What's up everyone, takedown here. Welcome back to another video. Today we're going to be talking about what to do if your Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons are not connecting. Let's get right into this. So if your Joy-Cons are not connecting to your Switch, the first thing you're going to want to do is to restart your Switch. To do this, you're going to press and hold the power button for three seconds. After this, then you're going to select the power options on the menu, and then you're going to select Restarts. And after the console has restarted, you're going to try your Joy-Cons again and see if they will now connect to your Switch. If they still are not connecting to the Switch, the next thing you're going to want to do is to reset the controllers. Now first, what you're going to want to do is to detach both of the Joy-Cons from the console. On one Joy-Con, you're going to press the sync and any other button that is on the controller at the same time. Then you're going to repeat that with the other Joy-Con. Next, you're going to firmly attach both Joy-Cons back to the console, and you're going to try it to see if it does work now. If they still don't work, try disconnecting them and then reconnecting them to the console and try it again. So the next thing to do is to see if the Joy-Cons are broken. So the way to test this out is to have a different set of Joy-Cons, a different pair of Joy-Cons, connecting them to the console. And if they work, then that means the other pair, there's either something broken with them or something not working right, and it could be a bigger issue. If nothing is working and the other pair is not working as well, move on to the next step. Now the next thing to do is to make sure that the Joy-Cons are fully charged. To do this, you're going to connect them to the console, and you're going to leave them for six hours to charge. If after six hours, they are still not connecting and you have tried everything else that I mentioned in this video, you might either have to replace the battery in the Joy-Cons or replace the Joy-Cons altogether. Now unfortunately, if your Joy-Cons are not connecting, there's no other real easy fix for them, other than just replacing them. So unfortunately, there's no other quick and easy thing that, so hopefully one of the options that I did mention in this video helped you get your Joy-Cons to connect to your Switch. Unfortunately, if they're still not connecting to the Switch, again, it's likely a bigger issue. And the only other thing to do is to replace them altogether. There's not really going to be any other easy fix that you can try for your Joy-Cons, but hopefully one of the ones that I did mention did work for you. If it did, leave a like and I'll see you guys in the next video. Please take care. Peace.


Naddio i chi i fod yn gweithio y gwbl y gwirionedd o'r 8 y inexpensive-ledigion y Llanfydd mewn gwirionedd y Cymysig Cymru yn 2019 a yn cael eu gwneud lyddiad i gael eich frefadau. A oedd yn gweithio i chi ceisio i gyd y gwirionedd yw 4, 5 ac ymFrivent, yn cael enwedig? Ie, ddim yn gwbod. Rho, bydd e'n gwbod. A oedd, hynny, y gwirionedd yw gyda'r prif, yn y Cynyddiad Cymru. Mae'r Cymysig Cymru o'r calf yn y Cynyddiad Cymru yn cyfyd ac yn gweithio 5 a 5 yn sefydol Felly, we have heard from representatives of the most developed deals, the Glasgow city region deal and from SQW, a consultancy, who are evaluating that deal. Today, we are hearing from representatives of more recent deals. Today, I welcome Nicky Brydel, chief executive and Gary Dallis, strategic director of place, Clackmannisher council, Carl Bete, chief executive sterling council, councillor Shona Haslam, leader of Scottish borders council, representing Edinburgh and southeast Scotland city region deal. Andy Nicol, head of programme management office, Edinburgh and southeast Scotland city region deal, and Jim Valentine, a member of a management group, takes city's deal. Karen Eumann, executive director, economy and community committee in northeasher council, gives her apologies. Given the size of the panel, we will move straight on to questions. The witnesses could maybe give me an update on the status of their deals, and I do appreciate that some of them have only just been signed, but if you could even talk about the approach being taken by the governance structures, so would anybody like to begin? I thought it was going to be a short meeting there, I want you all to go on to it. Thank you to the committee for having us to give evidence. The Edinburgh city region deal is at a very positive stage of its development. We have had three meetings of the joint committee to date, and of the 1.3 billion that has been assigned to the city region deal, over 652 million so half has been assigned to projects by those three committees. Our governance is now all in place. We have the joint committee, executive board, regional enterprise council and thematic boards underneath those that drive the projects forward and do the work around those projects. Some key projects have already been instigated and are starting to be delivered, including the base centre in Edinburgh, which many of you may be aware of. The robotarium, which I think should get the prize for the best city deal name, is moving on to look at specific transport projects such as the Sheriff's Hall round about another key infrastructure project. The Edinburgh city regions deal is in good health, we are moving forward quickly, we are assigning the money and the work is progressing. That is the standard response. We will look first in good health and moving forward quickly to anybody else. Thank you for inviting us this morning. You will probably appreciate that the Stirling and Clap Manager deal is a little bit of an earlier stage. We have been focusing quite heavily on taking forward the governance arrangements and putting those in place. We have established a joint committee, which has met on a few occasions now. We have been looking at establishing the framework for the decision making of the two councils particularly and how we involve all our partners in that. We have agreed our standing orders through the joint committee process. We have also established two individual commissions with the Stirling Commission and the Clap Manager Commission, but an interesting recent development has been the fact that we are working so closely together. We thought that it made sense to disestablish the individual committees and create one joint commission. That has been agreed now by both councils and will be implemented in the coming months. We are also just now looking at the arrangements for taking forward some of the—we have a number of bid funds within our deal—and looking at the governance arrangements about that through our joint committee. At our meeting just yesterday at the joint committee, we were exploring the criteria that we might use to help us to work through a situation where we have not got specific identified projects but where we are working in partnership to identify those. I will probably stop there because I suspect that the questions will pull out more of the detail as we go through. That is exactly what I would have said, so fantastic partnership. We are slightly behind where some of the other city region deals are at this moment in time. In some respects, in particular, the governance is new, but it has met three times now the joint committee. In terms of outlining strategic business cases, however, we are further ahead, so that is a positive step. I am confident that, once the deal is signed, we will be ready to go and deliver. Yes. Good morning, committee. The city deal—the Tay City deal—was set up under the initial leadership of the four councils. We started work in March 2015 and that was on a background of a long collaborative history of working across the four councils on various things. All four councils agreed to work together. We signed, we started work on the bid in 2016, and, as part of that bid process, we developed a regional economic strategy to underpin all the programmes and projects that we brought forward. We set up the new joint committee in 2017 and they have continued to meet. They have private sector representation and a local higher education and further education represented on the joint committee as well. We had the deal signed off on 22 November 2018, and we are now working towards outlining business cases along with our partners. Thank you very much. A question for the council has him, really. I was reading this week that the borderlands growth deal is coming our way, which presumably takes in at least part of your council area. Is there risk as the wrong word? Could the borderlands growth deal cut across the Edinburgh and South East Scotland borders? Yes, we are working very hard to ensure that that does not happen. We have the Edinburgh city regions deal, the borderlands inclusive growth deal and the establishment of the South of Scotland enterprise agency. We have an environment of riches at the moment, but we are working very hard to ensure that each of those deals works on a specific area. In terms of the Edinburgh city regions deal, the money that we are receiving is specifically for development around Tweed Bank and economic enterprise skills and housing. The borderlands deal focuses on other areas, and the South of Scotland enterprise agency is much more about bringing forward economic opportunities. We are very aware of the fact that we have three horses running in this race at the same time, and we are making sure that they are complementary rather than in conflict with each other. Is there a guarantee that that will not happen? I know that you said that you are working hard towards it. Yes, absolutely. There is a guarantee that that will not happen and that they will work in complement with each other. Is that okay? I will probably lead into what Andy Watt might want to ask. Will Annabelle Watt come in on an issue here? Do you want to come back in later? Fine, we will end it. Okay, thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Looking at the deals in broad brush, I understand that, for example, in terms of funding, Stirling and Clack's, there is a mismatch of the funding. The Scottish Government has put in £50.1 million, and the UK Government has pledged £45 million. Do you have any intelligence that the UK Government is going to step up to the plate and come up with the other £5 million? Is that an on-going discussion with them? The additional £5 million from the Scottish Government was specifically for Stirling projects for two particular Stirling projects, which are being handled out with the deal itself. The business case and that train is in motion to spend that money next year, so that is already under way. However, from the UK Government perspective, I have not heard that there is any intention to match that additional £5 million. Are there any discussions on going with the UK Government to seek to extract from them? Not at this point. What about T-Cities? I understand that the mismatch is about £50 million, so the Scottish Government has committed £200 million and the UK Government £150 million. Is there any on-going work to seek to extract from the UK Government the extra £50 million? I think that the terms of the deal are that it is £150 million from each of the Governments to the T-City deal. The additional £50 million is being governed through the deal, but it is aligned to and does not form part of the deal, and that is the formal wording that was in the letter of offer from the Scottish Government. Right, so it is aligned to but not governed by. Presumably another £50 million from the UK Government would be welcome. Are there any on-going discussions with the UK Government to that effect on the part that was involved in the T-City deal? There are no T-City deal discussions with the UK Government around additional funding. Looking also at the issue of how it is working, the relations between yourselves and the respective Governments in terms of communication. Is there a clear line as to who should be in control and who is seeking to be in control of spending decisions? Are you having access when you want to meetings with respective officials of the Scottish Government and the UK Government? Perhaps Sterling and Clack's could kick that one. We have regular four-weekly catch-up meetings with both the UK and Scottish Government. All of that is in place for the period up to the signing of the deal at this stage, so that is the Sterling and Clack's manager focus. That will take us up to around the end of May, June time, at which point we hope to have absolutely clarified the pathway to accessing the money and the spread over the 10 to 15 years of the deal itself. That is our immediate focus at this stage. You feel that it is all fine and that there is no issues at all about communication, any attempted encroachment on decisions that you may feel slightly uncomfortable with? I think that we have perhaps had a slightly different experience around the UK Westminster fund for Clack's manager, where there has been probably a little bit of confusion has arisen. The Clack's manager commission that I mentioned in my opening statement had gone through a bid process to secure bids to identify the projects that would go forward as part of that fund. The expectation was that the commission would be able to give its feedback alongside the UK Government's feedback. Unfortunately, so far we have not been able to get the feedback from the UK Government. I think that part of this is a function of incredibly tight timescales. We went through the bid process in January with the Clack's manager commission and we were anticipating feedback by mid-February from the UK Government, because what we do not want to do is give the wrong steer to the bidders. We do not want to suggest that a project might be successful and that they incur extra expense and work and so on. If the projects are not, then they will be taken forward. That has been an issue for us and it continues to be an issue actually as I sit here today. We are still in dialogue trying to work out the next steps to align the role of the Clack's manager commission and getting the feedback and aligning the UK Government feedback. The UK Government, have they given any indication as to the date by which they will give this important feedback? The date has passed. The date that I was given was the 18th of February. They have not come back to you to give you another date? No. Our local MP has actually been seeking to follow that up and was in touch with me just last week asking if I had received feedback yet, and I understand that he was also going to put pressure on it, as is our council leader and officials from the council. How is it going with your deal on important issues of communication and so forth? We have had any issues at all with communicating with the UK Government or the Scottish Government. It has been a relatively smooth process. When we signed our heads of terms, we had both the Prime Minister and the First Minister in attendance signing those heads of terms. I think that that was—it displays the importance of the deal to both Governments and both Governments have been united in supporting this deal. In terms of funding, it is important to point out that when we develop city regions deal, we are given very clear steer on what we can ask the UK Government for and what we can ask the Scottish Government for. Councils and the joint committees have come really good at ensuring that we are asking the right Government for the right type of funding. Some deals will get more from the Westminster Government, some deals will get more from the Scottish Government depending on what we are asking for and the focus of what we are asking for. I think that that has to be held in tandem with the necessity to have match funding, but realising that there is a bit of pragmatism in there in terms of how those projects are funding. From the Edinburgh city regions deal perspective, we have not experienced any of that tension and the Governments have worked very well together at the highest levels of government. You mentioned a moment ago that the matching of funds may not always be symmetric. What would be examples of circumstances in Scotland where the UK Government has provided more money than the Scottish Government? I can talk from the borderlands perspective, but do you want to talk about the Edinburgh city regions deal perspective? The data-driven innovation side of the Edinburgh city region deal is where the majority of the UK Government money has gone in different projects within it. The great separation of the sheriff's hall roundabout is one that is a devolved matter. That is the Scottish Government putting money towards that. It is really the data-driven innovation for our deal. The UK Government money has gone together with the impact concert hall. I guess that we can check with SPICE if there is any example in Scotland of a deal where the UK Government has given more money, but that is something that we can sue ourselves with officials. I am conscious that I see that other people are wanting to come in for supplementary issues, but if you heard any— Sorry, overall it is the same money going into the entirety of the deal, but it is just within the individual projects that some of the money is apportioned differently. I am going to let Kenny Lawson, but Graham says that he has some information here on that last point. We have obviously covered this issue before, and we produced a report on it. We have covered the area that Annabelle Ewing has been asking about, which was what each Government is allowed to spend. One area of concern for the committee was that we felt as a committee that that was too rigid on both Government sites. Really, it should just be a part of money that you can spend on useful projects. From Annabelle Ewing's point of view, she should maybe speak to us afterwards, look back at the report that we published, but we certainly covered that issue because it was a concern. It was interesting to hear from those in the front line this morning what the current position is, and that is what I was seeking to establish. We had evidence from Glasgow on its city region deal, and basically they get money from the UK and Scottish Governments, and they are allowed to spend it, as they think would optimise the benefits for their deal area. However, since then, there has been this separation of funding into reserved and devolved areas. I looked at my constituency and my area and how that has done, and it has seemed artificial. Do you not believe, as a panel, that the resources could be much more optimally spent if that barrier was removed and you all had the same flexibility that Glasgow has in its deal to spend those resources? At the outset, when we started to look, I think that it was in around 2016 at Stirling, Clifman and Chyrn, and at that point probably only Stirling city deal, the emphasis was on transformational economic change, and that was a challenge that was put to us. I think that that is what we started to come up with. As we started to negotiate the deal over the subsequent months and years, it became much more about what the shape of the ultimate deal would look like in terms of parity between Scottish and UK Government, making sure that per head of the population, Stirling and Clifman was not getting more out of it than, for example, Glasgow, Aberdeen or the other city region deals. That has given us a challenge because it has not focused on what is going to give the public the best bang for their buck in terms of economic transformation. It is about really reducing the politics, in my opinion. That is my point. Any other comments? You will also be taking a fifth on that apart from Carol. I think that we are where we are on this. We have reserved matters and we have devolved matters, and that is how the Governments are looking at this. In terms of the front line, we will play the hand that we are given. That is probably more of a question for those higher up levels of Government than us who are delivering the deals on the ground and trying to deliver the projects. Carol just talked about making sure that each area gets the same per capita. Each area does not have the same issues or problems per capita. For example, GVA in Edinburgh is 44,000 a year, and North East Wales is at present 13,000 a year, so the needs are greater. I noticed in the Borders that £85 million appears to be announced this morning by the Scottish Government. I am surprised by that, because usually they wait until the UK Government announces first. That seems to be the reason for the Scottish Government not announcing resources for Ayrshire prior to this. I will be interested in whether that has been the case and whether the money has been announced. However, if that is £85 million on top of the money that the Borders is getting from Edinburgh, does that not mean that the Borders is getting significantly more than the other parts of Scotland? You said earlier that you have an embarrassment of riches. As I understand it, the UK Government announcement is being made later today in terms of the Borderlands growth deal. The Borderlands growth deal covers five local authorities, and many of the projects are cross-border. The £85 million announced by the Scottish Government is not just for the Borders, but also for Dumfries and Galloway. We are looking at how we can avoid the economic displacement that has been of concern in other deals and ensure that our Borders are porous in terms of how we benefit neighbouring areas. The £85 million is not just for the Borders. It will be spread throughout the whole Borderlands deal in Scotland. The Edinburgh City Regions deal, and the Borders' share of that money is £15 million. We are not receiving a huge amount of money from the Edinburgh City Regions deal. I appreciate the cross-border, because I understand that it also includes Carlyll City Council, Cymru, County Council and the Thumbland County Council. If the UK Government matches what the Scottish Government has put in, surely that would mean that there would be a significant disproportionate amount of money from the Scottish Government going north of the border. Obviously, Dumfries and Galloway is only talking about borders. How come we only ended up with £15 million out of a billion plus deal for Edinburgh Borders deal? That seems pretty dire, does it not? The £15 million was for a specific project, and it is what we asked for. We were involved in the Edinburgh City Regions deal because of the border railway coming down to Tweedbank, and the £15 million was what we asked for £15 million. In terms of the Borderlands growth deal, we need to wait for the UK Government announcement before we can make any comments on exactly what the impact of that will be. I am intrigued by why you asked for such a small amount relative to the size of the deal. Given the geographic area of the borders, it seems to me quite a poor ask. To be honest, there are no infrastructure issues that need to be invested in in the borders. The decision for the council will be made, and you have 100 per cent of what you asked for. We haven't taken you out. It's not too bad. Alexander Stewart Can I just take a supplementary on what we were discussing from Annabelle's comments, especially with Stirling and Clack's? I am concerned that we still have seemed to be a tension between the UK Government and the Stirling and Clack's deal. That does give me cause for concern. The perception, going back when the deal started, was that Stirling would have been more advanced in some parts of the process. That may not be the reality, but that was very much the perception. Clack Mannan has come together now, and you are bringing that joint committee together. I think that it is very useful to do that, because you can learn from that experience together. In reality, is that perception correct that Clack Mannan is slightly behind or slightly adrift from some parts of the process in the deal? That was how it was perceived, and they say that that may just be a perception rather than a reality. Annabelle Ewing I would suggest not. I feel that we are working extremely well in partnership with Stirling, but I would suggest that the comment that I made in my opening statement about the fact that we have decided to go for a single commission now is best testament to that, because that is both political and managerial will to do that from the council's perspectives. Carole outlined before when she spoke about the engagement that we have with both Scottish Government and UK Government officials. That is working very smoothly. I would not even describe as tension a point of on-going consideration is how we look at the UK fund. You have to remember from Clack Mannan's point of view that fund was a unique proposition at the point in our deal. We have had to work quite closely with UK Government officials to look at the protocols and the governance that is required around that. There is an element of learning from other deals as we go, making sure that when we are getting the right, we are hitting the target in terms of the ask for the projects that come forward. You are very confident that everything will be achieved. When you have set out your terms of conditions, you have set out your path that you want to achieve, so it is making sure that you get the result at the end of the day. Having everything in theory is great, but it is the practical and having things on the ground that will benefit the communities that we all want to see. That is so important. That is a widely held view across the whole deal and the whole region, across all the political groups, across the businesses, between both Stirling and Clack. There is no issue with that at all. The other thing that I would mention is that one of the other things that has the potential to take us into more difficult territory would be that as a function of our deal, we have a number of bid funds, but that is something that we are really putting great efforts in to make sure that that does not become an issue. We are trying to work very closely to make sure that we agree on how we will approach that. Just tomorrow morning, we have a number of conversations that involve partners from both Stirling and Clack's Council to look at how we take forward particularly the culture heritage and tourism fund, which is one of the shared funds, and to look at how we take that forward in partnership and develop a regional narrative around that. We are working very hard on that. With regard to coming to the table later, I was just speaking to other members of the panel before we came in and said that it has been quite interesting for us because, yes, we did come to the table later and you cannot dispute the facts of that, but it has been quite interesting because we are seeing a lot of opportunities to join things up because there are a lot more things that are established. It is allowing us, when we are looking at potential projects from a Clack's perspective, to see the connections really quickly. What might be perceived as being a negative is more and more becoming a positive. You have talked quite a bit about reserved and devolved funding, particularly from the Clackmann and Stirling and Edinburgh and south-east. Are there any other issues with that? It was a topic that was drawn to our attention when we did our initial inquiries. Is there anything else that people perhaps from Taycities want to talk about that, or can we assume that that is all relatively smooth? It is relatively smooth in terms of the outcomes that we have got. I think that there is the potential, though, that if the economic strategy has not been developed and everybody from both Governments and local authorities went tying up to the same outcomes, there could have been an issue, because everybody had an awareness of the space that they were working in right from the beginning. I agree with Nicky about the programmes, because we are in a similar position where we have had projects that have now been lumped by the two Governments into programmes, and that is where the debate will be over the next while on how those programmes service the projects that people may be expected that they are not going to get in their entirety. You said in your opening remarks that you mentioned the Bays Centre project in Edinburgh. That was officially opened, as I understand, on 26 October last year, but the City Region Deal was just signed three months before. How did that ever become part of the City Region Deal? I think that there are certain projects in the City Region Deal that partners would have been minded to take forward anyway, without having a City Region Deal. What the City Region Deal has done is giving us the ability to scale those things up and to accelerate some of those. The Bays Centre is going to be the hub, the focal point of the world-class data infrastructure side of things, and with the data-driven innovation being such an important component part of the City Region Deal. I suppose that, as well, it may be touching, it does reflect a little bit on your reserved, devolved question. Obviously, things have moved on and we have had to make sure that the deals align with emerging policies for the UK industrial strategy, the enterprise and skills review from the Scottish Government. However, everything in our City Deal largely came when the universities came to the table to become a potential partner, was fuelled by a science and innovation audit, and that informed the selection of the projects, ultimately, within the Edinburgh City Region Deal, or Edinburgh South East Scotland City Region Deal. I still don't understand if the City Region Deal was signed in August 2018 and the centre was opened three months later. How can it have been part of the deal? You don't design and commission a building in three months. No, that's true. It was referenced in the heads of terms back in November 2017. It was within the deal document that was signed in August 2018. Those were progressed in discussion and for a long discussion prior to the heads of terms with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and they were comfortable with the component parts of the deal. You wanted to comment on Edran and Alex's number of questions. I've got some completely baffled by that answer. I've got to be honest. If something's built and up and running three months after the deal's signed, it's not part of the deal. There's no amount of waffle that can get around that. My question was, have we, in the Edinburgh deal, any other projects that are up and running? Any started? No, there's a lot of work going on in the skills programme as well that we're progressing. That's probably one of the elements. The impact concert hall is progress being made with that. That's before our City of Edinburgh councils planning committee, I think, on 26 April. There's progress being made with that. Other projects are beginning to move the great separation of the sheriff hall roundabout. There will be orders laid at the end of this year in relation to that. There is work on going, but the base centre is certainly the most advanced of those. What's the timescale for the sheriff hall roundabout? As I say, the orders will be laid at the end of this year, and it will then depend on the level of public comments, potential objections to that. Transport Scotland are leading on that element, but we'll be clearer after that. Can I ask you all then, following on from that general question, and this leads on from our session last week where we had Glasgow. One of the criticisms of Glasgow is that there's been a very poor level of transparency around their projects. It's very hard to find out anything, actually. Their website is pretty dire. How are you all consulting with the public, telling people what you're planning, involving members of the public and businesses in your deals, and how are you letting people know what's going on in a way that's better than Glasgow? The beginning of the Stirling and Clifmannanshire city region deal started with the people. It didn't start with a group of projects that we wanted to bring forward to consult on. It started with businesses, with the communities, to say, if we look at the Stirling and Clifmannanshire region into the next 15 years, what are the things that are either going to make it a success or fall off a cliff in terms of its economic success? That was a big open question. We had lots of feedback in terms of culture, heritage, the fact that the region doesn't have particularly strong industry sectors, the way that Falkirk, our neighbours do, or Edinburgh or Glasgow. What can we do that's authentic and real to our region that we'll make a difference? That was the start. All the way along, there's been the city commission, there's been public engagement, there's been a public booklet website, etc. I created. For me, it's been a participative process from the outset, as opposed to starting with a group of projects to consult upon. That's really interesting. Some of the projects have been ideas from the people of your area. I just wanted to supplement what Carol had offered. If I draw an alignment with what we've been doing in Clifmannanshire around a specific fund just now, we invited bids. Around that went quite a lot of publicity in terms of giving a steer about the requirements and what the sort of projects would be that might be looked on favourably. There's quite a lot of support into that process, but it was a fantastic opportunity for local people to showcase their ideas. The commission was absolutely unanimous in the fact that they'd had quite a discussion about whether or not they would take presentations from all of the bidders. They settled on doing that, and they were very pleased that they had taken presentations from everyone because it brought forward, in a much better way, those ideas. It allowed us to see the potential between projects, where we could help bidders to join up ideas that would make a better and stronger strategic case that we could support to go forward. There's the more strategic level that Carol outlined, but at a more operational level, as we're looking at individual projects and bids, there's quite a lot of opportunity for people to get involved in. In the cities, we've had engagement events going back to 2016 with stakeholder events across the area, dealing with the themes that were likely to be included in the city deal. All that came through. We're also the chief executive of DC Thomson that is on the day cities joint committee, so we've been quite good at having publicity around the projects and the programmes as they've been developed. We've continued that dialogue with business through further education, etc. We've also had a selection of community events to have went out to various city development boards and other stakeholder groups as the deal has progressed. Just picking up on what was said earlier in terms of projects that have started on the ground that were in the city deal, at least one of the councils in the city area agreed their city deal projects back in 2016 and assumed a level of funding. In many cases, those projects have been developing at risk to the authority with the authorities knowing that they would have to revisit their capital programmes if required. Andy, is that the kind of thinking that was going on with the base project? Yes. The university where we're doing that and similar to what Jim says there, they would have had to. If anything had happened then you'd attain the hit? Yes. I've just put a public record here that Graham's opinion of Glasgow's communications strategy was Graham's opinion of it. Susan Akin, the leader, spent quite a lot of time last week clarifying the fact that they've done some work to make it better. I just don't want it to look like there was nothing said or done about it. Okay. Andy, Alex, sorry. Can I maybe just follow on for that? Because whilst the Stirling-Clapman and Triard deal and Tayside deals talked about the level of involvement in local communities and business, what was the level of consultation in terms of the Edinburgh south east Scotland deal? I can start, Andy. Can I be pitching anything? I forget. A list of projects were put forward by the local partners and they really came out of the local development plans that were built up from the councils involved. Those have an element of community participation already. As councils consult a lot with the public in terms of developing those local development plans. The accountability boards of the Edinburgh region deal a wide variety of partners, including a lot of community groups who can get involved in the operation and management of the projects. In terms of transparency, we have regular reporting that are all available online. We have a dedicated website for Edinburgh city regions deal and all the meetings of the joint committee are webcast as well. Should anyone want to watch the function of the joint committee as well? There were two series of thematic workshops that were held back in 2016. I think our council leader, Councillor McVeigh, when he and our chief executive Andrew Kerr gave evidence, they did confirm the last time that those workshops were before my time, but they didn't involve the local communities as well. Chambers of commerce were involved in those as well, so that started back in 2016. I wonder if we can ask each of the witnesses, each of the partnerships, if they can, to submit some detail off the level of consultations that have taken place both with communities and businesses. I know that in Fife there was an outcry when the city deals announced and the leaving mouth rail link was not included in that. Initially, the council was attacked for not putting it forward. The chief executive of Fife council then responded to saying that they had been advised by the Scottish Government as civil servants not to put it forward because it would not get through. That raises the question, who is making these decisions at the end of the day? What is approved and not approved? What is your view on that? I suppose that leaving mouth, I know that the co-counsel leader of Fife was here before the last time that Edinburgh, South East Scotland region deal gave evidence to you, and I think he covered that there. In terms of who has taken the decisions, each of the component parts—for us, the six local authorities—have all had to sign off the deal document, as has the higher and education sector through their university courts. Then it has been signed off with UK Government and Scottish Government. There is a document that is produced. Who makes the decisions on what is in that document for each of the partners to sign off? Prior to our joint committee being established, our six chief executives and representatives of the HEFE sector have met and, similarly, our political leaders met and continued to meet monthly, as they were discussing, and that distilled things down. The negotiations were happening with the UK and Scottish Government, so it is at the most senior ends of those organisations. For example, the sheriff all round about the enemy that drives that regularly, as I do, knows that that is a real problem. There is a concern that that type of project, which the funding was already in Transport Scotland for, has happened anyway and has suddenly been put in as part of a city regional deal that looks bigger than it was, because these things would have had to happen anyway and the funding was available for them. What is your view on that? Yes, that is undoubtedly true. At the end of the day, it was worked out that this is a deal. This is what a deal could look like, and it is then up for the individual members of that. Do they want to take that deal? As I said, that then went round each of the six local councils. They considered it and signed that off, so they were happy with that. UK Government and Scottish Government were. I dare say that if you were to ask each of the partners involved, we were going to put £1.3 billion into your area. Are these what you would, top of your wish list, all of them, that £1.3 billion? No, I do not think that that would be the case. I think each folk would have different priorities, but overall it came back to this is the deal that makes all of the UK Government, Scottish Government and the regional partners happy to accept that, and each of those component parts approved it. Before we move off that, can I be raised there? It is quite interesting given that we have a housing crisis in Scotland. Could you say a bit more about the housing infrastructure funding? You say that there will be a new housing company established, a new housing company. Can you explain a bit more about what the housing company's role is? In terms of the money, there was the £65 million that came in from Government, and then there is partner contributions of £248 million. Again, is that £248 million coming out of council housing budgets that was there for housing anyway, or how is that? Is it new money? I need to caveat this, sir. I do not know all of the housing funding side of things. I think that the important point for the regional partners is that the commitment to the seven strategic sites, which was explicitly referenced in the document, will deliver 41,000 new homes in the area, which is much needed. The precise funding of the seven strategic sites may well go beyond what is here as part of the city region deal, or the sums that we have been speaking about, but that is the express commitment within our sign deal document, which is to deliver on all those seven strategic sites. Do you perhaps therefore send us some more detail on the housing? The question is the additional £248 million. Is that money that was already sitting there for housing? Is it new money, or is it not? The £65 million that comes in, I assume, is new money. In terms of the number of houses going to be built, would those houses have been built anyway? If Andy is going to send us the information and says he does not have the figures to hand, then... If we could get that information, that would be useful. I just wanted to draw perhaps a contrast with our deal, because, if you look at our submission, there is a summary there of the projects that are included in our deal, and you can see that there is significant additionality by the nature of the projects that are included in the Stirling-Clapmaninshire deal. I also wanted to reflect a little on the theme that was being pursued around and about how projects come forward. Part of the experience that we did have in inviting bids is that you get quite a lot of an ask for revenue-type projects, and, of course, the vast bulk of the investment is capital. It means that there is quite a lot of work sometimes to work with local groups to help them to realise the capital investment ambitions, rather than things that are perhaps lower or more operational type matters that would require revenue funding. There needs to be a balance when you are looking at what the projects are that are selected because they need to meet the criteria for funding. I understand that, but the question is what is added value. Is it an emphasis on gross added value as it is in the Glasgow project? That is a question that I was going to come on to, but the question is that, once we know what consultations have taken place, we also need to know what has happened. I am very supportive of the housing, but I do not understand why you need a housing company and how much it would have happened anyway. If we are going to scrutinise those deals properly, it is right and proper that we get the information in order to allow us to do so, that is the only point that I would be making. Can I continue with this and ask what work has been done on maximising inclusive growth within the deals? We did an inclusive growth framework to make sure that, across the whole programme for Stirling and Clackmannanshire, it was absolutely identifiable what the impacts were going to be from an inclusive perspective. There is a skills programme that is matched to each of the new industry sectors. There are linkages with Fort Valley College, Stirling University, where we have significant areas of deprivation. There are particular projects that reach out to that. I think that probably we were the first city region deal that was asked by necessity to provide an inclusive growth framework that had measurables within it to make sure that it is something that is going to be signed off at the stage of the deal, as opposed to coming retrospectively. Similar to Stirling and Clackmannanshire, we also had to put together an inclusive growth framework. We have also introduced consistent community benefit clauses into all of our business cases. The PMO has drafted a paper showing how the region's community benefits model will all of our projects be scored against that model. The ones that agreed that the standard work is going to be incorporated into the integrated employer engagement proposition within our skills programme. That will come before the joint committee in 2019. Our vice-chair of the regional enterprise executive committee is Clare Patullo, who has a strong interest in social enterprise and community engagement. Community benefit is of key concern to all of our projects moving forward, and we have to measure what that community benefit is. In terms of the city deal, all our initial projects were scored on GVA uplift, but when we started to look at it in a bit more detail, we started to consider things like rurality. How do we upskill? We do not have a really low unemployment rate set in some pockets in the cities, but how do we lift those wage levels? There are programmes linked to all the projects in terms of employability, etc. A big issue is connectivity. How do we get people to work? We have looked at that in terms of inclusiveness. How do we put a programme in place where people maybe pay a bit less or can get to centres of employment a bit quicker? In terms of the objectives and outcomes, are they measurable objectives and outcomes? Is the progress monitoring system being put in place from the outset of these projects? What about the review process for each deal? In Glasgow, we heard last week that there is a process being applied to the RSQW. There is an ongoing review process in place. Is there anything with other deals? We have not reached that point, so we have not actually signed the deal yet, so we anticipate that that will be something that we will discuss during the course of finalising the deal. As regards our review, we are early in the process, but what we have already realised is that the economic strategy that we agreed back in 2016-17 needs to be refreshed. We are going to refresh that and then look at the outcomes against the new regional economic strategy. I think that within the grant offer letter that we got from the Scottish Government on behalf of both Governments, that sets out a series of requirements of monitoring the report and the evaluation that we have to do, which builds towards us. There will be an annual conversation for us that we will have our first of those in the autumn. Finally, can I ask? In Cluckmanushire Council is well documented in terms of the financial crisis that has been going through, but it is a question for each one in terms of the capacity within those councils, given the financial constraints, the capacity around plan and economic development. Those services are the ones that are, if you like, easier cuts to make politically, and a lot of those services have been cut back. Does that create any difficulty in terms of delivering those kinds of projects? I would suggest that, so far, what we have been doing, we are having to reinvest, so we are finding that where we have reduced capacity, I am now looking at various steps in place to augment the project management office in Cluckmanushire to support the city region deal. However, what has happened in the intervening period is that, in working with our partners, we have agreed and shared the tasks between us, not just between the councils, but we also have a very good relationship with Stirling University. The project management officers work very well between the three of us, so knowing that our project management office should be there throughout the turn of the new financial year, we have managed to get through all the processes to date. However, you are right, there is a general issue about the need to refocus and reprioritise to make sure that we have the capacity to take forward city deal. I agree with that. I think that councils are under a huge pressure, and we are always looking at how we are going to be making savings for protecting front-line services. Certainly, the PMO office has been a massive benefit to that, and having that in place and having the support of that group has been very helpful. It is a challenge, but it is one that councils will rise to and will deliver on the deal commitments. I would probably supplement that in terms of our sort of governance structure, as you will see within that, underneath our executive board, we have got a directors group, which tends to be the strategic directors that cover the areas. Not all of the local authorities have the same sort of different divisions and departments, but we tend to have the strategic directors that have responsibility for housing, transport, economic development, land use and planning are the ones that we have been meeting with. That collective discipline of meeting on a monthly basis supplement the intermediate fortnight by the chief executives meeting and make sure that we are closely on track and monitoring if there will be any resourcing issues. As a PMO, we have taken things to the directors group and to the executive board in terms of if there was any resourcing considerations. We have recruited a dedicated accountant to oversee the financial aspects in our capacities accountable body for the deal. We are closely monitoring. The points you make are perfectly valid, but we are alive to that. In two cities, part of our formal offer to government was that we would work collaboratively together and we hoped that that would be reciprocated in that they would bring some resource to the table. That is working in some areas with some government agencies. We have been well supported by Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. Alongside that, the colleges, universities and ourselves, we are managing the resources that we have got project management office in place, but we see that as a future of working going forward and that we need to build more on that and there are some other government agency to think that they need to step forward and get involved in that. Thank you. We have talked about this morning communications and I think that the communications has been vitally important and you have outlined all of you about the communications. You have it at the political level, at the council level and business level, but the communities are at the end of the day, the crux of this whole process. The idea behind many of those deals was innovation, was research, was jobs, was skill and trying to ensure that that does become the reality. For some communities, this deal is a lifeline which they have never had for decades and it will give them the opportunity to unlock the potential within that community but also unlock the potential for skills and jobs for people within those communities who have seen, just through their own environment, it not being the most prospects for young people and people being part of that whole process. When we are looking at the risks that you face in trying to achieve some of those goals and negotiating that and communicating that across your council areas to ensure that you get that, what are the challenges that you still face in making that dream become a reality? I thought that there were no challenges left then. I do not think that the challenges are communicating with the community. I think that I outlined earlier that a lot of hours started with the community. If I take one example, which is the river that connects Clutman and Shurn and Stirling, it is probably a reasonably good example to give both of us as town cities have turned our back on the river over a number of different decades, which is unusual across Europe. The community felt that. They felt that the river was there and nobody noticed it. It was not used for anything particularly. The bid that we had put forward was to bring the use of the river back into play again for the economic and social benefit of both of the—or right across the region. Community has been part of developing what do they want to see in terms of a skills development programme. It is boat building, it is heritage conservation, it is tourism, it is a whole manner of different things that four-fally college students, Stirling university, council community have all been involved in creating. It is not just about creating a nice shiny looking thing on the banks of the river forth. What does that actually mean in job terms for the local people? Just a very quick supplement to that. The location of a lot of the projects that have been approved within the Stirling clack steel on the river back is really important because it coincides from a clack manager point of view with some of our greatest areas of deprivation, so those communities that we want to benefit as much as possible from the investment that comes with City Deal. South and East Allewa, where the location for the Scottish International Environment Centre is, and associated with other projects that may be crystallised on that same site, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, I would suggest, for our area. We really view it in those terms, so I think that the location is just as important as the actual projects that are being taken forward. Is there any inclusive growth and framework? The kind of things that we found was that 22 per cent of children were born into poverty in the region. 0.55 jobs per working-age resident in East Lothian compared to 1.02 in Edinburgh. 22 per cent of working-age residents in Midlothian have degrees for the figure's 49 per cent in Edinburgh, so how do we square that circle and how do we make sure that that challenge of creating well-paid, skilled jobs that are accessible to not the working-age population of the day but the working-age population of tomorrow is a key thing. Now, one of the really innovative projects within Edinburgh City Region's deal, and one close to my heart, is the investing in families project. That's something that's been at the forefront with Fife Council, but it's being rolled out across the City Region deal area, and that is engaging with families who have long-term unemployment and low aspiration, low self-esteem, low self-confidence in the children. How do we engage with those families to raise the aspiration and raise the attainment of children who are used to worklessness? It's a really interesting project. It's not what you would consider a normal city deal project. It's not building something big and shiny. It's not investing in a really interesting development or culture or that kind of thing, but it actually gets to the crux of the matter of how do we build a good and skilled workforce who are equipped to take on those highly-paid, well-skilled jobs in the future, and it's raising that aspiration. It's a very interesting project with the Edinburgh City Region's deal that actually deals with the core problem that we're facing at the moment. I think that there has been a problem in Tays City, and I think that it's maybe across the piece with some of the messaging, particularly in the rural areas, because the city deal in some areas has been presented as very much a solution for the cities and for the bigger settlements. That's why we have focused on broadband and connectivity and how do you bring people in from the rural areas who can work in some of the centres where, if we're being honest, that's where the work is going to be in the future, that's where the decommissioning will be, and that's where the large number of jobs will be. We've been talking to a lot of people whether that's up in Angus Glynes or whatever, how do they link it in Montroseport and propose developments in Montroseport, what are the opportunities there, and what training opportunities do we need to give outwith the normal catchment along the east coast and how do we connect these communities in? I think that there is a bit of a challenge and we'll work in our way through that. I think that you've identified what you're all trying to do, and there are similarities across the deals, but you have your own individual and your own tailor-made aspirations that you want to achieve. Has there been decent dialogue between each of you about the shared learning experiences that have taken place and you've learned from each other's process? As I say, we've heard from Glasgow in the past about some of the difficulties that they had, and have you all learned from that and are continuing to learn from that? Yes, absolutely. The recently established PMOs, the project managing officers, have now got a network where they meet regularly to discuss how we learn from each other and how those best practice models can be rolled out. Probably need to get Jim's colleague Mo Sonders in their PMO with this sort of credit for initiating that, but I think that that was on the back of the committee having suggested that as well, and also the Audit Scotland review that they're doing as well. Most of the PMOs are on the panel supporting Audit Scotland and doing that. One of the things that's maybe relevant as well to touching on the inclusive growth is that at our last joint committee we also invited the Qualities and Human Rights Commission to come and present to us, and we've asked them to look in, and they have looked at all of our business cases within what we take forward. The equality considerations are up front. What we've also done at the next meeting of the PMOs is that we've arranged for the Qualities and Human Rights Commission to come in to address the PMOs generally so that we can try to do that on a consistent basis across all city region deals. Thank you, convener. Yes, just a brief supplementary on the Qualities and Human Rights Commission, are their analysis of your business cases published? No, no, they haven't. No, they're not. Would you publish them? With their permission, I suppose it's less being sort of providing reports, they've been sort of giving us feedback, we've had meetings so it's not all sort of being in written form. They did present to our joint committee, which is webcast and is there for repeated viewing, so you can see that. I mean, I'm comfortable with what you're proposing, I'm just not sure that we've got something ready made to do that, but I'd happy to lace with them to see if there's something that they would be happy to publish and on an on-going basis, but certainly their Qualities considerations are in our published committee reports as well. Sorry, I just sort of misunderstood what you'd said then. I thought you were saying that the Qualities and Human Rights Commission had looked at each of the projects? They have, but they've not provided something formal back to the joint committee. So what was the point in looking at them if they didn't provide anything to the committee? They provided it to the PMO and we fed that back to those that were progressing the business cases, so we've incorporated things within the business cases. If they had a published report to go alongside the committee papers, I'd be happy to publish that. I mean, I'm happy with the spirit and the intent of what you're saying. I'm not sure we have something neatly to hand to do that. Given our interest in inclusive growth, I think the committee would be interested in that, so if you can provide that to the committee, that'd be helpful. I'll be particularly interested in their assessment of the shareful roundabout. Over the course of a deal 10, 15, 20 years, the resources provided by the Scottish Government and the UK Government are flat profiled, but to get some of those projects up and running, local authorities have to front load capital spend. Some of your authorities are relatively small. How does that impact on other capital projects, such as, for example, building a school going forward? I'm happy to start off with that, if that's okay. That's certainly something that's been subjected to much consideration for us in Clackmannanshire recently. There's been a large amount of discussion between myself and the leader on that as we've been starting to look at financial profiling as we look towards signing off the full deal. I think that in summary where that conversation at is, it comes down to choices because where you've got a smaller council with a smaller capital programme, you have to look at the city deal project funding versus the other ambitions that you've got for the area. The other thing that we have been discussing there is the extent to which that situation can be mitigated by looking for other investment in the projects. If we can secure business investment or other types of funding to support the city deal, it might be that the council doesn't have to frontload all of that. Similarly, looking across some of the other partners as well, is there an opportunity there? We're pretty early stages on that. Having identified the situation relatively recently as we start to look at the financial profiling, it's starting to get a better feel for the size and shape of that issue. Yes. Obviously, from earlier questions, I talked about flexibility and the lack of it in latter deals relative to Glasgow vis-à-vis UK Government and Scottish Government funding. That is clearly another inflexibility. Obviously, would you like the Scottish and UK Governments to be much more flexible in terms of the profile of funding? Although those projects are going forward in terms of deal that are very important for all the areas, what you don't want to do is to have to delay, for example, the construction of a school for three or five years because you're having to put all your eggs into the one basket of deal projects. Would that be a fair assessment? I think that that's a very fair assessment. One of the things, as we're looking at our financial profile, we can see that we peaked on troughs. As you look at it, certainly the profile isn't coming out flat. We've just been having those conversations about particular pinch points in some of the early years and how we might like to take that conversation back. Are there other areas in the same situation as Clackmannanshire? We think that the flat profile spend is a major issue. The local authorities can deal with it, and a lot of our local authorities have included it in their capital programme. It's an issue for the private sector, because they just don't understand that there's an expectation for the private sector project that funding will come along early in the process. If that's not happening, I think that there's going to be a lot of disappointed people. I know that there's a lot of coming in on that, but just to touch on that, Jim, does that mean that it's making it more difficult to attract and lever in the level of private sector funding that you want and at the time that you need it to be levered in? What are we talking about? The projects that are being led by the private sector, so there's an expectation amongst them that they will get the money early in the process. A lot of those have their investment plans in place. So the local authorities have to step up to the plate on those projects, whether or not the capital funding is available specifically from the Scottish or UK Governments? Sorry. Not flat funded, so our funding comes in streams, but I shared the view of the other councils. If it was flat funded, it would cause us significant challenges, and therefore greater flexibility around that would be welcome. You're not flat funded, but we're still in negotiation. So we're trying not to say too much on that at the moment, but our expectation would be that we would face similar challenges to the Edinburgh city region deal. Therefore, why would we not expect a similar level of flexibility for a still-in-clip manager? Yes, and indeed in Ayrshire in my own area, although they're not represented here today. That's interesting line of questioning there. So flat funding, do you think that that could actually jeopardise some projects? It won't jeopardise it. Councils are very good at working around these things to ensure that projects are delivered. It would factor into our thinking a lot more before we put projects forward for consideration, but once the projects are in the business cases, we'll only put projects forward that we're confident in delivering, and if the funding model is flat funding, then that would be the consideration that we would take. From our perspective just now, I think that you would come down to those very hard choices that were suggested before about local investment, so your school of state strategy, leisure facilities, et cetera, versus city region deal projects, because that's how tight our capital programmes are. That's not really the idea behind those deals. That's a very short question, and it falls on from something Alex Rowley asked about where the decisions are made. Within each council, do those projects go through committees for councillors to assess and vote on? We're working within the council, so in Scottish borders we don't have a committee system, so a report comes to full council where it's discussed and a decision is taken. We went to committee as a deal, but the individual projects have all gone up in the capital programme. Are they individually looked at by councillors? Case, can I thank the panel for attending today's session? Further evidence sessions in the city region deals are to be arranged with the cabinet secretary for transport, infrastructure and connectivity and the secretary of state for Scotland in due course. Thank you again. I'll suspend briefly to allow a witness change over. At agenda item 3, the committee will take evidence from the minister for local government, housing and planning in relation to the full poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill. Specifically, we're discussing options for the development of a separate minimum income standard for islands in remote areas. I welcome once again to the committee Kevin Stewart, minister for local government, housing and planning and Cornelius, fuel poverty, bill, team leader and at Ailey Clarkson statistician Scottish Government. I invite Mr Stewart to make an opening statement. Good morning, convener. It's a word I have a problem with as well. At stage 1, I welcomed your support of our proposed use of the UK minimum income standard in the measurement of fuel poverty and recognised concerns raised about the higher costs that are faced by those living in remote rural areas, remote small towns and island communities. Therefore, I committed to bringing forward an amendment at stage 2 to introduce a mis uplift for those areas. I provided the committee with the details of the three options that I considered. Those options were informed by expert advice from Professor Donald Hirsh. Let me provide some background to the options that I examined. First, all options are based on the extensive research that already goes into the UK MIS, they align with scheduled updates to the UK MIS and focus on identifying where there are additional costs in those areas. Secondly, expert advice suggests that, for this purpose, extensive primary research should be carried out periodically. An eight-year period from 2020 is proposed. Finally, the amount by which costs are higher varies more greatly by household type than geography. The research will be conducted across various remote rural, remote small towns and island locations so that the MIS uplift is representative of all those areas. That will lead to an average uplift varying by three main household types, working age, pensioner and families. Those points are reflected in the options that I considered. Option 1 accounts for specific goods and services and higher prices in those areas, and applies a flat threshold of 110 per cent of UK MIS, reviewed on the proposed eight-year cycle. 110 per cent is in line with advice from Professor Hirsh. Option 2 only allows for higher prices but not specific goods and services. It determines new uplift thresholds for the three main household types annually. Option 3 is the most comprehensive. New uplift thresholds for the three main household types are determined annually based on assessment of both the goods and services required as well as their price. New primary research underpinning this would take place every eight years and, in intervening years, account will be taken of inflation as well as biennial collection of local price data and analysis of the impact of any changes to UK MIS. Therefore, my preference would be that Option 3 provides the most balanced and comprehensive approach. I would be happy to hear your views on those and willing to answer any questions that you may have, convener, although, when it comes to some of the technicals, I may be referring to Ms Clarkson. She does that job that I struggle with the title of, don't she? Graham, do you have a couple of questions that you want to ask? First of all, thank you minister for the way that you have engaged with the committee on on this issue. I think that it has been very positive. Can I just follow up on what you said about Professor Hirsh? Can you tell us to what extent he has been involved in devising these three options? Professor Hirsh has been very helpful. Ms Clarkson and her colleagues have been in touch with him on a number of occasions around about this. He has been fairly heavily involved in terms of this. Our analysts have considered the evidence provided by Professor Hirsh for this bill, and a great amount of conversations have taken place with him. We have taken his advice on board in that regard. That is vital in terms of his knowledge of the UK Ms. Options 1 and 3 are based directly on some of Professor Hirsh's suggestions. While Option 2 presents an alternative, I would acknowledge without a doubt that Professor Hirsh himself would not be supportive of that option, since it does not require that specific basket of goods and services to be developed in remote rural and island communities. That is part of the reason why I have indicated that my preference would be for Option 3, which I think offers a good, balanced, comprehensive and, most importantly, evidence-based approach. We have ruled out Option 2 on the basis that you do not like it and Professor Hirsh does not like it. Who came up with the other options 1 and 3? A combination of work between Professor Hirsh and Ms Clarkson and her colleagues. I will let Ms Clarkson give you some more detail of that work, as it was seen through, convener, if you do not mind. Sure. We had a number of conversations with Professor Hirsh about this and talked about ways in which the recommendation of the committee could be achieved. Professor Hirsh indicated that something like 110 per cent of the UK mess in those areas would be a suitable approach for fuel poverty measurement. The other option 3 was also discussed with him, and we feel that that goes further. It does exactly what you are looking for in terms of the committee, but it does it in a way that builds on research that is available, primary research, every eight years, but also work in-between times to make sure that the uplifts that are being applied are as up-to-date and relevant as possible. One of the notes that we have from Professor Hirsh, as you can imagine, there has been some pretty comprehensive chewing and throwing in that, but if I could maybe read that bit. Finally, I would end by noting that if a simplified percentage, such as 110 per cent of mess, were adopted, it would be important to review this from time to time, as our update in 2016 showed that those costs can be quite sensitive to change. Again, that is one of the reasons why my preference would be for option 3 rather than some of the more simplistic alternatives. Okay. All MSPs were emailed this week by Energy Action Scotland with a basket of potential amendments, one of which is MIS uplift for people with additional costs. Their submission to MSPs says that the UK MIS specifically does not take account of those individuals or groups who have additional costs such as those who have a disability or long-term illness, and they are calling for an uplift to take that into account. You will have seen this because we are all sent it. Have you got any comments on that? Convener, if the committee wishes, I am more than willing to respond in writing about all of the proposed amendments if the committee finds that useful. In terms of that proposed amendment, which is amendment 4, the provisions of the bill already include an enhanced heating regime for those households, which may be most affected by the adverse outcomes of living in a colder home. As we have already discussed, we will define those and regulations and the households to which that would apply. Obviously, that applies to higher temperatures and longer heating hours than for other households, which results in higher-required fuel costs. Convener, I have asked my officials to analyse all of those proposed amendments and the impacts, and I am more than willing to provide much more detail about that proposed amendment but also the others that have been shared with the committee and other MSPs. It is entirely up to you, but you will be aware that timescales are pretty tight on that. I will do my level best to try and get the information to the committee as soon as possible. I would say that some of those proposed amendments would be out of scope of the bill. In terms of a parliamentary committee suggestion in one of the amendments, it is not for me to tie the hands of Parliament. It is up to Parliament to decide on which committees it establishes. Beyond that, there are some aspects of those amendments, which I think would be unachievable, and may cause some grief if you were to move too quickly in terms of not having the technologies in place. You could be replacing technologies to deal with something and then not far along the road, ripping those out and putting in other technologies. If it pleases the committee, I would rather go into much more depth than all of this in writing, if that is helpful. We will provide you with the evidence that we have around about all of that. I am sure that we all want to do all of this from an evidence base, and we will do the very best to provide you with that. I ask about the assessment with reference to the prices in remote small towns and island communities and how that is going to be conducted. What primary research will be done and who will be doing the research? That is quite a complex question, convener. It is expected that the organisation responsible for the remote rural uplift will organise research panels of local households. That would be across several of the areas that are covered, the locations that we have already agreed upon, and that would be split into those three main household types that I have already talked about, namely working age, pensioner households and family households. The way that this has been done previously is that, through in-depth discussions, they will first of all determine what additional goods and services are required by those households to maintain an acceptable standard of living. That would be using the UK Miss Basket of Goods and Services as a starting point. They will then explore what those households and a number of other things around price information, where they might be buying goods from, so local stores and things like that. Internet purchases, which of course is a biggie, and we are all aware of the work of Richard Lochhead and others in terms of delivery, so all of that would be taking into account local transport providers, and the list goes on. Price information on those things would be collected every two years, and that would take into account any consequential changes from the updating of the UK Miss. A pretty comprehensive approach, I would say. By having that criteria and putting into some of those locations and understanding how they, as you have already identified, Minister, just by their very nature where they are, they have to endure some of those financial pressures that others do not have the chance or the amenities to deal with. I think that that will give you a view of where they are, but you will then be able to compare and contrast what is happening across different communities in different locations if there are similarities or areas that are in greater need. There will be similarities across the board with other elements that are used to formulate the UK Miss, but that is much more comprehensive. We will find out and quite sure the differentials that exist in certain things. We may also find at certain points that certain goods and services may be cheaper in some of those communities compared to the UK Miss. A lot of folk will say that that is highly unlikely, but it is possible. However, we will have a comprehensive overview using the experiences of households to see exactly what they face and then from there we can work out exactly what is required or not we. However, Ms Clarkson and her fellow professionals in that profession that we will not mention and Professor Hirsh or whoever else is involved will be able to look at that comprehensively. I felt it probably related to the discussion that we have just had. Good morning, minister. I am not sure whether you have been cited on an email that we received from Dai Alexander, the chairman of—I have to get this on the record—Hee Haw, which I have just done, which is quite good, which of course is the Highlands and Islands Housing Association affordable warmth group. The key ask is that there be two separate rural Miss. One for the islands of 115 per cent and one for all remote rural mainland areas, 110 per cent. Obviously, I am sure that you are currently reflecting on this and having officials look at this and so forth, but I just wonder if you would any comment on this at the moment. Convener, I have seen Mr Alexander's email and my officials have been speaking to Mr Alexander on a regular basis. I have to say that I have not seen him for a while, but he is always very forthcoming with his views on many of those issues. I recognise some of the arguments that Mr Alexander has put forward, and we will continue to discuss them with him. However, I think that there are some difficulties in what Mr Alexander proposes as well. I refer back to the point that I made earlier, quoting from the communication from Professor Hirsh, where he said—and I will repeat it again—I would then, by noting that if a simplified percentage such as 110 per cent or whatever percentage it may be of MIS were adopted, it would be important to review that from time to time, as our update in 2016 showed that those costs can be quite sensitive to change. I think that what we are proposing in terms of the comprehensive approach across the board gives us a situation that will cover all of those changes much better than just having a fixed percentage at any point in time. I will hand over to Ms Clarkson, because I know that she and others have talked to Mr Alexander very recently. Beyond that, I should say to the committee that I have other officials at this moment who are probably in the air between Orkney and Shetland at this moment, continuing to gather views as we progress. We have had some discussion with Mr Alexander. From that discussion, I understand that he is generally very supportive of option 3 in the paper, particularly the idea that those uplifts would be updated on an annual basis and that they would be based on that extensive research that we have proposed. However, his feeling is that there should be some account taken of differences between the islands and other areas. We have had some discussion about the figures that he included in that communication. I have pointed out that 115 per cent is probably too high and that that would probably nail into areas that would also be closer to 110 per cent. In our view, the discussion with Professor Hirt and others has always suggested that the biggest variations in terms of differences in uplift is by those household types. That is what we are proposing to take account of in option 3, the differences that are the biggest. I think that that does more than just a single uplift in terms of 110 per cent. We are going further than what we could have done to meet the recommendation. Clarify, if you are taking everything into account—this basket of goods, as you call it—would that not then pick up on where it is most needed, be it an island or be it a rural mainland? That would hopefully be the case, but I will take Ms Clarkson in again. Obviously, the way that this research would be undertaken would be to take account of the differences in different areas. We would be doing research groups with people from different parts of those organisations, not geographies. That would look at those aspects, but what Professor Hirsh has done is already look at that in relation to the existing work that existed around the Highlands and Islands work from 2013 and 2016. His information suggested, as I have pointed out already, that in terms of geography, that variation in uplift was not really so great as by household type. That is something that he has already considered, based on that research that was already undertaken in those different areas. I will listen carefully to what you have said. As a statistician, somebody in the committee that can pronounce that word was useful. It seems to me that the option 3 is more sophisticated and, as a result, would pick up what it would need to pick up, whether, in fact, on any given island the differences were such as to be material, as opposed to differences in type of house. If that were to present, that would be sophisticated enough option 3 to pick up what would need to be picked up in order to ensure that it was reflecting reality in the ground wherever that happened to be. That seems to be what you have said. That is the case, but, again, I will take in Ms Clarkson. I think that what we are proposing to do is suitable for the purposes of fuel poverty measurement. It is looking at providing that uplift for those different household types using an average across those different areas. It is taking account of that research in those different areas, but it is providing that as an average uplift. I should say, convener, that the proposal is in line with some of the recommendations that came out of the panels previously. Kenny, you want to go in? It is an issue about averages. We cannot be over a labr, but there has got to be some common sense approach whereby we have a position that looks at the islands as a whole. Within that, there is a huge differential in terms of the type of houses, the cost of fuel provision and the cost of living. It is quite significant. Even in the Clyde islands, there is a difference between Bute, Cumbria and Arran, for example. I would imagine that there will be a bigger difference between some of the islands and the mainland than there might be even within each other. How do you work out an average, if you are looking at different populations? For example, you get islands like Collins with maybe only 150 people. How can you average them out? For example, Shetland with over 20,000. I am just concerned about how you would—although you cannot be absolutely specific to every single island, I am just wondering what allowances we made for communities that will have specific issues in terms of the cost of living on those islands and, therefore, the cost of fuel and everything else? Mr Gibson is exactly right in terms of the differences that exist across the board around all of that. What we do not want, I am sure, is a situation where it is overly complex in trying to get to a point that may not be that different. I think that what we have here is the right balance in terms of getting this right for everyone in remote, rural and island areas, whether they live in Arran or in Rhaise. There are some folk who are out there who would add to the complexity so much that you would probably be, as well, trying to do in every individual house, which would be absolutely unachievable and be a complete and utter bureaucratic nightmare. We have to balance that out. I think that what is proposed here after discussion with Professor Hirsh strikes that balance. I am going to bring in Ms Clarkson, who has obviously looked at some of the technicalities in much more depth, and then I might come back. I was simply going to comment that the MIS research is intended to be representative, and it is building on the methodology of the UK MIS, which takes the same approach to panels of households of those different household types and trying to come up with the goods and services that are needed for those different types of households that would be representative more widely. That is the same approach that we are proposing to take in those specific geographic areas. I would comment that you mentioned specifically fuel and housing costs, and they are taking account of in other aspects of the definition. At the point of comparison to the minimum income standard, those are not necessary to be considered as part of the minimum income standard because they are taking account in the earlier part of the definition, and variations in housing type are built into the modelling that we undertake to ensure that that is taken account of across the different types. Obviously, I understand that the Scottish Government and the number of others are less supportive of our position, which I advocated myself, that each local authority should have a 5 per cent target, so we would ensure that there were no areas where, for example, there was a disproportionate number of households left in fuel poverty by 2040, but I wonder whether that is not going to happen with the possibility of the Scottish Government looking at a target for the remote, rural and remote island communities of having a 5 per cent target and the rest of Scotland's on a 5 per cent target. Originally, we were talking about a target for the 32 local authorities, but given that the Scottish Government clearly understands that there is an issue with regard to island and remote rural communities, would there possibly be a separate target set for them to ensure that, regardless of all this, we are able to reduce the fuel poverty on the islands to the same extent that they are on mainland communities? Convener, you have got to watch what you are saying when you say misinformation. I have talked previously about some of the difficulties around about targets for each local authority, and I think that having specific targets for areas may cause some real difficulties. What I would prefer to target on—I do not want to go into too much depth today, because we are talking about the mis-aspect—is the targeting of those folks who are in extreme fuel poverty, whether they be in island or remote rural areas or urban areas. I have already said that we will bring forward amendments in that regard at stage 2. It is absolutely vital that all of us look to dealing with those folks who are in the greatest hardship first. I think that, no matter whether they are in an island or a remote area or in a city, those are the areas that we should look to first in terms of targeting, and we will bring forward those amendments. Are you talking about a separate target set for specific targets? I think that it would be extremely difficult, and it throws up a number of other difficulties in those regards. Ms Clarkson has done some work around about local authority targeting, and there are some anomalies around that. I do not know how much work there has been done in terms of if there was a specific island target. Have we done? We have not specifically looked at that yet, but I think that the view would generally be that such proposals should be evidence-led and subject to consultation, which has not been so far as part of the process. I think that the other thing is in all of that, in terms of the evidence. Looking at some of the work that has gone on and various spheres of that, sometimes there are unintended consequences. There are anomalies that come into play if you try to do something like that specific target. I am sure that you will see them soon enough. Andrea, do you want to come back on this? Thanks very much. I could just echo Graham Simpson's point. I think that this is very helpful way of approaching matters regarding these issues in this bill. There is agreement now to have a separate Ms for rural and remote islands. Now, as you pointed out, of course, this is just the definition, which leads to a statistic, which will be national. Following on from Kenny Gibson's point, there is no reason why put aside separate targets, there is no reason why reporting on fuel poverty cannot be disaggregated to local authorities, to the rural and remote islands class 4 and 6, and other urban and rural classifications. Is there? No, not at all. We use a number of tools to ensure that we have information from various places, including things like the Scottish household survey, to think about what is going on across Scotland as a whole, but we can also break that down into local authority level. That could be done in remote rural areas and island areas as well, so there is no difficulty in reporting that. That would be helpful in the sense that we have identified that rural and remote islands throw up specific challenges. It would be helpful, therefore, to be able to report on the fuel poverty incidents in those areas, particularly. There would not be a problem in doing that statistically. I will take Ms Clarkson, who has all of our fingertips in terms of the current ways of gathering information and the information that we disseminate on a fairly regular basis. We are certainly able, under the Scottish house condition survey, which we use to report on fuel poverty, to break that down by the six-fold urban rural classification and separate out categories 4 and 6 in terms of reporting on fuel poverty rates. That is what we did in this year's December publication on the current definition, and that is certainly something that we can continue when the new definition comes into force. If it is useful for the committee, we can send you the links of the last set of reporting. We have seen that. I have just really wanted to probe that it is statistically valid to do that. The sample that we have for the Scottish house condition survey allows us to break it down to those areas of the urban rural classification. We also, by combining three years' worth of data, are able to report on, for example, the island authorities, Shetland, Orkney, Western Isles, and we do that annually, but by combining the three-year sample. Finally, with regard to the amendment that you are proposing to bring forward on the MIS specifically, the bill itself already makes provision that, if Loughborough University ceased to exist or Mr Hersch gets a job in Australia or doing something else, the Scottish Government will put in place appropriate arrangements. With regard to the methodology, however, is it your intention that the amendment will be prescriptive on that, or would you be seeking to have some general statutory obligations that would be detailed in regulations? I think that I probably need to get back to a round about that. I have been very careful today in not speaking about one organisation in particular, but I think that we would have to get back to you on that in terms of the depth of the response that is required there. That is fine. My concern would be, on the one hand, that we do not put something too prescriptive, because, as you said, those things can throw up changes over the next 20 years, and on the other hand, we do not have something that is so flexible that allows people to forget about the important issues that have been raised during the discussion of the bill. I understand completely and utterly where Mr Wightman is coming from. If we can do something to provide some comfort with that, we will do so. I have tried not to talk about one particular organisation. At the same time, I get entirely your point that we do not want a situation where we have something in primary legislation that is very difficult to change, but what we should do is ensure that, in that primary legislation, we outline exactly the very basics, and we will provide you with some comfort in that. We will respond to the committee around that. In that case, I thank Mr Stewart and his officials for attending today. The other thing that I can help with in terms of information is that I am more than happy to speak to members individually or to provide the committee with additional information, as required. We will go back and provide you with what we have already agreed to today. As you always are, minister, you will make sure that information comes to the committee that we have requested. Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of today's meeting, and I move the meeting into private.