Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

Okay.

How do these rules align with or differ from the European Union ETS? Are there similar mechanisms around free allocations and rules within the EU ETS?

Indeed.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the money for heat decarbonisation. She described what is in the level 4 budget figure, which is quite a big sum of around £360 million. However, the scope of the programmes that will sit underneath that is not very clear. I am not clear to what extent the £360 million meets the Government’s existing commitment on heat decarbonisation that it made several years ago. I am also not clear whether there is money underneath that budget line to develop supply chains, working with the industry.

Either now or after the evidence session, I am looking for a lot more detail as to what lies under that pretty chunky sum of money, whether we are on track to making homes warmer and cheaper to heat, and whether we are realising the amazing opportunities for people to come into the industry.

I have quite a few questions, but I will keep them short and sweet.

But you are not able to set that out at this point.

You are not able to say where you think there might be more or less demand for individual programmes at this point in the year.

I go back to my original question. Is there money and resource in the budget for supply chain development?