Official Report 1117KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on the publication of the A96 corridor review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
15:12
I begin my statement by expressing my sincerest sympathies to the families of anyone who has been killed or injured on our roads. In particular, my thoughts are with the family and friends of those involved in recent incidents, including the fatal accident on the A96 east of Brodie on 11 November.
Road safety remains of paramount importance to the Government, and that is reflected in our ambition to have zero deaths or serious injuries on our roads by 2050, with an interim target to halve the number of people killed or seriously injured on the road by 2030.
The Government is also whole-heartedly committed to improving transport infrastructure in the north and north-east of Scotland, including the A96 corridor. In recent years, we have invested almost £1 billion in delivering many improvements to the strategic road network in that area, including the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the A92/A96 Haudagain improvement, the A96 Fochabers and Mosstodloch bypass and the A96 Inveramsay bridge, among others. In addition, the £3.7 billion A9 dualling programme is moving forward, with the construction contract for the Tomatin to Moy section awarded in July this year. The procurement competition for the Tay crossing to Ballinluig section is continuing, with contract award scheduled for summer 2025.
Members will be aware that the Bute house agreement required that an A96 corridor review be conducted. Although that agreement has ended, MSPs of all parties have continued to call for that review to be published, and today I am fulfilling an obligation to publish the full A96 corridor review for consideration by MSPs and the public.
The corridor review includes extensive and detailed appraisal and assessment work that has been undertaken by Transport Scotland. The extensive review reporting consists of more than 2,000 pages, and it is my intention to invite interested MSPs to a round-table briefing session with me and Transport Scotland officials. I consider it appropriate to provide the public and other stakeholders with ample opportunity to fully consider the findings from the detailed work that Transport Scotland has undertaken before providing their feedback. I note that the review itself contains information on full dualling. The review will therefore be subject to a 12-week consultation on its contents.
The Scottish Government’s current plan is to fully dual the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen and, as part of that process, Transport Scotland has been undertaking a transparent and evidence-based review of the programme.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry—I would not normally do this—but can you say whether it is in order for the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to deliberately mislead the Parliament? Anyone who has read the review document knows that the Scottish National Party Government is no longer committed to fully dualling the A96. Whatever the cabinet secretary is saying today, it is not the truth, because the document says that the Government is backsliding on its commitment and is not going to fully dual that road.
That is not, strictly speaking, a point of order. The cabinet secretary is in the middle of making her statement. After she—
She is not telling the truth.
Mr Ross, I ask you to withdraw that remark.
I will do so, simply because I want to ask a question later.
Lovely—thank you. We will stop there.
Please resume, cabinet secretary. We can listen to the cabinet secretary, and then members will have the opportunity to put their questions to her.
The A96 corridor review has been undertaken in accordance with the Scottish transport appraisal guidance, which is the best practice and objective-led approach to transport appraisal.
The review has considered the transport problems and opportunities along the A96 corridor, the changing policy context—including a focus on making better use of existing assets—and the response to climate change, along with other relevant considerations such as aspirations for development. In addition, the review has included a climate compatibility assessment, along with other statutory assessments.
Appropriate and effective stakeholder and public engagement has been undertaken by Transport Scotland at key stages during the review process. Given the effects of the climate emergency and Covid-19 on travel, the views of residents, stakeholders and businesses have been vital to help the analysis and to understand any impacts and associated changes to travel patterns along the corridor.
The problems and opportunities that were identified through the initial consultation in 2022 have been instrumental in developing the review’s appraisal and assessment criteria, which ensures that vital public feedback has been appropriately considered throughout the process. Members will recall that the initial four-week public consultation, which was undertaken as a key element of the review, generated unprecedented interest, with almost 4,700 responses received and more than 11,000 suggested options. Given the sheer volume of responses received and the high number of options that that generated, it was only right to carefully examine the extensive feedback from the members of the public we serve and all the options that were generated as part of the initial appraisal exercise.
The initial appraisal rationalised the multitude of options that were generated, retaining 16 options for preliminary appraisal. That key stage then considered those options and rejected the ones that were found to perform poorly against the review’s appraisal criteria. Fourteen remaining options, which included full dualling, progressed to the detailed appraisal stage. The appraisal work that was undertaken recognised that the identified problems and opportunities along the corridor would be best addressed through an area-based or geographical approach. That allowed the development of a range of packages addressing common problems and opportunities across similar locations throughout the A96 corridor to be appraised in detail.
Transport Scotland has now concluded that detailed appraisal stage and has considered the relative performance of seven packages of improvements for the corridor, including full dualling of the A96. That detailed appraisal of all the evidence identifies that there is an optimal refined package. That refined package includes a spread of interventions across all modes of transport, supporting a multimodal approach to transport investment within the corridor.
The package includes bypasses of Elgin and Keith and targeted road safety improvements; an A96 electric corridor to improve alternative refuelling facilities; rail improvements to reduce passenger journey times and enhance freight facilities; improvements in towns and villages to encourage more people to walk and cycle locally; investment in flexible transport opportunities to improve connectivity in areas with limited access to existing public transport; and improvements to public transport interchange facilities.
The refined package cost estimate is in the range of £501 million to £1 billion at 2022 prices, which compares with a range of £2.5 billion to £5 billion for dualling the A96 from the east of Nairn to Aberdeen. It is clear that it will not be possible to dual all of the A96 by 2030. The Scottish Government currently favours fully dualling the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. [Interruption.] The evidence from the A96 corridor review suggests that there may be a different approach to provide alternative solutions with a more cost-effective and affordable budget. [Interruption.]
Please resume your seat, cabinet secretary.
I will not have a running commentary. I made it clear at the beginning that the statement would be made without interventions or interruptions. I expect that my instruction in that regard will be heeded.
It is important that we gather the public’s views before making a final decision on the programme so, today, we are launching a 12-week consultation on the outcomes from the review. That will provide people, businesses and organisations with the opportunity to fully consider the findings from the detailed work that Transport Scotland has undertaken and to provide vital feedback on it. As I made clear, the review was a requirement of the Bute house agreement and has been anticipated and expected by MSPs.
The review, which was published today, extends to more than 2,000 pages of reporting and clearly demonstrates the significant work that has been undertaken to inform future investment in a key transport corridor. Importantly, the material that is now available on Transport Scotland’s website clearly sets out the performance of the refined package alongside that of the current plan to fully dual the route. That will enable all interested parties to consider the respective performance of potential improvements to the A96 corridor, including full dualling, compare them and be fully informed of the options, before sharing their views.
I appreciate that there is a huge amount of information for everyone, including elected members, to digest. That is why I will hold a further round-table meeting with interested MSPs during the consultation period to give them the appropriate time to review and fully consider the material, ask questions and give their views.
I also want to update the Parliament on the dualling of the A96 from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, which is separate from the A96 corridor review process, as it has already received ministerial approval. The completion of the statutory process for that A96 dualling scheme earlier this year clears the way for ministers to take forward the final stage of the process to acquire the land that is required to construct the dualling scheme. Transport Scotland is now pressing ahead with the procedural steps to make that happen in the coming months. Work has also commenced to determine the most suitable procurement option for delivering the work on the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass dualling scheme. Thereafter, a timetable for progress can be set, in line with available budgets.
The Government is reiterating its commitment to the people of the north and north-east of Scotland. The Government’s position has not changed. The current favoured position is to fully dual the A96, and we are already starting the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass. The outcomes from the review that Transport Scotland has undertaken have been published today in draft for public consultation, and no final decision has been made.
Feedback from people and stakeholders will inform the Scottish Government’s final decision on how best to take forward improvements to the A96 while balancing the demands of the challenging economic climate, current policy and the climate emergency. That feedback will assist in planning how improvements along the corridor are prioritised and will inform our timescales for the wider A96, following the major and on-going roads investment and wider investment in the north and north-east of Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question could press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I also pay tribute to the hundreds of people who have been injured and have lost their lives on the A96, and to the emergency workers who are left picking up the pieces.
Communities that use the A96 will rightly feel betrayed by the cabinet secretary’s response today. The Scottish National Party is once again kicking a decision on the A96 further down the road, despite committing to dualling it in 2011, 13 years ago. In the general election campaign, and less than three hours ago, the First Minister said that he was committed to dualling the A96. However, the cabinet secretary, instead of fulfilling those promises to communities on the A96, is betraying them.
The cabinet secretary admits in her statement that the SNP Government will break its promise and that the A96 will not be dualled by 2030. Worse still, the door has been left open to rowing back on that promise entirely. That would be unacceptable to communities that rely on that road. Will the cabinet secretary jettison the so-called refined approach and finally keep the SNP’s promise to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness?
I should point out that, with the agreement of Parliament and the Presiding Officer, we were able to provide a response to a Government-initiated question earlier this morning. I recognise that that is not enough time for everyone to look at the 2,000 pages, but it was an attempt to respond to requests to have more time for consideration.
In my statement today, I have made it quite clear, and I think that it is obvious, in particular if we look at the financial pressures that the Scottish Government is under, that meeting the target by 2030 is not possible.
In 2011, it was a different time. I remember the financial crash and Gordon Brown’s first budget, and subsequent Conservative Government budgets. At that time, I do not think anyone would have anticipated the capital collapse that subsequently happened in our financial provision, for a variety of reasons that I do not necessarily need to relate today. That has caused immense issues.
However, I can say that we are commencing the dualling of the A96 with the Inverness to Nairn section, including the Nairn bypass, and the Inshes to Smithton provision. That is our commitment on the issue.
With regard to jettisoning something that has barely been published—it was published only a few hours ago—there was a commitment made by this Parliament, and MSPs from all parties, including from the Conservatives, had asked for that information to be published. That is what we have done, and there is now a 12-week period in which people can have a look at the detail of that content and provide feedback.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, and I associate myself and my party with the remarks regarding the loss of life on the A96, in particular the most recent tragic events.
It is now 13 years since the SNP promised to dual the A96. In that time, we have had three transport secretaries and three First Ministers, but today we find out that there is no chance of that promise being fulfilled, over fully two decades. It is just another symptom of an incompetent Government that has broken countless promises and has long since run out of steam. Is the cabinet secretary really satisfied with the pace of the project? I note many of the technicalities—as she described—that are involved, but, on behalf of constituents, I would like to hear some contrition today. Will she offer an apology for the interminable delays?
The member asks whether I am satisfied. Of course I am not satisfied, but I am also not satisfied with the impact of successive capital restrictions on our budget. I am also dissatisfied with some of the decisions that the Government had to make when it came to power in 2007—for example, when the member’s party and others insisted that we invested in the Edinburgh trams project rather than the A9. I am also concerned about the consequences of Brexit—a Brexit that is still supported by the Labour Party.
Those issues have all had consequences for the capital provision of this Government. Despite that fact, we have made major capital infrastructure investments, many of them in the north-east of Scotland. For example, the SNP Government delivered the Aberdeen western peripheral route. It was thought of and planned, and it might have been done before, but it never was. It took the SNP Government coming to power to deliver on that.
Despite all those pressures, we have managed to make infrastructure investments. Some of that has not happened at the pace that I would have wanted, but I think that any reasonable person, looking at the pressures and the experience of the past 10 years, would understand that a timeline that was reasonable in 2011 is not reasonable or deliverable now, and certainly not when we look at the budget position in which the Scottish Government currently finds itself.
I welcome the recommitment from the cabinet secretary today to the full dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. It is a vital project for many reasons, not least road safety and rural connectivity. The Nairn bypass, in particular, has the potential to alleviate many issues, including reducing congestion and pollution in the town and opening up potential for active travel. Can the cabinet secretary speak to that part of the programme in particular? Is she willing to commit to bringing forward the construction of the bypass to as soon as possible within the overall timescales?
There are a number of elements, particularly around the A96 from Inverness to Nairn and the Nairn bypass. I am acutely aware of the request from the people of Nairn, and I attended a public meeting that the local paper organised as part of their campaign. From that experience, it was clear to me that people wanted to see the Nairn bypass completed first. That would have consequences, both in time and cost, but I recognise that the road cuts through the town and causes enormous delays for those who work there. I also heard about the experience of schools, such as Rosebank primary school, whose requirements were identified. I have asked officials to look at whether that prioritisation would be possible and how it would impact on the timetable.
The other aspect of that section of the dualling programme is looking at the type of procurement. That will determine the timetable and whether we combine different contracts to make a larger contract for one sort of procurement, or whether we split up the scheme and have separate, smaller contracts. That is possibly what we would have to do for the Nairn bypass, but that would also have consequences. As that part of the A96 dualling progresses, I will keep Parliament informed of those decisions.
One hundred and twenty-eight people have been killed or injured on this killer road since 2021. The report acknowledges that the full dualling, which was promised 13 years and 16 transport ministers ago,
“would provide greater accident reductions”.
That stands to reason when Transport Scotland figures show that the risk of a fatal or serious collision is 432 per cent higher on single carriageways. However, as the report goes on to say, full dualling is being abandoned because it
“would have a much greater negative impact on visual amenity”.
Is the cabinet secretary content to let the carnage continue for the sake of aesthetics and abject ignorance of the needs of the north-east?
That question does not do credit to Mr Kerr, who I know takes these issues very seriously. He has obviously looked at the summary report, and that is why I think that we need time to study the 2,000 pages of the full report. It is quite clear from the report that it is with regard to the safety measure that the merits of full dualling have precedence. There are other measures in the report, and that is in accordance with the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. That is the normal, objective way in which we look at those things.
Since 2019, there have been a total of 17 deaths on the road. We know that deaths, unfortunately, happen on many roads, and I am particularly concerned about how improvements can take place in the meantime on a whole load of different roads, including on junctions in different areas.
However, from the answers that I have given to him before, Mr Kerr knows that many factors are involved in accidents. Obviously, police investigations bring us statistics, and that is why we are looking at delivering the work. From the work that is taking place at Tomatin to Moy on the A9, people will start to see that we are progressing dualling projects with available funding. That is why it is important that we give the matter due consideration, recognise what the benefits of dualling are compared with other measures and give Mr Kerr’s constituents the opportunity to feed back on that during the 12-week process.
The statement has been met with white fury from my constituents, including long-standing SNP members, who are aware that the pledge is three decades old.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the report is flawed? It started off with a foregone conclusion. As far as I can see, the strategic business case does not contain a reference to the renewables opportunities in the north-east and Highlands over the next century, when we require safe, decent roads of the same standard as those in the central belt.
In the Jacobs analysis of 2022, by seven to one, those who responded—4,800 people—said that they wanted a dual carriageway. How many more consultations do we need before we accept the voice and verdict of the people in the north of Scotland? If we do not, how, in all good faith, can this be considered anything other than a presage to total betrayal?
In terms of the report, I made it clear that I had an obligation to carry through the request of other MSPs of all parties to publish what was commissioned as part of the Bute house agreement with the Green Party. That has now been produced.
Some people thought that it would simply be a climate change comparator. It has gone through the required appraisal. We combined two sets of the appraisals to ensure that we could move forward at pace. That includes the first one, which Fergus Ewing referred to—the 2022 one—and then the carrying-on of that consideration.
It is important to consider the renewables industry and what is required. That is why I have also commissioned advice, particularly on what it might mean in relation to Ardersier. Only this morning, I had a meeting with SSEN to discuss these very issues around how our transport infrastructure can support the growth in the renewables sector.
Those are important points, but I have an obligation of transparency to come to the Parliament and publish what was required as part of the A96 corridor review, and that is what I have done today.
I am not sure whether Opposition members have short memories or selective amnesia. The SNP has reconnected Kintore and Laurencekirk to the railway. The Aberdeen bypass, which had been spoken about for 50 years, has been delivered. The Haudagain improvement in my constituency, now named the Brian Adam Road, has been delivered. My party has delivered for the north-east before, and it will continue to do so in the future. Given the enormous interest in the subject, how can members of the public make their views known, and how will they be kept aware of opportunities to raise their views?
Jackie Dunbar makes an important point about the investment that this party in government has made and delivered on in relation to the north and north-east of Scotland.
The expense and priorities in my budget are primarily in the Highlands and Islands and the north of Scotland. Members will know that MSPs of all parties want investment in their part of Scotland, but I recognise that the initial focus in my term as transport secretary has been in those particular areas of Scotland. I recognise what the member says.
As to engagement, Transport Scotland’s website has found ways of developing a system through which people can provide their feedback and also view what is a complex area in terms of information that can be downloaded and assessed. The point of that engagement is absolute.
I encourage members, whatever their views, to ensure that their constituents are made aware of the publication of the report, which includes the full dualling of the A96, and to provide their feedback on what has been set out in that commissioned corridor review, which was part of the agreement that was made some time ago.
Ms Grant joins us remotely.
Inverness is the only city in Scotland not to be joined to the rest of Scotland by dual carriageway, and that is unacceptable. The cabinet secretary knows that the people of Nairn have been crying out for their bypass for decades, with the town totally gridlocked at peak times. Those promises to them have been broken.
The people of Nairn need to understand today when they can expect their bypass and dual carriageway to Inverness to be built. If the cabinet secretary delays providing that timeframe until the infrastructure investment plan is published, they will have to wait a whole year for an update, and that is simply not acceptable.
On the decisions around what happens with Inverness and Nairn, I was keen to ensure that we completed the statutory requirements for not only Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass dualling, but Inshes to Smithton.
Rhoda Grant made the point about the dualling aspect, and that is why that aspect of the dualling is also being commenced. That enables Transport Scotland to purchase the land that is required for the work to be carried out.
As part of our work on Inverness to Nairn, consideration has to be given to the feasibility and attractiveness of either combining that scheme with adjacent schemes to form larger contracts, or splitting it and delivering through smaller contracts, such as the Nairn bypass. We also have to consider—as was set out at the public meeting that I attended in Nairn—whether we proceed with a design and build method or a mutual investment model.
The member will know that we are already examining the opportunities of using a mutual investment model for parts of the A9. I reassure her that we are doing the same exercise in parallel for the Inverness to Nairn bypass, and on completion of the exercise we can provide a reliable timetable. To do so in advance of that would be speculation, because, as my official said at the Nairn public meeting, the timetable will depend on whether there is to be a design and build through capital approach, or whether funding will be delivered through a mutual investment model.
I warmly welcome the statement and the review. It is evidence based, particularly on the issue of road safety, and it has had the input of communities as well. However, it is quite clear from the conclusions of the review that spending upwards of £5,000 million on full dualling of the A96 would be a waste of money, and that the preferred package that has been put forward—of bypasses at Elgin and Keith, road safety improvements and investment in rail and public transport, which are all deliverable for one fifth of the cost of full dualling—is the right way forward.
When will the Scottish Government be able to accelerate the investment in that preferred package, and so deliver for communities and deliver the road safety improvements that are needed to save lives?
I understand that Mark Ruskell welcomes the review. It was a part of the Bute house agreement that was requested by the Green Party, and that has now been delivered.
The review sets out a range of different provisions in what has been called the “refined package”. I want to hear not just from MSPs, but from the public on what their views are on it. Following the determination of those views, we will be able to assess the way forward.
Our view is that we want to fully dual the A96. We have constraints of budget, so it is reasonable to look at the timescale and acknowledge that that will not be delivered by 2030. However, all those factors have to be put in place in order for the Government to look forward and plan for investments for the future.
Beatrice Wishart is joining us remotely.
I associate myself with what has been said about those who have sadly lost their lives on the A96.
While the cabinet secretary reaffirms that the Scottish Government’s position is still in favour of full dualling on the A96 route, many in the north-east and along the route will have serious concerns today that full dualling will not go ahead after publication of the review. We want to ensure that the voices of the communities along the corridor are listened to.
The A96 currently runs through the town centres of Elgin and Keith, and the Northern Scot found that the Forres to Elgin section of the A96 is the most dangerous section of the road. People in Elgin and Keith are keen that bypasses are built to improve safety for all road users. Can the cabinet secretary give a guarantee today that the Elgin and Keith bypasses will go ahead?
The member cuts to the issue of priorities within the works that will be undertaken to improve the A96. The point about the Elgin and Keith bypasses is well made.
The member also makes a point about which parts of the road need their improvement works delivered first. As I have said, seven packages of improvements have been identified. Some are to the road, some are to the rail and some are to other areas in the preferred route.
However, whatever happens with regard to improvements on the A96, I would be very surprised if the bypassing of Keith and Elgin did not come back from the consultation as a priority for constituents along that corridor—although I have to wait to hear what people say.
As members have already referenced, road safety is of paramount importance. The Scottish Government is required to be cognisant of the challenging economic climate in which it is currently operating and of the climate emergency, which is an existential one. How does the Government intend to balance those different facets when taking this piece of work forward?
For Transport Scotland, as the Scottish Government’s agency, to assess aspects of any transport infrastructure for investment, it requires the different stages of the STAG appraisal to take place. That appraisal combines the issues of climate compatibility and safety.
We can secure safety in different ways—dualling can be one route. However, other routes also have to be provided for. That is what we intend to do as part of the on-going road safety priority work that I am undertaking, along with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities, our transport officers and, importantly, Police Scotland.
Two years late and at a cost of millions of pounds, the A96 corridor review is an absolute sham and a disgrace. Is it not telling that the only parties who are welcoming it today are the SNP and the Greens, whose votes the SNP needs in the Parliament?
The cabinet secretary’s statement and the entire SNP Government have been a disgrace, too, because—make no mistake—it is as clear as day from the review that the Government is no longer committed to dualling the A96 in full. That is the ultimate betrayal of my constituents in Moray, the Highlands and the north-east, who were promised time and again that that road would be a priority, when it clearly is not. I have not believed a word that the cabinet secretary has said. If she is going to convince me that the SNP will dual the A96 in full, can she tell the chamber when it will do so?
Douglas Ross might not have been able to adjust which Parliament he wants to be in—
When?
Mr Ross, please listen to the cabinet secretary give the answer to the question.
There is a serious point here. I have just explained that the method of procurement, which could be a mutual investment model or a design and build model, and the priorities—which of the Elgin bypass or the Keith bypass would be done first—would go into a plan to determine what the timetable for dualling would be. I have been as open as I can and said that we should acknowledge that the original target of 2030 for full dualling—
So, when?
Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat for a second. Mr Ross, I have already explained that when somebody has the floor, other people who are in their seats do not. Please resume, cabinet secretary.
I think that—
She is supposed to answer the question!
There might be a place for barracking behaviour in some Parliaments, but it should not happen here—
I am in the chair and I will deal with that, cabinet secretary. We are running out of time and I want to give two more members the opportunity to ask their questions. Please just respond to the point and I can call the next speaker. Thank you.
I will inform the Parliament of the outcome of the 12-week consultation.
I have two more speakers and I would like to take both, so I need some co-operation to have succinct questions and answers.
How will the acute fiscal challenges that the Scottish Government is contending with—bequeathed by the Tories to the north-east and the rest of the country—impact on important capital infrastructure projects, such as improving the safety of the A96?
Any reasonable person looking at the economic and financial situation in which the UK continues to find itself because of self-inflicted circumstances—for example, Brexit—or the consequences of the cost of living crisis and other issues, such as the impact of cost inflation, particularly on construction, will recognise not only that there is a limit to the amount of capital available for any major investment project, but that, when we embark on such a project, its cost can rise.
With the good news that the renewables sector is growing in Scotland, one of the issues with which we have to contend is that its demand for construction and skills will put pressure on all construction projects, in relation to the value for money that we can get from them. That is the realistic position that we are in. However, I have given my commitment to the improvements to the A96. We are already delivering the additional dualling to the A9 and I have set out that the dualling of the A96 from Inverness to Nairn is commencing. We are progressing with that process and I will keep the Parliament informed of it.
The First Minister, at today’s First Minister’s question time, gave a cast-iron guarantee on dualling the A9 and the A96 but, currently, the cabinet secretary only favours it. Will she go along with her First Minister? I ask this in the hope that highlanders will get what has been promised for many years: will you give us a cast-iron guarantee, as your boss did?
Always speak through the chair, Mr Mountain.
On the programme to deliver the A9 that I have been supportive of, first as minister and then as cabinet secretary, people can see clear evidence of that. The important part of it was to ensure that the finances for it were planned for and set out as a baked-in aspect of our budgets.
The challenge for the A96 is the quantum of money that we are talking about, which, again, is £2.5 billion to £5 billion for full dualling. That will provide challenges, not least in the timetable of what can be delivered and when. As part of the A96 dualling, we are delivering on the Inverness to Nairn bypass, which is an important start in what we can do.
It would be remiss of me not to publish the report that was asked for as part of the Bute house agreement, and a number of MSPs, including Conservative members, demanded to see the review. If they wanted to see it just to dismiss it within hours of its publication, I do not think that they are giving service to their constituents. I hope that members will ensure that their constituents are engaged in the 12-week consultation.
Air ais
Older People’s Energy CostsAir adhart
Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1