 I repeat the next item of business is a debate on motion 1123 on the name of Bob Dorris on city regions deal or no deal. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Bob Dorris to speak to move the motion on behalf of the local government and communities committee. A generous 12 minutes, Mr Dorris. How often do you hear that? Thank you for your generosity, Presiding Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to open this debate as the convener of local government and communities committee. The title of this debate and of our inquiry report was city regions deal or no deal. I don't worry, Presiding Officer. No admins will not appear at any point during this debate. Of that, I can reassure you, but lots of important information will be put on the record. It was a fairly recent growth of a number of and budgets for what are known as regional economic partnerships, which incorporate city region deals and growth deals that spart our interests to look at this important area. We wanted, as a committee, to look at the rationale, the prioritisation and the value for money in relation to city region deals, including the progress to date of those deals in delivering job creation and economic growth and the structure and governance of city region deals throughout Scotland. Let me begin by considering why those deals are indeed important. Launched in Scotland in July 2014, during the intensity that was the debate on Scottish independence, we now have one major deal well under way in Glasgow and the Cloud Valley, and three further deals at various stages of progress in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, in Inverness and the Highlands, in Edinburgh Fife and the South East. We also have developments towards a deal for Stirling, Cluckmannanshire and the two cities, and we also have fairly tentative steps towards possible other initiatives, regional growth deals, such as the possibility of an Ayrshire or Borders deal. Underpinning those deals are fairly significant sums of money from both the Scottish and UK Governments, as well as contributions from local authorities. The Glasgow deal, for example, was worth £1.1 billion over the lifetime of the deal, with 20 major infrastructure projects across the region, including allistering roads, bridges and improved transport infrastructure, key walls, remediation, construction, public railing works, assisting for further capital investment for housing, retail and commercial purposes—a heck of a lot in there, Presiding Officer. Is it logical? Is it consistent? Is it rational? Is it good value? Today, 83 per cent is 4.5 million people of Scotland's population live in the areas that are covered by existing or planned city region deals. Crucially, though, some parts of Scotland are currently missing out. Our inquiry was for the first time that this Parliament had looked at any depth at all at city region deals as a package, and it was important to do so. We wanted to receive answers to the following questions. What are people's perceptions on the purpose of city region deals? Are city region deals in Scotland on track to deliver local growth, innovation and infrastructure schemes that would not otherwise have been delivered? How well developed are the governance arrangements for city region deals and how well are those arrangements working in practice? How much local consultation and engagement goes into the design of those deals? And were local residents and businesses involved in the development and the activity surrounding said deals? What is going to put in place for those regions and areas of Scotland not covered by city region deals? How would the access equivalent funding in support for growth, innovation and infrastructure schemes? After that long list, do city region deals support a shift towards local decision making on major investment projects? A substantial report that the committee took nine months to deliberate on. We heard from over 20 witnesses and we received nearly 40 written submissions. We also visited Glasgow Airport and held a public engagement event with local people and businesses in Fergusley Park Paisley as part of our work. I am grateful to all those people who helped us as part of the inquiry. The outcome of our inquiry was a unanimously agreed report published in the January of this year. It is fair to say that hopefully the report has been welcomed and well received with positive feedback from professional bodies and other interested groups in relation to city region deals. We have all said positive replies to most of our recommendations from the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council, to whom we also wrote to, given that their particular deal was the most advanced. Unfortunately, despite writing and subsequently pursuing Lord Duncan in the Scotland office for a reply from the UK Government, that has not yet been received. Although that is a shame, we anticipate that we will receive it by the end of this week. It would have been helpful to have had that by this significant parliamentary debate, but we look forward to working constructively with both the Scottish Government and the UK Government going forward in relation to the matter. Let me now turn to the main conclusions and recommendations that were made. I am sure that my fellow committee members welcome the city region deals initiative in general. Those are important projects that have the potential to transform towns, cities and rural areas through improved and inclusive economic growth that the increased investment is designed to bring. We did find, however, that city region deals are part of a quite confused and cluttered policy landscape at local government, Scottish and UK levels, which runs the risk of reducing the impact that can be achieved from those deals. That is why our first recommendation was about how the UK and Scottish Governments work together. Could they agree a shared and single purpose and focus for those deals? Can they work very closely together to maximise the benefits of the sums of money that both will commit to those projects? The need for close working between the Governments manifested itself during our inquiry in two main ways. First, we heard evidence that there was too much emphasis being placed on what projects were in devolved areas and which ones were in reserved areas. That seemed to many, including myself, an absolutely artificial divide when the central purpose was one of economic growth. The committee had some sympathy for that view. There was also debate on what form of economic growth was desirable. For some, who gave evidence that the UK's Government's singular focus on pure economic growth—the biggest bang for your buck, if you like—was inconsistent with the Scottish Government's objective of inclusive growth. Although the committee did not take a view on which form of growth should be pursued, we did seek clarity from both Governments as to how they would work together with a single clarity and focus to deliver economic growth. That said, the committee did welcome the reprofiling and revisiting of the Glasgow deal to incorporate more aspects of inclusive growth. Indeed, I welcomed the response from Glasgow city council leader Susan Aiken to her report in that respect. I must declare a constituency interest as the local member for Glasgow, Mary Hill and Springburn. That is because, in Councillor Aiken's reply, she talks about developing inclusive growth. She talks about the commission on economic growth, which is leading an innovative pilot exercise relating to the Glasgow canal and North City deal infrastructure project. Learning from that will be applied to other city region deals. She also mentioned and applied to Graham Simpson during an exchange act committee that the terms of the team in Glasgow is absolutely looking not only at the projects in the city region deal but at the projects in the wider context. Finally, the reply from Councillor Aiken talks about complementary funds, the use of underspens, unexpected factors and potentially new funding becoming available. Why am I saying all this? It is not just because it is in my constituency but wherever you are in the country, you want to know if it is just site hill in my constituency that is going to benefit from this or if projects are reprofiled and changed. Will it be the likes of Portland, Dars, Hamilton Hill, Mary Hill, Coddart and Lamb Hill, all connected by the canal in my constituency? Let us move away from my part of the world and we have MSPs from right across Scotland and they must know what it means for their areas and how communities are consulted on those projects. We were also concerned about the process of project selection within the deals. Who would decide what gets funded and how open and inclusive a process would that be? Projects within any given deal are, as far as we can ascertain, selected by the local government partnership and then presented to Scottish and UK governments for evaluation and assessment. That leads to a selection of those projects being agreed to as part of any deal. That can lead to confusion and finger pointing when some projects are prioritised and others are not. The process is also supposed to involve local consultation and engagement. The outcome of an extensive inquiry was that we were not at all clear that there had been or still continues to be any significant engagement with local businesses, charities, community bodies and so forth at the project identification stage. In short, the process of deciding what gets funded is too opaque, too top down and needs to be opened up and made more transparent with real and sustained engagement with local people and businesses. The process also needs to pay proper attention to equalities and sustainability assessments. Local communities and local MSPs need to know why certain projects were selected while others were not. That is important for transparency. Let me now turn to the third main area of our recommendations. That relates to the need for rigorous and on-going monitoring and devaluation of individual projects and the deals themselves. One of the concerns expressed at us is that some deals or some of the projects may simply displace investment and job creation from other parts of that region or from other regions in the country. That would mean that, whilst the parts of Scotland that are covered by city deals may benefit, other parts of Scotland may simply lose out. That is why the committee sought assurances and made recommendations on how projects and deals are monitored. We also wanted to see the risk analysis for projects and for deals that were publicly available for all to see and scrutinise. We sought assurances that, as time progressed, we can learn from our experiences and what can sometimes be attained to 20-year development and adapt accordingly. That means having the ability to revisit the original deals or refocus them. That has been the case in Glasgow in the new focus on inclusive growth there and into some detail in relation to what that could mean in my part of the city. Finally, let me turn to the last area in our conclusions. That of what is on the table for those parts of Scotland not currently benefiting from investment of this type. Scotland's Minister Lord Duncan suggested the colouring in of the mosaic of Scotland so that every part of Scotland should receive the benefits irrespective of whether it is an urban area, near an urban area or not in an urban setting at all. In short, no part of Scotland should be left behind. We support that principle but it must be put into practice. The Scottish Government, in its response to our report, agreed and stressed that that requires a commitment to invest and the publication of a clear timetable by both Governments for those parts of Scotland, like Ayrshire, which are not part of the current process. They have, as yet, had no clear timetable for a growth deal for them, something that I am sure my colleagues Willie Coffey and Kenny Gibson will cover during this debate. Let me conclude by thanking again all those who helped us with this inquiry and to my fellow committee members for their work, to the clerking team, to Jane Walgham's, to Stephen Immory and the wider support that we had in our deliberations. This is the first time that the committee and this Parliament have looked at city region deals in any depth. It will not be the last. Billions of pounds of public money is being invested in those straightened financial times. This cannot be allowed to be spent without on-going scrutiny of this Parliament and its committees. Our committee is well placed to do that, given our absolute overriding brief to protect communities the length and breadth of Scotland. We will continue with that scrutiny, and this afternoon we look forward to hearing the views of other members of the Scottish Parliament to aid us and abet us in relation to on-going scrutiny. Thank you, Mr Doris. I call on Keith Brown to open for the Government cabinet secretary, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Bob Doris has covered a range of important recommendations made by the committee in its report on the inquiry, conducted into city region deals in Scotland. It is also worth mentioning. I think that I am right in saying that that committee investigation also included the first time that UK and Scottish Government ministers had given evidence to a Scottish Parliament committee at the same time. I read the recommendations contained in the final report with great interest. I think that the report itself is helpful, and it highlights a range of significant issues for all partners to focus on as we go forward with the work. I have submitted a written response to the recommendations in the report and look forward to engaging with the committee further on the matter. City region deals represent an important catalyst in helping to drive the achievement of inclusive growth in Scotland. The Scottish Government, for her part, has committed £1 billion to the three city region deals that are already agreed. We hope to complete not just the heads of terms, which we have completed, but a city region deal for Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland, as well as heads of terms for deals involving the Tay cities, Stirling and Clotmanusure and borderlands. However, it is important to be clear that those deals are a relatively new part of the economic development landscape. For that reason, I think that they need to be given time to mature before a body of credible evidence on their positive impact can be assembled. The Scottish Government is committed to growing Scotland's economic prosperity in a way that ensures that every region and local community can benefit from new opportunities while inequality is reduced in tandem. Current and future growth deals are only one means, as Bob Doris has said, of making our vision for inclusive growth a reality across Scotland. In the phase 2 report of our enterprise and skills review published last year, we made it clear that the economic power and potential of Scotland's distinct regions must be harnessed. To ensure that potential is realised, we are working to enable further development of a network of regional economic partnerships covering Scotland. All of the catalytic growth deal activity that we already support and want to support in future sits within this overall policy and operational context. The committee's report made a number of recommendations linked to the working relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. Just to be clear, and to answer one of the points made by Bob Doris, the Scottish Government is committed to 100 per cent coverage of Scotland with growth deals. I would like to be equally clear that we want the UK Government to declare that they will join us in common purpose on this. In line with a recommendation made by the committee in its report, I am keen to agree a timetable with the UK Government for a roll-out of a growth deal covering every part of Scotland as soon as possible. That is a matter that I will press once again with the Secretary of State for Scotland when I meet him later this week. Early agreement of a timetable would of course provide reassurance to partners in areas such as Ayrshire, who have been working hard to frame the content of a full growth deal. The committee report raised important points also about the relative economic strategies of both Governments. I want to avoid being detained by technical arguments or semantics about our respective high-level economic development policies, but it is my belief that the achievement of inclusive growth to enable a more equal society in Scotland and across these islands should be a unifying goal for all Governments. The committee report also recommends that both Governments work with a Majesty's Treasury to agree system where the focus of joint effort is on funding the deal and its constituent projects, and not on what the report described as the artificial boundaries of what is a reserve project and what is a devolved one and the badging of who is funding what. I think that that recommendation is eminently sensible. It is also true to say that the vision was not evident in the earliest city deal that may became involved in the Glasgow region city deal. Joint investment in high quality locally developed projects will accelerate economic growth in a way that improves regional prosperity whilst at the same time reducing inequality. That is the sort of outcome that I would have thought that any Government should prize. And also that the committee's report highlighted the range of programmes in Scotland aimed at growing an inclusive economy on their part. Our economic ambitions and priorities for the enterprise and skills system have been clarified over the past couple of years, and whilst we always seek to be nimble and creative in refining our plans, I do not think that the development of a new economic strategy is necessary at the current time. However, with the looming threat to the Scottish economy from a hard Brexit, we will remain vigilant and focused on protecting Scotland's future prosperity and wellbeing. Of course, it is true to say that Scotland's regions are varied both in terms of the economic opportunities that they offer and the challenges that they face. A network of regional economic partnerships exists in a variety of forms and degrees of maturity across Scotland. I should make special mention, of course, of the three Ayrshire authorities who have come together in a very farsighted way to ensure that they have that cohesion in terms of an Ayrshire growth deal. Governance arrangements attached to the city region deals are beginning to influence the way partners are engaging in the wider regional policy context. Essentially, those new partnerships offer an opportunity for local authorities and their regional partners to explore beneficial reform ideas that can make conditions for inclusive growth more favourable. Before I finish, I have just commented on some other themes highlighted in the committee's report, specifically on investment projects, election and governance. In line with those areas, there is one central point that I would like to emphasise which I emphasised when appearing before the committee. Autonomous, democratically elected local authorities are at the centre of design and delivery of all growth deals. Working with other partners, they are the best arbiters of what action will drive the regional economy with fresh figure. We would expect that they seek to build a consensus among all local stakeholders. That has to include, as Bob Dorris mentioned, the business community and local people. We have continually put that message to the different city region deal partners. I know also that the UK Government has also reinforced that message. The means of connecting with stakeholders can and should be enabled by the regular processes employed by local authorities, all of whom will also be clear about their duties in relation to promoting equality. The aim of generating inclusive growth is, if you like, the golden thread running from our economic strategy, right through our enterprise and skills ambitions, to work on the ground in those regional partnerships being inspired by the city region and other developing growth deals. The Scottish Government, for our part, is very grateful to the committee for its inquiry and the recommendations made in the final report. As I say, I have also already responded in writing but, as Bob Dorris made clear in his contribution, that will be the start of a process whereby we have continuing dialogue. I, for my part, look forward to updating the committee and the Parliament on further progress with the city region or, indeed, other regional growth deals and regional economic partnerships in the future. Thank you. I call Graham Simpson. I hope that the Conservatives... Mr Simpson, please. Thanks very much. The local government and communities committees have done some important work in my time on it and our investigation into city deals certainly fell into that category. It came about mainly because of concerns from myself and the convener over the way the Glasgow city deal had been run so far, but we in no way restricted ourselves to looking at that one deal. First of all, city deals, growth deals, call them what you want, have the potential to deliver fantastic benefits, economic and otherwise, to the areas that they cover. If you look at the deals and the potential deals in Scotland, you can see the prospects for the areas that are affected. The Aberdeen city region deal will see funding of £826 million over 10 years investment in an oil and gas technology centre, agri food and nutrition hub for innovation, biotherapeutic hub for innovation, digital connectivity, harbour expansion. The Inverness and Highlands city region deal also over 10 years delivers funding of £350 million. It will see the establishment of a north innovation hub developing Inverness castle as a key tourist destination supporting commercialisation and delivering an innovative approach to assisted living. There will be investment in broadband and mobile coverage, road infrastructure and the provision of 6,000 homes. Then there is the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region with £1.1 billion from Governments. There will be up to £350 million for a research, development and innovation programme. That includes data centres, incubation space, industrial and commercial space and the food and drink innovation campus at Queen Margaret University. There is £140 million for crucially needed improvements on the city bypass at the sheriff's hall roundabout. Gordon Lindhurst will say more about that. £20 million for a new concert hall £25 million on a regional skills programme to support improved career opportunities for disadvantaged groups. I guess that is the inclusive growth that the cabinet secretary mentioned. £65 million of funding for housing to unlock strategic development sites. There is Scotland's first city deal Glasgow, which I will come on to. Our inquiry highlighted problems here which others should avoid and which Governments, both the UK and Scottish Governments, should avoid making in future. We found that the system of choosing projects is top down and does not engage with local people. It was a case, particularly in the Glasgow deal, that projects are being done to people and not with them. We want to see more evidence that engagement with local businesses, the private sector more generally, charities, community groups and local people is meaningful. Can I thank the member for taking the intervention? I understand the point that he is making, but would he recognise that in relation to the Glasgow city deal, which he has highlighted, there was no engagement even with the Scottish Government before that deal was put together, simply a demand for £0.5 billion. I agree with him on engagement, but in that case, there was no engagement and things have improved since then. Graham Simpson I think that things have improved, but there certainly have been issues and I just want to highlight a few more of them. Communities should be asked what do they want for their area and if there are good ideas a way should be found to incorporate them. We think that there should be a better system for evaluating projects and that afterwards more information is published on which projects were included in the programme and which were not and why not. We should be absolutely certain that spending money on one project in one area will not be to the detriment of another area. There was concern among committee members that there could be displacement where, for example, firms could move from one area not covered by a deal to one that is. We are also not clear of exactly who the individual cabinets or boards that run each deal are accountable to and, in that respect, we welcome all that Scotland's forthcoming work in the area of governance and accountability and we were concerned that there are artificial barriers created by Government criteria which means some worthy projects may not get through. I have been involved in one such project to create an off-road outdoor cycle training centre next to the Clyde. You would struggle to argue that it would deliver the strict economic growth asked for by the Treasury but it would regenerate the riverside and get local people, especially youngsters, fit and in safety. One of the criticisms around the Glasgow deal has been that councils have used it to dust down projects which have been on their shelves sometimes for decades. One, the Cathgin relief road has been built already. It is a mile long and costs around £19 million. I attended the opening a year ago. Keith Brown himself called it a landmark day and not just because I was there. He and others claimed that it was set to improve local access to employment. Well, I'm afraid if you know the road and where it goes, that's just not true. Now, this is one of a number of road projects that have been thrown into the mix just because there's money lying around. The £62 million Stuartfield Way and East Kilbride is another one. Luckily, this upgrade to a dual carriageway has not been started. There's simply no justification for it. Then there's the plan in North Lanarkshire for a so-called relief road to link Holytown to Eurocentral, the effect of which will just be to increase the amount of traffic going through Holytown. Now, we asked the Glasgow city deal cabinet to tell us what projects are being dropped and what new ones are being brought forward. We know there are changes afoot, but we're still waiting for that answer. It's good that the councils in the Glasgow deal area accept the need to review things, but they should be open and honest. City deals are good, but if a website such as theirs doesn't even have the minutes of meetings, then something has to change. Deputy Presiding Officer, our inquiry shone a light on the good and the could do better. If our recommendations are accepted, then all of Scotland can benefit. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. I call James Kelly to open for labour. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking the committee, committee members, clerks and witnesses for the work that they've put into this inquiry. I think that it's important to look at city deals, particularly in the context of economic growth. When we see from recent economic growth figures of 0.2 per cent, that we're running at half the rate of the growth across the UK. It's therefore absolutely crucial that those city deals work for the whole of Scotland. I think that it is to be commended the fact that we've got a situation where the UK, the Scottish Governments and councils have an approach where, if it works properly, they will all work together collaboratively for not only the benefit of local communities, but for the benefit of the Scottish economy as a whole. I think that that is absolutely crucial. I think that members have spoke of the potential benefits of city deals, looking at the Glasgow and Clyde valley project that Mr Simpson has just been talking about. We've got £1 billion of investment there and the potential to create 29,000 jobs. That public investment can attract £3.3 billion of private investment, and that is crucial in supporting infrastructure and also in achieving some important policy outcomes for all Governments and local Government in that area. We've also seen Aberdeen the crucial role that local government have played there in terms of attracting the £370 million bond, which contributes towards the £1 billion of investment. I think that the committee report makes some important points. I think that some of the previous points, because I've already highlighted the idea around the methodology around projects election, needs to be closely looked at. I think that the fact that was brought out in the report that a lot of the scoring is done in private and there is a lack of transparency as to how decisions are made around projects is not good from a policy point of view and it is also not good for the public. There should be more openness and transparency about that, because those are vast amounts of public money that have been invested in those projects. It is also the case that it should not be simply an accountant exercise to take a ballpark figure and to find the number of projects that will add up to that figure. Each project should be robustly appraised in order to ensure that it contributes towards the overall economic goals in relation to that deal. I was interested to note in the report that, in relation to the engagement event at Paisley, some of the members were keen on the airport rail link. In relation to transparency, we have seen recently that there are delays on the airport rail link. There is a bit of lack of information about why those delays are taking place. The issues are running. Graham Simpson I thank James Kelly for taking the intervention. I wonder if he would agree with me on the Glasgow rail link that we need clarity on that from somebody. Somebody should be saying whether or not it is going ahead. We absolutely need clarity. In my view, I have been a consistent supporter of the rail link. It was a matter of deep regret when the SNP Government in 2009 ditched the rail link. That was not only the wrong decision economically, but it resulted in the pouring of £30 million of public money down the drain. We see talking in the press about delays, but Mr Simpson is absolutely right. We do not have the clarity or transparency around why those delays have been reported. We need urgency on the decision, and, from my point of view, we need a decision that moves forward, because there is no doubt that an airport rail link would be of tremendous economic benefit to Glasgow and to the west of Scotland. The report makes some valid points on transparency and other points. It focuses a lot on process. Lincoln needs to be a wider discussion about economic strategy. I note the minister's comments about, for example, he did not see the need to review the economic strategy at this point in time, but I think that it is a matter of concern that we all share that the economic growth has not been as strong at this point. Is it forecast to be as strong going forward as we would all like to see across the chamber? Certainly, from Labour's perspective, we would see progressive taxation at the heart of any economic policy. Putting money into public services makes sound investment for economic growth, particularly in terms of education. I think that we also need a strong industrial strategy that highlights proper working practices, pays people well and ensures that there is not exploitative zero-hour contracts. Procurement is a big issue that ties in to the city deal, and with such vast amounts of public money being awarded in contracts, we should ensure, for example, that it is awarded to firms that sign up to the Scottish Government's business pledge, or that that should at least be a priority. I think that there should also be more powers to councils around issues such as the tourist tax and the land value tax. I welcome the report that has been produced, but I think that it has to tie into a wider economic strategy for the Scottish Government if we are going to address the issues of sluggish economic growth and ensure fairness in all our communities. Thank you very much, Mr Kelly. If people disagree with Mr Kelly that there is time in hand for interventions, and you will have your time made up, no point pulling faces at me, for whatever reason, that is nothing to you, Mr Rumbles. I call Mike Rumbles to open to the Liberal Democrats. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is much to be thankful for in today's debate. In particular, I welcome the opportunity for both our Governments—the UK and Scottish Governments— to work together, alongside local authorities and industry, to develop a long-term strategic plan for growth in our cities and regions. I also want to welcome the opportunity for local input in the city region deals and bespoke investment that can be developed around the distinct needs of our communities. That detail, especially, is of the most importance if we want to maximise the benefits for areas such as Aberdeen and the north-east as a whole. As you know, the city deal process was spearheaded by Liberal Democrats and the UK coalition Government, and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate all parties for their positive contributions in developing the plans that we have before us. I particularly want to thank the committee for bringing this debate to the chamber today. However, that does not mean that there is no room for improvement in these city region deals. Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to raise two areas of concern that I believe must be addressed if we want to make the most of the opportunities that lie before us. In the beginning of this process, the city deal was designed to encourage local economic growth and the movement of economic decision making away from central government. I am sorry to say that, despite what I heard Keith Brown say earlier on in his contribution, the Scottish Government's own view seems to be a little different to that. In typical Scottish Government fashion, any mention of empowerment and more robust devolution for decision making in our regions has been quietly sidelined. Both the Fraser Valander Institute and the Scottish Council for Development and the industry have raised this issue in their submissions, as have many councillors, and even the committee has highlighted the need for more clarity regarding the purpose of the deals. I agree with the Fraser Valander Institute when they said that city regions, and I quote, need to be empowered with additional roles, funding and competencies because they will need and are best placed to identify the infrastructure investment requirements, especially in transport and housing. I urge the Scottish Government at this stage to perhaps rethink its approach and use the city region deals as an opportunity for long-term transparency review and a chance to engage directly with communities and strengthen our local institutions. I will not be holding my breath while I am waiting for that to happen to begin, Presiding Officer. With that said, though, I would also like to comment on some specifics. In the north-east, more than any other region in Scotland, has faced challenges in recent years, particularly with the oil downturn. Our key industries are only now finding their feet again. Thousands of families and individuals in the region have been left struggling to make ends meet with very little support from either our Government in Edinburgh or Westminster. It is only down to the vibrancy and perhaps the innate strength of our local economy so that we can now see growth in areas, key areas, starting to return to the region, and that is to be thankful for. On the other hand, our local services have suffered from a decade of harmful and sustained underfunding by the Scottish Government, and I have repeatedly raised this at every opportunity, and I make no excuses for raising it again. In many areas, health, education, rail and local services, our communities have been the worst funded in Scotland for many years, and that fact is now hitting home. I'd be delighted to give way. Cabinet Secretary. I wonder if it's possible, just for a second, to thank Mike Rumbart for taking intervention, to come back to city deals, the subject of the debate, and just to mention that in relation to the Aberdeen city region deal, the Scottish Government committed £125 million, as did the UK Government, and then the Scottish Government contributed a further £254 million. So the idea that it has been underfunded is only one part that can be accused of underfunding it. Mike Rumbles. Since the minister wants to talk about underfunding, the worst funded council in Scotland is Aberdeen city council. The third worst funded council by the Scottish Government's own figures is Aberdeenshire council. The health board in the north-east, over the last 10 years, has from their own targets been underfunded by £165 million. Let's get the facts right here. For these reasons, the city region deals are not a welcome extra. They are absolutely essential for long-term sustainability and rebuilding our local economy in the north-east. They are not an extra and should be considered as so. I believe that the Scottish Government must take action now to ensure that the city region deals deliver what was promised. In short, the city region deals should not become simple mechanisms for delivering existing projects that have already been in the pipeline, as we have heard. I do not have time, I am afraid, but I would like to. If I have time, I would like to. Bob Doris. Mike Rumbles for giving way. I absolutely agree with Mike Rumbles that the Scottish Government has to do more, as does the UK Government and as does local authorities. That is supposed to be the partnership that we are trying to strike. I am just a little bit concerned that maybe the focus on Mr Rumbles' representations is to make it very linear. That is about collegiate and partnership working and giving communities a greater say. And influence, would you agree with that? Mike Rumbles. I absolutely agree with that and I understand what the member is saying, but at the point that I am making is that you cannot rob Peter to pay Paul, that is the point. Subjects already in the pipeline. I mentioned particularly the great separated junction at Lawrence Kirk. The minister knows that I have been campaigning on this since 2004 and successive Governments, certainly the Labour-Liberal Democrat Government, promised at the time that it would take this forward to make it a safe junction. I am delighted now that the Scottish Government, as part of the city region deal, is actually putting funding there and we are getting a move on. But it is 2018. That is 14 years after people lost their lives at this junction. And the campaign to put that safe junction there, it should have happened some time ago. So the point that I am making is that you cannot just include things that should have already happened. So investment must deliver for the regions as a whole, not just for city hubs and finally it must be clearly defined that city region deals should be implemented in a way that creates inclusive growth, growth that brings benefits and opportunities for everyone. Nevertheless, I will end by saying that I have hope and maybe it is the triumph of hope over experience, but I still have hope that the Scottish Government will take seriously the feedback provided by stakeholders and the views of those in the chamber right across the chamber this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Rumbles. The open debate and, as I say, there is time in hand for interventions, which I would encourage to liven up matters, not that we need to liven up. And then we have Mr Gibson next. Mr Gibson to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Thank you, Presiding Officer, on having pressed for the deal and no deal report to be debated and delighted that my fellow committee members were so equally enthusiastic. The growth and city regions deal initiative between the Scottish UK Government and local partners is designed to stimulate economic growth and create jobs invested by investing money into large-scale infrastructure projects and indeed levering in private investment. I was delighted that the cabinet secretary in his opening statement talked about inclusive growth being a golden thread running through the Scottish Government's thinking. In terms of inclusive growth, though, I still think that more has to be done to explain how that will be delivered for small towns Scotland in particular. We heard at committee, for example, about the inclusive growth diagnostic. When I hear such terms, it does make me wonder what that actually means in terms of delivery on the ground. The current deals focus on Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Vanessa and their surrounding heartlands. They have seen £1.3 billion investment from the Scottish Government and £1 billion from the UK Government. The Scottish Government has clearly made a great financial commitment to those deals. But rigid demarcation of reserved and devolved deal components does limit the scope in certain circumstances for some deals. In my view and I believe the committees, whether a project is reserved or devolved should be irrelevant if we are to attract optimum levels of investment and deliver the best possible outcomes. So four and a half million people in Scotland living areas covered by existing or planned deals with the plans for deals and stilling and collect management on Tayside cities currently being discussed and taken forward. Of course, this is an impressive figure and I'm delighted that 85 per cent of Scotland's population living areas covered by these current and planned deals. However, as the committee report indicates, this does, of course, leave certain areas disadvantaged as things currently stand. Indeed, Patrick Wiggins, director of the Ayrshire growth deal, told the committee and I quote, Ayrshire is a secondary or tertiary market in commercial terms. The more investment that happens in or close to the centre of Glasgow, the more it allows to suck up demand in the Scottish economy. That will make it even harder for areas such as Ayrshire to achieve their potential. Representing an Ayrshire constituency I'm particularly concerned that the Ayrshire growth deal is progressed as soon as possible because the longer it takes to get the Ayrshire growth deal off the ground, the more disadvantaged Ayrshire will be in having to catch up. As the committee's report makes clear, the lack of progress and commitment from the UK Government regarding the Ayrshire growth deal is dealing with its implementation. When Lord Duncan came to the committee on 22 November last year with the cabinet secretary, we had plenty of nudges and winks at the chancellor presenting the UK budget that very day would announce the Ayrshire growth deal. It didn't happen, nor has it in the more than four months since. Bizarre, given that parts of the borderlands, including the sector of states constituency, now looks set to gain from two deals. As the committee report shows, displacement is a real concern and should be included in any formal assessment of other deals with the results made public. Glasgow's deal began in July 2014 with no date for Ayrshire in sight. A latter cannot suffer displacement effects in terms of jobs and investment. In fact, last November, I actually wrote to Scottish ministers and Scottish Enterprise regarding a very specific displacement of a company from Ayrshire to Glasgow, which I was concerned about. While the Scottish Government's firm commitment to securing growth deals for all Scotland is crucial and important, it is clear from the committee's finding that it is vital that the UK Government makes the same commitment. Crucial and necessary dialogue between the two Governments must continue, but an end point is essential, so I am delighted that the cabinet secretary is able to secure a timetable when he meets the sector of state for Scotland later this week. As members will be aware, I have raised this issue on numerous occasions, and North Ayrshire and Anne MP Patricia Gibson led a debate in the House of Commons on the very same issue. The cabinet secretary of economy, Jobs and Fair Work, has also pushed the UK Government to commit to Ayrshire growth deal, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government has publicly and clearly stated their attentions on multiple occasions. The Ayrshire growth deal is also backed not only by the Scottish Government but by all three Ayrshire councils. It is important to note that, despite delays from the UK Government, the Scottish Government's commitment to fostering growth across Scotland can be seen not only through the city region deals, but also through wider policies and investment. Steps to stimulate economic growth across the country, outside city region deal areas, can be seen, for example, in Ayrshire, with £5.3 million of investment towards turning the former Diageau site in Kilmaric into low-calm development, including hundreds of affordable homes, the Hilo project, and the £31.2 million Dorae bypass in my constituency. That kind of commitment investment is vital and important to Ayrshire, an area where per capita income is a shocking 32 per cent below the Scottish average. Ayrshire is also one of the lowest economic growth rates in the UK with among the highest unemployment. Ensuring inclusive growth as part of a deal would reduce inequalities across communities in Ayrshire, an area with its aerospace, life sciences and manufacturing businesses, and impending coastal regeneration, which has a wealth of economic potential that the right investment can provide that part of Scotland with the prosperity it needs. Some of the projects being considered by the deal include £22 million for coastal regeneration in Ardrossan, £30 million for further development of the life sciences industries, £130 million to develop Ayrshire's manufacturing sites, £80 million to develop the aerospace industry, and £15 million to develop marine tourism. It is clear that the potential for growth in city deals to positive impact on Scotland is high. The committee's report highlights how much there is to welcome in relation to city deals, not least of which is a much-needed investment in the Scottish economy. While not without significant issues that need to be addressed, deals will bring a long-term strategic approach to improving regional economies with each deal tailored to its city or growth region. Reflecting on the individual strengths and weaknesses, creating a programme to support transformative and positive change. I welcome this work and vital important advancement in those deals have already brought to large areas of the country, and I look forward to inclusion of areas not yet included to what the Scottish Government has already made a clear commitment such as Ayrshire. I urge the UK Government to follow suit. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I call Gordon Lindhurst, followed by Jenny Gilruth, and I can give generous six minutes to members as no one seems to want to intervene. Mr Lindhurst. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate following scrutiny of the local government committee of city deals. As my colleague Graham Simpson has mentioned, an inquiry which was brought about due to concerns about the first city deal in Glasgow. This inquiry has provided valuable lessons for future deals, including the Edinburgh and South East Scotland one. Nevertheless, in spite of what could be called teathing problems with the Glasgow deal, I think that we should recognise that these deals show what can be done for growth, perhaps even inclusive growth, although we have of course no clear definition of what that means, but progress for growth that can be made when our two governments work together. Growth that is badly needed, given that Scotland is lagging behind the UK as a whole in some areas. A total of almost £3.4 billion of combined investment has been committed thus far. If concluded deals and those being negotiated are combined, those will amount to investment for approximately 83 per cent of people in Scotland. Indeed, both Governments agree that everyone in Scotland should eventually be covered by a deal with Lord Duncan stating in evidence that the aim is to colour in, quote, the mosaic of Scotland. I say that this is a welcome ambition as a Lothian MSP, certainly. Bob Doris. I'm delighted to see the member's support for every area of Scotland being covered by a deal. Every other speaker so far has been very keen to see a set timescale for which that to be achieved and delivered. I wonder if by I say July this year the summer recess of this Parliament would be a really appropriate time for the Scottish Government, the UK Government and local authorities to get together to secure a set timescale, timetable to deliver that deal. Gordon Lindhurst. Certainly a lot of blame to achieve a timetable and it maybe the minister will be able to help the member on the timetable that is likely to be achieved by the two Governments working together. So as a Lothian MSP, I was particularly pleased when the heads of terms agreement was signed for the Edinburgh and South East Scotland deal last year. As both Governments and stakeholders noted, the region is of fundamental importance to the Scottish and wider UK economy. It has over a quarter of Scotland's population contributing £33 billion to the Scottish and UK economies. It is a real powerhouse. The deal will see the region receive £1.1 billion of investment and is estimated to generate over almost five times that amount of gross value added over its 15-year period. That is an example of the union dividend that is paying off for our constituents as UK and Scottish Governments work constructively together. There is much to be excited about as we look ahead to the projects being flanned as part of the deal. I am sorry, Tom Arthur, but not today, not today, perhaps later. As I said, there is much to be excited about as we look ahead to the projects being planned as part of the deal. Projects that will not just deliver growth, but growth that can benefit the whole region across society. The ambition towards securing Edinburgh as the data capital of Europe, for example, could be of Scotland-wide benefit. £350 million to be invested for a research, development and innovation programme, including a data-driven innovation programme in partnership between Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt universities. As the First Minister herself has acknowledged, we have a digital skills deficit holding back growth, and we have heard about that again in the economy committee these past few weeks. By investing further and firmly establishing Edinburgh as the best in the UK for computer science and informatics research, more jobs can be created, possibly as many as 20,000. And the £140 million investment in grade separation at the Sheriff's Hall roundabout on the A720 is also of relief for motorists. The upgrade is badly needed on a trunk road that at times has some of the worst congestion problems in the UK. However, the top-down approach identified in the committee report can be problematic for stakeholders, even in this example. Cyclists are concerned about the Scottish Government's preferred option of a fly-over and how their safety can be taken account of and incorporated into that. They voice their frustrations throughout this on-going process, and their experience reflects some of the conclusions in the committee report, including the recommendation that waiting should be given to engagement when scoring the success of projects in a deal. That could help ensure, as already highlighted by my colleague Graham Simpson, that engagement has been meaningful rather than just informative after the actual decisions have already been taken. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am pleased that the Edinburgh and South East Scotland deal is meeting the twin aims of economic growth and inclusive growth. The committee identified the need for better co-operation from both Governments on this. Edinburgh has perhaps benefited from having had more time to learn about inclusive growth and how to incorporate it, despite policy Scotland noting that it still remains an elusive term. Although I accept that it may be a repeated golden thread, as referred to by Kenny Gibson. On that note, that golden thread I shall conclude my words for today. Thank you. I just want you to clarify, Mr Lindhurst. Did you say that you weren't taking an intervention from Mr Arthur today? I am just wondering how long the debate is to last. I call Jenny Gilruth, followed by David Stewart. Mr Gilruth, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by thanking the clerks on the local government and community committee for their resolute professionalism and their hard work in pulling together the report on city deals. Also, perhaps by remarking on how evident it is which members today actually read the report before contributing to the debate. As fellow committee members will know, I have somewhat of a history with regard to the city deals, and so it will not surprise colleagues that I intend to focus my contribution today on the Edinburgh city region deal of which my constituency of Mid Fife and Glenrothes is a partner. In July 2017, I first critiques the Edinburgh city region deal as a missed opportunity for Fife and specifically for the Levenmouth rail link. Leavenmouth is the largest urban area in Scotland not directly connected by rail. One in three children live in poverty. In the New York Levenmouth academy, which was funded by more than £25 million of Scottish Government money, was the second highest recipient of the attainment fund last year in the country, a calculation predicated on free school meal entitlement. My constituency needs this rail link to allow inclusive growth to flourish. Without it, we are cut adrift. Shining new roundabouts and concert halls for the city must sound good to Edinburgh's residents, but what will they mean for children growing up in Fife? The report addresses a lack of transparency over the Edinburgh city deal, describing the process as opaque, pointing to a lack of consultation. I would like to make some progress, thank you, with local communities and businesses about what they wanted. Mr Kelly. James Kelly. Jenny Gilruth for taking the intervention. I think that you make some reasonable points about the leaving rail link. I just wondered what is the view of the transport minister on that? Is he supportive of all that? Jenny Gilruth. Jenny, thank you. I cannot speak for the transport minister, but what I will tell you about is the Labour Leader of Fife council and what his view was. His view at committee was that consultation with communities can be over-egged. We are talking about £1 billion of public money. You might consider that the person tasked with running Fife council would have asked local communities about how that cash was spent. Indeed, no, thank you. Fife council could not provide substantive evidence to show how they engage with communities at all. Secondly of importance are the comments that committee received from environmental groups, such as Scottish Environmental Link, who told us that there is more of a focus on specific capital projects than on using those investments to establish a direction of travel towards low-carbon inclusive and prosperous city regions. As a former member of the Environment Committee, I know too well of the need to facilitate a modal shift from road to rail to enable the Government to meet its emissions targets. New rail lines are therefore essential because we cannot facilitate modal shift if there are not any trains to shift to. Indeed, the importance of transport links as a driver for inclusive growth is flagged up in the report itself, which links transport funding through, for example, a station fund to Government policies on economic growth and skills development. As a Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted in the written submission to the committee, inclusive growth has potential to gain support across the political spectrum and more inclusive economy will reduce poverty and inequality, which is vitally important to areas like Levenmouth and my constituency, as I have previously illustrated. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for my constituents is how exactly local authorities prioritise projects. Indeed, the campaign group Transform Scotland commented that project selection was shrouded in a degree of secrecy on the basis of being sensitive or confidential, at least until they agreed, and that, even after agreement, some of the transport projects are vague and nonspecific. The FSB furthered, there are big concerns about the lack of transparency and the development and implementation stages and the lack of more inclusive and discursive engagement with the private sector. So let's now return to the Kingdom of Fife. In November 2017, David Ross told the committee that the Scottish Government officials had blocked the inclusion of the Levenmouth rail link, stating that the clear understanding that we got from the Scottish Government was that the project, the Levenmouth rail link, would not meet the specific criteria that they were looking for in the city deal. Now, this is a strong accusation to levy at any Government. So on 21 November, my office submitted an FOI request to Fife Council for copies of all correspondence relating to the Edinburgh City region deal between the council and the Scottish Government. The FOI was ignored. This was then treated as a refusal by the information commissioner and the FOI was resubmitted on 12 January. Fife Council finally responded some 79 days after the initial request. None of the documentation provided answered how the council prioritised projects. Rather, I was provided with a clutch of redacted emails as clear as mud. Indeed, Fife Council's legal team decided to withhold the information requested. But perhaps the Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown summed it up best when he advised the committee. I was with Councillor Ross at the signing of the deal and I have no recollection of any objection being raised to the deal that was proposed. As far as the process was concerned, the Leave of Mouth rail link was not part of the final proposal from Fife Council. Presiding officer, there you have it. The Leave of Mouth rail link is meant to be the number one transport priority for Fife Council, but even provided with an open goal they still missed the shot. You might well ask yourself why Fife Council is so keen to hide the information regarding the projects that they asked for in the city deal. Is it because they didn't ask for the Leave of Mouth rail link? Is it because there was a prioritisation process that did not include the number one transport priority for the region? Or is it because there is absolutely no evidence of Scottish Government officials blocking the rail link's inclusion in the deal? The answer to those questions now lies with the Scottish Information Commissioner. Presiding officer, I believe that the Leave of rail link will be reinstated one day. It will transform the lives of the people in Leave of Mouth. It will be the anchor that drives inclusive growth in a pocket of Fife that has, for generations, been blighted by the nightmares of its economic past. The Edinburgh city region deal, however, was a deal for the city. Fife Council did not ask for the Leave of rail link. They did not consult with communities. Then they tried to pass the buck when the game was up. Use the words of the report itself. No deal. Thank you. I call David Stewart to be followed by Willie Coffey. Mr Stewart, please. Thank you, Presiding officer. I also thank the local government and communities committee for their hard work, taking evidence and producing excellent report into city region deals. The objective of the original English city deal proposals was, of course, to stimulate growth and create jobs through investment in mainly, but not exclusively, large-scale infrastructure project. That, of course, has been echoed in Scotland, which follows the economic model of growth points as engines of change and productivity. Presiding officer, there are many examples across the globe. If I can give you one from the state, the Hoover Dam was built after the Great Depression in 1931 at a cost of $860 million in today's price and had the dam next to Lake Mead, which holds 9 trillion gallons, I should say, of water. That created thousands of jobs and still has a role in the stimulation of tourism today. Now, we've already heard that this is about partnership with local authorities, which I agree with, and we've heard about the front runners being Glasgow Aberdeen in Vanessa and Highland, which I'm particularly interested in, as you've expressed, after an Edinburgh schemes. We've heard from Kenneth Gibson that a number of other councils are in the wings preparing city deals. Before touching on the Vanessa and Highland city deal, I want to look more closely at some general themes raised in the report, which, as I said, I thought was a good read and made some interesting points. I suppose that the first issue is what is the objective of city region deals. To be slightly pedantic, of course, there are slightly different goals between the Scottish Government, which is inclusive growth, and it should not necessarily come into conflict with the UK's aim of purely economic growth, which, with technocrats among you, is a measure of gross value added. I think that the focus should always be on achieving the best deal for the city region. And as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said in Evans to the committee, city region should make inclusive growth the main organising principle for their place, leading the agenda and catalyzing actions. That includes setting ambitious new targets around employment, pay, progression and skills attainment. So clearly it's not just a bit jobs, Presiding Officer, but also the progression to more skilled and higher level posts. And many members have also touched on the point about how projects are selected. Are they additional, and I'll say some more about that in the future in my speech, or do they replace jobs in other regions? For example, what would the long-term impact be in parts of Scotland not covered by the city region deals? In my own region, for example, that would include, and that's not exclusive, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland and Agail and Bute. But what also would be the effect of Brexit and the potential loss of EU funding? In my patch, for example, that was one billion euros, and yes, I do mean billion, for the Highlands and Islands alone, in the ERDF, ESF, agricultural and fisheries and to region and other EU programmes. And are city deals effective at attracting genuine new investment? And again, as other members have testified, I do welcome Audit Scotland's decision to review the performance of city deals. But as the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at Newcastle University noted in their evidence, and I quote, the work is bedevilled by issues about additionality, attribution, displacement and the long-term natures of many of the city deal investments and their potential outputs, outcomes and impacts. The nature of the deal making and negotiating process lends itself to over-claiming the potential benefits by local actors as part of attempting to leverage higher levels of central government support and a more advantageous deal, robust assessment of the difference that city deals make or not is fundamental. On that, Presiding Officer, I agree with local government and communities committee conclusions. We need to have a sustainability audit and we need to have equality impact assessments. And clearly a clear and transparent risk assessment for each deal would be extremely helpful. And in future there's some debate about this in committee evidence, but I think it probably would be useful in city deals too that there's probably more involvement with business in the third sector. But turning to the city region deal in my own region in Vanessa and Highland, the deal included an agreement to start by funding three projects. One, a science schools academy, two, the University of Hanson Island schools of health, social care and life sciences and a major land reclamation project at the Inverness Longman which would stimulate new business. So over the last decade or so, Presiding Officer, my region has benefit from the creation of the University of Hanson Islands along with major investments in digital infrastructure and transport. But it faces significant challenges. Depopulation caused by the outmigration of young people often due to lack of higher education and employment opportunities is a major issue. But the deal aims and I agree with this to create new well-paid jobs in the private sector encouraging young people to remain and boosting the region's growing sectors, such as tourism and life sciences and building more affordable homes. It's key that we promote innovation, internationalisation and new partnerships between the region's many small businesses. Improving connectivity with transport investment, vital and to become the destidually connected rural region in Europe. Presiding Officer, I want to highlight just a few other projects in the few seconds I've got left. I would highlight the city region Wi-Fi project which I think is excellent for great practice, the northern innovation hub to be delivered by Hans-Laz Enterprise and the local council. If I could tightly flag up the fit house project which members might not have come across, this enables innovative assisted living schemes using the latest IT healthcare to allow elderly people to live in their communities and avoid the need for them to be taken into hospitals or care homes. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, as my time is just about up, I believe that my region has many strengths in life sciences, tourism, food drink and creative industries. I believe that the Inverness and Highland city region deal will bring much development, jobs and economic boost to one of the most rural and peripheral parts of Scotland whose GDP lags behind many similar regions across the EU. In the words of Michelle Obama, cities are complex, big, messy enterprise and they are expensive. If we are going to have cities, then we have to invest. Thank you. I do have quite a bit of time in hand. If anyone is desperately wishing to intervene in colleagues, I can give them the extra time for that. I now call Willie Coffey, followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When you read the committee's extensive report on the city region deals and its many recommendations, you cannot help getting the feeling that the original strategy to develop and take forward these initiatives could have benefited from some careful thinking and planning at the outset. Those deals more or less emerged from a UK Government white paper in 2011 and were known as city deals. The idea being that the cities would drive forward economic growth and every other town and village would begin to glow in the slipstream of economic recovery that the deals would create. Not so in Scotland, of course. We have more towns and villages than we have cities. And most are nowhere near the cities to experience that economic afterglow. The idea that all we need to do is to invest millions upon millions in places like London or Glasgow and Edinburgh and the rest of our country will inevitably reap the benefit isn't realistic in my view and has been criticised by some giving evidence to the committee has been a little simplistic and dated in its thinking. In Ayrshire, our very own Patrick Wiggins who heads up our growth deal efforts warned the committee about this and it was mentioned earlier by Kenny Gibson but it's nevertheless worth repeating. When he said that the more investment that happens in or close to the centre of Glasgow the more likely it is to suck up demand in the Scottish economy making it even harder for places like Ayrshire to achieve our potential. So a warning there I think about this strategy and approach that the deals could take. Indeed Professor Duncan MacLennan of Policy Scotland in the report went on to say that Scotland is a country of towns and that the national special planning framework has a coach in horses ridden through it by these city deals. So the committee under Bob Doris's convenership should be commended for this important piece of work and its focus on a number of issues that should probably have been considered at a far earlier stage. Issues like whether the strategy's focus is on economic or inclusive growth are both how the deals are assessed selected and in what order how they are to be managed and subject to appropriate scrutiny the capacity to deliver them and of course how their outcomes will be delivered and the impact they must make if they are to be judged a success. We should really have seen all that work being done much earlier in the programme but there's still enough time to get it right. Audit Scotland will no doubt have something to say along these lines I think when they complete their work on examining the process the progress made by the deals so far. Now on the positive side there's much to commend from what has been put in place so far and what will likely follow. Our cabinet secretary recognised that the deals have matured a bit and are no longer simple lists of infrastructure projects. They're beginning to integrate much more with the private sector and they really need to be focusing on transformational and inclusive growth recognised by the committee in some of its conclusions. Glasgow, Aberdeenon, Vanesson, Edinburgh and the surrounding regions all have their plans under way with their priorities set and with significant funding of around £1.3 billion from the Scottish Government to support their various programmes. All seem to include a mixture of transport and infrastructure developments but they all have their own unique priorities too and that's the way it should be. The trick for me and for many others whose constituencies don't yet feature is how these deals will effectively reach out and bring that benefit to the wider communities and towns in Scotland. To succeed, as many of those giving evidence said, they mustn't simply act as magnets pulling in the skill pool from neighbouring towns, clogging up their motorways as people commute to the cities to access the growing jobs markets there. That brings me down to Ayrshire and the proposed growth deal there. Given the committee's comments about the deals needing to be more closely integrated with private sector initiatives we can see this clearly with the proposals in Ayrshire supporting the aerospace and life sciences industries as well as marine tourism. In particular, The Halo project in Kilmarmac is a £65 million project that will create a dynamic commercial educational culture in the leisure quarter with quality housing too on the site of the former Johnny Walker plant which sadly and wrongly in my opinion closed its doors in 2012. The potential is incredible and we are all waiting for is the full buy-in from the UK Government to back Ayrshire in much the same way as the deals elsewhere in Scotland. The committee called for a clearer timetable for all of this to take place and I'm hopeful that this can be agreed soon. Ayrshire, I think, expects no less. Presiding officer, the city region growth deals are a fantastic opportunity to deliver real inclusive growth right across Scotland. Yes, I think that we could have been planned and timetabled much better but the potential is there for these deals to make a huge and positive difference to all of the communities in Scotland, including Ayrshire. I'm happy to endorse and support the fine work done by our committee colleagues in producing this report. Thank you. Call Brian Whittle to be followed by Claire Baker. I'm happy to give a little extra time if that would be useful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate and I also want to thank the work of local government at communities committee in developing the report and for bringing this debate to the chamber. As most are aware in the chamber, I have been working hard in trying to persuade both Scottish and UK Governments to invest in the Ayrshire growth deal specifically. Ayrshire has suffered more than most from under investment from central governments both in terms of job creation and also in terms of transport infrastructure. I would like to point out that both those two things are intrinsically linked. The campaigns around the chronic need for drilling the 77 and 75 main arteries connecting the busy port of Cairnryan with the central belt and the south are well known. However, the A70, the 71 and 76 are also operating well beyond the volume of traffic that they were designed for. I also have to mention the Belfield interchange in Kilmarnock, which is hugely important to the development of major proposals within the growth deal to both east and north Ayrshire. The Belfield interchange is not only no longer able to cope with the current volume of traffic, it is dangerous with the traffic queuing off the slip roads and on to the main A77 carriageway during peak times. So much so that Transport Scotland have objected to a couple of times to further commercial developments around the area for that reason stifling some development. So it is very important that we link the Ayrshire growth deal with the campaign to invest in infrastructure transport in the south west of Scotland, which, as an aside, Deputy Presiding Officer, I was particularly disappointed that the Transport Minister, Humza Yousaf, was conspicuous by his absence at the recent Ayrshire Transport Summit. So Deputy Presiding Officer, Ayrshire's unemployment level is higher than the Scottish average with a lower employment rate. It has more people living in deprivation than the Scottish average. It has a declining population against a national increase and there is a productivity gap in the area with the gross value added having increased at a lower rate than the Scottish average. Investment innovation is lower than the Scottish average. Research and development maximum spending is less than a fifth per head than the Scottish average and the gap is winding. Furthermore, Ayrshire's employment structure relies very heavily on the public sector with relatively few large businesses in the area. Yet Ayrshire has such scope for development. The Ayrshire growth deal proposal with both UK and Scottish Government admitting that it is much more advanced than just about any other growth deal already under way that they are hugely ambitious and have the capability of transforming the economy of Ayrshire with a significant knock-on effect for the Scottish economy. From developing the aerospace industries in South Ayrshire to developing the RDR Peninsula and Irvine harborside or funding the coastal regeneration and redrawson all the excitingly proposed development in manufacturing at Muirfield, Bellfield and at the former Johnnie Walker site at Hill Street. For goodness sake, we have an application for a spaceport at Presswick. So, in fact, the sky is not the limit of our ambition. What is unique with the Ayrshire growth deal is that it has taken collaboration with three councils, South East and North Ayrshire and it is to their credit that they have managed to maintain that triumvirate of councils throughout this process all the while watching other deals seemingly jump the queue. With regards to the UK Government, I have been speaking regularly with the Scottish office as well as encouraging both Ruth Davidson and a model phraser to push the case for the Ayrshire growth deal every time they are in Westminster, which they absolutely have been doing. I invited Greg Clark up to meet with the Ayrshire growth deal team as well as the Halo project which has been mentioned in here and a welcome investment in that project in Kilmarnock from both UK and Scottish Governments. However, it took too long and we nearly lost that initiative with the green light being pushed late in the 11th hour. Now that project is well under way and it is very exciting to watch it develop before everybody's eyes and every time I pass by it, I have to smile and it will release, as mentioned by Willie Coffey, an overall investment of well over £60 million, in fact £65 million in Kilmarnock and East Ayrshire as a whole. We should not let the Ayrshire growth deal drag by in the same way. When I speak with the UK Government, I find the signs are all positive. It's more of a case of when, not if. The Scottish Government's position, quite frankly, is not that much different, although to me it seems to be in a holding position. I will take an intervention. Keith Brown Can I thank Brian Brittle for taking the intervention and also allowing me just to clarify exactly what the Scottish Government's position is? Because it is perfectly clear, I am very keen to get on with the Ayrshire growth deal. I said this a number of times to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We were meant to meet two weeks ago and for various reasons that didn't happen, but he was going to come back finally to say it. If he doesn't do that, then the Scottish Government is left with two options, one not to proceed or one to proceed. But also, if he do it at that point, it locks out UK Government contribution. We can make more of this together if we both work together. There is nothing stopping the Scottish Government moving forward, other than waiting for an answer from the UK Government. We are happy to go. I agree with all the other points that Brian Brittle has made about the way that the Ayrshire councils have collaborated. We just need to get the red light and the green light to go ahead. Brian Brittle Can I thank Keith Brown for his intervention and his clarification on the Scottish Government's position? I am not going to make a political point here because, quite frankly, Mr Brown, I don't care who makes the first move here. I am telling you that the way that I have dealt with and the feedback that I have had from the UK Government and the conversations that we have had within this, all I need is for somebody to move. What I would like to see from the Scottish Government, quite frankly, is a quantifying of what your support actually means and which projects you are particularly willing to support. To be honest, neither party is taking that decisive first step that would make all the considerable efforts of the Ayrshire councils worthwhile and to the benefit of the region as a whole. Indeed, sometimes I have to say that I am left with the sense that the attitude adopted by both Governments is not so much one of collaboration but more of a competition. From an initiative that is supposed to be about getting regions to work together, to me, the two largest players in those projects seem to be prone to adopting an approach of we'll do our thing, you do yours and let's see how it goes or perhaps more in the case of the Ayrshire growth deal. It's more a case of you show me yours. Keith Brown was quoted as saying that city region deals represent an important opportunity for an inclusive economic growth and to forge new collaborations between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and local government and their regional partners. Now, I have to say I could not agree more with Keith Brown so there goes my credibility and probably his as well here. The thing is, one party has to make a move here or preferably, as Keith Brown has said, preferably move together because while we have this kind of stand-off and quite frankly political manoeuvring, the only sufferers are the people of Ayrshire, the economy of the region as well as the greater Scottish economy as a whole. So can I call on both parties please to get the Ayrshire growth deal agreed and moving because I know there is genuine will on both sides and it is the right thing to do. In the Scottish Conservatives we support both Governments in delivering growth deals that cover every part of Scotland to the benefit of the whole country. So let's get on with it. And as I said to Keith Brown I really don't care how this comes about who moves first because whoever it is I am happy to stand up in this chamber and congratulate whoever makes the Ayrshire growth deal happen. Deputy Presiding Officer I call Claire Baker to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to be able to contribute to this afternoon's debate. As a Mid Scotland and Fife MSP city deals increasingly are becoming a feature of our local economy and planning. The Stirling region deals sits completely within my region while the Edinburgh and South East of Scotland city deal and the Tay city deals benefit from encapsulating Fife within their deals but it does present challenges as to where the bulk of the investment lies. The ink has dried on the agreement of the Edinburgh city deal for better or worse but I understand that the Stirling deal is imminent and the Tayside deal is still in discussion. On balance I am supportive of the city region deals but would support arguments that it's not yet clear the extent to which Fife will benefit from the Edinburgh deal which certainly seems weighted towards the city. I welcome the work of the local government and communities committee in undertaking this inquiry. As they recognise, as Bob Dorriff in his opening said, this is the first time we've had a debate of substance on this issue within Parliament. Introduced by the UK Government as city deals, in Scotland due to the scale and benefit they are more commonly known as city region deals and they are a shared initiative from the Scottish and the UK Government with the aim of stimulating economic growth and creating jobs focused around an economic hub. They are designed to provide fairly significant funding levels in the main to large-scale infrastructure projects which might otherwise be difficult to fund at a local level. At the moment though it's not clear what funds will be allocated to which projects. They also seek to introduce a more strategic approach across a geographical area. Initially they were perhaps seen as something unique and targeted with the Glasgow city deal leading the way, though now some 83 per cent of the population will fall under one of the deals. The committee established a number of areas that they wish to consider and those areas around effectiveness, decision making and localism all set out by the convener in his opening comments are welcome. The committee does recognise that we are in early days of the city deals and that it will take some time before a real evaluation has been made. At this stage the sums of money all sound impressive but none of it has yet been spent and it is important that we monitor progress going forward. It is important that delivery is real and that benefits are to be realised. The committee described themselves as sharing the scepticism of an employment figure that is being promoted. I do hope that scepticism is not justified and that efforts will be focused on job creation. The big shiny announcement is the easy part and I believe James Kelly made important points about the need for quality jobs which are well paid and sustainable. The committee's points on the key partners the UK Government the Scottish Government and the local government working closely together to maximise the effectiveness of the investment and avoid overlap or confusion are well made. The recognition from both governments and their evidence to the committee from the cabinet secretary Keith Brown and from Lord Duncan both of them recognise I think where the weaknesses in this arrangement are and that might indicate their ability to reach a solution though that will involve the challenge of dialogue with the treasury. The good points were made by the committee around monitoring, evaluation and governance. The projects being proposed are significant and they do require oversight. Audit Scotland's work and their report will be important in this regard and it will provide the opportunity with the further opportunity for the sorry provide the Parliament with the further opportunity for scrutiny which is to be welcomed. In this debate I would like to welcome the contribution of Joanna Boyd who was the leader of Stirling council when the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal was agreed. During the campaign to be awarded a city deal Joanna Boyd kindly briefed me on the proposals and I believe that it is clear that Joanna's commitment to her energy and her vision for the deal were key factors in success for the Stirling area. There has been and continues to be a political consensus and agreement on the potential for Stirling which is a good foundation for going forward. As I am in Scotland in Fife MSP I am well aware of the disappointment that the Levenmouth rail project does not feature in the Edinburgh city deal and it is right that questions are asked. As the committee themselves recognise while the UK and Scottish Government do not propose projects they do have a clear criteria for what they are looking for from projects, what they want that focus to be and have a method of scoring all of which which is dealt with in private and not put in the public domain and I understand part of the criteria for any transport projects is that they were significant and they required to be consistent with the Scottish Government transport Scotland priorities for investment and they also need to be stag ready. The committee did identify the issues around discussions taking place in private and the lack of transparency has led to disputes. The Levenmouth rail project has a significant amount of support in Fife and across the chamber and I recognise Jenny Gilruth's commitment to the project as I do that of other MSPs across the chamber and Ms Gilruth held a very positive debate here last year and there has been strong advantages in sending out a united political message from Fife. So I find the attacks on Fife council over what is or is not in the deal rather odd. And this attempt to question Fife council's commitment to the project I believe is unfair is during the time that I have been an MSP regardless of the political hue of the council during that time it has always supported the campaign in ways that it can. No, Ms Gilruth did not take an intervention from me when I asked three times on this issue. And if it comes to it in this instance supporting the statement of Fife councillors who I would argue have the concerns of Fife as their focus more than the Scottish Government or the UK Government and that is whom I am inclined to support in this debate over what happened in negotiations. I would strongly suggest I am sorry I would like to make another point. The more significant issue here may be the challenges for the smaller partners in securing their share of significant investment within the city region deals which are often dominated by a big city. And I recognise that there is an appetite across Scotland for investment into public transport infrastructure and there is frustration at the lack of the sorry, there is frustration at the level of scrutiny plans that they have to go through with the associated costs without any real commitment to delivery coming from the Scottish Government. So I believe that this dispute about the Levenmouth rail link in the city deal is a red herring. And I would suggest I would strongly suggest that it is more problematic for the Levenmouth rail campaign at the moment is the delaying tactics of Transport Scotland and the lack of clarity from the Transport Minister over his intention for the project. But these are issues that need to be resolved outside of the city deal discussions today. So in closing while the partnership approach is welcome and can realise rewards others in the chamber have made good points about the need to empower local authorities and communities to ensure that they are partners equal partners in the deals going forward. Thank you. The last of the open debate contributions is from Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First I'd like to put on record my appreciation for the work carried out by the local government and communities committee convened so ably by Bob Doris on the matter of city region deals. I very much welcome this debate although today it has been tinged with a bit more pessimism than I had anticipated. However, I want to concentrate as you might imagine specifically on the Stirling deal but Stirling-Clackmannan deal but come back to wider committee matters towards the end. In November 2016 the Scottish Government announced that discussions would begin with Stirling council on a city region deal would include Clackmannanshire. This commitment was shortly followed by a similar announcement by the UK Chancellor in his autumn budget. This was the beginning of a process that has seen many months of negotiation and discussion to get us to where we are today. It's not always been easy and there have been challenging discussions but I believe that the general cross-party consensus that's been managed to achieve on the Stirling-Clackmannanshire city region deal has been a benefit and I think that Clare Baker identified that cross-party nature of working in the Stirling area in her own speech. As I understand it we're a matter of weeks possibly even days away from a heads of kerums on this deal being signed off by the two Governments and the two local authorities. However, none of this would be impossible if it weren't for the gold standard business case that is put together by Stirling council officials way back at the beginning. I know for a fact that their hard work has impressed civil servants in both the Scottish and your rated Kingdom Governments with their well considered proposals and that gave the Stirling-Clackmannanshire city region deal a head start for negotiations. Presiding Officer the Stirling-Clackmannanshire city region deal is a vision for our area that would see inclusive growth, the development new industries and the promotion of start-up businesses. And by building on our extending tourism opportunities and potential we have not only further the promotion of the area as a place to visit but also to one to move to and invest in. And at the heart of the deal proposals is a programme for opportunities to build on a local economy and grow and develop local communities. The digital district for instance will put Stirling at the front and centre of digital enterprise and innovation not just here in Scotland I believe but potentially across the world. The creation of both a digital hub and digital campus will offer not only growth but opportunities for training, apprenticeships and employment. The hub located in the old municipal buildings in a space where students and businesses can work together collaboratively. And it's already attracted the international round start-up company codebase but this is only the beginning and the ambition in this area should be limitless. The campus to be located in the Albert halls will be a centre for UK conferences seminars and programmes on digital innovation and technological progress. This exciting aspect of the city region deal will truly help to find Stirling's place in digital enterprise and innovation working in collaboration with Stirling University and Forth Valley College. The city of Stirling's relationship with Riverforth also presents an opportunity to create enhanced pedestrian and psychopaths as well as perhaps the establishment of a new system of water taxis. So that's quite imaginative but it will require significant engineering in the area and will be a challenge if it is to be achieved because as you might imagine in that part of the world the Riverforth is tidal. So time will tell whether or not that particular element will find its way to success. But this initiative supports active travel connecting the city centre to other parts of the Stirling area. In addition to this the harbour developments will see the creation of a shared civic space an external performance an event space and bespoke city harbour square. And this will sit alongside the engine shed Historic Scotland's world-leading centre for conservation skills and heritage. The harbour will also include a new national tartan centre located alongside the magnificent new hub for third sector innovation already under construction. Making use of outdoor opportunities and the development of a new city park is also a key part of the city region deal proposals. Creating an outdoor destination at the foot of Stirling castle that will ensure that Stirling city park is one of the most recognisable and distinctive parks in the country. And at the top of the town an area that is yes challenged sometimes by social issues that need to be overcome there is a proposal that will see the historical town turned into the cultural quarter for Stirling. So an area that sometimes we don't always see talked about enough in city deals and can add significantly to the economic growth of the area to give people something that is beyond the landscape and the history of this fantastic part of Scotland. Now some criticism has been drawn where large amounts of investment have focused geographically on the city and that must be recognised by those going forward. As an example it's important that people in villages like such as Aberfoil have increased access to numerous services that would come from those proposals and already a digital hub has been established in Aberfoil providing shared space for local individuals and organisations to utilise. This is a fantastic template and needs to be expanded to other areas. That might all come part of the city deal but the city deal can be the generator that can create that extra activity because not everything can be done through the city deal process. Similarly we have to figure out where possible where people can invest in transport and travel solutions where people from places like the eastern villages can make the best of accessing the Stirling city and it can be inclusive for everyone. That can be done through improved transport links through furthering Stirling cycle ambition for instance demonstrated by the potential of a new fleet of electric bikes which I know that the Scottish Government helped to invest in and the cabinet secretary was a part of the opening of that whole experience. And now we have one of the the most recognised cycling friendly cities potentially in the country. And by working with organisations such as trust us strands we can hope up the opportunity to create flexible solutions that encourage healthy environmentally friendly travel. Finally, Presiding Officer I recognise we're moving on in time. The committee report recommends that the UK Government and Scottish Government work together to devise a single focus and deal not with artificial boundaries and that comes down to some of the treasury rules about expenditure on reserved areas or devolved areas. And I think we need to remove some of these barriers and not worry so much about where the money comes from it's what happens at the end of the day. However, I think it's pleasing to note that the relations between the two Governments have evolved working in better partnership as a result of experience today certainly from the past and that certainly the perspective from the Stirling area I think things are beginning to mature as far as that relationship around Stirling the city deals is concerned. With that, Presiding Officer, I look forward to the details of the Heads of Terms Agreement for the Stirling and Clack Minister City region deal. I commend the committee for their excellent work. I don't actually agree with all the recommendations I've already spoken to the convener about that and I'll explore these arguments perhaps at a later date. Thank you very much. We now move to the closing speeches and of course everyone should be in the chamber for those who took part in the debate but aren't. I call Lewis MacDonald up to eight minutes please Mr MacDonald. Thank you very much. If the 19th century was the age of empires and the 20th century the era of nation states the 21st century will see cities and regions which achieve a critical mass of creativity and productivity as the drivers of the global economy not just my view but the view of many economists which informs public policy around the world. The Parliament was born on the threshold of this new century and there has been from the beginning a recognition of the importance of city regions as drivers of Scottish economic growth. There has been cross-party support for that approach from the outset and it is also reflected in Scotland's national planning framework. So neither Scotland's city region deals nor the city deals in Northern England are brand new but they do reflect a growing view that investment in critical infrastructure brings social as well as economic benefits. A city or region which is connected physically and virtually can play a much larger role in the global economy to the benefit of all its citizens. That is why city region deals matter and why it is so important to get them right. Labour welcomes this committee report as focusing on some of the key questions going forward but we also recognise that it does yet as early days in the development of city region deals. It is critical to the success of these deals in delivering for everyone. That, as Keith Brown said in his opening remarks and indeed in his response to the committee, autonomous democratically elected local authorities must be at the centre of design and delivery of all growth deals. That autonomy is important. Councils are not the agents of central government either here or elsewhere. They are democratically elected so their accountability can help ensure that economic growth is inclusive and it is the best defence against exploitative work practices in projects funded by this means. Local councils and their local partners should take the lead in design of schemes including the selection of projects while ministers of course have stewardship of the public funds which they contribute. It is local government which best reflects the views of communities on what local priorities need to be. Just as Claire Baker said so clearly a few moments ago. Delivery of projects will inevitably vary from deal to deal depending on the nature of the partners and on the delivery model agreed. But local authorities are bound to be key partners in delivery as well as design and the accountability and permanence of local government make them the right public bodies to lead delivery in most circumstances. As James Kelly mentioned Aberdeen City Council in my own area has taken a particularly innovative approach to finance by raising a very substantial bond at its own hand. The committee is right to argue for transparency and accountability in city region deals and we support the proposition that all parts of Scotland should have the benefit of growth deal investments going forward. Equally it is vital that each deal should develop in the way best suited to its own city region. Now Bob Doris opened the debate by saying that the Glasgow and Clyde valley deal was well under way while others were at various stages of development. I have very good news for Mr Doris. I can tell him today that the Aberdeen city region deal is also well under way and in fact at a very advanced stage. To take one example the oil and gas technology centre set up under the city region deal has already co-invested some 37 million pounds in more than 70 projects during its first 12 months and only this week the OGTC and Aberdeen University announced a new multimillion pound centre of excellence in oil and gas decommissioning to be operational later this year. So work is applying ahead and that I think is significant. One important aspect of the Aberdeen deal that hasn't been or that was mentioned as an area for improvement across the board is the engagement of the private sector in partnership with the public sector and the alignment of investment and support from a range of partners. So for example the number has been mentioned today of a capital value of 826 million pounds from the Aberdeen arising from the Aberdeen city region deal but as the Cabinet Secretary mentioned 250 million of that is direct support from the Scottish and UK Governments much of the rest is provided or leveraged by Aberdeen City Council Aberdeenshire Council Aberdeen University Robert Gordon University and the private sector critical to success. And this debate is timely in that last night saw the annual general meeting of the private sector partner in the Aberdeen deal opportunity north east or one it is now just over two years old and having already committed some 29 million pounds during the first five years of the city deal Sir Ian Wood announced last night additional funding through one of another 33 million pounds on condition that it is much funded. So I hope the cabinet secretary today will be in a position to confirm that this private sector offer will not be lost and that this investment will indeed be much funded because both the Scottish and UK Governments should I hope take this opportunity to step up to the plate to secure those additional millions and to provide yet greater benefits to the Aberdeen city region economy. When the Aberdeen deal was signed in 2016 it included a commitment to a transport appraisal supported by both the Scottish and UK Governments and by local partners to take and I quote a 20-year strategic view of the transport implications of investment under the deal across all modes including road and rail. And I would therefore ask the Scottish Government if they intend to develop towards a city region deal too for Aberdeen and David Stewart mentioned it also in the context of Inverness and of course Glasgow is already well established and how the Government intends to build on existing city regions deals across Scotland. Of course Keith Brown Can I thank you Lewis Macdonald for taking intervention and saying that I think he would probably concede the point where duty bound as I've said to make sure there's a deal for everywhere in Scotland before we start talking about a second chance but would he also acknowledge the extra £254 million committed by the Scottish Government on top of the £250 million that you mentioned for transport-related projects? Lewis Macdonald Absolutely on both points on the first point yes of course I understand and he is right to make that commitment I know that will be welcome across Scotland that commitment to develop initial city region or economic growth deals across the country there is nothing to prevent the work going forward just now on the back of the commitments made under the existing city region deals to put those second stage deals in place at the appropriate time and I hope his comment does not imply that he doesn't intend to do that in relation to the additional £254 million in relation to Aberdeen that Mr Brown mentions he will recall that the purpose of that was said at the time to be to replace the short but economically calamitous stretch of single track on the east coast rail line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh which is a huge and negative impact on the north-east economy that stretch of track at Montrose will be expensive to fix but it does need to be fixed if the full benefits of the city region deal are to be achieved and I hope the cabinet secretary will be able to confirm today that they intend to deliver on that specific objective and not to divert the funding identified for this purpose to journey time saving measures elsewhere on the railway network Finally may I mention and again on the same spirit of things that can go forward together Mr Brown will be aware of the work that is going forward right now on an oil and gas sectoral deal and there are other sectoral deals being addressed as well and being explored that clearly has great potential to bring further benefits to the north-east in particular but to Scotland in general and again I would ask Mr Brown in replying to the debate to indicate how he sees sectoral deals as they develop dovetailing with city region deals new ones in new areas second generation ones in those areas where they are already established city region deals have created new opportunities we do need to develop them further if we are to make the most of the potential of the offer and I believe that if the government working with partners is willing and able to do that it will have support from partners across the chamber I call Dean Lockhart around eight minutes please Mr Lockhart thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I would also like to add my thanks and congratulations to the clerks and the committee for an excellent report and as we've heard in today's debate the first city deal Glasgow has been on the go for almost four years and there are another three deals in active delivery with others in the pipeline so this is a good time for a preliminary assessment of the city region deal programme not in relation to the long-term success of how the programmes might pan out in the future but as Bob Dorris said to explore the rationale the prioritisation and the value for money of the city regional deals to date including progress in job creation and economic growth the committee report makes a number of important points in these areas it reminds us of the transformative potential of the city region deals and for good reason because a total of £3.4 billion is currently scheduled for investment including more than £1 billion from the UK Government which is over and above the Barnett-based spending formula and the city regional deals will now cover an area representing 83 per cent of people in Scotland with the ambition of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government being for deals to cover every part of Scotland which we support the debate has also made it clear that every one of the city deals is different reflecting the different history of the deals and the distinctive approach taken by each city and region Bob Dorris and Graham Simpson explained that the Glasgow deal is heavily based on infrastructure projects for historical reasons Gordon Lindhurst highlighted the focus of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland deal on innovation, digital and informatics and in the North East we have seen significant private sector investment and a focus on the oil and gas sector in my own region the Stirling and Clackmannasur deal is about to be signed as we have heard the heads of terms and the detail will hopefully be announced shortly it is too early to assess the potential impact of the deal but the approach taken in this deal has been to combine different strands seen in the other deals and to promote sustainable growth infrastructure investment and innovation with an emphasis on cross-sectoral approaches based on prioritising digital in the city and in the surrounding region I think it is fair to say and Bruce Crawford mentioned this that the Stirling and Clackmannasur deal is a good example of how all stakeholders can learn from some of the evolving challenges encountered in the previous deals and there are certainly some lessons to be learned from the challenges experienced some of these challenges were mentioned during the debate the problem of displacement and the coverage of city deals was highlighted by Jenny Gilgrewth who made a powerful case for the Levenmouth rail project to be included in the Edinburgh and South city deal I've also heard concerns repeated concerns from the Fife Chamber of Commerce about the lack of investment coming to Fife from the Edinburgh and surrounding deals including the Tayside deal and I think there's a bit of work to be done in terms of analysing the impact of Fife and the benefits coming to Fife as a result of the city deals the lack of transparency was raised by a number of members Bob Dorris expressed concerns about the opaque nature of decision making and Graham Simpson raised concerns about engaging local communities more highlighting concerns that people feel projects are being done to them not with them and I think a number of members I will in a second a number of members highlighted the tension between the sometimes conflicting local, regional and national priorities or guidelines I think we're all hoping to achieve the same from the city deals but sometimes there's a lack of clarity over what the local and the regional outcomes are and I'll give way now Bob Dorris I thank the member for taking the intervention it's really just putting the record and hopefully the member will agree with us that the committee recommendation on the lack of transparency or opaqueness is not directed specifically either the Scottish Government or the UK Government or indeed individual local authorities who can sometimes put in bids for way beyond the monies available to be spent in the first place in which case prioritisation also becomes essential to transparency not just for one tier of government but for all levels Dean Lockhart Yeah no thank you for that question and I completely agree I think given the amount of investment given the transformational impact this could have I think transparency is going to be a key part of this but also the central question that Bob Dorris has highlighted about the selection criteria for projects I think goes to the heart of this and I think that was one of the key recommendations in the report paragraphs 177 and 18 183 of the report which called for guidance for a clear standardised pan-Scotland system for the evaluation of projects and also for further clarification about whether or not the focus should be on economic growth or inclusive growth and I think for me that was one of the key recommendations coming out of the report in response to this recommendation the cabinet secretary referred to the collective aim of selecting projects that can generate the optimal level of regional inclusive growth now I agree with the cabinet secretary that we should avoid arguments about semantics in this debate and about delivering the city deals but the cabinet secretary himself has acknowledged and we have heard in the economy committee repeatedly that inclusive growth has no agreed definition and can mean different things to different people and that's difficult when you have a number of different stakeholders with different responsibilities and with different aims it's difficult if you give them the overriding objective of inclusive growth and there's no definition or there's a different view as to what that might mean let me be clear this is not an argument over different policies it's about answering the call of the committee for further clarity in respect of the end objective being pursued by different stakeholders it's not an argument for centralisation but an argument for better alignment between the objectives of local and regional stakeholders and I think to deliver this requested clarity the Scottish Government should look at developing together with stakeholders local and regional targets that can be quantified and clear outcomes that would benefit both the local communities as well as the national economy for example if you look at the UK Government's objective of economic growth this includes both what you could call hard economic targets as well as community-based outcomes the hard economic targets are increasing GVA or GDP increasing productivity or innovation or increasing business R&D, private sector investment or FDI levels those are all traditional economic targets but the economic strategy also includes community-based outcomes increasing the number of college places for deprived areas the number of apprenticeships and the number of jobs in different communities so it is possible to combine clear targets for the hard economic outcomes as well as community-based outcomes and these are all quantifiable targets and outcomes that can be measured and I would encourage the cabinet secretary perhaps in his winding up to explain when and whether we will be seeing more concrete targets being issued by the Government in this area Deputy Presiding Officer Audit Scotland will soon review the city deals but Audit Scotland reviewed the Government's economic strategy two years ago and I think some of the analysis from the Audit Scotland report two years ago will be equally applicable to the city deal the central conclusion of the Audit Scotland report then was that the Scottish Government sets out priorities on a high-level policy approach when it comes to the economy but it does not set out how the strategy or underlying policies will be implemented in their words there is no action plan with clear targets or timescales from the Scottish Government and I'm just about to wrap up and let me just wrap up by saying this if we do want and I think we all want the city regional deals to have the best chance of success and for that to happen I think we need further clarity from the Scottish Government about the overall strategic objectives of the city regional deals thank you I call Keith Brown around eight minutes please cabinet secretary thank you thank you also I think this has been an interesting debate with a number of different points of view I'd like to thank the committee for having pressed to have this debate and for their report and their recommendations what's clear from the contributions that we've heard is how ambitious everyone is for the achievement of faster inclusive growth across Scotland and of course that's an ambition I share wholeheartedly if I could spend some time just on trying to respond to some of the points and speeches which have been made first of all with Graham Simpson's comments which he was relatively positive about Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh less so about Glasgow just to make the point once again Glasgow city deal was not one where there was any engagement previously with the Scottish Government I do think it has been a case that the city deals since then have matured all parties I think have overseen that process they're no longer just straightforwardly a list of infrastructure projects I should also say that's one reason why we've been willing along with the UK Government to allow for the possibility of some revision as long as certain local authorities are not disadvantaged in that as long as the quantum's not affected they may have said for our part that we are willing to look sympathetically at that and of course that one was one which was signed before Brexit as well so circumstances have changed to the extent that we were willing to count on his changes if that's what people want In relation to Mike Rumble's contribution it was as sophisticated and subtle as it ever is so it was a rant about the Scottish Government and how bad it was in fact the gist of it was really not only should the SNP do all the things that the Liberal Democrats didn't do when they were in office for eight years but they should do them right away that seemed to be a bit the gist of it and also he also talked about I couldn't quite make out but it seemed to be arguing against the inclusion of the Lawrence Kirk junction at one point but it's worth pointing out of course not a single inch of tarmac was laid by the Liberal Democrats during their term either in Lawrence Kirk or in relation to the Aberyne Western peripheral route Kenny Gibson made the point a very good point about borderlands it doesn't seem logical or fair to many people that we should be considering a borderlands deal in advance of an Ayrshire growth deal when borderlands includes one constituent part which has already had a city deal that is not to say that the Scottish Government will not of course progress with the borderlands deal all we're saying is that Ayrshire was on the scene many months before that and had done substantial work and I think that that should be recognised Gordon Lindhurst was virtually overcome with excitement in making his contribution he also asked me to clarify the timetable and just to be clear on this if the ambition is to have a deal for every single part of Scotland which is my ambition I first of all have to know if the UK Government wants to do that as well I'm not making a political point it's simply a practical one I can of course progress trying to do deals around the country just on the basis that it will be local partners in the Scottish Government but that closes off the potential for the UK Government to be involved as well and for us to make more of those deals until I get clarity on that and I've asked repeatedly it's not to be perfectly honest as Brian Wilson described a stand-off it's not I simply need to know if from the UK Government do you want to contribute to these deals or not and I will give a way to Brian Whittle I'll answer to anything Cabinet Secretary quite honestly I mean I think that there is my point Eleanor is that I think there's well on both sides to make this happen I don't what I would like from the Scottish Government though is we know that the issue of growth deal the ask is 350 million pounds is it not is it beyond the Scottish Government to make a commitment towards that 350 million pounds which may in turn may in turn drive the UK Government to match that commitment Keith Brown Can I say that I understand the point that Brian Whittle is making but if I can just explain the way that the deals have been put together up to this point is that the Governments and the local partners agree and when they agree they all agree it's a bit like Brexit nothing's agreed till everything's agreed so if we are to agree the quantum for a particular deal if we do that by ourselves first of all what the quantum would be from the Scottish Government there can be no proper city deal or growth deal in relation to that because we'll have changed the basis of it that's why I need to know at least in principle if the UK Government wants to contribute towards that if they do then that's fine we can move ahead very quickly and I have to say that I'm at the end of the road with this the UK Government very shortly I have to say they're committing to an issue growth deal or we will go on our own and do that but there's not through any absence of ambition on the part of the Scottish Government Jenny Garuth of course made the point about the leaving mouth railing and also to actually to hear the quote that consultation can be over-egged well we have tried and tried Jenny Garuth was quoting the leader of the council at the time we have tried and tried to emphasise to local authorities that they're the ones that should be undertaken the consultation a point made by Lewis MacDonald during his contribution was that local authorities are autonomous they're not merely agents of the central government they are obliged to carry forward this engagement it's not really for the Scottish Government apart from encouraging them to do it to tell them how to carry out that engagement so it's very important that they do do that and also in relation to leaving mouth and to go back to the point that Claire Baker made if it's a case that constituent parts of those involved in a city deal and by that I mean the different local authorities have got different views they shouldn't come to both governments saying we're ready for a city deal we wait till they say they come with a joint process it's not good enough to agree a deal with both governments taking that approach and then five minutes afterwards to say actually we don't like that we're not getting a fair share it has to be done beforehand in between the constituent parts at the local authorities it's the only basis on what you can do of all the yes Claire Baker I mean to be clear I'm positive about the city deal and I welcome the involvement that the council and the government the Scottish Government and UK government have had but my understanding is that five council one day before the head of agreement were signed as when they saw the final report and understood what was actually involved in it it was a very tight timescale I think I have a letter from the cabinet secretary that confirms it was a tight timescale a tight timescale that he recognises would rather have been avoided but I think you know I think there's there's questions to answer on all sides in this case though the negotiations as people have explained were taken place in private and as I already said I have confidence my elected members across five regardless of the political part of they come from that they would be in there fighting for faith Keith Brown Can I say I mean we were ready as I recall on the third of July to do a deal we could not get the UK government to agree we wanted to put more money than the UK government we asked them if they would match that it wasn't until the 18th of July knowing that the date for announcement was in the 20th of July that we get confirmation from the UK government but the point I was making is the local authorities have to agree amongst themselves this is the nature of the deal and they have to realise of course as has been mentioned by a number of contributors we then have to prioritise those so it was done in the best of faith Willie Coffey has also mentioned what in relation to Ayrshire that we have to move as quickly as we can on that for the points that he raised and also Kenny Gibson Brian Whittle made the same points although I've tried to respond to him what our position is in relation to that Bruce Crawford raised a point made by a number of members about barriers this was also the committee's report in terms of what's reserved and what's devolved that is not a barrier the Scottish government has erected that is simply a need aid from the UK government it wasn't true for the Glasgow deal they made it the case subsequent to that of the Aberdeinshire deal it's not something that we are hung up on but if the UK government says he will only fund one then we have to fund the other I've mentioned the point made by Lewis Macdonald he also to be fair raised a point about the oil and gas sexual deal unfortunately there has not been virtually any consultation with the UK government in relation to sector deals when we have asked to be consulted they've said it's essentially a private sector or sector led thing we've asked him to be much more involved I'm not sure whether it was a Lewis Macdonald or another member that mentioned about about European funding it was Dave Stewart in fact he mentioned it a billion pounds absolutely right in terms of the highlands there is not a single bit of detail about the shared prosperity fund which will replace those and of course it makes perfect sense to consider that in the context of city deals at this point we've asked the UK government for clarity in relation to that and last of all Dean Lockhart last he had to concede that the UK government is responsible for some parts of the economy in Scotland for the first time I think since he's been elected to this chamber so that must must mean this progress but then it kind of deteriorated into an SMP bad ramble towards the end and also he mentioned targets and economic targets now it's fair enough that he raises that and I won't respond to that perhaps on writing given the time but it's got to be true of the other partners as well it can't just be true of the one partner if it's going to be local authorities UK government there's got to be a partnership approach so presiding off so the Scottish government is grateful to the committee for its inquiry and the recommendations it makes in the final report we are committed to driving inclusive growth across Scotland a definition of which has been provided a number of times in this chamber and we look forward to updating Parliament on progress made in due course thank you and I call Monica Lennon to close on behalf of the local government and communities committee if you take us to decision time please thank you Presiding officer and for the opportunity to close the debate as a deputy convener of the local government and communities committee I've listened to the views of members with great interest during what I would say has been an important and also a broadly consensual debate this consensus reflects the facts that there is a lot of support for the principle of city region deals and other initiatives such as growth deals but as the committee has highlighted there are a number of issues that need to be worked on and improved much of the work for this inquiry was done before I joined the committee at the start of the year so I therefore have to pay tribute to my fellow committee members for their work and careful deliberations including my predecessor Elaine Smith MSP who was the former deputy convener and as a member for the central Scotland region I echo the sentiment that these deals cannot just be for our major cities other parts of Scotland have to benefit from similar amounts of investment if they're not to be as the committee has described it doubly disadvantaged and not being part of any deal and also seeing proposed investment move to other areas that are covered by city deals so I'm sure that members will be pleased to hear the cabinet secretary in his earlier remarks confirm that the Scottish Government is committed to 100 per cent growth deal coverage across Scotland Presiding Officer I also share the views of the committee on the importance of local engagement with communities and local businesses Just as we are seen with another on-going major strand of the committee's work the Planning Scotland Bill low and poor engagement with communities and stakeholders stifles the potential to get the right developments in the right places and attract new investment through infrastructure projects We've already heard calls during the scrutiny of that bill when we held public engagement events right across Scotland that meaningful public engagement is absolutely vital The committee also concluded that local authorities need appropriate resources and capacity to manage those major infrastructure investments through the city region deals To maintain the consensus in the chamber I'll leave that debate there but I do welcome the Scottish Government's response to our report that it accepts as recommendation and that the Scottish city region deal delivery board will consider that specific recommendation and any problems being experienced by local partners as part of his on-going scrutiny function Turning now to some of the contributions that we've heard in the debate I'm sure committee colleagues will be pleased that in his opening remarks Keith Brown said that the report is helpful and raises a number of significant issues for all of the partners to focus on so we look forward to engaging with the cabinet secretary further and we've heard I think some positive and constructive contributions about the opportunities that the city deals to present I think near the end of the debate when we heard from Bruce Crawford I think it was really quite encouraging the way that Bruce Crawford spoke very positively about the potential in Stirling and Clifmaninshire I know you're nearing sign in the heads of terms but I think talking about the vision and maybe it's because it's coming up to recess but I think Bruce Crawford walked us through the city or the city of Stirling and Clifmaninshire region so lots of good things going on there and great potential so it's given us all an idea about how we can promote our own areas but I thought Bruce Crawford's contribution was very very very much chatter going on can we have a bit more politeness please thank you Ms Lennon and I think James Kelly in his opening remarks talked about the potential in the Glasgow and Clyde valley region deal to unlock £3.3 billion of private investment which is vast sums of money but James Kelly also said it's not just about an accounting exercise he rightly talked about having the proper methodology around project selection because we've heard from a number of members in the chamber that robust and transparent appraisal of projects is really important we also heard lots of good contributions I think from Kenneth Gibson and also Brian Whittle maybe coming from slightly different positions but in terms of a growth deal for Ayrshire both making passionate contributions Mike Rumbles I can't miss out Mike Rumbles who I think said it was the Lib Dems who spearheaded city region deals when they were in government so I'm not in a position to argue against that so we'll leave that one there but Mike Rumbles did say that city deals are a vehicle to look at maximising opportunities for the long term not just looking at us at a list of projects in the short term and also to strengthen local decision making and local institutions David Stewart made I think some really excellent points about making sure that we're seeing genuine new investment and we're not just seeing displacement of jobs into other regions and Claire Baker also cautioned against the Edinburgh deal making sure it's not weighted towards the city and I think Jenny Gilruth would probably have agreed with that in her comments so I think there's been quite a lively discussion people are very passionate about the potential in their local areas and it's certainly given the committee some reassurance that our work in our time was well spent Presiding Officer I would say that the committee is disappointed that we haven't yet had a reply from the Scotland Offence Tour report it would have been good to have that before the debate today but I understand a response as expected by the end of the week something we can perhaps mull over during recess City region deals are partnerships between the two Governments as well as with local authorities so it is important we hear what the Scottish Government or the sort of the UK Government thinks about our committee's findings it's very important some of our recommendations around what are the prime objectives of the deals how they should be governed how to extend the deals to other parts of Scotland needs to sustain close working of the two Governments and drawn to conclusion Presiding Officer City region deals and individual projects are a very important part of our efforts to stimulate inclusive growth in all parts of Scotland the local government and community's committee's report was a serious attempt to improve how the deals are put together and managed and I think Bruce Crawford made a good point when he said that there's been a maturing as relationships have developed we've heard it this will not be the last time that we need to look at city region deals as a Parliament indeed the most advanced deal in Glasgow and the Clyde valley is set for what is called a gateway review on 2019 so that'll be another important moment to take stock of what's been achieved there and we welcome the work that's underway by Audit Scotland and that is a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny Presiding Officer I thank again my fellow members of the committee our research engagement and clerking teams and all the members who took part in today's important debate thank you thank you very much and that concludes the debate on city regions deal or no deal and it's time to move on to the next item of business and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business the question is that motion 11230 in the name of Bob Doris on city regions deal or no deal be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed so that concludes decision time we'll move on now to members business in the name of Rona Mackay on cancer awareness for young people and we'll take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats