 a'r rhifwg. Mae'n gwybod i'r ffordd o'r hystodol yma yn y gwyter. Yn y gallu'r ffordd, rydyn ni'n gweld rym ni'n gweld ar y rôl. Mae SNP yn ymgyrch i'r pryd. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r ffordd o'r A9, bethau Perthau i Nfynes, yn 2025. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r ffordd 11 oed, Ychydig yn fyddwyr eich fyddechrau ynglynhau o'u lliwyr yma, os oedd yn fwy ychydig o'r gwleidiau 12 yn ymwyaf, feddillar ysgol i'r rhai nhw mewn 12, ac yn ddwybod yn sgolwyd. Wedi gyrddol arsig, oedd 64 oes Gŵr George Norris am oed yn ddwyfio'r Seماx a'r cyfnod o'r cyfliddau ar gyfer ymateb gyda'r cyllideig i gynnwys ac yw'r oedd gwneud yn cyrnyness ar gyfer chi. a'r ystyried o'r ysgolwyr yn y gweithio i'r llwy, yn y bernam, y llwy o Dunkeld. Rwyf yw'r ddweud o'r llwy o'r A9 yn y September. Rwyf yw'r llwy o'r Sloct, ac yn y llwy o'r Ddunkeld, ac yn y ffatalau, yn y bryd yng Nghymru, yn y 30 ymgyrch. Mae'r llwy o'r A9 yn y Llywodraeth, yn y Llywodraeth, yn y Llywodraeth, ond y A9 wedi gwneud Newton Maw o'r 10 wrth Gwrs. Yn joli, 68-ynghylch, David McPherson diodd yn y cyfnod o'r Slock Summit yng Nghyrch Llywodraeth Cymru, ac yw'r weith Elsa 64 ac yw'r yw'r yw'r yw'r gransun sy'n gweithio yn y hosbwytyl yn gweithio. 333 oedd yn gweithio ond y A9 wedi'i gweithio yng Nghyrch than in Venice since 1979. This is why we desperately need to fully dual that road. Accidents will continue to happen if we do, and there are different reasons for all of them, but there will be far fewer of them. We can literally save lives by investing in these roads. Now, what about the A96? Thankfully, the death toll on the A96 this year has not been as bad as on the A9. There's been one fatality, though. That was in January when 78-year-old John Channon of Dice died following a crash near Old Aen. The campaign to dual the A96 has been going on for 30 years. As far back as 1989, the press and journal was running a campaign called, End the Carnage, Spend the Cash. At that point, it was the UK Government that was responsible. They didn't end the carnage and they didn't spend the cash, nor, since devolution, has anything really changed. In 2011, the SNP committed to completing dueling the road between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. Of course, that was just before they did their deal with the Greens, which put a halt to things while we wait for a, quote, transparent, evidence-based review of the environmental impacts of the project. Last year, Transport Scotland was claiming that study would be completed by the end of this year, and the Minister's amendment makes the same claim today. Well, I can only hope that Transport Scotland hasn't been listening too much to the words of Green MSP Maggie Chapman last year when she predicted the review would find that it is, quote, actually isn't viable to dual the whole way. The problem that we have here is that the SNP has been ensnared by the Greens. It's almost as though Jenny Gilruth has to ask permission from Maggie Chapman to do anything. I mean, you can imagine the conversation, you know. Please Maggie, can I dual the roads? No Minister, no, don't you remember? It's not viable. We really are in a bad place if we're to base our roads improvement programme on the views of Maggie Chapman. Of course, investing in these roads is not just about road safety, making transport easier, boosts local and, because of their strategic importance, the national economy. We wouldn't expect the anti-growth Greens to understand this, but I would have thought the wiser heads in the SNP might. Deputy Presiding Officer, it would be remiss of me not to mention other roads in dire need of improvement in Scotland, such as the A75 and the A77. Between them, there have been nine fatal accidents between 2018 and last year, a shocking toll of death. Today, I met members of the A77 action group— The member is bringing in some more to close. We'll have to conclude with your seven minutes. Finlay Carson, briefly. I welcome the news that, after concerted efforts from these benches, the Scottish Government have dropped their grievance-led, hardline, no-cooperation approach on the union connectivity, and now he's engaged in positively on how our two Governments can come together to bring much in need investment to the A75. I thoroughly agree with Mr Carson that he is a champion of these roads. I don't want to be here moving this motion. It shouldn't be necessary, but, with regret, I do move the motion in my name. I now call on Jenny Gilruth Minister to speak to and move amendment 6520.2 up to six minutes. I thank the Conservatives for bringing forward today's motion for debate. The tone of the motion is respectful to the families of those who have lost loved ones on Scotland's roads, and I will, of course, continue that sentiment throughout my contribution today. The publication of reported road casualties in Scotland for 2021 showed a broadly stable picture of deaths and injuries on our roads, one less fatality than in 2020 and a single percentage increase in injuries. That will not be the picture for 2022. We already know that the statistics for this year are going to be very different. To date, in 2022, 10 fatal injury accidents have been recorded on the A9 trunk road with 15 fatal casualties. Of the 10 fatal accidents, seven have occurred between Perth and Inverness, resulting in 12 fatal casualties. To compare that with previous years, there was only one fatal accident between Perth and Inverness in each of 2019, 2020 and 2021. Every death on the A9 and on any of Scotland's roads is one in too many. Every life loss has devastating impacts for families, friends, colleagues and communities. I want to express my sympathies today to everyone or anyone who has been affected by such a loss and to anyone who has been injured on our roads. We know the very human costs of loss and the toll that also takes on our emergency services. I am sure that members will understand that, as police investigations are on-going into recent accidents, it would not be appropriate for me, nor indeed any of us, to comment significantly on any individual case today. However, I want to assure members that I have met Police Scotland in recent weeks in Inverness and last week to better understand the increase in fatal accidents and the underlying contributing factors. On Friday of this week, I will chair the A9 safety group in Pitlochry, along with wider partners from our roads operating company, Police Scotland, the road, haulage and freight transport associations, local councils and the CPT. Thereafter, I will meet constituency and regional members to hear their views and concerns and to ensure that those are taken into account in planning the required short-term interventions. In the coming weeks, I will announce additional short-term measures for the A9 between Perth and Inverness in advance of dualling works. It is worth saying that this year alone, the Scottish Government has invested over £7 million in spend on maintenance structures and on road safety improvements on the A9 this year. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. Of course, short-term measures can have an effect, but would she accept that fully dualling both of those roads could lead to a significant improvement in road safety? I think that Mr Simpson makes a fair assessment. I will come to that in my proceeding marks if he does not mind. I want to reflect, though, that we have made that investment and we will further be making investments this year to improve safety at Balmluig, Brewer and also in Rallia, but I accept that more will need to be done before full dualling is complete. Turning to full dualling, the Government remains absolutely committed to investing in the A9, including dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness. We have already invested significant finance in this approximately £431 million to date delivering the dualling programme. That has allowed road users to benefit from the dualled stretches between King Craig and Delradi and Lincartie and Pass of Burnham, which opened in 2017 and in August 21, respectively. It has also supported the development progress through the statutory processes, advanced work and procurement evaluation work being undertaken for the remainder of the programme. We are currently in procurement for the award of construction contract for the section between Tamat and Tamoi. Final decisions on that will be subject to our normal tender evaluation and that business case approval, but we are also progressing design work on the rest of the programme with the statutory process well under way for seven of the eight remaining sections. On the pass of Burnham to Tay crossing project, that has not started the statutory process yet, but Transport Scotland is currently progressing the design and assessment work to identify the preferred option for that section following the co-creative process with the local community. Further, work is on going to determine the most suitable procurement options for the remaining sections of the road. That needs to consider a wider range of factors, including how the project can be delivered most efficiently by the industry whilst minimising disruption to road users. I very much hope that the wider MSP forum that I have contacted, my private office's contacted members about today, will seek to set out some of the detail in relation to those sections to members. Turning to the A96, as Mr Simpson notes, there has not been a similar increase in accidents on the A96. He pointed to one fatality this year. It probably, as we are saying, are very different roads, but it is this Government's commitment and it remains so to fully dule the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen. I am grateful to the Minister for Giving Way and I am grateful to hear that commitment to fully dule the A96, and I hope to see that coming to fruition. She was written to in September by Murray Chamber of Commerce, outlining how important the dulling is for businesses in Murray. So far, there has been no response to the Chamber, so will she get back in touch with Murray Chamber of Commerce, who needs reassurance from the Scottish Government that this infrastructure link will be delivered? I am happy to do so. I apologise to Mr Rothland to the Chamber and I will ensure that they receive a response from my private office. As members know, and I think has been alluded to already, we are conducting a transparent evidence-based review of the corridor. The recent public consultation received nearly 5,000 responses, generating more than 11,000 suggestions and potential opportunities for the route. It has taken more time than I think was originally planned to look at and appraise all of those options accordingly. However, the public consultation and the initial appraisal will be published by the end of the year, as the amendment makes very clear and as Mr Simpson also alluded to. We are also continuing the preparation for the dulling to the Inverness to Nairn section. That is quite a different section of the route. Members might recall that that has already received ministerial consent following a public local inquiry. I expect to be able to make the orders on this part of the A96 in the coming weeks. Earlier this year, I was pleased to meet with the constituency MSP in Nairn and to meet with local schoolchildren at Rosebank primary school. The playground of that primary school borders the A96. The pupils explained to me what that meant for their learning, for their outdoor play and for their environment. It is imperative that we deliver on those road improvements for local communities, but particularly, in my view, for the generations yet to come. I appreciate that you took two interventions, which I am sure that members wanted to hear your response to, but I must ask you to wind up now, please. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 6520.1 up to seven minutes please, Mr Bibby. I move the amendment in my name. I thank Liam Simpson for bringing forward this debate this afternoon. I would normally say I welcome one of his debates, but as Mr Simpson acknowledged, of course we would rather not be discussing the serious topic of road safety in such tragic circumstances. Over the last decade, almost 200 people have sadly lost their lives on highland roads. In the last six years, more than half the deaths in the area took place on the A9, A96 and A82. In just the last three months, there have been a further eight deaths on the 25-mile stretch of the A9 alone. One of those killed was just two years old. As the death toll on the A9 climbs, it is now at its highest that has been in 20 years, and as the Minister said, every report of a fatality is a person and a family left behind. We can only imagine the pain felt by the family members and friends of those who have lost loved ones on these roads. We must do all we can to make roads such as the A9 and A96 safer and I welcome what the Minister has said about short-term measures. I am concerned and, as I'm sure, other members will be to hear reports that not only are police officers being cut across Scotland, but also the number of traffic police officers are being reduced to. This is one issue that I think needs to be addressed and looked at in the context of the areas that we're talking about today. For the long-term crucially, the Government must invest to upgrade those roads. The SNP has given clear manifesto commitments to dual A9 by 2025 and the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. The Deputy First Minister and Finance Secretary John Swinney said in 2019, in answer to Mr Harvey, that he recognised the very serious and alarming safety records on these roads, and the situation appears to be getting worse, not better. Local people therefore expect the SNP to deliver on their promises. We need to see urgent and major investment in our transport infrastructure across Scotland, whether that be in railroads, ferry and active travel. The criteria for investment needs to take fully into account safety issues, journey times, economic and community development as well as the impact on the climate. Yes, certainly. Very grateful for Neil Bibby for giving way. He was in the meeting today with me in the A75A7 action group. I wonder what his response is to their assertion that, during a meeting with the cabinet secretary, she said that she had to ask permission from the Greens to do any more infrastructure projects. I'll just come on to that, Mr Whittle. Thank you for any intervention. Investment to upgrade transport infrastructure clearly isn't just an issue for the north and north-east of Scotland, but also for the south-west of Scotland, too. Earlier today, along with Mr Whittle, I met the A7A7 action group, which is campaigning to have the A77 and A75 upgraded and brought up to dual carriage stand-away. There are safety issues there, too, as well as strong economic grounds for investment due to being our main link to Northern Ireland. I know that they met the minister earlier, but I also understand that, as Mr Whittle has just said, they were concerned at the minister telling them that the SNP's partnership with the Greens may hinder their efforts to have that progressed. I certainly will take an intervention, and I would be grateful if the minister could clarify whether the Greens have a veto on SNP roads policy. I do not appreciate two separate members taking words that were given in a private meeting with a group in relation to a road earlier today—well, neither of you were in the room. I had a very positive meeting with the action group today. I made time to meet them and to listen to their concerns, so I would be grateful if the member could clarify his understanding of that conversation. I had a wide-ranging conversation with that group, including, for example, as I think we have heard Mr Carson allude to, in relation to the UK Government. A wide range of matters were discussed, but I do not think that it is appropriate, Presiding Officer, to have my words in a meeting that neither member were present in, repeated in the chamber today. Perhaps he would like to correct the record to that effect. Neil Bibby? I noticed that the minister did not answer the question whether the Greens have a veto on SNP policy or not, because he is not denying the claim that was made. As I said earlier, I understand that they were concerned at the minister telling them that the Greens' partnership with the SNP may hinder their efforts to have this progressed. I was not aware that those meetings were secret meetings. I listed earlier the factors that should be considered in determining priorities for infrastructure investment. One factor that should not be present for the SNP when taking these decisions is whether the Scottish Greens like it or not. People deserve clarity on the Scottish Government's position on roads investment. We need to know from the SNP whether the Greens have a veto on their roads policy or not, and people deserve clarity from the Greens on their position when it comes to votes on roads investment. Last time we debated roads in this Parliament almost a year ago, the Scottish Greens attacked my party because we believe that money needs to be spent on upgrading key routes. The Scottish Government's amendment today spells out in black and white that more than £400 million has been spent on drilling the A9 to date. That is more than £400 million allocated in budgets that the Scottish Greens have voted for. It begs the question, if the Greens are again spending money on roads, why do they keep backing budgets that spend money on roads? Scottish Labour, of course, acknowledges the challenges that we face when it comes to the climate emergency, and we need to do more to encourage less car travel and to help people on to public transport, and that is the subject of our amendment. That is an issue that I hope we could all agree on, but we have regrettably seen the decline on a public transport system under this Government. I have said it before and I have said it again that public transport in Scotland is frankly a joke. Deniz does not seem to be much ambition on roads from the Government to address it either. On rail, we have seen rail fares hiked and 250 services cut a day compared to the pre-pandemic timetable. On buses—and the use roads too, of course—local councils are still waiting for additional powers and funding from the Scottish Government so that they can bring buses back under public control. Meanwhile, private bus companies continue to fail passengers with skyrocketing fares and cuts of socially necessary routes. Cities like Manchester and Liverpool are bringing buses back under public control and capping fares at £2. We need to see that action in Scotland, in Scottish cities such as Glasgow, Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen, because we will not get people out of their cars on to public transport until we have a public transport system that is affordable, accessible and reliable. There is no better example of how disconnected our communities are than in one of those areas that we are talking about today. The BBC journalist Douglas Fraser documented his recent trip by bus from Inverness to Aberdeen where he had to change buses at Brockston interchange station outside of Perth, which takes five hours. I understand that there is a direct stagecoach service between Inverness and Aberdeen, but that is not much better, taking a staggering four hours and 15 minutes to travel along the A96 from Inverness to Perth. A 104-mile journey, which means that people are travelling at an average speed of just 24 miles per hour between those two cities. If we want to reduce traffic on the A96, then we also need to consider how we improve bus links and public transport links between those two cities. We need major and urgent transport infrastructure investment in the areas that we have discussed today and across other parts of Scotland, including roads, so that we can support building local economies, better connect our communities and provide the action that is necessary in addressing issues around safety, something that has been demanded by people for many years. I thank Graham Simpson, likewise, for allowing the Parliament to have this debate and the tone of it as well, which I think has been entirely in keeping with the seriousness of the issue. I also thank Neil Bibby for lodging Labour's amendment, which may give me an opportunity if time permits to reference ferries without incurring the wrath of the chair for being off peace. I can also declare an interest. Unlike perhaps Edward Mountain and one or two other colleagues, I am a regular user of the A9, though not as regular, I appreciate as some. I would also observe that some of the issues in relation to connectivity and indeed safety apply as much beyond Inverness and further north as they do in relation to the Perth to Inverness stage. I think, though, that I will focus most of my remarks on the A9 as I am more familiar with those conditions and circumstances than I am with the A96. I think that the case for improvement for dualling has long been accepted and indeed long been promised. I think that what we are talking about here is the pace at which that commitment is delivered. Some of the argument has long been economic about the better connectivity we need to see, not least between some of our main cities, Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen, but many of the outlying towns and villages beyond that. I think that Neil Bibby quite rightly drew attention to in his comments there. Some of the travel times, not just by road but by rail as well, are by European standards, even by the standards of other parts of the UK—absolutely ridiculous. Certainly, if we are trying to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport, it is unlikely to serve that purpose. Rightly, the focus of the debate today is in relation to the safety case for the dualling. I looked at the statistics between 2012 and 2019. There appear to be a doubling in terms of deaths and serious injuries. I appreciate that there has been a slight change in the way in which serious injuries are captured in the statistics, but those are fairly frightening figures. When you then layer upon that, what we have seen over the past 12 months, the case seems to be absolutely unanswerable. There are undoubtedly individual factors in terms of each of those cases. It is a regular user of the A9. It often occurs to me that you have a mixture of people who are regular users and very confident on the roads, and those, particularly tourists who are unfamiliar and under confident. That seems to be a recipe for problems to exist. We have also seen some of this arising for the improvements that we have seen in recent years—a situation where you are moving from single-to-dual carriageway and overtaking stretches that can particularly for those who are not familiar with the road, be very confusing indeed, alongside some junctions that, again, even for regular users of the road, can be somewhat confusing and therefore precarious. So, as I say, the case on a safety basis is absolutely compelling. There are other things that need to be done. We do need to see that modal shift, particularly in terms of getting more with the freight off the road. Again, I would make that argument for north of Inverness, as well as between Perth and Inverness. In terms of the public transport, we need to look beyond simply the main routes. Certainly bus routes that link into those main routes are absolutely vital in terms of encouraging more people to take up those services. That talks to the wider strategic review of transport. This is where I will segue using Neil Bibby's amendment into the issue of the STPR. I think that the exclusion of Orkney's lifeline air and ferry services from that review is absolutely inexcusable and needs to be addressed now. I hope that I have had useful meetings with the minister. I would hope that he would be able to confirm that that is the case. Again, I thank Graham Simpson for allowing Parliament to have this debate. I think that to show the cross-party support there is for pressing ahead as quickly as we possibly can, with the dualling of the vital arteries. I associate myself with all the comments made by Liam McArthur on what I thought was a very well-informed contribution on those issues. The A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness has an enviable reputation as Scotland's most dangerous road. Over the years, we have seen too many serious accidents and fatalities, mostly on the single carriageway sections of the route. This year has been one of the worst on record, as we have heard. In just 10 months, we have had 12 fatalities on single carriageways. Each one of those is a tragedy with enormous knock-on consequences for the families and friends of those who are involved. That is a vital issue for my constituents in Perthshire, who have to use the road daily, and I know and they know how deadly it is. It is also a matter that affects me personally. In 1990, the car I was in was involved in a head-on collision on the A9 single carriageway near Carbridge. I suffered multiple fractures and spent weeks in hospital. I was one of the lucky ones. I survived. Others have not been so fortunate. For decades now, I have been campaigning for A9 improvements with petitions at public meetings and by raising the issue in Parliament with successive ministers. It has been clear to me, as to many others, that only by completing the dualling of the road would we substantially reduce the accident risk. I was pleased that, in 2011, we saw the first real commitment from the SNP Government to dual the road in its entirety, as far as in Venice, in its infrastructure investment plan. Sadly, since then, progress has been slow. The A9 dualling programme was due to start in 2015 and was completed by 2025. However, in the 11 years since that commitment was made, just 12.5 miles of dual carriageway had been opened. That is 12.5 miles in 15 years of SNP Government. To put that in perspective, the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major opened 25.3 miles of dual carriageway between Perth and Inverness more than twice as much. I know that Covid has caused delays to all infrastructure projects, but even with that, progress has been painfully slow. Will the Member give way on that? Edward Mountain, briefly, please. I thank the Member for giving way on that. On the A9 between Perth and Inverness, there are only two areas where compulsory purchase of land for dualling would be difficult, Dunkheld and Avymor. Surely this Government, if it wants to meet its target, should get on with dualling the rest of it and start compulsory purchasing the land now, otherwise it is going to remain a pipe dream. Mr Fraser, you have about a minute left. I think that my colleague Mr Mountain makes a very good point, because I know that there are communities along the A9 wondering if the project will ever now be completed. The involvement of the anti-road greens in government has added to their concern, and it is not worthy that the Government amendment to today's debate does not restate a commitment to A9 dualling, as Graham Simpson pointed out. That is unfortunate, and we need to be clear that it will proceed, and we need to know when. I am regularly contacted by constituents who live on or close to the A9 wanting clarity on the route, and this is particularly the case in communities such as Dunkheld and Burnham, where the A9 passes very close to people's homes and businesses. Without a clear plan and timetable, those properties are effectively blighted. What we need is clarity and soon. Presiding Officer, there are strong economic arguments for the benefits to pressure and to the highlands and islands from completing A9 dualling, but to me this is principally an issue of road safety. Too many people have died on the A9 single carriageways. They are dying this year, and they will continue to die. That is why we need action now, and that is why we should support Mr Simpson's motion. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Douglas Lamson up to four minutes. The recent accidents on A9 are a coarser tragedy for everyone involved in my sympathies with the families and friends of everyone affected by these events. The dualling of the A96 is, of course, a manifesto commitment in successive SNP manifestos. Now you might ask why I am speaking in this debate. My constituency Eastland has the main East Coast road day 1 pass through it. It was dualled around about 2000. Prior to that, it was a two-lane road with no passing points. I remember the frustration of residents, commuters and business at the time. I also lost friends on that road. Three friends when they were 17-year-old, three guys in the same car. I remember that very vaguely. The dualling of the A96 has huge public support for the foreign reasons that 9th to two major cities, Aberdeen and Inverness. I am conscious of the time, but I have only got four minutes. 9th to two major cities, Aberdeen and Inverness, that is a road that has pinpoints in large towns in between. The road is used by many slow-moving vehicles, such as agriculture and HV vehicles, which can cause driver frustration and, as a lack of safe overtaking opportunities, again like the one previously. Of course, the A96 is a commuter route for Inverness and Aberdeen for many towns and villages along the corridor. There is an equity and fairness issue in terms of infrastructure for rural areas. There are, of course, fast, safe dual droods between other Scottish cities, but not between Inverness and Aberdeen. That disadvantages residents in all the towns and villages along that corridor. Of course, the review in line with climate change commitments, of course, is necessary, but that, of course, should be balanced with addressing long-term safety and equity concerns of users on this corridor. A modern highway that facilitates fast charging and flow of emissions vehicles as well, and has also safe, segregated and active travel solutions, should also be the goal. Slow-moving traffic is bad for emissions. You can see that from the AWPR, how a safe, chilled route that facilitates high-gear driving overtaking of the vehicles can reduce emissions long-term. The people who use this corridor are not just people who live in the towns right next to the corridor, but, of course, come from more rural towns where people have limited public transport options, again very similar to East London. There are a great deal of support in Aberdeenshire and throughout the north-east of Scotland for dualling of the A96 in the region to improve safety, reliability and efficiency, of course, for road users. A lot of them are road users because they have no reliable, quick, affordable alternatives, and again that has been mentioned, again quite similar to East London in many ways. Road safety, of course, is paramount importance to the Scottish Government and to the Parliament overall. The road safety framework that the minister touched on earlier on was back last year by £21 million. That was an uplift of £17 million. Scottish Government, of course, is absolutely committed to completing the dualling of the A99. We have heard that from the minister today and welcome that and could do so much faster if it had more capital funding and if it was not being cut at every budget. We have heard of the budget pressure just from John Swinney just earlier this afternoon. I have only got four minutes. We all recognise that improved road safety also brings economic benefits to road users and local communities of Scotland. Roads cannot be dualled overnight, and let's remember that the Scottish Government has already invested more than £400 million in dualling the A99. That is part of a £3 billion investment to dualling the A9, and it is one of the biggest transport infrastructure projects in Scotland's history. The current Scottish Government remains committed to the north and north-east of Scotland, including dualling the A96 and the A9 of 3rd. The corridor has taken forward an enhanced programme that improves connectivity between surrounding towns, tackles concessions and addresses safety and environmental issues. The current plan, of course, is to dualling the A96 route between Inverness and Aberdeen. However, the Scottish Government is quite rightly conducting a transparent evidence-based review of the programme, which is under way in my report by the end of the year. The Scottish Government is committed to improving the road network on the A99 and the A96. I am glad that we have had that commitment again, endorsed by the minister this afternoon. I share frustrations with local members, having been through similar experiences with A1. Thank you, Mr MacLennan. I now call Douglas Lumson to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Lumson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to my colleagues for bringing this important debate that is of key importance to my area of the north-east. It has been 11 years since this shambolic SNP Government first announced that the A96 would be upgraded from a single to a dual carriageway. Eleven years of broken promises didder and delay from this Government, but make no mistake, this delay has cost lives. Between 2018 and 2021, the A96 has seen 11 fatal accidents and 94 non-fatal accidents, and I send my condolences to all those families who have been affected by these tragic events. Between January and August this year, nine people have been seriously injured on the huntly to Inverness stretch alone of this notorious road. The grubby deal between the SNP and their anti-growth, anti-business, anti-car and anti-north-east green partners has not just delayed the project but firmly put the brakes on it. Presiding Officer, it is not just lives that depend on the dualing of the A96 but jobs also. In June, Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, said that the region needed a firm commitment on the dualing to give the region a much-needed boost. She added that the chamber are firmly of the view that the Scottish Government should honour the commitment made to businesses and communities along the A96 that the road is dualled from start to finish, unlocking economic growth, workforce mobility and investment along the route and provided improved connections between two of Scotland's leading cities and areas of economic growth. In an article on the P&J last December, Paulair Collin Lawson said that dualing had to happen urgently, adding that people in all the towns and surrounding villages within the A96 corridor have suffered enough. It has become one of the worst trunk roads in the UK. Does he agree with me that investment is needed right across Scotland's road network and particularly in the south of Scotland and Sheriff's Hall, where congestion is building up every single day, largely as a result of the Greens organising a right-in to force it to public inquiry? Will he agree with me that this action is urgently needed also in the A1 in relation to Bellhaven junction? I agree with the member that there is investment needed right across our road network, because that is the toll of Burness in just north of Ellyn in my constituency. It is another area that the Scottish Government needs to focus on. The dualing of the A96 should be a priority for this Government and should have been delivered long ago. I stand up and speak in this chamber every week about broken promises from this SMP Green devolved Government of Chaos, and this is just one more to add to that long list. Businesses, residents, the NHS, Paulair's, the oil industry, traders have all called in this Government to move forward with the dualing. They are crying out for increased investment in their road network. Public transport is not always a solution for those living in rural areas, and these trunk roads are a vital lifeline for our rural communities in the north-east. It is wrong for them to be ignored for 11 years by this Government and for their priorities to be ignored and sidelined. It is clear that when it comes to business rates, the oil and gas industry and now roads, the SMP has turned their backs on the north-east, and it is shameful. Warm words are not needed, minister, nor empty promises, but action. Will you commit today to dualing the A96 and giving the communities, residents, employers and business owners the reassurance that they need that they are being listened to by this Government? I am grateful to the Scottish Conservatives for giving us the opportunity to debate these vital matters this afternoon. For many in the Highlands and indeed beyond, many who have lost loved ones in their families, in some cases more than one member of their family, and who have lost friends, as I and others have had, have, as we have heard, 222 will be there and it is horrible. It leaves behind the devastation of impacts lifelong on their lives and their families. That is why I welcome the tone sent by the minister that this is the most serious of matters. My theme today is that what do people of Scotland want from us? Minister, they want real, rapid, solid, concrete, substantial progress, but I truly believe that they do not really want politics. By that, I mean party politics, a partisan approach, because it is just too serious for that. I do not think that I need to rehearse the arguments, Minister, that single-carriage ways are more conducive of risk than dual-carriage ways. The Road Safety Foundation studied years ago that proves that fairly conclusively. The facts, and most drivers, are acutely aware of this, that single-carriage ways do not have a central reservation. Therefore, head-on collisions have nothing to prevent them. The velocity of head-on collisions is at 60 miles an hour for each vehicle. The vehicle stops go to zero, but the internal organs carry on at 60 miles an hour. That is why the impact and the consequences of those particular incidents on single-carriage ways are just so appalling and so serious. Mr MacArthur made a number of relevant descriptive remarks at the junctions at Aviam War, at Carbridge and others. They are all places associated with very, very serious incidents and deaths. Of course, visitors to this country are unfamiliar with road laws, signs and systems, so I have three assets as the minister in the short time that I have. They are, one, to progress the dueling works as swiftly as possible. Number two, to publish a revised plan of when the dueling commitments will be completed in respect of the A9 from Perth to Inverness and the A96 in my patch, a commitment that is actually enshrined in the house agreement. Thirdly, as the minister is already doing this Friday, and I know before and for months, and her predecessor is today to work on further safety measures, which add into them, can be progressed to improve lighting, signage, education and so on. There is more that can be done, I believe, and many of my constituents have contributed to that. I would also ask that the Scottish Government, given the gravity of all those matters and the strength of feeling, consider bringing forward ministerial statements on each of those serious matters in due course. I did particularly want to say that progress has been made, Lunkarty, to Passham, Burnham, Dalradi to Concrete, but also on the other nine sections. In almost every case, there has been painstaking and detailed and expensive and thorough design work, preparatory work, engineering work, community engagement. Do not overlook all of that. There is an enormous amount of work that has gone into this. To say that nothing has happened is simply wrong, and maybe we need to take our own trumpet out of the case and blow it a little bit more, just to see what work that has been. However, there are four sections—Tata, Bannan, Llewyd, Pitlochry, Kili, Cranky, Gringari to Dalwini and Dalwini to Croubonmore. They seem to me to be ready, minister, to go ahead. Can it be answered either today or shortly? When will these go ahead? When will they go to procurement? Can we have those decisions as quickly as possible? I will conclude, Presiding Officers. My time is up, and I do not want to get into your bad books. In conclusion, the theme for me today is what the people of Scotland want—progress, real progress, not party politics. Thank you, Mr Ewing. I now call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Michelle Thomson up to four minutes, please, Mr Ruskell. I am sure that there isn't a single member in this Parliament who hasn't been affected directly or indirectly by a tragic road accident over the years. It was in that spirit that I was looking forward this afternoon to a genuine debate about the actions that the Government can take to save lives on the A9 and the A96 from improving dangerous junctions to rolling out average speed cameras. Instead, we have seen an attempt to use recent accidents to bolster the case for dualling every single inch of the A9 and the A96 without any analysis about why recent accident rates have worsened or how they could have been prevented in the first place. It is important that we go back to the basics here. According to Transport Scotland, the case for the A9 dualling project was largely an economic one. It was about reducing journey times between Inverness and Perth. The secondary benefits in reducing driver frustration and reducing the severity if not the frequency of accidents came later. There have been calls, as Members have reflected from communities along the A9 over many years to improve dangerous junctions and to reduce speed. Those priorities are reflected in the Bute House agreement, which commits both the SNP and the Greens to addressing and tackling safety concerns on our roads while responding to community needs and delivering our climate ambitions across Scotland. It is about directing investment where it is most needed and where it can actually make a real tangible difference. I accept that targeted improvements are needed and I was proud to back the campaign over a decade ago now to improve the dangerous Ballan Lluig junction on the A9. Every time I drive that junction today, I think back to how dangerous it was and I think to how many lives have been saved as a result of that investment. The community today in Dunkeldon Burnham still lives with a high-speed junction that is confusing and dangerous. I back their calls for investment in a safer junction, speed reduction, better signage and other measures. I look forward to the meeting that the Minister will convene with local Members next week on that. As with the original problem at Ballan Lluig, those are made even more critical because some of the high speeds exist on jewelld sections of the road already. Let's not forget that the continuously jewelld section of the A9 between Perth and Dunblane has also had tragic junction accidents that have required further sustained investment over many years. Simply jewelling is not a panacea to address deep-seated accident and road safety issues on our roads. It needs an evidence-led approach. For the A96, there is a chance, with the Government's review, to look afresh at what investments are genuinely needed on that corridor, including public transport, and that is embedded in the Butehouse agreement. I have my doubts that that review will conclude that jewelling every single last inch of that road is the best option for safety for communities or for the climate. We need to champion measures that have already worked on the A9 and other roads in Scotland to improve road safety. It is clear that average speed cameras save lives. On the A9, fatalities fell by 40 per cent in the first three years after their introduction. Collisions were down by nearly a quarter, while frustrating road closures due to accidents were reduced again by a quarter. It is disappointing that there has been no mention so far in the debate or in the Tory motion about the role of average speed cameras. I hope that the Minister perhaps can reflect on their potential for the A96 in closing. The Government are right to mention the worsening financial settlement handed down to this Parliament. It will limit the ability of the Government to invest in the right projects that we need to save lives. Projects to improve road safety by-pass communities or maintain roads will be threatened by the slash and burn austerity of the Tory party. We must have the ability to invest in genuine road safety improvements to protect lives across Scotland. That needs budget and a real focus on the measures that will actually work backed up by the evidence. I now call Michelle Thomson, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. I am pleased to speak in this debate and support my colleague Fergus Ewing's calls for an updated timeline for the completion of the duelling to the A9. The people of the Highlands have a great advocate and persistent fighter on their behalf. As has been acknowledged earlier, there are still too many lives lost or damaged in Scotland's roads and, of course, not least in the roads in question. I am sure that the chamber is united in expressing our condolences to all those affected. There are clearly issues of trust and confidence involved where, whenever there are significant project delays, regardless of the reason, further information always adds value. I am therefore very grateful for the earlier comments by the minister. It is right to acknowledge all the work that has been done thus far. I do not simply mean the completion of some sections of the A9, but both the design and preparatory work that has been undertaken on all other sections due for duelling. Of course, the work on the Tomatin to Moy section that I mentioned previously and mentioned by the minister is due to be completed by 2025. Having travelled up the A9 myself on occasions, I am very aware of having to have a heightened sense of care as the road changes. No one thinks that the current stage of development is sufficient, hence the continuing commitment to complete this important work. However, we have to reflect that there have been huge problems with many large-scale projects in recent years due to the halting of much project work over the period of the pandemic. I suspect that, if we are honest, each and every MSP can point to delay projects in their own constituency. There is also an added financial problem as the capital cost increases due to inflationary pressures compounded by supply chain problems. Such effects are very real and have to be carefully addressed. Ignoring the context serves no one, not least of those campaigning to see projects completed. That is an example of why I have been regularly calling for the Scottish Government to have full rather than limited borrowing powers to enable us to borrow to invest. The UK Government has been very willing in recent works to happily borrow high-watering sums, counted in the tens of billions to bail out their own failures, while denying Scotland appropriate borrowing powers for critical capital investment. I would hope that all those wanting for the very... I will absolutely, on that point, if you can answer that point. Finlay Carson? It is quite incredible that you are making those statements because, out the union connectivity review, the UK Government made a commitment to fund improvements on the 75, which is of huge economic significance, but the Scottish Government refused to sit down with them, despite £20 million on the table, to build up the process on how the two Governments could work together. Fundamentally, I failed to understand the point. The point that I am making is about capital borrowing powers for this Parliament where the member sits and should be contributing to our Scottish Parliament and our Scottish people. I would hope that all those, as I said, wanting for the best of reason to hate and capital spend, such as the dualling, will also equally well argue for increased borrowing powers. If anyone else wants to intervene at that point to strengthen our capacity, I am willing to take it. However, to conclude, I would very much like the minister to address two questions that are summing up. First, is she able to outline the major impediments to publish a timeline for completion of the dualling in both the A9 and the A96? Second, what exactly is the current state of play regarding capital funding for the projects? Let us hope that we can all get this project back on the road to completion. I think that today's debate has shown that the case for the upgrade of the A96 and the A9 is stark. Graham Simpson reminded us of the tragic fact that over 330 people alone have died on the A9 since 1979. As Murdo Fraser said, each of those is a tragedy. I think that Fergus Ewing spoke passionately about the fact that some of the deaths on those northern roads can involve several people of the same family. A week rarely goes by when we don't hear of another casualty or all too often tragically another fatality. Presumably, as Neil Bibby highlighted, that's why the SNP gave a clear manifesto equipment to dual the A9 by 2025 and also the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. Those deadlines and commitments are no longer clear. The minister was upset earlier when it was suggested that the Greens can veto SNP commitments on roads, but if they can't, the minister will tell us once and for all whether the SNP manifesto commitment to dual the A96 will be absolutely delivered and if so, when will it be delivered? The more the Government delays, the more casualties there will be on those roads, but dither and delay has been the Government's watch words when it comes to investment on our transport infrastructure. The late STPR2 kicked further into the long grass, a whole host of projects crying out for funding. You could almost forgive the way, if it had shed any light on when any of those projects would actually happen, but the vague commitments, the lack of detail, the uncertainty has left communities across Scotland and Limbo. A number of members highlighted the fact that, just today, Anas Sarwar, Neil Bibby, myself welcome members of the A77 action group council leaders representatives of ferry firms Stenna to Holyrood to brief MSPs on the need to upgrade the A75 and the A77 trunk loads. It is now vital that the Scottish Government listen to the clear message we heard and indeed the minister heard from the community and from the ferry firms. If it is serious about supporting not just Wigtonshire's economy but the whole of Scotland's economy, given that those routes are the gateway to Northern Ireland, then it needs to invest in making those long-forgotten roads fit for purpose. Those communities have waited long enough. That is why Labour's amendment urges the Government to get on with the job, to urgently publish the final STPR2 report with a clear timetable to deliver investment in those strategic active travel ferry bus and rail projects and those improvements that we need to Scotland's crumbling roads based on road safety, journey times, economic and community development and climate impact, not based on behind closed doors deals, which safety on the A96 has been the victim of. No more dithering, no more delay. We all want to see and, in fact, we need to see fewer cars on our roads but you cannot have an approach to roads that fails to distinguish between urban and rural that does not understand that, in rural communities in particular, a car is often a necessity, not a luxury. That delivery plan needs to also include a sea change and a roful record of electrifying car use. The Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need at least 30,000 public EV charging points in Scotland by 2030. The Government's target is just over 4,000 in the next few years and today BBC disclosure revealed damning evidence that almost a quarter of the existing points were faulty. That is not an incentive to switch to electric vehicles and the Government's record in public transport is certainly not going to get people out of the car onto buses and trains. On his Government's watch, a bus network is being dismantled route by route. Passengers numbers have fallen by 25 per cent since 2007-08. That is 121 million less passenger journeys yet bus fares rise and rise and rise, nearly 19 per cent in the past five years alone. In 2019, I proposed amendments to the Transport Bill to give councils the power to run their own buses. Three years on, they still have no guidance or funding to establish those bus services to put passengers not profits first, more dither, more delay. The Government's record on trains is sadly no better. In 2014, when it handed the keys of Scotland's trains to Dutch firmabilio, the SNP promised a rail system would be world leading. It certainly did lead the world on fare rises, delays, cancellations and now the Government has cut the number of trains per day by a third. That is 250 per day compared to pre-pandemic levels. On active travel, the Government failed to reach their 2020 target to increase the share of everyday journeys made by bike to 10 per cent. In fact, that year, it was just 2 per cent. Transport remains the largest source of climate emissions, nearly 29 per cent. Most from cars, that is why Labour's amendment today focuses on reversing this Government's woeful record on public transport. However, we also recognise that without strategic investment and improving our key trunk roads, whether it is the A96, the A9 in the north, or the A75 and the A77 in the south, Scotland's economy and our poor safety record will continue to fail Scotland. As many members have done, I would like to begin by expressing my own sympathies to everyone who has been affected either by the loss of a loved one or indeed by injury on our roads over this year. As the Minister for Transport has said, the accidents on the trunk roads that members have been discussing in particular today are deeply tragic for everyone. Our road safety framework to 2030 sets out ambitious targets to reduce accidents, and we are absolutely determined to deliver on those. That will require us to address the recent upturn in accidents on the A9 while we continue to invest in the safety of our wider network and promote safety for everyone who uses it—the communities and businesses, services and individuals. That will, of course, require on-going investment and can support a wide range of outcomes, reducing death and injury on our roads, of course, but also improving safety for communities and reducing the terrible loss that families, friends and individuals suffer whenever a loved one is lost, whether they are a driver, a pedestrian, a cyclist or anyone else. Road safety, every bit as much as the climate emergency demands of us a change in approach to transport after decades of rising road traffic volumes with all of the additional risk, as well as direct environmental damage that results. Over the course of today's debate, I'm not going to have time for many, but I'll give way. I'm very grateful to the minister for giving me. I just wondered whether or not, given the issues around rural and urban, whether you're against any kind of road development, especially around developing maybe hydrogen-electric superhighways that connect up our rural and urban economies? Perhaps on another occasion we'll get into a discussion about the role of hydrogen and whether transport is its most likely sustainable use, but, of course, there are differences in urban and rural contexts, whatever the fuel source that's being used. Over the course of today's debate, I've listened carefully to the arguments on progress with dualling works on the A9 between Perth and Enveness and improvements on the A96 corridor. It's important to recognise that the Government is delivering exactly what we said we would do when the shared policy programme was published. In just a moment, I'll mix in progress, the A9 programme between Perth and Enveness is being taken forward subject to the normal statutory authorisation and business case processes, but road safety—I am about to turn to some of Mr Simpson's comments, so if he lets me make a little progress—road safety is about more than road design. Increased capacity is certainly no guarantee of better safety. While the minister was right to say that the Conservative motion strikes a respectful tone, I genuinely wish that that had been true of all the speeches that we've heard, some of which appeared more interested in party political point scoring or, indeed, name calling rather than dealing with the genuinely serious road safety issues. Road safety, Mr Simpson, recognised that different reasons exist for all accidents. That's true, but his focus is on one intervention only, duelly. He had little to say, and in fact very few members had very much to say on issues around reducing road speed, reducing traffic volumes, addressing driver behaviour or, indeed, the very positive role that cameras can play, as Mr Ruskell mentioned. In what should be a serious debate about road safety, he seemed a little more interested in slightly cartoonish imagined conversations between people whose politics he disagrees with. I give way. Graham Simpson briefly, please. Can I thank the minister for giving way? He obviously didn't hear my intervention on the transport minister, where I welcomed some of the short term measures that she's going to be carrying out. The transport minister says that she is fully committed to dualling both these roads. Is he? Minister, you've one minute left, thank you. What I'm fully committed to is what we published in the Bute House agreement, which is commitment to the north and northeast, including improvements on the A96 corridor. We've made it very clear that the current plan is to fully dual the A96, but at the same time a transparent, evidence-based review must and will be conducted that includes a climate compatibility assessment to look at the direct and indirect impact on climate and the environment. I would have hoped that any political party that wills the end by voting for ambitious climate targets is also prepared to well the means and will support us taking forward that work. There isn't enough time to address all the many issues that I wanted to discuss, but I genuinely hope that members in discussing those issues will focus on all the aspects of road safety that need to be taken forward, including the need to reduce traffic speeds, reduce traffic volumes and achieve modal shift on to public and active travel, and also to recognise that many people who are vulnerable to issues around road safety need protection when they use active travel as well. There's a huge amount that we need to get right and the Government is committed to doing that as part of our road safety framework. I support the motion in Jenny Gilruth's name. I now call on Liam Kerr to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Kerr. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this debate happened yesterday evening, as it was being set up. The motion in Graham Simpson's name demands Parliament notes with alarm the number of recent fatalities on the A9 and A96 and demands a timetable for the fulfilment of the promise to dual them. As Graham Simpson pointed out, the amendment in the name of the Minister makes no mention at all of the promises to dual either. Coupled with what we've heard today from the Scottish Government and their green partners, the people of the north and the northeast will no doubt draw the inevitable conclusions. Yet what we've also heard this afternoon from so many speakers is that the accident statistics on the A9 and the A96 are truly horrific, and I particularly note Fergus Ewing's passionate and moving contribution in this regard. Douglas Lumsden told us that since 2019 the A96 has seen 11 fatal accidents resulting in 13 deaths, whilst 164 people were injured in 94 non-fatal accidents. Between January and August this year, we heard 30 people were injured, nine seriously in crashes on that road, and one person died. In a powerful contribution from Myrdal Fraser, we heard that the A9 has an unenviable reputation as Scotland's most dangerous road. Between 2018 and 2021, 21 people have been killed and 257 injured. This year alone, 14 people have lost their lives, the highest number for 12 years. Myrdal Fraser told us that 12 of them were on single carriageway sections. I attended a funeral of a friend who tragically died in a road accident on the A9 in September. The sorrow that every fatality brings is simply impossible to describe for the families and close friends of people involved. Does Liam Kerr agree with me that the Scottish Government needs to take a swifter action, not just on the A9, but on other roads in the Highlands and Islands, like the A83 Rest and Be Thankful, which have not yet seen fatalities but have seen serious accidents and remain perilously dangerous until they are resolved? Liam Kerr? Yes, I do. I thank Donald Cameron for the intervention of my condolences to him and indeed all who have lost friends, family and acquaintances for their loss. Every one is a tragedy and he is right about taking action more widely. I do agree strongly and indeed we heard from Finn Carson earlier about the importance of action finally happening on the A77 and A75 and I echo that too. Craig Hoy made a similar important intervention about the A1 and Sheriff Hall. In the interests of time, I will briefly acknowledge the economic aspect to this as well. We heard from Douglas Lumsden how Liz Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, said that a dual-day 96 would unlock economic growth, workforce mobility and investment. Douglas Ross intervened to talk of Murray Council's survey saying that dueling would benefit business and the economy locally. More failures to honour promises are unforgivable and these are breaches of promises. As we have heard from Graham Simpson in 2011, the Scottish Government's infrastructure investment plan promised to duel the A96 in full and to duel Perth to Inverness by 2025 in full, yet only two of 11 sections of the A9 have been done to date. All we have on the A96 is a four-week consultation on whether or not to duel it, which has cost nearly £2 million and got fewer, as we heard, than 5,000 responses. What a waste of taxpayers' money! We know what the people want, yet this survey won't even reveal what the people want because, whilst the Minister claims it is evidence-based, of the 100 questions, there is not one which asks about dueling the A96. There are, however, plenty of questions around how old is your vehicle and what mode of transport do you use and how good do you feel the active travel options are in your area. It is little wonder, Presiding Officer, that Stuart Nicoll, chief executive of the Inverness Chamber of Commerce, suggested in July that it had been skewed to ensure that it gave the result the SMP Green Coalition wanted. When, as Graham Simpson reminded us, Maggie Chapman said over a year ago that the survey is, and I quote, going to be very clear that actually it isn't viable to duel the whole way, a cynic might suggest that she was simply reflecting what the Scottish Government had already decided to conclude. Given Mr Ewing's comments in summer 2021 that support is forthcoming from all but one party which attracted little support, it is clear that a handful of MSPs who attracted a tiny number of votes are capable of holding any manifesto commitment to ransom so long as they are nationalists. Presiding Officer, it is abundantly clear from this consultation that this SMP Government wants to kick this upgrade into the long grass and find any excuse to breach their promise on the A96 just as they've breached it on the A9. Presiding Officer, earlier this month, Badenoch and Stras Bay councillor Bill Lobban described a death toll in his ward as catastrophic. He went on how we tell the people left behind that we could do something about this and we didn't is something we have got to live with. This is more important than money. Indeed so. Presiding Officer, more than a decade has gone by since the SMP promised to duel the A96. Promise broken. The A9 was promised to be completed by 2025. Promise broken. It is time for the SMP to stop pandering to their green partners and get on with these life-saving improvements to duel the A96 and the A9 in full. The family of those killed and injured deserve nothing less. That concludes the debate on essential road improvements and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. During the debate, Douglas Ross made mention of a letter that I received from Moray Chamber of Commerce on 21 September in relation to the A96. I just want to put on record that a response was issued from my parliamentary office on 18 October to Sarah Micraff, who is the chief executive of Moray Chamber of Commerce. I would be grateful if the official report could be updated accordingly. I just perhaps deal with the first point of order, please, Mr Ross. I would just say that isn't really a matter for the chair but the minister has made her point and the matter will obviously be reported in the official report. Next point of order, Douglas Ross. Presiding Officer, Sarah Micraff spoke to me earlier this afternoon to say no response had been received from the Scottish Government. Perhaps the minister could go back to her officials to ensure that it has gone to Moray Chamber of Commerce. Thank you, Mr Ross. Again, that is not a matter for the chair but the member has made his further request for clarification and I'm sure the minister has noted that. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 6563 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam minister to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you minister. I see that no member has asked to speak on the motion and I therefore put the question that motion 6563 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 6564 on approval of an SSI and 6565 on designation of lead committee. Thank you minister. The question on these motions will be put at decision time. There are seven questions to be put as a result of today's business. I would remind members that if the amendment in the name of Kevin Stewart is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie will fall by way of preemption. The first question is that amendment 6523.3 in the name of Kevin Stewart, which seeks to amend motion 6523 in the name of Greg Hoy on national care service viability be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and therefore there will be a division, a suspension and I'm trying to find the right page. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.