Hansard

I add my thanks to Mary Scanlon for lodging the motion and giving members a fourth opportunity since 2002 to engage in a debate about a bypass for Elgin. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I have at my elbow Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, who lives in Elgin and is the local member. Members can be sure that although protocols prevent his direct participation in the debate, his regular attendance at the Elgin bypass steering group and his engagement on the issue show that he shares their concerns.

It is opportune to debate this subject in the year in which I look forward to receiving the results of the strategic transport projects review, which, as all members must know by now, will shape our transport investment plans for 2012 to 2022. The review will produce a plan that is not determined by geographical fairness but which addresses the needs of different parts of Scotland. Each part of Scotland has needs and future investment will be needs-driven, which is the correct way to proceed.

As other members have mentioned, I recently visited Moray, where I benefited from a presentation by Moray Council on the traffic problems affecting Elgin. I had the opportunity to meet and have discussions with the Elgin bypass action group. In a private capacity, I am a regular visitor to Elgin, as I live within a short distance of the city.

On the subject of Nairn, members can be confident that the local member, Fergus Ewing, is in regular contact with me and that I am entirely aware of the issues there.

The local member with Inveramsay bridge in his constituency occasionally draws to my attention the need to address that issue. I am well aware of the issues that affect people right along the A96 corridor and of the need to respond to them.

No transport minister could be ignorant of the local aspirations to solve the problems in Elgin town centre. Such steadfast, cross-party campaigning over a significant period deserves a response. I acknowledge Peter Peacock's extremely well made point that it is not simply about the bypass. The council needs to work with any upgrading in the trunk road network to ensure that local roads make their contribution. I engaged with the council on that important point during my visit. I know that a study by Moray Council in 2003 concluded that a bypass for strategic traffic would not be the appropriate short-term solution for Elgin because much of the traffic was local. Mr Peacock developed that point. However, events have moved forward. Moray Council commissioned consulting engineers to develop a transport model for Elgin that would inform a fresh STAG appraisal. That new STAG report identified three potential route options but, unfortunately, shows that all three routes offer relatively poor value. I have just been made aware that the cost benefit outcomes are in the range of 0.50 to 0.53, which would mean that we would not get our money back for the investment.

I understand that Moray Council has taken the position that the bypass options should be allocated to the council's medium-term delivery programme, as they are not the whole answer. Nonetheless, and despite the disappointing benefit cost ratios for the options in the council's report, my officials in Transport Scotland have been in touch with Moray Council to request a copy of the new STAG report so that we can consider it alongside other information and evidence that will help us to identify the future investment priorities for the A96 corridor. One of the things that encouraged me when I spoke to the council and campaigners was that there is considerable interest in developers who want to develop in Elgin contributing. That gives us some insight into the ways in which we can close the gap that there appears to be in the current STAG appraisal.