Official Report 1195KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20057, in the name of Sue Webber, on connecting Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:57
[Interruption.] Sorry—I am phoning someone by mistake.
Scotland’s road network is the backbone of our connectivity and economic growth. Communities across Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands, rely on safe, efficient and modern roads to access jobs, education, healthcare and life opportunities, yet Scotland’s roads have been neglected by the Scottish National Party. Dangerous and deteriorating roads are costing lives, damaging local economies and leaving motorists stuck with long, unsafe journeys on roads that should have been fixed years ago.
Motorists are essential to Scotland’s economy and crucial for our connectivity, but they are being punished by the SNP Government. Too often, promises are made and not delivered. The SNP will dual the A9 10 years late at the very earliest. It has failed to dual any of the A96, despite promising to do so in 2011. The SNP has also spent £30 million on the Inverness to Nairn upgrade despite no construction having begun. If we are serious about unlocking Scotland’s potential, the SNP Government must accelerate the upgrading of key roads such as the A75, the A77 and the A96, and it must finally deliver on its commitment to dual the A9, without rejecting the private investment that could help to make that happen.
The state of key roads across Scotland is a national disgrace, and the SNP’s incompetence is continuing to cost lives. SNP ministers have sat on their hands while roads have fallen into a state of total disrepair, despite repeated promises to dual roads such as the A9 and the A96. It is unacceptable that motorists are being treated with contempt by an SNP Government that, shamefully, keeps kicking the can down the road.
We are the only party at Holyrood to have proposed bold action to tackle this issue. We would pass an emergency law at Holyrood that would set out a special fast-track process for completing the A9 dualling project. We would also pass an emergency law that would see key sections of the A75 dualled by 2031 and the entire road dualled as quickly as possible thereafter.
I hear what the member is saying, and I totally accept the need for urgency, but it is not about passing laws; it is about planning and implementation. What does the member propose to do to help us get us better at planning and building roads, not only passing laws?
No one objects to the plans for the A9. Everyone is desperate for that road to be dualled—yet here we are.
Improved connectivity is not only about tarmac and lanes; it is about ensuring that those who use our roads—particularly those in the logistics sector, which I will focus on—have the infrastructure that they need to operate safely and efficiently.
Scotland’s haulage industry is vital to our economy. The logistics sector contributes £170 billion to the United Kingdom’s economy each year, and it is one of the UK’s largest employers, with more than 200,000 people employed in logistics roles in Scotland. However, its contribution to growth and the economy is unfortunately not always recognised, and drivers’ health, safety and wellbeing are not prioritised.
Scotland faces a shortage of safe, high-quality, secure and well-equipped rest stops for trucks, particularly in the Highlands and rural areas, which, although geographically remote, play a vital role in the logistics and supply chain network. The lack of secure and well-equipped facilities has serious consequences, including the fact that some of our heavy goods vehicle drivers are being forced to park in unsuitable or unsafe locations or to take long detours to find suitable facilities because they have to stop to rest—that is the law. Driver health and wellbeing suffer due to poor access to clean, safe hygiene facilities, healthy food and rest areas. The rate of freight crime is also rising, with lorries and cargo increasingly being targeted by organised criminals due to the absence of secure parking.
By investing in safe facilities along our major routes, we can support the wellbeing of drivers, improve road safety and strengthen the supply chains that keep Scotland moving. That practical step would make a real difference to businesses and communities alike, and it is long overdue. I was about to say that it is common sense, but Jamie Hepburn is no longer in the chamber.
Finally, we must look to the future. The UK Labour Government’s proposal for a pay-per-mile tax on electric and hybrid vehicles is of concern to me, because it risks undermining the transition to cleaner transport and penalising families and businesses who are trying to do the right thing. Labour has got that really wrong. I am glad to see in the Scottish National Party amendment that the cabinet secretary shares our concern about that.
Before I discuss how Labour’s plans to introduce a 3p per mile fee on EVs will cripple rural EV drivers even further, I will consider those who have taken that leap of faith with the public charging network in the state that it is currently in. I would like Scottish ministers to focus on future proofing our EV charging network and ensuring that drivers can travel across Scotland with confidence. A charging infrastructure must be put in place if more people are to start using EVs. The current infrastructure is patchy and unreliable, and it fails to keep pace with demand.
Will the member give way?
If Ms Hyslop does not mind, I have quite a bit to say. If I have time, I will bring her in.
Motorists cannot be expected to make the shift to EVs without having confidence that charging will be accessible, affordable and convenient. I am an EV user and I had charging anxiety, which was the biggest barrier to my making the decision to get the car. That is still the case for so many people, especially those who do not have home charging and who rely on the public charging network.
Those who charge at public charge points have no idea what they are going to be charged per kilowatt, because it is dependent on so many things, including the speed of the charger and who owns the charger. That is if they can even find the rate of the kilowatt listed somewhere in the small print when they are sent to a website. They might not have a network signal to connect to the internet. They also will not know whether the charger even works. EV charging is a lottery, and we all know that those who play the lottery rarely come out on top. Reliable charging points along key roads will encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.
For far too long, our economy has suffered because the road network is not up to the standard that our cities and key routes need. The A9 to Inverness remains a killer because of the long single carriageway stretches, and dualling is decades behind schedule. I want the upgrade of the A77 and A75 to Stranraer to be put front and centre.
Road upgrades are not a luxury—they are central to our economic and social development. I want Scotland to thrive, and I think that we must put connectivity at the heart of our priorities. Although I am pleased that the SNP shares my concerns about EV issues and agrees that the roads need to be upgraded and maintained, I do not get the sense that it understands the urgency for that, or that our communities are crying out for help right now.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of Scotland’s road network to delivering enhanced connectivity and economic growth across Scotland; urges the Scottish Government to accelerate the upgrading and dualling of key roads such as the A75, A77 and A96, and to adhere to its promise to dual the A9 by 2035 or earlier and to ensure that this project is finally completed by not rejecting private funding; believes that improved connections across Scotland can be enhanced through the provision of more safe and secure rest stops, particularly for the logistics sector; rejects the UK Labour administration’s planned imposition of a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles, and urges the Scottish Ministers to undertake greater efforts to futureproof the EV charging network across Scotland’s key roads, and urges the Scottish Government to commit to ensuring that the upgrading of Scotland’s roads remains central to future economic and social development.
16:05
This Government has made significant investment to improve Scotland’s trunk road network and has a strong record of delivering road infrastructure projects. We also have a record level of funding in our trunk road maintenance budget, to ensure that our trunk roads are in a proper state of repair and to mitigate the impacts of climate change and wetter weather. This SNP Government delivered the new £1.34 billion Queensferry crossing, and, through the use of private finance, we have also delivered the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the Balmedie to Tipperty road and the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvement schemes, which are delivering tangible benefits to lives across the country daily.
We have also completed five major improvements on the A77, totalling £64 million, and six on the A75, with a total value of more than £50 million, further enhancing connectivity and improving road safety.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No.
Other recently completed projects include the Haudagain improvement in Aberdeen, the A737 Dalry bypass and the first two sections of the A9 dualling programme, Kincraig to Dalraddy and Luncarty to Pass of Birnam. Despite facing significant demands on our capital budget—remember, the previous UK Conservative Government stripped £6 billion out of our budget—we continue to invest in further upgrades to our road infrastructure. Since announcing our delivery plan to dual the A9 between—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I have only five minutes, and I have a lot of ground to cover, because we are doing so much.
Since announcing in December 2023 our delivery plan to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness, we have met every milestone on time. Today, work is under way on the third section, Tomatin to Moy, in the north and on the fourth section, Tay crossing to Ballinluig, in the south. The procurement of the fifth section, Pitlochry to Killiecrankie, is well under way.
I wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 26 November to confirm that procurement and funding routes for the remaining A9 projects will be announced as part of the budget and spending review on 13 January 2026, as any decision will have a significant impact on that and on future spending reviews and budgets. I have requested to make a parliamentary statement on the progress of the A9 dualling programme following that announcement, to provide further detail on the outcomes of the further decision-making process.
Let me be clear that we remain fully committed to delivering the full A9 dualling programme by 2035. Already, 10 out of the 11 sections of the A9 have completed the statutory process. If the Conservatives want to shorten the process of the final remaining section, from Pass of Birnam to the Tay crossing, Murdo Fraser will need to write to each and every one of the objectors to say that the Conservatives want to remove that right to object, ignore them and steam on regardless—good luck with that one.
We also remain in favour of full dualling of the A96 and are progressing the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn. We are pressing forward with work to determine the most suitable procurement option for delivering the scheme, as well as the adjacent Inshes to Smithton link road.
I had constructive discussions, as reported by the Ayr Advertiser, on 2 November this year with the A77 campaign group, and separately with the south-west transport alliance and the A75 campaign group. We have a firm plan for the improvements that we want to make on both routes, as is set out in the strategic transport projects review 2, and those are now progressing. The union connectivity review made it clear that the majority of the strategic benefits of improvements to the A75 are to the rest of the UK and recommended that the UK Government support the significant upgrade to the route. Given that, I will continue to press the new UK Government to provide additional funding for improvements to the A75.
Briefly, on EV charges, I am not sure whether Sue Webber is aware that the UK Government is responsible for the standards for the public charging network. Indeed, it introduced regulations on the matter in December last year.
The Scottish Government has worked collaboratively to support the introduction of the vehicle emissions trading scheme with the UK Government. It is four-nations legislation with annual targets that chart a path towards battery electric vehicle uptake, and it remains the most significant tool that we have to reduce road transport emissions.
We are committed to maintaining the strength and integrity of VETS, and it is clear that any weakening of that will risk slowing progress towards our carbon budgets. If we are to have a sensible transition to EV car use, the UK Government needs to engage the four nations properly on reform of motor taxation, as I have regularly asked of previous Conservative and current UK Government ministers.
In conclusion, despite facing significant demands on our capital budget, this Government has delivered, and will continue to deliver, infrastructure improvements to enhance connectivity, decarbonise road transport and promote sustainable economic growth for the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-20057.3, to leave out from “; urges” to end and insert:
“and the progress being made to deliver the completion of the A9 dualling in 2035 specifically; further recognises that both public and private funding has been used to support the development of the trunk road network, including the use of private finance for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route/Balmedie-Tipperty and the M8, M74 and M73 motorway improvements, and that private finance will continue to play a role in the future; notes that the Union Connectivity Review, undertaken by Lord Peter Hendy on behalf of the previous UK Conservative administration, recognised the contribution that the A75 makes in linking the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland; urges the UK Government to match the previous UK Conservative administration’s funding commitment for the A75; notes the improvements undertaken by the Scottish Government to the A77, including the Maybole Bypass; welcomes the ongoing constructive work between the Scottish Government and the A77 Campaign Group and South West Transport Alliance; supports the full dualling of the A96, beginning with the Inverness to Nairn section, along with delivery of the Inshes to Smithton Link Road, as part of the Inverness and Highland City Region Deal; agrees that improved connections across Scotland can be enhanced through the provision of more safe and secure rest stops, particularly for the logistics sector; rejects the UK Government’s planned imposition of a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles, regretting the ill-thought-out and counter-productive proposal, which will be bad for the climate and for rural Scotland in particular; agrees that the switch to EV cars and the provision of public and at-home EV infrastructure will be vital to Scotland meeting its climate change targets, and calls on the UK Government to engage in four nations discussions on motoring taxation reform to support a properly planned transition to EV car use.”
16:10
It gives me great pleasure to open for Labour in the debate, given that I have acquired transport as part of my economy, business and fair work brief. I think that that is a good thing, because transport properly belongs in the economy brief.
I always try to be collegiate in debates, and there are many things in the motion and all the amendments with which Labour can agree, but the most important is the idea that transport and the roads network are about connecting Scotland. Although there are things in the Conservative motion with which I disagree, the fundamental point about connectivity is clear.
That point was brought home to me when I visited Fort William last summer. Many interesting things were brought to my attention during my visit, but this was the most important. Around 50 per cent of all Scotland’s salmon comes through Fort William. It then needs to be transported along the A82, on which, for large stretches, heavy goods vehicles have to have their wheels literally on the white line, and there is no space for two HGVs to pass each other along the way. Salmon is Scotland’s third biggest export, and it is going down a road that cannot have two HGVs passing each other—that is important. We need to understand that the issue of roads is not about choice or consumer decision—it is about how our economy connects up.
Another important facet of the motion—which I agree with, but which Labour cannot support; I will come to that later—is that it is about the detail. I am pleased that the motion refers to “rest stops”, because that highlights some of what we need to get right. Yes, we need to build roads, but we also need to ensure that our roads are wide enough and have rest stops so that HGV drivers have secure places in which to park up. Ultimately, if we want goods to move from point A to point B around the country, we need those things.
Will the member give way?
I am happy to give way, but it will have to be brief.
Daniel Johnson mentioned rest stops. There is a rest stop on the A9 that provides a useful food van, but Transport Scotland will not allow a sign to be put up to tell drivers to go in there. Does he believe that that should be looked at? It would help drivers to get the rest that they need, and food and drink to keep them alert while driving.
I can give you the time back, Mr Johnson.
On the face of it, the member’s suggestion sounds eminently sensible. It is about getting into the small details, which can make a big difference. If we want our roads to work in order to move goods around, HGV drivers need good facilities, including food outlets and secure places to sleep. That is fundamental.
Whisky is another of Scotland’s main exports. There are 99 distilleries in the Highlands, and 80 per cent of Highland gross domestic product is reliant on whisky. That generates 1,500 HGV journeys per day; there are sections of the A96 on which a fifth of all traffic is due to whisky.
We export 40 bottles of whisky per second from Scotland. When we look at the challenges that we face with roads such as the A96, or indeed the A9, we see that when we have traffic jams there, we are literally creating the mother of all bottlenecks for our second-biggest export industry.
Will the member give way?
It will have to be very brief. [Interruption.] Actually, I do not really have time.
I come on to EV—
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I cannot.
I say politely to members of both parties that oppose the EV tax that, while the objections are understandable, we have taxation right now that is based on use. There is a charge of more than 50p on every litre of fuel; given that the average car does about 12 to 18 miles per litre, that is about 3p per mile. Given that—I presume—neither of those parties is opposed to fuel duty, how do they propose to replace the £20 billion? I simply put that to them. I understand the objections, but what is the replacement for that revenue?
On that, I will close, because I have run out of time.
I move amendment S6M-20057.1, to leave out from “; rejects” to end and insert:
“, and considers that future transport infrastructure decisions should be based on economic importance, safety and local necessity, and underpinned by a national industrial strategy and a strategic spatial plan.”
16:14
Speaking as a motorist, I welcome sensible investment in our roads, but building roads is not the only way to generate economic growth, and roads are not even the most effective transport infrastructure to achieve that goal. The evidence on the economic impact of road building is mixed. Analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that investing in roads does not deliver good value for money. Return on investment for road infrastructure is lower compared with other infrastructure investments, particularly in public transport. In a recent SWestrans board meeting, Transport Scotland officials noted that revenue spending on the A75 in the past two years would keep bus services in Dumfries and Galloway running for the next 300 years.
Will the member take an intervention?
Unfortunately, I do not think that I have time to take interventions.
Of course, buses use the roads too, but the unprecedented growth in traffic and congestion is piling costs on to maintaining the network for all road users, and public transport is not being prioritised as was promised in the national transport strategy.
The notion that upgrading and dualling more roads in Scotland is the best way to boost economic growth and increase connectivity is disingenuous. Investment in our roads for maintenance, improved safety and climate resilience is absolutely necessary, but dualling miles of road to speed up journey times by a handful of minutes is not.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
I can give you some time back.
Briefly, the economic impact assessment for the A75 noted that full dualling would generate £5 billion-worth of benefits, including £700 million from reduced journey times and—I note for Mark Ruskell—£95 million in carbon dioxide emission savings.
Every project needs to be considered on its own merits. If the member were to look at the A9, he would see that its cost benefit ratio did not stack up initially. I am asking for all transport infrastructure projects to be considered fairly against each other as to whether they are delivering the best value for the public pound. Numerous studies have shown that investing in public buses and trains connects people with economic and education opportunities, boosts productivity and aids connectivity, which all contributes towards growth.
There are also clear environmental and health benefits of investing in and encouraging a shift towards sustainable transport. We all know that private car use is responsible for about 60 per cent of road transport emissions, compared with the 6 per cent of emissions that are created by public transport.
Obviously, we have a lot of roads in Scotland—31,700 miles of roads, to be exact, which is enough to travel the circumference of the earth one and a half times. If we compare that with the 1,752 miles of Scotland’s railway network, it is clear that upgrading and dualling the A75, the A7, the A96 and the A9 will not enhance connectivity.
I absolutely accept that we need investment to dual key sections of trunk roads, alongside junction improvements and bypasses to relieve town centres of traffic congestion. However, we do not need investment to build wider roads everywhere that will ultimately result in more traffic congestion and higher maintenance costs.
We need investment in accessible, affordable and reliable public transport. That means upgrading the Highland main line, for example, and delivering projects such as Newburgh station to connect communities to the rail network and create fresh economic opportunities. It means investing in bus services so that they are reliable, affordable services that everyone can access, which is especially important in rural communities, where those who depend on public transport can become socially isolated. Bus priority measures should be delivered in our cities, so that buses can quickly pass traffic jams. The pause in the Government’s funding for those investments was damaging. Delays and congestion have only helped to accelerate the withdrawal of services by private operators that are solely focused on profitability.
In conclusion, we need a Government that is prepared to break the cycle of declining bus services and commit to financially supporting public transport to deliver franchising and public control for bus services, alongside investment in rail and active travel. I look forward to a national transport strategy that goes back to the principles of good transport planning, rather than a slanging match about the dualling of roads in Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-20057.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“believes that future transport investment must prioritise sustainability, equality, public transport and active travel over large-scale road building, and further believes that investment in roads should improve safety, address maintenance backlogs, deliver climate resilience on vulnerable routes, including the A83, help prioritise road space for buses and be matched with ambitious investment in rail, including upgrading the Highland Mainline and reconnecting communities, such as Newburgh, to the rail network.”
16:19
The Scottish Government’s 2015 infrastructure investment plan has been laid bare not just in the debate but numerous times in the chamber. The investment plan promised, among other things, two new major ferries, which would be operational by 2017 at a price of £90 million for both. It promised to invest in our harbours, yet Ardrossan harbour is still in limbo, and all the businesses around it are still waiting for compensation for the endless disruption. There is also the famous promise—the Conservatives are right to bring it to the fore today—that was a
“commitment to ... dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025”.
What has happened since 2015? The sad reality is that 48 people have died on that single road alone. The worst year on record was 2022, when 13 people lost their lives. I say gently to the Government that, no matter what the logistical or financial barriers are to finishing that road, surely there is a moral imperative, if nothing else, to get it done.
The road should have been dualled before now. If that can be done before 2035, that is even better. However, the problem that remains is: how many more people will die while we wait for the road to be completed?
The issue is not just with the A9. Let us look at the A96. Moray Council and the local chamber of commerce recently said that major developments such as ScotWind and the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green port are being held back by a failure to complete the dualling of that road.
Similarly, as others have mentioned, completing the dualling of the A77 and the A75 would massively improve not just the local economy but links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would keep heavy trucks off single-lane roads, improve road safety and, as Finlay Carson said, reduce carbon output in that part of the world.
Presiding Officer, do not get me started on the M8, where I seem to spend most of my free time these days. It is Scotland’s busiest road, with 150,000 people using it every day. It connects our largest city with our capital city. However, the road is now the contraflow capital of Scotland. Glasgow airport is left connected to Glasgow city solely by a road that resembles a car park at most times of the day.
What does that result in? CBI Scotland was quite clear with us. It said:
“Scotland’s motorways are the beating heart of our economy ... But motorway construction has slowed in recent years in a way that just doesn’t fit with our ambition for long-term, sustainable economic growth.”
I am sorry, but I have to disagree with Mr Johnson on EV cars. We all know that they are the future—they have a lower carbon footprint, they represent a step towards net zero and they will mean cleaner air for our children and less reliance on fossil fuels. However, the new policy to tax people who have bought an EV is utterly insane. It will hit rural economies harder than those anywhere else and will surely drive down uptake, not improve it.
I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conundrum in replacing fuel duty with some other source of income, but the proposed policy solution smells like a policy that has been drummed up in Whitehall by somebody who gets on the tube every day to work, not by somebody who has to make a 200-mile journey to the nearest maternity hospital. That is the reality of what happens when such policies are not thoroughly thought through. Do not forget that our EV industry is up against it. It is up against China and others, so why are we handing advantage to them on a plate?
Here is what we could be doing. We could be building better EV infrastructure. Why not offer sensible subsidies to move from gas to electric? Why not even cap the cost of charging EVs? It is not the consumers who need to change their behaviour—I am afraid that, in this case, it is Government ministers.
I will support the essence of the Conservative motion, because the EV tax is a step backwards, it is punitive and it is short-sighted. We need to dual the A9 and get on with it, and we need to unlock our regional and rural economies by building up and building better. I believe that no one and nowhere should be left behind. Both of Scotland’s Governments share responsibility for keeping our country moving.
16:23
I have been travelling along the A9 for more than 50 years. I just about remember the days when my family would drive on winding country roads, through the main streets of small towns and villages, as we rushed to catch a ferry across the Beauly Firth to North Kessock and headed up to catch another ferry at Scrabster. Although it took hours to get anywhere in those days, real improvements were then made, with new bridges, dualling and upgrades along the length of that road, largely because of the actions of a Conservative UK Government.
However, that progress stalled under devolution. I am sorry that Daniel Johnson could not take my intervention, because I would have highlighted that, in the eight years of the Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive, it failed to dual even one mile of the A9 between Inverness and Perth. That failure was one of the reasons why, almost 20 years ago—it feels longer now—Murdo Fraser and I launched the Scottish Conservatives’ campaign to dual the A9. We recognised that, for economic, social and safety reasons, the A9, which served as the backbone of Scotland and was an arterial route like no other, needed dualling between Inverness and Perth.
The motion makes the economic case for connectivity, and there can be few more powerful mechanisms for creating wealth and driving improvements in living standards. However, with the A9 in particular, we must remember the other considerations. In 2007, the SNP said that it accepted the case that dualling the A9 would save lives. It is one thing to fail to live up to the promise of dualling when we can count the cost in terms of pounds and pence, but it is quite another when we can count the cost in the number of lives lost and families left mourning the loss of loved ones.
Too many people have died on that road, especially in the past decade. In 2022 alone, there were 12 fatalities on the single-carriageway stretches. I hope that that statistic silences those who think that piecemeal upgrades have been sufficient. Every regular user of the road knows that that is not the case. Although we will never make every road in Scotland entirely safe, dualling the A9 would make a massive difference. The SNP promised to do that, but it has not.
The issue is, of course, far broader than one road. Commitments to dualling the A96, which is another important road in my region, are equally neglected by the Scottish Government. I note that the Government amendment includes the term “dualling” in relation to that road. Now that the Government has finally accepted that it failed to do that as promised, it is at least some encouragement that it has started using the term “dualling” rather than the mealy-mouthed terms “improvement” and “upgrade” that it has been using for the past few years.
The A9, however, is totemic of the Government’s failure, not just in relation to keeping its promises but in relation to the neglect of whole areas of Scotland. I hope that we all want the Highlands and Islands, and other remote and rural communities across Scotland, to succeed and prosper, but that will not happen while infrastructure investment remains a reluctant affair that is dragged out in time and cost and, ironically, is subject to both too much consultation and too little attention to local needs.
As covered in our motion, I reiterate my opposition to the UK Labour Government’s planned imposition of a pay-per-mile tax for electric and hybrid vehicles. Although I want those new technologies to make their contribution to supporting our roads network, such a move is likely to be the thin end of the wedge, which, if successful, would lead to a pay-per-mile tax being rolled out for all vehicles. That would hammer communities in rural areas, where we need our cars just to get about.
Although I have focused on some of the main routes in my region, I also want to highlight a common frustration for my constituents about the state of their local roads, particularly in the Highland Council area. I have been forced to advocate on behalf of constituents who have literally been left stuck in their homes because of the state of local roads, including dangerous potholes that have left the roads unusable for all but those who drive four-by-fours.
I recognise that Government procurement is not straightforward, but the SNP has presided over a system in which progress has slowed almost to a standstill. Meanwhile, our road network continues to be a barrier to development and, in cases such as the A9, people continue to lose their lives. The Scottish Conservatives are seeking to make a difference. Will the Scottish Government move on from acknowledging its failings and actually do something to fix them? Will it stop the excuses, stop the delays and get the A9 dualled?
16:27
I am pleased to see the focus in the Government’s amendment on the dualling of the A9 and its completion in 2035, and on the dualling of the A96, particularly the Inverness to Nairn section, which includes the Nairn bypass. The traffic congestion in the middle of Nairn—where folk travelling to Aberdeen or further afield get frustrated as they travel through the 20mph zone, often idling for long periods at far below 20mph and polluting the town centre—is unnecessary and unhelpful to the amenity of the town.
When travelling through that section, people go past a primary school and key pedestrian routes to the railway station, shops and community centre. I feel out of place in my car there, but it is simply unavoidable for many when travelling by train is not suitable. That is one of the least pleasant journeys that I take regularly, but it is a necessary one for ambulances, carers travelling between towns, and many heavy goods vehicles. The Nairn bypass is the most needed infrastructure investment in Inverness and Nairn. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that that is reflected in my correspondence with her.
Similarly, the Inshes to Smithton link road has the potential to remove traffic from key pressure areas as well as improve active travel links. Having cycled the A96 to Burger King a fair bit when I was a Deliveroo rider, I can tell Parliament that that will be warmly welcomed by many commuters and other cyclists in the city.
The Longman junction improvement project was initially to be addressed alongside the new link road as part of the Inverness and Highland city region deal, but it was removed at Highland Council’s request in order to prioritise a replacement for the Corran ferry. Necessary as I know that ferry link to be, I am interested in whether the cabinet secretary can provide any information on the Longman junction’s current position in what I know is a very long list of priorities, and on how the procurement strategy work has gone.
I often struggle—I know that the cabinet secretary’s officials do, too—to reassure constituents that something is on-going in relation to a project, even though they cannot see spades in the ground or plant and road works signs with their own eyes. Works are progressing at a fantastic rate at the Tomatin to Moy section of the A9 thanks to the Balfour Beatty team on site, but that very much contrasts with the situation with the Nairn bypass.
I respect the necessity of works on the whole of the A96, which will be important for the north-east, but our most urgent focus must be on the Inverness to Nairn section and the Nairn bypass. It is the most advanced project in the wider review and is desperately needed for so many reasons. We expect housing and other infrastructure to be coming into the area quickly, particularly given the nearby freeport. However, for many, the announcements add to their anxiety about the current situation with the road and whether it will worsen. While they wait for visible works to begin, many of my constituents are keen to hear the cabinet secretary provide the earliest possible timeline for the construction of the bypass and any other reassurances that can be provided at this point.
We cannot let the momentum on the Nairn bypass be lost or delayed. Tangible progress on it is the best way that the Parliament can deliver for the people of Nairn and ensure that future house building, employment opportunities and any other infrastructure projects do not have negative consequences for the town.
16:31
For too long, my constituents have been told to wait—to wait for studies, to wait for the second strategic transport projects review, to wait for consultations and to wait for future budgets. Now, in the SNP’s amendment, it is effectively being suggested that we should wait for the UK Government. It is conveniently forgotten that transport is a devolved responsibility. Although I agree that the UK Government should shoulder some responsibility, it is the Scottish Government that needs to take the lead.
While we wait, the backbone of Dumfries and Galloway, the most important gateway for United Kingdom island trade, remains a narrow single-carriageway bottleneck that is infamously known as the goat track. Let me be clear: the lack of investment is a political choice, and that choice costs economically, environmentally and in terms of human lives.
Each day, the A75 carries around 15,000 vehicles, 16 per cent of which are HGVs, and each year they transport more than £6 billion-worth of goods. It is the lifeblood of trade through Cairnryan, yet that vital route remains the only single-carriageway section of the Euroroute from Northern Ireland to St Petersburg. Hauliers lose hours while vehicles are stuck behind slow traffic and are forced to risk overtaking. Local businesses, manufacturers, food producers and tourist operators see their competitiveness eroded by unreliable journey times. Over the next few evenings, we will once again see full closures of the road, which will require vehicles to detour almost 100 miles and take up to two and a half hours on routes that are far from safe or fit for purpose for HGVs.
The A75 is too narrow to allow normal traffic management of the type that we would see anywhere else in the country. Its safety record over the past decade is sobering: 19 fatalities, 88 serious injuries and nearly 300 injuries. It is a record of families shattered and lives changed for ever.
Dualling the A75 is not a luxury; it is a safety and productivity intervention. It would mean faster, safer freight transport, reliable supply chains and a fighting chance for inward investment and job creation in the south-west. The Dumfries and Galloway economic impact report, which was commissioned by councils in Scotland and Northern Ireland, estimates that dualling the A75 and improving the A77 would generate £5 billion of benefits to the UK economy, including £700 million in reduced journey times and operating costs and £95 million in CO2 savings. Expanding the road would support our climate goals.
Finlay Carson has made a strong case for dualling the A75, but the cost of that would be £50 million and Governments need to prioritise investment. The cost of dualling the A96 would be up to £5 billion—that is £5,000 million. Does he not see that the political priorities are for the A96, not the projects that he has put forward?
I can give you the time back, Mr Carson.
I completely dispute what Mark Ruskell has said.
The campaign groups are clear. SWestrans says that every delay costs Scotland’s economy. We need shovels in the ground, not another decade of studies. Local businesses echo that frustration. One haulier told me:
“We lose thousands every year because of delays on the A75.”
The situation is not only an inconvenience; it is a barrier to growth.
For well over a decade, I have championed the cause of dualling the A75 by raising it in the chamber, pressing ministers, convening round tables and working with campaign groups. I have demanded feasibility studies, pushed for bypass plans and argued for joint Scottish Government and UK Government funding to reflect the route’s strategic importance. However, warm words and endless reviews do not move shovels. My constituents deserve delivery, not delays.
That is not just my view; it is rural Scotland’s view. The report “Scotland’s Rural Voice”, which was published yesterday, found that 80 per cent of respondents believe that infrastructure investment is simply not good enough, with eight in 10 rural Scots feeling let down by the lack of commitment to roads and connectivity. That statistic should ring alarm bells. Neglect is real and widespread.
This exhausted SNP Government must stop ignoring the south-west, take accountability and fix the A75. We need a binding timetable, not dusty reports—a published programme with dates for route selection, statutory orders, procurement and phased construction. We also need tangible and transparent co-funding, because we are talking about a UK-wide corridor. We cannot afford to dither. Businesses pay a premium in delays, families suffer from accidents and Scotland loses out on investment, with freight shifting from Cairnryan to Holyhead and Heysham.
Some might balk at the cost, but they miss the truth that inaction is more expensive. Smart infrastructure delivers investment in safety, growth and sustainability. This is a test of serious government and of Scotland’s commitment to balance growth, climate integrity and citizen safety. If the Government means what it says, the dualling of the A75 would not be discretionary—it is overdue. My constituents ask for a fair share of Scotland’s ambition. Dualling the A75 would send a simple but powerful message that the south-west matters, that connectivity matters and that climate change and economic leadership can go hand in hand. It is time to act.
16:36
This debate provides an opportunity to focus on the lack of progress that the SNP Government has delivered in improving and maintaining transport infrastructure across Scotland. The cabinet secretary was keen to talk about progress on the A9. I have to say that, for those who travel on it, it does not feel as though progress has been made.
Transport is vital—members from across the chamber agree on that—and we need a joined-up approach, with better infrastructure, investment, repairs and maintenance.
Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?
No—I do not have time.
Scottish Labour’s focus is on upgrading our creaking transport infrastructure. It is vital that our roads—our national and our local road networks—are maintained. We must also factor in connectivity between our rail infrastructure and bus services, because action is needed in that regard, too. Far too many communities simply do not have the access that they need.
As we say in our amendment, we need a national industrial strategy that aligns transport, energy and skills with long-term economic growth, as well as a strategic spatial plan. We need investment across the regions and, as members have said, we must strengthen logistics and our rail links to deliver our climate and nature emergency commitments. Our transport sector is vital. If we lag behind because we do not invest in roads, rail and logistics, there will be an impact on sustainable growth and the transport of goods.
Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention on that point?
I will not, because I am now nearly a third of the way through my time. [Interruption.] I have said no twice.
Without reliable roads and better connectivity, businesses cannot compete and communities cannot thrive. When transport networks fail, supply chains break, and the first to suffer are our local shops, our rural communities and the most vulnerable households.
We will see more and more challenges as a result of infrastructure being impacted by the climate and nature emergency, so we need better logistics and transport planning to protect our economy and our environment.
Every road, rail link, port and ferry link must be linked together as part of a logistics chain. Finlay Carson’s points about Cairnryan were absolutely right, and he highlighted the failure to make joined-up connections. Having a stronger logistics network means that farmers can get food to market, businesses can reach customers and Scotland can compete globally.
Several colleagues have mentioned safety issues. The quality and safety of our roads and pavements is crucial. Having safer roads and infrastructure is not optional; it is vital to people’s health, as has been highlighted. Without better and safer roads, we risk discouraging people—people will not be able to choose active travel, and cycling is not appealing, if there are potholes, poor surfaces and unsafe junctions.
There is also an impact on our bus routes. We do not have opportunities as a result of huge numbers of bus routes being axed and train services being plagued by cancellations. In relation to communities in the Highlands and other rural areas, as well as investing in the A9, we need to ensure that there are better railway services.
We need a joined-up set of approaches nationally and across every region. We have regularly highlighted the SNP Government’s brutal cuts to our council budgets, which have hit people’s roads and pavements. We need to look at buses, because too many people have a bus pass but cannot use it. Lothian Buses shows what can be done, but Glasgow has waited six years for bus franchising, and far too many rural communities have lost services.
We must invest in transport, and we need joined-up thinking, because transport is essential infrastructure. Given that, a decade on, only 13 per cent of the A9 dualling is complete, the SNP Government has no ground to stand on.
16:40
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment and the much-needed detail that it provides. Her amendment and the motion mention the A77 and the A75—two roads in the south-west of Scotland that need major investment. Mr Carson has highlighted well the number of lives lost and families affected. The A77 connects Scotland’s central belt to Ireland via the port of Cairnryan and is economically vital to Scotland.
I want to highlight the good work that is under way by Transport Scotland on the Crocketford and Springholm bypass design development, which, when complete, will mean that every settlement along almost 100 miles of the A75 will have been bypassed. The A77 Maybole bypass was completed three years ago and has been improving travel since it opened. Investment has been made of more than £100 million on improvements along the two roads since the SNP came to power, along with more than £300 million on maintenance, but that is still not enough.
Will Emma Harper give way?
I will not take an intervention. I usually do, but I have only four minutes—apologies.
Like everyone in Dumfries and Galloway, I want to see more investment, and the quicker the better. It does not help that successive UK Governments have squeezed and squeezed Scotland’s capital spending budget in the name of the economic disaster that is austerity. We need continued investment in transport in the south-west, as the cabinet secretary rightly noted in her amendment. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s work with the south-west Scotland transport alliance and the A77 action group.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment highlighting the need for improvements to rest stops for freight drivers, which Sue Webber’s motion also mentions. I want to focus the remainder of my time on rest stops. I recently met the Road Haulage Association. One of the main items that came out of our discussions was the need for better facilities for HGV drivers. HGV drivers are the hidden heroes and heroines of our economy, which we saw especially during the Covid lockdown. The entire logistics system that keeps almost everything in our society supplied and stocked can only function with them working safely and efficiently, so the working conditions that they operate under are hugely important.
Unfortunately, the level of provision that is currently in place on our trunk roads does not match that level of importance. None of us would accept being told that there were no toilets in the building where we work, yet, while Scotland lags behind with the rest areas that are provided, that is, in essence, what many HGV drivers are being told. The second strategic transport projects review specifically noted that investing in lorry parks and rest facilities for drivers would
“significantly improve working conditions for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) drivers”,
and that
“Improvements to facilities would, therefore, also help support the Scottish economy and its growth”
by supporting and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of key supply chains.
Motorways have service stations that operate privately but are regulated and controlled by Government and that provide a basic level of facilities for all drivers, free of charge. However, trunk roads have no such regulation and no such facilities, except where private operators have set them up of their own volition. I wrote to Transport Scotland asking whether there were plans for some provision of rest facilities along the A75, either as part of the Crocketford and Springholm project or somewhere else on the route. I was disappointed to hear recently that the answer to whether it would pursue that at this time was no. I ask the cabinet secretary to perhaps nudge her officials in Transport Scotland into thinking again and to look to Europe and at some of the incredible facilities that it has for its road hauliers.
Today is 10 December, which is human rights day, commemorating the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948. I would like us to support our HGV drivers and their human right to dignity. They need facilities in which to take a break, have a shower and use the loo. The men and women who keep our shops, hospitals, supermarkets, chemists, factories, farms and everything else stocked 365 days a year deserve nothing less.
We come to the closing speeches.
16:44
I will start on a note of consensus and refer to the points that Emma Harper has just made. I do not think any member in the chamber would disagree about the need for investment that she set out.
I have not yet heard a single member speak in favour of the Westminster Government’s proposed punitive tax on EVs. It singles those vehicles out and discriminates against them. To answer Jamie Halcro Johnston’s question, I do not know whether that represents a wider approach from the Treasury on demand management. However, if it does, it is starting at the wrong end. It should be starting with sport utility vehicles—SUVs—and not EVs.
The Treasury’s assumption is that driving an EV is low cost. It is low cost, but only if people are able to charge their EVs at home and get access to a low-cost tariff. When I charge my EV at home, I am paying about 8.5p per kilowatt hour at night, which means that my mileage costs are about 2p a mile. However, if I go to a public charger such as those provided by Perth and Kinross Council, I am paying 55p per kilowatt hour. We cannot get into a situation where the cost of EV use starts to creep up above the cost of petrol and diesel. That would absolutely stall the transition to EVs, and it would blow a hole in the Government’s climate plan. The cost of electricity is clearly a political issue, including in relation to the roll-out of heat pumps and the general electrification of our entire society, but it is a critical issue that we need to get right.
Members mentioned all sorts of projects during the debate, and many projects are mentioned in the motion and the amendments. However, I am disappointed that not a single member has mentioned the A83. All the projects that have been discussed are partly about safety, and they are also about making the roads faster, but people in Argyll are completely and utterly cut off when the Rest and Be Thankful is closed. We need to get serious about investment in climate adaptation, because a lot of our roads are simply going to crumble away as we start to go beyond 1.5°. We are seeing more extreme weather events, and the Rest and Be Thankful is a classic example of what can happen.
We need to get real about the economic impact and the cost of road-building programmes. I am seeing an increasing proportion of Government revenue going on servicing the private finance initiative and other models that were used to procure roads in the first place. We do not want to get to a situation where the entire transport budget is eaten up by more and more projects that become harder and harder to maintain and build. There is no magic money tree here.
I go back to the exchange that I had with Finlay Carson. Let us consider the costs of projects that have being named in the debate—£3.7 billion for the A9 from Perth to Inverness, up to £5 billion for the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen, £64 million for the A77, and £50 million for the A75. That £9 billion of spending on four major road-building projects in Scotland is an exorbitant amount. It is the equivalent of 200 years of the Scottish Government’s budget for all road safety interventions on all roads.
Jamie Greene talked about a moral imperative. There is absolutely a moral imperative to invest in all roads in Scotland. Over the summer, very sadly, I attended a fatal road traffic accident on the A85. Wherever such deaths occur, there are too many. We need to be cutting casualties and making our roads safer—and I am referring to all roads. There is a need to invest here. I accept that there is a need to invest in the A9. There is a need to invest in junctions and a need to invest in parts of the A9 that are currently dualled but where there have still been accidents. However, that needs to be investment in what works, and it needs to drive down the casualty rate.
I want a national transport strategy that is reasonable, sensible and evidence based and that starts to push some Government funding towards projects that will work—ones that will improve safety, keep us connected and, ultimately, get us to a better place as a nation.
16:49
Transport links are the very arteries through which our communities’ life-blood flows, both economically and socially. They are essential. Throughout Scotland, the areas with the poorest transport networks are those that are facing the greatest depopulation. Sarah Boyack was about the only person in the debate who mentioned ferries, which are the roads for our island communities. However, not a day goes by when there is not disruption of some sort to ferry services, which impacts on island economies and leads to depopulation.
Daniel Johnson, Sarah Boyack and most other speakers in the debate talked about the A9. In that regard, I encourage the Scottish Government to introduce a duty of candour, as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has suggested, because the public has lost confidence that progress will be made. The Scottish Government needs to publish the advice that it has received from Transport Scotland officials relating to the financial viability and deliverability of the A9 dualling programme.
At the start, the programme was estimated to cost £3.7 billion, and it was due to be completed in 2025. A decade on, it is only 13 per cent of the way towards completion. There has been consideration of bringing in private finance, but with some of the hardest sections of the A9 still to go, even the new 2035 target now looks optimistic.
Sarah Boyack did not take my intervention, so I will ask now whether you are embarrassed that, in the eight years when the Labour Party was in government, it did not dual even one mile of the A9.
Always speak through the chair, Mr Halcro Johnston.
The Labour and Lib Dem Executive carried out improvements to the A9—there were deadly junctions that were improved. We certainly support the dualling of the A9.
Jamie Halcro Johnston and Jamie Greene talked about fatalities on the road. Driver error is mitigated by the design of the road, which is something else that the Labour Party oversaw when it was in government.
Finlay Carson and others talked about the A75 and A77. Those are crucial lifeline roads that also enable links between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Daniel Johnson talked about an area that is close to my heart, which is the west of Scotland. The A82 is poorly served, and so is the A83. As Mark Ruskell mentioned, the Rest and Be Thankful is also a huge issue.
Sarah Boyack talked about local government cuts and how they are creating problems with our local roads. There have been £329 million of cuts to core council funding between 2013-14 and 2025-26, and local roads are crumbling because of that.
I will also mention the Stromeferry bypass in my area, where a landslip would create a 130-mile diversion—and there is a weak bridge on the same road. That is a lifeline route, yet the Scottish Government refuses to help.
Mark Ruskell talked about public transport. There is a desperate need for better public transport. However, many areas in rural Scotland have no public transport at all.
I know that I am running out of time. There are so many issues with all our transport systems—we have hardly touched on rail—that we could spend a whole day highlighting them. There are issues with roads, ferries, rail and other public transport—the whole lot. As Sarah Boyack said, for Scotland to work, we need an industrial strategy that is joined to Scotland’s transport infrastructure. The Scottish Government needs to do better.
16:53
This debate provides an opportunity to highlight the progress that the Government has made in maintaining and improving the transport network to enhance connectivity, decarbonise road transport and generate sustainable economic growth. It has also allowed members of all parties to say where they have serious concerns and frustrations. We need to go further to support trunk roads in their constituencies.
I welcome Daniel Johnson to his new transport portfolio and, to address his point about the centrality of transport to the economy and economic growth, I commend to him the value of the transport report that I commissioned.
I agreed with a lot of the important points that Mark Ruskell made in his summing-up speech. He wants a wider debate, as does Rhoda Grant, but I did not set the timing of the debate, nor the motion that I am responding to.
This SNP Government has built 33 major trunk road projects since 2007 and, in the process, constructed more than 280km of new trunk road, which has cost nearly £3 billion.
In the course of the debate, I have listened carefully to the arguments on progressing with dualling works on the A9 between Perth and Inverness and improvements on the A96, A75 and A77 corridors. I reiterate that the Government is committed to delivering, and is on track to deliver, the A9 dualling by 2035. Anyone who drives along the road will see the works that are happening now.
On the Conservatives’ call for an emergency law to accelerate the dualling of the A9, it is not clear what benefits, if any, the suggested emergency law would provide. The Scottish Government has already completed the statutory process for 10 out of the 11 projects in the dualling programme, which account for more than 92 per cent of the length to be dualled. Draft orders and an environmental impact assessment for the only project that is yet to complete the statutory process—the section between Pass of Birnam and Tay crossing—were published for comment in May.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I need to go into the detail of the process. It is essential that people who are directly impacted have the right to formally comment on the proposals and that consideration is given to those comments in the decision-making process. The suggested Conservative law would cut across existing legislation, which supports public participation in environmental decision making, thereby bypassing and silencing the rights and views of people in Dunkeld and the surrounding area.
In addition to progressing the A9 dualling programme, the Government is committed to dualling the A96, starting with the Inverness to Nairn section, which includes the Nairn bypass. Emma Roddick set out the importance of the order in which things are done and the need for the Nairn bypass, in particular, along with the Inshes to Smithton link road. The Scottish Government is also leading on taking forward proposals to bypass the settlements of Springholm and Crocketford on the A75.
We are progressing a number of other improvements across Scotland’s road network. I say to Mark Ruskell that we are addressing climate mitigation—that work includes the key project on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful, which is designed to mitigate the risk of landslides. We are promoting a new grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk on the A90, and I assure members that we are committed to improving the A75 and A77 trunk roads, as well as the wider transport network in south-west Scotland.
I want to move on to electric vehicles and our commitment to decarbonising road transport. Since 2011, the Scottish Government has invested more than £65 million in expanding Scotland’s public electric vehicle charging network. As a direct result of that, Scotland has a public charging network that compares favourably with that in any other part of the UK. Scotland has more than 7,400 public charge points, and we met our commitment to provide 6,000 charge points two years ahead of target. The latest official UK Government statistics show that, per head of population, Scotland currently has more rapid and ultra-rapid charge points than any other part of the UK.
The Scottish Government continues to support the expansion of public charging infrastructure through our £30 million electric vehicle infrastructure fund for council consortia. In addition, in August this year, I announced the provision of a further £4.5 million specifically to support public charging in rural and island communities, and we expect the guidance for Scotland on cross-pavement charging, which is being led by the Scottish Collaboration of Transportation Specialists, to be ready soon. There is a pilot cross-pavement charging fund in three local authority areas, including East Lothian, where I launched that funding.
The Scottish Government rejects the ill-thought-out EV charge per mile policy of the UK Labour Government, which many members have mentioned. It will hit rural Scotland hardest and, as many have said, it represents a disincentive to switching to EV cars just when we need people to do so at scale. The Office for Budget Responsibility itself asserts—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will address the member’s point.
According to the OBR’s own assessment, hundreds of thousands of drivers will not switch to electric vehicles because of that tax policy, so it will not help to address climate change. The UK Government needs to engage on a four-nations basis in a comprehensive reform of motoring taxation to enable a long-term transition to EV charging. A Westminster committee said that the proposed policy would result in a £15 billion loss in other forms of car taxation. I also agree with what Jamie Greene said. If the policy is being driven solely by the Treasury in Whitehall and does not take on board the transport situation, the geography of Scotland and climate change, it is doomed to fail. The issue needs to be addressed, and I have continually suggested that to successive UK transport ministers.
We remain firmly committed to delivering infrastructure that provides the connectivity, the decarbonised road transport and the sustainable economic growth that Scotland needs.
I invite Douglas Lumsden to wind up the debate.
16:59
I thank colleagues from across the chamber who have so clearly set out the challenges that our road networks face.
I want to start by acknowledging the very real and life-changing consequences of not getting our road infrastructure right. Tragically, last weekend, two of my constituents, both just 24, died as a result of a crash between the Toll of Birness and Mintlaw. They were a young couple with so much life ahead of them, and their deaths are all the more tragic because of the dangerous nature of the roads north of Aberdeen. Those of us who live and work there know that it is dangerous, and we will continue to call on the Government to make safety improvements. That is why I brought this debate to the chamber: to make our roads safer and to save lives.
The variety of MSPs who have spoken today make it very clear that the problem with our roads is an issue from the very north to the very south of Scotland. Whether you are in the north-east or the south-west, our trunk road system is not fit for purpose for today’s needs. If we are to encourage growth, build economic prosperity and make the most of our industries, we need a road network that meets our ambitions and requirements. It is not just an economic issue. As I mentioned earlier, it is a matter of life and death. Today, we have heard of the tragic consequences of our poor roads and the undualled A9, A96, A75 and A77. We have heard about families left devastated and communities rocked when people are killed and injured on our roads.
Back in 2011, the SNP first promised, in its manifesto, to dual the A96 by 2030. The SNP has now promised a refined package for the route. The refined package, which is more of a regressed package, is not much use when you are a business trying to move your goods between Inverness and Aberdeen, and it does not help rural communities, who are left wanting—unconnected and struggling to access the rest of Scotland safely. The SNP says—it has repeated it today—that it supports the dualling of the A96. If that is the case, come back with a timescale and a plan, so that we can all see it. Over the past four years, all that it has done is kick the can down the road. It is all too wishy-washy, just like the SNP’s amendment to the motion. There are bits of the amendment that I agree with, but it makes no commitments on the projects that we highlight in the motion, which is why we cannot support it.
We are used to broken promises from the SNP, whether it is on dualling the A9, the A96 or even, as once promised by Alex Salmond, the A90 between Aberdeen and Peterhead. Whatever happened to that promise? There has been no mention of that promise by the cabinet secretary today. The sad reality is that these delays and broken SNP promises are leading to deaths on our roads and in our rural communities. Sadly, the Parliament is becoming numb to the repeated deaths that happen week in, week out. This is not good enough, and this SNP Government needs to realise that it is to blame. Jamie Greene highlighted the lives that have been lost on the A9. The number of deaths would be less if the Government had stuck to the timescale that it had promised.
There were questions about whether this should have been a wider debate. If it had been, I am sure that Sue Webber would have spent four minutes talking about Winchburgh station. She also highlighted the value of the logistics industry and spoke about the lack of rest stops, which will become more important as we move towards electric or hybrid HGVs or hydrogen vehicles. On the lack of toilet facilities, Emma Harper made the point very well: we would not put up with a lack of facilities in this building, but that is what we are asking our logistics drivers to do day in, day out.
The Labour proposal to charge EVs 3p per mile seems a bit of a back-of-a-fag-packet policy, to be honest. It would hammer rural drivers, and I have no idea what would happen if you were driving a hybrid vehicle—whether you would have to pay double.
What would the member say to the fact that the policy was first drafted under Jeremy Hunt’s tenure in the Treasury?
It was, and it was absolutely rejected, because we knew that we had to incentivise people to get into EVs.
As Sue Webber pointed out, EV charging is a lottery. Mark Ruskell made a good point about the fact that there is inequality in the cost of charging an EV. If you are lucky enough to have a driveway, you will pay a much lower rate—Mark Ruskell quoted 8.5p per kilowatt hour—but, if you have to go to a public charger, it might be 55p per kilowatt hour or, if you use a fast charger in a service station, it might be 85p per kilowatt hour. That needs to be looked at quickly. I agree with something that Daniel Johnson said, namely that it is about connecting Scotland—that there is value to our economy of upgrading links. For example, upgrading the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen would bring huge economic benefits. The same goes for the A75 and the A77. It is all about trade, linking Scotland to Northern Ireland—a point that Fin Carson made. I could feel Fin Carson’s frustration, because “Wait” is what we hear all the time. There are new reports, new studies and more dither and delay from the SNP Government.
Emma Harper seemed to paint a rosy picture of what has been going on with the A75 and A77, but it would be interesting to know whether the people whom she represents think the same. It is bizarre that she talked about the lack of rest stops. There have been 18 years of SNP Government; it has had the time to get that right.
Rural communities are angry. That is why the Scottish Conservatives brought the debate to the chamber. We want to talk about the issues that the public are talking about and the challenges that they face. They want to know whether they will have a job next month and whether they will be able to drive to it—because there is no public transport—on decent roads that are safe.
Only the Scottish Conservatives are committed to bringing in legislation so that work could start immediately on the dualling of the entire A9 and key sections of the A75. We would take swift action, cut through red tape and recognise the reality of the challenges that are faced by rural Scotland. The failing SNP Government and the feckless London Labour Government are harming Scotland. The sooner that they are gone, the better.
That concludes the debate on connecting Scotland, and it is time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question.
Previous
Social Security SpendingNext
Point of Order