Mr. Ken Spratt:

I must highlight we have internal processes to compare and contrast all projects that come to us to ensure we maximise value for money, whether it be a public transport project, a greenway, an active travel project or a road. We take account of the programme for Government, the national planning framework and the money we have under the national development plan. We also have to examine our investment priorities. We have priorities around protection and renewal with respect to the movement of people and goods in urban areas, which is the type of project the Deputy mentioned, the movement of people in regional and rural areas and regional access. Once we examine the priorities, which involves comparing and contrasting the projects, we examine the mode we would use, for example, could we provide access through active travel, via public transport, or is it the case we need to build a road for private car use only. We then examine the investment hierarchies, in other words, should we maintain what we have and improve and optimise the road we have - by that I mean having more intelligent transport services and demand management – or should we build a new road.

I apologise for being so long-winded on this but it is important for the committee to understand when we are being pressed on why projects are not being delivered we have to examine them all and compare and contrast them equally before decisions are made. The fact that we do not have a firm proposal on this means we have not put through that transport investment strategic view. Obviously, we are prepared to consider any proposals for investment in transport infrastructure and put them through the wringer to make sure they represent value for money.

If it went through all that and was something that made sense, was good value for money and ticked all those boxes in terms of the priorities, we would support it.