Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 22, 2023

Official Report 1123KB pdf

---

A9 Dualling

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-07977, in the name of Graham Simpson, on A9 dualling. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

16:06  

When Jenny Gilruth stood before the Parliament on February 8 to deliver the bombshell news that the contract for dualling the next section of the A9 was not yet going to be awarded, she was keen to blame everyone but herself. From Brexit—of course—to Vladimir Putin, the Minister for Transport trotted out every possible excuse for why this Scottish National Party promise is worthless.

The promise to fully dual the road between Perth and Inverness by 2025 was made just over 11 years ago. In that time, 10 miles of the 80 that needed to be done have been dualled. That is disgraceful.

There has been a long list of ministers responsible in that time, ending with Ms Gilruth. Let us start with the transport ministers. We have had Keith Brown; ferries supremo Derek Mackay; budding First Minister Humza Yousaf, whose record of failure takes some beating; Paul Wheelhouse; Graeme Dey, who got out as fast as he could; and Jenny Gilruth. What about cabinet secretaries? There has been Alex Neil; Nicola Sturgeon—the A9 failure is her legacy, among other failures; Keith Brown again; Fergus Ewing, who had transport in his brief for a while and is now angry about the issue; and Michael Matheson. If we roll back the issue to when it was first mentioned in the SNP’s 2007 manifesto, we could also throw in another hapless transport minister, Stewart Stevenson. That is quite a cast list, each member in their own way responsible.

We have heard this week that construction industry insiders believe that it could take until 2050 to see the road fully dualled. That is pretty gloomy, and I think that they are well wide of the mark. We cannot have that.

Last week, one exasperated local sent me his own estimate, which was that, at the current rate of progress, it will take until 2137 to finish dualling the road—114 years. Things need to improve somewhat. Too many people are being killed on this road, and too many families are being left devastated.

Three companies expressed an interest in bidding to dual the section between Tomatin and Moy, but only one did. However, Jenny Gilruth said that the rejected bid did not represent value for money for the taxpayer. That came as a big surprise to people in the company behind that bid. In fact, they said that they were “astounded” to hear that in the minister’s statement—so much so that they got in touch with me. Given that the company employs a large number of people, I thought that it was important to talk to them—I hope that the transport minister has done likewise. I have promised not to name the company, because I respect the sensitivities involved, but it has direct experience of dualling the A9 and has a record of delivery.

The company said that it had offered to meet Transport Scotland to answer any questions that it had and give it confidence that its price reflected the true cost of delivering the project but that that offer was not taken?up prior to the decision being announced. Why not? The firm spent nearly a year on its tender. That in itself is pretty ludicrous, and is part of the issue that civil engineering firms have with Transport Scotland. The normal tendering process elsewhere in Britain can be measured in weeks, not the best part of a year.

The other big difference here is that, if any incidentals are found, all the cost risk is on the contractor, so, not surprisingly, prices that are quoted have to take that into account. Prices have risen since the job was first put out to tender. The dithering Scottish Government’s original estimate of cost is therefore out of date.

Will the transport minister tell us what she would regard as value for money? If the original anticipated cost was £115 million, what is it now? We need to know. I do not know what the tender price was, but it has been reported as being between £130 million and £140 million. That is not so far removed from the original estimate to justify the minister saying that it did not represent value for money. What result does the transport minister expect to achieve by retendering? Does she expect a cheaper job with corners cut? Surely to goodness not.

The building of such a project is important for the local economy, too. Local suppliers were waiting for the job to be awarded, and hotels and bed and breakfasts were geared up for the influx of labour. We simply cannot afford to hang around—more lives will be lost. What price are we putting on that? Just what is going on here? Has Jenny Gilruth decided that dualling the A9 is unaffordable? Can she explain why Transport Scotland thinks that it is a good idea to build the remaining nine sections one at a time? No wonder it is taking so long and the price continues to spiral. Why can the road not be built in one go? Get one big contractor to do it, and get on with it. Laura Hansler of the A9 dual action group said this week:

“As a country, we can do way better than this. We only have to look to Europe—Germany is a prime example—or even China. They must look on at this project and be dumbfounded as to what is taking us so long.”

The Government amendment talks about setting out a timescale for completion of the dualling programme to the Parliament later in 2023, but the minster actually said in her statement of 8 February that she expected to have some “advice” from Transport Scotland by the end of the year. Incredibly, she also said that she, too, would like to know the new timescale, but surely she decides that, not Transport Scotland.

Jenny Gilruth believes that it is good to talk. She wants a national conversation about the rail industry, she is having another chat about how we run ferries and there has even been a consultation on the A9. What we need from the transport minister is a little less conversation and a little more action, please.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government’s failure to deliver on its promise to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025 is a betrayal; recognises the vital importance of this route to the economic and social wellbeing of the communities it serves; notes the serious safety implications of failing to meet the commitment to dual, with lives lost and serious accidents having occurred since the commitment was made, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide a specific date for when a revised timescale of works and costs will be published, and to ensure that Transport Scotland publishes a quarterly update setting out progress against published targets.

16:13  

I welcome the opportunity to again discuss the importance of the need to dual the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Members will recall that it is exactly two weeks since we last met to discuss a parliamentary statement on the A9, which I was keen to bring to the chamber. That statement updated members on the specifics of the Tomatin to Moy tender, as we heard from Mr Simpson, and on the original 2025 target date for completion.

I undertook then, as I did in November, to work with local members whose regions and constituencies are directly affected by the A9, and I restate that desire, having written to all members just two weeks ago to apprise them of the planned next steps.

Mr Simpson notes in his motion the vital importance of the route to the economic and social wellbeing of the communities that it serves, and I agree. My nana was born in a croft at Muir of Tarradale, outside Muir of Ord. After nursing in Glasgow for many years, she retired to Cromarty with my grandfather, and every tattie holiday, every Easter and every summer, my mum would drive my sisters and me up the A9. I remember my nana always insisting that my mum phoned as soon as we got back, so terrified was she, a Highlander, of the A9.

I know that we have to dual the A9, but I also know that that should have been done long ago—before my party was elected and before the Scottish Parliament was re-established. It is imperative that we now move forward at pace.

In my update to Parliament just two weeks ago, I noted that the A9 is often referred to as the spine of Scotland, linking Lowland with Highland and providing a vital route for the people and businesses of the north of this country. I also restated the Government’s unwavering commitment to deliver the benefits of completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness to the people of Scotland.

I acknowledged that the ambitious timescale that was set in 2011 is no longer achievable. It was reliant on the timely and positive outcomes of factors such as completing the statutory processes. Those processes are set out in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. They include gaining the legal authority to acquire land on a compulsory basis as opposed to by negotiation. The timescale also required sufficient market capacity and supply chain availability.

It is fair to say that a lot has changed since 2011. We all know that the pandemic caused significant disruption across the entire country, and progress of the A9 dualling programme has not been an exception. Covid disrupted the completion of statutory processes for a number of sectors, and it also impacted the construction market and its extended supply chains. It is also one of the contributory factors that have driven significant inflationary pressures. Other factors include the consequences of Brexit and increases in energy costs and other costs that have arisen as a consequence of the war in Ukraine

I hear the minister getting the excuses in early, but people are dying and being seriously injured because of the delays. What does the minister project that the impact of the latest delays on the A9 dualling will be on the Scottish Government’s road safety 2023 targets?

I am sorry, but I have to say to Mr Kerr that pointing out some of the inflationary pressures that are being felt by the Scottish Government is not making excuses. In fact, United Kingdom Government monitoring shows that the

“material price index for 'All Work' increased by 24.1% in July 2022 compared to the same month the previous year.”

Things cost more; that is a fact, and Mr Kerr very well understands it.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I would like to make some more progress.

The wider economic environment has undoubtedly been extremely volatile, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the UK Government’s mini-budget of September 2022.

I reported to Parliament the disappointing outcome of the recent Tomatin to Moy procurement—I am not going to shy away from it. We did not consider that the single bid that we received—we only received a single bid, which is extremely unusual—provided best value to the taxpayer. Following that decision, Transport Scotland immediately began work towards the commencement of a new procurement, and I am pleased to report that positive and constructive discussions have already been held with the construction industry as work proceeds on modifications to Transport Scotland’s terms and conditions with the aim of increasing competition and delivering better value to the taxpayer. We continue to target a contract award under the new procurement before the end of 2023.

I have highlighted issues with Transport Scotland. Can the minister say what the contractual changes will be that will make the procurement more appealing to the industry?

Mr Simpson raised a fair point, which was also touched on in the parliamentary statement that was made two weeks ago. Transport Scotland, whose representatives are sitting behind me—at the back of the chamber, I hasten to say—is looking at the statutory processes and at the way in which we take forward procurement. We will need to make changes in that respect. I am not going to spell them out today, because I am waiting for advice to come from Transport Scotland. Mr Simpson needs to be mindful that it is only two weeks, including a week of parliamentary recess, since we were in the chamber discussing that very point. I have not yet had that advice, but I have committed to work with local elected members, because I think that that is important. The member might not regard it as such, but as minister, I do.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would like to make some progress, as I note the time that I have left.

As I advised Parliament two weeks ago in relation to the remainder of the A9 dualling programme, Transport Scotland is urgently considering a range of options to advise ministers on the most efficient way of dualling the remaining sections. Its assessment will consider a range of different options, and I expect to have that advice by autumn 2023, at which time—as I stated two weeks ago—I will update Parliament on a new timescale for completion. I think that that is a reasonable ask in the Conservative motion, and I am happy to do that; I undertook to do so only two weeks ago.

At the same time, we are pushing forward with the work to obtain the outstanding statutory consent for the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing project, and it is worth saying that there is ministerial approval in place for eight out of the remaining nine sections.

I am not going to pretend that dualling the A9 was ever going to be an easy task. Clearly, a range of factors have impacted on the delivery of the original timescale, but I hope that members will acknowledge my willingness to work with them to ensure that we bring about the full benefits of dualling as quickly and efficiently as possible for the people of the Highlands.

I move amendment S6M-07977.3, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the significant investment by the Scottish Government in sustainable transport infrastructure in the Highlands, including the £330 million enhancements to the Inverness to Aberdeen railway line, the £57 million upgrade of the Highland Main Line between Perth and Inverness, the new £42 million Inverness Airport train station, passing loop and signalling, and over £430 million invested to date on dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness; notes the progress on dualling this part of the A9, including the opening of two sections, as well as the confirmation by the Scottish Ministers that the statutory process for a further eight sections will be completed; is concerned by the impact of Brexit and the UK Government's economic mismanagement, which have caused increased labour and material costs, on the A9 dualling programme, including the Tomatin to Moy project; welcomes the intention of the Scottish Government to engage further with the relevant local members on the A9 dualling programme and to set out a renewed timescale for completion of the dualling programme to the Parliament later in 2023, and further welcomes the early progress being made on the £5 million package of short-term measures to make the A9 safer for all road users.”

16:19  

I welcome Graham Simpson holding this important debate on the A9. It is a timely debate, given the terrible news that the transport minister delivered two weeks ago to members in the chamber and to the people of the Highlands.

The admission from the transport minister that the Government’s promise to dual the A9 by 2025 has been broken has been met with anger, despair and frustration—and little wonder, given the serious road safety concerns. I am sad to say that the A9 has a reputation for accidents. Tragically, 13 people died in 2022, and my thoughts go out to their families. The road is dangerous, with particular black spots at points of transition from dual to single carriageway.

The death toll alone has long made the case for upgrading the road. However, the A9 is also vital for economic and community development. It is used by tourists as well as by Highland residents commuting to work, attending medical appointments and accessing education. Like the minister, members of my own family use it regularly to see one another.

Recently, Labour colleagues and I met members of the A9 dual action group. What emerged so clearly from that meeting—apart from their frustration and disappointment—was how important a better, safer A9 is to their quality of life. The A9 is also vital to supporting the Highland economy, creating jobs and in some areas arresting population decline.

For all those reasons, the dualling of the road needs to be a priority and needs to be progressed as a matter of urgency, as the Labour amendment makes clear. I hope that every member across the chamber, in every party, will support that amendment.

The 2007 SNP manifesto was titled, “It’s time to move forward”, and it included a commitment to dual the A9. Sixteen years later, where are we? We have barely moved forward at all—just 11 miles have been completed, with 77 miles remaining. The remaining nine sections to be completed are listed on Transport Scotland’s website as “in preparation”. In other words, they are not even started yet.

We also do not have a new timescale. We do not even have a firm date for a new timescale. Where is the urgency? Where is the drive? Where is the absolute commitment that the transport minister claimed two weeks ago? If the Scottish Government is still “absolutely committed” to this project, it has a strange way of showing it.

Yesterday, The Scotsman reported predictions from industry experts that it could now be 2050 before the project is completed—2050. It is little wonder that people up and down the A9 and across the Highlands feel so badly betrayed and that even some of the minister’s own SNP colleagues are publicly furious about the situation.

What has not helped is being treated to bizarre excuses, with the Government even stooping so low as to attempt to blame Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We have also had the excuses of Covid and Brexit. It is not just me saying that those excuses are not credible; we can see the public’s deep scepticism about those absurd claims.

There are many questions about how the situation has come to pass over the past 16 years. That is why Scottish Labour believes that there must be a parliamentary inquiry into the Government’s failure to deliver this key promise. The promise needs to be delivered without delay. That is why we cannot support the SNP amendment, which welcomes the intention of the Government

“to set out a renewed timescale for the completion of the dualling”

later in 2023.

Any SNP member of the Scottish Parliament who votes for that amendment cannot also claim that they are standing up for their constituents. Are we seriously expected to welcome a delay and to welcome the fact that a new timescale will not be set out until later this year? It should be happening now; in fact, it should have happened long before now. The fact that it has not leads people to question how committed the SNP and Green Government is.

Since the terrible news two weeks ago, Green MSPs such as Ariane Burgess have broken cover to state their view that dualling the road is not actually a priority. How on earth can the transport minister say that this Government is “absolutely committed” to dualling the A9 when Green MSPs are not?

Two weeks ago in the chamber, I asked the minister whether the Greens were in favour of the project. In response, she just said:

“I am not a Green ... minister.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; c 32.]

The last time that I checked, the minister was a Scottish Government minister, and the Government is made up of the SNP and the Greens. Presumably the minister can tell us today whether, when she says that the Scottish Government is “absolutely committed” to this dualling project, she is also speaking for her partners in government, the Scottish Greens. I am happy to give way to the minister if she wants to give that commitment, because I am not hearing it from the Greens themselves.

The point is also important in the context of what Mr Whittle and I heard from the A75 and A77 action group, which, as members may recall, we raised in the chamber. We were informed that the minister told campaigners that the Greens might hinder efforts to have those roads upgraded. That, alongside the comments of Green MSPs, will make people believe that the same must be true of the A9.

The story of the A9 dualling project is a story of promises made and promises broken, lives lost, local people betrayed and rural communities and economies let down.

Highland communities and other users of the A9 should also hear an apology from the minister today. However, that is not enough; they also deserve to hear when the Government will deliver on its commitment to them to fully dual the road. The least that the Government can do is finally come clean, be frank with people and give them some answers as well as action.

I move amendment S6M-07977.1, to insert at end:

“notes the statement made by the Minister for Transport on 8 February 2023 that the Scottish Government is still ‘absolutely committed’ to dualling the A9, and believes that this project is a priority and should be progressed as a matter of urgency.”

16:25  

My amendment, had it been selected, highlighted that the A9 continues north of Inverness as another 100 miles of

“predominantly single carriageway, with a number of serious and fatal accidents happening on this stretch of the road”.

It also noted that

“communities in the Highlands are suffering due to the lack of action to tackle the issues with the road”,

and called on the Scottish Government

“to announce a proper plan for the upgrading of the A9 north of Inverness so that it is fit for purpose.”

The case for improvement by dualling the A9 to Inverness has long been accepted, and dualling has long been promised. Dualling will better serve communities along the route from Perth to Inverness and improve the time that it takes to reach Aberdeen and local towns and villages between and beyond. We are talking about the pace at which that commitment is delivered. Every delay brings the risk of more accidents and fatalities; upgrading is needed now. We must not neglect infrastructure out of dogma. We have seen the SNP’s own deadline slip beyond 2025. We have had 15 years of SNP Government, yet progress has been painfully slow.

Residents are looking for an urgent announcement of the Scottish Government’s revised timetable for the completion of A9 dualling; adequate funding to make sure that another deadline on the A9 upgrade is not missed; and an announcement of a proper plan for the upgrading of the A9 north of Inverness, which has so far been neglected.

We should also recognise that users of the A9 range from regular users and residents who are confident on the road to drivers who are unfamiliar with it and visitors to Scotland’s tourist spots who are underconfident of the mix from single to dual carriageway.

Although upgrades in good time are needed to improve safety and connectivity, more can be done to shift freight off the road and on to rail. That would need the equivalent planning and upgrading north of Inverness as well as between Perth and Inverness.

We should also ensure that these key routes are linked to local public services, making sure that bus routes, for example, are able to take people to the main routes and connect our cities through better public transport connections. My colleagues in the far north of Scotland continue to campaign for better provision of maternity services. Any new plan for the A9 beyond Inverness should address that need.

In conclusion—forgive me, my voice is giving out—all sectors need to reduce carbon emissions if we are to reach our net zero targets, and transport is lagging behind. We cannot take every car off the road. In some parts of the country, car travel is the only viable transport option. Therefore, Scotland needs to go electric as quickly as possible. We need to see progress on the electric A9 plans to upgrade and invest in the road, which would ensure that electric vehicle charging is available in suitable, convenient locations, so that passengers are not stranded miles from where they need to be. Those plans also need to stretch to upgrades beyond Inverness. If we can give people in Scotland the confidence to buy an electric vehicle, we can help to move older cars off our roads sooner.

Our key routes should be easily reachable from such vital infrastructure. After all, it is people that the infrastructure of Scotland serves. Routes such as the A9 should be safe, accessible and link communities and services.

16:29  

I am sorry that the minister was not able to take my intervention. I wanted to ask her when she was first advised by Transport Scotland that the commitment to dual the A9 by 2025 was not going to be met. Therefore, it is helpful that Transport Scotland officials are in the chamber today; maybe they can advise her and she can include that in her summing up or she can intervene during my speech.

The A9 is a road that I know very well—I have known it all my life. I travelled on it before there were new bridges over the Dornoch and Cromarty Firths and before there was the Kessock bridge, when people had to go on the small ferry across the water. For many, it is the road that links the Highland and Islands with the central belt, but, for me, it is the road home. It is the road that I drove back down on only yesterday.

Its importance is why, in 2006, Murdo Fraser and I launched the dual the A9 campaign, why we campaigned for the road to be dualled between Perth and Inverness and why, regardless of the politics of the issue, I was pleased when the Scottish Government gave a commitment to dual it by 2025.

Unfortunately, that commitment was largely only words. Jenny Gilruth’s belated admission that the SNP’s promise to dual the road would not be delivered was met with anger, but not surprise, in communities across the Highlands and Islands. While most of us have known for years now that the promise was going to be broken, time and time again, SNP ministers have come to the chamber or sat in committees in the Parliament repeating the same increasingly ridiculous assertion, claiming that all was fine, the commitment stood and the road would be dualled as promised. That was not true, and the Scottish Government was taking folk in the Highlands and Islands for mugs.

What is so frustrating is that we know the economic benefits of dualling—improving connectivity for my region, bringing businesses closer to their markets and making it easier for people to visit the region. We know of the social benefits—it would link local communities and families and bring people together. We also know of the safety benefits. Eighty-three people have been killed on the A9 since 2011. That is 83 lives lost and families mourning loved ones. Many more have been injured in accidents, and how many more dangerous incidents go unreported?

How did we get here? Years after work was meant to start, the vast majority of the road between Perth and Inverness remains single carriageway, and there has been little or no progress on dualling those sections. The SNP has blamed Brexit, it has blamed Covid and it has even blamed—as Graham Simpson said—Vladimir Putin. Those who are responsible are not in the Kremlin; they are here in Edinburgh, and they are on the Government benches.

One of the reasons why there is so much anger locally is that SNP ministers have utterly failed to be honest with the Parliament and the public over delays. Why were we not given realistic updates on how the project was progressing—or failing to progress? Why were we not told when there were problems and how they would impact completion dates?

That is why it is so important that, as our motion calls for, ministers provide a specific date for when a revised timetable of works and costs will be published and that, going forward, Transport Scotland publishes a quarterly update that sets out progress against published targets.

Jenny Gilruth is just the latest minister to have come to the chamber to defend the mess that the SNP has made of the project, and she does so largely because of the failings of those who came before her. However, all those who have served in this Government bear some responsibility for the failure, as do those on the SNP back benches, who, when they should have been challenging their ministers on the issue, were too happy to sit on their hands, putting loyalty to the SNP before responsibility to their constituents. If any one of the seven SNP Highland and Islands MSPs were here in the chamber, I would have asked them whether they were going to keep the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local media but back that same failure again today by voting for the Government’s dismissive and deflective amendment, or whether they were going to put their constituents, not their party, first by rejecting the Government’s amendment and supporting our motion at decision time.

You must conclude, Mr Halcro Johnston.

I urge those members to stand up for their constituents by sending their Government a clear message: no more failures and no more excuses—get the A9 dualled.

16:34  

I thank the Tories for bringing the debate back to the chamber. In a moment of consensus, I agree with the line in the Tory motion that says:

“recognises the vital importance of this route to the economic and social wellbeing of the communities it serves”.

I also agree with the comments today regarding the number of deaths—

Will the member give way?

I have only just started.

I also agree with the comments today regarding the number of deaths that have taken place on the A9 over many years, even those long before the establishment of this Parliament. I express my sympathies to every family who has lost a loved one.

I want the A9 to be dualled as quickly as possible. I have long held that view and, indeed, it has been a long-standing SNP policy. The transport minister has made clear her desire to dual the A9 and her determination to make that happen.

I accept that many people are disappointed with the recent statement that the Tomatin to Moy section will not progress at this time. However, as the minister has stated, the cost that came in from the one bidder was considered to be too high at the time.

In December 2021, three bidders were invited to participate in a procurement exercise, with final tenders required to be submitted in October 2022. That coincided with many external factors, including the pandemic, disruption caused by Brexit and—whether the Conservatives like it or not—the war in Ukraine, which has affected global international costs. The inflationary impact of all those aspects is significantly affecting the construction market. Unfortunately, only one company provided a tender submission, and it was considered that the £115 million cost that it submitted was too high at the time.

Will the member give way?

Just one moment.

The minister referred to best value. Anyone who has ever served on the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee will be aware of Audit Scotland’s best value reports and how important best value is. Clearly, that has been an issue in the past, with contracts sometimes being awarded and deals being done because they offered the lowest cost. Sometimes, the lowest cost does not lead to the best value for the taxpayer.

I appreciate the list of reasons that the member has given in his explanation of why the project has not proceeded at this point. However, does he not recognise that the commitment was first made in 2007 and was then repeated in 2011? Why was progress not made in those previous years, before Covid came along and caused delays?

I am sure that Murdo Fraser will recognise that, after the SNP came into power in 2007, there was a financial crash in the following year—[Interruption.] Some folk can sit and moan all they want, but there was a financial crash that had a detrimental effect on the economy not just in Scotland but across the UK and globally, and its impact did not end that year but was felt over many years. The fact that the UK Government still has a large share in the Royal Bank of Scotland—which is now part of the NatWest Group—tells a story about the effects of that particular international incident.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but no.

I am sure that the Tories—no doubt led by Mr Simpson—would be going hell for leather in criticising the transport minister if she had signed up to a contract on the basis of one bid only. In that scenario, I am quite sure that we would be having a totally different debate today, as the Tories would, no doubt, be asking the Scottish Government to go back to the market to get a more economical bid.

I am disappointed about the decision, but I believe that the transport minister had no other choice to make. If there had been no investment to date, I could understand the Tories’ criticism. However, more than £430 million has already been spent on the road from the £3 billion investment that is needed, which is based on 2008 figures.

I am conscious that the Presiding Officer is indicating to me to finish, so I will end there.

Thank you. I call Edward Mountain, to be followed by Paul McLennan.

16:38  

Let us get down to the real facts and let us talk about the journey times from Perth to Inverness. On a good day, someone travelling by car will take two hours and 30 minutes, and, on a really good day, someone travelling by train will take two hours and 10 minutes. Those times have not changed since 1986. I know from driving the road late on a Thursday night and late on a Monday night nearly every week of the year just how dangerous that road is. It should have been upgraded.

We should not forget that, in 2007, at the same time as the SNP promised to upgrade the road, it promised to upgrade the rail. It had an aspiration to shave 35 minutes off the train travel time from Inverness to Edinburgh. That has not been delivered. The aspiration to shave 10 minutes off the two-hour-plus journey time from Inverness to Perth has not been delivered either. What has been delivered? The shaving of 10 minutes off the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh. That journey time is now 40 minutes. Highlanders feel ignored, and rightly so.

Let us turn to the A9. I think that The Inverness Courier’s headline is very appropriate:

“R.I.P. SNP promise of dualling A9 by 2025
Born: 2007 Died: February 8, 2023”.

That is what we feel like in the Highlands—we are left with a tombstone on which the SNP’s promise is written.

Graham Simpson mentioned the roll of dishonour for transport ministers. He mentioned Stewart Stevenson. He mentioned Keith Brown. He mentioned Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Paul Wheelhouse and Graeme Dey, and finally Jenny Gilruth, who I feel sorry for because she has been left carrying the can. They are looked on in the Highlands as the modern-day Dick Turpins—the highway robbers who have denied us the access route that we deserve. The problem is that, when we describe them as that, it maligns Dick Turpin, because his words were, “Stand and deliver,” and not one of those ministers has delivered anything for the Highlands when it comes to connections.

A lot of noise is being made on the SNP back benches by one of its Highland MSPs: Fergus Ewing. He is a man who has been in government since 2007. He is a Highlander. He has been a Government minister, he has been a cabinet secretary and, for the past 14 years, he has been missing in action. It is only now that he is showing what I would describe as barrack room bravery, having shown absolutely no battlefield bravery when he stood to lose his extra pay and pension and his ministerial car.

I am sorry that he is not here today, but I hope—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not. I think that now is the time to listen. I am sad that Fergus Ewing is not here today, and I know that he has good reasons for not being here today. I hope that, at decision time, his technology will not fail him, as it seems to do when he has to make a hard decision.

We desperately need to stop the accidents on the A9. We need to connect the Highlands, and this Government—

Will the member give way?

Yes, I will, in just a minute. We need to stop the accidents and get the Highlands connected, both of which the Government has promised to do. I will give way.

The intervention will have to be brief. The member is in his last half-minute.

The member mentioned the people of the Highlands and Islands. I wonder whether he agrees with me that they would probably prefer him to focus on the issues and not on personalities.

Edward Mountain to conclude, please.

Of course, I always like to focus on the issues, but the issue is that personalities have not dealt with the problem. They have had long enough to deal with it, and we are all sick and tired of it in the Highlands.

Sixteen years this Government has had—16 years of doing nothing. I say to the Government the simple words that most Highlanders would say: shame on you. Get on with the job and give us the A9 that you promised us in 2007.

16:42  

I am glad to take part in the debate. My constituency of East Lothian has the main east coast road, the A1, passing through it. It was dualled in 2000. Prior to that, it was a two-lane road with no passing points. I remember the frustration of residents, commuters and business at that time. I understand the frustration. I also have constituents raising issues about the A9 who travel on it regularly to visit family and for business reasons.

Will the member give way?

No. I have only four minutes and I have just started. I will maybe take one later, if I can make some progress.

The over £430 million that has been invested in dualling the A9 to date has meant that much has already been achieved. We have also heard about the wider £3 billion investment that is needed. Another thing that has been mentioned is the Inverness airport railway station, which opened just last week after an investment of £14 million.

The Scottish Government is clear that the main route to improving road safety will be the full completion of the A9 dualling between Perth and Inverness, but, in the current climate, protecting public finances is an essential part of responsible government. There might be a debate about that, but our public finances are under sustained economic pressure. Surging energy prices, raging inflation and the damage to the labour supply that was caused by Brexit, along with the Kwarteng/Truss disaster, have created the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget. Difficult decisions are required, and resources will be targeted where they are most needed. We do need best value for taxpayers—I think that we all agree on that. Protecting public finances is an essential part of responsible government.

In December 2021, three bidders were invited to participate in a procurement process, and, as we have heard, one tender came through. Due to economic conditions—we have heard the minister talk about this before—construction inflation was running close to 20 to 25 per cent above the year before. That resulted in the submission of only one tender, and the estimated cost of the construction contract was about £115 million, which was significantly higher than expected. As we have also heard the transport minister say, ministers concluded that the awarding of that contract did not represent best value at the time.

The Scottish Government is very clear about its firm intent to retender for dualling between Tomatin and Moy at pace and with urgency. As the minister also referred to previously, she will set out a revised timescale later in the year, in consultation with Transport Scotland.

The original completion date for dualling was 2025. It was always an ambitious challenge, and that has proved to be the case. It was always reliant on timely and positive outcomes from a range of factors, such as public and stakeholder consultation and approval processes, and on market and supply chain capacity.

Road safety is important until we move towards the full completion. Before Christmas, the Scottish Government committed additional investment of £5 million to improve short-term road safety measures on the A9.

Will the member take an intervention?

Very briefly.

Can the member tell us why none of his SNP colleagues from the Highlands and Islands are in the chamber today? Does he know whether any of them will be speaking or whether they will all be voting?

I cannot comment on other members. I am making a speech, and I cannot comment on my colleagues.

As well as the three safety schemes that are already scheduled for delivery, an additional £600,000 of works and campaigns will be delivered by April this year, focusing on the A9 between Perth and Inverness.

I will close by referring to an important exchange in the budget debate yesterday. Fiscal flexibility discussions are on-going between the Scottish and UK Governments. When the issue was raised yesterday, Liz Smith said that she did not support additional borrowing powers per se but would support such powers for specific reasons. I want Scotland to be independent and have full borrowing powers, like any other normal country, but specific additional borrowing powers, particularly for investments in infrastructure such as the A9, would allow projects to be delivered more quickly. Fiscal flexibilities that are agreed by both Governments would demonstrate maturity.

Will the member give way?

Very briefly, as I just have one line to finish.

The member has 10 seconds, almost.

I just want to clarify that that is not quite the correct interpretation of the fiscal framework.

Please close, Mr McLennan.

The fiscal framework can be set by both Governments. I urge Liz Smith to raise the issue with her Tory colleagues at Westminster. I will continue to raise the issue in the chamber and in committees.

16:46  

I have lost count of the number of questions, statements and debates on the A9 that we have had in the chamber over many years. Mr Simpson gave us a rather amusing potted ministerial history at the beginning of the debate. I respect the fact that the Scottish Government remains committed to seeing the A9 dualling project through to the end, but the reality is that there are challenges and pressures on priorities and budgets, and they are growing and will not go away any time soon.

The Scottish Government has said that it is committed to dualling the A9. Are the Scottish Greens fully committed to dualling the A9?

I would simply say to Mr Bibby that he needs to read the Bute house agreement, which is clear about the commitments on the A9 and the A96.

The latest estimate has every single mile of the A9 dualling project costing between £19 million and £23 million just for construction, so that does not include management of the project or even buying the land. It is an eye-watering amount of money. Therefore, the biggest challenge to dualling every single last inch of the A9 does not come from Green arguments; it is about the financial reality that the Government faces.

Some Governments—I point out to Mr Bibby that most notable among them is the Labour Welsh Government—are starting to make difficult choices. The Welsh Government is listening to its Future Generations Commissioner and the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, and it is abandoning vast road-building programmes and investing in other transport priorities that benefit people and the climate.

When I think of the transport challenges in the Highlands and Islands and the very real need for investment, I think of ferries, harbour infrastructure and fixed links. I think of the need to keep lifeline roads open, such as the Rest and Be Thankful. I think of the desperate need to dual the Highland main line and the investment that is needed in rail freight to get timber lorries off the roads. I think of the safety issues that we have on roads such as the A85, which can never be dualled. I think of all that, and I wonder what a further £1,400 million would deliver for all those communities.

For the A9, we absolutely need improvements—the status quo will not do—but safety improvements must come first. The recent spate of tragic fatal accidents on the A9 has happened for a range of reasons, and although dualling might have helped to prevent some of those accidents, we have also seen fatalities on recently dualled sections of the road. Dualling the A9 was never primarily a road safety project but, if we want to maximise the number of lives saved and accidents avoided across Scotland's road network, including the A9, we need to invest carefully in the right measures. Sections of the A9 dualling will still need to be completed, but investment should not stop there.

That is why I am saddened to see Liam Kerr campaigning against speed cameras on the A96, because they are a cost-effective way of saving lives. However, I credit his colleague Finlay Carson for campaigning for the introduction of speed cameras on the A75.

I have met a number of constituents to discuss A9 improvements. For example, I have met the Birnam and Dunkeld junctions action group, whose calls for safety improvements are important. Progress must be made before the next surge in visitor numbers at the start of the new season. I warmly welcome the fact that our minister, Jenny Gilruth, has acted quickly and decisively on a package that will improve driver safety, focusing first on the Birnam to Dalguise section.

Will the member give way?

I do not have the time.

The action group has also talked about the need for the speed limit to be reduced to 50mph between Birnam and Dunkeld and for there to be better lighting at junctions, monitoring cameras and a roundabout at Dunkeld. I urge the minister, in her closing speech, to double down on those suggestions from my Perthshire constituents and to continue the investment in the A9 but to invest wisely based on where we are now and what the future looks like.

16:50  

As far back as 2007, the SNP had a manifesto commitment to scrap the Edinburgh trams and, instead, spend the money on an A9 dual carriageway. Recent figures put the cost of the trams project at £776 million—double the original estimate. All three Opposition parties teamed up together to defeat Government plans to scrap the trams, the trams were reinstated and the cash for the A9 was lost.

The Scottish Government has invested more than £430 million to date on dualling the A9, and I am glad to hear again of the Government’s commitment to complete the dualling programme between Perth and Inverness. It is good to hear that the Government’s commitment to dualling the A9 is absolute, despite this recent news.

However, the current climate requires that prudent choices be made with regard to public finances. It is the duty of any responsible Government to protect public finances, and the Government’s decision obviously takes into consideration broader factors such as efficiency, effectiveness and sustainable development. To have continued with the process, given the circumstances, would have been wrong.

Seven of the eight remaining projects have completed the statutory process, accounting for 92 per cent of the length that is to be dualled. The Scottish Government continues to make progress on the remaining section, with input through a co-operative process with the local community. The results of the preferred route option will be announced in spring. I understand that work continues to obtain the outstanding statutory consent for the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing project, with the required land acquisition to be completed as soon as possible.

The Scottish Government recently committed to providing £5 million of additional investment to improve short-term road safety measures on the A9. The measures include enhanced road markings, illuminated road studs and improvements to highlight single carriageways and the transitions at dualled sections. Variable message signs will also be deployed along the route. I am sure that those measures will be welcomed by the local community and by others who travel on the route.

The on-going economic volatility cannot be ignored.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I have no time in hand.

Surging energy prices, raging inflation and the damage to labour supply and trade due to Brexit, along with the spectacular financial mismanagement of the UK Government, have created the most difficult set of conditions in which to set a budget. Those are facts that the Conservatives would rather forget.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have no time in hand.

Difficult decisions are necessary, and resources will be targeted where they are needed most to ensure maximum value from every pound that is spent.

The UK Government has deliberately chosen a form of Brexit that will make it harder and more expensive for firms to export goods and services to the European Union and to employ EU nationals in their workforce. The Conservatives have made choices that have consequences, and they should own them.

As part of the retendering process, Transport Scotland will engage with representatives of the construction industry, including the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, on how elements of its standard terms and conditions for such projects might be modified to encourage more bidders to participate. If more bidders come forward, I am hopeful that costs can come down so that we provide better value for the taxpayer.

I know that I am running out of time. I will conclude with a quote from former Tory leader David McLetchie, who said:

“The SNP policy is to concrete over the Highlands. This represents a massive diversion of investment from Edinburgh and the south-east into the north of Scotland and the Highlands.”

You must conclude, Ms Stevenson.

He said:

“No one should be under any illusion as to that. I think there is no doubt”—

Thank you, Ms Stevenson. We move to winding up speeches.

16:55  

The stretch of the A9 that we are debating is important not only to the communities from Perth to Inverness but to those beyond, as far as our islands and communities in Orkney, Lewis and Harris, who have been betrayed by the Government and yet are still waiting for an apology.

Last year, eight deaths occurred on a 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months. It must add to the grief of the families involved that, had the Government’s promise been fulfilled, many of those people would be alive today. The total number of deaths on the road between Inverness and Perth in 2022 was 13.

Many more people have lost their lives on the A9 north of Inverness. I concur with Beatrice Wishart, who highlighted the issues with that section of the road, and I agree that it needs attention, too, especially with the centralisation of maternity services.

The dualling of the A9 was an SNP manifesto commitment in 2007. In December 2011, after the crash, the Scottish ministers confirmed the commitment to upgrade the A9 between Perth and Inverness to full dual carriageway by 2025.

Neil Bibby has mentioned that the Greens do not appear to share that priority. Ariane Burgess has stated publicly that the safety improvements that the minister has outlined should be the top priority, and Mark Ruskell doubled down on that idea today. That totally overlooks the fact that dualling would provide maximum safety. Signs and paints are poor substitutes for a dual carriageway. I ask the minister whether she will assure us that the Green partners of the Scottish Government’s coalition have not hampered progress. Mark Ruskell referred to the Bute house agreement but did not say that he would support the project as a priority, and other SNP speakers seemed to echo those sentiments.

Jamie Halcro Johnston and Edward Mountain asked where the other Highlands and Islands SNP MSPs are—they appear to have abandoned the minister. Instead, we have in the debate Stuart Macmillan, representing Greenock and Inverclyde; Paul McLennan representing East Lothian; and Collette Stevenson, representing East Kilbride. Again, that shows little appetite to make this road a priority.

Does the member agree that the lack of support from Highlands and Islands SNP MSPs will not be forgotten by their constituents, whom they have let down?

Yes. Our constituents are very angry about this broken promise and they will not forget it easily.

The Minister for Transport blamed the war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid and inflation. However, the truth is that, had the Government’s intention ever been to have this work carried out by the 2025 goal, it would already have issued contracts, land would already have been purchased and designs would already have been signed off. Instead, we are hearing today that the minister is still waiting for options from Transport Scotland for the nine remaining stretches to be worked on.

Neil Bibby talked about the construction industry source who said that, going at this speed—indeed, the Scottish Government is going slower than the speed to which the expert referred—it will be 2050 before the completion of dualling. Sadly, I do not believe that it will be that soon, because no work has been carried out. If inflation is as the minister has said, the work will go way beyond 2050—in fact, I will be lucky if it happens within my lifetime.

We have talked about the lives that have been lost, and you cannot put a value on a life, but every fatal accident inquiry costs £2 million, so £26 million was spent on that last year, and there is also the £5 million cost of signage and paint to improve road safety. All that is a cost to the public purse, and all that money could have been invested in the A9.

Graham Simpson talked about the risk to the contractor and the fact that the contracting process is working in a way that prohibits people coming forward. The minister says that she is modifying it, but all that should have been done long before now. Waiting for regulations to be modified builds in a delay.

This is indeed a betrayal of the Highlands and Islands and their communities. We need an inquiry to see what has gone wrong in the recent and distant past—

You must conclude, Ms Grant.

—and to shine a light on what progress can be made. We need the Scottish Government to adhere to a realistic timeframe, and we need a commitment from the Government that this work will be a priority.

I call Jenny Gilruth. You have up to five minutes, minister.

17:00  

I have listened carefully to the contributions from all parties, and I know only too well the strength of feeling on the topic in all parts of the chamber, including my party’s.

It is important to start by reflecting on the fact that the A9 dualling programme does not exist in isolation. I hope that that is not the point that Rhoda Grant was trying to make.

It is true that Covid-19, Brexit, recent inflationary pressures and the economic volatility that followed the UK Government’s budget have all had an impact on the A9 dualling project. Members need to accept that. If they will not accept it from me, perhaps Conservative members will accept it from their own Government, because the UK Government has also been impacted by those factors. The National Audit Office is reporting delays to planned roads projects in England, with costs increasing by more than £3 billion, 39 road-building projects seeing cost increases and National Highways forecasting delays on 33 projects. In those circumstances, it is essential that the Scottish Government takes careful stock of the options for delivering the remaining dualling programme.

I am grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. When was she told by Transport Scotland that the project to dual the A9 was not going to happen? If she cannot recall that, can she ensure that she advises Parliament, sends a letter or something?

I can recall that, so I would prefer that Jamie Halcro Johnson does not attempt to put words in my mouth. I was told in December last year, and I updated Parliament—[Interruption.] I updated Parliament on the Tomatin to Moy tender on 8 February. A decision was made on that tender on 3 February, so I hope that the member will accept that that was done timeously enough.

It is hugely important, given the long-term financial commitment that is required of the Government and the challenging position of public finances, that we look again at the Tomatin to Moy tender. We have spoken about that at length today and, of course, we also did so only two weeks ago.

I have committed to updating Parliament with a new timescale for completion once I have received advice on the options, which I expect to have by autumn this year. I have also committed to engaging with interested members on the progress of the A9 dualling programme. Further details of plans for that engagement will be provided in the coming weeks.

I would like to address a number of points that have been made during the course of today’s debate. I was going to address the point that Mr Halcro Johnston made in his speech, but I believe that I have already done that.

Will the minister give way?

I would like to make some progress on points that were raised by members during the debate. I do not believe that Douglas Ross was here for it.

Graham Simpson asked—[Interruption.] Graham Simpson asked why schemes cannot be constructed at one time, as they are available. The main reason why we do not do that—much like the high speed 2 scheme, which is also being delivered in packages—is the disruption that would be caused. Given the length of the route, disruption to communities is a hugely important consideration.

Will the minister give way?

I would like to make some progress. As I undertook to do only two weeks ago, I will come back to Parliament with the updated timescale, the need for which I accept, and which I think is the outline of the Conservative motion.

Neil Bibby and, I think, Rhoda Grant asked about the Bute house agreement. Of course, that agreement explicitly states that work that is under construction on the trunk road network will continue. The A9 is not part of the Bute house agreement. I hope that that answers the question.

Beatrice Wishart touched on the importance of the route north of Inverness, which is often overlooked in the context of where we are today. It is worth saying that, since 2008, we have completed two major schemes at Helmsdale and Berriedale braes. We are also progressing some improvements at the Munlochy junction. I visited the site in October last year; it is hugely important that there will be real improvements in road safety for that community.

As I mentioned, we are also looking at the wider economic climate—including, as I mentioned, the inflationary pressures—in relation to options for delivering the remaining elements of the programme.

I expect that an announcement on the preferred route option for the Pass of Birnam to Tay crossing section will be made in spring this year. We will also complete the preparatory work on the made orders for the three projects that are yet to reach that stage.

I am not shying away from the challenge that is posed for the Government in respect of dualling the A9. It cannot be solved in an afternoon Opposition debate, unfortunately—nor could it be solved in my statement to Parliament two weeks ago.

Having had time to reflect on the question that I posed right at the start of the debate, can the minister now tell us what impact she projects the A9 delay having on the Scottish Government’s road safety 2030 targets?

I am sorry that I do not have in front of me the information that Mr Kerr is seeking. I am more than happy to write to him with it, although I am not necessarily sure that I understand the sentiment behind the question.

The approach that I will take as transport minister is to work with people. Although Mr Simpson seems not to like that approach, it is why I engaged with members last year on the short-term measures which—as I think we heard from Mr Ruskell—are hugely important. An extra £5 million has come from the Scottish Government to improve road safety on the A9. That is also why I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the A9 safety group to make sure that investment is delivering tangible improvements on the ground, where they are needed, and why I have tasked Transport Scotland with an expedited turnaround on the renewed procurement for the Tomatin to Moy stretch that can be secured by the end of this year, so that we can move forward.

I know that it is imperative that we get the job done for the people of the Highlands who rely on the spine of Scotland, for the communities along the route and for the businesses that depend on it. I commit to working with all parties on doing so as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I will return to Parliament in the autumn with the updated timescale for completion.

17:06  

I thank all members who have contributed to this afternoon’s short debate. As Rhoda Grant does, I think that it is striking that not a single SNP MSP representing either the Highlands and Islands or Perth and Kinross was prepared to come to the chamber to defend their Government’s record on the A9.

There is a stark statistic that should be in our minds as we debate the issue. In the course of last year, in 2022, 13 people died on the A9 between Perth and Inverness. Of those, 12 died on single-carriageway sections. Every one of those deaths is a horrible and avoidable tragedy for the person’s family and friends, and comes at substantial economic cost.

It is sometimes said that there are no bad roads, just bad drivers, but we know that the reality is—as all the statistics tell us—that single-carriageway roads are many times more dangerous, and many times more likely than dual carriageways are, to cause fatal and serious accidents. That is because dual carriageways have physical separation between the traffic moving in opposite directions. On a single carriageway, it simply takes a vehicle drifting across the centre for the result to be a horrible head-on crash that will, with both vehicles doing 70mph, almost certainly lead to a most serious, if not fatal, accident. That is why a dual carriageway is so important.

We have talked a bit about the Government’s record and political will. Let us look at the history of the A9. We had a Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997. What did that Conservative Government deliver for the A9? It delivered the dualling, in its totality, of the stretch between Stirling and Perth, which is more than 30 miles. It delivered, north of Inverness, the dualling between Kessock and the Tore roundabout. It delivered the construction of the Kessock bridge and the Dornoch bridge. It also delivered on the stretch between Perth and Inverness, which includes 25 miles of dual carriageway. In total, in 18 years it delivered more than 60 miles of dual carriageway and two major firth crossings.

By contrast, this SNP Government, which has been in power for nearly the same length of time—16 years—has delivered just 11 miles of dual carriageway. I do not know whether that is the malign influence of the Greens on the Government, but if one Government can, with the political will, deliver so much in 18 years, there is nothing to have stopped the SNP Government having done the same.

As my colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston picked up on, we heard once again from the minister an attempt to blame everyone else—to blame Brexit, the UK Government and Vladimir Putin—for her not making progress. I remind the minister that the commitment was originally made in 2007. There was ample time to make progress on A9 dualling many, many years ago. There is no point in trying to find excuses now.

What needs to be done now? I welcome the £5 million for short-term improvements, and I thank the minister for her engagement on how that money might be spent, but we need to be realistic. That is a sticking plaster, given what is required. The only thing that will save lives in the long term is getting the dual carriageway constructed.

I was at this morning’s meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, along with Fergus Ewing and Rhoda Grant, supporting Laura Hansler of the A9 Dual Action Group on her petition. I commend Laura and all her colleagues for all the work that they have done in getting thousands of people to sign the petition to support dualling of the A9.

What came out of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s hearing is that there needs to be a proper parliamentary inquiry into what has gone wrong on the A9. That inquiry needs to look into the tendering process in order to understand why the Tomatin to Moy section attracted only one bidder. Why was working with the Scottish Government so unattractive to contractors that only one company was prepared to come forward and bid? We need to understand that.

Two weeks ago, Fergus Ewing, who is not here today, made some very good points in the chamber about why he thought that that might have been the case. I do not know whether he is right. We need to investigate that to understand what has gone wrong with the tendering process, but we also need an inquiry into what would be a realistic timescale for completion of the works in question, because it is essential that that happen.

I hope that such a parliamentary inquiry will be carried out—maybe the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee or the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will consider doing that—but, for now, we face a vote on our motion, which calls for urgent action. I know that Opposition parties will support us in the vote. We will support the Labour amendment, and we would have supported the Liberal Democrat amendment, had it been selected for debate.

I say to SNP members that it is time for them to stand up for their constituents, as Neil Bibby and Jamie Halcro Johnston argued. Fergus Ewing has been vocal on the issue. He is not here today—I know that he has a medical appointment. Perhaps he can vote remotely. If he had been here, perhaps he would have voted with us.

I will finish where I started. Last year, there were 12 deaths on the single-carriageway sections of the A9: they were avoidable. I am afraid that there will be more deaths this year, next year and every year after until the dual carriageway is completed. Those deaths will be deaths of our constituents. They might be deaths of our friends, members of our families or—perish the thought—even one of us.

I say to SNP members: stand with us, ditch the Greens and put your country and your constituents before your party interests. Show some courage, support our motion and save lives.