Hansard

Thank you very much, convener. I point out that John Urquhart is in the gallery, such is the interest in the petition. Far be it from me to pick up the convener on something that he omitted to say, but I invited committee members to come and have a look at the area in question. Admittedly, in doing so, I said that it was the summer—there are 14 days to go until the summer commences—but I look forward to a response and a wee trip up the side of Loch Lomond for the committee. Whichever route is preferred—whether it is the low road, as Transport Scotland suggests, or the high road, as the petitioners’ suggests—the issue is whether a STAG appraisal has been carried out. We are talking about a significant amount of investment, and such an appraisal “is required whenever Scottish Government funding, support or approval ... needed to change the transport system” is being considered. Through the STAG process, there should be wider consideration of the transport project, such as the benefits that would be accrued to people living in or visiting the national park. Consideration of place, not just project, is required. What local people want must be considered, and—dare I say it?—the project has significance because it is in Scotland’s first national park. I will take the points in turn. In its submission, Transport Scotland agrees that a full STAG appraisal has not taken place. Instead, it says that its approach was underpinned by STAG and DMRB principles. With the greatest respect to Transport Scotland, that is not the same. It is taking the principles and applying them but not doing a full STAG appraisal. It considers that that is “consistent with STAG appraisal requirements”, but that is a bit like Transport Scotland marking its own homework. The petitioners have raised questions about the costings of tunnels and exaggeration of costs. Cycle paths have also been included where there was no need for them and the costs of disruption have been underestimated. That all serves to distort the conclusions that Transport Scotland has reached. A STAG appraisal would allow those issues to be corrected but, much more important, it would consider place issues as well. For one thing, it would consider the impact on the economy and the lives of people who live in Tarbert and Ardlui. It would also consider the impact on the national park, which we should treasure and conserve. I will turn briefly to the national park authority’s response to the committee. Perhaps it is the fault of our process, but it almost seemed to be responding as a statutory consultee. However, the matter is much wider than planning, so it is not about the authority’s response as a statutory consultee. It is fair to say that the national park authority does not like either option. It does not like the option presented by Transport Scotland, which would involve big swathes of road going out over Loch Lomond, which would be catastrophic, and it is clear that the authority also has concerns about the high road proposal. However, I submit that a STAG appraisal would help to work through that, unlike the short-cut approach that Transport Scotland has taken. The matter is too important not to get right. I recognise that it is critical to hauliers from the Highlands and further afield who need to use the road, but they would equally want to get it right so that they get a decent route and we conserve our environmental heritage at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.