 The next item of business is a debate on motion 7977 in the name of Graham Simpson on A9 dualling. I'd be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Graham Simpson to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When Jenny Gilruth stood before this Parliament on February 8 to deliver the bombshell news that the contract for dualling the next section of the A9 was not yet going to be awarded. She was keen to blame everybody but herself. From Brexit, of course, to Vladimir Putin, the transport minister trotted out every possible excuse for why this SMP promise is worthless. That promise to fully dual a row between Perth and Inverness by 2025 was made just over 11 yw ydy'r cyfnod 10 mili gynhyrchu gynnigio'r 80 ydy'r cyfnod yw holl ffordd. Dyma'r cyfnod. Mae'n rhan o'r gwblhau ynghylch yn gweithio'r cyfnod. Diolch â'r Gwylruth. Argymau gyda'r Minister i'r transbwyllt. Yn ymgyrch Gwylbrown, Fferry Suprimaw Derek Macai, Budding First Minister Humzae Ywsaf, mae'r record of failure yn cael ei ddod i'r gwaith. Paul Weelhouse, Graham Day, who got out as fast as he could, and Jenny Gilruth. What about cabinet secretaries? There's been Alex Neil, Nicola Sturgeon, the A9 failure is her legacy among many failures. Keith Brown again, Fergus Ewing, who had transport in his brief for a while and is now angry about the issue, and Michael Matheson. If we roll it back to when it was first mentioned in the SNP's 2007 manifesto, we could also throw in another haplos transport minister, Stuart Stevenson. Quite a cast list and all in their own way responsible. We've heard this week that construction industry insiders believe it could take until 2050 to see the road fully dualled. That's pretty gloomy, and I think they're well wider than the mark, and we can't have that. Last week, one exasperated local sent me his own estimate, which was at the current rate of progress, it will take until 2137 to finish. A hundred and fourteen years. So things do need to improve somewhat. Too many people are being killed on this road. Too many families are being left devastated. Three companies expressed an interest in bidding to duel the section between Tomatin and Moy, but only one did. Yet Jenny Gilruth said that the rejected bid did not represent value for money for the taxpayer. That came as a big surprise to the company behind that bid. In fact, that company said that they were astounded to hear that in the minister's statement, so much so that they got in touch. Given that they employ a large number of people, I thought that it was important to talk to them. I hope that the transport minister has done the same. I've promised not to name the company because I respect the sensitivities involved, but they have direct experience of dualling the A9 and have a record of delivery. They said that they had offered to meet with Transport Scotland to answer any questions that it had to give it confidence that its price reflected the true cost of delivering the project, but that this offer was not taken up prior to the decision being announced. Why not? This firm spent nearly a year on its tender. That in itself is pretty ludicrous and is part of the issue that civil engineering firms have with Transport Scotland. The normal tendering process elsewhere in Britain can be measured in weeks, not the best part of a year. The other big difference is that here all the cost risk, if any incidentals are found, is on the contractor, so, not surprisingly, prices quoted have to take that into account. Prices have risen since this job was first put out to tender. The dithering Scottish Government's original estimate of cost is therefore out of date, so can the transport minister, when she speaks, tell us what she would regard as value for money? If the original anticipated cost was £115 million, what is it now? We do need to know. I do not know what the tender price was, but it has been reported as being between £130 million and £140 million. That is not so far removed from the original estimate to justify the minister saying that it did not represent value for money. What result does the transport minister expect to achieve by re-tendering? A cheaper job with corners cut, surely to goodness not. The building of such a project is important for the local economy, too. Local suppliers were waiting for the job to be awarded. Hotels and BMBs were geared up for the influx of labour. We simply cannot afford to hang around. More lives will be lost. What price are we putting on that? Just what is going on here? Has Jenny Gilruth decided that dualling the A9 is just not affordable? Can she explain why Transport Scotland thinks that it is a good idea to build the remaining nine sections one at a time? No wonder it is taking so long and no wonder the price continues to spiral. Why cannot the road be built in one go? We just have one big contract to do it and get on with it. Laura Hansler of the A9 dual action group said this week that, as a country, we can do way better than this. We only have to look at Europe, Germany as a prime example or even China. They must look on at this project and be dumbfounded as to what is taking us so long. The Government amendment talks about the Government setting out a timescale for completion of the dualling programme to the Parliament later in 2023. What the minister said in her earlier statement was that she expected to have some advice from Transport Scotland on the matter by the end of the year. Incredibly, she also said that she too would like to know the new timescale. She decides surely not Transport Scotland. Jenny Gilruth believes that it is good to talk. She wants a national conversation about the rail industry. She is having another chat about how we run ferries. There has even been a consultation on the A9. What we need from the Transport Minister is a little less conversation and a little more action, please. I move the motion in my name. Thank you. I now call on Jenny Gilruth to speak to and move amendment 7977.3 up to six minutes, Minister. I welcome the opportunity to again discuss the importance of the need to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Members will recall that it is exactly two weeks ago today, since we last met to discuss the A9 in a parliamentary statement that I was keen to bring to the chamber. That statement updated members on the specifics of the Tomatin to Moitendra, as we have heard from Mr Simpson, and on the original 2025 target date for completion. I undertook then, as I did in November, to work with local MSPs whose regions and constituencies are directly affected by the A9. I will again restate that desire, having written to all MSPs just two weeks ago, to ensure that they are appraised of the planned next steps. Mr Simpson notes in his motion the vital importance of this route to the economic and social wellbeing of the communities that it serves. I agree. My nana was born in a croft at Muriff Tarradale outside Muriff Ward, and after nursing in Glasgow for many years, she retired to Cromarty with my grandfather. In every Tattie holiday, every Easter, every summer, my mum would drive my sisters and I up the A9. I remember my nana always insisting that my mum phoned as soon as we got back, so terrified was she as a Highlander of the A9. I know that we have to duel the A9, but I also know that it should have been done long ago. Before my party was elected, before this place was re-established, it is imperative that we now move forward and at pace. In my update to Parliament just two weeks ago, I noted that the A9 is often referred to as the spine of Scotland, linking Lowland with Highland and providing a vital route for the people and businesses of the north of this country. I also restated this Government's unwavering commitment to deliver the benefits of completing and dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness to the people of Scotland. I acknowledged that the ambitious timescale that was set out in 2011 was no longer achievable. It was reliant, of course, on the timely and positive outcomes of factors such as completing the statutory processes. Those processes are set out in the 1984 Rhoads Scotland Act. They include gaining the legal authority to acquire land on a compulsory basis, as opposed to by negotiation. It also needed sufficient market capacity and sufficient supply chain availability. It is fair to say that a lot has changed since 2011. We all know that the pandemic has caused significant disruption across the entire country, and progress on the A9 dualling programme has not been an exception. Covid disruption in relation to the completion of the statutory processes has impacted on a number of sections. It has also impacted on the construction market and its extended supply chains. It is also one of the contributing factors that have driven the significant increase in relation to inflationary pressures. Others, of course, include the consequences of Brexit and increases in energy and other costs arising as a consequence of the war in Ukraine. I am happy to do so. I am very grateful. I hear the minister getting the excuses in early, but, listen, people are dying and being seriously injured because of these delays. What does the minister project will be the impact of the latest delays on A9 on the Scottish Government's road safety 2030 targets? I am sorry. I have to say to Mr Kerr that it is not an excuse to point out some of the inflationary pressures that are being felt by the Scottish Government at the current time. In fact, UK Government monitoring shows that the material price index for work has increased by 24.1 per cent in July 2022, compared to the same month for the previous year. Things are costing more money, and that is a fact. Mr Kerr very well understands that. I think that it is also fair to reflect that I would like to make some more progress. The wider economic environment, undoubtedly, has been extremely volatile, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the UK Government's mini-budget of September 2022. I reported to Parliament the disappointing outcome of the recent Tomatomoy procurement. I am not going to shy away from that today. We did not consider the single bid. We had one single bid, which is extremely unusual, and it provided best value to the taxpayer. Following that decision, Transport Scotland immediately began work towards commencement of a new procurement. I am pleased to report positive and constructive discussions that have already been held with the construction industry, as work proceeds on modifications to Transport Scotland's terms and conditions with the aim of increasing competition and delivering better value to the taxpayer. We also continue to target that contract award under the new procurement before the end of 2023. I am happy to do so. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I have highlighted issues with Transport Scotland, so can the minister say what those contractual changes will be that will make the industry more appealing for the industry? Mr Simpson raises a fair point. That was also touched upon in relation to the parliamentary statement. Transport Scotland, who are sitting behind me at the back of the chamber, I hasten to say, are looking at the statutory processes, but they are looking at the way in which we take forward procurement. I think that there are changes that we will need to make take forward in that respect. I am not going to spell them out today because I am waiting for the advice to come from Transport Scotland. I think that Mr Simpson needs to be mindful that we were in the chamber only two weeks ago with a week of parliamentary recess discussing this very point. I have not yet had that advice, but what I have committed to do is to work with local elected members, because I think that that is actually really important. He might not regard that as so, but I do, as minister. I would like to make some progress, noting time, Presiding Officer. In relation to the remainder of the A9 dualling programme, and as I advised in Parliament, as I said two weeks ago, Transport Scotland is taking forward a range of options that will advise me on the most efficient way of dualling the remaining sections. That assessment will look at a range of different options, a mantle of time, Presiding Officer. I expect to have that advice by autumn of 2023, at which time, as I stated two weeks ago, I will update Parliament on a new timescale for completion. I think that that is a reasonable laugh at the Conservatives motion today, and I am happy to do that. I undertook to do so only two weeks ago. At the same time, I am very mindful that I have, I think, 15 seconds left. At the same time, we are also pushing forward the work to obtain the outstanding statutory consent for the pass of Burnham to Tay crossing projects, and it is worth saying that there is ministerial approval in place for eight out of the nine remaining sections. I am mindful of time. I am not going to pretend that dualling the A9 was ever an easy task. Clearly, a range of factors have impacted on the delivery of the original timescale, but I hope that members will acknowledge my willingness to work with them to ensure that we bring about the full benefits of dualling as quickly and as efficiently as possible for the people of the Islands of Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 7977.1 up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome Graham Simpson bringing forward this important debate on the A9, and I move the amendment in my name. It is a timely debate, given the terrible news that the Transport Minister delivered two weeks ago to the chamber and to the people of the Highlands. The admission from the Transport Minister that the Government's promise to duall the A9 by 2025 had been broken, has been met with anger, despair and frustration, and little wonder, given the serious road safety concerns, the A9 sadly has a reputation for accidents and tragically 13 people died in 2022. My thoughts go out to their families. The road is dangerous with particular black spots at points of transition from duall to a single carriageway. The death toll alone has long made the case for upgrading the road, but the A9 is also vital for economic and community development. It is used by tourists as well as highland residents to commute to work, attend medical appointments and access education. Like the minister, my own family use it regularly to see one another. Recently, Labour colleagues and I met with the A9 duall action group. What emerged so clearly from that meeting, apart from their frustration and disappointment, was how important a better, safer A9 is to their quality of life. The A9 is also vital to supporting the highland economy, creating jobs and, in some areas, arresting population decline. For all those reasons, the duall unilised roads needs to be a priority and progressed as a matter of urgency, as the Labour amendment makes clear. I hope that every member across the chamber in every party will support that amendment. In 2007, the SNP manifesto was titled It's Time to Move Forward and included a commitment to duall the A9. Sixteen years later, Presiding Officer, and where are we? We have barely moved forward at all. Just 11 miles completed, 77 miles remain. The remaining nine sections to be completed are listed on Transport Scotland's website, as in preparation. Not even started yet, in other words, Presiding Officer. We also don't have a new timescale, and we don't even have a firm date for a new timescale. Where is the urgency? Where is the drive? Where is the absolute commitment that the transport minister claimed two weeks ago? If the Scottish Government is still absolutely committed to this project, then it has a strange way of showing it. Yesterday, the Scotsman reported predictions from industry experts that it could now be 2050 before the project is completed. It is little wonder that people up and down the A9 and across the Highlands feel so badly betrayed. It is little wonder that even some of the minister's own SNP colleagues are publicly furious about this. What has not helped is being treated to bizarre excuses, even stooping so low as attempting to blame Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. We have also had Covid and Brexit. It is not just me that is saying that these excuses are not credible. We can see the public's deep skepticism on these absurd claims. There are many questions about how this has come to pass over the past 16 years. That is why Scottish Labour believes that there must be a parliamentary inquiry into the Government's failure to deliver this key promise. This promise needs to be delivered without delay. That is why we cannot support the SNP amendment today. That welcomes the intention of the Government to set out a renewed timescale for the completion of the drilling later in 2023. Any SNP MSP that votes for that amendment cannot also claim that they are standing up for their constituents. Are we seriously expected to welcome a delay and welcome a new timescale not being set until later this year? It should be happening now and, in fact, it should have been happened long before now. The fact that it has not does leave people to question how committed the SNP and Green Government is. Since the terrible news two weeks ago, Green MSPs, such as Ariana Burgess, are broken cover to state their view that drilling the road is not actually a priority. How on earth can this transport minister say that this Government is absolutely committed to drilling the A9 when Green MSPs are not? I asked the minister two weeks ago in this chamber if the Greens were in favour of this project. The response that I got was just, I am not a Green Minister. The last time I checked, the minister was a Scottish Government minister and the Government is made up of the SNP and the Greens. Presumably the minister can tell us today when she says that Scottish Government is absolutely committed to this drilling project, is she also speaking for her partners in Government, the Scottish Greens? I am happy to give way if the minister wants to give that commitment, because I am not hearing it from the Greens themselves. This is also important because members may recall Mr Whittle and I raising in the chamber what we heard from the A75 and A77 action group. We were informed that the minister told campaigners that the Greens may hinder efforts to have those roads upgraded. That and the comments of Green MSPs will make people believe that the same must be true of the A9. The story of the A9 drilling project is a story of promises made and promises broken. Lives lost, local people betrayed, rural communities and economies let down and so Highland communities and users of the A9 should also hear an apology from the minister today, but that is not enough. They deserve also to hear when this Government will actually deliver on its commitment to them to fully drill this road and for it to be delivered. The least that this Government can do now is finally come clean to be frank with people and to give them some answers as well as action. My amendment had it been selected, highlighted that the A9 continues north of Inverness as another 100 miles of predominantly single carriageway where a number of serious and fatal accidents have happened on that stretch of road and that communities in the Highlands are suffering due to the lack of action to tackle the issues with the road and it called on the Scottish Government to announce a proper plan to upgrade the A9 north of Inverness so that it is fit for purpose. The case for improvement by dualling the A9 to Inverness has long been accepted and dualling has long been promised. This will better serve communities along the route from Perth to Inverness and improve timings to reach Aberdeen and local towns and villages between and beyond. What we are talking about is the pace at which that commitment is delivered. Every delay brings the risk of more accidents and fatalities upgrading as needed now. We must not neglect infrastructure out of dogma. We have seen the SNP's own deadline slip beyond 2025. 15 years of SNP Government yet progress is painfully slow. Residents are looking for an urgent announcement of the Scottish Government's revised timetable for the completion of A9 dualling. Adequate funding to make sure another deadline on the A9 upgrades is not mixed and missed. An announcement of a proper plan for the upgrading of the A9 north of Inverness, which has so far been neglected. We should recognise that users of the A9 range from those regular users and residents confident on the road, as well as those who are unfamiliar and visitors of Scotland's tourist spots, who are underconfident of the mix from single to dual carriageway. While upgrades in good time are needed to improve safety and connectivity, more can be done to shift freight off the road and on to rail. Again, that would need the equivalent planning and upgrading north of Inverness, as well as between Perth and Inverness. We should also ensure that those key routes are linked to local public services, making sure that bus routes, for example, are able to take people to those main routes and connect our cities through better public transport connections. My colleagues in the far north of Scotland continue to campaign for greater maternity services provision. Any new plan for the A9 beyond Inverness should address this need. Before I conclude and forgive me if my voice is giving out, all sectors need to reduce carbon emissions if we are to reach our net zero targets and transport is lagging behind. We cannot take every car off the road and in some parts of the country, car travel is the only viable transport. Scotland needs to go electric as quickly as possible. We need to see progress on the electric A9 plans to upgrade and invest in the A9, which would ensure that EV charging is available and in suitable convenient locations, which do not strand passengers miles from where they need to be. Those plans also need to stretch to upgrades beyond Inverness. If we can give people in Scotland the confidence to buy an electric vehicle, we can help move older cars off our roads sooner. Our key routes should be easily reachable from such vital infrastructure. After all, it is the people that the infrastructure of Scotland serves. Our routes, such as the A9, should be safe, accessible and link communities and services. We now move to the open debate, and I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I am sorry that the minister was not able to take the intervention. I wanted to ask her when she was first advised by Transport Scotland that the commitment to Juulier 9 by 2025 was not going to be immense. It is helpful that they are here today, and maybe they can advise her, and she can include it in her summing up or taking intervention from me. The A9 is a road that I know very well. I have known it all my life. I travelled on it before there were new bridges over the Dornock and Cromarty Firth, before there was the Cassett bridge, and you had to go on the small ferry across the water. For many, it is the road that links the Highlands and Islands with the central belt. For me, it is the road home, and it is a road that I drove back down on only yesterday. Its importance is why, in 2006, Murdo Fraser and I launched the Juulier 9 campaign, why we campaign for the road to be Juul between Perth and Inverness, and why, regardless of the politics of it, I was pleased when the Scottish Government gave a commitment to Juulier 9 by 2025. Unfortunately, that commitment was largely only words. Jenny Gilruth's bilated admission that the SNP's promise to Juul the road would not be delivered was met with anger, but not with surprise in communities across the Highlands and Islands. While most of us have known for years now that this promise was going to be broken, time and time again SNP ministers have come to this chamber or sat in committees in this Parliament repeating the same increasingly ridiculous assertion, claiming that all was fine, the commitment stood, and the road would be Juul'd as promised. That wasn't true, and the Scottish Government was taking folk in the Highlands and Islands for mugs. What is so frustrating is that we know the economic benefits of Juuling, improving connectivity for my region, bringing businesses closer to their markets and making it easier for people to visit the region. We know of the social benefits linking local communities and families, bringing people together, and we know of the safety benefits. 83 people have been killed on the A9 since 2011. 83 lives lost families, mourning loved ones, many more injured in accidents, and how many more dangerous incidents that go unreported? How did we get here, where years after work was meant to start, the vast majority of the road between Perthon and Vanessa remains single carriageway, and there has been little or no progress on Juuling those sections. The SNP has blamed Brexit, they have blamed Covid, they have even blamed, as Graham Simpson said, Vladimir Putin. Those responsible are not in the Kremlin, they are here in Edinburgh, and they are on those Government benches over there. One of the reasons why there is so much anger locally is that SNP ministers have utterly failed to be honest with this Parliament and with the public over delays. Why weren't we given realistic updates on how the project was progressing or failing to progress? Why weren't we told when there were problems and how it would impact on completion dates? That is why it is so important that, as our motion calls for, ministers provide a specific date for when a revised timetable of works and costs will be published, and that going forward Transport Scotland publishes a quarterly update that sets out progress against published targets. Jenny Gilruth is just the latest minister to have come to this chamber to defend the mess that the SNP has made of this project, and she does so largely because of the failings of those who came before her. All those who have served in this Government bear some responsibility for the failure. Those on the SNP-backed benches, who, when they should have been challenging their own ministers on this, were too happy to sit on their hands, putting loyalty to the SNP before their constituents' responsibility. I would have asked them if any one of the seven SNP Highlands Irons MSPs were actually here in the chamber, I would have asked them, are they going to keep the wailing and gnashing of tees in the local media, but back that same failure again today by voting for the Government's dismissive and reflective amendment? All they put their constituents first, not their party, by rejecting the Government's motion and by supporting ours at decision time today. I urge them to stand up for their constituents by sending your Government a clear message. No more failures, no more excuses, get the A9 dualled. Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank the Tories for bringing this debate back to the chamber again. In a moment of consensus, I would like to agree with a line in the Tory motion and I quote, recognise the vital importance of this route to the economic and social well-being of the communities that it serves. I also agree with the comments today regarding the number of deaths I have just uttered. I also agree with the comments regarding the number of deaths that have taken place on the A9 over many years, even those long before the establishment of this Parliament. I wish to express my sympathies to every family who has lost a loved one. I want the A9 to be dualled as quickly as possible. I have long held the view, and indeed it has long been, as my long-standing SNP policy, that the Chancellor Minister has made clear her desire to duall the A9 and the determination to make this happen. I accept that many people are disappointed with his statement recently, with regard to the Tomatin to My section, not progressing at this time. However, as the Minister stated, the high level of cost that came in from only one bidder was considered to be a cost too high at this time. In December 2021, three bidders were invited to participate in the procurement exercise, with final tenders required to be submitted by October 2022. That coincided with many external factors, including the pandemic, disruption caused by Brexit, and whether the like it or not, the issue regarding the war in Ukraine because of international global costs, the inflationary impact on all of those has significantly affected the construction market. Unfortunately, with only one company providing a submission, it was considered that the £150 million was too high a cost at this time. In just one moment, the minister used a phrase in her contribution regarding the best value. Anyone who has ever served on the audit committee in this Parliament fully recognises all that Scotland's best value reports and how important the issue of best value is. Clearly there has been an issue in the past when sometimes contracts were awarded and deals were done where it was about the lowest cost. Sometimes the lowest cost does not always bring forward the best value for the taxpayer. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I appreciate the list of reasons that he has given why the project has not proceeded at this point. However, would you not recognise that commitment that was first made in 2007 and was then repeated in 2011? Why was the progress not made in those previous years before Covid came along and caused the delay? I am sure that Mr Murdoff Fraser will recognise that, when the SNP came into power in 2007, 2008 was a financial crash. Some folk can sit and moan how they want, but it was a financial crash that had a detrimental effect upon the economy, not just in Scotland but across the UK and globally. That was not something that just ended in one year. That took place over many many years, unless the fact that the UK Government still has a large share in the RBS now than that West group tells a story in terms of the effects of that particular international incident. I am sure that the story is no doubt being led by Mr Simpson. We would ask to be going helper leather criticising the Chancellor if she had signed up to the contract with only one bidder. I am quite sure that the debate today would be something totally different, because there is no doubt that the Tories will be asking for the Scottish Government to go back to the market to try to get a more economical bid. I am disappointed about the decision, but at the same time I believe that the Chancellor had no other choice to make. If there had been no investment to date, I could understand the criticism from the Tories, but investment of more than £430 million has already been spent on the road from the £3 billion investment that was needed based on the 2008 figures. I am conscious, so I will finish there. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let's get down to the real facts here. Let's talk about the journey times from Perth to Inverness. If you go in a car on a good day, it's two hours and 30 minutes. If you go by train on a really good day, it's two hours and 10 minutes. That hasn't changed since 1986. I know driving that road late on a Thursday night and late on a Monday night, nearly every week of the year, how dangerous it is. It is dangerous and it should have been upgraded. We shouldn't forget that, at the same time that the SNP promised in 2007 to upgrade the road, they promised to upgrade the rail. They had an aspiration to shave 30 to 5 minutes off the train travel time from Inverness to Edinburgh. That hasn't been delivered, nor has the aspiration to shave 10 minutes off the two-hour journey time, plus from Inverness to Perth. What has been delivered is the shaving of 10 minutes off the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh, a 40-minute journey time now, which means that the Highlandsers feel ignored, and rightly so. Let's turn to the A9. I think that the Inverness courier's headline is very appropriate. That's what we feel like in the Highlands, left with a tombstone of a promise from the SNP. Graham Simpson mentioned the role of dishonour for transport ministers. He's mentioned Stuart Stevenson, Keith Brown, Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Paul Wheelhouse, Graham Day and, finally, Jenny Gilruth, who I feel sorry for because she's been left carrying the can. However, they're looked on in the Highlands as the modern-day Dick Turpins, the highway robbers, the robbers that have denied us of the access route that we deserve. But the problem is, when we describe them as that, it maligns Dick Turpin because Dick Turpin's word was stand and deliver, and not one single of one of those ministers have delivered anything for the Highlands when it comes to connections. A lot of noise has been made on the back benches of the SNP by one of their Highland MSPs, Fergus Ewing, a man who's been in government since 2007. He's a Highlander. He's been a government minister. He's been a cabinet secretary. For the last 14 years, he's been missing in action and is now only showing barrack room bravery, as I would describe it, having shown absolutely no battlefield bravery when he stood to lose his extra pay, pension and his ministerial car. Now I'm sorry he's not here today, but I do hope, no I won't, I think time is now to listen. So I'm sad he's not going to be here today, he's not here today, and I know he has good reasons for not being here today. But I do hope that at decision time his technology won't fail him as it seems to do when he has to make a hard decision. We desperately need to stop the accidents on the A9, and we need to connect the Highlands and this Government. Yes, I will give way just in a minute, and we need to stop the accidents and get the Highlands connected, which the Government has promised to do on both counts, I'll give way. Sorry. This will have to be brief, the member is in his last half minute. I can't do it around to forgive him way. He mentioned the people of the Highlands and Islands. I wonder if he agrees with me that they'd probably prefer for him to focus on the issues and not on personalities. Of course, I always like to focus on the issues, but the issues is that the personalities haven't dealt with the problem and they've had long enough to deal with it, and we're all sick and tired of it in the Highlands. Sixteen years this Government's had, 16 years of doing nothing, and I just say to you the simple words that most Highlanders would say, shame on you, get on with the job and give us the A9 that you promised us in 2007. I call Paul McLennan to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm glad to take part in this debate this afternoon. My own constituency has the main east coast road, the A1 passed through it. This was due old in 2000. Prior to that, there was a two-lane road, two-lane road with no crossing points. I remember the frustration of residents, commuters and businesses at the time. I understand the frustration. I also have constituents raised an issue about the A9 who travel on the road in a regular basis to visit family and in business issues. I've only got four minutes, but there are a few key points that I want to raise and set the context of the debate today. No, I've only got four minutes and I've just started in terms of that. I might take one later on, but let me make some progress. There's been over £430 million today that has meant so much has already been achieved, and we've mentioned and heard about the wider £3 billion investment. The other thing that's been mentioned as well was obviously on the NS airport, which was just opened last week, with an investment of £14 million—a railway station, with an investment of £14 million. The Scottish Government is clear that the remaining route to improving road safety will be in the full completion of the duelling between Perth and Inverness. In this current climate, protecting public finances is an essential part of a responsible Government. There might be a debate about that, but our public finances are under sustained economic pressure. Surgeon energy prices, raging inflation and the damage to labour supply caused by Brexit, alongside the quarantine trust disaster, has created the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget. Difficult decisions are required and resources will be targeted where they are most needed. We need best value for taxpayer. I think that we all agree on that. Protecting public finances is an essential part of a responsible Government. In December 2021, three builders were invited to participate in the procurement process. This time, we've obviously heard that there was one tender that came through. Due to economic conditions, and we've heard before the minister talked about it before, construction inflation is running closer to 20 per cent to 25 per cent, 20 per cent to 25 per cent more than it was last year. That resulted in only one tender submission. The estimated cost was around £115 million, which was significant but higher than expected. Ministers concluded, and you've heard the transport minister say that as well, that that didn't represent the best value at this particular time. The Scottish Government is very clear about its firm intent to retender for tomato and tomato money pace and urgency. We've heard just previously as well that the minister set out a revised timescale. Talking about this will be later on in the year in consultation with Transport Scotland. The original completion date for drilling, of course, was 2025. That was always an ambitious challenge, and that's proved to be the case. It's always reliant on the timeline positive outcome of a range of factors, such as completing public and stakeholder consultation, approval processes, market capacity, supply chain capacity and so on. The road safety—and I think that it's important just now until we move on towards the full completion—is that, before Christmas, the Scottish Government committed additional investment of £5 million to improve short-term road safety measures on A9. I'm very grateful. Can the member tell us why none of his Highlands and Islands S&P colleagues are here in the chamber today? Does he know if any of them are going to be speaking? Will they all be voting? I can't comment on others. I'm making a speech today. I can't comment on my colleagues. As well as the three safety schemes that are already scheduled for delivery and additional £600,000 of works and campaigns will be delivered by April this year, focusing on A9 between Perth and Inverness. I want to close in an exchange in the budget debate yesterday, which I think is really important. Fiscal flexibility discussions are on-going at the moment between Scottish and UK Governments. When that was raised yesterday, Liz Smith said that she didn't support additional borrowing powers per se, but that it would support for specific reasons. I want Scotland to be independent and have full borrowing powers like any other normal country, but specific additional borrowing powers, particularly around infrastructure investment such as A9, would allow projects to be delivered quicker. Fiscal flexibility is agreed by both Governments would demonstrate maturity. The member has 10 seconds, Liz Smith. He just clarified that that's not quite the interpretation of the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework can be set by both Governments. I would urge Liz Smith to raise the issue with Tony colleagues and Westminster. It's an issue that I will continue to raise here in the chamber and in the committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that I've lost count of the number of question statements and debates on the A9 over many years in this chamber, and Mr Simpson gave us a rather amusing potted ministerial history at the beginning of the debate. However, I respect the fact that the Scottish Government remains committed to seeing the A9 dualling project through to the end. However, the reality here is that there are challenges and pressures on priorities and budgets, and they are growing, and they won't be going away any time soon. If it's very brief, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Mr Ruskell, for taking away. The Scottish Government has said that they are committed to dualling the A9. Are the Scottish Greens fully committed to dualling the A9? I would simply say to Mr Bibby that he needs to read the Bute House agreement. I think that it's quite clear about the commitments that are there on the A9 and also the commitments that are in the A96 as well. The latest estimate has every single mile of the A9 dualling project costing between £19 million and £23 million just for construction, not including management of the project or even buying the land. It is an eye-watering amount of money, so the biggest challenge to dualling every single last inch of the A9 doesn't come from green arguments. It's the financial reality that this Government faces. Some Governments, most notably the Welsh Labour Government, Mr Bibby, are starting to make difficult choices. They're listening to their future generations commission and the infrastructure commission. They're abandoning vast road-building programmes, and they're investing in other transport priorities that benefit people and the climate. When I think of the transport challenges in the Highlands and Islands and the very real need for investment, I think of ferries and harbour infrastructure and fixed lengths. I think of the need to keep lifeline roads open such as arrest and be thankful. I think of the desperate need to dual the Highland mainline. The investment needed in rail freight to get timber lorries off the roads. I think of safety issues that we have on roads such as the A85, which can never ever be dualled. I wonder what a further £1,400 million would deliver for all those communities. For the A9, we need absolutely to see improvements. The status quo won't do, but safety improvements must come first. The recent tragic space of fatal accidents on the A9 has been for a range of reasons. While dualling may have helped to prevent some of them, we have also seen fatalities on recently-dualled sections of the road as well. Dualling the A9 was never primarily a road safety project, but if we want to maximise the number of lives saved and accidents avoided across the whole of Scotland's road network, including the A9, then we need to invest carefully in the right measures. Sections of the A9 dualling will still need to be completed, but investment shouldn't stop there. That's why I'm saddened to see Liam Kerr campaign against speed cameras on the A96, because they are a cost-effective way to save lives. Although I credit his colleague Finlay Carson, who is campaigning to see them introduced on the A75. I've met a number of constituents about A9 improvements, including the Burnham and Dunkel Junctions Action Group, and their calls for safety improvements are important and progress must be seen before the next surge in visitor numbers at the start of the new season. I warmly welcome the fact that our minister Jenny Gilruth has moved quickly and decisively on a package that will improve driver safety. I haven't got time to focus first on the Burnham to Dall guys section. The action group has also raised the need for the speed limit to reduce to 50mph between Burnham and Dunkel, better lighting at junctions, monitoring cameras and a roundabout at Dunkel as well. I urge the minister in closing to double down on the suggestions from my PERSHA constituents to continue investment in the A9, but to invest wisely based on where we are now and what the future looks like. As far back as 2007, the SNP had a manifesto commitment to scrap the Edinburgh trams and spend the money instead on the A9 jewel carriageway. Recent figures put the cost of the trams project at £776 million, double the original estimate. All three opposition parties teamed up together to defeat Government plans to scrap the trams. The trams were being stated and the A9 lost the cash. The Scottish Government has invested more than £430 million today on drilling the A9, and I am glad to hear again of the Government's commitment to complete the drilling programme between PERSHA and Inverness. It is good to hear the Government's commitment to drilling the A9 is absolute, despite the recent news. However, the current climate requires prudent choices to be made with regard to public finances. It is the duty of any responsible Government to protect public finances, and this decision obviously takes into consideration broader factors such as efficiency and effectiveness, as well as sustainable development, to continue with the process given that the circumstances would have been wrong. Seven of the eight remaining projects have completed the statutory process, which accounted for 92 per cent of the length to be drilled. The remaining section continues to be progressed by the Scottish Government with input from a cooperative process with the local community. The results of that preferred route option will be announced in spring. I understand that that work continues to obtain the outstanding statutory consent for the pass of Burnham to Tay crossing project and by completing the required land acquisition as soon as possible. The Scottish Government recently committed additional investment of £5 million to improve short-term road safety measures on A9. That will include enhanced road markings, illuminated road studs and improvements to highlight single carriageways and the transitions at drilled sections. Variable message signs will also be deployed along the route. Those works will be welcomed, as I am sure by the local community, as well as others travelling on the route. The on-going economic volatility cannot be ignored. Surgeoning energy prices—no, I have got no time in hand—are raging inflation, damage to labour supply and trade due to Brexit, along with the spectacular financial mismanagement of the UK Government, creates the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget. Those are facts that the Conservatives would rather forget. Difficult decisions are necessary and resources will be targeted where they are needed most, ensuring maximum value from every pound spent. The UK Government has deliberately chosen a form of Brexit that will make it harder and more expensive for firms to export goods and services to the EU and to employ EU nationals in their workforce. The Conservatives have made choices and they have consequences and they should own them. As part of the retendering process, Transport Scotland will engage with representatives of the construction industry, including the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, on how elements of its standards, terms and conditions for such projects may be modified to encourage more bidders to participate. If more bidders come forward, I am hopeful costs can come down and provide better value for the taxpayer. I know that I am running out of time, so I am going to conclude with a quote from David McLeach, the former Tory leader. The SNP policy is to concrete over the highlands, which represents a massive diversion of investment from Edinburgh and the south into the north of Scotland in the highlands. No one should be under any illusion as to that. I think that there is no doubt— Thank you, Ms Stevenson. We are now going to move to winding up speeches and I call on Roger Grant up to five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The stretch of the A9 ore debating is not only important to the communities from Perth and Inverness. It is important that importance goes beyond that. Indeed, as far as our islands, communities in Orkney, Lewis and Harris, they have been betrayed by this Government and yet they are still waiting for an apology. Last year, there were eight deaths on a 25-mile stretch near the slough in just three months. It must add to the grief of families involved that, had this promise been fulfilled, many of them would be alive today. The total deaths between Inverness and Perth in 2022 were 13. Many more have lost their lives on the A9 north of Inverness, and I concur with Beatrice Wishart, who highlighted the issues with the road. I agree that this section also needs attention, especially with the centralisation of maternity services. The dualling of the A9 was a manifesto commitment by the SNP back in 2007. Then, in December 2011, after the crash, the Scottish Minister confirmed the commitment to upgrade the A9 between Perth and Inverness to a full-dure carriageway by 2025. Neil Bibby mentioned how the Greens do not appear to share this priority. Ariane Burgess has stated publicly that safety improvements outlined by the minister should be the top priority and Mark Ruskell today doubled down on that. That totally overlooks the fact that dualling would provide maximum safety. Signs and paints are poor substitute for a dual carriageway, and I would ask whether the minister will give us the assurance that the Green partners of their coalition have not hampered progress. Mark Ruskell referred to the Bute House agreement, but he did not say that he would support that as a priority. Indeed, other SNP speakers seem to be echoing those same sentiments. Jamie Halcro Johnston and Edward Mountain asked where the other Highlands and Islands SNP MSPs were. They appear to have abandoned the minister. Instead, we have in the debate Stuart McMillan, representing Greenock and Inverclyde, Paul McClennan, representing East Lothian and Collette Stevenson, representing East Kilbride, and again showing little appetite to make this road a priority. Would the member agree with me that the lack of support from Highlands and Islands SNP MSPs will not be forgotten by their constituents whom they have let down? Our constituents are very angry about this broken promise, and they will not forget it easily. The transport minister blamed the war in Ukraine, Brexit and Covid for inflation because of all these events. However, the truth is that, had their intention ever been to have this work carried out by the 2025 goal, they would have already issued contracts. Land would have already been purchased and the signs would have already been signed off. Instead, we hear today that the minister is still waiting for options from Transport Scotland for the nine remaining stretches to be worked on. Neil Bibby talked about the construction industry source, which said that going at this speed—indeed, they are going slower than the speed that the expert referred to—would be 2050 before the completion of dualling. I do not believe that it will be that soon, sadly, at this speed, because no work has been carried out. If inflation is, as she says, then this work will go way beyond 2050. In fact, I will be lucky if it happens within my lifetime. You cannot put a value on a life, and we have talked about the lives that have been lost. However, every fatal accident inquiry costs £2 million, so that is £26 million last year. We also have the £5 million on signing and paying to improve road safety. All that costs to the public purse and all that money could have been invested in the A9. We hear about the risk—Gremsons talked about the risk to the contractor and the way that it is contracting is working to prohibit people to come forward. The minister says that she is modifying it, but all that should have been done long before that. If we are waiting for regulations to be modified, that builds in a delay as well. This is indeed a betrayal of the Highlands and their communities. We need an inquiry to see what has gone wrong in the recent and distant past. To shine a light on what progress can be made. We need the minute Scottish Government to adhere to a realistic timeframe, and we need a commitment from this Government that this work will be a priority. I have listened carefully to the contributions from all parties in the debate today. I know only too well the strength of feeling expressed on this topic from all sides of the chamber, including my own. It is important to start by reflecting that the A9 dualling programme does not exist in isolation. I hope that that was not the point that Rhoda Grant was trying to make. It is true that Covid-19, Brexit, recent inflationary pressures and the economic volatility that followed the UK Government's budget has had an impact on the A9 dualling project. Members need to accept that. If they do not accept it from me, maybe Conservative members will accept it from their own Government, because the UK Government has been impacted by these factors. The national audit office has reported delays to planned roads projects in England, costs increasing by more than £3 billion, with 39 road building projects seeing cost increases, and the national highway for England forecasting delays on 33 projects. In those circumstances, it is essential that the Government takes careful stock of the options for delivering the remaining dualling programme. I am happy to take an intervention from the member. I am glad that she has taken the intervention. I am grateful. Could she tell us when she was told by Transport Scotland that the project to duall the A9, the commitment to duall the A9 by 2025, was not going to happen? If she cannot recall, could she ensure that she advises Parliament or sends the letter or something? I cannot recall. I would rather than attempt to put words in my mouth. I was told in late December of last year, and I updated Parliament in relation to the tomato and tamoy tender on February 8. A decision was made on the tomato and tamoy tender on 3 February. I hope that the member will accept that that was to be silly enough. It is hugely important, given the long-term financial commitment that is required from the Government and the challenging position of public finances, that we look again at the tomato and tamoy tender. We have spoken at length about that today and, of course, only two weeks ago. I have committed to updating Parliament with a new timescale for completion once I have received advice on the options that I expect to have by autumn of this year. I have also committed to engaging with interested members on the progress of the A9 dualling programme and further details of plans for this engagement will be provided in the coming weeks. There are a number of points that were made during today's debate that I would like to address. I was going to address Mr Halcro Johnston's point, but I believe that I have already done so. Graham Simpson asked why I would like to make some progress on the points that were raised by members during the debate. I do not believe that Douglas Ross was here for it. Graham Simpson asked why steams could not be constructed as they were available. The main reason that we do not do that, much like AXS2, which is also being delivered in packages, is because of the disruption it would cause. I think that that is hugely important if we reflect on the length of the route itself, the disruption that it would cause to local communities. I would like to make some progress. As I undertook to do so only two weeks ago, I am going to come back to Parliament with that updated timescale, which I think is the outline of the Conservative motion today, which I accept. Neil Bibby raised a question, I think, in relation to Bute House. Of course, Bute House explicitly states that work on the trunk road network will continue that is under construction, so the A9 is not part of the Bute House agreement. I hope that answers his question. Beatrice Wishart touched on the importance of the route north of Inverness, which is often overlooked in the context of where we are today. It is worth saying that, since 2008, we have completed two major schemes, Helmsdale and the Buriedale Braise. We are also progressing some improvements in relation to the Monlochee junction. I visited the site in October of last year, and I think that it is hugely important that there will be real improvements for that local community in relation to road safety. We are also looking, as I mentioned, at the wider economic climate of the options to deliver the remaining elements of the programme, including, of course, as I mentioned, the inflationary pressures. I expect that the announcement on the preferred route option for the passive Burnham to Tay crossing section will be made in spring of this year. We will also complete the preparatory work in relation to the made orders for the three projects yet to reach that stage. I am not shying away from the challenge posed to Government in relation to dualling the A9. It can't be solved in an afternoon opposition debate, unfortunately, but nor could it be solved in my statement to Parliament two weeks ago. The approach that I will take, yes, is happy to give way to the member. I am very grateful. Having had time to reflect on the question that I posed right at the start of the debate, can the minister now tell us what impact she projects the A9 delay will have on the Scottish Government's road safety 2030 targets? I am sorry, I do not have the information that Mr Kerr is seeking in front of me. I am more than happy to write him with it. I am not necessarily sure that I understand the sentiment behind it, but the approach that I will take is to work with people. I do not think that Mr Simpson seemed to like that approach, but that is why I engaged with members last year on the short-term measures, I think, as we heard from Mr Ruskell, which are hugely important and extra £5 million from the Scottish Government to improve road safety on the A9. It is why I have engaged with and I will continue to engage with the A9 safety group to make sure that that investment is actually delivering tangible improvements on the ground where it is needed. It is why I have tasked Transport Scotland with an expedited turnaround on the renewed procurement to Martin Timoy, one that can be secured by the end of this year so that we can move forward. Presiding Officer, I know that it is imperative that we get the job done for the people of the Highlands who rely on the spine of Scotland for the local communities alongside the route and the businesses that depend on it. I commit to working with all parties in doing so as quickly and as efficiently as possible and I will return to Parliament in the autumn with that updated timescale for completion. Thank you. I call on Murdo Fraser to wind up the debate up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking all the members who contributed to this short debate this afternoon, but, like Rhoda Grant, I think it is striking that not a single SNP MSP representing either the Highlands and Islands or Perth and Kinross was prepared to come to the chamber to defend their Government's record on the A9. There is a stark statistic that should be in our minds as we debate these issues, and that is that in the course of last year, 2022, 13 people died on the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Of those, 12 died on single carriageway sections. Every one of those deaths is a horrible and avoidable tragedy for their families, for their friends and comes at substantial economic cost. It is sometimes said that there are no bad roads, just bad drivers, but the reality is that we know, and all the statistics tell us this, is that single carriageway roads are many times more dangerous and many times more likely to cause fatal and serious accidents than dual carriageways. That is because dual carriageways see physical separation between the traffic moving in different directions. In a single carriageway, it just takes a vehicle to drift across the centre and result in a horrible head-on crash, which, with both vehicles doing 70 miles an hour, almost certainly will lead to most serious, if not a fatal accident. That is why having a single carriageway is so important. We talked a bit about the Government's record and the political will. I would just say to the Government, let's look at the history of the A9. We had a conservative Government between 1979 and 1997. What does that conservative Government deliver for the A9? It delivered the dualling and its totality of the stretch between Stirling and Perth, more than 30 miles. It delivered north of Inverness the dualling between Kesswick and the Tore Roundabout. It delivered the construction of the Kesswick bridge and the Dornock bridge. It also delivered on the stretch between Perth and Inverness, 25 miles of dual-carriageway. In its totality in 18 years, that is more than 60 miles of dual-carriageway and two major Perth crossings. In contrast, the SNP Government, in power for nearly the same length of time, has delivered just 11 miles of dual-carriageway. I do not know if that is the malign influence of the Greens now in this Government. However, if one Government can deliver so much in 18 years with a political will, there is nothing to stop this SNP Government having done the same. I would like to hear once again from the minister and my colleague Jamie Halper Johnston to pick this up in an attempt to blame everyone else, to blame Brexit, to blame the UK Government, to blame Vladimir Putin for not making progress. I remind the minister that this commitment was made originally in 2007. There was ample time to make progress on A9 dualling many, many years ago as no point trying to find excuses now. What needs to be done now? I welcome the £5 million in short-term improvements. I thank the minister for her engagement around how that money might be spent, but we need to be realistic. That is a sticking plaster in terms of what is required, because the only thing that will save lives long-term is by getting that dual-carriageway constructed. I was at the Petitions Committee this morning, along with Fergus Ewing and along with Rhoda Grant supporting Laura Hansler of the A9 dual-action group on her petition, and I commend Laura and all her colleagues for all the work that they have done, getting thousands of people to sign that petition to support the dualling of the A9. We need to see a proper parliamentary inquiry into what has gone wrong on the A9. That needs to be an inquiry into the tendering process. Understanding why it was, whether it is a matter into my section, only attracted one bidder. Why was working with the Scottish Government so unattractive to contractors that only one company was prepared to come forward and bid? We need to understand that. Fergus Ewing is not here today and made some very good points in the chamber two weeks ago as to why he thinks that might be the case. I do not know if he is right, but we need to investigate that and understand what has gone wrong with the tendering process, but we also need an inquiry into a realistic timescale for those works to be completed, because it is essential that we do. That is going to come. I hope that a parliamentary inquiry may be that the net zero committee will consider that or perhaps the Public Petitions Committee instead. However, for now, we have a vote on our motion tonight calling for urgent action. I know that vote will be supported by all the opposition parties. We will be supporting the Labour amendment. We would have supported the Liberal Democrat amendment had it been selected for vote today. From the SNP, it is time for them to stand up for their constituents, as Neil Bibby and Jamie Halcro Johnston argued. Fergus Ewing, I know, has been vocal on this issue. He is not here today. I know that he has a medical appointment. Perhaps he can vote remotely. Perhaps if he was here, he would be voting with us. I will finish where I started. There were 12 deaths last year on the single carriageway sections of the A9 that were avoidable. We will see more deaths, I am afraid, this year and next year and every year after until that dual carriageway is completed. Those deaths will be the deaths of our constituents. They might be the deaths of our friends, of our families or perished the thought even one of us. I would say to SNP members, stand with us, ditch the Greens and put your country and your constituents before your party interests. Show some courage, support our motion and save lines.