Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023

Official Report 983KB pdf

---

A9 (Dualling)

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-06478, in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, on road improvements and the dualling of the A9. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the number of incidents that have taken place on the A9 over recent months and led to road closures, and injuries and fatalities; recognises the Scottish Government’s commitments to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness by 2025, which stand alongside other commitments to road improvements, such as dualling of the A96 by 2030, to support road safety, and provide the economic advantages of connectivity; notes the view that commitments and proposals on investment in the road network have not progressed at pace in recent years and that questions have been raised about the commitment of the Scottish Government to these proposals following the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party Parliamentary Group; acknowledges the belief that work on the A9, in particular, is clearly not on schedule, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to reaffirm these commitments on the basis of an updated and achievable timetable that should be presented to the Parliament as soon as possible, in order to reassure communities in the Highlands and Islands and across other regions that committed investment will take place.

17:15  

I thank colleagues who signed my motion when I lodged it in November; it has now been rather overtaken by the events that it predicted. I thank all those who are taking part in the debate to highlight concerns about the A9 and other routes in my region and in their own areas.

My motion recognised

“that work on the A9”

was

“clearly not on schedule”,

and it noted

“calls for the Scottish Government to”

provide

“an updated and achievable timetable”

to

“be presented to ... Parliament as soon as possible”.

That was prescient, given that on 8 February, Scotland’s worst-kept secret was finally revealed: that the Scottish National Party’s promise to dual the A9 in its entirety between Perth and Inverness by 2025 would not be achieved.

It was a surprise to no one: not to those of us who, as politicians and as road users, have been campaigning for dualling for more than a decade; not to the communities who live alongside the route and rely on it as they go about their daily lives; not to the businesses for which the A9 is a vital link from and to the Highlands and Islands; and certainly not to the Scottish Government, which—even though it may have repeatedly given the impression otherwise—knew that the project was badly off track and years behind where it should have been.

Only weeks after that announcement, the Scottish Conservatives used our allotted party business to bring ministers to the chamber to answer more questions on why the project had gone so badly wrong, and why, when it was clear to all that the deadline was not going to be met, ministers kept pretending that all was fine.

That debate was a chance for Parliament to show its anger that the date would be missed, and for MSPs from across the Highlands and Islands, and from all parties, to stand up for their constituents. It was a chance for us to send a clear and unified message to the Scottish Government that our constituents were angry too and wanted answers, and that there should be no more excuses and no more delays.

However, that did not happen, because not one Highlands and Islands MSP from either the SNP or the Greens came along to the debate. When it came to the vote, every one of those members—bar Fergus Ewing, who I know had a valid reason to miss the debate—followed their whip and voted down any criticism of the Scottish Government for the A9 debacle. It was shameful.

I am pleased to see that Mr Ewing is in the chamber, and I look forward to hearing his contribution. I know that there are other MSPs from the region attending the debate too.

In that Conservative debate on 22 February, we finally learned when Scottish ministers had first been told that the 2025 target was not going to be met. Following an intervention, Jenny Gilruth told me that it was in late December 2022, and then—after appearing to have consulted the Deputy First Minister—she raised a point of order to put on record that it was actually on 7 December that ministers were first made aware. That clarity was welcome, although it took another three months for the Minister for Transport to inform Parliament of that.

However, we still do not know when Transport Scotland finally made the call that the target date would be missed. In a written response that I received earlier this afternoon—conveniently—the minister would say only that it was in late December. We still do not know when doubts were first raised in the Government and in Transport Scotland over whether that date could be delivered. We still do not know when contractors or consultants who were working on the project first raised concerns that it might not be completed on time. We do not even know by how many years the project is behind. That is why, in our motion for the debate on 22 February, the Scottish Conservatives called for ministers to commit Transport Scotland to publishing

“a quarterly update setting out progress against published targets.”

Perhaps the transport minister will give that commitment today.

I return briefly to the date of 7 December, when ministers were first told that dualling by 2025 was not achievable. On 15 December last year, eight days after Jenny Gilruth had said that ministers had been informed that the dualling would not be completed as promised, the Deputy First Minister, during questions on his budget statement to Parliament, told me, in direct response to my question on the A9 dualling, that

“The Government’s position on the completion of the dualling of the A9 remains intact.”—[Official Report, 15 December; c 86.]

If the minister stands by the 7 December date that she has given, what does she think is more likely? Is it that the Deputy First Minister had, as he prepared and presented his budget, and as an MSP whose constituency the A9 runs through, been kept out of the loop on a key manifesto commitment—one with serious financial implications—and was not aware that the 2025 date had been shelved, or that he did know and so may have misled Parliament?

As I spoke of in the previous debate on the A9, there are many reasons that the road needs to be dualled. Those are economic and social, and they are about connecting our communities and regions, but we must also never underestimate the safety benefits of dualling the route. As Inspector Greg Burns of Tayside’s road policing unit said only last week:

“if we had a dual carriageway section all the way up it would certainly reduce the likelihood of fatalities there.”

I drove down the route on Sunday, and as two police cars with blue lights sped past me, it was hard to escape that thick dread that another family may be getting a knock on the door from a police officer. Too many lives have already been lost, and every month of delay risks more. I take the opportunity to thank those, including local police, paramedics and firefighters, whose job it is to respond to incidents on the A9 and other roads. I thank all those who, like Conservative members and members on all sides of the chamber, will continue to fight for the dualling to be completed as soon as possible. I thank the A9 dual action group in particular for their work.

I am sure that we can all agree on one simple message for this Government—and this is a call that I have made before in the chamber: no more delays, no more excuses. Get the A9 dualled.

17:21  

I welcome the debate. In Inverness last Friday night, The Inverness Courier hosted a hustings for the three candidates in the SNP leadership contest. All three gave unequivocal commitments to dualling the A9, including prioritising the funding for it. That is welcome, but it is also essential because—to be candid and honest—I am afraid that the Scottish Government is in the last-chance saloon here. We need to deliver, and any more failure will simply not be forgiven.

It is hard to overstate the concern, and the anger, among my constituents and people in the Highlands about the issue, especially in the light—as Mr Halcro Johnston noted—of the tragic death and loss of so many people, with so many families whose lives have been devastated. That has hardened the anger to scepticism, which is growing and mounting. Yes, we have made progress, and I commend the minister for the effort that she, and her predecessor as the minister responsible for dealing with the issue, who is sitting beside me now, have put in.

Preparatory work has been done, two sections have been upgraded and design work has been done—although not for Dunkeld—but the pledge that was made to dual the road by 2025 has simply not been kept. In politics, sometimes we have to accept the reality, and I think that an apology from the minister would pave the way for good progress. We should just accept that we did not get it right—we got it wrong, but we will put it right. That is what people want.

The pledge to publish a timetable by autumn is far too slow. I have been calling for a timetable for the past two years, and it should have been published long ago. That process needs to be speeded up considerably.

There will shortly be an inquiry into the A9 by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, thanks to Laura Hansler from Kingussie. It is fitting that a citizen of Scotland who is affected by the issue in her daily life has lodged the petition, and the fact that the committee has sought to hold an inquiry is potentially a great step forward, so I praise Laura for her initiative.

What should the inquiry do? People want to see progress as quickly as possible, and two key elements are required for that. The first is funding, which must be put in place, or at least earmarked, beyond the term of the current Government. There is, I think, a will to do that across all the parties that are represented in the Parliament, except one: the Green Party. There is no Green member present in the debate, unless somebody is contributing remotely, but all the other parties would support that. I think that the funding could be earmarked, even if it cannot be formally allocated, and that must happen.

Secondly, the method of procuring the contracts by Transport Scotland must be changed fundamentally. The present procurement strategy has plainly failed—the Tomatin to Moy tender is proof positive of that. I wonder whether the minister is confident that a re-tender—to be completed, she has said, by the end of this year—can actually be done in that time. Moreover, if it can be, does that not risk producing the same result? That is a serious risk, and we should be open and honest about that. I would be grateful if the minister could explain that.

The kernel is this. Numerous industry sources have told me—this will be no surprise to the Transport Scotland lead official who is here this evening—that the procurement method passes all the risks to the contractor. That has meant that at least one major contractor has simply exited Scotland. Others have limited appetite to bid for roads work, because, frankly, they have been stung in the past. I could give details, but now is perhaps not the time.

So how should things be done? They should be done with a framework contract, sharing the risk, as in England, and by removing the tender from the process, which takes about a year. It costs approximately £500,000 for each company to put in a bid. What is the point of, say, four companies putting in a bid and all doing the same work, spending £500,000 each? It also wastes a year. Contracts need to be done concurrently—together. If there is a risk of disruption, why not do the first stretch of the A96 at the same time as the A9? That would spread the disruption across two different roads and as a practical suggestion has much to commend it. I understand that there is acceptance at Transport Scotland that that needs to be done.

In my view—and I have been around for quite a while now—the Highlands deserve more, and Highlanders deserve better. We simply cannot let them down again. We must deliver. We must, as a Government, find the funding, and we must deliver the procurement changes that, in my view, are necessary to enable the swiftest possible completion of the dualling of the A9.

17:26  

I welcome Fergus Ewing being on the back benches and giving speeches such as that one about things that are important in the constituency and region that we represent. The only problem is that, in speaking so eloquently now—where he did not speak before—he steals all the thunder of the members who follow him.

It would be fair to say that most people in the Highlands have, on their walls or in their brains, what was said in the SNP’s 2007 manifesto, which was that the Government would

“publish a 10-year plan to transform Scottish road safety. The case put forward by organisations including the AA motoring trust proves that a range of measures—including dualling of key roads, such as the A9—would contribute to fewer lives being lost.”

Imagine if that had been done in 2007 or in the years after. Imagine the lives that would have been saved. Imagine the Highlanders and other people using the road who would not be attending the funerals of friends and colleagues killed on it. It is a truly startling fact, and it is something that we should bear in mind constantly when we talk about the project.

The project has been shovel ready for years, but it has been abandoned by the Scottish Government and kicked into the long grass. Sixteen years on from that manifesto promise and 11 years after the policy commitment, only 11 miles between Inverness and Perth have been dualled. That means that just 11 of 80 miles of upgrade has been completed, or two sections out of 11.

The Kincraig to Dalraddy bit that was done was delivered late. It was opened and, as those of us who travel the road constantly will remember, it was then promptly closed. It was opened to meet a deadline, closed to rectify the defects and then reopened. We need to do better than that.

I agree with Mr Ewing on the point that all the ministers or ex-ministers who are standing to be First Minister have had a finger in the pie. Humza Yousaf was minister with responsibility for transport and roads between 2016 and 2018, and Kate Forbes had her finger on the pulse when it came to the finances, but she could not deliver. Ash Regan did not have that, but when the candidates stood up at the Inverness Courier hustings—as referred to by Fergus Ewing—she said:

“In my first 100 days I will set out a new timeframe and get this work moving.”

Humza Yousaf said:

“If I am First Minister the first thing I will do is sit down with my finance secretary who I will appoint and say this is the priority and the budget has to reflect this.”

Kate Forbes insisted that she has been pushing for faster progress and would continue to push for it. The problem is that they all made those promises at the hustings but have all been in a position to deliver the work. We should not forget that.

I echo something that Mr Ewing said about contracting out the work. I have watched the construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the A9 dualling. The Government likes the idea of joint ventures. They might be good and might mean that one person is in charge, but if that person goes bankrupt, we have problems. If that one person is not prepared to pass on the money to all the subbies that are involved in the project, we have a problem. The problem is simply that no one will want to tender for any of the work that the Government has. That complicates the situation.

I hope that, in the next 10 days, the people who stood up at the hustings in Inverness and promised to deliver the dualling of the A9 get on and deliver it. They have not delivered it before and they need to get on and deliver it now because not only have Highlanders run out of patience, but they are running out of time and some people are losing their lives because of the delay.

17:31  

I congratulate my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing the debate and associate myself with his remarks and those of Edward Mountain and Fergus Ewing. All have made passionate pleas to the Scottish Government not to abandon the projects that we are discussing and to ensure that the next First Minister makes them a top priority.

The A9 is my road home. I have driven it on countless occasions. It is clear to me and every other road user that the status quo is completely unacceptable. Even more, the sheer number of deaths as a result of accidents on the A9 is appalling and tragic in equal measure.

Last November, I recounted to Parliament that I attended that month the funeral of a friend of mine and Fergus Ewing’s who sadly died as a result of a road traffic accident on the A9. Too many families have experienced tragedy on that road. Too many lives have been lost. I join others in imploring the Scottish Government to take urgent action.

I turn to an equally important stretch of road, also in the Highlands and Islands, that serves tens of thousands of people but remains one of the most unreliable routes in Scotland. Members will not be surprised to learn that it is the A83 Rest and Be Thankful. I do not apologise for raising the matter again. I have raised it time and again in the Parliament and will keep doing so until a long-term or permanent solution is achieved.

I reiterate my admiration for the work of John Gurr and the other members of the Rest and Be Thankful Campaign, who have successfully kept the issue alive. We have heard a lot of talk about the issue but, regrettably, there has been very little material action from the Scottish Government. It has been two and a half years since Transport Scotland announced the 11 possible replacement routes and two years since one of them was identified as the preferred option. Since then, scarcely anything has happened. We have seen some short-term fixes, but nothing of substance, which has been incredibly frustrating.

That is a pattern that the Government has repeated across Scotland. In Argyll, it is frustrating for local businesses that rely on the route to connect to the central belt, for people who use the road to travel to hospital appointments in Glasgow and for families who use it to visit loved ones. I understand that the Minister for Transport is due to make an announcement on the issue in the spring and I hope that she may be able to provide much needed clarity on the matter.

We talk about the main roads such as the A9 and the A83—the trunk roads—but let us not forget smaller and quieter local roads that might also have issues and challenges. I will address one in the Sandbank area in Cowal. The Scenic Sandbank group has been campaigning to introduce several road safety measures, including a new 20mph speed limit, at the A815 at McKinlay’s Quay, just north of Dunoon. That follows several tragic road traffic accidents in the area, and I have been working with that local group alongside others to find a solution that meets the needs of the local community. I appreciate that the route is a local authority matter, but I ask the minister to outline any steps that the Scottish Government can take to assist Argyll and Bute Council and Scenic Sandbank to come to a resolution.

With a new First Minister due to be appointed next week, it is vital that a reset takes place when it comes to the Government’s approach to our transport infrastructure, and that road improvements are prioritised by the SNP Government. Whether it be the A9, the A96, the A83 or others, our constituents expect the Parliament to take vital action now. I hope that the minister will make that case vigorously to the next First Minister.

17:35  

I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing the debate to the Parliament. When we last debated the A9 in the chamber, a petition had been lodged with the Parliament, and I hope that it will help to place a focus on the A9 and get some clarity on progress and timescales. I hope that the relevant committee will ensure that there is a full inquiry into what has happened and what action needs to be taken to ensure that the road is dualled as soon as possible.

Even the SNP-led Highland Council has agreed a motion calling for immediate publication of a new dualling timetable for the A9. It also seeks a public inquiry into the long delay that is now faced.

As others have said, all candidates in the SNP leadership contest agreed that the A9 dualling is a failure of Government and must become a priority. Edward Mountain mentioned Ash Regan’s commitment to publish an updated timetable for the work on both the A9 and the A96 in her first 100 days, should she win the leadership election. I hope that the other candidates will match her ambition, because waiting until the autumn is simply too long. That said, we should not have to wait for a new leader to point the way ahead. It was a manifesto promise back in 2007, more than 15 years ago. It is a promise that has been broken, and the SNP Government should be making every effort right now to make good on it.

The SNP seeks to blame the pandemic, inflation and the war in Ukraine, which are all things that would not have impacted on the project had it been at the right stage of development at that time. It is clear that the SNP never sought to meet its 2025 timescale.

Of the 11 stretches of road that need to be dualled, only two have been completed. This project went wrong long before the pandemic, but the Scottish Government hid the truth from us. The Scottish Government needs to get the project back on track, come clean about what went wrong and be truthful with my constituents.

The Scottish Government has committed £5 million for short-term improvements to the A9 to improve safety. Although that is welcome, it is no substitute for dualling. Last year, there were eight deaths on the 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months. The total number of deaths between Perth and Inverness in 2022 was 13. The average cost of a fatal accident investigation is £2 million—that is £26 million last year just on the A9 south. That puts the £5 million on short-term improvements into proportion. Sadly, we cannot account for the heartache of families who have lost loved ones on that road.

The A9 does not stop at Inverness; the road north is also in a woeful condition for a trunk road. Despite that, the Scottish Government continues to centralise services, especially health and maternity services, to Inverness. That journey is always hazardous, and it is worse when made under stress due to illness or childbirth. The road is also treacherous in bad weather and can often block with snow. Only eight women gave birth in Caithness last year, compared with the 202 women from Caithness who gave birth in Inverness.

Much of the A9 runs through the Highland Council area. In that area, there are 178 road projects needing attention, but the council does not have the money and can look to fixing only 13 of them within its current budget.

It is little wonder that people are frustrated with the A96, the A83 and the A82—the list goes on. In addition, the promise of shortened rail journeys from Inverness to the central belt has not materialised. This Government is high on promises but low on delivery.

17:39  

I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing this members’ business debate. I absolutely back the calls for dualling as soon as possible, but my contribution focuses on what can and should be done between now and when that happens.

This evening’s debate reminds us—if, indeed, we needed any reminder—that road safety remains of paramount importance to all of us. Everyone has the right to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. In Scotland, we are fortunate that that is generally the case, and the majority of us do not give road safety a second thought when we leave our homes. Sadly, some people live in fear and anxiety as soon as they step out of their doors, but that does not have to be the case.

The A9 has a horrific accident record—I believe that there have been more than 74 fatalities in the past decade alone. There has been a drop in the number of fatalities on the A9, which has been linked to the introduction, at the end of 2014, of average speed cameras between Dunblane and Inverness. The evidence from the pilot study on the A9, when speed limits were raised for heavy goods vehicle drivers, shows that that measure was of great benefit—there was a 10 per cent drop in the number of accidents and less driver frustration, and HGV drivers adhered to the 50mph limit.

One of the confusions for people who drive up the A9 is that trial speed limits of 50mph for lorries are still marked up. Because they have been there for so long, they are no longer trials. Would it not be better to sign those speed limits properly, so that cars do not feel that they have to stick to the 50mph limit, which causes further problems?

Yes, it would. We absolutely need reassurance that those pilots will be turned into policy. We need that type of intervention across the country, and as a matter of urgency on routes similar to the A9, such as the A82, the A77 and the A75. Maybe the minister could tell us why a successful pilot, which has significantly reduced accidents, is not being permanently rolled out.

For almost all of my life, I have lived next to a road that was once called Scotland’s killer road. Sadly, since 1979, 2,500 serious collisions and 222 fatalities have been witnessed on the A75.

Let us look more generally at the impact of those roads on the quality of life of people who live by them, of whom I am one. Crocketford and Springholm in my constituency are two small communities that have the gross misfortune of sitting on the A75. Every hour of every day, their residents have to put up with HGVs hurtling past their doors—and, on many occasions, ignoring the 30mph speed limit.

As I have mentioned previously in the chamber, last year, two lorries collided in Crocketford, which resulted in one of the vehicles turning over and hitting three parked cars. Miraculously, the lorry stopped just centimetres before hitting a house. In a public meeting in the village, residents voiced their fears and demanded that road safety cameras be installed as a matter of urgency, in the hope of slowing down rogue drivers who speed through the communities.

This afternoon, I received a letter from Stewart Leggett, interim director of roads at Transport Scotland, in relation to the Scottish safety camera programme and “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”, which says that the Government is

“committed to making Scotland’s road travel safe for everyone”,

and that there is

“a vision for Scotland to have the best road safety performance ... by 2030”,

alongside the ambitious long-term goal for no one to be seriously injured or killed on our roads by 2050. One of the better interventions that might help to achieve those goals is the dualling of the A9 and other roads, such as the A75.

The strategic partnership board that oversees the delivery of the framework also gives consideration to changes to the guidance that are required to ensure that safety camera resources maximise their casualty reduction potential. Why should their deployment be considered only for areas with high collision and speeding profiles? Why can average speed cameras not be considered for communities that are adversely affected by those issues—for example, in places where other methods of speed detection are simply inadequate or ineffective, because the police do not have sufficient resources? Cameras could play a huge part in protecting the health and wellbeing of roadside communities. I ask the minister to consider changes to the rules and guidance, so that cameras are put in place not only to prevent serious collisions, but to prevent the on-going unrecorded impact on rural communities.

I will close on a positive note. Given that it might be the minster’s last appearance in her current role, will Jenny Gilruth join me in recognising the excellent work that is being done between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments with regard to the A75? Will she commit to providing an update on when we can expect to see a completed business case for the route, which should lead to both our Governments investing in a route that is of strategic importance to not only Scotland but the whole of the UK?

The overriding message today is for the Scottish Government to keep its promises and commitments and start delivering a road infrastructure that is fit for the future.

Due to the number of members who want to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to half an hour. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jamie Halcro Johnston]

Motion agreed to.

17:45  

I will start with a reflection on the debate so far. I was also at the Inverness Courier hustings on Friday. What struck me and, I think, a lot of the people watching was how great it was to have politicians in a national leadership contest talking about issues that we deal with every day and that matter to the people of the Highlands. The Highland News and Media team will probably be quite chuffed that that impact has now made its way into the chamber.

It will not be a surprise—or it certainly should not be a surprise—to anyone that I feel let down by the delay to the dualling of the A9. I do not have anything to add to this debate that I have not said before, but I realise that folk who are listening might not have heard me before, so I will repeat and expand on what I said in the chamber after the minister made her statement last month.

It is often very difficult for highlanders and islanders to feel that the Government here cares about us. That is a fact. I do not mind telling members that I quite often feel left out, too. My committee colleagues will be able to confirm that I constantly put my hand up and say, “Hey—maybe we need a rural or island voice in the room for this debate.”

A lot of work needs to be done to convince my constituents that folk in Edinburgh—whether they are from Edinburgh or they just come here three days a week—care about us, care about what matters to us, care about fulfilling promises that have been made to us and care about making my region better as much as they do about making the central belt better.

I really mean it when I say that it will be very difficult for highlanders to believe that the Scottish Government is committed to dualling the A9, and to them, in the face of another delay. That is a cold, hard fact that whatever Government we have in a week’s time will have to address.

I have paid full attention to the Scottish Government’s explanations and rebuttals on the issue. Of course, I understand the need to be sensible with taxpayers’ money—I think that most people will understand that—but we cannot just blame a lack of bids and move on. We need to ensure that bids are possible, welcomed and supported because, if only one contractor is willing to do the work and is asking for a lot more money than expected, there are deeper problems at work.

We need to see urgency from the Government so that we get back on track, and we need clarity on how long that will take. I do not want to come back here in six months to ask why the rerunning of the bidding process has not resulted in movement. I want my constituents to have confidence that they know what will happen from here on in.

I welcomed the investment that the Scottish Government mentioned in a new railway station at Dalcross—along with the minister, I went there on the first train, and it was a cracking day. However, it should not be one or the other. It was not one or the other for Edinburgh, for Glasgow or for the dozens of other places that have managed to obtain significant rail improvements and significant road improvements.

We would not be talking about one or the other if the A9 south had been dualled 15 years ago, so previous Governments have to take some responsibility for the issue, too. It could have, and should have, been done a long time ago. I should be in this building talking about getting a move on with doubling the Highland main line so that freight and traffic could be moved off the already-dualled A9. It has been a huge trauchle up to this point, and I do not want things to be dragged on any further.

The safety measures that the minister outlined will make a huge difference. I am glad that such measures are being taken, because there are things that we can do in the meantime to make the road safer. I am willing, as always, to discuss reasonably how we can move on, and I look forward to the meeting that the minister has committed to convening once the Moy to Tomatin section has been retendered.

I appreciate the Scottish Government’s “resolute commitment” to finishing the dualling between Perth and Inverness, but I remind the minister collegiately—because I know that she wants it to be done, too—that we will need a bit more than words for folk to believe it.

17:49  

I rise to make a short contribution to the debate about safety on the A9 more generally, in anticipation of the minister waxing lyrical about measures being taken on our A roads, in lieu of dualling, to improve safety.

I was contacted recently by a member of the public concerned about the platform at Dunkeld and Birnam station. He had discovered, on trying to get off the train, that the gap between the carriage and the platform is more than 2 feet. He drew that dangerous gap to the attention of ScotRail and was referred to the Office of Rail and Road, which acknowledged the risk. The ORR said that interim safety measures would be put in place pending

“major improvement work ... to eliminate large stepping distances”.

However, it went on to say that such substantive work was entirely contingent upon, and could not be undertaken until, the dualling of the adjacent A9 trunk road—a project that the ORR set out will require significant changes to the railway and the station—is completed. It would appear, therefore, that this Government’s abject failure to dual the road is compromising not only the safety of drivers but that of rail passengers, too. As long as there is this dither and delay, the railway’s ability to sort out its safety will continue to be paralysed.

My second point goes towards any attempt to say that other safety measures are being looked at that mitigate the urgency and necessity of the A9’s dualling. I should acknowledge here the efforts of Tarves community council, and Fin Carson’s remarks earlier, because members will know that the A9, as with the A96 and the likes, sees a significant percentage of its use by HGVs. Safe overtaking opportunities on predominantly single carriageway roads such as those are rare.

In Scotland, goods vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight are restricted to 40mph. In England and Wales, it is 50mph. Another MSP wrote to the transport minister in June 2022 asking for that to be looked at. In response, the transport minister confirmed that there is no intention to change that “slower for Scotland” anomaly. However, it turns out that, in 2018, the Scottish Government did a study on the

“potential impacts of increasing speed limits for HGVs in Scotland”,

which concluded that there were

“safety benefits and ... environmental impacts to increasing the speed limits for HGVs”.

A further Transport Scotland trial in June 2018, specifically examining the impact of allowing HGVs to go at 50mph on the Perth to Inverness A9, showed—here, it is important that I quote the transport minister—“positive road safety benefits”. In short, this Government did studies five years ago that showed that a mere stroke of a minister’s pen to increase the speed limit for HGVs by 10mph would give “positive road safety benefits” on the A9. Yet, has the Government, in the five years since, increased those limits to deliver those safety benefits? No, it has not. If, in her closing remarks, we hear from the minister any attempt to exonerate this Government for the appalling consequences of its inaction on dualling the A9 by saying that more must be done, the people of Scotland will know that more could have been done but was not.

17:53  

I congratulate Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing the debate.

I have spoken in the chamber several times recently on the A9 issue, so I will make only a very brief contribution and what I hope are two quite significant points. Rhoda Grant, Finlay Carson and Liam Kerr talked about road safety improvements in the short term. I very much welcome the work that the minister has been leading in relation to short-term improvements on the A9 and her engagement with colleagues from across the chamber on that issue. However, it is important to understand that those short-term improvements should not be seen as a substitute for progressing the dualling project.

Earlier, Fergus Ewing mentioned his concern about the Green Party’s approach to the issue. No one from the Green Party is here for this debate. I think that some of us would have a concern that the Green Party’s involvement in the Scottish Government is a factor in the delay to the work on the A9 being progressed. Depending on who becomes First Minister next week, that issue might no longer be there to concern us—who knows?

However, I have heard Green Party representatives say that there is an alternative to A9 dualling, which is lower speed limits. That is entirely the wrong approach, because the A9 dualling project is about road safety but also about better connectivity. It is essential that, as part of that better connectivity, we look to reduce journey times safely. Part of the project is also about improving connectivity for residents in Perthshire and across the Highlands. If we are serious about growing the economy, we must ensure that we are providing safe, secure and fast infrastructure. That is not something that the Green Party supports, given that it does not support economic growth in any form.

I have heard it suggested by Green Party representatives that we could reduce some of the issues on the A9 by lowering the speed limits to 50mph. That does not even answer the road safety question because, as we know, the classic serious accident or fatality on the A9 is a head-on crash on the single carriageway. Two cars travelling at 50mph that crash head on is equivalent to driving into a wall at 100mph. The chances are that those involved would not survive or, at the very least, they would end up very seriously injured. Therefore, that is not the answer and the short-term improvements, although welcome, are not a substitute for delivering the A9 dualling project. After all, that was what was promised.

My second and final point is in relation to what we have already heard about the death toll on the A9. During 2022, there were 13 deaths on the stretch between Perth and Inverness, 12 of which were on single carriageway sections. I have no doubt that we would have seen a substantial lowering of that tragic death toll had dual carriageways been in place instead of single carriageways.

Donald Cameron referred to attending the funeral of a friend who died on the A9. There have been too many such funerals, and there will continue to be too many funerals until the project is delivered. I hope that whoever becomes First Minister next week will deliver on the Government’s pledges and that we will see real action to complete this vital road project.

17:57  

I congratulate Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing this important debate on the A9. As I think the member alluded to, I provided a statement on the A9 to Parliament on 9 February, and I responded in a Conservative debate on the issue just over a month ago.

I have listened very carefully to the contributions from all parties, including my own. I very much acknowledge the strength of feeling today, as I have done previously, on the part of all parties—particularly in my own party—on the recent number of incidents and fatalities on the road, which are unacceptable.

I think that Fergus Ewing asked me to apologise at the start of the debate. I have previously apologised in the chamber, and I do so unreservedly again today. One life lost on Scotland’s roads is one too many. I recognise the devastating increase in fatalities that we saw in the latter half of 2022. We need to move on now at pace. I think that that was one of the points that Ms Roddick alluded to in her contribution.

One of the worst things about being the Minister for Transport is that, every time a life is lost on Scotland’s roads, I get sent an e-mail. When I was appointed in January last year, I was really struck by the number of emails that I was sent at the beginning of the year.

Currently, there are challenges on the trunk road network—not just on the A9, but across the network—in relation to road safety. We all need to be mindful of that. We must also be mindful of behaviour change, about coming out of the pandemic, and about how drivers are behaving, but also about how Government can help to improve road safety.

Murdo Fraser made a number of points. He has made a number of contributions on the A9 during my time in post, but I know that he has taken a keen interest in the matter over a number of years, noting his constituency interests. He is absolutely right that the additional £5 million of investment from the Government is not in any way a substitute for full dualling.

Members have raised a number of points. I will try to cover all of those in turn.

Finlay Carson spoke about the road safety challenges on the A75. I will meet Mr Carson next week, I think, and I am also due to meet my UK Government counterpart on that matter next week. It is important that we move forward at pace.

This morning, I attended the Road Safety Scotland event, which was also attended by Police Scotland. Members might be aware that part of the additional funding that is supporting short-term measures on the A9 is for campaigns and improving driver behaviour. For example, members might have seen our driver fatigue road safety campaign, which ended on 13 February, and today we launched our “Drive on the left” marketing campaign.

As minister, I cannot go into the specifics of fatalities that have occurred on the route, but I encourage members with a constituency interest to engage with local police on those matters, because that may help with understanding the causation factors behind some of the incidents that have happened on the road in recent months. There is some strong engagement work with constituency and regional MSPs. I was happy to chair the session towards the end of last year that Mr Fraser alluded to and, if I am still in this position in the coming weeks, I will be happy to continue that engagement work, because it is vitally important that we get this right.

Mr Halcro Johnston started his speech by talking about dates. I want to go back to that point. We discussed the issue in the debate a month ago, and I corrected the record, because I think that I said that I had been told for the first time that the date was not achievable in late 2022, but it was, of course, 7 December. I reiterate that point today. I think that the Tomatin to Moy tender had not yet completed at that stage, and it was important to update Parliament on the totality, which is why I gave the update on 8 February. That is a period of about two months—although Mr Halcro Johnston might think that that is inaccurate.

I recognise that it would have been preferable had those dates been closer together, although there was a challenge in relation to the Christmas break period and in relation to some of the governance around the tender. I have spoken to Transport Scotland about that at length, and I am more than happy to ask officials to speak to members about that, too.

Mr Ewing touched on funding. It is important to underline that the Government has already invested significant funding in the A9, although, clearly, we will have to invest more. We have rehearsed some of the challenges in recent times in relation to the pressures on the Scottish Government budget, but we will need to prioritise the capital investment for the completion of the dualling programme.

Surely one of the ways in which the Government can ensure the prioritising of funding and ensure that everyone understands its approach to getting the job done quickly is by having compulsory purchase orders along the whole route. There is a limited timescale, and it would focus everyone’s mind on getting the job done if the Government stuck to that timescale.

I can give you the time back for that intervention, minister.

I am not sure that I can do that as a minister, because statutory processes are required to be completed, but I am more than happy to check that matter with Transport Scotland officials and write to the member in detail. It sounds like a reasonable proposition but, as transport minister, I know that statutory processes around building consents for new roads sometimes look easier than they are.

The issue of procurement was raised in my statement to Parliament, in the previous debate and by many members today. Many members across the chamber accept that it is pretty unusual for a contract to attract only one bid. Our design and build contracts have been used pretty successfully for more than 20 years, but it is fair to say that we have seen a decline in the number of tenders, which we know is due to risk transfer, as set out in the contract—Mr Ewing alluded to that point. As a result, we are reassessing the design and build contract. We have to achieve the right balance in the tenders to attract more competition to ensure that we get a deal that works better for taxpayers.

Will the reconsideration of the sharing of risk be applicable to the intended retendering process for the Tomatin to Moy section? I am concerned that that process could lead simply to the same result of perhaps one offer that is not acceptable.

I am not aware of whether it will be applicable to the retendering, as the member has alluded to. I am more than happy to speak to Transport Scotland again regarding that point. However, given the number of meetings that I have held with Transport Scotland on the matter in the past few weeks, I know that it is working directly with industry to ensure that we attract far more bids this time in relation to the tender.

Donald Cameron referred to the Rest and Be Thankful, which we have discussed at length. I chaired the task force in Argyll at the start of this year. As the member alluded to, we will announce the preferred route for the long-term option in the spring, so I cannot give a further update on that point today. However, I wanted to put that on the record.

Mr Cameron also raised a specific query in relation to a local road in Argyll. I will ask Transport Scotland officials to speak to Argyll and Bute Council in relation to that matter.

Liam Kerr raised a challenge that I was unaware of in relation to improvements at Dunkeld train station. I have not seen the advice from the Office of Rail and Road. The member may or may not be aware that I am actually recused in relation to the A9 section at Dunkeld. However, I will ask the cabinet secretary to raise that matter directly with the ORR and with Transport Scotland, should that be needed.

Members have repeatedly raised the timetable for the completion of the dualling programme. As members will recall, I have committed to update Parliament on the new timetable for completion when I receive advice on the options to complete the programme, which is expected in the autumn of this year. Mr Ewing tested that timescale—I am happy to be tested on it and to again request Transport Scotland to expedite the process. I have already done so, but I am more than happy to continue to consider whether we can truncate the process and bring forward the advice to Parliament sooner than the autumn.

I have announced the Government’s intention to urgently commence a new procurement for the Tomatin to Moy section, and I am pleased to report that the preparations for that stage of procurement are progressing well, with a target date for awarding a new contract before the end of 2023. As I mentioned in my response to Mr Ewing, part of that process involves Transport Scotland officials engaging with the market on the terms and conditions of the contracts. I very much welcome the positive response from the market to that engagement.

Officials are continuing to work on the outstanding statutory consents that remain in relation to the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing project, which is the only one that has not yet gone through the statutory processes. That is worth putting on the record.

I do not shy away from the challenge in relation to the completion of the dualling of the A9. Investing in our roads will always be important, and we have to get that right as a Government. I have apologised, and I absolutely recognise the challenge—as transport minister, I take it very seriously. We now need to move forward at pace. We will do that by outlining to Parliament an updated timescale. I look forward to, I hope, being able to bring that back to Parliament later this year and to giving Parliament an update in relation to the Tomatin to Moy tender.

Meeting closed at 18:06.