Petition
Railway Infrastructure and Services (Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)
Item 2 is a request to consider petition PE894, on the provision of rail services between Inverness, Thurso and Wick. Papers on the petition, including copies of maps, were circulated to members. I invite comment on the petition.
I have been involved in this issue for quite a while and I want to set it in a wee bit of context. We are discussing tier 3 developments that include speeding up the journey time between Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness during the period that the Government's plans cover. Those developments are obviously important because reducing the journey time by 45 minutes between Perth and Inverness would be excellent, especially as that would reduce the journey time to Edinburgh. That would bring the north of Scotland closer to the central belt and would mean that people could travel the route daily on business or whatever and generally use the trains more frequently, as the plans propose.
However, the plans have neglected the fact that the whole of Scotland has transport problems. For example, I note from certain submissions that people in south-west Scotland aspire to reopening the line between Stranraer and Dumfries. In addition, there is a misunderstanding about the importance to the Highlands of the economy of the far north, which is served by the line from Inverness to Thurso. That is why I thought that it would be a good idea to provide members with copies of a couple of maps.
The petition, which comes from community councils in Caithness, seeks to speed up the rail journey between Inverness and Thurso. I understand that the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership thinks that half an hour can be whipped off the time for the road journey between Caithness and Inverness. However, I find it difficult to understand that position. There are good safety reasons concerning speeds on that road that would make the HITRANS aim difficult to achieve, whereas investment on a greater scale in rail might reduce the journey time between Caithness and Inverness by considerably more than the reduction of three quarters of an hour that could be achieved by just crossing the Dornoch Firth.
We have had the same problem since the 1980s, when British Rail drew up a scheme for such a crossing. The plans, which I have seen, included loads of level crossings, which would now be unacceptable; the economic circumstances have changed, too, since then. Without making too long a speech about it, I think that the reason why we should consider the subject of the petition—in a queue of developments—lies in the potential in the north of Scotland, which is mirrored in other areas.
Corus Rail Consultancy, which sorted out how Waverley station will work and worked on the scheme that will make the Borders rail line work—by having an express service from Edinburgh to the Borders and a stopping train thereafter—has been working privately on schemes for the Dornoch rail link action group in the far north. The action group works closely with the community councils in Caithness.
HITRANS and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have not entered the debate without a lot of baggage, which is such that HITRANS even thinks that no improvements in the north, apart from minor signalling improvements, would make any difference to the economy or be justifiable. We need to consider its response with caution.
It is worrying that, although Scott Wilson was asked in its report for HIE, which formed part of HIE's thinking, to consider the Dornoch link, it did not even take into account the idea of opening a station in Dornoch. It is incredible for a major report to ignore such a fundamental matter. Shortening the route would open up one of the golf capitals of the north. Another idea is running express trains from Inverness to Dornoch that would then stop on the way north.
The economics are that the benefit would be seen as marginal and it would be hard for the cost benefit ratio to reach 1 in some circumstances. On the map that I have provided, the first red dot at the bottom, below Alness, represents planning permission that has been granted for a loop that leads to a major deepwater pier. The Cromarty Firth Port Authority has plans for another loop about 7 miles north of Invergordon, towards Nigg.
Thurso leads to Scrabster and Wick. There is a strong case for using the railway for freight transport to and from harbours in Caithness—particularly Scrabster. One reason for that is the potential for huge renewables developments that is starting to stack up in the Pentland Firth. Another reason is that one fifth of Britain's proven oil reserves are north-west of Shetland and the nearest mainland base to service them is Scrabster—not Peterhead or Aberdeen. The oil companies are seriously considering that.
On top of that is the passenger argument, which is that about 50,000 people live north of the Dornoch Firth, if we include Orkney, but at the behest of the Duke of Sutherland, the railway line went round to serve Lairg, so that he could have more line in his estate for trainspotting. Of course, Lairg must be served. A commuter service—the Invernet—now runs successfully between Lairg, Inverness and Kingussie.
Will people be prepared to travel by train in the future? Can we use the north railway to help business to develop? Should we consider that seriously as part of the queue for railway operations, in which we have a considerable interest?
I have given the reasons for raising the proposal. The red dots that I have put on the map that I have provided indicate only some of the ports that could use the railway for freight. Another issue is getting supermarket traffic off the roads, to reduce wear and tear on them. As such traffic is increasing, it ought to go by rail. That is a problem faced in common with many other parts of Scotland.
In that context, I suggest that the petition offers a chance to consider the matter afresh and to bring new evidence to bear. In the next few months, the equivalent of stage 1 of an appraisal under the Scottish transport appraisal guidance will be conducted privately and paid for by local people to try to make the case for the north of Scotland's railway system. Fundamentally, the counter-argument has been that a rail bridge across the Dornoch Firth would be far too expensive, because the whole signalling system would have to be changed. However, if a loop were created at Evanton, just south of Alness, the rickety and ancient radio electronic token block system, which is about 30 years old, would have to be changed. Such facilities must be changed in a modern railway system.
I know far too much detail about the subject, on which I am sure that I could bore for Scotland. People argued for crossrail services, which are important, and for the Bathgate to Airdrie line and the like, which affected areas with quite big populations. The train journey that we are discussing is the longest and slowest in Britain and it does not serve a large number of potential customers. We would have to find out whether they would travel by rail in future and whether people wanted to go there. In this era of climate change, we should seriously consider the proposal.
I strongly support the points that Rob Gibson has made. If we could go back in time, it would have been ideal if we could have ensured that the bridge included a rail element when it was being constructed—that links closely to last week's arguments about the new Forth crossing—but we cannot go back in time to do that.
In my view, the Dornoch rail link and bridge have almost iconic status in the north of Scotland and are important for several reasons. The main reason—on this I agree with Stewart Stevenson—is that we need faster rail links north. I have already spoken on previous occasions on the importance of faster links to Inverness, but I would reinforce those arguments by saying that three things need to happen: first, we need improved signalling; secondly, we need a double track; and, thirdly, we need electrification. Those three things would all improve speed, which is vital. As Rob Gibson said, the situation gets worse north of Inverness.
Arguably, one reason why we need to speed up journey times is to secure the future of Dounreay. As members will be aware, Dounreay currently employs 1,800 people directly, with hundreds of other workers on top of that, but the decommissioning programme will result in major changes in employment. At a recent conference that I attended with Rob Gibson, speakers from all parties and none argued that we need a transport infrastructure upgrade. We need such an upgrade to support indigenous employment opportunities and to attract employers from outwith Scotland—and, indeed, from outwith Europe—into the area. Employers need good rail links, good road links and improved air services. I believe that providing an improved rail link will encourage employment in the area. I do not want to see another Invergordon smelter involving thousands of people being thrown on to the dole. We need improved infrastructure and investing in the rail link is one vital way of providing that.
I know that HITRANS takes a slightly different view, in that it believes that the money could be spent in a different and better way. I have a lot of respect for HITRANS, but I do not fully agree with it on that point.
I believe that it is important that we keep the dialogue on the petition going. I welcome the recommendation that we should ask the clerks to produce a further options paper for a future meeting. I support Rob Gibson. Let us keep the issue alive. I fully support the petition, but I would welcome other members' views.
I support the recommendation that we should ask the clerks to produce a further options paper to consider what else we can do and whether the petition can be included in our work programme. It would be a shame to lose the issue, as it is obviously very important.
Obviously, as members will be well aware, the committee needs to perform a bit of a balancing act on specific local projects. However, even if we disagree with a decision that has been made at a local level, we can consider whether the decision ought to be made at the national level rather than at the local level.
Does Rob Gibson have any views on the recommendations on what we should do with the petition? I acknowledge the strength of feeling about the local issues, but does he have a view on the recommendations that have been suggested?
As far as I am concerned, it is important that people familiarise themselves with what is another one of those problems that have been intractable for too long. I am happy to accept the recommendation that we should ask the clerks to produce a further position paper on the issue. That would allow us to take a view on this as part of a queue. It should not jump the queue, but it should certainly be in the queue.
For people in Caithness who see the potential of their area, it is annoying that the proposal is dismissed as unimportant because there are said to be more important things to spend money on. Should a higher priority be given to a ring road around Inverness, where there are more people, or can a proposal that would provide the economy with huge amounts of potential be given serious consideration?
I hope that, once we have received a paper from the clerks, we can find a way to slot this issue in at some point when we are discussing the Government's major transport proposals.
I support what Rob Gibson said and I believe that the issue merits more work. Perhaps we can widen out the issue by considering it not just as a local issue but as a serious issue to do with how we tackle peripherality. We should look at the wider issues that the petition raises. In addition, we might consider the role of transport projects in facilitating economic development in remote areas. If we could widen out the issue from being a little local project so as to explore some of those other areas, we might be able to look at it further.
I support what Alison McInnes said. When I read the papers, I thought that the real problem was that HITRANS was treating the issue as a transport issue whereas I think that it is an economic development issue. There is a key role for us in taking a fresh look at it. The far north-east of Scotland has suffered economic deprivation and population drift for centuries. It is now showing a reversal of that trend. It is important that we make decisions that are based on economic development trends. That is why we might take a slightly different view from some of the agencies that have considered the issue already.
The proposal in the paper is that we write to the Government to get its response to recent studies such as the "Room for Growth" strategy and the regional transport strategy. Do members think that we would be better able to sketch out our options once we get that information?
Yes, but we should also seek information from the private but respectable consultants.
What is the timescale for that?
It will be before Christmas. Corus has produced an initial report, but it is working on the equivalent of stage 1 of a STAG appraisal.
I hope that if we agree to write to the cabinet secretary or minister we will get their response within the same timescale. Are members content that we proceed in that way and reconsider the matter when we receive a reply?
Members indicated agreement.