Elgin Bypass
The final item is a members' business debate on motion S2M-255, in the name of Margaret Ewing, on an Elgin bypass. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that Moray Council should make full representations to the Scottish Executive regarding proposals for an Elgin bypass; notes the economic benefits to Elgin and the north-east of Scotland as a whole that a bypass would bring, and further notes the overwhelming public support for such a project.
I thank the members who have stayed behind for this important debate and all those who signed the motion.
As people will know, Elgin is a beautiful medieval city in which significant chapters of Scottish history have been written. It is also a commercial city, with world-renowned companies—such as Johnstons cashmere mill and Walkers of Aberlour—and, of course, many whisky distilleries in its environs. It is the home of the main office of Diageo and we have two neighbouring Royal Air Force bases, which are of significance to our communities. Elgin is also—this is a tourist-attraction plug—a city of good food, good shops and good recreational facilities. However, although Elgin possesses all those good aspects of food, fine Scottish wine and pleasant fowk, it lacks an essential ingredient: a transport system, fit for the century in which we now live, to connect it to Inverness and Aberdeen, to the north and to the south.
Since I was first elected in 1987 to serve the Moravians, I have had a constant flow of correspondence about the need for Elgin to have a bypass. I suspect that similar requests were made to my predecessor. The residents of East Road and West Road have been particularly vocal, but there has also been widespread support for a bypass from the two local schools and from Dr Gray's hospital, which is an excellent facility. There is no solution to the traffic on those two roads except to have a bypass. The ring road, which has a whole series of complex roundabouts, was designed some 20 years ago and was not planned to cope with the volume and nature of traffic that we now face.
The petition that was placed before the Parliament was launched by the The Northern Scot and Moray & Nairn Express, which regularly wins the Highland newspaper of the year award. We collected 8,000 signatures for the petition within the space of a few weeks. The signatories included the local chamber of commerce, the Road Haulage Association, the Automobile Association and the local bus company. By any assessment, that is a strong volume of opinion but, in addition, we had the support of Moray Council and the local trades council. Ours is very much a community campaign that merits the support of the Parliament; the issue is not a party-political one.
All that we ask the minister for is economic, environmental and social inclusion in transport policy. The A96 from Aberdeen to Inverness is a key arterial route that should be regarded as vital. Bottlenecks in Elgin cannot be ignored, the A96 as a whole cannot be ignored and Moray's contribution to United Kingdom gross domestic product cannot be ignored.
So where do we go from here? Following the presentation of the petition to the Parliament, Moray Council, to its great credit, worked with the Babtie Group to undertake a survey of traffic management options in Elgin. The petition was presented by Pauline Taylor, the editor of The Northern Scot, and Larry Easton, of Moray trades union council. Unfortunately, no one from Moray Council could attend, due to the devastation caused by the severe flooding at that time. The report said that the through-volume of traffic did not justify a bypass, but I hope that no one in the chamber or anywhere else believes that traffic volume should be the sole criterion. As I have indicated, many issues that are important to local residents and to our local facilities and industries must be taken into account.
Today, the minister indicated further expenditure on our transport infrastructure. I have had an opportunity to examine carefully at least part of his announcement, but I saw no indication that the A96 was being regarded as a priority.
The report from the Babtie Group and Moray Council estimated that a northern route would cost approximately £15 million and that a southern route would cost £25 million. The council also provided detailed analyses of the options that are available and the engineering and technical issues that would need to be addressed. Is it too much to ask that a strategic transport policy should include the case for Elgin? We are not expecting an overnight miracle. We all realise that planning issues have to be considered and that appropriate procedures have to be taken into account, but I emphasise sincerely that we want the possibility of an Elgin bypass to be included in the Scottish Executive's planned expenditure programme.
The meetings of the steering group, which is convened by the convener of Moray Council, Mr Aldridge, have been well attended. We have greatly appreciated the interest that list MSPs from across the Highlands have shown in the group. I hope that, having reflected on the strong body of opinion that exists in the area, the minister can give a simple and straightforward commitment to examine the case and to include it in future plans. A basic yes or no would be sufficient. At least then we would know what importance the Executive attaches to this productive area of the Highlands and the north-east.
Another issue is the type of traffic. More and more waste is being transported by road, some along the A96 and some along the A9, which we also want to be upgraded. Such transportation may be temporary, but in the meantime the roads are deteriorating and the fabric of buildings, be they private or public, are being seriously affected. Add to that the inconvenience that is faced by those who commute to and from Elgin—where my local office is—and we begin to see the whole picture.
There has been total silence on the possibility of establishing the Orton loop on the railway line between Keith and Elgin—there was no mention of it in the paper that the minister published today and I suspect that it is well down the Executive's list of priorities. We all want more freight and commuter traffic to switch to rail, but that seems as remote a possibility under this Administration as the dualling of the A96 all the way between Inverness and Aberdeen. As the road linking the oil capital of Europe and the Highland capital, the A96 is an absolute disgrace.
The minister announced today yet another body to oversee transport infrastructure. The proposals appear to have received a fairly lukewarm, even chilly, reception. I say to the minister that the people of Moray and the north and north-east of Scotland do not want yet another bureaucratic layer of administration. They need action.
On 26 April, during the election campaign, the First Minister was reported in The Press and Journal and other papers as vowing to make the north-east a priority. He admitted that voters in Grampian and the Highlands felt detached from the Scottish Parliament and said that he was determined to set things right. Well, this is the First Minister's chance. My message is straightforward: do not apologise to those people, but redress the balance. Do not base the case study solely on through traffic. Think also of the Government's national objectives of economy, safety, environmental impact, accessibility and integration. The slogan that we have adopted is, "Have a heart—give us a bypass". I ask the minister: what is the obstacle to delivery?
As five members wish to speak, we can have four-minute speeches.
I thank Margaret Ewing for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, which is of great importance to the people of Elgin, Moray and beyond. I know from contacts that councillors and officials at Moray Council are adamant about the long-term need for the Elgin bypass, although their immediate concern is to relieve local congestion and to ensure that safety standards are improved. Although safety improvements have been made to the A96, which bisects the town, concerns still remain.
A week last Friday, I drove through Elgin at about 5 pm on my way from the Offshore Europe exhibition in Aberdeen to Inverness and was caught up in a horrendous traffic jam. That was not the first time that I had been caught up in a traffic jam on the A96 in Elgin. About 18 months ago, Peter Peacock and I were stranded in the middle of the traffic on one of the roundabouts on the road. We were there at the request of some Elgin councillors and had our photographs taken for The Northern Scot, which, as Margaret Ewing said, is a good campaigning newspaper—it has done much to highlight Elgin's traffic problems and it organised the petition that was recently submitted to Parliament.
The A96 through Elgin serves both as a local road with access to the town and as a through-road. Indeed, there are eight junctions off it as it passes through the town and, currently, no alternative route is available. I should stress that it is local traffic that predominates and causes congestion; as the Babtie report makes clear, the proportion is a third long-distance through traffic to two thirds local traffic.
As Moray Council has pointed out, Elgin is thriving and expanding and has legitimate aspirations to achieve city status. A bypass either to the north or to the south of the town cannot be ruled out. However, I feel that the projected costs of £15 million to £25 million—depending on the route that is chosen and environmental impacts—will need to be justified by improvements in traffic congestion.
As Nicol Stephen and Lewis Macdonald will testify, I have been writing to the Scottish Executive and lodging parliamentary questions for the past 18 months to elicit even a half-promise that the necessity for a bypass will be kept under review. On 29 August 2003, Nicol Stephen, the Minister for Transport, sent me a letter in which he said that the Executive would be responsive to changing traffic conditions in Elgin and would review the possibility of a bypass in such circumstances.
I cannot imagine that traffic in Elgin will lessen, even though the Executive intends to reduce the number of cars on the road by promoting public transport. Moray has already experienced a higher than average growth in car use and journey length. Moreover, as Margaret Ewing pointed out, plans to reduce the rail journey time from Inverness to Aberdeen look distinctly shaky. Indeed, the cost of the Orton loop at Forres is reported to have risen from £4 million to £28 million and the Strategic Rail Authority's proposal to pull back on track maintenance might lengthen rail journey times and put more cars on the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen.
Meanwhile, the severe congestion needs to be addressed. I urge the Executive to support and contribute to Moray Council's efforts to find short-term to medium-term solutions to Elgin's traffic problems. I certainly ask the minister to repeat the assurance that he gave in his letter that he is committed to working with Moray Council on solutions to current and future traffic problems and to tell us how that work is progressing.
I must first declare an interest—my son works for Babtie Group Ltd in Inverness as a civil engineer. As I will refer to Babtie in my speech, I feel that it is appropriate to mention him, even though he did not have anything to do with the Babtie report.
That is what he told you.
Yes, that is what he told me.
I very much welcome the fact that Margaret Ewing has secured this debate and I join Maureen Macmillan in congratulating The Northern Scot, which is an excellent campaigning newspaper, on its support for the Elgin bypass.
As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I know that the roads infrastructure is crucial to those who live and work in the area as well as to visitors. However, as an Inverness resident, I know that people prefer the much-discussed A9 Inverness to Perth road to the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen route, which is a similar length.
When we leave Inverness, a sign tells drivers that Aberdeen is 110 miles away. One could be forgiven for thinking that someone travelling at a reasonable speed could cover the distance in an hour and a half. However, the outskirts to the west of Aberdeen cannot be reached even in less than two hours and Aberdeen has its own congestion problems. I make that point because the relevant authorities should examine the full route of the A96, as well as the Elgin bypass. Prioritisation of upgrading the whole route could then be timetabled into plans, in contrast to the constant consideration of which area has the best campaign. I say that although I support fully Margaret Ewing's motion and the Elgin bypass.
The motion says that Moray Council should make full representations to the Scottish Executive for an Elgin bypass. I support what Margaret Ewing said about the social, economic and environmental factors that must be taken into account. I go further than the motion and ask for an assurance that the Babtie report's recommendation that Moray Council should adopt a more radical approach to local traffic issues in Elgin will be addressed.
Maureen Macmillan and Margaret Ewing mentioned the workshop that Babtie and Moray Council arranged, which involved many local stakeholder groups. The report on the workshop said:
"A number of stakeholders felt that without complementary improvements to the town's road network, the benefits of a bypass would be short-lived, particularly given the substantial residential and business proposals for the town".
Like Mary Scanlon, I have read Babtie's report from cover to cover. I accept that short-term and medium-term strategies for dealing with congestion can be adopted but, at the end of the day, we must have a bypass. Since the Forres bypass was constructed, the town has benefited substantially, because it is easier to enter Forres, find a parking space and go shopping or do whatever one wants to do. Elgin could benefit in the same way.
I fully support that. I would not like the member to think that I am saying that improvements in the town of Elgin should be in place of a bypass. I am saying that, in considering the bypass, we should not forget that the report recommended a twin-track approach. It said that the town's infrastructure needed to be improved in addition to a bypass in the longer term.
Babtie recommended that the bypass should be pursued as a long-term objective, but it said that that should take place in the context of on-going policies and proposals to improve the efficiency of the road network in Elgin. Others have mentioned the need to carry more freight by rail. I understand that a large railway marshalling yard is located in Elgin and is woefully underused.
I fully support the Elgin bypass, but we should not adopt only a single strategy or allow the bypass to detract from the need to address local traffic problems in Elgin, particularly as the Babtie report estimated that 75 per cent of the traffic that uses the A96 is local traffic. Housing plans for the next 15 years should also be taken into account. I understand that more than 1,500 houses are planned to be built in Elgin. The longer the bypass is put off, the greater the cost to Elgin. I support the motion.
I, too, congratulate Mrs Ewing on securing the debate on a long-standing issue in the Moray Council area. As we have heard, the A96 is the main arterial route between the ever-expanding cities of Inverness and Aberdeen. There is no doubt that the council and the Scottish Executive need to take urgent and immediate action to secure the required funding for the necessary Elgin bypass.
The A96 is considered by professionals to be one of the most difficult and accident-prone trunk roads in Scotland. It is a road on which a high incidence of serious road accidents is regularly recorded. Unfortunately, far too many of those contribute to our fatal road accident statistics.
As other members have said, the benefits of small town and village bypass routes are well recognised. Removing traffic from congested streets protects the built environment and encourages pedestrians to enjoy the new traffic-free areas. Anyone who is acquainted with the Elgin area will have seen the benefits of the construction of the bypass system that serves Forres and Auldearn, which are near neighbours to Elgin on the A96. I could cite many more such examples.
While I am on my feet, I would like to mention a near-related project. I refer, of course, to the newly constructed southern distributor road on the southern perimeter of Inverness.
Of course.
Yes. It was intended to reduce town-centre traffic and create a free-flowing east-west road corridor. Although the bypass was constructed some two years ago, it has not reached its full potential. It terminates at the River Ness and cannot be accessed from the western approach road, the A82. It is a tremendous waste of effort and money to build a marvellous bypass but not to enable people to get on to it from the western approach to the city.
The missing link is the construction of a new crossing of the River Ness and the adjacent Caledonian canal. The link would join the two major trunk roads, the A9 and the A82. The Scottish Executive should be encouraged to support the valiant efforts of Moray Council and Highland Council to secure sufficient funding to complete the two projects at the earliest possible date.
I assume that that bypass road would be an extension of the A96.
I have not heard what the minister has to say yet, so I do not know whether I am in a minority of one.
Twenty years ago, I worked in Elgin when the ring road was built. It was said that it would solve all the traffic problems in the high street. Like all new roads that are built to solve all problems, it did not. It might have appeared to reduce the problem for a few years, but the ring road is now part of the problem.
The problem is not an Elgin problem, but one of traffic on the A96. People in Nairn live on the same road and say that they suffer from the same traffic problems. Realistically, we are not going to be able to bypass every town or village on the A96. What we need is to reduce the traffic on the road. I suggest that any investment that is considered for bypassing places should be invested instead in rail. The rail network is underused and underdeveloped—much more could be made of it.
I know that traffic in the Elgin area has increased because of the refuse lorries that travel from Inverness to Peterhead. I hope that that is a temporary arrangement and that it will not continue for the time that it takes to get a bypass built, if one is ever going to be built.
Traffic reduction is the only way forward. When I worked in Elgin, I worked in the casualty department of the local hospital. I saw a lot of the accidents that came in from the A96, which is a road with a tragic history. Making traffic go faster past towns is not the way to make it a less tragic road. Speed was a factor in all those accidents.
Mary Scanlon said that, because Elgin is expanding outwards, if we wait any longer for the bypass, we will have to build it further out of the town. That is another problem with bypasses—eventually they cease to be bypasses. I know that people in Aberdeen are considering building close to the bypass because that is where the opportunity to develop greenfield sites is. The Elgin bypass could become a busy road through a suburban part of Elgin. We have never solved our traffic problems by building roads and we will not solve this problem by building our way out of it.
We are all aware of the contribution that road transport makes to climate change. Elgin has suffered flooding—of towns in Scotland, it is one that knows the effects of flooding. I suggest that we do not take the easy, obvious way out—the way that has been tried in the past and has failed. We should examine alternatives that will reduce traffic on the road and through the town. We must find alternatives to travel or alternative ways to travel. That is the only sustainable solution for Elgin. The bypass represents, at best, an expensive, short-term solution.
I hear what Eleanor Scott is saying, and I do not disagree with her arguments about protecting the environment. However, I would like to ask whether her party made a manifesto commitment to build the Orton rail loop between Keith and Elgin, which would do a great deal to take freight on to the railway line. Like the A96, the railway line between Aberdeen and Inverness is far from perfect.
I support the need for investment in that rail link and any other investment in the railway that is required. Our manifesto said that we would support a bypass where a community was bisected by an arterial road. Maureen Macmillan said that that is the case in Elgin, but I am not convinced of that and I am not convinced that the proposed solution will stop the problem. It will simply shift it to another part of Elgin. I would rather see the investment go into rail, which is a sustainable way forward to meet the transport needs of the north.
I wish to support the case made by my wife—not for the first time and, I am told, not for the last time either—and I do so first of all by arguing that the principle that major towns and cities on the A96 should be bypassed has already been accepted. There have already been three bypasses, as the minister will know. Huntly, Inverurie and Forres have all been bypassed, and I understand that Fochabers is further down the road—to stick to the same metaphor—in achieving its bypass. The principle that the A96 should be a continuous normal road has been accepted, and it would be good if that principle could include extension to two lanes. That has not been accepted, although I believe that that must be our long-term aim, and the sooner we accept it the better.
The traffic problems are acute. John Farquhar Munro was absolutely right to mention the real risk of driving on the A96, which has been exemplified by fatal accidents in Nairn. Following John Farquhar Munro's precedent, which I note was considered competent by the Presiding Officer, I would like to divert slightly from the Elgin issue and put on record the fact that there is a strong feeling in Nairn that Nairn, too, should be bypassed. There is absolutely no doubt that the A96 bisects Nairn, and the tragic incidents earlier in the year made that matter the talk on the doorstep throughout the election campaign. Although that is not the topic of tonight's debate, I hope that the minister will take that on board.
As Maureen Macmillan rightly said, traffic levels are increasing, and it is not all traffic from Aberdeen. MacKellar Engineering in Grantown-on-Spey is operating as a subcontractor for the oil industry and sending huge vehicles up the A96. There are also waste vehicles going to Peterhead, although I was told just yesterday evening by somebody whose views are usually reliable that the waste now goes down to Perth. Perhaps the minister is better informed about matters of waste than SNP members are.
Of course, resources are an issue. I understand from recent intelligence that there is to be resurfacing of the A9 on the stretch heading down towards the Strathnairn turnoff. I am not convinced that that work is required, and I think that the money spent on it might well be wasted. According to the partnership agreement, the contents of which I presume to be true—it contains a photograph of the minister—we will be spending £1 billion a year. How much of that money is being spent on much-needed road improvements and upgrading and how much is being spent on other things, such as resurfacing, which seem to be of dubious relevance? To what extent is the minister in control of the expenditure in his own department? To what extent has that control been farmed out to private contractors? Will he say whether he was and is aware of the possible waste of the money that will be expended on the A9?
I want to say something about what the Greens have said. I am profoundly depressed that, once again, the Greens appear to reject the case that is supported by my wife's constituents—my wife has represented the area for an extended period. The Greens have a serious problem in the Parliament. They have been totally against road transport for dogmatic ideological reasons and seem to refuse to accept that road transport is the only real alternative in the north of Scotland for people who want to carry on with their daily lives and maintain their livelihoods.
Will the member give way?
In a minute.
The Greens must decide where they stand on the project. They must be for it or against it, or they will sit on the fence. I ask Eleanor Scott where they stand.
Does the member agree that there is a perfectly good and potentially much better rail line that runs parallel with the road and that that rail line could take much of the freight that goes along the road, including rubbish that goes to Peterhead?
I understand that the case for a loop at Orton has been rejected, although the Executive appeared to support it. There was interest back in 2000, at least to the extent that reports were being considered. I say to the minister that I have proof of that interest in a written answer that I have in my hand—perhaps the civil servants could pass it down to him.
Even if rail links exist, they would not be suitable, practical or usable for many people in the north of Scotland simply because they do not live near stations and cannot get to them if they live at a fair distance from them. Rightly or wrongly, roads for use by private car or public transport are a necessity in the north of Scotland. One benefit of having more Greens in the Parliament is that it is easier for us to get the message across that the Greens are not representing or serving the people of the Highlands well in that respect. I am sorry that Eleanor Scott has not supported the case—
Will the member give way?
No—there will be no more interventions. It is time for Mr Ewing to close.
I will be happy to give way in the future.
I am delighted that the other parties have supported the case for the bypass and hope that the minister will accede to the request that it should be scheduled as a project that it has been agreed to do, even if it cannot be carried out as soon as we might like.
I, too, congratulate Margaret Ewing on bringing the motion before Parliament. She has campaigned on the issue for a considerable time and she, Maureen Macmillan and other members have made representations to me.
I have listened carefully to what she and other members said about Elgin. Successive ministers have met Moray Council representatives to discuss the road system and congestion problems in Elgin. Lewis Macdonald visited the town last year to see the situation at first hand and Executive officials have met the council to consider the detailed case for a new bypass road.
I know Elgin well—I was a colleague of Councillor Aldridge on Grampian Regional Council in my role as chair of economic development and planning on that council. I have worked closely with companies such as Johnstons of Elgin and Walkers of Aberlour, which are great companies that I strongly support.
With any proposed project of the kind in question, two main steps must be taken in the early stages. First, the case for the road must be established. Secondly, how the scheme fits within our wider investment priorities must be considered. A number of communities throughout Scotland want bypass roads to be built.
On justifying the case, all the earlier studies that have considered Elgin suggested that a bypass would not solve the congestion problems from which Elgin suffers. It has been mentioned that last year, Moray Council commissioned Babtie Group Ltd to undertake an independent up-to-date assessment of the case for a bypass and to report on how such a bypass would fit within a wider traffic strategy for Elgin. The assessment was undertaken as a part 1 study under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—system.
The consultants reported earlier this year and the study confirmed that much of the congestion in Elgin is caused either by traffic movements that start and finish in Elgin or by journeys that either start or end in Elgin. According to the study, through traffic on the A96 trunk road is not the major contributor to congestion and it also found that a disappointingly small amount of traffic would be diverted from the town centre to use a bypass. That reinforces the earlier work that was done. The report concludes:
"a bypass would not provide any significant benefit to strategic through traffic nor to the inhabitants of Elgin".
Does that mean that the minister is considering only the issue of through traffic and not traffic as a whole? The issue is not solely about the volume of through traffic; it is also about congestion and safety issues in Elgin.
I understand that, but it is important that we recognise that through traffic is a crucial element of the case for any bypass.
As Margaret Ewing knows, Babtie recommended that a bypass should be considered to be a long-term objective within a wider strategy of improvements within the town. I am happy to continue to consider the case for a bypass on that basis. I do not rule it out and we will keep the situation under review. Moray Council has formally accepted the conclusion in that report and has determined to work with the Executive to identify short and medium-term options to improve the situation along the A96 and in the town. We are, of course, happy to do that with the council. We are committed to finding solutions to Elgin's travel problems in both the short and the medium term, but I have not ruled out the long-term solution that the campaign group and Margaret Ewing seek.
The first step—examining the need for a bypass—has been carried out and all the evidence has been assessed; it currently shows that a bypass is not the answer to the immediate problems.
I should point out that we are committed to a wide range of improvement schemes on trunk roads throughout Scotland. One of the major schemes includes the proposed Fochabers to Mosstodloch bypass on the A96; that proposal is currently at public local inquiry. Fergus Ewing has rightly pointed out that there has been investment in bypasses for Huntly, Inverurie and Forres. That does not mean that we will walk away and pretend that there is no problem in Elgin. I can well understand the frustration of people in Elgin whose journeys are delayed by traffic congestion.
I end by reinforcing the commitment that I have given to work closely with Moray Council, who are the best people to identify the improvements that can bring real benefits. We want to see what we can do together to improve traffic flows, reduce frustration for drivers and ensure safer journeys for all road users. We want to see better quality of life, a stronger economy and a safer, cleaner environment for everyone in Elgin.
I am in my final sentence, but I will be happy to take an intervention from both members—if I have the discretion of the Deputy Presiding Officer.
Yes. The debate has been very relaxed. Maureen Macmillan can intervene first because she was on her feet first.
Can the minister tell us exactly what is happening rather than give us warm words? Is anything happening to improve the situation?
My intervention is on similar lines. I have to say that there is quite a nice picture of Nicol Stephen in "Scotland's Transport - Proposals for a new approach to transport in Scotland".
The document states that £1 billion a year will be spent by the end of the current spending period in 2005-06. Within that expenditure, is there a plan to advance the case for an Elgin bypass? The minister has said that stage 1 has been completed through the STAG mechanism. Will a further survey take place as part of that expenditure plan?
It is important to work with Moray Council to bring forward a package of proposals that will help to tackle the congestion problems that exist in Elgin. I am happy to ensure that that work is progressed and that we follow up on the suggestions in the Babtie report. However, we must rely on the best evidence.
In the light of the competing claims of other communities, it would be wrong to do anything other than to follow the STAG appraisal process and to consider the advice that we have received from the independent consultants. I certainly do not rule out the project in the long term, but in the short term, it does not pass the first stage of the test that I mentioned earlier.
My commitment is to ensure that we address Elgin's short-term needs through a package of measures which, given the right spirit of co-operation, can be developed with Moray Council. There is evidence that that spirit exists and I have no doubt that we will take steps in the short to medium term.
Will the member give way?
I do not think so. I am sorry, but I have been as helpful as I can.
I reiterate and underscore my commitment to work closely with Moray Council to improve Elgin's congestion problems. If Margaret Ewing or other members wish to debate Elgin's traffic problems further, I am sure that they will have the opportunity to do so on a similar occasion at a future date.
Meeting closed at 17:46.