Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Official Report 1011KB pdf

---

A75 Improvements

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-07301, in the name of Finlay Carson, on long and short-term improvements required on the A75. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the view that the Scottish Government needs to work with the UK Government to deliver what it considers much needed improvements on the A75, which were identified and recommended in the Sir Peter Hendy Union Connectivity Review and the Strategic Transport Projects Review 2 (STPR2); further notes the view that, given the recent accident in Crocketford village, average speed cameras should be installed in what it understands to be the only two communities still not served by a bypass on the whole length of this international European E-road E18, running from Craigavon in Northern Ireland, through Scotland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, before ending in St Petersburg, Russia, and notes that, according to figures from Transport Scotland in its report, Transporting Scotland’s Trade, the A75, along with the A77, carry an estimated combined total of £67 million worth of goods on a daily basis which flow through the port of Cairnryan.

17:22  

I am delighted to be in a position to bring this important debate to the chamber, but I am dismayed that, after years and years of Scottish National Party promises, we are still having to highlight the failures of the Scottish Government in getting shovels in the ground.

Just hearing the term “A75” conjures up a spectrum of emotions for my constituents in Galloway and West Dumfries, and indeed for people across the south of Scotland—including me, as I have been living only a few hundred yards from the road for almost every one of my 55 years—the commuters, the haulage and delivery companies that use it every day, and our tourists. Most poignantly, there are far too many people for whom hearing the term “the A75” brings back memories of tragedy, with family and friends killed on what was once called “Scotland’s killer road”.

It is, however, undoubtedly the artery that feeds the beating heart of my region. To put it into perspective, the A75, as the main route from the United Kingdom mainland to Belfast and on to Europe, carries around £17 billion-worth of freight every year, and yet—rather bizarrely—it is a single carriageway for the vast majority of the 100 miles between Stranraer and Gretna. In addition, despite repeated calls for change, we still have a 40 mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles.

That European route, which runs from Craigavon in Northern Ireland and ends some 1,170 miles later in St Petersburg in Russia, has, remarkably, in Dumfries and Galloway, the only two stretches of the road with 30 mph speed restrictions, at Crocketford and Springholm villages. In addition, there are several places where, during the summer, the road is regularly closed to allow local farmers to transfer cattle and sheep from one field to another. It is little wonder, therefore, that the road has gained the undesirable nickname of “the goat track”.

Despite years of promises from the Scottish Government, the upgrading of the A75 just has not happened, while elsewhere there has been significant investment in such UK port roads.

In 2011, the SNP promised to dual the A96. In a recent poll in The Press and Journal, 93 per cent of respondents demanded that the SNP fulfil that promise, not least because, statistically, dualled roads are safer and more environmentally friendly than what is currently there. Does the member agree that that poll shows that it is time for this Government to finally listen to the people of the north-east and get the A96 dualled?

I absolutely agree, and I think that any polls carried out across Scotland, in particular in our more rural areas, would show huge support for improvement in our roads, which in too many places are like goat tracks.

However, there has not always been a lack of investment. Bypasses have been built on the A75 to alleviate the suffering experienced by residents in Glenluce, Newton Stewart, Carsluith, Creetown, Gatehouse of Fleet, Twynholm, Ringford, Tarff, Bridge of Dee, Castle Douglas, Dumfries, Collin and Annan; they were all sanctioned and built by the UK Government, under the Conservative Scottish secretaries George Younger, Malcolm Rifkind and Ian Lang. Since devolution, however, investment has been almost non-existent. We are now regarded as the forgotten or ignored part of Scotland, with the whole of the south-west attracting only 0.05 per cent of recent national infrastructure spend.

More recently, however, the desperate need to improve the road was recognised in Sir Peter Hendy’s “Union Connectivity Review—Final Report”, which recommended that the UK Government should provide cash to upgrade it. The SNP Government, which, unlike its counterparts in other devolved nations, failed to get involved in the union connectivity review—regrettably—has now seen the light, and Transport Scotland officials are now engaging with their opposite numbers at the Department for Transport to drive matters forward. Tomorrow, they will meet again to work up a business case.

That is the right and sensible way forward. The UK Government needs that business case to demonstrate the good use of taxpayers’ money, and the cost of the work on it will come out of the £5 million package that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last year. My understanding is that those talks are progressing well. I hope that the Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth, and the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, will stop using the “them and us” rhetoric, put constitutional grievance to one side and get behind that project, which could, in the long run, bring tangible benefits to not only the south of Scotland but the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

After all, 10 years ago, the former Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Keith Brown, had no trouble with writing to the UK Government to request that it make funding available specifically for a number of A75 priority schemes, including Hardgrove to Kinmount, that, in his words,

“would improve infrastructure and provide jobs.”

Does the member recognise that the Scottish Government has committed to substantial improvements to the A75 through the strategic transport projects review 2 and is taking those forward?

The member may say that, but we had a commitment years ago to massive investment in Cairnryan, and we have yet to see that happen. STPR2 has come up very short.

In addition, Emma Harper was “constructively” writing to the UK Government to ask for more money for the A75, which makes a complete mockery of the stance that the current cabinet secretary and minister are taking. It is in everybody’s interest that we forge ahead and put politics aside to improve this vital route. We heard about STPR2, but now that we have it, we see that it was not really worth waiting for.

A coalition of Stena Line, P&O Ferries and Belfast Harbour has been calling for major improvements to the A75 and A77 for decades. For the past few years, it has engaged in private discussions with the Scottish Government about specific and targeted improvements, culminating in a fully researched proposal, entitled “Safer, Greener, Better”, for 20 targeted improvements. Sadly, STPR2 pledges to make only three of those 20 improvements in full.

In a joint statement, the coalition said:

“We are deeply dismayed at the Scottish Government’s proposals. We have engaged in what we felt were very productive discussions for over three years”.

It went on to say:

“We felt we had a mutual understanding of what was required, and a mutual commitment to making the necessary improvements … We carry about 1.75 million passengers, 500,000 cars and 400,000 freight vehicles every year on our 26 daily crossings. Each one of them has been let down.”

Worryingly, the coalition insists that it cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion that

“STPR2 poses a material risk to future investment.”

One major road haulier, AM Logistics, which has already confirmed that it has reduced the amount of freight that it ships via the A75, said that it currently uses several shipping routes because of its geographical location in Larne. For many years, it had always chosen Cairnryan. However, over the past few years, it has slowly migrated to using the routes from Heysham and Liverpool to Belfast, one reason being the issues with the A75.

The company states:

“The condition of the road is not good enough for HGV or regular road users. The speed limit is reduced to 40mph in many areas ... This makes it frustrating for other road users.”

Critically, its spokeswoman, Sarah, suggests that,

“This frustration ... leads to rather aggressive and dangerous driving to get around the HGVs. Making the road dangerous. A solution here would be to increase the speed limit to 56 mph … where applicable.”

Montgomery Distribution admits that it has had numerous accidents on the A75 and it stresses that the road is dangerous in parts because HGV traffic incites dangerous overtaking manoeuvres by cars and motorcycles.

Nick McCullough, managing director of Manfreight, employs more than 80 drivers at Cairnryan. He wants to double the number of employees but will not do so while the road is in its current condition. He said:

“The road for a long time has not been fit for purpose—a majority single lane route with speed restrictions, a very dangerous road.”

Indeed, there is a casualty every three days on the A75 and A77. More recently, two HGVs crashed in Crocketford with one of the vehicles narrowly missing a house, the impact of which could have been catastrophic.

People in the communities of Crocketford and Springholm have genuine fears over their safety every time they step out of their homes. More than 70 people attended a recent public meeting that I organised in order for them to voice their concerns. Both villages desperately need bypasses. As an interim measure, they are asking for average speed safety cameras to be installed.

Rarely does a week go past when the A75 is not closed to traffic because another traffic accident is being cleared up. The situation cannot be tolerated any longer. I ask the minister to once again look into the possibility of putting average speed cameras on the whole route in the short term.

I call on the Scottish Government to commit to working with the UK Government to deliver the upgrades that we need in the face of health and safety concerns, and to act to avoid the looming economic disaster that has been set out clearly by businesses. The Scottish Government should be innovative and forward thinking and transform the A75 into a green, clean route to sustainable economic growth in the south west of Scotland.

17:31  

I thank Finlay Carson for securing the debate, and start by agreeing with him that it is time for much-needed upgrades on the A75 and A77. We have campaigned for such upgrades for years. I agree with so much of what Mr Carson said, and we have spoken about the A75 and A77 many times in previous debates and questions in the Parliament. The upgrades are needed to improve those main arterial routes and they should be done on the grounds of safety and efficiency.

My condolences go to the families of the people who have lost their lives on those roads. Those losses show the absolute need for safety to be a primary concern and the reason for improvements to be made.

I also pay tribute to the A75 and A77 action groups and welcome their continued campaigning efforts.

We have now seen the publication of the Scottish Government’s STPR2, as well as the UK Government’s commitment to providing additional funding specifically for the A75. Mr Carson mentioned that I wrote to the UK Government. Part of the rationale for doing that was that the infrastructure investment—the cost of widening or dualling the roads or whatever we need to do to them—would be a phenomenal amount of money and Scotland cannae borrow under the current fiscal arrangements, so I was asking for that option.

How does Emma Harper explain why it has been possible to dual and improve roads in other parts of Scotland but it has not been possible for her party, which has been in government for 15 years, to find the money to do anything in the south of Scotland, and on the A75 in particular? Nothing. Zero.

Investment has been made in infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland. I never said that that was impossible.

I lodged an amendment to the motion today, not because I disagree with Mr Carson but because I believe that the motion would benefit from more detail. While Mr Carson’s motion rightly cites the need to improve the A75 and points to recent road accidents, including the most recent one in the village of Crocketford, it does not acknowledge the commitments that the Scottish Government has made for the A75 in STPR2. The motion also doesnae call for timescales for the improvements to be carried out. STPR2 includes many important recommendations for the A75 and A77 improvements that many, including the A75 and A77 action groups, have been calling for, for many years.

Ah am no disagreein wi the Opposition here. I also get a lot in my mailbag about these things, so I think that we need to work together to look at how we can lobby for improvements to those roads.

We know that STPR2 has considered

“improving junctions and enhancing overtaking opportunities”.

Will the member take an intervention?

Looking at the time, I do not think that I will.

We need to consider widening carriageways and realignment to alleviate pinch points and so on.

The STPR2 includes bypassing the villages of Springholm and Crocketford, as well as improving Cuckoo Bridge roundabout in Dumfries, which is a wee bit further east than Mr Carson’s constituency. It is worth mentioning that Springholm and Crocketford are the only two villages in the UK through which a major European route goes directly, so the recommendations for bypasses for the villages are extremely important.

Instead of focusing on negativity about the time that those recommendations have taken to come forward, I want to focus on their implementation, although I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer.

I know that transport is devolved, and in the absence of borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, funding from the UK Government could further enhance the commitments that have been made in STPR2. I would therefore be grateful for an update from the minister on the timescales for investment in the A75 and A77.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I am sorry, but I think that my time is up.

17:36  

I am pleased to see this important debate take place in the first week of the parliamentary new year. It should not have to take place at all; the improvements should have already been made. However, given where we are and given some of the other issues that have been debated in recent days, my constituents will at least be reassured that, thanks to the member for Galloway and West Dumfries securing this members’ business slot, we are seeing something of importance for our region on the Parliament’s agenda.

Improving connectivity rather than erecting barriers is the positive and constructive way to take things forward, and it will certainly deliver more jobs than erecting border posts. The importance of the A75 to the whole of Dumfries and Galloway cannot be overstated. The failure to properly upgrade the route has compounded our status as Scotland’s forgotten region. Delivering this vital upgrade would significantly boost the region’s economy and help reverse the trend of large-scale employment moving towards the motorway network and out of our region altogether.

Anyone who has driven on the A75 at the wrong time—or at any time—of day will understand the problem. In a small region, journey times between our communities can be a joke, particularly given the fact that many services, leisure pursuits, and employment opportunities are concentrated in Dumfries or Carlisle. After 15 years of SNP Government, many individuals and businesses have given up hope.

There have been so many false promises. What happened to the SNP manifesto promise to link Dumfries with the motorway network? Are some manifesto promises more important than others? What progress has there been on any transport infrastructure?

A couple of years ago, I proposed that Dumfries was made a city. Part of that commitment would involve better infrastructure investment to connect cities to regional roads. However, Oliver Mundell opposed that proposal. Does he not think that we could have considered working together on that, to improve infrastructure investment in our main town in Dumfries and Galloway?

That shows how poorly Emma Harper knows her region. As far as I am aware, Ayr is not a city, but it has significantly better transport links through the A77. The links are not great, but for a town of its size—it is comparable to Dumfries—it has seen a much better deal. The same is true of other towns across Scotland that are not cities. Dumfries has been left behind by the SNP; we have seen zero progress since the transport summit, which was much heralded in 2016, but did not even manage to happen within the 100 days of the election, as had been promised. It was a waste of time anyway, as predicted by local residents at the time.

All the more galling for those people who live and work in Dumfries and Galloway is that before the SNP was in government, it used to claim—locally, at least—that upgrading the A75 was its top priority. In fact, it claimed that it was the only party that was committed to doing so. However, the truth is that the SNP is the only party in government that has failed to deliver anything at all on that vital route.

I have sympathy for Emma Harper, because I do not know how she explains to local voters why her Government has done nothing. She makes the case in the chamber, but I do not know what she is doing to influence ministers behind closed doors, because they seem to be prioritising projects for her colleagues elsewhere in the country.

It is not too late for things to change, but despite the continued interest from the UK Government and its offer of support remaining on the table, the Scottish Government has been slow to even have a conversation with it. As Finlay Carson has set out, modest progress has been made, but it is not consistent with the level of support or effort that local people rightly expect. Will the minister commit to giving the project a green light and to turbocharging talks with the UK Government, and will she get personally involved in those talks and make the project happen?

I would be keen to hear specific plans and a timetable from the minister, but I doubt we will get that this evening. Instead, she might be willing to explain in straightforward terms to people who are living and working in Dumfries and Galloway why they deserve a second-class road network and why they should watch as investment is made elsewhere in the country as our region falls further behind. I suspect that under the SNP Government, we will not see anything that will come even remotely close to meeting the needs of people in Dumfries and Galloway, because the truth is that the SNP does not care about the region, and it does not care about the south of Scotland. That is why we see nothing.

17:41  

I thank Finlay Carson for lodging his motion. It is impossible to understate the growing anger that there is about, frankly, the Government’s utter contempt towards improving transport infrastructure in the south-west, and the resultant neglect for the local economy. That neglect is now enshrined as the Government’s policy for the next two decades as a result of a wholly inadequate strategic transport review. Even after years of delay in delivering that review, the vague, minor commitments to realign the A75 around Springholm and Crocketford and to improve the A77 from Turnberry to Girvan and Ballantrae to Smyrton come with no detail of exactly what those plans are, or even when they will happen. In fact, it is not even clear whether those are firm commitments, given that the report says that those are simply examples of possible improvements.

However, we know that those commitments will not lead to the meaningful improvement in journey times that we all want to see, especially if the Government is as short-sighted as it was when it developed the Maybole bypass and failed to dual parts of it in order to provide adequate passing places. Bypassing Crocketford and Springholm will be a positive step for the communities that badly need that investment. However, by the time the roundabouts are built and the road is rerouted around those villages, it will make no difference to the time that it takes to travel the 100 miles from Gretna to Cairnryan, and it will make no difference to the safety on the vast majority of the road.

The volume of HGVs that use the A75 means that, at best, it is a 40mph road. It will still take twice the time to travel the same distance on the A75 as it would on the M74. The SNP-Green Government has argued that building new roads increases traffic and that it takes people away from using other more environmentally friendly forms of transport. However, there is no railway to use between Gretna and Stranraer, and the Government has ruled that out as part of the strategic transport projects review. Even the Green Party, which claims to want new railways, failed to support the reopening of that line in the long list of “rail for all” policy commitments that it has made. The SNP and the Green Party have failed to recognise the potential to make the area a green transport corridor. Loch Ryan to Northern Ireland is the shortest crossing of the Irish Sea and it has the lowest emissions from ferries. We know that many businesses choose to send their goods on longer road journeys to ports in England and Wales because the road infrastructure makes the journey quicker, but it is certainly not more environmentally friendly.

For far too long, the south-west has been Scotland’s forgotten region when it comes to investment in its transport infrastructure. Although the Government is committed to investing what may be more than £4 billion into dualling the A9, which will be welcomed by the communities that that will affect, not even a fraction of that investment has been promised for the A75 or the A77. Of the £10.5 billion that was invested in road infrastructure between 2008 and 2020, only 0.4 per cent went into the A75 and A77.

It seems that that neglect will continue. It is no wonder that the south-west continues to have the lowest wages, the lowest level of business-led inclusive jobs growth and the lowest gross value added figure in Scotland. When Stena invested more than £80 million in its new terminal in 2011, this Government promised it investment in the three Rs: rail, regeneration and roads. We have seen cuts in what rail services there were between Glasgow and Stranraer. There has been no investment in the regeneration of Stranraer and no meaningful investment in improving the A75 and A77. That is not a case of the three Rs, but of the three Fs: fail, fail, fail.

In a debate about who should fund that, my constituents do not care whether the funding comes from the Scottish Government or as result of the review of UK connectivity. They just want to see that funding happen. They want to see those improvements to those key roads, and they want to see that now.

17:45  

I thank my colleague Finlay Carson for securing time in the chamber to once again highlight the huge inequality in transport infrastructure investment between the central belt and the south-west of Scotland. Depressingly, Mr Carson, Mr Mundell and I, along with others from across the chamber, have been here many times before, trying to highlight to the Government the plight of the south-west. This SNP-Green coalition ignores part of Scotland.

Time and again, transport minister after transport minister has said that they were listening, going all the way back to 2010 when the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, in opening the new port at Cairnryan, promised significant investment to improve the transport infrastructure to and from the port—the A77, the gateway between Ireland and central Scotland and beyond; and the A75, the gateway between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Several transport secretaries later, and we have Jenny Gilruth, who has inherited the “keep talking while kicking it into the long grass” brief. STPR2 has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds and has delivered the square root of nothing for the south-west. It is as though—as we have all long-feared—it is a ploy to withhold crucial investment from the south-west. Head south of Ayr and we enter the land that the SNP and the Greens forgot.

I want to look at the consequences of a transport policy developed by urban MSPs—those very same MSPs who advocate 20-minute communities, which speak to our drive towards net zero. As Colin Smyth has just highlighted, areas of the south-west have some of the lowest average incomes. It is difficult to attract businesses, because of the difficulty in getting goods in and out of the area, coupled with the difficulty of attracting a workforce. People in that workforce—especially young people—are migrating away from the area to chase a career. Recently, that migration has predominantly been to the central belt, but where are the most polluted areas in Scotland? It is the cities.

The solution, of course, from the SNP-Green Government is to create low-emission zones in the cities that only low-emission vehicles can access. However, it fails to recognise that people still need to access and move around the city and so does nothing to enable that. The Government has cut train timetables and taxi numbers are reducing because taxi drivers cannot afford electric cabs. The net result is that it is increasingly difficult to access the cities, meaning that city economies and businesses are dying and the night-time economy is crashing. I am dismayed by the deterioration of Glasgow over the past few years. Anyone walking through it will notice the number of “To let” signs.

The young workforce now needs to look even further afield for jobs and careers, and it is little wonder that there are some 750,000 Scots living and working in England. We are witnessing a hotchpotch of transport policies that are not even remotely connected and which are driven by a green ideology that seems to work on the premise of preventing people from going anywhere. That is leading to the demise of our economy across Scotland. I am convinced that this green ideologically led Government will not be happy until we have no economy and everybody lives up a tree in the Trossachs and forages for nuts and berries.

There is an alternative approach that could supercharge and drive our net zero economy and really develop that green economy for the whole country, including outside the central belt—yes, life does exist outside the central belt.

We need to develop a transport infrastructure that promotes green travel. We need to bypass the towns and villages on the A77 and A75 to divert the hundreds of 44-tonne vehicles that trundle through towns and villages every day, and create electric and hydrogen superhighways along those routes. While we are at it, we should do the same for other routes, such as the A96. As Liam Kerr said, that would reduce emissions, because there would no longer be a line of heavy goods vehicles doing the stop-start routine.

While we are at it, we should develop the single-track rail line and have passing points so that more than one train can go on the route at one time. For goodness’ sake, we should also build a spur to Cairnryan so that goods can also be transported by rail. In turn, that would encourage businesses to develop along the routes and create a new economy.

That is how we get to 20-minute communities and how we develop the economy across the whole of Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to stop procrastinating and delaying. I say to the Scottish Government: we see you. It is time to develop a transport policy that works for the whole of Scotland.

17:50  

I congratulate Finlay Carson on securing this members’ business debate. I know that he has a particular constituency interest in the A75, as we have discussed in recent weeks. I will respond to some of the points that were made in the debate. I am aware that Mr Carson organised a public meeting last month. I was unable to attend that, but I am more than happy to meet him, as I mentioned to him in correspondence before the end of last year.

I have listened carefully to the discussion and fully appreciate the passion that members have for future improvements on the A75. I heard Mr Whittle talking about the potential central-beltism of the Scottish Parliament. I represent a constituency that I would not consider to be in the central belt and parts of it are extremely rural. My constituency also has a trunk road, the A92, that runs all the way through it and Mr Whittle might recall that, as a back bencher, I spent much of my time in engagements with Mr Yousaf, who was then the Minister for Transport and the Islands, to bring about the improvements that we now have on that road, which are welcome.

Clearly, the A75 plays a vital role in connecting the port at Cairnryan with the wider trunk road network. It is also crucial for connections not only to Northern Ireland but from Scotland to England and beyond.

When I was appointed to this role last January, one of my first engagements was to open the Maybole bypass, to which Colin Smyth referred. I fondly remember talking with members of the local action group there about the benefits of that new stretch of road, which brought home the clear impacts that the new bypass has already had and will have for local people. Like everything in the transport portfolio, roads are fundamentally about people. They are about connecting the people whom we represent.

I have noted the discussion about working with the UK Government and the use of UK Government funding to help to accelerate the design and development of projects on the A75. This is a members’ business debate, and such debates are usually marked out by their consensual approach. That was not always the tone adopted today, but it is the tone that I will take as minister.

They have not been for the whole session. Perhaps you have missed lots of members’ business debates.

We can resist making comments from a sedentary position. If you want to make an intervention, I am sure that the minister would be sympathetic.

I am very sympathetic to anything that Mr Carson would like to say.

I will set out the engagement that Mr Carson has alluded to between my officials and UK Government officials. However, the context of that engagement is important, noting the devolved competencies that are involved.

Back in March 2021, there was an announcement from the UK Department for Transport on the A75. Then we had the March 2021 UK Government announcement on a design for the union connectivity development fund. That was for an advanced design development on a select number of transport corridors, including the A75. It took a wee while—to the end of October last year—for the UK Government to provide clearer details on what information was needed to enable a bid to proceed. Mr Carson might want to reflect on why that might have been the case.

The reoffer of funding from the chancellor in his autumn statement is something of a moot point, given that officials have been in continuing dialogue for almost a year. It is worth pointing out that there have been no direct discussions with UK ministers on the A75. Mr Mundell asked for me to become personally involved, but I was surprised not to receive a letter from the responsible minister following the chancellor’s autumn statement. I very much hope that, as Scotland’s transport minister, I will receive that courtesy soon.

Putting aside the grievance, do you agree that constructive talks are going ahead between UK Government officials and Transport Scotland on building the business case that would enable significant levels of funding from the UK Government to address the issue? The people in the south-west of Scotland do not care where the money comes from. Are the officials negotiating in a positive atmosphere and do you have any idea of the timetables for the conclusion of those discussions?

Please speak through the chair.

Mr Carson spoke about significant levels of funding. I have to be honest with him that I do not know how much funding we are talking about, because I have had no written correspondence from the UK Government on the matter. However, he is right that there is continuing dialogue between officials, which is to be welcomed. I spoke to my officials yesterday about the point that we are discussing and they will meet their UK counterparts tomorrow.

The Scottish Government—as Mr Carson outlined—is now required to submit a business case to the Secretary of State for Transport, which will then be presented to HM Treasury for approval. It is important to say, therefore, that funding from the UK Government is not guaranteed, because it has to go through the process that has been introduced. As Mr Carson knows, given that transport is devolved, Scottish ministers remain responsible for the whole of the motorway and the trunk road network in Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I will, in one second.

That is not a point of grievance; I simply think that it is important to reflect the constitutional reality in which we live.

I have a solution, if Mr Carson would like to hear it, but first I will take the intervention from Mr Mundell.

While the minister is setting things out, could she explain to my constituents why, after 15 years of SNP Government, we do not have a business case or a detailed plan for any improvements on the route? We have a couple of vague promises in the case of Cuckoo Bridge, in Mr Carson’s constituency, for what I understand to be relatively minor improvements.

I can give you the time back, minister.

I have to say that the tone that Mr Mundell adopts is not particularly helpful. The Scottish Government has invested £133 million in the A75 since 2007; we are investing £6.8 million in road maintenance in this year alone; and there are recommendations in STPR2 for the route.

However, let us try to move forward in the spirit of collegiate working, because there are ways in which improvements could be made, working together, which would also respect the devolution settlement. That is important, given that we are all members of the Scottish Parliament.

For example, when I was Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, we had an agreed ministerial-level memorandum of understanding on the Unboxed festival that supported funding to cultural organisations across the UK. That meant that each devolved Government had control of funding allocated to each strategic delivery body, and we also had responsibility for commissioning through the funding that was allocated.

As we have shown in the past, therefore, there are ways in which the UK Government can work with Scottish ministers, but that does not need to come at the expense of the devolution settlement. That is my concern, and I hope that Conservative members understand that.

My officials will continue to work with the UK Government counterparts to better understand the requirements of the business case request. Again, those have not been made clear to my officials in Transport Scotland. I very much look forward to further feedback on that later in the week—tomorrow, in fact—when our officials are scheduled to meet. Both Governments agree that investment is needed in the A75; from what we have heard today, I do not think that that is in dispute.

We appreciate that transport is devolved, but in the south-west of Scotland we have had 15 years of waiting and promises, and the money that has been devolved has not been spent down there.

We are talking about a specific situation in which the UK Government, through the Peter Hendy report, has identified the importance of the A75 to the whole United Kingdom, not solely to Scotland. I believe, therefore, that it is quite right that the UK Government should step in. Why do you not welcome that investment with open arms, rather than going back and repeating over and over again that transport issues are devolved?

Mr Carson, please make any comments through the chair.

I thank Mr Carson for his intervention, but I reiterate that I do not know how much money the UK Government is offering—it has not written to me, and I am Scotland’s transport minister. That is, to say the least, discourteous.

On Mr Carson’s point about the responsibilities in this case, I do not want to have a debate with him about additional funding that apparently exists; I would like to see the colour of the money, please—[Interruption.]

I would like to make some progress.

Recommendation 6 in the “Union Connectivity Review”, to which Mr Carson alluded, which was published back in November 2021, states that the UK Government needs to

“make a commitment to support a significant upgrade”

of the A75, given

“that the majority of strategic benefits … fall outside of Scotland”.

In our STPR2 document, to which other members have referred, which was published back in December, we recognise the strategic importance of the road. STPR2 recommendation 40, on access to Stranraer and Cairnryan, highlights the need for improvements to both the A75 and the A77.

The Scottish Government’s commitment is clear, but we need the UK Government to give us clarity and consider its approach to funding. I very much hope that we get that tomorrow afternoon.

I have a lot of sympathy with the argument about the need for clarity from the UK Government on what investment it proposes to make in improving these roads. However, my constituents would also like to know what investment the Scottish Government plans to make in the roads. We have waited for years for the strategic transport projects review to be published, and we still do not know what level of investment is planned by the Scottish Government to improve the A75 and the A77.

It is not fair to say, as Mr Smyth did, that there has not been investment. As I mentioned in response to Mr Mundell, we have invested £133 million since 2007. In addition, there are key recommendations in STPR2, and the delivery plan that will come forward in spring will set out some of the detail and provide greater clarity.

I move on to talk briefly about road safety, if I may. It is important that we touch on that as part of our commitment to casualty reduction, and Mr Carson touched on it in his speech. There has been significant investment in the A75 in recent years to manage traffic speeds and to look at reducing the risk of accidents. That is important, especially given that in the past year alone, there has been a worrying increase in accidents not just on the A75, but across the country.

A further route study will be carried out in 2023 to look at collision and risk reduction measures. For Crocketford specifically, which has been mentioned in the debate, a new signal-controlled pedestrian crossing was introduced in 2020 to help pedestrians crossing the trunk road. With regard to traffic speeds through Crocketford, the operating company, Amey, has been instructed by Transport Scotland officials to carry out a review of speeds through the village.

One of the key technologies that we have that help with road safety is the safety camera, which is an issue that Mr Carson raised with me recently in a parliamentary question and again today. There is already a mobile safety camera site at Crocketford on the A75, and over the past 12-month period, additional camera resources have regularly been deployed by the west safety camera unit. [Interruption.]

I would like to make some progress.

A further safety camera site selection process is under way to look at all routes across Scotland, including the A75. Should the locations in question be identified as stretches of road that meet the minimum requirements, further camera deployment will be considered.

I note the time, so I will conclude. Both the Scottish Government and the UK Government agree that investment is needed on the A75 to improve road safety and ensure that the main route between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is fit for purpose. I therefore urge the UK Government to make a firm commitment to funding further investment in the A75, while recognising that the responsibility for the road, and for all parts of the trunk road network, is that of Scottish ministers.

That concludes the debate. I close this meeting of Parliament.

Meeting closed at 18:01.