Home   News   Article

FERGUS EWING: Ignoring experts on dualling A9 will lead to a very rocky road





Fergus Ewing has been left angry by the Scottish Government’s refusal to change course on the A9 despite all their previous failings on the project.
Fergus Ewing has been left angry by the Scottish Government’s refusal to change course on the A9 despite all their previous failings on the project.

Fiona Hyslop is the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. Fiona and I have known each other for three decades, and worked together as colleagues in Holyrood for 25.

I believe that she wishes to do her best in the job.

However, her approach to the A9 dualling left many of us in the Chamber last week disappointed and concerned.

Disappointed because she appeared to reject all of the recommendations from the thorough Petitions Committee investigation; concerned because she also rejects the moves I led supported by all parties except the Greens for a speeding up of the dualling which is not now to be finished till 2035.

She even argued that by trying to accelerate it, that would cause to delay it further. The comedian Fred McAulay tweeted to the effect that he found that hilarious.

I argued that, from industry briefings I received, the plan - namely the manner of procuring it - was flawed. Each section is to be done one by one.

There are nine remaining to be dualled including Tomatin to Moy. But each is to be procured by competitive tendering - a process which takes far longer than the recommended alternative of a ‘framework’ approach.

Tomatin to Moy got the go ahead in 2021 but it won’t be completed till 2028. The delay was because there was only one bidder in the first attempt to tender. It was abortive.

No apology was made for this latest delay. So if there are eight more sections each to be bid that would take nearly 60 years. Not 2035 but 2085!

I’m not saying that that will happen but the risks remain, are foreseeable and some delay is in this plan unavoidable.

Moreover, there has never been more alternative work available for the big “Civils” companies. My calculation is that with grid upgrades, rail electrification of the East coast line, Scottish Water, renewables schemes including pump hydro as well as Nairn Academy and Belford Hospital there is about £60 billion of projects. Unprecedented.

Much of it is more profitable and less risky than roads projects. So, especially in the early years of the 2030s, we may find there is little commercial appetite to take on roads contracts where returns can be a paltry two per cent.

A framework approach would cut the length of the process, guarantee work for several companies over a longer period of say eight years and cut the costs of the whole process.

This argument was ignored by Fiona in the debate.

But Strathy readers can rest assured that I will press for a response.

If Transport Scotland aren’t willing to change and heed advice from industry are they not bound to make more mistakes with more delays?

As someone once said: “Never make the same mistake twice. Make it four or five times just to be sure!”

* * * *

Our loss - Trumps gain.

Last Thursday at First MInisters Questions I urged John Swinney that we produce more of our own gas and renew exploration, like Norway, and as Russell Borthwick of Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce called for recently.

30 Million UK homes are heated by gas, and that won’t change much - not for a couple of decades at least. So, as demand remains about the same, it follows, logically, that the less gas we produce here, the more we must import. Increasingly we import gas from the USA , with most of their gas production from fracking.

Is it not ironic that our policy will promote the fracking industry so beloved of President Donald Trump? The carbon footprint of fracked gas is much greater than UK gas production.

So using theirs not ours is patently bad for the environment. Global warming is a global problem.

The Scottish and UK policy against more oil and gas exploration, much vaunted as ‘green’ is thus actually worse for the environment as long as demand remains high - as it will.

Moreover, relying on foreign countries for our gas supply didn’t work well for Germany did it? Russia sabotaged their Nord Stream Pipeline.

Energy security - producing our own - is surely a greater priority now than for at least half a century.

Those who say the so called ‘energy transition’ can be achieved by 2030 - or even 2040 - must also believe in the tooth fairy.

Fergus Ewing MSP. 17th January, 2025.


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More