Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 23 February 2012

23 Feb 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Rail Services (Consultation)

Ferguson, Patricia Lab Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn Watch on SPTV

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 stations. Five stations in my constituency are on the list. Colleagues will recall the members’ business debate in my name when I and members from all parties represented in this chamber sought a clear statement from the minister that no station would close as a result of the consultation. I will not rehearse the argument that I made during that debate against the closure of those stations, because it is on the record. I note from the Government’s amendment that the mantra of “no plans” has been supplemented by there being no intention to close stations, but I had hoped that the minister would have taken this opportunity to say unequivocally that no stations will close.

It has been suggested—we have heard this again today—that the save our stations campaign is mischief-making. We have also heard again today that the names of the stations were only provided in response to a request. The reality, however, is that when a consultation with a foreword by a cabinet secretary and a minister highlights 11 stations, it is entirely reasonable to ask that they be named. Moreover, when it becomes apparent that those 11 stations are part of a potential group of 60, it is also reasonable to question why they have been singled out, to work hard with concerned local communities to bring their concerns to the attention of the Government and, when we fail to secure an unequivocal statement from the Government that no station will close, to redouble our efforts.

It is no coincidence that since my members’ business debate a month ago, when the minister did not take the opportunity to shut down the debate once and for all, my office has been inundated with e-mails, letters and requests for petitions, because people understand that the phrase “no plans” does not equate to a guarantee that their local station will be safe.

The Evening Times first identified the potential problem and is to be congratulated on the way in which it has supported communities in Glasgow on the issue. The Evening Times understands Glasgow and the economic, social and environmental problems that the stations’ closure would cause. It is a shame that the Government does not get it, too.

The amendment in the minister’s name talks about the benefits that the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme will bring. Let me tell members what EGIP could mean for train travellers in my constituency. The Anniesland to Glasgow Queen Street service, which runs through my constituency, is a busy route, with journey times of between five and 15 minutes. In recent years several new stations have opened, and passenger numbers have increased year on year.

The plans for EGIP threaten the service. Currently, the service arrives at a high-level platform at Glasgow Queen Street, but the advent of additional trains between Glasgow and Edinburgh would leave simply no room for the Anniesland to Queen Street service. It appears that options are being discussed whereby passengers along the line would be required to travel in the opposite direction, back to Anniesland, where they would change trains and make their way to Queen Street by a more circuitous route. Anyone who has ever travelled on the line knows that that is not a viable option. The journey from Ashfield to Queen Street would take not the five minutes that it currently takes but more than 30 minutes. Few people would consider making such a journey, and my concern is that the overall number of passengers would decrease and threaten the line’s viability.

The logic of the minister’s speech—

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 23 February 2012

In the same item of business