Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. Thank you very much. I challenge some of those points. The project was not brought forward by the grass roots—it was brought forward by Transport Scotland—and it has not been possible to reassess it because of the structure of the deal. However, I appreciate the answer.

On a more positive note, I suppose, I think that the secretary of state will acknowledge that the newer deals seem to be a bit more grass roots and focus more on innovation and sustainability. What next? Will there be a new tranche of city region deals? What should those look like?

The next question is around housing. The committee has taken much evidence from different sectors, and we heard over and over again about how housing is a blocker, from scaling up renewables to the regeneration of rural areas. We even have a housing emergency in Edinburgh, as we saw with the crisis before Christmas.

What are the DFM’s thoughts on housing issues being a blocker to economic success and green sector growth? How much can the budget do to tackle that?

My final question is about the coherence of the budget with other Government strategy. There are a lot of economic strategies on the table, including the national strategy for economic transformation and the green industrial strategy—and we are still waiting for the energy strategy. Then there is going to be a climate plan. It is often difficult to see a coherent picture of how the budget is helping to deliver those—for example, how road-building funding in the budget is helping us to work towards net zero or the Scottish Government’s target on traffic reduction. If the Government decides to go forward with road building, how is it investing elsewhere to reduce the consequential carbon emissions and traffic in order to meet its goals?

The question is: how is the Scottish Government evidencing that its budget decisions are coherent with its stated objectives?

I have a supplementary to Murdo Fraser’s question. Large parts of the budgets that go to the enterprise agencies are for direct handouts such as grants and loans. I asked the agencies how they evaluate the effectiveness of outcomes from doing that versus giving other sorts of support. It is giving a man a fish as opposed to teaching a man how to fish. When budgets are challenged, how do the agencies measure the effectiveness of interventions versus just handing out money?

They were unable to. Only South of Scotland Enterprise said that it is starting to collect that data. I am not sure how you evaluate the budgets that you give the enterprise agencies if we are not able to understand the impact of their different types of working.

I hear you saying that you want to get money out of the door. Everyone loves a handout and being given money, but maybe it is more effective to have a few more public sector workers teaching people how to get their own funding than it is to hand public money to private enterprises. We do not appear to have the data to establish that.

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.

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?

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.