Clyde (Regeneration)
The final item of business this morning is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3753, in the name of Gordon Jackson, on the regeneration of the Clyde.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the importance to Scotland of efforts to regenerate the Clyde; considers that the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise should establish and resource a development framework for the Clyde which encourages joined-up thinking and action; further considers that the respective councils, enterprise companies, regeneration agencies and private developers should work co-operatively in reclaiming derelict land, ensuring adequate flood protection and improving the transport infrastructure, and believes that ministers should make the regeneration of the Clyde one of the top economic, environmental and social justice priorities for Scotland.
I believe and hope that today will be a good day for the Clyde, in particular the area that I represent. The prospect that shipbuilding might not only survive, but grow is an exciting one and is certainly well deserved as far as the work force is concerned.
Apart from that, there is much to be positive about. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported last week on the great success of Glasgow's "renaissance" and described Glasgow as the "new Berlin" for this decade. That is flowery language, but I hope that it is well deserved. More construction will take place in Glasgow over the next 10 years than in any other city in Europe and much of that building will be focused on Clydeside. There is a £1 billion plan for new offices, homes and leisure facilities on derelict land and nearly 80 projects are planned to try to make the waterfront an economic force for the city again.
Some projects have been completed, such as the Glasgow Science Centre which, even with all its problems, is a marvellous development. Other spending proposals include £500 million for the Glasgow harbour project; £300 million for an international financial service district; £14 million to develop Glasgow green; £15 million to develop the second phase of Pacific Quay; and BBC Scotland plans a £30 million headquarters in the same area. All those developments are helping to fulfil Scottish Enterprise Glasgow's mission statement, which I like, and which says that SE Glasgow wants
"to make Glasgow one of the great cities of Europe".
We should, and rightly can, talk up what is happening. However, all the development brings challenge. Regenerating the Clyde is part of a bigger picture—it is about making Glasgow a better place for all of us who live and work there. In saying that, I am not forgetting the genuine interests and concerns of my colleagues, who will rightly tell us that they represent constituencies that are on the Clyde, but outside the city. I confess that I see the Clyde, in many ways, as Glasgow's river, but its regeneration is vital to the wider community and to Scotland as a whole. It is essential to ensure that we go forward in a way that, in the words of the motion,
"encourages joined-up thinking and action."
I appreciate that, to some extent, that is happening.
I am sure that Lewis Macdonald will mention that the Executive has established the Clyde waterfront working group. I do not underestimate that. That group will bring together local councils and other agencies that have common interests. The group is in its infancy, but I hope that it will become a focus for proper strategic thinking and action. It is to be fervently hoped that it does not become merely a talking shop at which those who have their own vested interests fight among themselves. I have no time to go into that and I am in any case not all that concerned about the structure by which development and regeneration are brought about. There are a host of models that could do that; some would appeal to some people and others would appeal to other people. I am much more concerned with getting the job done. Despite all that has happened and all that is happening—much has happened and is happening—there is a great deal still to do.
For example—others members want to speak, so I will be brief—we need to ensure that there is adequate flood protection. When I first came into this job, I thought that the issue was all about scaremongering; it took me a while to take it on board as seriously as I should. However, the more I hear about it, the more concerned I become about the genuine problem of rising water levels that could affect thousands of people who live in the area. We need to ensure that there are adequate flood prevention schemes and we need to ask ministers for an assurance that such schemes will be properly funded.
We also need a greatly improved transport infrastructure that uses the river and which is linked to modern and innovative methods of public transport. I am not simply repeating the old Glasgow cry of, "Bring back the trams"; however, to have trams that run along the north side of the river, for example, might be an innovative way forward.
We need to ensure that all—everyone has a role to play—who are involved in the public and private sectors co-operate in the reclamation of derelict land. There is still a great deal of disused land where heavy industry once stood. However, all of that needs clear, joined-up strategic thinking. Without that, things can go badly wrong. I hope that I will be forgiven if, for two minutes, I sound parochial but I must give members a local example because I cannot talk about joined-up thinking in relation to the Clyde without that.
On the north side of the river is the Glasgow harbour development, which is important and welcome. However, development of that site will mean that a waste disposal site must be removed from the area. The present proposal is to move the site to the south side of the river; indeed, planning applications are presently before Glasgow City Council to place that waste disposal site on the banks of the river near the Clyde tunnel. That would be madness. To see how mad, we need only quote the present city plan and the council's policy for the river, which is to
"introduce high standards of urban design and landscaping to create a corridor of design excellence adjacent to the river".
That is marvellous—I love it. But how does it square with the siting of a waste disposal plant that nobody wants? I hope fervently that the plant will not be placed at the suggested site. I use that example because I do not believe that such a proposal could ever be considered seriously if there were an overall strategic plan for the development of the river area.
I accept that a range of agencies are working with businesses to regenerate the Clyde but, quite simply, I want an even closer partnership which would be led, if need be, by Scottish ministers. That partnership would set clear goals and targets and it would respect local needs and concerns while giving a clear focus to regeneration, which would serve not only the local community but the Scottish economy.
I end with the final words of the motion, which states:
"ministers should make the regeneration of the Clyde one of the top economic, environmental and social justice priorities for Scotland".
I congratulate Gordon Jackson on securing the debate. Like him, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the ambitious plans to regenerate the Clyde. I echo the comments that he made.
As Gordon Jackson said, one group of residents on the south side of the Clyde right now stands to pay a heavy price for development elsewhere. That is why I make no apology for using the debate to highlight the proposal from Clydeport plc and the private company W H Malcolm Ltd to move an industrial waste plant from its current site on the north side of the river to make way for luxury flats as part of the Glasgow harbour development and relocate the plant on Holmfauld Road in Linthouse.
I object strongly to that proposal for two reasons. First, the waste plant is currently sited in an industrial area, whereas Linthouse is a residential area. It is significant that one of the leading objectors to the proposal is the local housing association on behalf of its tenants. If the plan goes ahead, up to 700 lorries every day will rumble past the houses of those who live in Linthouse. They will pass shops, three primary schools and the Southern general hospital. The proposal will lead to congestion, huge road safety issues, environmental and noise pollution and all the associated health problems. Secondly, if the plant goes ahead on the south side of the river, it will close the door on the possibility of that part of the Clyde having the kinds of residential and leisure developments that are planned for other parts of the Clyde. That is not acceptable or fair.
I will tell one tale that adds insult to injury. Apparently, the developers of the flats on the other side of the Clyde have complained that their future residents will not want to look across the Clyde at the eyesore of the waste plant. Clydeport has therefore said that it will plant trees in front of the plant. The inhabitants of the luxury flats are not to look at the waste plant, but the residents of Linthouse are expected to live beside it. I object strongly to that.
Gordon Jackson is absolutely right to say that the regeneration of the Clyde must be joined up. The thinking behind it must be connected. Regeneration must not take place for some at a cost to others. I hope that all representatives of Glasgow—north and south of the river—will stand up for Govan on the issue and ensure that the proposal is dumped once and for all.
I, too, congratulate Gordon Jackson on securing the debate. I endorse many of the arguments that he expressed and support many of the apprehensions that he articulated.
As far as the background of the Clyde is concerned, we all have memories of what a thriving waterway it was in past decades. It is an interesting illustration of the turning of the circle that we are again approaching a time when the Clyde offers one of the most exciting opportunities imaginable in decades for a restoration of maritime development.
Although my interest is in the lower part of the river, from Braehead to the west, if we consider the concept of restoring maritime development and making the Clyde a major transport waterway once again, it is clear that decisions that are taken elsewhere may have a prejudicial effect on the development of the Clyde as a whole. For that reason, I support Gordon Jackson's view that there should be what he calls joined-up thinking and a strategic overview of how the development of the whole Clyde area is to take place. The regeneration of the Clyde cannot become the subject of petty parochial squabbles that may inhibit or obstruct the development of the whole river.
The proposed Finnieston bridge, on which I will focus, is a matter of concern for many, particularly those who have an interest in trying to resume maritime operations on the river. In fairness, the previous Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Wendy Alexander, recognised the difficulties and articulated to Scottish Enterprise her concern that the proposed bridge should not obstruct potential development of the river as a whole. The reality is that Glasgow City Council has now granted planning permission and that huge concerns remain about what the bridge's effect will be on the development of the river. It seems clear that the discussions over the bridge's structure and over a possible modification to its design should be the subject of strategic guidance from the Scottish Executive.
Only yesterday, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee published a well-received report on tourism, which identified the possibility of Edinburgh and Glasgow having gateway city opportunities for tourism development in Scotland. It would be ironic were the Clyde, of all rivers, to be prejudiced with regard to participation in that much sought-after development of the tourism industry if some short-sighted decisions are taken that impair maritime movement on the Clyde.
I commend and support the motion. I ask the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to consider carefully whether it is time for some timely advice to be given to those agencies that are working to secure the regeneration of the river.
I thank Gordon Jackson for giving us the opportunity to discuss the regeneration of the Clyde. The Clyde does not begin at Glasgow, nor does it end at the Erskine bridge. It will not surprise members to hear that I will talk about the lower Clyde, particularly Inverclyde.
Anyone who has ever driven west into Inverclyde will have seen the spectacular scenery that hits them the instant that they pass Langbank, where the Firth of Clyde opens up—a beautiful sight—and they will recognise the extent to which the River Clyde has influenced our history and is essential to our future.
As we have heard—and as we will hear again later in the debate—the Clyde is a great natural asset. For us in Inverclyde, the breathtaking scenery is the key to attracting people and businesses, so helping to rebuild our declining population. Over the years, the Inverclyde area has suffered terribly with the decline of traditional industry. This year, the area has suffered a disproportionate impact from the decline in the manufacturing sector, and we need to develop what is a very important asset to the benefit of that community and the whole of Scotland.
The waterfront is an ideal location for the sort of housing that today's families want. There is also a wealth of untapped waterfront leisure opportunities, from sailing to selling. The river itself could form part of an improved transport network, offering fast ferries into the centre of Glasgow without a single traffic jam. As Annabel Goldie said, that is why it is important to have co-ordination of the development of the Clyde. A decision that is made for one area should not prevent decisions from being taken on others.
We hope that the transport hub that we wish to develop at Gourock will give us a gateway into the Highlands and access to and from our new Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Regeneration is not just economic, and it does not just concern transport links and flood prevention. It is about people being involved in those matters; about good schools and good housing; and about the good public services that are needed in support.
The lower Clyde's needs are linked clearly with those of the Clyde regeneration strategy. Unfortunately, that strategy is not in place, which is a barrier to us. It is beyond question that we need more than Government plans. Communities, local businesses, elected representatives and Government agencies need to work together in effective partnerships that can realise the potential of our River Clyde.
I add my words of welcome for Gordon Jackson's motion, which is timely and relevant. Duncan McNeil said that life may not begin in Glasgow but, in terms of the Clyde, Glasgow is certainly the centre, the hub and a major key to the successful development of the Clyde.
For years, Glasgow has turned its back on the Clyde. Many of the great shipbuilding yards there lay silent and derelict. It was a place to be fenced off in case children or drunks fell in. It was also where we used to embark on trips doon the watter to Gourock, Rothesay and Dunoon.
In recent years, we have turned back to the Clyde, and I believe that we are reaching a critical mass, with projects feeding off and helping one another, and with growth developing its own momentum. Those projects include the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, the tall ship, Glasgow Science Centre, the harbour development, the restoration of the canal, the proposed BBC move and the proposal for a light rail or monorail system along and, perhaps, over the river, which may in due course reach Braehead and Renfrew.
Recently I had cause to visit Glasgow Science Centre. Afterwards I walked back across one of the two footbridges in the area to exhibition centre station. I endorse what Duncan McNeil said about views further down the river, but the view over the Clyde at Glasgow Science Centre, on a rare sunny day in winter, was incomparable—balm to the soul, if I may be poetic. It was the equal of views of any other great European city. However, it was marred by an area of dereliction on the Govan side of the river.
The renewal of Glasgow's water heritage is threatened by a number of constraints. Gordon Jackson mentioned contaminated land, which still makes up 9 per cent of the city's land area. Another constraint is the fragmentation of political and organisational control—not just among local authorities, but among riparian owners and the bureaucratic nightmare of agencies and partnerships. Those include Glasgow Alliance, the harbour board, Scottish Enterprise, the River Clyde working group, the Scottish Executive, the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
There is a threat of increased flooding up and down the river and its surrounds. Further up the river, the Clyde walkway is in danger of being submerged by a torrent not of water, but of litter, graffiti and poor maintenance. We must tackle those problems.
Other members have spoken about difficulties with the waste disposal project. I agree with every word that was said on that issue. I also agree with Annabel Goldie's comments on the height of the Finnieston bridge. Strategic control is necessary. We must consider effectively the whole future of the River Clyde.
Yesterday we debated the provisions of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill regarding river basins. It is important that that issue should be dealt with in a co-ordinated and effective fashion. Structures must be put in place. Like Gordon Jackson, I am not bothered about the precise nature of those structures, but they must be straightforward and effective.
This debate is about the future of Glasgow and the west of Scotland. As has been said, the Clyde basin is one of Scotland's incomparable national assets. The theme of this debate is, "Let Glasgow flourish".
I thank Gordon Jackson for taking the time to lodge the motion for debate. I remind members that this is the fifth time that we have discussed the regeneration of the Clyde. Members from all parties have lodged motions on the issue. I hope that this time we will get action, rather than just fine words.
Gordon Jackson's motion refers to joined-up thinking and action—something that was not mentioned in other motions on the issue. A lack of joined-up thinking is at the crux of the current problem with the Clyde. Annabel Goldie mentioned the Finnieston bridge. I have met representatives of the Glasgow harbour waterfront regeneration project, Clydeport and all the other bodies involved. I have been forced to meet them individually, rather than collectively, to find out what each of them is doing. That is a great worry not just to me, but to everyone who is interested in the Clyde. I have written letters to the minister on the issue.
Perhaps legislation can be introduced to deal with the dredging of the Clyde, quay walls, flood prevention and the Finnieston bridge. We know that navigation legislation will have to be repealed—I have written to the minister about that. I would like legislation to be introduced in the Parliament that clarifies what is happening.
In areas throughout Glasgow that I represent, the Finnieston bridge is now called the luvvie bridge. People believe that the bridge is being built especially for the BBC and they are desperately worried that the Clyde will be closed. Duncan McNeil said that the Clyde is beautiful down at Greenock and Gourock. I am not being parochial when I speak only about Glasgow. If the bridge is allowed to go ahead as proposed, ferries will not come right into Glasgow. That is a major worry.
I have spoken to businessmen and residents in the area, who fear that if the bridge is built as planned, it will mean the closure of the Clyde at that point. We are here to discuss the regeneration of the Clyde. We want to open up the Clyde not just as far as Inverclyde, but all the way up to Dalmarnock, so that the Clyde may be the jewel in the crown that it should be, not just for Glasgow, but for all of Scotland. I would like river-boats to travel along both the north and the south of the river. That will not happen without joined-up thinking.
I urge the minister to meet the responsible authorities and to produce legislation. He should get together with local representatives, MPs, MSPs, communities and all those who are interested in this issue to thrash out problems. If we act too quickly, we will once again miss the boat—if members will pardon the pun—and the Clyde will be closed at Finnieston bridge. That would in no way benefit Glasgow or the whole of Scotland.
I congratulate Gordon Jackson on securing the debate. I accept, and understand absolutely, the focus that Gordon Jackson places on his constituency and indeed on Glasgow. I hope that he will accept my contribution in the spirit that is intended on the regeneration of the Clyde in its fullest sense. The Clyde begins in my constituency and Clydesdale bears its name.
The regeneration of the Clyde will take many forms. In my area, the regeneration will cover many miles of rural Scotland, from the river's source in the lead hills, flowing down through the fabulous falls of Clyde at New Lanark—once a hive of industrial activity, now a world heritage site—and along the beautiful Clyde valley, which is renowned for the quality of market gardening. The regeneration of that part of the Clyde will be different from that in Glasgow and that in Inverclyde, but the principles of partnership are the same—partnership with the council, Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire and VisitScotland.
The part of the Clyde that runs through my constituency is one of our greatest untapped tourism resources. It is essential that the Executive take effective steps now to stop the Clyde valley being the poor relation in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board. Transport is essential and transport needs must be met, whether that is done by developing rural bus services, ensuring a link of services between Edinburgh and Clydesdale or achieving the long-awaited reopening of the Larkhall rail link, which will play an important part in the economic regeneration of my constituency.
I end in the way that Gordon Jackson did. The regeneration of all the Clyde, from its source to its mouth, must be one of the top economic, environmental and social justice priorities for the Executive and the Parliament.
I want to talk about the upper Clyde. The area that counts as central Scotland does not include Karen Gillon's constituency, but includes some important towns, which need co-ordination, joined-up Government and co-operation just as much as does Glasgow. The gist of the motion is very good and Gordon Jackson is to be congratulated on it.
The majority of Scottish people live 20 or 25 miles—I do not know the exact figure—from Sauchiehall Street. There is a huge concentration of population in that area. The demise of Strathclyde region, because the Tories did not like it, was unfortunate, but we need to recreate links so that there is joined-up Government for Motherwell, Wishaw, Hamilton, Coatbridge and Airdrie, together with Glasgow, Dumbarton and Inverclyde.
We can look at Glasgow as a whole and see that it has particular problems as it has suffered underfunding because of the destruction of Strathclyde region. However, we want to look more widely. In a well-run country, a long time ago, Lanarkshire would have been a separate city and would have thrived accordingly. It has not done so, but we have to work out how to have greater co-operation between the Lanarkshire towns, Glasgow and the lower Clyde towns.
There is great opportunity. Even the derelict land is an opportunity. We want to see the west of Scotland as a half-full bottle that we will fill further, rather than as a half-empty bottle.
I join others in congratulating my neighbour along the river, Gordon Jackson, on introducing the debate, not least because of its prescience. In the next couple of days, or indeed today, we expect to have it confirmed that shipbuilding will be as much part of the future of the Clyde as it has been part of the past, by the securing of a contract to build aircraft carriers for the nation. Had the Executive not acted in July 2000, when 1,000 redundancies were announced, Scotstoun might not have been able to build the first-in-class Type 45 or to respond this week when it became apparent that Barrow-in-Furness would not be able to do additional work on the Type 45. It is encouraging that, in addition to the anticipated financial services jobs, thousands of shipbuilding jobs will come to the Clyde.
Although I will not reiterate the point about end-to-end regeneration of the Clyde, I invite members for other constituencies to look to Renfrew. Braehead shopping centre has been a hugely successful private sector development that has so far created 6,000 jobs on the waterfront. Growth at the facility has doubled for three years in a row. Braehead now attracts shoppers from Iceland and Scandinavia, who would previously have gone to the MetroCentre in Gateshead. It has not simply redistributed the shopping opportunities along the Clyde, but has attracted new business.
After abandoning last night's debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill, I went to a meeting on the waterfront in Renfrew that was attended by 100 residents and the Braehead management. The issues of how Renfrew could once again become a river town and of what the old Renfrew could get out of the new Renfrew were discussed. All that lies ahead for those who are slightly behind Renfrewshire in considering Clyde regeneration.
I have a serious final point, which other members have mentioned. There are some fundamental strategic issues that none of us can tackle on our own. Although, in the old days, it might have fallen to Strathclyde Regional Council to address those issues, they now lie squarely in the Executive's territory. I will leave the minister with a shortlist of five infrastructure issues that are critical for the realisation of any of the ambitions that we have heard about.
The first is the need to deal with flooding and to provide the right sort of flood prevention measures. Secondly, the bridges that we build on the upper Clyde should not obstruct transportation from the lower Clyde. Thirdly, on the western part of the M8—the part that is west of the Kingston bridge—important road improvements are necessary to allow us to open up Inverclyde and Renfrewshire in the way that Mossend and the M74 have opened up Lanarkshire. Fourthly, there is a need for a light rapid transit facility along both banks of the Clyde. It is crazy that although Braehead shopping centre is less than 45 minutes away from two thirds of the Scottish population, the only way to reach it is by road. There is only a very localised bus service. Fifthly, the rail link to Glasgow airport is an infrastructure development that will be essential to underpin the realisation of the vision for the Clyde area.
Lewis Macdonald will respond to the debate on behalf of the Executive. You have seven minutes, but we have a couple of minutes in hand if you would like to take longer.
That is helpful Presiding Officer.
I begin by congratulating Gordon Jackson on securing the debate, which has given us the opportunity to affirm the importance of the upper and the lower Clyde to Scotland as a whole. The Executive shares the aspirations that have been expressed for the acceleration of growth and prosperity across the region and for the regeneration of the Clyde as a world-class waterfront.
The debate is timely. As members know, only a few weeks ago we published the cities review, which sets out a new direction for Glasgow and all our cities. As well as providing additional funding through the city growth fund and setting aside specific funding for the reclamation of derelict land—a significant issue for Glasgow and North Lanarkshire—the cities review looks to the cities to work in partnership with neighbouring authorities and the private sector to draw up proposals for a shared partnership vision by May of this year. That is the right approach for Glasgow and the Clyde valley and we are keen that it is developed.
Gordon Jackson mentioned last week's publication of the OECD report on Glasgow's urban renaissance, which was commissioned by Scottish Enterprise Glasgow. The report pays particular attention to the River Clyde, and recognises it as the heart of Glasgow and as an under-utilised asset of national importance. It accurately describes the waterfront as the interface between the old and new economies and between the Glasgow of the past two centuries and the Glasgow of the centuries to come. Annabel Goldie alluded to that.
Like the OECD, the Scottish Executive acknowledges and supports the partnership activity that is already under way on the Clyde, which is demonstrated by the work of a number of groups. Not least among those groups is the Clyde shipyards task force, which continues to address the future of shipbuilding on the river. In response to the recommendations of the task force's report, Scottish Enterprise recently made a welcome announcement of £5 million over three years for the Govan-Scotstoun action plan.
Clearly, the recent BAE Systems announcement of likely redundancies was disappointing, but we look forward to better news to come. For those who might lose their jobs as a result of those redundancies, the next few weeks of consultation will be important, but I hope that the wider prospects for the company will allow the number of compulsory redundancies to be kept to a minimum. Every effort will be made through the partnership action for continuing employment to help those affected to find alternative employment or training opportunities.
Even as we speak, the House of Commons is preparing for Geoff Hoon's announcement, which will confirm the Ministry of Defence's decision to proceed with the aircraft carrier contracts. I have no doubt that the Clyde shipyards are well placed to secure a significant share of those contracts, regardless of which company is chosen as the main contractor.
Shipbuilding has been, and will continue to be, important to the Clyde, but our agenda goes wider than that one industry. In November 2001, Wendy Alexander, who was the minister at the time, established the Clyde waterfront working group to which Gordon Jackson referred. That group is tasked with progressing a partnership strategy to maximise social and economic development along the Clyde between Glasgow green and the Erskine bridge. The group aims to add value to the many development and regeneration initiatives that are under way in that area.
The working group is chaired by Scottish Enterprise, which recently awarded landmark initiative status to the project. That means that national resources will be top-sliced to support it. The group brings together representatives from not only the Executive and Scottish Enterprise, but the local authorities in Glasgow, Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire, the local enterprise companies, the Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan committee and Clydebank Rebuilt Ltd.
Phase 1 of the group's work culminated in the publication in June last year of "ClydeRebuilt: A National Development Opportunity". That report predicted that a regenerated Clyde could make a substantial contribution to the economy as a whole and it recommended that those who are involved in its development should look to other parts of the world, as well as nearer to home, for models of how to progress.
Iain Gray and Margaret Curran have approved the findings of the report and endorsed the next step, which is the development of a detailed and deliverable strategy to create the conditions for success. Consultants have been appointed and are working up a development framework and an action plan. Sub-groups have been established to address the two important but distinct issues of community regeneration and transport and river engineering.
As several members said, transport is emerging as one of the most important issues for the regeneration of the Clyde. We have seen how major regeneration schemes across the world take good public transport as a given. Public transport is also important for the regeneration of the Clyde and for the wider context, as a number of members have said. An example of that is last week's announcement on the Airdrie to Bathgate line, which will bring a direct connection between, on the one hand, Partick and Clydebank and, on the other, the east of Scotland.
This week, Iain Gray and I met the chairs of Strathclyde Passenger Transport and the west of Scotland transport partnership to discuss how we should carry forward the investments that are already in place in the transport infrastructure in the west. We expect that the consultants will soon produce their report on the new rail link to Glasgow airport.
It is clear that the Clyde has exciting transport possibilities. The Clyde waterfront working group is awaiting a report on work that was led by Glasgow City Council. The report will make proposals for new light rapid transit systems on both sides of the river, so we will no doubt hear more about Glasgow trams when that work has been done.
A couple of members mentioned the proposed recycling plant at Linthouse. Members will be aware that the application may come before the Scottish ministers for a decision as part of the planning process, so I will not comment on the merits of that proposal. Members may also be aware that there is a parallel application that does not include that recycling plant. Clearly, we will watch developments with great interest.
Several members referred to the Finnieston bridge. I reassure members that the bridge has been redesigned specifically to ensure that there will be sufficient clearance to allow river bus services to be delivered up river in the future. Such services are one of the issues that will be examined by the transport and river engineering sub-group to which I referred. River engineering is about addressing the risk of flooding by working on the riverbed, for example. Glasgow City Council has taken the lead in that, but we are working closely with the city and other local authorities.
Karen Gillon mentioned the Larkhall to Milngavie rail link. SPT is working on that and it hopes to move into the delivery phase in the next few months. Clearly, we attach great importance to that project and we will continue to talk to the SPT about it.
In terms of joining up all our transport proposals and feeding them into the strategy for economic development, the joint working of the Executive with the SPT and WESTRANS is something that we are committed to and investing in.
The regeneration of the Clyde features highly on the Executive's agenda. Officials from across the Executive have been actively engaged in meetings of the Clyde waterfront working group. We look forward to considering the group's interim findings in some detail shortly. We recognise that the work of the group is the initial stage in developing a strategy for the area.
We all agree about the importance of a vibrant and dynamic Clyde to the region and to Scotland and we will continue to work with local partners to bring that about.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—