 I call on the cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, to speak to and to move the motion. I am delighted to open this debate on Scotland's city region deals and the emerging regional economic partnership that is inspired by them. Not every community in Scotland is in a city region. That is why the Scottish Government wants to ensure that every part of Scotland benefits from investment through a city region or regional growth deal. We continue to press the UK Government to join us in common purpose on this by making a formal commitment to 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals and agree a clear timetable to achieve that goal. Despite encouraging noises from some UK Government ministers, we await a formal and unequivocal commitment to achieve 100 per cent coverage. I am sure that communities in Shetland, Orkney, the Western Isles, Agil and Bute and Falkirk will support my continuing to press the secure state for Scotland on this very issue. Those are the areas yet to secure UK Government commitment to formal dialogue leading to a growth deal. Over the past four and a half years, the Scottish Government has committed almost £1.3 billion to city region deals. Our regional partners in the public, private and tertiary education sector have identified significant levels of complementary investment. It has to be said that we have worked with the UK Government in partnership on the city region deals. Like many collaborations, it has not always been easy. However, I want to accentuate the positive by saying that the combined investment that both Governments are going to make over the next two decades has massive potential to enable broad economic opportunity and greater societal equality. The investment in city region and other growth deals, when combined with the broad complementary action to drive inclusive economic growth, will be crucial if we are to protect and develop the Scottish economy as it navigates the uncertain waters made turbulent by Brexit. In today's debate, linked to prospects for inclusive economic growth in Scotland, it is not credible to ignore the damaging backdrop that is fuelled by the UK Government's continued inept handling of Brexit. However, at the same time, we must continue to pursue every means open to us of growing Scotland's economy. I want to turn to the early impact that our city region deals are having. City region deals represent an important catalyst in helping to drive inclusive growth in Scotland. Deals for all of Scotland's city regions have now either been agreed or reached the stage of a heads-of-terms agreement between both Governments, local authorities and regional partners. That is an important milestone. However, we now want to press forward with implementation of those deals and agree heads-of-terms for deals covering Ayrshire, Murray and Borderlands, as well as those parts of Scotland that I have already highlighted as awaiting a formal commitment to dialogue from the UK Government. Making swift progress towards agreement of heads-of-terms for all of those regional growth deals will be a Scottish Government priority for 2019. All of our regional partners can be assured that I will persist in my dialogue with the Secretary of State for Scotland on agreeing a clear timetable for achievement of 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals. The city region deals need to be given time to mature before a full assessment of their impact can be made. However, there are certain projects and activities that point to the huge potential that the city region deals have in driving inclusive growth across Scotland. Through the Inverness and Highland deal, homes are being built with technology to monitor the wellbeing of their residents directly addressing some of the growing healthcare challenges that we face. The oil and gas technology centre in Aberdeen has just this month launched the national decommissioning centre in conjunction with Aberdeen University, cementing Scotland's international reputation as a centre for decommissioning expertise. The focus on data-driven innovation within the Edinburgh and South East Scotland deal is complemented by investments in skills and economic infrastructure that will ensure Edinburgh's status as the data capital of Europe will have a positive impact on the whole of the region. The Glasgow city region deal canals and north gateway project will enable inclusive growth by making radical improvements, including new bridges, road access and public realm upgrades, all of which enable the creation of new communities within the city. Before I move to discuss regional economic partnerships, I want to touch briefly on some of the complementary actions that we are taking to drive inclusive growth. Our economic strategy sets out our vision for sustainable and inclusive growth. Last October, we published an evolving economic action plan that reinforces our commitment to that vision. There are some new key actions worth highlighting that will help Scotland to remain both competitive and fair in future, complementing the city region deal approach. Those include responding to the changing skills needs of business and employees. We work with unions and employers organisations through the new national retraining partnership to deliver a public and private sector response to that. We use public procurement to create more opportunities for Scottish businesses, including increasing the level of digital transactions and digital invoicing to focus on faster payments. Those examples of fresh action build on crucial work already in train, such as the establishment of the Scottish National Infrastructure Bank and the National Manufacturing Institute for Scotland. The national infrastructure mission, announced in this year's programme for government, will see Scotland's annual infrastructure investment steadily increase until it is £1.5 billion higher by the end of the next Parliament than in 2019-20. Members will recall that the Phase 2 report of our enterprise and skills review that was published in 2017 made it clear that the economic power and potential of Scotland's distinct regions needs to be fully harnessed. Partnerships, arrangements for the city region deals are now inspiring regional economic partnership arrangements. In the north-east of Scotland, the regional economic strategy and action plan developed by local authorities, the private sector opportunity north-east partnership and other representatives offers a very positive development. That partnership, inspired by the catalyst city region deal, has harnessed the resources available to all partners and established a clear focus on sustaining and creating high value employment and other tangible benefits for people and communities in the north-east of Scotland. The developing Glasgow city region had its first regional partnership meeting last October. That has evolved from four years of partner dialogue driven by the city region deal. The partnership brings local authorities together with government agencies, the private sector and others to develop region-wide approaches to key interlinked inclusive growth issues, such as economic connectivity, driving business growth and crucial challenges such as child poverty. At their heart, regional economic partnerships are collaborations, providing our democratic elected local authorities with an opportunity to engage the wider public, private and third sector in an action-focused way. The Scottish Government is interested in what it can do to help local authorities, partners achieve as much as they can through those particular partnerships, as opposed to being overtly focused on issues of governance or being prescriptive about the work that they should undertake. The Scottish Government seeks to be conversant in what region's needs are in relation to inclusive growth, but we also want to focus on our role as investor and enabler of change, driven by local and regional partners. That is the way that we have approached our city region deals. Good governance and the involvement of key partners such as business is crucial, but we are primarily interested in the results that regional partnerships can achieve on a spectrum of key issues such as smart infrastructure development, creation of new jobs and modernisation of our skills base. Before I move to my closing remarks, I want to mention at the local government and community's committee inquiry into city region deals. The committee's report made a number of recommendations that we continue to work through with our colleagues in the UK government. One example is my continued pursuit of agreement of a timetable with the UK government for a roll-out of a growth deal covering every part of Scotland. I am more happy to give way to the member, yes. Johann Lamont 11 minutes into the cabinet secretary's speech. He is yet to make any comment whatsoever on the key project, which is the Glasgow airport link. Is he going to make a commitment to the Labour amendment that says that this needs to be progressed urgently? Cabinet Secretary As I mentioned in the chamber just the other week, I have a meeting next week with the key parties on that particular issue, and we will look to make progress with it at that particular meeting then. My former Cabinet colleague Keith Brown identified a passage in the committee's report at a debate in this chamber last March. The report urged both Governments to avoid, and I quote, artificial boundaries of what is a reserve project and what is a devolved one, and the badging of who is funding what. I think that that recommendation remains very wise. Joint 50-50 investment in high-quality, locally developed projects will accelerate economic growth in a way that improves regional and national prosperity while reducing inequality. I am aware that Audit Scotland has commenced work to assess the impact of city region and other growth deals. Audit Scotland colleagues will receive the full assistance of the Scottish Government in taking this work forward. I would like to draw my opening remarks to close by now highlighting three points. Firstly, we have committed almost £1.3 billion to city region deals. I want to commit more in order to work towards 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with deals. We will continue to press the UK Government to work in common purpose by formally committing to 100 per cent coverage and agreeing a timetable to achieve that objective. Finally, we will empower and encourage local and regional partners to continue to grow the emerging network of regional economic partnerships. The Scottish Government is committed to driving inclusive growth that will benefit every person, family, village, town and city in our country. The city region deals, other growth deals and the regional partnership that it is inspiring will play a crucial part in that mission. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I now call on Jamie Greene to speak to and move the amendment 15493.2 in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and at the outset I move the amendment in my name. I also welcome this opportunity to open the debate for the Scottish Conservatives and I welcome the opportunity that the Scottish Government has brought to the chamber to discuss city and regional deals in Scotland. They have resulted in billions of pounds of investment already in recent years and show us really devolution at its very best. The UK and the Scottish Governments are working together in a collaborative manner for the benefit of all of Scotland. Those benches believe that this is the correct approach and it should be encouraged by all parties in this chamber. To date, we have seen deals signed for the Glasgow and Clyde valley, Edinburgh and south-east Scotland, the Tay cities, Aberdeen, Inverness, Stirling and Clackmannanshire and the Highlands. At least £2.3 billion of joint investment to date is not an insignificant number. I would like to highlight some of the benefits that this joint investment package has brought already to Scotland. Over £1.3 billion for the Glasgow deal is funding key projects. I would like to touch on the Glasgow airport rail link project, which is an important point that Labour makes today. I will come on to your amendment specifically in a moment when I look at our amendment and the Labour amendment. That is just one of a number of key projects that will regenerate the Glasgow region among others. There are other things in that deal, delivering affordable housing, improving public spaces and building business venues to increase capacity for business. If you look at the £1 billion that is going into the Aberdeenshire deal to support, among many other things, the oil and gas sector, to expand the harbour in which we hope will attract both indigenous and foreign investment, but to diversify the region's economy, something that is much needed. Inverness, over £300 million to support regional growth, specifically targeting tourism and life sciences, which is important to that part of Scotland. Edinburgh and the South East will see investment to boost Edinburgh's proud academic background in supporting our world-leading universities, in supporting research and development into cutting-edge technologies. There is the potential in Edinburgh region alone to support up to 21,000 jobs. Some of my colleagues will touch on the specific projects in more detail as we go through this afternoon's debate. I am sure that we will hear from right across the chamber specific examples of where city deals are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Clackmannanshire and Stirling, the Taycities deals, all creating jobs, all delivering investment right across Scotland. They are not just visions or proposals, but real investment funding, real projects and having a real impact on our country. To point now to the amendments of today's debate, we are committed to supporting city and regional deals. We also want to push to ensure that every bit of Scotland is covered by such a deal of one shape or other. However, our amendment today also calls on both Governments to continue to work together in signing those new deals. It also welcomes the significant investment that we have seen to date. We want to set a clear timetable, as was evident in the local government report into city deals, to ensure that every bit of Scotland is covered. We are taking seriously the recommendations that are made. If time permits, I may go through some of those. I hope that the Scottish Government is approaching today's debate in the constructive manner that the cabinet secretary laid out his opening remarks. There is very little, in many cases, to disagree with what he said this afternoon. The problem that I have with what was said in the chamber versus the motion, as it was on paper, is that the two narratives did not quite add up nowhere in the Government's motion. It is with regret, I think, that it mentioned over a billion pounds that has been invested by the UK Government in city and regional deals. Whether that is unwelcome investment, I do not think so, given the comments made by the cabinet secretary, or it has simply been omitted from the motion to inform the debate or, indeed, the narrative of the debate. I do not know, that is up for the Government to decide. I quote their motion directly from the motion, and additional investment in city regions. It then goes on to ask the UK Government to matchfund that investment. The problem with the motion is that it does not state what that additional investment in regions is. It is entirely still unclear from the opening remarks what that additional investment is, which bit of Government is funding which projects, and why the UK Government should be matchfunding it. I see that there is a call for £388 million in here. It is unfortunate that this Government debate today does not mention, or even welcome, never mind acknowledge, the billion pounds that are already invested by the UK Government. It was said in words, but it is not on paper. For that reason, we are unable to support the motion, as it is worded. If the circumstances were reversed, could Mr Greene earnestly and honestly say to the chamber that he would not be calling on the Scottish Government to match the UK Government's investment? Surely, in the basis of partnership, investment should be equal? If we look at the specific of many of the deals, the matchfunding is equal on a large majority of them. If you look at the Glasgow City region deal, it is £0.5 billion each. If you look at Aberdeenshire and Aberdeenshire City, it was £125 million from each Government. There are deals that are specific based on the projects that are contained in those deals, where the UK Government has not matchfunded every penny in those deals because the nature of the projects that they are in include many areas of devolved responsibility. That is a discussion that the Treasury has been having with the Scottish Government throughout this process. If the premise of this debate is about that you have not put in as much as me, you have not done what you are supposed to be doing, the whole city deal initiative was a UK Government initiative from day one. We would not even be having this debate if it was not for a Conservative Government that had agreed to the city region deal. That point is entirely lost on the centre benches today. I turn to the Labour's amendment, because I promise that I would. We agree that the Glasgow Airport rail link needs to be progressed as a matter of urgency. There are clear and vital reasons why the project should go ahead. There are major connectivity issues in connecting Glasgow Airport to the west region. The congestion on the M8 is at unbearable levels. I appreciate that there are impasses. I know that the cabinet secretary has committed in the past to working with stakeholders to overcome some of those problems, but we think that there are not major barriers to progressing this project. I appreciate the premise of city deals, because both Governments invest in city regions and it is up to local authorities and local government to decide which projects it progresses with. I think that it is unfortunate that the local authorities in the Glasgow deal have not progressed as we would have liked, but I would like to think that there is goodwill among stakeholders. There is goodwill in the local authorities, in the Scottish Government, in the UK Government, in some of the people involved in the discussion around network rail and ScotRail and the delivery and the effect that the rail link will have on other services. If we have the conversation that there is goodwill, it should progress. We will support Labour's amendment to put that renewed focus on that specific project, but it is only one project in one deal as part of a much wider discussion. City and regional deals are not the only thing that can drive regional economies. We on these benches believe that devolution is not just the Westminster hollywood discussion. We believe in local, real local devolutions such as devolving business rates and LBTT to local government so that they can set rates based on the needs of local economies. We think that that is also an addition that can go a long way to drive growth. The cabinet secretary mentioned the issue of 100 per cent coverage in future deals, and we agree with him on that. The Scottish Government wants to see all parts of Scotland benefit from some form of deal, so do we. That is why we today are pushing for both Governments to pursue an open and active dialogue on how and when that could happen. Our own manifesto commits us to the Borderlands deal, which I believe significant progress is being made towards that, the Murray growth deal. Of course, there are also calls for Falkirk, Agall and Bute as well, and we support the premise of those deals. We too await the formal response from the UK Government and will reflect on that response in due course. I welcome the cabinet secretary's positive commitment to actively working with his counterparts in the UK Government on that. On the Ayrshire growth deal, my colleague Brian Whittle is going to go into that in more detail and outline some of the great benefits that that project will deliver and what it will unlock, because I think that that is the key to regional deals. The unlock investment opportunity from the private sector, from academia and from other stakeholders is vital for areas like Ayrshire to benefit from regional deals. I have been to many meetings on that, and I have seen genuine cross-party support. I have sat around the table with Willie Coffey and Kenneth Gibson, with Philip Whitford and other members of the UK Parliament. It is that collaborative environment that shows how those deals will work, and it is the only way that they are going to succeed. In conclusion, I want to reiterate our commitment to city region and regional growth deals. They have been a tremendous success. Admittedly, they have not been without their ups and downs. They involve very political make-ups of governments, of local government. They involve often conflicting priorities and agendas, and often with governments at loggerheads of many other issues. There is no denying that much has happened since those deals were brought in to play—elections, referendum. They all take their toll and progress on that, but there is much to be said about the co-operative approach of cross-government. We should welcome them and not be whining about them. The onus is on all Governments to sit down and get on with it, because that is what business wants, that is what academia wants and that is what the public wants. We are committed, the UK Government is committed and the Scottish Government is committed. Let us put aside our differences in the interests of all of Scotland and deliver on some of those deals. At a time of relentless centralisation in much of Government policy, a focus on city and regional growth deals and regional economic partnerships is one that is welcome. Labour believes that, if the right investment choices are made in growth deals, they can be catalyst for economic growth as part of a wider industrial strategy. As well as the investment such growth deals can provide, they have the potential to empower communities to develop local solutions for local needs. The collaboration between neighbouring local authorities gives those local areas a stronger voice, allowing them to advocate for the region on a national level. For the parts of the country whose voices have often been missing from the debate and those where there has been a historic underinvestment, that approach could have a genuinely transformative impact. Last week, the Ayrshire regional economic partnership was announced with the three Ayrshire local authorities, bringing their economic development departments closer together ahead of the long overdue signing of the Heads of Terms for the Ayrshire growth deal. That approach not only establishes a shared framework to support collaborative working but gives Ayrshire a unified voice on the national stage. However, what people in the Ayrshire now want to see are the projects in the growth deal that Ayrshire has delivered. The Ayrshire growth deal has been years in development, but so far not a penny of funding has been allocated by either the Scottish or UK Government. That needs to change. It is time for both Governments to put their money where their mouths are and announce the funding that is needed to make the Ayrshire growth deal a reality. Likewise, the borderlands inclusive growth deal. I had the privilege of being part of the establishment of the borderlands initiative when I was a councillor and chaired Dumfries and Galloway Council's economy committee. It was not an easy process. The borderlands not only stretches the width of Scotland from the borders to Dumfries and Galloway but across the border, taking in Cumbria and Northumbria. Five local authorities represent in 10 per cent of the UK's land mass and over a million people determined to use our united strength to fight to ensure that we are no longer the forgotten regions of the UK. The borderlands partners were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that if their proposals for a growth deal were submitted by September last year, it would enable an announcement on funding to be made in the UK Government's December budget. The local councils delivered on their side of the bargain, but the UK and Scottish Government have not. So far, only the local councils have invested in the borderlands inclusive growth deal with no funding yet from the Government. There is no mention of either the Ayrshire or Borderlands growth deals in the Government's motion, but I hope that when we sum it up, the minister will give Parliament an exact timetable when we can expect to see those deals agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments and crucially when funding will be announced. Michael Matheson On the Ayrshire deal, you will be aware that the Ayrshire partners asked for a signing of the heads of terms on the Ayrshire deal this Friday or on Wednesday, which I agreed to and invited the UK Government to matches on which they have been unable to do so. From the Scottish Government, there is no lack of trying to make progress in this matter. We are determined to make progress and we could have signed it this Friday. On the Borderlands deal, when I met the partners last week, they accepted that they still get further work that they need to do on their individual asks. However, one of the big challenges is that getting the timetable set is dependent on other departments in the UK Government that are responsible for the funding elements for those local authorities that are south of the border, which has not been agreed as yet. Colin Smyth, I can give you an extra minute. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I appreciate the intervention from the Cabinet Secretary, but I think that he stresses again the frustration that there is at local level. We heard earlier that there was close working between the Scottish and UK Government, but every single time you ask a UK Government minister a question, you get a different answer than you get from a Scottish Government question over the timetable and the level of investment by both Governments. I mean what the people of the Borderlands, what the people of Ayrshire want is a clear timetable and, most important, they want the funding to be put in place. At the moment, those are regions that are being left behind the rest of Scotland. I hope that the minister will also tell us—he can either intervene now or later on if I get more time—where discussions are over the future of a Falkirk deal, Argyll and Bute deal and also a potential island deal and what the Government view as a realistic timescale to deliver those deals. Those deals, as with it, are the city region deals that are already covering the Glasgow city regions, Aberdeen city regions, Inverness, Highland, Stirling and Clackmannanshire Edinburgh and South East Scotland, and the Tay cities have the potential to unlock economic growth. However, only by making those deals comprehensive across all of Scotland and focused on the real needs of local communities can that growth be truly inclusive. We support the Government's call for a clear timetable, showing when we will get that 100 per cent coverage. As new deals are developed, we need to be clear how growth deals also fit with the wider policy landscape to ensure cohesion strategy and the clear allocation of functions. Last year, the local government and community committee reported on city region deals warned that at present there are too many overlapping and competing initiatives. They also raised concerns over accountability and openness within current deals that do risk undermining the aims and ethos of those deals if they are not properly tackled. Devolving decision making to a regional level is only beneficial if the new process is transparent and genuinely responsive to the communities that are involved. Put simply, we cannot allow deals to be done in secret behind closed doors. Many of the areas covered by deals include some of our most deprived communities. Those local communities must be involved in the development of growth deals to properly identify their needs and their priorities. The process needs to be more open and democratic, so communities have faith in both the process and ultimately the funding choices that are made in those final deals. Crucially, growth deals must be in addition to not-instead of existing funding streams. We cannot simply use deals to distract from declining government investment elsewhere, in particular within local government. They are not there to plug gaps and cannot be a substitute for consistent, strategically allocated national funding. Projects that are not adopted by growth deals also need to be delivered yet. Just last week, we heard that the £224 million of investment that is announced by the Scottish Government alongside the Aberdeen city region deal for rail infrastructure appears to be in sideline. Audit Scotland's up-and-coming report on city region growth deals will consider a number of those challenges, including clarity around the deals, their governance and accountability processes. I look forward to reading that report when it is published in the autumn of this year and I hope that its recommendations will help to guide work to strengthen city regions and regional growth deals. The most crucial aspect of any deal is ensuring that the projects that are agreed are delivered. At the heart of Scotland's first city region deal, the Glasgow city region deal, is the Glasgow airport project aimed to link the city by rail to the airport, an airport that serves around 10 million passengers, but to her shame is the largest airport in the UK that is not served by rail. A rail link is badly needed. A report for Transport Scotland last year showed that traffic levels on the airport leading to the airport between Junction 22 and 29 had increased by 22 per cent from 2011 to 2017. Stuart Patrick, the chief executive of Glasgow chamber of commerce, said at the time of the report that the solution cannot be the real allocation of road space or more roads. Rail is the most obvious route forward. It is a solution that is long overdue. The first feasibility studies into a rail link were published in the 1990s. Richard Lyle Can the member tell me what happened during the 1999-2007 when the Labour Lib Executive were on? Why did you not build it? Colin Smyth The previous Labour administration in 2006 developed a clear plan for the Glasgow rail link. That plan was cancelled by an SNP Government in 2009. Since then, report after report have highlighted the benefits to the west of Scotland economy of delivering a rail link. A new plan for £144 million tram train has been developed and agreed. It has overwhelming support up here today. It also appears to have overwhelming support from Richard Lyle, who is enthusiastic about a plan. Once again, it is the SNP who are seeking to put barriers in the way to a proposal that everyone supports. The failed to tackle capacity challenges at Central Station does not justify the lack of action, the lack of commitment from the Scottish Government to the Glasgow rail link. The Scottish Government transport Scotland needs to work with the Glasgow city regional. The Scottish Government transport Scotland needs to work with the Glasgow city regional partners to find solutions that are not more excuses. They need to get on with delivering a rail link that will benefit not just Glasgow but all of Scotland. I therefore move the amendment in my name. Andy Wightman, six minutes please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I am glad to be here to contribute to this debate. As Jamie Greene pointed out, the minister said that city region deals are agreements that work across the scales of government in the UK, Scotland and at a local level. They are political in nature ahead of the Scottish independence referendum. In fact, it was the then chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, who announced in July 2014 that Glasgow would receive £500 million, and within hours the Scottish Government matched that sum, despite making no formal announcement that there would in fact be a programme of city region deals. That was all done in extreme haste and took place in a very politicised environment, and we are now dealing with the aftermath of that. A better alternative in my view would have been to build on existing capital investment plans by local authorities and to create new partnerships to focus on regional economies, but we are where we are. We are instinctively as greens in favour of collaboration between spheres of government, but we challenge the notion at the heart of city region deals that of sustainable economic growth that is proposed in the debate's motion and in the Conservative amendment. As my colleagues have said in Parliament before, that very notion is incredibly simplistic. Growth tells us nothing about how wealth is being generated, how it is being distributed, or what the external costs are. Important studies such as that by the Royal Society of Arts, City Growth Commission and from the University of Strathclyde's International Public Policy Institute have all recognised that Scotland cannot grow, cannot even have economic growth if we do not tackle inequalities. That means, in our view, that we should be using city deals and regional economic partnerships as an investment for an opportunity for investing in areas where the need is most. There is no evidence that that is the case within the current deals. Of course, city region deals are delivering some benefits in Barhead and East Renfrewshire plans are afoot to build a new train station that would give residents direct access to the rail network. Currently, residents face a walk of up to 40 minutes to reach it. Beyond that example, however, transport projects in general are misconceived. In the Highlands, the car is king, £175 million is spent on road improvements, including a link road in Inverness that will take 12 seconds of existing journey times at peak times, and, disappointingly, not a penny will be spent on railways in the region. Likewise in Lothian, £120 million is being plowed into upgrades to the Sheriffhall roundabout. Meanwhile, just a sixth of that figure will be spent on public transport in the west of Edinburgh. Although, of course, those investments may be celebrated by local politicians, it is a paltry figure that will do very little to, quote, to drive inclusive growth, enabling new jobs and wider economic opportunity, as the cabinet secretary suggests in his motion. As a member of the local government committee last year, I participated in the committee's inquiry and was particularly interested in the matter of transparency and the fact that, in some regions, there has been a shift in economic growth or job creation from areas—other areas—into the investment areas, with no net gains being made. Indeed, Policies Scotland at the University of Glasgow reported in a paper on the issue that there are questions about accountability and transparency and how those issues are dealt with in the deals. Primarily because there is an inconsistency in how deals are negotiated and delivered, there appears to be very different approaches taken to engaging stakeholders and being transparent. One of our witnesses, Leslie Warren, from the Coalition of Racial Equality and Rights noted that the local authorities' own public sector duty reports do not show exactly how communities have been involved or the engagement that they have had, and we would expect reports on those things to be part of their current legal duties, never mind the bigger deals. Clear evidence of that is apparent in the city of Edinburgh, the Edinburgh and South East City region deal, for example, which was negotiated behind closed doors, with even councillors struggling to find out what projects were on the table ahead of the deal being announced. That is not always the case. The Tay cities deal, for example, was a good example of being accountable from the start. Members of the public could view its prospectus, an accompanying website, well before plans were agreed in order to understand what was being proposed. That level of transparency is welcome but not the norm, and nor have other deals taken such a clear, cohesive or thematic approach to their spending plans. As the cabinet secretary noted, Audit Scotland has just announced that it will be conducting two performance audits to provide an independent assessment of how well the Scottish Government councils and the UK Government are doing. In the scoping note that it published a week or so ago, it makes the claim that it is not yet clear what contribution deals will make to Scotland's economy or to the Scottish Government's priority of inclusive economic growth. We have substantial investment in the billions that has been signed off with no clear understanding about the impact that it is going to have. I believe that it is essential in this Parliament that we hold the public and private partners of city region deals to account. That is difficult because of the governance structure in order to ensure best value for money. We would learn from the recommendations that will, in due course, be made by Audit Scotland. As an alternative of city region deals, Greens would support regional economic development based on transition planning and targeting disadvantage, but that is not what the city region deals are or have turned out to be. In conclusion, Greens will support the Labour amendment. We are no great fan of airports but, as long as they exist, they should be accessible by public transport. However, we will be opposing what the city region deals have turned out to be, and we will be voting against the Conservative and the Government motions. Alex Cole-Hamilton, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to rise in support of the Government motion today. We will also be supporting the Labour amendment because Glasgow airport desperately needs better greener public transport connections. The Scottish Government, as fair to say, is wobbling on its commitment to this. It has now been 18 months since the Jacob's analysis. This issue needs to be resolved. People demand better and it needs to be in the form of a convenient new connection between the city and an international airport. We will also oppose the Conservative amendment because the UK Government should have continued on the trajectory that was established by Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander during the coalition with the Glasgow deal, which saw it receive broadly equal levels of funding from the two Governments. That was quite early, but I will. Andy Wightman I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does he accept that the genesis of city region deals by Danny Alexander, the Treasury Secretary at the time, was inspired in large part by politics and not by economic development policy? Alex Cole-Hamilton? No, I do not accept that. I think that that was a recognition that for many years, for decades, in fact, the focus of economic investment and infrastructure had been traditionally in the south-east of England, and that was about expanding that footprint far beyond. It was a simpler time. If we look back to Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, we would be rather happy that politicians in Westminster were making decisions than having to stockpile medicine in the face of Brexit, but we were happy to continue to support the notion of city region deals, because they bring much-needed investment. All told, £1.3 billion to Edinburgh. I accept that. I agree with the Scottish Government on that. That commitment has ebbedo way from the Westminster Parliament, the UK Government, and there is now a gap of £388 million in commitment that needs to be closed. It is an important deal, not just for Edinburgh, but for the regions around Edinburgh of course. They are all told that we represent 24 per cent of the population of Scotland, and that comes broadly into five baskets, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, around research development and innovation, with five innovation hubs looking at biotech data and robotics, it is going to have the first robotarium in the UK. It is a testing space, which will see cutting-edge science deployed for the very first time. It is, as Dr Sethu Vijay Kumar, who is director of the Edinburgh Centre for Robotics, says that it will not just drive inward investment through big companies into Scotland. Edinburgh, as the city, it is going to be the base, the lab for these, will get the first of its benefits. So there is a cycle, a virtuous cycle of investment and development and progress there with it. They are all told that it is going to represent. They predict £23 return for every £1 spend. That is not a bad return on Government investing. It complements an expertise in technology and innovation, which has graced the streets of our nation's capital since the Enlightenment. We see with it a basket of investment in employability, creating that data-savvy workforce suited to making Edinburgh the data capital of the world. £140 million for transport, and whether that is improved roundabouts or public transport, I agree absolutely with Andy Wightman that the investment, the balance there, is not quite right, nor will it. It is as a drop in the bucket to the investment in West Edinburgh, in my constituency, for the proliferation of new housing developments, not least the new town proposed for Winchborough in the city region deal, which will see traffic siphoning through places bottlenecks that already exist, such as the Barnton junction, which are not suitable in capacity terms to the demand on their capacity right now. With culture, we cannot forget the culture side of that as well. It is an all-rounder and the concert hall will be most welcome. However, it is regrettable that the Scottish Government has ruled out using the investment for the tram extension, which its own city-led administration has signalled support for. That will now have to be met through other means. Obviously, there will be an opportunity of cost to already cash-strapped services. It is a fair and reasonable criticism that decision-making on priorities for the city region deals has been largely top-down. We can again see that in the poultry amount of public transport money for West Edinburgh, if you ask anybody in either Barnton or East Craigs or Gile, what they need most out of public transport, I will tell you it is the return of the number 64 bus service, yet that does not feature in the deal. The biggest elephant in the room is that we have the Government. Motion or the Government remarks today do not recognise the current threat of a £41 million cut to Edinburgh's budget as a result of the Scottish Government budget and financial considerations for this year. That is an existential threat to many local services that my constituents enjoy, whether that is the Dry Law Neighbourhood Centre or the Muirhouse Millennium Centre, which serves some of our nation's capitals' most vulnerable residents. Point is, Deputy Presiding Officer, if we look at this in the round, absolutely the city region deal is vital for improving our economy, for driving progress, but while we turn our eyes to the distant horizons of technology and centres of excellence in our capital, we must not do so at the expense of its most vulnerable citizens. We are happy to support the Government's motion tonight. We will support the Labour Party amendments. We will reject the Conservative amendments. I am grateful for the Government in securing time for this debate this afternoon. That concludes the opening speeches. I take this opportunity to remind all members and the respective groups that those who take part in the debate should be present for the opening speeches. We now move to the opening debate. Speeches are six minutes, please. I do not have much time in hand. Shona Robison, followed by Bill Bowman. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to recognise the efforts of the Scottish Government, the four local council leaders, business and academic chiefs, who were involved and have been pivotal in the recent signing of the Tay City region deal Heads of Terms Agreement. The city deal comprises Dundee City, Angus, Perthincan Ross and North East Fife. It is home to almost half a million people and over 15,000 businesses. It has a strong economic base as a gateway to central Scotland and north to Aberdeen and the highlands. As part of the deal, both the Scottish Government and the UK Government will invest each £150 million over the next 10 to 15 years, with the Scottish Government recently announcing an additional £50 million. We still await the UK Government to match that £50 million, something that it will be constantly reminded of until it does so. It is estimated that those investments have the potential to secure over 6,000 jobs and lever in over £400 million of investment. The positives for Dundee as part of the partnership are to be welcomed. Dundee has already previously enjoyed Scottish Government investment for new social housing, a revamped railway station and, of course, the V&A. Dundee has two world-class universities, and an outstanding leading college is one of the leading centres for the computer gaming industry. Last year, the Wall Street Journal ranked Dundee as number five on its worldwide hot destinations list. The deal seeks to support economic and industrial growth across Tayside, support apprenticeships, build new social housing and reduce inequalities, improve transport infrastructure and increase tourism. As Dundee remains the major travel to work area in the region, it could also be the initial starting hub for visitors and businesses to other areas in the region given the transport links in and out of the city. Therefore, improving transport links and boosting tourism is just one element within the deal. Throughout the region, there are some world-class attractions, and Dundee itself offers many locations showcasing the city's heritage, such as the former Duke Mill at Verdant Works, the Discovery and, as I mentioned earlier, the V&A, which saw more than 100,000 visitors in the first three weeks of opening. I applaud the Scottish Government's proposed investment of £37 million to support a regional culture and tourism investment programme, which will boost key economic assets in culture and tourism. The Scottish Government's investment also aims to attract longer stays throughout the region and the amount spent per visitor boosting the hospitality and food and drink industry. As I mentioned earlier, Dundee railway station has recently been completely modernised thanks to the funding from the Scottish Government and is part of Dundee's waterfront regeneration. However, ensuring that visitors have every travel option to come and stay in the city and surrounding areas, the Scottish Government will invest £9.5 million in and around Dundee airport, looking at securing and marketing new routes, enhancing airport facilities to assist passenger growth and the opportunities arising from the Heathrow expansion. While investing in transport links and tourism will boost the Tayside region economy, it is vital that the area also attracts and retains talented people and creates and sustains new and existing industries. The region has a long manufacturing and engineering history and I welcome the Scottish Government's £10 million investment in high-value manufacturing, for example the increasing renewable energy sector. Dundee port has huge potential for capitalising on the renewable energy industry, and the Taycities deal seeks to maximise the economic and employment benefits of both those industries for the Tay region, not solely for Dundee but also of course in Montrose, Angus and Meitho and Fife. However, another growing industry for the region is offshore decommissioning. Although the oil industry has seen a slow improvement with new fields opening or about to start production, rigs in the older fields are becoming redundant and will have to be decommissioned. The industry is worth around £2 billion per annum over the next decade, and Dundee port and the surrounding brownfield land is ideal for this work. The Scottish Government's decommissioning challenge fund has already demonstrated its support for decommissioning projects. Complementing the investment in manufacturing and encouraging entrepreneurial talent to Dundee and please the Scottish Government seeks to invest up to £3 million into studio Dundee, best at the city's new waterfront and together with a fully equipped and digitally connected tech lab, the entrepreneurial hub would offer flexible and adaptable co-working space. The deal therefore offers an array of new job opportunities for the people of Dundee, Fife, Perth and Angus. Investing in research and academic posts, new start-up companies, retaining and expanding existing companies and bringing companies to the region. It includes a £20 million investment to deliver fair work through the Tay City's skills and employability development programme, a £25 million Scottish Government investment to grow the Tayside biomedical cluster, building on the success of Dundee and surrounding areas, including the University of Dundee, as leading centres of excellent locations in the UK and internationally for drug discovery research and minimising invasive surgical techniques and technologies. The investment would also create facilities and a skills development and training programme to support both biotech and medtech through Dundee and Angus College, helping to increase the supply of skilled laboratory staff. With a modern workforce, there needs to be a modern and fast digital connectivity and this Government is investing £2 million in supporting 5G testbeds and trials in the Tay region, helping to put it at the forefront of 5G deployment. As we become more and more reliant on the internet and electronic devices, sadly, cybercrime is rising. Strengthening cyber resilience and developing digital forensics is therefore crucial in protecting our identities and personal details. The Albert Tay University has recognised a UK leader for research and teaching in ethical hacking, while Dundee University's Leverholm Research Centre for Forensic Science is developing and leading applications for forensic research. Both universities are helping to grow expertise in cyber security, and the Scottish Government will invest up to £6 million in developing a cyber security centre of excellence or cyber quarter. I hope that the project has mentioned a snapshot of what the area is earmarked for the whole Tay city region, something that I very much welcome. I call Bill Bowman to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the chance to speak in this debate, also, since the Tay cities deal will have a large impact on the area that I represent the north-east of Scotland region. On 22 November last year, local council leaders formally signed the 700 million Tay cities deal, with the Scottish and UK Governments committing to invest up to £150 million throughout a 10 to 15-year period, with the remainder being levered from private investors. The Tay cities deal brings together public, private and voluntary organisations in the council areas of Angus, Dundee, Fife and Perth and Kinross to deliver a smarter and fairer region. The initiative aims to fund more than 20 major projects and create an excess of 6,000 jobs across Tayside and Fife. Regional partners have established a strong economic partnership to drive growth. The region has world-class universities and many cutting-edge businesses. Angus, Fife and Dundee City in Perth and Kinross councils are keen to build on the recent momentum after the area was awarded £63 million from the Scottish Government growth accelerator model for projects at the Dundee waterfront and the development of the V&A. Under the Tay cities deal, more than £60 million will go to the James Hutton Institute in Virgauri and more than £10 million will go towards the Cybersecurity Centre in Dundee. Several million will also be invested in St Andrew University's Eden campus and £15 million will go towards a Perth, Bus and Rail interchange project. There are five specific investment proposals within Dundee at this stage, totaling up to £65 million. That includes up to £10 million for investment in and around Dundee airport and up to £12 million for the development of the Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence. That includes up to £15 million to establish the UK's first forensic science research centre and up to £25 million to support the growth of the biomedical cluster. Regionwide investments that will benefit Dundee include £20 million invested in employability and skills. That is particularly important, given the Michelin decision in November 2018 that will stop production in Dundee within two years. That is a serious blow to hundreds of employees and their families and will have had and continue to have an effect among thousands of people across Tayside and Fife. It is hoped that the Tay City deals will create an excess of 6,000 jobs for people across the region, including research and academic posts, new startup companies and migration of companies to the region. That would be especially welcome after recent closures. Tourism is a key part of the Tay City's deal. The Scottish Government will invest 37 million subject to approval of a business case to support regional culture and tourism investment programme. The aim is to build on current tourism offerings at St Andrew's, Glenigos and the VNA in Dundee. Dundee was included in the list of top European destinations for 2018 by Lonely Planet. It was named as one of the top holiday destinations for travellers in 2018 by Bloomberg and in 2017 was named as one of the top 10 hot destinations by The Wall Street Journal. It is encouraging to see that Dundee and other areas of Scotland are already recognised as top places to travel to from across the world and that investment will continue to promote Scotland as a top holiday destination. The Tay City's deal proposes significant investment across Angus. While Angus is set to benefit from the overall regional investment, three Angus-specific proposals are detailed in the agreement, totaling more than £30 million. £26.5 million of UK Government capital will be invested in projects in Angus to be developed collaboratively with Angus Council and other local partners. There is also an opportunity to make use of surplus land at the condor base for new development of which the UK Government will contribute the net value of the land transferred to the deal. Furthermore, £1 million from UK Government funds will be invested to improve connectivity in rural Angus. The city deals intended to be a team effort with the UK and Scottish Governments working together to deliver those investments. However, the SNP has spent more time talking about their disappointment with the deal rather than what they are actually doing. Scottish Conservative MPs worked hard for the deal and their lobbying was vital to providing investments for Angus, which should be a concern for the Angus SNP MSPs. Some SNP politicians bemoan the UK Government for not putting in an extra £50 million to the Tay City's deal, as the SNP has said that it will do. However, £40 million of that extra investment will be spent on the cross-tail link road rather than the fallout of the Michelin plant closure, which is where the majority of that extra £50 million had been expected to go. Considering that the SNP had already planned this road project regardless of the city deal's money, it cannot claim to be disappointed that the UK Government has not given them extra funds, but the SNP themselves should be finding funding to help with the Michelin closure. I welcome the Tay City's deal and indeed other such deals across Scotland. It is crucial that the deal is efficiently and effectively managed from now so that the benefits can be delivered without delay. Actions, not words, is what is called for. I support Jamie Greene's amendment. Kenneth Gibson, followed by Johann Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to participate in this afternoon's debate, given that city region deals have been an area of focus both on my membership with the local government and communities committee, which launched an inquiry into those partnerships in March 2017 and also as constituency member for Cunningham North. We know that city region deals have the potential to be transformative, with strong evidence that suggests that investment and high quality locally developed projects is key to accelerating economic growth in a way that improves regional prosperity while reducing inequality. Indeed, those are the ambitions set out in Scotland's economic strategy. However, there are also risk factors associated with that strategy, which must be mitigated such as displacement. In November 2017, Patrick Wiggins, then director of the Ayrshire Growth Deal, told the local government committee, and I quote, "...the more investment that happens in or close to the centre of Glasgow, the more likely it is to suck up demand in the Scottish economy. That will make it even harder for areas such as Ayrshire to achieve their potential. It is a timely issue and we do not want Ayrshire to be left behind. That is why it is imperative that Ayrshire gets mitigation through the right investment as soon as possible to ensure that it does meet its full potential." On 28 September 2016, proposals were launched for the Ayrshire Growth Deal, seeking £359.8 million of joint funding from the Scottish and UK governments across the three Ayrshire authorities. Nearly two and a half years of procrastination from the UK government followed during which time I asked nine questions on the deal in this chamber, seeking clarity on when exactly a long-promised deal would become a reality. I was repeatedly assured that the Scottish Government was ready to move towards signing heads of terms agreement on the Ayrshire Growth Deal as soon as possible, and all three Ayrshire local authorities also expressed support clearly and publicly. Fellow Ayrshire MSPs and MPs have been vocal in their support for this deal and tireless in their pursuit of UK government action. I am pleased that the Scottish Government and Ayrshire Council agreed to sign the heads of terms agreement this Friday, 25 January, so that Ayrshire may finally benefit from the millions of pounds of long-promised investment. I hope that the UK Government will confirm their intention to sign the deal on Burns Day, which should be act given the economic contribution at the bar that still makes to the Ayrshire economy even 223 years after its death. While the deal falls somewhat short of the funds that were sought in 2016, the now £324 million joint investment from the Scottish and UK governments is expected to attract £2 billion of private investment and create an estimated 13,000 jobs over the course of its 15-year programme. Inclusive growth is central to reducing poverty and inequality in each Ayrshire community, while the inclusion of more people in the economy will enable stronger and more sustainable growth. That will, in turn, reduce demand on government spending and public services. Each project, including the Ayrshire growth deal, has a well-developed business case designed for the collaboration between the public and private sectors, local communities and academia. Those projects are devised to deliver sustainable long-term growth. That is especially true of the carbon energy circular economy and environmental sustainability growth programme, which will include two major projects with investment of around £34 million in Cymru North. The Plany International Marine Science and Environmental Centre, ISME, based at Ardrossan, will work to provide solutions to challenges facing the world seas and society, from climate change to energy and long-term food sustainability. The ISME will bring together leading academics from the University of South Clyde, and build on work undertaken by Cumbra's Field Studies Council, the community of R&C Bid Trust, the Clyde Marine Planning Partnership and the success of the LAMLASH No Take Zone. The proposal also includes developing a west of Scotland centre for marine leisure, which will be a key element in providing a new and bespoke skills qualification for the marine industry. It is also included as a proposed centre for research into low carbon energy and circular economy to be based at Hunterson, in my constituency. That will support new technologies, developing skills and training facilities, including parallel research programmes at Strathclyde University, and will build a leading global centre for advanced technology, smart systems and energy management. Hunterson already has strong private sector investment interests and the capacity to attract international investment to Ayrshire. The collaborative working behind the growth deal also extends to the regional economic partnership, which is agreed by Ayrshire's local authorities. The partnership will work by Scotland's enterprises and skills agencies, academia, the third and private sectors to ensure necessary resources, workforce and skills are in place to deliver the positive outcomes that we all hope to see in Ayrshire. The Ayrshire growth deal team believes that their proposition is more developed than any other deal at the point of signing heads of terms, and therefore imperative is signed off as soon as possible, hopeful on Friday, to maintain the confidence of businesses and communities. The case of the UK Government dragging its heels over Ayrshire is sadly not unique. The Scottish Government has driven its deals forward by investing £1.3 billion into the four city deals in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness, a third more than the UK Government. Meanwhile, the UK Government investment fell short in Aberdeen region by a mammoth £354 million and an Inverness region deal by £82 million. The taste city deal also faces delays due to the UK Government's sluggishness. I am grateful that the Scottish Government ministers and Ayrshire's local authorities are pushing the UK Government to ensure that deals in Scotland are funded 50-50 and that Ayrshire is not left behind. Ayrshire access project, I support that, but only if it is not at the expense of real services to Ayrshire, and that is an issue that still has to be addressed. I sincerely hope that the next time I raise Ayrshire growth deal in this chamber it is in celebration, welcoming the first steps towards delivering the projects with the potential to transform Ayrshire's economy, create new jobs and ultimately drive inclusive growth and prosperity for the people of Ayrshire. Gillan Lamont, followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want, in the time that I have, to focus on the issue of the Labour amendment, which says that the Glasgow airport link must be progressed as a matter of urgency. I am certain that MSPs representing Glasgow and the west of Scotland across the party will want to support that. I welcome the support that has already been indicated. I am rather disappointed that the Government Minister spent no time in it in his own opening contribution, but it is essential that Cabinet Secretary understands what is at stake here and confirms his absolute commitment to making this project happen. There is no doubt about the absolutely positive merits of this proposal. The rigor of the business plan is already agreed and the very significant resource of £144 million is in place. The case has already been comprehensively made and it ought not to be necessary for it to be remade and remade and remade again. There is a clear economic case. Very few cities of Glasgow's size and economic significance are without such a link and there is a clear and present danger of a loss of investment not just to Glasgow but to Scotland by prevarication in this project. The airport, as a travel hub, is important, but it is also a source of important employment. 35,000 jobs in the local economy, many of them high-quality, skilled jobs. Poor transport links will deter investment. It is already happening and will increasingly see people travelling by car into work rather than by public transport. The congestion is creating a broader challenge across the communities for people getting to work in the city, for example. At peak times, I am advised that 90 per cent of buses into Glasgow on the M8 run late. The case for this link is therefore not just an economic one but an environmental and social one, too. So we cannot, I am sure, agree this theory, but that is not enough. We need to see full progress. We need to ask why. Is there such slow progress? The message I fear is not explicitly articulated but the impression that it is generally created is that it is all too difficult, too expensive, too complicated. Somewhere in the system I fear is the mindset, not how do we make this work but rather how do we throw in objections, concerns and difficulties to muddy the waters, not making explicit opposition to the project but killing it by a multitude of what-ifs, perhaps and maybes? There are serious questions to be asked about the role of Transport Scotland. How committed is committed? The cabinet secretary must settle that, surely, and ensure that Transport Scotland rises to the occasion. Public money, which he has used to its intended purpose, will have huge and long-standing effect. Instead of what I observe, our money is in danger of being frittered away, perhaps in part in funding consultants and analysis to scupper the project, not progress it. I fear that that is the desired conclusion for some. Theoretical support, yes, but in reality delivering a make-do and mend option that will waste money and not make the transformational change required. If you are looking for an example of a make-do and mend approach, see fast link as a prospect that did not deliver on what it was intended. That will be unacceptable. In his summary, I expect the cabinet secretary to rule out any approach of a suboptimal project. With respect, his response of having a meeting about it on Thursday is simply not good enough. That requires leadership from the Scottish Government and we hope, in his summing up, that we hear a determination from the cabinet secretary not to allow the project to run into the sand. The arguments on capacity are a good case in point. For some, they are a useful barrier to the progressing of the project. We should see them simply as basic practical hurdles to be overcome. The fear of many of my constituents and businesses in Glasgow and beyond is that Transport Scotland, in particular, has other priorities, which they will not make explicit, but they will ensure that they are served above the project itself. What we are seeing, sadly, in my view, is a form of infrastructure full of busting, a game of delay and deflection in which the clear loser is the economic, community and environmental needs of Glasgow and the west of Scotland. From the cabinet secretary today, I seek more than just the rhetoric of support, but I seek more than his support for this amendment. What I do seek is a commitment to ensure that the apparent dissembling of Transport Scotland is not allowed to continue. Transport Scotland should be actively engaged with other partners and focused on making this project work. The case has been made economically, environmentally and socially. It is unacceptable that there will be continued delay when there are so many things about this project that are absolutely in place. I trust that the cabinet secretary, on behalf of the Scottish Government, will now show the necessary leadership not just to go to a meeting, but to make sure that the project, which will be delivered economically, environmentally and socially for the whole of Scotland, will be delivered on time. In December 2011, the UK Government published its white paper, Unlocking growth in cities. Writing in the forward then-Deputy Prime Minister, Nic Clegg, said that the coalition government is committed to building a more diverse, even and sustainable economy. Cities will need to show strong leadership and deliver real growth. My message to them is to seize this opportunity, to work with us to break open our politics and lay the foundations for lasting growth. From David Cameron's big society to the EU referendum, Mr Clegg was certainly right about one thing. Our politics have well and truly broken open since the winter of 2011. Unfortunately for Scotland, the opportunities afforded by the city deals did not materialise until the summer of 2014. I would certainly invite Opposition members to ponder us as to why that may have been, as Andy Wightman has already alluded to. As previously mentioned today almost exactly a year ago, the Scottish Parliament's local government and communities committee, of which I am a former member, published a report entitled Deal or No Deal. The report was not a mystic meg premonition of the Prime Minister's handling of Brexit, rather it was a concise cross-party look at how the city region deals have operated. The focus for the UK Government, as was clear in the 2011 White Paper, was that of growth. Indeed, cities are described as engines of growth. Today's motion outlines the Scottish Government's focus on inclusive growth, which highlights the inherent ideological tension between the two administrations. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted in evidence to the local government committee, inclusive growth has the potential to gain support across a political spectrum, and more inclusive economy will reduce poverty and inequality. Growth, for the sake of it, therefore, is not enough. It has to be about tackling inequality and levelling the playing field. For my constituency, that is a fundamental. Levenmouth is the largest urban area in the country, with a population of over 37,000 people without direct access to rail. One in three children live in poverty. Levenmouth academy is the second highest recipient of Scottish Government pupil equity funding in the country, a funding that is benchmarked against free school meal entitlement. The need for inclusive growth to tackle generational inequality and poverty has never been more present. The Edinburgh city region deal, which covers Fife, will see investment of over £1 billion across the six local authority areas involved. However, I remain concerned at the lack of detail over what that will mean for my constituency. My concern has always been about the transparency or lack thereof at a local authority level when prioritising the funding of projects. As campaign group Transform Scotland commented in evidence to the local government committee, the selection process was shrouded in a degree of secrecy on the basis of being sensitive or confidential, at least until they are agreed. The Federation of Small Businesses told us that there are big concerns about the lack of transparency at the development and implementation stages and the lack of more inclusive and discursive engagement with the private sector. Part of that transparency relates directly to funding. As the co-leader of Edinburgh City Council, Councillor Adam McVeigh told the committee, at the start of the process, both Governments have an idea of how much they are able to put in. It would have been really helpful to have had that information and analysis as early as possible. In our case in Edinburgh, we had the UK Government scrambling around trying to find money to match what the Scottish Government was willing to put in. That was an unhelpful tail end to the process. It did not give us an opportunity to look at the overall envelope and apply the level of scrutiny to the detail that we wanted. Therein lies the rub. I note the Conservative amendment today and the assertion of collaboration between the two Governments, but let's get real for a moment. The city deal funding for Glasgow from the UK Government was merely a sweetener during the independence referendum, because at no point since this time has the UK Government stumped up the cash without serious political pressure from the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. It has had to be chased to match the Scottish Government funding for the Edinburgh deal in the summer of 2017. It fell short of its contribution to the Aberdeen region deal by £250 million, in Inverness by £82 million, and across the water in Dundee by £50 million. A partnership of equals, more like a parcel of rogues. On the subject of sweeteners before the 2014 referendum, page 12 of the UK Government's 2011 white paper makes explicit mention of the greater freedoms to invest in growth, stating, from 2014, a new round of structural fund programmes, aka the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, will allow member states to adopt a special focus on cities. 2014 provided Scotland with lots of promises. European Union membership was one of the most prized. Now, as that broken promise withers in the vine, we are invited to believe in today's Conservative amendment, which reaffirms that the people of Scotland are best served when its two Governments engage in a collaborative and co-operative manner. To be effective, our city region deals should have asked our constituents what they wanted. Unfortunately, the previous Labour-led Administration on the Life Council chose not to effectively engage the public in this process. It chose not to ask for the leaving mouth rail link, supposedly the authority's number one transport priority. That transport priority could have been at the transformative change in my constituency and beyond. Doiding up jobs in Edinburgh, for example, with a part of the country that has the lowest car ownership in Scotland. From the Tories today, grand words about collaboration, but in reality, the city deals in Scotland were only ever a political stunt for the Conservatives. Useful in 2014, but disposable five years on. For Labour, as we know, their amendment today is entirely focused on the Glasgow airport link, supported by the same member who will tomorrow raise the leaving mouth rail link in a question to the cabinet secretary. Isn't it a pity that Labour consistently seemed to forget about their priorities for Fife? Or perhaps, Presiding Officer, it is simply a convenient excuse. The members in our last minute Finlay Carson, followed by Maureen Watt. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Borderlands growth deal is supported by the chancellor following a pledge in the 2017 Conservative election manifesto and a commitment reiterated in his October budget. Last year saw the proposals for the Borderlands growth deal submitted. Five councils from both sides of the Scotland-Dinglen border are tasked in bringing the growth deal into reality. Today, I welcome the message from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he aims to be in a position to announce the quantum for the deal ahead of the English partners border, which should hopefully allow heads of terms to be signed shortly after the end of the air border period towards the end of May. With Scottish and English authorities involved, the Borderlands growth deal is unique. However, I do not believe that it has been particularly satisfactory process, particularly with regard to local authorities' transparency. Granted, with its cross-border nature, it was never going to be an easy process. The Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster produced a report on this four years ago entitled, Our Borderlands, Our Future. Conclusions in the report include references to the lack of infrastructure and the movement of young people away from the area. Those issues continue to damage the local economy, so we cannot allow this opportunity to pass us by. We must ensure that borderlands will deliver the opportunities that will attract our youngsters to live, work and bring up their families in the Dumfries and Galloway region. In terms of the deal, let me put it into perspective. This growth deal has to bring together a geographical area that is larger than Wales, with a population of just under 1.1 million. If we put the borderlands area into the south of England, it would stretch towards and into France. The deal is unlike any other city growth deal. We do not have the ability to recoup rates on major building projects or invest in large manufacturers. The deal must be and is different, and it must deliver positive economic impacts right across its huge geographical area, addressing the growth constraints of working-age population, limited employment opportunities, poor digital and transport infrastructure, the lack of high-quality sites and facilities, and lower skills levels. Economally, the need for the borderlands growth deal has never been greater. The facts are stark and it is worth laying them down again in the chamber, as they were last week in the Labour Party's business. The gross value added in Dumfries and Galloway is only 80 per cent of the Scottish national average. Dumfries and Galloway is the lowest-paid region in Scotland, with wages 15 per cent below the national average. With an aim of delivering identified projects right across the region, the growth deal could support the delivery of an additional £1.3 billion in gross value, directly benefiting 1.1 million residents and generating over 6,500 jobs over the 10-year deal. The deal focuses on five strategic drivers under the headers of digital, energy investment company, quality of place, destination borderlands, knowledge exchange network and business infrastructure programme. I have often highlighted the lack of investments in our transport infrastructure in the south-west. Our transport infrastructure is simply not fit for purpose. I also welcome within the borderlands proposal a section highlighted as digital borderlands, with an ambition to ensure a package of investments to tackle market failures by rolling out full-fibre connectivity, which is complemented with 4G and 5G mobile connectivity. As I mentioned earlier, the border growth deal is unique in my eyes, and one of the challenges of this deal will be to ensure that the whole borderlands area benefits and no areas are left behind as we forge our cross-border links. In terms of my constituency, I believe that this deal can help to deliver on the vision laid out in a recent report from Strunard to be the capital of the west, aiming to build on the town being a gateway to Europe, Ireland and the rest of Scotland. I have raised many times the need to regenerate Strunard as a priority, a town that the SNP has promised so much to since the ferry service departed but has failed to deliver. There is massive untapped potential in the town with already identified innovative possibilities and massive tourism potential. The east pier and the waterfront must not be overlooked. I welcome the south of Scotland gaining more focus as an economically disadvantaged region from those in authority. Indeed, last week I was in attendance with the bill evidence for the proposed south of Scotland enterprise agency. Businesses and our rural communities deserve a boost. It has been a long time coming, but I remain positive about how the borderlands deal if implemented correctly can fulfil the needs of our businesses and communities in practice. We are in the final stages of the borderland growth deal now. 2019 can be the year when the communities and businesses that I represent receive a much-needed economic shot in the arm from the borderlands growth deal, a deal that can tap into a region's potential that has bubbled under the surface for far too long. Thank you. I call Maureen Watt to be followed by Neil Bibby, Ms Watt, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, too, am pleased to be taking part in this debate. It takes place in the context of a clear Scottish Government economic strategy, believing that our economy needs inclusive economic growth in all of Scotland for our country and its people to flourish. The city region deals are designed to act as enablers for local organisations to drive inclusive economic growth, where investment in high-quality, locally devised and developed projects will improve regional prosperity while reducing inequality. The Aberdeen city region deal was one of the ones first off the bloc. I think that there was more impetus in the northeast due to the downturn in oil and gas, and it was one of the first of the city deals to be agreed with the heads of terms agreement being signed in January 2016. The deal was, as I say, signed in 2016, a 10-year programme of investment worth in excess of £800 million. The main partners being Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire, the Scottish Government, the UK Government and Opportunity North East, Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen. At that time, £125 million was pledged both from the Scottish Government and the UK Government with the potential to unlock over £500 million from private sector investment. Subsequently, the Scottish Government added another £254 million, which the UK Government has yet to match. The focus of the Aberdeen city region deal is on innovation, internationalisation and infrastructure. 11 projects have been identified with the Oil and Gas Technology Centre. The first investment was already open in February 2017. The financial projections of the financial outcomes of the Aberdeen city region deal have been made. It is estimated that there will be an annual increase in GVA of £260 million across Aberdeen city council and Aberdeenshire council areas, £220 million through the rest of Scotland and £190 million into the UK in general. The average of 330 new jobs per year will be created aggregating to some 3,300 new net jobs over the 10-year lifetime of the deal. It also estimates that there are additional annual tax revenues to the UK and Scottish Government of £113 million from income tax, national insurance, VAT and oil tax revenues. It is based on inclusive economic sustainability and retention of people locally. I would like to mention some of the key projects. I have already mentioned the Oil and Gas Technology Centre, which is up and running. It is based in the centre of Aberdeen, but with a global reach for solving offshore mature basin, subsea and decommissioning technology challenges. The innovations are in five key areas of well construction, small pools, asset integrity, decommissioning and digital transformation. It is working in partnership with industry, academia, the supply chain and supported by the regulator and both Governments. It has already fostered 80 on-going projects. 400 technologies have been screened by the OGTC Solution Centre. It has secured £22 million of industry investment when the original expectation was just £8.5 million, and it has secured an additional £1.9 million in funding from the Scottish Government decommissioning challenge fund. That all led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the OGTC, Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen, for a multi-million-pound joint venture to develop a centre for excellence for field life extension and decommissioning. I am sure that everyone will agree that this is indeed a great deal of progress in a short time. The next one that I would like to mention is the Biotherapeutics Innovation Hub, which sees an investment of £40 million over 10 years. I already spoke about the project in a debate on life sciences that we had recently in the chamber. It is designed to accelerate growth and build on the strength of life sciences in the north-east region. The project is led by one and developed in partnership with the two universities and Scottish Enterprise. The hub will provide a focal point and space for the industry to collaborate and innovate on products and therapies for biotherapeutics, modern epidemics, medtech, diagnostics and nutrition. To date, we have seen the business case, approved by the Scottish Government and the UK Government in September 2017, and a new company, Bio Aberdeen Ltd, is set up to manage and develop the hub. Construction is expected to commence this year with the hub opening in winter 2020. Jamie Greene mentioned the harbour development as if that was part of the city deal. It is not. The harbour at the Bay of Nigg is being constructed entirely by the Port Authority Aberdeen harbour, which is duke for completion in 2020. However, the infrastructure around the harbour is really important, and it is important that that is developed at a really quick pace. I did wave my pen. I was trying not to interrupt. I call Neil Bibby to follow by Alasdair Allan, please. I welcome the debate and the opportunity to speak in favour of Labour's amendment, which calls for the Glasgow airport access project to be brecrest as a matter of urgency. The Glasgow airport access project is our best hope for a direct rail link between Glasgow airport and the city centre via Paisley. There is a 471-page business case, there is widespread support from the business community, there is £144 million of funding in place right now, ready to go. What Colin Smyth's amendment test today is the level of political support for the project in the Scottish Parliament and from the Scottish Government. There is overwhelming independent support for an airport rail link from Renfrewshire Chamber of Commerce and the wider business community in Renfrewshire, and there has been for many years. It has been mentioned that businesses are key partners. Businesses that I speak to are warning us that failure to invest in surface access is putting Glasgow airport and the local economy at a disadvantage. While passenger numbers are rising, numbers at Edinburgh airport, which benefits from a direct tram service, are rising faster. There is real concern that continued uncertainty will deter private investment in the area. There is even concern that it has done so already. With growing congestion on the M8, surface access to the airport is becoming more and more challenging. The section of the motorway with the biggest increase in congestion is the stretch between the airport and the west of the city. As has been mentioned, according to a Transport Scotland report, from 2008 to 2017, there has been a 22 per cent increase in traffic levels between junctions 22 and 29. That is from St James's Interchange to the city centre. There are already an estimated 30,000 people working within a three to four mile radius of Glasgow airport. With national innovation centres coming to Renfrewshire and the city deal authorities also promoting industrial sites at Glasgow airport as an investment area, there will be a further increase in the numbers commuting into Renfrewshire. Standing still is simply not an option. As Johann Lamont has said, Transport Scotland has to get on with the job of making this happen. It has to work with local authorities and deliver the rail link that Renfrewshire has already waited on far too long. You can board a train at Glasgow central and take a direct route to Manchester airport but not to Glasgow airport. That is a ludicrous situation and has to change. Under the proposal, a tram train link to Glasgow airport would just take 16 and a half minutes. It has been selected as the best successor to Garel on the basis that offers value for money, short journey times and the greatest attraction to users. There can be no doubt that enhancing airport connectivity enhances Scotland's position as an international destination. It is, after all, estimated that 75 per cent of tourists visiting Scotland arrive by air. However, the economic impact of the rail link is not simply a matter of making travel easier for air passengers. It is about shovels in the ground, local jobs in Renfrewshire and supporting other city deal initiatives such as the airport investment area. It is about modal shift and getting people in and out of Renfrewshire on to public transport. It is about taking the strain off of one of the most congested stretches of motorway in the whole country. Glasgow airport is the single biggest private sector employer in the Renfrewshire area. The number of jobs supported by the airport in the Renfrewshire area could rise from 4,500 to 7,200 by 2040. Failure to tackle congestion and deliver a direct rail link, however, would undeniably stifle growth and jobs at the airport and in the surrounding area. The Scottish Government made that mistake before in 2009 and we cannot afford for that mistake to be made again. I thank the member for giving me a huge amount of sympathy for the words that he is saying in his speech. However, there is a genuine issue around the current proposal that might mean that there is a knock-on effect to train services in the west of Scotland, including Inverclyde and Ayrshire, the area that we both represent. Has the member given any thought on how we could overcome some of those issues and make some progress? I think that those issues are easily overcoming and I will address that shortly. The last time a proposal for a transformative Glasgow airport rail link was in front of the Scottish National Party Government, it scrapped it. In a debate in this Parliament in 2013, it voted for a motion that branded the rail link ill-conceived. Last week in this chamber, the cabinet secretary could only bring himself to mention the possibility of the rail option. I would say to the cabinet secretary that there is nothing optional about this project, it is an economic necessity. The 10-year challenge is popular in social media right now, snapshots into people's lives a decade apart to see how much things have changed. In 2009, the Scottish Government scrapped the Glasgow airport rail link in a disgrace act of economic vandalism. It is now 2019 and we need to see urgent progress on the airport access project. Unfortunately, in the past 10 years, the only train on the back of the Garrel debate has been the gravy train for government consultants. Delay after delay, excuse after excuse, the Government's failure to manage rail capacity at Glasgow Central is used as a justification for the failure to get on with a surface rail link. The lack of vision when it comes to Glasgow Crossrail is mirroring its lack of foresight when it scrapped the rail link in the first place. A rail link to Glasgow airport is only back on the political agenda now, because in 2014 Labour councils put it there, just like we championed Garrel. As Johann Lamont said, understandably there is concern about the SNP's real commitment to the project given their past behaviour. When they have not been ambivalent about it, they have been opposed to outright. However, now is the time to get on with it. There is no reason why the airport access project cannot be taken forward in the new control period. There is no reason why Transport Scotland cannot work with the city deal authorities to make this project happen. Instead of creating problems, Transport Scotland should be finding the solutions that are needed. There is a business case, there is funding, and there is support from the public and stakeholders. It is time for the SNP, locally and nationally, to learn from their mistakes and finally get on with the Glasgow Airport rail link that the local economy and Scotland needs. We have been talking about city deals, but representing an island constituency, I will spend much of what I have to say, focusing on the related issue of island deals and the potential that that would have for the three island councils in Scotland, such as Carlin, Yng Nghymru and Shire, Orkney and Shetland, who have been working hard over the past few years to put forward ambitious plans. Although it is worth saying at this stage that those are plans for which is yet, the UK Government has given no commitments. The island's deal will seek to build on the our islands of future campaign that was launched by the three island councils in 2013. Liam McArthur tabished Scotland myself by co-hosting a reception later this month in Parliament to give MSPs the opportunity to learn more about those proposals. Although you would expect me to say this, it is true that the western isles are a truly wonderful place to live. We boast some of Scotland's most spectacular scenery as well as one of its most vibrant traditional cultures. We have one of the lowest crime rates in Scotland, one of the highest rates of happiness and fulfilment, although they are not in the chamber, but I should admit that we regularly share those distinctions with Orkney and Shetland. We should not be shy about promoting those facts relentlessly given the number of job vacancies which the islands will have to try to fill over the next few years. However, it is related to that, we face some challenges, the starkest of which in the case of my constituency is depopulation. National Records population projections showed a projected decrease of 4.8 per cent for the western isles by 2026. There are no easy fixes to tackling depopulation on that scale and its underlying causes. However, more than anything else, those figures highlight the need for bringing more jobs to the islands and attracting more people to live here. That is why I am pleased to see the kinds of projects being put forward in the potential islands deal, which are truly transformative and transformational in nature. For example, the proposals and the efforts to establish the United Kingdom's first commercial spaceport in North East. That is a great example of turning relative geographical remoteness into an advantage. When you consider the existing assets and infrastructure in place due to the hybridised MOD missile test range, then North East is ideally placed to capitalise on those proposals. Something else that has also captured the public imagination has been the mooting of fixed-link crossings, for example, across the sound of Harris. That would, if it came to pass, radically improve the transport connectivity between the islands that I represent. Although my sound is fanciful to some, it makes sense if, to paraphrase Roosevelt, we look to Norway or, indeed, if we look to the Faroe Islands. In both countries, we see networks of such tunnels under a sustained building programme, and there is also a practical need for it, given the immense pressure on the sound of Harris during the summer and the MCA's recategorisation of the vessels that are required for it. Although it is not as eye-catching as underwater tunnels or spaceports, proposals to upgrade and complete the Western Isles spinal route, our main road, would have no less a transformational effect. The Western Isles main road runs from Ness via two ferries and several causeways to the Isle of Athersea in the south. Much of the main road is a single track, by which you have to stop until other cars pass. There remains a great deal of main roads still to be upgraded, and it would take significant capital, it must be said, so to do. Although I hear what Andy Wightman said about investing in rail, it is probably, I would concede not yet, a realistic proposal to bring rail to my constituency. Other projects in housing, digital and mobile connectivity, housing, tourism and port development are also being pursued. City region deals such as what is being put forward for the islands are enablers to drive inclusive economic growth, and the Scottish Government has been driving much of that work forward nationally. As other members have noted, the UK Government has fallen short and failed to match the Scottish Government's contribution in several city region deals, and, as I say in the case of the islands deal, has yet not made commitments. Only a few months ago, the islands minister Paul Wheelhouse confirmed the commitment of the Scottish Government, however, to assisting the three island councils in working towards a deal for the islands. We now need a formal commitment on that from the UK Government. I have to say that, although we have been looking for consensus today, the dismissive tone adopted by one or two of the Conservative speakers today was ill-judged, but there you have it, and that is what we have on the record. I can say that ministers from both Governments have made it very clear to everyone who will hear that, despite those deals being joint initiatives, the funding for projects is still highly delineated on either reserved policy objectives or devolved policy objectives. According to Lord Duncan, the parliamentary undersecretary of state at the Scotland office, it is partly at the insistence of HM Treasury, which takes the view that its expenditure must be in the reserved space as spending on any other objective risks double spending. The insistence of the UK Government that it must rule out such double spending at the same time as it provides £1.5 billion to constituencies of certain MPs in Northern Ireland or, while the Scottish Government finds its self-spending on reserved areas such as social security and broadband to make up for the UK's shortcomings, makes those arguments from the UK all the harder to understand. In any case, while it may come to pass that not all of those projects can be included in an island's deal, they each have the capacity to unlock substantial investment, creating jobs and opportunities and giving more people a reason to live in that part of Scotland. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate and will once again use my time to extol the virtues of Ayrshire and the importance of the Ayrshire growth deal to the development of the local economy and the economy of Scotland as a whole. In highlighting the many attributes of God's own country that is Ayrshire, it would be a must not to mention at this time of year that our wee corner of the world becomes the centrepiece for so many dinners around the globe as the world celebrates the work of burns. Ayrshire is indeed a wondrous destination with such beautiful coastline and countryside, some of the best golf courses in the world, historic buildings in the States such as Dumfries House and Collane Country Park. It is a fantastic place to work, live and bring up a family. However, Ayrshire has experienced low levels of economic growth diverging significantly over the years from both Scotland and the UK. As a result, Ayrshire currently represents a declining share of Scottish GVA. It also lags behind GVA per capita in Scotland and the UK as a whole. Without intervention, Ayrshire's GVA is forecast to grow at a slower rate than Scotland and the UK. With the current underperformance of the Ayrshire economy, we experience persistently low levels of economic participation, high levels of deprivation and the consequential impact on the levels of educational attainment, poor levels of health and high levels of demand for public services and welfare support, as well as having a 7 per cent unemployment rate, which is well above the rate in Scotland. That is why the Ayrshire growth deal is crucial to the long-term economy of Ayrshire and the Scottish economy as a whole. I met with the Scottish Secretary of State, David Mundell, and local MP Bill Grant last Friday following their meeting in Westminster with the Ayrshire growth deal team. The great news from that meeting is that the signing of the Heads of Terms of Agreement with the Scottish Government will go ahead and is imminent. Many congratulations to the Ayrshire growth deal team and the three councils for their persistence and hard work in getting that over the line. In the spirit of collaboration, we should note that MSPs from across the chamber and MPs from many political parties have been party to putting that pressure on both Governments. I want to return to a topic that I have highlighted many times in this place, which is the transport infrastructure. The importance of that integrated strategy sitting alongside an Ayrshire growth deal cannot be underestimated. The chamber has heard on numerous occasions the well-rehearsed issue of the long-neglected investment in the transport infrastructure in the south-west. One of the elements that I do not feel has been emphasised enough in relation to the success of an Ayrshire growth deal investment is the need for a transport infrastructure that is fit for purpose. To leverage the maximum benefit that the Ayrshire growth deal can deliver, there is a pressing need to look not just at the much-discussed A77 in rail link south of Ayr as well as the 75 and 76. Consideration must be given to the state of the A77 connection to the M74. The Belfield interchange has long been a barrier to development in Kilmarnock. The length of traffic jams that snake all the way down the on and off ramps and on to the main A77 trunk road can only leave you with the conclusion that it is long overdue and upgrade. I have also mentioned the potential to open up Cymruc rail station with such a main project highlighted within the growth deal. Cymruc may be able to disconnect from the main grid and become energy self-sufficient, which is the first time in Britain to do so, and surely merits further investment in its rail station. Despite its current challenges, Ayrshire has so much to offer. It already has significant footholds in key industries. I went on an engineering technology tour of Ayrshire during the summer and there are so many great companies doing innovative and exciting projects, companies such as Magnox, EDF and UPM, GSK, DSM, Merck, BAE Systems, Spirit, GE Aviation, Wabtec, HighSpec and PRA, to name some. How many of us knew that nearly every fire engine and associated appliance in the UK was built in Cymruc? Emergency 1 employed around 125 people and are a vital component to the local and Scottish economy. That is alongside the many innovative and emerging high-tech companies such as Utopia Computers in Cymarnock who build custom PCs for graphics, gaming and virtual reality for clients across the world. We have excellent local education at Ayrshire College in the University of West of Scotland and can enable local people to develop the skills that they need to contribute to a growing Ayrshire economy. There is an increasing focus on STEM skills in schools preparing young people for career opportunities in science, technology, manufacturing and digital. Ayrshire College has increasingly focused on STEM skills with a third of its provision in the area. Local tech and engineering companies are working with colleges to develop courses specific for the needs of the local economy. We have the opportunity to combine that academic and industrial expertise in the UK and Scotland with the aerospace engineering expertise at Presswick to capture a significant share of the emerging space industry. Securing the UK's first spaceport here extends the potential still further. The case for driving economic growth in aerospace and space and life sciences and industrial biotechnology sectors is compelling at a national level. What is absolutely crucial is that in Ayrshire we have the space to do it. So in conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, when it comes to the potential in Ayrshire, the sky is not the limit, literally. Ayrshire has been forgotten and ignored for too long and I ask both the Scottish Government and the UK Government to continue their drive towards an Ayrshire growth deal and to reward the huge efforts that are made by the growth deal team and from the three councils. There are potentially some exciting times for Ayrshire coming down the track and I look forward to seeing the much-needed investment through move from the planning stage and into full implementation. Thank you very much. I call Bill Kidd to be followed by Willie Coffey. Mr Kidd is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. The Glasgow City region deal is a good deal for our constituents as it introduces significant infrastructure and community-focused projects that will directly improve the quality of life of our people by boosting local economies and improving day-to-day living. The Clyde Waterfront and Renfrew Riverside development project, which includes a bridge between Yoker, part of my Glasgow Annie's land constituency and Renfrew, will bring in excellent job opportunities. It is anticipated that the bridge project will create a whopping 2,300 jobs and inject £867 million into the regional economy. The bridge ranks as one of the top performing economic growth projects in the Glasgow City region deal. The SNP Government is demonstrably committed to driving economic growth, encouraging innovation in our cities and regions and laying essential foundations for jobs and prosperity. However, the UK Government's significant lack of match investment is deeply disappointing that Conservatives are consistently overpromised and under-delivered in Scotland, and it seems odd that they could afford a billion-pound payoff for the DUP but refused to find the funds to match the Scottish Government's contribution to our regional economies. It is essential that the Westminster Government now answer for the missing £388 million overall and stop shortchanging the people of Scotland. However, back to cheery or things and the SNP's commitment to the city region deals, shown by our injection of £1.5 billion into those and half a billion pounds in particular into Glasgow, is going to have a significant impact in our local economies. The level of jobs that are anticipated in the Clyde, Waterfront and Renfrew Riverside area evidences this. The impact of the deal in improving quality of life for our constituents must also be acknowledged. Today, activities and experiences have a significant impact on our wellbeing and state of mental health. Those are things such as clean and healthy transport to and from your place of work, rather than being in congested streets with bad air pollution, good eco-friendly and speedy transport that gets you where you need to go, can vastly improve the start of your day and the rest of it following on. Community and enjoyable things to do in our free time, light walks in green spaces cannot be underestimated. Those components of life are all deeply personal. Nevertheless, here in Parliament we have the opportunity to bring about or advocate for changes that promote this stability, wellbeing and sense of community throughout Scotland through those deals. The city regional deal provides opportunity to put projects in place that we know will stimulate local economies, create an environment for communities to flourish and put in place an infrastructure that reduces congestion in the building of new bridges and to connect communities across the Clyde, for example. All of that facilities make Glasgow and the surrounding areas the best that they can possibly be for all our constituents. City region deals are about our collective vision for an area that we love and want to see prosper into the future. When, at the drawing boards, those leading the deal appreciated the importance of sharing in a collective vision, because of that, consultations have taken place, allowing all glass regions to input into that vision for what we want our city streets to look like. Investment into infrastructure in Glasgow will bring modern offices, cycle paths and bridges that look sleek and modern, whilst promoting wellbeing through the green spaces and walkways that are woven throughout. Whilst that is exciting, that type of investment into our surroundings, when coupled with other targeted policies has a transformative impact on general mental health, the World Health Organization published research that looked at the impact of our environmental surroundings on mental health. The findings highlighted two key messages. The first was that socioeconomic factors and physical environments in which people live shape their mental health. The second advised policy makers that taking action to improve the conditions of daily life provides opportunity to improve a population's mental health. We can conclude from this that investment into our general environment in a way that makes public spaces enjoyable is actually very important. The Clydewaterfront and Renfrew Riverside project is something that I know my constituents will be particularly pleased about. In recent years, they have approached me about improving connections between Yoker and Renfrew, and this, frankly, new, stunning piece of engineering designed by Swayco and the award-winning designers of the Falkirk wheel, the Kettle Collective, will bring Yoker and Renfrew together. The bridge will not only bring increased football to local Yoker businesses, but this new through-way across the city will give local residents easy access for health and shopping. There are many reasons why this is a good deal for my Annie's land constituency, which Yoker is part of, and the city as a whole. The £1.13 billion investment through the Glasgow city region deal will, I believe, go far in driving innovation and growth whilst ensuring that Glasgow grows as a place that people love to live in. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr Kidd. I call Willie Coffey, then we move to closing speeches. Mr Coffey, please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. It's been good to hear all the different priorities for our communities from colleagues right across Scotland during the debate. It shows the diverse range of issues, problems and expectations that the growth deals will hopefully deliver in the coming years. The Government's strategy to cover the whole of Scotland with investment and assistance packages is the right one, and it means that there is something for every community to look forward to. The biggest, of course, is the Glasgow city region deal, which is highlighted by Bill Kidd, with more than £1 billion going in to improve transport infrastructure, to grow the life sciences sector, to support new business innovation and to tackle unemployment, particularly in the 16 to 24 age group, and to boost opportunities for those in low wages and the more vulnerable in our communities. I mentioned the Glasgow deal first to make a simple point that the spin-off benefit of the investment that is successful goes beyond the boundaries of Glasgow and its immediate partner authorities. Ayrshire and Kilmarat and Irvine Valley will benefit from that, especially the business part project that I think is in the scheme proposals adjacent to the M77. People from Ayrshire have worked in Glasgow area for many years, including me, so those investments should not be seen in isolation, serving only those who live within the region city deal areas. Those deals will certainly assist the local communities directly, but they also open up opportunities for many others who choose to work in those areas. The same, I am sure, can be said for all those deals where the benefits spread further afield if we are careful about how we design them. To Ayrshire itself, where I have been happy to live for the past 60 years of my life, which is already highlighted by my colleague Kenny Gibson and a number of other members, we have been waiting a good few years now for our deal to be a lead. Some of us who have been in the Parliament for some time, especially since 2009 when the Agio announced to leave Kilmarat, have been pressing for an assistance package for Kilmarat in the surrounding area and for Ayrshire as a whole since then. The Scottish Government has made its intentions clear for some time that it will back the Ayrshire deal and is ready to go. If, as we hope, we get an announcement this week from the UK Government, it will provide a huge boost to Ayrshire and will kickstart the preparations for a host of wonderful projects that we hope will transform the economy and offer our citizens the same opportunities as those elsewhere in Scotland. Not only that, the spin-off benefits apply both ways to, as I mentioned earlier. I think that it is important to recognise that. Some of the wonderful projects that are in the pipeline—there could be in the pipeline—include the Moorfield engineering park that will expand that location for business space, supporting advanced manufacturing. There will be assistance to develop smart manufacturing and digital skills via the Ayrshire manufacturing and investment corridor, including an innovation centre in partnership with Slathclyde University, and the energy research project to explore how to produce localised energy generation and distribution. The one that could absolutely transform our local area is called the Halo project in Kilmarat itself. Halo was conceived by Marie Macklin shortly after the Diagio decision to take Johnny Walker out of Kilmarat. She has worked hard since then with both Governments, Diagio and the Council for several years now to try to bring this incredible project to life. It will create a dynamic, commercial, educational, cultural and leisure quarter in the town on that side beside the New Yorkshire College and it itself could stimulate up to 1,500 new jobs. Its focal point will be an enterprise and innovation hub to stimulate digital learning, inspire creative thinking and to produce the kind of environment that will foster new starts and spin-out businesses. It will have state-of-the-art living work studios or rock grips where entrepreneurs can live while growing their businesses. There will be a fashion foundry for small businesses to design and produce retail fashion wear and a digital retail shopping boutique. Supporting leisure will have a wave surface water feature built to Olympic standards and it will have Scotland's first virtual reality arcade with a cafe bar, digital retailing, graffiti art walls and exhibition in conference space 2. Powering all of it will be a low-carbon energy scheme at first for the UK. It already has some financial backing from the Scottish Government of about £5 million, £3.5 million from the UK, as well as £2 million each from the council and from Diagell who always said that they would support a new local scheme to help us recover from the loss of the Johnny Walker jobs and have been true to their word. If and when this comes off, it will be utterly transformational for the town and for Ayrshire. I cannot wait for the Ayrshire growth deal to get the go-ahead and hopefully the UK Government is ready to back this Friday on Wednesday. If not, I think that they have a bit of explaining to do. Those growth deals offer so much hope for all our communities, but in Ayrshire, I hope that colleagues will forgive me for saying that this level of support has been overdue for some time. We have to make a success of these wonderful proposals, and I am sure that we will. After all, they are about people, aspiration, hope and determination, not just for Ayrshire, but for Scotland as a whole. Thank you very much, Mr Coffey. I now have a little time in hand, so we move to closing speeches. Mr Rowley is closing for Labour and will give you eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Labour in the debate today, I would begin by restating what I think has been the key message from colleagues across the chamber. That is that city deals place great emphasis on innovation, growing the digital economy, involving stakeholders, investment in infrastructure and the promotion of culture. Of themselves, those are without doubt worthwhile aims, and the funding of city region and regional growth deals is to be welcomed. However, I would also want to restate some of the concerns and issues that Labour has. As city regional deals and other growth initiatives develop, we believe that there are questions to be asked as to how the public money involved in those projects is being spent. Much like the public money that we spend on procurement, how can we make sure that it is not being handed out where exploitative working practices are happening, that the real living wage will be paid and that there will be no use of zero-hour contracts? Likewise, there are questions to be asked about how transparent in determining projects where transparency is. Whether communities are fully consulted, who is accountable for delivery, ensuring that investment from city deals is over and above existing investment and not simply to replace funding cuts and that all of Scotland benefits from growth deals. For example, many in Fife were surprised and disappointed that the leaving mouth rail link had not been included in the regional deal covering Fife. The chief executive of Fife council then confirmed that the council officers had been advised by Scottish Government civil servants not to include it as it would not have got support. That raises the question of who is deciding what goes in the bids and who is having the final say on what bids are successful or not. If we have a situation where councils have been advised beforehand not to put key infrastructure projects in, that is hardly the best way to achieve what local people desire. The First Minister has described the Edinburgh and South East of Scotland deal, which includes six councils, including five, as an area of huge importance to the Scottish economy. The region contains over a quarter of Scotland's population and contributes £33 billion to the Scottish and UK economies. The massive economic and social possibilities from a rail link into leaving mouth being overlooked is a bit baffling, I have to say. It was a point that was made by the local government committee report last year when they said that there was a lack of engagement with local businesses, charities, at the outset of deals and lack of information as to why certain projects are chosen. Good practice exists, but that needs to be shared more widely was their view. The committee also raised a very important issue when they asked, how do city regional deals align with other Scottish and UK Government policies? For example, the Scottish Government is implementing the findings of the enterprise and skills review, and the UK Government has published its industrial strategy. How do city regional deals fit with those other policy priorities? The Royal Town Planning Institute makes a similar point when they say to unlock the transformational chains required, integration and alignment with other national and regional strategies will be essential. They list 11 strategies in the brief that they have provided for today's debate. However, as we know, there are many, many more strategies that the Scottish Government has developed. How do they all fit together? Or do they not? Is it simply strategy for strategy's sake with no real outcome? I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure has led this debate today, but the city deals have to be about more than building things. If they are to succeed, they will need to be driven by local government and local councils' partners. As many will be aware, wealth and achievement are not universal across the city regions. There are 22.4 per cent of children living in poverty across the Edinburgh and South East Scotland region. With a growing housing crisis and too many people in poverty pay low-skilled jobs, it is clear that the greatest benefit of investment will be to address and tackle those issues. It is essential that, at its core, those deals not only focus on the acceleration of economic growth but primarily create new economic opportunities, new skills, skilled, well-paid, sustainable jobs and, most important, reduce inequality in our communities. There must be a skill strategy that aims to support people and give them the opportunities to achieve the skills that they need to succeed. We need a highly skilled workforce to achieve a high-skilled, high-waged economy. That is a serious proposition that the Scottish Government needs to acknowledge. What is Scotland's ambition? Is it a high-skilled, high-waged economy and where the city deals and other strategies fit to create that economy? The Scottish Secretary David Mundell said that when the Stirland and Clackmannanshire city region deal was signed, the ambitions and innovative deal will drive economic growth across the region, creating jobs and boosting prosperity for generations to come. He went on that it is now for Stirland and Clackmannanshire to get on with the hard work that is needed to turn those proposals into a reality. The reality for Clackmannanshire council is that it is on the brinky claps because of financial cuts. My question would be how are councils to do the hard work against a background of Scottish Government centralisation, Westminster austerity and ring-fencing of budgets, the growth and regional governance, cutting local government finance and the lack of local accountability for the delivery of city deals across Scotland? Many of Scotland's communities are under pressure from growth and poverty, cuts in public services, cost off in access to transport, poor housing and degraded environments. Local councils are on the front line of promoting and providing fair and inclusive services, trying to tackle those big issues that are in communities. Without that support, too many communities and individuals are at risk of being left behind. Infrastructure and economic development need staff to work with developers, investors and employers. That needs to be driven at the local authority level. Some of the staff parts that we have seen in some of those key services in recent years reduces the ability councils to be able to drive economic development and planning. The capacity of councils to support and deliver will have a direct impact on the achievements of the aims that are set out in the city deals. On that line, Presiding Officer, I thank you. In closing for the Scottish Conservatives and considering all the contributions made today across the chamber, we can all agree that when the Scottish Government and the UK Government work together, great things can be achieved. City and regional deals are vitally important for securing that long-term and sustained investment across Scotland. They unlock the potential to generate jobs and drive local and national economies. Investment in Scotland primarily focuses unfairly on the central belt, and city deals and regional economic partnerships provide a conduit for driving some of the investment elsewhere, giving other parts of Scotland more of a fighting chance at putting themselves on the map, attracting more businesses and realising potentials. Members today spoke of inequalities in education, health, infrastructure and our investment in roads. Our constituents have high expectations of the city deal investments. They want to see new jobs, better broadband and measures to tackle traffic congestion, as some of the Labour members talked about today. The city deals, as we know, were first announced by the UK Government in 2011 and are part of a UK Government industrial strategy with a long-term project to boost productivity and earning power by building on the strengths that we have here in Scotland. However, as we have heard today, that has not all been plain sailing. The local government and communities committee conducted the inquiry into city deals, and some of the points that I want to make have been expressed by the members. They have concerns about rural areas being doubly disadvantaged by city region deals. They concluded that there are likely to be parts of the country that fall outside the geographic boundaries of the deal in question or in certain parts of the area that is covered by the same deal. The board is an example of that, where, due to its proximity to Edinburgh, it was technically included in parts of a particular city deal, but it only saw limited investment for specific projects that not all constituents were happy with. Some members spoke of the negative points, as I said, of the city deals. Andy Wightman criticised a closed-door negotiation policy and calls for increased transparency in the future evaluation of projects in the city region deals. Shona Robison asked for more cash. Instead of welcoming the £1 billion funding from the UK Government, she chose to complain. 40 million of the 50 million of the extra funding from the Scottish Government is being put towards the Tay city deal, which will be spent on the cross Tay link. The road project was already planned. I gently remind Shona Robison that the people of Scotland are best served when its two Governments engage in a collaborative manner. Listening to Bill Bowman's calls for action and not words and collaboration and not grievance. Despite the SNP motion missing a significant point about the UK investment of over £1 billion, those benches remain positive and welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the head of the terms on the Borderlands growth deal will be signed towards the end of May. Again, good progress has been made. We now call on the Scottish Government to progress on the Scottish side of the deal. My colleagues Finlay Carson, Oliver Mundell and I stand ready to support the delivery and the successful delivery of Borderlands. We also welcome the significant progress of the Ayrshire growth deal, which Brian Whittle congratulated everyone on their persistence and hard work getting this over the line. Johann Lamont and Neil Bibby want to see transformational delivery—not a make-do-and-mend approach. Projects for new roads and bridges need to be delivered and they call on the Scottish Government not to delay on those infrastructure projects. Closer to home, Finlay Carson talked about the Borderlands inclusive growth deal, and the transformative deal remit spans across 10 per cent of the UK land mass, encompassing the Scottish border, Dumfries and Galloway, Carlisle, Cumbria and Northumberland. Borderlands would bring much-needed investment to a geographically important area of the UK, and the region is perfectly situated between urban connovations of the central belt and the north of England. In fact, 14 million people are within two hours' drive at the region, and the untaught potential that comes with that is enormous. The UK Conservative 2000 manifested committed to the growth deal, and then again in the autumn budget of 2017. We know that the borderlands economic benefit will straddle both the English and the Scottish side of the borders, encompassing those five local authorities. We were pleased that the plans were submitted in October last year, and I welcome the commitment from the Scottish Government on borderlands. I want to reiterate the point from the beginning that it is collaborative working of both Governments that really does deliver results. I am also glad that the feasibility for extending the border railway from Carlisle to Tweedbank is included. As many members here today mentioned about their own infrastructure projects in their own regions and B transformational, it would open up parts of the region that would otherwise continue to rely on road infrastructure, which, in some circumstances, requires substantial upgrading. Today, I also want to mention the rural areas that otherwise get missed. Again, I apologise for mentioning my constituency in that, but I know the country. It is areas such as the Ettrick valley, Tiviotdale and Hoyke, the constituents constantly write to me about genuinely being missed out on opportunities and jobs and investment and tourism. Another project of great worth is the improvement in broadband provision and speeds. Just this morning, we saw the latest figures from the witch report, which showed unsurprisingly that the border has a 10th slowest broadband out of 358 local authorities across the whole of the UK. The allocation of £200 million to pilot innovative approaches to rolling out full-fibre broadband in rural locations will go some way in improving the often patchy and unreliable broadband experience in the borders. I am sure that many members here today will agree with that. I thank Rachael Hamilton for taking the intervention. On that spirit of co-operation that she was talking about earlier on, she then agreed with me that the UK Government should actually increase its expenditure into the broadband scheme. I would say to Stuart McMillan that the Scottish Government has been very slow in rolling out the delivery. The money was allocated from the UK Government years ago but that money was not spent. I doubt that you will be able to deliver the broadband by 2021. I set you that challenge, Mr McMillan. We have heard a lot of support for the city deals today, but I think that sometimes the Scottish Government and the members who are here today are in a desperate attempt to stoke grievance. I do advise that they perhaps would seek teamwork and collaboration, but in closing for those benches, city deals and regional economic partnerships. We know that they bring prosperity and investment to the areas that, due to their geographical location, would otherwise be lost out. We support both the Scottish Government and the UK Government in delivering city region deals and support the campaign for every part of Scotland to be covered and benefit from the growth deal. I look forward to seeing both my own borderlines growth deal evolve and the other city deals and the islands deal, too. I hope that they come to fruition in the near future. There is a lot of potential out there, and we know that those deals help to unlock that. Let's see the next round to continue the good work that we have seen to date. Just with the avoidance of doubt, I say that Mr Wightman had the permission of the Presiding Officers and gave advance notice not to be present for closing speeches. I saw a couple of frowns on a couple of faces. That sets the record straight. I now call Jamie Hepburn to close for the Government minister until 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking those members who have taken part in today's debate on what I believe is a subject of central importance to growing Scotland's economy. Jamie Greene said at the outset that he hoped that the Scottish Government would approach the issue on a constructive basis. Let me assure Mr Greene that, of course, we approach it on the same constructive basis that we approach each and every issue that we are discharged with responsibility for. That said, in relation to his amendment, I can say that we will not be supporting the amendment that he has presented today, not because there is anything fundamentally or inherently wrong with the terms that it has set out. However, I believe that it is important that this Parliament sends a very clear message to the UK Government that it is our expectation in the spirit of partnership that the UK Government should match the level of investment. The Scottish Government is investing in city, region and regional growth deals, which it has failed to do so thus far. I thought that Alasdair Allan made a very telling point that he said that what seems to be driving this is the treasurer's insistence on expenditure, delineation along devolved and reserved functions. That comes at the same time that the Scottish Government is spending on the mitigation of the impact of changes to social security and on the delivery of broadband. Of course, those are both reserved areas. On the latter point to Rachael Hamilton, we will meet our commitments in relation to the R100 programme, with the investment of some £600 million of which only £21 million is being delivered by the UK Government. In a minute, I will. However, let me say in relation to the investment that we are making in reserved areas. I heard Jamie Greene say from a sedentary position, so it might not have been picked up for the official report, but I am sure that he was confirmed that he said that. He said that it was our political choice to do so, and I accept that entirely. However, he must accept and concede that the UK Government's decision not to provide equivalent funding to city, region and growth deals is a political choice to one that I regret and one that I hope that it will revisit. Of course, I will give way to Mr Carson. Finlay Carson, please. Can the minister confirm whether the Government is on track to deliver the road map with timings for the roll-out of R100 in July, as it is committed to? Much of that is out to procurement just now, but let me make the fundamental point. We will hit the targets that we have set ourselves. City, region and other growth deals in the regional economic partnerships are inspiring. I believe that there is recognition of their potential in accelerating economic growth in a way that will drive both prosperity and societal equity. The Scottish Government has committed to those arrangements. Since 2014, we have committed almost £1.3 billion to city, region deals across Scotland. We have seen deals for all of Scotland's city regions now agreed or reached the stage of a head of terms agreement and that those deals are providing the catalyst for the development of new regional economic partnerships, bringing together partners to maximise all assets and opportunities for their regions, creating new cross-boundary ways of collaborating and maximising opportunities on terms agreed by local partners. As I mentioned, city region deals are a relatively new part of the economic development landscape. That was mentioned by a few members. Andy Wightman mentioned that Audit Scotland will shortly undertake a review into what has been put in place so far. I welcome them to looking at city region deals at Colin Smyth. Andy Wightman, Jenny Gilruth and Alec Rowley suggested that communities need to be involved more in deal partnerships. I would say that it is of course of fundamental importance that communities are involved in the creation and the design of such deals. It should be a transparent process and democratically elected local authorities should seek to engage with their communities and ensure meaningful connection between communities and the process going forward. Colin Smyth and others spoke about trying to establish a clear timetable for the agreement of heads of terms for those deals that are under negotiation. I am very happy to say in response to what was set out a moment ago by Rachel Hamilton that the Cabinet Secretary will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland next week and we look forward to his confirmation that the timescale that she has set out for heads of terms will be what the UK Government sets out. There have, of course, been challenges, some challenges in getting over the line with the Borderlands deal. The Cabinet Secretary laid that out. Much of this is out with our gift because it relates to investment that the UK Government must make through local authorities in England. I do not think that anyone, any reasonable person, would expect that the Scottish Government delivers that element of the deal. Of course, we want to see progress. If the timescale is as Rachel Hamilton has set out, it will be welcome. Ayrshire was mentioned. The three local authorities have been very clear that they are ready to sign heads of terms this Friday, this week, this Friday and Thursday. We have written to the UK Government to make very clear, abundantly clear, that we are ready to operate to that timescale as well. Thus far, the reply from the UK Government, we have had none. Let me send this very clear message to the UK Government here and now. We remain ready and willing and good to go for this Friday. If the UK Government is listening, I hope to see them in Ayrshire on Friday to sign that deal. Brian Whittle As I mentioned in my speech that I spoke to David McDonnell on Friday, he says that the signing is imminent and that the Treasury has committed to that project. However, in the spirit of collaboration, as you well know within growth deals, there are some devolved projects, as well as retained projects and joint projects. It is well within the Scottish Government's ability to commit to devolved projects, because when it comes down to it, it does not matter to me or to the people of Ayrshire, whether they are the leader or the British Government leader. It just needs somebody to take the initiative. I think that we still lack some significant clarity on the timescale for signing the heads of terms for the deal. Yes, of course, there are investments that we can leverage. We have set out very clearly the investment we will make in the halo project that was mentioned by Willie Coffey. However, in terms of what we debate today, we need a specific timescale, not some measurement on the basis of it being imminent. We are ready to go this Friday, the UK Government should be ready to go, the local authorities are ready to go, and I hope that the imminence that Brian Whittle speaks of is as imminent as has just been set out. There was also a request from Mr Smith about a timescale for those areas that do not yet have any commitment from the UK Government for a deal at all. Argyllun Bute, Falkirk and the Islands, with the best will in the world, if the UK Government has not yet committed to a deal at all, it is somewhat difficult for this Scottish Government to be able to commit to a specific timescale. However, let me say to all members, particularly those who represent those parts of the country, that they can be assured of the Scottish Government's commitment to all areas of Scotland. Bill Bowman said that he was unclear on the Scottish Government's investment in the Tays City region deal. Let me make it very clear that we have said that we will invest £150 million in the deal. Some of the specific areas are £25 million in the Tays City biomedical cluster, £37 million in culture and tourism, £20 million in the regional skills and employability programme, investment that Shona Robison was welcoming, and now that he is more acquainted with the detail, I look forward to Mr Bowman welcoming as well. A number of members mentioned the situation with Glasgow airport. Let me be very clear that the Scottish Government is committed to working with those involved in the airport access project to find a solution to improve surface access to the airport. John Lamont wanted to know that there was proper engagement. I can give her that insurance, Transport Scotland and Network Rail are continuing to work with the airport access project team. Indeed, the cabinet secretary will chair the next meeting of the steering group, which includes leaders of both Glasgow and Renfrewshire council, as well as Glasgow airport. John Lamont says that that might not be good enough, but throughout the debate, we have heard a call for collaboration and co-operation. I think that the process that is being taken forward is a sensible one, and I can see or hear that Ms Lamont is keen to intervene. I am happy to allow that. John Lamont You have mentioned in relation to other projects the importance of clarity of timescale. Will you confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to the surface project, as outlined in the business deal supported by the finance that is there? Will you give us a timescale for the delivery of that project, not just engagement but the delivery of a project that not just Glasgow needs, but the west of Scotland and Scotland as a whole? Jamie Hepburn The timescales that I have spoken about have been precisely about the process of engagement. We need a clear timescale from the UK Government to engage so that we can get the city deals forward. The process that I have laid out in relation to the area that Ms Lamont is interested in is, I believe, the correct one. Jenny Gilruth and Alex Rowley spoke about another rail link this time for Leaving Mouth. What I will say is that city region deals play a hugely important role. No, they are not the sole source of investment. Transport Scotland is working with Fife Council on the Leaving Mouth sustainable transport study. I know that there is stakeholder engagement. That will continue. A preliminary option is under way. I know that the cabinet secretary is due to meet Ms Gilruth as the local constituency representative on the issue tomorrow to discuss further. Let me draw my remarks to a close, because what I want to set out is that through the city region deals, through the area growth deals that we have put in place that we are presently negotiating that we want to see put in place, we are seeing a significant difference made to the country as a whole. It must be for the country as a whole. I go back to Jamie Greene's remarks about a desire for constructive working. Over the past four years, we have worked with the UK Government in partnership on city region deals. The most challenging partnership has delivered results. However, the time now is right to continue to press UK ministers to match our investment. I believe that that is something that this Parliament must do and to press UK ministers to confirm the timescale for the heads of terms for Ayrshire and to join us in common purpose by making a formal commitment to 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals. I believe that the people of Scotland would expect nothing less, and I hope that the Parliament unites this evening to that purpose. Thank you very much, and that concludes this afternoon's debate, and we're going to go straight to decision time. The first question this afternoon is that amendment 15493.2, in the name of Jamie Greene, which seeks to amend motion 15493, in the name of Michael Matheson, on a city deal and regional economic partnership, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15493.2, in the name of Jamie Greene, is yes, 28, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 15493.1, in the name of Colin Smith, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 15493, in the name of Michael Matheson, as amended, on a city deal and regional economic partnership, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15493, in the name of Michael Matheson, as amended, is yes, 80, no, 33. There were no abstentions and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We're going to move shortly now to members' business, in the name of Monica Lennon, on cervical screening uptake statistics, but we'll just take a few moments for members and for the minister to change seats.