Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 23 February 2012
23 Feb 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Rail Services (Consultation)
I congratulate Richard Baker on lodging the motion. I know that its subject has been dealt with in a members’ business debate, but it is important that we should get the chance to address it in a main debate in the Parliament. Patricia Ferguson’s work in bringing the matter to public attention has been welcome.
There was much in the consultation that was easy to oppose. Among the radical suggestions that were made were proposals to cut the sleeper service, the idea that we might be expected to stand for longer on trains and the suggestion that we might increase peak-time ticket prices simply to discourage people from travelling. Some of those suggestions were met with hysteria—I should know, because I led some of it. It is in the nature of a consultation that ideas are proposed that might be beyond the pale. It is up to us as politicians to focus our opposition on such ideas, and I believe that that is exactly what we have done.
Another responsibility that we have when consultations take place, as we have learned from bitter experience, is our duty as Opposition politicians to read between the lines and to interpret what might emerge from a consultation that is not obvious. I believe that that is what the Labour Party has done, and it is entirely appropriate for it to have taken such action.
It has been suggested by some—not least, the Labour Party—that we should never see a station close. I am not prepared to make that commitment, because I believe that, even during a period of expansion, the management of the rail network may require us to take tough decisions about individual stations. However, the idea that we might wreak havoc with the rail network, particularly in Glasgow, causes me serious concerns.
The reason for that is simple and fairly general: we in Scotland are not good at mass transit systems. Most of our cities lack the support that is necessary to get people into and out of the city centre effectively. We mostly rely on buses or cars. We had the bright idea of having a tram network in Edinburgh, but the concept of bringing trams into Edinburgh has been fraught with cost and practical difficulties. We should hold dear the idea that we have one city in Scotland that thought about transport in advance.
The Glasgow subway system is a precious jewel in Scotland’s crown, and we can ill afford not to give it proper investment and support in future. It is unacceptable to consider possible cuts to Glasgow’s suburban rail network.
Rationalisation is often used as an excuse for removing services. Scotland’s rail services, and those in Glasgow in particular, are seeing significantly increased footfall. Demand for those services has never been greater than in recent times, and they deserve our support.
I mentioned hysteria and my part in creating it, and such tactics are often used by Opposition parties. It is only natural that the Government should claim that it never had any such plan and therefore should not be attacked for the very suggestion that it did. Well, what I want to hear from this debate is very simple. At the end of today, I want to know that we have a clear commitment to the consultation process, a promise that no decisions have been taken already and an undertaking that no station will be closed. I also want a commitment that the rationalisation process will not be used simply to justify closures and a promise that what the minister says today will not change after the local government elections have passed. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of—[Laughter.] I am glad that members are enjoying this. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of the electorate. What the Government says today must stand up in the longer term.
It is essential that we look ahead and see the consultation for what it is, and that we get the Government to give us an undertaking that the consultation is not a Trojan horse for a closure programme that it will deny today but will implement in future.
There was much in the consultation that was easy to oppose. Among the radical suggestions that were made were proposals to cut the sleeper service, the idea that we might be expected to stand for longer on trains and the suggestion that we might increase peak-time ticket prices simply to discourage people from travelling. Some of those suggestions were met with hysteria—I should know, because I led some of it. It is in the nature of a consultation that ideas are proposed that might be beyond the pale. It is up to us as politicians to focus our opposition on such ideas, and I believe that that is exactly what we have done.
Another responsibility that we have when consultations take place, as we have learned from bitter experience, is our duty as Opposition politicians to read between the lines and to interpret what might emerge from a consultation that is not obvious. I believe that that is what the Labour Party has done, and it is entirely appropriate for it to have taken such action.
It has been suggested by some—not least, the Labour Party—that we should never see a station close. I am not prepared to make that commitment, because I believe that, even during a period of expansion, the management of the rail network may require us to take tough decisions about individual stations. However, the idea that we might wreak havoc with the rail network, particularly in Glasgow, causes me serious concerns.
The reason for that is simple and fairly general: we in Scotland are not good at mass transit systems. Most of our cities lack the support that is necessary to get people into and out of the city centre effectively. We mostly rely on buses or cars. We had the bright idea of having a tram network in Edinburgh, but the concept of bringing trams into Edinburgh has been fraught with cost and practical difficulties. We should hold dear the idea that we have one city in Scotland that thought about transport in advance.
The Glasgow subway system is a precious jewel in Scotland’s crown, and we can ill afford not to give it proper investment and support in future. It is unacceptable to consider possible cuts to Glasgow’s suburban rail network.
Rationalisation is often used as an excuse for removing services. Scotland’s rail services, and those in Glasgow in particular, are seeing significantly increased footfall. Demand for those services has never been greater than in recent times, and they deserve our support.
I mentioned hysteria and my part in creating it, and such tactics are often used by Opposition parties. It is only natural that the Government should claim that it never had any such plan and therefore should not be attacked for the very suggestion that it did. Well, what I want to hear from this debate is very simple. At the end of today, I want to know that we have a clear commitment to the consultation process, a promise that no decisions have been taken already and an undertaking that no station will be closed. I also want a commitment that the rationalisation process will not be used simply to justify closures and a promise that what the minister says today will not change after the local government elections have passed. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of—[Laughter.] I am glad that members are enjoying this. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of the electorate. What the Government says today must stand up in the longer term.
It is essential that we look ahead and see the consultation for what it is, and that we get the Government to give us an undertaking that the consultation is not a Trojan horse for a closure programme that it will deny today but will implement in future.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S4M-2086, in the name of Richard Baker, on concerns about rail proposals. I call Richard...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
In our last Labour Party debate, we discussed the impact of Scottish Government policies on bus passengers. Today, we return to two more transport issues tha...
The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown)
SNP
Can Richard Baker point to where in the consultation document it is proposed that stations be closed?
Richard Baker
Lab
Yes I can. As the minister is well aware, the proposal is in section 7.The proposal to close a number of railway stations is just one of our concerns about t...
The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown)
SNP
I am pleased to have a chance to reiterate once again the Government’s position. It is important to bear it in mind that the process was a consultation and t...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
I refer the minister to paragraph 7.11, which states:“We would welcome views on what locations may be more appropriate for stations and which current station...
Keith Brown
SNP
It is a distortion of the English language to say that that is a proposal for closure. The word “closure” is not in that paragraph. The first part of the par...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
Will the minister give way?
Keith Brown
SNP
I will make progress, then I might come back to Mr Harvie.We have made it clear throughout the consultation period that we are talking about options and not ...
Patrick Harvie
Green
Will the minister give way on that point?
Keith Brown
SNP
No.Richard Baker talked about a request for information on which stations are under threat, but that was not the nature of that request. People asked for inf...
Richard Baker
Lab
Is the minister saying that, as long as he is in office, none of the 11 stations in question will close?
Keith Brown
SNP
I do not know on how many occasions we have said that we have no plans to close those stations. However, we must listen to what people have said in the consu...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
I congratulate Richard Baker on lodging the motion. I know that its subject has been dealt with in a members’ business debate, but it is important that we sh...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
We now move to the open debate. I remind members that they have a strict four minutes. If members try to go over that, we are likely to cut them off mid-stre...
James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
SNP
Since I was elected to the Scottish Parliament, I have had the honour of representing my constituents in the parliamentary chamber and in Glasgow City Counci...
Richard Baker
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
James Dornan
SNP
I would love to, but I have only four minutes.Why does the Labour Party not bring something positive to the table? Where are its plans for the railways in Sc...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
You must end now. I call Patricia Ferguson.09:42
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Lab
Thank you, Presiding Officer. The motion recognises the real concern felt by many in communities in and around Glasgow about the future of their local train ...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I am sorry, but your time is up. I call John Mason.09:46
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
This reminds me of Westminster, which is much stricter with time.I thank the Scottish Government for its many investments in rail, especially those that have...
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I must say at the outset, for absolute clarity, that, given the process that surrounds consultations, the transport minister could not have been clearer that...
Anne McTaggart (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lab
I am glad to speak—quickly—in the debate, on an issue that, as we have heard, is of great interest to the people of Glasgow. I thank my colleague Councillor ...
Keith Brown
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Anne McTaggart
Lab
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes—unless the Presiding Officer is willing to give extra time.
The Presiding Officer
NPA
No.
Anne McTaggart
Lab
In relation to the stations in Glasgow that could be affected by closure, we need to consider the impact on our communities. For example, the elderly rely on...
Humza Yousaf (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
Following the members’ business debate at the end of January, I welcome a second opportunity to put on record my views. Since speaking in that debate, I have...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
We move now to closing speeches.10:02