Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not recall our having a discussion at the time about whether we should be airing more of it publicly, not because we were trying to hide it but because the work was still being done. The work was not at a point of conclusion, and therefore we would not have been at the point of making a ministerial statement about the end result.

As First Minister, you have an overview of every aspect of Government policy, and from time to time, you will be much more closely involved in certain aspects. As we got into 2020, I was consumed by something else rather large, but I would have been aware of the work that was under way, and certainly aware of the issues, because they were not peculiar to transport projects. We were aware of and concerned about the reclassification of NPD, because it had a potential knock-on effect on our capital programme.

I was obviously very aware—and this is pertinent to the A9—that we had no clear and obvious funding route for a period because of the NPD issue and because of the, frankly, very significant constraints on our capital budget. Those were issues that we were grappling with and trying to resolve. Inevitably, that takes you into a period in which a lot of the work seems to be internal to Government as we try to find the solutions. What it does not, in my view, equate to is a lack of focus and drive; it is just that we had a problem that we were desperately trying to find the solutions to, but the solutions were not easy to find.

I do not want to repeat everything that I have already said, but we ran into a period when we did not have obvious funding procurement routes, and much of the work that was being done was to resolve that.

On a more open point, given the considerable slippage in the 2025 timescale—which is what the committee is considering, in part, right now—it is important for the Government to look back, at an appropriate point, for the purpose of learning lessons for future projects, of whatever scale. Notwithstanding everything that I have said about the very real reasons that we were confronted with, which led to the delays that we are talking about, it is important to look back and ask ourselves, or for the Government to ask itself, whether there were points at which different decisions could have accelerated other sections of the route going into procurement more quickly. My saying that is not me sitting here saying that the answer to that is yes, but it would be reasonable to do an exercise—it would perhaps be unreasonable not to do it—that openly asked those questions so that we can learn appropriate lessons.

Similar to what? I am not sure what you mean.

Yes.

Yes.

I will make no comment.

There were lots of sensitivities about the opening that I became aware of only afterwards—it is a sore point.

I will do my best to respond to that question and, in the course of today’s session, to answer questions as fully as I can.

My starting point is to agree with your starting point: I do not think there is any smoking gun or anything deeply sinister for the committee to uncover. Clearly this is from my perspective, but I do not agree that there was a diminution of focus and drive behind the A9 project. During my time as First Minister, the two sections of dualling that have now been completed were completed, and there was, and there continues to be, an incredible amount of work to progress things.

In preparing for this session, I have had the opportunity to go back and read all the relevant paperwork—I thought that I had left behind reading Government papers when I stood down from Government. When the 2025 target was set back in 2011, we were absolutely committed to it, in good faith. The question in my mind now—this will undoubtedly also be a question in the committee’s mind—is whether there was sufficient rigour and openness about just how challenging a target it was. When I look at it now, it is clear that, for the target to have been met, we would have to have had a fair wind on every aspect of the project that we were embarking on. Of course, we did not have a fair wind on every aspect of it. I have no doubt that we will come on to some of the issues, but, for example, the 2014 change of classification of the non-profit distributing model, austerity, Brexit and the pandemic all had an impact.

We encountered a situation of great complexity. We talk about the A9 being a single project, but it is actually 11 major projects in one. A lot of effort went into some of the preparatory stages. One example is public consultation. I do not want to sound as though I am underplaying the challenges, but I think that one of the achievements is that, unlike the situation with the Aberdeen bypass, we have not ended up getting caught up in endless legal processes through challenges and public inquiries.

That is my observation. With any such project that has not been delivered in the timescale that was initially set, it would be appropriate to look back, at an appropriate time—this committee’s deliberations will be part of that process—to see whether there were stages or points at which things could have gone quicker than they did. However, I think that we have progressed the A9 with drive and determination; it is simply that we have encountered significant challenges along the way. Although some of those challenges were foreseeable in a project of such a scale, many of the others that were encountered were not foreseeable at the time that the 2025 target was set.

That is what I am saying: I was not involved personally in that decision.

From memory, I think that it was a special adviser who was with me. I asked for some work to be done out of that meeting.

That meeting was on 31 May 2017. By that point, there were already concerns about slippage in the contract. There were concerns about what I would describe as the cash flow and financial position of FMEL, so when Jim McColl asked to see me, it was reasonable that I spoke to him, given the importance of the contract, which we are reflecting on now.

You have seen all the material that will tell you what the issues were that were of concern to him and to us at the time, which were around the finances. There had already been discussion about the changing of the milestone payments. The reduction of the final 25 per cent payment to 10 per cent freed up £17 million to help with cash flow. Jim was and has been publicly—although not since then—of the view that he had money unfairly tied up in the surety bond.