Chamber and committees

Rather than using the word “next”, I would say that things are happening at the same time. I do not think that we are waiting for the process for the bypasses—which we have just talked about—to happen before we make other improvements.

Other things can be done. Electronic vehicle activated signage can help in relation to speed management around Crocketford; we are looking, too, at short-term measures at the Haugh of Urr junction to modify roadway lines there. We know that junctions can quite often be problematic areas, so improvements at junctions and improvements of the layout signage, such as road studding can help the situation, and you do not have to wait until there is a bypass to make them, so that is the work that we are doing.

Police Scotland provides information on where the accident hotspots are, and it is currently determining whether average speed cameras should be deployed. There is also a point about the prioritisation of the regular work. The work that I mentioned is improvement work. You have care and maintenance work, improvement work and then what we might call project work. I would put the bypasses in project work. That is not next; it is at the same time.

Matt Halliday and Donald McHarrie were in the meeting that I had in Girvan. Checking off that work with them is important. However, sometimes, simple things can also make improvements. If there are road works—and there are, because we are making improvements—we need to ensure that the signage is appropriate so that people can still get direct access and do not go through long diversions when local access is okay but throughput is not. We also need to consider the timings of ferries before work happens. Often, work will happen overnight for safety reasons, but we need to ensure that it does not start until after the traffic is off the last ferry.

That is not necessarily a level of detail that I, as cabinet secretary, should get involved in, but we need to prioritise communication and ensure that the detail has been addressed locally to improve the situation, because those small things can make a difference to driver frustration, and we know that driver frustration is frequently what causes accidents and casualties, with, for example, distracted drivers overtaking at inappropriate places.

You touched on an important point about how everything is connected and about resilience. Remember that the majority of our ports and harbours are privately run and owned. The operators are private commercial operators, so sharing information can be sensitive. That is why having the south-west alliance of ferry companies is helpful.

There are issues of mutual self-interest on ferries. We are keen to identify the economic mutual self-interest and what can be done to make improvements. Expanding has been talked about, but we also have to be protective to ensure that we maintain the traffic that we have. We must try to accommodate that and to identify possible improvements to road, rail and other aspects.

That is exactly the conversation that I have with other ministers in the UK. I talked to Ken Skates, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, about the consequences of Holyhead’s temporary closure. The Welsh Government has asked for one of my officials to be part of its task force on resilience. I also want to take the opportunity of the British-Irish Council transport ministers meeting to advance the strategic importance of freight through our main arteries and our ports and harbours.

It has a big impact. We can plan as well as we can, but we also have to try to manage the budget across a whole range of projects while not necessarily knowing how long they will take. For example, there might or might not be a public inquiry delaying us from our original intention, but that is part and parcel of the process.

I am glad that you have mentioned Woodside. When I went to see it, the engineering aspect of it was explained to me; my colleagues could probably give you more of an explanation, but the erosion of the steelwork within the pillars is really problematic. People do not see it, because obviously the pillars are propping up the M8 as it goes through the city centre, but it is an issue that clearly had to be addressed. I ensured that local councillors and MSPs were invited to see the work to understand what was happening.

People do get frustrated at the lane reductions and so on, but it is all about safety and ensuring that the weight is reduced while the work gets done. An important issue, as those of you who are familiar with Glasgow will know, is the subway that runs underneath and, potentially, mines, too. It is a serious piece of work that needs done, and we therefore have to stage and manage it—and to do so within a budget, which is very problematic.

Things can happen in different areas, as is clearly the case with the A83, for example, in relation to landslips. Thank goodness we put in the catch pits there. You saw the major closure that we previously had, and work was done to address issues arising from the warm, wet weather there. We have to react as well as maintain, and we have to improve, too. That is the balancing act that we have to perform with all our budgets—we have to try and spread them over time.

I might ask one of my officials to help me out with that, but I am very familiar with Silverburn and know that there is traffic at certain times. However, I think that that is more to do with commuting—it is not necessarily about hauliers in particular, as you have mentioned. It is about road and traffic management more generally, and trying to manage those things. It is quite an extensive piece of road. In fact, I remember when the work was done through Pollok park; you might remember, too, although I am not sure—you might be too young.

The petition asks specifically for a timetable to be declared before Easter. As long ago as last summer, I was openly and publicly making it clear that a timetable could be determined only once we had completed all stages of the process. The final stage is the acquisition of land and we cannot progress until we have made that acquisition, which will take place from 21 April. That is a definitive point, after which we can move to the next stage.

I have been quite clear and open that the timetable will be determined by the type of procurement that we progress. The ideal would be the use of capital, which gives us more control of the timescales.

I have been open about another aspect, which is the issue of whether we do all the work in one package, aligning it with the work on the Inshes to Smithton section, which we are also looking at, or whether we progress the bypass on its own. It was quite clear that there is a real need to get the bypass work done early.

I do not know where the Easter date came from: the first that I heard of that date was from Mr Ewing himself. I do not know whether Mr Ewing has been involved in determining the content of the petition, but that Easter date has come from somewhere else.

We have been very clear about that. Indeed, my predecessor Màiri McAllan made a statement announcing that we would actively consider the mutual investment model, particularly in relation to the A9. We are currently discussing that model through a market consultation, which started on 24 February.

There are obviously value-for-money issues. We understand that the project will be revenue costly, and I have relayed the constraints on our capital budget, but there is an opportunity to find a balance. I have ensured that the market consultation that is taking place for the A96 project from Inverness to Nairn includes the potential for that model, although I am not saying for definite that it will be used.

My officials are working actively with exchequer colleagues on the A9, and the mutual investment model is actively being pursued as the mechanism for that project. I am working very closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on that—it is live and active. That is for just two of the sections of the A9. We are actively looking at that. Of course, private investment and different models have been involved in road projects previously, including those for the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the M8.

I will ask Nicola Blaney to respond in a second. I reassure the member that I have had more general meetings with the national park authority. I am impressed by what it is trying to do on active travel, and I understand its interests. Clearly, it has a statutory planning role, so I can understand where it sits in the process.

By and large, people want road improvements to happen, as opposed to not wanting them to happen. People will want the A82 to be improved, but it is a question of which improvement. I understand and appreciate the sensitivity on the matter; people feel very strongly about it.

I dealt with the question of whether a STAG appraisal has been carried out, which is what the petition is about, in my answer to Maurice Golden. That has been assessed by Audit Scotland and confirmed. That does not mean that there will not be continuing interest in the road, which will probably continue into the next session of Parliament. I appreciate the strength of feeling on the part of the petitioners. However, I think that, from a technical point of view, the petition has probably been dealt with.

On the specific point about costs, I do not know what your sources are for that—

I am here to answer on the petitions specifically, which is why, in relation to all the roads that we have discussed, I have tried to focus my remarks on the petition that is in front of us.

On the determination of the timetable, I assure the member that the potential to use the mutual investment model for the A96 from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, is being consulted on as part of the engagement with industry. That started on 24 February. At the conclusion of that engagement, we will be able to identify the proposal.

Of course I want to make, and would be open to making, a statement on the A96 Inverness to Nairn bypass before the end of this parliamentary session. However, I want to be able to provide as much information as possible, so therefore it is related to—

There is the matter of action versus bureaucracy. There is that tension for everybody in producing reports—we can get criticised for producing too many reports.

We do regular asset management, and there are two issues in that regard. First, members and constituents are probably more interested in the additional improvements and enhancements, but a lot of what we do involves running the basic system and ensuring care and maintenance. Despite the pressures on capital budgets, I have worked hard to improve the maintenance budget. Why is that important? It is important for safety. You are right about the roads being assets. People take them for granted until something happens, and then there is obviously concern.

Secondly, climate change is here. There are real issues about the stability of land and in ensuring that we maintain all our assets—that applies to rail as well as to roads. Across Transport Scotland, I am taking forward analysis of climate change impacts.

We are developing work on roads in vulnerable locations—we had done some work on that previously, but we are paying it more attention now. For example, on 21 March, I visited Carlock wall and Carlock hill, on the A77. The hill was subject to landslips. People thought that they could put up wires and catch pits a bit like what has been done on the A83. However, following ground investigation, they realised that they would have to drill in and have nailing for more security. We have to be aware of the increasing need to take care of our major assets.

On bringing all that together, I see an asset assessment annually. I might bring in Lawrence Shackman on that. I regularly see material that tells me the state of the assets. However, because people are interested, there is an issue around what we make more public in relation to enhancements, improvements, additional dualling and so on. You are, I think, asking whether we bring all that together. That might be a big effort, but we could probably signal where everything is if people wanted to find it.

So, it was agreed quite some time back, and there are problems with the alternatives that people have suggested. That is a challenge for the committee, because you are looking at something that has a long history—you have probably been involved in the A83 longer than I have been Cabinet Secretary for Transport.

I would be concerned if anybody, in holding out for an option that was investigated, consulted on and rejected some time ago, wants to hold up the current provision. In such a case, I would really worry for the people of Argyll. This is essential work that has to be done to make sure that there is a sustainable future for the economy and for the communities of Argyll. I can understand and appreciate where that suggestion came from at the time, but we have moved on from that now.