Road Accidents (A9)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3155, in the name of John Swinney, on the accident record on the A9. Mr Swinney, you have seven minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the statistics recently published by the Scottish Executive that show that 82 fatalities occurred on the A9 in the last five years; recognises that this is the highest number of fatalities for any trunk road in Scotland; notes the local concern at the delays that have occurred in undertaking promised junction improvements at Ballinluig and Bankfoot in Perthshire, and recognises that, even when these improvements are made, the road will remain fundamentally unsafe until it is reconstructed as a dual carriageway from Perth to Inverness.
Presiding Officer, thank you for calling me to speak. After my failure to stick to my time in the debate on climate change—for which I apologise profusely—I hear your siren words about seven minutes. I will keep my speech to that time.
I thank all the members who have signed my motion and the Parliamentary Bureau for scheduling this debate. I want to cover three main points: the accident record on the A9; the delays to the Ballinluig and Bankfoot junction improvements in my constituency; and the case for transforming the A9 into a dual carriageway.
Will the member give way on the Ballinluig junction?
On the Ballinluig junction? Well, okay.
Will the member join me in asking the minister to ensure that the access roads at the new Ballinluig junction do not interfere with the ground that is required to reinstate the rail loop at Ballinluig? After all, we need to reinstate the Ballinluig and Newtonmore loops if we are to get an hourly rail service between Inverness and Perth.
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. I will say more about that in a moment.
Scottish Executive statistics show that the A9 is the trunk road with the highest number of fatalities in Scotland. Between 2000 and 2004, 82 people died on the road and there were 1,111 accidents in which someone was injured. Only last week, a minibus carrying 20 backpackers was involved in an accident with a lorry on one of the road's confusing single to dual carriageway stages. It is a minor miracle that more serious injuries did not arise from that incident.
As the MSP for North Tayside, part of my regular role is to listen to the concerns of people who have lost loved ones in road accidents on the A9. In preparing for the debate, I received correspondence from people in such circumstances. As policy makers, when we receive evidence that shows that a road has an accident record as appalling as that of the A9, I believe that it is our duty to act to improve the situation.
The second point that I want to cover is the delay to the Ballinluig and Bankfoot junctions. In April 2002, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald, came to Ballinluig and announced that the Scottish Executive would upgrade the junction. He said that the cost would be £4.2 million, that the money would be found in the budget years 2003-04 and 2004-05, and that the junction would be ready in spring 2005. I was there this morning and I did not notice that the junction had been improved. The announcement was broadly welcomed, as the junction had claimed four more fatalities a year previously, when an Israeli family was killed in a tragic accident. The design advanced by the Scottish Executive was also welcomed. What progress has there been since then? The only answer is precious little.
In July 2004, when there had already been a two-year delay to the commencement of works, the Scottish Executive said that preparation for the scheme was under way and that the programme plan was to publish the draft orders late that year or early the following year. In a parliamentary answer to me on 21 January 2005, the then Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, said:
"The department is working to a timetable that will see draft orders for the scheme published in May."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 21 January 2004; S2W-12135.]
It is now September, and not a single order has been published for the junction improvement. A junction that should have been completed by now has not even got off the Scottish Executive's drawing board and answers given by ministers only nine months ago have been rendered meaningless by further delay.
The sense of urgency about the matter that obviously grips the Executive is further reinforced by two additional points. On 13 June, the first occasion on which he answered transport questions in Parliament, the current Minister for Transport and Telecommunications told me:
"I can certainly give a commitment to look closely at the issues that Mr Swinney has raised about why the projects for those two sections of the A9 have not proceeded as quickly as might be desired by the member, his constituents and all who use the road. I am happy to look into that and I will respond to him as quickly as I can."—[Official Report, 30 June 2005; c 18643.]
I have heard nothing since that answer. Then, on 28 July 2005, I wrote to the minister raising further concerns about the timetable for improvement expressed to me by the chairman of the Mid Atholl, Grandtully and Strathtay community council. I have heard nothing since I wrote that letter.
On the Bankfoot junction, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning told me on 18 September 2002 that £600,000 had been allocated to introduce a grade-separated junction. All that needs to be constructed is a slip road, and to date there has been no progress.
I hope that the minister understands the depth of frustration and anger that exists in the communities that I represent about the delays to those developments. I simply cannot understand why it has taken so long. The charitable explanation that I have heard is that the reason for the delays is that the Government is preparing to announce the dualling of the A9 from Perth to Pitlochry and wants to ensure that all developments are compatible with the proposal. If that is the case, it may be a reasonable and palatable explanation. If it is not, I hope that the minister will tell Parliament why there has been such an abject failure to deliver on the promises made to my constituents by several Scottish Executive ministers.
The third point that I want to cover is the case for dualling the A9. I know that the minister will tell me that such a move will cost £600 million and that he will demand to know what projects I would jettison to make way for such a proposal. He knows me well enough to know that I live in the real world when it comes to such issues. The A9 cannot be transformed into a dual carriageway overnight. What I am looking for is a commitment from the Government that it will start the journey to make the A9 a dual carriageway between Perth and Inverness. It is work that will have to be spread over 10 or perhaps even 15 years, but we must start that work, because the road is structurally flawed.
In my constituency alone, the road switches from single to dual carriageway on five occasions between Perth and Drumochter. That is confusing for some well-versed local drivers, but totally bewildering for tourists and foreign visitors. I do not believe that elaborate signage and the dreadful three-lane carriageways that have been constructed north of my constituency are the answer. The road needs structural improvement to become a dual carriageway, and I hope that the minister will look afresh at a sustained effort to make that possible.
I would be grateful if the minister would answer the three key questions that I pose in this debate on behalf of my constituents. Why has there been such a delay to the promised Ballinluig junction improvement? Why has there been such a delay to the promised Bankfoot junction improvement? Will the minister give fresh consideration to the case for making the A9 a dual carriageway in light of the news that the A9 is the most dangerous trunk road in Scotland?
This is the second time that I have raised the issue in a members' business debate. On the previous occasion, in November 2002, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald, came out with the immortal words:
"Complacency is as unacceptable as alarmism".—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; c 15789.]
I can only assume that he was accusing me and others of alarmism. Today, the charge of complacency sits full square at the door of the Scottish Executive. I hope that the minister provides some answers that explain to my constituents why they have been so badly let down by their own Government.
I thank John Swinney for securing the debate on the motion. I was not a member of Parliament when the first debate that he secured on the matter took place, but I am sorry that the issue still requires to be debated.
Mr Swinney rightly pointed out the bad accident record on the A9. The Courier has campaigned for a long time for upgrading of the road and regularly carries photographs of cars, lorries, buses and debris littering the road after yet another crash. I confirm that it is a big issue locally; it provides me with a regular stream of letters and e-mails from people who live by and travel on the A9.
Mr Swinney is also correct to say that the switch from two-way traffic to dual carriageway confuses many drivers and often confuses visitors to Scotland.
Any map of Scotland shows that there is a distinct lack of roads and other transport links on the north-south axis in comparison with east to west. That is another reason why we should examine how best we can utilise and improve existing links.
Earlier today I pointed out the economic advantages of making the A9 a dual carriageway all the way from Inverness to Perth. The argument for that is based not only on reducing transport costs for people at either end of the A9, but on the pluses from getting more visitors into our remote northern areas. As I strongly believe in the economic case for upgrading the entire road to dual carriageway, I will urge that that become party policy. As all members know, once something is Liberal Democrat policy, it happens.
In the meantime, we should examine how we can reduce the number of accidents on the A9, despite its intermittent patches of two-way traffic. I am encouraged that recent accident statistics show no increase, but the number of accidents is still unacceptably high. I advise all MSPs that the issue is still a matter of major concern for people who live by or use the A9.
I am glad that other measures have been taken to improve the traffic flow between north and south. We are concentrating on the A9 in this debate, but we should not forget that a railway line travels parallel to the A9. If we can increase the volume of traffic on that line we may, in the short term, reduce the volume of traffic on the A9—particularly the number of heavy goods vehicles that tramp up and down the road. I emphasise that we should do what we can. The Scottish Executive is, through the freight facilities grant, improving the volume of traffic on the rail link, which will help the situation in the short term.
I support John Swinney's motion.
I congratulate my colleague on securing the debate and I concur with all that he said and commend his eloquence on behalf of his constituents.
The part of the A9 in my constituency is a dualled section south of Perth. Notwithstanding that, I have a constituency interest because my constituents—like the constituents of many other members—use the A9 north as well as south of Perth, so they have to deal with the reality of the situation.
The accident record south of Perth also needs to be addressed. I caution my colleague against assuming that dualling will solve the problems—there will still be problems if the junctions are not dealt with. That is, of course, why he also talked about the junctions. There are very dangerous junctions south of Perth. I particularly recommend that the minister examine the problem between the two junctions at the Cairnie braes, because there has been a very bad accident record over a number of years in that area, which must be addressed. It is a cause of major concern south of Perth and it adds to pressure from some communities to reopen railway stations, which is pertinent to what I want to say.
Clearly, given the context of John Swinney's comments, problems at junctions must be addressed as well as the amount and nature of traffic on the A9. Andrew Arbuckle touched on that when he referred to freight and the number of lorries on the road. If more freight could be put on the railway, that might reduce the number of lorries on the road. There is also the issue of the number of cars that use the A9. However, the problem is the lack of viable alternatives. I have a specific question for the minister about freight. What is the Executive doing to shift the freight burden off the road and on to the railway? Such a shift would have a significant impact. I heard the minister on "Good Morning Scotland" today; he said that we must try to get people on to the trains and we must look at the train links into Perth. That issue is dear to my heart.
I want to encroach a little on John Swinney's patch to concentrate on viable alternatives. Aberfeldy in John Swinney's constituency is 31.7 miles north-west of Perth. Travel to work on public transport from Aberfeldy to Perth takes 1 hour and 24 minutes, using two modes of public transport. People must leave Aberfeldy at 7.24 am to get to Perth for 8.48 am. If they are running a bit late, their next possible time of arrival in Perth is 10.26 am. Travel by car from Aberfeldy to Perth takes 30 minutes less than by public transport and people can leave and arrive when they like. Given the circumstances that I have described, I challenge the minister to say what he would choose to do. I ask him to be honest in his response, because the truth is that he would take his car, which would have to travel on the A9.
With reference to the minister's comments this morning, I questioned a previous transport minister in the chamber about the fact that there is no train between Perth and Edinburgh between 7.10 am and 8.50 am. Is the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications aware that people who live north of Perth cannot get into Perth by train until 9.09 am at the earliest, unless they leave the previous night?
Nicol Stephen, the former Minister for Transport, is now the Deputy First Minister. It is long past time for soothing comments about improving rail links into Perth. It is time for real action. We want fewer glib references to public transport options and more delivery of such options. Until those options are delivered and there is a real likelihood of traffic reduction, road improvements must be undertaken. Not to do so is to risk more people dying.
I congratulate John Swinney on securing a debate on such an important subject. I do not always agree with him, which I am sure will come as a relief to him, but I agreed with virtually every word he said.
I approached this debate with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before. We debated the dualling of the A9 in 2002. I am sorry to say that we got little satisfaction at that time from the then transport minister. Why are things different today? Why should the Executive and the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications listen to pleas for the dualling of the A9, when the previous Executive and transport minister did not listen to similar pleas in 2002?
I believe that two significant issues make the situation different from what it was in 2002. First, there has been a continual increase in traffic levels on the A9 over that time; indeed, that has been the pattern throughout Scotland. Public policy has been to try to reduce traffic levels, but evidence shows that levels are going in the other direction. That problem is particularly acute on the A9 because the road links Inverness—which we know is Europe's fastest-growing city—with the central belt. As Inverness and its economy and population grow, it generates more and more traffic. Any road that might have been suitable as a single carriageway 10 years ago may well now require upgrading, but that must be doubly the case for the A9, given its particular circumstances and the growth of Inverness.
Secondly, and perhaps more pressingly, we now know what many people in Perthshire and the Highlands have suspected for a long time, which is that the A9 is officially the most dangerous road in Scotland. The relevant figures were in a parliamentary written answer to my Conservative colleague Brian Monteith. As we have heard, there were 82 fatalities on the A9 between 2000 and 2004, which is an average of 16 deaths a year. In addition, the A9 has always been in the top five of our most dangerous roads for injuries from road accidents during that period. Those figures are important. When we last debated the issue, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald, said that the A9 had a
"lower accident rate than the average for … Scotland".—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; c 15789.]
The new figures give the lie to that statement. I hope that our new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications acknowledges the true position.
Sadly, the statistics will not come as a surprise to locals who use the road every day. The particular problem with the A9—people who use it regularly will know this, and we have already heard about it this evening—is the continual switching from single to dual carriageway and back again. Even regular users of the road find it very easy to forget whether they are on a dual or single carriageway stretch. Imagine the confusion for foreign visitors flocking to Perthshire and the Highlands, particularly in the summer months, if they are not familiar with the road or comfortable with driving on the left. It is little wonder that the accident statistics are high.
An energetic campaign has been running for many years to have the road dualled. It has been supported by local newspapers such as The Courier, as Andrew Arbuckle, who is a former employee of that paper, said. Despite the fact that the campaign has been running for years, the problems of the A9 get no better. In fact, as the latest figures show, they seem to be getting worse.
I say to the minister that I understand that the costs of dualling the A9 will be substantial. At the previous debate in 2002, the then minister suggested that the cost would be in the region of £500 million. The minister today is suggesting a figure of £600 million. In anyone's book, that is a very substantial sum. However, expenditure at that level is not unprecedented by this Executive. I believe that the cost of the proposed Aberdeen western relief road will be similar. Although I have no doubt that that road is essential for the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east, the A9 must have at least an equally pressing case because of the statistics for road accidents.
I acknowledge that any Government has to balance its priorities and that there can never be blank cheques. However, surely it is time for us to say that the A9 is such a danger that it must be a priority for future expenditure.
Over the past five years, there has been an average of 16 fatalities on the A9 every year. With growing traffic levels, we can expect only that the level will at least continue unchanged, if not increase. That means 16 deaths this year, 16 next year, and 16 the year after that. So it will go on, unless something is done. For the sake of 16 lives every year, I urge the Executive to take this issue very seriously.
I congratulate John Swinney on bringing the debate to Parliament. There is no doubt about the concern about this section of the road. However, in supporting the campaign for the A9, I have to say that other routes north also concern me—I am thinking of the A82 in particular.
The A9 is a difficult and dangerous road to travel on. As we have heard, it has resulted in many fatalities, and the road has been identified as being the most dangerous trunk road in Scotland. That is not a situation or a statistic that we can ignore. At the earliest opportunity, we must initiate a concerted effort to address the problem.
As we have heard, the A9 is the main arterial route to the far north of Scotland. There is no doubt that it requires urgent attention and improvement over its entire length—members should not forget that the A9 travels beyond Inverness to the far north of Scotland. Some traffic calming and junction improvements have been undertaken, which have helped, but much more is required.
The A9 has many problems, but it is especially notorious for the frequency with which it alternates from dual to single carriageway. Some system of signage or even road markings should be introduced, especially on the single-lane sections, to remind motorists about the road system on which they are travelling. I travel that road twice a week and I usually find myself lost when I am on the single carriageway, wondering whether I am on dual carriageway and whether I can overtake—a dangerous situation.
Over the years, many proposals have been made to reduce the amount of commercial traffic. Other members have mentioned the problems that such traffic creates on the road. Efforts have been made to transfer road traffic to rail, but very little has happened over the years in spite of the massive support that is being given through the freight facilities grant. We need to clarify what the situation is now; I understand that some of the major supermarkets have reverted to road transport, which is causing even more problems and congestion on the A9. I wonder what happened to the grant moneys that were paid to those supermarkets.
If the north of Scotland is to continue to prosper and expand, it requires a much better transport network. That can be brought about only by construction of dual carriageway over the entire length of the notorious A9. When the existing A9 was being constructed, the Highland Council had the good sense to acquire the adjacent land so that land acquisition would not be an impediment to future improvements. We do not have that problem, so what are we waiting for?
When the member says that he wants the whole length of the A9 to be dual carriageway, does he mean that he wants the road to be dual carriageway all the way to Thurso?
I do not see why not. People who live in the far north are as entitled to an improved road system as are people anywhere else.
Let us move forward to secure support and funding to bring the A9 up to the standard that is expected of a trunk road in the 21st century. I am pleased to support John Swinney's motion.
I thank John Swinney for securing his second members' business debate on this important topic. It is clear that the issue will not go away as long as we continue to have unacceptably high numbers of fatalities on the A9. We must have solutions to the problems at the Ballinluig and Bankfoot junctions.
I am a Green member, but I am not implacably opposed to road building, road upgrades or road safety improvements. For example, I support the proposed additional short link between Blackford and Strathearn, which would take cars off the southern section of the A9 and provide better integration with the proposed new railway station in Blackford. Such a road would make a lot of sense and I would like to see it happen; it would be a good, green road. However, I am not convinced that dualling the A9 at a cost of £600 million is a priority. The Executive's priority must be to improve the dangerous junctions, to enforce speed limits and to invest in passenger and freight rail infrastructure.
We cannot ignore the all-embracing environmental issue, either. We have just had a debate on climate change and we have a huge mountain to climb if we are to make any inroads to our transport emissions. It is clear that dualling the A9 would have an environmental impact and that it would take money away from public transport improvements.
I appreciate Mr Ruskell's comments on the need to improve public transport infrastructure, but does he empathise with Roseanna Cunningham, who made a point that I have raised repeatedly on behalf of constituents? While we have argued about improving public transport, there has been a retrenchment in people's ability to use public transport to get into places such as Perth. For example, the fact that ScotRail has discontinued the early morning train stopping at Blair Atholl means that people cannot commute from there to Perth by train.
I acknowledge that point. There has been a retrenchment and, for many people the car is the only viable option. However, we must chip away at our dependence on car usage.
There is already continuous dual carriageway on the section of the A9 between Perth and Dunblane. I drive on that road regularly and I can tell members that it is dangerous, even though it has been dualled. It is dangerous because of the speed at which people travel along it. People travel at 90mph rather than 60mph. That, combined with the existence of a number of dangerous junctions, makes the dual carriageway very dangerous indeed. Perhaps the issue is that that dualled section of road is not, and cannot ever be, a motorway because local people need access to it from farm tracks and settlements all along the route. There will always be dozens of junctions that are dangerous because of the speed at which people travel along the dual carriageway. As Roseanna Cunningham mentioned, there are major junctions on that section of the A9 that need to be upgraded to grade-separated junctions.
Speed is a crucial issue. The Government's Transport Research Laboratory has produced numerous pieces of research that show that speed is a major factor. For every 1mph by which we reduce the average speed on our roads, we cut the accident rate by 5 per cent. Speed limits need to be reduced and enforced.
What is really shocking is that we have such a substandard rail service. As Roseanna Cunningham said, the train service from Edinburgh to Perth is dire. It takes longer to get from Edinburgh to Perth now than it did 100 years ago, and much of the Highland rail network is still single track. So, although I support John Swinney's call for immediate action to improve junctions on the A9, I also think that we need to dual the rail tracks. We should spend money on that before we think about spending money on dualling the A9.
I, too, commend my friend John Swinney for securing the debate and for his persistent pressure on the issue. The road in question is a material and major artery to the Highlands and the north. Although Inverness has grown thanks to bridges, some road improvements and the benefit of the airport, it has grown in spite of the lack of dualling of the A9. Just as roads make markets, conversely, roads can stifle markets. 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.
I am firmly of the opinion that we need major improvements to the A9 to reduce the incidence of accidents. At the top of that list of improvements, I include the removal of the dangerous junctions and the commitment that John Swinney eloquently asked for to start the process of dualling the road and, as John Farquhar Munro said, to continue the upgrading to the north of Inverness.
And to the east.
Indeed. We need to get that artery functioning for the long-term good of the economy.
The A9 is a major disincentive to many drivers: it is dangerous, slow and frustrating. There is considerable A9 fatigue syndrome in Inverness and people would rather come down the A82. Although that journey is, in some ways, more limited and difficult, at least it is a consistent road to tackle.
We have a limited amount of money. Does Jim Mather support the dualling of the A9, the A96 and the A92? Does he believe that we can address all those priorities at the same time?
We are asking the Executive to get the process started. Let us get that process fuelled by a more efficient economy.
We are dealing with massive economic inefficiency. The travel time is appalling and is getting worse. There is an increasing presence of Tesco lorries, many of which do not reflect that company's sleek financial performance, although a few of their drivers occasionally pull over to let people past. We are facing massive hidden costs—the incalculable emotional and financial costs of loss of life, injury and trauma to domestic and business budgets that have costs exported on to them, as well as the costs to the ambulance service, the police, hospitals, and medical and physiotherapy resources. There are also costs in terms of road maintenance, insurance premiums and accident-induced road closures, which bring everything to a halt. All those factors create an investment disincentive to businesses and individuals and cause huge damage to local economic growth. Over time, that damage is severe enough to justify major investment in the infrastructure.
There are other Highland roads that fall into a similar category—the A82, the A85 and the A90—and whose current condition is limiting the economic potential of the Highlands and Islands. I leave the minister to consider the fact that we will not have economic recovery north of the Highland line until the A9 is dualled.
Mention has been made, quite rightly, of the tragic deaths that there have been on the A9. An old friend of mine was killed on the A9 earlier this year. She was a girl whom I knew before I was married, and we worked together in Nigg. It is a funny thing but, until then, whenever I walked into my constituency office in Tain I would see that lady and wish her good morning. Now she is gone. That is the instantness and awfulness of a sudden death. God knows what grief her family feel compared with my sadness.
I congratulate John Swinney on bringing the motion before us. He has been nothing if not extremely consistent in his endeavours, and I wish him well. John Farquhar Munro has, rightly, broadened out the brief to dualling the entire A9 as far as Thurso. I have written to the minister about an area of the A9 just short of Golspie, which is called the Cambusavie bends; the minister's officials know about it. It is a very twisty bit as one drops down towards Loch Fleet as one travels north. The minister knows it, and I am sure that others will know it. There was a very sad fatality there recently. The road is notorious for people coming off its sharp bends, particularly in winter. I hope that the minister's officials will look at that problem.
I thank the minister and his officials for the welcome work that is being done at the Ord of Caithness. The spending is now, I should think, well over £10 million. I have at all times found the minister's officials to be very civil and willing to take a can-do, positive approach.
What Mark Ruskell said was particularly interesting and thought provoking and in the best traditions of debate in the chamber. He said that the A9 is a working road that people go on and come off to get to their farms, and that is true. That is not in any way to disagree with John Swinney's laudable endeavour to get the road done up as much as possible. However, it is a point worth bearing in mind.
I drive a great deal on the A9, to-ing and fro-ing from my constituency. I used to get a lift with John Farquhar Munro from time to time, but once one discovers that one will be kippered by the black twist that he lights up one would probably take up driving oneself. I digress. Sometimes I take the train with Roseanna Cunningham, Rob Gibson and Eleanor Scott. I use the A9 a lot.
One of the things that I have seen, that we have all seen and at which Mark Ruskell hinted, is some incredibly dangerous driving. People overtake when they simply should not. In the States, there are defensive driving courses. However, since the relevant power is not devolved, that is not a matter for the minister. However, as part of an holistic solution we should, as well as pushing for investment, look at how some people conduct themselves behind the wheel. It is only the odd one out of the many drivers who use the road, but the odd one can take out a life or a family. We have all seen it happen.
Another point, of course, is about trying to get freight and people on to rail. Roseanna Cunningham and Rob Gibson will know what I am talking about. It is all very well when one finds, as we have in the past, that the computer on the train thinks that the tanks beneath the toilets are full and locks the doors automatically. Not clever. It is not clever when one gets out of a train and sees some stations that are anything but welcoming to the communities that they service. I can think of two: Brora, which is pretty disgraceful, and my home town of Tain. Tourists are not encouraged to get out of the train if they have to ask, "What is this derelict building?" It used to be a station, once upon a time.
This is about an holistic approach; it is about doing much more to get freight and people on to rail. There is no reason, as Jim Mather and John Farquhar said, that these trucks should be on the road: the goods should be moved by rail.
Would it not be helpful if rail could offer some small amount of refrigerated transport? Given the interest that I always declare in the chamber, I would say that, would I not? That would be a great help in moving perishable goods to our cities and towns.
Many members have cited the figures for fatalities. I have dealt with many people who have had severe injuries as a result of accidents on the A9. I do not want to go into detail, but in several instances people have been left completely paralysed. We should remember them too and not just consider the fatalities.
I was delighted to hear John Farquhar stating the Liberal policy of dualling the A9 from Perth to Thurso. As Andrew Arbuckle says, "If it is Liberal policy, it happens." Well done, John; the campaign was very successful.
That particular policy has not been signed off by the executive of my constituency party—yet.
I am sure that it has no doubt about getting the member's support.
I commend John Swinney, and my colleague Murdo Fraser, for his commitment and persistence in tackling the accident record on the A9 and at the Ballinluig and Bankfoot junctions. Speaking as a statistic after experiencing a car crash on the A9, I have more than a passing interest in the debate.
Without wishing to take anything from the prioritising of the A9, I would like, as others have done, to highlight the A889, linking the A9 and the A86 from Dalwhinnie to Laggan, which has been designated the most dangerous road in Britain. That road has an accident rate that is almost four times higher than the next most dangerous road in Scotland, which is the A99 that links the A9 at Latheron to Wick in Caithness. Other links from the A9 include the A95 into Morayshire, which is Margaret Ewing's constituency, and the A835 to Ullapool, both of which were designated by the AA as high-risk roads. We are talking about not just the A9, but the seriously high-risk roads that connect to it.
I support Murdo Fraser's call for the eventual dualling of the A9 to Inverness, but I remind members that the A9 does not stop at Inverness. The road north of Dornoch narrows and that part needs to be given greater priority status than we are giving it today. Jamie Stone did not mention the Berriedale braes, but I understand that the forecast is for a very severe winter and I put it on the record that I find the Berriedale braes quite frightening in good weather; I would not like to risk coming down them in snow and ice.
When I spoke in our previous debate about the A9, I highlighted the fact that apart from the three quarters of a mile of dual carriageway at Crubenmore, there was no safe place to overtake for a distance of 44 miles. That has now changed through the construction of the two-by-one lanes that John Swinney mentioned. Those lanes provide for safe overtaking, but because of traffic build-up and frustration, too many drivers try to overtake and that leads to a bunching of vehicles as the road goes back to a single lane. However, I support the increase in the number of two-by-one lanes between Drumochter and Moy because I believe that they can easily be converted to dual carriageway in due course. That change is a step in the right direction, not an end in itself. Given that the two-by-one lanes are a mile longer than the dual carriageway at Crubenmore, I look forward to hearing the timing for the extension of the dual carriageway at Crubenmore.
The Executive should be concerned about the fatalities, the horrendous injuries that many people experience on the A9 and the delay in the promised junction improvement at Ballinluig and Bankfoot. Although piecemeal changes and improvements are welcome, the bold step to dual the A9 is needed.
I thank John Swinney and other members for what has been a thoughtful continuation—the point that Mr Swinney was making—of a debate that I too wish had been concluded. I assure Mr Swinney and other colleagues that I have no plans to trot out a series of excuses about why the Ballinluig junction has yet to be started, but I can explain why, in technical terms, because that is what Mr Swinney asked for.
First, I should say that the Executive takes road safety very seriously and that we need to use the right language and be appropriate in how we describe risk on roads. As some members have said, we must also acknowledge the role of the driver. A road engineer can design the perfect road but that will not stop accidents happening. I know that members accept that.
In 2000, we set a target of reducing by 40 per cent, by 2010, the number of people killed and seriously injured on Scottish roads. By 2004, there had already been a 37 per cent reduction. We take such matters extremely seriously and the investments made across Scotland's road network are made for safety reasons, as has been reflected in tonight's debate.
Mr Swinney and others have recognised that the number of people who have been killed on the A9 is high—75 have been killed on the trunk road section between Scrabster and Dunblane and a further seven have been killed between Dunblane and Stirling during the five-year period from 2000 to 2004. Although the A9 is Scotland's longest trunk road, the number of people who have been killed on it is unacceptably high. I also take the point that has been made recently about other injuries and incidents.
Mr Swinney and others have argued this evening and previously for the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, but Mr Swinney knows that I have to deal in the world of priorities. Transport spending in Scotland is at record levels: this year, for the first time, it is more than £1 billion and it is set to rise to £1.4 billion by 2007-08. We are committed to spending more than £3 billion on transport capital infrastructure over the next 10 years. I do not apologise for the balance of that expenditure moving from roads to public transport. I believe that that is the right long-term investment for Scotland.
I am serious about what I said this morning about rail and bus connections. I absolutely take the points that Roseanna Cunningham, John Swinney and Murdo Fraser made about commuters into Perth or north to Inverness. I undertake to look into the issues about local commuter services and the requirement for better city-to-city connections. One of the challenges that we face in the system, particularly in rail, is to meet the desire for both better long-term, city-to-city connections and better commuter services. Roseanna Cunningham raised that issue in relation to Perth.
The minister has talked about the difference between city-to-city services and local commuter services. There are no such things as local commuter services in and out of Perth; there are only city-to-city services, which are extremely poor. To talk about local commuter train services is completely and totally to miss the point, because there is none.
I obviously did not explain that well. I said that I accept the challenge of considering those issues, which I will do. I cannot solve every problem overnight. I was trying to explain that there are constraints in the rail network that cannot be solved instantly, much as Roseanna Cunningham and I might like them to be. I have undertaken to consider the issues.
Upgrading all the A9 between Perth and Inverness to dual carriageway would cost in excess of £600 million. By any standard, that is a high level of expenditure and it means that other priorities would have to slip and change. There are a number of other transport projects—Margaret Ewing is looking at me in that knowing way that she has—and roads throughout Scotland that many members write to me about, as they did to my predecessors. Jim Mather mentioned a number and John Farquhar Munro never misses an opportunity to mention a number. All I am saying is that any transport minister has to make choices about such projects. We will make the best judgments that we can about the statistical evidence on the argument for change.
As colleagues have mentioned, one of the main problems with the A9 is the lack of guaranteed overtaking opportunities, which is why north of Dunkeld we have instigated a programme of targeted improvements to provide enhanced overtaking, and why south of Dunkeld we are considering the options for improving the standard of provision on that most heavily trafficked section of the route. The outcome of that study will be available before the end of the year.
I will deal with Ballinluig, which John Swinney raised. I am deeply disappointed about progress on the junction and frustrated by the delays in bringing the project to fruition. The only feasible location is constrained and technically challenging. As well as the road and railway, which Mr Swinney mentioned, the River Tummell passes very close to the site and, needless to say, there are significant environmental issues to address. The level of commitment that I can give Mr Swinney is that although the upgrade, with the grade-separated junction and the flyover that will be in place, on which construction will start next year, will be twice as expensive as normal grade-separated junctions elsewhere in Scotland—the upgrade at Ballinluig will cost twice as much as did the work between Perth and Dundee, for example, with which Mr Swinney might be familiar—I consider and all our analyses and value-for-money exercises show that the work is worth doing. The construction of the junction will begin next year. We expect to publish the statutory orders by 7 October and the drawing-board stages that John Swinney mentioned have been completed.
I am also committed to delivering the Bankfoot improvements that have been mentioned and will announce as quickly as I can the preferred scheme.
I accept that there is much to be done on the A9 and I remain concerned about the relatively high number of fatalities on the road. I have asked my road safety experts to investigate in detail the nature and location of the accidents on the road and have worked with the A9 road safety group on recommendations about how the number might be reduced. That work is being done in addition to the work on the A9 that is already planned and the people involved will report back to me on it before the end of the year.
My commitment and the commitment of the devolved Government is to establish a safe trunk road network. We will spend resources on targeted improvements and continue to keep Scotland's people and its goods moving safely.
Meeting closed at 17:50.