The “honest conversation” that Transport Minister Humza Yousaf seeks about the future of Scotland’s railways will doubtless include a shout-out for the full devolution of Network Rail. We hope this call will be heeded. At present, the Milton Keynes-based transport body remains responsible for managing the track, signalling and infrastructure of Scotland’s railways. It is also responsible for 54 per cent of the delays.
To that extent, whatever the greater arguments from political ideology or constitutional aims, this is essentially a functional matter. It is about efficiency and the possibility of large savings to the public purse. Certainly, it is also about democratic scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament, but that is hardly a revolutionary demand. Indeed, such a move has already been backed by the think-tank Reform Scotland, in a report co-authored by Labour’s former UK transport minister Tom Harris.
As he said late last year: “The Scottish Government is responsible for the strategic direction and funding of the Scottish rail network, but this responsibility cannot be properly exercised while Network Rail remains answerable to the UK Government.”
This was a common-sense observation, indicating that devolution of Network Rail’s responsibilities should command cross-party support. To Conservatives, both south and north of the border, surely the prospect of saving the taxpayer £100 million a year speaks to their pecuniary soul.
As for our weary rail travellers, many probably couldn’t care who is in control, as long as the service gets them from A to C, even if via B, on time. But, undoubtedly, they would welcome the real possibility of reducing journey times and delays and of reinvesting savings to fund improved services and rolling stocks.
Doubtless, Theresa May had more cosmopolitan matters than Scotland’s railway infrastructure in mind when she talked yesterday of devolving more decision-making power. But the matter has repeatedly been placed in the in-tray of her Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling. It is now well past the time that he took it out and agreed it makes sense.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel