Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have any interests that are relevant to the work of the committee. However, for the record, I reiterate my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I used to work for Orbital Marine Power, which is a tidal energy company. I am also a member of Unite the union.

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

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?

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 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.

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?

Thank you. I really appreciate that answer.

That is a good point. I would like Ms Young to come in, too. That is true. Some of this comes down to environmental review of the project. Because it has taken so long, further reviews have been done and now it might conflict with newer priorities, but it is still not able to move forward.

The related point is how we get coherence. We have observed a lack of coherence. The Sheriffhall roundabout project, for example, is not in line with either the Scottish Government’s or the local council’s net zero or car kilometre ambitions and yet it is still on the books because it has been on the books for a very long time. Three levels of government are involved that have had elections on different cycles, and there does not seem to be any one level of government that can call it off or say, “This is no longer in line with our priorities.” Three levels of government have slightly different priorities and slightly different timescales, and not one of them has the power to say, “This is no longer our priority” or to change the parameters or to pull out of it.

That is partly because of what Mr McInroy was saying about the process bypassing existing mechanisms. I go as far as to say—and I am allowed to say this with my political hat on—that it goes so far as to bypass our devolution settlement in Scotland. I am cynical in some cases about some of these levelling up funds and so on because I think that they are intended to bypass the devolution settlement and thereby undermine Scottish democracy in that way by making the Scottish Parliament look ineffective or unstrategic.

I guess that we have covered how the system was designed for England, how it does not use existing mechanisms and how three levels of government are involved. How can we get coherence? What would be better? How do we make this more coherent?