 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9804, in the name of Joffice Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme. I would ask any member who objects to say so now, and I call on Joffice Patrick to move motion 9804. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 9804 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Now that the motion is agreed, the nomination period for election of a member for appointment to the SPCB, the Parliament's corporate body, is now open. Nominations should be submitted to the parliamentary business team by 4.45pm today, and the election will take place just before decision time. We move on now to topical questions, and we start with question number one from Kenneth Gibson. I wish to wish one and all the very best for 2018. To ask the Scottish Government what its responses to the recent reported concerns regarding city region deals. As a member of the local government and communities committee, I would thank Kenneth Gibson and his fellow members for the report, which is to be welcomed. I and the Scottish Government want to see all parts of Scotland thrive. City region deals are contributing to the same, and, importantly, they encourage the UK Government to commit investment to the Scottish economy, which might not otherwise be forthcoming. In each of the city region deals that we have agreed, we have been clear that the deal must demonstrate benefit to the whole region, not just to the city involved, and that continues to be our approach for the remaining city region deals. They are, however, only one part of a much broader toolkit deployed by the Scottish Government to foster growth in Scotland. The committee has made a series of important points, which I will carefully consider and respond to in due course. I hope that I can rely on the UK Government to do likewise. I think that this was the first time in the Parliament's history that both the UK and Scottish Government ministers appeared before a Parliament together, so I hope that we will see a response from the UK Government to those points also. I agree, for example, that rigid demarcation of reserved and devolved deal components does limit the scope of a deal. City region deals are the product of negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments, and they reflect the fact that the two Governments have different economic strategies. In Scotland, we want to promote growth that simultaneously tackles inequality, because we believe that that will create more sustainable benefit in the longer term. Keith Gibson. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I agree that the focus should be on what a project in a given deal can deliver. He has just said, in actual fact, that the cabinet secretary, whether a project is reserved or devolved, should be irrelevant if we are to attract optimal levels of investment and deliver the best possible outcomes. Is that something that is happening at this time? As I said in my evidence to the committee, the stipulation that the UK Government will fund only reserved matters is something that the UK Government has introduced. It has not stuck rigidly in all cases to that, and that was not the basis of, for example, the first deal in Scotland, which was the Glasgow city region deal. However, this is something that the UK Government says that it is important to them to do, and we continue to discuss ways in which we can be more flexible. For example, whether in a given area, and not all of those deals are restricted just to a city, but to a wider area, whether we can have a balance of regional and devolved issues in different balances in different parts of the area involved, if that makes sense. We have tried to be as flexible as we can possibly be. I do agree that projects with maximum impact are what we want to invest in. I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland who acknowledges that it would be helpful for local authorities and others involved in shaping deal propositions if the two Governments were very clear and resolved to work together on effective partnerships. I am committed to doing that and making sure that any obstacles that are delivering for Scotland are removed. I thank the cabinet secretary for that further answer. On 22 November at committee, Lord Duncan gave heavy hints that the chance of that very budget day would announce funding for the Ayrshire growth deal did not happen. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that foot dragging by the UK Government will lead to areas left behind being doubly disadvantaged by the displacement of investment? For example, Glasgow's deal has been up and running since 2014, where there is no day yet set for the commencement of Ayrshers. Does he agree that it is important to provide a clear timetable by which growth deals for areas such as Ayrshire will begin? As a member is aware, I have asked the UK Government in writing and verbally on a number of occasions to commit to an Ayrshire growth deal. I have also publicly stated my intention, the Scottish Government's intention, to agree a growth deal for the Ayrshers. We will continue to encourage the UK Government to support that, despite, as the member hints at, positive discussions at an earlier stage, no commitment has yet been made to an Ayrshire growth deal from the UK Government. However, we will continue to encourage the UK Government to contribute to the regional economy of Ayrshire, whether that is through the UK's industrial strategy or other specific UK Government initiatives. My officials will continue to engage with the Ayrshire partners. We will see through a growth deal for Ayrshire. The best one would be one if we could do it in tandem with the UK Government, but that is a decision for the UK Government to take. Oliver Mundell Thank you, Presiding Officer. My constituents were disappointed that, unlike the UK chancellor, Derek Mackay failed to even mention the borderlands growth deal in his budget speech. Can the cabinet secretary therefore reassure them that the Scottish Government is fully on board with this game-changing cross-border proposal and set out what specific resources has been committed? We made substantial commitments in relation to the establishment of a new agency for the south of Scotland. Borders has been part of a city deal already, so I do not accept the idea that we have not been proactive in making sure that there is a deal for the borders. However, it is important to take into account what has just been said by the previous member. The deal was meant to be on the cards for Ayrshire. What has happened to the Ayrshire growth deal and why is borderlands now being spoken of ahead of the Ayrshire growth deal? I have said to the UK, the Scottish Secretary of State that I am willing to work with it on a borderlands deal, but, for example, my office was contacted this week and told that we would have, despite having agreed once again before Christmas to work jointly and collaboratively together on this, that we should have joint visits later on this month. It was not a discussion. He said that is when we are going. He knows, he knows now certainly, that I cannot go on that day of a prior commitment with the council of economic advisers. There is no alternative date, that is not joint working, that is not collaboration. I do not know whether it is game-changing or game-playing that is going on here, but we remain committed to working in relation to a borderlands deal, but let us be quite sincere and honest about this. What has happened to the Ayrshire growth deal? What has happened to Falkirk? What has happened to Murray? What has happened to the islands? Those other parts of Scotland also deserve some recognition and, unlike the part of the country that Oliver Mundell represents, have not yet had a city deal. Let us be honest and sincere when we talk to people about this. Colin Smyth Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the warnings given in the local government and communities committee report is that rural areas not covered by current city deals must not miss out or lose out against bigger cities. Dumfries and Galloway is not covered by any city deal at the moment, so why has there been no meaningful negotiations involving the Scottish Government and the UK Government with the five local authorities that cover the borderlands area? When will we see those negotiations begin and see funding coming forward for specific projects? Given the committee's concern that local communities and businesses should be involved in shaping those projects, will we ensure that there is an end to the current secrecy that seems to exist at the moment and that the projects that have been submitted to the Government by the borderlands local authorities are somehow being held secret? I do not know, but it has to ask the councils whether the projects that they have submitted are being kept secret or not. On the point about rural areas, first of all it is worth saying that the city deals that have currently been agreed and the ones in prospect also include areas such as semi-rural in nature, which are not part of a city area, and many of the city deals cover large parts of Scotland that are rural in nature. The point that I am trying to make in response to Oliver Mundell's point is that we have to have an agreed process for how we are going forward. Whether it is borderlands, whether it is the Ayrshire growth deal, whether it is to be Murray, who has also asked for a growth deal, whether it is to be Falkirk, who is not part of any current growth deal, or parts of the islands of Scotland for example, we have to have an agreed basis. I will go ahead and make sure that all parts of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway, are covered by a growth deal. However, we need to know whether the UK Government is on board for that. Some clarity on that and what the basis of it is going back to the previous discussion is that in the case that the UK Government will only fund through industrial strategy, do they want to continue to have joint deals with the Scottish Government? Are they going to be constrained in terms of only funding reserved issues? Of course, something they did not do with the DUP when they put a billion and a half pounds towards something all of which was devolved and not reserved. We have to have some clarity. There will be a deal for Dumfries and Galloway. I can assure the member of that. What we would like to know is whether the UK Government is on board for that deal and the others, which we think should take place across Scotland. Jenny Gilruth Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware of my frustration that Fife Council did not include the Levenmouth rail link in their submission to the Edinburgh city reading deal. However, will Fife Council have a future opportunity to re-evaluate its priorities and to submit the Levenmouth rail link for consideration? My understanding, which I think that the member will know better than me, is that the transport minister has given the commitment to further investigate the question of the Levenmouth rail link. More generally, in terms of city deals that have already been struck, they have been subsequently changed. Both myself and Lord Duncan have said to the city region areas that have city deals already that we are willing to look at potential changes. Glasgow is now three or four years old and there may be quite a lot of change, not least the prospect of Brexit in between times. We are willing to consider changes. What we will not be looking for are changes as to the relative distribution amongst the different parts of that area, so between different councils, or a change to the quantum of money being afforded by the UK Government and by the Scottish Government. Of course, those deals last for a long time and we cannot constrain councils and other partners into a 15, sometimes 20 or 30-year deal staying the same right throughout. On the basis of what we have agreed and the amounts that we have considered, we are willing to consider further changes in due course. The Cathgan relief road in my constituency of Rutherglen was built using city deal funding of an excess of £20 million. Despite many of my constituents protesting that the road was not needed and that its construction through a well park would destroy the habitat of many animals and plants, planning permission was granted by the previous South Lancer Council Labour Administration. What assurance can the Scottish Government give my constituents that their views will be taken into account and listened to in any future city deal projects? Can I say that in relation to the particular city deal that Claire Hockey raises, it is true to say that, of course, the Scottish Government wasn't involved in the early parts of that process. We were simply met with a demand from the UK Government and the constituent authorities for funding of £0.5 billion, which we agreed to do. It is dependent on the authorities and the different partners to undertake that consultation to make sure that they have local populations on board. Those are initiatives that are led by the local authorities and local partners. I would clarify to Claire Hockey that city region deals do not override existing processes, so local authorities will remain responsible for ensuring that proper consultation with communities and other interests as stakeholders is undertaken properly, especially when it is a statutory process as those plans are developed. Of course, there were statutory processes involved in this particular circumstance in this particular project, but it is incumbent upon the local authorities to make sure that those processes take place. I am sure that everyone in the chamber will join me in welcoming the £1 billion investment that the UK Government has made through the city region deals. I am sure that members will be pleased to know that I will be meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland this Friday to discuss how we can move forward on the Ayrshire growth deal. However, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that a potential compromise on objectives to alleviate any perceived tensions between London and Edinburgh is not just possible but in the best interests of Scotland? I agree with the last point that the member made. All I can say is that, having asked any number of times, both in writing and verbally to have a commitment to an Ayrshire growth deal, we are beyond that. That is not discussing the projects or what the compromise might be on the projects or the amount of money being put towards it. That is just discussing the principle. Surely that has got to be the starting point. If I can get, or if you can get when you meet with the Secretary of State later on this week, a commitment to an Ayrshire growth deal, that is the starting point. Then we can, as we have done in each of the other city region deals, reach a compromise that will be to the benefit of all the constituent authorities. I wish to member luck in succeeding where I have not so far in convincing the Secretary of State to make a commitment on behalf of the UK Government to an Ayrshire growth deal. As the cabinet secretary has mentioned a few times, Moray is developing its own growth deal in order to compete with Inverness, which is a city deal and Aberdeen, which is a city deal as well. Would he be willing to discuss with his UK counterparts how we can get more clarity from them as to what the UK contribution might be to growth deal and also how we can expedite those plans? I think that that is the key point that Richard Lochhead makes. If we have an agreed understanding of how we go forward from where we are currently at, having agreed the city deals that we have done, with the two more that are in prospect in terms of Stirling, Clotmanushire and Tays cities, if we have an agreement now or shortly as to how we go to these other areas—Murray, Falkirk, Argyll and Bute, the Borderlands deal—if we can agree that, we can make rapid progress. If we do not have an agreement, then the Scottish Government will have to take this forward itself. I think that we can get more out of it if we work together. I am more than willing to continue to talk to the UK Government about that, and, as the member has urged me to do in the past, to continue to talk to Moray Council to talk about the air-specific proposals. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the ruling of the recent employment tribunal in favour of the fingerprint of Fiona McBride. Minister Annabelle Ewing, The case has been running for many years. Indeed, since before the creation of Police Scotland or the SPA, this is clearly a complex issue. I note the latest employment tribunal ruling towards the end of December of 2017 was made, which has awarded Ms McBride compensation for her loss of earnings and pension contributions since 2007. It is for the SPA to consider its response to the ruling. I thank the minister for that response. Can she confirm how much to date of taxpayers' money the SPSA and now the SPA has incurred in opposing Fiona McBride's reinstatement? Given that the legal fees for the Supreme Court case alone amount to a staggering £257,120. Can she confirm who the SPA is accountable to for that expenditure and the total amount of money? I am afraid that I do not have before me the total figure as requested by the member. That would be a matter for the SPA. The SPA is to consider the employment tribunal ruling and it is for them to do so. I understand that they are in the process of making that consideration. Therefore, I recognise that there could be a risk, perhaps, that any comment on the decision could trigger, to some extent, some subject-to-see considerations. Does the minister consider that it is reasonable that, as a consequence of the SPSA and the SPA's refusal to accept the original tribunal decision in 2009, Fiona McBride has now had to wait 10 years for a definitive decision about her reinstatement. It appears from what the minister has just said that, even now, her position is still not certain. As I said in my answer moment to go, it is for the SPA to consider the ruling of the employment tribunal, which I think was communicated to it at the end of December of last year. As I also indicated, there is perhaps risk in terms of making any substantive comment on the ruling at this stage that issues, to an extent, of subject-to-see could be triggered. Therefore, that would perhaps mitigate against my minister doing so.