³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I do not think that they have been abandoned. The level of investment that I recounted in my opening statement, including, significantly, the Maybole bypass, which had been requested for a long time, has brought major improvements. I am very familiar with the area because it is where I grew up. There are current attempts to improve the junction around Corton Road and Doonholm Road; I learned to drive on Corton Road and know exactly where that is. There is signalisation there as well as improvement work for people who are crossing at Kirkoswald.

There is also the issue of strengthening bridges, especially where there is heavy traffic, and the Ballantrae bridge is being improved and strengthened, although that is taking a little longer than people wanted. One issue that I addressed when I met the petitioners was the importance of communication, because when, for understandable reasons, road works take longer, it is important that that is communicated appropriately.

I fully understand your central point about the importance of the A77, and the A75 to Cairnryan, as arteries. I am meeting the south-west alliance of ferry companies on a ferry tomorrow, because I will be travelling to the British-Irish Council. I have also been clear in my interministerial meetings with United Kingdom ministers that I want to see an understanding that those roads are important not only within Scotland but as arteries to elsewhere. I should also declare an interest, because I represent West Lothian where we have a number of supermarket warehouses, and Schuh has its warehouse in a neighbouring constituency in order to access the Irish market. A lot of traffic uses that route to move from the central belt to Northern Ireland.

We are working with the Welsh Government and others to review the resilience of ports and harbours. There have been pressures on Holyhead, because of the impact of storms, and Cairnryan had to react by absorbing a lot of traffic at short notice for a number of days in order to help resolve that situation. I see the A75 as an artery and an economic issue, not just a local road, and the same is the case for the A77. There are challenges with its width in certain areas.

When I had my meeting about the A77 and A75 at Girvan library with the petitioners, we worked through what they saw as the priorities. At the convention of the south of Scotland, which was on transport, I met Gail Macgregor, the leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, and last week I met Martin Dowie, the leader of South Ayrshire Council, and I know that they are comfortable with what we are trying to do in looking at improvements.

I know that this is a long-standing petition and that the petitioners want dualling. However, there are challenges in ensuring that we deliver the dualling that we have said that we will deliver, and I want to be open with the committee by saying that it is not going to be realistic to promise any new dualling. What we can do is ensure that we are working systematically through the issues.

I am struck by the fact that, south of Ballantrae, there is an adverse camber, which could be important for big lorries. I have worked closely with the Road Haulage Association to look at how we can help the industry by understanding its needs and then working systematically through what is required. I have asked for that to be done for the A75 and the A77.

But the petitioner in this case is actually south of the Whitletts roundabout, and not far from there is the junction at Doonholm Road and Corton Road, to which I referred, which is currently subject to roadworks with signalisation. Why is that increasingly important? I remember coming out of that road once to ferry traffic, even though it is quite a long distance from Cairnryan. You would be stuck on that road for a long time with that traffic, and you had to wait until everybody was through before you could pull out.

There has been major housing development in that area, and more is proposed, so that is a pinch point, and that is why there is signalisation. However frustrating that is for people while it is on, it means that the traffic is being managed by traffic lights, although that does frustrate people, too. When work is being done, there is a delay, and the delays are often perceived as major, but they can be 10 or 15 minutes at most; sometimes they are much less. However, people like to keep moving, and if they are stopped, they get frustrated.

That is an example of a pinch point that has been identified, but that is further downstream, and south of Whitletts, which is the area in which the petitioner is interested.

The point that you raise about the petitioners’ request for a STAG process to be applied is central to the petition.

You are looking for reassurance. Concerns regarding the application of the STAG process to the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan scheme were raised separately with Audit Scotland, in similar terms to those that were put forward in the petition. Audit Scotland investigated and confirmed to Transport Scotland on 15 November 2022 that it had considered the requirements of the STAG process and reviewed relevant evidence. The auditor concluded that the STAG process had been applied in the initial stages of the work on the A82.

That is done regularly. However challenging and difficult it is, that has happened. We acknowledge that the A82 is a major route, which is one reason why we will not be able to do the work on it at the same time as the work on the A83. Everyone is fully aware of that. It will be a case of handling and managing the situation. That will be very important indeed when the time comes. However, as I said in my general remarks, we cannot improve roads, or have new projects, without disruption. The issue is how that disruption is handled.

I do not think that it has been deliberate. Your question is interpretive and asserts an opinion—to which you are entitled.

I will run through the timescale. In November 2016, the draft orders and environmental statement were published. There were 154 representations—including, interestingly, 127 objections—following their publication, which led, at the end of 2018, to a public local inquiry to consider unresolved objections. I have already relayed, in relation to other issues, that the time that public inquiries can take up is necessary. That is the process, should there be significant objections. As transport secretary, I have been encouraging people to do as much work in advance with interested parties to try to avoid that.

In October 2019, the public local inquiry reporters’ report was submitted to the Scottish Government. In February 2021—you will be aware that that was during the pandemic—the decision to proceed was announced, following consideration of the objections, along with, importantly, the reasoned conclusions and recommendations of the reporters.

This is where I recognise that there has been a delay. In March 2024, made orders for the scheme were published, which provided Scottish ministers with the powers to acquire the land to build the scheme. In March 2025, all the relevant landowners were communicated with, and procedural steps to acquire the land were taken, as those were required for the scheme to be completed. As I said, Scottish ministers will take title to the land on 21 April 2025. Our having completed those procedures helps us to identify the funding routes and the potential funding mechanisms.

Importantly, on the timetable—the focus of the petition—that is about determining whether it is a smaller project, which would start with the bypass itself, or a longer one, or which sections are done. That will help to determine the timetable.

I have been as open as I can be, and as I have been previously, in laying out what the procedures have been. The public local inquiry, with 127 objections, was a key issue in that process, which is not necessarily the case for the other projects that we are talking about.

All right.

Actually, I do not think that—

Clearly, a great deal of capital investment is being made in the Highlands and I am happy to write to the member to relay all of that. I am very pleased about the procurement of the third and fourth contracts for the A9, which I spoke about in my opening remarks. Indeed, the work is commencing on the Tomatin to Moy section of the road, and there will be further work on that.

On the investment in the Inverness to Nairn section of the A96, the member used the figure of £100 million. That is not the correct figure. I have recently written to Douglas Ross, who raised the same issue, and I am happy to share my response to him. I can advise that, to date, the spend for the Inverness to Nairn section is about £33 million. That is important because the costs are for the engineering design, environmental, traffic and economic assessments, stakeholder engagement, supervision of ground investigation works and topographical survey works. All those must be done.

I will give the recently approved £9 billion lower Thames crossing project as an example. It is the case that £1.2 billion has already been spent on planning but nothing has been built. Of course investment is needed in engineering and other works, and the cost of those elements for the Inverness to Nairn section of the A96 is £33 million.

It is always important to be accurate when we are reporting things to the Parliament, and I intend to be accurate. There is a lot—

The member raised a lot of issues. That is understandable, and I know that he has felt passionate about the matter for a very long time.

On investment from the transport budget, the vast majority of the capital budget, which is a big figure as the member mentioned, is on rail, on the maintenance of and investment in our ports and harbours, and on the maintenance of our roads to ensure that they are safe, which is the subject with which we started.

The vast majority of the capital investment on rail—not the running costs—is well over £1 billion. The idea of making available capital for any one particular road must be carefully budgeted for and calibrated. An investment for the A96 is available for this year; I will look to identify future investments. Again, we have been very public about what the costs were for that in 2014.

The member said that I am not prepared to give a statement. I said that I was open to giving one. However, anybody who has experience with this Parliament knows that it is not for me to decide whether I do so; it is for Parliament to decide who makes a statement and when.

That is my report to the committee.