THE campaign to put the brakes on plans for average-speed cameras on the A9 was in tatters last night after MSPs said there was nothing they could do to block the controversial scheme.
Members of Holyrood’s public petitions committee conceded they were powerless to prevent SNP ministers pressing ahead with the project.
But protesters claimed last night they had scored a “partial victory”.
They described the committee chairman’s suggestion that the A9 Safety Group should hold talks with opponents of the camera scheme as a “reprimand of sorts”.
The Scottish Government plans to instal 100 cameras along single-carriageway sections of the 138-mile route between Dunblane and Inverness.
Campaigners fear the £2.5million scheme – which ministers insist will cut the death toll on the notorious road – will actually increase frustration and lead to riskier overtaking.
About 2,000 people signed a petition organised by Foyers-based Mike Burns, who claims evidence in two reports raised “significant questions about the validity of the scheme” and called on MSPs to investigate.
But public petitions committee convener Dave Stewart, a Highland Labour MSP, said at the Scottish Parliament yesterday: “It is quite clear the government is going ahead with this. This is not going to change.
“I would prefer that Mr Burns meet with the chairman of the A9 Safety Group and see whether there is any common ground between what is being proposed and what he is suggesting.
“Mr Burns has put forward a 20-point plan and, whilst at one level we all accept that excess speed is a factor in accidents, there are other behaviours like overtaking and road design.
“Once there has been a meeting of minds, we can decide what further action we can take.”
Deputy committee convener Chic Brodie, who is an SNP MSP, agreed a meeting should be held and said there was recognition that the petition “will not change anything” in terms of a camera scheme.
SNP MSP John Wilson, also a committee member, said the death of a motorcyclist on the A9 at the House of Bruar junction on Monday had brought the issue into sharp focus.
He added that he hoped the talks between Mr Burns and the A9 Safety Group would lead to a reduction in road accidents.
Mr Burns said last night that the committee’s decision was “not a bad outcome” because he did not realistically expect the government to stop camera installation work once it had started.
He claimed the suggestion of talks was a “reprimand of sorts” for government road agency Transport Scotland’s A9 Safety Group because its policy had previously been not to engage with campaigners.
Mr Burns said he was looking forward to asking officials why they had not properly considered his suggestions for improvements – such as reducing the speed limits at notorious junctions, introducing no-overtaking zones, road markings to ensure there was a safe distance between vehicles and flexible safety barriers.
“It is a funny outcome because the government is going to carry on regardless,” he added.
“But the suggestion of talks is a very good thing because it recognises the validity of the campaign and forces the A9 Safety Group to face public scrutiny.
“The committee has given them a slap over the way they have dealt with it and I will be pressing them on why they have not modelled other ideas.”
A £3billion scheme to upgrade the entire length of the A9 between Perth and Inverness is due to be completed by 2025.
Comment, Page 28