Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The project has short, medium and long-term aspects. The option that will be proceeded with has been chosen and we are now embarking on its initial design, which is going through the processes that are set out in the design manual that we talked about earlier.

Some of the short-term improvements relate to the catchment area. Funnily enough, we were in Inveraray at an A83 task force meeting—I think that Jackie Baillie was one of the MSPs who dialled into that meeting—that took place just before Storm Babet, so we were hearing directly from Amey about what was going to happen with the rainfall that was expected, and, a couple of days later, we saw the consequences. There have been some landslides in areas beyond the areas that were initially identified, so, in the short term, there has been investment in those areas.

Significant work has been done on the medium-term aspects, which involves strengthening the old military road and improving bends on it. Quite a lot has been invested in the old military road to help with the current diversions and in relation to what will be required for the final design as part of the long-term project, which involves the covering that will ensure the long-term sustainable future of the A83.

In terms of capital budgets, the committee will be aware that we do not keep pots of money aside and say, “That’s marked for the A83 and is only to be opened at such a time as it will be invested.” We are only starting with the initial aspects of the DMRB. We have just issued the draft orders—perhaps my colleagues can remind me when that took place.

Clearly, this proposal has completed certain of the phases. There are still issues as to whether, in the next phase, there will be any objections or, indeed, a public inquiry. There are strong feelings about the proposal, but there are strong feelings about most roads in most places. The issue probably relates to the landscaping and the loch’s natural environment.

As part of the process, environmental and economic issues have to be addressed not only at the strategic outline business case stage, but at all five stages. One of the key things to relay is that, although the petitioners do not like the route that has been chosen, consideration is being given to the feasibility and attractiveness of combining with adjacent schemes to make sure that the tree line and other environmental aspects are considered. There is still time left in the process to address that point.

There is an important point to be up front and candid about, which is that, because of the interaction between the A82 and the A83—in particular, the A82 being used when there are problems with the A83—we do not think that it would be appropriate to do work on the A83 and the A82 at the same time. Because of the safety issues and the road’s importance to the economy and the people of Argyll in particular, we would prioritise the A83 over the A82. It is probably important to put that on the record.

The member shows his spirit of positivity in making that constructive suggestion. He makes an important point. Of course, he will know that there is a distinction, as Germany is an independent country that controls everything, including what moneys it can raise. Why is that important? That is important because the recent fluctuations in our capital budget have caused issues—I am very open about that. It also causes issues for long-term planning. It is essential to have long-term infrastructure investment, whether that be in road or rail, because that helps to drive projects and gives certainty to investors. I know from the rail side of things that a regular pipeline of investment is important.

I think that you are suggesting that approach for the future. We could not do that immediately, because we still do not know what issues will arise from the UK Government’s capital spending review. We are expecting that to report in the summer, and it will inform our infrastructure investment plan.

The infrastructure investment plan will provide a view. I think that is currently due in the autumn, but, again, the timing will depend on what the UK Government says and on its timings with regard to capital investment. That will have a multiyear timeframe.

You mentioned having a 30-year timeframe. I would want to do that if I had the full levers to raise capital, and an understanding of where I could get capital and of what I could do on borrowing—all the different aspects that you have less control over in a devolved Parliament. In principle, that is exactly what you should be doing on infrastructure and investment.