 The next item of business is a members business debate on motion 5941 in the name of Jenny Gilruth on leaving mouth rail link. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, so I would ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Jenny Gilruth to open the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by welcoming to Holyrood this evening members from the leaving mouth rail link campaign group, colleagues from Fife Council and by thanking fellow members from across the political spectrum for their support on the re-establishment of the leaving mouth rail link. What is it that makes leaving different? Leaving mouth is the largest urban conurbation in Scotland, not directly served by rail. The track is a distance of five miles in length and it was still in use until 2001 as a freight line. Compare our line to the borders, 30 miles of new railway. In February 2013, the business case there showed a benefit cost ratio of just 0.5 to 1. The decision to build borders railway was branded exceedingly poor value for money by the Institute of Economic Affairs and yet, during its first month, 125,971 passengers travelled on the borders railway. Demand far outstripped expectation, with the line carrying 19.4 per cent of its predicted annual footfall in just one month. In Newton Grange, visitor numbers at the nearby national mining museum surged. The Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance, or STAG, as it is known, is the method used to prioritise transport schemes. We had one in 2008 and another in 2015. In July 2016, the network rail Scotland route study was published. It made no reference to the leaving mouth rail link. In December last year, Fife Council resubmitted the revised STAG report to Transport Scotland. Transport Scotland responded to Fife Council's technical review of the revised STAG on 18 July this year. I say to the transport minister that quite a sight from any rail link application this process is tiresome, it lacks transparency and I believe it is an antiquated approach to public engagement. Some of the issues raised by Transport Scotland included low passenger forecasts for leaving mouth to Edinburgh. I gently suggest to Transport Scotland that it is rather difficult to estimate footfall on a rail line, which has not existed since the 1960s. Bluntly, there is not a culture of travelling to the capital for work because there is no rail line. Compare leaving then to Dunbar, 3 per cent of the leaving mouth population working in Edinburgh compared with 22 per cent in Dunbar. The turns are a similar distance from Edinburgh. No pride is for guessing which has the rail link. Transport Scotland also raised concerns about the apparently limited personal and business responses to the public survey. That is quite a quantitative look at data, so I like to do my homework and hear some call to the feedback that I have gathered prior to today's debate. Donaldson Timber said that they are sure that rail connectivity to the central belt and further afield would help with employment opportunities. Flauder, the engineering firm, said that we are in support of the proposed rail link, it would give us access to a wider pool of employees and the option of bringing materials in by rail. Transport Scotland claimed that Diagio and their logistics provider, WH Malcolm, are the largest identified opportunity for rail freight. No evidence has been provided with regard to their current views and their likelihood to use such a facility. But WH Malcolm told my office today that they have a rail division. They say that they are not adverse to switching from road to rail. Similarly, Diagio said that they would give serious consideration to the option of transporting materials via freight train. The biggest employer in Leven would naturally consider using freight. That sounds like pretty compelling evidence to me. Much like the Borders, however, opening up the leaving rail link would not just be about driving investment and job creation. Murdo Fraser, I am very grateful to Jenny Gilruth for giving way. On the question of employment opportunities, would she recognise that, in the leaving area at present, there is a shortage of good quality employment opportunities for young people in particular, as a result of which too many have to leave the area? Would she agree with me that creating the rail link might help to redress that situation and encourage more young people to stay in the area? Jenny Gilruth, I thank Murdo Fraser for that intervention. I would absolutely agree with what he has to say. On that issue, I will come to that later in my speech. Much like the Borders, as I have just said, it is not just about opening up investment and job creation. It is about more than that. It is about tourism. When the rail link first opened in the 1960s, it helped Leven to become a tourist destination. My grandad, who was from Springburn, used to come on holiday to leave in with his family up from Glasgow. To the east of Leven sits London links, home of the oldest women's golf course in the world, and Murdo Fraser's boss comes from that area as well. Beyond it, Lower Largo, the birthplace of Alexander Selkirk and the real inspiration behind Robison Crusoe. Scotland's answer to Nelson Sir Andrew Wood came from Upper Largo, a Scottish sea captain who went on to become the Lord's High Admiral of Scotland. What now of Fife's proud history? What of our vital contribution to the coal industry? Transported from the metal docks not far from where the line would run. This unclean fuel helped to build the British Empire, but the hollow gap that the industry's implosion left continues to scar Levenmouth today. Since I was elected last May, we have lost jobs on the high street at the Royal Bank, Clyde Stale Bank and just last weekend at WH Smith. On Saturday, I took a wander down the high street. Nine shops closed, three charity shops, two bouquets and an arcade. One in three children in Levenmouth live in poverty. For children growing up in my constituency, their opportunities are geographically curtailed. Isolated from transport links, their aspirations can only take them so far. I am extremely proud that the Scottish Government backed the new Levenmouth academy with £25 million of investment. The school that opened last year is a state of the art building in partnership with Fife College. Here is what the head teacher Ronnie Ross had to say. I firmly believe, as do most of my staff and pupils, that the rail link is an essential ingredient to reviving the fortunes of Levenmouth and also for enabling people to travel in and out of the area for work purposes. As a constituency member for Leven, I was extremely disappointed that the Edinburgh city region deal made no provision for the Levenmouth rail link. That was an opportunity for all levels of government to grasp. Instead, the deal has focused on the capital, to the detriment of the region, as originally intended. As Edinburgh booms, Levenmouth is beginning to contract. However, there is an opportunity here. In his last correspondence to me on the matter with the Levenmouth rail link, the transport minister states that a new pipeline system is now being proposed for rail enhancement projects. Levenmouth is not like other rail links. We have a well-established campaign group. We have cross-party support. We have a length of track just sitting there, right for development. We have already been through two stag appraisals. If there is to be a new approach, I will now shamelessly steal an idea given to me by Ross Bennett from the campaign group. Let us trial it. That is my first ask to the transport minister. My second is that he commits network rail to a grip for study of the Levenmouth rail link. That is the governance for railway investment project. That is the only way that we can arrive at a definitive business case. It will also help to develop a single option for the line. My final ask, Presiding Officer, is that the transport minister comes to Leven to walk the line. I might even cook him his tea if he is lucky. At the top of Levenmouth high street, above what is today Leven's library, is the symbol of the co-operative movement, a beehive. The image for the movement suggests united co-operation. One bee cannot survive on its own, but with others it can. To quote the great Jimmy Reid, whoever takes the important economic decisions in society, ipso facto, determines the social priorities of that society. The Levenreal link has the potential to change lives in my constituency and beyond. It will bring jobs, it will bring investment, it will widen the horizons of the next generation. It just needs that green light from government. Can I take this opportunity to personally thank Eugene Clark, Alan Armstrong, Ken Hague, Ross Bennett, Mary Riley, Elizabeth Maguire and everyone who has been involved in the Levenmouth campaign group. Their resolute professional determination has kept the Levenmouth rail link alive to us politicians. I think that it is high time that we are awarded their tenacity and committed to getting Leven back on track. Thank you very much. I call Willie Rennie to be followed by Jamie Greene. I thank Jenny Gilruth for securing this member's debate this evening. I thank her in particular because it is important that we have forceful all-party support, but I also want to caution her. I do not think that Ruth Davidson has ever been Murdo Fraser's boss. I also want to thank the Levenmouth railway campaigners for their energetic campaign to reinstate this very short line to Leven from Glenrothes with Thornton. I apologise to the chamber, to the minister and to the people in the gallery, because I am going to have to leave before the conclusion of this debate. I have a speech to make at six o'clock at the university, so I am going to have to leave early. I apologise for that. However, this project is so important to Fife and my constituency that I wanted to mark my support with a small contribution. We have heard all the arguments. The largest town without a railway, significant area of deprivation, area of post-industrial decline, big businesses with a lot of HDV traffic, narrow access roads with heavy traffic. The environmental, social and economic benefits are pretty obvious. The studies have been carried out, the local support has been secured, as we have heard from Jenny Gilruth, and local people in fact proactively raise it as an important priority. We do not have to encourage them to support the campaign, they are already there. Fife Council regards it as a priority and it has put its money behind that project, too. It still exists, it is a short line, none of it has been built on already. The cost is not insignificant, but in comparison with other major projects it is still quite small. The environmental, economic and social returns will be significant. However, there is frustration with the process that it takes too long, that the answer to any question is to commission a further report, a further study or a further investigation. It is almost as if the decision has been put off for convenience. What we need is a bit of speed in this process to try and deliver a project that everybody is behind. What I hope is that, through this debate, the minister gets a feeling, an understanding of the strength of feeling in the community and from all parties too. I appreciate that he has hard choices to make, but to govern is to choose. I hope that he chooses to confirm in the not too distant future that Levenmouth will happen and that trains will be running on that line within the next few years. Levenmouth would be a sound investment and it has my support. I hope that it has the ministers too. I appreciate that there is warm support in the gallery. I urge members to show their support at the very end of the debate, perhaps by applauding at the very end of the debate. Jamie Greene, to be followed by David Torrance. I will not be offended if you do not clap after my speech. I would like to thank and congratulate Jenny Garou for bringing this to the chamber floor this evening. I would also like to pay that tribute to the rail campaign for the work that they are doing to bring in this local issue to the forefront of debate in the Scottish Parliament. I am also aware and reliably told that my local five conservative group are in favour of the reinstatement of this line. As we look forward to considering how we improve Scotland's national railways, much of the discussion in this place is around the big ticket items and the connectivity between our main cities, it is very, very important that we consider the positive impact that small railway lines can have on local communities. Importantly, we should always remember at the heart of this debate that railways are not just modes of transport, they are key parts of local, regional and indeed national economic development. They enhance trade, they encourage investment, they create jobs and prosperity in the process as well. Better connectivity in Scotland will spur growth and help to facilitate a collaborative economic environment between our cities, regions and towns. That is why I do believe that there is a strong case for this. I will admit that, naturally, I approach calls for new railway lines and links quite cautiously. Those are substantially expensive infrastructure investments, and as we all know, all Governments are tightening their purses. Off in these campaigns, I am happy to. I am grateful for the member taking that intervention. Does he believe that there is the same restraint in calling for road building projects? Jamie Greene I think that any major infrastructure spend, whether it is a road, a railway line, an airport or a bridge, has to be looked at on the merits of the advantages that that investment will bring to the communities that it serves at both ends of it. A road is no different to a rail line in this instance. I think that there is a very obvious business case for this line that would merit the substantial investment that it clearly requires. I say substantial in the grand scheme of things, but we could argue that it is not. As I said, I do approach those things naturally quite cautiously. Those campaigns are often led by local people, and I am very taken by the energy that has come out of the local campaign. I am pleased to participate in the debate. I think that the estimated cost of around £80 million would connect leaving Buckhaven and methyl, as well as not just locally but also improving access to the wider area, such as Glen Rhoffers 5 and even into the capital itself. There are around 50,000 people living in that catchment area who would benefit from this line, and I think that it would also present significant transport and connectivity improvements to any new house build or business expansion in that area as well. For example, I have heard that access to key industrial sites with freight would be provided. Now, we are all keen to get as much freight off the road and onto rails as we can. That is a perfect opportunity to do so. I think that the STAG report, which was published last year, recommended the project. I would like to quote from it, because one thing struck me specifically. The scheme has the potential to provide a step change in the economic performance of a large population area, as well as helping to regenerate economic activity. That will provide a gateway to significantly boost tourism. I think that it is very important that we bear that in mind. It is not just about commuters, but about encouraging people from other parts of Scotland to Jenny Gourous's area. It also noted the potential to attract inwards investment and support increased business activity in the area, with the net cost-benefit ratio to be around 1.3. That sounds good to me from a business point of view. I am aware that it also has some environmental repercussions. That could go to reduce CO2 emissions in the Fife area, and reduce levels of road congestion, which is something that we all want to do. I think that there is a business case for reinstating the link, but to move things forward, we need to have an open conversation about the funding, who is going to pay for it, and how it is going to be paid for. With those types of projects, it is very important that the scope is set out properly from day 1. Those projects often have a tendency to go over budget due to poor scoping in the first place. Any cost analysis that we do on the total cost of the project should be quite succinct, so that the minister is able to make and take a view on that with all the facts at hand. I am intrigued to find out perhaps in his speech that he may give us some more rationale as to why it was not included in the adverse city deal. I think that there is general disappointment from across the chamber. It has also been noted in the local press as well. Any comments that he has on that would be welcome. I do wish Jenny Garouwf very well in her pursuit of this link. Those benches are happy to be a constructive part of that dialogue, and I look forward to seeing some results. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also like to congratulate Jenny Garouwf in securing this debate in Parliament today, and one of the most pressing issues that affects both her constituencies. I would also like to welcome members of the Leave a Mouth rail campaign and local councillors to the Parliament this evening. Railways have been an imperative and influential means of transport for people and materials for decades. Transport links have served as a symbol of modernisation since the beginning of human civilisation. No other industry has promoted change on the scale and scope that is brought about by invention and adoption of railway. Transport has affected economic and social development from the beginning and continues to do so. That is why it is unacceptable that Leave a Mouth is the largest urban area in Scotland, not directly served by rail. It is our job as influential policy makers to raise awareness of the 37,600 residents of Leave a Mouth that continue to be disconnected from key areas in Scotland. The Leave a Mouth rail campaign has brought to our attention issues of economic, social and environmental inequality and is fundamentally a campaign based on the justice for the community. Based on the most recent statistics, Leave a Mouth is within the top 20 per cent of the most deprived communities in Scotland with several areas within the top 5 per cent. That area's transport links have been neglected for years, yet it continues to show extreme potential for regeneration through investment in business and tourist development. The last six years that I have been involved with the Leave a Mouth rail campaign, its members have to be congratulated for their enthusiasm and dedication for taking every opportunity to highlight the issue. There has not been a summerfet or gala in the area that they have not attended. In addition to the many street stalls that have been held, which have resulted in the 12,500 residents from the area signing a petition that supports the reopening of the rail link from Forenton to Leven, which was recently presented to Transport Minister, Minister Yw Ysaf, by Jenny Garouff and myself. It is evident that communities accommodate themselves to transport connections typically prosper. Transport investment links factors of production to give a web of relationships between producers and consumers to promote efficiency and to provide the means to expand economies of scale and scope. As the Fife Cancer report on the Leave a Mouth's study of transport has proven, reducing the cost and time of passengers and freight movement is a great contributor to economic growth. As one of the highest concentrations of deprivation in Fife, it is crucial to revive the rail link to enhance employment opportunities for its struggling workforce as alternative transport modes are costly and inefficient. Alongside the economic benefits, the environmental benefits compared to cars are in line with Scotland's leading environmental role in modern railways. We have managed strategically other significant environment and land use benefits, as they are usually more energy efficient than road transport and generally have lower emissions per traffic unit than any other mode. It is obvious that there is significant support to reinstate a Leave a Mouth rail link. It is one of the few issues during my long time in politics that I have received cross-party support. It is one of the issues in which the two main political parties of Fife Council have both fully supported to make it their number one transport priority. Therefore, I find Willie Rennie's comments in the local papers in the past few days attacking both SNP and Labour administrations in Fife Council both extremely disappointing and unhelpful. It is just cheap political points going and has nothing positive to highlight advance or advance a case for a reinstatement that will leave a Mouth rail link. Did the member not find it rather odd that I received a letter from the minister which directly contradicted what the leader of the council had said about the city region deal and that, rather than arguing amongst themselves, it would be better to come together to take this project forward? Did he not find that rather confusing and therefore it needed some clarity and some unity? I think that if Willie Rennie attended many of the meetings that I have attended over the last six years, he would find whether it is MPs, whether it is MSPs, local councillors and leaders of the council, we have all come together to support the lead Mouth rail campaign. His comments in the paper just weren't helpful at all for our case. I believe that our next step is to develop a detailed reform programme and the lead Mouth sustainable transport study has done an excellent job in beginning this process. If we disregard this campaign, we also disregard our progress in economic activity, our progress as a leading country in reducing carbon emissions and we disregard our dedication to serving the most deprived communities of Scotland. Leave Mouth and its wider communities are suffering the consequences and we need to raise awareness to help individuals and communities in the leave mouth that have been denied access to public space. In conclusion, restatement of the lead Mouth rail link will help to address the poor transport links in the area and will bring with it economic benefits. It also has a potential to make a significant impact on reducing the carbon footprint of businesses in the area. I would like to thank everyone who is involved with the lead Mouth rail campaign for all their hard work because without them, we would not be here to debate in this motion. I look forward to working with them in the future so that one day we can all travel on train to leaving. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to speak in this evening's debate on the leave and rail link. I congratulate Jenny Gilruth for securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to put the case before the minister. It is nine years since I first spoke in a member's debate on the leave and to thought and rail link, and looking back on it, I am the only MSP who spoke in that open debate, who is still here in the chamber tonight, to further support the campaign. I recognise the tenacity of the leave and mouth rail campaign group, who are promoting their cause with a degree of rigor, good nature and energy that deserves recognition. They have held conferences, gathered signatures and produced sound evidence to support the campaign, and I will highlight some of their arguments tonight. Nine years ago, there was unanimous support around the chamber for the project, but there was a fairly mild response from the then minister. I hope that the minister this evening can give a stronger, more positive response to the debate. That is a campaign with political support in Fife. Since I have been elected to the Scottish Parliament, we have had an SNP-led council administration, a Labour administration and now a coalition between the two, and they have been consistent in their support for the project. The timeline provided by Fife council to MSPs demonstrates the work that they have undertaken to promote the reopening. Reopening of the line was in the Scottish Labour and the Scottish Green Party manifestos for the 2016 election, and I recognise the commitment from Fife MSPs of all other parties, but it is not within the powers or the finances of the local authority or Fife MSPs to deliver the project. The economic, environmental and social benefits that the rail link can deliver are clear. It would expand employment, educational and economic opportunities for an area that would benefit so much from this investment. Reopening the line also offers opportunities for freight, adding further benefit to the proposal. I know the Leaving Mouth area well, and we have seen investment along with the Fife Energy Park, the Hydrogen Office and the New Leaving Mouth academy, along with the commitment that was there from Fife College. There are many dedicated support organisations, and the area still has the community spirit that is fostered in its history as a mining community. However, it is still an area that lives with high deprivation areas, levels with higher than average unemployment, with health challenges and a low-car ownership figure. The positive signal of intent that the reopening of the line would give to the area is difficult to underestimate. It is a fairly straightforward proposal. I accept that there is a process to go through and that there must be clear evidence of benefits, affordability and a robust business case. However, as others have said, there is a frustration around this process. We have had two stag reports with the most recent being commissioned by Fife Council in 2015. I know Transport Scotland have a job to do, but there is a growing concern that they are not making the stag process smooth or being clear in their expectations. There is now the need for a grip 4 study, which is recognised as a complex and relatively expensive study. Is it proportionate for Fife Council to pay for this? We know the pressure that local authorities are under and, while they have invested in the stag process and have budgeted for expenditure, they are now being expected to fund a grip study with no indication that the project is likely to be considered favourably or that it is a worthwhile undertaking. Political commitment from the Scottish Government is crucial in making the project a reality. The success of the boarder's rail line should inspire confidence in future projects, where passenger numbers are considerably higher than predicted. There will always be an element of risk with these infrastructure projects, and we can never be fully guaranteed of the outcome. However, I would argue that the Leave Mouth rail project is as good a project as the Scottish Government could wish for, to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to an area that needs it. Today, the minister must demonstrate commitment to the project and he could start by committing to real support towards the grip study, which is the crucial next stage in making the campaign a reality. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I thank Jenny Gilruth for bringing forward the motion tonight. It is very welcome and it has attracted a lot of cross-party support. I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate. I highlighted the case to reopen the Leave Mouth rail link through a member's debate that I moved back in 2007. It was Tavish Scott who responded for the Government. It has been satisfying to see how the argument for reopening the line has evolved into a compelling case over the last decade. The quality of that case is reflected in Jenny Gilruth's motion, supported by old parties. The Leave Mouth rail campaign deserves our thanks and congratulations for their professional and passionate work, which, in recent years, has been supported by Fife Council. When the site of the metal power station is disappearing from the skyline and the site of the big demonstration wind turbine is going up, it has painted a picture of a strong economic future for Leave Mouth communities, building on the skills of the past to deliver the kind of world that we need for the future. However, what has been missing from that picture all along has been a rail link that connects Leave Mouth to the rest of Scotland. The line has languished under weeds for decades and yet it is vital for the regeneration of the area. We have heard contributions already from members about the particular challenges that are faced by young people and the kind of grinding exclusion. We have all heard stories from constituents about how difficult it has been to access a job market, how difficult it is to access educational opportunities and even in some cases healthcare as well. However, I want to focus on what time I have left, Presiding Officer, on the way forward and the process now for getting this line reopened. Firstly, it is important to remember that this line already exists. It may lie moth-balled, but there is a commitment that falls on network rail already to maintain the line. If there was a request made from Diagio's freight operator for it to be used again, the network rail would have to open it within 12 months. That would obviously make a significant contribution to the full upgrading that is required for passenger services. The Scottish Government needs to be backing dialogue with Diagio and Malcolm Logistics on the freight question. Secondly, the stag appraisal that was completed did not count up the wider economic benefits that would flow from reopening the line. If it had, then the cost-benefit ratio would have come in well ahead of the border's rail line. However, the regeneration potential of the project is real and needs to be understood and factored into what will be a political decision for the Scottish Government on the passenger services rather than a decision for network rail on that particular question. Thirdly, I would add that the new pipeline approach to bringing forward rail projects and the move away from the five-year control periods will clearly bring some flexibility for the Government to back-winning projects, but I do remain concerned about blockages in that pipeline. If leaving mouth is to move from the business case stage of the stag process to the technical feasibility stage under the grip process, that will require investment minister, including, for example, physical clearance work on the line itself to carry out that technical assessment. Other members have reflected on where investment will come from if it is not written into the Edinburgh city region deal, if it is not within the capacity of Fife Council's budgets to deliver it on its own. There must be a role for the Scottish Government to marshal the resources that are needed and to help to move the project down the pipe. Lastly, there is a need for co-ordination between proposals to reopen rail lines and stations and the wider needs of the rail network. I appreciate that. Leaving mouth is not the only reopening that Fife needs. The completion of the Queensfree crossing should now absolutely signal increased investment in public transport in Fife rather than less investment. There are questions around the timescale of proposed projects in Fife, but there is also the opportunity for synergy between them and a much-needed rail renaissance in Fife and across Scotland if the Government can prioritise capital budgets for infrastructure. The prize for communities, the economy and the environment is great, but it needs the political will and vision to turn that into a reality. We look to you, minister, to provide that. I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to participate in this debate and pay tribute to Jenny Gilruth for bringing this debate this evening to the chamber. This area, as has already been mentioned, is currently the largest urban area of Scotland, which is not directly served by the rail, despite the presence of the mothball original line between Thornton and the east coast mainline and the historic stations of Cameron bridge and Leven, a distance of only five miles as far as the accro fly. As we know, there is currently a very strong campaign that is seeking to raise awareness and apply pressure from the local community. I pay tribute to that local community for its strength of feeling, commitment, dedication and enthusiasm to ensure that that has been further moved up the agenda. I have only been a member in here since last May, but I am well aware of the campaign that has taken place prior to me coming to this chamber. As I said, I pay tribute to them. The commercial requirements, the logistical common sense and the ultimate justice for the reconnection of this neglected community is paramount. It will help the economy, it will help investment, it will secure jobs and it will give youngsters the opportunity to move freely around the area. The area desperately needs a robust reinforcement to ensure that the society and the opportunities that are there are given that, because they do have poor connections and people have to suffer on a day-to-day basis with those poor connections. Better freight links and rail will certainly aid motorists and the relocation of the heavy traffic that takes place at present, and giving passengers an opportunity. It is like looking back and turning back the clock. 170 years ago, there was a similar situation in the area. In 1847, the Edinburgh and Northern Railway opened part of its main line, a station at Markinsh. In 1848, the station at Thornton opened, with immediate emphasise to the people of Leven, the magnitude of the railway connections that are taking place within that community. We find ourselves today looking at where the acknowledgement of the poor road connections that we have and the HDV movement that is going back and forward from Diagell and others within that location. If that was taken off the road, what connections that would make, what opportunities that would give to ensure that we have a much better logistical connections within the area. It is time for the Scottish Government to sit up and listen to the locals. They cannot just ignore the depth of feeling. As I say, I am sincerely impressed by the reports that have come forward and the events that I have attended over the past year and a bit to see the commitment from this community. The strong commercial case, the common sense for the determination of the locals to campaign as well as a clear business sense prevails to ensure that the Levenmouth rail link succeeds. They deserve to succeed because they have put their effort into it. If I believe that the connections are poor but the Government has to put its money where its mouse is in supporting the business community and supporting the local residents, that is vitally important. I have heard this evening that we have been years at this campaign, that we have taken a lot of effort, we have seen lots of reports coming forward but not much progress. That has not been because MSPs have not participated, because I can see from the past that they have. It just has not materialised. I therefore ask the Government to support this proposal, which will unlock the potential and give real opportunities to communities across the Fife area. I am happy to fight the corner and stand shoulder to shoulder with MSPs across the chamber to fight to ensure that the people of Levenmouth are given the opportunities that they deserve. They have fought long and hard and I am, as I say, immensely impressed, but it is up to Network Rail, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to stand together as well to ensure that the community is respected and given the opportunities that they rightfully deserve. I wish the campaign well and I hope that, in the tenure of my time here, we can work together to ensure that this dream becomes a reality for the people and the communities that deserve it. I commend Jenny Gilruth for bringing and securing this debate to the Parliamentary Chamber. I thank the members for their contributions. I will try to address some of the issues and concerns that have been raised in their contributions. However, if I miss anything out, I welcome the interventions that they may want to make. I also thank, as many members have done, the Levenmouth rail campaigners, many of them who are in the public gallery, not all 12,500, who signed the petition, I suspect, but a fair number of those who have driven the campaign, who I have met on a number of occasions most recently when I did collect that petition from Jenny Gilruth, David Torrance and a number of other MSPs who were there as well. As I say, more than 12,500 signatures have been collected on many different issues. All of us, I am sure, 12,500, is a mightily impressive figure particularly when I think of the figures of the population of the Levenmouth area. You are talking about one-third of the entire population of that area, so it is very impressive indeed. I thank and congratulate and commend Levenmouth rail campaigners. I also say for personal experience that whoever does their Twitter account, they are persistent and I salute their individuality in that regard. Somehow, anything that I tweet about manages to always come back to the Levenmouth rail campaign. I can advise Jenny Gilruth and others who have passionately articulated the case in today's debate that today's debate has been really helpful and informative and has been the opportunity for me to hear and reflect on the issues, the observations and concerns that have been raised. With due reflection, I intend to perhaps flow a proposition on how we might address some of the needs of the community at Levenmouth. Perhaps before I do, let me just try to set out some of the assessments of the issue. The first thing is that nobody, be it the Government, be it Transport Scotland, I think that I can speak even perhaps for Network Rail on this position that nobody has ever doubted the passion, the commitment, the desire and the depth of feeling, as Alexander Stewart described it, of those who live in Levenmouth. Indeed, the surrounding area for the desire to have this rail link up and running, that simply has never been in doubt whatsoever. My members were right to say that there has been a number of studies, so I can understand the frustration. I can also understand in some respects the frustration around the stag process. Jenny Gilruth and others are not the only ones to have raised this with me. I am speaking to my officials at Transport Scotland to look at the stag process in general, not just for rail projects but indeed a number of our infrastructure projects. That being said, within the guidelines, they will know from the study, which I have a copy of, that there are two potential transport options emerging, the bus option emerging and the rail link option, which is obviously favoured by the majority. It also goes to say to provide context, which I know is really important, and Jamie Greene I thought reflected from this very well in his contribution. Of course, the Government rightly will be held to account for every single penny of taxpayers' money that we spend. Therefore, it has to be an absolute robust business case, robust rationale that has to be scrutinised to the nth degree. Find that balance between not frustrating the process and yet going through the due diligence is sometimes a difficult one. I am not saying that we get it right every time, but most certainly I can hear what members are saying very much on that. When it comes to the cost-benefit ratio, which I think that Jamie Greene mentioned, if we looked at the cost-benefit ratio as purely value for just the pound that is invested, there is still some work for the study to do in that regard in terms of railing. However, on the flipside of that, I think that it is a point that all members and Jenny Gilruth were very strong on that point in her remarks. Was it if you just looked at that from a business case point of view, you were perhaps ignoring the regeneration impact, the socio-economic impact and so on and so forth. I think that those points are very well made by all those who contributed to the debate, but it is also a point that is made very well in the recent booklet that was produced by Leaving Mouth Rail campaign that I read yesterday and again just this afternoon before coming to the debate. It is a really helpful contribution. If members have not seen it, they should see the latest booklet. I am sure that they all have the latest booklet from the Leaving Mouth rail campaign. It illustrates how improved connectivity can make a real difference to the lives and the opportunities of people in Leaving Mouth. The booklet also raises points that need to be explored further, relating to the level of costs and the identification of the achievements of benefits. It is for all those reasons that Claire Baker touched on. I think that one or two other members touched on the grip process, perhaps the financial burden, as it was described on the local authority. I am minded that I will instruct my officials at Transport Scotland to effectively take on responsibility for the study in close collaboration with the council, but, as opposed to the council leading, perhaps I can make a proposition that Transport Scotland will lead on that. The evidential base is absolutely important and imperative when we go to spend a penny of taxpayers' money. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome will be of Transport Scotland's deliberations. I have told them that they must look above and beyond just the basic cost benefit to wider socioeconomic impacts and regeneration impacts. Some of the qualitative information that Jenny Gerruth has articulated would also be helpful and useful if she can present me with that. I should say that that being said, I still expect Transport Scotland to be absolutely robust in the scrutiny of the project. With that in mind, I will re-engage with the members who have taken an interest. I will re-engage with the Leave and Mouth rail campaign, but I will also re-engage with Fife Council. I think that one or two members asked about the city deal issue as well. As they will know, it would be for local authorities to come forward and to think that their priorities are in terms of city deal projects. There is an opportunity, as Mark Ruskell touched upon, with the pipeline approach for control period 6 to 2019 to 2024. There is an opportunity, subject to funding from the UK Government—we still have not got that confirmed yet—that is a to and fro that is happening with the chief secretary of the treasury. However, notwithstanding that, taking on the points that Mark Ruskell has said about that possible blockage in a pipeline, I hope that the whole point of the pipeline is to remain flexible to allow projects that have robust business cases and social economic advantages to make their way through that pipeline. The tagline for the Leave and Mouth rail campaign is more than just a transport project. That is a great tagline, I have to say, incidentally for any transport investment. We seek to make investments that strive to deliver economically vibrant, well-connected and inclusive societies across Scotland. On that note, I thank Jenny Gilruth for initiating the debate. I thank the Leave and Mouth rail campaigners, I thank all members for their contributions. I think that we have potentially a way forward on that. I hear what they are saying very clearly and I promise to keep them updated on any further developments. I thank the minister and all members for their contributions. That concludes our debate. I thank our visitors in the gallery too. I now close this meeting.