Chamber and committees

I have one more question. Under the devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament should be able to scrutinise and give consent to legislation that concerns devolved matters. The bill, as it is currently drafted, includes no requirement to obtain consent in all devolved areas.

The Scottish Greens agree with the Scottish Government that the legislation does not respect the devolution settlement, and will not give consent to it in its current drafting. Does the minister know whether the new Labour Government is open to redrafting the bill, or will this be the first incidence of its breaching the Sewel convention?

I am going to assume that the bill was initiated before the general election under the Conservative Government, which—as the minister pointed out—took a different direction of travel.

How might the bill interact with the 2020 internal market act and how might it limit Scotland’s ability to take the lead on fully devolved environmental protection and our ability to maintain alignment with the EU?

Theoretically, could the bill not be overridden by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

Matt Bailey, do you want to come in? I saw that you put your camera on.

Thank you very much. It sounds like the answer to this next question might be Transport Scotland, but I am going to ask it anyway.

The question will largely be directed to Paul Lawrence, because it is about flexibility and the role of the Scottish Government in projects, and specifically about the Sheriffhall roundabout. The estimated cost of that project has gone from £120 million to £300 million. Local residents have expressed concerns about trees being cut down and increased noise and pollution, and they wonder why that money is not being spent on public transport or active travel infrastructure—we all know that Winchburgh needs a train station, for example.

During the public inquiry, one of my constituents went to a meeting and he got an admission that the modelling did not show that the development was in line with traffic reduction targets, and in January last year the then transport and environment convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, Scott Arthur, said:

“I have been clear for some time that the £125 million Sheriffhall roundabout upgrade has no place in the Edinburgh City Region Deal—Edinburgh asked for housing.”

So, if local residents do not want it, the council does not want it, and it is not compatible with national or local traffic targets, who is deciding that this should go ahead and how can we stop it? What would the process for stopping it look like?

I have only two questions—I have taken out the third so, hopefully, that will speed us up.

I have a detailed question about how deals can adapt to Government policy. I am concerned that the city region deals have been a mechanism for road expansion without accountability in relation to how that expansion affects climate emissions and traffic targets. Scotland has a goal to reduce traffic kilometres by 20 per cent, and Edinburgh and Glasgow have targets for 30 per cent. How have road building projects been assessed with respect to those targets? Is there a process for that? I ask because it appears that the city region deals have avoided democratic accountability on those specific points.

Thank you. I really appreciate that answer.

I have a final question, which is a larger question. I note again that councils are the significant creditor here. The minister has described the system of reductions in council tax as sophisticated—I would perhaps say that it is complicated—and we have talked about a lack of data and evidence and how complicated the whole space is. I feel that some of that is a consequence of the failure to reform council tax properly and that all the add-ons and accommodations have had to be made to deal with the fact that council tax is currently not a progressive tax and weighs heavier on people with less means. Would a full reform of council tax help to resolve these problems, is there an appetite to continue that work and how does it fit in with the larger question of ensuring that councils are properly funded but in a fair way?

I will attempt not to go over old ground, because we have explored some of these matters quite thoroughly already. The convener opened with what we can consider to be a successful example—the National Robotarium. I would like to consider a less successful example. I absolutely understand that you will not be able to comment on any specific project, but this one is a good example in that it highlights some of the concerns that we have been discussing, and I get a lot of mail about it. It is the Sheriffhall roundabout, which is in my region.

The first point is about lack of flexibility. The challenge that we have is that the project is stuck. In order to meet their goals on traffic reduction—the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres—and on emissions, the council and the Scottish Government would probably like to reconsider whether the money should be spent on that roundabout. It is not at all clear that, strategically, the money would not be better spent elsewhere in the region now that those targets are in place.

There seems to be an impasse in that the roundabout is clearly not getting replaced and the building work is not proceeding, but the council and the Scottish Government cannot reallocate the funding elsewhere because they are stuck in this inflexible deal. Whenever you talk to the council, they say, “We would like to reconsider it, but it is part of the region deal and so there’s nothing we can do.” I am sure that the Scottish Government would also like to reconsider how that money may have been allocated because it has been locked in there. We have had several elections and several changes of political priorities, including declarations of climate and nature emergencies since the project was started, and still it is stuck.

How can we make the city and region deals more flexible? It might be something to do with the prioritisation that Ms Young was talking about or the accountability that Mr McInroy was talking about, but I am curious about how you think we can make the deals more flexible.

Thanks for coming in at short notice, minister. I have not lodged a motion to annul because I am glad that the threshold is being raised. It is an urgent thing that we need to resolve; we all understand that we need to reduce the impacts of significant deprivation due to earnings arrestment.

However, I am very disappointed that the threshold was not raised to £1,000 as recommended, and I would like to hear a bit more from the minister on the thinking about that. I hear what he says about needing to balance the needs of creditors, which, in this case, are primarily councils, which also pay the costs of poverty. We need to understand the impact of someone having their wages garnished when they earn only £750 a month does not account for different circumstances such as whether the person is already being paid less than the living wage. Does that drive people into deeper poverty?

I want to understand why the threshold was chosen, particularly since there are delays in the system and it will not come in until next April. That is several months away and inflation is still a concern. It feels like we are behind the curve in that. By putting in a threshold of £1,000, we could have created a bit of space while we did the further consultation.