 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson and Glasgow City region deal, Glasgow airport access project. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be any interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, 10 minutes please. The Scottish Government recognises the important role transport plays in the lives of those living and working in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. We continue to support the Glasgow city region deal. I want to see it succeed. We support a Glasgow airport access project and are committed to working with partners to improve surface access to the airport as a matter of urgency. As members will know, the Glasgow airport access project is part of the Glasgow city region deal. As such, the responsibility for delivering the city deals projects rests with the relevant local authorities. In this case, Glasgow city and Renfrewshire councils. Members may also be aware that the original outline business case for the Glasgow airport access project was approved by the Glasgow city region deal cabinet in 2016. Officials at Transport Scotland and Network Rail had consistently raised concerns about aspects of the business case. As a result, the then Minister for Transport and Islands commissioned an independent audit. The approach was welcomed by the councils, who supported the audit process and agreed that the project team would work to address the key audit concerns around the transport demands, rail operational issues and the economic case, including costs and benefits. Those discussions led to agreement that Transport Scotland would commission parallel work to better understand existing and future rail demands and timetable capacity constraints around the south Glasgow rail network. Over the last 12 months, the airport access project team has worked to address the concerns. On 30 January, I chaired the Glasgow airport access executive steering group. That includes the leaders of both councils and representatives from Glasgow airport. The group was established in recognition of the importance of this project and to give strategic direction. At the meeting, we heard how the project team has considered issues that have been raised in the independent audit, including the potential impact of a tram train option on the existing rail network. Members should be aware that Glasgow central is Scotland's busiest station. It serves around 33 million passengers a year and is operating at or near capacity. Growth predictions indicate that the station demand will be 60 million passengers a year by 2040. The Scottish Government and the wider rail industry is acutely aware that performance levels at Glasgow central and across the west of Scotland rail network are at significant risk if existing and future demands are not strictly managed. In line with Government rail policy supported by the wider rail industry, we are firstly seeking to manage and address capacity by increasing rolling stock provision. Where additional services must be added to the existing network, they should be focused on those routes where heavy rail services are best placed to deliver rather than introducing new services that might be more efficiently delivered by other modes. In taking forward this approach, Transport Scotland has been assessing service enhancements that would make best use of the current and planned major rail projects, and tackling routes where passenger volume demands more seats. The improvements focus on providing longer and more frequent trains on the shots, East Kilbride, Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Lanark and Paisley canal routes, as well as additional cross-border services. The tram train service between Glasgow airport and Glasgow central station was also considered as part of the work. The analysis has shown that to accommodate tram train services at the airport, performance on the wider rail network would be negatively impacted and require either the reduction of current rail services to, from Ayrshire and Inverclyde, or the deferral of future service enhancements, or significant and high-cost infrastructure and at and around Glasgow central. The capacity analysis undertaken by Transport Scotland has indicated that it would only be possible to accommodate six out of a planned 25 airport services during morning peak period. Therefore, in the assessment there would be 19 airport services, which we would come into direct conflict with other train services and therefore could not be accommodated without detrimental impact. Just as an example of the potential implications, the trains in direct conflict with the tram include some arrivals into Glasgow between 0800 and 0900 from Ayrshire and Inverclyde, which carry high volumes of commuters. Furthermore, it has been estimated that 15 passenger services using Glasgow central station and its approaches would have to be removed to accommodate four tram trains per hour. That is estimated to be in the region of 5,000 seats in the AM peak period on heavily laden services. In addition to those significant impacts, safety considerations would be required to operate lighter tram train units on heavy rail network. Those have not been fully considered in the current business case. The leaders of the local authorities responsible for the project have recognised that current and future rail services should not be compromised and that the case for tram train set out in the original outline business case was not robust in this regard. We cannot ignore the fact that tram train option would have a detrimental impact on the network and has many real and potentially insurmountable challenges. I am sure that members would agree that taxpayers' money should be spent on projects with a robust business case for inclusive growth and on a project that is not detrimental to current rail passengers. The executive steering group heard that the emerging preferred option for a personalised rapid transit link could be delivered within the existing city region deal budget and its timescale, being operational by 2025. Importantly, that approach has received backing from the leaders of Glasgow City and Renfrewshire councils, which have rightly expressed that their responsibility is to deliver a workable and affordable solution that will not impact on rail services. Partners will shortly ask the city deal cabinet to approve work on the PRT option to be completed this year. In addition to supporting the city deal, the Scottish Government is taking forward work to determine what transport investment should be made in the future to deliver our economic strategy. The second strategic transport projects review is the opportunity to consider at a national and regional level the important contribution that transport infrastructure projects will play in delivering and sustaining the economic growth that we aspire for. I recognise that the performance of the M8 between Glasgow and the airport is of concern, and consideration of the future needs of the strategic road network and public transport network, which supports the economy of the Glasgow conurbation, will be an important part of that work. Our cities and regions are the engines of our economy. The Scottish Government is committed to working with partners to unlock investment, stimulate growth and to deliver infrastructure. The Scottish Government will continue to support the city region deal and we want to see it succeed. Improving connectivity is a priority for the region as a whole. Improving surface access to Glasgow airport should be delivered for the benefits of all and not at the detriment of other services or planned enhancements. In taking forward the Glasgow airport access project, it is essential that we consider a whole system approach. I am confident that we have made significant progress towards that outcome through the on-going work with the city region deal partners. I look forward to seeing further development on the city deal project, to improve access to Glasgow airport and to the second STPR, which will set the long-term strategic outcome for the region and for the nation as a whole. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will have to move on to the next item of business. I can ask those members who wish to ask questions to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Jamie Greene to be followed by Colin Smith. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement today. Glasgow airport is the only major international airport that is only accessible by road. The airport is growing, the population around it is growing and the employment hub in which it sits is growing as well. It is simply inconceivable that the only way that you can access this road is through a heavily congested M8. There has got to be some other form of connection. I accept—the cabinet secretary mentioned this in great detail—that someone who represents parts of version and reclied that any rail link to improve connectivity should not and should never be at the detriment of any rail services in any way. I fully support the cabinet secretary on that. However, the PRT proposal only connects the airport to Paisley and surely flies in the face of the spirit of the intention of this city deal to connect Glasgow airport and Glasgow city centre. I accept our issues with the tram train proposal, but can I ask the cabinet secretary? Is he truly confident that Transport Scotland and other stakeholders have fully explored each and every potential option available to connect Glasgow airport and Glasgow city centre? That could be the city centre—it does not need to be central station specifically. Can I ask what the potential cost also of the PRT solution would be versus what the original tram train solution was estimated to be? Will Paisley's infrastructure be ready to accommodate this connection? With regard to the tram train solution, which seems to have been shelved today, is he fully confident that, with the SNP council administrations that have made this decision today, they have been robust, done adequate due diligence and think that they have made the right decision? Can I address the issue that is simply not true? The idea that Glasgow is the only airport in Europe that does not have a rail link? For example, Luton does not have one. What they are doing just now is putting a PRT in place in order to connect it. Luton actually carries— No, no. I want—sorry, folks. Cabinet secretary, sit down a moment, please. I want to hear the answer, so does everybody else, and I can't if you're shouting over each other. Members, you can turn it to Luton. Luton carries 16 million passengers a year, significantly more than Glasgow airport does at the present time. Budapest does not have a rail link either. Many of them are looking at putting in infrastructure to help to support and improve connectivity, but the idea that it is the only airport in Europe that does not have a rail link is factually untrue. Let me deal with the issue of improving connectivity to the airport and, in particular, surface connectivity to the airport. There is absolutely no doubt about the need to make sure that we improve surface access to the airport. That is exactly what was proposed in the city deal. The city deal proposal is one that has been taken forward by the two councils, Renfrewshire and Glasgow city council. The proposals that they are considering are proposals that they have developed, not this Government. When they considered the issue back in 2016, they very quickly ruled out a PRT option and did not develop an outlaying business case for that to be considered. That was a decision that was made by the Cabinet at that particular point, not by the Scottish Government. In my view, they should have conducted much more work at an early stage in order to analyse the potential impact that that could have. However, the deal is also about the wider region and how it can help to improve growth and help to improve connectivity in that wider region. As I have set out, the proposed tram train option would have had a significant detrimental impact on the rest of the region and the potential to improve services in those areas. That is why it is important that the city deal partners consider those issues and look for an option that allows them to improve surface access to the airport but is not detrimental to the rest of the region. That is exactly why they have chosen to pursue the PRT option and intend to take that forward to develop a full business case on the matter. The member asked questions about the cost for this. The costs for this are allocated within the city deal budget. The amount that was intended for the tram train option is around £138 million. The PRT option is likely to be in that similar frame. However, there were significant cost elements within the tram train option that were not considered in the business case for the very reasons that I have outlined and the significant enhancements that would also be necessary to infrastructure to cope with that. That would again be a matter for the city deal partners to decide whether they wish to allocate any additional monies within the city deal arrangement towards any surface access arrangement. Alongside that, we need to address the road connectivity to the west of Glasgow and particularly to the airport. That is something that can be considered in the STPR2 and is an area that will be given clear priority in order to look at what other options can be developed in order to improve connectivity to the airport by road. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. This is the second time that the SNP has axed plans for a rail link to Glasgow airport and yet another betrayal of the people of Glasgow in the west of Scotland. It is a betrayal roundly condemned by the business community right across the west of Scotland. The city of Glasgow continues to grow. Glasgow airport continues to grow, but sadly so too does the utter lack of ambition of the SNP Government and the SNP leadership in Glasgow and Renfisher councils. It is clear that the so-called emerging preferred pod is a second-rate option for an increasingly second-rate transport system under this Government. The rail link, which has undergone review after review, was at the heart of the Glasgow city region deal, signed by the Government five years ago, but only now are there raising capacity issues. There is conflicting expert opinion challenging those capacity claims, but if they are an obstacle to the light rail plan, does the cabinet secretary not accept that this exposes the complete failure of the Government to adequately improve capacity at Glasgow central? When will the Government show some ambition and put in place a proper plan to grow capacity across Glasgow instead of the current policy of simply blocking badly-needed new services with all the economic damage that does to Scotland? Members may not be aware, but concerns were raised by Transport Scotland and by Network Rail back in 2016, when the city deal partners brought forward their issues around this matter. They welcomed the independent audit that was undertaken and recognised that that set out a number of challenges. The member seems to want to ignore the point that I was making in my statement. That is that Network Rail and Transport Scotland are looking at introducing a range of enhancements in order to improve capacity at Glasgow central with the additional rolling stock and also the frequency of services. What the member does not seem to recognise is that he cannot introduce a single project in ignoring the rest of the network and think that everyone else should actually have less of a service in order to give priority to one particular service. That is essentially what the member is arguing. Given the area in which the member represents an impact that this would have on areas such as Inverclyde and Ayrshire and also for services into Lanarkshire as well, we cannot ignore the potential impact that this proposal would actually have. I am disappointed that the original Outland Business Case did not address the various issues. That is why the enhancement programme to improve these services is all part of the work that is being taken forward by Transport Scotland and Network Rail in order to address the capacity issues that we have going forward. That is why it has to be undertaken in a managed way and in a way that does not create detriment to those other passengers who have to make use of the services coming into Glasgow central. The member seems to want to say, who cares? Just get on with this one, because we do not care about Ayrshire, we do not care about those in Inverclyde who will be affected by it. Let us just ignore those passengers from those areas even in his own region, because he is committed to this for party political purposes rather than about improving services for the travelling public within the Glasgow region area. Right. I have 12 members wanting to ask questions. You will have to be quick with your questions. They have to be short, please, and answers. I hope that that can match, I call James Dornan to follow by Adam Tomkins. Given the problems mentioned in the opening statement, not least those that may hinder people from coming into Glasgow to work in Glasgow if the tram train option did go ahead, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that Labour councillors could learn a bit from the SNP's commitment to not waste taxpayers' money in major projects that are not properly costed? You would have thought that they would have learned from the disastrous consequences of some of their councillor's recent decisions, not least in this city that we speak in today. It is important to make sure that there is a very robust business case for any major infrastructure project of this nature. The audit demonstrated that there were some significant issues around the original business case that need to be addressed, as has the timetabling study for the south of Glasgow also demonstrated. Those are issues that need to be addressed. As the executive group who considered the matter last week recognised that there are a number of them that are extremely challenging, which the planned tram train link to Glasgow airport would impact adversely on the network overall. Those are matters that should have been considered at a much earlier stage by the city deal partners. I am disappointed that they never gave due consideration to those matters at the time, but it is right that those who are often leadership to this issue within Glasgow and Renfrewshire councils recognise those potential risks and that they are matters that have to be addressed. Adam Tomkins, followed by Stuart McMillan. Anyone who cares about the economic growth of Glasgow would see immediately that Glasgow needs a direct rail link to its airport, yet the SNP is counselling such a plan for the second time in a decade. That is nothing less than a betrayal of Glasgow. Does it not show that this is a Government that could not care less about Glasgow's economic future prosperity? When it comes to betrayal, I will take no lessons from the Labour party's impact that they have had in places such as Glasgow and the Glasgow Connovation over the years, the Tories over the years. I will take no lessons from them on the betrayal that they have had to people in the west of Scotland over many, many decades. I can say to the member that he seems to think as well. I do not know what is sitting next to his colleague in Jamie Greene, to maybe I do not know John Scott in Ayrshire that we should just, who cares about the folk in Ayrshire, who cares about the folk in Inverclyde, the fact that they have a detrimental impact on their service, how can we improve connectivity to our airport by pursuing a route that will help to deliver that and improve connectivity, and that is what the PRT option is one that they are looking at in order to develop that yet further. But what we will do is we will take that forward in a measured fashion. It comes to betrayal, the Tories know much more about betraying the people of Scotland in particular, the people of Glasgow than anybody else in this chamber, and Adam should know about that. Full names please Cabinet Secretary, full names. Stuart McMillan, followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you very much. I'm saying also that the Cabinet Secretary for Government needs a statement that actually touched upon the example of Inverclyde losing a service between 8 and 9 in the morning, but also what would the transport disruption be in Inverclyde further throughout the day time if the Glasgow airport access project, as supported by the Labour Party and the Conservatives, actually does proceed. Bearing in mind, bearing in mind to propose local development plan by the Labour-led council is to suggest over 5,000 new homes in the Inverclyde area. As I set out my statement, the morning peak period is estimated that around 15 passenger services using Glasgow central station and its approaches would have to be removed, relocated or to accommodate four rail paths per hour for an airport service. That is in the region of some 5,000 seats removed or significantly affected in order to facilitate that. Although those may not all relate to Inverclyde and the member's constituency itself, there is absolutely no doubt that it would have a clear impact on Inverclyde area and what is already a very busy rail part of the rail network. That is why it is also worth noting that the headway that you require to have between heavy and light services such as between a tram and also heavy rail requires additional times between those journey times, which would then have a significant impact on the Paisley-Gilmore street to Glasgow central service. There is no doubt that there are significant challenges in being able to deliver a rail link directly into Glasgow central from the airport, which is why the city region deal partners are sensibly looking at an alternative option, which will improve connectivity while it will not deliver detriment to those who are existing passenger users on the existing network. I am not sure that the minister fully understands what impact congestion on the M8 could have on the west Scotland economy. Does he accept that, when it comes to increasing the numbers that use public transport to get to and from Glasgow airport, a rail link and the tram train solution has consistently been found to be the best-performing option? Does he accept that? I recognise the challenges around congestion on the M8 to the west from Glasgow city centre through to the airport and the need to take forward a range of options. What the member does not seem to recognise is that the tram train option does not address that problem. It does not magic a wand and relieve all the congestion problems. It needs to be a number of different issues that are taken forward. That is why the way in which the city deal partners have been taken forward is the right approach to looking at how they can deliver a system that will not offer detriment to existing rail users. As we have said, under STP R2, we will look at what further work can be undertaken in order to improve connectivity on the road network to the west of Glasgow. No doubt the member will be aware that the Glasgow connectivity commission is giving due consideration to this matter at this very time and is looking at the wider regional implications of transport choices in the year ahead. We will give that due consideration when it is published in the weeks ahead. Patrick Harvie followed by Mike Rumbles. The screens have always seen a case for a rail link to Glasgow airport to take airport traffic off the roads rather than just increase the amount of it. However, we have always made the case for that to be done as part of a wider regional rail network improvement. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the proposal under the local rail development fund for crossrail was rejected specifically because it is of national and strategic importance? Isn't it time for the Scottish Government to throw its weight behind crossrail in alliance with an airport rail link? That would provide the wider regional improvements that we need, rather than seeing that project languishing on the shelf. That project is now thrown into confusion. The issue of crossrail was a matter that was considered in the previous STPR back in 2008, and it was rejected on the basis of the cost-benefit analysis that would come from it. Also, there were issues around the displacement of existing services in the Glasgow area, which would make it a detriment to some who use those existing services. However, it is an issue that can be revisited and reconsidered. We have STPR 2 coming forward. There is an opportunity to look at how we can further enhance the connectivity to Glasgow and the region that it serves and its connecting communities. That will allow us to look at a range of different options from rail through to road and other forms of improving connectivity. I have no doubt that the city councils across—not just in Glasgow but across the west of Scotland—will look to use STPR 2 as a way in which they can highlight the projects that they believe that it could help to enhance and improve public transport within the city region area. Mike Rumbles, followed by John Mason. Does the cabinet secretary think now that the SNP has indeed cancelled a direct rail link for the second time that it would be fair to charge the thousands of Glasgow airport workers, the new car parking charges, the SNP and green MSPs, are committed to voting through, given those workers have no choice but to travel to work by road? I am— You can always count on Mike Rumbles for a bit of creativity in matters, can't you? However, no doubt there are other options about improving transport links to the airport. The PRT is an option that will be there, if it is the option that is pursued by the city deal partners that will improve connectivity, which can be used by workers and travellers as well, and also by looking at how we can enhance the existing road connectivity at Glasgow airport to improve the frequency of public transport provision to the airport from the city, looking at bus prioritisation, traffic intelligence management systems, all of which could help to enhance and improve connectivity to the airport as well. No doubt that that is something that the airport workers will be able to benefit from as well, if it is taken forward. John Mason, will you follow that? Thank you. The minister spent a fair bit of time on the capacity of a Glasgow central station in his statement. Following on Patrick Harvie's question, I would ask that at least would he instruct Transport Scotland to keep crossrail as a possibility on the table, because, for example, an Edinburgh air service could be taken out of Glasgow central and could use a new station at Glasgow cross, which would be a boost for that area and he would give a more direct service. I mentioned earlier on to Patrick Harvie the issues around crossrail or matters that can be considered within the STPR2, which allow us to take a strategic overview of those issues. However, crossrail itself would not address the major problems that we have with the tram train link. For the very reason that the Paisley corridor approaches both Arcoston junction and Shield junctions would still have very significant challenges in dealing with any additional capacity issues there. The idea that crossrail is the way in which we resolve the issue with an airport link to the Glasgow airport to the city centre to central station in Glasgow is not correct. There will still be very significant capacity constraints and any introduction of a service, even with crossrail in place, even with the introduction of an airport rail link from the airport to the city centre, would still have a detrimental impact on the rest of the network that is served by Glasgow central station. It is important that members recognise that crossrail will not answer the problems and the serious challenges that are with capacity issues at Arcoston and Shield junction. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the PRT option would be a popular choice with passengers and would solve the problem with congestion on the M8? Will it truly satisfy the appetite for a direct link? Clearly, the deal partners are working up the business case for a PRT option. There are a number of airports that have a PRT in place. For example, you mentioned that Luton does not have a rail link at the present time. It carries some 16 million passengers per year compared to about 10 million that go through Glasgow airport. It is currently developing a PRT to go from the airport terminal to the rail station in order to provide better connectivity because it believes that that is the best option to meet that airport's particular needs. There are other airports in the world that have put PRTs in place. There are others that put direct rail links in place because of the capacity and ability to do so. We need to ensure that the business case that is brought forward by the city deal partners is robust and detailed. It delivers the improved surface connectivity to the airport in the way in which the proposal was intended to. That is what it has set out in doing. That is why later this month it will take the proposal to the city deal cabinet in order to consider the matter further and to commission a full business case on the matter. Cabinet Secretary, Labour and Tory MSPs seem utterly oblivious to the detrimental impact their PET train tram proposal will have on commuter's tune from Ayrshire and Inverclyde. Can you advise what the White Elephant project would have on the economies of Ayrshire and Inverclyde areas that some of those Tory and Labour MSPs theoretically represent? Cabinet Secretary, the member raises an important issue, because the Glasgow conurbation, the region as a whole, plays a major part in helping to support and to diversify and to develop the economy within Glasgow itself. Mr Tomkins raised this particular issue in his own contribution about helping to improve the economy of Glasgow. That is why it is important that connectivity into the city is good in improving it. That is why we are looking at improving and enhancing services from Shorts, from East Kilbride, from Ayrshire, from Inverclyde, from Lanark in order to make sure that those who need to travel into the city are able to do so. That is the potential risk with the issue that was raised by the independent audit of the outline business case for the tram train link. It would have a detrimental impact on those other areas that are trying to access into the city, potentially having a negative impact on its economy, which is why we have to take a whole systems approach to look at how we improve connectivity into the city rather than pursuing one option that is then to the detriment of the other parts of the services that come into the city, which would then have a negative impact on the economy in Glasgow and also in the wider Glasgow conurbation. Before I call Johann Lamont of two additional members, I want to call them and know that it is a very hot topic, so please can we have them crisp because we have to go on to the next debate. Johann Lamont to be followed by Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Graham Simpson. Thank you. I wonder if the cabinet secretary might reflect on the dangers of seeking to turn one community against another when all of our communities have the right to expect a cabinet secretary who wants an integrated transport system for all. Why does he imagine that all those businesses and communities who are advocates for a realign are all wrong and Transport Scotland, who only ever sees barriers, is right? Can he identify for me any business, any community organisation in any part of the universe who said to him, what we really need to have integrated transport is a people pod? The member in her initial question ignores the fact that we have to deal with the reality of the situation and the evidence that demonstrates very clearly the detrimental impact that is going forward with the proposed plan at the present time with that driving the network. I am surprised that I do not know if it will be Labour's campaign in Ayrshire or Inverclyde in Lancer. We want to cut your rail services so that we can get a link from the airport into the city centre. It sounds as though that will be Mr Smith and his colleagues' campaign calling card at the next election. We are going to cut your services so that we can get our rail link. I hope that it is a point of order, Mr Gibson. Is that appropriate for people who ask questions to handle the answer to the questions that they themselves have asked? You are no angel yourself, Mr Gibson, can I say? However, sit down, Mr Gibson, sit down. It is for the Presiding Officer to control the debate. There is a bit of heat on both sides here. We are coming to the end of a very interesting set of questions. I have two more to take and these must be brief. Stuart Stevenson followed by Graham Day and they are eating into the next debate. Graham Simpson, you have got me all hot and bothered now. I refer to my register of interests. Ten years ago, Glasgow airport wanted an eight-figure compensation for the proposals to take heavy rail to the airport. Is there any update on Glasgow airport's current attitude to any of the proposals? Cabinet Secretary, I am sorry briefly. Presiding Officer, I cannot give them an update on that specific matter. Graham, I am looking at it now. Simpson. Of course, there is a direct rail link to an airport from Glasgow and that is to Manchester, which does seem rather farcical. I do not want to argue for a reduced rail system. My question is that, if there has been a flawed business case in this case, will the transport secretary look at some of the other transport projects in that city deal to check if they are also flawed? All projects in any city deal are only approved once the outline business case has been fully assessed, as has been the case with this particular project? Right. That concludes questions on the statement, and we will have a brief moment before we move on to the next item of business.