To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the concerns expressed by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee regarding funding to complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness by the new target date of 2035. (S6F-03503)

I welcome the report on the committee’s inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has already made it clear that we will carefully consider and respond to its recommendations.

The Government remains fully committed to progressing A9 dualling in line with the delivery plan that was announced in December 2023. We have made good early progress through the procurement of the Tay crossing to Ballinluig project, which began in May 2024, and the construction contract for the Tomatin to Moy project, which was awarded in July 2024.

I am sure that the First Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the committee members for their work on the report and to the petitioner, Laura Hansler, for assiduously pursuing the project to dual the A9, which is of vital importance to people in Perthshire, in the Highlands and across Scotland.

As the committee noted, the project should have been completed by 2025. That broken promise means that, tragically, more lives will be lost every year from now on. Given that the committee has expressed its concern about the fact that

“there is already an anticipated delay”

in progressing the Tomatin to Moy section, how can we have confidence that the new target date of 2035 will be met? Does the First Minister agree with the committee that, in order to provide appropriate parliamentary oversight, a dedicated committee should be established, with the sole remit of ensuring that this vital project is completed on time?

That last issue is not a matter for me; the Parliament decides on what committees it has. Once the Parliament has decided on that, ministers will engage fully and substantively. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport already reports regularly to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. If the Parliament chooses to change the committee arrangements, the Government will respond accordingly, and we will engage with all parliamentary scrutiny, as is our duty.

I pay tribute to the campaigners who have argued on the issue. I have been a strong supporter of A9 dualling for all my parliamentary life, and we have made substantial progress with the dualling of the Kincraig to Dalraddy stretch, the Luncarty to Pass of Birnam stretch and the improvements at the Ballinluig junction in my Constituency. In addition, of course, the next steps are being taken on the Moy to Tomatin section. I am delighted that construction work will start there soon.

I give the Parliament an assurance that the Government is absolutely determined to ensure that the project progresses.

In paragraph 138 of its inquiry report, the committee stated—based on evidence from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government—that, since the promise was made to dual the A9 by 2025, transport projects in central and southern Scotland have been prioritised. Given that fact, will the First Minister be prepared to come up to the Highlands and meet campaigners and people on the ground to convince them that his word will hold true this time, when the Government’s word has not held true in the past?

Such contributions do not help with the reasoned deliberation of policy in the Parliament. As I pointed out last week, I came into government in 2007 committed to A9 dualling. The Parliament took a decision that stopped me from spending £500 million on A9 dualling: the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Greens forced me, as a Minister in a minority Government, to spend £500 million on the Edinburgh tram project when the Government had made a commitment to spend it on A9 dualling. In the subsequent period—[ Interruption .]

Let us hear the First Minister.

Colleagues are muttering, “17 years ago.” If we had been able to proceed with projects at that time, we would have had £500 million at our disposal to dual the A9, which would have helped.

I am a bit perplexed by which projects Mr Mountain did not want us to take forward. Did he not want us to take forward the Queensferry crossing? Did he not want us to take forward the Aberdeen western peripheral route? I see Mr Burnett sitting in the chamber. He will be driving on the Aberdeen western peripheral route, and so will Liam Kerr. Do they not want such projects to be delivered in different parts of the country?

The Parliament needs to have a reasoned debate about the limitations of resources, and we need to have less posturing from the Conservatives.