 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12980 in the name of Jaffix Patrick. On behalf of the bureau setting out a revised business programme for today, if anyone object to the new programme, please say so now. I call on Jaffix Patrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one has objected the motion. The question, therefore, is that motion 12980B agreed. Are we agreed. We are agreed. Iain Stewart, wirfwyrd i ddarparu pwg. Gawrwydd Gweld, roi'n gwyllrau i gyllewidau y cyfringsydig o gweld ei chwarae pergylwydd o eich cynllun wedi'i gilyddiau i gyfringsdig y까지dau mewn cyfringsdig a'i gweld ei chwarae i gyfringsdig y sayingyadau sy'n cantillodau. Iain Stewart, roi'n gwyll dissect sanctions yn gwyllw authorities C98 a'i gilyddiau i gylwyd yn cyfringsdig eich cynllun iawn i gylwyd yn cyfringsdig, a'i gylwyd i gylwyd yn cyfringsdig gwahbeth gwahbeth gwahanol rôl yn fawr mae gyffredinol yma o weltyn rhain. Mae hynny yn wirthyn nhw yn 90—'189.3% hefyd yn eu cyfaint. Gwydden ni'n beth oedd defnyddio gyda Y Ho, beth oedd 87 odd. Gwydden ni'n mewn ymweld mae'r yw ddiweddol bod yn y UK. Y dyd pan oedd o wrestling mae'r cyfarfodau a'r holl gwasanaeth yn ddwy, mlynedddoedd. I continue to monitor to ScotRail's performance very closely. My officials at Transport Scotland are working with ScotRail to see us sustain improvements in its performance. The minister is correct that those targets are set as part of the franchise agreement and they are being missed. Given that ScotRail failed to hit those targets once during the past year, can the transport minister tell us whether he anticipates that they will hit their target any time during the forthcoming year? Of course, we will be pushing ScotRail to meet their targets. That is my job, that is Transport Scotland's job, but let me just try to wrap some context around this if I can. Today, ScotRail's performance, of course, is at 92 per cent. The UK national average is 81 per cent. When it comes to missing their targets—and I agree with Colin Smith, of course—it is not acceptable that they are missing those targets, they are missing them by a per cent, a per cent and a half. It is not a catastrophic decline in their performance by any stretch of the imagination. I will continue to press them, I will continue to push them, but performance, or PPM or moving annual average, is just one measure of the passenger experience. Skip-stopping has reduced that and has been welcomed. I have had that from passengers themselves. Of course, a new entry into service of rolling stock will help with the capacity issues in ScotRail. All those measures need to be taken holistically. Colin Smith. I noticed that the minister did not say that he anticipates that ScotRail will get those key targets in the forth coming year. Given that and the fact that they have missed them in the last year, it is a little wonder that a recent poll put public support for renationalising railways at over two thirds on our rail workers and the unions who represent them also support public ownership of a railway. Can the transport minister tell us in what may or may not be his last question in his role? Does he and the Scottish Government believe that a railway's track and trains should all be brought back under public ownership? Yes or no? Too often in our history we talked about ownership models for rail without also thinking clearly enough about what we wanted to do with the network itself. I see somebody shouting, that was not me, that was Welsh Labour Government Minister, Ken Skates, who just awarded a £5 billion private contract to private country for Welsh railways. He demands that we nationalise the railways. Jeremy Corbyn demands that we nationalise the railways. However, the one place where Labour actually empowered, it awarded its rail contract to a private company, so I am not going to take any lectures from Colin Smyth on public ownership. Of course, in 13 years in government in the UK they did he-haw about it, eight years in the Scottish Government they did he-haw about it. We have been in power for the last 11 years, we have changed the law to allow a pet public sector rail bid and they have done nothing but sat on their hands, so he'll forgive me if I don't take any lectures from him on the state of our railway. Fulton MacGregor. Fulton MacGregor. Given that it was successive Labour and Tory Governments who continually denied the right for a public sector operator to bid for a rail franchise and instead this option was secured by the SNP as a result of the Smith commission, will the minister agree with me that this is nothing but hypocrisy, especially as Labour seems to only do one thing in opposition and another thing in government? Minister. As a case of do as I say, not as I do. What I would say to Colin Smyth, and I made this point to Fulton MacGregor too, even if they are going to look one way in Wales and look one way in Scotland, what they should at least have the guts to do is stand with the Scottish Government instead of siding with the Tories when it comes to devolution of network rail. We believe that network rail should be devolved here to Scotland. They are of course responsible for now 59 per cent of rail companies are directly attributable to the infrastructure that is under the control of network rail, which in turn is under control of the UK Government Department for Transport. So it would be good if the Labour Party instead of siding with the Tories on the railways came and joined the Scottish Government and called for further devolution of network rail to Scotland. Jamie Greene. Can I ask the minister what options are available to him to ensure that the Scottish Alliance can and will meet its contractual obligations under the franchise and when he or anyone who follows him expects punctuality to simply get back on time? Again, I go back to my point that I made to Colin Smyth. Is it not the catastrophic context that Jamie Greene attempts to portray as at all? They are, yes, behind their target and I will push them and Transport Scotland will push them to go further, but in other performance measures when it comes to the reduction of skip-stopping it is going in the right direction. It comes to addressing overcrowding, which we here collectively I'm sure from our constituents, it is going in the right direction with three sets of new rolling stock to come into entry in the coming months, but of course there are financial penalties or indeed financial incentives that are available. He knows probably about the squire fund, I'm sure. We continue to hold ScotRail robustly to that when it comes to the cleanliness of the rolling stock, when it comes to the stations and when it comes to performance measures of course we do have measures within the contract to deal with that, but they are nowhere near the level that they would have to be in order for breach of contract and so on and so forth, so again I just make the point that context is wholly important in this discussion. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, there's many positive things ScotRail will do, but the percentage of people who are delayed by trains, that affects their employment, affects their health appointments, affects schooling and all the rest. Now we only seem to hear about public sector bids when things aren't going too well and I'd hope to hear a lot more about a public sector bid before the end of term. Where is that? When are you going to take positive action to address the concerns that are legitimately held by members of the public? Minister. John Finnie makes a good point about the effect that rail delays can have on your average passenger. I think that that's absolutely correct. That's why there is a delay, repay, scheming of course. ScotRail are doing more to advertise that so more people can rightly be compensated when their journey is delayed. What I would say to John Finnie in the public sector of rail but again it is this government that made a change in the law. We could have of course gone further if full devolution of railway was not blocked by Labour Party during the Smith commission. What I would say is on the public sector rail bid, watch this space closely. We promised to make an announcement on that very, very shortly. He's been involved in the cross-party and cross trade union working on this. He knows we're looking very actively at a range of options and I'll be hoping to make an announcement on that shortly. Question 2, Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the result of the UK Parliament's vote on Heathrow expansion and its implications for Scotland. The Scottish Government welcomes that the third runway project is now moving to the stage of Heathrow applying for a development consent. Order, but notice that some MPs across all the political parties were not persuaded to support the UK Government's national policy statement. It is now incumbent on the UK Government to build more confidence in the process and more clearly set out the economic benefits which a third runway at Heathrow can deliver throughout the UK. The Scottish Government's position remains that Scotland should benefit proportionally from the new runway capacity and that this should be subject to guarantee. We note the Secretary of State's commitment majoring last night's Westminster debate on 200 additional weekly flights for Scotland, however we await the detail of that. The UK Government's aviation strategy to be published later in 2018 will have a significant role to play in setting out how the UK Government intends to deal with the issues such as slot allocation for services to Heathrow nations and regions. The Scottish Government will work constructively with the UK Government on that new strategy. I note the concerns conveyed during last night's debate in the potential environmental implications from the new capacity. Although we are not responsible for the third runway, the Scottish Government is not divorced from the potential environmental consequences as a leader in tackling climate change. Jamie Greene. Expansion at Heathrow offers significant job creation, major investment opportunities and we look forward to working with Heathrow to bring those significant benefits of a third runway to Scotland. Not my words, Presiding Officer, not my words, not even those of the UK Government but those of Keith Brown and the SNP Government here in Scotland, but nowhere. Nowhere in Mr Eustaf's answer today did he explain why the SNP has reneged on its memorandum of understanding that it signed with Heathrow on a third runway. Nowhere did he answer why his party did not support the creation of the thousands of jobs that expansion will create or the hundreds of new flights that it will bring to Scotland. So let me ask the minister a simple question. Does the Scottish Government wholeheartedly support Heathrow expansion? Yes or no minister? Yes, we still support the third runway. Heathrow, I made that position clear in my opening answer. I know Tory MSPs are used to rolling over and doing whatever Theresa May tells them whenever she wants. Our MPs are absolutely right to demand that they get cast iron guarantees around the 200 additional flights. We also need confidence on the climate considerations. Why on earth did the UK Government push forward with a vote days before an important report from the Independent Climate Change Committee was due to be published on aviation emissions? Why on earth was the vote not held afterwards? For the greatest of respect, I will take no lectures from Jamie Greene who is a member of the party that has Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who said that he would lie down in front of billdozers. He wasn't doing so much lying down as he was doing flying away. Jamie Greene. The cabinet secretary is somehow saying that the Scottish Government supports a third runway, Heathrow, but it begs the question why MPs and Westminster did not support it. The new runway was backed by the First Minister, it was backed by the finance secretary, the economy secretary and even the transport secretary himself. Yet, when it came to the crucial vote, the SNP abstained. They ducked out in another grievance-stalking stunt in Westminster. The question is who gave the order and why. If we were to believe reports, the First Minister herself ordered MPs not to back it. Minister, doesn't this all just go to show that given the choice between stirring up an argument or boosting jobs and the economy in Scotland for the SNP, it's always party first and everything else second? Quite unbelievable. I've already explained that they don't have the cast iron guarantees. If the member could stand up and tell me how those 200 slots will be allocated, I will be all ears. He absolutely can't. When it comes to the environmental consequences of the third runway, our MPs are absolutely right to demand the detail of that. Yes, in principle, we have the support of the third runway, but that is conditional, unlike the Tory MSPs who will roll over and do whatever Theresa May in the UK Government tells them. We will not. That is why we will stand up for Scotland, demand those guarantees and, of course, I'll leave him to complain about this, not just from the sidelines, but to do whatever it is that the UK Government tells the Tory party to do. Mike Rumbles. I want to pursue this, but until this morning it was Keith Brown that was supposed to answer this question. I know that the minister is in the hot seat now, maybe not as prepared, but does the minister agree with me that for Keith Brown to quote him, engage extensively with Heathrow, sign another merit of understanding, as I've already heard, talk up the deal he had negotiated for almost two years and then have SNP MSPs abstain in the vote? Is it an unmitigated embarrassment for Keith Brown and the Government, and to pursue the point, was it the first minister that instructed SNP MPs to abstain? Minister. It's unbelievable, again, for Mike Rumbles, because when I look at the Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs, I know, and there may be very good reason for this, but I note that not all the Scottish Liberal Democrats MPs that also voted in favour of the third runway. What I would say to Mike Rumbles is that we are taking an evidence-based approach. That is not to simply believe what Theresa May has to say. I know previously that Lib Dems have accepted what the Conservatives have said without standing up to the Conservatives when they were in coalition with the UK Government, but we don't take that approach. We're demanding assurances on those 200 additional flights. We're demanding assurances on the environment, which is something that I would expect Liberal Democrats to be joined with us in demanding from the UK Government. So we'll continue to take an evidence-based approach. This Government has that MOU with Heathrow, which is, of course, different to the actions of the Government. What we're demanding is action from the UK Government, and I would expect instead of siding with the Tory MSPs in this one, he would be more onside with us. Gordon MacDonald. Does the minister agree that the UK Government should have ensured that MPs were able to take a fully informed decision on expanding Heathrow by holding the vote after the publication of the independent UK Committee on climate change emissions report? Yes, absolutely, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand how politically tone-deaf this UK Government continues to be. While we have no responsibility for the information provided for MPs beforehand, given the importance of the decision, you would have expected that MPs would receive sufficient information alongside the appropriate time to consider that information. So, when we have the independent UK Committee on climate change emissions reports due within days to hold the vote before that, is exactly the reason why I'm sure our MPs, one of the reasons why our MPs abstain, but I've got a feeling it's why Tory MPs would have voted against as some did. It's why Labour MPs, some of which voted against or indeed abstain, did for that very, very reason. So, yes, the UK Government, I've made a mistake for that, and we look for the assurances from the UK Government around climate change and the emissions from the third runway. Patrick Harvie. Thank you. Chris Grayling, the UK Transport Secretary, was widely pilloraid for making a statement on Heathrow expansion without ever once mentioning the issue of climate change, but the SNP's position is equally risible. What on earth is it that the minister thinks he's going to read in the climate change committee's report when it's published that it's going to overcome the objective reality that more flights means more emissions and in particular, more short-haul flights between Scotland and London when we have rail alternatives and surface alternatives to use is completely unnecessary? Isn't it clear that this proposal blows a hole in UK Government climate change policies and in Scottish Government's climate change policies and leaves them without any shred of credibility? Minister. No, that's a ridiculous assertion. This is the Government that has brought forward world-leading climate change targets, which is meeting those targets. It has brought forward radical action, whether it's in my portfolio in transport in relation to a low-missions zone when it comes to electric vehicles or indeed anything else. When it comes to those climate change targets, it's worth mentioning that it is this Government that has ensured that aviation emissions and other transport emissions are included within those targets that we have. The independent UK Committee on Climate Change report is hugely important to us, is vital to us, and of course MPs will be looking for those assurances from the UK Government. For Patrick Harvie to say that we have no shred of any credibility on this, I'm afraid it just doesn't match with the reality. Thank you. That concludes topical questions. I apologise to the members who wish to ask further questions. There's just not quite enough time this afternoon.