 Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's strengthening Scotland's economy so that it benefits all—in fact, say in those words—that's a very definition of inclusive growth. It's front and centre of what the Government is all about, and we are using all the levers at our disposal. Recent data shows that the economy is growing, though we want it to grow at a higher rate. The number of people on employment is at a record high, and unemployment is at a joint record low. Cities and their regions are the engines of our economy. Increasing jobs, investment and employment in our city regions will drive up national economic growth. City region deals are one of the key economic levers. 83 per cent of Scotland's population—that's 4.5 million people—live in the areas covered by existing or planned city region deals. To the latest figures in 2015, that same area equates to 86 per cent of Scotland's total GVA and 2.2 million jobs—85 per cent of total Scottish jobs. The investments that we have made in city region deals can be transformational. They will benefit Scotland as a whole, creating tens of thousands of jobs and upskilling labour markets. But deals can do much more than that. They can galvanise key partners to come together to drive regional economies in ways that go well beyond the investments that they deliver. So far, we, the Scottish Government, have committed over £1 billion over the next 10 to 20 years for city region deals in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh. Our investment exceeds UK Government investment in those deals. Indeed, the SG, the Scottish Government, is the biggest funder of city region deals in Scotland. Those deals are based on proposals developed by cities and their partners, harnessing local intelligence to identify what is needed to unlock inclusive growth. City deals are important investments, and they can attract significant private sector leverage. However, we have to see them in context. Over the last five years, local government in Scotland has received over £3.5 billion capital funding through the local government settlement. The Government itself has made significant investment to transform Scotland's infrastructure, with more than £4 billion being committed for 2017-18 alone, including the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen-Western peripheral route, the A9 dualling programme and rail improvements between Edinburgh and Glasgow. To cap at that list of deals, we have had three years where we have seen four deals. That is solid progress where we are making those deals, but it is also an expression of our commitment to deals for all our cities. Today, I want to confirm to Parliament that the Scottish Government will support city deals for Stirling and Clifmannanshire and for the Tay cities, which will be the first two-city deal in Scotland. In addition, I want to try to seek clarity and achieve consensus where possible with other partners on how all of Scotland can benefit from the deals that we strike. The first deal, of course, was Glasgow. It is now in its delivery stage. Along with the UK Government, we are supporting £1.13 billion of investment in Scotland's largest city and region, which is levering in around £3.3 billion of private sector investment. In Aberdeen, we are investing £125 million over the next 10 years, matched by a new UK Government to deliver projects including a new oil and gas technology centre and harbour infrastructure. We were clear when we struck that deal that more was needed for the north-east, so the Scottish Government alone committed to investing an additional £254 million in transport, digital and housing. I signed the Inverness and Highlands City region deal in January, committing up to £135 million over 10 years as part of a £315 million package. That investment will deliver jobs, it will also drive innovation and attract greater private sector investment, as well as, crucially for the Highlands, help to retain the young people who have the lifeblood of the region's future. In Edinburgh, after some hard negotiations with the UK Government to encourage them to match our ambitions, we signed a heads of terms agreement in July to invest £300 million over the next 15 years in the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region deal as part of a £1.1 billion package. That is where we are and we plan to go further. The Enterprise and Skills Review, which the chamber has discussed on a number of occasions, was published in June. We set out then our commitment to support the creation of regional partnerships across the whole country. Our national economic development agencies have been challenged to align regionally to support regional partnerships, and they have been proactive in doing that. We are very clear that future city and regional deals would be expected to use our inclusive growth model to prioritise their investments and monitor their progress. We are also very clear that private sector involvement in the partnerships is absolutely crucial, and that any Scottish Government—and I think that that is also true for the UK Government—will make their funding contingent upon the involvement of the private sector. In each of the deals that I have talked about earlier, we have leveraged private investment to support regional development, and I am delighted with that. I am sure that we can do even more. The private sector has to be an engaged partner, providing drive and direction to our regional economies. In parallel, and very importantly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is working with us to maximise the equality of opportunity within the city region deals. As I have said, we intend to achieve city region deals for sterling and club manager and for the taste cities of Dundee and Perth, alongside their partners in Angus and the north of Fife. Officials are now working with both sets of regional partners and with the UK Government, so that we can reach heads of terms agreements as soon as possible. I will continue to press the UK Government to match our commitment to transform those regional economies. Of course, our policy approach cannot be just about cities and the regions. It is important, extremely important, though they are. For our economy and all of our people to flourish, we need inclusive economic growth in all of Scotland, especially outside the traditional growth areas. Inclusive growth, as I said at the start of the statement, is about opportunities for everybody. To that end, we have said that we are supportive of a growth deal for the three Ayrshire councils, which would be the first regional deal in Scotland. Ayrshire's economy has lagged behind national growth for too long, and it is time to take decisive action. We are determined to deliver a deal that will bring jobs and investment to the area to reduce unemployment and to reinvigorate the local economy. We are also committed to tackling the economic challenges that are faced in the south of Scotland, so as well as our commitment to establish a new south of Scotland enterprise agency, the First Government, to do so, we are looking at a borderlands inclusive growth deal, and we are now entering into detailed discussions with Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders to explore a deal that supports their aspirations. We have also had discussions with Murray, Falkirk, Argyll and Bute, and each of those has growth proposals, while Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, of course, are seeking an islands deal. From the Scottish Government's point of view, I am willing to play my part and to work closely with the UK Government to agree the next phase of deals. To this juncture, at least, we have had good co-operation previously with Andrew Dunlop when he was in post, but I am now calling on the UK Government to play their part, to match our commitment and to support inclusive economic growth for all of Scotland, and crucially to develop a coherent and planned programme. It is not clear to me, in different parts of Scotland, what role the UK Government wants to play, and it is useful to us to know that before we proceed with any further deals. I have given a clear picture of our plans today. Our existing deals are delivering jobs and investment for Scotland. The £1 billion that is committed so far to city region deals is a clear signal that we respect the knowledge of regional partners who are best placed to identify what is needed to unlock inclusive growth in their regions. The point is that the cities and their partners who come forward with the proposals of necessity both ourselves and the UK Government have to prioritise which ones we accept and support, but it is they who come up with them in the first place. It is not proposals put forward by either of the two Governments. We are also expanding our regional economic policy to go beyond city deals and will support the creation of regional partnerships across the country. However, I want to have a clear commitment from the UK Government that they will work in partnership with us to deliver transformational city region deals for Stirling, in Clomannanshire, for the T cities and to go further to the other areas that I have mentioned. We also, if we are to meet the aspirations of the industrial strategy, and I have said repeatedly that I am willing to work with relevant UK ministers to help in that regard, I would call on the UK Government to help develop a co-ordinated approach to all of Scotland, including working with us in relation to all the areas such as the Ayrshers, Argyllun Butes, Murray, Falkirk, the Borderlands and the Islands. I make the commitment from my part and on behalf of the Scottish Government to work collaboratively with all of our partners to ensure that we get the best deal for cities, for regions and, of course, for the whole of Scotland. The minister will not take questions. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of his statement. We welcome the on-going collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments in relation to the city deals. City deals represent an opportunity for transformational change in the regions that they cover. That is to be encouraged, because Scotland's economy continues to struggle under this S&P government, as shown by yesterday's economic figures showing growth of only 0.1 per cent for the second quarter. 0.1 per cent growth might be good news according to Keith Brown, but let me make it clear that it is not good enough for Scotland. With official forecasts for Scotland's economy showing that this underperformance under the S&P will continue in the years to come, let me ask the cabinet secretary two things. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the Scottish Government plans to use the city deals to deliver higher levels of economic growth across Scotland? Can the cabinet secretary clarify with respect to the sterling and click mannisher and the Tay cities deals when the government expects heads of terms to be finalised and what the level of investment will be from the Scottish Government with respect to those two city deals? It is indeed astonishing that the Tories are now crept back to the position of pretending that the UK Government has no role in the Scottish economy. It is absolutely—I defyce belief that people are meant to have a level of intelligence about economic debate and still think to this position. Dean Lockhart, of course, famously did it when he declared before the last GDP that came out. That was all on the S&P shoulders. Afterward, when it was three times the growth of the UK, it was suddenly both Governments that were involved. We are now back to one Government only being involved. When we have that level of myopia on the part of the Tories, we are not going to get that joint working that we need to have. Thankfully, some of their colleagues in the UK Government are a bit more economically savvy and realise the role they have hence the industrial strategy, hence the shared prosperity funding that has been announced. In relation to the city deals, I laid out some of the ways in which we hope to achieve exactly that, how we intend to achieve economic growth by some of the measures that we have taken. They are varied. They are more varied than the later city deals. I think that that is fair to say. They have developed over time. In relation to Stirling and Clugmanushire, both in terms of the consum and timing, we want to do this as soon as possible, but both things depend on all partners coming together. Whether councils are involved, or their partners, whether it is the UK Government or the Scottish Government, nothing is agreed until it is all agreed. One of the things that leads to the idea of the total amount that is available will depend, because the UK Government has put the stricture of trying to make it balanced as much between reserved and devolved issues, which it had no regard to when it struck a deal with the DUP putting in over £1 billion for strictly devolved issues, but in relation to the city deals in Scotland it will only fund reserved issues. That helps to determine the quantum that is eventually agreed upon. We are in the process of discussing that with both the UK Government and Stirling and Clugmanushire councils. Jackie Baillie will be followed by Bruce Crawford. I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is much on which we can agree. Scottish Labour believes that cities in their regions are the engine rooms for growth. We welcome all city region deals and area growth deals, and we believe that regional partnerships are good. However, where I park company with the cabinet secretary is about the state of our economy, because growth in the economy was just 0.1 per cent for the last quarter. It is not good news. Let me contrast that with the UK, because over the course of the year growth in the Scottish economy has been less than 0.5 per cent, while it is 1.5 per cent across the UK. The employment growth that it outlines, while welcome, is predominantly in part-time, temporary jobs, many of them on zero-hours contracts as part of the gig economy. I feel that we can and should do better. Let me ask the cabinet secretary what is the percentage level of growth that he thinks the city region deals will deliver, how many jobs will be created, what constitutes success and how will he measure it so that we know what it looks like. Finally, does he believe that this is a positive example of pooling and sharing resources across the UK? On the last point that Jackie Baillie raises, I would say that if that was done on an equitable basis, of course it would be a positive example. However, when you have a situation where the Government announces out of the blue that they are going to put over £1 billion into one part, one devolved part of the UK for strictly devolved purposes, then it is not being done in a fair and transparent basis. I think that that much is evident. Of course, it is good that we are working collaboratively. We have sought to do that, we will continue to do that, but it is not being treated the same way in different parts of the UK, and that is unfortunate. In her preamble to her question, she mentioned GDP. The simple fact is that over the past six months Scotland's GDP has increased by 0.7 per cent in the UK, it is 0.5 per cent. If she was wrong in her general assumption, she was also wrong, of course, in her description, if she cares to listen to what I am saying. She was also wrong in relation to the part-time workers. Part-time workers in Scotland represent a smaller proportion of those in employment that they do down south. There are more people who want to work part-time in Scotland, rather than more people who have to work part-time, as they are seeing in the rest of the UK. She did not mention, as she could have mentioned, that we have more businesses in Scotland than ever before. We have the second highest fund-direct investment here in Scotland. Each of the individual city deals will have, as they have come forward with the proposals, estimates of the amount of jobs growth, and they will have to be aggregated when we get to the end of the processes. At that point, we can give a sum total of the ambition that is encapsulated in all the deals that we do. However, we are still some way from knowing how many deals and what the basis of those deals were. For that reason, we need to get clarity from the UK Government. What is going to be their approach in Murray and Argyll and Bute? Are we going to be working together or not? We have said that we are willing to do that. If the UK Government says the same thing, then we can proceed. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the statement today by the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government's clear commitment to ensure a successful outcome for the Stirling-Clack City region deal. Can the cabinet secretary please provide me with an update on how effective the working relationship has been between the council, the Scottish Government and the UK Government? What are the estimated timescales for successful delivery of the deal that is vital for the future, not only of the fabulous city and its fantastic surrounding rural communities in Clackmannshire? Is it a pity that Dean Shield has just concentrated on political pointscoring rather than talking about the Stirling-Clack City deal? Perhaps a pity has been a surprise. In relation to the Stirling-Clackmannshire region deal, we have constructive relationships with both the councils involved. One area in which we have seen some welcome flexibility is in relation to the fact that the UK Government, as I mentioned previously, now seeks to concentrate on reserved functions, not exclusively. There have been one or two exceptions to that. If that is the case, that creates a dilemma, not just in terms of Stirling-Clackmannshire, but also in the two cities deal. We will not be too stringent in applying that to each constituent part of the city deal. If one area has more reserved than devolved, as long as it balances up across the entire city deal, we have said that we would do that and made that suggestion. The UK Government, to its credit, Lord Duncan, or as he prefers to call himself, the Blue Baron, has said that he is also willing to support that as well. If that is the case, we can see a flexible approach being developed. In terms of the timescale, we have in place what we need to proceed to a deal in terms of the Scottish Government authority. I think that I am writing on understanding that the UK Government feels that it has to go through a budget statement or an autumn statement and make a statement at that point before it will proceed further. We are ready to go. I am not convinced at this point that both councils are ready to go with their proposals. I am not sure that the UK Government wants to proceed ahead of making that statement, which may well come in the next opportunity that it has, they call it a financial event. There is nothing that is holding us back from just getting those proposals finalised. As soon as we can get on with it, it is better for all concerned. Murdoff Rees is here to be followed by Mark Ruskell. The cabinet secretary mentioned in his statement that private investment had been levered in to the various city deals. Is he able to give us any figures for how much that amounts to? I can give a couple of examples. Perhaps, if he wants more detail, I can write to him on that detail. Perhaps the biggest contribution that is made through the Aberdeen Harbour Trust is £400 million. What we have done and the UK Government has supported that by some of the infrastructure works, which can make sure that we maximise that. The other deals have been more of a feature of the later deals than it has been of the earlier deals. We were not hugely involved in the development of the city deal that we committed half the money towards at half a billion pounds. We and the UK Government had, I think, it is fair to say, to put quite a bit of pressure on to make subsequent deals include private sector partners and will continue to do that with the future deals. I think that you will see in relation to the Stirling and Clutmanushire deal that there have been relationships developed with private sector partners like Codebase and others, and we welcome that. I am happy to give them the total of all the private sector involvement, but perhaps the biggest example of that would be the Aberdeen city deal and the Harbour Trust putting in £400 million. Our minister, there are 10 minutes left for 10 questions, just to be slightly brief with the answers. Mark Ruskell will be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, and I thank the cabinet secretary for advance copy of the statement. Clearly, city deals can be a strong driver for investment in low-carbon infrastructure and inclusive economic growth opportunities that come alongside that, but with the Edinburgh city deal, we saw proposals to support feasibility work on the Fife rail projects dropped. How will the Scottish Government ensure that feasibility work on St Andrews and Nubra rail re-opening is supported through the Tay cities deal, and does the cabinet secretary see opportunities to deliver feasibility work on the Stirling to Dunferman route through the Stirling and Clax deal? First of all, I reiterate the point that we have to take the deal that is proposed to us, and we decide which ones we will support. If the council does not put the projects that he has mentioned to us, we cannot be considered. I think that my colleague, Cymru, has already said different ways in which the leave-a-mouth rail link could potentially be taken forward, and he has addressed the chamber on that issue. However, as in terms of the other deals that are mentioned, whether it is in St Andrews or Alaw at Dunfermline, it would be down to the councils themselves to bring those forward. If they do bring them forward, we cannot guarantee to fund those things, but we can guarantee to look at all the projects that are submitted. Liam McArthur will be followed by Gail Ross. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement and welcome confirmation of the on-going discussions with the island authorities about a possible islands deal that I hope will help to address, among other things, the need for improvements in internal ferry services. Can the cabinet secretary also confirm that the Scottish Future Trust will continue to engage proactively with the island authorities on the development of those proposals? Can he also ensure that a specific official within his department is assigned responsibility as the primary point of contact for the island's authorities in this process? Yes, on both the points that Liam McArthur seeks assurance on, first of all, in terms of the engagement of SFT, they do that in any event with all local authorities, where local authorities express a need for some support in relation to mainly estate matters but other financial matters as well, and yes, they will remain engaged in relation to that. In terms of the official, if it is not known already, there are two officials here in the chamber who are very key involved in all those city deals. I will make sure that both the councils importantly and Liam McArthur are made aware of the name of the official. Gail Ross, to be full by Pauline McNeill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My constituents in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross have a perception that the Inverness City region deal is largely being used in Inverness, as opposed to supporting infrastructure and projects in remote and rural areas. What support does the Scottish Government give the local authority to make sure that the deal benefits the region as well as the city? I think that, first of all, with the caveat to Gail Ross, I have mentioned to others, we take the projects that local authorities and their partners bring forward. We do not seek to go behind that and suggest and propose projects, but given the point that she has raised, I think that two examples. First of all, the investment in the Highlands deal for the Science Skills Academy will provide young people with state-of-the-art teaching hubs for STEM subjects right across the region, and also the new innovative living project will deliver supported homes for people right across the region. Amongst other things, connectivity, as Gail Ross knows extremely well, is a huge issue in the Highlands, and helping to realise that Highland Council's ambition to be the best digitally connected rural region in Europe was behind some of the decisions that we, too, in terms of the digital projects that we are supporting in that deal. Pauline McNeill, to be full by Cath Gibson. Can the cabinet secretary confirm to Parliament that the access to Glasgow airport will be state-of-the-art and will be delivered by 2025? Can he confirm whether he or the Minister for Transport has met the new leader of Glasgow City Council to discuss delivering the key project for Glasgow City region? It may be helpful to Pauline McNeill if I lay out the basis on which the deals are made. The deals are made with support from the UK and Scottish Governments, but it is for the councils and their partners to bring forward the projects themselves. We have a role in what is called the assurance framework in trying to make sure that business cases are as robust as they can be, but it is for councils and their partners to bring forward those projects. Yes, there have been on-going discussions for many years on this issue, both myself and both of my predecessors involved with Glasgow City Council, both in its previous administration and in the new one. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to Ayrshire and his statement. Can he advise the chamber what progress has been made in discussions with the UK Government on the delivery of the Ayrshire growth deal? It is the support of all three Ayrshire local authorities and the SNP Government, but it requires £359.8 million from the UK Government to bring it to fruition. At the request of the three Ayrshire authorities, we asked the UK Government, because the councils could not get a response if they wanted to be part co-partners in an Ayrshire growth deal, and the response was negative from the UK Government. However, since that time, they have, somewhat out of the blue, supported the Halo Cymarnic project to a lesser extent than the Scottish Government, but they have supported that. As things stand, my understanding of the UK Government is that they do not want to be part of that Ayrshire growth deal, although it may well be the case that the support is forthcoming for different projects through the industrial strategy. Discussions on the deal between the Scottish Government and regional partners began earlier this year, and we are currently working closely with those partners to understand their full ambitions for their deal. Brian Whittle, before by Colin Smyth. I start by thanking the Scottish Government for following the UK Government's lead in matching the £3.5 million investment in the Halo project in Cymarnic, in addition to the £1.8 million from the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme for the geothermal district heating system. Given that other projects within the Ayrshire growth deal are already approaching shovel readiness, and my on-going discussions with the UK Government suggest that they are ready and willing to move to the next phase, it is clear that decisive action and formal commitment to investment from the Scottish Government would accelerate that process and demonstrate a meaningful commitment to the Ayrshire growth deal. So is the Cabinet Secretary prepared to quantify that financial commitment to the people of Ayrshire? I notice that there was no quantification of this apparent deal that the UK Government is willing on the verge of agreeing when if you ask the councils involved, certainly if you ask the Scottish Government, the response from the UK Government has been to say, no, we will not be part of an Ayrshire growth deal. Interesting if the position of the UK Government is now to be revealed by a backbencher from the Conservative Party in this Parliament. Just to be clear about the Ayrshire Halo Cymarnic project, of course, the Scottish Government put in £5.3 million as opposed to the £3 million. The reason that Brian Whittle can say that we followed the UK Government is because any collaborative working broke down completely, a pure isle attempt to get a headline to go ahead with it before the due diligence was done led to the UK Government announcing instead of working with the Scottish Government to get a conjoined announcement. If we can stop playing these stupid games and I'm sure that Ayrshire will benefit from it. Okay, okay. Members will behave please. Colin Smyth will be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Not quite yet, not quite yet. A few more minutes. Colin Smyth, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that local councils in the borderlands—I'm freezing Galloway, Scottish Borders in Scotland and Calil, Cumbria, Northumbria and England—have been working together for some time to develop a borderlands growth deal. Given the cabinet secretary's comments and his statement about inclusive growth and his pledge to work closely with the UK Government, will he give a commitment today that the proposals for a borderlands growth deal will be considered as part of the Scottish Government's budget process this December? Will he encourage the UK Government to ensure that the proposals are considered as part of its budget in November, so that we see investment in the economy of the south of Scotland sooner rather than later? I think that, first of all, we have to see those proposals and have the chance to consider them. That's the only responsible thing that the Government can do. Of course, we have said that we're supportive of the idea of a borderlands deal. It does raise the anomaly of the fact that, of course, Scottish Borders, if that's agreed, will have had two deals when parts of Scotland have had no deal, so that's what underlies my point about trying to get a bit of coherence about that. However, we have said in good faith that we will look closely and sympathetically at the proposals that are made, but we have to have time to consider that. People will expect that, if we're about to make a financial commitment, we do it in the right terms for the taxpayer, but that willingness to work with the borderlands proposal is there and is on the record. To ask the Scottish Government how its investment in the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region deal will benefit the whole area, but particularly in regard to how it will increase the housing supply? Given the shortness of time, if I can focus on the last part of Ben Macpherson's question, the commitments will include providing £50 million of investment in loans to unlock housing in seven strategic sites across the region, guaranteeing on a risk-sharing basis up to £150 million of investment to unlock up to 5,000 new homes in Winchborough and supporting the City of Edinburgh Council to establish a new regional housing vehicle to deliver a minimum of 1,500 homes with the Scottish Government committing £50 million capital grant and a consent to on-lend up to £248 million real support for housing in Edinburgh. Will the cabinet secretary update us on the prospects for the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure being part of the city's deal? Bill Bowman knows the details of that. All I can say is that we are considering the details of that. There are a number of proposals made from different parts of the country in relation to decommissioning. I remind people that 90 per cent of decommissioning work comes to the UK, a large proportion of which comes to Scotland. Most of that is plugging and abandonment, not so much the decommissioning of big rigs, but we want to have that business as well. We will support initiatives that will bring that business to Scotland. In terms of the cabinet secretary's reference to those areas out with the city region deals, can I welcome his comments to write with regard to Murray? Can you reflect on his recent meeting with the Murray council and elaborate on what steps have been taken to ensure that the UK Government is co-ordinating with the Scottish Government so that there is no undue delay? Cabinet secretary, without too much elaboration. As Richard Lochhead mentioned, I met the Murray council on 14 September. I think that there has been a collaborative approach so far, but one thing that is fairly obvious is that when you get a list of things that are largely in the devolved sector, then what that does is limit the potential for a deal. If the UK Government wants to come on board, if it wants to stick with reserved areas, then the most balanced proposals are the ones that are likely to get the greatest support. I have said to Murray council at that time that we are very happy to work with them and develop the proposals that they are currently working on, and we hope that the UK Government will be a partner in that as well. I thank the members for their contributions and the cabinet secretary for getting through all those points. I would like to put the record straight. I am obsessed with a family and athletic football club when I referred to Dean Schieles earlier. I should have, of course, referred to Dean Lockhart. I apologise to Dean Schieles. Of course, Dean Lockhart. The point was noted by the chair, and I think that the member was probably flattered to be compared to Dean Schieles. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 8062, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on stage 1 of the Wild Animals and Travelling Circuses Bill. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.