Hansard

I seek an addition to next week’s business to deliver something that the Scottish National Party and Green Government promised: a statement by the end of the year on the dualling of the A9. I am standing here, trying to be helpful to the SNP business manager and to Parliament. [Interruption.] SNP MSPs might try to ridicule that, but I am simply trying to get something inserted into the business motion that the Government promised. That is why we lodged our amendment to have that statement next week.

The Government’s most recent promise was to provide a statement by the end of the year. However, in the business motion that George Adam has just moved, which takes us up to the Christmas recess and therefore represents the last opportunity for a statement to be provided in this calendar year, there is no mention of the promised statement on the dualling of the A9. I do not think that it should be up to Opposition parties to use the parliamentary process to force the Government’s hand, but if it is unwilling to provide a statement, we must do that.

Let us look at the history of the issue. In June—six months ago—the Government was planning to update Parliament on the A9 project. It got one of its back-bench MSPs, Jim Fairlie, to submit a Government-inspired question. That type of question is used to announce to Parliament and the public a project that is ready to go. However, that question was then withdrawn—something that we believe has never happened in this Parliament before.

I questioned the First Minister about that on 15 June and he told the Parliament that the question was withdrawn because we had a new transport minister and she needed time to look at the project. She has had several months to look at it, but we are now told that she will not even be the one to make the announcement in the statement—that will be the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition. The First Minister told me that the A9 is “very important”, and he said:

“when we are ready to update Parliament with an announcement on the A9, we will absolutely do that,”

However, the Government was ready to update Parliament back in June, when it had that Government-inspired question lodged. The First Minister went on to say:

“We will also ensure, of course, that any update that we provide in a statement to Parliament is accurate.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2023; c 13.]

Let us hope that the former transport minister Michael Matheson is not involved if we are looking for accuracy.

After that, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition told us that the update would come by the end of autumn and before the start of winter. Autumn has been and gone, as has the start of winter, yet there has still been no update for MSPs and the constituents that we represent.

Earlier this afternoon, the SNP business manager, in response to my colleague Edward Mountain, told Parliament:

“We expect to update Parliament on a renewed programme in the coming days.”

Why, then, has the Government asked Parliament tonight to vote for a business motion that does not include a statement on the A9? If a statement is coming “in the coming days”, why is it not in the motion that we are asked to support tonight?

The SNP Government has made repeated promises to the communities for which the road is crucial, but they have failed to materialise. There has been very little action on this vital road for communities from Perth to Inverness, and that is why the matter is so important. It is crucial that we hear a statement on it in Parliament before the end of the year. Scottish Conservatives research has shown that, at the current pace, it may take over a century to complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. It cannot and must not take that long, so we need to hear in a statement what the next steps are, when the spades will be in the ground and when the dualling will be complete.

We have repeatedly tried to get a statement in Parliament. We were told that a statement would be made by the end of autumn, and on the last day of autumn we asked for one. We asked again two weeks ago, and we asked again yesterday. At the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday, my colleague Alex Burnett, who is our party’s business manager, was told that there was a Cabinet process to be followed. Exactly how long does that Cabinet process take? We have still had no statement.

Parliament deserves the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans. I am hopeful that George Adam is about to stand up and say that he and the Government will accept our amendment, which proposes that a statement be included in next week’s business in order to deliver on the Government’s promises. If he does not do that, the question will fall to people such as John Swinney, Richard Lochhead, Emma Roddick, Maree Todd, Jim Fairlie, Kate Forbes and other representatives whose constituents are expecting an update in the chamber. Surely they will want to vote with the Scottish Conservatives to secure a statement in the business for next week, because their constituents expect it.

I move amendment S6M-11651.1, to insert after “2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care”:

“followed by Ministerial Statement: Update on the Dualling of the A9”.