A9 (Improvements)
I ask for a halt to conversations, as debate is about to start on S1M-349, in the name of Mr Jamie Stone, on A9 improvements. The debate will be concluded, without the question being put, after 30 minutes. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their buttons as soon as possible, so that we can decide on the order of speakers.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to bring forward as a matter of urgency the much needed improvements to the A9 north of Helmsdale.
Like everyone in Caithness and Sutherland, I am absolutely delighted that this motion was chosen to be debated today. I see Dr Ewing shaking her head.
She was nodding.
I said nodding, did I not? [MEMBERS: "You said shaking."] Did I? Oh well—strike that from the record.
I will outline briefly the problems that we face, which will be familiar to all Highlands MSPs present, not least Mr Peacock and Dr Ewing.
Caithness suffers from depopulation and has done for a considerable time. As a former member of Highland Council, I saw statistics regularly that showed the number of people who were leaving the county. Young people, in particular, are leaving Caithness. I have a graph that shows the fall in the county's population from some 41,000 in the mid-19th century to 25,000 to 26,000 now. If the trend continues, Caithness is likely to lose 12 per cent of its population over the next 25 years.
As everyone who has visited Caithness knows, it is not dissimilar to an island. It is bounded on both the Sutherland and the south Sutherland side by hills. There is only one realistic road route into the county—the A9, to which the motion refers. Anyone who chooses to turn inland at Helmsdale and to travel up the Kildonan to Strath Halladale road can be in serious trouble if they meet oncoming traffic.
There is an air service to Wick, but the flights do not always suit. It is significant that during the eight months that I have been an MSP I have not taken the plane once, because the flights do not fit with my schedule. The problem is brought to our attention repeatedly by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Ackergill Tower and other businesses in Caithness.
The rail journey from Wick or Thurso to Inverness takes more than four hours. While I praise ScotRail and Railtrack for the work that they are doing on the service, it does not compete well with the road.
We have only one lifeline to the county. The bends north of Helmsdale as far as Latheron present a serious problem. I am sure that some members will recall the event years ago on those bends when a travelling salesman selling knickers and tights—I see Mr Peacock nod, not shake, his head—was caught in a snowdrift and survived only by putting on all the tights and knickers. He, alas, passed away a couple of years ago, but the problem is still with us.
In fighting against the depopulation of the area and the drifting away of young people, it is important that we try to boost the economy of Caithness. The east side of the county has special problems. Thurso has the facility at Dounreay, a battery factory and so on, but in the Wick area as far down as Lybster and Latheron, unemployment is worryingly high. A surprising number of people commute from the east side of the county to jobs offshore. However, there might be a downturn in offshore jobs—I refer partly to the BARMAC troubles.
The road presents a problem when we try to attract investors to the county. The Scrabster harbour trust has plans to improve the harbour. Scrabster is moving rapidly up the league table of fish landings, as those who know about fish will be aware, but the problem of the A9 stands in the way of the planned improvements.
The strategic roads review was based largely on traffic numbers. Rhoda Grant, Maureen Macmillan and I met Sarah Boyack, along with Councillors John Rosie and Alastair MacDonald, the chairman and vice-chairman of the Caithness area committee. John Rosie put the case eloquently that the problem in Caithness is one of social inclusion and that if the Executive is to achieve its goals, the problem of the A9 must be solved. It is important to remember that the problem transcends straightforward statistical analysis.
The area has enormous potential for tourism. It is like a landward Orkney. We could find out far more than we know about the area's archaeology simply by shoving a spade into the turf. We have the wildlife and the scenery to make Caithness an attractive destination, but the drive up north is not made much fun by the Helmsdale bends, especially if there are a couple of kids in the back seat asking, "When are we going to get there?" I have heard stories about bus-loads of children being taken down to Inverness—by the time that the Helmsdale bends have been passed, the bus
is ankle-deep in sick.
The cost of repairs is worth considering. The figure that was attached to the upgrading of the road was £11.4 million, but the figure might not be quite so much. A contractor in the Brora area believes that it could be done for less and that the cost could be spread over a number of years.
We are realistic in Caithness and will take all that we can get, even if it is not all that we want. Fergus Ewing was successful in the Mallaig road debate and I hope to be similarly successful today.
The point about the cost is important. It would be churlish of me not to thank Sarah Boyack, via the minister, for our meeting. I believe that the civil servants listened to us, and I know that Sarah Boyack took our points on board. She has kindly undertaken to visit the county of Caithness in the near future, to see the problem for herself.
I referred to the fact that the A9 is our only feasible lifeline. I referred to the possible costs of improvement and—principally and most importantly—to the enormous problems that we face, such as unemployment and the declining population. I put it to members that the Scottish Parliament is surely about trying to tackle the ills of all parts of Scotland. If the minister could deliver, or encourage his colleagues to deliver, on the Caithness A9 front, we would be tackling a particularly severe problem.
Several members want to speak this evening. I apologise in advance, as it is unlikely that I shall be able to call everyone. I ask members to keep their speeches to less than four minutes.
I thank Jamie Stone for initiating the debate. When that snowstorm happened on the Ord of Caithness and that salesman survived, a man from Dingwall died in his car in the drifts.
Jamie talked about economic and social regeneration, which go hand in hand. Social regeneration in the north should be highlighted, as there is a danger that, in debates on rural areas, many areas get lumped together. Several separate issues should be considered when we debate the future of the A9. It is not just a road: it is a point of access for businesses, and should provide a gateway for tourism to Caithness and Sutherland. Sadly, it often provides a barrier. It is also an important route for farmers. Many people rely on the road for their living and the future of their businesses. There is a knock-on effect on the people of Caithness and Sutherland, as employment and social issues are inextricably linked.
Caithness has lost 6.6 per cent of its population in the past 25 years; that trend will continue if several issues are not addressed. There is considerable fear that, if the trend continues, communities will begin to die out, which would mean the loss of special communities with their own identities and cultures. The culture of the north of Scotland is different from the culture of the Highlands in general; the people there would want me to point that out.
The key issue is remoteness. Although the area is part of the mainland, it is more like an island, as Jamie said. People in Caithness and Sutherland are socially excluded from business, sport, culture and leisure, and from important support services. Addressing the issue of remoteness is the key to ending social exclusion; I cannot emphasise that point too strongly.
Greater investment from business would have the knock-on effect of creating employment. We need an adequate range of facilities but we will not get that with a low tax base. We need to increase the range of facilities that are available to local people. We can do that by bringing investment to the area, but the condition of the A9 inhibits investment, as it inhibits access to services. It is most concerning to hear that women and children who are escaping violence in the home must travel 100 miles to the nearest refuge. I have met women at the railway station in Dingwall who had undertaken a four-hour journey from Wick or Thurso to the refuge in Dingwall in great distress, as public transport by road was out of the question.
When faced with difficulties such as those, it is easy to pass over the more mundane, day-to-day difficulties that hamper and restrict people in the north. For example, as John Rosie pointed out, the nearest cinema to Thurso is a £20 ferry crossing away in Orkney—people have to cross to an island to get to the cinema. Young people are drifting away from the area in which they grew up, and the perceived lack of opportunities for young people is a contributory factor in the depopulation of the area.
Does Maureen Macmillan agree that, when debates take place on such issues, it would be extremely useful for us to meet in the reconvened Highlands and Islands Convention, together with members of the Westminster Parliament and local government, to find a solution?
I do not think that that point is relevant just now. We can meet here to discuss the issue; we are discussing it today.
Economic regeneration leads to social
regeneration. When more people come to an area, businesses will expand and prosperity will increase in different sectors of society. Improving the A9 is only one step towards achieving the goal of economic and social regeneration, but it is a step that we must take. We must give the people of Caithness and Sutherland the best possible platform to build a stable and prosperous future. Will the minister consider strategies to develop that platform, before it is too late?
It is difficult, when we are all using the same piece of research, to come up with something original to say. As the two previous speakers have been making their points, I have scored out half my speech. However, I am delighted to be reminded of the Berriedale braes by Jamie Stone. Recently, I have been having surgeries in Wick and Thurso—I am a regional member. It is certainly not funny driving home when it is icy, especially if one is not familiar with the road. Jamie, I will remember to keep my tights and knickers on, just in case.
Can I have that in writing?
I advise the Minister for Transport and the Environment to choose to visit the A9 not on a bright, sunny day but on a dark, stormy, windy, icy night to see it at its worst.
This is not just about people in the area; it is also about tourism and investment. I thank Jamie Stone for raising that point.
An important issue that has not been raised is tourism, which has increased in some parts of the Highlands in the past year. However, although the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board figures are still on their way, there is a marked decline in tourism in Caithness and Sutherland—a reduction of 16 per cent—which would not be sustainable over time. Although tourism has increased in some areas of the Highlands, the most marked decrease is in Caithness and Sutherland.
Another important point is demography; the population decline in the area has been mentioned, but the population is also increasingly aging. The steadily decreasing school rolls and consequent school closures act as a disincentive for families with younger children to move into the area.
Does Mary Scanlon agree that the aging population will present a burden on the public purse in years to come?
Yes, especially given the health problems and the health facilities that are available in the area. As it takes four hours to reach an acute hospital—and that is only the beginning— the aging population will be an enormous burden unless the issues are addressed now.
I am also concerned about the fact that the Executive's transport policies are based on tackling congestion, yet one is lucky if one sees a car in the area on really dark nights. Issues such as tackling congestion, workplace parking and toll roads have little resonance in remote rural areas such as the Highlands.
An air flight costs £243 from Wick to Edinburgh and £404 to Gatwick. That is not to mention the rail link on which it takes four hours to cover 130 miles from Inverness to Wick. It is quicker to take a train from Edinburgh to London, even though the distance between them is considerably longer. I will quote from the presentation, "Caithness—A County in Crisis":
"This road is bleeding us to death . . . it is a barrier to social inclusion and it is slowly killing our county and way of life."
Another concern, which has not been mentioned, relates to Dounreay and the huge quantities of radioactive waste that might have to be transported around the tortuous hairpin bends of the A9. I would question the fact that—I am sure that Alasdair Morrison will mention this—the strategic roads review assumed a daily traffic flow of fewer than 2,000 vehicles and yet a recent Scottish Office traffic survey showed a flow of more than 3,000 vehicles a day. If social inclusion means anything, it means including all of Scotland.
I feel like an impostor at this debate of importance to the Highlands and Islands, given that I represent the great counties of Perthshire and Angus. However, I wish to bring a perspective to the debate on the A9 that is linked to the need for improvements in the area north of Helmsdale. I warmly congratulate Jamie Stone on securing this debate.
The A9 is a key road—it is the spine of Scotland. It travels through the western part of my constituency; as one drives through the Perthshire section of the road, working one's way towards Helmsdale, it becomes apparent that the road is incomplete. When the road was being developed in the 1970s, the plans did not quite reach their full potential. There are vast areas of land on either side of the single carriageway road around the Pitlochry area, the Bankfoot area or north of Blair Atholl that could quite conceivably have taken a dual carriageway. However, the road was never developed in that way.
I encourage the minister, in thinking about the A9 from the perspective of Helmsdale, to consider the problems with that road south of Inverness and the dangers that drivers, who are often from overseas, face in having to flip from driving on a
dual carriageway to a single carriageway on their way north.
The issues that Jamie Stone raised about the developments north of Helmsdale are also important to the constituency that I represent. Representations have already been made to Sarah Boyack and to other ministers about the need for significant investment to improve the quality of road safety at junctions such as those at Ballinluig, Bankfoot or Blair Atholl.
I do not want to prolong the debate with issues that are too remote from Helmsdale, so I will make a final point. Roadside services are a live issue in the political debate, including in my constituency. The Scottish Executive has, to its credit, maintained a strong policy of presumption against the development of roadside services on the A9. I wish to put it on the parliamentary record that there is absolute unanimity in the communities that I represent that that policy must be maintained. We do not want that policy undermined in any way by some of the rather loose remarks, which I hope that the Scottish Executive will studiously ignore, that have been made by some members of the leadership of Perth and Kinross Council.
I thank the Parliament for giving me the opportunity to raise those issues and I warmly support the aspirations of the people of Helmsdale and further north in securing improvements to the A9.
There is a phrase in Gaelic to describe Caithness, the translation of which is "the little lowlands behind the Highlands". I think that that emphasises the sense that Caithness is almost an island.
The people of Caithness are brisk, energetic, enterprising and hard-working. Perhaps that is the key to why the young leave the area—they are used to that quality of enterprise and, if there is nothing for them, they will simply leave. Many of my friends have done so.
A story often told concerns an American tourist, who cannot believe the state of the A9. The tourist keeps leaving the road in order to look for it. It is amazing that such a road should be designated as an A road—it is an absurdity. The A9 is a deterrent.
I put it to the minister that, for the period 200005, European funding is available for roads in exceptional circumstances. Surely the Executive could tap into that funding, as all the speakers have outlined the fact that these are exceptional circumstances.
I remember being involved in the campaign to build the Dornoch rail bridge at the same time as the road bridge, which at least would have made the rail journey that bit more competitive. It would have cost almost nothing—we raised almost all the money and were short by only £1.5 million. The Government was short-sighted in not giving us that money.
The Highland Council has called for support for its programme of capital works. Perhaps the minister will indicate whether he is prepared to support the council.
I congratulate Jamie Stone on securing this debate. As he said, it is important to people throughout Scotland that their Parliament debates issues that concern them.
The A9 concerns many people who believe that social and economic trends are adversely affecting the economy of Caithness and other rural areas. The A9 is a lifeline for businesses and families in Caithness and Sutherland. It is easy to underestimate the impact that a road can have. The A9 provides a link for people who are isolated from major towns—the people who live in the north.
I want to concentrate on the impact of the underdevelopment of the A9 on the economy of Caithness. One of the key factors that will encourage business to invest in Caithness and Sutherland is a properly developed infrastructure, which includes not only the A9, but rail services.
It is crucial that we accept that an improvement to the A9 is fundamental to enhancing the economy of Caithness and Sutherland. By encouraging businesses to invest in the area, we can give people the opportunity to stay in the community in which they have grown up and we can give them the prospect of a job and a career. Rural areas are not simply to be conserved; the people who live there need jobs and economic regeneration. According to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Caithness appears to be suffering from a lack of business growth. That reminds us that improvements to infrastructure are necessary.
One way in which to ensure that unemployment is effectively tackled is by attracting businesses to Caithness and Sutherland. Improvements to the A9 are only one issue, but are nevertheless important to achieve that. In the meeting with Sarah Boyack last week that Jamie Stone spoke about, we pressed the need for a strategy to improve the road. There is a fear that piecemeal improvement will deal only with the symptoms, not with the cause.
Does Rhoda Grant agree that
we should urge the Executive to use money from the 2000-05 European funding programme for road improvements in exceptional circumstances? Does she agree that it would be appropriate to urge the Executive to obtain European funding for such purposes?
I think that we should explore all options for improving the roads network in Caithness and Sutherland. I understand that European funding may concern infrastructure less than it did previously, but it could still be considered.
Simply undertaking improvements when necessary will not tackle the narrow twists and bends that are a feature of the single-carriageway sections of the road in its present state.
It is important to move freight off the road and on to rail, which will help clear the A9 and prevent delays. Some congestion on the A9 is due to slow- moving traffic. The movement from road to rail has already begun at Georgemas Junction station.
The growth in information technology has allowed the development of home shopping. That is very exciting for people who are geographically dispersed, especially the elderly and disabled, who do not have access to shops. We must avoid the frustration of that development in rural areas where people have poor transport links.
Mary Scanlon mentioned the Berriedale braes. People in the north are realistic. They are not asking for improvements at Berriedale, because they know that that would be very expensive at present. They want substantial improvements to the other parts of the road. I hope that the minister will address some of those points when he is winding up.
We now have to move to the winding-up speech of the Deputy Minister for the Highlands and Islands and Gaelic. I apologise to Jamie McGrigor and John Farquhar Munro, whom I was unable to call.
Once again—I had to do this a fortnight ago—I congratulate Jamie Stone on securing a members' business debate. He certainly has the recipe for securing them. I am tempted to say, "We have to stop meeting like this," but I can assure you, Presiding Officer, that I have no intention of mentioning tights or knickers at any point in my speech.
Shame.
I also congratulate Jamie Stone on his well-balanced speech and acknowledge the important contributions of other members who had the opportunity to speak.
The strength of support from all parts of the chamber for improvements to the A9 in Caithness has been apparent. That is understandable. The A9 is vital to the whole of the Highlands. I agree with the self-proclaimed impostor, John Swinney, that the A9 is a very important route—the spine of Scotland, as he aptly called it.
There have been major improvements to the route in recent decades, which have yielded significant reductions in journey times from many parts of the Highlands to central Scotland and beyond. I readily acknowledge that most of the major improvements have taken place south of Dornoch. However, the more northerly sections of the route, including the A9 north of Helmsdale, have not been neglected.
The significant improvements that were undertaken at Dunbeath bridge some years ago represented, essentially, a bypass of that village. In 1997, implementation of a route accident reduction plan for the A9 north of Dornoch began, and that is now largely complete. A number of improvements have been taken forward under the banner of the A9 north of Dornoch route action plan, including a £500,000 resurfacing, drainage and traffic management scheme in Golspie Main Street that was completed last year.
A new bridge at the Ord of Caithness was constructed in 1999, on the section of the route that is the subject of this afternoon's debate. That £800,000 scheme involved the replacement of the old defective crossing and some road widening to allow freer passage for large vehicles and to create welcome opportunities for overtaking.
Understandably, there is keen disappointment that we are unable to proceed with the ambitious plans for the A9 between Helmsdale and the Ord of Caithness—plans that were considered in the strategic roads review. That review—which has been mentioned several times this afternoon— examined objectively and consistently our inheritance from the Tory Government. That inheritance is some 17 schemes costing more than £800 million in total. Strikingly absent from our inheritance was the public money that is necessary to pay for those schemes. Put simply, the Tories made promises that heightened expectation but that they did not intend to deliver.
We have made it clear that our key priorities are education and health and so, inevitably, the resources that are available for trunk roads have been constrained. We have, nevertheless, reversed the decline in the budget that was inherited from the Conservatives—I know that Mary Scanlon will welcome that. The comprehensive spending review put an extra £58
million over three years into the programme and the first priority has been to tackle the serious backlog of repairs and maintenance.
In the most recent round of expenditure decisions, we increased provision for motorway and trunk roads by £35 million in the period until 2002. Those funds will assist us in progressing our five top motorway and trunk road priorities, as identified in the strategic review. Those priorities are spread throughout Scotland—they include the A830 in the Highlands—and have a total capital cost of £140 million. I remember that last year I responded to a motion in the name of Fergus Ewing. A few weeks after that, the Minister for Transport and the Environment was able to secure funding for the A830. Sadly, I suspect that I am not in such a fortunate position tonight.
The roads review was thorough and assessed each scheme against five criteria—economy, safety, environmental impact, accessibility and integration. Jamie Stone said that the roads review was about traffic volumes only—it was not. The scheme on the A830 Mallaig road that I have just mentioned was approved despite low volumes of traffic, but all criteria were considered.
As the report on the review showed, the scheme suggested for the road north of Helmsdale—which would have involved almost 3 miles of new high- grade two-lane single carriageway with several new structures across valleys—was among the poorest performers. It was very difficult to see how it would offer value for the £11.4 million investment that would have been involved.
Does the minister agree that it is a pity that the trunk road programme in the Highlands has been so savagely cut? Does he further agree that it is a shame that the Highlands and Islands no longer have objective 1 status? Because of that, we have lost about £40 million over the next five years and some of that money could have been spent on improving the A9 north of Helmsdale.
I agree that we do not have objective 1 status; what we have is a fantastic deal that was secured in Berlin by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree that we should explore the possibility of using the European money that replaces objective 1 funding and we should examine the ways in which that could contribute to the costs of some of the major schemes that are suggested.
Given other intense pressures, we concluded that the scheme for the road north of Helmsdale— along with several others—could not proceed. However, we have not denied that there are problems to be addressed on this section of the trunk road network. We wish to explore other means of addressing the key difficulties that have been identified. European funding is, obviously, one avenue that is worth exploring. The route action plan that I mentioned provides an appropriate framework for further work and officials are reviewing the plan in the light of the strategic review decision. A number of alternative measures for the Helmsdale to Ord of Caithness section were suggested a few years ago by the consultants who prepared the larger scheme. Our starting point will be to refresh those measures and to discuss the possibilities with Highland Council. I am unable today to give a firm timetable for the delivery of those alternative improvements.
I know that, last week, Mr Stone and several other members had a useful meeting with Sarah Boyack. She is planning to visit Caithness, which could give her the opportunity to experience this section of the A9 at first hand. She has made it clear that she wishes to make progress on assessing alternative measures for major schemes such as Helmsdale to Ord of Caithness, which, following the strategic review, will not be proceeding.
I am grateful for your indulgence, Presiding Officer—I have overrun my time by some three minutes. If it is of any comfort to Jamie Stone, I will be visiting Caithness shortly, which will give him another opportunity to articulate his concern about that part of the road.
Meeting closed at 17:36.