John said, noting the importance of the station:
“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.”
John then referred to a parliamentary question that he had asked on the issue, noting that the answer was factually incorrect, and that it revealed that a cut-off for inclusion in the list of stations was a footfall of less than a 120,000 (Airbles is over 100,000).
“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”.”
Speaking later, John Pentland referred to the Minister’s reply to the debate, in which he stated that the list of stations was not part of the Rail 2014 consultation document.
“That is somewhat economical with the truth. The stations weren’t named in the consultation, but it does say:
'There are also a number of stations on the rail network that are located in close proximity to one another. In the Glasgow commuter area, there are 11 stations located less than one mile from another rail station offering similar services. The lease costs associated with these 11 stations total £208,000.'
“There are in fact more than 11 stations, so it’s not surprising that Transport Scotland were asked to name them – but it is difficult to see how on that basis the Minister could claim that this wasn’t part of the Rail 2014 consultation!
“He also stated that we would be able to judge the Scottish Government’s intentions after the consultation has ended. On that basis, I urge everyone who wants to keep Airbles open to make their views known to Transport Scotland!”
