Chamber and committees

Thank you. We will keep the petition open and drill down a little bit further. We will write to the various organisations that Mr Choudhury suggested writing to, and specifically the Law Society. I would like to ask the Law Society whether it can give any indication to us of the outcomes of its operational practice as it currently stands. What can it point to that it believes means that the current arrangement is satisfactory, given that there is a much more stringent application of practice elsewhere in the UK?

It has been a long morning for our petitioners in the gallery. I hope that they are content that we are keeping the petition open and will be pursuing its aims. Of course, as petitioners, they will be kept abreast of any information in relation to the progress of the petition.

That brings us to the end of our public session this morning. Our next meeting is on 7 February. I hereby close the formal part of our meeting.

I see that our colleagues who are in the room are also content. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 6 relates to the evidence that we are about to hear in relation to the inquiry and item 7 relates to our pre-budget scrutiny work.

I am sure that it would have a full agenda.

Grahame Barn from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland is joining us this morning. Good morning, Grahame, and welcome to our proceedings. Later this morning, we will hear evidence from current and former Transport Scotland officials.

As members will be aware, since we last considered the issue, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition updated the chamber on the Scottish Government’s plans for dualling the A9. The committee has also received material from Transport Scotland with information about the advice on the A9 dualling programme that was provided to ministers between 2012 and 2023.

As the Scottish Parliament information centre summary of evidence notes, the documents range from brief extracts of draft budget proposals for ministerial consideration to lengthy briefing documents for major parliamentary announcements—and, my goodness, there were plenty of them. There was certainly a lot of material to digest.

It is worth remembering that the committee is not only interested in the circumstances of everything that has gone before; it is also concerned to ensure that we deliver on the aims of the petition, which are that the A9 project is completed and that consideration is given to having a memorial for the people who have perished during this period due to road traffic incidents on the A9.

Mr Barn, are you content for us to move straight to questions this morning?

Interestingly, that was the issue with the Queensferry crossing, in that the committee anticipated the need for public inquiries at various points in relation to the route, because the route and not the bridge itself was, by far, the most complicated aspect of that project.

Before I move to colleagues, I turn to what seems to be at the hub of much of what I have read. Does the industry think that the current approval processes for major road and other infrastructure projects in Scotland have proved to be fit for purpose? If not, what needs to happen to make them so?

I am delighted to bring in our colleague and reporter from a sister committee, Edward Mountain.

Is that a declaration from the Edward committee? [Laughter.]

Finally, Mr Ewing, do you wish to come in briefly?

Mr Barn, thank you very much for joining us again this morning. You have given us more time than we had anticipated you would have to give, and your answers have been extremely helpful. We might speak to you again; we certainly look forward to reflecting on everything that you have said today.

We are back. Our colleague Oliver Mundell has had to leave us due to another commitment. I apologise for that to our colleagues and to the witnesses who now join us. I hope that you were able to hear the earlier evidence session. I see that you were. It was very interesting.

From Transport Scotland, we are now joined by Alison Irvine, interim chief executive, and Rob Galbraith, head of project delivery,. We also welcome Roy Brannen, a former chief executive of Transport Scotland, and Michelle Quinn, who is both a former director of major projects and a former interim chief executive of Transport Scotland. A very warm welcome to you all.

You will have observed our previous discussion with Grahame Barn. I want to emphasise that our inquiry has two purposes. First, we have an interest in the events that led to the delays and why we are where we are today in respect of the project. However, secondly, the aim of the petitioner is, of course, the delivery of a completed A9 route and one or two other issues, including a memorial. Our focus is very much on ensuring that we deliver on that. This is not some sort of kangaroo court of inquiry into the events of the past. We are interested in those as they reflect on where we are today and how we can ensure that we complete the project.

If everyone is content, we will move straight to questions, starting with Fergus Ewing.