Seòmar agus comataidhean

The project has short, medium and long-term aspects. The option that will be proceeded with has been chosen and we are now embarking on its initial design, which is going through the processes that are set out in the design manual that we talked about earlier.

Some of the short-term improvements relate to the catchment area. Funnily enough, we were in Inveraray at an A83 task force meeting—I think that Jackie Baillie was one of the MSPs who dialled into that meeting—that took place just before Storm Babet, so we were hearing directly from Amey about what was going to happen with the rainfall that was expected, and, a couple of days later, we saw the consequences. There have been some landslides in areas beyond the areas that were initially identified, so, in the short term, there has been investment in those areas.

Significant work has been done on the medium-term aspects, which involves strengthening the old military road and improving bends on it. Quite a lot has been invested in the old military road to help with the current diversions and in relation to what will be required for the final design as part of the long-term project, which involves the covering that will ensure the long-term sustainable future of the A83.

In terms of capital budgets, the committee will be aware that we do not keep pots of money aside and say, “That’s marked for the A83 and is only to be opened at such a time as it will be invested.” We are only starting with the initial aspects of the DMRB. We have just issued the draft orders—perhaps my colleagues can remind me when that took place.

Clearly, this proposal has completed certain of the phases. There are still issues as to whether, in the next phase, there will be any objections or, indeed, a public inquiry. There are strong feelings about the proposal, but there are strong feelings about most roads in most places. The issue probably relates to the landscaping and the loch’s natural environment.

As part of the process, environmental and economic issues have to be addressed not only at the strategic outline business case stage, but at all five stages. One of the key things to relay is that, although the petitioners do not like the route that has been chosen, consideration is being given to the feasibility and attractiveness of combining with adjacent schemes to make sure that the tree line and other environmental aspects are considered. There is still time left in the process to address that point.

There is an important point to be up front and candid about, which is that, because of the interaction between the A82 and the A83—in particular, the A82 being used when there are problems with the A83—we do not think that it would be appropriate to do work on the A83 and the A82 at the same time. Because of the safety issues and the road’s importance to the economy and the people of Argyll in particular, we would prioritise the A83 over the A82. It is probably important to put that on the record.

The member shows his spirit of positivity in making that constructive suggestion. He makes an important point. Of course, he will know that there is a distinction, as Germany is an independent country that controls everything, including what moneys it can raise. Why is that important? That is important because the recent fluctuations in our capital budget have caused issues—I am very open about that. It also causes issues for long-term planning. It is essential to have long-term infrastructure investment, whether that be in road or rail, because that helps to drive projects and gives certainty to investors. I know from the rail side of things that a regular pipeline of investment is important.

I think that you are suggesting that approach for the future. We could not do that immediately, because we still do not know what issues will arise from the UK Government’s capital spending review. We are expecting that to report in the summer, and it will inform our infrastructure investment plan.

The infrastructure investment plan will provide a view. I think that is currently due in the autumn, but, again, the timing will depend on what the UK Government says and on its timings with regard to capital investment. That will have a multiyear timeframe.

You mentioned having a 30-year timeframe. I would want to do that if I had the full levers to raise capital, and an understanding of where I could get capital and of what I could do on borrowing—all the different aspects that you have less control over in a devolved Parliament. In principle, that is exactly what you should be doing on infrastructure and investment.

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.