A9 Dualling (Timetable)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7532, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the dual the A9 timetable.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament understands that the A9 trunk road has the highest fatality rate of any road in Scotland and that the majority of accidents occur on single carriageway stretches; sadly notes that 2010 had seen 11 deaths on the Perth to Inverness section by 1 December; acknowledges that the A9 between these points continually switches between single and dual carriageway, which, it considers, can cause driver confusion and lead to accidents; believes that upgrading the A9 between Perth and Inverness to dual carriageway in its entirety would reduce the accident and fatality rates and in addition would help ease congestion and bring an economic boost to Mid Scotland and Fife and the Highlands, and accordingly would welcome a full and detailed timetable for such improvements.
17:07
I thank all the members who signed my motion on a timetable for dualling the A9 and those who have attended the debate.
I am just about old enough to remember, from growing up as a child in Inverness, what we now know as the old A9, which meandered its way from Perth northwards through countless small communities. It was unsuitable to serve the Highland population and was often subject to congestion and long delays. In 1974, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Gordon Campbell, signed the orders for the creation of what was then known as the new A9. The road was constructed over the following 12 years. It bypassed towns such as Dunkeld and Newtonmore, relieving them of traffic congestion, and was a mix of single carriageway and dualled sections. At the time, it was built to the highest design standards and with the latest engineering technology. It was a massive commitment and investment in Perthshire and the Highlands.
Now, more than 30 years after the completion of the road, traffic levels are, in places, five times what they were back then in the late 1970s. A road that was adequate in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer sufficient to cope with the level of traffic and the number of heavy goods vehicles that use it today.
As a fellow Invernessian, I recognise Mr Fraser’s description of the road’s construction. I agree with his points about construction being important, but does he share my view that driver training, particularly among young drivers, is crucial? Will he support my campaign to have a graduated driving licence to ensure that young drivers get more training and therefore have fewer accidents on the roads, particularly the A9?
I am happy to support the general thrust of Mr Stewart’s comments, although I would have to look at the details of his proposal about the driving licence. Generally speaking, more driver education would be extremely helpful.
Through Transport Scotland publications and parliamentary answers, we know that the A9 is officially Scotland’s deadliest road, with the highest fatality rate of any road in Scotland. It witnesses on average more than 200 accidents per year and had the highest or joint-highest death rate of any road in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008. We are still to receive the official figures for 2010, but I understand that there were 14 fatalities in that year, with 13 lives lost on the Perth to Inverness stretch. Sadly, I am sure that that will again mean that the A9 has one of the highest numbers of fatal accidents on roads in Scotland for that year—if not the highest.
No one here can ignore those facts. We must remember that, behind the statistics, there are many families and friends who have lost loved ones and many communities that have been devastated. Every accident is a human tragedy, and tonight we are joined in the gallery by some of those who have lost loved ones on the A9.
As my motion sets out, between Perth and Inverness there are long and dangerous stretches of single carriageway and the road continually switches between single and dual carriageway sections. The long stretches of single carriageway cause driver frustration and the road’s switching between single and dual carriageway causes driver confusion. If the A9 were dualled in its entirety, those problems would be substantially removed. I fully accept that dualling the A9 would not end accidents on the road, but I strongly believe—my belief is shared by road-safety campaigners and the police—that upgrading it would substantially reduce the number of accidents.
I welcome the commitment that the Scottish Government made in its strategic transport projects review to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness, but my concern about that commitment is that the A9 project is in competition with 28 others, and people who wish to see improvements on the road have no idea where they sit in the Government’s list of priorities and no idea what the likely timescale for completion might be. That is why I hope that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure will give an indication of when road works to improve the A9 will commence and how they will progress. I would like him to tell us that tonight, or to confirm that a statement to Parliament will be made, in which a full timetable for the dualling of the A9 will be set out, similar to the timetable for the new Forth road bridge crossing, with details of when it will start, the likely costs and the likely completion time.
I understand that dualling the A9 is a massive financial commitment, and I recognise that finances are under severe pressure and that most of the Scottish Government’s capital budget for the next few years will be swallowed up by the new Forth crossing. However, it is for the Government to set out its priorities and to tell us where the A9 stands in relation to other projects. We should not forget that there is a substantial cost to not acting. I am talking not just about the appalling human cost that I have mentioned, but about the economic cost of disruption.
The most recent fatal accident on the A9 between Perth and Inverness was on 23 December, when three lorries crashed north of Dunkeld. Understandably, the road was closed all day. The closure of Scotland’s main arterial route between the central belt and the north of Scotland for a whole day, two days before Christmas, inevitably caused major disruption for individuals and businesses, and had a massive economic impact.
We are now seeing money being spent on the creation of two-plus-one overtaking lanes on the A9. Although any improvements are welcome, I wonder whether the money would not be better spent on the creation of dual carriageways, because if the Government is serious about its commitment to dualling the road in the long term, those lanes will have to be replaced. It is ironic that the new overtaking lane at Moy had to be closed just two weeks after it was opened, because it turned out that it was more dangerous than the single carriageway that it replaced.
On the issue of cost, I was disappointed to hear the minister, Keith Brown, when he was interviewed this morning, repeat the old canard that the Edinburgh trams money could have been spent on the A9. Unfortunately for him, I have a long memory and I remember—I have all the evidence to back this up—that at the time of the vote in Parliament on the trams in 2007, the Scottish Government made it quite clear that if the trams project did not proceed, that money could be spent only on other public transport projects and not on the A9. I understand the game of politics and the minister’s need to shift blame away from his Government’s broken promises, but he is engaged in a pretty shameless attempt to rewrite history. To be frank, I expected better of him.
In closing, I would like to thank the newspapers The Courier and The Press and Journal and local papers such as the Perthshire Advertiser and the Inverness Courier, which have all done so much to highlight the need to dual the A9. I would also like to put on record my thanks to all the people who have supported the campaign to dual the road, especially those who have gone through the ordeal of losing loved ones on it, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration. If any good is to come out of the succession of tragedies on the A9, I hope that it is a full and detailed timetable for its dualling, set in stone.
17:14
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this important debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the A9 and the key role that it plays in connecting the Highlands to the central belt, which has received more than its fair share of investment in transport infrastructure, unlike the Highlands. Sadly, the north of Scotland did not get the investment that it deserved until the Scottish National Party came to power. The SNP Government’s swift action to include the dualling of the A9 in its first strategic transport projects review is to be commended. In his winding up, I hope that the minister will give us some indication of when we will get a timetable for the first phase of this essential infrastructure project.
I am sure that Mr Fraser’s motives for bringing the motion to Parliament are honourable, although he has missed no opportunity to attack the Scottish Government in the past for failing to convert the route to dual carriageway immediately it took power in 2007 as the first minority Administration. However, I was happy to add my support to his motion, thereby ensuring that it had the cross-party support that it needs for such an important matter to be debated in the chamber.
I wish that Mr Fraser’s concern for the transport needs of Perthshire and the Highlands had been paramount when he joined Labour and the Liberal Democrats to obediently vote along party lines and defeat the minority Scottish Government in its early days, thus forcing it to allocate £500 million from Scotland’s small budget to Edinburgh’s increasingly problematic trams project. Whatever Murdo Fraser says about only being able to use the money for other public transport projects, £500 million was taken out of the budget. As Murdo Fraser knows, budgets are variable and can be used in different ways.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will let Murdo Fraser in in a minute.
For those members who acted so cynically in forcing such a sizeable proportion of the country’s budget to be spent in the central belt and Edinburgh to return to the chamber to ask why multimillion pound work has not begun in the Highlands and Perthshire is the height of hypocrisy. Surely they cannot expect their complaints to attract any credibility whatever.
Murdo Fraser cannot even argue that he did not know what he was doing back then. David McLetchie, his leader at the time, let the truth out to the Edinburgh Evening News in an unguarded moment in November 2007, when he said
“Had they cancelled the trams, they were never going to spend that money in Edinburgh. They were intending to spend the money on transport projects elsewhere in Scotland.”
I hope that Murdo Fraser is suitably embarrassed, but he should not just have a red face on this issue; he must apologise to the people of the Highlands and Perthshire for siphoning off cash that could have contributed to improving the A9. I will even take an intervention from him now to allow him to give that apology.
I regret the tone of Mr Thompson’s contribution to this serious debate. It was quite clear in 2007 that the SNP meant that the trams money could be spent only on public transport projects. I also found a campaign leaflet from the Glasgow North East by-election in 2009 in which the SNP said that the Edinburgh trams money should have been spent in Glasgow. So, it was Edinburgh or Glasgow—not the Highlands.
Mr Thompson, I remind you and the other members to keep an eye on the motion.
It is a motion on the A9 and I will certainly do that. If £500 million is taken out of the Scottish budget, irrespective of what Mr Fraser says, it means £500 million in the overall budget that could be spent elsewhere. People in Glasgow would have been quite entitled to have asked for the money to be spent there. I wanted it to be spent in the Highlands. Fergus Ewing also argued that case strongly. Murdo Fraser voted for it to be spent in Edinburgh: that is the fact of the matter.
To make matters worse for the north of Scotland, the underinvestment by the previous Tory and Labour-Liberal Governments also affected the other two arterial routes into the Highlands: the A82 and the A96. I am, however, pleased to say that both routes have also been given a commitment for improvement from the SNP Government, under the STPR. I am particularly pleased that that commitment includes the A82 route action plan.
In the meantime, the Scottish Government has not sat on its hands. It has expedited the improvement programme that is set out in the current STPR. It has already spent £50 million on the A9, fast-tracking the Crubenmore dual carriageway extension. It is also progressing improvements on the A82 at Crianlarich and Pulpit Rock. The SNP Government is the first to commit to those essential infrastructure developments, after years of inaction from the Tories, Labour and the Liberals, so we need no lessons from Murdo Fraser or anyone else in the Opposition on looking after the needs of the Highlands.
17:19
There have been several debates on the A9 in the three sessions of this Parliament, including two that were secured by John Swinney—in November 2002 and September 2005. It is interesting to look back at the wording, passion and commitment in the debates of Opposition politicians who now hold the reins of Government and have been in the position to fulfil their campaign pledges since May 2007:
“I am one of those who has campaigned and will continue to campaign for the full dualling of the A9 to Inverness. Does the minister accept the case in principle? If so, when will it be delivered? Can he specify the year, decade, century or millennium?”—[Official Report, 24 September 2004; c 10056.]
That was Fergus Ewing. We now know that the Scottish Government accepts the case to dual the A9 in principle, but the question today is on the timetable, just as it was then.
In November 2002, John Swinney said:
“I shall argue for the reconstruction of the A9 as a dual carriageway ... I ask the minister not to commit himself to immediate action to dual the A9, but to give a commitment to examine the case for doing so and to consider including the measure in the Government's programme in the short, medium and long term.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; c 15574-5, 15777.]
Will the member give way?
If Mr Swinney will let me finish, I have even more about him—he can make an even better response.
In September 2005, Mr Swinney’s comments were even stronger:
“What I want the Government to do is to get on with delivering its commitments to the people in my constituency, which is something that it has lamentably failed to do so far.”
He continued by asking the minister to
“tell Parliament why there has been such an abject failure to deliver on the promises made to my constituents by several Scottish Executive ministers.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2005; c 19312, 19314.]
He also sought an assurance of the timescale over 10 or 15 years.
Is not the fundamental difference between now and all of the comments that Mary Scanlon has recounted and the complaints that were made then that the Administration at that time had absolutely no commitment to dualling the A9? This Government was elected with a commitment to dual the A9, and we are now taking steps to do that. Any reasonable person would understand that a road cannot be dualled in the timescale that we have had at our disposal. What we have done is invest in improving the A9 and delivering more dual carriageway and safer junctions.
Being a reasonable person, I have already acknowledged that the Government has accepted in principle to dual the A9, but tonight we are looking to hold it to account and for ministers to produce the timetable that Mr Swinney sought so many years ago.
In 2005, the now Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism Jim Mather stated:
“To deny the Highlands the chance to see the A9 dualled is to limit their potential to converge economically with the rest of Scotland and the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2005; c 19322.]
It is on the basis of the promises and commitments in opposition that today we hold the Government to account. When we move the debate on to November 2007, the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change gave an assurance of the Government’s commitment to dual the A9, but there is still no timescale.
The motion mentions 11 deaths on the Perth to Inverness section of the A9 but, with respect, I do not think that the headline figure reflects the full horror of accidents on the road—I know that local members will acknowledge that. I have met people who have been involved in crashes on the A9 who never walked again and never worked from the day of their accident. We should not forget the full toll of the accidents by looking only at the fatalities.
The A9 death rate from Perth to Inverness averages at double figures over the period from 1979 to date. What we are seeking today is a timescale for upgrading the A9 to dual carriageway. It would also be helpful to look at better signage, particularly for drivers who are not familiar with the road. Are more signs needed to notify drivers of upcoming dual carriageway in order to discourage risky overtaking? For those of us who are familiar with the road, the road leading up to sections of dual carriageway is probably where most drivers take risks, overtaking vehicles in order to position themselves to overtake the lorries and slower-moving vehicles in the short dual carriageway sections.
Finally, will the minister explain why taxpayers’ money was used to build an overtaking lane at Moy that, as Murdo Fraser said, was considered to be unsafe due to design flaws after only weeks of use? Does the Government not know how to build roads that are fit for purpose?
I thank Murdo Fraser for this debate.
17:24
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I will stick with the traditional tone of members’ business debates. I think that a more sombre tone is appropriate in this particular debate; we have sitting in the public gallery bereaved families who have been affected by the A9.
The A9 is one of Scotland’s most important transport arteries. As we have already heard from other members, there are many challenges with the road.
The member will be aware that many young and inexperienced drivers use the A9 every day. Does he share my view that we should introduce a graduated driving licence scheme to increase skills and therefore reduce accidents on the A9?
It is an interesting idea. I hope that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee will look at it soon, within the ambit of one of its inquiries. I take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Stewart on the award that he received last evening in London. The road safety charity Brake named him parliamentarian of the year for his work on road safety.
In some respects, the debate about the A9 and the safety challenges reminds me of the debate some years ago about the A77, or its northern part which is now the M77, because many accidents were attributed to the change in driving conditions. People called the A77 a killer road, and some people call the A9 a killer road. For reasons that I do not have time to go into I am not comfortable with the term “killer road”, but I have certainly seen killer drivers, and that is why I believe there is an important role for driver education. However, I would not like to claim that driver behaviour is the dominant factor in the challenges of the A9. I will say a wee bit more about the other challenges in a moment.
It seems obvious that one thing that we have to do with the A9 if at all possible is take some pressure off it. We should see whether we can achieve some modal shift and whether there are options for people not to use the A9 but to use something else. For example, the improvements to the Highland train services might be an opportunity for some people to take pressure off on the passenger side. On the freight side, at recent meetings of the aforementioned committee with the very long name Mr Swinney has twice told us that he has been hanging around Perth railway station of an evening and that it did his heart good to see freight trains going through and to think that there are fewer lorries trundling up and down the A9 because of that. I make the rather obvious point—it is not a cheap shot—that the same logic should apply to the Highland Spring plant at Blackford and that company’s aspiration to shift some of its freight off the A9 and on to the railways. If only we can have a chink of light in relation to the freight facilities grant—but we will have another crack at that debate.
I have noticed a very focused point on the freight facilities grant in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee’s report. I assure Mr Gordon that it is attracting considerable attention from ministers just now.
I am grateful for that intervention because it has been given in the spirit in which I proposed what I proposed to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. I am here to help solve problems if I can.
I am running short of time. I want to make the point that, as well as the safety issues, there is the economic case to consider—and it is not just about reducing the opportunity cost to people who are delayed by accidents and congestion on the A9. I look back to the estimable Scott Wilson economic appraisal study of 2007, which was commissioned by the Highlands and Islands transport partnership. I think that there would be value in updating some of that work.
There is a clear need for continuing progress with improving the A9. This evening’s debate is the start of yet another period of debate that will, I hope, identify further practical progress.
17:29
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this evening’s members’ business debate and, more important, on his role in leading a campaign of more than five years to dual the A9. The fact that 8,500 people have signed the petition to date and that several campaigners and families and friends of those who have been directly affected by accidents on the A9 are present this evening is testament to the strength of feeling on the issue, and rightly so.
As members have pointed out, the A9 is officially Scotland’s most dangerous road; it has the highest fatality rate of any road in the country and on average there are more than 200 accidents on it each year. No one pretends that dualling the A9 will end all accidents, but it is clear that such a move will greatly reduce the number of accidents and save lives. We all know that the major problems with the A9 between Perth and Inverness are the long and dangerous stretches of single carriageway across which it can be very difficult to turn and, as we have all seen for ourselves, that many of the worst accidents occur on stretches where the road continually switches between single and dual carriageway.
The A9 is, by definition, one of Scotland’s most important transport links, particularly north of Perth, where it is very difficult to take alternative routes. It must therefore be a priority.
As Charlie Gordon said, it is important to maintain a particular tone in this debate. In that spirit, I suggest to the Scottish National Party that it consider what it said in 2007 about the trams project. At First Minister’s question time, there was a debate about the importance of semantics; semantics are certainly important here, because I think that the SNP perhaps gave the wrong impression in 2007 about what trams project money could or could not be used for. That is a matter of public record. The SNP should reflect on that, because I do not think that the transport issues in these two areas can be played off against each other. They are quite separate projects with very different aims and, if we are to believe what the SNP said in 2007, money for them was to come from different funding streams.
As we know, far too many lives have been lost, there have been too many serious injuries and too many families have been affected because of the lack of dualling on the A9. None of us, whether in the Opposition or in the Government, can afford to ignore the statistics and the despair of the affected families. Having the title of Scotland’s most dangerous road is frightening and causes communities across Perthshire and the Highland region considerable concern. We all appreciate what has to be done; this evening, let us work together to try to find some answer to this horrible problem.
I warmly welcome Murdo Fraser’s debate.
17:32
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate. Perhaps I should declare an interest as one of those who, like John Farquhar Munro and others present in the chamber, use the A9 week after week.
The A9 is crucial to the economy not just of Inverness and Perthshire but areas further north. I do not want to divert the thrust of this evening’s debate, because discussing such matters is worthy and right. Nor do I want to detract from the good investment that is being made in the A9 with, for example, the roadworks that are under way just outside Kingussie. Nor do I want to be a spectre at the feast, but I want to make the plea that, as work between Perth and Inverness proceeds, the other stretch of the A9, to the north of Inverness, should not be left as the poor relation. I make that plea in the knowledge that the bereaved have joined us this evening, but nevertheless I think it is reasonable. After all, there is no doubt that fatalities happen north of Inverness. The A99 south of Wick is one of the most dangerous stretches of all; indeed, I have known too many people who have died on it. The Black Isle lane needs a crawler lane between Tore and the Cromarty bridge; work needs to be carried out at the Tomich junction by Invergordon; and the Cambusavie bends are a deathtrap, particularly in the winter with the terrible black ice. Members have heard me mention the hairpin bend at Berriedale many times, and I have already alluded to the stretch of road between Latheron and Wick.
Last week, I wrote to Keith Brown to say that although I welcome what is happening on the A9 between Inverness and Perth I want an assurance that we will not be treated as the poor relation. The bitter fact that I find so difficult to take is that, notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s intentions, no new significant investment has been made in the A9 north of Inverness in the lifetime of this third session of the Scottish Parliament. I acknowledge that the minister’s predecessor, Stewart Stevenson, opened phase 2 of the work being undertaken at the Ord of Caithness, but with respect I point out that that was a commitment made by the previous Government.
The A9 is important not only to my constituency. Liam McArthur was with us earlier. The A9 is a vital link to Orkney.
Investment in the A9 to the very far north has always been important, but as Dounreay is being decommissioned and as we are seeing the threat that is being presented to the economy of the far north, the quality of the A9 and investment in it are even more important.
I do not want to take away from what is being done, but my plea to the Government is not to put all the investment south of Inverness. I support what is being done, but the far north should not be starved of investment. My argument is that wherever a person lives and drives, they surely have a right to roads that are of the highest standard and are as safe as possible. With respect, I suggest that we have lost out recently. I have known too many people who have died whom I wish were still with us. I ask that my plea be considered in a thoughtful manner. I look forward to the minister’s response.
17:36
Yesterday, I spoke to one of our well-respected senior citizens, who was on a transport committee when the original dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness was done. He said that the intention at that time was that the road should be totally dualled. We have the wonderful engineering feat of the Kessock bridge, but he pointed out that, sadly, nothing much in the way of improvement has happened since then. More is the pity. The A9 is Scotland’s major highway north of the Tay, so why does it not get more attention?
The SNP was committed to dualling the road before it came to office, so it should be committed to doing it now. I am glad to hear it say that it is, but its compromise of three-lane overtaking stretches is confusing and dangerous, and the hills and corners that would have been all right if they were dualled as intended are far too steep for those three-lane experiments. That is why the Moy turn, which Murdo Fraser mentioned, cannot be used by vehicles and pedestrians if they are going north. That was an awful waste of money.
Foreign drivers and tourists who are used to European highways hate the A9. The normal dangers of driving are increased by going from dual carriageway to single carriageway. Jamie Stone made pleas for improvements north of Inverness, as well. I agree with him. The USA’s highway systems and how they have opened up outlying areas should be looked at.
On behalf of my Highlands and Islands constituents, I say to the minister that the dualling of the A9 should be completed, please. That will cut half an hour off journeys and cut down on costs for businesses. Above all, it will cut down the number of tragic deaths.
17:38
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate on an important issue. I appreciate the speeches that members throughout the chamber have made.
The A9 has, arguably, the highest profile of any trunk route in Scotland due to longstanding calls, based on economic and safety arguments, for its dualling. The road is a prominent issue in Scottish public life. It runs 273 miles, or 430km, from Dunblane to Thurso, and is the longest trunk road in Scotland and the fifth longest in the United Kingdom.
The statistics show that accident rates and average speeds on the A9 are broadly comparable with those on other trunk roads, but high-profile incidents in recent years that have involved multiple fatalities have contributed to its stigma. I, too, acknowledge the people in the gallery who have been bereaved as a result of relatives being involved in fatal accidents over the years.
Safety on the trunk road network is a priority for the Government. We take all accidents seriously and pay particular attention to fatal and serious accidents on our trunk roads. Murdo Fraser mentioned the length of time that the A9 was closed for after an accident. When there are particularly bad accidents, the police have to get in there and take their business very seriously. That underlines what I have just said about having to take fatal accidents, in particular, extremely seriously. We work closely with the police and other agencies to consider the circumstances of every single fatal incident.
I believe that we have the right investment strategy to meet the diverse needs of A9 users where and when they need to be met. The A9 is the longest trunk road in Scotland and it serves many different users, from many remote communities to key strategic traffic between some of our major towns and cities.
I think that we are striking the right balance between investment in safety and investment in local connections for the many communities and businesses that are served by the route, and we are forging ahead with plans for phased dualling of the remaining single carriageway sections between Perth and Inverness. Murdo Fraser mentioned his experiences when he was younger on the original A9. My family is from Brora. When I was young, we used to travel regularly from Edinburgh to Brora. I know that the time that is taken to travel that distance is far better these days and that there is a lot more safety on that route, albeit that there is more traffic.
I have not yet received Jamie Stone’s letter, but I will happily look at the issues that he has raised. I point out, however, that when my predecessor came into office in 2007 there were no plans on the books to take forward further improvements on that route at that time so, to that extent, we have started from scratch.
I ask that the minister have a look at plans that were prepared during the previous Government’s lifetime for improvements at the Berriedale braes. They may not have been brought to his attention, but they do exist.
I am thinking specifically of plans—I am not sure whether this applies to the plans that the member mentions—that had finance behind them and were put into programmes.
Since 2007, a total of more than £50 million has been invested in the A9, bringing widespread safety and economic benefits to communities and businesses the length of Scotland. We continue to invest, and contractors are currently on site at Crubenmore investing £10.4 million in a 3.2 kilometre length of dualling.
As has been said, the A9 connects the growing economic centre of Inverness and the north of Scotland with the central belt and the rest of the United Kingdom. Cutting journey times, delivering journey time reliability and improving the route will all lead to future inward investment and benefit Scotland’s vital tourism industry.
There is no doubt that the phased dualling of the A9 is a complex and challenging process; it represents one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Scotland’s history. Dualling the A9 from Perth to Inverness involves approximately 87 miles of new carriageway and, as Mr Swinney made clear, that requires in-depth planning and design to ensure that we deliver the right scheme, taking into consideration all the factors, including environmental constraints, such as the protected Cairngorms national park. It would clearly never have been possible to design, authorise, procure and complete major dualling of the A9 in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Murdo Fraser talked about priorities. I was involved in a members’ business debate last week, as was Charlie Gordon, in which I used the words of Aneurin Bevan, who said that politics is the language of priorities. My priorities and those of the SNP Government are, first, to put the project into the STPR so that it is on the record as one of our priorities. We have committed to dualling the A9, which I do not think any previous Government did. There are the Crubenmore improvements, which I have mentioned, the £50 million investment and the Ballinluig junction, which I have mentioned.
Those are the priorities of the SNP Government. We will compare that, if we can, to the priorities of Murdo Fraser and his party. First, they chose to spend £500 million on trams. I do not accept the idea that the money somehow could never have been used to re-order priorities to assist the A9. They chose to spend £500 million on trams, which the people of Edinburgh did not want.
Will the member give way on that point?
No. I want to make a couple of further points.
The Conservative party was in Government for 18 years and did not commit to dualling the A9. The Conservative party, along with its colleagues, the Liberal Democrats, has just cut the Government in Scotland’s budget by £1.3 billion. There is £800 million coming out of the capital programme and there will be a 40 per cent cut to the capital programme over the spending review period in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No.
Those are huge constraints on what we can do in Scotland. There is so much more that we could do and so much that we could do more quickly if we did not have to suffer from, for example, votes to spend £500 million in Edinburgh.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way, because I will make an important point. I have here a quotation from May 2007, from Mr Kevin Pringle—whom Mr Brown will know—who is an official spokesman for the First Minister, Alex Salmond. When questioned about what would happen if the Edinburgh trams project did not proceed, he said:
“The government intends all expenditure planned for these projects or any alterations will continue to be used for public transport projects”.
Does Mr Brown dissociate himself from Mr Pringle’s remarks?
I repeat the point that I have made, which should have dealt with that point from Murdo Fraser.
Yes or no, Mr Brown?
Mr Fraser.
That £500 million was used by the Conservatives when they voted to have trams in Edinburgh. Their priority was trams in Edinburgh. Our priorities would have been very different—including the A9. I think that to try to use that fig leaf to get out of that is disgraceful. If I can say that, in addition—
Shameless behaviour. He is not fit to be a minister.
Mr Fraser—be careful of your language, please.
We have made significant and necessary progress. The A9 route strategy identified significant improvements to the road to improve safety and improve the route for strategic and local users. In particular, it identified the problem of platooning traffic leading to driver frustration—a point that Mary Scanlon made—and identified a series of overtaking lanes and dualling sections. That programme of works, which is outlined in the strategy, is nearly complete.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last few seconds.
In 2008, we also announced a commitment to the STPR recommendations to ensure that the A9 will be further improved and rendered fit to serve Scotland’s future economic and social needs. Transport Scotland began the necessary and complex design works for phased dualling between Perth and Inverness, which shows the Government’s commitment to the route. Those design works have been undertaken alongside the physical A9 projects that have recently been completed or are progressing.
The completion of the current programme is entirely consistent with beginning the longer-term work on dualling the Perth to Inverness route and the further junction improvements between Dunblane and Perth. Continuing maintenance and safety priorities for the A9 are considered in relation to the requirements of Scotland’s trunk road network as a whole. That means that investment follows the greatest need, based on thorough evaluation and opportunities that are identified to maximise the benefit of any investment.
Murdo Fraser said that the Government has to choose. We have chosen to commit to phased dualling of the A9. That has been demonstrated by the work that we have undertaken so far. The commitment that the Conservatives made, instead, was to prioritise trams in Edinburgh. That speaks volumes.
Meeting closed at 17:46.