���˿���

I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that a working group that includes ���˿��� from all parties has been established to explore alternatives to PPPs, and the Scottish Government has provided a response to the recommendations proposed by Jubilee Scotland and is continuing to work to improve the financing models at its disposal.

In closing the petition, perhaps the committee could write to the Public Audit Committee to draw its attention to the issues that are raised by the petition ahead of that committee taking evidence from the director general of the Scottish exchequer, which the convener alluded to.

With your permission, convener, I will raise one matter at the outset of today’s public session. The documents that were furnished by Transport Scotland initially maintained that, for an unspecified period, I was the lead Scottish Government minister for infrastructure projects. That is wrong. I was never the lead minister. I was, of course, bound by collective responsibility and I was, for a while, copied into some material. That practice of receiving copied material ceased in 2018.

I took the matter up with the help of our clerks and then directly with Transport Scotland. That led to Transport Scotland acknowledging that the assertion that I was the lead minister was an error. It kindly apologised for the mistake, and I am happy to accept that apology, but I wish to make that clarification on the record.

I will, just to pursue the issue that was raised previously, about framework long-term contracts for your members so that they have guaranteed work—a pipeline, or a preparation pool, as it might otherwise be termed, of work—over seven or eight years. That is in contrast to the current position: I believe there are no road contracts in Scotland at all at the moment. If we want to get from where we are now to having framework contracts, should we be advocating to the Scottish Government that such an arrangement be deployed? Would you argue that, for that to work, there needs to be much more clarity about the work that will be available over that seven, eight or 10-year period?

Therefore, would you welcome three things? First, would you welcome early clarity on the mutual investment model contracts that are to be used for the central and northern sections of the A9? As I understand the situation, those are still subject to a caveat that they will be reviewed in 2025.

Secondly, would you welcome an early process for made orders relating to the A96 between Inverness and Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass section, so that that would form part of the preparation pool? That section is also a firm commitment of the Scottish Government. Finally, do you agree that, because disruption is a practical factor in relation to how the work is best carried out on the A9, and because you cannot do everything at once—otherwise, the A9 would have to be closed, which is just not possible—would it help to spread the disruption across the network? Would that point to industry desiring that the A96 contract go ahead concurrently with the A9, rather than the ludicrous prospect of having to wait until the A9 dualling is complete?

Whoever.

Good morning, Mr Barn. I have three questions, which all look to see how best we can complete the promised dualling of the A9.

First, in your evidence last June, you kindly set out the changes that you felt would need to be made to the procurement process. I believe that you broadly advocated, inter alia, that the NEC4 contract—the type of contract that is used elsewhere in the United Kingdom—be adopted. We recently had a briefing from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition that this has now happened in relation to the retender of Tomatin to Moy. Are you able to say yet whether the industry is now satisfied that the form of contract that Transport Scotland is now apparently proposing to use—Transport Scotland accepted the thrust of your arguments last June as industry’s voice, which is very welcome—is sufficient and satisfactory to your members?

It is a tribute to your advocacy that this welcome change has come about. Perhaps the committee’s evidence in public helped to encourage that process.

My understanding is that the level of profit that has routinely been agreed or provided in past contracts has been around 3 per cent, which seems to me a very thin return for work which will still involve a considerable risk, even though some risks are now to be shared rather than passed solely to your members. I want to raise an issue—of which I know that you are aware—which is that many other types of work are available in the civil engineering sector in Scotland and throughout the UK. I believe that substantial works in the railway infrastructure and the electrification thereof and the pump storage projects in three or four locations in Scotland might tie up civil engineering capacity for much time to come. There are also green freeports and renewable and onshore wind civil engineering works as well as routine hospitals and schools and so on. Does Transport Scotland need to revise its view of the appropriate and fair level of profit and, if it does not do so, is there a risk of your members going after other work that might well be more profitable than roads contracts? I raise the issue because, although we might have a willingness now for the Scottish Government to provide finance for the dualling, my concern is that there might not be sufficient or willing capacity in the civil engineering sector to perform the work.

Good morning. It will be simpler if one person answers a question, rather than all four. Otherwise, we will be here until 5 o’clock. However, I will leave that up to you, convener.

First, I want to pursue the issue, as raised by Grahame Barn, that witnesses will just have been hearing about in the earlier evidence session, namely congestion of work. Grahame painted a very clear picture, setting out that the future will not be like the past. Grid, rail and possibly pump storage work involving tens of billions of pounds is going to be available. Frankly, my concern is that road works might be the tail-end Charlie. I am concerned about that because we have seen the Tomatin to Moy tender fail. A lack of interest in making bids led to that failure. We have seen—belatedly, but it is welcome—Transport Scotland change the policy that has deterred bids and competitive interest; NEC4 is being adopted and the sharing of risk is now being agreed.

Therefore, how can we ensure that, in Scotland, provided that the finance is available, we will be able to do the road work? Will the capacity be available? Do we not also need Transport Scotland to adopt in a full-throated way, and recommend to its political leaders in the Scottish Government, the use of framework contracts and the provision of a preparation pool of work over a long period so that companies will proceed knowing that they are likely to have work over eight years, not one or two years? If you are employing specialist engineers, what prospects do they have if they are guaranteed work for only one or two years? It makes no commercial sense whatsoever. Sadly, that is the situation that we have found ourselves in over the past few years.

It is good that you have moved on the NEC and the sharing of risk. Across the four main parties at least, we all welcome that. However, will you now move to provide a preparation pool over a long period? Mr Barn mentioned some of the main candidates, which we all agree with. Secondly, will you use framework contracts so that companies can have long-term relationships and a partnership arrangement, with the security of knowing that they will have work for their staff and for the company to perform over as long a period as possible?

I find Alison Irvine’s response a bit disappointing, because things have got to change—otherwise, we will find grave difficulty in getting the work done. I say that having listened to industry for some time now and having looked at the history, which has been pretty sad.

Could you turn to the mutual investment model? The outline plan that the cabinet secretary set out recently says that mutual investment model contracts are subject to

“further decision making in late 2025, based on an updated assessment of expected market conditions.”

Can you say what that means? Is there not a worry that it is a caveat that means that the rug could be pulled out from under the process? If that is the case—it must be the case, because that uncertainty is there—does it not defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do, which is to engender confidence in the sector that there will be work for several years to come?

If that is correct—and, respectfully, I think that it must be correct—would it not be better for the Scottish Government to revisit that and make the decision about MIMs as soon as possible? You have had years to deal with that. Frankly, I do not know anybody who understands why so little progress has been made over such a long period.

Specifically, will you consider advising ministers to bring forward the 2025 assessment? Will you look again at how confidence can be engendered in the sector over the long term, whether through framework contracts or other means, such as by the provision of a proper pipeline preparation pool, with a timetable of when the work on the Rest and Be Thankful, the A96 and other key, essential projects for Scotland can be done?

I have one final question for our witnesses. Your big office is in Buchanan house in Glasgow, and Inverness is 168 miles away. In two or three years’ time, the dualling of the A9, which will be the biggest project that the Scottish Government will ever undertake, and, I trust, the dualling of the A96 from Inverness to Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, will be going ahead. Given that almost all your spend will be in the Highlands, around Inverness, on the A9 and the A96, do you not think that it is time that you moved some of your staff and based them in Inverness? Would that not engender rather more confidence in Transport Scotland among people in the Highlands than there is at the moment?

I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government recognises non-therapeutic male infant circumcision on religious grounds and does not regard male circumcision as comparable to female genital mutilation.