Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am circumspect about the draft orders and public inquiry, because we are in a live situation, and I ask you to respect that.

Part of that is about the momentum and making sure that things keep moving. To reassure you, there is £18.5 million for this financial year as part of the medium and long-term solutions.

I am not sure. You are saying that—

Okay. That was a major project in the not-too-distant past, and an example of how long it can sometimes take to do major road extensions.

The traffic tends to dissipate after Silverburn—as I know, having family in Ayr, and regularly travelling up and down the route—so it is more an issue of traffic management in the greater Glasgow and East Renfrewshire area.

Does anybody want to say anything about how we monitor that for the implication downstream? Is there anything else to say, or not?

Again, in my initial remarks, I identified some of the significant improvements that have been made on the A75. I am not saying that that is work done—it is not. It is part of our systematic working through of, and our sharing and communicating, what is happening.

The road is not always the issue. It is difficult for people to hear this, but driver behaviour is an issue too, which is why some local MSPs have asked for average speed cameras. There are currently 18 speed enforcement spots. Driver frustration and overtaking can, sadly, cause fatalities and serious casualties; I should say that I have managed to increase the budget for road safety, and we will have a serious and enhanced look at that.

The impact, though, will not come from dualling. I have been up front about that, and the same has previously been reported to the committee in relation to the petition. The bypassing of Springholm and Crocketford was identified as a requirement not just by us, but in the “Union Connectivity Review”, by Sir Peter Hendy—as he was at the time—who is now Minister of State for Rail in the new UK Government.

Prior to the election, there was a bit of a delay by the previous Government, which I can understand, and then another delay after the election with the new Government, before the promised funding could be given. However, I am pleased to say that we were prepared to do the required work and have moved very quickly to start the first phase of what is required to design and build. Indeed, there was a good turnout at the public meeting on the matter three weeks ago.

The A77 and the A75 are connected, which I will come on to talk about, if it is helpful. Obviously, when there are problems on either the A77 or the A75, people have to use alternate routes, including local roads, as diversions. Some of the issues are to do with communication and suitability. A danger nowadays is that people do not use the diversion, and instead look at their satellite navigation system; there are issues with sat nav, particularly for heavy goods vehicles, which go down roads that they should not go down because of their width and height.

We have agreed with the A75 and A77 group that we will consider diversions. Amey is currently reviewing the diversion route along with Police Scotland, which leads in that area, and local intelligence can be very helpful, too. I will systematically work through the actions that I took from the meeting with the group and identify and share where improvements need to be made on those roads and when that can happen. We also need to get local insight and see whether it marries with the other priorities. Not everything will be done at once, but if people see a plan and know the order in which things will be done, they can take comfort from that.

That was just an overview of what we are trying to do on the A75.

That will come down to the process. In that respect, we have begun the design manual for roads and bridges process. We are at stage 1 of that; we will then move to the stage at which there are draft orders; and if anyone objects, there might be a public inquiry. Therefore, I cannot tell you when the work will be done, because it depends on a number of factors that are outwith our control, such as whether there are objections to the draft orders. Work on that will be done over a number of years, as is normal, but Nicola Blaney might want to say a bit more about what the process will look like, if all goes well.

At my first meeting with the first UK Government Secretary of State for Transport, and at my meeting with the current secretary of state, Heidi Alexander, I raised the issue of the importance of funding for the A75. Heidi Alexander has asked about costings et cetera for future years, which is understandable. We need to consider the road’s strategic importance of the road as an artery; indeed, Maurice Golden asked about trade links, and I can provide some assurances in that respect.

Nicola, is there anything that you want to add—without, of course, promising something that we cannot deliver, given that we are not in charge of the timescales of a public inquiry?

Yes, the draft orders went out in December, and the process ended in February. I probably should not say too much about it just now, but we are going through the process of looking at that.

I hope that there will not be a public inquiry, but, if there is, the capital funding that you asked about will not necessarily be required in the next year or the year after; it could take a bit longer, and there will still be statutory processes to conclude. The capital allocation will be required at some point. The major capital allocation for the construction will be required going forward. It is important to put on record that we have the funding this year to progress the items that need to be carried out this year, but part of what we are doing—other MSPs regularly ask about this—involves trying to manage the budget well in advance and having those funds ready for when they need to be deployed.

The six-monthly task force report is open to all councillors and all MSPs. They do not always attend meetings about it—sometimes send researchers instead—but there is an openness there, and people can hear about what is happening. BEAR Scotland provides a lot of helpful updates on current aspects and improvements, and we also get to hear from our engineers and consultants about how they are progressing with the next stages.

I have probably covered quite a lot there, but, realistically, part of the planning is to ensure that capital funding is available when it is needed, and that is what we will be doing with the A83.

Thank you very much—we are very open, and we provide lots of information all the time.

Communication is really important. People understanding what we have done, how we have done it and what the process is can go a long way. We can then focus on what the real points of difference are. Sometimes those can be resolved, but sometimes they cannot be. It is helpful to be open about that.

On the point about the active travel route, in general, we try to ensure that there is such provision. We will need to address that, but that will depend on the timing and sequencing of what happens. Nicola Blaney might have more technical detail on that, which is probably what Jackie Baillie was looking for with her question. Nicola, are you able to help with that?

It might be helpful to add that—notwithstanding the current processes—I would expect there to be discussions with the national park authority. It would be helpful, from the point of view of openness, to meet the national park authority to go through where we are, what the implications are and any information on the active travel route.

That level of detail on the traffic management and engineering is not within my capabilities, but I will ask officials to respond.