Meeting of the Parliament 16 January 2025
As all my colleagues have, I thank Laura Hansler for bringing the petition to Parliament. I joined the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. Shortly after the petition was first considered, I joined members in thanking the clerks and many stakeholders who gave evidence to the inquiry.
Much has changed since the original petition was lodged with the committee in 2022, but one thing continues to be the case: the A9 has not been dualled. Sadly, death on the A9 remains too common. During the debate, we must not forget that that is why the dualling project is necessary.
We have heard in both written and in-person evidence that the 2025 target was not considered by the officials or ministers to be unachievable. Alex Neil, who had responsibility for the project in 2011, said the target was “perfectly feasible” and other ministers said that the project remained a priority for the Scottish Government, so where did it go wrong?
The committee found that a number of factors played a role in the 2025 target being missed. I want to focus my remarks on the funding model of the project, its management and proposals for a memorial to the people who have lost their lives on the A9.
Regarding the model of funding, we heard from both the late Alex Salmond and Màiri McAllan that there was always the expectation of a mixture of public and private financing. However, following reclassification of the non-profit distributing model in 2014 as public financing, it was not clear how financing the project would be achieved. Transport Scotland warned ministers in 2017 of a “diminishing window” for a procurement strategy to be agreed, but the new funding model would not be established until 2019. A discussion paper from December 2021 shows that a decision on financing was still to be made then. Instead of deciding on funding and making clear that the 2025 deadline would be missed, ministers failed to decide at all. Uncertainty seems to have contributed to the delays that we have seen and is a consistent theme of the inquiry.
My next point involves the management of the project. Unlike the Aberdeen peripheral route or the Queensferry crossing, which had project directors, no one person had sole responsibility for dualling the A9. Given that other capital projects and ministerial churn will continue to be factors regardless of the timescale, having one person to drive the project forward could be greatly beneficial and allow challenges to be resolved more quickly—challenges which, as we have seen, have previously slowed progress. Although dualling the A9 is a very large project, that solution is something that should be considered, moving forward.
The petition that sparked the inquiry called for a national memorial to be created for those who have lost their lives on the A9. That petition closed with over 4,000 signatures. In the committee’s call for views, we heard that dualling the A9 should come first and that that would be the best memorial—but we also heard that bereaved families should be listened to. The petitioner told the committee that the proposal came from communities and people who had interacted with the A9 dualling campaign. A memorial to A9 deaths, or to road deaths in general, could provide great comfort to those who have lost family or friends. In recognition of the pain that has been caused, the committee recommended that a memorial be considered and consulted on by the Scottish Government.
Looking to the future, the committee’s report makes a number of recommendations. They all come down to ensuring transparency. If trust is to be rebuilt, the Scottish Government must be up front about the challenges that are faced and the progress that is being made. I hope that the Scottish Government considers the recommendations from the inquiry so that, 10 years from now, we are not sitting here, having the same debate.
16:02