 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2018. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, some of the MSPs may be using tablets during the meeting to support our access of papers. We have one apology today from Kenneth Gibson, MSP, who will be suitably deputised by David Torrance MSP. Thank you very much for coming along, David. We move to agenda item 1, city regent deals. Today's evidence session will be the first update on city regent deals following up from the committee's substantial inquiry last year. Following consideration of the Scottish Government's response to a report in March of this year, the committee agreed to closely monitor the progress of city regent deals, and that is effectively the context of this evidence session. I welcome Keith Brown, cabinet secretary for economy, jobs and fair work. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I welcome Morrigwatt, head of region and city partnerships teams, and Marian McCormack, head of better regulation and enterprise sponsorship, Scottish Government. Good morning, Morrigwatt and Marian. Thank you for coming along here this morning. I should also put on the record that the Scotland office was invited to attend this meeting. It was unfortunate that a minister was not available to come along, but their private office has informed the clerk that he would be happy to attend a future meeting in city regent deals. While we are not disappointed that they are not here this morning, we are keen to work constructively with the UK Government going forward. Cabinet secretary, I understand that you have an opening statement that you would like to make and we can maybe go to questions after that. I certainly thank you, convener. I have a fairly brief opening statement. I should say that I am disappointed that we have not been able to be joined by the UK Government. The last time that we appeared before this committee was the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament that we had two ministers from the different Governments together. Of course, city deals, as much as anything else, exemplify what is a joint working relationship. Unfortunately, I look forward to having the opportunity in the future. I am very pleased to be here this morning. In general, I think that the committee's report that was produced previously is very helpful, although we are at the early stages of looking at that report and taking forward its recommendations. It makes a number of important points and you will have noted the response that I provided to the committee on the recommendations and my commitment to ensuring that each one is considered thoroughly. As you know, as a committee has heard before, city region deals are a relatively new part of the economic development landscape. The joint delivery board responsible has not met since my response to the committee, but I understand that their next meeting will be on 26 June, and that will feature a discussion focusing on your report and how we can go forward with this transformational work. The committee will then be updated on the board's consideration. For our part, the Scottish Government is committed to working in partnership to grow Scotland's economic prosperity in a way that ensures that every region and local area can benefit and that every person can benefit from new opportunities to study, to work, to train and live in a safe and prosperous community. Nevertheless, I think that city deals need to be given some time to mature before a body of credible evidence on their impact can be assembled, not least given the length of time over which city deals have been agreed to. Since my appearance before the committee last year, I am delighted to have secured the agreement for city region deal funding totaling £90.2 million for Stirling and Clutmannanshire. In addition to the investments in the city region deal, the Scottish Government will provide further investment of £5 million to deliver a new business park at Kildeen and to support the next stage of development of proposed new infrastructure at Calender. Those projects were made possible by the additional investment of the Scottish Government, and they have the potential to deliver further transformational growth through leverage of private sector investment of £275 million, delivering over 1,500 new jobs for the city region. Try partite discussions on the T-Cities region deal between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the regional partners are well and away. As I have always stated, our Heads of Terms agreement for the T-Cities region deal should follow on as early as possible from the Stirling and Clutmannanshire city region deal. Indeed, I have written in response to Councillor John Alexander, leader of Dundee city council, recently stating that I am keen to support his request and that of the partners to that deal to agree ahead of terms by the end of this month. I am building on the success of city region deals. I support the committee's call in their report that early agreement of a timetable for growth deals would provide reassurance to partners in areas such as Ayrshire that would be working hard to put together exciting packages of investment for their areas. We are totally committed and fully focused on investing in a full growth deal for Ayrshire. I want to conclude the Heads of Terms as soon as possible during this year, and I am clear that the agreement of a deal for Ayrshire is a top priority for the Scottish Government. Work is also progressing on a borderlands growth deal. We want to ensure that the borderlands deal complements the Scottish Government's commitment to establishing a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland, and we have been running a series of events across the south of Scotland to hear what the people who live and work in the area want. The borderlands deal is one of a number of deals that are currently progressing each within their own timescale, and we are committed to agreeing those deals as soon as they are ready. I am pleased to be here, convener. I thank you for the invitation and will try to answer any of the committee's questions. That is very helpful, cabinet secretary. I might open up with a few questions, and then as the conversation moves on, I know that several of my committee members want to come in, and they have very specific questions that they want to ask. One of the themes that I was pursuing during our evidence sessions was around moneys that both the Scottish and UK Governments were giving that were essentially for devolved matters or for reserved matters. I was left a little bit cold in relation to the bunkers that the moneys seem to be put, and that is not, for me, how economic development and region strategically works—a devolved issue or a reserved issue. It was creating some issues in relation to, perhaps, the green heads of terms in relation to how many million pounds was going for a devolved project, for a reserved project, which was actually which and defined in the first place. When I was looking over some notes for this morning's meeting, I saw that there was a cash value for the Glasgow deal, for the Aberdeen deal, for the Inverness deal, for the Edinburgh deal and now for the Stirling deal. When you add that together, if I have my summons right—I might not have my summons right, cabinet secretary—over the total spend period, which can be up to two decades, it is a long time, I get that, the Scottish Government has placed £1.384 billion of spending, but the UK Government has placed £1.046 billion. That is quite a significant difference. I am trying to work out, given the fact that this was supposed to be about an equal funding of the strategic spend in the regions right across Scotland. Why there would be that difference? Does it come down to issues over finding enough reserved projects to spend moneys on and agreeing those definitions? Is that the reason that there seems to be a UK Government shortfall? I think that that difference would be even greater if you examine the projects that have been supported. For example, in the most recent deal, the Stirling-Clackmannanshire deal, one of the projects supported by the UK Government was the establishment of a national tartan centre. There is no way that I could say that that was a reserved function, but the UK Government has chosen to finance that. There is also the Inverness City deal. There is an industrial estate near the London Roundabout, which, again, the UK Government has been willing to support, which you could say more properly lies in the devolved space. I think that the bigger issue, yes, you are right to say that the Scottish Government has contributed substantially more over the city deals that have been agreed so far. That is where it would have been beneficial to have input from the UK Government. There has been a changing story. On the first city deal in Glasgow, there was no UK Government insistence on the division between devolved and reserved projects, one being funded by one Government and one by the other. There was no mention of that. In fact, there was no mention of anything that we were told almost after the deal had been agreed and just asked for more than £500 million for it. Then it changed when we got to the Aberdeen city deal, where the UK Government was saying that it wanted to be much more in the reserved space, but, again, that was not applied absolutely. I have mentioned the Inverness deal subsequently. Both in terms of the insistence that it should be reserved devolved has been stated by the UK Government, but it has not been observed in the way that the deals have been agreed. Your other point is right. My experience has been that, when we have been having the discussions with different areas, it has been more difficult for some of the partners to come up with projects that would be in the reserved space. The implication of that is quite serious, because, if the UK Government, on the one hand, says that it should be a 50-50 split, which it has said, but it has moved away from, if it says that it should be a reserved devolved split, which it has said, but it has moved away from, the partners, really, to try and drive up the quantum, which they will try to do naturally, want to find enough reserved projects so that they can boost that and get as much from the overall deal. I think that they have struggled sometimes to do that. The UK Government, I think that Ian Nuggemey has said that himself the last time he was here, they have struggled to find those reserved functions. I think that my own view is that the best thing is to lay out what the basis of city deals is, and that way you have a better chance of getting the right things coming forward from the partners. I do not know if you have been suitably diplomatic there, cabinet secretary. All I know is that I want as much money to spend in communities across Scotland as possible, irrespective of how it is packaged up, is devolved or reserved. If my sums are right and appear to be based on what you have said, cabinet secretary, that is around £350 million less been spent by the UK Government in Scotland than the Scottish Government, and it is supposed to be parity of funding. Is Scotland not getting what they should from the UK Government? Are they being ripped off here? It does depend, and maybe I am being diplomatic, but it does depend on the basis of what the city deals are. If you start off from the position that it is to be 50-50 funding, which is where we started off in the Glasgow city deal, then yes, it has not been that way. We have often come up against in Aberdeen, in Inverness and in Stirling-Clackmannanshire, where the UK Government has, I think that it is fair to say, not met the expectations of partners in terms of the quantum. We cannot meet their expectations as well, because sometimes there are very high expectations, but it is true to say that unwillingness to go beyond a certain amount has left us feeling that we have to go further, so in relation to Aberdeen, nearly £1.5 billion extra has been committed by the Scottish Government for some transport projects. In relation to Inverness, again, we went beyond what the UK Government was willing to do, and we have just done that in relation to Stirling-Clackmannanshire. Stirling-Clackmannanshire is the most interesting one here, convener, because we had very early indications from the UK Government that their willingness was to spend £50 million, and then we saw what I can only describe as a fiasco developed towards the end of that deal, where we had something like 10 different figures from the UK Government in the last two weeks. We had four different figures in the last two days. On the night before, I think that it was, we were told that they had suddenly changed their funding commitment from 10 years to 15 years. That has got a huge impact on the quantum. It is quite clear that, in many cases, the partners have been disappointed by the level of funding from the UK Government. In some cases, they may have been disappointed by the level of funding from the Scottish Government, but we have tried to go further, as we have just done in Stirling-Clackmannanshire. You are right to say that there is quite a substantial difference £138.1.384 billion committed by the Scottish Government, as I have it, and £1.04 billion by the UK Government. That is helpful. I will not explore it further. It looks to me as if Scotland has been shortchanged with the UK Government in relation to the city region deals. As you rightly pointed out, the UK Government is not here to give its side of the story. We look forward to them appearing at the committee after the summer recess, and perhaps they can explain why they seem to have a deficit of £350 million or so in relation to that. I would like to move to the Glasgow deal in particular. That becomes quite important, cabinet secretary, because it was the first one. There is going to be a gateway review. Imminently, we understand—I do not know if it started yet, but our understanding is that that will take place or report around December this year. The Glasgow gateway review we signalled that this should be a learning experience for all the city region deals. Susan Akin, the chair of the board that has overseen the Glasgow city region deal, spoke about—I cannot remember the terminology—it was effectively rebooting, refocusing and reprofiling to bring in the concept of inclusive growth, something that the Scottish Government says that it wishes to promote as well. Any news on how that is going? Just as you have confirmed, and I think that we discussed this last time, convener, before the committee, that you are right to say that Glasgow was the first deal that happened before Brexit was on the horizon. Mr Simpson raised some issues about some of the partners of that deal, not feeling entirely happy with some of the projects that have been submitted. There is not a great deal that the Scottish Government could have done about the projects that are submitted. We responded to the request to contribute, which we did to the tune of £520 million. However, because of that time that has elapsed, we have said, and I think that the UK Government has also said, that we are willing to look afresh at some of those projects. There are certain criteria around that, so we will not be looking to reopen the quantum that has been agreed to, nor we want to see one council area disadvantage at the expense of another. Beyond that, we are happy to look at anything. That has been reflected in, as you said, the Susan Aitken who chairs the relevant cabinet, which is called in the city region infrastructure, that they are looking at inclusive growth. I am very pleased because that much better fits with the Scottish Government's economic strategy. I know that each of the deals has an agreed implementation plan that has different governance structures that monitor delivery. Individual projects within the deals can also have specific review points. We said that we are willing to work with Glasgow City Council, but perhaps they are best able and their partners to talk to where they are at with the process. I think that that is the next idea, cabinet secretary. Maybe one of the things the committee has to look at is having Susan Aitken here to update the committee on where the city region cabinet is in relation to permitting inclusive growth through the package of projects in the city region deal. I did have a very specific constituent's interest, cabinet secretary, so it is only fair to point that out. Susan Aitken specifically mentioned Sighthill and the canal in North Glasgow as having huge potential as part of that inclusive growth. When you say that you are here running in relation to those things, constituents at MSPs want to know how progress is going in relation to that. Given the fact that the inclusive growth concept has come from the Scottish Government, bought in by the Glasgow City Region Cabinet, I am delighted to see that. Although the city region can answer for itself, it is not also a responsibility of Scottish Government to monitor closely how that is going and to work in partnership to see how that deal might change. Have you had any discussions with Susan Aitken in relation to what those changes might look like? I mentioned that the last time we appeared, we were aware of the request from not just Glasgow City Council but others to consider whether some of those projects could be changed and we have made clear that we are willing to agree to that. However, it is not for us, just as it was not for us in the first place, to put forward the projects. It is not for us to say how they should change and neither would it be possible, I think, for the Scottish Government to say that we are going to renege on the basis on which we agreed that funding and we must now do that in an inclusive growth manner. We are very pleased that they have decided to do that themselves. Of course, yes, to answer your question directly, we will work with all the different partners in that deal to try and achieve that. However, the impetus, as with all city deals, has to come from local partners and we will respond to that, notwithstanding, as I have said, the criteria that we would apply to any changes about the quantum involved. There have been discussions with not just Susan Aiken but council leaders across the city region in relation to what projects might be altered, amended, cancelled, re-profiled. Have those conversations started between the Scottish Government and partners? No, not directly from ministerial discussions. We will respond to any request that we have in writing and any request that we have from meetings on that, but we have not had formal meetings with council leaders, for example, in relation to that. There has been a discussion between officials, and it might be that more agred want to add to that, but we had not had the direct discussions, but we were remain willing to receive and consider constructively any proposals. I am happy to pick up that point. The Glasgow city region deal is monitored at a senior official level through quarterly programme liaison group meetings, the next one of which is scheduled in the coming weeks. We know from those meetings that the Glasgow city region partners are in the process of looking at their entire investment programme to make sure that it is going to deliver maximum benefit in inclusive growth terms. We have not yet seen proposals for what that is going to look like, but we would expect to see that coming forward in due course. I will one more blunt attempt to fish out what some of those projects may or may not be under consideration. You have not had any kind of formal proposals. There have been general discussions at a senior officer level in relation to some of that stuff. Are there any particular projects that look as if they are up for specific reviews, as has appeared? Have someone given a health check and they are good to go, and others may look as if they are a bit more precarious and have to be altered, amended or cancelled? Can you give us the names of any of those projects? It is worth saying, convener, that those are a pipeline of projects, so not all projects wherever. It was not the case that all projects were going to start, as you would imagine, at the same time. No, there is no indication. I do not think that we have had any formal meetings with the council leaders for them to suggest particular projects. As I have said, the impetus has to lie with the local authorities concerned, and we are content to listen to what they have to say when they are ready to say it. I look forward to finding out what is going to happen in relation to the Glasgow city region deal. Perhaps we have to get them here to tease out more in relation to that. Definitely some supplementaries in relation to that. Given his constituency interests, we should take Graham Simpson first in relation to Glasgow city region deals. I just want to follow up on that line of questioning. We think that Glasgow is going to come up with new projects, maybe ditch some of the old projects, but is there an actual timetable for this, because we have been talking about this for months? The timetable rests with the partners. We have agreed the projects, we have agreed the timescale over which the city deal funding will be made available, and we make that in relation to Glasgow. On an annual basis, we make that contribution. It is for them to take it forward. I suppose that the check or the control from both the Scottish and UK Governments is what is called the assurance framework. We want to have some assurances around the projects that are taking forward. I cannot stress this point high enough that the driving force has to be local authorities. That is the whole basis for city deals. I do not think that it is possible for us to say what the councils would like to do. It is for us to respond to that when the councils are ready to say that. I get that. It has to come from the councils. I do not disagree with that, but the frustration of this committee—it was our frustration last year when we did our inquiry—was a lack of clarity, particularly around Glasgow, because that was the first deal. We still have a lack of clarity. We do not know what they are planning to do. When are we going to find out? One of our recommendations was a plea to Glasgow to tell us what they were planning. We still have not heard that. When are we going to find out? When we see Glasgow, we are talking about a number of different local authorities and partners, but I cannot answer for them. Glasgow is going to have a gateway review, but that system does not appear to apply to any of the other city deals. Why is that? We have already mentioned the joint board, which exists between the Scottish and UK Governments. I have also mentioned the Assurance Framework. Those are the processes by which we seek to make sure that, as you can imagine, both of us and the UK Government have a duty in terms of taxpayers' money being spent properly. It might be best if Morag comes in and answers that point. The gateway review process is being taken forward in two parallel ways. It is scheduled for December 2019, but the work on that, as you note, has already started. There will be a national panel, which is looking at UK level across the 11 city region deals across the UK that have large infrastructure investment funds. There is only one in Scotland, and that is Glasgow. That national panel will take a view on the effectiveness of the infrastructure investment programmes in delivering the economic growth outcomes within each deal and provide a means of parity of comparison between all those. In parallel and for Glasgow specifically, there is also the Commission for Economic Growth that is chaired by Professor Muscatelli. That is going to look specifically at the inclusive growth outcomes that all the regional partners and the Scottish Government want to see from the deal. Those two pieces of work are being taken forward at the moment in parallel, and they will report at the end of December 2019, which will provide advice to ministers around the gateway. Other deals will also include review points. Aberdeen has one for 18 months for the oil and gas technology centre and a further review at three years. Each of the city deals is obliged to produce an annual report as well. Is the idea behind this national panel to perhaps come up with a process for other city deals that it could use to evaluate? It is certainly learning that we will want to take from the panel and see the extent to which that can be applied elsewhere. I will check something before I go to Alexander Stewart. I think that I am a year out. I thought that the gateway review was going to be December this year, so it is December next year. Is it reasonable to say that that would be too long to wait in relation to any changes to the Glasgow city region deal, because you raise the X but not use it? Expectations get raised by the city region cabinet in relation to inclusive growth and rolling that out. We should all anticipate Glasgow city region moving way before December 2019. Is that a reasonable thing to say? I think that you would have to get Glasgow to confirm that. However, just as you say, convener, we have all heard about the intention of, and again, I hate to use the short hand of Glasgow for what is a much wider city region deal, but its intention, as you have mentioned in relation to incorporating inclusive growth and to looking at potentially projects afresh. The timescale for that independently aligns with the partners. I know one of the action points following this meeting, cabinet secretary. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. Cabinet secretary, you have touched on the frustrations that there seems to be financially between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. Are there also frustrations about economic growth and inclusive growth between the two and how that can be captured? I am getting a flavour that that is still the case. That was a point that was made in the committee's reports. Why is it that the two Governments appear to have a different priority in relation to this? Of course, it would be my view that I would want to be delighted if the UK Government took the approach of prioritising inclusive economic growth, but I recognise the right that the UK Government to have to follow their own priority in relation to this. I am keen that the monies that are available are maximised because it helps economic development right across the country, and we want to try to see that happen in a way that encourages inclusive economic growth. However, the UK Government has its own strategy for this, and I do not think that, if I am honest, we have made the case. I think that the committee has made the case to the UK Government previously about inclusive economic growth. It is not something that comes up because we know their position. It does not come up a great deal in discussions. There is far more frustration over getting some clarity and future planning as to how those growth deals can be agreed, and there is frustration about the quantum involved, but that point has not been a regular source of conflict between the two Governments. We make large pronouncements when deals are coming forward. We have just had the Stirling and Clackmann in one. On paper and on the process, it all sounds amazing and fantastic. However, in reality, what we have seen in other deals that have had a similar trumpet months and years ago is that they have not actually come to fruition as quickly as we had hoped. The whole thing seems to be dragging on much longer than we anticipated. Why is that? Is it because there is still that frustration between the two Governments? No, I do not think that that is the case. If you look back to the Glasgow one, we agreed very quickly the basis on which we would contribute towards that. The onus then lies on the partners that take forward those projects. There is much more concern and tension. For example, I had a nice leaflet from myself through my door the other day, which demanded that the Scottish Government have to share that group. I would love to, unfortunately, go straight in the bin. Recycling, of course. We are very good at recycling Clackmann. You made the statement that the Scottish Government should have an equivalent commitment to the UK Government. The frustration is that that did not happen. The UK Government not only reduced twice the amount that it is willing to contribute. In relation to Clackmann, for example, its total commitment was around £40 million. That was over 15 years, at the last minute, rather than 10. Only £8 million of that, unspecified, goes to the Clackmann Asher Council area. There are tensions that are in there, but although we have very different views on economic growth and inclusive economic growth, that is not top of the list of the tensions between us. It is much more to do with the quantum, with the projects and how they are divided amongst different local authorities and how fair the thing is, but not so much in terms of our different views on economic growth. You talked about how the lead process is the councils themselves. You must take into that cognises that some councils do not have the same ability going forward. We are talking about Stirling and Clackmann specifically. They are very different councils with very different objectives. They have very different ideas about what they want to achieve, but they are unable to sometimes achieve that because of the constraints that they have. There is not an equal playing field in that whole-city region deal, and there may not be within the Glasgow deal because you have competing councils and different ones that have different aspirations and can achieve. Until you get that clarity and support from both or many of those organisations, it is difficult to see how they can progress towards the ambitions that they have set themselves out to achieve. There are two different things. One is that you are saying quite rightly that different councils will have a different capacity in order to progress. We have acknowledged that and we have provided such assistance as we can. We have to be careful in relation to that, because otherwise it can become the Scottish Government that drives the process. It has to be based on the priorities of local authorities, but we have tried to do that. Clackmann is a smaller council and we have tried to provide additional assistance. We do that for any partner that was of that scale. However, there has not been in any of the deals that I can think of disputes between the different partners and councils. Even the last deal that we have done, the stunning clackmann, there was remarkable unanimity and unity between the councils. On the point about resourcing and helping with, especially, smaller local authorities. By and large, the growth deals that we will now move on to will involve smaller or individual local authorities. We are alive to try to help them. The temptation is that we can start directing it. We are very keen not to give in to that temptation. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to look specifically at the Edinburgh city region deal. The heads and terms were signed last July. I appreciate that it is up to local partners to drive it forward now, but are you perhaps able to provide us with an update today as to where we are with the Edinburgh city deal? I may ask the officials who are involved through the board that I mentioned previously, but I am well aware that there were substantial concerns in relation to the deal that was centred around Edinburgh University and the data capabilities that were funded by the UK Government. I understand very recently that those have been resolved, but it might be best if we hear from the official list of the current state. Apart from some issues that you have raised yourself, I am not aware of any other issues having crept up, but perhaps more I would know more. We are continuing to work with the regional partners in Edinburgh, all six of the local authorities, and the university group to bring the heads of terms to a full deal document as soon as possible. When that might be? We know that the regional partners are keen to take the deal through their committee processes pre-recess, so it is as soon as we can manage that. Just to go back specifically into the deal, one of the committee report's findings was the opaque nature of how projects were selected. You might recall Labour's David Ross telling the committee from Fife Council that he was blocked by Scottish Government officials from including the Levenmouth rail link, for example, in the deal, something that you contested at the time. Given the Scottish Government response to the committee stated that there was not a general or mechanistic scoring process applied, how has the Government worked to ensure that deals are judged fairly and that areas such as Fife are not disadvantaged by larger cities such as Edinburgh or Dundee, for example? The issue is that we do not want to be seen to be going behind what the partners have brought forward. In relation to the Edinburgh city deal, for example, if when the councils and other partners collectively come to both Governments and say, this is the deal that we are looking to have, first of all, it is never going to be the case and it never has been the case that we can fund every project that is there. However, we have to go on the basis that the partners themselves have agreed to the deal and we do that. Before any heads of terms or deals announced, we have the agreement of all the partners and we had that in relation to Edinburgh city region deal. It is not really for us to go behind that and start saying, do you feel you have been fairly treated here? We do, of course, have regard to, I have just mentioned, the balance between stirring the club manager of the UK Government's contribution. It is very light on the club manager, so it is only £8 million out of £40 million. The councils themselves have agreed to that process, so it is not really for us to go behind that. We have asked them, of course, to be mindful of that fact as between different local authorities. We have asked them to try to involve the private sector and to involve their communities, but the way in which they do that has to be down to local authorities. The whole basis of it, as I have said, is that they should drive the process. Do you want to supplement you on that, Mr Tom? Cabinet Secretary, can you update us on what progress has been made in expanding coverage to parts of Scotland that do not have a deal? We have had some progress in relation to that. After many months of asking, the UK Government has now publicly stated that it will support an Asia growth deal. The Asia growth deal has been discussed for a long time now, and what seems to have happened is that a lot of focus has gone on to the Borderlands deal. We have said from the start that we were committed to it. In fact, I think that it was the former First Minister that first committed to a Borderlands deal. We have said that we are committed to that. I have also said repeatedly to the UK Government that it is only right that we tell the rest of Scotland that we intend to support them. We will do that. The Scottish Government will do a growth deal for every part of Scotland. Obviously, more can come out of that if we work together with the UK Government, but we do not yet have the assurance that that will be the case. Nor do we have any assurance as to whether, if we are working together, what the basis of working together will it be 50-50, will it be a reserved devolved split? We do not have that information yet, but we are grateful for the fact that the UK Government has now agreed a deal for Ayrshire, and that it is very intent on a deal for Borderlands, but that still leaves Argyllyn Bute, Murray, Falkirk and other parts of the country. Can I just check in relation to some of the delays in agreeing the heads of terms? Just for putting on the record, we will go back to colleagues again, but some of the delay in agreeing the heads of terms will go back to the original question that I asked about the finding suitable projects that could be deemed to be deserved. Not in the heads of terms because that tends to come after we have agreed the deal, so that issue would come up before agreeing a deal rather than the heads of terms. What about the specifics in the deal itself? To follow up, in relation to the areas of Scotland that do not currently have deals and your commitment to give them deals, you mentioned a number of councils. Falkirk, for instance, envisages a situation in which Falkirk would just have its own deal? Yes, and I think that we have said that we want to—again, just to make the point that we do not say to particular councils that you should band together to have a deal. We do not prescribe how that happens. If that is the case, and if you want to take it with an equitable approach, everybody should have the opportunity. Falkirk could conceivably partner with another authority, but you have already seen the Edinburgh City region deal, and you have already seen the Stirling-Clackmannanshire deal, but we are not for that reason, because the councils have come forward in that make-up. We are not going to say to Falkirk that you cannot have a deal. Also, the UK Government is committed to—I think that Murray is still a bit unclear—a deal for Murrayshire on its own. I think that we are in that position of having to consider an individual look. Argyll and Bute would be another one as well. How do you think that that would actually work? Well, we have not done them, so we cannot say, but it seems to be pretty much along the lines of those deals that have already been done. If you go to Murray Council, they have already come up and talked to both Governments about a list of projects that they would like to see funded. However, how it would actually work is difficult for me to say that when I do not yet know the extent, the nature and the basis of the UK Government's potential involvement, there will come a point when eventually we will have to say that we are just going to get and we came very close to that point with the Ayrshire growth deal. We are just going to go ahead and work with, in that case, a number of local authorities, but we would rather it was done on the basis of both Governments if we can do that. Andy Wightman Thank you very much, convener. So, with the existing deals, and we are having heads of terms and Ayrshire being committed to, what lessons have the Scottish Government learned in the process so far that it is applying through the funding that it is giving to new city region deals? I think that it is true to say, as I may be more argymdo on to add to this, that we are learning lessons all the time from this. In relation to the Edinburgh city region deal, perhaps the confusion that seems to have arisen in relation to university projects is best avoided by being much more clear about the basis on which support is being provided. That seems to be being resolved now, so we have learned a lesson in relation to that. I think that the biggest lesson has been, as we have moved through the city deals, that the different local partners have realised that, if it is merely a list of desired infrastructure projects, it will not achieve that transformational change. I think that you have seen, over time, things like much more in terms of the digital space, training and a more rounded approach to city deals as we have gone on. In addition to those lessons, I think that some of the factors pointed out by the committee in its report, the recommendations, are also being considered, not just by ministers but by different elements. I have mentioned the board already, and they are looking at those things along the lines of how we can make those more transparent. One of the lessons is that, rather than having to join the processes that we did in the Glasgow city region deal at the very end of the process, it is much better to give as much certainty as to the potential future partners. Those are the obvious lessons, but it might be worth hearing, convener, from Morag as well in relation to that. I am happy to add to that. We are always absolutely willing to learn from what has gone before, and one of the recommendations that we make is me and my team that go out and engage with the local authorities in developing the deals or as they develop their deal proposals. One of the things that we will always tell each local authority is to go and talk to your compatriots. We already have deals, because quite a lot of the learning that they can take is how those things are better delivered. So whether that is going to talk to Aberdeen in terms of how they have set up their accountable officer functions or how they have worked across the region to set up governance structures that allow them to work together more effectively, that peer-to-peer learning is very helpful for them. The other thing that we have learned as the various different deals have progressed over time come out last year in the enterprise and schools review, where phase 2 of that recognised that there were clear lessons to be learned from the governance that was put in place for earlier deals and that there were certain characteristics that made successful partnership delivery more effective and more likely to happen better. That is why there was a recommendation last year that the private sector should have clear representation in all the new regional economic partnerships that go with the new city region deals, something that we built on from the Aberdeen city region deal, which has opportunity north-east as part of its joint committee. Cabinet Secretary, you talked about the difference between a list of projects and what Scottish Government money is seeking to achieve, which is transformational change. Can you give an illustration of what transformational change means in comparison to just a list of projects? I think that, if you take the city deal with which I am sure you will be most familiar with, the Edinburgh city region deal, in that deal we saw rather than just a list of infrastructure projects, things in terms of employability and skills. I think that initiatives based on that can be transformational in making sure that people who cannot access the jobs market because of a lack of not just opportunities but because of the skills requirements, I think that that can be transformational. If you think of the Aberdeen city deal, I think that the focus for the first time that took place there on connectivity and digital connectedness, I think that that can be transformational for Aberdeen and Aberdeinshire, not least if you can, as you will know, increase connectivity, digital connectivity for especially rural areas, then you can increase employment's health and education opportunities. I think that those are some examples of how they can be transformative. In relationship to the national evaluation framework for the gateway review, why is it only looking at infrastructure if it is some of the things that you are seeking to achieve in the employability and skills, the areas that you argue are transformative? I think that we are looking at the other areas but not necessarily through that process. The outputs of the innovation projects, some of which I have mentioned already, and particularly employability projects are comparatively clear, they are fairly self-evident. How many people, for example, were supported? How many businesses were able to expand and take up new business space? Each of those can be evaluated on its own merits fairly straightforwardly. In relation to the infrastructure investment, that can be different. The national panel is seeking to go beyond measuring the outputs, such as how many miles of roads or new railways or increased capacity in relation to, for example, the Inverness deal. I mentioned the long one roundabout in the industrial site next to that, which has to be remediated. We are trying to determine the economic outcomes of those projects. I think that that is what the national evaluation framework is trying to do, but once again it would be given more agus heavily involved in that, and it is worth hearing from more ag on that. I think that that is absolutely right that certain projects can be measured in terms of their projects. The infrastructure investment programme, because it is of a different scale, is being considered by the national panel. That has been a specific procurement exercise for those specific 11 deals. We can certainly take the learning from that, and we will be taking the learning from that and seeing the extent to which it can be applied to deals elsewhere, but the procurement process is well under way now. When did the joint delivery board last meet? In January, and it meets again in two weeks' time. Given the importance of that board and given that some of the committee recommendations were the Scottish Government in fact said that the board would very specifically look at them, presumably that is on the work programme that we could anticipate hearing in a couple of months' time. I think that I said that in my opening statement that they intend to consider the committee's recommendations at the meeting on the 26th of June. The Centre for Original Inclusive Growth, has that launched yet? Well, we plan to launch that this month. We have done quite a bit of work in relation to that, so it provides practical assistance to the regional partnerships. I think that it is probably true to say that they are at different stages. In relation to Glasgow, there will be appetite and progress being made there. We have seen, if you like, other developments such as in the Ayrshire, the different economic development regions coming together in terms of a pathfinder project there, but the centre itself will launch later this month. And we understand that the centre is going to be effectively at a website hosted by the Scottish Government. How will that work proactively to encourage good practice and assistance with evaluating projects? I think that it is exactly that. It is the basis on which it will not just be virtual. You will have the people involved in this meeting regularly, so it sits on top of, for example, if you have a regional economic partnership in Ayrshire, the different councils will be speaking to each other on a regular basis, as you will do with Scottish Enterprise and SDS. That sits on top of that. It allows that exchange and analysis to take place at that, if you like, kind of national level. Once again, if the entire nature of it is about local or regional collaboration, that is where the drive should come from. We can try to provide assistance with that, but it should be driven by local partners. Although I have said previously that, for my part, if they want to come together to look at new initiatives in relation to the Enterprise and Skills review, we would look at how Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, even the funding council, can play their local partnerships. However, that would be a forum for them to exchange their experience and ideas on what has happened up to that point. I am going back to Andy Wightman's original line of questioning, which was about lessons learned. I wonder to what extent any cross-portfolow work has taken place or might in the future in terms of joining up the Government's aspirations around closing the poverty-related attainment gap and inclusive growth. The reason that I ask is because, leaving mouth academy, which is actually in my colleague David Torrance's constituency, is the second highest recipient—or was, rather, last year—of pupil equity funding. Therefore, is there an opportunity to tie up those two Government aspirations in terms of inclusive growth and closing that poverty-related attainment gap? There is, although I hate to have to continue to rest on this, but we take the starting point, which has been the initiative of some local authorities, but you are right to say that it makes sense for the Government to do this on a cross-portfolio basis. We have had a number of meetings across portfolios and education have been involved in that. I cannot say what the process is for the UK Government, but we are, and I think that that is something that we have got better at doing as the growth deals have progressed. However, yes, there is a scope to do that, but we want to take an initiative from the local authorities concerned that they wanted us to do that, but we, for our part, will want to try and take decisions based on the support that we give on a cross-portfolio basis. Can I double-check on Andy Wightman's point? One of the things that jumped out to myself was the monitoring of city region growth deals again. We are going to have this strategic board in the Scottish city region deal delivery group and we have the hub. I noticed from my notes that phase 2 of the enterprise and skills review has been the development of an inclusive growth monitoring framework, so it is finished completely, but it is good to know where that is in the Scottish Government inclusive growth diagnostic and forthcoming measurement framework. I am not sure whether that is the same thing or connected, but the reason for mentioning those is in that context. Irrespective of whether it is the gateway review that Glasgow city region deal has or whatever Aberdeen set up or Inverness has set up, if those diagnostic tools exist, we will expect every city region deal to run through the diagnostic tool to get the extent to which inclusive growth has been achieved. Is that a common framework for monitoring that we have there? No, and I think that if we go back to the basis on which the deals were originally agreed, so I mentioned the Glasgow city deal. That is perhaps the reason why, as you have mentioned yourself, convener, Glasgow and its partners have said that they want to pursue inclusive economic growth in relation to their city deal. The last deal that we have done, the Stirling-Clomanshire deal, was the case that the councils themselves looked at that diagnostic tool and they themselves tried to assess the proposals that they were putting forward in terms of inclusive economic growth. In our response and our support that we provide want to have regard to that as well, but the other deals were not constructed on that basis, so the extent to which they pursue inclusive economic growth rested on the projects put forward by the partners and the ones that we were willing to fund. I get the fact that diagnostic tools are about predicting what inclusive growth might look like once you commit to the head of terms and the projects and the funding and everything else, but the inclusive growth monitoring framework would appear to be a common framework to actually work out well. The diagnostic tool might show one thing, but actually the monitoring framework shows that it did better in terms of inclusive growth or it did worse. However, will there be an opportunity for a common monitoring framework across all deals? It is, but at the point that I was trying to make is that the earlier deals will rest upon the willingness of the partners to apply that framework. We can certainly apply it as to what we have helped to fund, but as to whether the councils and other partners involved in the deals want to apply that, that is a decision for them to take. Cabinet Secretary, I get that that is a decision for them to take. Could you imagine a good reason for not wanting to apply a consistent, reliable monitoring framework across all 32 local authorities that have signed up to city region deals such as an inclusive growth monitoring framework? Is that because it is not to do that? I cannot think of a good reason, although I think it is worth pointing out in response to the questions raised by Alexander Stewart. That is not the basis on which the UK Government has supported their part of the deals. I am not saying that it is against inclusive economic growth, but that is not the basis on which they have granted it. However, I cannot think of a good reason why not to use that as a framework to see the extent to which they are achieving inclusive economic growth. That is helpful, but other monitoring frameworks that might show that growth value added could have been even higher had city region deals not incorporated in inclusive economic growth. They are two different models and two different concepts. That is fine, but I want to make sure that every city region deal is going through a common monitoring framework. That is one of the issues that the committee has had, that everyone is monitoring in different ways and, therefore, achieving outcomes but with different methodologies. That does not give consistency or comparison, so that is quite helpful. I think that you have put that on the record, cabinet secretary. I have never been described as patient before, but there is a first time for everything. Good morning. I was not a member of the committee during the inquiry into city region re-using deals. In some respects, I am playing catch-up. Cabinet secretary, can you talk me through the ways in which city region deals take regard of the broader context that they function in? How do they integrate and complement with other strategies? I have mentioned previously—I understand the point that you have not been involved in the inquiry previously—the genesis, really, of city region deals. The first of those was the Glasgow city region deal. Unfortunately, that was one where the Scottish Government was not involved in its development. It was developed with the UK Government and local authorities. Then, coming to the Scottish Government, it asked to be a funding partner to the tune of £520 million, which we agreed to do. A lot has happened since that time, so not excluding the enterprise and skills review. I know that the strategic board is wanting to look at the economic development impact and inclusive growth impact of the deals that have taken place. Over and above that, I have already mentioned the annual reports, which are the different partnerships that are obliged to provide, which provide some assessment of the impact of the deals. Within the officials, some of whom are here today, there will also be an on-going analysis of the impact of the deals that we have had. Of course, the committee itself and other committees of the Parliament will want to have a look at that. There is quite a lot of scrutiny as to how, although we are still at an early stage of city deals, how they are impacting on the economy. The committee has just been looking at the planning bill. Is there a formal connection between the city region deals and the national planning framework, the NPF, being the spatial expression of the Scottish Government's economic strategy? Yes. We expect that local authorities and others, when they make proposals, will have regard. Of course, that changes over time the national planning framework, but we will have regard to that. As you will know, I am sure that both from here and from your local authority experience is quite a close connection between economic development and planning. We have tried—and certainly I did—when in local government itself to try and encourage local authorities to have an approach that was not just about development control, which was about—I can give an example of my own local authority. We changed the name of the planning department from development control to enterprise and environment to try and encourage the idea that what local authority should be doing is not just saying why you cannot develop this in this way, but how you could achieve what you want to achieve consistent with planning regulations and how you can also foster economic development. If that is true at a microcosmic level, then it is true that local authorities, in their making forward proposals for city deals, are cognisant of the planning framework. The one thing that we have been very clear to say, and it would be interesting to hear Morag's view on that, is that none of the projects that we agree to can be assumed as giving Scottish Government ministers consent for anything that requires planning processes to be gone through afterwards. We make that very nothing implicit to say a particular road. That is not us saying that we are giving consent because Scottish ministers can often be asked to play a part in the planning process. We do not imply that, and it has to be up to the partners and local authorities to progress the planning. I do not know if you want to add to any of that, Morag. Just to echo the point that agreement within the city deal context does not bypass any of statutory processes. I understand that, and I welcome the way that the cabinet secretary has characterised that shift in language and in planning absolutely should be an enabler. On a practical level, if we take Glasgow, that is the region where I am, in terms of city deal context, what is the relationship between regional planning in the Glasgow region and, for example, the Clyde plan? Is there synergy between the two? I think that that really is a question for the partner's answer. Only because they are the ones that put forward their projects, they will know the context in which they put those forward. The extent to which it was taken into account at the time, we would have to be something for them to answer, I am afraid. I wonder to what extent the Government takes an interest that those approaches and strategies are joined up? I think that I would go back to what I said previously. We do want to see a joined-up approach. We want to see local authorities and others involving the private sector. It is fair to say some challenges in doing that, encouraging some of the partners to make sure that there is really meaningful dialogue. I would say that Stirling Council is very good at having done that over a period of time. We also want to see them taking forward their communities with them, but we do not want to end up in a position of insisting on how they carry out those consultations or the extent to which they take into account different factors when they put forward their projects. Otherwise, the accusation would be that the Government was seeking to pick and choose on the basis of criteria other than the ones that they use, both the UK Government and ourselves. It is for local authorities to make sure that they make that cross-reference between their different strategies and plans. On strategic development plans, before I move on, cabinet secretary, have you got any sense as to whether SDPs, where they exist in a city, a region deal context, are adding value? Are there any positive examples, whether it is in the Clyde plan, for example, or the SES plan? Is there any synergy between them? I think that what you have seen is for local authorities to try to achieve that synergy. A number of the projects that have been proposed in different city region deals have drawn on those plans. I know that that is the case. That is probably more evident in relation to infrastructure proposals that have come forward. However, the point that I was making is that it is really for the local authorities to do that. It is perhaps not surprising if local authorities, individually or jointly, have worked on a strategic plan that some of the priorities in that plan would be reflected in the proposals that they have put forward for a city deal. There is a natural link there. To the extent that strategic development plans have involved, as they must do, joint working, some long-term thinking and, by its nature, strategic thinking, it is only right that that is used as a basis for projects coming forward. That is helpful. I think that people want to know that projects have just been put out of thin air in the strategic long-term approach. Sticking with the planning bill, if you will indulge me, convener, the equality's impact assessment for the bill has been identified as a weakness by engender. The committee is grateful that the local government and housing ministers are actively looking at that again. Cabinet Secretary, I know that you have said previously that the aim of generating inclusive growth is the golden thread running through the Scottish Government's economic strategy and that the 2018-19 budget committed the Government to look at equality impact assessing the city region deals. Can I ask for an update on that, please? Yes. First of all, we are aware of the fact that the public authorities that are involved in these city deals have obligations in terms of the equality impact and we expect them to follow through on those obligations. I can go back to one point on your previous question, which was the very reasonable point that people expect a strategic underpinning or some clear thought around the projects that you have chosen. For the first time, the Stirling-Cluck-Manager plan had one that evidently was not. It was a dollop of cash to be provided £8 million over a 15-year period that required the council after it signed the city deal to come up with what they intended to do. We have never seen that before in a city deal. I do not want to overstress the extent to which that city deal was unlike any previous city deal in terms of how it changed repeatedly late on in terms of the balance of support that was provided for different local authority areas. To change at the last day from what was agreed as a 10-year timescale to a 15-year timescale was a fundamental change and we think that if you were going to spend that money over a much longer period you would have lesser impact. However, the other thing that we should not let go by, and it might be something that is entirely off-course for the committee, is that it wants to look at why it would be the case that it would agree a £8 million project. In fact, the only project that was agreed by the UK Government in that council area has no plan behind it. There is no basis other than the fact that it is to be in the reserved space. That is quite an important departure from the way that city deals have been constructed. To the point that you made, I do not know how you can say that. That takes into account any strategic thinking behind it, but that is perhaps for the committee to explore. What is your understanding of that £8 million that you have described, which appears to be open-ended? Was there any justification or explanation given for that? If I am clear, I do not think that there was, and that would have been the benefit of having the UK Government here to answer that. However, I would point out that the committee will be aware of the projects that have been funded from all the different deals that have been done. You will not find anything like that. We will give you £8 million if you come up with a business case in one year for how you intend to use it. There are reasons why that is so outwith the way that we have done in city deals that are worth examining. I do not have an answer to the question, but only the UK Government would be able to answer that. On the equality impact assessments, I do not know whether you want to say more on that. The cabinet secretary, in his earlier response to the committee's recommendations, I think that it made clear that there is already a statutory duty on public authorities to carry out equality impact assessments as they take forward their different projects. We would expect to see those come through and be clearly articulated in business cases, that the qualities and the sustainability issues should be picked up in the business cases. I was looking back at the committee's report on the issue, and impact assessments had only been carried out in Aberdeen and in Vernes, so not Glasgow and Clyde Valley region where I am. In the report, there was some explanation given that it said that this was partly due to the fact that data on protected characteristics is limited at the regional level. If you are able to give a bit more expansion on that, what other factors? What are the barriers to doing this properly? Are we having to go back retrospectively and look at projects? Is that the work that you are doing? There are two points in there. One is the Glasgow city region deal, whereby the Government investment into that is through the infrastructure investment fund, but it is for the regional partners to identify the projects within that. Therefore, the project assessment and the equality impact of the project will be done at the regional partner level. That is one part of it. In terms of the data available on groups with protected characteristics, it can be quite difficult to get that at the regional levels. For the larger regions, for Glasgow and Edinburgh, it is less problematic. When we look at Stirling and Clackmannanshire, for example, the data may not be there. We have not started that one yet, but we are certainly in the process of looking at the Edinburgh city region equality impact assessment. What we have done is that we have worked with the equality and human rights commission to find other ways in which those things can be considered and approached. Through the work of the equality and human rights commission, there have been a number of engagements with local authorities who are carrying out city deal investments to look at how they can maximise the benefits of those investments for groups with protected characteristics. Indeed, that is a formal part of each grant offer letter that goes out with city deal funding, that there should be active engagement with the equality and human rights commission. That is helpful. I appreciate its work in progress. Can you give any examples about the type of data that is hard to get? When you say that it is difficult to get some of the data, what do you mean by that? The volumes tend to be quite low in terms of particular groups of disabled people who might be captured by the legislation, so getting statistically valid numbers is where we can struggle with smaller regions. We are nearly at the end of the evidence session. We might just mop up one or two things. The Stirling-Click-Manager deal, just to come back to that again if you do not mind, cabinet secretary. We mentioned the inclusive growth diagnostic earlier, so we can assume that the Stirling-Click-Manager deal used the inclusive growth diagnostic tool before it finally agreed what projects were going forward. Is that correct? I think that the point that it made is that those councils had chosen to use that in the projects that we are putting forward. In the Scottish Government's contribution to it, we want to reflect that in the things that we are supporting as well. Does that mean that all the projects in Stirling-Click-Manager deal, with an exceptional £8 million that has not been spent yet or committed to anything yet, has that been through that diagnostic tool? It is fair to say that the diagnostic identifies what the issues are within the regional economy that may need to be addressed. It does not then go as far as to saying what interventions are going to address those. There may be a range of different interventions that will address those particular issues that have been identified through the diagnostic, if that makes sense. Even having done the diagnostic and the Stirling-Click-Manager councils did do the diagnostic to see which areas they needed to address within the regional economy. It then gave them a range of options to deal with those and to tackle those. It is something that we will absolutely be continuing to monitor through the progress of the deal to see the extent to which those interventions are hitting those measures. Just to give you a flavour convener on some of the ways in which I think that that would be reflected. If you look at the projects that the Scottish Government is supporting, the environment centre is the biggest project that the Scottish Government is supporting. That, apart from the environmental aspects of it, is to drive up, especially in Clackmannanshire, the availability of well-paid jobs. You also have the digital district and the digital hub that is trying to drive up the levels of inclusiveness in terms of access. I mentioned before how digital inclusion can include education, health and employment opportunities. Also, in terms of the skills and inclusion programme, that again is sought to try and support inclusive economic growth. Those are some of the things that we are trying to do. You could contrast that, if you like, going back to Alexander Stewart's points about the different approaches between the two Governments. The biggest contribution that the UK Government is making is to research or to the agriculture centre at Stirling University, much more around a perhaps a GVA approach towards growth rather than the one that we have taken. The diagnostic tool does not give a number at the end of it and say, well, actually, taking into account of inclusive growth, the GVA would be a higher number than the raw GVA figure. That is not what it is doing. What it is doing is running through potential projects to identify where it may or may not assist to inclusive growth, rather than coming up with numbers around that. Is that a reasonable thing to say? Yes, and I think that even the GVA criteria is not one that is without its limitations. If you try to compare the two as the main criteria for how you are to fund projects, you would find that difficult to do. I think that the other forum, the Economic Jobs and Fair Work Committee of this Parliament, has taken forward a pretty exhaustive investigation into economic stats and limitations, and one of those is GVA. It is probably true to say that no economic measurement is perfect, but we would certainly want to favour economic development, which is inclusive rather than just straightforward growth. The thing is, it is easy, and we all do it as politicians around this table. We use terminologies, and we talk about this model or that model or this matrix or that quantum. Scratch means the surface, the level of understanding can be pretty, I am not talking about yourself, cabinet secretary, but the level of understanding can be relatively limited, let's be honest, and we hide behind the terminology to justify what we do sometimes. I am generally trying to get my head around what an inclusive growth diagnostic would look like. For myself, I think that it would be helpful to see details of that in real time. For example, in Stirling, Clickman and Shire, maybe 10 potential projects were scoped out, but six were agreed upon and four weren't, but some of those rejected might have modelled at greater GVA, but they weren't selected because other ones modelled better at inclusive growth. Without all the gobbledygook around it, that is the kind of straightforward thing that we would quite like to see, so that we can touch it, feel it, smell it and find out exactly what it does. Is that the kind of thing that the Scottish Government can help us with? I can help you certainly with the detail that you are looking for in terms of the diagnostic, but if you think about what you have asked there, you would want to, before taking a decision, have a picture in the round of the projects that are to be supported, and we don't have that. The UK Government will do the projects that it is going to propose, and we will end up doing the ones that we want to propose. To me, I think that the thirsty question is exactly right. You are much better to have a whole picture of which projects have been taken forward so that you can work out what the balance is between straightforward growth. If in Clickman and Shire we were to create 100 jobs for PhD students, that is not going to make a huge impact in itself on the unemployment figures in Clotlandshire, which is some of the most challenging in the country. That would not necessarily help inclusive growth, or if you do something that helps the economic output of the area, that does not of itself necessarily lead to inclusive growth. The point of making, and it goes back to Alexander Stewart's points, is that if both Governments—and you have made this point yourself previously, if both Governments were convinced that inclusive economic growth was the way to go, then that ability to analyse the impact of what you are doing is much greater, but we do not have two different priorities in terms of the Government. However, I am happy to provide as much information as I can. Some of that information, I think, might be commercially confidential, but we will try to minimise that. However, in terms of the diagnostic and the way that we apply it, I am happy to provide the committee and yourself with as much information as we can. I think that that would be helpful in the committee on the report. We welcome the move to inclusive economic growth for Glasgow. We did not take a committee position more generally on whether there was gross value added to the raw figures or inclusive growth. The committee did not take a position on that, but we said that we welcome what was happening in Glasgow, so there may be different views on the committee, but irrespective of the views of the committee, I think that we ought to better understand what it actually looks like. I think that that would be really helpful. Final question from myself. You mentioned £8 million that can be spent on a project once the project has been identified. And right at the start of our evidence session, we identified approximately £350 million that was not spent by the UK Government. I called a shortfall, but you were quite diplomatic about it, Cabinet Secretary. Is that £350 million that could be sitting in a firm somewhere to local authorities or city regions identify how they would like to spend it in a way that the UK Government is content to sign off or is that money just lost to Scotland? You can only be answered by the UK Government, but the example that you have given is, as I say, that this is quite an extraordinary development that you would agree. That £8 million figure change is two or three times in the course of the last two or three days that happened. The committee is quite rightly trying to get to grips with the nature of city deals. I do not know how announcing that you are going to put £8 million into, well, nothing really. You will wait to see what comes forward subsequent to having signed a deal. Another part of that deal was, for example, and again, this is why it is frustrating not to have in particular Lord Duncan here, because the commitment that was previously given by Lord Duncan in relation to MOD land, both in Angus and in Stirling, that land would be transferred at no cost and remediated at the cost of the UK Government. They resiled on that, so they attached a £5 million cost, although that figure also changed four times in the last week of that deal. They attached a £5 million notional cost, which then was added to the £40 million, so that took them to the £45.2 million. It is not being remediated. To decontaminate that land will be a substantial challenge for the council. Those are departures from what has been done before in city deals and a previous commitment in that case by a specific commitment by the UK Government to local authority and myself. The thing that the committee is quite concerned about is that the substantial basis for taking forward city deals can be achieved in those kind of late changes and reversals. I will put that particularly in the record, cabinet secretary. I will ask those questions after the summer recess when we get the opportunity to do that. I suppose what I am trying to do is tease out the Scottish Government position in relation to the loss of £350 million. If £8 million was identified because it had to be put in to make up the UK Government's side of the deal to make it balance out in terms of funding, could that not have been done for the £350 million that was unspent in relation to all the previous deals? The Scottish Government's position that, while we are disappointed with the UK Government, that is £350 million lost to Scotland or the Scottish Government's position that is £350 million that Scotland should still get, even if it is as unsatisfactory as it is in the scene with the Stirling and Clack Scot and that is to assign it to the city regions, let them plan how they want to spend it and if the UK Government has to sign off on that, then so be it, but it is their money and they should be able to direct and spend it. So the Scottish Government's position that it is a shortfall and the money is lost or the Scottish Government's position that it is a shortfall and the region should get the money back? Well, if you're asking me if I think the UK Government could usefully give £300 million to the successive local authorities, then I would very much welcome that. I think in each or in some of the city deals we have sought to go further and the UK Government has reigned back on that and they're entitled to do that. We have tried to nevertheless go beyond that, so it's very substantial in relation to the Aberdeen deal, in relation to the Inverness deal, now in relation to the Stirling and Clack's deal, but it is in the final analysis that the answer to that question is, I know that the Scottish Government's position, we would like to see more money being spent in Scotland, but as to why it's not being used only for the UK Government to answer, I think. That didn't actually answer my question, which is the Scottish Government's position that some of this money should be assigned to the city region deals that missed out or not? The decision has, no, I would like to see it self-evident from the way we've tried to construct the deals, we've tried to get a larger quantum, but as now, we have agreed with the UK Government on those city deals, where we feel they haven't gone long enough, far enough, we have agreed that deal on the basis of 50-50 and we have sought to go further than that ourselves, and that accounts for some of the differences that you mentioned with £300 million, so we have chosen to go further. We would like the UK Government to have gone further, but we accept that we have signed the city deals, the local partners have signed the city deals, but nevertheless, if there's £300 million that could have come, then of course we'd like to see that come to Scotland. Officials will not thank me for asking this, but it would be quite good, because I'm just using the numbers that I had there. It would be quite good to get a detailed breakdown of those numbers, because it's only fair to the UK Government to be able to identify where it was the Scottish Government going further, because they just wanted to go further, or where it was the Scottish Government going further, because the UK Government couldn't find enough reservedly badged up projects for them to spend further money. In which case, for me, that would be a shortfall, but it would be quite good to actually get a detailed breakdown on that, so that I'm not just asking the same questions again to the UK Government when they arrive. We can actually dig beneath that and find out whether I'm chasing shadows here or whether this is a substantive loss to Scotland, which is what I'm really trying to get behind. I think that I'm obviously the best people to provide that clarity to the UK Government, but I can confirm, in my point of view, that they've never reined in what they intend to commit to it on the basis of not finding enough reserved projects. They tend to work on the basis of getting a quantum agreed by the Treasury and then working to that quantum, rather than saying, oh, we haven't found enough reserved projects. As I've said, they don't always only fund reserved projects, they have funded devolved projects as well. Anyone watching this at home will actually go, what on earth does that mean? I think that we have to get beneath all the gobbledygook and work out whether that was money that should have become the Scotland's reasons or not, and if it should have been coming, then let's get it there, and if not, then I better understand the UK Government's position when they come to the committee. Anything that the UK Government can send to the committee that does not have gobbledygook in it, I mean that totally respectfully, that we can just get, understand and run with, that would be incredibly helpful. A couple of supplementaries before we close the evidence session. Thank you, convener. If members of the public are listening at home, I think that they might have agreed with the convener's earlier points about language and not using terminology. People understand the language of jobs. As we've sat here this morning, I've been thinking about recent job losses in Lanarkshire, East Kilbride, especially around retail and manufacturing. I wonder if we can end on a positive note, cabinet secretary, by hearing how many jobs have been created as a result of city region deals? Llyr Sai, gobbledygook, I'm sure, will be characterised at that. More is going to get the exact figures. Each of the city deals has a figure attached to it for the number of jobs that are sought to be created. More is going to be able to provide that. In relation to Lanarkshire, it's 1,500 jobs that were mentioned in the most recent one. However, it's true to say that, as you've said, there have been a number of announcements. Midlothian is another one with Cremac involved in it as well. Despite that, each of one of those is very concerning for us, but we have this week an appointment figures, which are pretty close to an all-time low in relation to female unemployment and youth unemployment lower than the rest of the UK. Nevertheless, each of those, especially the challenges in terms of retail, is very serious. Again, this morning, we've seen growth in retail being announced by the retail consortium faster in Scotland than the rest of the UK. Do you have the jobs figures? I don't have those added up in my head, but I can certainly forward them on to the committee. What we have at the moment, however, are the jobs that are expected to be created through the city deals. Obviously, the deals are at a relatively early stage, so we do not yet have definitive figures for what they will create over the longer term. When we have agreed the deals, the local authorities have said what they expect will be the growth in them, and we can provide those figures to them. Mr Simpson, are you okay with checking in? Do you want to end before we close this session? No, convener, you covered my line of questioning very comprehensively. All that remains to be done is to thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for coming along here this morning. I should put it on record again that we will hear from the UK Government on their take on progress in relation to city region deals at some point after the summer recess, so we look forward to that. For the time being, I thank the cabinet secretary and both his officials, and we will now move to agenda item 2, which we previously agreed to take in private.