 The final item of business this evening is a member's business debate on motion 6478 in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston. On road improvements and the dualling of the A9, the debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I encourage members wishing to participate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Mr Halcro Johnston to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank those colleagues who signed my motion in November, one that has been rather overtaken by the events that it predicted. Thank you to all those who took part in this debate highlighting concerns about the A9 and others' routes in my region and in their own areas. My motion recognised that work on the A9 was clearly not on schedule and it noted calls for the Scottish Government to provide an updated and achievable timetable to be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. That was prescient given that on 8 February Scotland's worst-kept secret was finally revealed. That the SNP's promise to duel the A9 in its entirety between Perth and Inverness by 2025 would not be achieved. It was a surprise to no one, not to those of us who, as politicians and as road users, have been campaigning for dueling for more than a decade. Not to the communities that live alongside the route and who rely on it as they go about their daily lives. Not to the businesses for which the A9 is a vital link from and to the Highlands and Islands. Certainly not to the Scottish Government who, even though they may have repeatedly given the impression otherwise, knew that this project was badly off track and years behind where it should be. Only weeks after that announcement, the Scottish Conservatives used our party business to bring ministers to this chamber to answer more questions on why this project has gone so badly wrong and why, when it was clear to all that the deadline was not going to be met, ministers kept pretending that all was fine. That debate was a chance for Parliament to show its anger that the date would be missed and for MSPs from across the Highlands and Islands and from all parties to stand up for their constituents and send a clear and unified message to the Scottish Government that our constituents were angry to. They wanted answers and that there should be no more excuses and no more delays. That did not happen because during the debate not one Highlands and Islands MSP from either the SMP or the Greens came along. When it came to voting every one of them, Barth Fogos Ewing, who I know had a valid reason to miss the debate, every one Barth Fogos Ewing followed their whip and voted down any criticism of the Scottish Government for the A9 debacle. It was shameful. I'm pleased to see Mr Ewing here today and I look forward to his contribution later and I know that there are other MSPs from the region attending today. Presiding Officer, in that Conservative debate on the 22nd, we finally learned when Scottish ministers had first been told that the 2025 target was not going to be met. Following an intervention, Jenny Gilruth told me that it was late December 2022. Then, after having appeared to have consulted with the Deputy First Minister, Ms Gilruth raised the point of order to put on record that it was actually on the 7th of December when ministers were first made aware. That clarity was welcome, although it did take another three months for the transport minister to inform Parliament of this. However, we still don't know when Transport Scotland finally made the call that the target date would be missed. In a written response I received conveniently just this afternoon, the minister would say, only late December. We still don't know when doubts were first raised within the Government and within Transport Scotland over whether that date could be delivered. We still don't know when contractors or consultants working on the project first raised concerns that the project might not be completed on time. We don't even know how many years the project is behind. This is why, in our motion in our debate, the Scottish Conservatives call for ministers to commit Transport Scotland to publishing a quarterly update setting out progress against published targets. Perhaps the Transport Minister will give that commitment today, but I would like to briefly return to that 7th of December date for when ministers were first told that dualling by 2025 was not achievable. Because on the 15th of December last year, eight days after Jenny Gilruth said ministers had been informed that dualling wouldn't be completed as promised, the Deputy First Minister, in questions during his budget statement to this Parliament, told me in direct response to my question on the A9 dualling and I quote, the Government's position on the completion of the dualling of the A9 remains intact. So if the Minister stands by that 7th of December date she has given, what does she think is more likely? That on a key manifesto commitment, one with serious financial implications as Mr Swinney prepared and presented his budget, and as an MSP whose constituency the A9 runs through, he had been kept out of the loop and wasn't aware the 2025 date had been shelved, or that the Deputy First Minister did know, and so may have misled this Parliament. Presiding Officer, as I spoke of in the last debate on the A9, there are many reasons the road needs to be dualled. They're economic, they're social, they're about connecting our communities and our regions, but we must never underestimate the safety benefits of dualling the route. As Inspector Greg Burns of Tayside's road policing unit said only last week, if we had a dual carriageway section all the way up, it would certainly reduce the likelihood of fatalities there. I drove down the route on Sunday and as two police cars with blue lights sped past me, it's hard to escape that thick dread that another family may be getting a knock on the door from a police officer. Too many lives have already been lost and every month of delay risks more. I'd like to close by taking this opportunity to thank those whose job it is to respond to incidents on the A9 and other roads, including local police, paramedics and firefighters. To thank all those who, like us on these benches and on benches across this chamber, will continue to fight for the dualling to be completed as soon as possible, and particularly the work of those in the dual A9 action group. I'm sure that we can all agree with one simple message for this Government. It's one that I've made before in this chamber. No more delays, no more excuses, get the A9 dualled. I welcome this debate. In Inverness last Friday night, the Inverness courier hosted a hustings for the three leadership candidates in the SNP contest. All three gave unequivocal commitments to dualling the A9, including prioritising the funding for it. That is welcome, but it's also essential, because I'm afraid to be candid, to be honest. The Scottish Government is in the last chance saloon here. We need to deliver, and any more failure will simply not be forgiven. It's hard to overstate the concern and, indeed, anger amongst my constituents and people in the highlands about this issue, particularly in the light that Mr Halcro Johnston has said about the tragic death, the loss of so many people, so many families whose lives have been devastated by it. That has really hardened the anger to scepticism that's growing and mounting. So, yes, we have made progress, and I commend the minister for the effort that she has put into it and the deeter predecessor who is sitting beside me here. Preparatory work has been done, two sections have been upgraded, design work has been done, although not for Dunkels, but the pledge that was made to dual the road by 225 just hasn't been kept. I think that in politics we have to accept the reality sometimes. I do think that an apology from the minister would pave the way for good progress, just accept that we didn't get it right, we got it wrong, but we will put it right, and that is what people want. The pledge minister to publish a timetable by autumn is just far, far too slow. I mean, I've been calling for a timetable for the past two years and it should have been published long ago, and I think that that does need to be speeded up considerably. There will shortly be an inquiry into the A9 by the Petitions Committee. This is thanks to Laura Hansler from King UC, and it's fitting that it's a citizen of Scotland affected by it in our daily life that has brought forward this petition and the Petitions Committee has sought to hold an inquiry, which I think is a great possible step forward. I praise Laura for that initiative. What should the inquiry do? What people want to see is progress and progress as quickly as possible, and there are two key elements required for that. First, the funding that must be put in place or at least earmarked and beyond the term of this Government. I think that there is a will across all the parties represented in this Parliament except one, the Green Party, who are not present at this debate unless there is somebody contributing remotely. All the other parties are supportive of that. The funding can be earmarked even if it cannot be formally allocated. That must happen. Second, the method of procurement of procuring the contracts by Transport Scotland must be changed and changed fundamentally. The present procurement strategy has failed, the tomato and mai tender is proof positive of that. I wonder if the minister is confident that a re-tender to be completed by the end of this year can be done in that time. Moreover, if it is, will it not risk resulting in the same thing? That is a serious risk. I think that we should be open and honest about that. I would be grateful if the minister could explain that. The kernel is this, and numerous industry sources have told me this. There will be no surprise to Transport Scotland leader official here this evening that the method of procurement passes all the risks to the contractor. That means that at least one major contractor has simply exited Scotland, and others have limited appetite to bid for roads work, because they have been stung in the past, quite frankly. I could give details, but now is perhaps not the time. How should it be done? A framework contract sharing the risk, as in England, removing the tender from the process, which takes about a year, costs £500,000 of procs for each company to put in a bid. If four companies put in a bid, they all do the same work, spending £500,000. What is the point of that? It also wastes a year. Contracts need to be done concurrently together. If there is a risk about disruption, then why not do it at the same time as the A9, the first stretch of the A96? That would spread, if you like, the disruption across two different roads. There is a practical way that has much to commend it. I understand that there is acceptance among Transport Scotland that this needs to be done. I will draw my remarks to close. In conclusion, I urge the minister that, in my view, and I have been around for quite a while now, the Highlands deserve more, they deserve better. We simply cannot let them down again. We must deliver. We must, as a Government, find the funding. We must deliver the procurement changes, which, in my view, are necessary to enable the swiftest possible completion of dualling of the A9. Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. I now call Edward Mountain to be followed by Donald Cameron in around four minutes. I welcome Fergus Ewing being on the back benches and giving speeches like that about things that are important in the constituency than the regions that we represent. The only problem is that now he speaks so eloquently where he did not speak before. He steals all the thunder of those people that follow him, but it would be fair to say that most people in the Highlands have, on their walls or in their brains, the very fact of what was said in the 2007 manifesto, which was that the Government would publish a 10-year plan to transform Scottish road safety. A case put forward by organisations such as the AA motoring trust proves that a range of measures, including the dualling of key roads such as the A9, would contribute to fewer lives lost. Imagine if that had been done in 2007 or the years after. Imagine the lives that would have been saved. Imagine the Highlanders and those people using that road who would not be attending funerals of friends and colleagues that have been killed on that road. It is a truly startling fact and it is something that we should bear in mind constantly when we talk about this project. This project has been shovel-ready for years, but it has been abandoned by this Government, kicked into the long-gast. Sixteen years on, since that manifesto promise, eleven years after the policy commitment, only 11 miles have been due between Enverness and Perth. That means that 11 of 80 miles upgraded has been completed. Two sections out of 11. The King Craig to Dalrady bit that was done was delivered late. I have to say that it was opened and those of us who travelled that road constantly will remember that it was then promptly closed, open to meet a deadline, closed to rectify the defects and then reopened again later. We need to be better than that. Where I do agree with Mr Ewing is the fact that all of the Ministers, or ex-Ministers standing to be First Minister, have had a finger in this pie. They promised. Hamzi Yusef was the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Roads between 2016 and 2018. Kate Forbes had her fingers on the pulse when it came to the finances but couldn't deliver it. Ashregan didn't, but when they stood up, as Mr Ewing suggested, at the Enverness career hustings, said that, in my first 100 days, I will set out a new time frame and get things working. Hamzi Yusef said that, if I am First Minister, the first thing I will do is sit down with my finance secretary who I will appoint and say that this is a priority and the budget must reflect that. Kate Forbes insisted that she has been pushing for faster progress and that she would continue to push that. The problem is that they are all making those promises at the hustings, but they have all been in a position to deliver it. I think that is something that we should not forget. Before I come to my closing, I just want to echo something that Mr Ewing has said about how we contract out this. I have watched both the Aberdeen Parifol Road and the A9 ddwylings. The Government like the idea of joint ventures. Joint ventures might be good. It might mean that there is one person in charge, but if that one person goes bankrupt, then you have problems. If that one person is not prepared to pass on the money to all the subbies that are involved in the project, then you have a problem. The problem is very simply that no one will want to tender for any of the work that the Government has. That complicates the problem. I hope in the next 10 days that those people who stood up at the hustings in Inverness and promised to deliver this get on and deliver it. They have not delivered it before and they need to get on and deliver it now. Highlanders have not only run out of patience, they are running out of time and some people are losing their lives because of the delay. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call Donald Cameron to be followed by Roder Grant around four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro, Johnson, on securing this debate, and associate myself with his remarks and those of Edward Mountain and Fergus Ewing. All have given passionate pleas to the Scottish Government not to abandon these projects and ensure that the next First Minister makes them a top priority. The A9 is my road home. I have driven it on countless occasions. It is clear to me and every other road user that the status quo is completely unacceptable. Even more so, the sheer number of deaths as a result of accidents on the A9 is appalling and tragic in equal measure. Last November, I recounted to Parliament that I attended the funeral of a friend that month, a friend to Fergus Ewing as well, who very sadly died as a result of a road traffic accident on the A9. Too many families have experienced tragedy on this road. Too many lives have been lost and I join others in imploring the Scottish Government to take urgent action. In my short time, I want to turn to an equally important stretch of road in the Highlands and Islands, which serves tens of thousands of people but remains one of the most unreliable routes in Scotland. Members will not be surprised to learn that that is the A83. Rest and be thankful. I do not apologise for raising it again here. I have been raising it time and time again in this Parliament and will keep doing so until a long-term permanent solution is achieved. Can I reiterate my admiration for the work of John Gerr and the other members of the A83? Rest and be thankful campaign group who have successfully kept this issue alive. We have seen a lot of talk about this issue, but regrettably very little material action from the Scottish Government. It has been two and a half years since Chancellor of Scotland announced the 11 possible replacement routes. It has been two years since one of those options was identified as a preferred option, and since then, scarcely anything has happened at all. We have seen some short-term fixes but nothing of substance, which has been incredibly frustrating, and this is a pattern that is repeated across Scotland by this Government. In Argyll, that is frustrating for local businesses who rely on this route to connect to the central belt. It is frustrating for people who use the road to travel to hospital appointments in Glasgow. It is frustrating for families who use the road to visit loved ones. I understand the transport minister's due to make an announcement in the spring, and I hope that she may be able to provide much-needed clarity on this. Finally, we talk about the main roads, the A9, the A83 and the trunk roads, but let's not forget smaller, quieter local roads that may also have issues and challenge it. Can I address one in the Sandbank area in Cowell? Scenic Sandbank has been campaigning to introduce several road safety measures, including a new 20-mile-an-hour speed limit at the A815 at McKinley's Quay just north of Dunin. That follows several tragic road traffic accidents in the area, and I have been working with local groups at Scenic Sandbank alongside others to find a solution that meets the needs of the local community there. I appreciate that that particular route is a local authority matter, but could I ask the minister if she could outline any steps that the Scottish Government can take to assist both our Garland Bute Council and Scenic Sandbank to come to a resolution? In conclusion, with the new First Minister due to be appointed next week, it is vital that a reset takes place when it comes to this Government's approach to our transport infrastructure and that road improvements are prioritised by this SNP Government. Whether that be the A9, the A96, the A83 and others, our constituents expect this Parliament to take vital action now, and I hope that the minister will make that case vigorously to the next First Minister. I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for bringing this debate to the Parliament. When we last debated the A9 in the chamber, a petition had been lodged with the Parliament, and I hope that that will help to place a focus on the A9 and to get some clarity on progress and timescales. I hope that the committee will ensure that there is a full inquiry into what has happened, what action needs to be taken to ensure that this road is dualled as soon as possible. Even the SNP-led Highland Council have agreed a motion calling for immediate publication of a new dualling timetable for the A9, and they also seek a public inquiry into the long delay now faced. As others said, all candidates in the SNP leadership contest agreed that the A9 dualling is a failure of government and must become a priority. Edward Mountain mentioned Ash Reagan's commitment to publish an updated timetable for both the work on the A9 and the A96 in the first 100 days, should she win the leadership election. I hope that the other candidates will match her ambition, because waiting until the autumn to do this is simply too long. That said, we shouldn't have to wait for a new leader to point the way ahead. This was a manifesto promise back in 2007, all over 25 years ago. A promise that has been broken and this SNP government should be making every effort right now to make good that promise. They seek to blame the pandemic, inflation, the war in Ukraine, all things that would have not impacted on this project had it been at the right stage of development at the time. It is clear that they never sought to meet their 2025 timescale. Of the 11 stretches of road that need to be dualled, only two have been completed. This project went wrong long before the pandemic, but the Scottish Government hid the truth from us. The Scottish Government needs to get this project back on track, come clean about what went wrong and be truthful with my constituents. They have committed £5 million for short-term improvements to the A9 to improve safety. Although that is welcome, it is no substitute for dualling. Last year, there were eight deaths on a 25-mile stretch near the slot in just three months. Total deaths between Perth and Inverness in 2022 were 13. The average cost of fatal accident investigation is £2 million. That is £26 million last year, just on the A9 south. That puts the £5 million of short-term improvements into proportion. Sadly, you cannot account for the heartache of families who have lost loved ones on that road. The A9 does not stop at Inverness. The road north is also in a woeful condition for a trunk road. Despite that, the Scottish Government continues to centralise services, especially health and maternity services, to Inverness. That journey is always hazardous and worse when under stress due to illness or child birth. The road is also treacherous in bad weather and can block quite often with snow. Only eight women gave birth in Caithness last year, compared with the 202 women from Caithness who gave birth in Inverness. Much of the A9 runs through Highland Council areas. That is an area where there are 178 road projects needing attention, but the council does not have the money and can only look to fixing 13 of them with their current budget. It is little wonder that people are frustrated with the A96, the A83 and the A82. The list goes on. Add to that the promise of short and rail journeys from Inverness to the central belt that have not materialised. This Government has high on promises but low on delivery. I now call Finlay Carson to be followed by Emma Roddick for around four minutes. I thank my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston for not securing his member's debate. I absolutely back the calls for drilling as soon as possible, but my contribution focuses on what can and should be done between now and when that happens. That debate reminds us if we needed any reminders that road safety remains of paramount importance to all of us. Everyone has the right to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. We are fortunate in Scotland that, generally, that is the case and the majority of us do not even give road safety a second thought when we leave our homes. Sadly, however, there are some who live in fear and anxiety as soon as they step out of their doors, but that does not have to be the case. The A9 has a horrific record in terms of accidents and I believe that there has been more than 74 fatalities in just the last decade. There has been a drop in fatalities in the A9. That has been linked to the introduction of average speed cameras from Dunblane to Inverness at the end of 2014. The evidence from the pilot study on the A9 when speed limits were raised for HDV drivers showed that it was of great benefit with a 10 per cent drop in the number of accidents. Less driver frustration and HDV drivers adhering to the... I certainly will. Edward Mayne. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the confusions that people driving up the A9 is still seeing trial speed limits marked up for lorries at 50mph an hour. Would it be better not to sign them properly as no longer trials because they have been there for so long so that cars don't feel that they have to stick at the 50mph an hour limit, causing further problems? Absolutely. We absolutely need some reassurance that the pilots are going to continue—not pilots, they are going to be turned into policy and that is what I am moving on to. We need that type of intervention right across the country. As a matter of urgency, on routes similar to the A9 like the A82, the A77 and the A75, the minister could tell us why such a successful pilot, which has significantly reduced accidents, has not been rolled out permanently. I live right next to a road once called Scotland's killer road for almost all my life. At the A75 we have sadly witnessed 2,500 serious collisions and 222 fatalities since 1979. However, let us look at the impact of those roads more generally and look at the impact of quality of life and those living by the routes of which I am one. Crockett Ford and Springhome in my constituency are two small communities that have the gross misfortune of sitting on the A75 where every hour of every day residents have to put up with HEVs, hurtling past their doors and many occasions ignoring the 30mph speed limit. Last year, I have already mentioned two lorries collided in Crockett Ford, resulting in one of them turning over and hitting three-part cars. Murrachisley, the lorries stopped just centimetres before hitting a house. A public meeting in the village residents voiced their fears and demanded road safety cameras being installed as a matter of urgency and the hope of slowing down road drivers who speed through the communities. I later received only this afternoon from Stuart Leggett to the interim director of roads relating to Scottish safety camera programme and the road safety framework 2030. It says that it is committed to making Scotland's roads and travel safer for everyone with the vision of Scotland to have the best road performance by 2030, alongside the ambitious long-term goal where no one is seriously injured or killed on our roads by 2050. I think that one of the better interventions that we could see there in the A9 and other roads such as the A75. The strategic partnership board, which oversees the delivery of the scheme, also gives consideration to changes that are required to the guidance to ensure safety cameras. The resources are maximised to reduce casualties and the potentials for casualties. Why should deployment only be considered for areas with high collision and speeding profiles? Why can't average speed cameras be considered where communities are adversely affected, where other methods of speed detection are simply inadequate or ineffective, or where the police do not have the resources? Those cameras could play a huge part in protecting the health and wellbeing of roadside communities. We would ask the minister to consider changes to the rules and guidance so that cameras could not just put in place to prevent serious collisions but also to prevent the on-going, unrecorded impact on rural communities. Given that it may be the minister's last appearance on her current role, I wonder whether Jenny Gilruth will join me in recognising the excellent work that has been done between the Scottish and the UK Governments regarding the A75. Would you commit to providing an update on when we can expect to see a completed business case for the route that should lead to both our Governments investing in a route of strategic importance, not only to Scotland but the whole of the UK? However, the overriding message today is for this Government to keep its promises and commitments and start delivering a road infrastructure that is fit for the future. Due to the number of people who want to speak in the debate, I am minded to take a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate for up to half an hour. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to move such a motion. The question is that the debate will be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Yes, with enthusiasm, we are all agreed. I am with that. I call Emma Roddick to be followed by Liam Kerr around four minutes. I am just going to start with a reflection on the debate so far because I was also at the Inverness courier hustings on Friday. What struck me and I think a lot of the people watching was how great it was to have politicians in a national leadership contest talking about issues that we deal with every day and that matter to the people of the Highlands. I think that the Highland news and media team will probably be quite chuffed that that impact has now made its way into the chamber here. It won't be a surprise or it certainly shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I do feel let down by the delay to the dualling of the A9. I don't have anything to add to this debate that I haven't said before, but I realise that folk are listening who might not have heard me, so I will repeat and expand upon what I said in the chamber when the minister made her statement last month. It is often very difficult for Highlanders and Islanders to feel that Government here cares about us. That's a fact, and I don't mind telling you that I quite often feel left out as well. My committee colleagues will tell you that I will constantly put my hand up and say, hey, maybe we need a rural or island voice in the room for this debate. There's a lot of work to be done to convince my constituents that folk in Edinburgh, whether they're from Edinburgh or just come here three days a week, care about us, care about what matters to us, care about fulfilling promises made to us and care as much about making my region better as they do the central belt. I really mean it when I say that it will be very difficult for Highlanders to believe that the Scottish Government is committed to the A9 and to them in the face of another delay, and that is a cold hard fact that this Government and whatever Government we have in a week's time will have to address. I've paid full attention to the Scottish Government's explanations and rebuttals on this issue, and of course I understand the need to be sensible with taxpayers' money. I think that most people will understand that, but we can't just blame a lack of bids and move on. We need to make sure that bids are possible, welcome, supported, because if only one contractor is willing to do this and is asking for a lot more money than we expected, there are deeper problems at work. What we need to see now from the Government is urgency on getting us back on track and clarity on how long it will take, because I don't want to come back here in six months and ask why the rerunning of the bidding process has not resulted in movement, and I want my constituents to have the confidence that they know what is going to happen from here on. I also welcomed the investment that the Scottish Government mentioned in a new railway station at Dahl Cross, and I went there myself on the first train along with the minister, and it was a cracking day, but it shouldn't be one or the other. It wasn't the one or the other for Edinburgh or Glasgow or dozens of other places that have managed to obtain significant rail improvements and significant road improvements, and we wouldn't be talking about one or the other if the A9 south had been dualled 15 years ago, so previous Governments have to take some responsibility for this, too. It could have should have been done a long time ago, and I should be in this building talking about getting a move on with doubling the Highland mainline to move freight and traffic off the already-dualled A9. It's been a huge trochol up to this point, and I do not want to see it dragged on any further. The safety measures that the Transport Minister has outlined will make a huge difference, and I'm glad to see that that is happening, because there are things we can do in the meantime to make the road safer. I'm willing, as always, to discuss reasonably how we can move on, and I look forward to the meeting that the minister has committed to convening once the moid to matten is retendered. I appreciate the Scottish Governments, and I quote here, Resolute commitment to finishing the dualling between Perth and Inverness, but I remind the minister collegially, because I know that she wants this done, too, that we're going to need a bit more than words for folk to believe it. I rise to make a short contribution to the debate around safety on the A9 more generally, in anticipation of the minister waxing lyrical about measures being taken on RA roads in lieu of dualling to improve safety. Firstly, I was contacted recently by a member of the public concerned about the platform at Dunkeld and Burnham station. He had discovered on trying to get off the train that the gap between the carriage and the platform is over two feet, and he drew this dangerous gap to the attention of ScotRail and was referred to the Office of Rail and Road, who acknowledged the risk. They went on that interim safety measures would be put in place pending major improvement work to eliminate large stepping distances. However, they went on to say that such substantive work was entirely contingent upon and could not be undertaken until the dualling of the adjacent A9 trunk road, a project that they set out will require significant changes to the railway and the station, is completed. It would appear that not only is this Government's abject failure to dual this road compromising the safety of drivers, but it is compromising the safety of rail passengers as well and will continue to paralyse the railway's ability to sort out its own safety whilst there is this dither and delay. Now, my second point goes towards any attempt to say that other safety measures are being looked at, which mitigate the urgency and necessity of the A9's dualling, and here I need to acknowledge the efforts of Tarvis community councillor, Finn Carson's remarks earlier. Members will know that the A9, as with the A96 and the like, sees a significant percentage of its use by HGVs. So safe overtaking opportunities on predominantly single carriageway roads such as those are rare. Now, in Scotland, goods vehicles, over seven and a half tonne maximum laden weight, are restricted to 40 miles per hour. In England and Wales that is 50 miles per hour. Now another MSP wrote to this transport minister in June 2022 asking for this to be looked at, and in her response, the transport minister confirmed that there is no intention to change this slower for Scotland anomaly. However, it turns out that in 2018 the Scottish Government did a study on the potential impacts of increasing speed limits for HGVs in Scotland, and this concluded that there were safety benefits and environmental impacts to increasing the speed limits for HGVs. A further Transport Scotland trial in June 2018 specifically examining the impact of allowing HGVs to go at 50 miles per hour on the path to Inverness A9 showed, and here it is important that I quote the transport minister, positive road safety benefits. In short, this Government did studies five years ago which showed that a mere stroke of a minister's pen to increase a speed limit for HGVs by 10 miles an hour gives positive road safety benefits on the A9, yet have they increased those limits to deliver those safety benefits in the five years since? No, Presiding Officer, they have not. If in closing we hear from the minister any attempt to exonerate this Government for the appalling consequences of its inaction on dualling the A9 by saying that more must be done, the people of Scotland will know that it could have been, but it was not. I congratulate Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing this debate. I have spoken recently in the chamber on the A9 issue several times, so I am going to make a very brief contribution and make two quite significant points. A number of members, Rhoda Grant, Finlay Carson and Liam Kerr, talked about road safety improvements in the short term. I very much welcome the work that the minister has been leading in relation to short term improvements on the A9 and in relation to the engagement that she has had with colleagues from across the chamber on that. It is important to understand that the short term improvements should not be seen as a substitute for progressing the dualling project. Fergus Ewing earlier mentioned his concern about the Green Party's approach to the issue. There is nobody from the Green Party in this debate, and I think that some of us would have been concerned about their involvement in the Scottish Government being a factor in the delay in the A9 being progressed, but who knows, depending on who the First Minister becomes next week, that issue may no longer be there to concern us. However, I have heard Green Party representatives say that there is an alternative to A9 dualling, and that is to see, for example, lowered speed limits on the A9. To me, that is entirely the wrong approach, because the A9 dualling project is about road safety, but it is also about better connectivity. It is essential, as part of that better connectivity, that we look safely to reduce journey times. Part of the dualling project is about improving connectivity for residents in Perthshire and across the Highlands. If we are serious about growing the economy, we have to make sure that we are providing safe, secure and fast infrastructure, not something that the Green Party supports, given that it does not support economic growth in any form. I have heard it suggested by Green Party representatives that we could reduce some of the issues on the A9 by lowering the speed limits to 50 mph. That does not even answer the road safety question, because, as we know, the classic serious accident or fatality on the A9 is that the head-on crash on a single carriageway, two cars travelling at 50 mph in a head-on crash, is equivalent to driving into a wall at 100 mph, and the chances are that it would not survive such a crash or, at the very least, come out very seriously injured. That is not the answer, and the short-term improvements, while welcome, are not a substitute for delivering the A9 dualling project. After all, that was what was promised. The second and final point that I will make is in relation to what we have already heard about the death toll on the A9. In the course of 2022, we saw 13 deaths on the stretch between Perth and Inverness, and 12 of those deaths were on single carriageway sections. I have no doubt that we would have seen a substantial lowering of that tragic death toll had we seen dual carriageways in place instead of single carriageways. Donald Cameron referred to the funeral that he had attended of a friend who died on the A9. There have been too many such funerals, and there will continue to be too many such funerals until this project is delivered. I hope that whoever becomes First Minister next week will deliver on their pledges, and we will see real action to complete this vital road project. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I now call on Jenny Gilruth to respond to the debate, Minister, for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by congratulating Jamie Halcro Johnston on securing this afternoon the important debate on the A9. As the member alluded to, I provided a statement to Parliament on 9 February on the A9, and I responded to a conservative debate just over a month ago. Today has been an important debate. I have listened carefully to all the contributions from all parties, including my own, and I very much acknowledged the strength of feeling today, as I have done previously in all parts of the chamber, particularly in my own party, on the recent number of incidents and fatalities on the road, which are unacceptable. Fergus Ewing asked me to apologise at the start of the debate. I have previously apologised in the chamber, and I will do so again today unreservedly, because one life lost on Scotland's roads is one too many. I recognise the devastating increase in fatalities that we have seen in the latter half of 2022. We need to now move on, and we need to move on at pace. I think that that was one of the points that Ms Roddick alluded to in her contribution. One of the worst things I think about being transport minister, Presiding Officer, is that every time a life is lost on Scotland's roads, I get sent an email. When I was appointed last January, I was really struck by the numbers of emails that I was sent at the course of the beginning of last year. There are challenges currently on the trunk road network, not just on the A9, but right across the trunk road network in relation to road safety. I think that we all need to be mindful of that, about behaviour change, about coming out of the pandemic, about how drivers are behaving, but also about how Government can help to improve road safety. Murdo Fraser made a number of points. Murdo has contributed on a number of times in relation to the A9 in my time post, but I know that he has taken a keen interest in this matter over the course of a number of years, noting his constituency interests. He is absolutely right that the additional £5 million of investment from this Government are not in any way a substitute for full dueling, so I do want to put that on the record today. There are a number of points raised by members today, Presiding Officer. I am going to try to cover all of those in turn. First of all, in relation to road safety, Finlay Carson spoke about the challenges in relation to the A75. Of course, we will be meeting next week. I am also due to meet with UK Government counterpart next week on this matter, and it is important that we move forward at pace. I attended this morning the Road Safety Scotland event, which was attended by Police Scotland. Members may be aware that part of the additional funding that is supporting some of the short-term measures in the A9 is looking at campaigns and how we can improve driver behaviour. For example, we had a driver fatigue road safety campaign, which ended on 13 February. I am sure that members might have seen that, and today we launched our drive on the left marketing campaign. I cannot, as Minister, go into the specifics of some of the fatalities that have occurred on the route, but I might encourage members to engage with local police on some of those matters, particularly those of constituency interests, because it may help, I think, in some of the understanding relating to the causation factors behind some of the incidents that have happened on the road in recent months. Some of that work has been taken forward through really strong engagement work with constituency and regional MSPs. I was happy to chair a session that Mr Fraser alluded to towards the end of last year. I will be, if I am still in this position in the coming weeks, happy to continue that engagement work, because I think that it is really vitally important that we get this right. Mr Halcro Johnston started his contribution by talking about dates, and I do want to come back to that point, because this was an issue that we discussed in the debate a month ago. I corrected the record, because I think that I had said late 2022, but it was, of course, the 7 December that I was told for the first time that that date was not achievable. Again, I reiterate that today. However, I think that the tomato into my tender had not yet completed at that stage, and it was important that I could update Parliament on its totality, which is why I did so on 8 February. I think that that is about two months, but Mr Halcro Johnston may think that that is inaccurate. Some of the challenge there, and I recognise that it would have been preferable had those dates been closer together, was in relation to the Christmas break period, but it was also in relation to some of the governance around the tender. I have spoken to Transport Scotland about this at length, and I am more than happy to ask officials to speak to members about that, too. Mr Ewing touched on funding. It is important to underline that the Government has already invested significant funding in the A9. Clearly, we are going to have to invest more. We have rehearsed some of the challenges in recent times in relation to the pressures on the Scottish Government budget, but we will need to prioritise that capital investment for the completion of the dualling programme to be more than happy to. I thank the Minister for Giving Way. One of the ways that the Government can ensure the prioritising of funding and ensure that everyone understands the approach to getting this job done quickly is by issuing compulsory purchase orders now along the whole section of the route, because they have a limited timescale, and it would focus everyone's mind to get the job done if they start to that timescale, Presiding Officer. Minister, I will give you the time back. For his intervention, I am not necessarily sure that I am able to do that because the statutory process is but required to complete, but I am more than happy to check that matter with Transport Scotland officials and write to the member in more detail. It sounds like a reasonable proposition, I have to say, as Transport Minister. Sometimes these things look easier than they are in relation to the statutory processes around building consents for new roads. I want to touch on the issue of procurement, because it was raised during my statements of Parliament in the previous debate and by many members today. Members across the chamber accept and recognise that it is pretty unusual for any contract to only attract one bid. In this case, our design and build contracts have been used pretty successfully for over 20 years, but it is fair to say that we have seen a decline in a number of tenders and we know that that is due to risk transfer. I think that Mr Ewing alluded to that very point, and that is set out in the contract. As a result, we are reassessing the design and build contract. We have to achieve the right balance to attract more tenders, to attract more competition, to make sure that we get a deal that works better for taxpayers, more than happy to do so. Will the reconsideration of the sharing of risk be applicable to the current or intended retender process of the tomato and tamoy? I am concerned that the process could lead simply to the same result of perhaps one offer, which is not acceptable. It will be applicable to the re-tendering, as the member has alluded to. I am more than happy to again speak to Transport Scotland regarding that point, but I know that, given the number of meetings that I have held with Transport Scotland on this point over the past few weeks, that they are working directly with industry to ensure that we attract far more bids this time in relation to the tender itself. Donald Cameron raised the rest and be thankful, of course, for the matter that we have discussed at length. I chaired the last task force in Argyll at the start of this year. Of course, as the member has alluded to, we will be announcing the preferred route for the long-term option this spring. I cannot give him a further update to that point today, but I want to put it on the record. He also raised a specific query in relation to a local road in Argyll. I will ask the officials in Transport Scotland to speak to Argyll and Bute Council in relation to that matter. Liam Kerr raised a challenge that I was unaware of in relation to improvements at Dunkeld train station. I have not seen the advice from the Office of Rail and Road, but the member may or may not be aware that I am recused from the section at Dunkeld in relation to the A9. However, I will ask the cabinet secretary to raise that matter directly with the ORR and with Transport Scotland should that need be. The matter of the timetable today in relation to the completion of the dualling programme was raised repeatedly by members today. As members will recall, I have committed to update the Parliament on that new timetable to completion when I receive advice on the options to complete the programme, which is expected in autumn of this year. Mr Ewing tested that timescale, and I am happy to be tested on it and to again request with Transport Scotland that we can expedite that process. I have already done so, but I am more than happy to continue to see if we can truncate that process and bring that advice forward to Parliament sooner than autumn. I also announced the Government's intention, as I have mentioned, to urgently commend a new procurement for the tomatoes and tumois section, and I am really pleased to report that the preparations for that stage of procurement are progressing well, with the target date for awarding a new contract before the end of 2023. As I mentioned, I thank my response to Mr Ewing, part of that process involves Transport Scotland officials engaging with the market on the terms and conditions of those contracts, and I welcome very much so the positive response from the market to that engagement. Officials are continuing to work on the outstanding statutory consents, which remain in relation to the passive burn-in-to-take crossing project. That is the only one that has not yet to receive the statutory processes, and I think that that is worth putting on the record. I do not shy away from the challenge in relation to the completion of the dualling of the A9. Investing in our roads will always be important, and we have to get that right as a Government. I have apologised and I recognise the challenge here absolutely as Transport Minister. I take it very, very seriously. We need to now move forward at pace. We do that by outlining to Parliament an updated timescale, and I look forward to, hopefully, being able to bring that back to Parliament later this year and also to giving Parliament an update in relation to the tomato and tamoy tender. Thank you very much Minister. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.