 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3, 3, 9, 3, in the name of Richard Lochhead on UK shared prosperity fund, what this means for Scotland. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak button now. I call on Richard Lochhead minister to speak too and to move the motion up to seven minutes. Funding funding has brought significant investment to the whole of Scotland. From the Ulanarch world heritage centre to the leader programme, which of course delivers economic development in rural areas, from the modern apprenticeship scheme and projects like Murray's income maximisation programme in my constituency that helps families in need and the benefits of all those programmes and many others is tangible. We have always been concerned that the UK Government's shared prosperity fund, the promised replacement for EU funds following Brexit, would pale in comparison to the benefits of being in the EU. After seeing the levelling up white paper and pre-launch guidance on this replacement fund, I know that our concerns are justified. It is clear that levelling up means losing out for Scotland. We are set to lose out financially, we are losing out in terms of our devolved authority and crucially for our people. We are losing the benefits that we enjoyed as members of the European Union. It is disappointing that the UK Government's intention is not to truly replace the EU structural funds, a promise that they made back in 2017. Instead, they are using this fund to prop up the unambitious, underfunded and strategically vapid levelling up agenda. I remind the chamber how much money the Scottish Government had to repay to EU structural funds due to financial irregularities. As the member knows, all Governments have to deal with decommitment and that is part of the EU funding system, but I will come on to the massive benefits that those funds have delivered for the member's constituency and the whole of Scotland. In terms of levelling up agenda, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, the UK Government has chosen its destination with no sense of how it plans to get there. Positioning the Shoot Prosperity Fund as a main pillar of its levelling up agenda, the key aim of the fund that we are told is to restore local pride. This broad focus does not compare with the value of tackling regional economic inequalities. With talks of the mayors in Renaissance Italy levelling up bears little relevance to modern Scotland. I agree with the minister that the logic behind the new funds is confused and the metrics are unclear in the application process, but there is a point here that we have gross regional inequalities in Scotland, and that needs to be addressed, even if that is not the right way to go about it. Of course we have challenges in terms of regional inequalities in Scotland, and that is why the EU funds were so important over many decades because they helped to mitigate and tackle some of those challenges that have been with us for generations. Scottish ministers set out a clear plan for Scotland's share of the replacement funding back in 2020. Meanwhile, the UK Government has not even set out Scottish investment priorities or informed us of our allocation. When we first learned of the fund, we set out our asks. We expected to retain the same level of autonomy over allocations, governance and policy development, but UK ministers have so far failed to meet those expectations. We also set out a justifiable calculation of £183 million per year being devolved to the Scottish Government. That would provide a comparable replacement for the range of programmes that are available under the EU at that time. For taking this intervention, does he believe that local government should also play a role in that? If so, why are not they mentioned in his motion for today's debate? Of course, through the regional economic partnerships and other players across Scotland who have been involved in setting the priorities for regional funding, of course local authorities have got to say that, but we have concluded, as a Scottish Government, from the UK autumn budget that Scotland's share is unlikely to be delivered, as promised. Our view is back by the UK Treasuries Committee, which suggests that the fund's maximum £1.5 billion budget equates to a 40 per cent reduction compared with the amount that the UK received from the EU in the current programmes. Although it is calculated for the whole of the UK, it does confirm that Scotland will ultimately lose out big time. Despite confirming the overall quantum, ministers cannot tell us whether that will cover all the various programmes under the EU. The result is massive uncertainty. For instance, with the rural community-led development work that is previously delivered through the leader programme, which many members are familiar with, that brings much anxiety to those who are relying on investment to function. In 2019, the UK budget stated that the replacement funding would, and I quote, at a minimum match current levels for each nation. In 2021, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Robert Jenwick went further, stating in Parliament that, and I quote again, at least as much, if not more, funding will go to communities in Scotland than would have been received if we stayed within the EU. But it is clear that the UK Government cannot honour those commitments, and again Scotland is going to lose out. Through the UK Internal Market Act, the UK Government is encroaching into devolved areas, as was discussed in Parliament just in the last hour or two. It is using Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, to weakened devolution, which it did vote for. It is undermining Scotland's democratic voice. Scottish ministers have consistently reminded the UK that we expect to be treated as a full and equal partner in the development of the shared prosperity fund. We retain the belief that Scotland's share of the funding ought to be fully devolved. That will let us tailor it to the needs of Scotland and align with the ambition set out in the national strategy for economic transformation. By using the Internal Market Act to start spending on devolved areas directly with local governments, the UK Government is sidelining the Scottish Government and the wider ecosystem that we have in Scotland of all our agencies and regional players. They are missing out on the breadth and depth of knowledge that we have of our own economy and Scotland's losing out on our devolved autonomy. It is absurd to claim that reducing the role of the Scottish Government and working directly with our local authorities is real devolution in action. Real devolution is what the people of Scotland voted for back in 1997, when they chose to establish this Parliament. A Parliament that on numerous occasions has agreed that the way in which the UK Government is implementing this policy is completely inconsistent with devolution and democracy in Scotland. I met with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for levelling up Mr O'Brien and Under Secretary of State for Scotland Mr Stewart last week. I emphasised the rightful authority of this Government in leading on this fund. They agreed to set out in writing how they see our role, offering some reassurance that it will not be as peripheral advisers. I await that letter and to see whether those assurances have any truth. As I draw to a conclusion, as the replacement funding moves further away from the positive aims of the EU funding that we did have in Scotland, delivered by the Scottish Government for nearly five decades, we see that it is an example of how much Scotland will lose the benefits of EU membership. EU funding that supported projects like European Marine Energy Centre and Orkney, which contributes over £300 million to the UK economy and supported over 200 jobs. I call upon the UK Government to listen to Scotland's plea for the promises to be delivered. I call on the Parliament to agree that the UK shared prosperity fund falls far short of what we were promised and fails to offer the level of autonomy and influence the Scottish Government experience under the EU. We must have a full and equal role in determining how those funds are used. We must have confirmation that Scotland's allocation of those funds matches our lost EU funding. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to and to move amendment 3393.1 up to six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I move the amendment in my name? May I 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 absolutely no loss of equivalent funding to the devolved nations, loss of money that we would have had had we still been part of the EU. Whether it is via the community renewal fund, the levelling up fund or the shared prosperity fund, it is absolutely vital that there is at least equivalent funding for the loss of the EU structural funds. In other words, to adopt one of the principles of the Smith commission, there must be no detriment. For me, three things matter in this whole debate. Firstly, the absolute best interests of Scotland, most especially in terms of improving our economic performance. Secondly, that our local authorities and local communities, which for such a long time have asked for more autonomy, feel more empowered. Thirdly, that there is a joined up approach between Westminster, Scottish Government and local authorities. Last week, the Finance and Constitution Committee took evidence for the Secretary of State for levelling up housing and communities, Michael Gove. That was an important session during which members could address their understandable concerns about the details of replacement funding. Earlier this afternoon, during the debate on the internal market, we had an opportunity to debate more of these issues. We know that that internal market confers a right on Westminster to spend money in the aspects of the UK for which it does not have devolved competence, for example on infrastructure projects such as roads or railways. The aim is to provide additional investment, but there are some—I hear them from the benches on my right—that this is an all-out attack on devolution, a power grab of unlimited proportion and something that Scotland can well do without. I am very grateful to Liz Smith for giving way. While I acknowledge what she is saying, she pursued a very interesting line of question when Mr Gove was with the poor committee about co-ordination. Indeed, we have some very clear goals set out in places such as the national performance framework. Therefore, there is a risk that this somehow is out of alignment with some of those goals and that there is a need for co-ordination. I was just wondering if she would reflect on that and what her thoughts are about improving the co-ordination of those funds. I think that there are two points there, Mr Johnson. The first is about the co-operation, because that is absolutely essential. There is proper co-operation. I think that Mr Gove gave full commitment that if any of us feel that that co-operation is not happening, he will address that ASAP. The cabinet secretary has just referred to the fact that he has had engagement with some of the Scottish ministers who are saying exactly the same thing. The second issue, which I think is relevant to, is about the statistical evidence that relates to the performance framework and how the Scottish Government's ambitions articulate with those of the UK Government. That is a very important issue. As I said, that is one thing that Mr Johnson and I are pursuing at the committee. It is vital that, as we are debating this crucial issue, we are cognisant of the fact that there are devolved responsibilities that are clearly set out, but there are also the aspects of devolution that go further down the line to our local government and local authorities who are wanting to have a greater say in how that money is spent. Mr Lockhead referenced some of the spending that has already happened in his constituency of money, and that is vitally important. If we measure out what is happening just now in terms of the levelling up, there are some really good programmes that are giving that additional money that is on top of anything that would come from Barnett consequentials. That is giving us that additional say, so I think that that is extremely important. Let me deal with just a few of the criticisms that have come, and particularly in relation to the comment that Mr Lockhead made about what the Treasury Committee and the Welsh Government had said about their concerns over the replacement funds, that it is not the full £183 million that would be Scotland's share. Can I acknowledge that there would be some concern about that, Mr Lockhead, if it was not also the fact that the EU funds are being replaced not just by the shared prosperity fund, but as time goes on, as the EU funding, which is still taking place in Scotland, will diminish over time, which is absolutely correct. However, Mr Gove has given a very full commitment that that will be ramped up as that other fund diminishes. That is the key point there, that if at any stage there was any hint that we were not getting enough money on the same basis as we had had in the EU, then that is something that, as I say, I think would be very fair criticism. The Scottish Government is saying that this is an attack on devolution. I do not accept that. If I can just reference the fact that, in my own region, when it came to the Tay cities deal, there was excellent co-operation between the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government, the local authorities and a lot of the stakeholders. Again, I think that it is about ensuring that our local communities, who know their areas best, have the facility to be able to direct that funding in the ways that can best benefit their own particular economy. There are issues about some of the modelling that is used to decide on how that will be applied, but I do not accept that there is a deliberate undermining of what has to be spent in Scotland, where I think that there is scope for some change, is on making sure that the data that is used, interrogated by the ONS, applies to both the Scottish and the UK objectives. I now call on Paul Sweeney to speak to and to move amendment 3393.2 up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in the name of my friend, the member for Edinburgh Southern. Today's debate on the UK's shared prosperity fund is long overdue, and since the Brexit vote occurred in 2016, questions have been frequently asked about what would replace the EU structural funds. Despite repeated assurances that a replacement would appear, many of us were skeptical whether it ever would. Let's start on a point of consensus and welcome the fact that the detail has finally appeared. Deputy Presiding Officer, I fear that that is where the consensus is going to end, because the reality is that the detail far from matches the rhetoric that we heard on the run-up to those announcements. The rhetoric was that the UK prosperity fund would at least match the level of EU funds that it is replacing. In fact, the Conservative amendment today states exactly that. The reality is that it is 40 per cent less than the EU funds that it is replacing. The Treasury Select Committee in the House of Commons, happy about that. Liz Smith, I think that the member for giving way does he accept that, as we stand just now, there is currently some existing EU money in Scotland. This is about ensuring that, as that diminishes, which it will over time, the rest of the funding that will come from the UK Government through the shared prosperity funds and the other structural funds is ramped up, which is a very firm commitment that was given by Michael Gove. I hear the member's point, but I do not agree with that perception or assertion, because even the Treasury Select Committee in the House of Commons said as much when its report into the funds questioned why one of the centrepieces of the Government's levelling up ambitions was to be reduced to such an extent. So the idea that it will be completely offset is simply not correct. And, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's not just the Treasury Select Committee calling this out. The Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government, the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, the metro mayors are all saying the same thing, and they can't all be incorrect. They will be worse off, and that is not acceptable. As usual, it's ordinary working people who will play the price. And we're already seeing gross inequalities across our country, one in four children living poverty, almost a quarter of all households living fuel poverty, life expectancy in our poorest communities is now falling, and food bank use is rising. Each of those are symptoms of political choices, and it beggars belief that, after 12 years of Tory austerity, their failed macroeconomy policy of public disinvestment and resultant low economic growth is set to continue. Deputy Presiding Officer, it's also true to say that the Scottish Government has been asleep at the wheel on this, too. Their time in office has seen council budgets slashed every year, a laissez-faire approach to Scotland's economy with a productivity rate drastically lagging behind the OECD average, and potentially EU structural funds and regional selective assistance being misallocated and inefficiently managed through the enterprise agencies, a timid acceptance of Tory laissez-faire economics, and a failure to develop an industrial strategy that would provide high-quality, high-paid jobs for people in every town and city across the country. The point on council funding, absent from the Government's motion, is particularly important to this debate. We know that Scotland's councils have borne the brunt of funding cuts, £250 million cut this year alone, but I do have concerns about the UK Government's approach to providing funds directly to local authorities, bypassing the Scottish Government entirely. On those benches, we fundamentally believe in empowering local communities, and that means providing adequate funding, but also providing them with the powers to make their own choices. However, we do have a devolution settlement in place, and I'm afraid that the Tory plan quite clearly circumvents that settlement, meaning that we cannot simply support that method of delivery. Deputy Presiding Officer, I also just want to touch on the issue of co-operation. We know that the Scottish and UK Government's whole colossal differences of opinion are on a whole host of different policy areas, but we really need them to work together in the national interest. If the UK share prosperity fund is to provide the same benefits of the EU structural funds that is replacing, I would argue that the way that those funds are delivered is of fundamental importance. We cannot simply have a situation where both Governments are arguing incessantly, as they have done previously on things such as city deals, about who gave the money to who and what flag should appear on billboards on construction sites, but sadly that is exactly what I think is about to happen. I'm sure that we'll be subjected to those tedious arguments over the course of today's debate, and frankly it's not good enough. As the Scottish Parliament's research centre's own report articulates, the UK share prosperity fund, the longer the UK's replacement takes to bring that in, the more questions will be asked about any costly gaps in funding. Stakeholders and beneficiaries who have been waiting since 2017 to know how the UK share prosperity fund will operate are being forced to bide their time a while more. So my plea to both the Scottish and UK Governments is quite straightforward. Grow up, work together in the best interests of people across Scotland and begin to match the incessant levels of facile rhetoric with tangible actions. Thank you. I now call on Willie Rennie up to four minutes, please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that Liz Smith made, as is often the case, a reasonable and constructive contribution to this afternoon's debate. She focused on the practical steps that need to be taken and indeed challenged, I think, her own Government to match the commitments and the promises that it has made in the past on the level of funds. At best there is confusion over the level of the funds, but at worst there is a potential cut of hundreds of millions of pounds. If you look at the annual contribution from EU structural funds between 2014 and 2020, it was about £2,000 million a year. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations in England estimates that the fund will only provide £866 million cut of £1.1 billion every year. We have heard also from the minister about the Treasury Committee report about a cut of 40 per cent. What will be the impact if it is the worst-case scenario? What will be the impact on projects across the UK? Because this is not just a Scottish issue, I have to say to the minister. This is a UK-wide issue. It is almost six years since the referendum and two years since we actually left the EU, but still the Conservative Government has not worked out what it is doing. It is moving far too slowly, which is causing massive uncertainty in the sector. Organisations face a cliff edge on their funding as a result. Jobs are at risk, as is the vital work that they do. Pre-launch guidance was only issued last month. Further details will not be available for weeks and it will take months for applications to be submitted and processed, even though existing funds will run out by December. Time is marching on, I have to say, to Liz Smith. The Conservative Government must speed up and end the uncertainty. There is also great doubt about the role of funds in the skills development. At a time when we are short of sufficient skilled workers, that is incredibly short-sighted. The SNP Government is in danger of solely focusing on its exclusion from the process when organisations across the country are primarily concerned about the shortfall in funding and the lack of certainty. I want partnership and co-operation. I believe in ffetherlism. I think that it is the answer to the problems that we are facing over this and many other post-Brexit issues that we have been debating today. I would argue that we should have the structures of engagement for areas of common interest. That is one area that would benefit from a partnership approach. Most people in this country want Governments to just get on. They want them to work together in partnership, put aside the constitutional differences and actually make things work, and they need to do that in partnership with local authorities. Spacks over who are in charge are completely irrelevant to most people on the ground, especially when jobs and opportunities are at stake. Paul Sweeney was absolutely bang on with his comments. I urge the Conservative Government to establish a joint council for UK-shared prosperity, for the fund and for the levelling up agenda. The council would include representatives of the constituent authorities in the United Kingdom. It could work in partnership with local communities and local government on the development of those programmes. Let us draw on the skills, the expertise and the talents of everyone at every level of government to make a success of the funding. Let us end the uncertainty over the level of funding and let us make sure that those jobs are saved and that those opportunities are seized. We will now move to the open debate. I would advise members that there is no time in hand and that there are any interventions should members wish to accept them, must be accommodated within the members' allotted time. I call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have not forgotten that it was an utterly disingenuous vote. Leave campaign, led by the leadership of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, led Scotland to this point. Although I await further developments with interest, as it stands, the UK structural funds are a mess. As I see it, there are five summary issues. First, there has not been and I still have limited confidence that there will be any meaningful engagement with the democratically elected Scottish Government to ensure that funds are compatible with Scotland's economic policies. Second, there is no effective governance in place with, for example, no sensible approach to a nationwide evaluation of impact. It would seem in place of robust governance where to have Mr Gove whispering, trust me. Third, the methodology in place for categorising areas of need is at best amateurish. Fourth, the UK funds set up a competition where local authorities must compete with one another rather than work in concert towards nationally agreed goals. Fifth, the most sensible solution was readily available, but for political reasons rejected. To continue with the precedent that is already set with EU structural funds and allow our Scottish Government and those of us in this Parliament to shake their best use for the people of Scotland. When I challenged Mr Gove in the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week about the methodology for funding projects, including the placing of Orkney, Shetland and Highlands in the lowest category of need for transport infrastructure, along with the City of London, he obfuscated, he asked for the Scottish Government to provide him with more information transparency whilst, at the same time, seeking to impose an approach that excludes them from control. Let us briefly consider the track record of Mr Gove for transparency. As reported in 2017 by Peter Gagan writing for Open Democracy, Gove and others were closely tied to the Legatim Institute, a Mayfair-based think tank funded by a tycoon who made his money during the wild capitalism period in post-Soviet Russia. Mr Gove's belief in transparency when asked about his connections to people at Legatim led him to this florid reply. The blessed sponge of amnesia wipes the memory slate clean. However bad his memory, it didn't stop the appointment of Legatim's Matthew Elliott to become chief executive of Vote Leave. After the referendum, the infamous letter from Gove and Johnson to the then Prime Minister Theresa May, encouraging a hard Brexit, was widely reported as having been assisted by the involvement of Russian funded Legatim personnel. Gove and Johnson's hard Brexit is costing Scotland dear. Furthermore, Gove advocated and lobbied to avoid publishing the Russia report prior to the 2019 election into election meddling, money laundering, cyberattacks and buying influence with dirty Russian money. To this day, we have never seen the full report, thanks to Mr Gove. Finally, I also note that the tycoon behind Michael Gove's favourite institute is reported to have been behind a board coup that saw a Putin associate become chair of Gazprom, the huge energy company fuelling Putin's war in Ukraine. So no amount of fawning from the Scottish Tories towards Gove can hide the fact that he is a charlatan, with a demonstrable lack of concern for the democratic will of the Scottish people. Trust him and his assurances of the UK structural funds at your peril. I now call Murdo Fraser to be followed by Kenneth Gibson up to four minutes please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps we can get back to the subject of the debate. It is looking at the UK Air Shared Bysperity Fund, a very welcome part of the UK Government's levelling up agenda. Despite what we have heard from the SNP benches this afternoon, an approach that has been warmly welcomed and embraced across Scotland. The starting point for this discussion is that Scotland has two governments. A Government here in Edinburgh and another Government in London, and both have a crucial role to play in supporting infrastructure, helping communities to grow and assisting with economic growth right across the whole United Kingdom. We see that already in the successful roll-out of the city growth deals, now covering every single part of Scotland. Those now see a total investment of £1.49 billion, with projects such as the new concert hall for Edinburgh, the national tartan centre in Stirling and the net zero technology centre in Aberdeen. On top of that, we have just seen the announcement of two new free ports in Scotland, backed by £52 million. A £4.8 billion infrastructure investment in towns via the levelling up fund and a £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund, providing cash directly to councils to replace EU funds. Every single one of those programmes is good news for the UK and good news for Scotland. It should be warmly welcomed by everyone in this chamber. The UK Government made a commitment to replace EU funding, which, of course, is what the levelling up fund will do. As Lewis Smith pointed out earlier, we still have EU legacy funding, which diminishes over time, and the shared prosperity fund will ramp up to fill that gap. We will be in the position where Scotland will receive more in EU replacement funds than it ever did to receive directly from the EU. Again, that is something that we should celebrate. It is curious that we hear so many complaints from the SNP about that funding. They never complained when the funding came from the EU, but suddenly it comes from the UK instead of the EU and they are full of complaints. Mr Johnson, you should intervene. Clearly I am not making this clear enough, but I am thankful to the member. Does he have any evidence that that funding is going to match the EU, or are we just going to take it on good faith from Michael Gove and others? I am disappointed that Mr Johnson, if he considers himself to be a supporter of the United Kingdom, is not taking the United Kingdom Government at its words. The more money will be forthcoming, the more confidence in the United Kingdom Government. In particular to those on the SNP benches, when they talk about EU funding, they suggest that it was all sweetness and light and there were no problems. This time last year, the Scottish Government was facing a fine of £190 million due to irregularities over the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. I asked the minister earlier what has happened to that fine and how much has been paid. What are the stages of that? Perhaps when he is winding up, he can confirm those points. What is being proposed is very welcome. Indeed, even SNP councillors have welcomed this money. Councillor Ian Nicholson of Renfrewshire Council, which is to receive the single largest investment from the levelling up funds of £38 million, said that he was delighted to receive this money. What a pity that enthusiasm is not reflected in his parliamentary colleagues here in this chamber. Crucially, this money goes direct to local councils. What a difference in approach from a UK Conservative Government compared to the SNP Government here. This is an SNP Government that is treating councils in Scotland woefully. Cutting their funding year after year, we will expect them to do more and more. They are a party who claim to be a party of localism, but in practice treat our local councils as whipping boys. In contrast, we have Conservative Government and Westminster trusting our local councils, working with them and making sure they get the money that they need. That is why the Shared Prosperity Fund is so welcome. That is why the SNP is so hostile to it, because it does not like local government being empowered. That is why we support the amendment in the name of Liz Smith. First, I wish to record my disappointment that such a short time has been allocated for an issue of such importance for a full exploration of relevant matters is not possible, but I will touch on a few. When in the European Union Scotland allocated 944 million euros in structural funding under the 2014-20 budget framework, to be unlocked, this had to be matched by the UK, leading to investment of around £183 million a year. The question remains, will the UK Government make good the EU funding? We will no longer receive. In 2017, the Tories committed to setting up a replacement structure called the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, but no progress was made for years as self-imposed deadlines came and went. Tellingly, the UK Government found time to push through the internal market act in 2020 without consulting the Scottish Parliament. That contravened the sole convention as the UK afforded its self-power to undermine the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government on devolved matters that MSPs were elected to deliver on. When in March 2021 the levelling up fund was announced, it was immediately clear that there would be an enormous cash shot fall. Despite repeated calls by Scottish ministers and SNP MPs, no detail was revealed until the 2021 autumn statement. On 27 January, Westminster's Treasury Committee, chaired by Tory MP Mel Stride, reported that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund up to 24.25 will suffer a 40 per cent annual cut compared with EU structural funding. That is worrying as we emerge from the pandemic and the impact of Brexit itself. Last week, we welcomed the Secretary of State for Levelling up Michael Gove MP to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We had hoped to see Mr Gove back in November, however, once he found the time to come to Holyrood on the back of his address to the convention of Scottish local authorities, he was very forthcoming, which made our session a most valuable one. When I asked why the Treasury Committee expressed such great concerns, Mr Gove responded and I quote, the inference that I would draw is a perfectly legitimate misunderstanding to conflate the UK Shared Prosperity Fund money with previous EU funding. He argued rather vaguely and somewhat unconvincingly—he did not convince a Tory-led Westminster Committee after all—that alongside the UK Shared Prosperity Fund resources would be delivered from sources such as levelling up and Scotland would overall see no loss. The bottom line is that the committee still awaits details on where the 183 million per year will come from. Scottish ministers have not been consulted nor have any role in investment proposals on decisions relating to devolved matters. New guidance offers no evidence of respecting devolution or acknowledging the Scottish Government as an equal partner. As part of that, it will be already on the night approach, Mr Gove said and I quote again, it is explicitly the case that for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund we want to ensure that there is intensive dialogue between us and the Scottish Government and its ministers on the basis on which the money should be distributed. No reason was given as to why that hasn't yet happened. A specific case that I raised was that of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, the world's first and only accredited wave and tidal test centre for marine energy. Over 16 years, MEC has contributed £306 million to the UK economy supporting almost 200 jobs. Between 2016 and 2020, it received more than £17.4 million from Europe, 52 per cent of its total funding. MEC felt compelled to express its concern that the levelling up paper published in 2 February suggests that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will be allocated entirely through local authorities. The deliberate bypassing of this Parliament straight to councils creates a real risk that MEC and other unique organisations crucial to innovation and addressing climate change will miss out on vital funding. Such anomalies seem to surprise Mr Gove, who then committed to speaking to MEC. However, his policymaking on the hoof approach is not a sustainable way of operating these funds and lacks the practical set-up and security of EU structural funding. While I welcome the Secretary of State's clarifications, we are still to see cold hard numbers confirming that Scotland will not lose out, nor have Scottish and Welsh ministers been adequately consulted regarding a fund that goes live next month. The UK Government must actively engage and it must do so today. I call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The benefit of EU structural and social funds was a game changer in the Highlands and Islands. Communities were inspired to grow and develop, used it to build bridges, causeways, roads and factories. Communities were linked and given the tools to lead them to prosperity. In the Highlands and Islands, there was scarcely a road built in the 1990s and early 2000s that did not have an EU flag beside it. It made a huge change and for once shone a light on some of the most marginalised communities in the country. Sadly, when the SNP Government came into power, they quickly took control of the fund from local organisations and the impact decreased markedly. Their obsession with centralisation diluted the impact. We now see with Brexit those funds removed altogether and the replacement offered by the UK Government is absolutely blind to peripherality. In the Highlands and Islands, we have sparse population, poor transport links and yet not one of our council areas attracts level 1 funding. Orkneyt, Shetland and the Western Isles, where there are areas of extreme poverty where people have to depend on ferries and flights to get to the rest of the country. However, they find themselves in level 3 alongside areas such as Buckinghamshire and Cambridge. It is senseless. I wrote to Michael Gove, trying to get him to understand the situation, telling him that rural poverty and deprivation do not show up easily in the indicators used by both Scottish and UK Governments, which are largely postcode based. In rural areas, the poor live side by side with the very rich and therefore the real disadvantage faced in those communities is hidden. In Highland, that is further hidden due to the success of some parts of Inverness, but despite that success, in Inverness there is a decade of difference in life expectancy depending on which direction I walk for 15 minutes from my house. People living within walking distance of each other have markedly different life chances. Outside Inverness, throughout the Highlands and Islands, disadvantage is manifested by depopulation. Our young people are forced to seek employment and housing and many areas are extremely fragile because of that. However, the whole region is termed level 2 or level 3. I believe that the UK Government has a real opportunity to make a difference by using the levelling up fund in a way that would demonstrate an understanding of remote rural communities. Our area provides opportunities for the rest of the country. We are the lungs of the country with our wide open spaces and we are set to become the generator of energy too and yet we struggle for survival. That funding provides an opportunity to level up our society, but unfortunately it looks like it will be there to provide sweeteners for parts of the country that voted conservative for the first time and attempt to buy their loyalty while doing down our most peripheral regions. I appeal to both our Governments to recognise the needs of rural communities and to find a better way to reflect their needs. If not, they are likely to disappear. Those communities are best able to understand their own needs, but they need to be empowered and to be given the funds to allow them to build and repopulate those areas. They will grow and flourish if we recognise their needs. This is a time not for political opportunitism, but for action. Thank you. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Maggie Chapman. Thank you very much. I welcome the debate and, at the outset, I also welcome investment coming into my Greenock and Ember Clyde constituency and also to Scotland. I would like to see more of it and I'm not quite sure that others across the chamber would like to see more of it into their constituencies also. The fact that there is a so-called shared prosperity fund and a so-called levelling up fund and also a levelling up agenda highlights the fact that Scotland and also the north of England have been hammered financially by successive UK Governments, irrespective of who has been in power at Westminster. It shows that the union has not worked for Scotland. At least we in Scotland have got a chance at that. I certainly do look forward to that day when we win our next independence referendum. We all know whether MSPs across this chamber want to accept it or not that Scotland has never ever been top of the agenda at Westminster. From Margaret Thatcher's planning, cutting Scotland's budget as well as trying to keep these cuts, and I quote, invisible, in addition to the thousands of shipyard and engineering jobs in my constituency, as well as the steel and coal jobs across Scotland and parts of England and Wales being put on to the scrap heap, to Tony Blair's content for allegedly keeping public spending higher in Scotland per head as a price worth paying to maintain the union, to Boris Johnson's, and I quote, my argument to the Treasury is that a pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country on the strict utilitarian calculus that a pound spent in Stratford Clyde. He also added, and I quote, you would generate jobs and growth in Stratford Clyde far more effectively if you invest in Hackney or in Croydon or other parts of London. I make no apologies for not rolling out the red carpet to the current Tory UK Government and the so-called generosity in various funds that they now consider for Scotland and elsewhere in these islands. I'm not prepared to beg for the crumbs off the table when the disrespect agenda that UK, that the disrespect agenda that the UK establishment have had for Scotland is there for all to see and it has been for many, many generations. After the Brexit referendum, which has resulted in Scotland being dragged out of the EU against our will, Prime Minister Theresa May met the First Minister to discuss a variety of issues. One of the key reporting matters at the time was the admission from the Prime Minister that the UK Government could not match the funds that the EU were providing. In effect, we are suffering a double whammy of being dragged out of the EU against our will and also being shortchanged to the sum of £183 million per annum. No matter how the UK Government tried to spin it, the new funds being debated today will not come anywhere near the sums of money that have been cut from Scotland over the many, many generations. According to the NPC think tank in January, the £4.8 billion levelling up fund announced that Westminster's spinning review last March aims to, and I quote, invest in infrastructure that improves every day life across the UK. In Scotland, 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest homelessness rates received less levelling up funding than the 20 per cent of local authorities with the lowest homelessness rates of the 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest homelessness rates in Scotland. Three of those have received no levelling up funding. Meanwhile, the 20 per cent most deprived local authorities, four have received no funding. Inverclyde, not furniture, Dundee and Eastershire. No. In addition to the amount of allocated funding per head is less than in England. I will welcome investment when and if it comes to Inverclyde. It is long overdue but also another example of the centralisation agenda from Westminster trampling all over devolution. It is the disrespect agenda writ large. The Westminster power grab is happening. We are witnessing it with the so-called levelling up fund and the so-called UK share prosperity fund. Michael Gove last week spoke to the Finance Committee to indicate how his Government will engage in devolved areas. Sharing prosperity is not something that happens in one parliamentary term, bearing in mind. There have been generations of Westminster-reviewing opportunities from Scotland. With that, the sooner we are out of it, the better. The UK Government's proposed arrangements for the UK share prosperity fund tells us three things. First, the UK Government has little interest in keeping the Conservative Party's 2019 manifesto commitment that promised it would, at a minimum, match the level of EU spending. What we see being proposed is a near 40 per cent of what was provided by European Union structural funds. I know that we are all becoming accustomed to broken promises by the Prime Minister, but this is bad for communities and bad for trust in politics. Second, the UK Government also has little interest in respecting devolution or enhancing community participation and engagement in decision making, even though money will be spent on matters that fall within devolved competencies such as transport, skills and economic development. The Scottish Government and our communities have very little, if any, say in allocation decisions. That is worrying, given how different the economic development landscape is in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK. Never mind what it says about devolution. Third, we will have to work even harder than before to tackle the inequalities that exist across and within different parts of Scotland and reorient our economy towards wellbeing and the just transition. Last summer, the Institute for Government published a report on the UK SPF highlighting key risks of the UK Government's approach, fragmentation of service provision, confused accountability, duplication of effort, funding uncertainty and increased intergovernmental tensions. That same Institute for Government report set out several recommendations to mitigate those risks. Clear allocation criteria, reduced bureaucracy, the irony of additional red tape from a Brexiteer Government is not lost on me. They also said that better consultation with and engagement of devolved nations, genuine partnership working, match funding models, clarification of the governance and operational management and more. Yet nothing that we have seen from the UK Government to date addresses any of those issues. A fundamental problem with the UK's economy over the past 40 plus years has been a deep seated reluctance to invest in the infrastructure that we need for the wellbeing of our citizens. It has been worse in England where, for example, privatised water companies have paid massive dividends to shareholders while allowing the water and sewerage systems to degrade. We desperately need more money for infrastructure for investment in our future and the telecommunications on which much of our lives will be based through high-speed broadband, where we lag many countries. We need the energy and storage investment to win ourselves off fossil fuels, as it has become so painfully obvious of the last year with exponentially rising fossil fuel costs. Yet what we have here is a drastic cut to the funds that we would have received through the EU. Many people voted for Brexit because they thought that it would mean more investment in the fabric that we rely on for our society. While it is clear that the leaders of that campaign had no interest in keeping their promises, it is vital that we do not repeat the failure to those people and fail them twice. Public borrowing is still cheap. We can build the houses that we need, the railways that we need and the high-speed broadband that we need. We can support genuine community regeneration that recognises local variations and specificities by having governance and engagement structures that centre local voices. Yet this UK Tory Government insists on, yet again, impoverishing us now and in the future. I can only speculate why, but I know that we cannot afford it now and we certainly cannot afford it in the future. It was perhaps a mistake of the Minister for Parliament to timetable the two debates that we have had this afternoon. The first is the local government finance order, with SNP and Green ministers cutting £250 million from local authorities, and this debate will give powers and resources to local authorities and £2.6 billion of additional funding. The shared prosperity fund is a central pillar of the UK Government's ambitious levelling up agenda, and a significant component of that is the support for communities across Britain. The fund will provide £2.6 billion in new funding of local investment by March 2025, with all areas of the UK receiving an allocation from the fund via a funding formula rather than a competition. The purpose of the shared prosperity fund and the UK Government's levelling up agenda is to reduce inequalities where they occur anywhere in Britain. That is something that I would have thought all of us would agree about. That applies as equally to Scotland as it does for any other nation or region across the United Kingdom. I would hope that SNP and Green ministers and MSPs would agree with many of the principles that the shared prosperity fund focuses on. For example, investment and resources to areas in Scotland that are less prosperous and working to help to build stronger, safer and more prosperous communities for all of us. Projects such as the restoration of the be listed grant and gas holder here in my region, for example, are designed to spread opportunities and improve public services, restore a sense of community, local pride and belonging, as well as empowering local leaders and our communities. At the very time when SNP and Green ministers are cutting local budgets, the UK Government is looking to inject finances directly to areas around the country that need them the most. I have already outlined that, but I note that the Scottish Government motion does not even mention local government and the important role it must play in helping to improve and empower communities across our country. Perhaps that is at the heart of what SNP and Green ministers and MSPs are complaining about today—that what we are seeing is powers going to local authorities, not to SNP and Green ministers. Scottish Conservatives support initiatives that move towards greater local empowerment. I believe that the shared prosperity fund can help to deliver that very outcome. Scottish local authorities are receptive to help to take forward bids and the shared prosperity fund, as well as the levelling up agenda. I know that COSLA has had many positive engagements with Michael Gove already on how that can be best achieved. The UK Government has made very clear that it wants to work with the Scottish Government and make best possible use of funding across Scotland. I hope that the attitude that we have seen from members may be changes if we are going to be able to see that taking forward. As has already been stated, local authorities across Scotland are receiving their share of £172 million in the first tranche of investment. I sincerely hope, as I have said, that SNP and Green ministers will start to get on board with the delivery of this UK shared prosperity fund and start the positive engagement with all our communities and our councillors who will be elected after May's elections as well to get the best possible outcome for all of our communities. Communities across Scotland have a proud record of coming together. I have the time to talk to myself if you want me to talk to you. I am quite happy to do it. The issue here at the core of it is that this is bypassing the devolved settlement. That is the basis of it and that Westminster is choosing which local authorities to send its money to. It just happens to be places where they are looking for votes. I do not agree with that point. The real question that many members who are clapping away may need to think is what has the SNP done for 14 years to help to bring prosperity to many communities? Nothing at all. Communities across Scotland have a proud record of coming together and pioneering innovative work to deliver community regeneration projects. That is what we need to help to achieve. It is vital that we realise the potential of all our communities and that the shared prosperity fund will help to achieve that. I support the amendment in Liz Smith's name. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches, and I call Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The structural funds player has played an important role in Scotland. Paul Sweeney set out very well why they are important and why they are long awaited. More importantly, the point that has been missed by many contributions is that Scotland remains a country of inequality. Paul Sweeney pointed out that, depending on where you live in the country, your life chances and your ability to earn are great differences. Between the highest and the lowest productivity in Scotland, there is a 40 per cent gap between the Western Isles and Edinburgh, and that is not sustainable. Although I have a huge number of criticisms of what the Conservative Government has brought forward, I have yet to hear a response from the Scottish Government on what it is doing to target those regional inequalities. Ultimately, those funds fall short, both in terms of how they are structured but also their quantum. As Paul Sweeney pointed out, they are 40 per cent lower than the EU structural funds that they replace. I perhaps admire Murdo Fraser's choice of ties, but I think that that is the limit of my admiration this afternoon, because it is nothing short of hutzpah what he presented, that I am to take it on Michael Gold's word because he is the minister of the crown that more money is coming. Indeed, if we were to listen to his further remarks, apparently the Conservatives are the champions of local government and local democracy, despite the fact that they cut their funding by 40 per cent in England. We should take no lectures from the Conservatives when it comes to local government funding whatsoever, but I think that the most important contributions this afternoon were perhaps from my colleague Rhoda Grant and also from Michelle Thomson. When you look at the detail and how those funds have been structured and how the indexation has been put together, you come up with a system whereby the Highlands and Islands are put together in the same category as Buckinghamshire. You surely know that there is something very wrong with the way that that has been put together. Indeed, Michael Gold's contribution, although I very much enjoyed him being at the committee on Thursday, was very much a work in progress. Do not worry, we will look at it. Yes, I know that those measures are very narrow, but they will be improved. As somebody put it, it will be all right on the night. I am very happy to give way to this. For Mr Johnson, does he recognise that Mr Gold accepted that there could be issues about some of the modelling that was not deliberate in terms of trying to deny particular funding to specific areas, but if we do have issues about the modelling that is not as objective as it could be, we are to go back to him with clear examples of where there might be problems. Daniel Johnson Elizabeth Cymru accurately represents what was said, but if we are to believe what those funds are supposed to do, the significance and the importance and what they will deliver, the fact that there is still essentially work in progress is deeply troubling and exposes the flawed and frankly hurried nature that they appear to be put together with. I and others have deep concerns about the lack of co-ordination. Indeed, I think that Liz Smith puts it very well in committee that if we are not co-ordinated in terms of the measures that are used to look at those things, that in terms of the co-ordination with other priorities, I think that we run the very real risk of incompatible and divergent efforts happening across Governments. I am concerned by the eagerness of some members to want to draw out the constitutional arguments in this. I think that the co-ordination points are ones that are far too easily glossed over by the Conservative benches. Ultimately, I think that perhaps this debate was best summed up by Willie Rennie because I think that ultimately six years on, surely we should expect better. We need better clarity, but ultimately, we just want our Governments to get on and deliver. I do not think that that is too much to ask. Once Willie Rennie stopped telling jokes, I applauded himself. Can I just make one comment about something that the Minister made? He spoke about meeting with Neil O'Brien. It is my view that Neil O'Brien is one of the most thoughtful and intelligent Ministers in the UK Government, and he is in the Department for Leveling Up. I do hope that he treats those ministerial relations well because I think that he is a rising star. Can I begin also by associating myself with the remarks of Liz Smith, who stated unequivocally three points about what really matters here? She said that the very best interests of Scotland, particularly in relation to our economic recovery matter, the empowerment of our local authorities matters and the need for proper, realistic, joined up work between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and local authorities matters. She is absolutely right. Listening to this debate, I had a sense of deja vu about a similar debate that we had several months ago when the SNP Government took aim at UK Government policy. The broad thrust of their argument was the same. It was to say that a levelling up agenda on the mind devolution neglects parts of Scotland and does not match existing funding. I do not accept those claims to scrutiny. The idea that the shared prosperity fund on the mind devolution settlement is not a credible view. Let me take Christine Graham's point and head on. As I noted in the last debate, there is nothing in the devolution settlement, nothing, not one provision in any of the Scotland acts, that prevents the UK Government funding devolved policy areas at all. There is an underlying contradiction in the SNP position. They are quite happy—it is a matter of phrase—to receive funds from the EU, but outraged when funding comes from the UK Government. I will very briefly, if I get the time. Christine Graham. Just simply to say that in my long time, it is perhaps too long for some people, that I have never seen a UK Government behaving in this way towards devolution and devolved areas, not once. What the shared prosperity fund does—she has an answer to the question, because she cannot point to a provision in the devolution settlement that does what she says it does—is that it places funding directly in the hands of local authorities and others on the front line so that they can deliver projects that they are seeking funding for. There seems to be an extraordinary unwillingness by the Scottish Government to acknowledge that. It is its centralising tendency. There is no reason whatsoever to prevent the UK Government passing funds directly to local authorities and organisations that seek it. As Murdo Fraser said, that has been welcomed to the local level by SNP councillors. As Miles Briggs said, COSLA and the UK Government are very positive at having positive conversations. Let me deal with the point that Rhoda Grant made. It is a very important one, and I, too, represent the Highlands and Islands, about the fact that certain parts of Scotland are not receiving the same priority. I welcome the fact that some areas such as our Garland butte and the Western Isles are considered as priority areas for community renewal funding. I note that some parts of the Highlands and Islands are split between priority 2 and priority 3 zones for levelling up funding. Many of the local authorities in priority 3 have benefited from growth deals. I also note that, in the first round of community renewal funding, something like the Seaweed academy in our Garland butte has received funding. The greatest pub in Scotland, the old forge in Noidot, has received community ownership funding. It is important to note that, while priority bans give indications of priority, they are not fixed and they are not insurmountable. The fund has other criteria for investment, which allows regions in lower priority bans to receive funds earlier than higher bans if it is considered a better bid. However, with all that said, let me be very clear about this. I will not stint in advocating for the region that I represent, and I will continue to put pressure on UK Government colleagues to recognise the fact that remote and rural communities in the Highlands and Islands need investment and assistance, in light of the many varied challenges that exist. In conclusion, we believe that the shared prosperity fund will empower local authorities, so let's grasp this opportunity and reap the benefits. I thank all members for their contributions to this important debate. I feel that we all want the best for our communities and to tackle inequalities and for job creation as well. I want to say to Donald Cameron at the outset that I had a constructive meeting with Mr O'Brien last week and I do hope that he continues to be constructive. I hope that he will listen to the arguments that I put on behalf of the Scottish Government. I hope that he delivers, and time will tell in the coming weeks and months, but we will continue to negotiate and discuss constructively with Mr O'Brien and his colleagues in the UK Government. We have learned a few things from this debate today. First, we have learned from the Conservative Party that true devolution involves sidelining the Scottish Parliament and ignoring the Scottish Parliament. The logical conclusion of the Conservative Party's position, which is not surprising and has never been enthusiastic for Scottish self-government, is that we should just scrap this place and just scrap the Scottish Parliament. That is the logical conclusion of all the arguments put forward by the Conservative members in Parliament today. I am quite attracted to not having any Scottish Tory MSPs in this country, but the rest of us want to respect Scottish democracy. After opinion poll, year after year, it shows that the people of Scotland have more trust in the Scottish Parliament to look after their interests way ahead than what they do for Westminster. Could I ask Mr Lockhead why he thinks that local government has been so enthusiastic about many aspects of the shared prosperity fund? COSLA and others want devolution respected by the UK Government when it comes to the successive funds for the European funds that we have lost out on because of Brexit or will do in the next couple of years. I should also say to Paul Sweeney that the arguments and discussions that we are having today are not tedious arguments. They are about job creation in Scotland's communities. They are about tackling inequalities and about doing what is best for Scotland. It is about the UK Government and the Conservative Government delivering on promises made to the people of Scotland. Remember that they said that we would not lose out from Brexit that the money would be matched and now we face, in the words of the UK Treasury Committee, a 40 per cent cut. They also said that Brexit would lead to the strengthening of the Scottish Parliament and the strengthening of devolution. Of course, that is not what is happening here. The approach that is being taken by the UK Government at the moment means that we will lose out on the autonomy that we enjoyed under the European Union. Can I remind all members that we would far more control over the allocations and governance and policy aims while in the EU than under the current offer by the UK Government? That gets to the heart of the debate. I think that Michelle Thomson hit the nail on the head when she spoke about the irony. I think that she said that Michael Gove said that and Mr O'Brien said it to me last week in our meeting that the UK Government relies on the knowledge and expertise of the Scottish Government to make sure that successive funds will work properly and deliver for the people of Scotland, yet at the same time—this is the point that Michelle Thomson made—the UK Government wants to sideline the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. They cannot have it both ways. Mr Lockhead acknowledged that when it comes to things like the city deals, there has been first-class engagement with the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government, the local authorities and the local stakeholders. That surely has joined up thinking that it is very much to the benefit of Scotland. The minister made our point for us, because we were treated as an equal partner with the city regional growth deals and with the successor to EU funds, we were being carved out and sidelined. The minister made the Government's point for us in our intervention. Since the 1970s, Scotland has received and delivered over £6 billion of EU structural funding. That investment has enabled the Scottish Government and our partners to fund a huge number of projects of national importance. It is funded, and Rhoda Grant spoke well about the importance of those funds in transforming the Highlands and Islands. It funded the creation of the University of the Highlands and Islands funds, the construction of the roads and the spinal route throughout the western Isles and delivered schemes such as the modern apprenticeship and low-carbon travel and transport programmes that we have seen across our communities. All of that has been put at risk if we lose those EU funds. The development of the UK shared prosperity fund has no consideration or respect for the wealth of expertise built from decades of successful delivery of those types of projects by the Scottish Government. Instead of developing isolation, the UK Government is proposing that the fund be used for lockable bike stands, graffiti removal and litter picking in the name of local pride. The resemblance between the projects and purposes of the fund and EU investment is frustratingly faint and we have been badly let down with the UK Government's lack of vision for the fund. Nearly 18 months ago, we set out our vision for our Scottish shared prosperity fund to be used. You will know that we aim to reduce economic inequalities in the poor regions by working with them. We wanted to invest in projects that reduce poverty, provide skills and job opportunities and grow the regional business space as well. We set those aims in the context of the wellbeing economy that we want to create and tackle in climate change at the same time and take that holistic approach to investment in our country. Those plans reflected the spirit of previous EU investments. It was about projects that were aligned to national priorities and that were of strategic importance to our country. Projects such as Edinburgh University's Centre for Regenerative Medicine or Scottish Canal's Falkirkwheel or the Scottish Council for Volunteer Organisations are moving on project. We have all seen their submission to us for this debate, which said that some employability programmes and other programmes that the SCU has been involved in delivering are at risk because of the procrastination and delay from the UK Government over the successive funding. As I turn to winding up, as a matter of democratic principle, members in this chamber must agree that the Scottish Parliament cannot allow the UK Government to infringe upon our devolved autonomy. They must deliver on their pledges to the people of Scotland. We would not lose out because of Brexit and the EU funding would be matched by the UK Government. We have to see those two commitments delivered in the near future, and this Government must be treated as an equal partner by the UK Government.