Chamber and committees

It would help some of your members as well, because they could get work out of it, which would be a good thing.

Okay. How is that being advertised?

That would be great.

I am going to dot about a bit, because I am the last one up. Stuart, I know that you cannot speak for Ineos—it is a shame that we have not spoken to Ineos representatives at this session, but we may get to meet them, as Ineos is clearly a key part of this—but you mentioned things like sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels, which are really important. If we can produce sustainable aviation fuel at Grangemouth, that could be really important to the Scottish economy.

Will the member take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and councils regarding improving connectivity for Scotland’s islands. (S6O-01901)

Will the member take an intervention?

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.

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?

The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the Orkney Islands ferry task force, and, as the islands minister, I hope that she is involved with that. What can she say to provide reassurance that that will not be yet another talking shop and that it will lead to tangible results—that is, to new ferries?

The minister mentioned the UK transport secretary’s vision. We have yet to hear her vision for ScotRail. Perhaps it could include lower fares and a simpler ticketing system. Would she agree?