Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right.

Actually, I do not think that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is my report to the committee.

Again, that is a historical issue. At the time when different options were put forward and major consultations took place, some people insisted that they wanted a different route to the one that was finally decided on, and, to varying degrees, some still argue that, but there were problems with all the various options. We are now quite far on in the final design stage of the option that, I think, was agreed in June 2023—is that correct?

I will ask Lawrence Shackman to respond, if that is okay.