Local Train Services (Glasgow)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01690, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on saving Glasgow’s local train services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of local train services to commuters in Glasgow; notes Transport Scotland’s publication, Rail 2014 - Public Consultation, which calls into question the future of railway stations within one mile of another station; expresses concern that nine of the 14 stations identified in this category, Ashfield, Barnhill, Duke Street, Gilshochill, Kelvindale, Kennishead, Maryhill, Mosspark and Nitshill, are in Glasgow and that five of these are on the Anniesland to Queen Street via Ashfield line; notes that each of the nine stations has seen an increase in passenger numbers over the last two years, with Ashfield seeing a 32% increase during this time; further notes that passenger numbers have increased by 189% and 145% at the threatened Gilshochill and Possilpark and Parkhouse stations since 2005; also notes the ongoing Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Plan consultation, which, it understands, threatens the future of a direct train service to Glasgow Queen Street on the Ashfield line, and believes that these changes would restrict access and deter the use of local rail services in Glasgow and will inevitably make it more difficult for local residents to travel to work and access health and leisure facilities.
17:10
I thank all members who took the time to sign the motion. The Evening Times deserves our thanks for focusing attention on the issue in its inimitable campaigning style. I would also like to thank all those of my constituents who have signed the petition and all the community councils and community groups that have organised meetings and circulated petitions in their areas. The issue has generated a great deal of concern in my constituency and beyond, and has demonstrated just how important our local train services are and how much effort people will put into protecting them.
Tonight, I want to speak about two train services in my constituency and the threats that they face. The Anniesland to Glasgow Queen Street service, which travels through my constituency, is a busy route with journey times to Queen Street of between five and 15 minutes. In recent years, several new stations have opened and their passenger journey numbers have increased year on year. However, in a recent discussion with rail officials it became clear to me that, as a result of timetabling challenges for the additional services that are proposed between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the congestion that occurs at the Cowlairs junction, an option was being discussed that would require passengers to travel in the opposite direction, to Anniesland, where they would change trains and make their way on to Queen Street on the low-level service. That would make a journey from Ashfield to Queen Street take not its current five minutes but, instead, more than 30 minutes—a journey that I suspect few people would choose to make.
Obviously, passengers from Kelvindale would have a shorter journey to Anniesland than passengers from Ashfield, but the worry is that the decrease in passengers from the southern end of the line would lead to a gradual drop off in the overall numbers and threaten the viability of the line. I should also point out that nowhere in the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvements programme consultation document is any detriment to suburban rail lines mentioned, which must surely call into question the effectiveness of the consultation. How can someone respond to a consultation when they do not know that it has any relevance to them?
The second threat arises from the consultation, which seeks views on train stations that are no longer required and asks how it should be determined that a station should close. It highlights 11 stations within the Glasgow commuter area.
Will the member confirm that there are no plans in that document to close any stations and that it contains no such list of stations?
The list of stations is in a fact sheet that accompanies the consultation document. I will come to plans in a second.
Nine of the stations on the list are in Glasgow itself, and five are in my constituency. Four are on the line that I have already spoken about and one is at Barnhill, on the high-level Springburn to Queen Street line. As my motion notes, each of the nine Glasgow stations has seen an increase in passenger numbers over the past two years, with Ashfield seeing a 32 per cent increase during that time, and the threatened Gilshochill station and Possilpark and Parkhouse stations increasing by 189 per cent and 145 per cent, respectively, since 2005. The consultation fact sheet claims that it names those stations because
“they are located less than one mile from another station offering similar services”.
No other criteria were offered for the inclusion of the stations. I know that those stations are within that 1-mile restriction, but I also know that, because of the urban nature of rail services in the west of Scotland, there must be many more in that category than the 14 that are listed. Indeed, in an answer to a question that was lodged by my colleague John Pentland, the minister identified 60 stations that are within 1 mile of another station and offer a similar service.
The naming of those 14 stations, therefore, causes concern among my constituents. The subsequent admission that the stations have been singled out, as a further 50 or so in the same category are not named, has compounded that concern and has led to increased calls for the minister to state clearly and categorically that the stations will not close.
The impact of the proposed closures would be severe. Constituents who live around the threatened stations not only are worried about losing their train services, but are anxious that derelict stations would attract antisocial behaviour. Those who live next to the remaining stations fear not only that a decline in passenger numbers will lead to the loss of the service completely over time, but that there could be an increase in the number of unofficial park-and-ride commuters in their locality, causing increased congestion in their area as well as on main roads such as Great Western Road, Maryhill Road and Balmore Road—all of which are always extremely busy, in any case. Several of the areas that are served by the stations have poor bus services, low levels of car ownership and a high number of elderly residents. The Anniesland to Queen Street route also serves two local schools and provides the only direct route to them for many of the pupils.
Naturally, on finding out about the potential threats to local rail services, I immediately wrote to the minister, asking for the opportunity to meet him to discuss matters. I wrote to Mr Brown on 24 November because officials had advised me that they would make recommendations to ministers at the end of January. I was surprised to receive a response from the minister’s private secretary, not the minister himself, and even more surprised to be told that it would be premature to meet before summer 2012. My surprise, however, turned to dismay when a constituent copied me in to a letter that they had received from an SNP list member, indicating that he had discussed these very issues with the minister at a meeting on 11 January. The slight to me is insignificant and I leave it to the Presiding Officer to consider the discourtesy to Parliament, but the offence that has been offered to my constituents is unforgivable. I sincerely hope that the minister will consider that.
Meeting the minister clearly failed to reassure the list member, however, and even appears to have caused greater confusion. Within the past few days, I have had sight of both a letter from him to a constituent stating that the stations are not under threat and an SNP “Save Our Stations” leaflet in which he appears and in which the stations are described as being “threatened”. With such confusion within the SNP itself, is it any wonder that my constituents will accept nothing less than an absolute assurance from the minister? We do not want to hear that there are “no plans” to close any station, but we do want to hear that the stations will not close.
In concluding, I ask the minister to state clearly here tonight that the stations, which allow such a necessary service to be provided to travellers across Glasgow, will remain open for use in the years ahead and that the Anniesland to Queen Street high-level service will continue to operate as at present. My constituents and those of many of my colleagues need to be reassured by a clear and unequivocal promise. The uncertainty that has been generated by the consultations must be removed once and for all. If the minister is willing to make such a clear statement, he will do commuters a great service.
A number of members want to speak in the debate. If I am to have any chance of getting everyone in, members must keep to their four minutes.
17:19
I will return to some of Patricia Ferguson’s comments during my speech. I thank her for raising the issue of rail services in Glasgow and welcome the opportunity to put my views to the minister, Keith Brown, this evening. I have already had discussions with Mr Brown, which I will mention later. This will be an opportunity for me to reinforce my views to the minister, as I have reinforced them to Transport Scotland directly.
I am keen to see the retention of all rail services in the area that I represent, and I am reassured that that will happen. I refer to the Maryhill line, in particular, as I know it very well and I am a frequent user. As we have heard, that line has been a success story, and it will continue to be a success story long after the consultation has closed.
If we look at the Ashfield, Gilshochill, Kelvindale and Maryhill stations, all of which are mentioned in Ms Ferguson’s motion, we see that there has been a 275 per cent increase in the entry and exit passenger numbers since 2006. That is an additional 200,000 journeys—a success story indeed.
In my discussions with the minister, I put directly to him the success story and the importance of the train line, and I was reassured that the Scottish Government has absolutely no plans to close any station or to erode train services on that line. On the contrary, I was encouraged to engage positively with the “Rail 2014” consultation.
To view the consultation as being only a defensive exercise would be to miss a central opportunity for me and my constituents. The “Rail 2014” consultation should be used to enhance provision in Glasgow, and on the Maryhill line in particular. I believe that the Anniesland to Queen Street train service should be extended from the current six-days-a-week service through the introduction of a Sunday service. My constituents would benefit from a seven-days-a-week rail service through Maryhill, and I have written to First ScotRail to make that case ahead of the 2014 rail franchise retender.
Many of my constituents believe that there is a demand for that service, and I agree with them. It was that proposal that I put directly to Transport Scotland and to the transport minister.
I am delighted that local SNP members were out campaigning for train stations locally in Maryhill and Kelvindale. I was also delighted to inform them of my discussions with the minister. They now support my campaign for a Sunday service, and they are equally reassured.
Will the member give way?
I am well aware of the leaflet that Ms Ferguson is holding.
Presiding Officer, can I get a little more time if I allow the intervention?
You can have a very short amount of time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I was not aware that members always got extra time if they were intervened on.
I just point out to Mr Doris that we have to retain the train service before we can talk about its being extended—something that I would dearly love to see. I also point out to him that his photograph is on the leaflet. He cannot claim that he did not know about the leaflet, and it completely contradicts the stance he is taking.
I hope that the member will go back to look at the Official Report and see that I did not say that I am unaware of the leaflet. I am aware of two leaflets going out in Kelvindale—one campaigning for the train stations and the second one expressing delight at the positive response that I received from the minister, Keith Brown. For accuracy, I ask the member to listen to the words that are used and not to make up her own story when she intervenes on me.
I also say to the member that this should not be a turf war. We should be working together to deliver for our constituents. That is what I intend to do.
I will finish by talking about delivering for our constituents. I have found out that, only today, Labour-controlled Strathclyde partnership for transport has said that it will take away concessionary rail travel for commuters in the evening as well as in the morning. How many pensioners on the Maryhill line will no longer be able to travel because of that SPT decision? I hope that, on a cross-party basis, Ms Ferguson and I can object to and campaign against a cut that will affect vulnerable people in our constituency.
17:23
I pay tribute to Patricia Ferguson for bringing forward this important members’ business debate, and to the Evening Times campaign for highlighting a serious issue that faces people in Glasgow in connection with the threat to their train services.
I will perhaps take the Bob Doris approach—something that I do not do often—and play the defensive role for a station in my constituency that is threatened, which is Duke Street station. I will outline the reason why closing that station would be completely wrong. I understand that Duke Street station is the only station in the area that has disabled access. Both Bellgrove station and Alexander Parade station are not easily adapted, so the potential costs of developing our stations with disabled adaptation would provide serious challenges for Transport Scotland. Duke Street station is also a vital link for those who live in, work in and visit the east end of Glasgow. The station’s close proximity to several venues that will be used during the Glasgow Commonwealth games should also be recognised.
We should consider how to improve the station—not provide fact sheets to ensure that the consultation process can result in the possibility of closure. We should also recognise that the station sees more than 74,000 journeys per annum—leaving and arriving—which is a more than 400 per cent increase in the past 10 years. The station is not staffed, so it should be recognised that the station has minimal outlays and overheads. Closing Duke Street station would mean that fewer passengers would use the service and the amount of money that is received from the service would plummet. It would be a false economy if Duke Street station were to be closed in order to save money. I would welcome an unequivocal commitment from the minister that there will be no threat to the future of Duke Street station.
Will the member give way?
I would welcome a commitment from the minister; I was not aware that Humza Yousaf is a minister. I would welcome a commitment from the minister that there will not be a defensive approach to the case for Duke Street station.
I thank the member for giving way and I appreciate the tone of his contribution. The minister seems to be unequivocal that there are no such plans, but Paul Martin does not seem to accept that. I do not know whether he was a minister when his party formed the Administration, but can he recall a time when a Government minister pre-empted the results of a consultation? I would be most appreciative if he could give me an example.
At the start of the process, the minister gave us the commitment that there are no closure plans in place and he defended the consultation process. All that I have done today is seek clarity from the minister that Duke Street train station is not under threat. That is a perfectly reasonable approach. The minister has qualified the consultation exercise by publishing a fact sheet and saying that it is not a proposal to close stations. I have asked a very simple question, but the minister failed to answer it.
What is lacking in the consultation document is the opportunity to develop new stations. Further to a meeting that we had recently, I ask the minister once again to consider the possibility of new stations such as the Robroyston station that has been proposed on a number of occasions and for which the funding is in place.
We are very tight for time and I am unable to give time back for interventions.
17:27
I, too, congratulate Patricia Ferguson on securing tonight’s debate. I was happy to support the motion.
Above all, what the residents and representatives of Glasgow need from the consultation, from tonight’s debate and from the minister’s upcoming summing up is clarity. As it stands, there is grave concern that there is a plan to close a number of important stations in Glasgow. There are nine stations on the Maryhill line and five of them are under question because of the “Rail 2014” consultation and the accompanying fact sheet. Were they all to close, it might be hardly worth having a railway line at all. Since one of the stations in question is Maryhill station, it could no longer be called the Maryhill line.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress first.
My local station, Kelvindale, was opened in 2005 to the great benefit of local residents. How on earth can it be sensible to close it now, when passenger numbers have risen every year and rates of car ownership in the area are low. More than 0.5 million journeys are made on the Maryhill line every year and there has been continuous annual traffic growth at the stations. The line serves some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow where other modes of transport are frequently not available.
Different options are being contemplated simply to ease congestion on Queen Street station’s high-level platforms and to bring in more trains from Edinburgh. If that is the case, woe betide any passenger coming from Edinburgh to Glasgow who wants to go on to visit relatives in Maryhill. The painful irony for Glasgow commuters and shoppers is that their stations are under question because of possible improvements to the Glasgow to Edinburgh service. Surely a Government that is committed to public transport should improve all rail services. Improvement of one high-profile line to the detriment of the local lines that feed into it, if that is what is going to happen, would be no improvement at all for many users.
At the start of her speech, the member mentioned plans to close the stations. Can she say what those plans are and who has put them forward?
I said that there are questions about plans that may close a number of important stations. I was talking about the references in the consultation document and the fact sheet to stations that are within a mile of each other, and whether they are viable. As it stands, that consultation document makes it look as though stations throughout Glasgow are under threat simply because of such proximity. Fourteen stations are in that category. I assure members that Glasgow residents are alarmed by any prospects of closure. I am talking about gaining clarity from the debate so that the genuine fears of people—not only members, but constituents at home—are assuaged.
Mosspark station is one of the stations that are deemed to be too close to another station. A Mosspark resident who lives five minutes from Mosspark station has pointed out that he is disabled and is no longer able to drive. If the station were to close, he would face an extra 20-minute walk to the nearest station at Corkerhill. How is a disabled constituent supposed to walk that extra distance and carry his shopping home? He cannot do that. The Paisley canal line, which Mosspark station is on, is about to undergo electrification, but it appears that Transport Scotland will displace some of Mosspark’s passengers on to road if the proximity threat is realised. Mosspark’s passengers make up 13 per cent of the total passengers on the Paisley canal line.
I am afraid that I do not have enough time to talk about issues surrounding Nitshill station and other stations.
The whole point of a suburban rail line is to have plenty of stations on the line to allow the maximum number of people to use the train service for commuting and leisure. It is not good enough to tell people that there is another station nearby, because nearby could well be too far for those who are elderly and disabled.
We need to be told whether Transport Scotland is considering closing stations in Glasgow. Conversely, like Paul Martin, I would welcome an unequivocal assurance from the minister that no station will close, if that is indeed the case.
17:32
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I thank Patricia Ferguson for lodging the motion, congratulate her on securing the debate, and thank her for bringing the slightly bizarre position of the Scottish National Party in Glasgow out into the open in the Scottish Parliament.
I regularly use the Queen Street to Waverley service, and would certainly welcome quicker journey times and improvements to the line. The Glasgow to Edinburgh route is the most important strategic rail route in the country, but any improvements to the line that would reduce the service that is provided to passengers on the Queen Street to Anniesland line through Maryhill in the manner that has been suggested would be completely and utterly unacceptable. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on raising the concerns that she has raised on behalf of her constituents as the MSP for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn.
In a recent debate on the cities strategy, I pointed out to the cities minister that stations in cities are close together for a reason. Transport Scotland has completely cocked up its consultation by including the Glasgow stations beside the suggestion that there is somehow an overprovision of rail services and/or stops in Glasgow. The SNP’s record on rail services for Glasgow is poor, and the wrong-headed, wrongly focused and wrongly conceived consultation from Transport Scotland is just the latest example of that. I have no shortage of letters and e-mails from rail users in Glasgow that make their real anger clear.
Time is short in the debate, but I want to specifically mention the correspondence that many of us have received about the Glasgow museums resource centre, which is near Nitshill station. The centre manager, Gareth James, said:
“The location of the station in Nitshill does not need altering. The Office of Rail Regulation figures show that Nitshill station has seen an increase in traffic of over 25% in two years and 50% in five years ... This part of Glasgow is poorly served by public transport—no Sunday rail service and a bus service that has recently been truncated further”.
Scottish Labour raised the issue of bus regulation this morning, of course.
Mr James also said:
“the train station is unmanned and does not have step-free access on the south-bound platform. Quite the opposite from closure, at this time Nitshill station would benefit from investment, particularly with regards to making it more accessible.”
He is right, as is a woman from Mosspark to whom I have spoken. She regularly walks from that station in the dark in the evening, and she is extremely concerned about the threat to her safety as a result of having to make a longer journey.
Glasgow City Council is right to condemn the consultation, and the Evening Times was right to launch its save our stations campaign. The question that the minister must answer in his closing speech is why a suggestion was made, in a fact sheet that accompanies the “Rail 2014” document from the Scottish Government’s transport agency, that threatens the future of Ashfield, Barnhill, Duke Street, Gilshochill, Kelvindale, Kennishead, Maryhill, Mosspark and Nitshill stations. What is the difference between the 14 stations that are mentioned in the fact sheet and the other 50? Why are those 14 stations mentioned in the fact sheet and not the others?
Bob Doris said that he was reassured by the discussions that he has had with the transport minister. I am sorry, but why, then, does he have his picture on a leaflet that is being put out by the SNP in Glasgow entitled “Save Our Stations”? The leaflet is not about improvements to stations; the title is “Save Our Stations”. That is also the title of the Evening Times campaign. Why have SNP members who represent my city bounced around accusing Councillor Alistair Watson, who first raised the issue, of scaremongering over the SNP’s difficulty? Why did they deny that any threat existed?
I have to ask you to close, please.
Why did they then start to provide quotes to the Evening Times, saying that the matter was very serious? Yet again, the SNP has let Glasgow down on railways. Is it not about time that SNP back benchers who represent Glasgow started to stand up for their city rather than scrabbling around to defend their Government?
Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Patricia Ferguson.]
Motion agreed to.
Even with that, I might not get all members in.
17:36
I thank Patricia Ferguson for bringing to the chamber today’s members’ business debate on Glasgow’s railway stations.
The city of Glasgow, which was once dominated by one party, now has an eclectic array of representatives. I am talking not just about the different political parties but about the personalities. We have Tories, females, kick boxers, Territorial Army reservists and former BBC journalists—and that is just Ruth Davidson. However, what we all have in common is a desire to improve Glasgow. I never doubt that my colleagues in Glasgow, regardless of which party they are from, want anything but the best for our city.
On that note, like Paul Martin, I congratulate the Evening Times on its save our stations campaign. I might not agree with everything that the Evening Times has ever said, but some of its campaigns have been laudable, including the streets ahead campaign and Glas-goals, which aims to improve our city’s health.
I, too, would express my concern should any of the stations that are mentioned in Patricia Ferguson’s motion close. That is why I am pleased that the minister has firmly shut down the proposition that the Opposition is peddling. As has been mentioned, most of the stations have seen recent increases in passengers. I will resist the temptation to laud the Government for its wonderful transport policies, which have helped to facilitate that rise in passenger numbers.
It is important that our local communities are connected to public transport hubs and railway stations, especially as so many people rely on public transport. In Glasgow, 56.8 per cent of households have no access to a car. In the area surrounding Duke Street, 63.5 per cent have no car, and in Mosspark, which is one of the busiest stations, 53 per cent rely on public transport. It is therefore even more pertinent that we do not unnecessarily scare any of our local communities into thinking that their local rail station is going to close.
Will the member acknowledge that there is already fear that stations are going to close? That is why we require clarity from this debate.
I absolutely recognise that point. That is why it is important that the minister gave an assurance that there are no plans to close any stations in Glasgow.
The Evening Times, acting on behalf of its readers, had the right to ask the minister for further clarification on the issue, and I am pleased that it was forthcoming and unequivocal. Keith Brown has repeatedly said—and he will, no doubt, reiterate in his closing speech—that there are no plans to close any stations in Glasgow. The only way in which someone could not see that as unequivocal is if they were looking for an assurance that there will be no such plans 50, 100, 150 or 200 years in the future, which would tie the hands of future Governments.
Although I have often commented in the chamber that a few months here can feel like a few years, I am not burdened with a heavy dose of cynicism just yet. However, I think that we all understand that there is the little matter of the local government elections in just a few months’ time, with Glasgow being the particular focus. I look forward to the campaign ahead. The two main parties in Parliament will tough it out to see who wins the battle of ideas on how to progress Scotland’s largest city. It is imperative that we all deal with facts and give people our honest ideas, policies and manifestos, on which we can be judged—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
The member is finishing. I am afraid that you will have to finish, Mr Yousaf.
I look forward to the campaign ahead but let us stick to the facts and not whisper or scaremonger. The people of Glasgow deserve better.
17:40
Like other members, I thank Patricia Ferguson. I also thank the Motherwell Times for its campaign on the issue. I support the motion on Glasgow’s threatened rail stations. The list in which those stations appear, on the basis that they are within a mile of another station, includes the Airbles and Motherwell stations in my constituency.
The case for the retention of Airbles station is very similar to the case for retaining the Glasgow stations—there is common cause in the argument for the retention of all the stations. Annual footfall at Airbles is more than 100,000. Built in 1989, the station has gone from strength to strength, providing a convenient alternative to the even busier Motherwell station. Airbles station is handy for commuters, football fans, local communities and many others.
Convenience is key to the argument for retaining Airbles station and the Glasgow stations. I presume that we all agree that we need to increase the use of public transport. When we consider the benefits of public transport, we do not just look, as Beeching did, at the bottom line of the balance sheet for the service in question. We must also consider the wider social, economic and environmental benefits. We do not just look at where we are now but at where we want to be—we want increased use of public transport—and how to get there.
I am sure that the minister will agree that the best way to get there is not by closing stations—or am I wrong and, half a century on, has the ghost of Beeching returned to stalk the SNP benches, promoting “The Reshaping of Scottish railways”? If so, I ask the SNP to learn the lessons of the past and look to the future.
I thank the minister for his recent reply to my written question on the “Rail 2014” consultation. I noticed some omissions—according to Google maps—from the list of all stations that are within a mile of another station. That apart, the answer was useful.
On the issue of being unequivocal, what formulation of wording does the member want the minister to come up with? How much clearer can he get than “There are no plans to close the stations”?
I will come to that later.
The minister’s response noted that the stations were selected on the basis of a footfall of less than 120,000. No justification for that cut-off has been given; indeed, the figure was not mentioned in the consultation or the fact sheet, which provides the list of affected stations at the request of unnamed stakeholders.
Does the minister understand the great uncertainty that the review has created in the communities involved? Petitions launched in my area have already been signed by hundreds of my constituents, many of whom commute to Glasgow from Airbles and Motherwell; doubtless, some reach their final destinations courtesy of some of the other stations highlighted for “consideration” by the consultation. My constituents could be about to suffer the double whammy of station closures at both ends of their journey.
My party has been responsible for the reopening of lines such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line. New stations have been opened, and each time that has been justified. We should beware of the false economy of saving now and paying in other ways for years to come.
The minister has said that the Government has no plans for closure. Why, then, have a consultation to discuss closures? We are told that it is Transport Scotland’s doing. It is tempting to have an arm’s-length organisation that can take the blame, but come on. I suggest that the minister try something different and take responsibility for bodies that are ultimately answerable to him. He should not just say “no plans”; he should say “no”.
17:45
I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on securing this debate on a motion that I, too, support. I know that the issue is of great concern to many Glasgow residents and I am proud to say that Liberal Democrat councillors are doing sterling work in actively campaigning on it. It is good to see the cross-party support on the issue—even from Bob Doris with his “Save Our Stations” leaflet.
I have to say that I almost jumped up when Humza Yousaf shouted at others for scaremongering. He should have a word with Bob Doris—
I did not shout.
Well, the member mentioned that other parties were scaremongering when, in fact, his own party has put out a leaflet called “Save Our Stations”.
The member has now mentioned me twice. Obviously, I am quite proud of the local SNP for fighting for services on the line in question to be expanded to include a Sunday service. Would the Liberal Democrats support expanding that service to seven days a week?
The member has been going on about saving stations. The Liberal Democrats, too, support that.
The publication of Transport Scotland’s now infamous “Rail 2014” consultation is perhaps why people are concerned. As members will recall, the consultation proposes that, because of constitutional uncertainty, a short-term franchise agreement should be put in place when the current one ends. Such an agreement would kill off any hopes for investment in our rolling stock or action to tackle fares. Quite how that would benefit commuters is hard to say, but now passengers in our biggest city are asking tough questions of the Government.
Is the member aware that his own Government—the Government that he supports at the United Kingdom level—has put in place an 18-month-long franchise that includes improvements to 140 stations along the line in question?
We are in Holyrood and I am questioning the Scottish Government.
Despite Government assurances that Transport Scotland is not consulting on station closures, the document leaves little doubt about which way the Government is leaning. I draw members’ attention to paragraph 7.11, which states:
“We do not intend to reduce the size of the Scottish rail network, or reduce the number of stations, but we are considering whether it would be possible to re-configure the network by reviewing the location of stations. We would welcome views on what locations may be more appropriate for stations and which current stations are no longer required.”
That is quite clear. One cannot state credibly that there is no intention to close stations while, in the very same sentence, mooting a reconfiguration of the network and a review of the location of stations. Furthermore, the previous paragraph mentions
“11 stations”
in the Glasgow area
“located less than one mile from another rail station offering similar services”
and highlights that
“The lease costs”
for
“these 11 stations total £208,000.”
Passengers who use Kelvindale, Maryhill and other stations can surely be forgiven for seeking clarity from the Government on its true intentions, given the overwhelming weight of evidence against the Government’s public protestations to the contrary. Indeed, that is all we are doing this evening. It is now time for the Scottish Government to come clean about the stations that it wishes to retain in Glasgow and those that it intends to close. After all, saying that there are no plans to close stations is not the same as saying that there will be no closures.
Glasgow is a thriving, busy city. The country’s ambitious climate change targets will not be met if we go down the route of closing stations and forcing more people into their cars.
17:49
As a regular user of train services in and around Glasgow, I thank Patricia Ferguson for bringing this important issue to the chamber for debate.
Like John Pentland, I am concerned by proposals in Transport Scotland’s “Rail 2014” consultation that call into question the future of stations that are located within 1 mile of each other. I mention that because one station in the greater Glasgow area, Paisley St James, could well be affected. Although it is located close to Paisley Gilmour Street and Paisley Canal stations, Paisley St James has had increasing passenger numbers since 2004-05 and a significant jump in passenger numbers since 2007. In large part, that is because St Mirren Football Club opened its new home stadium a stone’s throw away from the station. The stadium is now home to the Scotland under-21 team. The station helps home and away fans to attend football matches at the ground.
SNP members, particularly George Adam, were vocal in their support for changing the name of Paisley St James to Paisley St Mirren, in recognition of its importance to the local community. I say to the SNP and Mr Adam that it is not the name of the station that matters, but the station itself. I hope that Mr Adam and the SNP will be just as vocal in their support for retaining the station, no matter what it is called.
On a more serious note, Paisley St James is located in one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. Several stations in Glasgow are in areas of high deprivation. The 2001 census showed that 45 per cent of households in Paisley were without a car, which is more than 10 per cent higher than the average for Scotland. On top of that, “Scotland’s People: Annual report: results from 2009/2010 Scottish Household Survey” illustrates the clear links between access to a car and the level of deprivation of an area. In the 15 per cent most deprived areas, 44 per cent of households have at least one car available to them, compared to a figure of about three quarters of households in the rest of Scotland.
As we know, the SNP does not have a good track record—if members will pardon the pun—when it comes to railways in Renfrewshire and Glasgow. The Glasgow airport rail link was to be completed in 2013, but the SNP scrapped it. Therefore, the SNP will forgive me and my fellow Renfrewshire residents for wanting a specific guarantee that no stations will close in Paisley before we are convinced that the future of the station is in safe hands.
I have talked a lot about Paisley stations, but I also have concerns about stations in Glasgow. For example, Mosspark station, which serves the Pollok and Cardonald areas of Glasgow, has been identified as one of the stations that are in close proximity to another. Any alteration to services at that station would have a knock-on effect on the Paisley Canal line and would potentially put the viability of that line in jeopardy.
I could not help but notice the minister’s recent comments in Paisley’s highly regarded local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, of which I have a copy. As the minister has reiterated today, he said:
“There are no plans to close rail stations in Paisley, or any other part of Scotland for that matter.”
As other Labour members have said, we do not want a guarantee that there are no plans; we want a guarantee that there will be no closures. I hope that the minister will listen carefully to the concerns of those who rely on our stations and who want them to be retained.
17:53
I thank Patricia Ferguson for raising the issue. In Glasgow, we are fortunate to have the rail network that we have. Many other European cities have more extensive metro systems, but not many can match our heavy rail system. When we put the two together, we have a network to be proud of. We should be grateful to the Victorians who built it and to others, including SPT, who have maintained it, fought for it and sought to develop it.
Speaking personally, I can say that my preferred method of travel is train. I almost invariably use the train to go down to London and the longest journey that I ever made on the train was from Hong Kong to Glasgow.
More recently, it has been great to see developments such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line, which has not been given the attention or praise that it deserves. In fact, the name Airdrie to Bathgate can be something of a misnomer, because the line has opened up stations in Glasgow, particularly in the east end—six of which are in my constituency—by giving us a direct link to places such as Bathgate, Edinburgh Park, Haymarket and Waverley.
It is therefore disappointing to think that any station might be closed. I am particularly concerned about Duke Street, which is just outside my constituency. I agree with the points that Paul Martin made about it. I remember from economics lectures reference being made to some of the mistakes that Beeching made in his cuts. One was to close small branch lines while forgetting that the passengers from those branch lines were what made the main lines more viable. It strikes me that one of the dangers of closing quieter stations in Glasgow would be to reduce passengers on a wider range of lines and get people out of the habit of using the train as their first choice.
I certainly hope that the homework on passenger numbers has been done properly. When I served on SPT, it was notoriously difficult to know how many passengers were using trains or particular stations. For example, many passengers use High Street station in my constituency, which is just on the edge of the city centre. People use it because it is not gated and, therefore, it is quite likely that they will be able to get off there without buying a ticket. Have the Duke Street to High Street journeys been included properly?
Duke Street is also the closest station to Parkhead’s Forge retail park, which is the major shopping centre in my constituency. It also happens to be the closest station to my office.
I am delighted that Dalmarnock station is getting major investment and an upgrade for the Commonwealth games. That will be a lasting legacy for our area. However, it should not be a reason for closing other stations.
In fact, not only do I not want stations to close, I want more to open. The top of my list would be Parkhead Forge, which is also on the Airdrie to Bathgate line. It would not only serve the shopping centre but give a direct service to Celtic Park from the city centre and from Edinburgh.
I add my voice to calls for crossrail in due course. Capital investment is tight and my priority would be for housing over rail, but I find it a little ironic that the line across the river exists and is used by empty passenger trains. Even without new tracks or stations, trains can run from Paisley to Edinburgh via Bellgrove, Springburn and—ironically—Duke Street.
Let us think long and hard before we close any stations on the Glasgow network and let us work to determine how we can further expand Glasgow’s and Scotland’s excellent railway system.
17:56
Like others, I welcome the motion that Patricia Ferguson has brought to the Parliament. We had buses this morning and we have trains this afternoon. If only we had spent part of the day debating walking and cycling, I would be one very happy sustainable transport geek.
I will speak about the missed opportunity that the consultation document represents. I really looked forward to opening up the “Rail 2014” consultation and seeing an ambitious vision for a bigger, better and more affordable rail network for the whole of Scotland. I looked forward to a vision for a rail network that could be run on a not-for-profit basis and that could expand by reopening old stations, not only in urban areas such as Glasgow but around Scotland, and improving the services that already exist.
Instead, from a party and a Government that are often good at presentation and talking up their ambition for Scotland, we had a list of small cuts—small reductions in service—that could be made. Taken together, those made for an extremely disappointing consultation document.
I reassure Patrick Harvie that, if he reads the entire document, he will see reference to not-for-profit organisations possibly taking over railways and opportunities to expand the rail network. The consultation is a list of options, and he still has time to respond in that vein.
I have read the document. Not-for-profit operation will not happen unless the Government makes it happen and ensures that there is a viable not-for-profit bidder. I do not see that work happening.
We should not be having a debate on, “We have no plans,” versus some wider commitment. It is such an old one. We have had it time after time, on issue after issue. “We have no plans,” is a current statement of not having any clarity. “We are not going to close stations,” would be a lot clearer.
I want to go further: there should be plans to reopen stations. I agree with most of John Mason’s words on that. We should consult on that but, instead, paragraph 7.10 of the document talks about an arbitrary 1-mile limit and paragraph 7.11 asks for views on
“which current stations are no longer required.”
That clearly raises the fear that stations will be closed.
Let us be generous—believe it or not, this is the generous interpretation—and say that it is possible that that is daft not deliberate and that the fears have been raised accidentally. Perhaps someone mistakenly copied and pasted in a paragraph from a document headed “Issues never to raise in the consultation” and the minister signed off the consultation document without reading that.
The information genuinely raises the fear that many other stations, and not just those on the list in the fact sheet, are to close. As members have said, many other stations are within 1 mile of each other, which is quite right too. What makes the really good and successful commuter rail network that we have in the west of Scotland work is having stations close together, so that many more communities have ready, easy and convenient access to the network.
Like others, I call on the minister to give a clear commitment that the Government will not apply the arbitrary and perverse 1-mile rule and that it will not close stations after the consultation has finished. It is not wrong to pre-empt the consultation on such an issue. Where the Government does not want to close stations, it should say so. If it wants to close stations, it should say that as well.
Such a clear commitment should be given, after which we can move on to debate what the best rail network that we can have is. We need to use 2014 as the opportunity to achieve that.
18:01
I will be brief. The debate is primarily about services in Glasgow. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson on raising the issue on her constituents’ behalf and on managing to portray some of the anomalies in the debate. It is rather amusing that SNP council candidates have been out there campaigning to save stations from their own transport minister.
Like others, I think that we must ask what the consultation document’s purpose is, if the minister says that there are no plans to close any stations. Jim Hume read out the reference in the document to reconfiguring stations. If stations are to be reconfigured and put somewhere else, some stations will have to close. If that is the intention of Transport Scotland and of the minister, they must come clean, say that and talk to people about the stations that might close. When people see a list that includes some stations but not others, they suspect—naturally—that the stations on the list are probably under threat.
Documentation has been going around that shows usage at some stations. I looked at it carefully, because we always worry about the stations in our constituencies. If such data is around at the same time as a consultation is taking place, we must ask what the purpose is of having it in the public domain.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I am sorry, but I promised to be brief, and the minister will sum up immediately after me.
I do not argue that no station should ever close. There might well be arguments for some stations to close. However, like Patrick Harvie, I would like stations to be reopened. If stations are to be closed, they certainly should not be stations on busy commuter lines that move people out of private cars and on to public transport.
As the minister knows, I have campaigned for the stations at Thornhill and Eastriggs in my constituency to be reopened. I will not hijack the debate by going on about them, but there are good arguments for new stations. One frustrating aspect, which might have a bearing on the debate, is that train operators are often not keen on trains stopping too frequently. I have heard that the train operators are reluctant to have services from Lockerbie that reach Edinburgh and Glasgow before 9 o’clock, because such services would have to start too early elsewhere or would slow down some trains.
Equally, it is argued that if the trains on some commuter lines stopped too much, that would slow down intercity trains, which compete with the airlines. We must recognise the role of trains in supporting commuters in Scotland. People do not commute by train just in the south of England; that happens in Scotland, too. A balance must be achieved between the commuter service’s role and the intercity train service’s role.
I will stop there and allow the minister to answer the points that have been made.
I am grateful for that.
18:04
First, I return to a point that Patricia Ferguson made: I will certainly review the correspondence to which she referred and, in any event, I am more than happy to meet her to discuss her concerns about station closures in relation to “Rail 2014”. I will ensure that such a meeting is arranged as soon as possible.
I am pleased to have yet another opportunity to reiterate the Government’s position. I will be as clear as I can be: the Government has no plans. Patrick Harvie said that we should say what our true intentions are. That is our intention: we have no plans and no intentions to close stations in Glasgow.
Will the member give way?
No—I will get started first.
We have no intention of closing stations anywhere in Scotland. We do not have those plans; they are not in the document. A number of members referred to a list of stations. John Pentland mentioned the list that he asked me for in the Parliament. The other list, which related to Glasgow, was asked for by someone at a station in Glasgow during the consultation exercise. It was not Transport Scotland, nor was it me; someone asked for that list, and the factual information was provided. It is not part of the “Rail 2014” consultation document. It was provided in response to a request that was made, as I provided the information to John Pentland. That is where that list comes from. That person gave the criteria for what they wanted, which was information on stations close to each other and on the patronage numbers.
It is clear that we are in the midst of a consultation. We have no plans to close stations, but I well understand the cynicism that attaches to that phrase, because for years and years Governments have said, “We have no plans to do this,” when the real intention was something other than that.
For example, the consultation that the UK Government recently launched asks about questions for a referendum on independence when the UK Government has made it perfectly clear that it has no intention of entertaining the idea of a double question.
Will the member give way?
No, not at this point. I understand that there might be cynicism about that, but the consultation ends next month so we will find out fairly shortly whether the cynical view is the right view, or whether I have been sincere in what I have been saying.
A number of members—Paul Martin, Bob Doris, Patrick Harvie and Jim Hume, who, strangely did not mention Borders rail—mentioned that the consultation should be about ways in which we can expand the railway network. To give some more weight to the idea that we have no plans to close stations, members should look at our track record. Contrary to what some members have suggested, we have a good track record. The level of subsidy in Scotland is greater than it has ever been. It is greater, as I understand it, than the subsidy for any other train-operating company in the whole of the UK. The fare box is smaller, but the subsidy is greater. The EGIP involves around £1 billion of investment in the railway infrastructure in Scotland. We are delivering the Borders railway, which the previous Administration did not get round to even looking at delivering. It talked about Borders rail for many years, but it did not deliver it. We have started that process. We managed to get the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which I was involved in when I was a council leader, through and completed. We are committed to looking at other stations in the north of Scotland.
Dalmarnock has been mentioned, as, quite rightly, has Glasgow, where there has been additional investment in the subway and in fastlink. There is a huge commitment to public transport in Glasgow from this Government, which is demonstrated by what we have done. That does not support the idea that we have some kind of agenda to cut back on transport.
What we have here is a consultation document. It is right that we should consult, and the document is open and inclusive. Some of the things in there are not the Government’s views, but things other people have suggested. For example, Jim Hume made a point about the length of the franchise, but the suggestion to which he referred came not from the Government but from the trade unions, which wanted to look at that. There are other reasons why they think that it would make sense to have a shorter franchise. Contrary to Jim Hume’s point, there is no evidence to suggest—as one might think and as, indeed, I did—that longer franchises encourage more investment or reduce fares.
We have a very good record on rail, on public consultation and on support for public transport. It is right that we are consulting on these issues. We are at the stage at which we are looking for a new franchisee, and we are obliged to follow the franchising system. It is interesting that we are holding a consultation on a franchise, and yet there is no consultation at all from the UK Government on the franchise for the east coast main line, which starts in 2013. I have asked the UK Government when we will have a consultation, but there has been no response.
Franchising is a very expensive business. It costs £4 million to launch a franchise bid—
Will the member give way?
I will make one last point and then come back to Patricia Ferguson.
The Government is prevented from encouraging directly a not-for-profit scheme, such as Patrick Harvie mentioned. Of course, others can do that if they can demonstrate their experience in the rail industry, but we are not allowed to do so.
The minister will forgive those of us in Glasgow who are slightly cynical when there are proposals and no plans, because that is exactly what Stewart Stevenson said to us the week before he cancelled GARL.
I am conscious that the minister has almost finished his speech but has not referred to the issue in my constituency that arises because of EGIP and the congestion at Cowlairs. That is an extremely serious point and I would be grateful if he would address it.
That consultation is being carried out by Network Rail. I have listened to the views that have been expressed today and in writing, and we are taking them into account. There is no proposal at this stage; the consultation is genuine. We will look at the issue and the implications of the option that Patricia Ferguson described, if it were to proceed.
I have listened to the points that members made. The consultation ends at the end of February, so we will find out shortly whether what members said about secret plans to close stations is true or not. We will also have the benefit of considering the consultation responses and finding out whether anyone has come forward with a proposal to close stations. In Scotland we have stations—not in Glasgow or even the central belt—where nobody gets on or off.
No mention has been made of the UK-wide McNulty report, which was commissioned by the previous UK Government and is being taken forward by the current UK Government. We have to look at that.
Many members mentioned the increased patronage at some stations. That has not come about by accident. There has been a great deal of investment in the rail services. Why would we want to close a station when we have increased the patronage during the past few years? Of course, if people demonstrate that they want to use a station, they should have that station. That is consistent with what the Government is doing.
Meeting closed at 18:11.