Official Report 1222KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16085, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on behalf of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, on an inquiry into the A9 dualling programme. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
15:00
One of the frustrations of opening a debate on behalf of the committee is that I cannot freewheel in my usual style; I have to adhere to a text, which is very frustrating.
The subject of the debate will be familiar to many colleagues across the chamber. However, I was not directly involved in it prior to convening the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s inquiry into the A9 dualling programme, other than as a semi-regular user of the road.
As convener of the committee, I put on record again my thanks to Laura Hansler. Every petition has its origin in a member of the public who comes to us with an issue that they wish us to pursue. We do so without fear or favour, with no manifesto underpinning our work but to challenge and represent the petitioner’s concern.
Laura Hansler joins us in the public gallery, and I thank her for lodging the petition calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to fulfil its 2011 promise to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness, which provided the catalyst for our inquiry. I commend her for her commitment to the issue over a long number of years, including through the forthright and powerful evidence that she provided directly to the committee, as well as by faithfully attending meetings to observe the evidence that we heard from past and present Scottish Government ministers and officials, about which I will say more shortly.
The petition was lodged in December 2022 and it includes a call for completion of the dualling work by 2025. As members will be aware, before we had the opportunity to even consider the petition, the then Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth, announced that the 2025 completion date was “simply no longer achievable”. That announcement in February 2023 and the initial evidence that we gathered from the petitioner, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association and Transport Scotland led to the committee taking the unusual step of elevating its consideration of the petition to the level of an inquiry.
Throughout the inquiry, the committee sought to explore the circumstances that led to the 2025 completion date becoming unachievable, as well as to consider on-going challenges that might impact on the successful dualling of the A9 by the Scottish Government’s new target completion date of 2035. In doing so, we gathered evidence from people with technical and industry expertise, from people and businesses that were affected by issues along that arterial route, and from those who held the highest positions in the Government.
The committee is grateful to all who have contributed to our consideration of the matter, whether in person or in writing, including the former First Ministers Humza Yousaf, Nicola Sturgeon and the late Alex Salmond, whose final appearance before the Parliament was at our committee. I thank the many political parties that sought to give evidence to the committee during its inquiry, which I must say excludes the Scottish Greens. I also thank the clerks and all parliamentary staff who supported the committee throughout the process, as well as Transport Scotland officials for the volume of evidence that was made available to the committee when we requested various documents relating to the A9 dualling programme.
Does Jackson Carlaw agree that the committee looked at not only what went wrong but how to put things right in the future? In that respect, the evidence that we heard from Grahame Barn, the chief executive officer of the body that represents 80 per cent of civil engineering companies in Scotland, was extremely helpful in the detail of his recommendations about how procurement might be done more effectively in the future.
I hope to say more about that, and I am quite sure that Fergus Ewing will not miss the opportunity to do so himself.
Like me, Fergus Ewing will have been slightly surprised when the documents that we received from Transport Scotland turned out to be about 18 inches thick. There was quite a bit of reading and digesting, even if quite a lot of the documents turned out to be redacted.
Special thanks should also be offered to Edward Mountain, who attended many of the evidence sessions and contributed to our deliberations in his role as reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
Although the extensive evidence that we considered did not uncover, in the parlance of the day, a smoking gun that suggested that the Government had acted in any way maliciously—it did not suggest that at all—it became clear to the committee that a lack of clarity over the availability of funding resulted in a failure to deliver the project on time. It was clear, too, that the unwillingness of the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to be open and transparent about the challenges that were being faced has damaged public trust in the Government’s ability to deliver the dualling programme.
Our committee is no stranger to public concerns about the Government’s approach to major road projects, which we continue to examine as part of our consideration of a number of petitions. Transparency in relation to Transport Scotland’s decision-making processes is a recurring theme. Although we look forward to inviting the cabinet secretary to the committee in due course to discuss several petitions that relate to road projects that are in hibernation in different parts of Scotland, it might be worth reflecting on how past experiences, such as the lack of open, external discussion of delays and drift on the A9 dualling programme, have negatively impacted public perceptions of Transport Scotland.
As our report makes clear, the delays that have been experienced are, frankly, unacceptable for people who live and work in the north of Scotland. Although a revised date for completion of the project has been announced, the news of a delay to the expected completion of the Tomatin to Moy section leaves the committee unconvinced that the lessons of the past have been learned.
We are particularly grateful for the candid evidence that was provided to us by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which told us that its members regarded Transport Scotland
“as the worst client to work for in the UK.”
It is possible that that opinion might have softened as a result of a change in Transport Scotland’s approach to procurement contracts, which means that there will now be a greater balancing of risk between the Scottish Government and contractors. CECA Scotland praised Transport Scotland for taking the “large leap” of changing its procurement approach, with the number of bids received for the Tomatin to Moy section being an encouraging indication that contractors are content with the new form of contract.
It is to be hoped that contractors now have a more positive view of working with Transport Scotland, as it became increasingly clear to the committee that, due to the scale of the civil engineering work that is planned for Scotland—specifically, the north of Scotland—over the next decade, it will be not only the availability of funding that determines whether the Scottish Government can deliver on its commitment on the A9 but the availability of a workforce to carry out the construction of the remaining sections as competition among members of the industry to undertake the projects continues to rise.
To put that into context, we heard that the north of Scotland can expect to see about £20 billion-worth of investment from SSE in the next five years, and that a further £20 billion to £30 billion will be invested by Scottish Power, Network Rail and others in major projects across Scotland over the next decade. Those organisations need the road to be completed in order to fulfil their obligations to those projects, but those projects will be competing for the same workforce as we require to complete the A9.
The Scottish Government has told us that it considered market capacity when it developed the updated A9 delivery plan. There are those who would like the Government to take a more flexible and responsive approach to market capacity, with a view to accelerating the dualling programme, should the capacity exist in the construction and engineering sector to do so. That is why the committee is a little disappointed by the Government’s recent rejection of any plans to accelerate the current programme.
During her evidence to the committee, Nicola Sturgeon reflected on whether the Government was
“as candid as we should have been with ourselves, as well as with the public, about just how challenging it would always have been”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 May 2024; c 7-8.]
to meet the 2025 target. We know from our work on the inquiry that there are people who feel that the Government should have been more candid about progress, or the lack thereof, on dualling the A9. Laura Hansler commented that part of the reason for lodging her petition was to challenge the very people responsible for the “unforgivable lack of transparency” surrounding the non-delivery of the dualling programme. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could respond to those who feel that there has been a lack of transparency up to now and set out what steps are in hand to change that.
In a previous parliamentary session, I had the pleasure of serving as convener of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee, which colleagues might recall was established to examine the construction of what we now refer to as the Queensferry crossing. During the A9 inquiry, I invited reflections from others, including former First Ministers and ministers, on how the existence of a cross-party parliamentary committee that was tasked with looking at a major project provided an impetus and helped to uncover solutions to difficult issues that might otherwise have led to drift.
That was a legislative requirement for the Queensferry crossing. It is for Parliament to decide whether that is a route to look to in the future, but I think that the existence of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee undoubtedly helped to maintain a focus on a project that, after all, was eventually delivered on budget and on time. Our report suggests that taking the step of establishing such a committee would support the rebuilding of public trust and confidence that the commitment to fully dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness will be delivered.
The whole Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has had an opportunity to consider the Government’s response, and we are slightly disappointed. We feel that the Government had an opportunity to reflect, to reset, to reboot and to restore public confidence, so that MSPs do not end up having the same debate in Parliament in 2035, having had another inquiry into why the A9 had still not been completed. I therefore encourage the cabinet secretary to seize the moment and the opportunity of the committee’s report and to do all that she can to ensure that public confidence is there and that the road is delivered.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s 2nd Report, 2024 (Session 6), Inquiry into the A9 Dualling Programme (SP Paper 669), including the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to provide oversight and maintain momentum on scrutiny of long-running, multi-session infrastructure projects, such as the A9 dualling programme.
15:09
I begin by thanking all who contributed to the committee’s work on this inquiry, which arose from its consideration of petition PE1992, which was lodged in 2022. In my response to the committee, which was issued on 9 January, in my covering letter and again today, I welcome the committee’s consideration of the issues relevant to the future progress of the dualling programme.
Much has changed since the committee began its consideration of the petition, and its report recognises that. The delivery plan for completion of the A9 dualling programme was announced in December 2023. That plan involves the procurement of four design and build contracts as well as, subject to further decisions to be made in late 2025, the procurement of two mutual investment model—MIM—contracts. That approach was supported by a Cabinet decision to prioritise the completion of the A9 dualling programme within its budgets.
Since the announcement of that plan, the Government has made good progress, including through commencing procurement of the Tay crossing to Ballinluig project in May 2024; the awarding of the contract for the Tomatin to Moy project in July 2024; publication of orders for the Killiecrankie to Glen Garry and Dalraddy to Slochd projects; and progression of the land acquisition processes for the Tay crossing to Ballinluig, Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, Glen Garry to Dalwhinnie and Dalwhinnie to Crubenmore projects.
I will say more in my closing speech about the progress that has already been made and the further progress that is expected during 2025.
Will the cabinet secretary accept an intervention?
I would like to move on.
On Tuesday of this week, Transport Scotland published a report on its assessment of rescheduling and acceleration proposals for the A9 dualling project, which was an issue that the committee referred to in its report.
On the basis of the assessment’s findings, Transport Scotland’s report did not recommend rescheduling or trying to accelerate the dualling programme, although it did recommend that further assessment should be made of the potential for an advanced works contract at Dalnaspidal junction. I have asked Transport Scotland to take that forward.
It should be borne in mind that the potential rescheduling opportunities are limited. The first two contracts for the A9 dualling programme have already been constructed and are operational, the third contract reached the contract award stage in July 2024, and the contract award for the fourth contract is expected in summer 2025. Rescheduling is therefore feasible only in respect of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth contracts, which are due to begin procurement in summer 2025, winter 2026-27, summer 2027 and winter 2028-29 respectively.
However, as the seventh contract, for the section from the pass of Birnam to the Tay crossing, is already scheduled to start at the earliest date possible, based on the expected date of completion of that project’s statutory processes, and is not dependent on any other project, any change of date would mean delaying completion beyond the currently expected date. In practical terms, the scheduling options are therefore limited to the timing of procurement and construction of the fifth contract, for the section from Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, of the sixth contract, which is the A9 north MIM contract, and the eighth contract, which is the A9 central MIM contract.
Will the cabinet secretary give way now?
I will come to you shortly, Mr Ewing.
The report published earlier this week shows that rescheduling and reversing the procurement sequence of the sixth and eighth contracts would result in an expected delay of around a year in the overall completion of the dualling programme. That is due to the need to delay procurement and construction of the fifth contract to avoid an overlap that the current delivery plan was developed to avoid because of the implications for road user disruption. Those changes in the procurement sequence would also reduce continuity of the bidding pipeline for those projects, making them likely to be less attractive to bidders.
I appreciate that there is a range of views about how completion of the dualling programme should be achieved. On that note, I will take an intervention from Mr Ewing.
The Tomatin to Moy section was announced by Michael Matheson in February 2021 but will not be completed until 2028, taking seven years from start to completion. There are eight remaining sections and eight times seven is 56. Doing the sections one-by-one and using the traditional procurement method, rather than the framework method, is surely almost guaranteed to lead to a repeat of the mistakes of the past.
Can the cabinet secretary say, in consideration of the request that was made by all parties except the Greens at a meeting that we had with you and the First Minister last June, what consultation Transport Scotland had with industry about how to accelerate the project in practice, given that Transport Scotland will deliver it?
I remind members to always speak through the chair. Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back for the intervention.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
There were a number of points in Fergus Ewing’s intervention. As he will know, because he has attended the briefings that I have provided on the A9 project, the work on the sections will not happen one by one. The whole point is that work will happen concurrently across the A9. Work will happen on the south of the A9 at the same time as work on the north of the A9, and the processes for them will happen simultaneously. That is why trying to reorder the current scheduling would have an impact. There would be a danger of concurrent issues that would affect both price and certainty of delivery. Certainty is something that the committee was very keen on.
I believe that the Transport Scotland report demonstrates that the plan that was established and published in December 2023 is robust and represents a practical way to undertake this large programme of works in the years ahead. We remain fully focused on and committed to delivering dualling of 50 per cent of the A9 between Perth and Inverness by the end of 2030, 85 per cent by the end of 2033 and 100 per cent by the end of 2035.
As I noted in my response to the committee, the Government considers that many of the committee’s conclusions and recommendations in its inquiry report relate to two main themes: transparency and certainty. I hope that the various activities that I have outlined in my response demonstrate the action that we are taking on those themes. I am wholly committed to progressing the programme and to listening to Parliament, local residents and businesses, and keeping them informed and engaged. We have regular meetings and publish newsletters and there is a new A9 dualling website.
I also noted the committee’s recommendation regarding the establishment of a new parliamentary committee. The Government is clear that that is a matter for Parliament to determine. The Government will, of course, direct its reporting to the appropriate committee, which is currently the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The first of the six-monthly update reports to that committee was issued on 21 November 2024, and I have written to it on six other occasions with updates.
It is essential that there is a sound evidence base for decision making on the use of mutual investment model contracts for the contracts to be procured, in line with the requirements of the Scottish public finance manual and the Treasury green book. The work on that, which has already started, involves updating cost estimates, undertaking further market consultation with contractors and financial investors, updating the outline business case for the programme and undertaking the necessary assurance reviews of that work. There is continuous engagement with contractors, as members might appreciate.
Once those activities have been completed, ministers will be in a position to determine whether the current delivery plan intention to procure two MIM contracts will be confirmed. The Government will then ask to make a statement to Parliament to set out the conclusion of the further decision-making processes. I want to be very clear to Parliament about the Government’s position on that work. If a decision is taken not to make use of MIM contracts on the A9 dualling programme, we will implement an alternative approach such as use of capital-funded design and build contracts, and there is a Cabinet decision to prioritise the completion of the A9 dualling programme within Scottish Government budgets.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I was about to close, but, if I have time, I will take the intervention, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Please be brief, Mr Carlaw.
I note the commitment to come forward with a statement following the consideration of matters at the end of this year. The commitment is to bring forward a statement not necessarily this year, but potentially into next year. There is a concern that, at that point, the Parliament will be maturing. Is the cabinet secretary certain that we will be able to have proper scrutiny of any decision that comes forward at that late stage?
I am not sure where the member’s comment that the statement would be brought forward into 2026 came from. That would be a matter for Parliament. I am very keen to move things forward, so I take responsibility for trying to bring the statement to Parliament in such a state that there can be proper accountability, which is required in relation to such a major decision.
I have been updating Parliament since December 2023 and I will continue to update it and local MSPs on progress. The design and development of the different sections will involve engagement with and input from local residents, businesses and communities. With the Tomatin to Moy construction work starting in earnest in the autumn, following preparatory works that have already started, there will be continuous dualling work until 2035. I reiterate that, as I said to Mr Ewing, there will most often be work on more than one site on the A9 at any given time. I trust that that will be recognised in members’ contributions today.
15:19
As a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I thank all those who have participated in the inquiry and those who have supported the committee in its work, as well as the petitioner, Laura Hansler. I also recognise and pay tribute to all those who have tragically lost their lives on the A9 during the preceding years and decades.
I drive on the A9, which is north of Perth, maybe a couple of times a year. When driving that road, there is always a slight sense of unease. There is a feeling that is not experienced on other roads. Almost without fail, you will see something; it may be a car pulling across the carriageway with barely enough time or a tight overtaking manoeuvre. There will always be something that makes you take a deep intake of breath.
However, the communities that live nearby and rely on the A9 do not have to deal with driving on that road a couple of times a year; for some, it is a daily experience, and it is taking its toll on those communities—emotionally and economically, and tragically, with far too many people seriously injured or worse as a result of road traffic incidents.
The reality is that the communities have been badly let down by the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland in their handling of the A9 dualling. That is why the findings of the inquiry are important. The communities deserve answers, and we owe it to them and to all future users of the A9 to learn from the failures of the past and to ensure that the project now moves forward. If the Scottish Government can do that, it can begin to rebuild the public’s trust.
I have reviewed the Government’s written response to the committee’s report and, unfortunately, it is far from clear about the degree to which it is willing to accept and learn from the failings of the past. When we look at those failings, we see that the Government’s approach to transparency has been seriously lacking and that it has contributed significantly to the current state of the project. When ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon accepted that, she said to the committee:
“I would ask myself whether we were as candid as we should have been with ourselves, as well as with the public, about just how challenging it would always have been to meet the target”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 May 2024; c7-8.]
When we consider transparency, we have to look at the timeline. It was 8 February, 2023—less than two years ago—when the Scottish Government came clean and said that the 2025 completion date was no longer achievable. There is a massive disconnect between saying less than two years ago that it would not be complete by 2025 and now saying that it will not be completed until 2035.
During the past couple of days, Transport Scotland has doubled down on that and has said that the 2035 timeline cannot be accelerated, effectively claiming that any attempts to accelerate the project might slow it down further. That seems like a staggering and bizarre claim, but if it is the case, it points to the degree to which the Scottish Government deceived the public by keeping up the pretence—until two years ago—that the project could be completed this year. Whether the Scottish Government is willing to accept it or not, the reality is that either hanging on to the 2025 timeline for so long was an attempt at deceit or the revised and moveable 2035 timeline is an attempt to deceive. Which is it? Of course, it could be both.
The Government has acted in bad faith for too long, and we can have no more deceit. We need an evidence-based and transparent timeline, and we need parliamentary scrutiny. The committee was clear that the Government had evaded scrutiny in the past. In reading the Government’s response to the committee, it appears that the Government is trying to water down the role of parliamentary scrutiny and has dodged the question of establishing a committee that could oversee the dualling of the A9 and other major projects.
I am already accountable to Parliament. I answer questions and I respond. I have given statements and will continue to do so. I report to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. It would be wrong for the Government to tell Parliament what to do in carrying out its scrutiny and accountability responsibilities. I, and anyone else related to this issue, will absolutely respond and be accountable to the relevant committee. Having been the deputy convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee under the convenership of Edward Mountain, I know that it is a very strong committee, and I am happy to report to it unless the committee and Parliament decide otherwise. It is for the Parliament and not the Government to decide whom the Government is accountable to. That is how Parliament works.
Interventions will need to be slightly briefer, although we have a bit of time in hand. I will give you the time back, Mr Golden.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that I sat on the Parliamentary Bureau—
So did I.
—and I am aware of the voting on that issue. The bureau is where the Scottish National Party could back the establishment of a specific committee or, as part of the bureau process, could consider the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee covering such a large portfolio. That would help—that is the fundamental point of the committee’s report.
The committee also came to the conclusion that the Government’s failure to reach agreement on programme funding was a significant factor contributing to the delays that we are now experiencing. Looking to the future, the committee is not confident that the funding is in place to ensure completion by 2035. It calls on the Government to be clear with its future funding plans and the timescales for those plans and to ensure that those funding plans can be scrutinised.
15:27
I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its thorough report. The committee not only took evidence on the petition but included a reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. It then went on to undertake an in-depth inquiry, resulting in evidence from a wide range of Government ministers, starting with Derek Mackay and finishing with Màiri McAllan. We owe the committee thanks for the robustness of its scrutiny, its determination to get to the bottom of the saga and its commitment to exposing the failings and mistakes that have left us so far behind progress.
The committee’s report arose from a petition called “Dual the A9 and improve road safety”, which was submitted by Laura Hansler and supported by the A9 dual action group. The petition, which was first brought before the committee in 2022, is clearly driven by safety concerns and expresses frustration at the delays in progress. It highlights the commitment to dual the A9 that was made in 2011 and calls for the completion of the work by 2025.
As we start 2025 and the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee secures this debate, we all recognise the petitioners’ continuing disappointment over the timescale for the completion of the project. The petitioner wanted to highlight the exponential rate of fatalities on the road, arguing that the road is now barely fit for purpose, with an unsustainable influx of traffic on the infrastructure. Between 2011 and September 2022, there were 52 fatalities, and there have been more since. We regularly hear the passion and anger from MSPs in the chamber about the lack of progress and the lives that are being lost. With every road fatality, families and lives are devastated, and the poor reputation of the A9 is reflected in those figures. A recent freedom of information request showed that there have been 313 collisions between vehicles on the A9, with almost 200 of those on the single carriageway. Such collisions often cause fatalities, injuries, delays to travel and road closures, which have an impact on communities and businesses.
There is always a debate about the behaviour of road users and the state of the road, but the Scottish Government made its decision on that debate when it committed to dualling the A9 from Perth to Inverness, and that debate should not be a distraction from its failure to deliver on a key infrastructure programme. The commitment to dual recognises the A9 as a key arterial route—referred to as Scotland’s spine—that provides a link from the Highlands to the rest of the country. It is a key route for many businesses and is of vital economic importance to Scotland.
The committee’s report meticulously details the timeline and decision-making aspects of the project. It identifies the lack of leadership at project and ministerial levels as being problematic. In comparing the A9 project with the Queensferry crossing, it argues that the A9 project would have benefited from the appointment of a project director who was solely responsible for it. The director of major projects who was involved had overseen several major infrastructure sites, which led to the committee’s being unclear about the extent to which the A9 work had been prioritised and whether other transport projects had detracted from progress there.
Furthermore, the committee raised concerns about the lack of ministerial continuity in that five different ministers had been responsible for the A9 project in a period of just over 10 years, while the responsibility for transport had frequently been moved between ministerial portfolios and levels. Although the former Transport Scotland chief executive defended ministers’ engagement, no one minister has been tasked with seeing the project through from beginning to end.
The committee also identified concerns over future funding for the project. The decision to reclassify the non-profit distribution model in 2014 left a vacuum for a new private finance model. It was delay in addressing that aspect that led to Transport Scotland telling ministers, in 2018, that the 2025 target was unachievable. Although evidence to the committee argued that that was not clear advice and that, until late 2022, it was still possible that capital funding could fund the project, the committee sounded unconvinced by that argument and concluded that delays to the decision contributed to a 2025 completion date being unachievable. The committee’s proposal for the introduction of a duty of candour is one that ministers should listen to.
The petitioner submitted her petition in 2022 in the belief that 2025 was still the completion date. It is concerning that, by then, ministers were increasingly aware that that target was not deliverable. They also raised important points about the procurement model used by Transport Scotland, which was unattractive to contractors and resulted in there being only single bidders. The whole sorry saga has had a negative impact on public confidence in Transport Scotland and in the Scottish Government’s ability to deliver major infrastructure projects.
As the committee shifts its focus to the 2035 target, although changes to procurement and funding are welcome, concerns remain over poor risk management and transparency of decision making and information sharing. There will always be factors that are outwith the control of the Government; the test is how effectively it responds to those. Although we can see improvements in communication and ministerial direction, those do not detract from the Scottish Government’s failures on the project, the broken promises to constituents from Perth to Inverness on its projected completion, and the lives that have been lost while progress has stalled.
Earlier this week, Transport Scotland published its response to the committee’s request to accelerate dualling, saying that to do so would mean risking the 2035 end date. For the communities who have waited so many years and who were promised that dualling would be completed this year, that response will be another disappointment. The cabinet secretary has said that the current timetable is “robust and practical”, but what faith can those communities have, given that there has been such slow progress to this point? Each delay puts drivers at risk and deprives communities of safe and reliable transport links. There must be a guarantee that the latest timescale will not slip further.
This is a serious issue, which the committee has robustly scrutinised, and the Scottish Government has been shown to have come up short. The delay and dither have not only damaged Scotland’s economy and hindered growth, as well as having a negative impact on communities’ wellbeing; they have led directly to loss of life and to despair and anguish for too many families.
15:33
I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the petition on dualling the A9, and I congratulate Laura Hansler on successfully getting her petition through the committee stage and on to the floor of the chamber. I have met Laura. Although it is fair to say that we do not agree on all aspects of the A9 issue, I agree with her on the need for investment to make our roads safer. I agree, too, that delays in such investment continue to result in crashes, tragic injuries and deaths. In tribute to all the victims of road crashes in Scotland, we should strive to make every dangerous road and street safer and work towards the objective, which the Scottish Government has now adopted, of there being zero deaths on our roads.
Over the years that I have served as a member for Mid Scotland and Fife, I have listened carefully to my constituents about the need for safety improvements on the A9. I want to use this opportunity to reflect the views of communities along the section between the Pass of Birnam and the Tay crossing. That stretch of the A9 is unique. The hills surrounding Dunkeld and Birnam constrain the pass and tighten the availability of space for the road, the railway and the surrounding community. The wider community, which includes Inver, is severed by the A9, to the point that access to the railway station is difficult and dangerous. Along that short section, there are eight junctions that serve communities and popular visitor attractions, including the Hermitage, and none of those junctions could be considered safe.
For many years, local people have been fearful of using the A9 for their everyday business. The Dunkeld junction is terrifying, and the aftermath of repeated fatal crashes there has been traumatic for everybody in the community. I am told that Transport Scotland officials have been warned not to use the junction when they head north on to the A9 on business, but the families who live there are expected to just carry on and use the junction every day. That is unacceptable. Solutions for that stretch need to be put in place urgently; we should not wait for the eventual completion of the dualling project in 2032.
A roundabout is proposed at Dunkeld as an integral part of the dualling programme. That is welcome, because saving lives is far more important than a couple of extra minutes being added to the journey from Inverness to Perth. I welcome the fact that orders for the section between the Pass of Birnam and the Tay crossing will be published in spring, but, in the meantime, other options need to be pursued.
I gather that officials are looking at interim improvements, which will be discussed with local communities in the months ahead, and I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that the process leaves no stone unturned. I welcome the many discussions that we have had about the A9 in recent years. A temporary roundabout at Ballinluig has been introduced in the past. A slip road might also be possible within the constraints of the land that is available to ministers. Speed limit reductions and enforcement measures can be put in place relatively quickly and effectively. Reactivating the A9’s safety cameras would also be an obvious improvement. Improved lighting is the biggest and simplest change that could be introduced quickly at that junction.
I seek confirmation from Mark Ruskell and his party that they are signed up to the dualling of the A9, not just to safety improvements and roundabouts, which seems to be what his speech is about. Are you up for dualling the A9? Are you signed up to it?
Speak through the chair.
Mr Ruskell, I will give you the time back.
I thought that the debate was primarily about safety improvements, in which dualling has a role to play. However, as Mr Mountain will know, it is about much more than dualling, and I will come on to that later.
When recent works were taking place to upgrade gas infrastructure on the A9, the contractors brought lights to the Dunkeld junction for the first time. Local people instantly felt safer, because they could see and be seen, but when the contractors left, the road fell once again into darkness. The lights need to be brought back.
There is vehicle-activated signage at other junctions on the A9, warning drivers of turning traffic, including at Gloagburn, so why not at Dunkeld? Many immediate low-cost improvements could be made to the A9. When Jenny Gilruth was Minister for Transport after Covid, there was a dreadful spate of crashes. Low-cost measures involving signage and lighting were put in place, and they were effective, but that infrastructure needs to be maintained and improved. Some bollards are weakly lit, and some line markings are poor and have eroded, so they need to be fixed. I ask the cabinet secretary to please keep up the momentum on those measures and ensure that they are reported on, alongside the regular project updates to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, as the dualling project moves on.
The Dunkeld roundabout solution was discussed over a number of years as part of a co-creative process with the community on A9 improvements, and I welcome that Transport Scotland was open to that approach. It was innovative and resulted in a number of asks, of which the roundabout was one.
Connection to the station was also highlighted, and the opportunity that the dualling project presents to reconnect the villages to the railway needs to be on the table in some form. An overbridge that can blend into the area is desperately needed. The severance caused by the road has worsened in recent years due to flood damage, and the sight of pedestrians and cyclists attempting to cross the A9, which I have seen happen, leaves your heart in your mouth.
I look forward to further contributions to the debate. I will reflect on wider A9 project issues in my closing speech, but it is clear that, on the ground, Perthshire communities on the most sensitive and controversial section of the A9 deserve safety action now, well before the dualling project is completed.
15:39
I welcome the committee’s debate and its final inquiry report, and I thank all those who were involved in making it a reality, including the petitioner. The inquiry has proved that the Scottish Parliament is open to Scotland’s citizens and that public petitions can have an impact.
I will touch on some of the inquiry’s findings and the Scottish Government’s response to it. It should not be forgotten that at the heart of all this is the fact that the A9 continues to be a dangerous road, with many people sadly having lost their lives when travelling on it. Communities the length of the route, tourists and haulage vehicles use the road to get to where they need to go and to keep services and goods deliveries running across the country. Swift action to address the problems on the A9 has been needed for many years, and continuous delays are a failure of the Scottish Government.
I will highlight and elaborate on some of the inquiry’s findings. The report states that the 2025 target for dualling was missed not due to one single issue or incident but, instead, because of the Scottish Government’s
“failure to reach agreement on programme funding”.
That is thought to have
“significantly contributed to progress stalling as the programme was reaching the procurement and construction stages.”
That might have been remedied with
“an individual whose main or only focus was to progress the A9 dualling programme”.
With the rapid turnover of SNP transport secretaries in recent years, it is little wonder that that was raised as a concern, although I note that the Scottish Government disagrees with those points in its response.
I also note the finding that
“A lack of open, external discussion of the challenges being faced in the delivery of the A9 dualling programme has negatively impacted public confidence in Transport Scotland and its ability to deliver major infrastructure projects within the timescales it says it will”.
It is of great concern that confidence in a Government body such as Transport Scotland is being questioned. The Scottish Government has responded to the committee to say that Transport Scotland’s ability to deliver has not been negatively impacted. There seems to be a misreading of concerns about confidence in the body. Significant effort will need to be ploughed into addressing the public’s confidence in Transport Scotland, and I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board. Particular attention needs to be paid to addressing confidence in Transport Scotland among communities in the north of Scotland, as projects in central and southern Scotland being completed before the completion of the A9 dualling has led to a confidence deficit in those northern communities, which was picked up by the inquiry.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the inquiry’s proposal of routine and regular sharing of information with the Parliament as a key way to address concerns about the transparency of decision making on major projects such as those on the A9. I welcome the Scottish Government’s agreement in principle to that.
If I may, I will remark on something that is slightly outside the inquiry. The A9 north of Inverness is also a critical road for the communities that it connects. I recognise that Transport Scotland’s work on safety issues covers the whole of the A9, and it is important that regular assessments are made, as we know that that section of road is vital in ensuring access to public services.
The importance of the A9 in connecting large parts of Scotland means that improving safety on the route should be a priority for the Scottish Government. Dualling the road will help with that, and a new report by the Scottish Government to accelerate that is welcome. I also note that the Government expects to complete work on the £5 million programme of additional measures to enhance safety on the route in advance of dualling by March this year. After so many deadlines being missed, that one needs to be met. Progress on the A9 needs to be realised swiftly for the safety of communities up and down Scotland that use the route.
15:43
You do not have to wander very far in Inverness or strike up many conversations there to find somebody who has a lot to say about the A9 dualling. I admit to being one of those people. I thank the members of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for their work and scrutiny in putting together the report, which has given us the opportunity to discuss it in the chamber. I also thank Laura Hansler, who is a constituent of mine, for lodging the petition and for her wider work locally, with which I am, of course, familiar.
Accidents on the A9 have a huge impact on the communities along it. Not only have dozens of loved ones lost their lives, but every time that there is an accident, people worry that the person who was on their way home might be stuck in traffic or be in an ambulance. Like everyone else, I want accidents to be avoided, livelihoods to be supported and lives to be protected.
Two thirds of respondents to the committee’s question on what the strategy should be said that it should be to dual as quickly as possible, regardless of disruption, which demonstrates the strength of feeling and urgency that exists for the project. That will not be lost on the Scottish Government, given that I and members from different parties and regions have been passing on comments from us and those we represent, saying just as much. A dualled A9 from Perth to Inverness must now be delivered as quickly as possible.
Although I like to focus on the now and the next—and I think that progress is more important than recriminations—it is absolutely right that a committee in this Parliament has scrutinised past delays. That work will not only undoubtedly be useful for other large projects in the future but—I hope—reduce the likelihood of future delays to this project and build resilience in the plan from here on.
Not everything can be foreseen—Covid and Brexit are examples of that—but how events are reacted to and dealt with makes a difference. Delays such as the incredibly disappointing one to the Tomatin to Moy section, which came about due to procurement issues, were, as the report states, avoidable, and reacting to changes in funding with greater speed than we have seen would give certainty to all who are involved in delivering the programme.
In the Highlands, there is a strong sense that the process has not been transparent. People have been let down, and the Government was not up front about the timescale slippage as quickly as it could have been. I agree with the statements in the report on the need for honesty and the duty of candour.
Two years ago, I told a previous minister that trust had to be rebuilt. A lot of trust is still to be rebuilt, but I certainly feel that mine is being steadily rebuilt, in large part due to the cabinet secretary’s approach. On the A9 and the A96, her actions have aligned with her words, and I have found her to be approachable and honest. Most importantly, as I have seen on recent journeys, there are spades in the ground on the A9.
The new A9 safety web portal is a great resource, and I recognise that the £5 million programme of interim safety improvements is to be completed by March. I have already noticed a really positive difference, particularly around Dunkeld and the Slochd.
My focus now will be on continuing to attend, along with colleagues, regular meetings with Transport Scotland and the cabinet secretary to oversee progress, raising the issues that constituents are still bringing to me and ensuring that my voice is one of those that sees the forthcoming progress through. The report gives us a really good foundation as to what those expectations should be.
I will be driving on the A9 on Saturday. When I am going back and forth to the Parliament, I am a fairly loyal train user and I like to keep my car in the Highlands, but, sometimes, due to timings of work commitments or to train timetables, or just because I need to carry more than I can on my own, there is no other option. That is the case for a significant number of people who drive on the A9. For as long as central belters keep inviting us to morning meetings, we will need to drive there.
When I have to drive, I plan my whole week around not doing so at night, because there are places where that can feel dangerous. However sensibly and responsibly we drive, we cannot control the actions of others. On Saturday, I expect to see multiple examples of terrible driving. That is not unique to the A9 but, on the A9, we have to plan for cars that choose to overtake dangerously or for getting stuck on a winding bit of single carriageway behind someone who is doing 45 miles per hour and braking at every average speed camera.
My concern for the dualling of the A9 is based not on a belief that all roads must be dualled but on my knowledge of how that particular road design impacts the way that it is used. The frustration that builds, along with the confusion for those who are not familiar with the road when it swaps from dual to single carriageway, does not lend itself to a safe journey. Many drivers on the A9 are not familiar with it and might not even be familiar with UK roads, so it is important that we make it as easy as possible to drive that road safely.
I return to those whose lives have been most badly affected by accidents on the A9. My heart goes out to everyone who has been impacted, and I firmly believe that the best way to honour the lives that have been lost is for the dualling work to be completed. I look forward to seeing that happen as soon as possible.
15:50
Everyone has reminded us why we are here this afternoon. It is for the simple reason that we are discussing a target that was promised a long time ago—the dualling of the A9 by 2025—and because of the petition that was lodged by Laura Hansler to get the issue considered in Parliament. As others have done, I thank Laura for the time and effort that she has put into that. I also thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for allowing me to attend its meetings and for giving me a fair chance to question all the witnesses. I am extremely grateful for that—especially considering the number of questions that the convener allowed me to ask.
Like many people, I am a habitual user of the A9—I am up and down it every week. Unlike Emma Roddick, I cannot always manage not to travel in darkness. Sometimes, when we have sat late on a Thursday evening, I travel up the road after dark, but with a certain amount of trepidation. When I put in my claims for my mileage, the parliamentary staff have given up questioning why the mileage goes up and down each week. The reason why that happens is that, quite often, I end up going via Dundee, having gone halfway up the A9 only to find it closed. That is a problem that many people have to face.
The promise to dual the A9 was made in 2011—a long time ago—by Alex Salmond. When he gave evidence to the committee on 8 May 2024, during the inquiry, I thought to myself that he seriously got it. I think that he understood the need to link Scotland together by linking all the cities to ensure free flow of trade between them. On the day that he appeared before the committee, two foolscap documents of information were provided to us on his behalf. I sat down and waded through those documents and found a particular event that I thought was relevant, which was a meeting between him and Alex Neil about progress on dualling the A9 and how it was to be carried out. I started to refer to the meeting, but before I got halfway through my question, he had already told me the date that on which the meeting took place and what it was about. He was in fine fettle when it came to the information and the facts and figures, and his detailed knowledge of the issue was truly impressive. I was genuinely impressed, and I came away at the end of that meeting thinking that, if he had been there to see the project through, it might have actually happened, because he understood the need for it.
Lots of people who came after Alex Salmond did not understand the need. Let us go through the whole list: Stewart Stevenson, Keith Brown, Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Paul Wheelhouse, Graeme Dey, Jenny Gilruth, Kevin Stewart and Fiona Hyslop—although I note that Fiona Hyslop has now moved on from being a minister and has become a cabinet secretary. There have also been a couple of First Ministers—Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon—who also did not seem to understand the need. From today’s debate, I have gathered the impression that the Greens are also among the people who do not understand the need for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness.
Edward Mountain noted that Keith Brown was a transport minister. He had responsibility for transport between 2010 and 2018. Alex Neil led on the project from 2010 to 2012 and, when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, Keith Brown took over lead responsibility. He was not called to the committee to give evidence, but his written submission, which I have read, gives an interesting perspective on the issues. Mr Mountain might want to acknowledge that there was continuity of ministerial responsibility for transport, albeit that that minister did not always have lead responsibility for the A9.
I can give you the time back, Mr Mountain.
I absolutely accept that there was continuity—there was continuity in changing ministers for transport when it became too difficult to justify the jobs that they were doing.
I have read the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee, which I am, I guess, as disappointed by as many other people are. It talks about “certainty” and “transparency” but all that I can say is that, since the promise was made to dual the A9, I have never come across a more clever way of obscuring information, a more deceptive way of talking about when a project will be delivered or a bigger list of broken promises.
I am afraid that I am disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response, which almost says, “Nothing to see here. It’s all changed. Move right along.” I do not accept that. I do not accept it for highlanders or for any of the constituents whom I represent. I will also say that I am concerned about the role that Transport Scotland has had during the process. It seems to think itself above scrutiny and above the Government.
My time is short, but I would like to say that one or two people have suggested that there should be a separate committee for transport. I have convened the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which dealt with transport, and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Neither of those committees has had time to deal with transport properly. My plea for the next Parliament is that it set up a committee whose sole job is to deal with transport and infrastructure.
I have probably used all my time, but the delays continue to cost lives. I do not need to remind people that, during the period from 2020 to 2024, 168 lives were lost. I appeal to the Government: speed it up. Frankly, the response from Transport Scotland to the cross-party plea to speed the work up was a bit of a joke.
15:56
As all my colleagues have, I thank Laura Hansler for bringing the petition to Parliament. I joined the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. Shortly after the petition was first considered, I joined members in thanking the clerks and many stakeholders who gave evidence to the inquiry.
Much has changed since the original petition was lodged with the committee in 2022, but one thing continues to be the case: the A9 has not been dualled. Sadly, death on the A9 remains too common. During the debate, we must not forget that that is why the dualling project is necessary.
We have heard in both written and in-person evidence that the 2025 target was not considered by the officials or ministers to be unachievable. Alex Neil, who had responsibility for the project in 2011, said the target was “perfectly feasible” and other ministers said that the project remained a priority for the Scottish Government, so where did it go wrong?
The committee found that a number of factors played a role in the 2025 target being missed. I want to focus my remarks on the funding model of the project, its management and proposals for a memorial to the people who have lost their lives on the A9.
Regarding the model of funding, we heard from both the late Alex Salmond and Màiri McAllan that there was always the expectation of a mixture of public and private financing. However, following reclassification of the non-profit distributing model in 2014 as public financing, it was not clear how financing the project would be achieved. Transport Scotland warned ministers in 2017 of a “diminishing window” for a procurement strategy to be agreed, but the new funding model would not be established until 2019. A discussion paper from December 2021 shows that a decision on financing was still to be made then. Instead of deciding on funding and making clear that the 2025 deadline would be missed, ministers failed to decide at all. Uncertainty seems to have contributed to the delays that we have seen and is a consistent theme of the inquiry.
My next point involves the management of the project. Unlike the Aberdeen peripheral route or the Queensferry crossing, which had project directors, no one person had sole responsibility for dualling the A9. Given that other capital projects and ministerial churn will continue to be factors regardless of the timescale, having one person to drive the project forward could be greatly beneficial and allow challenges to be resolved more quickly—challenges which, as we have seen, have previously slowed progress. Although dualling the A9 is a very large project, that solution is something that should be considered, moving forward.
The petition that sparked the inquiry called for a national memorial to be created for those who have lost their lives on the A9. That petition closed with over 4,000 signatures. In the committee’s call for views, we heard that dualling the A9 should come first and that that would be the best memorial—but we also heard that bereaved families should be listened to. The petitioner told the committee that the proposal came from communities and people who had interacted with the A9 dualling campaign. A memorial to A9 deaths, or to road deaths in general, could provide great comfort to those who have lost family or friends. In recognition of the pain that has been caused, the committee recommended that a memorial be considered and consulted on by the Scottish Government.
Looking to the future, the committee’s report makes a number of recommendations. They all come down to ensuring transparency. If trust is to be rebuilt, the Scottish Government must be up front about the challenges that are faced and the progress that is being made. I hope that the Scottish Government considers the recommendations from the inquiry so that, 10 years from now, we are not sitting here, having the same debate.
16:02
I, too, thank the clerks for their assiduousness, helpfulness and patience, and I pay tribute to Laura Hansler, who has been dogged, determined and, indeed, indefatigable.
When I was a boy, in my youth, my mother, Winnie, was particularly famous in Scotland. As I went around with her, I used to be asked repeatedly, “Fergus, are you going to go into politics and follow in your mother’s footsteps when you grow up?” I would always be inclined to answer, “No I won’t. I want to do a proper job first”—but here we are.
It was back in the 1990s—I think that I can trump everybody here on the grounds of longevity—that I moved at the SNP conference that the A9 be dualled, so I have a bit of baggage here. We have heard from many people across the chamber about the sad loss of life on the road. I have lost friends. It is devastating for every family involved. The tragedy affects them not just for a short period but for the whole of their lives. I think that we all recognise that, irrespective of our views.
The Scottish Government has manifestly failed. I was part of it for a while, and although I was never responsible, I cannot elide myself from responsibility—I say that in all candour. I did speak behind the scenes and tried to influence things, but I was unsuccessful, and I obeyed the rules and did not speak out. I might have made up for that in the past few years, but I want to be honest. I know that the cabinet secretary is determined to do what she can, and I admire that. It is genuine; I can feel that—I think we all can. However, with respect, a little bit more humility in the response to the request for acceleration would have been seemly, and it is not too late for the cabinet secretary to put that right.
I want to focus on one major and very serious issue, which is partly technical. My view, which is based not on my expertise, because I do not profess to have any, but on what I have learned from speaking to Grahame Barn, who has been a fount of wisdom, and to many other people in the civil engineering industry, is that the current approach of proceeding one by one with traditional procurement will not only fail in the future, as it has in the past; it bears very obvious foreseeable risks—risks that cannot really be gainsaid.
For example, every one of those processes involves three or four companies putting in bids once they get on the short list. That costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the unsuccessful ones have lost a hell of a lot of money. Secondly, the profit ratio is only about 2 or 3 per cent. Thirdly, as Jackson Carlaw mentioned in his opening speech, those companies all have an unprecedented level of other work. I could go through it all but, by my tally, it amounts to more than £60,000 million. That is unprecedented.
If I was one of the big companies and was looking around for what to do, I would want to be sure that I could make a good return. Don Fanucci, in “The Godfather”, put it well when he said that everyone needs to wet their beak. That is facetious, perhaps, but it is true. If I can make 6 per cent, why on earth would I go for 2 per cent? Why would I carry the greater risks that the contracts that return only 2 per cent offer?
Further, experience has shown that those contracts have not really performed timeously. I said in an intervention earlier that the Tomatin to Moy section was announced just before the 2021 election, and that was very welcome, but it will not be completed until 2028. That is seven years. There are eight remaining contracts. Eight sevens are 56. I am not saying that that will happen and that we will not see the project completed until 2080, but the way that we are approaching it currently is flawed. It is exacerbated by the fact that there is a plethora of other work to be done.
I am told—and Grahame Barn said this in his oral evidence to the committee in June 2023—that a framework approach is far preferable to get things done. In such an approach, three, four or perhaps more companies will be on a list of approved contractors and will all be guaranteed work for eight, 10 or 12 years. Transport Scotland actually pursues that approach—Amey and BEAR Scotland have framework contracts for eight years and an option to renew for four—so why not use it for the main tendering of the major project? SSE has seven contractors on its framework and Network Rail has three. Scottish Water, I believe, uses a framework as well.
From the company’s point of view, it is guaranteed work for about a decade. That means that it does not have the problem of a contract finishing and nothing to fill its place, which then leads to people being hired and fired. The approach leads to reduced costs, because companies can buy materials for the next contract ahead as well as the one that is being done and build up long-term relationships with suppliers.
I say to the cabinet secretary that we should not go on making the same mistake. Somebody once said that you should never make the same mistake twice when you can make it five or six times and be sure of it. The approach that is being taken is almost guaranteed to lead to delays, although not necessarily in every one of the contracts. If that happens, any residual faith in the Scottish Government in the Highlands will be utterly shot to pieces.
I want to make an offer to the cabinet secretary: please reconsider the request for acceleration. I make this in all seriousness. Consider it with the industry, which does not appear to have been consulted. To quote the Godfather himself, Vito Corleone: cabinet secretary, I have made you an offer you should not refuse.
16:09
Goodness—follow that!
As others have done, I thank the committee for all its work. I also thank the committee clerks and, of course, Laura Hansler for her work and commitment to this vitally important cause. The debate is undoubtedly important for me and for my constituents, but it is a disgrace that we are having to have it again. It is a shameful indictment of the Government’s abject failure to deliver on its promises to my constituents.
At the beginning of 2025, the original target date for delivery, we should be preparing for the final stretch of dualling to be completed. Instead, we are here in Parliament, listening to more excuses from the Scottish Government on why it is not complete.
Many of us on the Conservative benches, along with the stalwart campaigners, some of whom are in the gallery today, have been campaigning to get the road dualled between Inverness and Perth for far too many years. My colleague Murdo Fraser and I launched our campaign for the dualling as far back as 2006, when we were both young, fresh-faced and full of hope—that should give you an idea of how long ago it was. Our petition attracted well over 20,000 signatures and clearly played a role in encouraging the SNP, which included the A9 dualling in its 2007 manifesto. However, here we are, 18 years later, still waiting.
I have been using the A9 all my life. I still just about remember heading up the old road on the way home to Orkney via the Kessock ferry and the long and winding route up to Scrabster. There have been major improvements since then, including new bridges and new stretches of dualled road. Between 1979 and 1997, under the Conservatives, 25 miles of the A9 were dualled between Inverness and Perth, and 12 miles of it were dualled between 2007 and 2022 under the SNP.
Although that work has undoubtedly made the journey shorter and safer than it was, the SNP promised us a fully dualled A9 between Inverness and Perth—and a safer road. However, travelling on the road last year, particularly during the summer, it felt as though almost every journey was disrupted by an accident. There is, of course, inconvenience in a journey delayed, but far worse is sitting in stationary traffic as emergency services pass or an air ambulance flies over, desperate to get as quickly as possible to the scene of another accident—sitting in the car with the fear that, just ahead, yet another incident may have been serious enough that another family or community will have to be told of the loss of a loved one. Too many have already lost their lives, and too many will probably experience that in the next few years.
We did not need to be here. All major projects face challenges and issues with the terrain or economic factors, as other members have said. That must always be considered. However, dualling the A9 is not some engineering marvel. Put simply, it is the building of a road where there is already a road; it should not challenge, as it has done, the abilities of a country with the engineering heritage and expertise of Scotland.
What galls most about this shameful saga is the dishonesty of the Scottish Government. The communities that are most reliant on the road could have accepted some delay to the project if real progress had been made or been obvious but, time and again, they were told by SNP ministers—or by SNP MSPs quoting SNP ministers—that all was fine and on track and that dualling would be completed, as promised, by 2025. Nothing has changed.
The deception went to the very top. Following his budget statement to the Parliament on 15 December 2022, I asked John Swinney, the then Deputy First Minister and Acting Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy:
“Will the cabinet secretary finally admit what my Highlands and Islands constituents and his Perthshire constituents know, which is that the promised dualling of the A9 between Inverness and Perth will not be completed in 2025 or, indeed, any time soon?”
He responded:
“The Government’s position on the completion of the dualling of the A9 remains intact.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2022; c 86.]
To some people—possibly more charitable people than me—that response might be acceptable, if, ignoring the evidence of his own eyes on the lack of progress on the dualling, John Swinney was still naive enough to think that an engineering miracle could happen and the project could still be completed as promised.
However, that was not the case, because more than a week before John Swinney gave me that response in the chamber, the Scottish Government had been told that the dualling would not be completed by 2025. An email had been sent that said:
“it should be made clear that the current published completion date of 2025 will no longer apply to the Programme.”
That email was sent directly to the then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney. When John Swinney told me that nothing had changed, that was not true. He knew that the 2025 date would not be met, but he kept the deception going that it would. John Swinney, the then Deputy First Minister and now First Minister, misled the Parliament when he said that the SNP promise to dual the A9 would be delivered.
If John Swinney is confident that he did not mislead the Parliament—or the communities or campaigners who will have heard his comments—he should refer himself to his own newly appointed independent adviser on the ministerial code, surely confident that they will clear him of any breach. Of course, I doubt that he will, because this Government does not do accountability or transparency. Even when it knew definitively that the dualling would not happen as promised, it refused to be honest with Parliament and the public. As has been the case far too often with this Government—the ferries fiasco is an obvious example—no one has lost their job.
This has been a shameful saga that has involved endless broken promises, deadlines missed, communities lied to, lives ruined and, of course, lives lost. Too many families now mourn loved ones who have been lost on the A9. So, my message to the SNP Government is simple: no more failures, no more excuses—get the A9 dualled.
I call Emma Harper, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.
16:15
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I thank members of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and its clerks for producing the report, and I join members in congratulating campaigners, including the petitioner, Laura Hansler, on their tenacity in seeking improvements to and the dualling of the A9, which is a critical route. As other members have done, I welcome Laura to the chamber.
Members will undoubtedly be aware that, in relation to the South Scotland region, I have championed the need for significant improvements to the main arterial routes in the south-west—the A75 and the A77. Those roads connect Scotland with Northern Ireland, Ireland, England and wider Europe. I know how much commitment, dedication and work it takes to champion road improvements. I wanted to speak in today’s debate partly because many of the issues that have been uncovered in the committee’s inquiry into the dualling of the A9 are mirrored elsewhere.
The A9 and all our roads must be safe, reliable and resilient. Members have described their experience of driving along the A9 and encountering specific hotspots—or not-spots, even—such as the Dunkeld junction. The magnitude of the investment that is required and the complexities that are involved in upgrading infrastructure on such a scale in the current financial environment have been and will continue to be considerable. However, that is a challenge that the Scottish Government is committed to meeting.
The cabinet secretary has described in detail the status of the contracts that are under procurement and those that are about to be procured. The Scottish Government anticipates that nearly 50 per cent of the A9 between Perth and Inverness will be operating as dual carriageway by the end of 2030 and that that will rise to 85 per cent by the end of 2033 and 100 per cent by the end of 2035. I am sure that campaigners will welcome the progress that has been made.
The former cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing brought up the subject of frameworks for contracts, and it was interesting to hear his comments on that. It is clear that the dualling of the A9 will sustain and improve the quality of life of people in rural Perthshire, the Highlands and beyond.
Emma Roddick gave a good description of the challenges that drivers on the A9 face. I have been that position, too, although not very often. People are not familiar with driving on a road that is a single lane in some places and a dual carriageway in others. I am sure that many people who visit the Highlands have gasped when they have tried to cross the road or even when they have tried to drive north or south.
The report says that the dualling of the A9 is expected to improve safety, which is crucial. It is forecast that there will be fewer fatalities and fewer casualties with serious injuries every year. Driver stress and accidents will be reduced, as will journey times for emergency vehicles, which will increase the survival chances of people who need urgent emergency care. Those benefits will be transformative for a route that serves 35 per cent of our landmass and carries cargo that accounts for around 10 per cent of Scotland’s gross domestic product.
It is of paramount importance that we consider the safety of our roads. One life lost on Scotland’s roads is one too many. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is committed to achieving safer road travel in Scotland, now and in the future. The Government does not accept that road casualties are inevitable, and it is vital that we continue to work to bring overall casualty numbers down. It is important that we do that on all our roads, including the A9.
Improvements are long overdue, and it would be remiss of me not to again call on the cabinet secretary to progress at pace the recommendations in the strategic transport projects review 2 on the main arterial routes in the south-west and on how we can progress at pace the A9 improvement work.
The Government has demonstrated its commitment to dualling the A9, and progress is being made. I again thank the members of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and its clerks for undertaking the inquiry, as well as the witnesses who provided evidence, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary’s response.
We move to the winding-up speeches; members may wish to know that we have a little time in hand.
16:20
I thank members for the reflective tone of this debate. Several members have reflected on the original decision, which was made back in 2011. I acknowledge the fact that that decision was made and that dualling the A9 is a priority for the Scottish Government, as it is for most parties in the Parliament.
However, I invite members to look at the history of that decision. It is important to remember that the original business case for a full dualling of the A9 failed because it did not meet the right cost to benefit ratio, including the consideration of safety measures. Ultimately, a political decision was made to prioritise a full dualling programme above other roadbuilding and transport projects that communities across Scotland were calling for and we are where we are today.
Whether a full dualling of the A9 would pass the test today—particularly given the objectives in the national transport strategy, which are weighted towards safety, connectivity and economic growth but also towards climate—is a good question, but we are beyond that now and today’s scrutiny has very much been about how the programme will be delivered in the years to come.
A number of members have spoken about the importance of dualling, and I recognise that it has a role. I am somewhat disappointed that very few members have spoken about junctions and junction safety, which I think are just as important. I also point to some evidence that the committee heard from stakeholders, which particularly highlighted figures from 2023.
Will the member give way?
In a second.
Figures from 2023 showed that per-kilometre collision rates on currently dualled sections of the A9 are actually higher than those on non-dualled sections. We must reflect on that, because dualling is not a complete solution.
I will give way to Mr Ewing.
Laura Hansler and my constituent Chris Miller have worked tirelessly on safety measures. I did not have time to discuss those today but they are absolutely essential. The Road Safety Foundation has found that the chances of dying in a road traffic accident on a single-carriageway trunk road are 10 times greater than those of dying on a motorway and three times greater than those of dying on a dual carriageway. That is before one considers the additional complexities of the A9, where there is rapid oscillation between dual and single carriageways and where there are also sections of two-plus-one-lane roadway. Does that not prove that highlanders are at greater risk of dying than people in the central belt and does that not, in itself, make a case for giving us the same expectation of safety as central belt dwellers?
Perhaps Fergus Ewing did not hear me, so I reiterate the point that, in 2023, the number of collisions on dualled sections of the A9 was actually higher than that on non-dualled sections. It is a complex picture. I am not discounting the fact that dualling has a role to play and that the switch between non-dualled and dualled stretches is highly confusing and results in accidents.
However, we must also recognise the bigger picture. I do not know whether Mr Fairlie will be concluding the debate, but he will know that we saw high traffic speeds in the continuously dualled section between the Keir roundabout in Dunblane and Broxden before average speed cameras were brought in there and that we have seen a number of serious issues at junctions. There have been deaths, collisions and tragedies in southern Perthshire over many years, on a dualled section of the A9.
I simply ask Mr Ewing and others to reflect on the fact that this is not a simple issue of dualling versus non-dualling. It is a complex issue, and junctions and the ways that communities use the road are important. It is important that we get into the guts of that, take some of the heat out of the debate and look at the matter in the light of communities’ experiences.
I will reflect on a couple of other points that members made in the debate. I welcome the committee report’s focus on the need for scrutiny and transparency. Mr Golden reflected on the words of the former First Minister on the need to be candid about the 2025 date. There has been some confusion about that and there is a need to shine some light on it. I think that, for a number of years, Mr Ewing thought that the Scottish Green Party was delaying the work, although maybe not particularly in relation to the A9.
I am pleased that Edward Mountain, who is the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, is in the chamber. Our committee has done a great piece of work in scrutinising the progress on ferries 801 and 802. There could be a case for us to look in more detail at the A9, particularly as the briefings start to come through, and consider issues around delivery and communities’ concerns. Scrutiny and transparency are hugely important.
I am interested in the comments of Fergus Ewing and the committee convener about the competition in the road-building sector and other industries, not just for funding but for engineers and expertise to deliver pipelines of projects. That is familiar, because I have heard the same concerns being voiced by the rail industry, which also needs certainty but has subcontractors that are looking around for other sectors in which they can sustain work. That is an important theme for the Parliament to reflect on.
The Government’s response to the idea of potentially rescheduling the various contracts needs more unpicking outside the chamber, although I recognise that reordering them could well have some substantial supply chain impacts, which would bring risks in terms of price. We have not been able to unpack that in our debate this afternoon, but it is an area of analysis that the NZET Committee could get into.
This afternoon’s debate has been useful. Our thoughts are with the communities that suffer from underinvestment in the A9, and we look forward to the delivery of safety improvements.
16:27
I, too, start by paying tribute to Laura Hansler, who lodged the petition and has worked for so long to get improvements on the A9. I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its report, which shines a light on the broken promises and the mismanagement of the project to dual the whole A9. The Scottish Government kept repeating a promise that it knew would never be kept, and the lack of transparency and honesty with the public and the Parliament was breathtaking. Because of that, the committee has recommended a duty of candour. This must never happen again. We must have regular updates on progress and timelines so that we cannot be hoodwinked for decades.
The committee recommends that there should be a committee with the sole responsibility of oversight of major projects. That was the case for the Queensferry crossing and it is surely good enough for the A9.
On a point of factual accuracy, there was a separate committee for the legislative aspects of the Queensferry crossing, but the monitoring thereafter reverted to the relevant committee.
That should be the case for the A9, because many aspects of it would benefit from having a committee to look at issues and monitor progress.
Many members talked about the loss of life on the A9. Emma Roddick described graphically the dangers of driving on the road, and Foysol Choudhury and Claire Baker talked about the high and unacceptable numbers of fatalities. Every fatality brings heartbreak for a family. These are not just numbers or statistics; they are human beings who have been at the heart of their communities and are a loss to them, too.
That is why Foysol Choudhury mentioned that Laura Hansler, the petitioner, is keen to have a memorial to those people. Maybe if we had a committee to look at the A9, it could lead progress on a memorial for those who have lost their lives.
Claire Baker talked about the economic impact that the A9 situation is having on the far north. Jackson Carlaw spoke about the number of organisations that are waiting for the road to be dualled, because SSE and others—such as those involved in renewables—need to use the A9 to operate projects.
Fergus Ewing turned that on its head by saying that other projects that are happening will require a huge workforce, that having one contract would be much more attractive to those who might bid to complete the A9 and that all the contractors will be competing for the same workforce. There is a risk in not trying to speed up the A9 work because, if it coincides with those other developments, that might force prices up as well as slowing things down because there is a lack of a workforce. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that.
Emma Roddick highlighted that most of those who responded to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee were keen for the timing to be sped up. The committee was told that the main reason for the delay and for not meeting the 2025 deadline was funding. Foysol Choudhury pointed out that the Government knew as far back as 2014 that the NPD funding route would not work. Claire Baker told us that the Government had been warned in 2018 by Transport Scotland that there would be a delay. Fergus Ewing laid out the timeframes in which those decisions were made and said that the Moy to Tomatin stretch of the A9 could take more than eight years from procurement to build.
It has become quite obvious that it should have been known a decade ago that the promised timeframe would never be met, yet it took until 2023 for that to be admitted. Covid was blamed for the delay, rather than the Government admitting that the issues had started a long time before that. There may be delays ahead, because the cabinet secretary said that she was not sure that the MIM contract will work. There are contingencies but, if the problem is again funding, that will build in a delay to the 2035 deadline.
I refer to my opening remarks—that issue absolutely will not cause a delay. In my opening statement, I made a point of providing assurance on funding.
I am grateful for that assurance, and I hope that the issue will not cause a delay. Past experience has been that funding mechanisms led to the delay that has already taken place.
Mark Ruskell and others talked about safety and improvements, which it is important to have in place. Roads are there to mitigate risk to drivers, and it is important that we have a dual carriageway, because that is the best form of mitigation.
Beatrice Wishart and others talked about the A9 north. That is not part of today’s debate, but we need to ensure that safety measures are put in place for the A9 north, which has been blocked on a number of occasions. Imagine being pregnant and in labour, being driven more than 100 miles to Inverness maternity unit from Caithness and coming up against a road closure. The road is partially closed at Scrabster, which is one of the main ports and economic drivers in the far north. To protect the economy of Caithness, we need to ensure that that is not ignored.
We hoped to celebrate the opening of the dual carriageway between Inverness and Perth this year, but Highland communities have been badly let down. The Government needs to level with people. It should stop hoodwinking them with promises that it knows it cannot keep, and it needs to pull out all the stops to deliver by 2035 or earlier.
16:34
As others have done, I start by thanking the committee, its convener and its members for the assiduous work that they have done on this important topic, which affects my constituents and many other people throughout Scotland. I thank those who gave the committee evidence and, in particular, I thank the petitioner, Laura Hansler, as others have done, for pursuing the matter assiduously, as a citizen, and using the Parliament’s processes to raise such an important issue.
My colleague Maurice Golden outlined his experiences on the A9. My history on the A9 goes back many years. Growing up in the Highlands, I can just about remember what we call the old A9, which wended its way through towns and villages and made a journey from Inverness to the central belt take for ever. The new A9, as it was known, which was built in the late 1970s and early 1980s, was a vast improvement on what was there before. In the intervening period, traffic levels on the A9 have—at the last count, I think—expanded five times compared with what they were when the road was proposed five decades ago. That shows that there is a need for continual improvement of the infrastructure.
The case for progressing the dualling is unanswerable. Like other members, Rhoda Grant talked about the lives lost and the tragedies that we are all familiar with on the A9 of people being killed, when, in other circumstances, their lives could potentially have been saved. [Interruption.] I will give way to Pauline McNeill—oh no, she has disappeared. That might have been an error, Presiding Officer. I will carry on.
Every fatality is a tragedy to the family involved, and every serious accident carries with it horrible consequences for those who are involved. There is also an economic cost, because the road is closed. There is a cost to the emergency services and to the economy.
When there are diversion routes because the road is closed—as it was recently, when it was closed near Ballinluig—those routes end up getting clogged up, as the route from Kirkmichael to Pitlochry was. I have written to the transport secretary about this. Locals get stuck in jams and are sometimes unable to move for two to three hours, because HGVs are trying to pass each other on a very narrow road that is totally unsuitable for being used for a diversion. That causes even bigger concerns and potentially even more serious consequences, should there be another accident. Should emergency vehicles need to get through, they would simply be unable to do so, because of the unsuitability of diversion routes. There are all those knock-on consequences from the very high accident rate on the A9.
As we have heard throughout the debate, a promise was made that the A9 would be dualled by 2025—a promise that was broken. Maurice Golden referred to the pretence that was kept up by the Scottish Government over a period of years—until 2023—that that promise could be kept.
Jamie Halcro Johnston gave striking evidence about the dishonesty on the part of some in the Scottish Government. He quoted something that the current First Minister said to him in this chamber in 2022. That is a very serious matter, should it be the case that the current First Minister misled Parliament and my colleague who asked the question. If the information that was available to the current First Minister was other than what he stated to Parliament, the matter needs to be properly investigated.
Emma Roddick referred to the duty of candour issue in the committee report. That is a really important aspect of the report, because we expect ministers to be straightforward and open with Parliament. I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to that. In an afternoon in which we have heard a few quotes from “The Godfather”, I will give Mr Ewing this one from Michael Corleone:
“I respect those who tell me the truth, no matter how hard it is.”
People in Parliament would rather hear the truth, even though it might be uncomfortable for ministers.
People have been let down. To put it into context, in the past 18 years, 11 miles of the A9 have been dualled. If we go back to the period between 1979 and 1997, we had a Conservative Government that was responsible for roads in Scotland. In the same length of period—18 years—that Conservative Government built 62 miles of dual carriageway, which puts into context the very slow progress that has taken place. We now see a new pledge to complete the dualling by 2035. I hope that we can trust that pledge, but I have to say, on past record, that we will believe it when we see it.
The committee report called for an acceleration of the dualling timetable. The committee’s convener was his usual diplomatic self when he referred to the Government’s response to that call as disappointing, and Edward Mountain used similar language. I think that it is worse than disappointing; I think that it is dismal to be getting such a response from the Government.
Of course, there is an issue with capacity among civil engineering companies in Scotland, and the committee’s convener referred to that. However, I agree with Fergus Ewing, who, in his powerful contribution, referred to the need to avoid a sequential approach to placing contracts and said that such an approach presents the danger of slippage. I would rather see a framework approach to contracts, as Mr Ewing proposes, because that would avoid the risk of this vital work being put back even further.
Mark Ruskell was a little coy about the Greens’ commitment to dualling. However, I agree with him on one point, which is the need for short-term improvements. He has raised that, as have I, because we should not see improvements as optional extras. We can progress dualling but, at the same time, we must recognise that short-term improvements to lighting, signage and, potentially, road layout at junctions could be brought in now. Those measures would help to avoid accidents and save lives in the short term, while we wait for the vital dualling process to be completed.
An issue that no member has touched on, but which constituents have raised with me, is the blighting of properties along the route. Property owners are unclear about exactly where the route will go, because of the delay in issuing project plans. Individuals are unable to sell their properties because they are unsure whether they will be affected. That is another impact on individuals’ lives that the Scottish Government needs to be conscious of.
Finally, I turn to the issue of a dedicated cross-party committee. Edward Mountain made the important point that the NZET Committee, which he convenes, simply does not have the time or capacity to assess such issues properly. Although the cabinet secretary said that that is a matter for the Parliament rather than for the Government, we should not forget that the SNP has a large number of votes on the Parliamentary Bureau. If the SNP decided that that issue should be pursued, it would be within its gift to talk to other parties to make that happen. We hope that it will.
We have a Government that has failed us, we have a broken promise, and I fear that we currently have a lack of urgency about where we go from here. I urge the Government to listen to everything that has been said during the debate. It should listen to the committee and to the petitioner, Laura Hansler, and get on with this vital work before more lives are lost.
16:42
I have listened carefully to the range of points that have been raised in the course of the debate. As I am sure that all members will have done, I have reflected on Maurice Golden’s contribution on the impact of fatalities on families and local communities. Before I turn to addressing members’ other points, I want to highlight the strategic importance of the delivery plan that the Government announced in December 2023, which was the first such plan ever to be published setting set out the milestones, dates and actions for progressing delivery of the A9 project. I will comment further on the progress that has been achieved and on what is expected in the year ahead, because we are getting on with all those actions.
I have absolutely learned the lessons about transparency and certainty. Edward Mountain seemed to be surprised that I focused on those aspects in my opening remarks, but I did so because those were the committee’s themes and the focus of its recommendations for improvements. While I am on the subject of Edward Mountain, I also reflect on his point about the work capacity of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—and that was before land reform matters were allocated to it. A future Parliament might want to consider those points when looking at transport and infrastructure.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has to speak to three cabinet secretaries and the Deputy First Minister. It does not have time to cover transport if it takes in all the ministers whom it is supposed to see in the course of its other work. Does the cabinet secretary support the principle that, in the next session, the Parliament should have a designated committee to deal purely with transport, by which I mean roads, ferries and railways?
If the member had listened to my previous point, he would have heard me say that there is merit in transport and infrastructure being dealt with separately. It would be for a new Parliament to decide where those areas should be dealt with, precisely because of the workload issues that he has mentioned.
The delivery plan that we produced in December 2023 was developed to balance three key factors: market capacity to bid for and construct the projects making up the A9 dualling programme, disruption to road users and challenging financial constraints. The delivery plan provides much-needed certainty for road users, local communities and the construction industry on when works are expected. It transparently identifies key milestones when critical decisions are required to progress with procurement or make a contract award, and it identifies when dualling works on individual contracts are expected to become operational. The delivery plan was, and continues to be, supported by a Cabinet decision to prioritise completion of the A9 dualling programme within its budgets. It remains the Government’s focus to complete the A9 dualling programme in line with that plan.
On progress, in addition to the significant milestones that have been achieved, which I mentioned earlier, a number of advanced contracts have been procured for works such as ground investigations. Those are each important in helping to de-risk the main construction contracts.
The Government has also taken steps to engage with interested parties. In January 2024, a briefing was held for MSPs, and in February 2024, a stakeholder briefing was held in Inverness, followed by a public exhibition that visited Inverness, Aviemore, Dalwhinnie, Pitlochry and Perth. At the end of February 2024, the dedicated A9 dualling website was launched, and quarterly newsletters were issued in spring, summer and autumn 2024. In November 2024, the first of what will be regular updates on progress was issued to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and a briefing for MSPs was held in December 2024, where there was extensive discussion with Fergus Ewing on the pros and cons of framework contracts. I heard the points that he raised on framework contracts during the debate. I am prepared to continue that conversation, but, in the spirit of candour, I cannot imply that that will definitely happen, but we want to go ahead and provide certainty with the plan that we have. I am open to those discussions.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm as a matter of fact that the plan and the scheduling that were announced in December 2023 were presented as a fait accompli? There was no consultation with industry about it, just as there was no proper consultation, such as a market day, with industry in relation to the consideration of the request for acceleration. That failure to consult with industry is potentially a fatal flaw to the deliverability of the programme.
On that point, it is wrong for Fergus Ewing to imply that Transport Scotland has somehow produced the December 2023 plan without having continuous, regular engagement with the industry to identify capacity. That is part of the work of identifying what would be sustainable.
I will move on to some of Jackson Carlaw’s points, but I also want to look ahead. I confirm that made orders will be published tomorrow for the Crubenmore to Kincraig project, which will mean that made orders will have been published for 92 per cent of the length of the A9 dualling programme, which might address Murdo Fraser’s points about issues for properties.
Other significant milestones on the A9 dualling programme that the Government is working towards during 2025 include the commencement of statutory procedures for the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing project and the commencement of main construction works on the third contract, for Tomatin to Moy, both in spring 2025. They also include the award of the fourth contract, for Tay crossing to Ballinluig, and the commencement of procurement for the fifth contract, for Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, both in summer 2025. Another milestone is concluding the process of further decision making on the use of MIM in late 2025. Achievement of those milestones will represent real practical progress.
Mark Ruskell raised issues around Dunkeld. He knows that I am alive to those issues and active in discussing with Transport Scotland what might be possible. Of course, remember that that roundabout was not part of the original proposals, but after discussion with the community, it was a response to a co-created request.
In parallel with that work, the Government will progress towards the completion of its £5 million package of additional engineering measures that are intended to address the perceived contributory factors to collisions, and I say to Beatrice Wishart that those measures are expected to be completed in March this year.
The A9 safety group will continue to meet, and I encourage everyone to access the new A9 safety web portal. We will continue to have engagement plans and there will be a briefing in Perth in May or early June. As I indicated earlier, there will be regular committee responses and updates.
Jackson Carlaw made an important point about the capacity of the workforce. I have met SSEN to discuss issues across Scotland, not just about roads or the A9, but about capacity for the renewable sector, and there has been engagement and careful consideration of workforce capability. The committee made the point that it is easier to plan when there is certainty. If there is chopping and changing and things are reordered and rescheduled, that does not provide certainty. We will have to strike a balance in our delivery. Jackson Carlaw also assumed that an acceleration of the project would allow an increase in capacity, although it might do the reverse, which the report has highlighted. It could pose a risk for workforce issues and compound things, which could inadvertently cause delay.
Foysol Choudhury made a number of points about funding. I refer him to my earlier remarks.
I am conscious that I need to bring my remarks to a close. I reiterate my commitment to providing transparency and certainty on the progress of the A9 dualling programme as it moves forward in the months and years ahead. I encourage members to take advantage of the regular updates and briefings, and to sign up for the newsletters and publicise them to their constituents so that they can remain informed on the progress of this vital programme of work. The committee did its job of scrutiny. Although it looked at the past, it also made recommendations for the future.
I have been in post for 18 months, and was involved in the work to publish the plan in December 2023. I am very conscious of my duty to the Parliament on transparency, accountability and scrutiny. I take those responsibilities very seriously, which I hope that I have evidenced in what I have said and in the actions that I have taken, as Emma Roddick reflected.
David Torrance will wind up the debate on behalf of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.
16:52
As deputy convener, I am pleased to close this important debate on behalf of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and I thank colleagues across the chamber for their contributions this afternoon. I also offer my thanks to the committee clerks and to the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance along the way. Our inquiry was in-depth and it involved a number of complex issues, and their contributions to the process were invaluable, as always. Thanks must also be given to everyone who took the time to give evidence to the committee, including individuals, organisations, community councils, cabinet secretaries and former First Ministers. All those submissions were key to helping to inform our work and scrutiny.
The A9 is a key arterial route that is often referred to as Scotland’s spine, as it links the Highlands with the rest of the country. In addition to being a popular tourist route, this trunk road is a key economic route that helps to ensure the delivery of essential supplies to rural communities. It is likely to see a further increase in the volume of traffic as investment and growth, particularly that which is aligned to our national transition to net zero, continues in the region.
I speak as someone who regularly travels on the A9, though perhaps not as often as colleagues including Emma Roddick, Fergus Ewing, Murdo Fraser, Edward Mountain and Jamie Halcro Johnston, who have shared their experiences and those of their constituents of tragic and terrifying collisions on the route. Like others, I commend the petitioner, Laura Hansler, for her pragmatic and persistent approach to pursuing this important matter.
Over the course of the debate, we have heard about the impact that the failure to dual the A9 has had on communities across the Highlands and rural Perthshire. That frequently occurs in the form of long diversions and delays each time the road is closed to allow emergency services to respond to an incident. Those situations are not only frustrating for those relying on the road to get around but, as others have highlighted, now spark a sense of dread among those living closest to the road that the sound of the sirens means that another life may have been lost.
Although much of our inquiry and the contributions that we have heard in the debate have focused on the practicalities of the dualling programme, it is also important to reflect on the petition’s call for a national memorial. Paragraph 160 of the committee’s report states:
“The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government consult on the proposal for a national memorial”.
The primary motivation for dualling the A9 has always been to address road safety concerns on a route that has developed a reputation as one of Scotland’s most dangerous roads, and we heard today from Emma Harper, Maurice Golden and Mark Ruskell about that.
Since the A9 opened to traffic in the late 1970s, more than 330 people have died on the section between Perth and Inverness, and the majority of those fatalities involved a head-on collision of vehicles. We heard from road safety experts that dual carriageway roads can vastly reduce the risk of head-on collisions because they tend to involve the use of barriers, which prevent crossover, and the configuration of junctions to allow traffic to more safely join and exit the road.
During the course of our inquiry, 11 people lost their lives in incidents on the A9—a powerful reminder to all of us of how essential it is that the dualling be completed. On behalf of the committee, I extend my condolences to all those who have been impacted by fatalities on that route, and I urge the Government to work with Laura Hansler on the proposal for a lasting memorial to those who have been injured or killed on the A9.
We have also heard that completing the dualling programme as quickly as possible would be a fitting tribute to those who have lost their lives on the route. Without repeating the points that many colleagues, such as Foysol Choudhury and Emma Roddick, have made this afternoon, I will focus the remainder of my remarks on a key theme that ran throughout our inquiry—how the programme is funded.
The evidence that we heard indicated that, from the outset, there had always been an expectation that a mix of capital and private finance would be used to deliver the dualling programme. A key difficulty arose in 2014, when the non-profit distribution model was reclassified as public rather than private finance, and, although the progress on statutory process at that stage meant that no immediate decision on procurement was required, documents that we received indicated that, by 2017, officials were impressing on ministers the need to agree a procurement approach that would ensure that the 2025 target date would remain achievable.
By 2018, the options that were being presented to ministers indicated that, without a readily available alternative to NPD, a fully capitally funded approach would be required to ensure that the programme remained on track for completion in 2025. Of course, we now know that a combination of issues—including challenging financial circumstances, delays to agreeing a suitable procurement option and the availability of up-front capital to progress the dualling—resulted in the admission from the Scottish Government that the 2025 target was no longer achievable.
As other members have commented, the Government has now published a revised delivery plan that suggests that A9 dualling will be delivered within the original estimate of £3 billion. The cabinet secretary has spoken of a Cabinet decision to prioritise completion of the dualling programme within the Scottish Government budget.
The committee has tentatively welcomed that information. I say “tentatively” because, although the Scottish Government refers to “certainty” in response to our recommendations for clarity on the funding for A9 dualling, we are aware that procurement of the north and central sections, using mutual investment model contracts, is subject to on-going due diligence and further decision making, which is expected later this year.
As our report set out, we remain concerned about what will happen should that due diligence determine that MIM contracts are not suitable, and we continue to seek clarity from the Government on what contingency plans are being put in place to ensure that funding will be available when it needs to be and that the 2035 completion date will not be negatively impacted by a change in approach to procurement of the remaining sections.
The cabinet secretary also referred to the need to follow annual budget practices, which we acknowledge, but she can be left in little doubt, following the contributions from Fergus Ewing, Murdo Fraser, Rhoda Grant and Emma Roddick, that members across the Parliament will be knocking on her and the finance secretary’s doors if funding is not in place to deliver the swift completion of the A9 dualling programme.
As the convener, Maurice Golden and many other speakers have said this afternoon, we believe that transparency is essential to rebuilding public confidence in the programme. I very much welcome the commitment from Transport Scotland to provide six-monthly updates on the progress of the dualling programme to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and to other interested members of the Scottish Parliament. As was the commitment from current and former members of the Scottish Government with regard to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, routine and regular sharing of information is key to addressing concerns about the transparency of decision making on major projects such as those. To enable that scrutiny to take place, we recommend that, in addition to six-monthly updates from Transport Scotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport provide statements to Parliament at key milestones that are aligned to the delivery plan that was published in December 2023.
No one wants to be standing here in 10 years’ time, still discussing this issue. Members have heard from the convener and me that we strongly believe that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny has an important role to play in driving momentum on the programme. The level of engagement with our report and today’s debate demonstrates the appetite of members to undertake that scrutiny, and I look forward to working with colleagues throughout the remainder of this parliamentary session, and perhaps the next, to support the effort and ensure that the commitment to fully dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness is successfully delivered.
Air adhart
Decision Time