Hansard

I congratulate Willie Coffey on securing the debate. I will talk in particular about the facts surrounding the tragic crash at Halkirk. I pay tribute to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, who responded to it swiftly and sensitively. Other Highland MSPs and I were grateful for the opportunity to meet him to discuss the issues that we feel are important.

I want to lay out the case, as I see it, for why there should be barriers at the 23 crossings in question. The key point is that ungated crossings are intrinsically dangerous and inadequate for the task at hand. The argument is simple: if ungated crossings are safe, why bother with gated crossings at all? Think of the money that could have been saved over the years.

We should not be diverted by Network Rail's emphasis that, in the case in question, all elements of the crossing were in working order and the train was properly driven. To me, those points are irrelevant. Ungated crossings are inappropriate and inadequate, even when all their elements are working perfectly.

The company has decided to rely on ungated crossings while being aware of their dangers. It seems to me that, in its calculations, it deems the risks to be acceptable. The number of casualties and fatalities might be sufficiently low for Network Rail not to take action but, by refusing to gate the crossings, it proves that it considers deaths—past deaths at any rate—to be acceptable.

However, I believe that the events of 29 September, when Angus—Gus—MacKay, his wife Margaret and his younger brother Donnie were killed, change the whole scenario.

I believe that there will be future deaths as long as there are no gates. We have to be careful about some of the suggestions that have been made. It has been suggested that double traffic lights should be put in place. However, although that might be a move in the right direction, that is not the same as gating crossings.

It is true that a number of people have been chancing the red lights and it is good that the police and the rail authorities are cracking down on such behaviour. However, let no one imply that that is what happened in our crash. Gus MacKay had been a telephone engineer and had used these roads most of his life. He knew better than almost anyone else of the dangers of these crossings and he would never have gambled with those lives.

There is also an unfortunate implication that the accident might have happened because the people involved were elderly. These were very fit elderly people who had many good years ahead of them. Their deaths leave a huge chasm for their surviving relatives.

It is a fact—I have argued this before—that low, brilliant sunlight will dazzle drivers who are proceeding south on the road in question. I have argued that the same is true of the Delny crossing. I believe that Network Rail conceded that point after the September crash at Halkirk, because it is putting bigger hoods on the lights. However, I have to say that that is just tinkering and that only gates will do.

Let me put the argument, which I think is a clinching argument, another way: Network Rail made a profit of £1.2 billion last year. Even if the cost of gating the 23 crossings is £23 million—£1 million each—which I doubt, that is only 2 per cent of the £1.2 billion, which I would have thought was absolutely affordable.

I stick to the argument that we need gated crossings in future. If, while still denying that that is necessary, Network Rail at least started to gate the crossings where the accidents have happened, that would be a move in the right direction.

I thank the minister for his considered approach and I look forward to hearing what he has to say but, as far as I, the local member, am concerned, the bottom line is that these crossings cannot be left ungated or there will be future fatalities, which we as a Parliament cannot tolerate.