 The next item of business is debate on motion 4159, in the name of Richard Lockhead on UK shared prosperity fund implications for Scotland. I would encourage all those wishing to participate in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I will place an art in the chat function and I call on Richard Lockhead to speak to and move the motion for around 13 minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Colleagues, in this chamber we have discussed the value to Scotland of European Union membership many, many times. That value can be measured in many different ways and was not solely monetary. However, EU funding has played an important role in our country's economic and social development over many, many decades. As if Scotland being taken out of the EU against their will was not bad enough, the UK Government has now broken two key promises. It promised that EU funding would be replaced so that Scotland would lose out financially from Brexit, and it promised that devolution and this Parliament would be respected and strengthened post-Brexit. As the recent announcement illustrates, UK ministers have reneged on both of those key promises to Scotland. Even before devolution, Scotland controlled its share of EU funding. We delivered about £6 billion worth of investment to thousands of projects directly benefiting Scottish communities. We were respected as equals by the EU, and now we have the UK Government's replacement for four decades of EU funding, which is called the shared prosperity fund. With the publication of the fund's prospectus, I want to reinforce a point that I have made before. Leveling up, it seems, to the UK Government means losing out for all of Scotland. The UK Government made a promise. I'm interested that he says that. Councillor Ian Nicholson of East Renfrewshire, which is incidentally set to get the largest investment of £38 million, said, and I quote, delighted to receive official letter tonight confirming the levelling up of £38 million. That will transform Paisley Harbour, Abercorn Street, and improve connections to Glasgow airport and our advanced manufacturing site, which is under construction, the national on 28 October 2021. Minister, I can give you the time back. I thank Liz Smith for that intervention, because that gives me the opportunity to say that it's one of the big issues with this fund, is that it only goes to local authorities. Therefore, there are many, many organisations and national projects that will lose out as a result. The UK Government made a promise that the lost EU funding would be replaced with an equal, if not greater fund. It also told us that it would respect devolution. For those with any doubts, I want to quote from UK Government ministers themselves. Simon Clark said in 2020, the key point is that we want to make sure that this gives the Scottish Government meaningful control over key aspects of resources. Simon Hart said in 2020, nothing contained in the proposals for the shared prosperity fund will in any way drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlements. Robert Generick in 2021 said, the UK shared prosperity fund will ensure that at least as much, if not more, funding goes to communities in Scotland than would have been received if we had stayed within the European Union. However, here we are now in 2022 and we now know that all these promises have not been delivered, all promises have been broken. The UK Government is offering Scotland £212 million over a three-year period way below expectations and way below matching EU funding. The Scottish Government calculates that £183 million per year was required to replace EU funding. Multiplying that over the same three-year SPF period, Scotland should of course receive at least £549 million. The UK Government figures simply do not add up that £212 million equates to a 60 per cent reduction in real terms. As we know that from this smaller pot, the Highlands and Islands are getting an even smaller share, where they previously received 19 per cent of total awards in the EU, they now stand to receive just 11 per cent of the shared prosperity fund allocation for Scotland. Think about that for a second. The flagship of EU investment in Scotland, the area recognised as having some of the greatest economic barriers to development, will now receive just £24 million over three years. The Highlands and Islands and the rest of Scotland are certainly losing out. It is a struggle to understand the UK Government's claims that the SPF is a full replacement. No amount of mental gymnastics can lead to this conclusion, but I want to test it. Perhaps they decided to mirror the 2014 allocations with no inflationary uplift. Well, no, because using figures in the last EU programme, our annual average allocation was £111 million, so over three years we should be receiving £333 million. If this is the case, then we are £121 million short or 36 per cent down what we got in that programme. Let's look at whether the Barnett consequentials would have delivered for Scotland. No, we're not even getting a Barnett share of funding, which should be over £252 million for three years, so we're £40 million or 16 per cent below that figure too. Any way you cut it, the £212 million allocated to Scotland falls way short. So how are the UK Government justifying their claim that they are offering an equal replacement? It seems that they are adding the unclaimed funding from the current structural fund programmes that we get from Europe to the shared prosperity fund value to make a new total and say that they are matching the funds. However, we have to ask how it can possibly be the case that you can include funding that you are claiming to also fully replace. The EU funding that has been committed is already committed to serving EU priorities. How can that be part of the shared prosperity fund? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. The UK Government—the member is laughing, but I would like to hear his intervention explaining how they can claim to match those funds. The UK Government seems to be treating us all like fools, perhaps the member is treating us like fools as well. Neither Scottish ministers nor the office of the chief economist for Scotland agreed or endorsed the overall quantum or allocations to each local authority in Scotland. There is no opportunity to do so, because there is no formal governance established ahead of the launch of the shared prosperity fund to provide a forum for agreement. How on earth can that fund have been appropriately launched and managed without any governance or role for this Scottish Government? For close to three years, Scottish ministers have been calling for the devolution settlement to be respected and to the UK Government to preserve the powers that we have been elected to act upon. Those justified requests were all ignored. The review into intergovernmental relations sets out proposals for how each of the four nations' Governments might work together more effectively. Mr Gove responded to this, stating that he wished to work more cohesively and transparently with us all. So, while Scottish ministers expressed their willingness to engage and the First Minister said that the real test would be whether the UK Government is capable of acting with goodwill and trust, it is clear again that they are failing that test also. Scottish ministers have been excluded from any decision-making role in this fund, and they recently shared terms of reference that a joint ministerial board makes explicitly clear that UK ministers will always have the final say. The devolved Governments have been invited to join this board as advisers, but our job is not to serve the UK Government. We were not elected to advise Westminster. We are elected to lead, make decisions and take responsibility for the future wellbeing of Scotland. I agree with the Welsh Minister for Economy when he says that the proposed role of the Welsh Government also falls short of genuine co-decision making, and on this basis it has not been possible to endorse the approach that the UK Government is taking. Likewise, the Scottish Government cannot endorse the shared prosperity fund as it entails losing it in funding and losing our democratic right to devolved authority. We often hear from Opposition party MSPs speaking about the city of regional growth deals in Scotland as a very good example of partnership working between Governments. I do not disagree, but I think that it is vital that I point out the differences between the shared prosperity fund and the deals, because the deals programme was founded on the basis of equal funding and a robust governance structure that sees no approval or key decisions taken without shared agreements. It is a different dynamic with a different agenda that sees parity of esteem between Governments and our regional partners. Contrast that with the UK Government, who have deliberately designed the shared prosperity fund with itself as a sole decision maker and funder, and there is no call to match fund and no role for the Scottish Government. So you cannot be an equal partner when you have no say in how the money has been used, and no one should be misled by any attempted comparison to the deals. The shared prosperity fund is not a fund of equals. The disingenuous behaviour is also seen in the role given to MPs in the fund. The application process is structured so that investment plans must receive endorsement by local MPs. That is a deliberate manipulation of the system to politicise public funding and make claims that MPs endorse the fund when the fact that funds are put at risk if MPs do not give their endorsement. You cannot force approval and call it endorsement without twisting the truth. It is a cold irony that, at a time when we were witnessing the worst cost of living crisis for generations, where people face the horrendous choice between heating their homes or feeding their families in some cases, the UK Government is only allowing local authorities to access the shared prosperity fund. By cutting out the third sector and employability organisations that previously received EU funding, the UK Government is removing any certainty around future funding for organisations that can really make a difference to those struggling the most. The briefing sent to MSPs today by Systems Advice Scotland makes that point very well. Part of the purpose of EU funding is to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion by reducing regional imbalances, particularly for remote and rural communities. One of the most recognisable EU-supported schemes in Scotland is the leader programme, which delivers bottom-up support to communities for rural development. The current programme supports over 900 projects across rural Scotland, including 400 initiatives for young people in disadvantaged groups. However, the shared prosperity fund does not replace leader, nor are there obvious opportunities for beneficiaries to access similar support through the shared prosperity fund. Indeed, if local authorities cannot make a link between leader projects that we might approach for funding and the predetermined menu of investment options set up by the UK Government, of course it will be challenging for the shared prosperity fund to continue to support those unique projects. There is real concern that, with the relative of small amounts of funding allocated to the more remote and rural areas of Scotland, smaller community groups are going to lose out. For example, communities in the Western Isles and Clackmannanshire will each have access to just over £2 million in total. There are other lost opportunities as a result of being hauled out of Europe, such as being hauled out of the European territory co-operation programmes as well. Again, if we are unable to continue those programmes, we will miss out in co-operating with our European neighbours on shared challenges such as climate change, health and rural areas and the preservation of biodiversity. Not only are we losing out as a result of the shared prosperity fund, but we are actually having barriers actively put in the way of achieving our own goals as a result of levelling up and Brexit. Before Brexit, the UK Government at least appeared to recognise our democratic mandate. It is clear, however, that we are no longer dealing with the UK Government that respects this Parliament or the devolution settlement. What we are witnessing is an aggressive move by the UK Government to intervene in devolved areas. That is evident in its union strategy and the internal market act, which restores powers to UK ministers to spend devolved areas, powers that had been removed by the 1998 Scotland Act. The Opposition might claim that we are witnessing devolution action by the shared prosperity fund, with that money going direct to councils, but that cannot be the case when an entire level of devolution is being excluded. What we have is an example of the UK Government acting as if this Parliament simply did not exist. It is a raising devolution and ignoring the will of Scotland's people. In conclusion, I call upon this Parliament to agree that the implications of the shared prosperity fund for Scotland are intolerable. We are losing out financially and we are losing out in terms of our democratic autonomy as well. The UK Government must reverse both these broken promises as soon as possible so that we can deliver to the people of Scotland and their communities and their economy. I move to the motion in my name. Minister, can I remind those who have not yet pressed their buttons who wish to speak in this debate to do so as soon as possible? I also advise the chamber that there is a bit of time in hand, so, if you take interventions, you will be able to be recompensed with the time. With that, I call the Smith to speak to a move amendment 4159.1, Ms Smith, around nine minutes. I also begin by reiterating the belief on these benches that in the post-Brexit era every effort must be made by the UK Government to ensure that there is no loss of equivalent funding to the devolved nations. Loss of money that we would have had available had the UK still being part of the EU. Whether that is via the community renewal fund, levelling up fund or the shared prosperity fund, it is absolutely vital that there is at least equivalent funding for the loss of EU structural funds. In other words, and to adopt one of the principles of the Smith commission, there must be no detriment. I also stress once again, just as I did in the previous debate on exactly this issue, three things matter in this whole debate. First, the very best interests of Scotland, most especially in terms of improving our economic performance. Secondly, our local authorities, of which a long time they have been asking for more autonomy, feel more empowered. Thirdly, there is a joined up approach between Westminster, Scottish Government and local authorities. Let me dwell on each of those for just a minute. In recent weeks, this Parliament has seen two debates on the cost of living crisis, quite rightly so. In both debates, the SNP set out its very strong criticism of UK Government economic policy, claiming that the policy direction was all wrong, ignoring the plight of the poorest in society and failing to address the concerns of Scotland's communities where there is low economic growth and investment in fewer opportunities in the job market. What I do not understand is why the SNP is continuing to moan about the shared prosperity fund when it is designed to do just that, namely address the economic imbalance and income gap. On the second point, yes, of course. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would she accept that we are not criticising getting some money but we are criticising A that the whole fund is too small and B that Scotland's share is too small? Liz Smith. I am afraid that, Mr Mason, that is not what is coming across from the SNP just now. What is coming across is that, because the allegation is that the UK Government economic policy is all the wrong direction, the shared prosperity fund is exactly addressing many of the issues that the SNP has been complaining about. On the second point, we know that there are many inside local government—in fact, I have just quoted one when I intervened on the cabinet secretary—who have felt very heavily constrained by the weaknesses in their local government financial settlements, which, year on year, have seen them handed down real-term cuts, but also by the lack of autonomy that they have had to endure. Again, the shared prosperity fund is designed to provide greater autonomy to local communities who, after all, are best placed to know exactly what has to be done in their local communities, and there are several SNP-run councils who have that view as well. Thirdly, I have no doubt whatsoever that, given the very significant challenges facing the country, voters would far rather see Scotland's two Governments working together rather than against each other. They want them to get on with the job, free from the constant negativity and divisiveness that is corroding our political life. Most voters accept that the Internal Market Act confers a right on Westminster to provide money in areas for the UK which does not have devolved competence, for example on infrastructure projects such as roads or railways, and far from being an all-out attack on devolution, as the cabinet secretary seemed to imply, this is about spending more money in Scotland. Firstly, Scotland desperately needs that investment, and that is a view shared by local government and many local community stakeholders. Indeed, Kate Forbes said that just six weeks ago. Those stakeholders tell us that it gives them better ownership of what they want to achieve in their local areas and that the bidding process, which has been put in place, will enhance local scrutiny and hopefully deliver better economic and social outcomes. In other words, instead of being a so-called paragraph by Westminster over Holyrood, it is an extension of devolution and in a direction that brings more power to local communities who are best pleased to know what has to be done. Yes, of course. Thank you, Liz Smith, for giving way. Do you not think that what local voters would like to see in Scotland is the UK Government sticking to its promises and not breaking them? I quote to the cabinet secretary that stakeholder groups such as COSLA and SCVO have on several occasions in public referenced their meetings with the UK Government, as did the minister himself in the previous debate on 22 March, that there has been seriously good engagement and that, far from breaking promises, there is good working together to ensure that we get much greater economic growth. However, the second reason relates to the current economic forecast for Scotland, which, by whatever measures are used, are extremely gloomy, most especially in terms of weaker economic growth, weaker productivity and weaker trends in the job market. We know that all of that has led to weaker income tax revenues, which in turn demonstrate some of the frailties within the Scottish economy. Of course, that is something that is very much the focus of the finance committee's current deliberations. What it also demonstrates, as has been the case throughout the pandemic, is that Scotland benefits hugely from being an integral part of the UK. That is no doubt why there are so few dissenting voices. If it is here we go, why is it that so many people across the local authorities have warmly welcomed that? Why is it that you only have six Conservative MPs representing Scotland at the last election if you are so popular? Let us see what it is when it comes to popularity about some of the information that the UK Government is providing via some of the extra funds. I do not think that the extra spending funds are in the least bit unpopular—in fact, quite the reverse—but they are extremely popular. Let me deal with three of the SNP's criticisms. They are saying that there is not the full 183 million of funding to meet the EU levels. When it comes to calculating the sums that the UK Government used, they took on board the OECD's annual exchange rate statistics. The SNP has used other statistics that do not reflect that data. They have included the leader funding in its statistics when that is being replaced by other funds, not by the shared prosperity fund. If the cabinet secretary wants, I am happy to reference him all the arithmetic that has been undertaken by the UK Government and to measure it against the information that has been undertaken by his own Government. Just to address the concern more fully, which was acknowledged by the Treasury Committee and Michael Gove when he appeared at the finance committee, the new funding may, of course, initially look as though it is falling short because some EU money is still in the system until 2024-25. As that EU money diminishes, and it will, Michael Gove has given a firm commitment that the shared prosperity fund will be ramped up, and he is prepared to be held to account on that. He added too, quite rightly, that the shared prosperity fund is by no means the only way in which the UK Government is providing additional funding. We are above the block grant. In fact, the cabinet secretary cited his examples earlier with city deals and free ports. I do not know if he still wants to intervene. I try to address that disingenuous point and misleading point that Michael Gove made, and the member has just repeated about once you add the shared prosperity fund to unspent European funding, you are able to say that it is a match fund. If we were in Europe at the moment, we would not only be spending the previous programmes money, but the new programmes money. Therefore, there is a substantial net loss to Scotland, and it is disingenuous to add unspent money to the previous programme and say that it is match funding. Cabinet Secretary, I really do not understand why the SNP Government has been using the leader funding in statistics when that money is being replaced by other funds. I do not understand the arithmetic of that. Again, I offer to provide him with the arithmetic from the UK Government. I am up in time, but I just want to finish on those two points. I would have thought that the levelling up and the shared prosperity fund is very good news for Scotland. It would be nice if the Scottish Government, just for once, could acknowledge that without resorting to usual grudge and grievance, which is the constant hallmark of the SNP-Green coalition, that that money is extremely welcome, and we desperately need it to address our economic concerns. I now call on Paul Sweeney to speak to and move amendment 4159.2 for around seven minutes, Mr Sweeney. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in the name of my friend, the member for Edinburgh Southern. It was around two months ago that we discussed the UK shared prosperity fund in this chamber, and I am delighted that the Government has chosen to give further time to consider the implications of the fund for Scotland's economy. There have been a substantial number of unanswered questions placed on record regarding what would replace EU structural funds, whether the replacement would be as comprehensive as the previous EU funds, and to what extent Scotland would benefit from the new shared prosperity fund. We were assured on numerous occasions over the last five years that the UK shared prosperity fund would at least match the level of EU funds that it is replacing. Indeed, I remember that the Conservative amendment in the debate in March stated just that. I note that this has now been dropped from their amendment today, and I wonder whether this is a tacit admission of what we all now know to be a matter of fact, that the UK shared prosperity fund is worth less to Scotland's economy than the European structural and investment funds that it purports to replace. Deputy Presiding Officer, it does not surprise me that the Conservative benches are unwilling to admit that their replacement fund is miserly in comparison to the EU funds, but it is not just me asserting this. As we have already heard, the Scottish Government believes it to be significantly less than the EU structural funds. The Welsh Government agrees, as do the Northern Irish Government and the Northern Powerhouse Partnership. In fact, the Treasury Select Committee, chaired by a Conservative member of Parliament, stated that the UK shared prosperity fund is 40 per cent less than the EU funds that it is replacing, and questioned why one of the centre pieces of the Government's levelling up ambitions were to be reduced to such an extent. Conservative chair of the Treasury Select Committee and a former Treasury Minister. We completely agree with the Scottish Government motion when it states that the UK Government should immediately increase the value of the fund to at least the level provided by the EU structural and investment funds. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a climate crisis and a productivity crisis. Over a decade of austerity, communities across the country are truly struggling. As Britain is undergoing the sharpest fall in living standards in my lifetime, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to find money to feed the electricity meter and their families, generally struggling to make ends meet, and I generally despair at the hardship being faced by millions of families across the country. We already see those gross inequalities in our communities every day, in our inboxes, in our constituency surgeries. Every one in four children are living in poverty, almost a quarter of all households living in fuel poverty. I figure that that is rising exponentially by the day. Yes, happy to give way. I think that you make very strong points about some of the very considerable concerns about poverty. Does he accept nonetheless that one of the ambitions of the shared prosperity fund is to target those areas where there are specific issues so that there is a levelling-up process under way? Does he at least accept that about the shared prosperity fund? I absolutely accept its intent. What I'm disputing is its efficacy in meeting that intention. When we see those metrics, it doesn't give us great hope for optimism. That is the first time that life expectancy in this country has fallen since the Victorian Age, and we see food bank use rising too. The worst part is that each of those economic ailments is a symptom of political choices, and the political choice to reduce the value of the UK shared prosperity fund to 40 per cent less than the EU structural fund will compound the misery faced by families in Scotland. I want to turn my attention to Labour amendment, which references the funding cuts experienced by Scotland's local authorities. We know that those budgets have been disproportionate and that local authority budgets have been hammered by the Scottish Government over the course of the past decade. Every year councils across Scotland are forced to make cuts, as their budgets are disproportionately slashed. It is that centralising instinct and approach to economic sustainability and a tacit acceptance of Tory-Lacy fair economics that sees Scotland's productivity lag drastically behind the OECD average. This year is no different, with £250 million of cuts imposed this year alone on top of a cumulative total of £6 billion over the past decade. I thank the member for giving way. Would he have a suggestion as to where that £250 million should come from that he would like to give to local authorities? I know that Mr Mason asserts that the Government operates with a fixed-budget envelope, but there are extensive revenue-generating powers that the Government has that have not been innovated in the slightest by the Government, because it is intellectually incurious about it. Therefore, seeing its revenues constrained by a lack of innovation in the revenue-generating side, I suggest that we investigate any options such as annual ground rents would be one particular opportunity. I know that Mr Whiteman, the former member, has offered some interesting views on that. I would direct him towards revenue rather than simply managing decline on an ever-more constrained budgetary envelope. We know that those cuts have been disproportionate. It has been independently verified that, although the Scottish Government's budget goes up in real terms, local authorities are continuing to feel constraints in real terms. That is having a disproportionately difficult effect on our communities. Although that is happening, we still have concerns about the UK Government's approach to providing funding directly to local authorities, bypassing the Scottish Government entirely. There are concerns at all levels. The Tories might not like it, but we have a devolution settlement since 1999 for a reason. As we have found out in recent months and years, they are quite happy to disregard the devolution settlement whenever it suits them, breaking with the Sioux convention and legislating despite repeated refusals by this Parliament to agree to legislative consent motions being the most obvious and egregious examples of their disdain for devolution. We agree that the fund should be administered as close to communities as possible—the principle of subsidiarity. Ideally, we would like to see local authorities involved heavily in decisions about allocation of the funding, but we are clear that if that is to happen, it cannot be used to mask further cuts to local authority budgets in the long run. I would like to close on the issue of co-operation, as it is of fundamental importance. It might be important to us who ministers the funds, but for the majority of people in Scotland, all they are concerned with is whether their communities are being adequately served and that public investments are efficiently targeted. There are undoubtedly differences of opinion between the Scottish and British Governments, but we need them to work collaboratively on the matter. A situation where both Governments argue incessantly about the process of administration rather than focusing on the delivery of funds will be utterly intolerable and tedious. Let's be clear that communities across Scotland will suffer as a result, so we need clarity on the delivery mechanism for the fund. As the citizens advice Scotland points out, the local and regional geography for implementing the fund means that voluntary organisations with a national footprint will struggle to access funding and deliver the economies of scale and scope and social impact needed for transformative change in poverty and equality outcomes. Ultimately, we all want the same thing, as the Conservative front bench spokesperson said, to improve the lives of people across Scotland and to use those funds to alleviate the hardship facing millions of families this year and for years to come, by improving living standards. It couldn't be more important that we get this right. While Labour's criticism of both the Scottish and UK Governments is well documented, both are guilty of power grabs at their respective levels, we will work constructively to ensure that those funds are impactful and achieved outcomes that we all want to see. Deputy Presiding Officer, I again move the motion in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. We now move to the open debate. I call first Michelle Thomson to be followed by Maurice Golden for around six minutes. The disrespect that the UK Government regularly displays in its dealings with our Scottish Parliament and Government and, by extension, its arrogant dismissal of the democratic voice of the Scottish people must be resistant. At the same time, as the Tories fall into line to defend a law-breaking Prime Minister, they want to give away more powers to Boris Johnson's Government. Having disregarded the interests of the Scottish people as they push through a destructive Brexit, with its significant loss of trade and freedom of movement, the supine Scots Tories are rolling over yet again in this latest move to undermine our constitutional rights. Despite work-through plans for a Scottish shared prosperity fund by the Scottish Government involving local authorities and communities, the UK Government has sought to voice decision-making and policy upon Scotland with the likes of the subsidy control bill and the internal market act of which the shared prosperity fund is just one small part. I agree that this is not just about the loss of £337 million to multiple areas across Scotland. It is fundamentally about power. Who could not be alarmed by the UK Government as Christine Grahame has already pointed out with its paltry six Tory MPs not having won in Scotland since 1959, giving itself explicit powers to directly spend money across Scotland and without a legislative consent motion granted for the internal market act? What are other voices saying? The Fraser Valner Institute, working with the Institute of Physical Studies in Stirling University, said this. The internal market act can therefore be seen as enabling a range of UK Government interventions that bypass the Barnett formula, but the devolved administrations themselves, perhaps most significantly, will include the UK shared prosperity fund. When Michael Gove appeared before the Finance Committee in February, I asked him if he was happy to have created a methodology without consultation with the Scottish Government that placed Orkney and Shetland in the lowest category of transport connectivity need alongside the city of London. His frankly bizarre response, noted in the official report, was, the conclusion about whether funding has been distributed equitably will come at the end of the process. It is a bit like deciding who the hero or heroine of a play is going to be on the basis of which character appears first and before you know how the play is going to turn out. I can well understand Mr Gove viewing his work as akin to a piece of fiction, but the trouble is that it is actually a farce. It is certainly not grounded in any real understanding of the needs of our communities. He has created a methodology that does not distinguish between the needs of Shetland and the city of London, arguably not unlike Boris Johnson being unable to distinguish between the truth and lies. When the committee convener raised issues about the involvement of both MSPs, Mr Gove frankly misled the committee. He said, and again quoting from the official record, that it is an important requirement that they are consulted, but a review of the publication of the shared prosperity fund prospectus published on the 13th of April gives a prominent and well articulated role for MPs, but only a flimsy passing mention of MSPs. Criticism is levied not only by the SNP but also by von Gething, minister to the economy in Wales, who describes the prospectus thus. While the overall funding package compares relatively favourably to other UK nations, it does not meet the UK Government's commitment to at least match the size of the EU structural funds that Wales has previously and would have qualified for. That basically means that Wales does badly out of this deal but not as badly as Scotland. So I ask the minister, will he consider providing additional guidance to local authorities to ensure that any projects that are brought forward are compatible with Scotland's economic strategy and to require consultation with MSPs alongside those of MPs? It is surely the least we can do and I, for one, will be insisting on being included in consideration of projects affecting my constituents. At every step of the way, there has been a failure to respect the distinctive needs of Scotland, a deliberate undermining of the role of this Scottish Parliament and to add insult to injury, setting up a fund where a minister-in-charge of English housing devises an incompetent methodology for the allocation of funds. Scotland can do so much better than that, but it would appear only as an independent country. You would be forgiven for thinking that hundreds of millions of pounds coming directly to Scotland's communities to address poverty and inequality to create jobs and opportunities would be welcomed, but the SNP, as always, would rather take the opportunity to promote its agenda of grievance and gripe. You only need to explore its motion today to see how baseless its opposition to the shared prosperity fund really is. Its motion says that the fund will leave Scotland short in terms of replacing EU structural funds, but it fails to recognise that Scotland is still receiving legacy EU funding, as it tapers off that UK funding will increase to replace it. By 2025, the shared prosperity fund will fully match Scotland's EU structural funds in real terms. The motion says that it will leave third sector organisations across Scotland without important resources needed to tackle poverty and inequality. Anyone who has ever been involved in EU funding, particularly those in Scotland's third sector, would shiver at the sheer mention of EU funding. There were so many issues with it, including late payment of funds, often so delayed that the resultant cash flow issues would put organisations under severe financial pressures, and on occasion they would require cash flow bailouts from public sector partners to survive. I am happy to give way. George Osborne, who is the former Conservative Chancellor, said that what was happening just now is unfair. Is that SNP grudge and grievance? I do not know the context of that comment, but what I would say is that arguing against funding going to Scotland's most deprived communities is exactly what the SNP is doing. The EU bureaucracy was so rigid that it made the claim process overlay burdensome. Feedback from across the third sector shows evidence of delayed claims, sometimes worth hundreds of thousands of pounds because of the smallest clerical errors. The threat of an EU audit would hang over third sector organisations, knowing that if they were selected for audit, the resources involved to comply with it would be so draining. Due to excessive restrictions on what could be claimed and the significant management and administration costs involved in running EU-funded projects, organisations would often be worse off as a result of delivering EU projects. The motion says that communities and third sector organisations across Scotland will be left without important resources. However, EU structural funds could be such a poison chalice that, once bit and twice shy, so many organisations would refuse to bid for EU funding due to their previous experiences. The result was that communities and third sector organisations were missing out on vital EU funds for years because they were refusal by many to entertain an application. The UK Government is determined to learn from this and have committed that the shared prosperity fund will adhere to the following tenants. The bureaucracy will be slashed, there will be far more discretion over what the money is spent on and requirements for match funding will be scrapped. The motion claims that the governance of the fund undermines devolution, but by providing funding directly to local authorities it embodies devolution at its purest level. It ensures that democratically accountable councils to local people are the ones who decide on funding for local priorities. If the House of Lords and the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Institute of Government are all stating that the UK Government should engage with the Scottish Government in the delivery and the design of this fund, are they wrong because they recognise that it is undermining devolution? Let's be clear that the SNP would be far better getting behind the fund and supporting and encouraging bids, because it seems like when money is made available for SNP councils to help the most deprived communities in their area, they do not want it. Let's take the example of Dundee, where the UK Government's levelling up fund identified the city as a top priority for funding, but the SNP council couldn't get its act together and the bid was never submitted, even when other Scottish local authorities managed it. That was a terrible dereliction of duty by the SNP council, failing people, businesses and the communities in which they live and work. As much as anything else with the SNP, there is such a woeful track record of spending public funds having blown billions on a catalogue of calamities, including CalMac ferries fiasco, late opening hospitals, staggering overspends on IT projects, compensation for malicious prosecutions, mismanaged government bailouts and the scrapped named person schemes. It should come as solace to Scotland's people and its communities that the shared prosperity fund is bypassing this SNP Government and bypassing its unmitigated ability to make a shambles of public spending decisions, and it is going straight to Scotland's local councils enabling them to directly address priorities and needs in their local communities. I would urge this Parliament to support the amendment in the name of Liz Smith, which warmly welcomes the UK Government's levelling up agenda, including the shared prosperity fund, to boost productivity, skills, innovation, jobs and sustainable economic growth across Scotland, to make it truly stronger for Scotland. Our subject today is the UK's shared prosperity fund, but I would suggest that we really need to think more widely about the kind of country that we want to be living in going forward. We are just coming through the pandemic, so that seems like a good time to have a vision for where we are going. Do we want a country where there is vast and growing wealth in London and the south-east of England, which will inevitably suck in some of the best talent from Scotland, not to mention Wales, Northern Ireland and the northern midlands of England? Therefore, we would live permanently with many in Scotland and England struggling all their lives with poverty and making ends meet? Or do we want a country, be that the UK or Scotland, where, although there will be differences between the better off and the less off, no one has far too much and no one has far too little? We are looking at the shared prosperity fund. First, let us think about those words, prosperity. Some of the synonyms that I have seen for prosperity include abundance, fortune, luxury, plenty and riches. Clearly, some people in the UK and Scotland are in that position. We think particularly of Rishi Sunak and his wife, Russian oligarchs, some football players, etc. The other word is shared. Sharing, as I understand it, means someone who has a lot giving away some of it to someone who is less. So one person ends up with less and one with more. We learn as children to share toys, treats, etc. Perhaps we are in danger as individuals and as a society of forgetting that sharing, even sacrificing what we have, is a good thing and benefits us all. Is that what is happening now in the UK? Is there really a redistribution of prosperity? Or are the richest individuals in regions largely just keeping their riches and the so-called shared prosperity fund more about passing on a few scraps that the rich do not need? I thank Mr Mason for giving away and he sits on exactly the same committee as I do. He is well aware that there are very significant issues about some of the inequalities that he has just alluded to, but to tackle those inequalities surely we have to be inspiring greater productivity, economic growth and investment. Those are the principles that underpin the shared prosperity fund. Does he accept that? I only partly accept that. I accept that we want to grow the economy of Scotland and the UK in a sustainable way. However, let us look at some of the figures. We also need to look at how the present prosperity in wealth—this is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the UK—is shared. Is the shared prosperity fund helping that? If it is to be £2.6 billion over three years, that I work out is about £13 per head of the population per year. Or, to look at it another way, if you say that half the population are going to gain and half the population are going to lose, then it is a transfer of roughly £26 from the richest people to the poorest. When you consider that even moderately well-off people can spend hundreds of pounds on a fordenton holiday or £26 on one meal, that does not really look like a serious sharing of prosperity. It is worth thinking of some of the wealth that is actually sitting around in the UK. It is said that we want to attract Russian and other wealthy people to the UK so that their wealth will be spread around and benefit all of us. But does their wealth really get shared around? No, I am sorry. Do we all benefit? Roman Abromovich was reputed to have assets worth £12.1 billion. I accept that not all of those will be here in the UK, but that in itself is more than four times the total shared prosperity fund for three years. Why does the UK encourage and support tax havens in the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands and elsewhere? Quite who is benefiting from that? Is it the ordinary people of Glasgow? Is the prosperity link to those places being shared? No, I am sorry. I have given well ready. Returning more specifically to the UK shared prosperity fund, I was grateful for a number of briefings from the third sector, despite what Maurice Golden says. Action for children, Barnados and the Prince's Trust all make the points that their looks, like being no reduction in bureaucracy and red tape compared to the European funding. There will be gaps between the EU funding ending in December this year and the UK SPF becoming mature and established. Citizens Advice Scotland considers that the voluntary sector is being largely ignored and it will find it difficult to access funds. It also considers that there is too much emphasis on physical assets. On the actual amendments now, the Labour amendment once again wants more money for local government from the Scottish budget but fails to say where this money would come from, although I accept that on my intervention its suggestion is more taxes. Presumably otherwise it would have to be the NHS budget that would suffer. The Conservative amendment celebrates £212 million, which is roughly £40 per head in Scotland over three years or again £13 per head each year. I welcome the £13 per head but it is hardly going to level up anything nor could it be described as sharing prosperity. The cross-party group on industrial communities, headed up by my colleague Colin Beattie, works closely with the Industrial Communities Alliance and they have produced some very helpful reports in recent years. They are looking largely at older industrial Britain as a whole and that includes the Midlands, the north of England as well as Scotland and Wales. In a report commissioned by the ICA by Sheffield Hallam University beyond the pandemic of last November, they point out that older industrial Britain was in need of levelling up before the pandemic and that remains the case today. So while we are obviously concerned about Scotland specifically, I think that we can argue along with some of those other parts of the UK that there is a much more serious approach to levelling up or share prosperity that should be taking place. In another earlier report for the ICA on state aid in 2019, they compare regional aid in the UK with Germany, which spends more than three times as much and France spending more than eight times as much despite the UK having some of the widest regional and local differences in prosperity across Europe. The first bullet point in the ICA 2021 report is that the UK share prosperity fund should be a genuine replacement for EU funding and should be allocated according to need and strong targeting on less prosperous local economies. I would fully endorse that. So today we are debating a shared prosperity fund which largely ignores the huge amount of wealth and prosperity washing around within the UK and which does very little on the way of sharing much of it. Is this really the kind of country that we want to be living in? I don't. We are told in the ministerial foreword to the prospectus for the shared prosperity fund announced exactly two weeks ago that this is about levelling up opportunity and prosperity and overcoming deep-seated geographical inequalities that have held us back for too long. Those are fine words, a worthy statement of intent, beguiling even, were it not coming from the party that slashed regional assistance down the years, that I masculated assisted areas and that abandoned entire communities. The party that told the people that the market would adjust, that it would deliver, that there would be trickledown from the overheated south to the depressed regions and nations of the north. It was a myth, a deception, but one dogmatically clung on to whilst regional divides got wider and regional disparities got deeper. That is the same party that, through its doctrinaire approach to fiscal policy, its programme of privatisation in place of public provision that Boris Johnson announced just yesterday, he wants to let rip again, not only exacerbates the cost of living crisis, but it fuels those regional inequalities that have held us back for too long as well. It is the party as well. However, he is the first member in this debate thus far that has clearly recognised that macroeconomic policy fundamentally resides with Westminster. It is something that either the Scottish Tories do not know or do not understand. Would he agree with that? I accept that, under the terms of the devolution settlement, important macroeconomic decisions on monetary policy, fiscal policy and currency policy are retained at a UK level. However, let me go on to talk about another element of regional policy that is central to this debate, because it impinges on the real lived experience of people. It is a party that has reversed civil service dispersal from closing the national savings and investment bank at Cow Glen, where once 6,000 people worked, to axing the DWP processing centre at Coatbridge at a cost of 250 jobs in 2017. Just this month, in the last few days, closing the tax centre at Cumban Old so that in one fell swoop, 1,300 jobs are lost to the town. It was remarkable that, in his evidence to this parliament just eight weeks ago, Michael Gove could not help but attack regional policy, economic planning and the developmental state. We cannot direct investment in the way that we did in the past, he lectured us. The shadows of Ravenscraig and Linwood show that. I say to the Secretary of State for levelling up housing and communities that, if you think that Ravenscraig, the largest hot strip steel mill in Western Europe, was a failure, go and speak to the people of Lanarkshire. Speak to the generations who were employed there for decades, who saw the sun rise as well as set on those cooling towers for whom there would have been a long-term future if investment had been applied to modern steel technologies instead of capital being starved before being jettisoned with all the hopes of the people with it. I am bound to say in this debate to the SNP as well that this is not a game. Issuing a Scottish Government press release on 13 April with the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise quoted as saying that communities across the country will miss out on around £150 million of investment in 2022-23. That is wrong. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement with EU funds continuing, that is wrong, and the Minister knows that it is wrong. It does not help the quality of debate and the integrity of our democracy to continue to propagate it here this afternoon. Yes, I will take an intervention. Minister. Can I thank the member for giving way and explaining that the minister is not wrong? He is perfectly correct because you can spend existing EU funds from the previous programme up to 2021 and the new European programme from 2021 onwards at the same time. Therefore, we are losing out and the funding is not being matched by the UK Government. The minister is perfectly correct in what he said. Mr Leonard can give you time back for both those interventions. Thank you very much. What I want to turn to is what the people are witnessing out there in communities across the country. That is cumulative cuts to local authority budgets by the SNP. That is what our communities are missing out on. In the region that I represent alone in the last nine years, £135 million has been stolen from Falkirk. £371 million has been axed from South Lanarkshire. £455 million has been robbed from the people of North Lanarkshire. That has hit our schools, closed community centres, squeezed elderly care, sacrificed good quality local jobs. As we come out of the pandemic, at the very time when we need new investment in jobs and services, those cuts are getting deeper and even deeper. I think that the SNP Governments claim that this afternoon has an air of a hollow ring to it. It is picking the wrong fight. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said of the shared prosperity fund, the UK Government has taken back control only to stick to an arbitrary, poorly designed, out-of-date funding allocation mechanism. Instead of a spending programme of seven years, this new funding programme is only three years long, which deters the kind of long-term planning and investment that we need. What we now need is transparency in how the shared prosperity fund is administered and awarded in Scotland. We need new investment in Scottish local government and a fair funding formula so that this shared prosperity funding is additional. We need a comprehensive and a planned approach to regional policy, which is sustainable and long-term, because, in the end, our purpose must be to build an economy and a society that works not just for those people at the top, but that works for all. That a secure and warm home should be a human right that everyone is entitled to good health and dignity in old days, and that lifelong learning and the right to food are established as a statutory right that decent jobs and useful work are available to all and that every job is a green job in a full employment economy. That is what our goals should be. That is where our ambitions should lie, and that is what the Scottish Labour Party is fighting for. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Leonard. I now call on Christine Graham to be followed by Maggie Chapman again around six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I despair listening to Richard Leonard at Labour, prepared to prop up a Tory Government and a failed union yet again. No wonder you are voting Scotland shrinking into the distance. That is a significant debate, because it is not only about shortchanging Scotland to the tune of £337 million of former European structural funds, breaking a promise to ensure post Brexit Scotland would receive, as a minimum, the £549 million that it would have received, which is bad enough, but it has blatantly and deliberately set about undermining the principles of devolution. It is also at odds with the UK Government's own 2018 commitment to, in our quote, respect the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the gauge of devolved administrations to ensure the fund works for places across the UK. In Alistair Jack, the Tory spokesman in Scotland said, quote, we intend to work with the Scottish Government and the Convention of Local Authorities in Scotland to facilitate collaborative work. Collaborative is a weasel word, because the UK Government has utterly bypassed the Scottish Government and dealt directly with individual regions and councils. Does that matter? Of course it does. First of all, which is no UK gift or act of generosity? It is our money that is garnered through our taxes, national insurance, VAT and so on. Secondly, it is a naked use of those funds by the Tories to undermine not only devolution but stem the rising case for independence. Consider this. Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a thumping 62 per cent. That oven-ready deal by Boris turned out to be a pig's breakfast, and that £350 million a week for the NHS on the side of a bus was well just something scribbled on the side of a bus. As for the NHS and the care sector, we have shortages of staff, directly as a consequence of Brexit, adding lorry drivers, bus drivers, additional red tape, and lorries stacked up at ferry ports. It is yet another Boris Burrach. He is an ace of these. All impacting on the economy. As for reclaiming our fishing, ask the Scottish fishing industry and processors as their projects languishes in those stationary lorry parks. The actuality of Brexit is not done. I referenced Northern Ireland, which also voted to remain 56 per cent, and now has trans-border issues with ERA and the UK. Of course, that border down the Irish Sea, which was not to be a border and in Boris Speak, never was a border. After all, if he does not know what a party is, he will not know what a border is. Now he is trailing a piece of legislation to absolutely overturn the Brexit deal. By the way, whatever happened to Alistair Jack's tunnel or was it a bridge across the Irish Sea, it is abandoned, just like the commitment to respect and work with devolved Governments. Did the Scottish Government have plans in place to administer and allocate those former EU funds? Of course it did, but it was right to indicate well in advance, and I quote, we do not know which funds will be replaced. We have no idea what conditions may be placed in the funding. We do not know how long the fund will be for and when it might start, well we can knew. Add to this the UK's levelling up fund, referenced by others, which has in my patch placed Scottish borders in priority group 1 with access to 20 million, which is to assist areas with high deprivation. Of course there is deprivation in the borders, but what's the principle in operation here? Clack manager is 40 per cent in those levels of high deprivation, and it's not on the hit list. Why not? Well perhaps because Borders has a Tories Council and John Lamont a Tory MP, so it's all about helping your buggies and showing up your vote, not about prioritising areas of high deprivation, so let's not care on about that. In a BBC interview, my friend Alistair Jack gave the game away yet again with the formation of a new cabinet union strategy committee, headed by the Prime Minister specifically to counter independence. He then nerfed to say, this is actually true devolution in practice. Scotland has two governments, and this is the United Kingdom government spending money, new money directly with local authorities, but here we go. Scotland again opposed Brexit, yet the Tories ripped Scotland out of the EU and democratic. Told them it voted yes in 2014, it would be ripped out of the European Union, but you did it for us, the unionists did it. Here you have 31 MSPs to the SNP's 64. You have only six MPs from Scotland at Westminster to hour 45. Wherever you look on the Scottish political landscape, it's undemocratic. It's worse repeating. The Speaker has spoken time and time again, rejected the Conservatives and indeed rejecting Alistair Jack acting like the colonial governor where it's long past his sell-by-date. Failing at the ballot box, you rely on English MPs to impose policies in Scotland and funnel funding for political purposes with no democratic mandate. In 2014, you argued against independence. Here we are, thanks to the union, we're out of Europe. If you think that the Scottish people want to continue with this kind of Tory rule, and all that entails, why not agree with us and put that to the test with a referendum? 8 weeks ago, when we last debated the UK's shared prosperity fund in this chamber, I highlighted three issues that the UK Government's approach to this tells us about their priorities. They don't care about meeting their own manifesto commitment to match, as a minimum, the funding that our communities, organisations and services would lose as a result of Brexit. They don't care about existing devolved decision making processes or enhancing community participation and engagement in decision making. They don't care that this funding, if allocated differently with a coherent strategic approach, could have played a significant role in developing the infrastructure and supporting the organisations and services that our communities will need in the future, as we try to reorient our economy towards wellbeing and the just transition. Leaving aside the broken promises for now, although it comes as no surprise that the UK Government breaks its promises to Scotland, let us un-kick what that means for communities and organisations. The UK Government says that it is operating on the equivalent of a no-detriment policy for the amount of funding that Scotland is to receive, compared with what it would have received if we were still in the European Union. However, as we have already heard, the £212 million over three years represents a cut of 60 per cent of the money that Scotland would have received. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that continuing but declining EU money can be counted into the fund to make up the difference. That is not replacement. However, even if we take that statement of equal replacement at face value, it is clear that regionally there is definite detriment. Some parts of Scotland will be worse off as a result of the UK Government's approach. How can, for example, the Highlands and Islands be put in the same priority category as the city of London? Some across this chamber might wish to reflect that such an approach will do little to tackle the widening gaps between the financial centre of the south-east of England and parts of Scotland that benefited significantly from EU support. When asked about this disparity at a recent finance and public administration committee, as Michelle Thomson has noted earlier, Michael Gove said, the conclusion about whether funding has been distributed equitably will come at the end of the process. The end of the process will be too late for many communities. What will we say to areas that have not had equitable funding? Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, oh well, you missed out? It wasn't equitable, but that's just tough luck. There's nothing we can do now. It's not good enough to say that the UK Government will address inequities in the allocation process once the process is finished. It is too late by then. The money will have been allocated. There must be a way to continually assess and review with proper community participation and engagement to ensure that inequities are tackled before the process is finished. We've heard much from many contributions already this afternoon about how the UK Government's approach represents an attack on devolution. Organising funding allocations around Westminster constituencies indicates a level of either ignorance of or contempt for local and Scottish Government organising structures. Never mind the lack of specifics around community participation or the requirement for Westminster constituency MPs to support any bids. However, the approach also means that strategic planning that cuts across regional boundaries will be impaired. Rather than being able to use this money to organise investment in the infrastructure of the future, including that which is needed if we are to deliver the just transition, it seems to be focused on priorities that do not match those of the Scottish Government and many of many our communities have identified for themselves. There is no clear prioritisation for delivering on net zero ambitions, tackling poverty and inequalities or reorienting our economy towards care and wellbeing. For me perhaps the core of the fund's failure is that organisations and services that have been supporting our communities for years, if not decades, will suffer. That fund represents a real cut to communities and the services that they rely on. The whole levelling up agenda is supposed to alleviate poverty and inequality, but there is no clear way identified for how that is supposed to happen in the plans that we have. The allocation approach is regressive in comparison with the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund's distributive methods. As citizens advice Scotland says, the proposals for the fund will mean that it will be difficult for national voluntary organisations to access funding, which will mean missed opportunities for many people. The shared prosperity fund is anything but sharing prosperity. It will not help us to deliver the infrastructure that we need for Scotland's future. It will not help organisations and communities to deliver the services and support structures that are needed to tackle poverty and inequalities. It will not help us to invest in the fabric that we rely on for our society. The UK Tory Government insists on, yet again, on impoverishing us now and in the future, following decades of failure to future-proof our economy and to develop and sustain an industrial strategy that supports our society. Instead, what we need is long-term planning. We need genuine community regeneration that recognises local variations and specificities by having governance—I am just about to close, I have no time—and by having governance and engagement structures that centre local voices. What the UK Government has developed is not that. EU funding has supported infrastructure projects and community initiatives across our country since the 1970s. Projects that are crucial to our communities in Scotland have brought significant benefits to many areas. That includes European leader funding, and the minister spoke about that in his opening. In Dumfries and Galloway, there has been support for projects in businesses such as the Dark Art, Gendesd, Llyryn, Kirkwbryd, Wigwam holidays in Wigtown, and the Galloway and Southern Air for Biosphere, and the Glen Tress 7 stains in Scottish Borders. It is hugely disappointing that future projects, with as much potential, will likely lose out. Indeed, that is exactly what levelling up means to me. The levelling up fund should be renamed the losing out fund. That is because Scotland will receive considerably less funding than before Brexit. I will take an intervention if he can explain how the funding will be equivalent after the storm in the EU. I think that it is your colleague who explains that to you, because he is very clear that it will transform. I quote Paisley Harbour, Abercorn Street, improved connections to Glasgow airport and our advanced manufacturing site, which is currently under construction. I thank the member for the intervention, but I am coming to the funding. That is outside Dumfries and Galloway, which is what I was referring to. The UK Government's shared prosperity fund is a failed attempt to replace the European social and European regional development funds by cutting the funding given by the EU to the communities that lengthen and breadth of Scotland. Here are some of the figures that are facts. Scotland will receive £212 million, which is £337 million short of the £549 million estimated as appropriate replacement for EU structural funds. The overall Scottish allocation for the UK shared prosperity fund, which was earmarked to succeed the European funds, is only £212 million over three years. Even the third-year funding delivers less than Scotland received before our forced exit from the EU. I am sorry, I have taken one already, I do not have time. The Scottish Government has calculated a sum of £162 million per year would be needed to replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund, increasing to £183 million per year when leader funding and the EU territorial co-operation programmes are added. Those are facts. The UK Government has clearly failed to replace the EU funding and they have had five years to sort this. Again, leavening up means losing out. Scotland will receive considerably less funding than before Brexit. Not only does the shared prosperity fund provide Scotland with less benefit than we received as members of the EU, but the lack of inclusion of the decision-making made by the Scottish Government in governance of the fund undermines devolution. The Scottish Government has tried to engage constructively with the UK Government to ensure that funding is delivered in a meaningful way, consistent with the Scotland Act and aligned with our fair work and equal opportunity aims. Unsurprisingly, the UK Government has undermined devolution by failing to give the Scottish Government a decision-making role, failing to meet the needs of Scottish communities, including third sector organisations. The UK Government continues to develop and implement the levelling up fund without the consent, without the agreement and without the engagement of this Parliament of the Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has been excluded from meaningful or formal involvement in the process. Had Scotland remained in the European Union, we would have had full involvement with the development of plans for this new programming period. UK Government ministers are dictating where and how spending is allocated and bypassing our democratically elected Scottish Government, which previously set priorities for EU funding on behalf of Scottish people. One of those UK ministers, which my colleague Christine Grahame has mentioned already, is Westminster's man in Scotland, the Scottish Secretary of State, Alasdair Jack. In February, he said, and I quote, it wasn't so long ago that the UK was sending huge sums of money to Brussels, then receiving some of it back in the form of regional aid. The shared prosperity fund is far more effective than relying on the whim of bureaucrats the way of the past. This simply flies in the face of actual facts, as has been shown during this debate, through the shared prosperity fund, Scotland will receive reduced funds compared to what would have been received with EU membership. I have called on the Secretary of State to show how the UK's shared prosperity fund will benefit Delfrice and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. However, along with my 12 other letters to him on other issues, I have received zero responses, zero nil none. The UK Government must fully devolve control of the fund to our Parliament. It is the Scottish Government that should decide how this policy and the funding is delivered in Scotland in line with the agreed devolved settlement, not by out-of-touch ministers in London, four hundred miles away. It is not only the SNP saying this, and again, my colleague Fiona Hyslop mentioned this in the intervention. It is supported by the House of Lords, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Institute for Government. All have said that devolved Governments should control funding in their own areas. In conclusion, I support the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government to stand up for this place and the people of Scotland and for devolution. Again, the losing out fund leaves Scotland worse off than we would have been with the EU membership. It is only a few weeks since we last held a debate on the topic of the UK shared prosperity fund. I am a little bit surprised that, after such a short space of time, the Scottish Government has brought the subject back to the chamber again. Perhaps it did not get enough negative headlines from its original attempt to stir up grievance over this issue. Despite all the rhetoric that we have heard, we should not be getting very little traction out with the ranks of the SNP. Liz Smith, earlier in the debate, referred to the approaches that are taken by bodies such as COSLA, who have been very supportive of much of the agenda of the shared prosperity fund, welcoming the fact that money is going straight to local councils. We have also heard from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to take a very different tone to the one that we have heard from SNP speakers in this debate. Indeed, in the blogs that she published yesterday, Anna Fowley, the chief executive of the SCVO, concluded by saying that it is much to be welcomed in the UK SF prospectus, particularly in multi-year funding. It could provide opportunities for our sector. That is a very different tone to the one that we have just heard from SNP members. Of course, Liz Smith has chosen to miss out a bit about when the internal market act became law. It was evident that devolution had been blurred. Some would say undermined. That was in the report as well, or did he just miss out a bit? Murdo Fraser. Well, I noticed that she did not reference the part in the blog about the politicisation by the SNP and the reference to the SNP's approach to the grievance agenda, but I dare say that if she wants to contribute again, she can make these points. Maybe the minister will when winding up. The motion before us today in the name of Richard Lochhead makes a number of assertions. Every single one of them is incorrect. At the start of the debate, Liz Smith set out the reasons why SNP scaremongering over the UK shared prosperity fund was based upon an incorrect set of claims, and it is worth reiterating some of those points. Let us start with the issue of money. It is accepted that the UK shared prosperity fund will be worth £212 million to Scotland initially. The SNP motion claims an appropriate replacement for EU structure funds would be £549 million, but it is not comparing like was like, because it seems to have included in its own figure leader agricultural funding, which, of course, is being funded separately. The point that Liz Smith made is that we have legacy EU funds tapering down, and Michael Gove, the UK minister for levelling up, has made it very clear that the shared prosperity funds will increase to replace those funds, which will reduce over time. The commitment is very clear from the UK Government that the shared prosperity fund will match former EU funding. In fact, the SNP just do not want to recognise it. However, let us listen again to what Anna Fowley said again, an objective voice in her blog in relation to funding. She says this, it appears that by year 3, and if you include all other funds like levelling up, Scotland might not come out of it too badly. What a very different tone to the one that we have heard from the SNP benches. What we did not hear from the minister or from anybody in the SNP is what has happened to the £190 million. I raised this back in the debate that we had in March. Last year, it was being reported that Scotland was facing a £190 million clawback from the EU due to irregularities in EU funding by the Scottish Government. What has happened to that £190 million, minister? If you would like to intervene on me, minister, and tell me what has happened, I will happily give way to you. If not, you can deal with it, minister, in your winding up. However, all the rhetoric and fake indignation from the SNP benches is rather put in perspective by the fact that we are facing a £190 million clawback due to SNP incompetence in handling the EU money, and that puts us all into some context. What upsets SNP ministers and their colleagues is that the shared prosperity fund money will go directly to councils by passing the Scottish Government. I can understand why the Scottish Government, with its tendency to centralise everything and its emasculation of local councils, wants to go down that route. However, it is an approach that has been warmly welcomed by local government, including some SNP councillors. The SNP never liked to admit it, but Scotland has two Governments—a Government in Westminster and a Government in Edinburgh—and both Governments have a role to play in contributing to local economic development, to supporting skills and to supporting the third sector. It is significant that the— Yes, of course, I could wait to Mr Sparrow. I am delayed in this intervention because I am slightly confused, because Murdo Fraser is constantly telling us that he wants issues put to local authorities to allow them to make the decisions. However, the entire party are campaigning against the parking charges that are going to be devolved to local authorities. They are going to be making those decisions locally, and yet you are saying that we are not doing enough to give local decision making. Does that make sense? There we have it. The SNP and Perth are campaigning for the car park tax to be imposed upon the people of Perth and Cynrhos. I will get that on the front page of every local newspaper between now and next Thursday. The hated car park tax, Mr Fairlie wants it imposed on the people across Perth and Cynrhos, and I very much welcome that clarification from Mr Fairlie. It is very ironic that Mr Fairlie will stop shouting from us at entry position. It is very ironic that the SNP never complained about EU structure funds when the money was coming from the EU and the EU were setting the criteria. I remember sitting on the finance committee in the last Parliament and we were meeting people from the third sector who told us just how difficult it was to deal with EU funding, as Maurice Golden said, and his contribution. Just how obsessive the funding rules were when it came to everything having to be bad so that it was clear funding came from the EU. It is the idea that there was some golden age in the past about EU funding for the third sector. It is simply a baloney. Liz Smith set out very well why the UK shared prosperity fund will be good for Scotland, good for local authorities and good for local communities. That is why we should support it as we support our amendment. In listening to the debate, I think that there are a number of questions that he has answered. Is Scotland getting our full share of replacement funding? Clearly not. I suspect that not as quickly as the saved EU spend is made available to the UK Government. Where is the remaining funding? If it is being held back, who has it? That is not extra. It is replacement funding. Where is it? In listening to the debate, we could conclude that the UK has top-slice funds due to Scotland for pet political so-called levelling-up schemes, bypassing devolution and then our rationing spend using the rationale that the continuation of some EU-funded schemes are yet to conclude. In the meantime, Scotland is losing out on millions of pounds of funds being saved now by the UK Government but not being spent now—top-slicing and rationing. Not for the first time is a UK Government selling Scotland short. Is there a plan to tackle structural inequalities geographically or socially? Is there a coherent aligned strategy and who decides not the Scottish Government? How can the funding that is there go further by strategic alignment with other funding streams and priorities in a devolved Scotland? For example, big net zero projects such as the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which I understand has already expressed its concerns. The absence of support for voluntary or community-based organisations tackling social inequalities is very worrying. As we have heard from citizens advice, we are concerned about the focus on physical infrastructure at the expense of people. Then there is the matter of where gets the funding and why. The ludicrous position of how other EU funds have operated to the detriment of geographical needs such as the highlands is out of touch and out of line with need. Brexit has not finished. If anything, it is just getting started. Almost six years on from the vote to leave the EU, which Scotland did not vote for, there is still no clear or concise plan. It appears that it will be ten years on after the vote before EU replacement funds are matched, so Brexit has not even been done. As if the leaders of the vote to leave the EU did not expect to win, we are doing it for internal Tory party manoeuvres, we are shocked when they won and have been scrambling around ever since trying to put an EU replacement plan together, not even understanding the international legal agreements that they have signed up to in the process. The Scottish Government, working with COSLA and other partners, even presented the UK Government proactively with a plan that would have worked to replace EU structural funds. They have ignored the Scottish Government, ignored COSLA and once again ignored Scotland. When the UK Government came up with EU replacement schemes and funds, they fell well short, not only of what is reasonable, expected or deserved, but they fell well short of what was promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. It may not have been written on the side of a bus, but it was there. Even the most ardent Brexit supporter must be despairing of the UK Government. Only yesterday, a report from the London School of Economics and the Political Science Centre for Economic Performance published in the year from January 2021 stated that the UK's count of product destination export relationships per quarter shrunk by 30 per cent in 2021, following the EU trade co-operation agreement. The report has a reduction in imports of 25 per cent, and that will affect exports. As we heard in the economy committee, it is not viable for lorries to return to the continent empty so disrupting trade export as well as supply lines. Replacement trade deals are not replacing those lost exports in any shape or form. The UK trade policy observatory has stated that the FTAs barely scratch the surface of the UK's challenge to make up the GDP loss by leaving the EU. Where are the plans? The Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed to a Brexit loss of more than £1,250 per person over the coming years. That is more than 178 times the most optimistic prediction for the benefits from the replacement trade deals. The OBR has also warned that the UK trade had missed out on much of the recovery in global trade and was lagging all other G7 economies. If this is the best of Brexit Britain under Boris Johnson's Conservatives, then it is evidence of a shrinking UK Government. It is shrinking our exports, it is shrinking funds owed to Scotland with the fund that we are debating today, it is shrinking in its influence and it is shrinking the respect with which it is held internationally. The evidence of lockdown parties during Covid is a clear demonstration that it is shrinking in its credibility, trustworthiness and values. Scotland deserves so much better. We need decisions made in Scotland for Scotland. We need to be part of the European Union with genuinely shared decision making and, of course, its biggest single market in the world. We can and we will forge our own future reflecting the values and visions of a country and what its people can achieve. Scotland can step out of the shadows of the UK Government with independence and join the world as a modern, progressive country. Thank you. We now move to closing speech. I call on Paul Sweeney up to six minutes please. It has been interesting to listen to this debate for as much as what was said in this debate. Diving into the technical detail of the administration of this fund is not what people of Scotland need right now. In the midst of three intersecting crises, a cost of living, climate and productivity, we need bold, strategic and imaginative steps to address each of those, all of which are interdependent and are fundamentally rooted in getting this right first time, because we cannot afford to wait. The arguments that I have played out today about the technical details of how inflation and exchange rates are calculated and how that is then uprated in that determining extent of shortfalls is missing the point most spectacularly. We agree with the Government and the Treasury Select Committee, in fact that broad consensus is notwithstanding the technical arguments that this fund does not address the scale of the challenge, and that is what I think the Conservatives cannot dispute. It must be addressed that, although we agree with the broad intention of the fund, it will not deliver the stated outcomes. In a way, that is worse than just admitting the fact that it is not going to deliver. That is something that we really need to get a grip of. The role of structural funds is to support our communities, and fighting over which centralised administration should administer them is wasted energy that serves no one. Those funds must be delivered as close to communities as possible, as asserted in the Labour amendment. It is vital that the Tory Government reassesses the amount that is making available in line with calls from devolved nations across the peace in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is an opportunity to therefore build on and vastly improve what was available through the European Union, not cut resources and manage decline. That is something that is true in Scotland as well. When we see six billion cumulatively cut from local government over the last decade—I noted the points raised by various speakers in the debate, for example Maurice Golden talking about Dundee cutting its nose off to spite of its face, not applying for funding because of who is administering it—I find that just egregious misconduct in public office, frankly. We also had a comment raised by my Glasgow colleague John Mason about what I understood to be a core periphery of economic geography of the nature of economies of agglomeration, but that, somehow, London's growth will affect Scotland and beat the detriment of Scotland. I am not quite sure how one addresses that unless the member is proposing immigration and capital controls, which I am sure would be problematic to say the least. However, what we have to do is build with the grain of where those great global cities are going, and that is where Glasgow's opportunity lies. However, I would say that the cuts to our city of Glasgow over the past 10 years have been disastrous. We see that most tangibly in, for example, from the member's constituency of the People's Palace, the great international icon of the city, lying derelict with its glasshouse falling apart because the city's parks budget has been cut 70 per cent in the last decade because the city's own budget has been cut in terms of non-ring fence funding by more than £1 billion. Now, the city council is the only option to apply to the UK Government levelling up fund to get money to repair the glasshouse. That is a broken system, and I think that there needs to be more humility from all parties here about how we fix the fundamental failure of local government in Scotland since the settlement in 1996. That has not really been brought out in this debate whatsoever today, and I find that to be a great pity. We even look at the economic geography of Glasgow, where Glasgow itself has a high level of gross value added in terms of its economy, but it has relatively low household income. However, the neighbouring local authorities have quite low gross value added in the economy, but very high household income because people are coming into Glasgow earning money and retreating to the suburbs where they have had no tax towards the city region and its economic growth and the public amenities that support it. There is a very much a problem of economic geography inequality in Glasgow, as there is in London, so I think that we need to assess this dispassionately and with a greater degree of rigor when we are looking about solving the problem of inequality in Scotland. I am afraid that the approaches taken by both the Conservative and Scottish Governments at UK and Scottish levels are not going to solve that. Certainly not if this is the nature of the engagement today in this debate. I agree with the point about tax havens and extraction of wealth, but that is something that is happening in Scotland as much as anywhere else when we look at the nature of land ownership and rent extraction by private owners of our country's natural treasury. That is something that we need to fundamentally address. It was partly in response to Mr Mason's point about where we raised the revenue from, so that is something that we need to get to grips with. My colleague Richard Leonard certainly made that point about how the state has hitherto been poorly managing state aid and allocations, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has agreed. We need to have a much more fundamental debate about how state aid is effectively functioning as a means of crowding in wealth to our communities and building investment in prosperity, or is it not being a function of effectively transferring wealth from the state to private capital, usually for and owned, which is then extracted in profits? That is actually physically with the assets retreating, as we saw with the story of Silicon Glen. It is largely a story of failure in Scotland. Mr Leonard made the point about Ravenscraig and Lindwood. I agree that those were opportunities that were destroyed in a vicious orgy of economic vandalism by the Conservative Government 30 years ago, and it is something that we still need to learn the lessons from today, because certainly just recently, in the past three years, there was a long campaign in the north of Glasgow to try and save the Calais railwayworks. The experience of that campaign showed me that Lacey affair economics is very much derigure at both St Andrew's house and in Whitehall. The ping pong between both Governments' abrogation of responsibility was frankly a disgrace. The upshot of it is that we have 163 years of railway engineering in Scotland in Springburn, lying and rusting on Springburn road when it could have been bought over by the Government and utilised as a national centre of engineering excellence. Those are just a handful of examples of how those funds are not being well utilised and well directed. That is why we need a fundamental re-approach as the Labour amendment to this motion suggests. Thank you. I now call on Donald Cameron up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, here we are for the third time in less than a year debating investment going to Scotland's communities via the UK's shared prosperity funding. For the third time, we have yet another manufacturing row by the SNP complaining about this. As surely as night follows day, an SNP grievance follows a positive funding announcement from the UK Government. I think that this is the only Government anywhere in the world that takes issue with money being passed directly on to the people they are elected to represent. The central complaint at the heart of the motion today is that the Scottish Government does not get to have its own way over how this funding is distributed to local communities. It does not get to put its own spin on spending announcements. It does not like the fact that local communities will get to spend the money on their local priorities and not those of the SNP. Let us look at the Government's motion in more detail. It reiterates the complaint that the shared prosperity fund falls short of what would have been provided through the former EU structural funds. My colleagues, Liz Smith and Murdo Fraser, have gone over the figures. As Liz Smith so aptly put it, our party fully supports the principle that any funding distributed from the UK shared prosperity fund should at least match what was distributed from EU structural funds. Indeed, it is the stated ambition of the UK Government that it exceeds that. The UK Government has confirmed that the funding will match the previous EU funding from the European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund. By 2025, it will match those funds in real terms. Today, we hear that the funding announced does not directly match that, but as Michael Gove confirmed to the Finance Committee in February, it ramps up over time this fund as the EU legacy funding diminishes. As those funds wind down, the EU shared prosperity fund, sorry, the UK shared prosperity fund, will ramp up to fill the gap, until eventually all legacy EU funding of projects ends. Of course, it is deeply ironic that the SNP has come to this chamber to complain about missing money. What has happened, as Murdo Fraser said, to the £190 million clawback? This is a party that has gone wildly of a budget on two ferries that he hasn't even left a dock. This is a party that has overseen £40 million blown on the malicious prosecution against the administrators of Rangers Football Club. So there is some brass neck from the SNP coming to this chamber today to complain about how money is or isn't being spent. The motion also repeats the suggestion that the shared prosperity fund undermines devolution, and it has been a point that is made by many this afternoon. At no point since 2007 has the SNP complained about the EU injecting funds into local communities, but now the UK Government is doing the same, they are aghast. As I have said many times before, the Scotland Acts, which underpin the devolution settlement, allow for direct investment from the UK Government to devolve policy areas. There is nothing to prevent that happening. That isn't undermining devolution, Presiding Officer. It's strengthening it. It is itself devolution. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the UK Government working more closely with local government in Scotland to deliver on their priorities, something that has sorely lacked under this centralising SNP Government. Of course, the shared prosperity fund isn't the first intervention by the UK Government to support communities in Scotland. Several cities and regions are benefiting from £1.5 billion worth of growth deals. There will be two new freeports in Scotland, about £52 million of investment. Glasgow is to benefit from a share of £100 million in R&D funding for an innovation accelerator. I could go on. The UK Government creates new jobs by moving some of its departments out of London and into Scotland. The SNP Government goes on to claim that third sector organisations will be impeded by the shared prosperity fund. Again, a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny when the facts are considered. Let me tell the SNP Government what Scotland's third sector has said about the shared prosperity fund. The SCVO, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, represents thousands of small voluntary bodies working in a huge range of places across Scotland. 2000 plus charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises. The SCVO said this, and I quote, Scottish ministers outrage at funds going straight to local decision making feels disingenuous when community empowerment is a key strand of Scottish policy. The Government's outrage feels disingenuous when community empowerment is a key strand of Scottish policy. Richard Lochhead I looked at Anna Fowley's blog and she also says that she expects the shared prosperity fund to replace lost EU funds from Scotland through Brexit and also to respect the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Devolution, will accept that both those promises made by the UK Government have been broken. Not for one minute and I've covered them before and I'll cover them again if he really wants to, but she's not wrong about the disingenuity of what is happening here. Civic Scotland knows exactly what the SNP is up to, preaching community empowerment on the one hand and then complaining about it on the other. She goes on to say that the UK shared prosperity fund does strongly encourage engagement with the third sector and that there's much to be welcomed in the prospectus, particularly multi-year funding that could offer opportunities for our sector. What makes the SNP position on this all the more absurd is the fact that many of their own councillors back the new fund. In fact, SNP-run councils have received £172 million in the first tranche of investment from the levelling-up scheme. The shared prosperity fund will make it easier for communities to access vital funds. Gone are the days of EU bureaucracy, which often made the process of accessing funding too cumbersome for smaller organisations and charities, as Maurice Golden so powerfully argued in his speech. As the UK Government has confirmed, there will be far more discretion over what money is spent on and the EU requirements for match funding, which impacted on poorer places, will be abolished. It adds that instead of regional agencies, funding decisions will be made by elected leaders in local government with input from local members of Parliament and local businesses and voluntary groups. Local decisions are taken by local decision makers, something that is anathema to the SNP, but, Presiding Officer, to conclude, we come to this chamber to hear yet again more grievance from this Government, rather than welcoming the positive news and more funding for local communities, less bureaucracy and more local decision making, we get another confected row. We believe on these benches that the people who make the best decisions on funding are local communities, and that is why we back the shared prosperity fund and the Liz Smith amendment today. I call on Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate up to nine minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank all members for their contribution to this debate, which is about the future of Scotland, the future of our economy and our communities, and ensuring that we have appropriate investment going forward to align with all the country's priorities to create a fairer, more prosperous country. Liz Smith and Murdo Fraser seem pretty bored by the fact that, once again, we are debating the fate of EU funds and the shared prosperity fund. However, the reason for today's debate is that, since we last debated this issue, the UK Government has confirmed its plans and published its prospectus for the shared prosperity fund. Within that, we now know that we have two key broken promises. First, that the lost EU funds that arise as a result of Brexit that Scotland did not vote for are not being replaced by the UK Government, as promised. Secondly, the promise to respect Scottish devolution in this Parliament is also not being fulfilled and it is also another broken promise. That is the reason why we are back in the chamber today to have a vote and to have this debate, because that has been a fundamental milestone from the UK Government. I think that Murdo Fraser wants to... Murdo Fraser? Giving way. In the last debate at the end of the beginning of March, I asked him if he could give the chamber an update on the £190 million that the EU was threatening to claw back from the Scottish Government due to irregularities in the handling of EU structure funding. He did not respond to that in that debate. Can he do so now? I am certainly not aware of that figure. Secondly, all Governments, including the UK Government under the Conservative Party, have to deal with claw backs and compliance and other requirements. I am sure that we will continue working with the EU authorities, because the Conservative Party today wants to talk about what we are getting through the shared prosperity fund and not what we are not getting through the shared prosperity fund. According to the Conservative Party, by highlighting the nearly 60 per cent shortfall and funds that we were required from the EU replacement funds is manufactured grievance, which is an SNP grievance. Those are issues that have been highlighted throughout the whole of the UK. I said before the former Tory Chancellor, George Osborne, said that the current allocations were unfair. We also have the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, who said in the 13th of April that his nation stands to lose out by £1 billion over three years, while having less say over how the money is spent. He said that this is not levelling up, this is levelling down. We have the northern powerhouse partnership in the north of England, whose director said that the shortfall amounts to a 43 per cent cut over three years, while authorities will lose the long-term security provided by the seven-year allocations offered by the EU. He said that we were promised that no nation would be worse off post-Brexit, but when you take out the smoke and mirrors, the data does not lie. We have also had references to the UK Treasury Committee, which said that this is a 40 per cent cut in the equivalence of EU funding via the shared prosperity fund as well. We have also got the think tank in the north of England at the IPP, which said that this is a 43 per cent cut in real terms as well. Apparently, according to the Conservative Party, that is just all SNP grievance and manufactured complaints. The issue of the broken promises amounts to the fact that we now have a shortfall over the next three years of £337 million. We have to recognise that. I also want to address a couple of issues that were raised by members. First, the Tories spoke about the autonomy of local authorities and how we should welcome that. Of course, we should remind the Conservative Party that the UK Government has given local authorities a menu to choose from. We also heard from the Conservative Party that this is very important for addressing the cost of living crisis. Can I also remind the Conservative Party that the fixed menu of options of which the money has to be spent on is for things such as landscaping and local art exhibitions and a whole range of issues? It is not for the urgency of addressing the cost of living crisis, so please understand what your own Government is proposing to deliver. I also have to pick up again on Richard Leonard's point that we were wrong by saying that we face a £150 million shortfall in the coming financial year, which was a point also made by the Conservative Party. It is a technical point, but it is an important point to make. You are allowed to, for the two or three years after the programme period, still continue to spend the money that we are doing at the moment with the previous programme. At the same time, you are entitled to call down from a new European programme. Of course, we are not part of that due to Brexit, and you can spend the money of that at the same time. The UK Government is ignoring that cash that has been lost, so we are losing £150 million in the coming year, which is vitally needed at this time to tackle the cost of living crisis and other issues in our society. I should also mention that Cornwall also has a headline in the Cornwall Live news website, which says that Cornwall is set to get less than half of its replacement EU funding, but Conservatives welcome announcements. We could have an equal headline in this country, which says that Scotland is only getting 40 per cent of what is required from EU replacement funding, but that is welcomed by Boris Johnson's Conservatives here in the Scottish Parliament. I just want to say to the Conservatives, please look at the truth here and stand up for your constituents, stand up for your communities and stand up for this Scottish Parliament and devolution as well. There are various differences between the shared prosperity fund and the EU structural funds. The EU funds were delivered over a seven-year period, which gave recipients of investment certainty and the ability to develop long-term strategic plans and strategic plans are very important for this country's future, so that they would not fall prey to political cycles or the whims of the endless conveyor belt of UK cabinet ministers. The shared prosperity fund, on the other hand, is connected to the UK Government's budget cycles, and such will only last for three years. That is a big reduction in certainty and it impacts not only on planning, but also on the sense that the key themes for investment priorities may change frequently at the same time. I also want to talk about the issue of scale. Michelle Thomson made the point that it is really important that the limited shared prosperity fund that we are getting is aligned with Scottish Government priorities. Because devolution in this Parliament is being ignored, that is going to be more challenging. However, I want to assure Michelle Thomson that the Scottish Government will continue to liaise with local government to make sure that we are aligned in terms of the country's priorities for net zero, coover recovery and other priorities. However, that lack of strategic approach is really important. Where I come from or where I represent in Murray, we are part of the University of Highlands and Islands. I have made the point of this chamber several times before that the University of Highlands and Islands was only established thanks to European funding largely. The new shared prosperity fund would not really make that possible, because no one local authority necessarily would be able to support the establishment of a regional-wide university to provide higher education for younger people to have an incentive to stay in the local area. Again, as I said before, under the Conservative Party's shared prosperity fund, the Highlands and Islands, the area where we face some of the biggest challenges for development, is going to have a smaller share of a smaller pot. Douglas Ross is sitting there, who represents the Highlands and Islands region, is today going to vote for a cut in funding for the Highlands and Islands, who are going to get a smaller share of a smaller pot under his own Government's proposals in London. That is why we have to resist this. The minister is asking us to resist this. Does he honestly believe that this is anything other than devolution working in practice to Governments able to invest anywhere in Scotland? What people across Scotland, the Highlands and Islands and Moray, do not understand is why the SNP Government does not want this investment going into their local areas. One of the ironies is that Douglas Ross sits in the Scottish Parliament and, of course, the Westminster Parliament, which perhaps illustrates that always has never really been a fan of Scottish devolution. If he takes his argument to its logical conclusion, he wants to just scrap the Scottish Parliament and let Westminster take all the decisions. In terms of the strategic projects of scale that were funded by European funding, which will face massive challenges in terms of the way that the shared prosperity fund is designed, we had Zero Waste Scotland's resource efficiency circular economy accelerator programme, which has got £22 million of ERD funding. The minister is closing. Apologies that I have taken a few interventions. That national project is good for SMEs and develops our circular economy in Scotland and supports community-based organisations. We have also had Skills Development Scotland's apprenticeships programme, which has got £77 million through the ESF, the current European programme. That has helped thousands of Scots to learn new skills and gain qualifications and work at the same time. All those things are going to be night on and possible under the shared prosperity fund, not just in the lack of funding but in the way that it is designed in the first place as well. We also had the Scottish funding councils developing Scotland's workforce programme, which received £40 million via ESF, providing additional college and university places to address regional skill gaps and shortages in key employment sectors. I will come to a conclusion shortly. We will come to a conclusion now, minister. I urge the Parliament to express the fact that we want the UK Government to fulfil its promises and pledges made to the people of Scotland in Brexit. That concludes the debate on UK Shared Prosperity Fund implications for Scotland, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 4176, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. I now call on Jamie Greene to speak to and move amendment 4176.1, up to five minutes. I thank members for their forebearance in the comments that I would like to make. We have been asked today to table a stage 1 debate on the fireworks and pyrotechnics Scotland bill next Tuesday. The standing orders of this Parliament are clear. They state that stage 1 report must be published at least five sitting days before Parliament considers the general principles of a bill. Rule 9.6 paragraph 3A states as follows. The lead committee shall report to the Parliament in time to allow the report to be published not later than the fifth sitting day before any day allocated in the business programme for the Parliament to consider the general principles of the bill under paragraph 4. The Parliament shall not consider the general principles of the bill earlier than the fifth sitting day after the lead committee report is published, unless it decides to do so on a motion of any member. There will be no full sitting days of Parliament between the stage 1 report's suspected publication date and the stage 1 debate. None. To be clear, the stage 1 report has not even been published yet. Indeed, it is still being drafted by Justice Committee clerks as we speak, much to their credit. The chamber has simply been asked to breach standing orders for no obvious reason. If the Government has a good reason for that breach, that reason has not been made clear to us. We have proven as a Parliament that we are more than capable of truncating the scrutiny process for emergency legislation. I agree with that. But here there is no emergency. None whatsoever. Indeed, I have proposed in my amendment another use for that debating slot. That is my first point. But the second point is that I am in the ludicrous position where I want to tell the chamber why we should not be having the stage 1 report next week due to the contents of the report. But I am restricted about talking about the report because it has not even been published yet. What I can say to members is that it is at least 70 pages long and contains a very large number of very detailed and technical responses to the bill as proposed by the Government, all of which require detailed scrutiny and analysis. My third and final point is more than just the procedural one, as important as that is. That is that all members and stakeholders outside of Parliament who participated in the consultation and who gave evidence to the committee sessions need time to both digest the content of the report but, more importantly, I want to hear from them their feedback on the committee's conclusions and recommendations contained therein. That is how we legislate and that is how we legislate well. It is not just those benches who are deeply uncomfortable at the truncated timetable being forced upon us to scrutinise and pass the bill. Can I ask you, therefore, Presiding Officer, whilst decisions of the timetabling of debates is a matter for the chamber to vote on, as we will do, can I ask if the chair is comfortable for Parliament to breach standing orders in this way with no good reason, as it is currently being asked to do by the Government? Can you intervene in any way to ensure that we do not breach standing orders in terms of timetabling? Lastly, can I appeal to members in the chamber who have heard and followed my remarks? There is actually a wide range of consensus to support the Government on the issue that the bill seeks to achieve, and that support comes with very good faith that we are afforded the time needed to make good law and scrutinise it properly. Let us do our job properly. So please support my amendment. Please give us much more time needed to digest the stage 1 report and let us have a filsum and informed stage 1 debate within the normal timetable that both people expect from us, but also, more importantly, that the standing orders ask of us. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Greene. The bureau makes recommendations to the Parliament. The Parliament has an opportunity to debate the recommendations that it is doing, and the Parliament will subsequently vote on what it has heard. I now call on Pauline McNeill. Up to five minutes, please, Ms McNeill. Presiding Officer, Labour is supporting the amendment this evening to oppose the business motion this evening. I would like to be noted that there is no reflection whatsoever on the very hard work of all the committee members. I set out by Jamie Greene. The criminal justice committee was asked to scrutinise the fireworks and pirate techniques bill with the fast-track timetable in order to bring in the new offence that is very much needed to supply fireworks to a person under the age of 18 in enough time for the November bonfire season. We agreed—well, I agreed—not fully realising that other aspects of the bill would require much deeper scrutiny than first thought. Without realising anything in the stage 1 report that we signed off today, I can say that there are complexities in the creation of a new licensing scheme within the bill that require very close consideration. Had I known that the Government would subsequently not allow for the usual five days prior to stage 1 debate as they required to understanding orders, then I would have put up more objections in the first place for a shortened timetable for the completion of the stage 1 report. I do not think that it is good precedence not to comply with standing order rule 963A. I have placed on record, as Jamie Greene has done for his party, that we support the intentions behind the fireworks and parity techniques bill and commend the work of the Government and its stakeholders. However, we must be prepared to uphold the integrity of the scrutiny process and it should not be squeezed into a stage 1 debate on Tuesday, but, importantly, stakeholders will not have time to respond. We have only got the promise from the Government that we will see what they have to say before we debate it. You can see that it is quite unprecedented that the committee report will be published tomorrow afternoon, and given that there is a Mayday holiday, it is a potential barrier to many who want to brief members of this Parliament who might want to take part in the debate. I mean, it is completely unsatisfactory. The debate could be on Wednesday, I am not clear why it could not be. If there is one of the first pieces of legislation in session 6 of this Parliament, we should be seen to treat this with respect. The committee has struggled to get data and time to show whether or not the crimes of firework misuse that I think is a unanimous view of this Parliament to understand the picture across Scotland and the data has come so late, we can influence the stage 1 report. You can see that there are many factors making it difficult for the committee to properly scrutinise this important legislation. I really think that it is unhelpful that the Government have then, at the end of the process, chosen to give us no time to consider the response to the report. I hope that there is a way of saying how this Parliament intends to go forward, because it is early stages in this Parliament that we will do the right thing and oppose this business motion tonight. Let stakeholders have a proper response to the Firework and Technics Bill, let it be scrutinised properly and please don't any member ever make any assumption that just because it is stage 1 that the Government have got everything right and I can assure you that there is quite a number of things that members will want to discuss when they see our report. I now call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will endeavour to try and put the minds of colleagues and the Opposition parties at ease regarding the Firework and Pyrotechnics Bill. It is extremely important to many of our constituents as most of us will be aware. It is one of those bills. Every now and again, there is a bill that just moves out with and deals with problems that constituents have. That is one of those bills that is extremely important. It is one of the reasons why we all agreed that the timetable would be the way it was in order to help many of our constituents that have those problems and have to deal with some of the anti-social behaviour caused by many of those issues. I am led to believe that all of the members of the committee actually believe in the fundamentals of the bill at stage 1 and I do not think that there is anything being said here today that says otherwise. The crux of the matter and the debate of the matter will be as we move on to stage 2 when there is an opportunity for those in opposition parties to contribute and ensure that they can make their point of go across at that point. My whole idea was to ensure that we had plenty of time within the truncated timetable to make sure that we had timetable for stage 2. If the member would let me continue with what we have got to say here as well. On that point, I think that it is a very important bill to our constituents and we have to ensure that we do the utmost to ensure that this does deliver for them. In terms of the timetable of the fireworks, if the member could just listen for a wee bit longer, timetable of the fireworks and pyrotechnical articles bill, there is a clear practical advantages to the parliamentary scrutiny process for this bill concluding in advance of the summer recess for the reasons that I have already mentioned. Given the fireworks related issues faced every year by our communities and stakeholders significantly with the emergency services as well, it is important to progress positive change and introduce the restrictions as soon as possible to reduce incidents and harm. That timetable will enable the proxy purchase provision to be implemented in time for the bonfire period this year and has been agreed with the committee. On that basis, the committee stage 1 report will be published in the morning of Thursday 28 April and the Minister for Community Safety intends to provide the Scottish Government's response to the criminal justice committee at stage 1 report on Monday 2 May. That timetable will enable to work to start immediately following royal assent on operationalising the remaining bill provisions so that to provide positive change is in the place for people and communities as soon as possible and please let us not all forget that it is the people that we represent that are the important ones in this issue and I hope on that stage Presiding Officer I've managed to put the concerns at rest from my colleagues. Point of order Pauline McNeill Presiding Officer I would you give the Parliament a view as to when a motion is raised in the floor of this Parliament concerning a particular issue which is a breach of the standing orders which there's a requirement for five days that the minister in reply didn't although he responded to other issues did not give an answer to the Parliament about why it was necessary to actually breach the standing order and I've still yet to hear what the minister has to say that and why he couldn't have scheduled a debate for Wednesday and the members if they'd done that probably wouldn't have raised the motion in the first place so surely Presiding Officer any member must address the substantial point in not dance around it I thank the member for her point of order it is of course always a matter of courtesy and respect that questions are answered to input to members the standing orders do make it possible to vary the period and this is the issue that we have been debating for this last period and the Parliament is about to make its views known through voting the question is that amendment 4176.1 in the name of Jamie Greene which seeks to amend motion 4176 in the name of George Adam on setting out a business programme be agreed are we all agreed the Parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to a vote then there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system