Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

We have heard that the consultation cannot be started until April. What will be considered as part of the consultation? An equality impact assessment was not conducted for the instrument, but we have just discussed equalities matters whereby the poorest people are those who are most impacted by the change.

As far as I can see, there is no assessment around the minimum threshold for people’s need to spend for disability, illness and care needs. What are the minister’s thoughts on the disincentive to work that is created by garnishing wages in such a way for very low income people? How quickly will the consultation get going and be wrapped up, and what will be considered during the process?

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.

Thank you for bringing me in now, convener. It means that I will have one less question later, because this is a good moment to ask it.

Thank you for setting out your vision. The Climate Change Committee talks about the need for biofuels to be the bridge that you refer to as we move towards a more fully sustainable future. I would like to hear in more detail about how that proposal, the letter from Sharon Graham and the vision that you have set out can feed into project willow. Is project willow entirely separate, or have you been able to influence it? What you are setting out seems to be an eminently reasonable part of that journey, so is it being included or considered?

I am happy to see this SSSI—I mean this SSI; I am thinking of the wrong portfolio. I am glad that the SSI increases the protected minimum amount of earnings. However, given that another parliamentary committee recommended that the amount be increased to £1,000, I am disappointed that the instrument would not increase the minimum to £1,000.

I note that, in a large proportion of cases, the creditors are local authorities, so it is concerning that an equalities assessment has not been done, because council tax is a regressive tax. It is not a progressive tax; we know that it affects those on lower incomes disproportionately. That is all connected to the Scottish Government’s failure to reform council tax in order to make it a more progressive tax. I have concerns about trapping people in a cycle of debt.

I am not proposing a motion to annul, but I wonder whether we could ask the minister to attend the committee so that we can ask some questions.

Since my question is about the just transition, this might be a good moment at which to put it, while we are in flow on that point.

I want to pick a little bit more into what your proposal is for the just transition of Grangemouth, because that is worth opening up. I will set a bit of context. In Scotland, oil and gas jobs have reduced by 40 per cent over the past decade, and unemployment figures are relatively low. The transition is under way. It is not ahead of us but is already happening. None of us wants to see mass job losses. A continuation of that gradual decline, while keeping the employment rate high, is what we all want, I think.

If I understand things correctly—and I hope that you will clarify for me if I have got it wrong—in the vision for repurposing the plant and moving to sustainable fuels, it sounds as though the ask is for the UK and Scottish Governments to step in and provide the investment to create the bridge that we have talked about. That is a specific ask for investment. The Scottish Government and I have certainly challenged the UK Government on not investing enough in the green transition. We have said that it simply has not put enough investment in place. Is that what a just transition means—the Government having to cough up money—or do we need something else as well?

Thank you, convener, but my questions have already been answered, so you are off the hook. You brought me in at good moments.

I am also a member of Unite the union.