In December 2011, the UK Government published its white paper, “Unlocking growth in cities”. In the foreword, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg—remember him?—wrote:
“The Coalition Government is committed to building a more diverse, even and sustainable economy.”
He went on to say:
“cities will need to show strong leadership and deliver real growth ... My message to them is to seize this opportunity—to work with us to break open our politics and lay the foundations for lasting growth.”
Mr Clegg was certainly right about one thing: from David Cameron’s big society to the European Union referendum, our politics have well and truly broken open since the winter of 2011.
It is unfortunate for Scotland that the opportunities that the city deals afforded did not materialise until the summer of 2014. I invite Opposition members to ponder why that was, as Andy Wightman did.
Almost exactly a year ago, as members have said, the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee, of which I used to be a member, published its report, “City Regions—Deal or No Deal?” The report was not a Mystic Meg premonition of the Prime Minister’s handling of Brexit; rather, it was a concise cross-party look at how the city region deals have operated.
As was clear in the 2011 white paper, the focus for the UK Government was growth. Indeed, cities were described as “engines of growth” in the white paper. Today’s motion sets out the Scottish Government’s focus on “inclusive growth”. That highlights the inherent ideological tension between the two Administrations. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said in its submission to the Local Government and Communities Committee,
“‘Inclusive growth’ has potential to gain support across the political spectrum: a more inclusive economy will reduce poverty and inequality”.
Growth for the sake of it is therefore not enough; it has to be about tackling inequality and levelling the playing field.
For my constituency, that is fundamental. Levenmouth, with its population of more than 37,000, is the largest urban area in the country that has no direct access to rail. One in three children lives in poverty, and Levenmouth academy is the second-highest recipient in the country of Scottish Government pupil equity funding, which is based on free school meals entitlement. The need for inclusive growth to tackle generational inequality and poverty has never been more present.
The Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal, which covers Fife, will provide investment of more than £1 billion across six local authority areas, but I remain concerned about the lack of detail on what that will mean for my constituency. My concern has always been about transparency—or the lack thereof—at local authority level on prioritisation of projects for funding. The campaign group Transform Scotland said in its submission to the Local Government and Communities Committee that the selection process for projects is
“shrouded in a degree of secrecy on the basis of being sensitive, or confidential, at least until they are agreed”.
The Federation of Small Businesses said:
“there are big concerns about the lack of transparency at the development and implementation stages and the lack of more inclusive and discursive engagement with the private sector.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 1 November 2017; c 34.]
Part of that lack of transparency is directly related to funding. The co-leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillor Adam McVey, told the committee:
“At the start of the process, both Governments have an idea of how much they are able to put in. It would have been really helpful to have had that information and analysis as early as possible. In our case in Edinburgh we had the UK Government scrambling around trying to find money to match what the Scottish Government was willing to put in. That was an unhelpful tail-end to the process ... It did not give us the opportunity to look at the overall envelope and apply the level of scrutiny of the detail that we wanted to apply”.—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 8 November 2017; c 40.]
Therein lies the rub. The Conservative amendment talks about collaboration between the two Governments, but let us get real for a moment. The city deal funding for Glasgow from the UK Government was merely a sweetener during the independence referendum campaign, because at no point since then has the UK Government stumped up the cash without there having been serious political pressure from the Scottish Government in Edinburgh.
The UK Government had to be chased to match the Scottish Government’s funding for the Edinburgh deal in the summer of 2017. It fell short in its contribution to the Aberdeen city region deal by £250 million, to the Inverness and Highland city region deal by £82 million and for Dundee—across the water from my constituency—and the Tay cities region deal by £50 million. A partnership of equals? It is more like a parcel of rogues.
On the subject of sweeteners before the 2014 referendum, page 8 of the UK Government’s 2011 white paper, “Unlocking growth in cities” makes explicit mention of “Greater freedoms to invest in growth”. It states:
“From 2014, a new round of Structural Fund programmes (European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund) allows member states to adopt a special focus on cities.”
The year 2014 provided Scotland with lots of promises—European Union membership was one of the most prized. Now, as that promise is broken and withers on the vine, we are invited to believe in the Conservative amendment, which
“reaffirms that the people of Scotland are best served when its two governments engage in a collaborative and cooperative manner”.
Collaboration and co-operation—the dream team. Seriously?
To be effective, our constituents should have been asked what they wanted in our city region deals. Unfortunately, the previous Labour-led Fife Council administration chose not to engage the public effectively in that process. It chose not to ask for the Levenmouth rail link, which was—supposedly—the authority’s number 1 transport priority. That transport priority could have made transformative change in my constituency and beyond; for example, it could have joined up jobs in Edinburgh with a part of the country that has the lowest car ownership in Scotland.
There have been grand words from the Tories today about collaboration, but in reality the city deals in Scotland were only ever a political stunt for the Conservatives. They were useful in 2014, but they are disposable five years on.
As we know, Labour’s amendment is entirely focused on the Glasgow airport link. It is supported by a Labour member who will tomorrow raise the issue of the Levenmouth rail link in a question to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. Is not it a pity that Labour consistently seems to forget about its priorities for Fife? Perhaps that is simply a convenient excuse.