Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay, but I think that £500 million was set out originally. We are way short of that—we are just talking about tens of millions, tops.

You have commitments around the A9 and sections of the A96 as well, which are an enormous pressure.

You are saying that the community bus fund will continue in some form or another. That is revenue. You also mentioned the bus partnership fund. However, there has only been about 5.8 per cent of the initial £500 million that was promised during this session. Can you give us some clarity as to whether that will meet the aspirations of councils to get buses moving quicker and avoid congestion within our towns and cities?

I want to go back to concessionary travel. Obviously, the under-22s scheme has been hugely successful. I think that the majority of people getting on the bus on my own rural bus route are under 22 and are probably making journeys that they would not be making unless they had the card. However, it is a big investment in private companies—I am just looking at the reimbursement rates. For the older and disabled persons scheme, the rate is about 55 per cent of an adult fare; for the young persons scheme, it is 81 per cent of an adult fare.

Private bus companies are carrying passengers—young people—who probably otherwise would not be travelling, yet they are getting 81 per cent of an adult fare paid to them. Given the amount of money that we are spending on both concessionary travel schemes, which is substantial, that feels almost like profiteering by the bus companies. It does not feel like a reimbursement; it feels like quite a hefty subsidy is being paid to the private companies to carry passengers who otherwise would not be travelling.

You mentioned the fair fares review earlier, cabinet secretary. The review set out some longer-term options for where we go with concessionary travel and investment. Some short-term measures were identified as well, including a pilot for a cap on bus fares. Is that reflected in the budget? If it is not, what options are there to bring that forward, and when will that happen?

There is no provision in the current budget for that.

I want to turn to active travel. There was a previous Government target to spend 10 per cent of the transport budget on active travel, but, in this budget, we are quite a way short of that aspiration. Has the target been dropped? If so, is there anything to replace it with? Is there another aspiration, another target or another commitment from the Government?

You would look to provide more certainty if you had certainty from the Westminster Government, particularly for active travel. Is that what I am hearing?

I have one further question if there is time, convener.

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.