 The next item of business is a debate in motion 2138 in the name of Graham Simpson on delivering promised road infrastructure across Scotland. I would invite those members who wish to speak in this debate to please press their request to speak buttons now, and I call on Graham Simpson to speak to and to move the motion up to seven minutes, please, Mr Simpson. Many thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. Deputy Presiding Officer, Tom Arthur is a likable chap. As a backbencher, he was affable and straight talking, but he showed last week that he's quickly learned the art of being an SNP Minister during questions on the draft national planning framework because Fergus Ewing, also a straight talker, asked the Minister this. I asked whether the Minister can provide reassurance to me and my constituents in Inverness and Nairn that his statement does not and will not in any way manner or means delay, detract, diminish or dilute the absolute commitment of the Scottish Government to dual the remaining sections of the A9 between Perth in Inverness and the section of the A96 from Inverness to Old Nairn and to do so as swiftly as possible. Unfortunately, a great question. Unfortunately, Mr Arthur did not give a straight answer. We were left none the wiser. Jamie Halcro-Johnson had another go and did not fare any better. Today's debate is an opportunity for the SNP to drop the prevarication and tellers straight. Will the A96 and A9 be dualled in their entirety? Yes or no? I'll happily take an intervention if the Minister can tell us. Carry on, he says. Can we have less chat with one member seated and one standing? If there's an intervention I can take it, if there's no intervention. The Minister does not wish to intervene and the reason is that, while the SNP might agree with us that these roads and others need to be upgraded, they have become ensnared by the extremist greens. Maggie Chapman has already declared that she's confident the A96 project will not be viable for environmental reasons. Everyone hoping that Ms Chapman will be overruled will have to wait for the results of what is being described as a transparent evidence-based review, which won't report until the end of next year, so kicking the can down the road to keep happy a party that would take us back to the horse and cart era. The SNP may have been taken hostage. Yes, happily. I thank Mr Simpson for giving way. Speaking as a rural motorist, I find that the real cost on me as a rural motorist is trying to fix my suspension and my car after I've run over loads and loads of potholes. Doesn't Mr Simpson agree that the focus here needs to be on maintaining our roads rather than sinking billions and billions of pounds into new trunk roads? Isn't that what people in rural communities really want? They want road maintenance, Mr Simpson, rather than white elephant trunk road building schemes like yours. Well, investing in roads is what this is all about, and if we invested more in roads, Mr Ruskell wouldn't have his car broken by potholes. The SNP may have been taken hostage by the Kaftan Crusaders' Office, but that doesn't mean that the people of the north-east and elsewhere should suffer too. Those of us who live in the real world know that Scotland needs to keep moving, that our connectivity needs to be improved and that, by doing so, we can, in the words of the transport minister Graham Day, quote, improve road safety, journey times and journey reliability. Slow-moving long lines of traffic stuck on not-fit-for-purpose a-roads, belching out fumes for longer than is necessary, do not help climate change and they don't help the economy. I would argue that, by improving existing roads, we can help to tackle climate change. We can build in electric vehicle charging points, hydrogen refuelling stations and put in cycle and walking lanes. Mr Ruskell would be delighted at that. We're way behind where we need to be in terms of the charging infrastructure. The Scottish Government has a target for having 30,000 charges by 2030, but at the current pace it will take them until 2066. Now, I wish all members a long and happy life, but I don't think many of us will be around to see that. If we're serious about climate change, if we're serious about getting people like me and most other members to ditch our petrol or diesel motors, then it's no good just banning the sale of new ones, because there will be plenty of old ones on the road for a good while yet. No, we need to provide the infrastructure to persuade people that electric vehicles are a viable option. Presiding Officer, so far I've only mentioned the A96 and that's seriously unfair, so I'll rectify that now. Let me move on to the A9, although I'd rather not. It's utterly shameful that the main artery from Perth to Inverness is not a dual carriageway. Fergus Ewing knows that. It's not just unfair to those individuals who need to travel to Inverness and beyond and vice versa, but to businesses trading from the north and with the north. Very often it's the peripheries that suffer, the north-east, the north-west, the south-east, the south-west, but they're every bit as important as the central belt, and that's not perfect by any means. Donald Cameron will talk about the A82 and A83. We've debated them too little effect in the way of outcomes before. Brian Whittle will talk about the A77, that vital link to and from Ayrshire. He will also mention the A75, the seriously lacking artery linking Gretna to Stranra. It's essential to our connectivity with Ireland. It's essential to the economy of the south-west that that road is dualled. The A74 and M74 are much improved on what they were. You can travel north from England up the west quite easily, so long as you don't want to veer off to the left. But try the other side of the country and the experience on the A1 is not so great. Why are we so petty that we don't even allow Transport Scotland to engage in the union connectivity review when it can see money flow to Scotland to improve roads like the A1 or A75? It's quite pathetic. Presiding officer, all of Scotland needs to be connected. Some members of the SNP understand that. All members here understand that, and we need ministers to stand up to the greens because better roads can also mean a better environment. Before I call the next speaker, I remind all members who wish to speak in this debate that they need to press the request to speak buttons. I now call on Graeme Day Minister to speak to and move amendment 2138.2, up to six minutes. That was amusing and entertaining, but let's deal in facts. Just last week, Scotland at Glasgow hosted COP26, the international conference of nations, which sought to reach agreement on the greatest threat that our planet is facing. In Scotland, the transport sector is our largest emitter. In order to meet the challenging targets set by this Parliament—I seem to remember the Conservatives who voted for those—we need to do all that we can to decarbonise transport. Our climate change plan update published last December includes the national commitment to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. We have adopted a sustainable investment hierarchy that focuses investment on reducing the need to travel and making the best use of what we have before considering adding to existing or building new infrastructure. Members will be aware that the Scottish Government's transport strategy investment priorities has indeed been pointing this way for several years, but, importantly, an imbalanced way to ensure that the road and other transport infrastructure required for the country to operate successfully continues to be fit for purpose. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy replied to me at the Finance Committee on 31 August when I asked about the commitments to the A96 and the A9 and whether there had been any problem about that with the Greens and the SNP being together. She said categorically that the Greens and the SNP being together would not affect either of those projects. Is that correct? Minister? I am going to come to those, if I may, in the course of my contribution. The Scottish Government is fully committed to meeting our ambitious climate targets, but that does not mean no investment in our strategic road network. The trunk road network is one of our largest and most visible community assets. It carries 35 per cent of all traffic and 60 per cent of heavy goods, during which it is safe, operates effectively and is maintained to a good standard that is fundamental to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Scotland. We need to balance the extensive changes that are required to meet our net zero ambitions with our duty to ensure that Scotland has that infrastructure. In 2021, we invested 470 million in managing and maintaining and operating the Scottish trunk road and motorway network, and this year's budget provides for 529 million. We are working hard to bring the benefits of the A9 dualling programme to Scotland. That work has benefited from in-depth and innovative engagement along the route. The member knows that, as she represents part of the route, involving the whole local community and has ensured that a correct balance is struck between improving the vital transport link, minimising the impact on the outstanding natural environment and taking those local communities with us. In part, that has caused the degree of delay. Work is continuing along the route, with dualling already in place between Concreig and Dolrari and Lunkartey in the Pass of Burnham. Design work is progressing for the rest of the programme, with the statutory process well under way for the seven of the remaining eight sections. That is our commitment. Meanwhile, procurement of design work is progressing on other trunk road projects around the country. On the A83, we are committed to ensuring continuity of access to Ergyll and Bute by finding a long-term solution to the rest and be thankful. However, at the same time, we are also progressing work to develop a medium-term, resilient route through Glencrow, where the long-term solution is developed and we will bring forward proposals next year. The Scottish Government is committed to delivering improvements, not I need to make progress. The Scottish Government is committed to delivering improvements for the north and the east of Scotland along the A96 corridor. We will take forward an enhancements programme that improves connectivity between surrounding towns, tackles congestion and addresses safety and environmental issues. Sitting alongside that, we will conduct a transparent, evidence-based review of the A96 corridor that will report by the end of 2020, which is sensible and good governance for major investment at this level. If I may, I remind Mr Kerr that that was an approach that his party endorsed back in 2019 in support of an amendment to the bill. Mr Kerr promised to dual the A96. Will he? It is very clear what the situation is. The commitment remains to address those issues. The dual aspect of it is subject to that review. We remain committed to making much-needed improvements on the A96, developing works that are already undertaken that will not go to waste. We also remain committed to improving the A82 between Tarbot and Inveraran, and we are progressing a range of infrastructure projects related to the city and growth deals. Our approach to the on-going improvements that I have mentioned aligns with the approach to assessing the need for infrastructure improvements in the future set out in the national transport strategy. We were clear that we will not build infrastructure to cater for unconstrained increases in traffic volumes. That was set out in the NTS and taken forward in the STPR review, which is on-going, and will be published for consultation this winter. I want to make progress. STPR2 will include recommendations for future investment in the Scottish road network over the next 20 years, while the commitments to improve the A96 and A83 and those other projects are progressing separately to the review. The need for improvements to trunk roads across the rest of the country, including, for example, on the A75, the A77, the A90 and the A81, are being appraised in the busway that has been assessed within the review. Can I take that intervention, Presiding Officer? It is very brief and if you could wind up in your time a lot, thank you. I thank the minister for giving way. Would he agree that the Scottish Government needs to put aside its perium divisive position and work with the UK Government, particularly if the Hendy report recommends major investment in the A75 for the good of the whole nation, particularly given my constituents? Do not really care what cost the money comes from. That is not a brief intervention. I think that the minister has got the juxtaposition briefly. It is for the UK Government to show some respect for the devolved settlement. We will continue to wind up. We will, of course, also continue to progress our maintenance programme to ensure the continued effectiveness and resilience of the roads. Presiding Officer, we have adopted a focused, rigorously assessed approach to investing in our road network, balancing the needs of our people with our climate ambitions, and we will continue to do so. I move the amendment, my name. The Scottish Labour believes that key routes in Scotland must be upgraded to improve road safety, reduce journey times and support local and regional economies. In many parts of Scotland, there is no practical alternative to the car, so the routes that we are debating today are essential. How we prioritise investment in transport generally is crucial, and so we must take full account of road safety, economic and community development and our climate change ambitions. It is disappointing that the Conservative motion coming just days after COP makes no mention of climate change at all. One of the reasons that so many people in Scotland have to rely on private fossil fuel burning cars is that the alternatives are not good enough or simply do not exist. I recognise Mr Simpson and mentioned it in his speech, but it is a serious omission from the Conservative motion. We should be united today in challenging the Scottish Government to do more than just provide better road infrastructure, but to reverse the decline in public transport and address car dependency. The reality is that public transport under the SNP Government is a joke. Bus passenger numbers are at record lows. ScotRail are proposing to cut 300 services per day, so Labour says that, yes, let's make the road network better and safer for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, but let's also use this debate to call for practical alternatives to the car. There is no question that road maintenance suffered badly during the years of austerity. We have already heard that, and COSLA says that its capital funding has been cut by 6 per cent from Scottish Government budgets, supported by the Greens in real terms since 2013-14 by 6 per cent. For many councils, capital grants are not enough to meet existing spending requirements, let alone transition to net zero. The chronic underfunding of Scotland's councils has to be challenged and reversed. The road is identified in the motion and in our amendment a part of the road trunk network. Those are direct responsibilities of the Scottish Government. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that vital infrastructure is upgraded appropriately. It is its responsibility to prevent impossible detours at the rest of my thankful or to make good on our promises to the action group of ferry firms in the south-west of Scotland, served by the A75 and A77. It is its responsibility to tackle potholes on the network, which are up from just under 4,000 in 2007 to 21,000 now. I also say to the Scottish Government that creating a more resilient transport network is more than just about roads. The total number of bus passenger journeys in Scotland is down £121 million under the SNP Government—a record low. A country serious about tackling climate change is not a country with record low levels of bus patronage. It has been the policy of the SNP Government to preserve a broken bus market. Even now, with new rules secured by my colleague Colin Smyth making public control of buses possible, there is no strategy to remake local bus services. When it comes to bus services, the preferred option of the SNP is and has always been the status quo. The status quo is not good enough. Bus services should be run for passengers before profit. If democratic alternatives to a broken bus market are good enough for the Lodians, for London and now for Manchester, then it is good enough for Glasgow, the west of Scotland and the rest of Scotland, too. The Government should be prepared to support councils choosing to bring bus networks under public control and to do so with investment. The Scottish Government has once described the belly deal to run a railways as world-leading, not anymore. ScotRail will become a publicly run operator again after the Scottish Government was forced to bring ScotRail back into public ownership. Under current plans, it will inherit a diminished timetable. We cannot shift travel from Scotland's roads to Scotland's railways if the rail network is being cut and the ambitions of COP are not being realised. Finally, to help drive modal shift, it is time for the Scottish Government to finally deliver easier, more affordable travel. The COP summit showed that smart integrated ticketing was possible, but it was restricted to COP delegates. Integrated ticketing makes travel easier. It should not just be for the select few at COP. There must be integrated smart ticketing for all, all year round. Dublin has just announced an affordable 90-minute fare without free transfers across its bus services. If Dublin can do it, why cannot we? If there is to be a legacy to the people of Scotland from COP, then let it be seamless integrated ticketing on a public transport network. Let's make travel more affordable for all and, as a minimum, Parliament should endorse calls to extend free bus travel to under 25. In closing, to tackle the climate crisis and make transport more resilient, the Scottish Government must invest wisely and show the leadership that has been lacking for far too long. That is what our amendment calls on them to do and I move that amendment in my name. I now call on Beatrice Wishart. I want to make three points today. The importance of core connectivity between communities and the rest of Scotland, the safety of our roads and the need to maintain our public assets, and the balance between road transport and the environment. The road building or upgrading should not be done for the sake of it. Scottish Liberal Democrats recognise that communities deserve an equitable standard of core connectivity to the rest of Scotland. Our rural, remote and island communities rely heavily on roads. Durness in north-west Sutherland, over two hours away from Thurso train station, is a community utterly reliant on road and not just that but single-track road, at home in Shetland, not a train or tram in sight. The rest and be thankful, A83, subject to landslides enclosures and communities forced to take a 59-mile route diversion. The A9, well known as one of the most dangerous roads to travel on in Scotland, dangerous overtaking, multiple changes from single carriage to dual and back again, is a hazard. We must not neglect infrastructure out of dogma, inadvertently allow accidents and deaths, or overlook the importance of core connections for communities. Why was it then that Liberal Democrat MPs opposed the introduction of safety cameras on the A9? Beatrice Wishart, thank you for the intervention. Repairs and other improvements fall in line with the recommendations of the infrastructure commission, which suggests a greater emphasis be given to maintaining public assets. Scottish Liberal Democrats understand that there is a balance to be struck between the climate emergency and delivery of road projects. However, as I have already said, road building or upgrading should not be done for the sake of it. Additional roads can increase traffic, carbon and impact our environment and biodiversity when we need to be decarbonising, protecting our environment and reversing biodiversity decline. All sectors need to reduce carbon emissions if we are to reach our net zero targets and transport is lagging behind. As Labour referenced, the job of providing core connections must go hand in hand with work to establish a climate friendly transport system. Scottish Liberal Democrats would give local communities control over bus routes and timetables, meaning that buses go where they need them to, not where bus companies make the most profit. That will also help to ensure that gaps and issues can be addressed, bringing down car miles and reversing the steep decline in bus journeys under the SNP. We would like to establish new rail connections and reopen lines, get more freight onto railways to reduce congestion and pollution, and accelerate journey times to the north and northeast because those are basic connections. However, those measures simply cannot take every car off the road. As I have illustrated, in some parts of the country, car travel is the only viable transport, so Scotland needs to go quickly electric. The Electric A9 website states, Scotland's longest EV-ready route will stand as a beacon to those at home and abroad. We need such EV-ready routes to pop-up across the country now. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see more electric rapid charging points installed and ready to use and working. That is essential road infrastructure. If we can give people in Scotland the confidence to buy an electric car, we can help to move older vehicles off our roads sooner. We can jump-start this change by requiring new public sector vehicles to be electric, by spreading the costs through longer government-backed interest-free loans and a scheme to enable everyone to try out an electric car for a weekend, funded by the Government. I will now move to the open debate. I would advise members that there is no time in hand and therefore, if interventions are taken, they must be absorbed within the speaker's allotted time. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Neil Gray up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think that the dire need to invest in the south-west transport infrastructure is a topic that I and my colleagues have long since championed and spoken about in this chamber. The goat tracks that are the A77 and the 75, the 76, the 70, the 71, the ridiculous situation at the Bairfield interchange in Kilmarnock. So, since Graham Day is so interested in facts, let's get some out from Alex Salmond in 2010, when he opened the new Cairnryad terminal after £250 million investment from the ferry companies to transport ministers that included Alan Neil and Humza Yousaf and Michael Matheson, promises have continually been made by the Scottish Government and continually been broken. I and my colleagues have tried to persuade and encourage the Scottish Government to pay attention to the routes to and from the busiest port in Scotland, the third busiest in Britain, that these routes are not fit for purpose, that the state of these routes hold back the economic potential of that region. We have even had related to sport the support from the Government's back benchers, of course, once they realised that to get the public vote they might need to support the upgrading of that infrastructure, all to no avail. So, let's call it what it is. The Scottish Government have had more than a decade to go beyond platitudes and procrastination to show that the south-west isn't as important a part of the Scotland as any other place and yet they have invested 0.04 per cent of the transport budget in that region. By any standards, that is a Government abandoning any notion of investing in the south-west and finding any and every excuse to kick the can down the road. The Scottish Government answer is to have another consultation and another listening exercise to go and go with all the other consultations and listening sessions. Anything to avoid the significant commitment to bring the infrastructure up to the basic requirements for such busy routes. And remember, Deputy Presiding Officer, 45 per cent of goods to and from Northern Ireland go through that port. So, to the motion and let's bury a myth that road building is always bad from the environment, that of course is simplistic nonsense. It's what's on the road that's important and by investing in the south-west infrastructure a whole new green economy could be generated and what an opportunity that is creating electric and hydrogen superhighways that take the trundling stop-start heavy goods vehicle convoys from the ferries out of the towns and villages hugely reducing carbon emissions. Throw in a west coast cycle route down that beautiful coastline and we have another whole new economy. You see, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's the poor connectivity that is smothering the south-west economy. So I challenge the Scottish Government to grasp this opportunity. Show your green intentions post COP26. Prove you have not abandoned the south-west and developed the south-west infrastructure to the benefit of the green economy, the safety of the roads and the people and allow the south-west to breathe. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would suggest that the 20 per cent target reduction in car-mile journeys is predominantly going to be for the shorter, more urban journeys and that how we connect up our rural communities in a more environmentally friendly way is going to require investment in new technologies. The driving force behind purchasing an electric vehicle, if you'll pardon the pun, is not always about saving the planet. For many people it's more about the cost saving that an electric vehicle can give. We're past worrying about the range, it's more about the number of charging points and the Scottish Government are way behind in that target, as my colleague Graham said. So the time to invest in the green superhighway network in the south-west and the rest of Scotland is now. Create that infrastructure that encourages a behavioural shift that we all strive for. There can be no more excuses, no more talk. We need action, Deputy Presiding Officer. Not I recognise a Scottish Government's strong suit, but we can all live and hope, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, as someone who grew up in Orkney where my family had no car until I was near the end of my primary school years, I want to say that I know how necessary cars are in remote rural and island communities. Indeed, communities across Scotland need infrastructure projects delivered to improve on safety, cut pollution and to improve connectivity, so our communities and our economy are well served. For instance, in my area, I'm looking forward to the delivery of the East Airdrie link road. This will link the M80 at Cumbernauld with the M80 at Newhouse and crucially serve the new Monklands hospital in the coming years. I was incredibly proud to have played my part alongside Alex Neil to see that hospital remain in Airdrie. The new road will provide a crucial route for my constituents as well as patience from across Lanarkshire to access the site, but it will also divert significant traffic from the congested roads in and around Airdrie. Parts of Chapel Hall are among the most polluted in the country because of slow-moving, particularly, HGV traffic moving between the M80 and the M80. I'm confident that the new link road will pass an environmental impact assessment because it will relieve the current congestion being generated along the bottleneck junctions of Carlyle road, which will serve traffic going north and south between the motorways and cut pollution. That's where I find the Tory motion before us politically tone deaf. While we all acknowledge the merits of the projects listed, there is zero acknowledgement in their motion of the need to decarbonise our nation to carry out environmental impact assessments on our road infrastructure projects or to move away from reusing petrol and diesel cars and onto more sustainable modes of transport. It's like the Tories have completely forgotten that the world was literally at our door in Glasgow Cop last week, but you can forgive them for getting, seeing as Boris Johnson himself forgot which city the conference was held in, perhaps because he spent so little time there fighting for the deal that was needed. I acknowledge how important all those projects are to the communities that they will serve, and there are safety considerations and congestion issues in many of those projects. Indeed, they have not been stopped, but the partnership agreement rightly says that we should be getting the balance right. I think that most reasonable people who are willing to acknowledge that we need to decarbonise are also willing and understand the need to subject new road-building projects to environmental impact assessments. That is why I find, as well as looking to invest in public transport, active travel and electric vehicle infrastructure. That is why I find the Tory motion today startling. When it was suggested last week that the subject for debate today would be in the net zero brief, I reckon that the motion could be on COP or transmission charges for our renewable sector, carbon capture and storage, how the north-east has been let down twice on promised investment by the UK Government, or they could have raised the incredible work being done with wave and tidal power in Scotland leading the world. There are any number of other areas that could have been built on from COP that could have continued to project the leadership shown by Scotland in hosting the conference and continue to find cross-party consensus, and yet we get this, which undermines our progress. It also smacks of a complete lack of self-awareness, given that the Scottish Government's ability to deliver on infrastructure projects, such as those within the motion today, are hindered by the UK Government taking a wrecking ball to the Scottish Government's capital budget and short-changing Scotland on the replacements for EU structural funds. Instead of trying to bypass Hollywood and undermine devolution, instead of trying to claim that we can burn all the fossil fuels that we want and still live up to our net zero goals, instead of suggesting that we can continue to live with our ever-increasing cars causing pollution in our communities, the Tories need to start getting serious and join the rest of the world in trying to find ways to tackle this existential crisis that is climate change. In the wake of COP26, only the Tories would bring forward a motion focused solely on road building without any reference to public transport or active travel. We know that domestic transport continues to be the largest single source of net emissions. We know that cars account for almost 40 per cent of those emissions, and we know that car dependency is increasing at unsustainable levels, with the proportion of single occupancy journeys reaching 66 per cent. But there is an alternative. A double-decker bus can replace 75 single occupied cars, but to get people out of cars and onto buses requires public investment, democratic ownership and socialist ambition—things that we cannot rely on the SNP and the Tories to deliver. By all means, let's debate road infrastructure, but when we speak of road infrastructure, let's speak of connecting our communities with accessible and affordable public transport, of making our pavements and cycleways safer for everyone and of restoring biodiversity through a network of green corridors. Deputy Presiding Officer, road infrastructure must be focused on delivering accessible and affordable public transport, focused on creating an integrated transport network that seamlessly links communities and promotes active travel, and it must be focused on making this network environmentally sustainable. The reality is that private control of our public transport serves as a barrier to achieving that. It was Tory-driven deregulation in the 1980s that led us to the broken transport system that we have today. It's expensive, it's disjointed and it's fragmented. Bus operators extract profits from the most commercial routes while failing to invest in the wider network, despite receiving over 40 per cent of their income from public subsidies. They continue to hike up fares that have risen by 10 per cent above inflation over the last decade, all of which has led to a decline in bus journeys, so it's no wonder that the Tories don't mention public transport in their motion given their toxic legacy of deregulation which they continue to champion to this day. The Scottish Government's amendment is no better. Yes, they acknowledge a need to encourage more people to use more sustainable travel options and reduce their car use, but they offer no practical steps to make this a reality. They have a target of reducing car kilometres travelled by 20 per cent by 2030, but they've yet to outline what steps they will take to achieve that. The 2019 Transport Act allows for publicly run bus services, but it isn't backed by sufficient resources for local authorities, and their proposed bus service improvement partnerships will leave control of fares, routes and timetables at the whim of private companies. Instead of capitulating to private interests, the Scottish Government should be taking innovative action such as providing start-up capital through the Scottish National Investment Bank to enable the development of publicly run local bus services. Public ownership is key because it means that profits generated can be reinvested to support non-commercial routes, to deliver affordable fares and to improve workers' pay and conditions. To conclude, I would like to contrast the empty rhetoric of the SNP Government and the lack of ambition from the Tories with the action being taken in Wales. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government has announced that it will be suspending all of its future road building projects. The money saved by not building new roads will be used to improve existing ones, including creating new bus and cycle lanes and infrastructure for sustainable transport. That is the kind of ambition that Labour in Government has, and that is the kind of ambition that we need to see in this Parliament to meet our climate change targets. I now call Fergus Ewing to be followed by Donald Cameron up to four minutes, Mr Ewing. All of us across the chamber believe that we wish to see improvements in our rail services, our bus services, our public transport and, indeed, more active travel, whether that be by bicycle or by shanks pony, although this particular and somewhat ageing pony trex no more. However, the first point that I want to make, and it has been made by others too, is a trite point, but it is absolutely crucial to this debate. That is in rural Scotland, and 98 per cent of the land mass of our country is rural. A car or a van or a tractor, they are necessities. They are not luxuries, and they will never be anything else, because they will remain the case in perpetuity. As far as we can see, the car will be the only way for a majority of people in rural Scotland. In just a couple of decades, and I hope that I will see it in my lifetime, we will see petrol and diesel vehicles being replaced by low-emission vehicles. Personally, I hope that it might be hydrogen, not electricity, but I am not an expert on that. Once that happens, and this is the point, we still need roads. The last time I noticed, the buses that colleagues and other parties talked about quite fairly so frequently need to be driven on roads. I think that the point is that we should not be anti-road, we should be anti-emission, and in saying that, I particularly addressed that reflection to what has been dubbed today as our caftan clad colleagues. Briefly, and this must be absorbed in members' time, Brian Whittle. I appreciate giving way. Would the member agree with me that there is an opportunity here to create a road network for electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles? To be fair, I think that the transport sector is going to confirm that we are committed to upgrading roads, particularly on the grounds of safety throughout rural Scotland, but I cannot speak for the Government. We should not forget either that jewelld links reduce massively the risk of head-on collisions. I know a friend of mine who lost his wife on the A9 on the way up to an SNP conference some years ago. All of us will know people who have been affected. Or, if they have not lost a loved one, we will have a family member who has had debilitating injuries ruining the lives of the person and the families forever. The safety case for jewelld links is paramount, and I believe that quite passionately. I want to turn to my constituency, and the A9 is the major link to the central bell and beyond. It is vital for people, businesses and families. It is a link between families and friends throughout the country. It is also vital for tourism, which is in many ways the driver of the Highland economy and the road to the islands as well. The A96 is the major link between the north-east and the highlands, and that too is essential. I am delighted that the SNP has committed since 2009 to the dualling of both roads. I welcome the progress that has been made that the minister referred to earlier on. The sections that have been completed from Lunkartey to Passard Burnham, and the Tomatyn-Pamoy section that is to going ahead and the design work. I want to ask the minister to confirm today in his closing speech that we will deliver on our promises on the A9 and the A96. Specifically, the revised promise that, in terms of the A96, the stretch from Inverness to Aldern, including the name by-pass, will go ahead and it will not be subject to the environmental test. That is a fine distinction, but an important one, and I will finish on this because it has already gone through the PLI process. That, for me, is a matter of honour. Our roads are far more than just a means of travelling from one place to another. They are, in fact, vital routes for everyone every day of every year. They are vital for businesses and economic growth, vital for tourism and the hospitality sector, which has been so heavily impacted during the pandemic, and vital for people who need to work or visit friends and relatives. Once upon a time, the SNP was wholeheartedly committed to investment in our road infrastructure, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge some of the major projects that have occurred in recent years. The A9 dueling, which was spoken so powerfully just now by Fergus Ewing, which has taken place over the last few years or even decades, has made my way home easier, faster and safer. However, that dueling has been piecemeal and its future is now uncertain. When the SNP went into coalition with the Scottish Greens, they were effectively announcing the death knell for future investment in our road network beyond the handful of projects in the co-operation agreement. Even then, there is doubt as to whether those projects will be delivered in full and in a reasonable timescale, as Graham Simpson has already said. I want to focus my comments in the brief time that I have on one road, and it won't surprise the transport minister which one. I make no apology for that. I will go on mentioning this road again and again and again until action is finally taken by the Scottish Government to sort it out once and for all. The A83 at the rest of the thankful past has been a topic that I have spoken about before. It is a road that shuffles from landslides and is frequently closed, cutting off our gael and causing massive disruption and anxiety to locals. Interestingly, it is a road affected by weather. There has long been a problem there, but it has got worse in recent years, quite possibly due to climate change and increasingly severe wet weather. Is the solution to that to make no effort to improve and upgrade that road? Of course not. There is no alternative to residents and businesses. In 2020, when Transport Scotland committed to replacing that route with a new permanent route, it was welcomed by many, myself included. In the SNP's manifesto, there was a pledge to deliver the short, medium and long-term solutions that are required at the rest of the thankful in its manifestos. I note that that was not mentioned in the co-operation agreement. We have had consultation processes to determine a corridor for the replacement route. We currently have an on-going process to determine an option within that corridor, but Transport Scotland has said that the whole process to deliver a new route could take up to 10 years to deliver. Up to 10 years is for the conclusion of the long-term proposal. What we are talking about is a medium-term proposal at the moment, which has been worked through. I realise that it is not a quick fix project. It is important that any solution is durable, but communities across our guard cannot wait 10 years for a permanent solution. Many people have spoken about the need to deliver a medium-term route, and ministers have just mentioned it, using the nearby Forestry Road, which they believe can be made available within weeks. Transport Scotland has said that it could take years to deliver even that. It is no wonder that so many people across our garland butte feel left behind. Graham Simpson referred to the A82 in his remarks, and that continues to be of significant dismay to people in Lochaber, given that many promises have been made to upgrade that route, but the Government has dragged its heel on taking any meaningful action. So much uncertainty remains about whether the SNP-Green coalition is committed to any new road projects, let alone the projects that have long been committed. In the Highlands and Islands, we rely heavily on robust roads, and yet all we have seen is dither and delay. In terms of climate change, as Brian Whittle and Fergus Ewing said, it is not roads that matter, it is what drives on them. I ask finally that this Government do not cave in to the anti-road agenda of others, but instead work with us and deliver a road network fit for the future. The ink is barely dry on the Glasgow climate pact. Opposition parties have come to the chamber falling over themselves to support new trunk road expansion across Scotland. Thousands of climate protesters at Cops shouted out a question. They shouted, what do we want? Well, now we have an answer from the Tories and Labour. More roads, more roads. The Tories are back to full extremist mode. They marked the start of COP in this parliament with a debate that demanded that every single last drop of oil from the cambo oil field was drained out. Well, they've now marked the end of COP with a list of trunk road projects as long as you're on. As for Labour, well, this was their first big test in providing a credible green opposition. To be honest, they failed at the first hurdle because the Labour amendment is a transport wish list based on more of everything, particularly more roads and unlimited contradictory list of demands at a time when public funds are tight and coherent transport choices need to be made. Let me just quote Mr Bibby, the excellent report from Scotland's rail units. Excuse me, I don't think the member appears to be taking any interventions. Please resume, Mr Russell. Mr Bibby might want to listen to Scotland's rail units. I do it the whole time. A vision for Scotland railways. In this, the unions say that transport is the biggest emitter of CO2 and 68 per cent of transport emissions come from cars or vans and only 6 per cent from trains. A fundamental requirement for Scotland to meet its environmental obligations is to change people's behaviour and shift them from road to rail. How can we make that shift if the spending priorities are weighted towards road projects that will lock in car dependency? I'll give way to Mr Kerr. Liam Kerr. If the minister is successful in such that we're all driving zero-emission cars, how does increasing traffic on roads add to emissions? Mr Kerr should look at the challenge that we have in tackling climate change. I drive an electric vehicle and that is not going to tackle climate change, it's going to increase our energy demand. We need to have modal shift. What has been shown through decades since the 1960s is that the new and expanded trunk roads generate new traffic, higher emissions. They destroy our communities as well. They create congestion that affects the economy. Members have spoken about the safety case for projects, and there will be valid improvements that benefit road safety. I think back to the second session and the strong cross-party campaign that I was part of to improve the Ballan Lluig junction on the A9. Just as there was never a safety case accepted by Transport Scotland to dual the entire length of the A9, so there is no credible safety case to dual the entire A96. Let's look at what's worked on the A9 to reduce accidents. Average speed cameras introduce those firsts on the A96 alongside a whole range of targeted improvements to road and public transport infrastructure that reduce congestion, improve safety and connectivity between towns along the corridor. Many of those are highlighted in the co-operation agreement between the Greens and the SNP. Oh, Labour didn't take intervention from me, so I should take it from you. The Infrastructure Commission. If I can make some progress, please, Presiding Officer, because I mean interrupted quite a lot here. Yes, I'm trying to deal with that myself. Please proceed, but you have to conclude it up to four minutes. The Infrastructure Commission for Scotland called in January 2020 for a presumption in favour of investment to future-proof existing road infrastructure and to make it safer, resilient and more reliable rather than increase road capacity. I'm confident that that will be the starting point for the forthcoming STPR review. There will be cases for urgent road projects, such as the A83, but, as the cabinet secretary said earlier this year, the days of big road development projects are coming to the end. I hope that, for the sake of the climate, he is right. I now call Stuart McMillan, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. None of those roads directly affect my constituency, but I recognise the importance of road infrastructure and development. The fact that roads, such as the Aberdeen western peripheral route, procrastinated on by labour notorious alike, but delivered by the SNP are either being developed or have been developed suggests to me and to many others the complete lack of road infrastructure investment that there was in the country. It also provides for me yet another example as to why the union does not work for Scotland. Those routes in the motion will have went through and will be going through consultation and development in a strategic manner. They were not pulled together and designed at the last minute. Quite rightly, however, every project should always be scrutinised as it has been developed and also delivered. That happened in the chamber with the AWPR and the Queensford crossing to name just two examples. Opposition politicians would criticise that if that were not happening. I have always enjoyed the drive to Inverness when the SNP used to hold their conferences up at the Eden Court until when the party got so big that we could not go there anymore. The road itself, however, was crying out for an investment to make it safer, not E9. The campaign just touched upon in the second session of the Parliament. The campaign that Mr Swinney had a couple of member's debates on this, in which Morbill Fraser spoke in as well, campaigns regarding the Barnley junction and also the Bankford junctions. Mr Swinney was demanding additional investment for parts of the route in his constituency. Those were not for the sake of it, but for safety measures, particularly as tourist fatalities had occurred on the A9. Thankfully, that investment did happen. The landscape on road infrastructure investment is changing. It is absolutely imperative that we need to balance the extensive changes required to meet the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions with our duty to ensure that Scotland has a high-quality infrastructure to meet the needs of all of our residents, businesses and also visitors. That is why the Scottish Government continues to work on the programme of trunk road improvement schemes to improve resilience, safety and deliver sustainable inclusive growth for the people of Scotland. Scotland's national transport strategy, the NTS2, sets out future investment in Scotland's transport network. Those actions reinforce the commitment to sustainable travel and investment in the right places. I only have up to four minutes, so I am sorry. The Scottish Government is also setting out proposals for future investment in the Scottish road network through the forthcoming recommendations from the strategic transport projects review. The Scottish Government will also continue to progress the programme of trunk road improvements to improve resilience. The chamber needs to remember that transport is devolved to hollared, and the Tories should respect that. If they genuinely want to be helpful, they should join us in calling for the UK Government to deliver the funding that is needed to determine our spending priorities. The Scottish Government has always sought to engage constructively with the UK Government, for example, in cross-border rail and a shared desire for HS2 to self-scoffin. The Tories might not be too happy to hear that, but the so-called union connectivity review is more like an echo chamber that the UK Government initiative was established with no discussion at all on meaningful engagement with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is more akin to the Danish help from London. Quite rightly, the Scottish Government will engage with the UK Government in Scotland's best interests, but it will not be complicit in Tory attempts after power grab on the Scottish Parliament or their bid to encourage a race to the bottom of workers' rights and environmental standards. The debate will continue, and the chamber will hear more about transport projects. Certainly, delivering any transport project strategically with the safety of paramount importance, delivering for the climate emergency and making communities more sustainable, can only be done through a mechanism such as STPR2. We now move to closing speeches, and Colin Smyth will wind up for Labour up to four minutes. This debate is an opportunity to shine a light on the Government's record on transport, and you can see why they really debate the issue in their own time. We have a bus network that is slowly being dismantled by the SNP route by route. Passenger donkeys continue to fall by £120 million under this Government, as Neil Bibby highlighted, yet bus fares rise and rise and rise by nearly 50 per cent over the past 10 years. Two years ago, I proposed amendments to the transport bill to give councils the power to run their own buses. In two years on, the Government has yet to pass on those powers. Never mind any funding to establish municipal bus services to put passengers not profits first. We have a rail system that, in 2014, the SNP promise would be world-leading when it handed the keys of Scotland's trains to Dutch firm Abelio. We certainly lead the world when it comes to the cost of a rail ticket with fares rising above wages and a failed franchise that was plagued with delays, cancellations, overcrowding, where passenger student platforms, not knowing whether a train would even stop, where trains were running late, before they were even built, where the franchise was only prevented from defaulting when the targets were fiddled. Yet, time and time again, SNP MSPs, and I have to say Tory MSPs, together voted down Labour motions to bring our railways under public ownership. Even today, green SNPs prop up a coalition that is continuing to support privatisation through the circle franchise of the Caledonia Sleeper. They vote against Labour motions to stop the accident of 300 trains a day. Yesterday, the First Minister came off the fence on Camel. When will green MSPs come off the fence and oppose the cuts to our rail services that their Government supports? On active travel, the Government set a target to increase the share of everyday journeys, made by bike to 10 per cent by 2020, but pre-pandemic in 2019, it had barely reached 1.5 per cent. It is little wonder, as Mercedes-Benz Vellalby highlighted, that transport remissions are Scotland's largest source of greenhouse gases. 37 per cent in 2019 and 70 per cent of that comes from car travel, with traffic volumes 9 per cent higher under this Government. We will not tackle that. We will not get people out of their cars on to public transport by taking away those trains and taking away those buses. I recognise that, in many areas, car travel, particularly in rural areas, as Fergus Ewing rightly highlighted, is not a luxury, it is a necessity. The Government planned to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2032. Beatrice Wishart was absolutely right to highlight the fact that we need to break down the barriers to ultra-low-emission vehicles, such as better access to rapid charging points, because for too many people, buying an electric car is not the big business agenda as the co-leader of the Scottish Greens recently claimed, but it will be the only choice that they have to make journeys. When those necessary journeys are being made, we need to make sure that our roads are fit for purpose, not plagued by pothholes as a result of the cuts to council budgets supported by green MSPs such as Matt Russell over the past few years. Too often, those roads, including their trunk roads, are not fit for purpose. I want to highlight just briefly two examples mentioned by Neil Bibby, the A75 and the A77. At a time when the Government is still committed to investing £3 billion to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness, it seems a proposal supported by the Greens when they backed the budget. There is real anger in the south-west of Scotland that of the £10.5 billion of investment in road infrastructure from the Scottish Government between 2008 and 2020, just 0.4 per cent of that investment went to the A75 and the A77, key trunk routes. When asked about the upgrading of the A75 and the A77 in Parliament just 12 months ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Transport said that financial constraints in which the Scottish Government must operate limit our options when it comes to major investment. However, as Graham Simpson highlighted, the petty attitude of the Scottish Government has shown us, sadly, again by the Minister meant that it failed to engage in the UK Government's connectivity review, even if that includes the offer of investment on those key roads. I will finish on that point. I make us appeal to the Minister if the Scottish Government is not prepared to fully upgrade the A75 and A77 as part of the strategic transport projects review. Will it engage with the Government and support that investment going on? My constituents do not care where the money comes from to upgrade those roads. They just want to see the investment going in to sustain what is crucial trunk routes for that area. For far too long, the south-west of Scotland's infrastructure has been neglected. For the safety of road users to support the local economy, that has to end. It is time to recognise the upgrade of the A77 and A75 as a strategic priority for the whole of Scotland. I now call on Graham Day Minister to wind up for the Scottish Government around five minutes please. Like others, I really do find the timing of this motion in the week after COP to be truly extraordinary to so closely follow such a positive event, refocusing the cross-party support for Scotland's climate change targets with a motion designed to criticise the Government for lack of investment in the road building demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness. That is the politest description I can think of. I have to say that language such as caftan, crusaders and goat tracks really does not fit with the seriousness of the matters at hand. It is also a fact—no, Mr Bibby, I have a lot of things that I want to respond to. It is also a fact that this Government has a strong track record of balancing vital investment, maintenance and improvement of the trunk road network, with on-going commitment to meeting climate change targets and protecting its natural environment. What Scotland needs now is an infrastructure-led economic recovery to deliver new jobs and speed up the transition to net zero. Our infrastructure investment plan, published in February, sets out more than £26 billion of investments to stimulate that green recovery. I want to respond to a lot of points, if I may. Since 2007, the Government has invested approximately £9.5 billion in managing, maintaining and improving the trunk road and motorway network. In this period, we have delivered improvements across the country to meet the needs of all our populations, including the Queensferry Cross, the Aberdeen Western Pyrifyrrwt, the NA M73, the M74, the Dallaride Bypass and the A9 fueling programme. Amongst other things, we are investing in buses as well. We are 500 million committed to improving bus priority in Scotland's roads, including the trunk road network at Sprin. We are extending free bus travel at the under-22s. We have delivered the border's railway. We will reopen the line to Wevenmouth to passengers and freight as part of the decarbonisation agenda for rail. Transport and infrastructure and investment should focus on projects that improve lives, boost their economy, support communities and work towards net zero. The move towards 20 per cent car kilometre reductions is a fundamental pillar in the approach to achieving us, but I agree with Brian Whittle and Fergus Ewing that that cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to that particular subject. We have to recognise that it is easier for those who live in urban settings to make that change than it is for those who live in remote rural areas. The plan for this will reflect that when it comes forward. Robust research and evidence underpin and inform all of our work streams and policy aims. The important work that has been undertaken through the strategic transport projects review is the method by which the Government is planning for future investment, and we consider transport in the round in relation to that. I want to pick up on a couple of points on particularly charging infrastructure. Graham Simpson claimed that Scotland is lagging behind. I am not going to mark our homework, nor should he. Let's ask Edmund King of the AIA, who last week completed a participation on the EV tour of Scotland and is waxing lyrical about what he found here, particularly in comparison to what has happened in England, where, funnily enough, the Conservatives are in power. However, we do not rest in our laurels, and there is much left to do. That is why there is a substantial piece of work under way now to ensure that what we deliver going forward is not just numbers of chargers—important though that is—but that we have the right infrastructure, the right type of infrastructure and in the right places. I want to pick up on Fergus Ewing's points as well, on fairness to him. What I say to Fergus Ewing is the following. The fact that we have made clear our commitment to dual the A9 and the A96, as it runs through his constituency, should offer him the reassurance that he is looking for. When will the funding be confirmed with that? The answer to that is as soon as we are in a position to do so. With regard to the ask he had around the environment assessment process in relation to Inverness to Aldern, including the near and bypass, it is excluded because it has already gone through that formal process. I hope that that provides clarity as the member sought. Finally, on the Labour amendment. As with EU charging infrastructure, Scotland is leading the way in the UK on tree planting as part of our response to climate change. Unfortunately, magic money is not one of the species involved. As the Labour amendment is an anti-Scottish government rant, a list of uncosted demands with no indication of which other parts of the Scottish Government budget they would see slashed. Perhaps we will get that from them as we go through the budget process, but I am no holding my breath. Effectively striking the balance, I have referred to during this debate, between infrastructure investment and our climate ambitions, is a highly important and challenging commitment for the Government, but it is a challenge that we are determined to and will meet. Our motion today simply asks that the delivery of future road projects be reaffirmed, recommitted to and delivered. It is interesting that only the Greens disagree with it. The others think that it should be longer or perhaps fuller, but only the Greens disagree, because there is a very real concern throughout Scotland that, despite years of promises and warm words, committed upgrades and projects look like being abandoned. We know from the previous session today on the deposit return scheme that the Green Party has a rather flexible view of what a manifesto promise means, but surely when, as Donald Cameron pointed out at the SNP states, it will deliver the short, medium and long-term solutions that are required at the rest and be thankful in its manifesto, the electorate is entitled to expect it and the other promises to actually happen, and they must happen, because the minister was right when talking about the A9 that the promised upgrades would improve road safety, journey times and journey reliability. Accordingly, our motion refers to the A9, 2018's most dangerous road, with 25 accidents and 13 deaths, but we also cite the A96. According to new information that I have obtained in the last four years, this shocking road has seen 105 accidents with nine fatalities in 2019 alone. In 1989, in response to its being the most dangerous road in Scotland, the press and journal launched its end the carnage spend the cash campaign. It is a disgrace that three decades have passed, and still it is not dualled. That is not diligence, Stuart McMillan, that is negligence. What makes it worse is that the SNP promised otherwise in 2011, and I find the words of Neil Gregg, policy and research director at IAM RoadSmart persuasive. Many of the crashes on the A96 are head-on incidents. They remain the least survivable type of crash, even in a modern vehicle. The only long-term solution to such crashes is to dual the entire road as soon as possible. On the minister's second point, Donald Cameron pointed out that our roads are vital for businesses and economic growth, vital for tourism in the hospitality sector and, of course, vital for people who need to work. Brian Whittle reminded us that, whilst the Scottish Government diders and delays with yet another consultation on the A77, 45 per cent of goods to and from Northern Ireland go through Cairnryan. Dr Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, said that upgrading the A9 and A96 were not a luxury but a necessity. Why will she say that the A9 is not only about increasing much-needed capacity, it is Scotland's longest trunk road and gateway to the Highlands, and the A96, a key transport corridor essential for Scottish exports, must be taken forward to ensure the future of rural communities and their economies. I agree with what has been said that these roads are really important to rural, but can I ask for clarification? Just before the Holyrood elections, the Conservatives pledged that they would add an extra lane to the motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The cost of that, I believe, is around £5 billion, which would use up the whole budget for some considerable time. Is that pledge extant or have they dropped it? We absolutely stand by the manifesto, but the A9 and the A96, as per my comments, absolutely have to be the priority. We have rightly heard about the environment today. Graham Simpson persuasively pointed out that slow-moving, stop-start lines of traffic stuck on not-fit-for-purpose A roads, belching ffumes as they grind gears do not help climate change. We can help to tackle climate change by building in EV charging points, hydrogen refuelling stations, cycling and walking lanes. Let's create the green superhighway networks that Brian Whittle spoke about. Some members express concerns such as if you build roads, car use increases. That's the concept of induced demand, sometimes known as the Brayers Paradox, yet, without those roads, car use has increased 8 per cent in Scotland, which rather makes the point that Neil Bibby made about the attractiveness of public transport under the SNP. However, the paradox is clear. It is roads in the wrong locations that is the issue. Neil Gray talked about his new link road cutting congestion and pollution, so I am very grateful for that. The point is answered simply by following the science, understanding induced demand, modelling properly and building and upgrading in the right locations. Mark Ruskell suggested that upgrading roads leads to worse emissions, but Brian Whittle reminded the chamber that taking trundling stop-start HGV convoys out of town and villages, allowing them to maintain constant speed and gears, hugely reduces emissions. Donald Cameron said that it is not roads that matter, it is what drives along them. If all the vehicles on the roads are zero-emission, clearly the emissions argument is nullified. I note that the minister has not acknowledged that point, which tells us three things. Either he does not believe that he will achieve the infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to achieve zero-emission vehicles at scale, or he is ignorant of the science and how technology advances, or he is completely beholden to a Green Party that is not interested in practicality and simply wishes to pursue a reactionary vendetta against a private car driver. Presiding Officer, speakers in this afternoon's debate have been clear. Safety, the economy, business, jobs, tourism and the environment need these upgrades and mandate further investment in roads. Last month, the transport minister said that some people think that road building is bad. I am not in that space, we need a well maintained road network and he is right. So vote for our motion today, follow the science, the needs of the economy and the safety of the people of Scotland and consign the extreme policies of the Greens to the scrap yard. That concludes the debate on delivering promised road infrastructure across Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will allow a moment for those who wish to move seats to do so.