Official Report 1166KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15207, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, on rural roads infrastructure. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that driving is an essential part of daily life for those living in rural communities; believes that those communities deserve the infrastructure to allow connectivity that is safe and enables access to vital services; notes the view that tackling potholes will increase road safety and connectivity, and thereby improve the quality of roads across Scotland; further notes the belief that, to achieve such connectivity within the North East Scotland region, the Scottish Government must honour the longstanding commitment made in 2007 to dual the A90 north of Ellon, in order to make safe the reported accident hotspots such as the Cortes and Toll of Birness junctions, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to commit to a timescale for when these works will be completed.
17:59
I thank members for supporting my motion, which has allowed the debate to take place.
Across Scotland, people in rural communities are dependent on their cars, which are not a luxury but an everyday necessity. Constituents use their cars for every aspect of life—for work, education and shopping, or simply to meet friends and family. For many, the only realistic and reliable option is to drive. They want to do their bit and they work hard to ensure that they use their cars responsibly; they embrace reducing emissions and, wherever possible, they use public transport.
Often, however, there is no alternative. Train lines serve our major cities and towns with little reach to more rural communities and villages. Buses are underfunded and often unreliable, and it is, therefore, difficult to use them regularly. That is despite local councils in north-east Scotland giving generous subsidies and supporting those local communities to remain connected. In Aberdeenshire, we have innovative dial-a-bus services that are key to local communities. Bus companies and local authorities are doing their level best to ensure that local communities remain connected to their towns and villages, but with budgets being squeezed, we all know how difficult those decisions become.
Members who represent rural communities will know all too well the challenges that our constituents face with regard to roads infrastructure, including potholes that make roads near impassable, bridges that are crumbling and roads that are often simply dangerous. Again, that is all down to the underfunding of local government by the Scottish National Party devolved Government.
We all know that the number 1 issue on the doorstep is potholes on our roads. Once again, we are entering pothole season: the weather gets colder and roads start deteriorating again as a result of years of underinvestment and neglect. However, lack of investment not only leads to potholes—it is causing serious accidents and fatalities on our roads. It is tragic that another fatality has occurred, just a matter of days ago, once again, on the A96. I take this opportunity to send my condolences to the family. Such deaths are heartbreaking and we should be doing so much more to prevent those accidents from happening.
Such news is far too common for communities across the country, which have faced far too many fatal or serious accidents on the roads that they rely on. Those communities have been sorely let down by the Government. We cannot just keep talking about it. Next week is national road safety week—we need action, and we need a Government that will take the issue seriously.
We are rapidly approaching two decades since the SNP first made promises to deliver much-needed improvements to some of Scotland’s most dangerous roads. Almost two decades on, however, those promises remain undelivered. The SNP promised that it would dual the A96—it has not. It promised to dual the A90 north of Ellon—it has not. It promised to dual the A9—it has not. I know that my colleagues who represent the south of Scotland will mention other key arterial routes that have been neglected over those 20 years.
There is a long list of broken promises by the SNP Government, with failure after failure. After years of delay, those desperately needed projects have been kicked further into the long grass by the SNP’s decision to allow extremists from the Green Party to seize control of roads infrastructure. The Greens, with their daft ideology, have punished rural Scots for the unforgivable transgression of driving their cars, and the SNP has allowed the Greens to do so.
The A96 dualling project is a prime example of that. The SNP allowed the Greens into Government, and the price that it paid was the betrayal of the north-east and the ditching of the A96 project. The much-delayed corridor review was a way for the SNP to kick the project into the long grass to appease its extremist partners, and we still have no idea when the review report will be released. The SNP’s war on motorists is, in effect, a war on our rural communities, and the Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for our local communities.
Recently, Harriet Cross MP, Councillor Gillian Owen and the why stop at Ellon? campaign have highlighted the economic impact of those delays. By putting off the upgrades at the Toll of Birness, the Scottish Government is directly threatening the future prosperity of the region. We have an investment zone in the north-east, and the Scottish cluster Acorn carbon capture project is based in the region, but the transport infrastructure is being neglected.
Back in 2006, the then leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, vowed that, if he became First Minister in 2007, the first decision that he would make would be to dual the road between Ellon and Peterhead. That has still not happened. I would like to see the road dualled, but in the meantime I repeat my call on the Scottish Government to take action at the Toll of Birness and Cortes junctions to make them safer and to save lives.
Towns and villages across the north-east, and in every rural area of Scotland, are working hard to improve their communities, build economic growth, be more environmentally aware and attract investment. At every turn, however, they feel that barriers are being put up in their way.
We know that the Green Party was absolutely happy to hinder the Government’s ability to deliver infrastructure upgrades for communities across Scotland, with Patrick Harvie gleefully boasting of how he would cease funding for road-building projects. The Greens are happy to cut crucial funding for upgrades that would not only help to grow the economies of our rural communities and open up new opportunities, but stop rural depopulation in so many areas.
It is clear that these roads are simply not a priority for the Scottish Government. Rural Scotland is not important to the Government. Since 2016, the Government has slashed spending on major road projects, but those projects should not be seen as incompatible with our net zero goals. As Fergus Ewing said in the chamber, we should be anti-emissions, not anti-cars.
Most important—and we must never lose sight of this—is that those improvements would save lives. From north to south and east to west, thousands and thousands of Scots rely on our roads. They need a Government that shares their priorities—a Government that does not focus on ideological agendas, but delivers for the needs of the people who live and work in Scotland.
Our communities across rural Scotland need good roads to ensure their safety, wellbeing and economic growth. The central belt-focused Government needs to open its eyes to what is happening in rural Scotland, and start delivering for all our communities. While the Government is focused on priorities of independence and digging health ministers out of holes, the Scottish Conservatives are offering commonsense policies to the people of Scotland. It is only the Scottish Conservatives who understand the needs of our rural communities.
18:06
I thank the member for bringing the debate to the chamber, as I have four major north-to-south roads in my rural constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale: the A68, the A7, the A701 and the A702. If I may, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will confine myself to speaking about those roads. As members can imagine, over my many years in Parliament, I have become very familiar with them, as I am with lesser highways and byways, too.
I say to Douglas Lumsden that there is no war on the rural Borders and Midlothian—it was the Scottish Government that built the Borders railway, but I digress.
First, I will deal with the ubiquitous potholes. My experience of those is probably more frequent as the roads that I have mentioned approach Edinburgh, although there is a particularly bad stretch on the Auchendinny road that avoids Penicuik, which is a bit of a rat run. Potholes are not only down to the use of private vehicles; they are undoubtedly caused by heavy commercial vehicles. Those vehicles knock the stuffing out of our narrow rural roads, and not simply the surface, but often more so the road edges, because those roads came about to serve horses and carts and were not built for loaded articulated lorries.
I have spoken before about vehicle excise duty, which was once called road tax, but which has long since simply gone into the United Kingdom tax pot. In the budget of 1909, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the roads system would be self-financing, and so from 1910, the proceeds from road vehicle excise duties were dedicated to funding the building and maintenance of the roads system. Even during that period, however, the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation, owing to the tax take being too low for the upkeep of the roads.
Hypothecation came to an end in 1937, and the proceeds of the vehicle road taxes were subsequently paid directly into the Exchequer. The road fund itself, which was then funded by Government grants, was not abolished until 1955. The fund has long since gone, but my question is, should it be resurrected?
A recent RAC survey of potholes across the UK estimated that there are at least 1 million potholes UK-wide, yet in 2022-23, the UK Government collected £7.3 billion in vehicle excise duty. As I said, that money is simply swallowed up by the Treasury.
Would it not be fairer if Scotland, and indeed England, collected its own road tax and then used it appropriately by ring fencing it? Some of the money could provide Scotland with £700 million per annum, not simply to plug potholes but to assist in maintaining and modernising the network. That is just a thought.
With regard to road improvements, I appreciate that there are pressures on budgets at both governmental and council level, but what would certainly help on rural roads in my constituency, especially on dark mornings and evenings, would be better road markings. We need central reflectors and white lines not just down the centre of the roads but at the edges, because some of the roads in my constituency outwith the towns and villages can be a very tough drive on a dark night, especially when it is raining.
I am also pleased that staggered speed limits have been introduced, for example when entering and leaving Stow. Extending the 20mph limit, before raising the limit to 40mph to a place called Galabank, and then to 60mph, has helped a great deal with safety on the roads. That has now been extended to Eddleston. I am now campaigning to have the same approach on the A702, which would be to extend the 40mph limit northwards from Dolphinton, at least to what is known as the Garvald junction, because that is a particularly fast and dangerous stretch.
I note the dreadful statistics on road deaths, but roads are not the real culprit. Just because the speed limit is 60mph, it does not mean that you do that speed while going around sharp bends when, in any event, you might come across some of the many cyclists on the Borders roads. There are other issues with city drivers, who may be unaware of the specific challenges of such roads, such as stray farm animals, wildlife and slow-moving farm vehicles, for starters.
Those are just some of my observations on the problems and challenges of rural roads, but I would like us to look again at whether at least some of the vehicle excise duty could be apportioned to Scotland’s roads, and indeed to England’s roads.
18:11
I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on bringing the debate to the chamber, particularly because, on the day that the Scottish Conservatives have highlighted the attack on farms and rural life by both the Scottish and UK Governments, he has highlighted the SNP’s long-term failure to address rural infrastructure, especially—but by no means exclusively—in the north-east. What is most galling is that, while the accidents pile up and families suffer, and while the north-east economy is under such huge pressure, nothing of any substance gets done, but the solutions are there.
The other day, a constituent said to me that she travels regularly between Fraserburgh and Aberdeen—in darkness during the winter months, of course. She reports, as many have reported—and as I know from driving the route myself—that, in darkness, it is difficult to see the road markings at the Toll of Birness. She says that street lighting is needed just to illuminate the filter lane on to the A952.
She reports that, as anyone in the north-east knows, the same issue applies at the treacherous Cortes junction, which Douglas Lumsden mentioned. However, the obvious solution has not been implemented, despite being cost effective and quick to implement, and despite the fact that it would solve at least one problem straight away.
As for the promise—nearly two decades old—to dual the roads, I sat down last week with representatives of Gray & Adams, which is one of Fraserburgh’s biggest and most important businesses. It transports up to 30 newly manufactured semi-trailers every week from its factory in the Broch. That involves driving south on the A952, taking a right turn on to the A90 at the Toll of Birness and then travelling on to their customers.
In addition, every week, about 70 heavy goods vehicles, many of which are articulated lorries, head the other way, whether it be for accident repair or refurbishing, or to deliver materials to the factory, and then, of course, they return again. In total, Gray & Adams-related HGVs, which can have a combination length of 18m or more, use the Toll of Birness junction about 170 times every week. In other words, these people know what they are talking about. The representatives told me that if the—
Will the member give way?
Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?
If the intervention is brief, yes.
It will be.
Does the member share my view that we should look at some of the vehicle excise duty going towards the upkeep of roads? Given that lorries and commercial vehicles pay more, perhaps they would not feel so bad about it if that money was being apportioned to the roads network.
I listened to Christine Grahame’s comments earlier, and it is certainly worth reflecting on that point. We would have to look at the consequences of her proposal and at whether it would result in less money, but I recognise that it is worth reflecting on.
What I am trying to say is that the people at Gray & Adams know what they are doing. They told me that, if the SNP shows no signs of dualling the roads, as it promised to do two decades ago, it could surely at least consider some passing lanes on the A952, to avoid frustration and risky manoeuvres, or at the Toll of Birness, where HGV drivers take their lives in their hands when exiting the junction on to the A90 from the A952.
Those from Gray & Adams note that concerns have been raised that a roundabout might not solve the issue, as it would slow the flow of traffic and still present risks, given the number of HGVs, buses and agricultural tractors at that point. They highlight that a number of knowledgeable voices have proposed a single-carriageway flyover from the A952 on to the southbound A90, with an additional slip road for traffic turning north off the A952 going north. I hear that that solution could address the safety concerns about that junction, allow for free-flowing traffic in all directions and require a fraction of the cost and, I presume, the planning that other suggestions would involve.
The key point is that the people who know the road, and know the dangers of turning in an HGV, have the solutions, which they are happy to share with anyone who will listen. They will be as disappointed as I am that not one SNP MSP who represents the north-east has bothered to come to the chamber tonight to listen to the debate. It is a disgrace. The solutions that those MSPs would have heard about are cheaper, easier and quicker.
A few years ago, when I was learning about the dangerous Candy junction, I sat in the cab of a Douglas F Mitchell haulage HGV to experience the terror of a right turn on the A90. The experience has never left me. That is why representatives from Gray & Adams have offered the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, and any other member from the chamber or from the council—or, indeed, anyone who can help and needs to understand—the opportunity to join them. They propose to collect in Ellon, take the A90 to Peterhead, go round the Broch and go down to Ellon via the A952 and through Mintlaw, with a right turn at the Toll of Birness. I know that anyone who sees what it is really like to drive those roads in an HGV will definitely take notice and start actively seeking to change things—
Mr Kerr, I have been generous.
—instead of kicking the issue into the long grass. That is why I have said that I will join the Gray & Adams driver in the cab. Perhaps, when closing the debate, the cabinet secretary will let us know whether she is brave enough to join me.
18:16
I thank Douglas Lumsden for lodging his motion and for the opportunity to highlight the chronic neglect of our rural roads infrastructure. Like all members, I find that my inbox is regularly full of angry motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who are frustrated at the plague of potholes on our roads and crumbling pavements.
The cause is clear: there has been a double whammy of cuts to our councils. First, there has been a cumulative cut of more than £6 billion from the Scottish Government to local government since 2013-14. The proportion of the Scottish Government budget going to local government has fallen from 34 per cent in 2013-14 to 28 per cent in 2022-23. The Scottish Government has made proportionately deeper reductions in local budgets than in any central Government budget.
Secondly, because so many areas of local budgets are ring fenced by central Government, when it comes to making cuts, investment infrastructure often takes a bigger hit because it is not ring fenced.
We can see the consequences. Data that was obtained by Scottish Labour reveals that the roads repair backlog bill across Scotland is an eye-watering £2.6 billion—
Will Colin Smyth give way?
I will give way on that point.
I very much appreciate the member giving way, and I echo his concerns about council funding. However, does he recognise that, under the previous Labour-SNP Dumfries and Galloway Council administration, there were cuts to road improvements? Does he welcome the £30 million that the current Scottish Conservative-led council is putting into the roads, which is resulting in tangible improvements?
That budget of £30 million extra was supported by every group on the council. However, with regard to Dumfries and Galloway Council, we have had Conservative administrations for an awful lot longer than we have had Labour, or other party, administrations. The consequence of that is a staggering £250 million in the backlog for repairs in Dumfries and Galloway alone. That is not a legacy of which Finlay Carson should be particularly proud.
In Conservative-run Scottish Borders Council, the roads repair bill is about £123 million, which is a leap from £97 million the previous year. In South Ayrshire, the backlog bill has also risen, to nearly £51 million—again, that is a Conservative-led administration. That is not a legacy that we should be celebrating.
However, it is not just on local roads that rural communities see the consequences of cuts. Often, important trunk roads that cut across rural areas—no matter how strategically important they are—have suffered from chronic underinvestment, which makes them dangerous, hampers economic progress and actually slows efforts to improve the environment.
For example, we can take the A75 and the A77, which are key routes to the ferry terminal at Cairnryan—the fifth busiest port in the UK. It is the hub from which businesses not just in South Scotland, but in central Scotland and northern England, trade into Northern Ireland and then south into the European Union.
The need to upgrade the A75 and the A77 is, at its heart, about saving lives, but it is about improving them, too. Bypassing the towns and villages through which the roads currently run would cut congestion and emissions, from Springholm and Crocketford to Girvan and Kirkoswald.
However, two years after the much-delayed second strategic transport projects review was published, there is still no delivery plan from the Scottish Government, even for the very modest and inadequate improvements that are proposed to both roads, and there is not a single penny of the investment that was promised for upgrading, either.
The only investment that has been proposed in relation to the A75 is the £5 million that was announced in the recent UK Government budget to complete a feasibility study into possible upgrades. I hope that, in her closing comments, the cabinet secretary will say when that study will be carried out.
I also urge the cabinet secretary, when she meets members of the A77 action group later this month, to listen to their call for a task force to bring together local stakeholders, Transport Scotland and Amey Highways to explore what more can be done to better manage road closures on both roads when maintenance is being carried out.
Everyone understands that some closures are needed for road safety reasons. However, when the closure is in a rural location, the diversion is often lengthy and drives traffic on to small rural roads, which are simply not built for HGVs, causing damage and disruption to communities.
Above all else, I hope that the cabinet secretary will set out when we will see a clear delivery and investment plan for those two key rural roads, which will save lives, grow our economy and improve the environment in the towns and villages across the south-west.
18:21
I congratulate my colleague Douglas Lumsden on bringing this debate on the importance of rural roads infrastructure to the chamber.
It feels a bit like déjà vu, because I seem to have spoken on the topic ever since I came into the Parliament, nearly nine years ago. The reality is that we have a crisis in our rural communities. We have migration from rural communities to urban ones, which is an issue that the Scottish Government does not really want to talk about. The Scottish Government’s continual abandonment of rural constituents no longer leaves areas such as the south-west simply as a forgotten part of Scotland; given the many times that the issue has been raised by my colleagues and I in the chamber, the south-west and other rural communities are now the ignored part of Scotland.
As my colleagues and I have said many times, over the past decade, the amount of money that has been spent on south-west rural infrastructure has been a mere 0.4 per cent of the total transport budget. If we want businesses to come into rural areas, they need to be able to get their goods in and out.
As Colin Smyth mentioned, one of the busiest ports in Britain, at Cairnryan, is serviced by the A77 and the A75, which have been promised an upgrade for many years. First, when he opened the port at Cairnryan, Alex Salmond said that one of the things that he would do urgently was upgrade those roads. In 2011, Alex Neil said that it was a disgrace that the previous Labour Government had not upgraded the roads. Subsequent transport ministers, including Humza Yousaf, Jenny Gilruth and Michael Matheson, came down to the south-west and listened. In fact, I remember that, when Michael Matheson came down, he was late to the meeting because there had been an accident on the A77 and there was a delay—I think that Mr Carson will remember that, too.
Like my colleague Liam Kerr, I have taken the opportunity to get into one of those 44-tonne lorries and drive down the A77—rather, I have been driven down it; it would have been scary had I been driving—and it was quite frightening. It is hard enough to go down those roads in a car. When we have £1.2 billion-worth of goods going through the port of Cairnryan in those 44-tonne vehicles, that is a significant amount of traffic.
That situation is replicated across all of Scotland’s rural communities. Without new businesses, services, schools, education and community facilities, migration out of our rural communities is hurried along. Why would the next generation stay in rural communities when there are fewer and fewer jobs available and fewer and fewer services and activities to participate in?
Supporting our rural communities means enabling them to attract people to jobs in their area. To get goods in and out, we need good-quality roads—and, to be fair, an upgrade to our rail services. We are waiting for STPR2, which has been kicking around for seven years or so now. Even though it gets diluted every time that it comes out, we still do not have a plan to deliver on STPR2. We have a rail link down to Stranraer, which, if there was a spur-off into Cairnryan, could take some goods off the roads. That would have a positive impact on the A77, but, although that is in STPR2, nothing has been said about it.
The Scottish Government does not seem to understand rural issues. If it did, it would not keep making and breaking transport infrastructure promises. It is time to recognise the issues that our rural communities face and the solutions that are required. Once again, I thank Douglas Lumsden for giving me the opportunity to speak about the issue in the chamber.
18:25
Like all the other colleagues, I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on securing the debate. As Mr Lumsden’s motion states,
“driving is an essential part of daily life for those living in rural communities”.
The motion continues by saying that the Parliament
“believes that those communities deserve the infrastructure to allow connectivity that is safe and enables access to vital services”.
I absolutely agree with that. I care about rural communities. It might not be a surprise to colleagues that I will focus my contribution on rural road infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland. As many have said previously, we have raised debates on the matter, we have raised questions for the Government and we have talked about the need for improvements to the main arterial routes, the A75 and A77. We have also raised the fact that both routes are crucial arterial routes for the south-west, and we are hearing that again this evening. Fundamentally, it is time to see much needed upgrades on both those main roads and, of course, on the other roads that serve our south-west area—the A711 through the A714 and the A701 and A709.
Safety has been a key concern for me since coming to this place in 2016. I recognise that road safety week is next week, from 17 November to 23 November. There have been too many fatalities, too many families affected and too many loved ones lost. I thank the A75 and A77 action groups, whose continued campaigning efforts cannot be underplayed.
There is consensus from the Scottish and UK Governments that both the A77 and the A75 must be improved. We have commitments from both Governments, but now the focus must be on transforming those commitments into action as quickly as possible.
I put on record my support for the A77 and A75 campaigns, but surely, given the number of years that we have been waiting for improvements, you must share that frustration at the Scottish Government not stepping up to the mark and delivering.
Always speak through the chair.
I thank Finlay Carson for that intervention. I am on my feet here the night—does that not demonstrate that I am concerned about what my constituents in my whole region are thinking about? I understand that there are a lot of frustrations out there.
There is a focus on support and the need to look at what we can do to make improvements. There is a focus right now with the South West Scotland Transport Alliance, which had a summit in Stranraer on 29 January. A fortnight ago, I was in Stranraer at a meeting about the issues on the A77 and A75. At the summit, the South Scotland elected members, as well as representatives from Stena Line, P&O Ferries, the national health service, Dumfries and Galloway Council and business, all agreed on the absolute need for road upgrades.
The Scottish Government published the second strategic transport projects review—STPR2—in 2022. The document states that the A77 and A75 will benefit from improving junctions, enhancing overtaking opportunities and creating climbing lanes at appropriate locations where slow-moving traffic leads to risky overtaking manoeuvres. The Government is also committing to widening and realigning carriageways to alleviate pinchpoints. Those recommendations, once enacted, will bring about real and meaningful change for constituents.
There is a challenge, though, with the funding. The Scottish Government continues to operate within a tight economic situation without the ability to commit to huge infrastructure spending, which means that it is necessary for the UK Government to come forward with funding to ensure that the upgrades that are needed for the roads take place. I know that the cabinet secretary has been working well with the UK Government, and that is welcome. I also welcome the fact that Labour has affirmed that the £8 million commitment to look at feasibility for bypassing Springholm and Crocketford will proceed.
I will finish there. I repeat my ask of the minister that the economic importance of the A75 and the A77 must be acknowledged because of how they support the central belt, given that, as Colin Smyth has said, Cairnryan is the fifth-busiest port for access to Ireland and the rest of Europe.
I am conscious of time, so I will conclude at that.
18:30
I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on securing the debate on what is a very important issue, and I echo his comments, and those of Liam Kerr, on the A96. I am sure that my regional colleague Douglas Ross will pick up on that, too.
I am frustrated that no member of the Green Party is here, given how often they go in the papers to slate road development across Scotland. Nothing makes my blood boil more than picking up a national paper to find an inner-city member of the Green Party telling me that I am not allowed the dualling of the A96 in the north-east. Before I move on to the Rest and Be Thankful, I remind members that, if they lived up in Moray, in the north-east, and saw the amount of near misses on that road every day, they would become aware of why that road has to be dualled. People might hear about the deaths, as tragic as they are, but we experience problems on that road every day.
I turn my attention to the A83. I was delighted to meet John Gurr and the rest of the Rest and Be Thankful campaign group last week, to hear direct the views of residents and businesses. To be honest, that group is, sadly, at its wits’ end.
That has not been helped by a series of revelations, due to parliamentary questions that I have asked: £16 million has been paid to consultancy firms; £2.3 million has been paid to the landowner of the old military diversion route; and almost £5 million has been spent on replacing netting along the rest of that road. All the while, a spade has yet to go in the ground on either the medium or long-term solutions, yet that road is absolutely critical for the Argyll and Bute region. Residents and businesses could live with those costs if work was happening to upgrade the road, but more time has been spent in talking about the route than in ensuring that it meets the needs of residents and businesses.
I cannot stress enough the impact of the closure of that road. One haulage company told me that it is into the millions of pounds, at a time when the whole region wants to expand—particularly, for example, in the Scotch whisky industry. I realise that the A83 task force meetings give some information, but the community remains worried. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of that, but that worry remains. A clear timeline is needed so that communities know when that work will begin. There is a commitment, but we need a timeline.
Not just large infrastructure projects are impacted by a lack of action; smaller routes are, too. I was in the Western Isles a couple of weeks ago, and I visited the blackhouse village near Carloway—a historic site that is growing in popularity with tourists. Its small, single-track road struggles to cope with the tourism buses in the peak season, and needs to be widened. After years of cuts to local government budgets, Western Isles Council has said that it simply cannot afford the repairs. The local community has managed to get little passing places put in for parents who walk down the road with their buggies. However, that is not good enough.
The Scottish Government has passed the buck to the council on that, which has resulted in effect in a stalemate. Local residents, as well as those who manage the blackhouses, are deeply worried that there may be an accident at some point, especially if the volume of traffic continues to increase.
Given that rural depopulation is on the rise, I ask the cabinet secretary to look at different ways in which the Scottish Government can help with upgrades on locally managed roads that are required for local tourism and economic benefit.
The roads that I have referred to, as well as those that have been discussed by others across the regions in Scotland, vary in size, use and location, but all of them have a profound impact on the communities around them. I do not suggest that we can build out all those roads overnight, but communities need to know that the Scottish Government is committed to the works on those roads and has produced definite timelines of when they will be delivered.
18:34
I, too, congratulate Douglas Lumsden on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech, in which he looked at both trunk roads and smaller rural roads. I will do the same.
First, I will look at my home area of Moray. Moray Council is responsible for approximately 1,000 miles of roads throughout the county. The budget for that is always under pressure—as council budgets are, after years of cuts from the SNP Scottish Government. That means that, when issues are raised, sometimes we do not have the funding to make changes immediately to improve the safety on some of those roads. Ahead of the budget later this year, we have to consider the allocation of funding to councils to make improvements to roads with potholes, as we heard earlier, and to improve safety. A number of serious accidents occurred on the A941 between Lossie and Elgin this year alone, with fatalities—tragically, young lives were lost on that road earlier this year.
Another issue that has not been spoken about much tonight, but which affects all our communities, is speeding on many of those roads. Every time I go to my surgery in Roseisle, I raise issues with the police, the council and others, as I have constituents who end up with cars literally in their garden because of the speed at which traffic goes through the town. There has been an increase in the number of speeding vehicles going through Thomshill, too, which is very close to where I stay. We need action from the local authority and the police to try to deal with the problem.
I want to focus on the A96. I raised the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport recently, as it continues to be at the top of the agenda politically, with businesses and individual constituents in Moray, the Highlands and the north-east.
On Monday, the Inverness Courier launched a petition, which I signed—and I urge constituents to do the same—that asks the Scottish Government to set out
“a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and the construction of a bypass for Nairn”
by the end of this year. I hope that, in summing up, the minister will outline how she plans to respond to that petition, which has already gathered hundreds of supporters, and which I expect to gather more. The petition asks for a “clear timeline” by the end of this year, so that we can know for sure when that part of the A96 will be dualled and the bypass for Nairn constructed. That is crucial.
I know that Fergus Ewing is not here, but he states in his support—I hope that he does not mind me saying this on his behalf—that it is absolutely vital that the petition is understood and accepted by the Scottish Government, so that it does not try to kick the project into the long grass
“for another year and a half until the next Holyrood election.”
Fergus Ewing is absolutely right on that point, and I would be grateful to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to the Inverness Courier petition.
I want to look at the rest of the A96, because, also on Monday, another tragedy happened on the A96. A 27-year-old woman lost her life in a collision with a lorry between Brodie and Forres, and my sympathies go to her, her family and her friends. It is yet another fatality on that road. When speaking about the A96, the cabinet secretary—I have heard the First Minister do it as well—always speaks about the road from Inverness to Nairn. That is important, but the A96 goes far further: it goes through Moray—we have never had that bypass for Elgin or Keith—and then through Aberdeenshire, all the way to Aberdeen.
We need a commitment from the Scottish Government to finally do what it promised and what it asked people to vote for, which is to fully dual the A96 in its entirety from Aberdeen to Inverness. I hope that fatalities on that road, such as the one that happened on Monday, become a thing of the past, because too many lives have been lost already.
18:38
I thank my colleague Douglas Lumsden for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I will take a bit of a risk. I have a four-minute speech prepared, but I will go completely off piste, because when it comes to knowing a subject inside out in the Parliament, I know that of the A75 like the back of my hand.
I declare an interest in that I have been living next to that road for nearly every day of my 57 years of life—I know that most members will be surprised that I am as old as that. I declare an interest, because three of my family members have been killed on the A75 over the years. Indeed, my great auntie was the first person to be killed by a motor car in Scotland. She was killed literally a yard from my front door, when she was only six, by a car driven by the local doctor; that was more than 100 years ago.
The A75 is an everyday part of life, not just for me, as the member for Galloway and West Dumfries, but for nearly every single person who lives and works in the south of Scotland or Dumfries and Galloway. There is no way of avoiding it, for getting to work or school, as it is the main artery that runs through the region.
However, the A75 is important not just for the people who live in Dumfries and Galloway. The A77 and A75 carry a whopping £67 million-worth of goods every single day—close to £9 billion annually—with 400,000 freight vehicles travelling along the 95-mile route between Gretna and the ports at Cairnryan.
We heard from Brian Whittle about the repeated commitments from the SNP Government, with Alex Salmond talking about the three Rs of rail, roads and regeneration—none of those has been delivered in Dumfries and Galloway. We have seen no rail or road improvements in that time. More recently, to back up Aileen McLeod’s failed election campaign in 2016, the then Deputy First Minister—now the First Minister—pledged to improve journey times on the A75. That is one of many pledges that have been put to one side.
Emma Harper, Colin Smyth, Brian Whittle and I repeatedly stand here and ask for improvements. For years, we were promised that news on upgrades would be delivered through the strategic transport projects review 2, but that was much delayed. Although the A75 is mentioned, it is the only project in the STPR2 that does not have a timeline attached to it. It still does not have a timeline or a budget attached to it. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can tell us whether a timetable to start work on the A75 has been established.
Under the previous UK Conservative Government, the Sir Peter Hendy review highlighted the importance of the A75. Eventually, the SNP Government put its constitutional grievance to one side and sat around the table, because it appreciated the importance of the route. Sadly, the £8 million that was committed by the Tory Government has been reduced to £5 million. However, that should be enough money to do the feasibility study, and it puts a bit of pressure on the Scottish Government, which is responsible for investing the money that has been promised decade after decade for improvements on the road.
The people of Crocketford and Springholm are tired of the talk and hearing the commitments while they are still seeing HGVs pass within feet of their door. Recently, we have had, I think, nine complete road closures due to accidents, and there have also been complete road closures due to upgrades, because the carriageway is not wide enough to safely carry out maintenance. That is quite incredible, given that closures result, in many cases, in a 96-mile diversion on roads that are certainly not fit for those HGVs.
Safety is of paramount importance, and I would like to have seen a bit of movement on the use of average-speed cameras, rather than relying on speed vans that sit in predictable places on the road and that do not come out at night. As soon as the police activity has disappeared for the day, speeding continues right through the night.
I am delighted that the First Minister has accepted my invitation to come to the south-west to witness at first hand the problems, particularly in Crocketford and Springholm, and to meet concerned parties. Perhaps, if the investment had taken place earlier, we might not be inheriting the major safety and reliability issues that we have on the road today, which are putting strains on rural life.
18:43
I thank Douglas Lumsden for securing the debate. I will focus my remarks on the A90, as set out in his motion, although I acknowledge that the debate has provided an opportunity for members to talk about different rural roads, including both trunk and local authority roads.
I start by expressing my sincere sympathies to the families of anyone who has been killed or injured on our roads. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have been involved in recent incidents, including the collision that fatally injured a pedestrian on 8 October on the A952 local authority road, close to the A90 at the Toll of Birness. Up to 7 September 2024, there had been three serious accidents at the junction in the previous five years.
Road safety remains of paramount importance to the Government. That is reflected in our ambition to have zero deaths or serious injuries on our roads by 2050, with an interim target to halve the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on the road by 2030.
I have listened closely to the discussion today, and I fully appreciate members’ desire to see further action on improvements, specifically to the A90. The evidence-based transport appraisal that supported the first strategic transport projects review in 2008 and the second review in 2022 did not recommend the dualling of the A90 north of Ellon. Furthermore, I am not apprised of any commitment made in 2007 by this Government, nor are my officials. The SNP manifesto for the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections did not contain a commitment to dual the A90 north of Ellon.
This Government recognises that investment in our responsibility for trunk roads is crucial for rural connectivity and accessing essential services. That is why funding is prioritised, in line with the sustainable investment hierarchy, for maintaining and safely operating our trunk roads and motorways.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will move on, if you do not mind, Presiding Officer.
That is clearly reflected in recommendations 30, 31 and 32 on our strategic infrastructure priorities in STRP2.
Our firm focus is on ensuring that our road network remains safe and resilient, and is adapted to address the evolving changes of climate change. I remain committed to improving road safety across Scotland and delivering the ambitious casualty reduction targets that are set out in “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”. That commitment is demonstrated through the SNP Government’s record investment in road safety in 2024-25 and the substantial uplift of 30 per cent in spending on trunk road maintenance this year, which contradicts the Conservatives’ misplaced assertions.
The cabinet secretary mentioned reports coming in. One of the things that we are waiting for is the A96 corridor review. Will that corridor review be published this year?
Yes, it will.
This year, we have committed £14 million to supporting local road safety, with more than £2 million being invested in local authorities in the north-east of Scotland. My officials and I are in regular discussion with a range of operational partners. Just two weeks ago, I chaired the national road safety strategic partnership board and, tomorrow, a meeting of the local partnership forum for the north will take place. As a nation, we need to address driver behaviour, as a number of members have mentioned, which is consistently of concern in the context of collisions.
I am aware of, and have heard members speak about, their concerns regarding the Toll of Birness and Cortes junctions. I note that, in 2017, when Aberdeenshire Council consulted Transport Scotland on a planning application that would impact the Toll of Birness junction, it recommended that the junction be upgraded in order to mitigate the impact of future developments in Mintlaw. Aberdeenshire Council agreed with that recommendation and imposed an infrastructure capacity of 200 houses across the allocated sites in Mintlaw. The mechanism for delivering the necessary upgrade is a matter for the council and the developers. In that regard, they have entered into a planning agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the works. Neither the Government’s infrastructure investment nor the road safety review process supersedes the need for the council and developers to mitigate the housing and development impacts on the trunk road network.
In relation to the Cortes junction, Transport Scotland continues to assess the safety performance of the link between Rathen and Cortes junction, and is planning a further study on potential vehicle conflicts, to better understand any operational issues. We expect that by the end of the year.
The Government appreciates the importance of ensuring that our roads are operationally safe and effective. Clearly, that involves addressing any defects in a timely manner. I remind members of the fiscal challenges that we currently face as a result of the previous Conservative Government. The Liz Truss-Kwasi Kwarteng budget decimated the budgeting of the UK Government and the Scottish Government and took a huge amount of capital out of investment. Despite that on-going legacy and problem, we are investing record amounts in essential road maintenance schemes, our bridge strengthening programme and increasing the resilience of the network to the effects of climate change.
Since 2007, more than £297 million has been invested in the maintenance of the A90 to ensure its safe and efficient operation. In the 2023-24 financial year, more than £27.8 million was invested in the maintenance of the route.
Investment in trunk roads in the north-east is not limited to maintaining the existing network or road safety improvements. It was the SNP Government that completed the opening of a new £49.5 million dual carriageway link road at Haudagain in the north-east in May 2022. That is in addition to the £745 million investment that the SNP Government has made in delivering the 58km of the A90 Aberdeen western peripheral route, which includes the 12km section of dual carriageway between Balmedie and Tipperty to the north of Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland. We should not forget the £10.2 million spent on removing the pinch point at Inveramsay bridge.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to strive for all road deaths and serious injuries to be greatly reduced. I urge all members to assist in supporting the road safety campaigns to challenge driver behaviour and promote road safety. I understand that Douglas Lumsden has been invited—and has, I hope, accepted the invitation—to take part in the MSP road safety event here in the Parliament.
We will invest in the A90 and in all of Scotland’s trunk roads. We have a firm plan for what to invest in and how, which is set out in STPR2, but our ambitions for investment are continually tempered by pressure on our budgets. I assure members that we are committed to investing in our rural trunk roads as part of Scotland’s trunk road network, which connects communities and families, and—as many members have identified—supports our economy.
Meeting closed at 18:51.Previous
Decision Time