Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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 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?

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?