That is a really good point. I am a member of other cross-party groups that have a country focus: I think that they must have a relationship with Governments. The consul general, if there is one, will be invited to meetings but is not a member of the group and does not provide the secretariat. That is the difference. They are invited to provide some input—absolutely—but they do not determine the agenda. That is the distinction that I would draw.

You are right to point out that we are looking at parliamentary relationships, but I think that the interesting issue with France is what happens at the sub-national level. Forty years ago, France embarked on a quite radical process of devolution from what was a very centralised unitary state. I think that there are lessons that we can learn from the French regions, both historically and recently, with the creation of the unitary authority in Lyon. I am thinking about administrative links as well as parliamentary links, but understanding the difference between Government and those institutional links is important.

Yes. That aspect is very much being driven by this individual and his eagerness, and I am very happy to accommodate him.

Elsewhere in the paperwork, the individual alludes to relationships with the Franco-Scottish Society. I think that we will need to look at how the secretariat works as we move forward. I know from the scars that I bear from other cross-party groups that that is the critical link, so we will need to reflect on the issue quite early on. If he has capacity, that will be fantastic, but I think it would be best if the work of the secretariat were borne by an organisation.

Sure. My remarks about the secretariat are born out of what we attempted with the cross-party group on the USA, which, frankly, did not work. It is really important that an organisation takes that work forward.

I will be very frank with the committee about my experience with cross-party groups. For a start, I did not seek to reconstitute the cross-party group on social sciences from the previous parliamentary session. I do not think that there is any harm in looking at whether there is any appetite to establish an agenda, but if there is no such appetite, there is no harm in winding up cross-party groups or not continuing them into new parliamentary sessions. I will be very comfortable if that is the case with this proposed group, but I think that there are good reasons to explore whether there is an appetite for it. The window of time that we have before the election will allow us to establish that, and then we will take a view.

Merci beaucoup, et à bientôt.

Yes, I do. However, I think that we need to refocus on what we want them to do. We should also look at how we can encourage cross-party groups to work together. One of the things that we discussed at our inaugural meeting was that, if our group is to work, we will need to think about how we work with the other cross-party groups, especially the ones that have a European focus. That might be a more fruitful way of working.

I think that there are too many cross-party groups, but, given the current geopolitics, it is important that we have country-based ones. There is a pattern in terms of the types of cross-party groups that we have—I will not call out what it is—but I think that the geographic ones are useful forums for trying to encourage a bit of exchange and doing useful work, and it is important that we do that at this point in time.

I would like to get the group up and running to establish its viability. We are close to the next parliamentary election and, as we look to what the group might seek to do in the next parliamentary session, under the stewardship of whoever is here to take it forward, I think that building relationships between the groups, possibly with joint meetings, might be fruitful.

We can maybe do that in private.

Obviously, the city growth deals were developed by the previous UK Government. Does the incoming Administration bring a different perspective to those deals? How does it view them? Can you identify any differences in approach with regard to how the new Administration looks at city region deals and where they might go in the future?

For clarity, I was not suggesting that local authorities be merged. It was more about the regional economic partnerships.

Scottish Enterprise has a slightly different remit, given that you are less regionally focused than your counterpart enterprise agencies. Given that Scottish Enterprise has a key focus around attracting inward investment and seeking to boost growth, do you have a view on what has worked best across the deals that you are involved in, when it comes to delivering against your wider aims?

We see quite a broad range of approaches. Some city region deals have focused on infrastructure projects. Others have set up institutes such as the National Robotarium, which will be self-sustaining now that it is up and running. Others have discrete initiatives that essentially are designed to last the lifespan of the project. Do you have a corporate view as to what provides the best bang for the buck in terms of generating inward investment and growth in the city regions?

I do not know what the parliamentary protocol is here in relation to declaring interests. Maybe we should just promise to have a conversation that goes beyond the wonders of south Edinburgh.

You have already alluded to the very difficult decisions that the UK Government had to take when it took office. I note that two deals were paused while they were reassessed but were subsequently confirmed in the October budget. Could you expand on what you found on taking office as regards the financial preparations for those deals? What steps did you and the wider Government take to assess the deals that were in train and to establish whether they represented good value for money and would deliver on the objective of delivering economic growth?