The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-12163, in the name of Mike MacKenzie, on average-speed cameras on the A9. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the recently published performance data regarding the average speed cameras on the A9, which suggests that, since the cameras were introduced, the number of drivers speeding has reduced from around one in three to one in 20 and that examples of excessive speeding are down by 97%; understands that there is no evidence of drivers taking diversions or using so-called rat runs to avoid the cameras; believes that their introduction has resulted in an increase in journey time reliability to and from Inverness, and considers that both the cameras and the HGV speed limit pilot on the A9, which have been put in place ahead of the dualling of the road, have been a success and have led to more responsible and safer motoring.
17:05
I have had a particular affection for the A9 since I helped to build part of it during the long, hot summer of 1976. It was a massive improvement on the previous road, but few people predicted back then that Inverness would grow at the rate that it has and become such an economic success story; few people predicted that the road would have to carry the amount of traffic that it now does; and few people could have imagined how fast and powerful modern vehicles would become.
Three years later, in the summer of 1979, my grandparents were killed in a road accident that involved both alcohol and excessive speed on the part of the driver of the other vehicle. I therefore have first-hand knowledge of the devastating effect of road traffic accidents on families. Ever since, I have had a heightened awareness of road safety.
That is why I am so pleased that this Government has introduced a lower alcohol limit for drivers, it is why I am pleased that this Government continues its focus on improving road safety, and it is why I am pleased that this Government continues to improve the quality of our road infrastructure, because the design and quality of our roads are, in themselves, important components of road safety.
That is also why I am pleased that the A9 average-speed cameras scheme is proving to be successful, with speeding cases reducing from one in three to one in 20 and excessive speeding down by 97 per cent. There is no question but that speed is a significant factor—perhaps the most significant factor—in serious and fatal accidents.
However, it is not just the implementation of the A9 speed cameras that is important. Important, too, is the way in which it has been done. The Scottish Government has followed an evidence-based approach, looking closely at examples from other countries and the experience from the average-speed cameras on the A77. The Scottish Government has also consulted widely, most obviously with the wide group of stakeholders that make up the A9 safety group, including Transport Scotland; Police Scotland; the Highland, Tayside and central Scotland safety camera partnerships; Highland Council; Perth and Kinross Council; BEAR Scotland; the Road Haulage Association; the Freight Transport Association; the Federation of Small Businesses; the Confederation of Passenger Transport; the Institute of Advanced Motorists; Stagecoach; the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and others. The proposals and the strategy have therefore been informed by all of that opinion.
In keeping with its overall strategy, the Scottish Government has looked closely at how the scheme is operating, and it continues to do so, analysing the data carefully as it becomes available. That is why we know that the results after the first three months are so encouraging.
However, this is not just a question of encouraging safer and more responsible driving. It also goes hand in hand with the commitment to complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025. This Scottish Government is the first to give a commitment to dualling the A9—the biggest transport project that Scotland has ever known, with a cost of around £3 billion.
As a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, I was delighted to learn how well the Queensferry crossing project is progressing, as it is both on time and below budget. I am even more pleased to learn that the anticipated savings are allowing the early progression of some of the first phases of the A9 dualling project. That is a great example of success building on success, and great credit is due to Transport Scotland. That is what good government, working hand in hand with competent Government agencies, looks like.
On Friday, I drove from Edinburgh to Inverness, for much of the journey on the A9, on a day of blue skies and silver sunshine. There was some snow still on the hills, and more on the mountains. I drove through that enchanting landscape with vista after vista opening up before me, through a landscape where the road signs conjured up much of Scotland’s history, from Killiecrankie to Culloden. It was a very pleasant journey, made at a good average speed through smoothly flowing traffic. Slowing down a bit can add a little quality to our lives, as well as improving safety.
The Press and Journal has helpfully produced a survey that suggests that the public are happy with the average-speed cameras on the A9. However, I must finish by condemning those politicians who have seen the issue as a bandwagon on which to jump. I am thinking in particular of Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has blown on some slight embers of discontent, hoping to fan them into a bonfire merely as a means of opening up an assault on the SNP Government.
There is no place in Scotland for that kind of irresponsible and shameless politics. It is time for Mr Alexander to get behind the Scottish Government’s efforts to improve safety, and stop playing politics with this important issue.
17:12
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on bringing to the chamber tonight’s very important debate. He revealed to us that he used to work on the A9. I do not know whether he is considering offering his services to Transport Scotland to help with the dualling of the A9, but I am sure that, if he makes a request, the whips’ office will consider a couple of years of respite for him.
I will focus on road safety, as a road safety campaigner. As Mike MacKenzie said, the A9 has acquired an almost mythical infamy: even people who have never driven on the road are well aware of the notorious A9 and how dangerous it seemingly is. Of course, one death on Scottish roads is one too many, which is why road safety is vitally important, and why we as politicians must do all that we can to support the police and other agencies to make our roads safer.
In 2010, for example, 208 people were killed on Scotland’s roads, 1,960 were recorded as seriously injured and 11,156 suffered slight injury. Most of the casualties were travelling in cars, but more than 2,000 were pedestrians; more than 800 were motorcyclists; and more than 700 were pedal cyclists.
Will the member take an intervention?
In one second—I will just finish this point.
There were 1,375 child casualties, of whom four died.
I wonder if the member might care to look at his number for those who have been killed on our roads. On these benches, we seemed to hear the figure 2008, but I think that it is a tenth of that.
The key point is that the figures are declining, which is a good point that we can all unite behind.
What concerns me is that fatality numbers are highest among young adults, who account for 22 per cent of fatalities on Scottish roads in the past five years despite the fact that 16 to 24-year-olds make up only one tenth of the total population.
As members will know, there is particular concern in the Highlands and Islands and in the north-east, where there is a disproportionately high death rate among young drivers.
The police tell me that—as Mike MacKenzie pointed out—speed is the biggest contributory factor to road casualties. More than half of the drivers who are killed die in collisions on country roads, and of course the risk of collision rises the faster a driver travels. For example, at 25 per cent above the average speed, a driver is about six times more likely to have a collision than a driver who is travelling at the average speed.
The direct cost of road accidents involving deaths or injuries in Scotland is approximately £3 billion a year but every pound spent on safety camera enforcement is a £5 saving to the emergency services.
Having been a driver myself for more than 40 years—and being a veteran of the A9 Inverness to Perth route in particular—I feel that I have some experience to offer the chamber with regard to this particular route.
Few issues have been raised as frequently by motorists in relation to the A9 as the previous 40mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. That is why, in December 2012, I jointly launched a campaign with HGV driver Conor McKenna to have a pilot increase of the speed limit for HGVs on the A9 from 40mph to 50mph.
My motivation in setting up the campaign was purely to try something different—to try something that would perhaps reduce driver frustration. My logic was that if HGVs travelled faster by 10 mph—at 50mph—all traffic would increase speed to an acceptable and appropriate level and there would be less of an inclination to carry out dangerous overtaking.
There is also quite an interesting climate change issue that Mr Stevenson might be interested in. The haulage industry tells me that an HGV being driven in a higher gear, at 50mph, emits less than an HGV being driven at 40mph in a lower gear. Therefore, there is a boost in relation to tackling climate change if HGVs increase their speed, which seems counterintuitive but is correct. Members will be aware that the pilot was introduced during October last year, along with the A9 average-speed cameras.
Since March 2010, I have been heavily involved in road safety at every opportunity. Alas, time does not allow me to talk about the graduated driving licence scheme, but I thank the Scottish Government, which has been very supportive in relation to that reserved issue. I have made attempts, by having meetings with United Kingdom ministers, to try to ensure that we introduce that scheme in Scotland. It would result in a reduction of 21 deaths among young drivers and a saving of £80 million. I would welcome the minister’s views on that in his closing speech.
I thank Mike MacKenzie for the opportunity to have this excellent debate and I congratulate him on the work that he does on road safety.
17:17
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate and thank him for bringing the motion to Parliament. Like David Stewart, I am a regular user of the A9 and the road is very important to my Perthshire constituents. However, people from across Scotland will have an interest in the safety of the road and what can be done to improve it.
It is essential that the Scottish Parliament debates issues that are important to the people of Scotland and I can think of few subjects that have generated as much commotion and heat as the question of average-speed cameras on the A9. The number of people who are members of online campaign groups that call either for the removal of the speed cameras or for speedier dualling totals nearly 30,000. Clearly, it is an issue that is very much in the public eye, and it is not going to go away.
When the A9 average-speed cameras were first suggested, I was generally open to the idea. Anything that can be done to improve road safety on Scotland’s most dangerous road should be encouraged. However, I was strongly of the view that the speed cameras could be introduced only in tandem with an increase in HGV speed limits to 50mph on the single carriageway stretches. That case was vigorously put by people in the chamber—David Stewart among them—and by campaign groups outside the Parliament, including the road hauliers. I am pleased that the Scottish Government listened to those voices and brought in the pilot speed increase. I understand that it is working very well and that the feedback has been very encouraging.
We are six months on from the average-speed cameras going live, as Mr MacKenzie’s motion indicates, so what now? I fear that Mike MacKenzie is being a little bit premature in celebrating success. One thing is clear: speeding has been reduced. That fact is almost indisputable. However, is the road safer as a result? I am not so sure. Scarcely a week goes by when I do not open the pages of The Courier or The Press and Journal and read about yet another serious crash or another deadly near miss.
Just two weeks ago, we saw yet another tragedy—a horrible double fatality on the Perthshire section of the A9 near Dunkeld as a result of a head-on collision. We do not know all the details, and we should not speculate, but sadly we continue to see people die on the A9 and we continue to see near misses.
The week before last, a video of a dramatic near miss close to Blair Atholl went viral—almost every major Scottish news outlet ran a story on it. Even the New York Daily News featured a different near miss from the previous week in its online edition. That is global recognition for Scotland, but of entirely the wrong kind.
Proponents of average-speed cameras claim that reducing speeding has ultimately made the road safer, but that assumes that speed is the primary factor in accidents on the A9. As has been mentioned time and again, road layout and driver frustration are responsible for a large percentage of collisions on the road. Therefore, until we have a full year of evidence and accident statistics, it is too early to celebrate the success of the average-speed cameras. The A9 is an important tourist route, and road traffic levels, and therefore the propensity for accidents, are much higher during the summer months than in the winter. Therefore, if Mr MacKenzie will forgive me, I believe that we cannot rush to judgment on the issue and that we need to wait until we have gathered more evidence. I hope that the Scottish Government will resist the urge to install more average-speed cameras on roads across Scotland until we have concrete full-year results and a proper opportunity to scrutinise them.
I strongly believe that, in creating transport policy, the Scottish Government should consult the people who use the road—the drivers—and those who live in the vicinity. Taking into account their views is a must. I am pleased to note that Transport Scotland is having a public consultation on the proposed Dalwhinnie junction and I ask it to take a similar approach if it is considering rolling out average-speed cameras to other trunk roads across the country.
Members are united in their desire to see the A9 lose its reputation as Scotland’s deadliest road. I hope that average-speed cameras are part of the cure, but we cannot make a judgment on that today. We will be able to do that only in due course. In the meantime, I still believe that the only long-term solution is a fully dualled road and I urge the Scottish Government to press ahead with its dualling plans.
17:22
As has been said, we all know that the A9 average-speed cameras have been a resounding success. I agree to an extent with Murdo Fraser that all the evidence is not yet in, but we have sufficient evidence to show us that the scheme has been successful to date. Although accidents continue, which is of course tragic, I hope that the level will remain lower than was the case before the speed cameras were introduced. As has been said, the system, which cost £3 million, has been credited with cutting the number of people speeding on the A9.
I believe that the road is now much safer. Like other members, I have driven on the road. I have been driving on it since the mid-1960s when I passed my driving test in, I think, 1967. I remember travelling from Lossiemouth to Edinburgh on the old A9: it took seven hours, and was nose to tail the whole way. A big chunk of the road runs through Badenoch, which is an important part of my constituency. Three times over the years, I have been very fortunate to avoid head-on collisions with various vehicles when going round corners or driving at night. Somehow or other, I managed to get into a layby that just happened to be there at the right time when someone was coming towards me. That has happened to me three times, and I hope that it does not happen again, because I am not sure that a layby would be there the next time. I am very aware of the dangers of the A9.
It is encouraging that the Government listened on the issue of heavy goods vehicles. Several members have said that they made representations and campaigned with others, as I did. I met the then Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, and his officials and made a strong case to them that the limit had to be increased, because it would have been an absolute disaster if the average-speed cameras had come on and we had left the HGV limit at 40mph. That would just not have worked and would have created an awful lot of frustration, so the 50mph limit was crucial. If members drive on the A9 now, they will find that they are driving at around 54mph or 55mph for a lot of the way if they come up behind an HGV. That is perfectly acceptable because it is possible to get by the HGVs on the dual carriageway stretches and even at some of the two-plus-one stretches, which I am not keen on.
However, the average-speed cameras have not been without their detractors. As Mike MacKenzie said, the Lib Dems in particular seemed to have a strange logic, teaming up with anyone who had anything negative to say about the cameras. Thankfully, they have stopped their silly posturing as the evidence comes through to show that the scheme is working.
We need to consider the matter more broadly. Mike MacKenzie mentioned the introduction of the new drink-driving limit, for which I campaigned from 2007 until, eventually, we wore the Westminster Government down and forced it to devolve the setting of the limit to us. That took more than five years but the Scottish Government acted within about five months once it had the power. I was pleased about that.
The speed cameras and the drink-driving limit are road safety issues. Safety must always be our top priority. I thank the Scottish Government as it gets the dualling of the A9 under way. That is happening now. Members will see real progress from now on and, within 10 years—if not less than that—the A9 will be fully dualled, which everybody in the chamber will welcome.
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Mike MacKenzie.]
Motion agreed to.
I call Dave Thompson, to be followed—
Dave Thompson rose—
No. I beg your pardon. I call Liam McArthur, to be followed by Stewart Stevenson. You have had your turn, Mr Thompson.
17:27
It was not Dave Thompson’s worst speech, but I do not want to listen to it again, Presiding Officer.
I join others in congratulating Mike MacKenzie on bringing the debate to the Parliament. I acknowledge his hitherto unremarked-upon connection with the A9, but I notice that he did not claim credit for the part of the A9 that he was responsible for helping to build.
It is clear that the experience that Mike MacKenzie has, arising out of personal tragedy, underscores his personal commitment to road safety and reducing the alcohol limit for driving. That is to be commended, but the political attack that underlies the motion and, perhaps, the debate was betrayed in the peroration to his speech. I do not necessarily see it as Danny Alexander’s role—or the role of any MP, for that matter—simply to get behind the Scottish National Party.
There are undoubtedly concerns about the implications of average-speed cameras and they cannot simply be dismissed as reckless. More than 3,000 highlanders, including local business groups, have called on the Scottish Government to do away with average-speed cameras, and there is a debate to be had.
Murdo Fraser made a valid point about the data that we have seen. It would be foolish of any of us to leap on it and draw conclusions at this stage.
I hope that Mr McArthur agrees that, although the data might not be absolute, definitive proof, it is nevertheless encouraging.
The Minister for Transport and Islands said back in January:
“After only three months of average speed camera operation, police injury accident figures are not available.
A longer period is required to evaluate safety performance—typically three years before and after in the case of road safety schemes.”
The minister has put on record some of the caution that is to be adopted when approaching the figures.
Will the member give way?
The minister will have an opportunity to respond to my comments, and those of others, when he winds up.
What the figures do not show is what has happened with regard to reckless overtaking. They do not show whether that has increased or whether driver frustration has increased. Most importantly, they do not include important analysis of safety on the road, despite what a number of SNP MSPs have said.
Will the member give way?
No—we have already heard from Dave Thompson.
Business groups have raised concerns about the implications of average-speed cameras for journey times. I do not imagine that they can simply be dismissed as somehow being reckless. There is a considerable amount of work to do, particularly to analyse the period when the road is most heavily in use—over the summer months, as Murdo Fraser said. That will be illuminating.
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate and thank him for allowing us to express our views. As a regular user of the A9 who has constituents who are also regular users of this north-south artery, I remind the Parliament and the minister that the road does not stop at Inverness. An important chunk of it between Inverness and the north coast often appears to get overlooked in debates about safety on and the dualling of the A9.
I will conclude by joining the universal chorus of support for dualling the road as a means of removing its reputation as the most dangerous road in the country. As the next photo call at the side of the A9 comes up, I also note that, after at least eight years, we still have not seen the countless billions that have been provided by the UK Government, and by the Liberal Democrats’ involvement in the UK Government, being deployed on the dualling of the A9.
17:31
I thank Mike MacKenzie for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I also declare that I had no hand whatsoever, that I am aware of, in building the A9, although when I was a transport minister, I was involved in the relocating of 41 colonies of wood ants as a result of a small improvement. They are doing very well, by the way.
Have safety cameras that measure average speeds changed behaviours and reduced lawbreaking? The answer, with the benefit of a few months’ experience, has to be yes. Have accidents and the numbers killed and seriously injured been reduced? Again, conditionally and provisionally, the answer is yes.
We need to think about what people who say that we should not have average-speed cameras are actually saying. They are saying that, although we have a law that sets the speed limit, we do not want to enforce that law. Why are we choosing not to enforce that law, among all other laws? Because it is a matter of personal convenience and arrogance on the part of those who wish permission, unsupervised and unenforced, to break one of our laws. If the law is wrong—one could argue that it is and that the speed limit is not the right one—there is a way to deal with that. However, putting other people’s lives at risk while doing that is not on—not in any way whatsoever.
I very much welcome the improvements that we are seeing in the layout and engineering of the A9, and the dualling of the road all the way to Inverness will be of great benefit. In the distant past, I lived in Fife and had a girlfriend who lived in Inverness, and members can be absolutely sure that I was familiar with the road. My family used to travel from Fife to Sutherland for our summer holidays every year for many years. That used to be a 12-hour journey, on the previous incarnation of the A9.
Today’s A9 is different from the one before, and the next generation will be different again. However, we will not engineer out all the accidents and issues on the A9 by dualling it. Parliamentary answers to Murdo Fraser show that, in every year about which he asked questions, the M8—which is a motorway and a dual carriageway—had a higher rate of accidents per kilometre than the A9.
We do not find ourselves addressing just engineering. I absolutely support Dave Stewart’s efforts, which focus on driver education and graduated driving licences. Members will have heard before that I am a private pilot. In flying, people do not simply pass their test and get the right to go off and do everything—it does not happen that way. They cannot fly at night, fly out of sight of the ground or fly in clouds. They cannot fly multi-engine planes, planes with retractable undercarriage or planes with variable pitch prop. If people want to do those things, they have to learn and acquire the skill and get the endorsement that they have done the needful. When we pass a test, be it as a pilot or a driver, we do not suddenly and magically acquire the experience that will enable us to cope with everything that we will meet during our career in charge of a vehicle; that has to be learned.
We have to look at whether there are ways in which we can sensibly help people to make progress safely. I do not speak for my party on the matter, but I very much support the idea that we should have graduated training. I accept that that affects young people in particular, and in rural areas—such as I represent—there are particular challenges, because the car is an important transport vehicle for young people. However, we can do it and I think that we have to look at it further.
Frustration, on the A9 or any other road, is never an excuse for creating an accident or the possibility of an accident. We cannot imagine just that engineering solves the problem; we have to look at the drivers as well. We do not have all the powers to do that, but I hope that there will be willingness from elsewhere to help on that.
17:36
I, too, commend Mike MacKenzie for bringing this important issue to the chamber. I have enjoyed the speeches thus far.
One of the purposes of Government is to provide a safe transport system for its citizens, so I certainly commend the efforts of the Scottish Government with regard to the A9. Those efforts are undertaken with other agencies including local authorities, Transport Scotland and others. Why does it do that? It is a good thing to do, but it is also a very cost-effective thing to do.
A lot of people have talked about supporting dualling. I add my support to dualling—but dualling of the rail line, which would be far more cost-effective than the obscene sum of money that has been spent on the A9.
I looked for references on the Scottish Government’s website. There is an excellent document on there, which I commend, called “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020”. I will not quote the statistics in it—many members have quoted statistics, Dave Stewart among then. I commend Mr Stewart’s work on young drivers and the challenge there, to which members have referred.
We must remember that the statistics are about real people who have families and neighbours and who live in communities. In those communities there is a coalition of voices in support of efforts to stop the carnage that was taking place on the A9. As members have said, the road safety cameras are but one mechanism that is being used for that.
The framework that I mentioned has some wonderful phrases in it and some wonderful chapters—for example, “Encouraging a Drive for Life culture”, which is what we need to encourage, and “Reducing the tolerance of Risk on roads”. We know that risk taking is a factor and that, of course, the largest factor is irresponsible driver behaviour.
Mike MacKenzie talked about slowing down and adding to quality of life, which is an important factor, and is good for the planet, too. There are also rights: we must uphold the right of all road users to expect to travel safely, which was not the position in the past.
I have been involved in road building in the past—although not the A9—but I think that I am alone in having dealt with incidents on that road as a police officer. Those incidents ranged from minor to serious incidents. I recall being sent as a dog handler to see whether there had been a pillion passenger on a motorcycle, and being told to ignore the leg that was lying in the road further along. That is the sort of thing that not just police officers but other emergency services workers have to deal with. I am in support of anything that can be done to reduce the carnage.
Indeed, shortly after I was elected, I wrote to the Scottish Government and was told that introducing average-speed cameras was not feasible. If it was not feasible at that time, it is certainly feasible now and I welcome the fact that they have been introduced, because results from elsewhere, for example on the A77, are compelling, and the anecdotal experience that we have heard is positive. It is not about road design; it is about irresponsible driver behaviour and the most common facet of that is speed.
There has been brief mention of irresponsible elected representative behaviour, which I cannot let pass without saying that my MP, Danny Alexander, certainly has not represented me in the way that he has talked about the issue. A lot has changed since I was in the police service.
Something else I found on the Government website this afternoon is called Klang: The Road Home. I do not know whether the minister will tell us about Klang, which I knew nothing about. It was launched on 16 February and is a smartphone app to encourage road safety, to be used by young people.
It is of no use to you, then.
I am told that Klang is of no use to me.
Of course, what is for me is another app that the Scottish Government has put in place—the road safety cameras. It is a hands-free app: we just need to stick to the law, as Stewart Stevenson said. We are not there yet—there is still irresponsible driver behaviour, but road safety cameras contribute to making things better and I, for one, welcome them. I thank Mike MacKenzie for bringing the debate to the chamber.
17:40
I congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing a debate on one of the most significant roads—and certainly the most dangerous road—to the Highlands and Islands. It is a credit to Mr MacKenzie that he recognises that. I know that the SNP has pledged to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness, but when will that happen?
I wish to declare an interest, in that I often drive the A9 from Edinburgh to Inverness and beyond. Some years ago I was caught by the A9 average-speed cameras beyond the Forth road bridge while on my way to a funeral in Perth. I still maintain that I was in a queue of cars that were all going too fast but, nonetheless, I paid the penalty and took the points.
The A9 is part dual carriageway and part two-lane road, which is a recipe for danger, especially for tourists who are used to driving on the right-hand side of the road. I remember well the words of Lord Burton, who was roads convener of the old Inverness County Council—now that was a council. He always maintained that the road had been built with dualling in mind and he was always furiously indignant that the preparations had never been taken forward. It should have been dualled much earlier. When we look at motorways in Spain, France and Italy and the multiple-lane highways all over the United States, we realise the poverty of the condition of roads in the north of Scotland.
Can Jamie McGrigor remind us who Lord Burton railed against, regarding dualling the A9, back in those days? It was certainly well before the SNP Government came into power, so it must have been the Tories, Labour or the Liberals. Does Jamie McGrigor remember who it was who did not dual the A9 then?
No—I have to say that I do not remember who it was. Lord Burton was always very pro-dualling, as far as I knew. Our Governments—Conservative Governments—produced many more good roads in Scotland than any other Government, so there you are.
I will always agree with any scheme that reduces injuries and fatal accidents, but such schemes can never be used as an excuse to delay the essential dualling of Scotland’s main backbone road: the A9.
17:43
Road safety is of paramount importance to this Government and we are committed to reducing casualties and saving lives on roads across Scotland, including the A9. A lot of expertise on the issue has been brought to the table in the debate, along with personal experience and understanding that each accident is a tragedy for all those involved. As transport minister, I am informed every time that there is a fatality on any road in Scotland, which does not make pleasant reading, because of course lying behind each fatality is a family or community affected. That is the level of seriousness with which we approach the subject.
I, too, congratulate Mike MacKenzie on securing the debate and David Stewart for the way in which the Labour Party has engaged very helpfully in it. Even Murdo Fraser, a man renowned for his balance and modesty, contributed to the debate and engaged in the debate with an open mind. That is fair, and it is better than the closed-minded approach of some who have engaged in the debate outwith this chamber in a more opportunistic fashion.
As well as the loss of human life, there is the cost of the disruption that is caused by accidents. I commit again to the Government seeing through the dualling work on the A9 at a cost of an estimated £3 billion by 2025. That is 80 miles of work in quite challenging circumstances, but that commitment is strong, and I have to say that it is a first for a Scottish Executive or a Scottish Government to commit to those works. We will complete them as quickly as we possibly can.
Education and driver behaviour are important, and we will continue to support educational campaigns led by the road safety partnership to address issues such as inappropriate driver behaviour, including excessive speed, close following and unsafe overtaking, which contribute to a significant proportion of road accidents generally. We will do that in partnership. A range of other works is going on, not just the deployment of the average-speed cameras, but works such as new lining and signing, vegetation clearance, high-profile visible policing and targeted education campaigns.
A key point is that the average-speed cameras have been deployed based on evidence and at the points on the route with the highest accident records. Some people have called the cameras money-generating schemes, but they are not. They are about safety and they are deployed where they make the biggest difference, and the evidence tells us that they are making a difference.
In the spring of last year, 78 per cent of members of the public who were asked for their views anticipated that such cameras would be “effective” or “very effective” in making the route safer. Recent surveys and polls, such as that published in The Press and Journal, have suggested that a majority of people think that they are having a positive impact on driver behaviour. Fifty-six per cent of those surveyed by The Press and Journal felt that the average-speed cameras have had a positive effect.
I take Murdo Fraser’s point about public opinion, but I would argue that public opinion has moved as the experience has been that the cameras make a difference on the ground. The evidence from the stats that we have from the first performance figures show that excessive speeding is down, and that is often the bane of journeys between Perth and Inverness. It has been reduced by 97 per cent, and speeding overall is down from one in three vehicles to one in 20. Change of that magnitude reflects significant improvements in driver behaviour.
I have been comprehensive in my response, and I would say to Liam McArthur that we need to look at accident statistics as well. However, the figures that we have tell a positive story about how speeding has come down. I believe that the incidents and the disruption caused are also falling. Despite comments to the contrary, traffic is not diverting from the A9 on to other roads. The A9 is very much open for business, and there is better journey time reliability. I accept that there has been a slight increase for some in the average journey times, on a scale of between three and 14 minutes, but I believe that that is a price worth paying for a safer road.
Can the minister comment on the way in which the figures are able to disaggregate the implementation of the speed cameras from the introduction of roadworks at key sections on that road?
A level of analysis would be required there, but what is pretty consistent when we look at the stats that were provided in the briefing for today’s debate is the correlation between the installation, or even perceived installation, of the average-speed cameras and the reduction in speeding. I do not think that it is any coincidence.
Questions have been raised about further deployment of average-speed cameras in other parts of Scotland. We do not have any plans to satisfy the members who have raised that issue by deploying average-speed cameras to any new area as an isolated road safety measure, but where there are further major construction works, we will judge on a case-by-case basis whether they should be deployed as part of the package.
The measure has clearly worked on the A9, where the number of drivers being detected and prosecuted for speeding offences has fallen eightfold. That clearly illustrates the effectiveness of average-speed camera systems and the fairness of their operation. Far higher enforcement levels have been delivered than were previously possible, and much higher compliance levels have been provided than other methods have provided.
We will embark on further educational campaigns not just about the A9—although the A9 will be focused on, as well—because many of the educational messages are relevant the country over.
It is right that the Government listened to what was said on wider speed limits in the Highlands and specifically on the HGV issue as part of that package.
We have a clear commitment around dualling.
I appreciate the work that the Government is doing on the speed limit increase to 50mph for HGVs and that it will need some years to analyse the results of that. However, I understand that there have been changes in the speed limits in England. Will evidence from England be analysed in looking at a wider roll-out?
We will consult closely and look at the evidence from south of the border in England. At this stage, there is only a consultation on the HGV speed limit increases. The Government is not convinced that a blanket increase would be the right thing to do, but we will look very closely at the consultation and the evidence that is produced if there is implementation. We are not convinced that the evidence is established that there should be a blanket increase across the roads of Scotland, but we will give the matter careful consideration.
On the question of consultation with local communities, of course we want to consult. We want to get the plans, proposals, consultations and road orders correct. That is why so much time is taken up in the preparation for the dualling work, which has been broken down to 12 phases to ensure that the dualling is properly planned and that we engage with local people on what the engineering solutions will look like.
Mr Finnie was absolutely right on Klang. I had the pleasure of launching that app for young people to engage in road safety in a way that they enjoy. That is so much the case that I cannot get my hands on my iPad because my sons now want to play that very popular Scottish Government road safety game. It has been very well received.
On a more serious note, engagement with communities is absolutely vital.
I want to finish on the politicisation of the matter. Some have focused more on electioneering than on the safety of their constituents. Apparently, Danny Alexander calls me part of the “Edinburgh elite”. I have been called many things in politics, but certainly not part of any elite or Edinburgh based.
I would not ask Danny Alexander as the constituency MP to get behind the SNP; I just ask him to get behind road safety in the interests of his constituents, because surely they are paramount. I think that Liam McArthur is a gentleman. Maybe he is the token Liberal Democrat and apologist for Danny Alexander today, but if the Liberals were so keen on dualling the A9, I wonder why they did not do anything about it when they were in office for eight years or, indeed, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was reducing the capital budget in Scotland. There are ways in which Danny Alexander could have helped with the dualling of the A9, but he has failed to do so.
I remember very well our ex-colleague John Farquhar Munro, who was a well-known Lib Dem MSP, suggesting that the dualling should go as far as Wick.
I commend the member for trying to get me to extend the dualling commitment beyond the current limitations, but the £3 billion commitment within 10 years and 80 miles of challenging road network are ambitious enough. However, we will, of course, look to extend as resources allow. I congratulate the member on making that bid.
Danny Alexander should stop the political posturing, look at the evidence and recognise that public opinion has moved. Safety has to be paramount. It is not about getting behind the SNP; Danny Alexander has been getting at the SNP. That should stop, and we should get on and work in partnership to make all our roads, particularly the A9, safer.
Once again, I commend Mike MacKenzie for bringing this very important debate to the chamber.
I thank you all for taking part in this important debate.
Meeting closed at 17:54.Previous
Decision Time