Hansard

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 the consultation document. Although our motion highlights that issue, it is far from being the only aspect of the document that has met with huge opposition. Yesterday, I was fortunate to attend a briefing on the future of rail and ferry services in Scotland, which was held as part of Scottish Trades Union Congress week in Parliament, at which I heard the concerns of a number of the transport unions about the document’s proposals. They expressed their opposition to proposals on the future of the sleeper franchise, on the separation of routes in franchise arrangements according to profitability and social provision and, of course, on the closure of stations. Despite what I imagine the minister is pointing to in his intervention, the trade unions are in no way comforted by his statement that they are just proposals. The fact is that the proposals have met with such widespread opposition because they are contained in a document about future rail services and have been put on the table in a consultation process.

However, although we believe that, on a range of issues, the consultation document is fundamentally flawed, we had hoped that our motion might find consensus and help to clarify the Scottish Government’s position on at least one subject that is covered in the document. The motion simply acknowledges that there are a range of concerns and that further discussion on the issues is required and, specifically, calls for rejection of the proposals that are set out in section 7 of the document to close 11 stations in and around Glasgow, which have been the subject of local campaigns for their retention and a campaign by Glasgow’s Evening Times. We hope that now that the consultation has concluded, the minister can confirm today that not only are there no current plans to close any of those stations, but that there is no question of their being closed.

The easiest way to obtain the clarity that we need on the issue is for Scottish National Party members to support our quite reasonable motion, although it is evident from some of the noises off that they will not do so.

My colleague Patricia Ferguson has been particularly active on the issue. In her members’ business debate on the subject, the minister refused to reject the proposition outright. He said then that there are no plans to close the stations and has reiterated that in his amendment. Of course, in the previous session of Parliament his predecessor announced that there were “no plans” to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link project, but only a week later the SNP did exactly that.

The minister’s attempts to downplay the significance of the proposals—which are clearly there in the consultation document—is undermined by the fact that SNP regional members in Glasgow have been issuing leaflets under the banner of the save our stations campaign. Although the minister may be adamant that there is no threat to the 11 stations, it is evident that he has failed to reassure his own back benchers in Glasgow on that point.

Although there are more than 60 stations in Scotland that are within 1 mile of another station, when further information was requested on which stations are under consideration in the light of section 7 of the consultation document, a list was provided that identified the 11 stations in question. Indeed, the consultation document refers specifically to their costing £208,000 in lease costs. The ambition behind highlighting that part of the consultation document is clearly a cost-saving exercise.

The concerns have been justified and it is extremely important that any threat of closure be lifted from those stations and that the people who rely on them every day, for example to get to work, can be reassured that the stations will continue to be a vital part of the rail network in Glasgow and Scotland. What we want to hear from the minister in the course of the debate is not simply that there are no plans to close any of those stations, but that they will not close and that the proposal that they should close has already been rejected. If he is able to confirm that, I would question why the SNP does not support our motion.

As Patricia Ferguson highlighted in the motion for her debate, all nine stations in Glasgow that featured on the list of 11 have seen an increase in passenger numbers in the past two years; in one instance, passenger numbers have grown by 189 per cent since 2005. There is a clear demand for the services that the stations provide. They provide crucial services not only in Glasgow, but in Paisley and Motherwell. That is why they should be a key feature of the work to grow the local economies in those areas as we seek to grow the wider Scottish economy.

There will only be increasing scepticism about the credibility of plan MacB if, in this area, as with others, the actions of ministers do not match the rhetoric. We want a rail network not with a reduced number of stations but with increased access to rail services.

As I highlighted at the beginning of my speech, the proposals on the closure of rail stations are but one of a host of issues on which we are at odds with the consultation document. We are deeply concerned that the effect of the proposals on passengers will be higher fares, overcrowding on trains, longer journey times on certain services and an end to cross-border rail services, with many passengers being forced to break their journeys. We are concerned by the proposal on the sleeper franchise, and the separation of franchises between those that are deemed to be profitable and those that are deemed to be provided for social reasons.

There are also proposals in a number of other areas that we believe are unacceptable. Although we will return to many of those issues in the coming months in Parliament, we wish to emphasise today that the consultation process is fatally flawed. It has raised questions that it seeks to answer with proposals that will do nothing but damage the provision of vital rail services.

We need to go beyond the consultation process and have a debate about the opportunities that exist to improve rail services in the years ahead. I commend to the minister—indeed, to all members—the briefing from TRANSform Scotland, which very much reflects our thinking when it says that further consultation is required of the Scottish Government on the future of rail services, including further consultation on specific areas in which there have been inadequate opportunities for passengers and stakeholders to engage in the crucial debate on the future provision of rail services.

The consultation document represents a threat to, not an opportunity for, our rail services. The Scottish Government should come forward with a far superior vision for the future of those crucial services for our society and economy. That should be the focus for building the rail services and the rail network that Scotland needs.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the concerns expressed in Glasgow that the Rail 2014 - Public Consultation calls into question the future of 11 railway stations in and around the city; calls on the Scottish Government to reject any proposals for the closure of these stations; also recognises that this is only one aspect of the Rail 2014 - Public Consultation, which has already given rise to questions regarding the quality of the provision of rail services across Scotland in the future, and believes that further debate and dialogue will be required beyond the conclusion of the consultation process, both in the Parliament and with all those for whom the future of rail services is of vital importance.

09:25