 The final item business is a member's business debate on motion 17353, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on expanding Scotland's railways. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Mark Ruskell to open the debate. Mr Ruskell, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to lead the debate tonight and thank members from across the chamber for supporting the motion. When I first stood for Holyrood all those years ago back in 1999, I can remember fighting my way through the undergrowth at the abandoned rail station at Alloa, with a huge map of Mid Scotland and Fife region displaying all the rail lines closed under the beaching era. It took a leap of imagination to believe that sterling to Alloa line could reopen, but it did successfully in 2009 after strong leadership from Clapman and Sheer Council and the vision of the community. A decade on from that reopening, it is time to look again at the map and support communities who have been left to the mercy of deregulated bus companies and the inequality of private car ownership to meet their transport needs. We could be at the beginning of a new golden age for rail in Scotland. I am sure that the minister will wish to talk about the longer greener faster trains that are bringing welcome improvements through electrification. For communities in Fife who were rubbed off the rail map decades ago, those improvements will not deliver the transformational changes that they need to access work and educational opportunities. After the opening of the fourth road bridge back in 1964, we had a string of rail closures that isolated communities and brought into sharp relief the transport inequalities of those who have no choice beyond public transport. While Queensfree crossing is open, it is important that new investment in rail can reach directly into those five communities who have been left behind. Sadly, there have been no rail reinstatement schemes commissioned since this current Holyrood Government took charge over a decade ago. I hope that this will change and that through the new pipeline approach we will see robust business cases for stations and new lines brought forward matched with the capital budgets that can prioritise low-carbon rail. My own team, which works with me, has brought together active rail campaigns from Concardin to St Andrews, Nubra and Levenmouth to share knowledge and support each other over the last couple of years. That work resulted in a report that we published in 2017 examining how reinstated stations could feed into the Fife circle rather than competing with each other. What the communities told us was that they were stuck on first base and that the transport appraisal guidance process was very difficult to work through without professional support and that there were no dedicated funds to lever that kind of support in. In the case of Nubra, the community had even attempted to unsuccessfully squeeze money out of the national lottery. A dedicated stream of funding was needed to support communities to build the business cases for rail solutions and test them to destruction. The idea of a local rail development fund was born out of those discussions. I was very pleased that, following last year's budget talks between the Greens and the SNP, £2 million was allocated, of which over £1 million is still left to be dispersed in the next round of funding that closes at the end of June. In my region, a number of projects were funded, including Nubra station campaign, which I have already mentioned, and Starlink, the St Andrews rail campaign. Funding was also granted to Taktran, the regional transport partship for two projects, one examining the possibility of putting in a station at Bridge of Urn, and also improving rail accessibility in Stirling. Fife Council was also successful in getting funding to complete a study into improving the cross-fourth rail connections. For Nubra, the funding has reignited the campaign in a community that watches trains pass through the heart of the village every hour, but has to travel 10 miles to their nearest station. It could reconnect the wider area around Nubra to employment and education opportunities in Fife and Perth. In St Andrews, the campaign group, which has been working since 1989 to reconnect the town, can finally take its work to the next level, looking at how a branch line and station could alleviate congestion, tackle housing pressures and provide a direct rail link to St Andrews world-class university and international sporting events. The Leave a Mouth rail campaign has also played a central role in supporting the wider development of the rail network in Fife. The interim stag for this area was published on 17 May, and although it includes a rail link as one of the six possible improvements, it still focuses heavily on buses. Bus services have already been tweaked, but they have not delivered the kind of transformational links that can come with the railway line, nor the clean, fast connections to the cities that the local community so desperately desires. We need to see progress to the next stage of that study urgently, and I would welcome if the minister could today confirm a timescale for the next stag stages and the subsequent grit reports for Leave a Mouth line, because the community is getting tired of waiting and I'm sure a number of members who represent Fife will want to talk about that issue as part of this member's debate. With the forthcoming strategic transport projects review, it is important that community voices around Scotland are heard. I've held workshops in Concardin and Alloa in recent weeks, drawing in over 150 people, exploring local transport challenges and how a rail reinstatement from Alloa to Dunfermline could provide a solution. I've also been pleased that Talgo, the electric train manufacturer with advanced plans to establish a base in Longannet, has attended and supported both of those meetings. It's that kind of commitment that we'd hoped Diagio would have provided over 10 years ago to spur the development of the Leave a Mouth railway, but so far it's failed to materialise. The strong message from those meetings was that access to the east of Scotland is needed, that bus services are poor or non-existent, and that communities, especially Clackmannan, felt left behind when the Stirling Alloa-Cincardin line was open for freight. There were strong feelings of dislocation in the West Fife villages, and a concern that, while Talgo's plans may open up an electrified line from Alloa to Longannet, there is an urgent need to consider the needs of West Fife villages at the outset. We could be seeing a rail renaissance in Scotland, and just in time, as the climate emergency bites and the need for economic regeneration and a just transition is greater than ever. The local rail development fund has helped to spur the early thinking, but it is time now for the Scottish Government to respond and help to get our communities back on the rail map. I have 10 members wishing to speak, so I'm afraid I have to be pretty strict, not like me as usual, and I'll keep you to four-minute speeches, please. David Torrance, we follow by Jamie Greene, Mr Torrance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Matt Ruskell for securing this important debate in the Parliament today on expanding Scotland's railways. This morning, I travelled to Parliament by train. It took 45 minutes to reach Edinburgh from my constituency of Kirkcaldy. During that time, I checked my emails, my social media, wished my constituents a happy birthday on Facebook and chatted with other commuters. By taking this journey by rail, I was responsible for the emissions of 2.2 kilograms of CO2 into our atmosphere. If I had driven the same journey, I would have been responsible for four times that amount. The Scottish Government has set world-leading targets of achieving net zero emissions by 2045. That is to have the same volume of greenhouse gases that has been emitted has been absorbed through offsetting techniques such as forestry. There are a number of ways in which Scotland will achieve this, such as improving energy efficiency in homes, buildings and industrial processes and championing the renewable energy potential by creating new jobs and supply chain opportunities. By encouraging individuals to adopt greener modes of transport, whether that be by switching to electrically or hydrogen-powered vehicles, or by better making use of public transport. However, individuals cannot make better use of public transport if it does not exist. As many may know, the mass closures of the train stations and removal of tract infrastructure of the 60s, commonly known as the Beechamarks, led to a closure of 200 stations across Scotland, unless some areas entirely isolated from the rail network. Regardless of whether it was the correct decision, Professor and the rail network at the time, the closure had a proud effect on areas such as Leavenmouth, which sits in both mine and Jenny Gull roof's constituency. Leavenmouth is one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. Its history and coal mining guaranteed high employment and relative prosperity in the area until a decline in the 1970s. First, it lost the railway, then it lost its industry. It is an area of multiple deprivation with 44 per cent of Leavenmouth residents living in one of the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland and one in four children living in poverty. The area also has a low level of car ownership, and many residents rely on public transport to do basic things such as travel to work, do their shopping or attend medical appointments. Today, we leave Leavenmouth rail campaign as fighting for a lost rail line to be acclaimed. The community-run campaign, which was launched in 2014 and working tirelessly to keep the case of the area's railway reinstatement on the front burner, believed strongly that the isolation from the rail network is holding back the area back by limiting employment and education opportunities for locals, which is costing the local economy greatly. The most recent breakthrough was the commissioning of a second-stag feasibility study with Transport Scotland that was released earlier this month. It states that reopening existing line to passengers and freight would provide direct and quicker access to a range of opportunities and services, such as education, culture, leisure, health and employment, and it could improve the potential for business to relocate to the area and for those businesses, as well as current employers to attract people with the necessary job skills and experience to work in the area. Not only is reopening the line beneficial to the area, but the overwhelming success of reopening of a border railway only strengthens the case for reopening of a Leavenmouth line. Since its opening line has opened up employment opportunities, reduced congestion, increased tourism and increased relocation to the area. I believe that given the same opportunity, all those benefits could be replicated in the Leavenmouth area with a reinstatement of the rail line. In conclusion, the benefits of expanding a rail network are more aptly reinstating pre-existing lines are outstandingly clear. As Scotland works to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2045, we must put in place the infrastructure to help our citizens to do their part. More railways means more passengers and rail freight, which means less vehicles on our roads creating less emissions and causing less congestion. However, a railway line is not more than a mode of transport. It is a lifeline that connects communities, creates economic opportunities and expands the horizons of those that it serves. It can be a difference between someone taking a job or not, starting a business or not, visiting an attraction or not. In order for them to say yes, we must say yes to creating a public transport network that this country could be proud of. I call Jamie Greene, who will be following Martin. I add my thoughts to that last speech. I thought that it was an excellent summary of why rail is so important. It is good to hear words like rail renaissance happening in Scotland, but I would like in my short few minutes to address some of the issues that it faces. We know that domestic transportation accounts for 32 per cent of our emissions and that excludes aviation, so getting more people on to our trains is absolutely key to meeting our climate change ambitions. I am sure that members today will have a long list of stations and lines that they wish to reopen, open or indeed build from new. I look forward to hearing some of those suggestions, but as Mark Ruskell pointed out, making a business case for those projects is difficult, complex and can even be expensive. Taking people who are real enthusiasts and local campaigners up a level to robust business cases for large-scale infrastructure projects is no mean feat. Many local authorities are doing so—East Lothian, Fife, South Lanarkshire—using that money to carry out appraisals, stag reviews and assess their transport needs. I hope that those will lead on to improvements in infrastructure. We are moving away from old diesel trains, new electric trains, new carriages and new lines. I think that good progress has been made in that. It is very welcome progress, but electrification is an expensive game to play in. I think that technology might play a huge part in addressing some of those problems. For example, how do we use electric trains on non-electric lines? I have met stakeholders who sing high praises of the use of battery technology, which bolts on the underneath of carriages and allows trains to go off-grid and reach those last few vital miles of a journey on a non-electrified line. It is not the great panacea to the problem, but I am keen to hear from the minister what conversations the Government is having with manufacturers of this type of technology. Like many MSPs, we have identified that connecting rural Scotland is so important to our growth. Research shows that the impact of a rail station in a rural area has exponentially a higher average growth in those areas than building stations in urban areas. There is a clear link, but the future will not be easy for us either. The motion talks about the Donovan report. It is a comprehensive list of recommendations that ScotRail should take on board, but they are, in my view, the low-hanging fruit and rather short-term fixes. It is quite a depressing read. It is a depressing wish list of failures on the part of our operator. Progress has been made, but ScotRail themselves admit that reaching all its performance targets is nigh on impossible within the lifetime of the current franchise. Like many in the industry, I too am awaiting the Williams review, which I thought deserves mention today. That is setting the scene for wider structural changes to how UK rail will operate. Yes, that could include potential structural changes to the network rail, and the very essence of the franchise model itself, which lets face it, is not serving everyone perfectly. In closing, I quote Keith Williams, who is performing the review. It sums up the complexity of the task that we face. He says that there needs to be much more focus on passengers. Passengers must speak the heart of the future of the railway. It is not just the passenger of today but the passenger of tomorrow, who will look at rail differently than we do today, and hopefully if we do our job right, it is part of a more integrated transport network. The expansion of our railways will take many years, indeed decades—new trains, new stations and new lines—and that is on top of maintaining our existing infrastructure. Rail is expensive and requires huge long-term commitment. It is a noble ambition, but ambition alone builds not a mile of track or a brick of a station. The old adage rings truer than ever today. Money makes the wheels go round. Thank you very much. I now call Gillian Martin to be followed by Colin Smith, Ms Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is only one railway station in my constituency. It is in Inverudee, which is just on the edge of my constituency. There is no other rail infrastructure across the whole of my constituency. As I go up to Stuart Stevenson's constituency in Banff and Bucking, he cannot even boast a railway station at all or one bit of railway track. The people in the north-east of the north-east are left behind when it comes to public transport options. We have a bus service, which is a very radial bus service, all feeding into Aberdeen City. What that means for the people of my constituency and Stuart Stevenson's is that we are largely reliant on our cars. It will not have escaped the notice of anyone in this chamber that we now have a climate emergency. I feel that living in the part of the north-east that I do, I am very limited in how I can play my part in addressing the reduction of carbon emissions. We, of course, are looking at increased infrastructure for electrification of cars and the charging points around that. We also have a large part of our population for whom owning a car, a particular new car, will be forever out of their reach. They are consigned to using a bus service, which I do not think is particularly fit for purpose. I guess that I will use my time and thank Mark Ruskell for giving me the opportunity to bring in this debate to the chamber today. I will use my time to ask the Government to consider to almost ignore the surveys that have been done around rail in the north-east. Although they rightly look at improving the existing infrastructure and making journeys faster, they always never seem to be able to make the business case for reopening the Firmarton-Buckin line, even as far as just Ellen. It would be better for it to go as far as Peterhead, but I realised that that might need to be an incremental step in bringing it to Ellen. I am very grateful for the member taking intervention at that point. The Government undertook to review all its policies as a result of declaring a climate emergency. Would one such review in the member's opinion be the benefit of revisiting spending £3 billion in dualling the A96? That is a very interesting point that John Finnie makes, because we are looking at the various routes that go around Inveruri for the dualling of the A96, which is something that my constituencies are exercising in a very serious way. That was a manifesto commitment, but, as the First Minister said, she is looking at all policy areas to look at how we can look at reducing our carbon emissions. I would imagine that nothing is off the table there. I am not going to nail my colours to the mast about what I think she should do in that particular regard, but I would make the point that, as we look at what we do with our transport infrastructure in the future, rail has to be part of that. It is not just a case of improving the rail infrastructure that stands across the whole of Scotland, but of looking at areas that are completely and utterly left behind and do not have the option of using rail at all. Before I sit down, I want to make one further point. We have 11,000 people in Elin and 31 per cent of them work in Aberdeen City. Some of those people will opt to always use their cars, but I really think that, if we look again at seriously reaching out to the people on the north-east that do not have the option of using rail and asking them, as we have done before, whether they would use the train, I think that the higher proportion of people would say yes to using that. I have published a survey and I am publishing it tomorrow, which will ask on those questions of the people all along the proposed route for the Farmart and Buckoway just to see how many people would use it. I am hoping to take that to the Government and to get more evidence that the people of Aberdeenshire would relish the opportunity of taking the train rather than their cars. Colin Smyth, to be followed by Ross Greer, Mr Smyth. I refer members to my register of interests where it states that I am the volunteer chair of the campaign for the reopening of East Riggs railways station. I also thank Matt Ruskell for tabling his motion, allowing tonight's debate on rail a subject. I do not think that this Parliament discusses often enough. The day-to-day issues around rail performance are often highlighted during questions, not least because that performance is just not good enough, but our long-term vision for rail, how we grow rail, how we meet demand for rail is rarely, if ever debated in this chamber, certainly not in Government time. That is despite the real need to increase the pace of growth. The motion highlights the role of the local rail development fund in helping to achieve that growth. It is a fund that I support, although it may be a bit premature to describe it as a success yet with just £700,000 of the £2 million so far allocated and the fact that it is part of a new, as-yet-untested pipeline process. The real test will be whether that fund in the new process, which I support in principle, is enough to tackle the current under-investment in a rail infrastructure and crucially ensure that this investment is inclusive of all of Scotland. If the Government is serious about delivering inclusive economic growth, it needs to ensure that there is an equitable share of infrastructure investment. It needs to recognise that making a case for investment through the stag process is still hugely challenging for rural areas such as my own South Scotland region, given our often low-population catchment. That does not mean that there is no need for new investment in the real work in South West Scotland. The current Glasgow-South West line, which runs between Glasgow and Kilmarnock before branching off in two directions from Ra to the west and towards Carlyall in the east, has lacked investment in the past. That was exposed when the west coast main line was closed due to storm damage, and that valley line was used as a diversion. Trains that normally travel at more than 100 miles per hour in the west coast main line crawled their way along that diversion route. There is a real need to upgrade that line from a rural to a main line. That includes electrification, not just from Glasgow to Kilmarnock but the full length of the line. There are also strong cases for new stations along the way. Reopening Eastrigg station would give the growing number of people in that area who travel to work in Anand, Dumfries and Carlyall, also for education and healthcare, a real positive public transport alternative to the car. The 28-mile stretch between Dumfries and Sankar is the longest part of the line, with no station highlighting the need to reopen Thornhill station and improving links between Midnistale to Dumfries and beyond, as well as to the central bell. In Ayrshire, communities in Cumnock and Moclen are making the powerful case—I fully support—for the reopening of local stations there, which experts show could attract hundreds of thousands of passengers a year, boosting the economies and communities with some of the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland. There are also smaller improvements that can be made. It remains a scandal that there is no disabled access on the southbound platform 2 at Carconnell station. In the west of the region, the poor infrastructure link in the ferry port at Cairn Rhine and Town of Strunrar, with the rest of Scotland and the UK, is an issue that is well documented. The current railway station in Strunrar sits some distance from the town centre on the pier of the now-closed Strunrar ferry terminal. Exploring the relocation of that station possibly into the town centre as part of a wider transport hub is entirely the type of project that I hope will secure funding from the local rail development fund. There is also a campaign to reopen Beattock railway station on the west coast mainline, highlighting the demand for commuter services to Carlyll, Glasgow and Edinburgh from the area. There are plenty of passenger trains that already travel along the west coast mainline. It is just that more pass through the local station at Lockerby than stop at the station. In concluding, I highlight some of those examples from my own South Scotland region, when investment in the rail network would make a huge difference to communities, to the economy and to our environment. I hope that, ultimately, those projects and others will receive Government support in the years ahead so that we have a genuinely inclusive rail network that covers all of Scotland. I call Ross Greed, who is followed by Mark McDonald. Mark Ruskell is giving us a common comment of time dealing with rail lines in our region in a chance to celebrate recent progress or to use that as a form of group therapy for where progress is not happening. Improving our rail network, both passenger and freight, is key to tackling the climate emergency, but it is also key to tackling issues of public health, such as air pollution and road safety. To the social justice agenda, it says that your ability to travel, to reach the wider community, to access services should not depend on your ability to run a car. That is certainly an issue across the west of Scotland. The minister might be familiar with my campaign to regio the Westerton to Moggailine. That line was twin-tracked until 1990. It has been a single track ever since, and it is now the only single track terminating line in the country to run four trains an hour. The line is at maximum capacity. Even slight delays cannot be made up for it. That line is translated into the Moggailine consistently performing the worst of any in Scotland. In 2018, just one in four trains ran on time. The latest figures for this month show that it is essentially the same at 28 per cent. Positive changes have happened. Trains arriving in Moggail no longer had straight back out, making use of the second platform for turnover time. The extension of platform 1 at Westerton station means that a train sitting at that platform no longer blocks the junction, preventing other trains from moving on or off the Moggailine. Those improvements have not translated into a transformed performance. We are still sitting at about one in four trains on time. I do not advocate re-dulling that line because it is the only thing that we could think of. I commissioned rail expert and former network rail officer David Prescott to conduct a technical study of the line, and that was his conclusion. The Moggailine is almost unique in seeing passenger numbers fall while usage of the whole network grows. It is simply so unreliable that local residents are giving up, but they are not getting the bus. We are dealing with cuts to local bus services as well, including the city bus 15 from Moggailine into Glasgow city centre. One effect is those who can afford to are getting into their cars again, which is a knock-on effect of its own. Drummond Road in Bearsden has an acute air pollution issue. It is a designated air quality management area with a primary school playground at its centre. Our chronically unreliable rail service and cuts to local bus services are making that air pollution worse. Pollution that affects the oldest and the youngest in our community the most. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has met me to discuss this. He received the report that I commissioned, and I recognise that the Donovan review identified the Moggailine as needing specific improvements. However, I am utterly unconvinced that anything short of re-dulling will have the desired effect. A second track there would also allow for the construction of the long-muted Allander station, something that we need now more than ever as another housing development in the area has just been completed. Delays and Moggail affect the whole network across west and central Scotland. Indeed, it is as far as here in Edinburgh, but it has a particular effect on the lines to Dallmure, Dombarton, Balloch and Helensborough. Only 43 per cent of trains through Dallmure are running on time, and of the trains that terminate at Dallmure, that number drops to 29 per cent, almost as bad as Moggail. Moving further south, neither Paisley Canal or Largs are mentioned in the remedial plan or in Donovan, but both have similarly poor performance stats to Moggail. Largs has improved by almost 10 per cent, but it is still sitting under 40 per cent. Paisley Canal has gone in the opposite direction, with performance dropping 10 per cent in the last two years to less than one in three trains on time. Largs has a second track, as far as Hunterston, which was used only for freight. It is not electrified and it is not used now. Given our draw in Harbour's performance is now worse than Largs, the issues are likely occurring further up the line anyway. However, I would suggest that a study into local improvements there would be a strong candidate for the next round of LRDF funding. Paisley Canal is a little bit more complicated, but, given its steep decline, something clearly needs to be done. If the minister does not have the specific details to hand to address the issues on those lines, I would appreciate if he or the cabinet secretary could write with some further information on what is currently planned or what is being considered. I will look forward to hearing from the minister in his closing remarks. I realise that that sounds like a shopping list, because it is. My constituents have some of the worst rail lines in the country. Usage is falling when it should be doing the opposite. We are in the midst of a climate emergency. That is exactly the kind of ambitious capital project that is required to tackle that emergency head-on and give Scotland the world-class public transport network that we deserve. I thank members so far for keeping to their time. It is excellent. Let us continue it. Mark McDonald followed by Emma Harper. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Message received and understood. I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing this important debate and bringing this issue to the chamber. He rightly mentioned at the very beginning of his speech the shadow of the beaching report, which hangs over much of the rail infrastructure or lack of rail infrastructure in parts of Scotland, not just in rural areas but also in many urban communities, which lost rail stations during the beaching era. I, in my constituency, have the rail station of Dice, which is one of the busiest small stations in Scotland, yet was one of the stations which was closed as a result of the beaching report and was not reopened again until 1984. My office manager, who lives in Llandfannan, asked me if I would also mention the loss of the de-side line. I said that there might be a local member who would be willing to mention that, but I do not see any of the local members in the chamber, so I will put on the record the loss of the de-side line in the north-east as well. Gillian Martin mentioned the for Martin Buchan line, which she and I have in the past spoken about and agreed on the need for proper appraisal and investment to look at bringing that back into use. I have looked at the most recent appraisal report and it is true to say that if one were to simply look at this as a cold cost-benefit calculation, it does not necessarily make sense on paper for the route to be reopened, but I believe that there are wider considerations and indeed, in transport appraisal terms, there is a positive case made within the report for the route to be brought back into use. I believe that, as part of a wider rail strategy for the north-east, it would have an integral part to play. There are obviously technical considerations, although the report does conclude that it is technically feasible for the route to be brought back into use and it would connect into my constituency through DICE station and on to Aberdeen, where it would simply follow the previous route as used. Gillian Martin. Would the member agree with me that any proposed rail line should also have a station at Newmacker so that other people are in the surrounding area, perhaps coming off the A947, might be able to park and ride? Mark McDonald. Indeed, and I believe that the option, the three options assessed, all included the option of a station at Newmacker. Given the point that I was going to make, which I will make shortly, around urban expansion, the expansion that is taking place in Newmacker and other areas of the A947 corridor, that would be a sensible step to make. I am sure that the member did not have an interest as a resident of Newmacker in raising that in particular in terms of a station in Newmacker. One of the things that I would also want to highlight is around the need to look at urban stations. Looking at my constituency, communities such as Buxburn or Woodside could benefit from an urban station. If we look at the development patterns that are likely to take place within the city of Aberdeen, Buxburn in particular is likely to see a significant expansion both in terms of housing but also with the soon-to-be-completed exhibition and conference centre and hotel infrastructure that will take place around that. The opportunity for an urban station perhaps in the Stonywood, Buxburn or Woodside area could have a significant effect in reducing congestion. We have already seen that the AWPR takes a significant amount of congestion away from the Hadigan roundabout and routes into the city. An opportunity to increase urban rail through the dualling of the line that has taken place and the provision of new urban stations may add to that. One final issue that needs to be highlighted is the question that continues to be asked, particularly by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, around how exactly the £200 million that is identified within the city region deal for the north-east will be spent to reduce rail journey times and improve infrastructure. There are concerns that that money may not be spent within the north-east area and that that may not be entirely in keeping with the letter of what was agreed at the time that the city region deal was signed. I would be more than happy to meet the minister to discuss that further, as I say, it is an issue that the Chamber of Commerce has raised with myself and other local members on a repeated basis. I will stop there, Presiding Officer, in order to avoid incurring your wrath. I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate, and I thank Mark Ruskell for securing it. I would like to focus my contribution on the absolute need for greater investment on the rail network across the south-west of Scotland, which many constituents have contacted me about. Scotland's railway network is vitally important in allowing people the freedom to travel excessively and with ease around our country. The railway does not discriminate on the basis of disability, although I acknowledge that there are access issues at Carconel. The rail travel does not require people to have a driver's licence. It reduces emissions, as David Torrance has rightly highlighted, and rail promotes active travel by allowing those with bicycles who choose cycling holidays, for example, to get to A from A to B, hassle free. The Galloway and West Dumfries area of my South Scotland region has three key train routes—the Strunratiglasgow route, the Dumfries to Carlyle route and the Dumfries to Glasgow route. All of those routes are well used and relied on by many people living and working, as well as travelling to and from the area every day for work, leisure and study. However, all too often, many constituents are telling me that they are put off using those routes because the trains are too irregular, too outdated and the journey time too lengthy. Attracting people to live, work, study and visit rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway is crucial if we are to keep those areas populated and for them to flourish. Good transport links and connectivity are essential. Over recent years, we have seen a steady decline of the working-age population across Dumfries and Galloway with young people leaving the region for employment and education. That has left the area with a skill shortage and recruitment problems, particularly when it comes to jobs in healthcare and the recruitment of GPs, radiologists and other healthcare professionals. Indeed, when meeting with local businesses, GP practices and NHS and Fries and Galloway to discuss how we can attract people to live and work in the region, the railway network or lack of it is often described as a top priority on local folks' wish lists. Recently, when meeting a local GP practice in Dumfries, the GPs told me that they are aware of colleagues who live in the central belt, who would be more than happy to work in Dumfries, as well as across Bonny Galloway, but are put off because of the current state of the rail services and underdeveloped road network. The GPs and staff told me that if the journey time, for example, between Dumfries and Galloway, which is almost an hour and 50 minutes, could be reduced by faster trains, then more highly skilled professionals such as GPs would come and work in our region, which would, of course, be welcome. The same is true for Stranraer, and I would ask the cabinet secretary to explore options for the electrification of these rail routes to speed up travel time. I have also written to Network Rail to ask what support they are providing to the Scottish Government to assist with the needed upgrades as the lines are owned by Network Rail. I have been contacted by local action groups with regard to the possible reopening of the Dumfries to Stranraer line, and other groups are lobbying for the opening of Beattock station, and even moving Stranraer station to be closer to the Toon Centre. Since the volume of traffic has increased on the A75 for the ferries from Cairnryan, it has caused much concern, and people have justified frustration over the fact that the road is so busy now. In conclusion, the possible reopening of the east-west line would allow those without cars to accessibly travel across the region. I stress to the people of the south of Scotland who often say that they feel forgotten that I am not forgetting about them, and I will continue to lobby for our region's transport infrastructure to be improved in this Parliament. I want to thank Mark Ruskell for bringing such an important and topical debate to the chamber today. It is refreshing to be speaking about new railways, given the immense opportunities that they can bring to connect communities, particularly to rural Scotland and the likes of my constituency in Ertrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire. Although today's debate does not focus on the efficiency and service on our railways, I want to make it clear from the outset that, if we are to build confidence and to improve customer satisfaction on Scotland's railways, we need to see ScotRail clean up its act. It is fine and well to have brand-new railways that are like the border's railways, but the trains do not arrive on time or even at all. We will not see the benefits in order to tackle climate change or unlock business growth. This is a very timely debate because, yesterday, Murdo Fraser looked alike, Michael Potillo, travelled on the border's railway for his BBC2 documentary series, Great British Railway Journeys. The border's railway, which serves many of my constituents, albeit outside of my constituency, is a fantastic example of where a rural region was opened up to the central belt and beyond. The railway is the longest domestic railway to be built in the UK for over 100 years. The Waverly line, as it is known, takes passengers through some of the most beautiful countryside and the borders, in fact, going through the Presiding Officer's constituency too. The original Edinburgh to Hoik line opened in 1849 with the extension to Carlisle in 1862. It is known as the Waverly route after the first published novel of celebrated Scottish borders residence, Sir Walter Scott. It provided direct rail services between Edinburgh and the Scottish borders Yorkshire and onwards towards London for 107 years. Ahead of the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, the First Minister promised a feasibility study to extend the railway. I am glad that the UK Government has announced that it would back a full feasibility study to extend the border's railway from Hoik through down to Newcastleton and on to Carlisle as part of the £345 million borderlands growth deal. All that, of course, would not have been possible without the campaign for border's rail, which has been determined and hard-working from the start. I would like to keep my job going, Colin Smyth. I am just trying to avoid using too much time, but I agree that it is important to keep an open mind as to where any particular extension on the border's rail line should go. For example, a route through the town of Langham would certainly be at a boost to the economy in that area. Colin Smyth, of course, would be championing going through Langham, but I am championing going through Newcastleton. I will support the campaign for border's rail in order to do that. We are so pleased that the manifesto commitment has been delivered and that it will bring transformational change to a region that has significant challenges and massive potential, with 14 million people living within two hours' drive of that borderlands region. In order to tap into that, we need more cross-border connectivity and collaboration. The deal is jointly financed between the UK and Scottish Government, and the progress of study is now dependent on the Scottish ministers agreeing to give permission to proceed. I would like the minister to give us an update if he possibly can in his closing. I am also glad that the Scottish Government has committed to the reinstatement of Reston station following the successful campaign by Rages, because Berwickshire, at some points in time, feels left out. I look forward to that happening in CP6 between 2019, which is now in 2024, and it has been through hard work by local authorities. However, that will then go down through the east coast mainline and crucial to connect the borders through to Newcastle, York and London. We know that new railways are important for our future. The borders have not yet been a recipient from the local rail development fund, but perhaps it could do to create further connectivity in that such a rural area. I will leave it there, because I can see times running short. Thank you very much. Due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Mark Ruskell to move a motion without notice. Are we all agreed? I now call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this motion about a future rail revolution to debate tonight. Can I refer members to my register of interests and the membership of the campaign for borders rail? Expanding Scotland's railways is indeed a vital step that needs to be taken. Passengers' use of trains has effectively doubled in the last 20 years. People want to use trains. There are many Scottish communities trying to get their train services back, but they are continually being thwarted in part by the administration and in part by the challenging and expensive processes that are involved. I recently attended a stag appraisal consultation meeting about the reopening of Betuck station in my South Scotland region. There was so much determination and vision by the local rail action group in relation to the opportunities and the carbon reduction contributions that that could make from tourism to commuting. There was a presentation from Moffat high school students who put into stark relief the challenges of not having a nearby station. Students could travel daily if the station was reopened to Glasgow or Edinburgh or Collard for college or university. They could also go clubbing as they stressed and get home. I hope that optimism about remaining in their own communities will not be crushed by a negative result of this stag report. Constituents have stressed to me from that area and other places in South Scotland their view that the stag process is ineffective in facilitating the reopening of lines and stations, and local authorities are being forced to often waste scarce funding on repeated stag applications. Now, the Scottish Government has declared a climate emergency and rightly so. However, without robust actions on rail, it rings somewhat hollow despite other actions. We know that the main source of climate change emissions in Scotland is transport and, in particular, the ever-expanding amount of road traffic. The answer is clear and part of that answer, which I will focus on today, is to give communities their rail services back. There are even examples such as at Levenmouth where the tracks still exist but the lines remain closed. The big rail reopenings that were initiated under previous Administrations, Larkhall, Allwyr, Erdry Bathgate and Borders Rail, have been hugely successful beyond all projections, but never again must we fail to future-proof new lines such as happened in the Borders Railway. Scottish Labour is fully supportive of the extension to Carlisle of the Borders Railway. The Scottish Government should continue the process of reopening our rail networks, lines and stations. It is scandalous that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money subsidises private companies while they cherry pick profits and cut lines and services leaving communities isolated and alienated. Scotland needs an integrated, publicly owned and therefore properly accountable rail network where trains run on time and are not cancelled. It also needs a properly regulated bus service, which we will be looking at through the Transport Bill. We need a network where you can get a bus from a rural village that connects with a train to take you onward. Castes is an example of a now-vibrant station, although it still needs more stops on a Sunday service. However, the lack of bus connections is an embarrassment. We also need a network where you can travel between towns and villages with ease for work, family and leisure, and a network where disabled access at our stations is a priority and not a vain hope. Finally, we need a network where there is space and time for rail freight, a network where the profits of the busy routes no longer line the purses of absentee shareholders and foreign governments, but are used to fund the less profitable but equally important rural routes. I look forward to hearing the minister's response on how we can have a rail service for the future fit for purpose for Scotland. I congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing forward this evening's debate. It will come as no surprise to members that I wish to contribute in tonight's debate to highlight the best and the most obvious opportunity to expand Scotland's railways, and that is to re-establish Leven's railway. The line first opened on 3 July 1854, exactly 165 years ago this summer, and while passenger services stopped in 1969, the line remained open for freight right up until 2001. Today, with the permission of Network Rail, it is still possible to walk the line, and my colleague David Torrance and I did that just weeks ago. We were joined by Claire Baker MSP and by local councillors Ken Caldwell and Alistair Sutty. The walk was organised by the fantastic Levenmouth rail campaign, and last year the focus of the walk was the year of young people. This year, the walk included different primary skills and facts about the history of the railway. Leven Railway is the only proposed new line that I know of, which has been through two formal SAG appraisals in 2008 and 2015 respectively. Following my members' debate in 2017, the then transport secretary committed to a further options appraisal, the limited options of which he published two weeks ago, with the final report to be published by the end of this week. In the preliminary options appraisal, Transport Scotland said that the project would bring major benefits to the economy and provide access to key destinations for employment, further education, healthcare and social activities. That is hugely important for the Fife economy. We have just had a debate this afternoon about the future sustainability of jobs in methyl. The coal industry, which dominated much of the Fife skyline for generations, is long gone. The need for a joined-up approach to the transport system has arguably never been greater. Levenmouth is the largest urban area in the country with no direct access to rail. Think about that. If you do not know Fife, please look at a map. Levenmouth is isolated and cut off from much of the investment and wealth that drives this capital city, but it need not be the case. Up the road from Leven is St Andrews, a town brimming with investment. From the university to golf, St Andrews has considerable wealth compared to parts of my constituency. I note that today's motion makes explicit mention of St Andrews proposals for a railway, and I would also offer my support to them on that journey. However, the journey for Levenmouth for me is far more compelling, because a rail link for Leven could transform that part of Fife. It could transform the life chances of the young people growing up there. It could bring investment. It could open the doors for employers, yes and all. Mark Ruskell? I thank the member for giving way. As a regional MSP, I support many of the rail reopening campaigns. Is there not a question about phasing that Levenmouth is pretty much ready to go? It could be brought forward in the control period that we are looking at, whereas St Andrews might come at a later control period, later investment, because it is a much bigger project that would need to be undertaken. Jenny Gilruth Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would agree with that point from Mark Ruskell. His motion also makes a specific mention about the local rail development fund, which was made available by the Scottish Government, and is certainly very welcome. I was, however, disappointed that the Levenmouth rail campaign was not able to benefit from that fund, because it was advised that its project was too far on. I understand that other campaigns are at different stages, as we have just heard, but I do not want my constituency to miss out on that vital funding. I would be grateful, perhaps, if the minister could mention how that could be avoided in the summing up later. Fife is the third most populous council area after Glasgow and Edinburgh, but, unlike the cities, its population is geographically spread and many fifers have to commute for work. In my constituency, we continue to face very real problems associated with austerity, with one in three children living in poverty. There is a need for hope in the area, and for an area that has been cut off from transport links for so long. That has only become exacerbated since stagecoach decided to cut the direct leave into Glasgow bus service, with absolutely no consultation with MSPs. In 2016, the population of Levenmouth was just over 35,000, the fourth largest settlement in Fife and the 25th largest in Scotland. There is lower than average car ownership, as we have heard from David Torrance, which, again, makes the case for public transport all the more stronger. Time is short today, but I commend the efforts of the local Levenmouth real campaign for all their consistent work to ensure that the lion's rein statement is never off the local political agenda. I see that my time is just slightly over there, Presiding Officer, so with that I will close. Thank you very much. I thank all members for keeping to their time. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to close with the Government minister, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I also add my thanks to Mark Ruskell for raising the motion that informed today's discussion. Importantly, shining a light on our rail industry and its significance to our economy, our communities and our climate. Indeed, David Torrance, at the early part of the debate, gave some very good examples of how local rail projects can help to support the local economy. I note that that was supported by Jamie Greene and others in terms of his contribution. Rail contributes around £1.3 billion to Scotland's economy annually, and that is why we have invested an unprecedented £8 billion plus in rail across Scotland since 2007. I do acknowledge, as members have mentioned today, that there are still challenges. I do not want to spend time today talking about that when we are clearly focused on many local projects that I want to try and respond to, if I can. However, the investment has resulted in the building of Scotland's longest domestic railway in 100 years, the Borders Railway, one that I know is very close to the heart of the Presiding Officer today in terms of the work that she did in bringing that to being. I know that that is of particular interest to her. I am adding 76 kilometres of new track, five direct routes between our two main cities, with 13 trains per hour in each direction and 14 new stations open since 2007, many of which have been, as members have alluded to, highly successful. Speaking to officials before the debate, Lawrence Kirk has been singled out as a particular success in exceeding the expectations that were had for that particular station. Unlike other parts of the UK, and despite the financial pressures imposed on us by the UK Government, we have not cancelled or deferred any rail projects. There could be no clear signal to our communities, passengers, freight customers as well as the rail industry or its supply chain of the confidence that we have as a Government in the future of rail. The importance of its expansion and improvement to the people and communities of Scotland as well as the decarbonisation of Scotland's transport sector, which, at the point that Gillian Martin raised, if I can, I will bring in Mr Ruskell. I acknowledge the success of those projects that have been constructed during the lifetime of the Government, but does he share my concern that none has been commissioned during the lifetime of the Government and that we need to now accelerate the pipeline of projects, otherwise we are going to run out of projects to build? I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe that assessment is correct. Obviously, I know that there is work on going in Rob Royston and other locations across the country, but I am not the lead minister in this portfolio, as the member will appreciate, but I will check that fact. Certainly, we are a number of projects that are coming through in CP6. I am just about to turn to them in terms of the projects that we are committed to doing in CP6, and indeed a number of investments have been made through CP5 as well. In fact, just to deal with that while I can, there is no ring fence fund in CP6 in terms of the Scottish strategic rail freight is the only fund that we have for that purpose, but new stations are scheduled for delivery during CP6, including Rob Royston, Dahl Cross, Kentor, Reston and East Linton, which were mentioned by Rachael Hamilton in her speech. In terms of improvements that are being planned and undertaken through the Department of Transport's Access for All scheme, anisland, Croy, Dumfries, Johnston, Port Glasgow and Ovingston are going to be happening as well. There is a significant number of projects happening. Perhaps we have to improve the visibility of those, given Mr Ruskell's comments. I am sure that Mr Matheson will be keen to engage with him about the specific projects that he mentioned. If I can, in terms of just moving on to CP6 more generally, the change, there have been significant changes in the funding mechanisms, change in the approach and change in project management. We are not only building on the significant investment of CP5 and progressing identified programmes in the next five years, which aim to support longer-term capacity needs. We are also taking industry with us, we hope, as we implement the new pipeline-based approach to rail project development and delivery. Central to that is what is intended to be an integrated cross-organisational partnership approach in doing so. I want to respond to some of the points that have been raised by members. I think that there are a number of interesting remarks around Levenmouth. Clearly, there is still work to progress, but I recognise the strong interest of members in Fife and Mr Ruskell as well covering the region. Transport Scotland is progressing transport appraisal work for the study in line with STAG and in close collaboration with Fife Council. Therefore, the study is separate from the local rail development fund. Transport appraisal work will determine whether there is a rationale for progressing Levenmouth rail link. I have heard very much today the importance of that to communities and I did take on board the point that was made by Jenny Gilruth about the size of the community that potentially served. I should declare an interest not on my residence, my sister lives in that area also, Presiding Officer, but I am not involved in the decision. Hopefully that will not be a relevant factor. Transport Scotland officials and Fife Council officers meet, on a monthly basis, with Peter Brett Associates, the consultant providing support to Transport Scotland on the study to discuss study progress. I want to reassure members who have raised that that work is on going on Levenmouth. The commitment that is made by the Scottish Minister to the delivery of both rest and east London stations is early as practical when the control period 6 is unwavering, so I want to reassure her of that. Detailed design and timetable analysis is on going, and until both of those are completed, no firm date for construction and opening can be given. However, as she may know, the east coast capacity study is due to be published soon, which will inform the construction window that can be used for development of the stations. On Borderlands, which is a point that was raised again by Rachel Hamilton, Transport Scotland, are working with the team progressing the Borderlands growth deal regarding how the work undertaken to date feeds into the transport asked, which includes a feasibility study into a potential extension of the border railway. Discussions are on going regarding the wording around further transport appraisal work in the Heads of Terms agreement, and Transport Scotland is clear that they will continue to work with the Borderlands growth deal to investigate how their transport asked can be addressed. Jamie Greene mentioned the Williams rail review, a very important piece of work that is being undertaken, and Transport Scotland is very closely engaged in the Williams review. We press for full devolution of network rail and full accountability, and we accept that accountability comes to ministers. We will be held accountable for those decisions going forward, but we are willing to take that risk, if you like, political risk, because we believe that it will significantly help our ability to have our more co-ordinated approach to rail investment in Scotland. Gillian Martin raised the point around Ellen and Aberdeenshire, indeed, and touched on issues that Mark McDonald has raised in regard to Numacker and the former Martin to Buckingroot. STPR2 will focus on national regional issues to deliver national priorities with a clear alignment with the climate change plan. Regional transport working groups are being established, and I hope that we can keep members informed of that work and indeed engage with them. Ross Greer mentioned the mill guy, Western, and I tried to intervene, but just to address the point, Mr Matheson is actually meeting with East Dunbartonshire Council today to discuss this very scheme, so that's why he's not here in person. However, the mill guy is now delivering consistently high figures and departure figures. I appreciate the points that he made about the backlog, perhaps the previous problems that have arisen on that route. I hope that he's beginning to see the improvements that have arisen from the extension of the platform that he referenced. There are more lines in Scotland that are single with four trains per hour, including Roots and Larkhall, Tweedbank and a few where that has worked effectively using single track lines. On wider speeches, to finish up, I'm conscious of time and people need to get away. If you wish a little more time to answer any questions, I'm not asking you to do it, I'll give you it, but if you've got to be always fine. That's great. I certainly recognise points that have been raised by members around the common sense points, if you like, looking at where there are new opportunities, such as the Aberdeen Exhibition Conference Centre, the new marker point that was made by Gillian Martin. Those are decisions that have been taken by my colleague Mr Matheson. One of the things that I want to show members today, all the points that have been raised in debate, we will study and take away that have been raised in terms of potential projects and make sure that colleagues in the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland will look at those as best possible. Recognise that Mr Smith has raised East Riggs and other local campaigns, and Emma Harper has talked very much about the east-west connections in Dumfries and Galloway and the benefits that rail could bring to south-west Scotland. I want to put on record that we certainly recognise the aspirations of communities in all those areas and we are keen to try and take forward projects through the strategic transport project review where we can do so. The local rail development fund, which is the subject of discussion today, is funding 10 transport appraisals from Haddington to Newborough and, indeed, from Clydesdale to St Andrews. It is a local rail development fund, and the new £2 million fund enables local communities to appraise and potentially bring forward proposals aimed at tackling local rail connectivity issues. We recognise that transport appraisal costs can be very significant for local stakeholders and communities, and the fund responds directly to that by providing an opportunity to apply for assistance with the appraisal costs. It is really pleasing to note the progress that is being made by those successful organisations across Scotland. It is a great opportunity because we work with the Green Party in delivering that fund, and I am pleased to see that it is beginning to have the effect that was sought from it. Given the significant interest in the first phase of the fund, it was relaunched at the end of February, with the remaining balance of up to £1.3 million. There is still time for local stakeholders and community groups, perhaps some of the organisations that were mentioned today, to apply as applications are welcome until 28 June. I just want to put that on record. We look forward to seeing the outputs of those transport appraisals, as they will help to inform our future rail investment choices, and, importantly, ensure that we do not lose sight of the transport issues that affect our local communities across Scotland. On that, I will leave it. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.