured in an accident, which is something that has been pointed out to me as being of great importance. Dualling, as far as I am concerned, is the key safety mechanism, but as we cannot wait for it to happen, interim safety measures are being pursued, too.

I will conclude there, convener. I very much welcome this opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to the A9 and to look back, in so far as I am able to from my own experience. I very much understand the committee’s interest in this—and of course, given its nature as the committee with responsibility for public petitions, the public’s interest, too.

I look forward to members’ questions.

Again, I am straying slightly into the territory of interpreting what Alex Neil thought. We have to remember that his comments, quite understandably, were made within the four corners of the time that he was involved with the project. That was very early in its development. The advice that he received was, “Yes, minister, this is how we are taking it forward; this is how we propose to do it.” However, that was heavily caveated by saying, “There a great many things to be worked out here.”

Some of the other ministers’ comments on this, including Nicola Sturgeon’s, are, I hope, helpful to the committee. Ms Sturgeon pointed out that Mr Neil was correct to say that, for his purposes at that time, funding had been identified, and her view was that that funding was for a one-to-two-year period during a long project. That is not uncommon for major projects; at the very beginning of such a complex project you will seldom have certainty over delivery and funding right through to the end. That was Mr Neil’s impression of that one-to-two-year period, rather than the whole thing.

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.