I thank the member for her intervention and I acknowledge what she says. However, when a party is in government, it is there to provide as much as possible for the whole community, not just parts of the community. The Sheriffhall roundabout has become a disappointing saga, with promises being broken again and again. It is now nearly two years since the independent reporter submitted recommendations to Scottish ministers, but we are still tied up with bureaucracy.

The debate has shown clear cross-party support for the action that is required. I can only hope that the Scottish Government is willing to listen.

Progress on Sheriffhall is long overdue, and it is time for the SNP to stop sitting back and waiting. It must deliver, even if that means that it has to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the right decision—to deliver the roundabout upgrade for communities.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I am still having difficulty connecting. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect either. I would have voted no.

I am pleased to be able to speak on this important issue and I congratulate my colleague Miles Briggs on securing the debate. I commend him for launching his campaign to finally deliver the much-needed upgrades to the Sheriffhall roundabout. The continued delay to those upgrades is unacceptable, and the impact on residents, commuters and businesses increases every year.

As we have heard, more than 75,000 vehicles use the Edinburgh bypass every day. With Lothian still seeing rapid population growth, that number is only going to get higher. It is vitally important that we get a solution—the need for one is becoming more urgent.

It is, however, clear that the project is, and has been for some time, low on the Government’s priority list. As Miles Briggs’s motion notes, we have been waiting for years for Transport Scotland to provide a flyover solution, and the problems at Sheriffhall are being exacerbated because of the length of time that the project is taking.

We have known about the issue for decades, with numerous MSPs talking about a flyover over many parliamentary sessions. However, although the issue was first brought to the SNP’s attention during its first year in government, the project still has not progressed as we want it to. We also know that £6 million has already been spent on consultants’ fees alone, without getting a solution—a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

The situation continues to cause issues across Edinburgh. In addition, commuters from across the central belt and the south-east of Scotland have their journeys disrupted at Sheriffhall, and it is a constant bottleneck for those who are travelling north from the rest of the UK.

The failure to address the situation is hardly surprising, because the SNP Government’s record on transport infrastructure is not good. Countless other road projects have been left stuck in the slow lane by the SNP Government, and Sheriffhall continues to be one of them.

The Scottish Government has failed to upgrade important rural roads, including the A77, the A75, the A96 and, in my region, the A9. Elsewhere, those using the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful are still facing disruption. It is a pattern that we see time and time again. We need to look at all the projects that are not being delivered because we want to see what is happening.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the number of serious assaults committed by teenagers has increased in the past five years. (S6O-04747)

The future of the Knockengorroch festival, which is billed as Scotland’s oldest greenfield festival, hangs in the balance due to financial pressures that have arisen as a result of the festival having running costs of more than £320,000 in recent years. What action is the cabinet secretary taking to ensure that such vital regional festivals are allowed to thrive and survive?

This debate is a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of empowering Scotland’s entrepreneurs and innovators. Innovation will be key to Scotland’s future, but it has also been key to Scotland’s past. After all, it is one of the things that we are known for in Scotland. Our spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation was pioneered throughout the Scottish enlightenment, and Scotland has long been a cradle for ideas and progress. It is therefore not at all surprising that Scotland has countless inventions to its name, many of which we have heard about in the debate.

The Government’s motion is at least right to speak about the importance of Scotland becoming

“one of Europe’s fastest growing start-up economies”.

I, too, take the opportunity to congratulate Ana Stewart on being appointed as Scotland’s new chief entrepreneur. However, we are debating yet another motion in which the Government’s rhetoric does not match its actions, as Murdo Fraser’s amendment points out.

As members on our benches have raised many times before, the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation is making it difficult for certain sectors to attract and retain top talent. That includes important sectors such as fintech. Those in that sector have warned that higher Scottish income tax is making it difficult for the sector to grow, while economists have warned that the approach risks shrinking the Scottish tax base. Headhunting companies have warned that their jobs have already been made more difficult by the introduction of the advanced rate of Scottish income tax. How is that situation supposed to help Scotland to become one of Europe’s fastest-growing start-up economies? That concern is being raised by many economists.

Our amendment to the motion mentions the report that the Hunter Foundation published last month, which laid bare many of the problems that Scotland’s economy is facing. The report is clear that Scotland needs a new growth strategy that fosters innovation in sectors with high potential. It is also clear that a much more business-friendly environment is required in order to make Scotland more attractive for inward investment. Any politician who has spoken to businesses across Scotland in recent weeks, months and years will be well aware of that. The Fraser of Allander Institute found that only 9 per cent of Scottish businesses believe that the Government understands their needs. Speaking about his foundation’s recent report, Sir Tom Hunter said that Scotland was facing a “managed decline” under the Scottish Government but that Scotland can still reclaim its place on the global stage if we bring forward the right policies, including on tax. I endorse that view.

The Scottish Government should have an ambition for Scotland to become a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, but the Government’s record does not match its ambition. To make that vision a reality, Scotland needs a new approach that is based on commonsense policies, including cutting income tax, which is so important. That will also help to incentivise more of the world’s brightest talent to stay in Scotland. We want to attract talent and we want businesses to flourish, but they are being stopped by the Government’s policies.

With the correct approach, Scotland can be a leading hub for innovation and entrepreneurship. That is what we wish to achieve, but the Scottish Government must play its part to make that dream become a reality. It will be only a dream if the Scottish Government does not listen to the individuals and organisations who are telling it that its tax policy is harming entrepreneurs and innovators.

Serious assaults by teenagers continue to rise. The number of children possessing knives is up 15 per cent among 11 to 15-year-olds and 14 per cent among 16 to 18-year-olds. In recent weeks, police have been called to a primary school to deal with a child carrying a knife, and, tragically, a 16-year-old lost their life on Irvine beach after a fatal stabbing by another teenager. Clearly, the Scottish National Party’s soft-touch approach to justice is not working. Is it not therefore time to back the Scottish Conservatives’ calls for more stop and search powers to tackle the epidemic of youth violence?

Esme Clelland, do you want to add anything?

You have all touched on the issue of resourcing in relation to the size of some planning authorities and their recruitment and retention issues. Resourcing of planning departments has been a major concern, which we have heard from nearly everyone who has given us written views and evidence. What can be done to tackle the issue? Do any of you have views about the potential ring fencing of planning fee income? The idea has been mooted that that could support, assist or strengthen some of that work.

It would be good to get a flavour of where you stand on that proposal, because resourcing is a problem. There is a need to maintain and retain staff, and there is a need to ensure that authorities have the calibre of staff who are able to do what is expected of them in the required timescale. As I said, everyone who has given us views has expressed concern about that, so it is obviously a major problem for the sector and for the industry.