Plenary, 21 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Official Report 376KB pdf

---

Highland Transport Links

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4515, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on main road and rail transport links to the Highlands. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that the main trunk roads connections to the Highlands of Scotland, namely the A9 from Inverness to Perth, the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen and the A82 from Inverness to Glasgow, should be the subject of major improvements, to be carried out in accordance with a long-term transport projects plan; believes that the rail links to Inverness are inadequate and should be improved; considers that a national consensus should be established to agree these objectives, and, in the case of the A96 and the A9, believes that the ultimate objective should be to dual these trunk routes.

I thank all members who supported the motion and those who have stayed on for the debate.

Last week, we supported the enabling bill for a Borders railway. This week, I put the case for improved transport links for the Highlands. There are three main trunk roads that connect the Highlands to the rest of Scotland: the A82, which serves the west Highlands from Glasgow to Inverness; the A9, which runs up Scotland's spine; and the A96, from Inverness to Aberdeen. Rail links connect Inverness to Perth and Inverness to Aberdeen. They are largely single track, like their sibling mode of transport, the roads.

The motion calls for major improvements to both road and rail links and for a national consensus to agree those broad objectives. It calls, as an ultimate objective, for the upgrading of the two busiest trunk roads—the A9 and the A96—to dual carriageway status from Perth to Inverness and Inverness to Aberdeen. The objective of this debate is to construct a national consensus that the transport links that serve the north of Scotland are inadequate and that major improvements are required. In my view, that consensus already exists among the people. During the past seven years, no issue has been raised with me more frequently by my constituents than the issue of transport links. It is the people's priority, but it is not, apparently, a priority for the Scottish Executive. That is a democratic deficit that I wish to see brought to an end.

It is, sadly, a matter of record that, during the past seven years, there has been no major improvement to any of the three main trunk roads that connect the north of Scotland to the rest of the country in the south. New junctions have been promised, and an upgrade to the junction at Ballinluig was announced today—we welcome that. There have been several new roundabouts on the A96 and some new two-plus-one sections, but there have been no major improvements to those roads in the past seven years, nor has there been any major improvement to the northern rail links in that time.

The Scottish Executive has not ordered any major improvement to those transport links as part of its strategic projects plan. There have been minor projects and, of course, those are welcome, but although Inverness is Scotland's fastest growing city, it is the only city in Scotland that lacks dual road or rail links. One can understand why many of the citizens of Inverness feel that we have not been invited to the devolution ball. Inverness is a Cinderella city.

The national consensus that I believe exists among those whom we seek to represent also includes fulsome support from business organisations. The Inverness Chamber of Commerce commented just today:

"Currently, we are a city without inter-city connections."

There is also support from Fort William Chamber of Commerce as well as from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, Councillor Charles King and the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership. Highlands and Islands Enterprise's development network says that the motion is consistent with its long-term ambitions for the Highlands. The consensus exists with the people and with those who represent businesses in the north of Scotland.

Why should the roads be dualled? First, for the economy, as that would create and sustain jobs and create opportunities. We send our high-quality fruit produce, our national drink and many other products to the south. They embark on a long journey, often to far-flung parts of the world. The lack of dual carriageways causes long delays and platooning behind lorries.

Secondly, the roads should be dualled on the ground of road safety. The three main trunk roads in the Highlands are the top three in the Freight Transport Association's list of the worst trunk roads in Scotland. Earlier this month, in a poll conducted by the rural community gateway, the three roads were voted, by a long way, the worst rural roads in Scotland.

The A9's record on fatalities is among the worst in Scotland. On that road between 2000 and 2004, 84 people died in accidents and 1,111 accidents occurred. Scarcely a week goes by without news of another tragic accident. I know that members have been in accidents on that road and I had a friend who died on the road. I am sure that many others can tell a similar tale.

The A9 is particularly unforgiving of driver error. Responsibility always rests with the driver. However, driver error is almost encouraged when the road alternates from single carriageway to dual carriageway and now to a two-plus-one section before going back to a single carriageway. No method such as improved signage can tackle the confusion that that creates.

The third reason to dual the roads is to do so for the people. I am absolutely convinced that the people whom I represent want better roads and better railway services. They are fed up with the experience of three or four hours' drive to the central belt. That is frustrating, a waste of time, uncomfortable and irritating. People have had enough. Let us put the stakeholders to one side and respect the people's wishes.

I have not called for a timescale in the motion. The work that I advocate is part of a long-term plan and would certainly take a couple of decades. For example, the cost of upgrading the A9 is £600 million and that work must be spread over a few years. The aim of the debate is to agree the objective that major improvements are required. Let us take the politics out of transport. That is done in the USA, where people can look up a plan to improve roads in 2015 or 2016. Once the objectives are agreed, politics falls by the wayside.

If the motion is acted on, lives will be improved and some lives will be saved. The economy will benefit, people will gain and opportunities will be created. If this relatively new institution acts on the national consensus that I outlined, we will create a clear sense that the Scottish Parliament is a Parliament for the whole of Scotland.

A considerable number of back benchers wish to speak, so speeches will be of three minutes.

I congratulate Fergus Ewing on securing the debate. I have no doubt that improvements to the transport infrastructure in the Highlands—those that are happening and those for the future—are of the utmost necessity. In general, the motion addresses key concerns of the Highland communities, but I hesitated to support it in its entirety.

My constituent, Mr Iain Bannerman of Bannerman Seafoods of Tain, who is known to some members, put the situation simply to me when he said that investment in the road infrastructure would be

"one of the single biggest factors to boost economic growth in the Highlands".

He agrees that the A9 must be concentrated on. I welcome what is going on at the Ord of Caithness and on other parts of the A9 to the north of Fergus Ewing's constituency, but there is no doubt that we must continue to invest as the years go by.

From a safety perspective, it is imperative that that busy trunk road can cope with the volume of traffic, particularly heavy road vehicles, that it supports. I was reminded today that the speed limit for lorries and haulage trucks on the single carriageway is 40mph, which is 20mph below the speed limit for cars; the limit goes up to 50mph on the dual carriageway. All of us know that, unfortunately, many vehicles travel at well over that limit. In many ways, increasing the speed limit to that of a dual carriageway would mean that one travelled somewhat more safely. Upgrading that busy road would allow the speed limit to be increased and would benefit local transport companies while, I believe, significantly reducing the accident risk, to which Fergus Ewing referred.

It will be no surprise to Fergus Ewing that I say that improvements are needed not solely on the stretch of road between Inverness and Perth. Commuters and business interests in the far north must be considered and the minister will be aware of several proposed improvements for them. Mr Iain Bannerman suggested to me that a crawler lane in the Black Isle on the stretch that heads south from Dingwall to Inverness would be helpful. People who are acquainted with that road will know that there can be hold-ups on it. To reduce the risk of accidents, such a lane would be a welcome addition.

The minister is aware of my calls for a flyover at Berriedale and I look forward to meeting him and others in the summer to discuss that proposal, which has the support of the association of Caithness community councils.

I wish that I could have heard somewhat more from Fergus Ewing about what he means by specific rail improvements, although we can discuss that matter later. Investment in our rail infrastructure would be wonderful, but I think that highlanders would agree that increasing the number of trains that serve the area that I represent, for example, could be unwarranted, given the passenger numbers that the network serves. I have no doubt that Mr Gibson will have more to say about that matter, but there is a chicken-and-egg situation. Perhaps the market for rail services should be considered in parallel with investment.

Finally, I give notice to the minister that I am going to lodge detailed questions on rail rolling stock, which Mr Mike Lunan, whom Rob Gibson and I know, has provided to me. The questions are well informed and I hope that they will progress the thinking of the Parliament and the Executive.

Again, I congratulate Fergus Ewing on securing the debate and look forward to hearing what other members have to say.

We require better main road and rail transport links to and from the Highlands that do not begin and end at Inverness. People travel to the capital of the Highlands from all points of the compass, so it is important that the whole of the north can benefit from a transport infrastructure revamp and that remote and rural areas do not to lose out. Jamie Stone argued for some proposals, which Fergus Ewing also alluded to.

Cars are needed most in our scattered communities, and the development of local sources of biofuel and bio-ethanol should in the future beat fuel hikes and allow people to continue to use cars. However, to achieve the modal shift in transport use that is part of the Government-agreed Highland Council strategic plan, we need a hugely improved rail network that can accommodate increased volumes of freight and passengers and a vastly improved and integrated road public transport system that runs on better planned roads. That means that there should be double rail tracks from Perth to Inverness, the roof of the Killiecrankie tunnel should be heightened to take freight containers, the Aberdeen to Inverness line, which is shorter than the road, should be speeded up and money should be spent on shortening the far north rail line by building the Dornoch rail link. It also means that we should get all supermarket lorries off strategic road routes in order to free up space on them, which could be done almost immediately through a concerted effort by the minister, councils and rail freight firms. I await what the minister has to say about that.

All the public bodies—such as HITRANS, HIE and Highland Council—must unite to demand appropriate sums of money to pay for those long-awaited transport improvements. Central Scotland has received a huge slice of taxpayers' money to spend on its transport projects in the first two sessions of the devolved Parliament. Now it must be the north's turn to receive money, because our economy can be unlocked to contribute even more to the national wealth than it currently does. However, there is no sign of things being satisfactorily costed or of a realistic plan being mapped out, as Fergus Ewing said.

We need an overall solution in a long-term transport projects plan. What benefit is there to Caithness and north Sutherland if travellers have a rail journey from Edinburgh to Inverness that takes under three hours, but still have to face a four-hour trip over a far shorter distance to Wick? How would the cost of dualling the A9 to Inverness affect funding for road repairs on, for example, the Berriedale, Ord of Caithness and Helmsdale to Portgower sections of the A9? How can the A99 from Latheron to Wick—which is noted as one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland—be dealt with? We must consider a strategic road and rail plan that learns from the experience of Ireland, which has just committed €34.4 billion to an integrated plan over the next 10 years. However, we must remember that critics have said that building roads first and parts of railways later is not an acceptable way forward in this country.

In a smart, successful and sustainable Scotland, the transport network should help every area to play its part in the country's progress. Fergus Ewing's motion has begun to show us some of the missing links, and realistic costings of the proposals deserve serious study.

I congratulate my friend and colleague Fergus Ewing on securing this debate and on initiating a debate—in which I hope all parties will engage—to try to come to the consensus that is required for a strategic shift in the arrangement of projects for the improvement of the transport network in the north of Scotland.

As members will know, I am not someone who often comes to the chamber and complains about anything, but there are rare occasions when I feel required to do so. I felt required to complain in a debate on 21 September last year about what I considered to be a lamentable lack of progress on projects close to my heart in my constituency. I am happy to say that the minister's word in that debate has been maintained absolutely on some of the key projects in my constituency. I am delighted that tonight's debate coincides with the announcement by the minister of the commencement of the tendering process following the publication of the orders for the improvement of the Ballinluig junction. He promised that in September and he has delivered it, despite having to leap over a couple of obstacles. I put on record that I welcome that, as well as the progress that has been made at the Bankfoot junction into the bargain.

Those are helpful steps forward, but what Mr Ewing's motion does is to give us a strategic canvas against which to look at some of the improvements that are taking place. I hope that the national strategy on which the minister is currently consulting will be the vehicle for agreeing the direction of public expenditure on transport infrastructure improvements in the next 20 to 30 years. In the course of that strategy, I will make a strong case in writing to the minister about the importance of a commitment to dual the A9. Despite the incremental improvements that are being made, without a dual carriageway we will not tackle the inherent problems in road safety that result from the inadequacy of that road and the way in which it flits between single, dual and triple carriageway, which contributes to driver confusion.

We must also take strategic steps to move a large amount of freight off the roads and on to rail. During question time some months ago, I suggested to the minister the establishment of some form of freight consortium that would encourage more and more freight traffic to be moved from the roads and on to rail. I would be interested to hear an update to Parliament on the minister's warm welcome for that suggestion. That is the direction we must take: a co-ordinated series of measures. I hope that the debate on Mr Ewing's motion will help us in that direction.

I thank Fergus Ewing for bringing this crucial issue to the chamber. When I first came to the Highlands and Islands as a graduate civil engineer in the 1970s, the streets were paved not with gold but with black gold, namely tar.

Regrettably, 30 years on, the same tar exists in patches. The roads I designed comprised 9in of bottoming, 4in of tar, drainage offlets, culverts and bridges. However, traffic demands have moved on, with timber lorries, petrol tankers and coaches pounding our roads. Our 1970s system cannot cope with such massive demands—new road specifications have recognised that. Just witness the depth of excavation and imported suitable material required to construct new carriageways. It may be helpful to draw an analogy between a wooden shed and road structure. If one fails to paint one's shed regularly, the wood will rot. If one fails to maintain the carriageway, the surface will crack, and the underlying structure, with inadequate drainage and frost heave, will collapse, necessitating multimillion-pound investments to upgrade it.

The A82 Tarbet to Inverness road is a prime example of that neglect, which has belatedly been recognised by the Executive. The A82 is one of the principal trunk road arteries to the Highlands, but it is an absolute disgrace. That is clearly illustrated by the fact that a particularly hazardous single-track stretch at Pulpit rock is still controlled by 30-year-old traffic lights.

In the 1990s, the Conservative Government bowed to increasing public pressure to upgrade the A82 south of Tarbet, which is now recognised as one of the most efficient and attractive trunk roads in Scotland.

Oh, come on.

Would Tavish Scott question that? It is an excellent trunk road. We are now demanding a similar upgrade from Tarbet to Inverness.

I addressed the Scottish Trades Union Congress conference in Inverness last weekend. The residents of Caithness are seriously concerned over future employment prospects with the closure of Dounreay. Irrespective of whether one believes in the nuclear industry, around 2,000 jobs will be lost and an upgraded transport infrastructure will be essential to attract replacement industries. That upgrade must include dualling the A9 and the A96 and improving rail links. I endorse John Swinney's comments on moving freight from road to rail, because that will put us in a win-win-win situation, with less wear and tear on an inadequate road network, more income for rail companies, and major environmental benefits.

The Executive's self-imposed embargo on transport investment has hit the Highlands and Islands particularly badly. An affordable and efficient transport infrastructure is essential to future economic growth. If this crisis is not immediately recognised and appropriate capital funding allocated to the aforementioned projects, the horrifying prospect of modern-day Highland clearances will increasingly become a reality.

I, too, congratulate Fergus Ewing on securing this very important debate. Like him, I am struck by the frequency with which my constituents raise with me the state of local roads in Moray, particularly the A96, the A95 and the A9, which many of my constituents use regularly.

The number 1 priority is to improve the safety record of our local roads. I note with alarm that although during the past 10 years the number of road deaths in Scotland has fallen by 17 per cent, the number of road deaths in Moray has risen by 9 per cent.

The other key reason for upgrading the roads through Moray is that it would bring economic benefits. As members will know, Moray has not had economic challenges to seek and the biggest bit of the jigsaw for the achievement of economic prosperity is the upgrading of local roads, particularly the A96, which is the lifeline road running through Moray. The business community will depend on the upgrading of that road sooner rather than later.

Given the limits on time for speeches, I turn now to the Fochabers and Mosstodloch bypass, the campaign for which has been running for decades. The project has been plagued by delay after delay. Finally, in 2002, after a long-running campaign by the local community that was supported by my predecessor, Margaret Ewing, ministers gave the green light to the bypass. However, here we are approaching 2007 and we are still waiting for the project to start. That is all because a handful of local objectors have launched a civil appeal that is going to the Court of Session. We now hear that the case will not be heard until May 2007 at the earliest, but the Scottish Court Service told the local community council in Fochabers and Mosstodloch that the case could have gone ahead in October 2006 or January 2007. We need the case to go ahead sooner rather than later. Why is it that a handful of objectors are able to delay the project time and again? If legal counsel for the objectors say that they are not prepared to go ahead in May 2007, will they be able to delay the case any further? Will the minister investigate the case? We cannot allow a major infrastructure project that is in the public interest to be held up yet again by a handful of objectors.

We accept that it might be a few years before we can dual the whole A96, but the priorities have to be the Fochabers and Elgin bypasses. It is disappointing that we have to wait for the new strategic review that is going to take us up to 2020 to take place. I assure the minister that the people of Elgin cannot wait until 2020 or anywhere near that for their bypass. The city of Elgin has an expanding population and major effort is under way in residential and commercial development. That will all be frustrated if there are bottlenecks and congestion in the middle of Elgin that can only go from bad to worse. Can we do what we can to expedite a decision on the Elgin bypass?

I invite the minister to visit Moray and speak to representatives of the local community about those two bypasses and the wider issues. He would find it a very productive visit. The issues facing the people of Moray are very urgent and it would be great if he could visit.

I, too, congratulate Fergus Ewing on securing this well-attended debate. I am here to support his motion. In spite of having a grandfather and great-grandfather who worked for the west Highland railway, I am going to focus on roads and, as David Petrie did, I will focus on the A82, which is the main road artery into the west Highlands and Islands. I am sure that David Petrie will agree that it is a dangerous road. Even as careful a driver as I am once managed to career off via a couple of trees into the River Falloch. Ice was involved, but it was not in a glass.

Routes make markets and this route is inhibiting and stifling the economic development of and business in the west coast. It is better than it was 30 years ago—there have been some upgrades and some improvements are under way at the gorge in Glencoe—but some sections have not changed in the 40 years that I have been using it. Indeed, some sections, such as the stretch at Pulpit rock, have deteriorated so badly that they have fallen into the loch or have, for 30 of those 40 years, been subject to traffic lights and single-lane passage.

As Fergus Ewing pointed out, people have had enough. Three months ago, we held a 30th birthday celebration of the traffic lights, which was managed by a very effective Fort William businessman called Stewart Maclean. After uniting opinion in Oban and Fort William to save local hospital services, Mr Maclean is now on the minister's case, clamouring for an improved A82.

People do not get fed up on a whim; the state of the A82 is a serious inhibitor that is making them lose time. For example, journeys from Glasgow to Oban and Fort William are taking 30 minutes longer than they ought to. As a result, not only has Inverness become a Cinderella city, but Oban and Fort William have become Cinderella towns. People are also dealing with higher transport costs; wear and tear to vehicles from poor surfaces and casual water on Loch Lomond side; and the prospect of accidents and injuries. This is simply becoming aversion therapy for visitors.

The A82 is strategic. If it is not improved along with the A9 and A96, we will not be able to encourage increases in investment, visitor numbers and the number of residents and returnees and ensure that we have a more diverse local economy. The state of the A82 sits with the lack of a level financial playing field, the lack of pervasive broadband services and the lack of affordable housing as a major inhibitor to economic resurgence in the west Highlands. It is time to transform the road into a major enabler, and I hope that this debate signals the start of that process.

I welcome the chance to debate this motion. Although I should point out that I have not signed the motion, my support for part of it should become clear as my speech progresses.

Although the title of the motion refers to

"Transport Links to the Highlands",

the motion itself focuses only on links to Inverness. Some members might think that the city is marginalised in that respect. However, no one can deny that it is booming; it is the fastest-growing town in Scotland and is a model of accessibility compared with most of the Highlands. Indeed, it is quite hard to produce evidence that Inverness is being held back.

We have had several debates on proposals to dual the A9. Some have focused on the safety aspects of such a measure; others have focused on the need to upgrade the road to a dual carriageway simply because that is the modern thing to do. Of course, a dual carriageway is designed to carry twice the amount of traffic going at least 10mph faster, and I am not sure whether we can buy into such an objective in the 21st century. After all, roads must meet all road users' needs. If we want bus services, we need roads, but people who get off those buses must then be able to cross those roads.

I dare say that the accident statistics for the short stretch of dual carriageway on the A96 out of Inverness look good as far as pedestrian safety is concerned. However, that is because no pedestrian would ever set foot on it. The road runs from the town centre to just beyond a business park that includes, among other things, the town's only cinema. Although people might live anywhere between a mile and 3 miles from that cinema, no one would let their teenage child cycle there. The road is not meeting the needs of road users; it is purely car focused and is not fit for purpose.

I know that some people think that I am anti-car. However, I proved yesterday that I am not by hosting in the Parliament an event involving a very nice, very environmentally friendly car that runs on renewable hydrogen. After all, any transport policy that looks to the future must bear in mind that fossil fuels will not be around for ever. I also learned recently that only 1 per cent of the energy that goes into a car driven by the internal combustion engine—which, in any case, has never been any better than 30 per cent efficient—actually moves the driver. There must be a better way of getting people around than encasing each of them in a tonne or a tonne and a half of steel and putting them on a road.

That brings me to the part of the motion that I support, on the improvement of rail links. Such improvements are crucial if we are to bring our transport links into the 21st century. We should start now, because major transport improvements have a long lead-in. We should start now in order to get modal shift from individual packages of steel moving individual people to something that allows us to move people and goods around the country effectively. The part of the motion that I do agree with is the part that addresses improvement in rail links. A single-track rail link leading from the central belt north is simply not fit for purpose; it would be laughed out of court in any other country in Europe. Let us look beyond our present dependence on petrol, cars and roads. By all means let us invest in road improvements and maintenance, but not in expansion. Let us go for expanding the rail network.

I have no problem in supporting the motion. The trunk roads that Fergus Ewing mentioned—the A9, the A96 and the A82—were all mentioned in the Conservative manifesto as requiring upgrades. I thank the minister for the improvements to the dangerous junctions on the A9, and respectfully remind him that the last survey on dualling the A9 was done under the Conservatives in 1996. Dualling would have cost £275 million then and I suspect that it would be double that now, but I hope that he will look into the possibility.

On Monday evening, I drove from Perth to Aberdeen on the dual carriageway and was extremely envious of that road compared with my normal drive from Perth to Inverness on the A9, which, as everyone knows, is a two-lane road interspersed with sections of dual carriageway. I do not see why the citizens of Inverness and the people of the Highlands and Islands should have a road inferior to that available to the people of Aberdeen and the north-east. The comfort and feeling of safety of driving on the dual carriageway from Perth to Aberdeen left me still alert and relaxed, which was in sharp contrast to the fatigue that one feels having travelled the A9, especially when it is full of heavy lorries.

I can tell anyone that the experience of overtaking a long pantechnicon with spray blowing on to the windshield is extremely hairy, to say the least; sitting behind one is equally frustrating and stressful. Such conditions on two-way roads undoubtedly lead to the large number of fatal accidents that sadly happen on the A9, the most dangerous road in Scotland, and it should be any Government's priority to dual the A9 to save lives and improve interconnections for people in the Highlands and Islands and for our important tourist industry. The northern A9, from Inverness to Scrabster, is also sorely in need of upgrading.

I referred to the number of heavy goods lorries on the A9. It would make a difference if more freight could be taken off that road and put on to the rail network. Tesco and Safeway used to run their goods on rail, but when Morrisons took over Safeway, the firm pulled out of rail and went back to the road. Tesco found that to be competitive it had to follow suit and go back to road transport. That has added a large number of lorries to the road that, frankly, need not be there, and encouragement should be given to get those companies to take their goods off the busy A9.

You have one minute left, Mr McGrigor.

The A96, which was recently voted the most unpopular road in Scotland, is a main transport link for commuters in the area and needs a major upgrade to carry the increased volume of traffic. That is vital to those who live in Moray. The road sees many accidents that would not happen if some of the black spots were improved. The economy of Moray depends on the A96, but the road's capacity cannot cope with the present demand.

Dave Petrie and Jim Mather both spoke about the A82, but one of my main worries is about a spur of that road, the A85, of which a stretch between Tyndrum and Dalmally has recently, at great expense, been resurfaced without being realigned. I spoke to the contractors who did the job, and they informed me that many of the dangerous corners and bends that have taken numerous lives in car crashes could easily have been straightened out using the type of machinery that is now available. It goes through that kind of rock like a knife through butter. Instead, another layer of tarmac has been added, which simply makes people go faster round those same corners, making them even more dangerous. Good planning and realignment are the operations that are required, rather than the sticking-plaster solution of just more tar.

Our train services in the rural Highlands are quaint, but they lack the speed and regularity to form a real alternative to road transport in many areas, except for those who have time to sit and relax and look at the marvellous Highland scenery.

You should be finishing now.

I am finishing, Presiding Officer. I would love to see a link from Crianlarich through Glen Ogle from west to east, but I do not suppose that that will be very high on the minister's list. At the start of the first session of Parliament, Sarah Boyack told us that we would get an integrated transport policy—

Finishing now seems to mean one thing to me and another to you, Mr McGrigor. You should finish now.

I am afraid that we are still waiting for it.

I hope that the Presiding Officer will also allow me to go 68 seconds over the allotted time.

I am the only member—bar one—who has no railway in his constituency. The Minister for Transport has at least five licensed airports and I have none of those either. I say to Eleanor Scott that I also do not have a cinema in my constituency. Even though the roads mentioned in the motion do not come to my constituency, they are nonetheless of vital interest to my constituents and to me. My wife used to commute on the McBraynes bus to Inverness along the A82. The road might have been resurfaced since she used to make that journey, but it certainly has not been straightened.

The A96 is an important road for my constituents as it links us to Inverness. Aberdeenshire is statistically 2 per cent more rural than the Highlands and Inverness is an important hub to which many of my constituents travel. The A9 is an important road when one wants to avoid Aberdeen. We are waiting for the bypass; we will get it eventually. Indeed, I come to the Parliament by the A9 from time to time.

There are 107.49 miles of A9 between Inverness and Perth; 26.09 miles of that is dual carriageway, which is just over a quarter. If the remaining 81.4 miles of the A9 were dualled, that would have some interesting effects. The speed that a heavy goods vehicle can travel at rises from 40mph to 50mph on dual carriageways and the speed at which a smaller goods vehicle can travel rises from 50mph to 60mph. That means that, in the same time, an HGV can travel 15 miles further. The important point is that that extends how far a commercial driver can travel within the time limits. It reduces the number of overnight stops and increases the distances that buses and lorries driven by commercial drivers can go. That is one illustration of the important commercial benefits—besides all the safety benefits—of dualling our roads. The dualling of the road would benefit towns north of Inverness as well as, in my case, towns to the east of Inverness.

Ultimately, I hope that I am currying favour with those who are more fortunate than me. I say to the minister that I hope that we get the dualling of those routes into the programme. Then we can start to negotiate about the needs of other parts of Scotland, which include, of course, not a dual carriageway to Fraserburgh, but a motorway.

I apologise to the Presiding Officer and to the minister, as I have to leave immediately after my speech. Fergus Ewing suggested that Inverness is a Cinderella; I will be Cinderella tonight. I have to be at Ingliston for 7 o'clock, but unlike Cinderella I do not have a fairy godmother to transform me immediately.

For the first 17 years of my life I lived less than 50 yards from the A96 on a farm that bordered the road. I have memories from my childhood of the deaths of several of our sheepdogs on the road, rather than of the adult deaths about which my parents probably spoke. I cycled along the road many times and never thought that it was particularly dangerous—save for snow and ice at times.

In the past few years, the situation could not have become more different. Whether someone is driving, walking or cycling they have to have their wits about them all the time.

Fergus Ewing is right to say that the main cities in Scotland must be connected by rapid dual carriageways. Why should Inverness and Aberdeen—the oil capital of Europe—be deprived of that?

As my colleague Richard Lochhead said, creating a dual carriageway on the A96 would create more jobs, which are desperately needed in the larger towns of Elgin and Huntly.

The A96 has several crawler lanes. According to roads engineers and roads managers from the former Grampian Regional Council and the current Aberdeenshire Council, those lanes were supposed to be a temporary measure until the stretches of road were dualled, but today we are still putting in more crawler lanes.

There were eight deaths on the A96 in the first three years of the Parliament, but in the three years after that there were 19.

A friend contacted me this morning who yesterday drove from Aberdeen to Inverness—a distance of 98 miles. On a dual carriageway, or on a good day, it should take about 1 hour and 45 minutes. Yesterday, it took three hours and 45 minutes, even with detours to avoid the major hold-ups on either side of Elgin. Such delays cost employers and businesses a fortune. We are still waiting for the bypass at Fochabers and we will need one at Keith if there is to be a large supermarket in the middle of the town. That is not taking account of the fact that the blockage at the Haudagain roundabout in Aberdeen has been exacerbated by the delayed decision on the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I have not talked about the necessity of dealing with the rail and road blockage at Inveramsay bridge. The minister already knows my views on the rail links between Aberdeen and Inverness, which he heard in the debate on Aberdeen crossrail.

Fergus Ewing's call has the backing of many organisations—yesterday, I managed to get the backing of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce—so we would like some indication soon of the timetable for upgrading the roads.

On the whole, the debate has been informative: there have been one or two flashes of rhetorical nonsense, but it has been useful for all that. I am grateful to Fergus Ewing for lodging the motion and have much sympathy with many of the arguments that have been made about the road and rail links.

There has been strong emphasis on the road links rather than the rail links. With the exception of Rob Gibson and Eleanor Scott, most members' major focus was on the road links, although they may have mentioned rail. To some extent, that reflects the reality of constituents' views on the matter.

We have to be clear about where and how road and rail interact. That is why the strategic projects review—about which we have talked in the Parliament on a number of occasions—will assess the differences and linkages between public transport and the road network on each individual route, corridor by corridor.

Will the minister give way?

I need to make a bit of progress first.

I welcome Fergus Ewing's plea to take the politics out of transport. I agree with him that that would be good to achieve but, when I read his press releases and cuttings, it seems to me that we have a way to go first. If he is saying that a strategic projects review on the back of a national transport strategy that, as John Swinney rightly pointed out, is open for consultation at the moment is the way to construct the best assessment of transport priorities throughout Scotland and for the links within the Highlands, I agree with him. However, any Government of any political persuasion must be clear that that process leads to clear choices between different priorities over a period of time.

I noticed that, in The Press and Journal on 17 June, Mr Ewing said that the upgrade may take 10 or 20 years. I agree. It is laudable that he now accepts that we must be clear about the timescale over which the design, procurement, tendering and then delivery of projects need to be managed. It is good news that he takes that view.

Do I take it from what the minister says that a debate such as the one that Mr Ewing initiated tonight contributes to reinforcing what the minister is working to achieve, which is to translate a national strategy into a set of priorities that, regardless of the politics of the Administration within the Scottish Executive, will provide continuity over 20 or 30 years to achieve individual project priorities and make progress on the issues that concern our constituents?

I am grateful that Mr Ewing is adopting my approach to the matter, which is to have a national transport strategy. If the Scottish National Party is doing that as well, I applaud that. We are objectively considering the important priorities for transport links throughout Scotland on the basis of a robust analysis. That work is not only for the Government, but for the regional transport partnerships, such as the one in the Highlands that is chaired by Charlie King, or the one in north-east Scotland that is chaired by Alison McInnes.

The regional transport partnerships will be important in sorting out priorities and dealing with transport needs. That is how we will have to proceed with the spending of transport moneys. I applaud all members who wish to be part of that process and to present objective arguments.

I ask John Swinney and others to believe me when I say that the Government has plenty of other priorities. Mr Swinney's party, my party and other parties will have their own priorities. The transport portfolio could lose moneys to other priorities. I say to Mr Swinney and others that making the most objective case for transport spending will have to be done irrespective of who is Minister for Transport on any said future day in this Parliament.

Members have made a number of fair points. However, despite what some have said, the Executive has invested a considerable amount in the areas that we are discussing and across the rest of Scotland. We have invested £22 million in the A82; £45 million in the A9; and £36 million in the A96. Mr Swinney mentioned the Ballinluig junction. I share his pleasure that that work is going ahead and I share his frustration over the length of time it has taken. I ask members to believe me—I do not spend my working day trying to block things. I spend an awful lot of my working day trying to develop things and to make them happen. I do that to the best of my ability.

The A82 improvements that we announced recently—for Pulpit rock and the bypass at Crianlarich—are important. I was grateful for the welcome that those measures received from local people and businesses alike.

Work is going on in relation to the A9, the A82 and the A96—and not only in the context of the strategic projects review. Members will be familiar with the design work that I have commissioned on dualling between Inverness and Inverness airport. Such projects are important stages in the process and I hope that that will be acknowledged.

The minister will know that SNP members have long argued for an approach to financing projects that is different from the private finance initiative or public-private partnership model. A trust could spread money across many projects. Would not spreading the cost over a long period in a way that succeeding Governments would find difficult to escape from be a way of delivering long-term commitments? Will the minister therefore join me in developing our ideas on financing projects?

I do not want to be drawn into a different debate. Mr Stevenson raises a serious point. The financing of roads and other transport projects is a serious issue, but it is not an issue for this evening. I will simply observe that, whether Mr Stevenson's model or the PPP model is used, we are talking about 30 years' expenditure. Assessments are made on a 30-year basis. I think that that is the right way forward.

Mr Lochhead spoke about Fochabers. I share his frustration about the time the project has taken and I will be happy—well, happy is the wrong word—to chase on what is happening. Mr Lochhead knows the process and that it is not easy and must be dealt with appropriately. It is not for ministers to tell the judicial system how to go about its business.

We are making significant progress on rail services. I take members' points about improvements, but would stress that the work on the rail utilisation study is about reducing the time required for journeys between Inverness and the south.

I acknowledge that some of the challenges that Mr Ewing and other colleagues have described are borne of success. I agree with Eleanor Scott when she says that Inverness is growing and booming. That growth is very positive for the Highlands. Employment in Inverness has increased by 17 per cent since this Parliament came into being and the rate of population increase there is one of the highest in Scotland. Now and again, Mr Ewing does not accept such good points about the Highlands and Islands, but I am keen to make them. However, I accept that a transport infrastructure must be part of the future for the Highlands and Islands. That is what we are committed to delivering.

Meeting closed at 17:55.