 Y ddyfodol yn dîm amdano gael i ddim mynd i yng nghyd, a dwi gyd, ac yn y gyd, i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i gyd, i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i gyd, a ddim mynd i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i gyd, i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i ddim mynd i gyd. Roedd y troi'r gyda ei ysgol, ac roedd yn cyf 이후rau â'r sefydliadau de'r gwaith gyda eu cyfidasgau complexaidd yng Nghymru a'i ddim mynd i mwyn ar hyn o'r ffordd mewn i'r blwysigol gan y Byrgol i ddim mynd i gyd. y Fomiliad Llywodraeth a Rhyg, ac mae gandd Chuck Marrhodd yn gwahanol ar gyfer y diwethaf. Dwi'n dechrau i sicrhau ddarfuniaeth i fynd i ddylchwynt, rydyn ni'n gael i chi'n cymwynt ymlaen i'rwartod o'r dd Gymru, Sartr Steph. R蒂ol wedi cyrraffau i gael y cymwyntau, gan y cymwyntau, ond rwy'n dweud o'r caelordechol cwaith gyda'r aici, ac rydyn ni'n adnodd i chi'n gwybod eisiau. imitation of the United Kingdom, including four in Scotland. And on top of that, we've also invested in two investment zones and two green free ports. Both of those investments have been done in partnership with the Scottish Government, they've been co-designed with the Scottish Government, and the geographical spread, but also the enthusiasm shown by local government in Scotland and by business in Scotland I think is testament to the power of two governments working together. Felly, wrth gwrs, mae Llywodraeth Cymru a Llywodraeth Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth Cymru have disagreements on issues on obviously most probably the constitutional future of Scotland within the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to be able to say that there is pragmatic day-to-day working at every level with ministers and officials who remain committed to doing the very best for the people of Scotland. Well, thank you very much for that opening statement. I'll kick off with a few questions and then I'll let colleagues in from around the table. I think one of the key issues, of course, about the whole levelling up agenda and of course when I say that I talk about the other funding streams that you mentioned, I think colleagues will go into some of those in a bit more depth. Is the actual volume of cash that's actually allocated? So I'm just wondering how the money, not that it's been allocated that has actually been spent in Scotland over the last three years. Compare, for example, to what it would have been if Scotland had remained in the European Union? Well, again, I think that the amount that we've allocated, I think, has been allocated in a more responsive way than the way in which EU funds were allocated. But overall we are committed to making sure that with the UK-shared prosperity fund we match the funding that the EU would have given. We've still got a number of EU projects which are in their outworkings providing funding. But overall our manifested commitment, which we've kept, is to match the amount that the EU spent through the UK-shared prosperity fund and other funds. And I think I'd argue that things like green fee ports and investment zones actually show a greater degree overall of investment from the UK government than would have been the case if it was left simply to the EU. I mean, talk about an increase in investment but I'm not hearing any actual funds of what has actually been spent over the last three years. And the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that UK departmental budgets in the forthcoming financial year will actually be less than they were in 2010. That doesn't really help levelling up or that agenda, does it surely? Well, you're absolutely right that across the whole spending pattern, across the whole of the United Kingdom, we've had to take account of some of the significant inflationary pressures that are a result of global economic factors. However, it is the case that there's a real-term spending increase in public spending in our plans across the United Kingdom. And in terms of specifics, we are spending £52 million on green fee ports, £160 million on investment zones. The levelling up projects, 24 levelling up fund projects that we have so far are worth £485 million. UK-shared prosperity fund already committed £212 million and that will increase over the years to come. And then the levelling up partnerships that we have is another £80 million, £140 million in addition for the long term plan for times. And that's on top, of course, of the money that's been committed in the past through city and growth deals, which amounts to about £1.5 billion. And there are some other smaller funds as well alongside that. Yeah, there seems to be quite a plethora of funds that has to be said and it's trying to get a kind of grip on where they all are and how much is actually being spent on the ground as opposed to being allocated. But one area where there's no dispute in actual fact is that the amount of capital that's going to be available to the Scottish Government is going to reduce significantly over the next five years by up to 20 per cent according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That deputy First Minister said in real terms it's more likely to be 11 per cent, but whichever of those figures you actually accept, surely if capital budgets are declining, that kind of works against what you're trying to do in terms of levelling up, if capital budgets are declining at the same time. And we're talking much more in terms of capital reduction in Scotland than we are in terms of the money that's being spent in levelling up. Well, I'd say two things there. The first thing is that overall the amount that's given to the Scottish Government for the Scottish Government to spend through the block grant is at the highest level ever, 41 billion pounds. And again, it's for the Scottish Government to decide quite rightly how it allocates that money amongst its various priorities. The other thing I'd say in terms of capital spending is that the whole of the UK benefits from the full expensing that was brought in at the budget, which allows investment in the private sector, capital investment in the private sector in the productive economy, to be set against tax. And that, of course, is a big boost for industry, for jobs and for investment as well. I should say that some of the capital investment that we've been looking at UK-wide is also contributing to that economic growth as well. And I think it's the case that only today there is renewed capital investment from Sumitomo in the Green Freeport in Cromarty. And that is an example of the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together to unlock capital investment that creates new green jobs from the private sector. Yes, I mean, I think you're right that the resource budget has gone up by above inflation if we accept the GDP deflate at 1.7 per cent. Even with that capital allocation from the UK Government is declining significantly and that is really, I think, beyond dispute. In what you talked about initially, you talked about inflationary pressures. And I think that's a really important issue because, as you know, my own area, we were delighted in October 2021 to be awarded £23.7 million for the upgrade of the B714 in North Asia. And I think that that will make a significant difference to the North Asia economy. It was welcomed across the board, as you know, myself and the local MP both supported that, as did the local authority across the party. But since then, what's happened is that inflationary pressures have hit that project hard. I mean, the cost is now increased by over £5 million. And when you came to this committee two years ago and I raised the issue of inflation going forward, you said that that would be a matter that would be considered in terms of these projects. Now, my understanding is that the local authority's been advised that they will not have an increase in the funding on about 10 per cent that's currently been spent so far because of all the kind of work that has to go in before such projects are started. And so they've effectively got a £5 million shortfall on that project. So surely if the United Kingdom Government wants these projects to succeed on, I'm pretty sure it does, then in cases where the recipients of living up funding have absolutely no control over costings because of the construction inflation we're all well aware of, the UK Government should, to ensure that these projects are delivered as originally intended, step up to the plate in terms of providing additional funds. I think it's a very fair point. I say three things. The first thing is, obviously there's a responsibility on local partners to make sure that they apply appropriate discipline to any project. When funding was allocated in the first place, there's always a little bit of rigour room, but I do take your point that inflation has been coming down now, of course, from 11.1 to 4 per cent. So that does help, but it is still a significant factor. The second thing is that local authorities can submit what we call a project adjustment request, which means that if they believe either that the scope of the project needs to be reduced or altered or the time scale over which it's delivered extended or if they feel that they need additional funding, that critical additional funding in order to deliver a project, then these are all things that would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Okay, and has that happened? Have you got any examples in Scotland of where that's actually happened so far? I know there have been a number of project adjustment requests that have been made by some local authorities in England. I don't have a record of any project adjustment requests in Scotland. Okay, I mean it would be helpful to know that, because obviously the rule concerns that the local authorities then have to allocate money from other capital funds, which are under pressure already to ensure that these levelling up projects are completed. Just to move on, there's an organisation here who's submitted some information to us. They're called Slade, not to be confused with the 1970s pop group, I have to say. It's a Scottish local authority economic development group, and they have a number of issues they have raised with us. For example, in terms of how funding was allocated, they feel that they were concerned that there's no local authority that was successful in round one, was successful in round two. They said that they were concerned that this was a consequence of a UK Government decision taking at a late stage in the process not to prove any bid submitted by a local authority that had been successful in round one. And they say that this gives rise to doubts that the bid selected were not necessarily the best submitted in terms of quality. So I'm just wondering why the Government decided to do that, because obviously some authorities are a lot bigger than others, Glasgow being an obvious one. And they had a number of projects they want to submit because Glasgow obviously has a disproportionate number of deprived areas. Yes, no, I absolutely appreciate that. I would say that the whole process of allocating funds has evolved over time and has changed. And we've taken on board some of the concerns that have been expressed by local authorities, and also some of the welcome experience that some local authorities have shared with us about the effective working of the process. We have formula, which seek to allocate the funds on an objective basis, and I think we've shared some of the details with the committee and I can share more today. The important thing, I think, is that if we look at spending in the ramp across all three rounds of the levelling up fund, and we also look at the spending that's been allocated through green keyboards, investment zones, levelling up partnerships and elsewhere, we have a very good geographical spread across Scotland and a particular concentration on areas of greater deprivation. So we assess both the quality of the bid, the deliverability of the bid, but also the metrics which lead us to decide whether or not a particular area is important. So, you know, it is the case that good bids have been funded, including a number of bids in Glasgow, and indeed in the greater Glasgow economic area, our long-term plan for towns involves long-term funding for Clydebank, Coffbridge, Greenock, and these are all communities that we recognise have suffered as a result of economic and industrial decline in the past. They are being supported, as well as specific projects in Glasgow. In Glasgow, of course, is an investment zone and is receiving as a result some £80 million in order to support the work that's going on there. And there are smaller projects in Glasgow, including work going on to revive Drumchappel Town Centre, which are also evidence of our commitment to that broad geographical spread. Yes, I think at something like 21 of 32 Scottish local authorities have received awards through the three rounds. But one of the issues that came to us from Clackmannanshire, for example, which is one of the smallest local authorities, the smallest mainland local authority with about 50,000 people, is that they had real difficulties in terms of the time scales for actually submitting allocations, and, therefore, they were unable to bid. But they say that because of the size of their local authority and the lack of capacity they have within that local authority in terms of their own staffing, because these kind of projects don't come up all the time, and they don't necessarily have these officers sitting there hoping that they will. They are kind of disadvantaged. I would also say on that, with regard to other local authorities that have not received funding, some local authorities may seem prosperous on paper across the board. East Lothian is an obvious example. Much of East Lothian is very prosperous. But parts of East Lothian are not prosperous at all and include some of the most deprived areas of Scotland, so they feel that the metrics that the UK Government is using are not taking account of some of those kind of issues. No, again, I think that's fair. So, with flat manager, again, as you said, I think it's the smallest local authority in Scotland, and maybe East Ramparkshire or East Dunbartonshire, which are broadly similar in size. So, yes, there are challenges there, but there are also some other small local authorities, smaller in terms of population, but not size like Dumfries and Galloway have been successful in putting in bids. And Dumfries and Galloway is, I would argue, in a way, analogous to East Lothian, an area where some people would think is prosperous but has significant pockets of deprivation. And they've successfully navigated the process. It's also the case that every local authority in Scotland received £125,000 in capacity funding to help with bidding. So, irrespective of size, that money was allocated to everyone from the Highland Clack Manager. So, again, I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that in the allocation process, a slightly different waiting might have meant to some people a slightly more effectively targeted allocation of funds, but we believe that the approach that we've taken balances deprivation overall with the ability of the council to deliver, and also there is a specific alteration that we made to the way in which the levelling up fund is allocated to take account of Scotland's needs. So, one thing that is specific to Scotland and not other parts of the UK when it comes to allocating levelling up funds is dwelling vacancy rates. In effect, depopulation, because as we know, the population of Scotland and like the population of the rest of the UK has generally moved from west to east in terms of growth over the course of the last few years. So, that's why Lough projects take account of that depopulation factor, and dwelling vacancy rates was agreed to be the best proxy for that factor. The Western Isles is one of the most deprived areas of Scotland and the most rural in its southern depopulation, and it hasn't received any funding, for example, so that's an issue. I mean, one of the things I think as well that's come up is the fact that because, well, I'll just quote what the National Audit Office is saying, they're basically saying that, you know, three funds, UK prosperity fund, levelling up fund, towns fund have overlapping objectives and were designed and announced at different times such that local authorities couldn't align their plans. They seem to be indicating that within the UK Government itself, perhaps departments weren't speaking to each other the way they should, so that you had a more kind of complete rounded picture, just so that resources are allocated much more effectively and efficiently. Do you think that's something that's a kind of, there's some truth in that, I mean? I don't think so, no. I mean, again, different people will interpret the purpose of these funds in different ways, but I do think that they all serve specific, and yes, sometimes overlapping purposes, but that can be a good thing. So, to take, obviously, a city I know well, Aberdeen, it was successful in the first round of levelling up funding. That money, £20 million, is going to a significant new city centre project, which is transforming the old market area just behind Union Street, and that is complementary to the work that's being done in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire through the investment zone funding, which in turn is complementary to the work that is being done through the energy transition zone. They're all examples of working together there. And you mentioned the Western Isles, and it's true that the Western Isles was not an early recipient of levelling up funding. However, the Western Isles is now with the UK Government and the Scottish Government in a levelling up partnership, which means £20 million going to the Western Isles Council. In addition, there are a number of specific projects that we've backed in the Western Isles. Money has gone from the Shared Prosperity Fund to Macaulay College, which is a fantastic initiative that helps young people in the Western Isles. And these are all examples of our efforts to ensure that the Western Isles, because of the challenges you quite rightly point out, are prioritised for targeted funding. More broadly, the Western Isles and, for that matter, our Gailan Bute and Orkney and Shetland councils play a big part in our islands forum, which is a UK-wide body, which the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland executive and the UK Government have set up together to deal with specific needs of islands communities. And at the moment, there is a Shared Task and Finish group that we're working together to look at connectivity, not with the issue of ferries, but also digital connectivity between the islands and the mainland of Great Britain. Okay, thank you very much. I'm going to open up this session to colleagues around the table now in the first to ask questions will be Liz to be followed by John. Good morning, Secretary of State. When you were last at committee back in February 2022, three members of the committee, myself, Michelle Thompson and Daniel Johnson at the time, asked you a little bit about the objective analysis that goes into the decision making process as to who gets money and who doesn't. And you said on that occasion that you said, and I quote, you're absolutely confident that the assessment is objective. But you would come back to the committee to explain if we have any concerns about that objectivity and whether people understand the process by which awards are made. And since that time, we were very pleased to hear not only if we had very complimentary comments about the process from, in the certainly last year, we had 13 out the local authorities saying that they were very pleased with this. But obviously there are some local authorities who have not been successful and they are slightly critical about the fact that they are not aware with sufficient transparency about who gets what and who doesn't. Could you update us on where we are with that? Yes, of course, and thank you, Liz. So when it comes to the levelling up fund and the allocation of money, we identified priority areas and there are three principal metrics that we use initially. The first is productivity and that's GVA per hour. The second is the unemployment rate amongst those over the age of 16. And the third is skills. And we measure the proportion of the 16 to 64 population without the NVQ or equivalent qualifications. There are also different publications in Scotland and England, but we use those as the first set of metrics. Then, as I mentioned in Scotland in particular, in Scotland in particular, we have the dwelling vacancy rate, the depopulation, the rarity measure. So all of those are the principal metrics. And then once that we've identified areas, it's then the case that we look at a scoring for skills, pay, productivity and health. And then we allocate scores to different areas. And for the most recent levelling up fund, for all of those places that we've identified as priority places against this scoring mechanism, anywhere across the UK that scored above 74.25 got money in Scotland, the threshold was slightly lower at 72.25. There are slightly different methods of allocation for the long-term plan for towns for levelling up partnerships, i.e. the money that's going to the Western Isles, the Bordeaux, Dundee and also our Guile and Bute. We worked with the Scottish Government to have a shared methodology, and that's a composite methodology which incorporates both some of the metrics I've mentioned in terms of levelling up need and then some information from the Scottish Government that again related to access to services and depopulation. So the process is transparent. Of course there are some local authorities which haven't yet received funding, Angus, Perthink and Ross, which I understand are disappointed. But what we want to do is to work with them because there are other ways in which we can support them. And again to take a case in point, Dundee understandably was disappointed not to receive an investment zone or a green free port. But the objective metrics that we used meant that we could enter into a levelling up partnership with Dundee. And I have to say that the leader of Dundee council, obviously an SNP leader, John Alexander, was initially appointed as a very constructive partner in making the case for UK Government investment in Dundee. Thank you, that's a very helpful update. Would it be your view that in the intervening period between your previous attendance at this committee two years ago, there are now better relationships between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in terms of assessing what these criteria are? I believe so, and I believe that's been influenced by the work of the committee and also our engagement with COSLA at a corporate level and individual leaders at local government level. When it comes to those local authorities which are disappointed and obviously not being successful, is there a process by which they can be fully aware of where the criteria was not met for them and why their bid filled? Do they understand why it is exactly why their bid wasn't successful? I would hope so, yes. Again, it will sometimes be the case that bids will also be assessed on the basis of deliverability and some people might think that we're taking a more critical view of their capacity to deliver than is actually the case. But we have a team of UK Government civil servants based in Scotland led by a wonderful civil servant called Lauren Bruce who will work with any local authority in order to make sure, or indeed any institution, in order to make sure that they understand the bidding process. Obviously, there are some bids. This is a smaller pot in the community ownership fund which will be put forward by individual institutions and communities below local government level and Lauren and her team also work with those. And there have been some successful bids in Paratheon Cymru and in Angus from communities that even though the local authority may not have received the money, the community has. So the Rannah hub in Paratheon Cymru received money, I think something like £250,000 because of a successful community-led bid. Again, that's very helpful. Just one further point, if I may. Another question we had at the time was about the data that was being used to underpin the criteria that you've just spoken about, whether that's productivity, unemployment, morality, et cetera. And we were a little concerned two years ago about the fact that some of the interpretation of that, which came largely from the Office of National Statistics, was maybe not quite the same data that was being used when it comes to assessing what's happening in the Scottish economy. Has that problem been ironed out? I hope so. We have a concordat which the UK government and the Scottish government have on the use of ONS data. And my understanding is that even though there may be different interpretations of it, there's a sort of shared database or shared base of data. But one of the things that I'm very, very keen to do is to make sure that, just as the committee needs the best possible data to scrutinise the performance of the Scottish government, that the Scottish government and you get access to our data as well. And if the committee feels that there is, for any reason, a better or fairer interpretation of data by the Scottish government than by the UK government, then we will take that into account. Again, that's helpful because I think it's very important that we do have the ability to scrutinise whether the money that is being awarded is obviously being spent in the right place and whether it's seen to be on an objective and fair basis. Thank you very much, Secretary of State. Thank you. John, to be followed by Michael. Thanks very much, convener. Mr Gove, the whole term levelling up suggests to me that areas or people who are poorer or who are further down the scale or however it's described should be pulled up nearer the people at the top. So that's a real emphasis on need. And yet there seems to be, and in some of the answers you've already given to Ms Smith and others, the idea of a geographic spread of the money that's going out. And I just wonder if these two are compatible. You know, some people would have expected all the money to go to really needy areas and none to go to Aberdeenshire despite the fact that Aberdeenshire might have some pockets of deprivation. How do you square these? Well, I think in a way you put the case very fairly. So we allocate the money against objective criteria. And as you quite rightly say, the nature of need varies according to geography as well as economic factors. So one of the points that was very well made I think by committee members the last time I appeared was the way in which EU funding recognised this in the past. Hence the significant share of EU funding that went to the Highlands Nile because of the particular challenges, productivity and connectivity challenges that communities there face. But what I would argue is that we've seen particularly, for example, through the long-term partnership for towns and particularly through the towns with which we've been working are recognised that, as I say, you know, Clydebank, Cochbridge, Greenock, Irvine, Kilmarnock, these are all communities. I think we would all agree with enormous talent and potential there, but which haven't always benefited from the broader economic growth that the UK, I should say, as a whole has enjoyed. So we do seek to make sure that funding goes to areas where productivity has been lower in the past and there's a chance for productivity to improve. But we also recognise that, by its very nature, Scotland like the whole of the UK has diverse communities that we need to stitch into this broader pattern of growth and prosperity. Is it too early to say if any of this has been successful? I mean, I realise that some of the money is still to be spent. When will we be able to make a judgment as to whether UK has been levelled up and some of these communities have been levelled up? Well, in our levelling up white paper, we set out a series of missions and they're UK-wide. They depend upon partnership, obviously, to succeed. Some in the Scottish Government have criticised the establishment of those missions, but we feel that, as a UK Government, we have a responsibility to set out our ambition for the whole UK. I think it's a legitimate area of political debate as to whether or not we've set the right missions. But we are holding ourselves to account on everything from educational improvement through to improved public health through to improving productivity. And we are explicitly saying that when it comes to, for example, research and development money, that we need to show that we're improving the way in which research and development money from both the public and the private sector is allocated outside London and the southeast. Then, as I say when it comes to things like public health, we want to ensure that we close the gap between the poorer and the wealthier areas of the country in a number of metrics. I think most people would agree that the missions that we've set are quite challenging and we're very happy to be held to account for them. But on a day-to-day basis, one of the other things will be delivery. And, as I mentioned earlier, the choice of the Inverness and Cromity Green Freeport was driven by a recognition that there have been various efforts to ensure an industrial presence in that part of the Highlands over the years, some of which have been more successful than others. This is our commitment to making sure that the skilled workers in that part of Scotland have an industrial future. And, as I say, the good news reported in the P&J today suggests that that at least is moving in the right direction. I just wonder if the amounts of money are going to make that kind of significant difference. Glasgow is not the biggest city in the UK, but it's fairly large. We got £13 million to upgrade a set of dilapidated stables in quite a wealthy part of the city, it has to be said. The £15 million from Drumchappels is very welcome, but the £28 million you've already mentioned in the investment zone as well, but these are only scratching the surface in Glasgow. Would the amounts not need to be a lot higher to make a real impact? Well, I think, again, it's important to see things in context. So it's always the case that the UK Share Prosperity Fund is giving £22 million to Glasgow, and it's also the case that we have committed alongside the investment zone to, for example, some specific investment in innovation. So something called the SDAC, the Small Things Accelerator Centre, is an investment that we've made in Glasgow alongside the investment zone in order to try to stimulate growth. I take your point about the Pollock stables, but it was a bid that was put forward by Glasgow City Council, backed by the leader of Glasgow City Council. What it will contribute to is making the already existing ecosystem around the barrel collection and so on even more attractive for tourism. It also contributes to an educational offer, and while that area itself is relatively prosperous, as you know, it's surrounded by, or rather adjacent to, significant areas of deprivation in Glasgow as well. OK, thanks so much for that. You've already mentioned a number of times the long-term plan for towns and the seven towns that were chosen. Can you say a little more about how the seven towns were chosen? Yes, again, we have a set of criteria. So we ranked local authorities by levelling up need, and that was alongside the metrics, or using the metrics on the levelling up white paper. So there, the metrics included pay, productivity, skills and health, as I mentioned before. We also looked at population size and levels of deprivation, and then we excluded local authorities without built up areas which were within the population threshold for towns, which is about 20,000 to 100,000. I mean, we can always argue for, you know, a greater degree of flex, but we felt this was the right way of defining a town. And then the most deprived built up area within each of the local authorities identified was then selected using the index of multiple deprivation. And we used the specific Scottish index of multiple deprivation, which I think is derived in a slightly different way from the IMD in England. And we then had a cap of no more than three local authorities for each particular region, and the top seven eligible local authorities were selected. So that's Clyde Banking, as I say, in Weston-Bartonshire, Cotebridge in North Lanarkshire, Dumfriesen, Dumfriesen-Galloway, Elgin and Murray, and then Greenock and then Irvine and Kilmarnock, and Irvine's in North Ayrshire, Kilmarnock's in East Ayrshire. OK, thanks for that. I mean, it does all just seem very complex. I mean, clearly you've got staff and councils in the Scottish Government, all of staff doing quite a lot of work on this. Either you've been analysing the figures or the councils have been putting in bids in the competitive process and so on. Do you think in retrospect that having so many funds with so many factors involved has been the best way of allocating the money? I mean, you could just have said, right, well, best on the SI, IMD or something like that, we'll just give, we'll top up the housing budget right across the UK, and that would have been pretty welcome in most council areas. And it would have saved all the analysis and all the applications. Would that not have been a better method? Well, here the work for the most part has been done by the UK Government, with statistics and support from the Scottish Government, but I think that it's in the nature of levelling up and in the nature of public policy that you need to use different tools in order to help different areas. So there will be some parts of the country where there's already a mix of talent and skills and additional intervention can catalyse that into economic growth. There'll be other areas with connectivity issues where that is the intervention that will be required in order to level up. And again, you know, when, for example, Fiona Robson is thinking about allocating money within the Scottish Government's budget, there will be some quite complex trade-offs that she and her team will have to undertake. But she's doing that in order to make sure that she can get the right tax mix as she sees it and get the right spending interventions as she and the First Minister see them. So, yes, there is sometimes work for local authorities to do in some of the bidding process, but most of the work, most of the assessment work is done by UK Government. And the work that local government is doing is in a way a sort of testing of their ability to deliver some of these projects. I think with that one to put words into people's mouth. While many in local government will prefer a straightforward allocation process, they also recognise some of the benefits of a competitive process alongside that as well. OK, can I just have one other area I want to touch on. With some of the councils we spoke to, we're talking about need for more flexibility. Either on timescales, East Lothian for example, talked about it would be good to have a five-year funding model. So, it is really a plan ahead. And Renfrewshire and Aberdeenshire both said that, for example, the money for numeracy wasn't really a priority for them. They would have liked to have used it maybe for literacy or something else. Is there enough flexibility in the schemes? I think that's a fair challenge and I think that the fast thing is that I would very much like to have a longer term approach throughout. And that's one of the things that we're discussing in terms of the current spending review. I mean, again, the settlement in the Scottish Government's budget, in Shona Robison's budget, is also our one-year settlement. For reasons I well understand, it's not a criticism, just an observation. So, I'm sure she, like me, would prefer to be in a position where we could have a longer term framework. And we do want to work with local authorities to achieve that. I would say that the long-term plan for towns explicitly creates a longer framework, a 10-year framework. And that's the sort of direction of travel I'd love to be in that people would have certainty about their relationship with the UK Government over that longer term period. On the other point about learning, your second point, again, I think that we're always open to the need for a greater degree. A greater degree of recognition of the lived experience of local authorities. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Michael Gefford by Ross. Good morning, Secretary of State. You've set out some detail already in terms of the application processes and assessment criteria around levelling up fund, community ownership fund, the long-term plan for towns. Welcome to hear much of that. But why did the process on investment zones in Scotland diverge so significantly from all of those other areas? Well, we developed a joint methodology with the Scottish Government. Investment zones as a principle, firstly, there have been enterprise zones in the past. Enterprise zones were created with the brainchild of Michael Hasselltime. And then there were enterprise zones that were also created at the beginning of the coalition government. During the beef period when this trust was Prime Minister, she thought about the investment zones being spread very far and wide across the UK and then being driven primarily by deregulation. Once Jeremy Hunt became Chancellor and she soon became Prime Minister, what we wanted to do was to have a more targeted approach built around areas of research excellence. And we wanted to make sure that we could align those in Scotland with Scotland's regional economic partnerships. And so that is why we developed a shared approach, firstly with Kate Forbes and then with her successors in order to identify appropriate areas. So in England there was an invitation to application that was published on the 2nd of October 2022. And that included guidance for the expression of interest. And those investment zones were announced in the budget on the 15th of March 2023. In Scotland there was no bidding or invitation process at all. Neil Gray answered a PQ to me back in July of last year saying that invitation towards an investment zone was not subject to a bidding or application process. Again, why the divergence? Partly because local authorities in Scotland said that they didn't want to go through a bidding process. Again, one of the points that's been made by some local authorities is that the process of bidding can be resource intensive and that if you put together a bid in a particular way and this was reflected after some of the learning from the Green Freeport process that it can consume scarce resource. I might self-believe that a competitive process can often be a very useful way of testing the ability of local government to deliver. On that point you say that local authorities didn't want a bid. Were local authorities all asked? We have 32 of them in Scotland where they were asked and said, do you want to bid for this and you don't want it? I've echo-eyed all correspondence on this. I don't see any evidence that local authorities were asked whether they wanted to have a bidding process or to have an investment zone. My understanding is that local authorities in Scotland said that when it came to this process they would prefer not to have a bidding process. It's certainly the case that we wanted to deliver it in partnership with the Scottish Government. What we agreed with the Scottish Government is that we would score each of Scotland's regional economic partnerships against their economic and innovation potential, their well-being economy need and the strength of their knowledge anchors and also other sectoral strengths. On that basis we came to an agreed solution. One of the things that, again, I would stress is that wherever possible, with all of our levelling up interventions, we've wanted to work with the Scottish Government in order to find a way of allocating resource appropriate. Do you not think it was not even suboptimal but really unacceptable that the selection criteria and the process was only published retrospectively seven weeks after the decision was actually announced? Again, that's in stark contrast to what happened in the English process. I don't think so, no, because again I think what we wanted to do was to make sure that we delivered an investment zone relatively speedily and the choice of investment zones complements the other interventions that we've made elsewhere. Again, the process from my point of view is to seek partnership with the Scottish Government wherever possible and to accommodate ourselves to the Scottish Government's priorities as well, which is why theoretically the UK Government could say, we're going to impote, we're going to create and direct investment zones in this area or that area with that geography or this geography. The Scottish Government has made its own decisions about the economic geography of regional and economic partnerships and so we work with that. Again, to sort of editorialise slightly, the argument is sometimes made that the UK Government careers around like some sort of economic Excel bully dog deciding what it will do in Scotland willy nilly. In fact, the reality is partnership with the Scottish Government. You stressed the issue of transparency. I'm disappointed that you don't think it's unacceptable for the process to be published ahead of time. Let me draw into probably the speculation around this and a lot of the coverage that came at the time. The allocation investment zones were in Glasgow where the SNP are defending seats in the general election and in Aberdeenshire where the Conservatives are defending seats in the general election. Do you not understand that in the absence of a published criteria and a process ahead of time, you open up both of your parties, the Conservatives and the SNP, to accusations of the kind I'm just making? Of course, all sorts of allegations are sometimes flung but the fact that the criteria were published means that people can judge the basis in which the allocation was made. But I would also say that the allocation of funds to, you know, I never want to rule that Conservative electoral prospects anywhere but we're allocating funds, as I said, to Clydebank, Coatbridge, Greenock, Irvine and Kilmarnock and I don't think they're yet on our target list for the next general election. So, you know, Hoop Springs Eternal. So, I quite understand that they, you know, football speculate about political motivation behind this but overall, if you look at that spread of investment and some of the areas that we're investing in, then there's no electoral benefit for the Conservative Party. What there is is a benefit for the community's concern and the whole United Kingdom. You do understand my, I suppose, frustration and you've mentioned the case of Dundee already and as a native Dundonian from that city. I represent the whole of the north-east and I'm very welcoming of investment in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen but we haven't done the particular economic need which you've already set out. We have the finest life sciences university in the whole of the UK, topping the ref for the last 14 years, absolutely outstanding and well ahead of any other part of institutions in Scotland and parts of the rest of the UK and so there's real consternation at that point in the absence of a published criteria and real local anger and if you saw the press clippings at that time as Secretary of State you would have understood that, the local paper in the courier and absolute uproar the fact that we had not received a green free port, we had not received an investment zone. So would you say that from now on you want to see in these joint enterprises between yourselves and the Scottish Government bidding criteria set out ahead of time so that local authorities can then put themselves and build the right criteria, make the right case and make the argument that I've just made as to the particular need of a geography? Well, I'd say two things. I think the criteria was set out and people can judge objectively whether or not the right decision was made on investment zones according to that criteria or those criteria. Secondly, the levelling up partnerships were chosen not through a competitive process but through an allocative process. Again, with criteria agreed with the Scottish Government and then subsequently laid out and all the levelling up partnerships that we set up one of them was of course with Dundee. The third thing that I would say is that there has been UK Government investment in Dundee obviously in most conspicuously most brilliantly through the V&A but it is also the case that you are right that Dundee University and the James Hutton Institute are outstanding higher education institutions as a university. So Dundee has a lot going for it and the levelling up partnership that we've set up with Dundee I think was welcomed by the leader of Dundee Council. Of course there had been some upsets beforehand but I remember not just the front page of the courier being just the point that it didn't get an investment and I remember the front page of the P&J when Aberdeen mistacked on being a green free port and at the time the accusation was made that the Government's approach towards Aberdeen was abba anywhere but bloody Aberdeen. So again at different points different civic leaders have expressed their desire to make sure that they benefit from UK Government funding and naturally when location A wins out over location B there is a sense of disappointment but that broader point I would make is the levelling up programme has resulted in stronger relationships between the UK Government and the Scottish Government stronger relationships between the UK Government and local Government in Scotland and stronger relationships between the UK Government and civil society and business. There was some skepticism about our embarking on this route and using the financial assistance power a few years ago but now it's become part of the architecture of the United Kingdom and in a way while I can understand and share the frustration that various different people have had at different times about not winning out overall I think whatever the particular concerns that people have over the process the act of the UK Government supporting local Government in Scotland I think has been widely welcome. I remain sceptical I have to say on 14 September Neil Gray told Parliament that the process for the selection and the decision for the investments were agreed on the same date of the 22nd of June so I remain sceptical about the process. Can I close though and push the community indulgence on the spending we're talking about allocations here but there's not real challenges in actually getting the money spent in local authorities and do we not risk replicating the city deal process which applications went in for now over a decade ago and actually much of those many of those projects across Scotland have not materialised because that money has not actually been spent in communities. Are you concerned about spend versus allocation? Yes and we do want to make sure that money once having been allocated does hit the sizes at work and does make a real contribution and that's why in one recent visit that I made to Aberdeen I'm so pleased to see that the work as you will have seen going on just behind Union Street is proceeding that both the demolition and the construction work is proceeding there in the first round of levelling up funding in order to help enhance the city centre so that work is going on and again when I visited the Cromarty Free Port I was very very excited to see the investment that was going in there and the changes that were occurring on the ground did to when I visited the Pollock Stables and Sawmill so absolutely and we will work with local government in Scotland and the Scottish Government to make sure that that cash translates into action. Thank you. Thank you Ross to be followed by Jamie. Thank you. I'd like to follow up John's line of questioning around the length of funding but just before that I note that yesterday the Welsh Government published the report from the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales and it included some really interesting research on public opinion across the UK including specifically on when and if the UK Government should spend in devolved areas and only 5% of people in Scotland thought it should do so whenever it wants and 18% thought not normally and without consent but there may be circumstances in which it should that's actually less than the percentage of people who thought the UK Government should legislate in devolved areas which was also quite low. Regarding the fact that people welcome when funding comes to their area and many of the projects have met it are you not concerned about the core democratic point here that people in Scotland the finance in Scotland are not particularly different to England or Wales in this regard but that people don't believe that the UK Government should be spending directly in devolved areas they seem to prefer if the money was given to the Scottish Government or directly to the local authorities for them to then decide how they spend it. The first is that as we mentioned earlier the Scottish Government has £41 billion in a block grant to spend as it believes is appropriate in comparison to that while I believe that the amount of money that the UK Government is spending is significant and welcome and has been appreciated by folk and local government the overwhelming majority of public spending in Scotland if you exclude obviously welfare and defence and so on the overwhelming majority is within the control of the Scottish Government and within the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament and so the performance of the public services that so many people rely on the NHS in Scotland the delivery of justice and crime education the money there is within the hands of the Scottish Government and spent by the Scottish Government I would love to be able to help and support the Scottish Government in the area for example of education but we respect the devolution settlement and respect the policy setting and spending should be there but if we think about the economic development of the UK overall then if we have a partnership with local government and with the Scottish Government then I think that is a partnership for good we share an island, we share a currency we share institutions and therefore if we are thinking about the Green Freeport in the islands or in the Farth of Forth these are projects where the UK Government can use its leverage alongside the Scottish Government and alongside local government to make a difference and it is never the case that we impose spending we always have willing partners and when Kate Forbes was a finance secretary she did a brilliant job in making sure that the Scottish Government's interests were represented in the design of the Green Freeport process it is a partnership it is not a partnership of equals though because ultimately it is your money and you decide how it is spent and whether it is 100 quid or 100 billion quid that you are spending in Scotland the core point here and that I would be interested in your thoughts on whether you should be the ones doing that if the spending is in a devolved area if it is in a reserved area totally different but the core point here is that a lot of this money is going into spending in devolved areas whether or not the individual projects are welcome the vast majority of people do not believe that the UK Government should be making those decisions they would prefer you gave that money to the institutions that people in Scotland have decided should make those decisions either the Scottish Parliament and Government why do you think that only a very very small minority people in Scotland believe the UK Government should spend in devolved areas well again the independent commission on the constitution for Wales a very distinguished group of people but it is one poll and I think that if you ask the question in a different way if you said do you believe that the UK Government should work with the Scottish Government and local authorities in order to increase prosperity and that the UK Government should use some of its own money to help some of the most deprived communities in Scotland to achieve more then I think people would say yes absolutely moving on conscious of time going back to the points that John Mason was raising raising around the length of the funding I know that you compared it to the Scottish Government's annual budget and I would point out that your Government gives the Scottish Government an annual settlement your Government has the power to give multi-year settlements and if you want to advocate for that around the Cabinet table I think you'd find cross-party support for you doing so but the point in relation to this that was highlighted by some of the local authorities gave us evidence is that the three-year funding model for the shared prosperity fund compares pretty poorly to the seven-year funding model for EU structural funds particularly when they were highlighting that the delays to releasing the funds meant effectively for a lot of these projects there's been a two-year dash to deliver funding only being released at the end of December 2022 so you've only got one quarter of that financial year left in which to spend it so you've essentially got two-year dash to spend do you recognise the concerns there that particularly for multi-year capital projects two years is a very short window of time or two and a quarter years in the case of the evidence that we've got a very narrow period of time and it may not result in best value for money because there is that push to just get the money out of the door before the deadline I do recognise that and obviously we recognise that there are some projects which are long-term as I mentioned earlier our allocation of funding to towns is part of a long-term plan for towns over 10 years helping to create a sense of buy-in of community ownership of how that money is spent if we can move increasingly to that model then that would be great that is exactly the direction of travel that we want to undertake but I operate forgive me within the spending review envelopes that we have one of the things I would say about EU funding is that EU funding often didn't or wasn't shaped by communities in the way that all our funds have been we believe very strongly in devolution in its fullest sense in making sure that not just that the Scottish Government is a partner and not just Scottish local authorities are a partner but individual communities are partners as well and that's what the long-term plan for towns is about it's also what the community ownership fund is about why a three-year funding period in that case why not five or seven or ten well I think again where we can enter into partnerships which are long-term as I say the long-term plan for towns does just that we will but the spending review process has generally operated on a sort of three-year cycle for the UK Government and for other Governments if we can embed a greater degree of certainty of funding then that's great I should add that both with investment zones and with green free ports the tax and other benefits that had been put in place for just five years are now in place for ten years as well now obviously a future UK Government could change that but my sense is that the initial skepticism that some had towards the idea of green free ports has been dissipated by the the fact that what we've seen has been significant investment in renewables and in green energy and as I say when I visited the Cromarty free port it was fantastic to see that Scotland retained its cutting edge position as a renewables superpower as a result of a combined Scottish Government and UK Government investment Some of us still retain significant concern about the free ports but that's a separate debate just briefly secretary state have you ever raised concerns with any of the chancellors that you've worked with with Treasury officials that the spending review periods are resulting in the UK Government not getting best value for money and the options that you have in your portfolio to develop multi-year funding models that would actually provide better value for money as well as greater certainty One thing I've learned is that if you want to get something out of a finance minister you don't discuss publicly the conversations you have yet Having also engaged in budget negotiations I can sympathise with that point at least Thank you Thank you Jamie to be followed by Michelle I just wanted to ask a number of areas particularly rather than projects which are underway at the moment as of 31 March last year 404 projects were funded under round 1 and 2 10 had not started 333 were underway 5 have been completed and 51 were expected to be completed by the end of March this year I'm just wondering how you measure the ongoing progress and also how that progress compares perhaps to previous EU schemes because obviously it reflects on the processes that were involved in the applications etc and ongoing monitoring Yes, we do have a programme of monitoring and evaluation and again it's also the case that the National Auditor's Office and other UK wide bodies look at how effective our delivery has been I haven't drawn any direct comparisons about the speed or effectiveness of delivery of our programme with EU programmes but I think it would be something that would be very welcome I think that one of the strengths of devolution is that we can learn from different parts of the United Kingdom how effective partnership working has been and then learn from each other so it is the case I think that forgive me we will be able as we look at how all of these projects have been delivered to identify local authorities in Scotland for example that have been much more effective in the operational delivery of capital investment than some local authorities in England and I would want to be able to say to my counterparts in England let's look at what's happened let's look at the way in which Shetland or Orkney or Aberdeenshire or Dundee have delivered let's learn from that so that will be part of a kind of appraisal process just because I'm conscious of time I'll kind of move on one of the areas and I think it was raised by John Mason was around the flexibility of the processes I'm kind of interested in the flexibility of the cash and I think this probably refers more to the city region deals and others so for example and I know it's a subject you're aware of the Coronarrows ferry crossing recently the government announced that some of the funding, the UK government announced some of the funding around 20 million which was part of the M&S and Highland city regional deal could be used for infrastructure for that crossing which is vitally important that was welcomed by the local council, Highland council community were more there were many in the local community who were more interested in a replacement ferry now there had already been that flexibility in use of the cash from the UK government how much additional flexibility is there in those sorts of schemes and obviously that's a question of working I appreciate with partners yes I want to give the maximum amount of flexibility as I think you know I talked to Highland council about this I know that the problems with the ferry are adding more than an hour at least to travelling times for people in that part of the Highlands we know it would require a significant capital investment but we do want to look to see what can be done it's always the case that if you give some local authorities additional flexibility above and beyond that which other local authorities have enjoyed some might say hey this money came with some strings attached we understand that now you're releasing or providing a greater degree of flexibility between revenue and capital or whatever for this local authority but I think as you quite rightly point out each case is a specific case and here we have communities in effect which have been you know relined on a particular piece of infrastructure when that infrastructure has been faulty then the daily lives of hundreds thousands of people have been disrupted and therefore we want to work with Highland council to try and address that for example it's a balance of not eroding the original kind of objectives and targets of the original funding and again just really to finish I mean you've highlighted obviously the issues around islands and island groups I'm from Orkney and I'm very aware as well of course the importance of the Fair Isle Ferry funding as part of the levelling up fund it was determined that it would said by Shetland council that essentially saved Fair Isle as an inhabited island you've talked about the islands forum group and the new group that will be looking at islands connectivity and particularly around transport I'm wondering if you can kind of give us an update on when you hope there to be further updates or further progress on that yes there should be a meeting of the islands forum in Anglesey in a couple of months six weeks to a couple of months time and I hope that we'll be able to update then but thank you for mentioning the leadership shown by Shetland council as you said if it hadn't been for Shetland council's leadership and for the commitment that we were able to make through the levelling up fund then the very future of Fair Isle as a populated island would have been under threat and that would have been to my mind a terrible outcome for the Shetlands for Scotland overall the issue of ferries as the committee knows is a particularly challenging one investment in ferries a generation ago means that we now have across Scotland, across the islands a need for new investment in ferries Orkney in particular intra Orkney ferries require attention and we've been talking to Orkney council about that and of course the whole CalMac fleet again as the committee knows the Scottish Government has had its challenges in this area what we wanted to do was to use our resource and our analytical ability to look at connectivity overall and to see what more could be done in order to ensure that those island communities get the connectivity that they deserve and I believe that the UK Government has been able to bring to bear an additional level of support to those communities whose economic interests matter so much That's why, welcome, I'm sure that will be well received in the audience Thanks very much, Secretary of State Thank you, Michelle Good morning Mr Gove, thanks for joining us today Isn't the real reason that the money for all these funds cannot match UK EU funding is because UK's trading broke, debt to GDP ratios nearly at parity and the cost of servicing UK debt interest is £318 million a day Isn't that the real reason that the UK's trading broke? I don't think so My understanding is that the percentage of UK trade with the EU since we left the EU has Using the term trading broke I'm referring back to debt to GDP ratio debt is 98% of GDP, UK GDP So, again moving on to debt, there's one of the reasons again as I think the committee well understands why we have the level of debt that we do is because of the Covid pandemic primarily so we were as a polity, the United Kingdom had one of the most generous levels of support for people during Covid furlough, Covid business interruption loans and so on meant that we were supporting business and civil society more generously than other countries that inevitably created a cost it's also the case as the committee will know that the impact of war in Ukraine and at least has had an inflationary effect I talked about the steps that we've taken to reduce inflation but yes if we hadn't had the pandemic and if there weren't a war in Ukraine then it would certainly be the case that Scotland and England would have stronger economies Well, of course that's not actually the case UK has been an economic decline and the figures quite start from 1980 in 1980 UK's GDP per whether exceeded most advanced economies but by 2019 the gap had, with the small advanced economies has increased to 38% but that's by the by what I want to ask you about today because I'm quite aware of time you've mentioned green free ports a number of times in my constituency of Falkirk East Grangemouth and of course important port is located and you may recall the last time you were in front of the committee I asked you about the role of possibility to audit Scotland because one of the concerns expressed about free ports is the possibility of corruption and of course the regulatory environment is all managed by the UK Government now I'm just going to flip over so that I've got the record of what both of us said with that I'm quoting what you said to me you said I'm accountable to the UK Parliament to audit Scotland and so on and I then asked what agreement have you made with audit Scotland in that respect you replied to say I'm waiting for audit Scotland to make any suggestion to me about what it like to do so my first question is have audit Scotland been in touch with you or have you been in touch with audit Scotland as to how these green free ports can be given oversight to avoid potential risks of corruption I haven't myself I don't think received anything audit Scotland but one of the key things one of the benefits of the union is that you've got the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together so I think that both of us have an interest Neil Gray and I have an interest in making sure that these free ports are successful and making sure that the money that is being spent and allocated is appropriately publicly accountable for that reason I'm asking you will of course be well aware of the issues with potential rather for corruption in teeside and I noted with interest your decision to exclude the national audit office in England to set up your own kind of investigation and given that the national crime agency suggested £262 billion each and every year's loss of UK GDP as a result of money laundering corruption you'll see my interest in a stated role and full inclusivity for our audit Scotland so that I can make sure that there's no hint of that in the green free port in Grangemouth so I ask again given that Audit Scotland haven't been in touch with you and I will pick it up with them will you share any findings with Audit Scotland as to what and if anything has gone wrong with teeside with the free port there yes I think the committee knows that certain allegations have been made of criminality and other sharp practice that's why we set up an independent inquiry led by independent figures in local government of unimpeachable integrity who will be reporting on these allegations and I wouldn't want to preempt that inquiry but I'd say two things one I think it is fair to say that no one has contested the integrity or appropriateness of the individuals who are conducting that inquiry the other thing that I would say is that you know in both parts of the United Kingdom in England and in Scotland I think that we should have an even more vigorous exercise of scrutiny of how money is spent and how performance of public bodies operates so I am all for the maximum amount of transparency sunlight is the best disinfectant so just for the record there can be no possibility of you avoiding scrutiny by Audit Scotland of any potential risks by any green free ports in Scotland and you won't seek to exclude them as you have done with the national audit office in England I didn't seek to exclude the national audit office they are not involved they have a very limited role in the current inquiry rather than it should be led by them and certainly in Scotland I would anticipate being led by if it came to pass this is hypothetical the national audit office actually has a broader capacity for scrutiny of the actions of the UK government than Audit Scotland does of the Scottish government I think but you know that's a matter for the Scottish government and Audit Scotland not for me but the T side allegations are being investigated very rigorously by as I see figures of unimpeachable authority one thing that one can't ignore is that there's an element of small politics here allegations were made about the T side free port by some people who were critical of the mayor of the T's valley and indeed opposed to the free ports themselves for example there were allegations made about dredging leading to crustacean deaths and so on subsequent investigation showed that that was all nonsense and that the crustacean deaths were due to factors entirely separate from that so we both know that in politics sometimes people will pick up a a stake or an allegation in order to make a political point but I'm as confident as confident can be but I don't want to preempt the inquiry that Ben Houchen is doing a great job and that the free port in T side has been a success I'm also confident that the free port from which your constituents benefit will go on to be a success as it will be in the Highlands as well so just for the record just before I leave it because I know the convener wants to come back in you will submit yourself to full scrutiny of Audit Scotland in terms of looking under the covers of what happens in any green free port in Scotland just simple yes or no it's fine absolutely 100% yes thank you very much I want to mention multiply that no-one else has so far so I thought I'd touch on that he said to Secretary of State you've talked a lot about partnership working but South Ayrshire Council they're a conservative led authority and they've said that the allocation for multiply which counted for over 17% of UK shared prosperity fund resources was ring fenced it's doubtful whether South Ayrshire Council would have determined such allocation if it had been given discretion but the programme could have been much more effective by aligning and combining with numeracy and literacy interventions the multiply financial allocations for an even pattern that will be challenging to spend even one third of our multiply allocation so surely if there's a partnership working and not in position that you've talked about then that situation with a conservative authority wouldn't be happening surely well I think you're right that South Ayrshire have expressed that concern and I think one of the previous questions I think I can't remember if it was from Michael or from from John touched on the fact that Aberdeenshire and I think Ramfordshire had raised similar concerns the overall purpose of multiply to deal with one of the big problems that we have across the United Kingdom which is relatively poor adult numeracy within some communities I think is a great national purpose, great national endeavour however we learn from doing and I think that if it is the case that we can build up an evidence base to show that some of the levelling up funding that has been allocated through multiply could be better allocated through other interventions then we'll look at that absolutely because the aim of multiply is to address some of the and I'm not talking about what's happening in our schools at the moment I'm talking about the inherited issues that some have in terms of being fully confident particularly in a world when numeracy becomes more and more important yes it is more important but it seems odd that the UK government should even be involved in this multiply initiative given that the education is absolutely completely devolved and I do think that is not being if we're honest it's not being brought in through partnership working that's the UK government decided to they're going to impose that on Scotland and that's it I mean I can't it's a great idea they would have been happy if you'd have allocated additional funding through the block grant which they could spend on education but to just come in and to impose something which even Conservative authorities believe they can't actually fully utilise the resources allocated as clearly our concern again a series of fair points all I would say are one that this is it's not as I mentioned an intervention in schools it's an intervention in skills and there is a distinction there because it's directly related to both our broad levelling up objectives but also economic growth and economic development the second thing is that the point made by South Asia and others is that it's been difficult to deliver all of the funding that's been given and again that argument could be interpreted in different ways one a lack of flexibility one over generosity in this area we'll learn from that and try to develop a new approach I certainly don't think there's any accusations of over generosity I don't think I would come from any source but it certainly for this channel but the final thing I would say is that the debate about skills and education is a hot topic and I've got strong views on it and I don't want to labour them in this committee but the one thing I do want to do is to make sure that we can learn from each other that Scotland and England Wales and Northern Ireland can learn from each other in schools skills and higher education because of course in higher education UKRI operates on a UK basis and I do think given the challenges that the United Kingdom faces and the next generation faces having a proper civilised conversation about what's working and what isn't working in our different jurisdictions in education is a good thing so as I say it's not for me to decree quite the opposite but it is I think in all our interests to have that conversation I have to say that unlike in England as has been pointed out by academics on the cross-party groups from Michael and I both members of the cross-party group on life sciences all the Scottish universities do work together in partnership but the English ones don't and I'm quite sure they'll be willing to work cross-border etc now we do have to finish for noon so only a couple of minutes left so I'm just going to say one last thing before I wind up and that's just a comment from Zoe Billingham the director of the public policy research the think tank you said that the national audit office on levelling up said and I quote this was a litany of mis-deadlines moving goalposts and dysfunction in the way levelling up funds have been allocated to councils as part of the Government's flagship program and in Scotland of course we've also had the imposition of the internal market act which means it cuts across devolved policy so just to give you the final word sector state what will you do differently to ensure that going forward levelling up is much more impactful and effective for those it's trying to assist well I think I look forward to this committee's recommendations and the feedback from local government we've already improved the way in which we interact with local authorities through the the project adjustment request that I mentioned earlier allowing people a greater degree of flexibility we're learning that trying to while still keeping a competitive element having a more allocative approach in some of the projects helps and we're also learning from work on the ground one of the things I would say is that sometimes it's good practice on the ground that we can advertise and spread that will help overall so we've just been touching on multiply in Perthincon Ross they've been using multiply funding to recruit young entrepreneurs because a lack of numeracy was apparently or full numeracy was the reason for business failure so the success of Perthincon Ross in using multiply funding is one way of spreading good practice much as I might say the success so far of Aberdeen City Council in using its money for urban regeneration will help us to spread good practice elsewhere and the success of Roy McGregor and the team behind the Cromity Freeport yes the UK Government has lessons to learn but those lessons are best learned from practitioners on the ground and local government and in business thank you very much for your time Secretary of State it's very much appreciated by members of this committee we do hope you'll come back to committee in the near future we'd hope to see in October 22 and it's been a long time since then so if you can see us particularly in person that would certainly be wonderful and we could go into some of these services and get it out of depth the Scottish Parliament is also an important role to play in relation to the transparency of this funding and this committee looks forward to continue its work with you thank you very much I hope to be in Hollywood soon thank you and I'll call this meeting now to a close