³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Where I would take issue with how you have characterised it is that a lot of the work was on-going at that point. Much of the preparatory work, to use that catch-all phrase, was on-going. We are now in a position where, with the exception of one of the sections of the route, all the orders are in place, so it is not the case that none of that was progressing.

The six-year estimate, of course, was made way back—it was an estimate of the construction period. The significant barrier that we were grappling with at that point was around funding options, in terms of coming up with a private finance possibility versus the pressure on our capital programme. You can have everything else in place—you can have all the preparatory work done—but you need to have routes to funding and procurement. That was the aspect that was the most significant challenge.

I do not think that that would add anything to where we are right now. In fact, I am concerned that, if somebody came in and decided to take a fresh look at everything, that would slow things down. The Government is now in a strong place with funding, the reassessment of the order of the routes and the timescale of the project, so it should be able to get on with that work and be held to account for it. Therefore, that suggestion would hinder rather than help.

If that is practical, yes, I would agree. I have not been in government for more than a year, so it would not be fair of me to comment on whether, if we take all the different factors into account, it is practical. However, if it is, the Government should try to accelerate the timescale. John Swinney’s constituency is on the route of the A9. I am certain that, if it was practical to bring forward completion, he would be very open to doing it, but it is important that I not try to speak for the Government or the First Minister, given that I am not at all close to the detail of those things in the way that I once was.

Indeed.

That is a really good question, and I think that it is an important question when we are considering any roads projects. We could talk about this in a lot more detail but, in respect of the A9 generally, no, I do not think that it did. The A9 was effectively excluded from the Bute house agreement—I am using shorthand here—but the commitment to it continued because of the important reasons for the dualling of the A9. It is not about providing extra road capacity for more cars; it is fundamentally about safety, so it is a roads project that is important to complete.

More generally, the climate cannot be divorced from the consideration of road projects in this day and age; it is an important part of any deliberation. However, I would argue strongly that the reason why we are sitting here talking about delays to the dualling of the A9 is not about the Greens being in government or because we downgraded the priority of it for some consideration of climate and emissions targets.

Having very recently reread all of that paperwork, I think that that is a fair point to draw out, but I do not necessarily agree that underneath that was a sign of something going wrong. I think that that is a reflection of what was under consideration at that point.

I think this point has been made to the committee, but it is worth repeating. Under the Scottish public finance manual, in projects of this nature, consideration of private finance options is required. Therefore, such consideration was necessary. In 2014, the NPD model became unavailable to us, in effect, because of its reclassification as public rather than private finance. That was followed by a period of consideration of a different potential private finance route, should the Government have decided to take such a route. There was no obvious alternative for a period. It has taken until very recently to settle on the mutual investment model that the current cabinet secretary has announced and spoken about. Therefore, I think that that simply reflects the very technical nature of the work that was being undertaken in the period from 2018 onwards.

Having reread that paperwork, there is another observation that I would make. Again, it is not a conclusion but a question that I think it is perfectly reasonable for the committee to at least ask. At that point—from 2018 and certainly for the couple of years after that—should we have been a bit more open about the work that was going on? The search for a viable private finance model was under way, but we had not abandoned the prospect of a design and build, capital-funded option as well. That was the option that was still theoretically possible—I use that phrase deliberately—in a 2025 timescale; the private one would not have been. We were still grappling with many of those issues at that point, in good faith, and the work was being done internally. The question—which I think is a reasonable one—is, should some of that have been aired a bit more publicly?

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

Yes.

Yes.

I will make no comment.