Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government what support is available to displaced people from Ukraine who are moving from temporary accommodation into permanent housing. (S6O-01501)

I have seen at first hand how communities and local authorities across my region, from Killin to Rosyth, are working tirelessly to try to find long-term housing solutions for displaced Ukrainians who have found sanctuary in Scotland. However, it is critically important that any housing offer empowers our new Ukrainian neighbours to have choices over their next steps.

I welcomed Tuesday’s statement by the Minister with special responsibility for Refugees from Ukraine, but will the cabinet secretary outline what further support will be made available specifically to local authorities such as Stirling Council to support the displaced Ukrainians to access that housing and also, critically, to co-ordinate efforts with local communities who have their own interests with regard to finding solutions for their Ukrainian neighbours and are engaged in their own efforts to do so?

I am pleased that, unlike the Prime Minister, the First Minister did not have to be shamed into attending COP27.

COP26 in Glasgow showed us that, when small nations work together, they can lead the world on climate justice. Alongside Scotland’s leadership on loss and damage funding, which the First Minister mentioned, Denmark helped to launch the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and was joined by a flotilla of countries that are planning for a fair and fast phasing out of fossil fuels.

Now that the Scottish Government has a clearer position on ending new coal extraction, is it ready to join that alliance and show the global leadership that is desperately needed on a just oil and gas transition?

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will be building on the legacy from the Glasgow climate pact by attending the 27th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP27—in Egypt. (S6F-01477)

Loch Leven is one of Scotland’s best wild swimming spots, but we are seeing unacceptable discharges and environmental quality. Down the road in Kinghorn, huge improvements in water quality have resulted from the beach being designated as a bathing water area. What consideration has been given to establishing Loch Leven and other freshwater sites in Scotland as bathing water areas?

I am running short of time. I do not think that there is time in hand.

We need to champion measures that have already worked on the A9 and on other roads in Scotland to improve road safety. It is clear that average speed cameras save lives. On the A9, the number of fatalities fell by 40 per cent in the first three years after their introduction. Collisions were down by nearly a quarter, while frustrating road closures due to accidents were also reduced by a quarter. Therefore, it is disappointing that there has been no mention so far in the debate, or in the Tory motion, of the role of average speed cameras. I hope that the minister will reflect on their potential for the A96 in her closing speech.

The Government is right to mention the worsening financial settlement that has been handed down to the Parliament, which will limit the Government’s ability to invest in the projects that we need in order to save lives. Projects to improve road safety, bypass communities or maintain roads will be threatened by the slash-and-burn austerity of the Tory party. We must have the ability to invest in genuine road safety improvements to protect lives across Scotland. That needs budget and a real focus on the measures that will actually work, backed up by the evidence.

I am sure that there is not a single member in the Parliament who has not been affected directly or indirectly by a tragic road accident over the years. In that spirit, I looked forward to a genuine debate about the actions that the Government can take to save lives on the A9 and the A96, from improving dangerous junctions to rolling out the use of average speed cameras. However, instead, we have seen an attempt to use recent accidents to bolster the case for dualling every inch of the A9 and the A96, without any analysis of why accident rates have worsened recently or how those accidents could have been prevented in the first place.

It is important that we go back to the basics. According to Transport Scotland, the case for the A9 dualling project was largely an economic one—it was about reducing journey times between Inverness and Perth—and the secondary benefits of reducing driver frustration and the severity, if not the frequency, of accidents came later. As members have said, there have been calls from communities along the A9 over many years to improve dangerous junctions and reduce speed.

Those priorities are reflected in the Bute house agreement, which commits the SNP and the Greens to addressing and tackling safety concerns on our roads while, at the same time, responding to community needs and delivering on our climate ambitions across Scotland. Investment should be directed where it is most needed and where it can make a real, tangible difference.

I accept that targeted improvements are needed, and, over a decade ago, I was proud to back the campaign to improve the dangerous Ballinluig junction on the A9. Every time I drive through that junction, I think back to how dangerous it was and I think about how many lives have been saved as a result of that investment. The community in Dunkeld and Birnam still live, with a high-speed junction that is confusing and dangerous, and I back their calls for investment in a safer junction, speed reduction, better signage and other measures. I look forward to the meeting that the minister will convene with local members on those issues next week.

However, as with the original problem at Ballinluig, those problems are made even more critical because of the high speeds that vehicles travel at on dualled sections of the road. Let us not forget that the continuously dualled section of the A9 between Perth and Dunblane has also had tragic junction accidents that have required further sustained investment over many years. Simply dualling is not a panacea to address deep-seated accident and road safety issues on our roads. An evidence-led approach is required.

With the A96, the Government’s review provides a chance to look afresh at what investments are genuinely needed on that corridor, including in public transport. That is embedded in the Bute house agreement. I have my doubts that that review will conclude that dualling every last inch of that road is the best option for safety for communities or for the climate.

I am happy for what I have said to sit as a comment.

Could you explain a bit more about your experience of being involved in that tender process?

Good. It is an important entry point to have that discussion within communities.