Thank you to all four MPs (Anne Snelgrove, James Gray, Michael Ancram and Anrdrew Murrison) for speaking the case for the Swindon to Westbury and Southampton via Melksham service at Tuesday's detate.   Derek Twigg replied, and although his reply is several pages long and made specific reference to some places and services, his reply did NOT include the services on "our" line.

From the debate:

Anne Snelgrove (South Swindon) (Lab): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to the hon. Member for Totnes for calling for this important debate. I represent a largely urban area. The issue for me is the number of people from rural communities such as Chippenham, Melksham and other towns in Wiltshire who will be travelling in by car if train services are cut. The Swindon-Southampton service, for example, is threatened with cuts. We need people to come in by train and not by car for our urban areas to remain viable. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con) ...  I want to mention in particular the Westbury-Swindon link. On Friday, I had the pleasure of meeting members of the south-west public transport users forum in Trowbridge. They put a number of points to me about the Great Western franchise, and the Westbury-Swindon link featured large in the discussion. There is concern about the high level of cancellations for that service, dirty dilapidated rolling stock, poor connections at Westbury and poor timetabling. That all leads to a general disinclination on the part of the travelling public to use the service. ....

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): My hon. Friend mentions the service from Swindon to Westbury and onwards. That service goes through Chippenham in my constituency, where a significant number of people use that line down through west Wiltshire. Under the proposals, which, rather bizarrely, the Government are signing off—it should be First Great Western, but the Government are actually to blame—the trains from Chippenham down towards Southampton are being cut. Is that not a disgrace?

Dr. Murrison : Indeed it is. If the proposals go ahead, we shall see a massive reduction in the service: it will be down to about 20 per cent. of its current level. Basically, it will become a vestigial service. We are now several years into the 10-year transport plan, but goodness me, where are we going if we are seeing such a situation in an area whose population is growing all the time? We know from the regional spatial strategy for the south-east and south-west that we expect an increase of upwards of 200,000 dwellings. My constituency and those of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will be heavily involved in that growth. In all our areas, the road network is creaking and is going to get worse, and corridors such as the one that I have described will be increasingly important.

Mr. Ancram (Devizes) (Cpn): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real paradox here? While these trains may not be particularly attractive, I have figures from the Melksham ticket sales office, and over the past three years, usage has increased from 3,000 to 27,000. More and more people are using the trains, whether they are attractive or not. In the face of that increase, it seems perverse to start talking about cutting services when more and more people are using them.

Dr. Murrison : My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. No doubt he will have heard, as I have, from the redoubtable Melksham Without parish council about its concerns regarding the siting of Melksham station and its facilities.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) (((No answer that I can see which made any mention of Swindon - Westbury, Swindon - Southampton or Melksham))) He did say:

The point that I would like to stress more than any other before I move on to other issues is that the operator is free to vary train times and to amend calling patterns, provided the minimum standards set out in the service level commitment are met. Crucially, they can also operate extra trains, provided there is sufficient track capacity and no adverse effect on other operators' subsidies or premiums.