 The next item of business is the debate on motion 10916 in the name of Shona Robison on thinner up and regeneration bill UK legislation. I invite members who are pushing to speak in this debate to press the requests and speak buttons as soon as possible and I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion for around seven minutes. Thank you. It is important that this Parliament gives a matter of consent to this bill. Careful ei lygau i ddylai refill. Meanwhile, the Bill focuses on matters that are not relevant to Scotland. Part 1 has direct implications. That is because it introduces powers for UK Government ministers to set targets for the 12 levelling up missions in Scotland and allows UK Government ministers to report on their progress, irrespective of the fact that six of those relate to devolved matters. Part 6 is relevant to the interests of this Parliament. As it makes provision for i'n unig llwy neiall y bydd gennym o ddifolio o'i Enduro Bwrgyn Gelfoedd, a dwi'n cwestiynau ein dangos ddatach pleidwydol. Mae gweithio gweithio ar gyfer SAR 3 i dydw i ardeithasiatol. Mae ymddw i'n unig Llanxus Prifysgwyl yn par 12 i'w meddwl yn Sgotlwn. A gynmaru'r cynhyrch, oes yn griffesiau a phoedscol Llanxus Pwyd ag i'r cyfletaeth. Os ysgrifiannol y bydd yn cyfletaeth o'r UK Government i'r defnyddio ddylockaeth achos, ac, yw'r gwholdiad dechrau am ddysgu chwarae gyda'r Parlywol, gan yn ddim yn gwybod am ffordd i ffwrdd y Parlywolau Cymru yn ddigonol at weld, ac rydyn ni wedi nodi gwybod gyda'rwyr i'r gweld am draws ar gyfer gwrthwywellaeth. Rydyn ni'n gwybod ar gyfer y fanydd yng nghygrifennu i'r byr, a rydyn ni'n gweld i'r gweld i'n rhanoghwm am lleolau oherwydd, After consulting with Scottish ministers, we have negotiated amendments to ensure that consent is required for matters within devolved legislative or executive competence. That means that we will retain our existing roles and responsibilities. Scottish ministers will have discretion to consider whether there is merit in replacing our well-established and well-understood environmental assessment regimes with environmental outcome reports. Further, the UK Government has committed to reinstating the Scottish Minister's regulation making powers for the electricity works environmental assessment regulations, which were rendered in operative due to Brexit and the loss of relevant enabling powers, and they have committed to doing so before the end of the current UK Parliament. That's important because these regulations play a key role in our consenting regime for offshore renewables and related onshore infrastructure, and I'm pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement on this. Nevertheless, we remain concerned about the potential for diverging environmental assessment regimes for the consenting of offshore renewable projects. This could have a significant impact on our collective ability to meet net zero commitments. Similarly, we have secured amendments to relevant provisions of part 3 so that the Secretary of State may only make provisions on planning data in Scotland with the consent of Scottish ministers. Whilst this is positive, I should be clear that the Scottish Government remains unconvinced at this time existing arrangements for environmental assessments would benefit from a major overhaul. It's unclear whether this new regime would be consistent with existing European requirements or move us away from the current high standards for environmental assessment. This will only emerge through secondary legislation. Furthermore, there is very little detail about how any new regime would operate in practice, the outcomes that it would be seeking to achieve and the benefits for both investors and regulators. Much more evidence and explanation would be required before we would be persuaded to make such significant changes in Scotland when considering any future changes that we will need to carefully consider the needs of our environment and the need to reach net zero. I have no concerns regarding relevant miscellaneous provisions within part 12 of the bill relating to the role of chartered surveyors and fees for post marine licence services. I must be clear however that this Government remains firmly opposed to part 1 of the bill relating to levelling up missions. This cuts across devolved responsibilities and therefore raises constitutional issues. I'm disappointed with the UK Government's approach to part 1. Scottish ministers must retain the right to disagree on the principle of a bill with a view to continued and productive negotiations. This is about good governance in the face of disagreement between mature Governments. Although we have a shared interest in reducing economic inequality, the route to that is not through setting targets in devolved areas. Rather, it is through redistributing economic and financial powers to Scotland in a way that allows this Government to deliver the activity that will effectively target inequality. Incidentally, important themes that are picked up in the Constitution and External Affairs Committee report published earlier today, which highlights the extent to which the approach of the UK Government is diminishing the role of this Parliament in scrutinising decisions taken by UK ministers in devolved areas without agreement. As written, the bill requires UK ministers to publish and report on objectives for levelling up missions, explaining when and how they will measure progress. Six of those missions, as I said, are in devolved policy areas, including transport, justice, education, skills, health and housing. Those are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament under the devolution settlement. Though some efforts have been made to incorporate a degree of consultation with the Scottish Government in part 1, the provisions remain weak and vague. As it stands, there is no explicit definition or shared understanding of what would constitute meaningful consultation with Scottish ministers prior to UK Government ministers reporting on devolved matters in Westminster. UK Government claims that this part of the bill does not require consent from this Parliament, as it covers UK-wide targets, but we strongly disagree with that. As I have set out, the levelling up missions are clearly in devolved areas and so clearly within the responsibilities of this Parliament. In our view, the UK Government is failing to respect the role of this Parliament and the allocation of responsibilities set out in the devolution settlement. Consequently, I cannot recommend consent for part 1 of this bill. Though some progress has been made, the provisions still fail to recognise that the provisions on levelling up undermine the powers of Scottish ministers and, importantly, this Parliament. I move to the motion in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee up to two minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'd like to speak as convener of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee to highlight part 6 of the bill on which the committee focused its scrutiny. This is an important part of the bill and relates to the environmental outcome reports. There are a new approach to the environmental assessment. The bill sets out a framework for environmental outcome reports, but much of the detail is left to subordinate legislation. In the bill, as introduced, this meant that broad powers were given to make regulations in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish ministers. This prevented the Scottish Government from recommending consent to these provisions. The committee's report encouraged both Governments to agree an acceptable outcome to the matter, and the bill has now been amended so that the consent of the Scottish ministers is required before these powers are used in devolved areas. This ensures that the Scottish ministers can decide whether to agree to adopting the proposed environmental outcome report approach or to maintain the current approach. It is welcome that the Governments could reach this agreement. However, the committee has also highlighted the lack of clarity about the role of the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising proposed regulations in this area. Now that the agreement has been reached between the Governments, I would welcome any thoughts from the Deputy First Minister on how parliamentary scrutiny can be assured. I am sure that we can all agree that this Parliament is hugely important. It is a long-standing interest in the UK Government's levelling-up fund and UK shared prosperity fund. A particular interest is how effectively these funds will be spent in Scotland, the outcomes they will achieve and their impact on Scottish Government policy and spending plans. Notwithstanding the Deputy First Minister's comments, I focus on amendments made to part 1 of the living-up and regeneration bill. This part of the bill establishes a new statutory requirement for UK Government ministers to set and review levelling-up missions and report on progress. The amendments provide for UK ministers to have regard to any role of the devolved legislatures and to consult devolved authorities in relation to reviewing the levelling-up missions and any changes to mission progress methodology, metrics or target dates. The committee sought confirmation that the Scottish Government will work with Parliament to agree a formal and meaningful role by which Parliament and relevant committees can be consulted on any proposals to change emissions, revise a methodology, metrics or target dates of the levelling-up missions. We welcome the Deputy First Minister's confirmation that she is happy to work with the committee on a process when there is a clearer proposal from the UK Government on how it intends to carry out the duties set out in part 1 of the bill. We also welcome the Deputy First Minister's commitment that Scottish ministers will continue to operate on the basis of informing Parliament of significant policy developments, sharing relevant information where appropriate. The Scottish Government was consulted on the amendments to part 1, which relate in part to the Parliament, but it is disappointing that the Scottish Parliament and committee was not consulted. We would welcome a Scottish Government commitment that this will not be the case going forward and seek clarity from the Deputy First Minister in relation to the UK Government's annual report on progress in delivering the 12 missions that the Scottish Government will work with the committee to ensure that it is made available to Parliament for scrutiny. The 12 missions for the levelling-up fund matter since it will serve as a policy anchor across the UK Government, including in relation to funding to be spent in devolved areas. However, as a former finance cabinet secretary explained in 2021, it is extremely difficult for Scottish ministers to determine how best to use capital funding when UK ministers make decisions about capital spend that the Scottish Government is not cited on. We have written to the sector of state for levelling-up asking how UK ministers intend to comply with the duty in the bill to report on how they have had regard to any Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government role. The committee looks forward to working with the Scottish Government to develop a transparent process that supports parliamentary scrutiny. I thank the committees and clerks who have spent time looking at the legislative consent motion back in 2022 when it first came to this Parliament. It is a pity that this devolved Scottish Government has not shown the same respect to our committee system and the processes of this Parliament in the tablin of this motion today, as we have heard from two conveners just previously. Our committees are in place to provide the scrutiny, to provide reports to Parliament, some of which the devolved Government will like and use, and other parts of the reports that they will disagree with, but normally in a respectful way. It is disappointing that the committees have been treated in such a poor way over this LCM today. I welcome the fact that civil servants of both Governments have worked to ensure that the measures and benefits of this bill work across the whole of the United Kingdom. Council leaders from all parties have welcomed the additional funding from the UK Parliament and have been eager to put forward projects and proposals to access it, including SNP-led councils. That is indicative of the requirement of local authorities to access much-needed funding for capital and major infrastructure projects in their areas. The levelling up funds have led to significant projects, such as £27 million for a new ferry for Ferrail, £20 million for Peterhead regeneration, £20 million for Town Centre regeneration in Kilmarnock, £19.3 million in Fife, £80 million for Dumfries and Galloway, plus many, many more. All projects that will deliver economic growth, regeneration, business development and, most importantly, jobs. The money goes direct to our communities so that they can make significant improvements to benefit their areas. Real devolution in action. Presiding Officer, I am pleased that compromise has been found on many of the clauses within the bill in part 3, part 6 and part 12. Part 1 seems to be an area of disagreement between our two Governments, with one saying that it goes against devolution and the other saying that consent is not necessary for setting missions. Presiding Officer, if we only had committees of this Parliament that could give us a report back with a view. It is strange that we hear from the Cabinet Secretary that she feels that this is an attack on devolution at the same week that we have a freeze of council tax imposed on local government. We have seen the last week the value that this Government gives our local authority colleagues, ripping up the Verity House agreement before the ink is even dry. The agreement that clearly states that there should be no surprises, although, according to the Cabinet Secretary, the announcement to freeze council tax was not only a surprise to local government but also to the shadow cabinet. The changes proposed by UK ministers to secure legislative consent are clear that they will appropriately consult with devolved Administrations and Governments. The ministers will have regard to the devolved legislators and Governments in preparing statements on level and up missions. Other areas in this part of the bill ensure that Scottish ministers retain the options and controls that are required in the devolved context. Conservative colleagues will be voting to accept this motion this evening. In support of our valued colleagues in local government, we want to see more investment, not less. We want to see more devolution to our communities, and we support the efforts of any Government to do that. We will be supporting the consent motion today while recognising that the bill does legislate in devolved areas. Scotland and Britain need to get building to tackle our housing crisis. We can see why those powers are needed to align planning data and report on environmental outcomes, but the Tory's level and up bill is desperately lacking in ambition, as is thin as the white paper that came before it. Planning information must be used to drive improvement, but it will also expose that a decade of Government cuts have hollowed out local authority planning departments. We want to see planning that delivers more genuinely affordable housing, serves communities well and helps local businesses and town centres thrive. The bill will not do that for Scotland, but I do not think that the national planning framework does that either. It is welcome that the UK Government may only make planning data regulations after consulting the Scottish ministers, or if outside devolved competence. However, this is a bill that has been beset by Tory backbench rebellions and Government U-turns, which ended up seeing the Government ditch mandatory housing targets. In ditching those targets, the Tory Government let the SNP Government off the hook for failing to set their own all-tenure targets, targets that we desperately need to get back to building the 25,000-plus homes a year that we need. The UK Government's bill lacks ambition in its reform of compulsory purchase rules for England, hindering progress on development, delivering more houses and getting empty homes back into use. The measures in the bill will do little to address the deep inequalities that exist in Scotland and in every part of the UK. Major decisions will continue to be made in Whitehall, with communities forced to compete for small pots of money, handed out by Tory ministers, with many of the poorest areas missing out entirely. Something that seems to be a badge of honour for this current Tory Prime Minister. If I, the Government, will not deliver on the promise to level up the country, then Labour will. I said that we should be investing more, not less. I do not see how that can be reconciled with the UK Government's cut to the capital budget of nearly 7 per cent. That does not deliver more, it delivers less, the length and breadth of Scotland. I am pleased that we have been able to improve some parts of the bill and the concerns raised regarding part 1 do not detract from the progress made regarding parts 3 and 6. The amendments that we have negotiated to part 6 and by consequence part 3 recognise that the consent of the Scottish ministers must be sought before the UK Government makes decisions on devolved matters that will directly impact on Scotland's environment. To Edward Mountain, as a convener of the net zero committee, I am very happy to take forward the issue that he raised about parliamentary scrutiny, and I will ensure that that has progressed. I am grateful to the First Minister for giving way. Although I applaud the Government's success in securing the changes that have been made in the bill that protect devolution, would the First Minister agree with me that it would have been best for the Government not to have had to face that by having a United Kingdom Government that respected devolution in the first place? To John Swinney, that, as ever, he makes a very important point. The fact that we have had to negotiate at length in such detail over provisions that really should have respected devolution in the first place is a sign of the starting point of the UK Government. That is to try to remove and undermine devolution and to remove the powers, not just of the Scottish Government but of this Parliament. That should be something that every one of us on a cross-party basis should be very concerned about indeed. In terms of the UK Government's commitment to a Scotland Act Order reinstating specific powers of Scottish ministers rendered in operative following Brexit, it is an important step forward in the wider context of our Government's capacity to assess and regulate critical offshore renewables projects and related infrastructure, as I said earlier. With all the changes that have been made, I think that those are significant. However, we have to get back to the point of part 1. I thought that Kenny Gibson made some very important points around part 1 of the bill. His committee has asked for Michael Gove, as the Secretary of State for the Department of Leveling Up Housing and Communities, to provide evidence at this cross-party committee. I hope that that is something that the UK Government will respond to. As I said to Edward Mountain, I look forward to working with the FPAC committee around these matters as we take them forward.