 O collecting a the next item of business is a debate on motion 2158 in the name of Richard Lockhead, on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and the UK Government's Leveling Up Agenda in Scotland. Whenever I would invite members who wish to participate to press the request to speak buttons or to put a R in the chat function if they are joining us remotely. I call on Ben Macpherson to speak to and move the motion for around 11 minutes. Murdoff Sir, mae ein ballwafu'r dynnu'n hawdd yng Ngogledd Llywodraeth i'r ddiechell gyda'r ddefnyddio eu ffondi, ac efallai, yna'r gwylliant i'r ddarparugym Duodraethau i'r ddychioedd i'r ddyfoddiadau a'r ddychelidau ei ddechrau. Rydyn ni'n bwysig o'i sicrwm gyda'r ddymoglwydau a'r ddymoglwydau ac yn ddegwyd frysgol ei dddigol ihawn i'r cyfreidio. Ar gael i'r Unif, sydd yr UK iechyd yn deunydd o'i uniau eu Llywodraethol a'r Gweithgell hynny, mae gweithio dda nhw eu Llywodraeth yn ymddwun i'r portbwyais a'r ysgolwmp Arliei a'i uniau yw'r uniau yn Fyritagol. Mae Llywodraeth Oedon yn fewn i ddannog ei Llywodraeth a'r Cyfrannu i Gwyrdd Skifryg ac, oherwydd, ac mae gwrthwyr o'ch pwyllfa oes gwyllte i fynd ynryg, All policies being unfairly dictated by Westminster by passing this Parliament and the Scottish Government. Indeed, the use of the Internal Market Act by the UK Government and their roll-out of their levelling up agenda confirms what we feared would happen with our share of vital funding as they dragged us out of Europe. Westminster is reducing this Parliament's autonomy. By unashamedly politicising the replacement of EU funds, the UK Government is causing our places and people to lose access to the welcome benefits and fiscal stability previously afforded to them by our stewardship of EU funds. In turn, overall, it is our Scottish communities that will ultimately suffer as a result—I will give way to Miles Briggs. I thank the minister for giving way. The problem in minister might have on this, though. If the UK Government's shared prosperity fund is so flawed, why is it his SNP council leaders across Scotland are applauding it and welcoming this huge investment in our country? I go back to my point on principles, and I will say more of this in due course. Although additional funding for Scotland will be embraced by regional partners, those announcements hide the problematic nature of the fund and how it has been developed and delivered by the UK Government and the manner in which that has been done. I will give way to Mr Johnson and now I will have to make some progress. I thank the minister for giving way. He is right. It is about principles and fairness, but would it not be better to argue that £173 million is unconsequential in tackling fairness rather than turning it into a constitutional grievance match? Mr Johnson makes that point in good faith, however. I would want to see the Labour Party as the party that, to their credit, was behind the conception of this Parliament, standing a bit firmer and a bit stronger in defence of its powers. As a member of the European Union, Scotland was respected and trusted to make decisions about the priorities for our nation. Had we remained in the European Union, as was of course the clear preference of the Scottish people, we would have had full control over the funding that was allocated to us. Indeed, had the UK Government chosen to give the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations our rightful place at the table as the UK shared prosperity fund was being developed, we could have continued the successful delivery of this replacement funding. At numerous meetings with UK ministers, Scottish and other devolved Ministers repeatedly asked for more details on the shared prosperity fund and meaningful involvement in its development, but we were largely kept in the dark and kept out the room. Personally, I experienced this on numerous occasions as Europe minister and saw the same happen to colleagues. Instead of choosing collaboration, the UK Government opted to work in isolation, risking the benefits that EU investment has brought to Scotland over many decades. The UK Government has taken it upon themselves to make those decisions for us, not with us, sweeping aside legitimate concerns about their approach from devolved nations and voting in the Internal Market Act 2020. The financial assistance clauses in the Internal Market Act confer new powers on UK ministers to spend directly on a wide range of devolved matters by passing parliamentary scrutiny here at Holyrood. That is not only devious and undemocratic, but it also risks duplication and waste in the delivery of policies and services and blurs accountability with white hall-led programmes in policy areas that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. In short, the UK Internal Market Act 2020 is stripping away the rightful power and authority of this Parliament, and that is something that everyone in the chamber, regardless of their political allegiance, should be very disturbed about. One last intervention. Stephen Kerr. I am grateful to the minister for giving away that. This is clearly not the sentiment that has been shared by Cecil Miklejohn, who is the leader of Falkirk Council, who, in relation to the UK Government's levelling up fund, welcomed it. Although it is very welcome, we support her economic recovery, as she said. I am quoting exactly from her very words. She talked about how the Falkirk Council was content to work with both tiers of government to ensure that we continue to benefit from such funds. Individual and collectively successful projects will have a significant effect on Falkirk's communities as they rebuild. The point is that the SNP councils on the ground, involved with the UK Government, are supportive of the additional money. I think that I have touched on that issue in response to Mr Briggs. Again, it is clear that the Scottish Conservatives do not want to stand up for the powers of this Parliament. A key example of the concerns that we have is the recently announced UK Government's multiply programme aimed to improve adult numeracy across the UK. That programme will be top-sliced from the UK prosperity fund and will focus on education and skills policies that are clearly within our devolved competency. They are not able to tell us how that will work or how it will interact with the existing landscape in Scotland. Today, we are faced with the start realisation that the Internal Market Act has enabled the UK Government to undermine the delivery of devolved areas of competency in a manner that I have just stated. What else do we know of the elusive UK-shared prosperity fund? Not a lot, as it turns out. Westminster claimed back in 2018 that this would be a full replacement for the EU structural funds. It also told us that it would be at least comparable in value to the funds that were being lost. From the outset, the Scottish ministers set out a number of red lines on replacement funding. One of those was that Scotland should not lose out financially compared with the current level of funding that it received at that point from the EU. Another point that was noted in our red lines was our expectation that we would be afforded the status of equal partner in the process, rather than of consultee. On the first of the red lines, we have been promised further detail for over three years, and all that we have learned since 2018 is that it will be worth a little over £2.5 billion. As COSLA noted in its paper, Replacing EU Structural Funds, the quantum offered by the chancellor confirms that the UK-shared prosperity fund will only meet the previous ministerial commitment of £1.5 billion per annum in 24-25, only issuing £400 million in 22-23 and £700 million in 23-24. COSLA also states that it is worth noting that to meet the UK Government ministerial commitment of £1.5 billion per year from 2022, the autumn budget proposals amount to a net loss of £1.9 billion for 2022-24. By those calculations offered by COSLA, there is no way that we can agree that the shared prosperity fund is a replacement for EU funding. We absolutely reject the UK Government's claim that it will keep its promise that Scotland will not lose out. On the second of the red lines that I talked about a moment ago about being an equal partner, we have had to raise several times our deep disappointment at the lack of engagement. As the UK Government slowly worked through the details of the funding in devolved areas, the UK Government made no attempt to seek advice on how best to deliver the funding, how it ought to be used and structured. Instead, officials are told about decisions after their fact as a statement of intent. That is not a partnership of equals. On the second of the red lines that I mentioned, although we are still under the impression that Scotland would decide for itself how to use the funds, we set out our plan for SPF in November 2020. We set out a plan that was developed in consultation with 171 organisations and in partnership with Professor David Bell of Stirling University and Professor John Batchelor of Strathclyde University. Those plans envisage approximately £180 million per annum being devolved to the Scottish Government to provide comparable replacement funding for ERDF, ESF, the leader programme and the European Territorial Co-operation programme, etc. Under European structural funds and within the plan, Scotland had long-term certitude over our future funding. Under the UK Government, we still have not even been told whether the allocation to Scotland will be an appropriate sum or match our expectations. That means that we cannot plan the best use for the funding. I am here to advocate for the Scottish Government and the recipients of the funding. We need details in order to make the kind of strategic decisions and plans that are necessary to deliver benefits. With only months left, the chances of that being able to be realised are being reduced daily by the UK Government. Indeed, the Royal Society of Edinburgh shared our position, highlighting that the continued uncertainty means that it is not possible for national and local governments, along with other potential delivery partners, to make firm plans about how the funding will be used. I have offered to demonstrate today that the UK Government's unilateral and paternalistic approach to levelling up and the SPF has reduced the potential benefit of such investment. The Scottish Government wants to see our communities and businesses thrive, so we will take the opportunity to stress to the UK Government that we expect to be treated as a full and equal partner in the development of the UK shared prosperity fund. We have said that, and we will reiterate it, and we retain the belief that Scotland's share of the funding ought to be fully devolved so that we can target in a manner that suits the needs of Scotland's people, communities and businesses best. In conclusion, the Parliament must ensure that the devolution settlement is not encroached on further. The UK Government's levelling up agenda has only complicated policy development within Scotland and ultimately infringed on the sovereignty of this Parliament to the detriment of the Scottish people. It is vital that we retain control in Scotland over any new arrangements that are put in place, otherwise that threatens to be a significant power grab over Scotland's autonomy to target investment and to make decisions based on transparent evidence that shows what will bring greatest benefits for the people, businesses and communities that are involved. It must mean that a change of heart from a UK Government position. I move the motion in Richard Lochhead's name. Before calling the next speaker, I can advise the chamber that time is very tight. I will have to ask for interventions to be accommodated in member speeches. I call Miles Briggs to speak to and move amendment 2158.2 for seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by sending my best wishes to Richard Lochhead for SPD recovery. I am sorry that the minister has had to come with this week's latest grievance to the chamber from the Government. In the five years in which I have been at MSP, I do not think that I have ever seen a Government motion so confused as a one put forward for today's debate. The motion manages to not only contradict itself in a spectacular way but also talk down Scotland, because the SNP Green Government motion for debate today on the one hand complains that the UK Government has the audacity to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in Scotland and on the other hand states that these very same millions of pounds are simply not enough. So what is really behind today's latest manufactured constitutional grievance? I hope that the member will acknowledge at some point that these monies are not acts of charity but are actually Scottish taxpayers' monies. Miles Briggs. This is a huge investment in our whole United Kingdom. We should all be welcome. I am glad that the member welcomes that as well. Perhaps what is really behind this grievance today is that, for 14 years in office, the SNP has not acted to level up Scotland, have not invested in our communities. I would like to pay tribute to the many local organisations and groups and the local authorities across Scotland that have worked so hard on the local bids that have been put forward. There are many positive projects to the community renewal fund and the shared prosperity fund. Although we may have seen this victim eldrew from one foot of a grave like motion put forward today, their hard work and dedication to their communities should not be undermined by what the ministers have put forward. The truth is that the UK Government is working to level up funding across Scotland. That should be welcome. That should be something that we should all support. I will not have the time unless the Deputy Presiding Officer has any in hand. It is therefore welcome, I believe, to see SNP council leaders across the country warmly welcome that funding. In the spirit of that, I want to congratulate them on the positive work that they have done and played to help to successfully take forward local bids, the innovative projects that will help to breathe new life into towns, villages, rural and coastal communities across Scotland. The UK Government is committed to levelling up in every corner of our United Kingdom, backing local projects that will make a real difference to all our communities. Together, the three funds that have been put forward and announced will help to unleash the potential of people and places right across our country. The £200 million of funding through the UK Government renewal fund will help local areas to prepare for the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. That scheme will see a UK-wide funding to match all former EU national regional development funds, reaching £1.5 billion a year. There is incredible talent right across our great country and this national investment will help to unlock that potential. Projects such as the £218,000 fund for employment and wellbeing programmes across housing associations in the Scottish Borders will help to deliver digital skills, financial literacy and promote positive mental health, or the £400,000 to create a seaweed academy in Argyll and Bute. I am not quite sure what that will look like, but I am sure that my colleague Donald Cameron will be talking about it later, or here in my own Lothian region. In fact, in Ben Macpherson's constituency, the £16 million to help to restore the historic be-listed granting gas holder will help to kick-start the regeneration of Edinburgh's waterfront. As Edinburgh MSPs, we should be right behind that and driving that investment for our area. This is an ambitious urban development project that will deliver sustainable economic growth and real jobs for Edinburgh. There are so many great projects across Scotland that I cannot touch upon all of them in the time that I have, but they will work to improve and invest in our communities and drive success for future prosperity and wellbeing of all our communities. That is why we on the benches and the UK Government want to see that investment in our communities, because communities across Scotland for too long have felt left behind and forgotten about. Today's debate is very much a tale of two Governments. What have the SNP Green Government ever done to level up communities across Scotland? From what we have seen from the motion today, the answer is simply nothing. For 14 years, the SNP Government has taken powers of local authorities. The UK Government is working with local government to empower our communities. I say today to SNP Green MSPs and this motion, stop talking Scotland down. It is time both of Scotland's Governments work together in the national interest to benefit every community in every part of our country. Those investments in all of our communities show that people and the UK Government can level up our country and drive economic growth here in Edinburgh, right across Scotland. Mr Briggs acknowledged the unfortunate irony of the Conservatives talking about levelling up when they have presided over a decade of austerity policy, massive cuts to the welfare state and really challenging cuts to the devolved Governments across the UK over that period. The only thing that the minister failed to say was that he has also presided over the highest budget this Parliament and the Scottish Government have ever seen. He forgot to mention that point for some reason. I wonder why that is. However, as I have said, those investments are investments in our communities and our people. They show the UK Government's commitment to levelling up. That is something that we should all welcome. As we emerge from the pandemic and face the huge challenges ahead, let us work together to make sure that we realise the potential of every community in Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. Indeed, Mr Briggs, time is tight. I can give a little bit of time back for interventions, so I would not encourage members to think that they cannot take an intervention, but it is also not an invitation for members to shout their interventions from a sedentary position, and that applies to all of the benches. I now call on Rhoda Grant to speak to a amendment 2158.3, for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I think that there is a real danger that this debate is set to focus on constitutional wrangling rather than the needs of our constituents. I would appeal to both the SNP and Conservatives not to do that. Of course, those funds should have been devolved, but the SNP cannot sit on the side of the angels here. We know that, when they come into power, the first thing that they did was centralise EU funds, funds that had been previously devolved to local government. That said, we in the Scottish Labour Party want to see both our Governments working together with councils and communities to tackle the wealth divide. Poverty is increasing, something that has hardly merited a mention so far in this debate today. We want to create a country where everyone can live life to their full potential, free from the blight of poverty, so this debate must be about levelling up the regions and tackling the age-old wealth divides. It is fitting that this debate is happening on international equal pay day. That marks the day in the year when women on average effectively stop earning relative to men because of the gender pay gap. It is not just about equal pay for the same job, it is about where jobs are predominantly done by women are lower paid than those predominantly done by men. This is made even worse as women bear the brunt of caring costs. Only last week we heard about how long women have been disproportionately affected by long Covid during the members' debate. A week before, we heard about delays in the rolling out of funding for childcare, again affecting women up and down the country on their ability to work. We know that women carry out the bulk of caring responsibilities, leaving them more likely to leave work during the pandemic. They are also more likely to be in part-time work, which is lower paid. The recent cut in universal credit has also disproportionately impacted on women because they are more likely to depend on it. The Scottish Government's own analysis in the gender pay gap action plan report for 2021 suggested that the pandemic could exacerbate existing labour market inequalities for protected groups, including women. As we recover from the pandemic, we must ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed into policy, design and services so that we protect and advance women's equality, particularly in relation to tackling poverty, promoting access to and progression within good jobs and supporting business growth. We must also tackle regional disparities. Cost of living in rural areas is significantly higher than those in urban areas. Additional minimum living costs for households in remote rural Scotland can add 15 to 30 per cent to a household budget. Poverty is rife, but hidden childcare is limited and is often difficult to access due to the lack of public transport and the lack of provision. Don't get free bus travel to school to access education, but not for nursery education. The Scottish Government has recommendations and research advice and reports on how to improve equality. They must act. Inclusive growth has been a feature of the Scottish Government's economic strategies since 2007 in an attempt to narrow regional inequalities, yet, as we approach 2022, the SNP Government is no closer to achieving it. Regional inequality across Scotland is not currently being sufficiently addressed by either the investment from the UK Government's levelling up fund or the Scottish Government. That is why Scottish Labour is calling on the Scottish Government to implement new regional equality targets within the national performance framework to tackle employment and skill gaps across the region. Maybe just maybe if they had worked with local government to look at a strategy for levelling up funds, we could have made some progress. Another drawback is that both our Governments depend on flawed indicators to identify poverty. Those work well in urban areas, but are frankly useless in rural areas where poverty is largely hidden, because the very poor live in the same postcode as the very rich and therefore are cancelled out. These levelling up funds are set to replace EU funding, but what they miss and what the EU understood is the issue of peripherality. We are now in a situation where Highland Council and Western Isles Council, with huge pockets of hidden rural poverty, have been downgraded and will not receive comparable funding to which they have received in the past from Europe. There must be a better way of ensuring that levelling up happens. In order to level up, there must also be levelling down. What is not clear is how we redistribute wealth to ensure that our society receives the levelling that it needs. It is heartbreaking to see people struggle in the grip of poverty while others accrue obscene wealth. The recent debate about second jobs for MPs and MSPs brings this into sharp relief. Our society has become more and more polarised between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Our public services are no longer coping. Now is the time for action. We, in the Scottish Labour Party, are asking both our Governments to set aside their constitutional wrangling, to put the best interests of our constituents to the fore and to work together to ensure that levelling up becomes a reality for all. Thank you, Ms Grant. I do not think that you moved the amendment. I did at the beginning, but I am happy to move it again. I moved the amendment to my name. Better choice than not at all. Thank you, Ms Grant. I now call on Willie Rennie to speak to you in move amendment 2158.1 for again six minutes, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The two groups of nationalists in this Parliament do love a good stromash over power and control. They hunt for evidence and fabricate the circumstances to perpetuate division, bitterness and distrust, and we have seen that today in spades. Neither the Conservatives nor the SNP are fund of partnership, of building bridges and working together. They want the power all for themselves. The Scottish Government never had direct control over the EU funds of various shades. Those decisions were made in Brussels, but is it sensible for the UK to make all the decisions about the allocation of the successor funds now that we have left the EU? Of course it is not. No matter how much I love this current Scottish Government, there is little doubt that the institutions of government and parliament have built up an expertise and an understanding of the needs of local communities that would be of value to anyone seeking to allocate funds here. Duplicating the administrative processes and institutions for those new funds would be a waste of time and money. The Conservative Government and the Conservative Benches here would do well to recognise that. Equally, is the Scottish Government best placed to have a strategic overview about the relative needs of different parts of the United Kingdom? Of course it is not, and the Scottish Government should be mature enough to recognise that as well. I would like to be helpful. It is quite obvious that we need a partnership approach. Some might call it federalism. My amendment, which I move now, calls on the UK Government to establish a… See, it does not like partnership, it does not like federalism because it is a sustainable option for the whole of the UK and it wants to break up the UK. It should recognise that we need a mature approach. Willie Rennie for taking the intervention. Is he aware that the UK Government did engage all the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, in developing those funds and sought advice at the short-listing stage on projects, including on deliverability, but also alignment with existing provisions? There is a significant difference between consulting and having partnership. Partnership means actively being involved in the decision-making process from the beginning. It is important that we understand that. No one should have a veto in this process. No one should have a veto. Equally, everyone should work together to get a consensus across the piece. Equally, Westminster should not always have the final say when there is a disagreement. It needs to be proper partnership. I recognise what Donald Cameron says, but it does not reflect the kind of the United Kingdom that I want to see, which is a genuine partnership of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That is the best way to sustain the United Kingdom rather than the cavalier approach that the Conservatives are adopting just now. My proposal is to have a joint council for levelling up that would agree an overseas spending in relation to the levelling up agenda and the UK share prosperity fund. That council would include representatives of the constituent authorities of the United Kingdom so that it is a proper partnership. There would be no veto. The UK ministers would not have the final say on areas of dispute. Each member of the council would have to work incredibly hard to build a fair majority in favour of their proposals, but no one—this is important—no one in communities across Scotland or across the United Kingdom would forgive any partners in the partnership of federalism. If we engaged in a nationalist-inspired power struggle, we would deny them the desperately needed funds that they needed in their communities. I am afraid that this debate today is just inspired by grievance on both sides. We need to move up and mature in order to recognise what we need for the future. That would be a model of partnership. We could perhaps roll out to other areas of interest where there is a common interest across the United Kingdom. It would ingrain partnership, it would ingrain a way of working together. You could call it a form of qualified majority voting. It would mean that no one would have a veto. It would mean that there would be proper partnership. That is what we need for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that the Conservatives just do not get it. They are part of the problem of the constitutional grievance, and they add to the problems of the constitutional grievance with acts like this. Just consulting, just asking, is not enough. It needs to be a proper partnership, yes, very please. I enjoy a lecture from Willie Rennie. Does he not realise that this whole programme has been put together, working with local authorities across Scotland? He used to believe in local democracy. What has gone wrong? Willie Rennie, you need to be winding up. When lecturers give a lecture, they expect the students to listen. I am afraid that Miles does not listen too often to what I am trying to say. Of course consulting is fine, but we need partnership to make sure that we can sustain this United Kingdom. I am afraid that the Conservatives have a lot to learn, but the nationalists should just give up on the grievance. It is difficult to imagine that any rational person with a commitment to Scotland could possibly object to today's Government motion. Predictably, we can therefore rely on the opposition of the Tories. If the introduction by the UK Government of a shared prosperity fund and so-called levelling up agenda signals anything, it is a recognition of the historic and systemic failure of successive UK Government's economic decision making. The funds are not to be placed under the control of the nations of the UK who are directly responsible to the people who elect them, but they will be under the control of the very institutions of the UK state that have created the failures in the first place. You could not make it up. Bringing in funding to deliberately bypass this institution reveals a political motive. Make no mistake, the aim is to undermine the role of the democratically elected Scottish Government, this Scottish Parliament and thereby the rights of the Scottish people. The motive is clear to undermine Scotland's democracy. I was wondering whether the member was also critical of the EU when they were given funds directly to local authorities. Was that an attack on that establishment? I think that he missed the point about the say that our democratically elected Scottish Government had in that. Firstly, the levelling up funds will ostensibly be allocated on the basis of needs, but that definition of need has been developed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for England without any consultation with the Scottish Government. The first stage of prioritisation is based on an index that is made up of three components, productivity, unemployment and skills. However, those weightings take no account of national variations. Incredibly the same weightings apply to the city of London as applied to my constituency of Falkirk East and even to our unique Scottish Islands. The second stage of needs assessment focuses on transport connectivity. You might have imagined that transport connectivity would be particularly helpful for Scotland's island and rural communities. However, the assessment utilises English-only data and the Strathclyde University business school points out in a quote, failure to integrate connectivity data from Scotland has contributed to Orkney, Shetland and the Highlands being placed in the category that is least likely to benefit from the fund alongside areas such as the city of London. You could not make that up, either. How on earth can a so-called levelling up fund that ignores data from Scotland, based on criteria that is determined by England's Ministry of Housing, that ignores the economic and other policies enacted by this Scottish Parliament, be seen as anything other than a direct attack on the democratic institutions and rights of the Scottish people? Turning now to the internal market act of December 2020, not only did Brexit mark a turning point in taking Scotland out of Europe against our wishes, but it too enables direct UK Government action in economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities and sport. Again, just don't take my word for it, Strathclyde University business school again. This approach has been made possible by the internal market act, which provides a new means for the UK Government to allocate spending in the devolved territories to areas that should previously have been thought to be the purview of the devolved Governments. Again, without agreement and without permission, the power grab by the UK Government enables explicit powers to directly spend in areas that, by pass a Barnett formula, were previously funding provided by the EU was allocated to projects by our Scottish Government. After this point, a failure of democracy, more than demonstrable failure that there is no partnership equals, it is a clear demonstration that power devolved is power retained and that power can and has been removed. On that point, I will give way. I am grateful to Michelle Thomas for giving me a hit to interrupt her winch, because that is what it is. However, the fact is that in Falkirk, Cecil Mikle-John, in the context of welcoming the investment decisions for Falkirk, the constituency that she represents, whether it is at Westfield Roundabout or the community funding that has come, she welcomes it. She says that we are content to work with both tiers of government to ensure that we continue to benefit from such funds. That is the pragmatism of local democracy, as opposed to the ideological blindness that we hear from the front page here. Of course. Let me put it on the record. I welcome a few roundabouts, but I regret the payment for the few roundabouts more of our Scottish money coming from Westminster. The point that I would make is that, if this is the summit of your ambition, more money of our money coming from Westminster, a couple of roundabouts—let's not forget, Scottish family on Google Box—is simply not good enough. I am considerably more ambitious for Scotland, and let's start with £782 million from the EU being replicated. Those actions will not be changed by this Parliament because we cannot be. We do not have the power. I issue a call here because we have a voice. Scotland has a voice. I call in Civic Scotland. All those who fought for this Parliament, all those who, like me, believe that the power to spend our money raised in Scotland for the benefit of our Scottish people according to our democratically expressed wishes, can only be achieved by becoming a normal country, like any other, and that is independent. Thank you, Ms Thomson. I now call on Graham Simpson to be followed by Alasdor Allan again. Six minutes, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start this debate by talking about a project in my own region of central Scotland. It has already been mentioned. The Westfield roundabout in Falkirk is going to receive £20 million from the UK Government's levelling up fund. It is a futuristic-looking scheme that creates four loops that appear to hang in the air. The new roundabout and pedestrian-struck cycle bridge will ensure that people are safe when crossing at this key junction and it will enable better connection for active travel. It is a key link between Falkirk and Grangemouth, close to the new Fourth Valley College, Helix Park and the Planned Gateway project, and it is expected to bring more shops and housing. When Rishi Sunak announced the funding, Falkirk Council's SNP leader Cecil Michal-John, already mentioned by her number one fan, Stephen Kerr, called it Welcome News. Why, if an SNP council leader can see the benefits of the funding for her own area, can an SNP minister like Ben Macpherson not do the same? I will give way. I am grateful to the member. Does he not recognise that there is a bit of a gap in rhetoric in reality? While a few spruced-up roundabouts in shopping centres are well and good, that is hardly the strategic levelling up that the rhetoric from his party would seem to suggest, is it? I am going to list a long list of projects later on in my speech, and it is not just a few. Cecil Michal-John also went on to say this. It builds up the programme of works that we are preparing in our investment zone. It will complement a series of measures that will help to drive forward our area's economy following the pandemic. The new roundabout and bridge will ensure that people are safe when crossing. It will enable better connection for active travel. That is a great thing between key sites such as the Helix park, Falkirk community stadium and 4th valley colleges new campus. I am still quoting the SNP council leader here. The roads will be widened to accommodate increasing traffic and each of the four rings of the iconic bridge will provide an elevated platform to view the local area and a safe way of getting around without disrupting traffic. It sounds great. It is a great project. That roundabout will give way again. I am very grateful to Mr Simpson giving way. I am asking this question in all sincerity because I want to have a deeper understanding of the position of the Scottish Conservatives. Is there any area of devolved competency where the Conservatives think that the UK Government should not engage in direct spending? My view is the levelling up fund and another fund that I am going to come on to is a great thing. It is an example of one of our Governments working with local councils to improve their areas. Frankly, the minister should be applauding that. The Westfield roundabout project is just one of eight initiatives to receive levelling up fund cash and the others are the development of Inverness Castle, a new marketplace in Aberdeen city centre, a direct route between Glasgow and three towns in North Ayrshire, transforming Pollock stables and Sawmill in Glasgow to become a net zero heritage centre, redeveloping Granton waterfront. Ben Macpherson should be applauding that, remodeling the artisan shopping centre in Dumbarton and connecting the advanced manufacturing innovation district to Paisley, which Mr Arthur should be happy about. Other SNP council leaders have welcomed the extra funding and what a shame their parliamentary counterparts revert to type. Then there is the community renewal fund. Lanarkshire is getting more than £3 million from that for a range of employment and enterprise projects. It is going to be used to engage local people and businesses and increase skills and employability at the community level. There were six successful bids that have been awarded coming to just over £3 million. Huge investment in our local communities in Lanarkshire from Rishi Sunak and the UK Government. The funding is going to help to improve skills and employability in our local communities. It is going to make a real difference to the lives of local people. It is a welcome boost from the Chancellor that demonstrates the benefits and support that Lanarkshire north and south gains from being part of a strong United Kingdom. Presiding Officer, both those funds show the UK Government working hand in hand with local communities in Scotland. It is a little wonder that councils are so grateful given the way they have been treated by the SNP over the years. Ben Macpherson should be ashamed of the motion that he has presented today. Ashamed. It is petty. It is not like him. It is grievance ridden. It is unbecoming of him. Parliament should reject it and vote for the amendment in Miles Briggs' name. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I now call on Alasdair Allan, who will be followed by Neil Bibby, Dr Allan, at six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My constituency, in a hellen in a year, has received significant investment from EU funding sources over the years. Much of it, to answer a point that was made by an earlier speaker, was in what we might call its long adjournment. The support has helped to facilitate major infrastructure projects, transport links and new community facilities in the islands, as well as contributing to the establishment of the University of the Highlands and Islands, and delivering wider community benefits through numerous training and social inclusion programmes. Life for islanders would have been far more challenging without it. For example, the causeways linking Burnary and North Uist, Erisgyn South Uist and Wattersea and Barra. I imagine that, without them, I would now be dedicating even more of my time than I do to the issue of ferries. In Harris, the significance of funding from the EU is for invaluable infrastructure, such as the Scalpy bridge and the road to Renegadeal, cannot be overstated. Throughout the entirety of my constituency, the loss of financial support from the EU will be sorely felt unless the UK Government fully commits to allocating at least the same levels of investment that are needed to replace the loss of EU structural funds, as well as the funding from schemes such as the leader programmes and the common agricultural payments for crofters. It is disappointing yet unsurprising that the UK Government's engagement with the devolved nations over the development of EU funding replacement schemes has been much weaker than the close working relationship that the Scottish Government had with the European Commission on the development of the structural fund programmes. Of course, the UK internal market bill allows Westminster, rather than this place, to allocate funds previously dispensed by the EU, and it is increasingly clear that the UK is not, in that respect, a partnership of equals despite many attempts to convince us otherwise. Spending decisions for Scotland being made not based on the Scottish Government's knowledge and experience but on a UK Government agenda simply adds to the complexity of the funding landscape and creates a confused, incoherent policy framework, as well as financial inefficiencies. To address a key question that has come up several times today, to address the question of gratitude, I suppose that you might call it, everybody, of course, wants to level up. However, ill-defined that phrase might be, everyone wants to share prosperity. Those principles are not controversial. We should remember, however, that when the UK Government spends money in Scotland it is, as we have discussed earlier, spending Scottish taxpayer money. Neil Bibby. If everyone shares that agenda, would the member agree with me that it was very regrettable that the Scottish Government did away with cohesion targets that were aimed at reducing regional inequality and that they should be reintroduced as a matter of urgency? As I said, the Scottish Government managed to work with the European Commission very well on some of the issues of promoting social cohesion that the member is alluding to, and I am sure that we will do so again in the future. However, what I want to say about the situation that we have now is that we have had in the past an understanding that money will be directed and spent in devolved areas in Scotland by a Government that has gone to the trouble of being elected in Scotland at some point more recently than the Suez crisis. It is clear that the way in which the funds will now be allocated represents a UK Government infringement on areas that are firmly and fully devolved. If the Tories do not see it as their job to stand up for the powers of this Parliament in this place to defend Scotland's interests, then many of us unapologetically do. Money that Scotland would have previously received for instance under the seven-year EU structural fund programmes will now be distributed annually by the UK Government according to their own priorities, which could leave Scotland worse off. Going forward, the UK Government must engage properly with the Scottish Government in order to ensure that the development of any UK-wide funding programmes—I must make some progress—in any UK-wide funding programmes such as the UK shared prosperity and levelling up funds meet the needs of Scotland's local communities. If the UK Government continues to attempt to impose its own agenda and undermine the devolution settlement, it raises unavoidable questions about whether, in its hearts of hearts, if that is an entirely relevant phrase, the UK Government truly believes in the Scottish Parliament's existence at all. Scotland continues to have to deal with the negative consequences of a Brexit that we did not vote for, with a last-minute hard Brexit deal that satisfies nobody, leaving us far worse off than we were before. We are a European nation and it is my hope, along with many other people, that it is not too long before we are able once again to enjoy the benefits of EU membership this time as an independent country. Meanwhile, the UK Government's spending review plans for levelling up and the UK shared prosperity fund are, in the manner of its operation, an infringement on the powers of this Parliament and do not come close to matching in real terms a significant EU funding revenue from which Scotland has benefited for over 40 years. I echo the calls to the UK Government to honour the promises that it made to Scotland and to work with the Scottish Government, Presiding Officer, to ensure the continued development of this type of funding and to keep the interests of Scotland's citizens and Scotland's democracy at its heart. Thank you, Dr Allan. I now call Neil Bibby, who will be followed by Dillian Martin again. Six minutes, Mr Bibby. This Parliament was formed not just from a desire to bring decisions closer to the people of Scotland, but to use those decision-making powers for a purpose to address the economic and social trauma caused by deindustrialisation in decades gone by. People created this Parliament to advance social and economic justice in the hope that better decision making would create a better Scotland for future generations. Every day we are here, we must measure the progress that we make as a nation against the ambitions of those who founded the Parliament all those years ago. Someone who represents the west of Scotland and represents many of the communities who endured the collective trauma of deindustrialisation and inequality. I have to be frank that those ambitions have not been realised. Scotland is a far from equal country. I was originally looking forward to this debate and today should have been about confronting regional inequalities neglected for too long, but with a few exceptions there has been far too much pointless constitutional bickering between the SNP and Tories and I don't think it puts Parliament in a good light. As Willie Rennie said, it seems that politics of latest dominated by inequalities real or perceived between nations, not the inequalities that exist within them. Inequalities that have been exacerbated by Covid, inequalities that have not had enough discussion and debate today, Covid has not affected us all the same. It has not affected all areas the same. Four of the five local authorities with the highest Covid death rates are in my west of Scotland region. With 33 Covid related deaths per 10,000 of the population in Renfisher, Renfisher has the worst death rates from this awful virus in the entire country, followed by Weston-Bartonshire, Inverclyde and North Ayrshire. All are areas living with the legacy of deindustrialisation in North Ayrshire and Weston-Bartonshire having the highest levels of unemployment in the whole of Scotland. Some areas have been significantly harder hit than others and those areas need extra support to recover and rebuild. It is not just extra support for the front line like the NHS and local services, we need extra support to rebuild and recover our economy too. If levelling up means anything, it means levelling up the areas in Scotland with above-average economic and social need. In Renfisher, for example, our local economy is suffering because of this pandemic and one of the longest standing economic challenges that we face in Renfisher is the regeneration of Paisley town centre. Not a single penny of this levelling up fund will be spent regenerating Paisley town centre, the largest town in Scotland. The money that is coming to Renfisher is not the sector-specific support that we need for our key industries, such as aerospace and aviation, to compensate for the thousands of jobs that have been lost in recent years. I am calling for the west of Scotland to get its fair share of investment as we build back from this crisis for the reasons that I have outlined. The Tory's policy of levelling up appears to be a PR exercise. You cannot level up an economy when you are levelling down welfare, when you are levelling down workers' rights, but at least the Tories have a policy. Where is the commitment or policy to levelling up in Scotland from the SNP? It is non-existent. The SNP today has brought forward a debate on the Tories' levelling up agenda. You should have been bringing forward a debate on your own levelling up agenda. You obviously have not because you do not have one. The Scottish Government used to, rightly in my opinion, have a cohesion target, which aims to reduce the employment gap between Scotland's regions. It was there levelling up target before the Tories' new-found interest in levelling up, but it was scrapped in 2017 perhaps because it showed that the employment gap was widening. On October last year, I asked the Auditor General to look at the regional inequality and the impact of Covid on the hardest-hit regions. I hope that Audit Scotland and the Audit Committee are looking at those issues, because it is clear that we do not just need to set targets, we absolutely do, but we also need to independently monitor the gap. It is not just the difference in unemployment between Aberdeenshire or Edinburgh compared to areas in my region that caused such concern. The scandal is that the SNP Government has done nothing to remedy the stark inequalities within my region. Look at the claimant count from August 2021, as detailed by the UNS. In eastern Edinburgh, it is 2.8 per cent of the population in eastern Berthenshire, it is 3.2 per cent. Compare those figures to 6.8 per cent in North Ayrshire and 6.7 per cent in western Berthenshire and 5.6 per cent in Inverclyde. Over 18 per cent, almost a fifth of the country's most deprived data zones are in the west of Scotland. The single most deprived zone in the whole country is Greenock Town Centre. Two zones in Fergusley Park and Paisley are in the top 10. I remind the chamber again that those areas are hit hardest by the Covid crisis. Those gaps between our regions reinforce the inequalities in health, life expectancy, education and poverty. It will take more than platitudes or bombast to address the profound regional inequalities. We need action and investment and, more importantly, the political will. In late 2018, Fraser of Andall Institute published its North Ayrshire economic review. There is a sentence in that which applies to the whole of my west of Scotland region and applies to the whole of Scotland. The review said that if significant inroads are to be made in tackling regional challenges, that will require major investment and national strategic support. Leveling up across Scotland and across the UK will take more than sound bites and slogans. It will take more than one-off pots of cash and take leadership, sustained investment and a strategy to genuinely remake and reform our economy so that it is better served left behind communities. It is in the absence of leadership the absence of sustained investment and the absence of strategy that leaves the parties of government exposed today. The challenge for government is to rebalance the economy, to make it work for everyone. Bluntly, if the recovery is not working for the west of Scotland, it is not working at all. For the past five years, the MSPs in our benches warned and feared that the funding streams from the EU, the likes of horizon 2020, EU structural funds, would leave unfilled holes all over Scotland after Brexit. We were never convinced by mendacious slogans on buses or bluster from the likes of Farage and Johnson, promises of sunlit uplands and seas of opportunity. We were skeptical that the much heralded but undefined shared prosperity fund would be an adequate replacement for anything that the EU streams gave us. No one likes someone who peers into the future and warns of its worst portents, the Cassandra of mythology. We were the gloomsters, to quote the Prime Minister, using that blustering, bombastic turn of phrase he has, but sadly we were right. Of course, what we did not quite predict was that the level of support that the Scottish Government gave in regions of Scotland would be wholly decided in London, not Edinburgh. I was here in this Parliament of absolutely no say in where the funds go, the Scottish Government are cut out, the Scottish Parliament are cut out, my Tory colleagues over there, yes, they are cut out too. When it came to Boris Johnson deciding who would get what, he not only sold Aberdeenshire out but his north-east Tory colleagues and they won't show it today, in fact it's only one. I will take an intervention from my north-east MSP. I thank Gillian Martin for taking that intervention. I would just wonder if she would like to join me and welcome in the £730,000 from the community renewal fund that's came to Business Gateway to create a network of enterprise support services. Gillian Martin, it's interesting that you mentioned that because I thought that you were going to mention the revamped Aberdeen market, which I think has got people of colour, for example, as excited as the roundabouts in Falkland, in the Falkirk that we mentioned. Despite the huge tax revenues that my area has sent to the UK Treasury over many decades, Aberdeenshire has been put into the lowest funding tier possible by the UK Government's new funding scheme level 3. We will get a tiny fraction of the EU funding that they promised they would replace in full. Let's not forget the other slap in the face to the north-east that the UK Tory Government has given us and that's the kicking into the long grass, possibly never to be retrieved, of the carbon capture and storage project, the ACARM project and with it the Scottish cluster. That combined with the refusal to back tidal energy projects and do anything about the ridiculous impunitive tariffs for Scottish electricity is proof, as if proof were needed, that the UK Tories do not give two hoots about Scotland's economic future or just transition. In fact, I go as far to say that they are a direct impediment to the north-east leading the way to net zero and transforming the area into the low-carbon energy centre that is its potential. The only Government trying to help us to reach that potential appears to be the Scottish Government. The £500 million transition fund announced by Kate Forbes is proof of that, of course, but we keep on being reminded that there are two Governments in Scotland, at least from Mr Carson, who has been bellowing it out throughout this debate. So, the other one. Seriously, no, because you're not from the north-east and I'm only taking one intervention that was from a north-easter. Forgive me for being poor, OKL, but that's what I am. The first people that should be saying that they need to step up to Boris Johnson are the north-east Tory MPs, Andrew Bowie, David Juget and, of course, Douglas Ross. The UK Chancellor ignored the views of the Scottish Government who worked in good faith and presented plans for the separate Scottish shared prosperity funds. Those plans would have seen a replacement for EU funds managed and decided upon locally between the Scottish Government local authorities and communities. That could be scrutinised by us here in the Scottish Parliament. Instead, the UK Government extended the English shared prosperity fund to cover the whole of the UK and to drive Scotland of an expected £400 million in Barnett consequential over the four-year duration of the fund. That approach potentially leaves Scotland worse off, raises many value for money concerns and undermines devolution. However, the thing that is upsetting me the most, as possibly the thing that I have just heard Neil Bibby being upset about, is the unfairness of the geographical distribution of those funds. They are not arbitrary, they are political. My colleague Richard Thomson MP has shone a light on this consistently in the UK Parliament as north-east Tories squirm with shame and embarrassment on opposite benches, it must be said. Not of taking an intervention. Speaking about the levelling up fund, he said this to the UK Minister for regional growth, Luke Hall. He said that index seemed to be working in rather a curious way. It has not escaped anyone's attention that some Tory target areas in England seem to have done extraordinarily well out of this fund, yet areas such as mine in the north-east of Scotland are languishing in levels 2 and 3 of the fund, despite being forecast to be the hardest hit by Brexit. Two things occur to me on the politics of this, as I close. Promises that Tories have made about Scotland have been an equal partner, that whole lead-not-leave shtick that we heard so much during NDRF, are coming back to haunt them. Secondly, I cannot wait to remind my constituents of this in town hall hustings, ahead of the next independence referendum. Last time we warned like Cassandra, but this time we point to the evidence of the present and the recent past. You watch that people of my area will be in no doubt that Scotland must leave to be our leader, the leader of our future, not shunted to the back of the queue when it comes to funding for our own recovery. An independent country that makes its own decisions based on the needs of our citizens and not on the pork barrel politics of the UK Twilio party. The uneven or unequal development of the economy is, according to political economists, an inevitable function of capitalism. It is seen in various dimensions, different sectors of the economy, for example, developing to varying degrees at different rates. This unevenness can be and has been established on the basis of any number of different metrics, employment rates, income levels, rates of economic growth and so on. It is seen in various scales, too, from intra-urban differences through regional differences to uneven international development. It forms the basis of many inequalities and social injustices that we see every day. It is vital that we do what we can to avoid these dangers, inequality and social injustice of uneven development. It is in that vein that there is much in what Rhoda Grant said earlier that I agree with. A key problem that we have seen in the UK has been the two-speed development that we have experienced for decades. The financialised economy of the south-east of England has been preferred by the success of UK Governments. The UK has never recovered from the mass deindustrialisation of every other part of the country. As always, the Tory assumption is that it is the south-east of England that has got it right and the rest of the country that has got it wrong. Yet the failure to provide the infrastructure for economic development in the rest of the country is a substantial part of the reason why we have a two-speed economy. Of course, we were promised that the funds that the EU had channeled into that infrastructure would be replaced after Brexit. Yet what we see in the UK Government proposals is an exact replication of everything that we were told was wrong with the EU. Decisions made by distant bureaucrats following political agendas that do not necessarily reflect those of the people and funds that do not match in value what they replace. While the UK Government may consider in the words of the Prime Minister that Scottish devolution is a disaster, the problem for him is that people want decisions made much closer to them. We know the real challenges facing us. The climate and ecological crises, as well as the pandemic, mean that we need to create good-quality jobs in a just transition that delivers decarbonisation and social justice, not propping up an increasingly unpopular union by splashing cash to curry favour. That is a point for us in this Parliament, too. We need to base our infrastructure developments in more participatory processes. We have had a climate assembly and we will hear about the outcomes of that soon. I think that we need an infrastructure assembly to decide collectively what infrastructure we need and want, which could then be delivered with local, regional and Scottish input, without further complicating or clattering the economic development landscape. We have worked very hard in Scotland to ensure that fair work standards are at the heart of our infrastructure. We need well-paid jobs, proper partnership with trade unions, procurement that delivers community wealth building and drives down carbon emissions. There seems to be no intention to build any of those standards into the UK funds. Another reason why the UK Government should follow the logic of devolution. What we need is a democratic green industrial revolution. We need to transform our energy system to decarbonise it while creating good jobs. We need to provide high-quality homes that are carbon neutral. We need to be at the forefront of digital connectivity to increase social inclusion and create new opportunities for good-quality, low-carbon work. We need to engage more people in the creation of those projects to identify how best they can deliver for the people of Scotland. What we need is ambition for our infrastructure funding, which is why I am so looking forward to discussions about the £0.5 billion just transition fund that we secured as part of the Scottish Government green co-operation agreement and how that will support communities in the north-east that I represent or the roll-out of the £5 billion investment in our railways. What we do not need is the replacement of the EU structural funds with a slush fund for politically motivated projects to make the case for London rule and imposed on the people of Scotland, nor one that adds to the already cluttered landscape of development funding in this country. Now is the time for us to move away from the old elite decision-making processes. We should be creating national missions supported by this infrastructure spending. We should be bringing Scotland's people behind those missions. As we all know, after COP, we need to build a country that both mitigates and adapts to the climate crisis. We need funding to ensure that that happens. That has to be our priority. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to highlight the blatant attack that is currently under way on this Parliament's powers by the Westminster Government. As a motion states, the UK shared prosperity fund is nothing other than an assault on Scottish devolution settlement. The Scotland act is fundamental for our Parliament. As Westminster Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Michael Gove, who is described by his own colleagues as scheming, unscrupulous and dangerous, is now in charge of spending £4.6 billion a year on the UK shared prosperity fund. That includes the UK community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and the bizarrely named levelling-up fund. That funding comes from Scotland's former contribution to the EU structural funds, which, prior to Brexit, came back through the Scottish Government. That was a devolved power, and the process has been grabbed back by the UK Government in Westminster. Indeed, Mr Gove has made it clear that his commitment to undermine this Parliament. He stated that his department will be, and I quote, establishing direct relationships with the Scottish councils, voluntary and community sector organisations and local education provided by such universities. That is a really quick one, because I am sure that I can read your mind at this point. I am glad that you could not read my mind. Will you cast your mind back to June of this year when you called on the UK Government to invest in the A75? Surely that is something that you would welcome when the connectivity review, which consulted broadly across this country, identified A75 and A75's priority routes, and you asked for the UK Government to make that funding available. I am coming to the A75 actually at the end, Mr Carson, and you will hear what I have to say about that. Mr Gove went on to say that the UK ministry will then formalise agreements with each of the Scottish local authorities, including the arrangements for information sharing, monitoring and evaluation. The technical note for lead authorities in Great Britain also refers to spot checks on those bodies by the UK Government and a requirement for reports to be sent by them to the UK Secretary of State. Again, that was Michael Gove. That regulatory rule will no doubt become a function for the increasing army of civil servants based just across the road in Queen Elizabeth House, the UK Government's hub in Edinburgh. It is now home to 3,000 UK civil servants, which cost the Scottish taxpayer £250 million. The UK Government is planning on directly forming relationships with Scottish local authorities, Scottish public and voluntary sector agencies and Scottish communities. Those are all devolved areas of policy to this Parliament, so if that is not an attack on devolution, I do not know what is, Presiding Officer. To turn to the next assault on devolution is the internal market act. Much of the act is concerned with ensuring that goods and services produced in one part of the UK can be sold without restriction in all other parts. That act creates a means for what is a race to the bottom when it comes to consumer and environmental protections. It prevents the Scottish Parliament from effectively legislating in a whole range of areas, including laws covering the food people put on their tables, which in Scotland is currently produced to high EU animal welfare and food safety standards. Those standards will be undermined by Scotland having to accept lower standards set by a UK Government in their desperate pursuit of harmful trade deals. Members will be aware that, since my election, I have campaigned on this very issue and I have learned a lot from Lester Farmer, Joseph Stanley, and I have warned of the risks that those trade deals pose to Scottish agriculture. Products being brought in will even have chemicals that are currently not allowed to be used in Scotland. Hormones and antibiotics, chemicals like carbadox, cloxicillin and ractopamine, is a hormone intended to make pigs leaner. All those chemicals are currently used in production in Australia, America and Brazil in their meat production. Those countries are which the UK is entering into trade deals with. It is not just future areas of policy that the internal market act threatens. The Scottish Government has already pointed out that the act has been in place since 2018. The Scottish Parliament would not have been able to pass its world-leading legislation on minimum unit pricing alcohol. In fact, it is doubtful that even Scottish licensing rules which prohibit alcohol promotion through discounts would be allowed under the act. The UK Government ministers claim that no specific powers are being removed from Holyrood, but that misses the point. Clause 46 of the act gives Westminster the power to make financial provision in a whole range of devolved areas such as health, education and transport. The priorities for capital spending in those areas are set in Scotland and funding is allocated from a block grant from Westminster. Those new powers allow Westminster to set the priorities. That has taken power away from this Parliament and the Scottish Government. The UK Government, through those new powers, has stated that it will invest in the A75—that is the main road from Gretna to Strinroir in my south Scotland region. Concern constituents have raised with me that the UK Government is only interested in investing in the A75 so that it can create a direct express route to transport nuclear and radioactive waste from the proposed new nuclear power stations to dump it in Bofordsdyke in the north channel of the Irish Sea. I have written to the UK Government and I have asked for the commitment from the UK Government that Bofordsdyke will not be reopened as a dump site for nuclear and radioactive waste, as was used previously. I would ask the minister to join me in those calls. In conclusion, I again call on the UK Government to stop its attack on this Parliament and encourage the Scottish Government to continue to do everything that it can to protect this place. I thank Douglas Lumson, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Lumson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to remind members of my registered interest that shows that I am still a councillor at Aberdeen City Council. The levelling up initiative from the UK Government is devolution in its purest sense, empowering our communities, delivering local projects and funding our local authorities to build back better after our Covid-19. Levelling up will see countless projects that we have heard about some of them today, and up and down the UK will receive the funding that they need to level up, including the city of Aberdeen that Gillian Martens mentioned already, that will receive £20 million to create a new marketplace and revitalise the city centre. That, along with all other projects, will boost skills, employment and enterprise, encourage tourism, support our performing arts, invest in STEM learning and help us to progress towards a net zero future. That can only be a good thing for the people of Aberdeen, the north-east and the whole of Scotland. Of course, the project in Aberdeen is fully in line with the City Council's local outcome improvement plan, which meets fully the needs of our communities and job creation, which makes the SNP motion completely laughable. Instead of welcoming the funding, like many SNP-run councils, and celebrating increased devolution of resources, the devolved SNP-Green Government seems to only be interested in manufacturing endless grievance. It's a disgrace. Hundreds of good causes will receive funding under a new system that is faster, more efficient and less bureaucratic. The matter is simple—good causes receive good funding in good time. Members from the SNP claim that this process disrespects devolution and is an act of centralisation. The fact of the matter is that it enhances devolution from the UK Government right to the heart of our communities. The SNP would do well to remember that we have two Governments in Scotland, the UK Government and the devolved Government in Edinburgh. Frankly, it's laughable to hear that the SNP accused the UK Government of too much centralisation. The UK Government has a strong record on decentralising power and funding. It created 25 directly elected mayors. It created 30 police and crime commissioners, giving more power to local communities. By sharp contrast, what have we seen here in Scotland? Local police force is abolished and centralised into a generic police Scotland. Local police control rooms abolished and centralised away from local communities that they serve. Even Aberdeen, Scotland's third largest city, was not spared from these harsh cuts with the closure of our police control room in 2017. Would the member recognise the outstanding success of the operation of police Scotland in recent years, but particularly in recent weeks, when they undertook the operation of policing cop remarkably well? Absolutely. They did a remarkable job in policing cop. Of course, the benefit of that they were supported by UK police forces to Glasgow and right across Scotland. We have also seen a huge increase in ring fence funding to councils, so it is the SNP Government decided where the local money is spent and not the locally elected decision makers. Planning matters have been overturned by central government, a complete slap in the face to the local councillors who are there to serve their local communities, of course. Out of genuine interest and all sincerity, I believe that he has the planning spokesperson for the Conservatives. Do the Conservatives still support the right of appeal for developers? What we have seen and what needs to be addressed is the amount of planning applications that are drawn in back to the Scottish Government, and the local democracy is overturned. The SNP wants to centralise power at every opportunity. Furthermore, the UK Government has protected the funding of the Scottish Government through the generous Barnett formula, a protection that the Scottish Government does not afford to its local authorities, with local authorities getting an ever-dwindling share of the Scottish Government budget, as COSLA highlighted just this week. The UK Government's record on decentralising power and protecting local funding is far stronger than that of the SNP. I am pleased that Aberdein will receive 300,000 to fund street performances and culture festivals through the community renewal fund. That will be a huge booster city centre, placing artists at the heart of our recovery from the pandemic and creating employment and training opportunities in Aberdein's creative industries. I would like to highlight the hard work done by APA's chief executive, Jane Spears, in ensuring that the funding comes to Aberdein. Aberdein's city centre is swiftly becoming a cultural heartland through the Forward Thinking Council, where Conservatives are our administration. We welcome and thank the UK Government for their commitment and investment in the north-east in our culture, our heritage, our industries and our business. There is no talk of removing investment, no discussion about closing vital industries and no question of overlooking the north-east for our central belt colleagues. Indeed, perhaps the minister would like to explain why Glasgow City Council received more than 440,000 in funding for libraries this week, and yet Aberdein City Council only received 16,000. This Government is no friend of the arts in the north-east. Indeed, the new Aberdein art gallery was funded by the local council. 1.5 million are coming from the UK Government, but not one single penny is coming from the Scottish Government. It is clear that the levelling up agenda will bring funding and prosperity to the north-east, and vital resources to projects that are doing fantastic work up and down our country. That must be encouraged and supported. Many SNP council leaders have welcomed this fund and are applying for resource. Does that not tell you everything about the level of resource that is coming to local councils from the UK Government? Compare how the SNP-Green coalition is treating the north-east. First Minister, just this week, turning her back on 100,000 oil and gas jobs, SNP turning her back on the commitment to dual the A96, freports that the north-east desperately needs, thrown into doubt by the SNP grievance politics. Colleagues, it would be great if we had a Parliament that could simply welcome this funding into Scotland. Thank the UK Government for their investment and move forward with delivering the projects without the grievance politics from the Scottish Government. We now move to closing statements. I call on Willie Rennie to wind up the Liberal Democrats. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Rennie. I think that there has been a tactical blunder from the SNP this afternoon. I think that they expected to unleash fire and fury on the Conservative benches for a betrayal of Scottish democracy. As you have seen from the Conservative benches, they have enjoyed themselves with listing various projects in different parts of the country, poking fun and teasing the SNP benches. They have done that extensively this afternoon. They have learnt from the best, which is the fact that the SNP Government has done exactly that for the past 14 years in power. They have misused finance and power in order to advance their own party. Meanwhile, ordinary people in communities are left out. We do not get the equality, we do not get the fairness, the rebalancing of the economy within the United Kingdom and within Scotland that Neil Bibby was talking about, about the gender equality that we are desperately needing within this country that Rhoda Grant talked about, or the challenges in rural communities that I know very much about and equally those in urban communities. All those issues pale into insignificance because we have a destructive, competitive relationship between our two Governments that are represented here this afternoon. I do not think that that is good for our countries. Although the Conservatives have enjoyed themselves, and I have enjoyed watching themselves enjoying themselves because that does not happen too often, but nevertheless it may be a short-term benefit for them today, but longer-term problems will accrue over time. Meanwhile, we have poface speeches from the SNP benches about constitutional arrangements, which is normally the preserve of the Liberal Democrats. I feel quite upset this afternoon that that has been captured from us by SNP, but they again have only got themselves to blame because the hostile relationship that they have developed with the UK Government over the past 14 years has meant that it is of little surprise sometimes that the Conservatives behave as the way they do, no matter how reprehensible it is that they do that. They are both as bad as each other and it is about this time that this country had a more mature approach to the relationship between our two Governments because we might not end up with debates like this this afternoon. I appreciate the points that he is making, but does he not recognise that it was a fundamental issue when the Conservative Party has been rejected after election Scotland, not narrowly but comprehensively since 1955? Does he not understand the fundamental tensions that that creates? It is not the Scottish Government that has been hollessed out of the Conservative Party, it is the Scottish people out of the ballot box. I recognise the point that he is making, but this is fundamentally the problem. We decided to stay in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom has no matter how much I hate it and I hate it that we have elected a Boris Johnson Government. I hate that that is the case, but that is the world that we live in. If we are going to get on and advance the cause of people in Scotland and the people that we represent in this Parliament, a more mature approach, so rubbing the nose of Conservatives in the dirt every time as the minister has just done will not help, it will not advance us, it will not move us forward and we will end up with more debates just like this today. I had to laugh, I had to really laugh when Ben Macpherson said that he was disappointed with the paternalistic approach of the UK Government. Speak to council leaders across Scotland over the last 14 years, they will tell you about a paternalistic approach from a central and powerful Government, because that is exactly what has happened from here. They have hoovered up powers and even cited the gall to cite Police Scotland, one of the biggest disasters of this Government, with a central call centre system, with a stripping out of civilian staff having a detrimental effect on communities right across Scotland because this Government wanted to take control of police. That is harmed right across, not just how. I am getting into my flow, my old briggs, do not stop me. This is something that has been replicated right across Scotland. They think that they know everything. They think that they have the power and the decisions to make every single decision in Scotland. It is about time that we devolve power right into every community in Scotland. Let us have a much more mature approach. I would have to say, and I have been banging on about that for years, that we need featherlism, because we build in a proper structure for shared power and decisions. We end this destructive competition between our two Governments. We lead with better decisions. We cut out the duplication. We benefit the people in our communities. Although this afternoon has been a bit of fun, I am afraid that the Conservatives will have to learn a little more about how, in order to make sure that we have a united kingdom, that shares power and makes the right decisions for the benefit of the people that Rhoda Grant, Neil Bibby and Daniel Johnson were talking about earlier. We need to make sure that we get proper equality and fairness in this country. That way is not the way to achieve that. I call on Daniel Johnson to wind up for Labour up to six minutes. I guess that I should congratulate Willie Rennie on his clear avoidance for having the ability to listen to my speech before I have given it. Nonetheless, he is quite correct to agree with me because I agree with a great deal of what he has just said. The reality is that this is a debate that has suited both the parties over there. Both of those parties are very comfortable arguing about flags and boundaries and borders and the real dividing line in this debate. The one that matters is about parties that believe in outcomes, parties that believe in making things work and how we build things better rather than having a constitutional tussle and who can wave the bigger flag. I would say very gently to members across the way that they should think very carefully about their words. I have a great deal of respect for Douglas Lumsden since he came into this place, but when he said that the levelling-up fund is devolution personified or the greatest example of division, it was just quite incredible without irony, because £173 million—just in a moment—neither in the quantum of what it is delivering but also in the way, because he knows as well as I do having seen the evidence from local authorities who are unclear as to precisely how this money is being divvied out or what purpose it is meant to serve, who have had to be firing in applications without that context. He knows the deficiencies in what has been delivered and he cannot possibly think that £173 million delivers the change or the levelling-up that essentially the rhetoric from that side of the chamber would seem to be contending. I will give way now for you. Thank you Daniel Johnson for giving way. I was just thinking back to not too long ago when the council leader of Aberdeen City Council since my departure visited number 10 to argue for levelling-up funds to come to Aberdeen, so surely how can you take a stance that it is not right when you have the Labour council leader going to number 10, asking for the funds? Daniel Johnson? It is not saying that it is not right, I am just saying that it is not enough, and that is the point. By contrast, again from the SNP benches, what we have heard is a debate obsessed with process, without asking once about what is being delivered. I agree that the process matters, but out there what people care about is whether their towns, cities and localities are getting investment or not. The great tragedy of this debate, just in a moment, is that we had a speech from Ben Macpherson, a person who again I have a great deal of time and respect for. In the entirety of the 10 minutes that he had in 12 minutes, he did not mention poverty once, and in those 12 minutes he did not mention inequality once. Ultimately, to make a speech purely about the destabilisation of the devolution settlement, if our devolution settlement is so weak, so precarious that £173 million upsets it, then we really are in a very sorry state indeed. I will give way to Gillian Martin. Gillian Martin? I am very grateful to Daniel Johnson for giving way. He talked about it is not about process, but when a Parliament is part of a democratic process that can ensure fairness. Your colleague, Neil Bibby, mentioned that I mentioned the geographical unfairness of what has happened. Daniel Johnson? I am glad that Gillian Martin raised that point. I was just about to come to that point because that is really what we should have spent the last two hours talking about. It is about those regional unfairness. Indeed, I think that some ways the debate for me was summed up by a combination of Willie Rennie and Alasdair Allan. Alasdair Allan, for highlighting the very real difference that EU structural funds made, and what we should have been talking about is how we ensure that that funding continues. We see the investment in roads and infrastructure that are remote and rural communities, the communities that need to deliver. Quite frankly, the amount offered at the moment does not replace that, but similarly, we should have been focusing on how we deliver that partnership. Willie Rennie might want to call that federalism. I call that redistribution. I call that pooling and sharing resources. That is what unions are based on. If the Conservatives are serious about defending the union, serious about making sure that we do not see the break-up in the country, they should be seeking to strengthen devolution, not to undermine it, not to thumb their nose at it, because they know that they have bypassed it, and they should be very careful before they continue in this manner. Simply annoying SNP ministers is not a great outcome. They should be seeking to make a real difference in our communities, because we have real inequalities. SNP ministers often cite the example of the south-east and how it draws an disproportionate resource, but we have our same south-east problem here in Scotland. In Edinburgh, GDP per head is £38,000, but just 60 miles away is £20,000 in Dundee. With that comes economic inactivity at 27 per cent. A third of children grow up in poverty in Dundee. We have inequality in Scotland, where the wealthiest areas deliver two and a half times the level of gross value add between the top and the bottom. That is what we should be talking about, how we level up our regions and tackle those inequalities, because those inequalities result in poverty, a loss of opportunity, shortened lifespans and a gross social injustice. That is the debate that we should have had this afternoon. That is what we should be discussing. We should be hearing about Scotland's levelling up programme rather than disagreeing about constitutional grievances. I call on Donald Cameron to wind up for the Conservatives. Up to seven minutes, please, Mr Cameron. As you may know, the famous Road to the Isles runs from Fort William to Malig. The A830, as it is, takes in some of the most stunning locations in the West Highlands—Glenfinan, Inverailet, Arrasag and Morah—and it finally opens out to the sea and views over the sounds of slate out to the sky. Until about 10 years ago, when it was eventually upgraded, that last section of that road from Inverailet to Malig was still a single track road. In fact, it was the UK's last single track track trunk road. Who paid for the upgrade? The Scottish Government and the EU, and there is still a sign on that road with an EU flag on it detailing the structural funds that co-financed the upgrade. At the time, did any politician, least of all from the SNP, complain about the EU helping to fund a road project within the remit of a devolved administration? Did anyone protest at this infringement on devolution? Of course not. It was welcomed by everyone, and rightly so, because it drastically improved a dangerous stretch of road and continues to have significant benefits. But in the last few weeks, when the UK Government announced major investment for dozens of projects across Scotland from the shared prosperity fund and the other funds that we have spoken about, the Scottish Government is up in arms. That is the SNP for you, not a whimper when the funding comes from Brussels to invest in devolved policy initiatives, but furious when it comes from Westminster. The SNP and the Greens load the idea that the UK Government can have a positive impact in Scotland, and it despairs the idea that people in Scotland might recognise that. Let's deal with some other myths. Hold on a second. Let's deal with some other myths. Speaker after speaker today from many parts of this chamber have spoken about circumventing, bypassing and fringing devolution. The devolution settlement is enshrined in the Scotland Act and the later Scotland Act. We rightly respect that settlement as establishing this Parliament and its powers, but not one MSP has pointed out which provision of that legislation says that the UK Government cannot fund devolved areas of policy. That is because such provision does not exist. The devolution settlement does not prevent the UK Government funding into devolved areas of policy. It never has. That is because there is a distinction between the UK Government legislating in devolved areas and investing in devolved areas. As the Supreme Court has just told us, the Scotland Act allows the UK Government to retain the power to legislate for Scotland. If that is true, how much more true is it that, both as a matter of law and practice, it is implicit in the devolution settlement that the UK Government can still directly fund and invest in devolved areas of policy? I am grateful to Mr Cameron for giving way. I hope that he can shed some light on the question that I put to Mr Simpson, who was unable to answer it. Does he believe that the UK Government should be able to spend in any area of devolved competency? I have said that there is nothing preventing them in law from funding. The question is, there should be no limit to anything that the UK Government does, the Scottish Government does and the local government does. That is the whole point of levelling up. What is more, that is entirely normal when you look at the international context in Europe and beyond. In any federal or quasi-federal system or any system akin to devolution within the United Kingdom, the central Government retains the power to build bridges, to upgrade roads, to fund connectivity without there being any question of infringing on the power of the state or the devolved legislation. Look at Canada, look at Germany, look at Australia. Can I turn to the Scottish Government's motion? I have to say that when I first read it, I could not believe my eyes. It is a motion riddled with inconsistency and contradictions, as Miles Briggs said. It starts by saying that the funding is insufficient. Of course, funds from the UK Government are never sufficient in the eyes of the SNP, but then it goes on to denounce the funding itself as an infringement on devolution. In the very same breath of saying that it is not enough money, the SNP takes issue with the principle of these funds being distributed at all. It is a motion that basically says how dare you give us this money. Tell that to the people of Falkirk in relation to the westfield roundabout that Graham Simpson spoke about. Tell that to the people of Aberdeen in relation to the cultural investment mentioned by Douglas Lumsden. Tell that to the SNP local authority leaders, including those of Renfrewshire, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and I note that the two ministers on the front bench are both MSPs for some parts of those areas. Those local authority leaders who had the good grace and political judgment, I might add, to welcome these investments. We can understand why, Deputy Presiding Officer, these are council leaders who have had a smile and nod for years while their bosses in Edinburgh passed on swinging cuts to local government. Given that between 2007 to 2019, the Scottish Government's budget increased at more than double the rate of the grant that was given to local councils. I wished just for once the SNP-grown green coalition would welcome investment such as this and work with the UK Government to deliver more funding from our communities. Why not welcome the levelling up fund? Denner Johnson took issue with a sum involved. He said that £172 million is not enough. For starters, that is the first round of funding, and there is an assurance that that will rise to £1.5 billion by 2024 per year and will be at the very least matching the EU funds. Why not welcome the £19.9 million going towards the redevelopment of Inverness council? Why not welcome the near 1.1 million investment from the first round of the community fund, including £220,000 designated for the old forge in Noida? That is why I take issue with what Willie Rennie said. He said that this is all about power and politics. It is not. That funding in the Highlands and Islands is one of the most remote areas of Scotland—a tiny part, but I would happily take into it if he has the time. It is an example of this funding reaching communities in every part of Scotland, even the most remote. The member is really about to conclude his remarks, but he could take a very brief intervention. I will make it very brief. I might well take him up on his offer and he might regret it. However, if it is not about power and control, why does it not support a partnership approach with all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? I hope that the one thing that emerges from the debate is that, going forward, the Scottish Government works with the UK Government in that partnership to make this transformational change in our communities, the length and breadth of Scotland. I now call on Tom Arthur Minister to wind up for the Scottish Government. Please take us to decision time. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all members for their contribution this afternoon. The first question that we have to pose is, what do we mean by levelling up? In reality, for all of us who have engaged as constituency members in our respective constituencies and regions, particularly in areas that have suffered multiple generations of deprivation, the issues that we have wicked problems cannot be resolved overnight. They cannot be resolved by one funding round. It requires sustained investment and it also requires a co-ordinated approach. It requires partnership working, resource grants, capital grant, asset transfers, broader community empowerment, participatory budgeting, the planning system, local economic development and a whole suite of areas. It requires partnership working. The motion today is born out of genuine frustration that the UK Government will not engage in a spirit of co-operation in partnership. I hope that one thing that does emerge from that is that there can be genuine partnership in co-operation, because I recognise that, for the people on the ground, what they want is delivery. The risk that emerges from this approach that the UK Government is taking is complicating a landscape. I will very briefly take an intervention from Mr Kerr. A very quick intervention. Why, then, did the Scottish Government not engage in the union connectivity review in the spirit of what it said? We have sought across a range of areas to engage constructively, but there has to be meaningful and genuine willingness. It cannot be tokenistic and, unfortunately, that is the reality too often with the approach that the UK Government takes. We have heard from members today some of the potential negative implications of the UK Government's handling of replacement EU funding, but we also have to consider the alternative. Think about the positive ways that the Scottish Government and the ways that the Scottish Parliament have approached investment and how we would have used the funding that is being spent by the UK Government and how we would have used it in line with our principles of delivering a wellbeing economy for Scotland. The fundamental ways in which the Government works in full and genuine partnership to ensure that every penny of public money can help the recovery from Covid and enable a wellbeing economy to be focused on the journey to next. I really have to make progress. I will take that on board on that basis. Would he agree that we need new targets on regional inequality for Scotland? I think that within the national performance framework we have an excellent suite of targets and that is a way in which we can measure our success. However, I will come on to some of his matters until wellbeing economy is fundamental. I know that some of them may question the relative importance of where funds originate. However, the origin and ultimate destination and impact of funding are inextricably linked through criteria, policy alignment, local, regional and national expertise—something Willie Rennie touched on—as well as through assessment and decision-making processes. People want to see money used in an intentional way to benefit their communities. People want to see good, trusting relationships between communities, local authorities and this Government. The Scottish Government is committed to working with local authorities and partners in the public. I am sorry, I really have to make progress. I am short on time, otherwise I would. We have been working with local authorities and partners in the public, private and third sector and community sectors. We see what we are doing to implement the community wealth building model of economic development across Scotland, something that I know Maggie Chapman touched on. Community wealth building is about creating practical, bottom-up partnerships that will seek to ensure that as much of an area's wealth and assets can be retained in that area, in the form of tangible benefits such as fair work opportunities, public contracts for SMEs or greater community ownership of property facilities. I am really very briefly. I just put the question that he has been putting to members back to him. Does he therefore believe that there should be a limit to the powers that SNP ministers plan to remove from local authorities? We have a governance review. We are putting powers into the hand, not just of local authorities, but through the Community Empowerment Act 2015 we have led the UK and the power that we have put into the hands of communities right across Scotland. Indeed, that is something that we will enhance through the community wealth building model, which has been led bottom-up by local authorities across Scotland. We have less chatting from a certain position. We want to hear the minister respond to the debate. Equally, in regeneration we are taking an intentional approach, delivering the regeneration capital grant fund in partnership with local government since 2014, supporting over 200 projects in disadvantaged and fragile rural communities across Scotland. Over that time—this is such an important point—we have developed relationships with other key match funders and with wider networks and communities to share information and opinions on proposals so that jointly we can make better decisions about which projects to fund and when. That approach also benefits applicants. We have an RCGF panel to recommend proposals for funding. Many projects are referencing levelling up funding and community renew funding as match funding sources, but if the UK Government does not have a transparent process and is not involving a Scottish Government, it is likely that good projects could fail because of uncertainty about match funding. Because of the way that this Government works in general partnership, this uncertainty would never have happened had we been administering it. Instead, we could have worked together with all parties to maximise the impact of our combined resources and support communities to deliver transformative change. That way of working can also be seen in our approach to the national planning framework. Planning powers are fully devolved. Here in Scotland, we are using those powers well to chart a new course that will encourage and incentivise the investment in the kind of country that we want to be and in the sustainable, livable, productive and distinctive places that we like to call home. We are doing that in the long-term interests of our communities, our businesses and our people, and to fully play our part as we transition to net zero and tackle the twin climate and nature crises. Scotland's new planning act past here in the last parliamentary session is strengthening the way that we plan for Scotland's future development and is placing the national planning framework ultimately to be approved by this Parliament front and centre in leading how we shape the future of our places. Regional scale planning, which outlines strategic development priorities, has shaped the draft spatial strategy based on a positive and productive collaboration between central and local government in this country. That is an open and transparent process and future investment in our infrastructure and places should support the priorities that we collectively decide within our national spatial strategy. That is the right way to go. So that choices about Scotland's future development and how we deliver development and infrastructure priorities across our regions and communities are made right here. We need a joined-up holistic approach. That is what is ultimately required if we are to deliver that transformational change. Mr Bibby mentioned West of Scotland and he mentioned Fergusley Park and he will know some of the outstanding work that is going on through participatory budgeting there. That is real empowerment for communities, allowing communities to determine what their priorities are, trusting them to make the right decisions. That informs the approach that we want to take, but it has to be an embedded approach, it has to be a sustained approach and it has to be a joined-up holistic approach. That is what we need if we are to transform our communities, if we are to build community wealth and make real lasting change. I reiterate the calls that we have made today for the UK Government to engage constructively. If it is not willing to give this Parliament responsibility over the funds, then at the very least we need to start engaging constructively with all of us as parliamentarians and with this democratically elected Scottish Government. In the spirit of the comments that the minister has just made, can I appeal to you for help in relation to an important matter that will affect all members and not just my office? The accountability of the Government to this chamber is at the heart of our democracy. As members, we have a duty to ask questions to the Government and the Government has a responsibility to answer them as fully as they can. That is particularly true for written parliamentary questions when members are seeking information from the Government. Today, I received an answer to a question that I submitted, S6W-04075, when I asked the Scottish Government what recent discussions it had with businesses regarding the introduction of a deposit return scheme. That is the answer that I have received from Lorna Slater. Scottish Government officials have been engaging and continue to engage closely with a range of businesses to reach an implementation timetable for Scotland's deposit return scheme that is both ambitious and deliverable. That is the entirety of the answer. I feel that this is not an answer. This is just the latest in the long series of written questions where I have received no answer to the question that I have asked. The Government, I am afraid, shows a steely determination to avoid accountability. Therefore, I ask you, as the Presiding Officer of our Parliament, what steps your office can take to ensure that, when members ask written parliamentary questions, the answers that they receive directly respond to the question or at least bear some relationship to the question, allowing all members of the chamber to uphold their basic duty of holding the Government to account. Thank you, Mr Kerr, that the member will appreciate that the content of written answers is not a matter for me, as Presiding Officer. Such matters, however, can be discussed in the parliamentary bureau and I am content for that discussion to take place at the next meeting of that body. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 2190 on approval of an SSI. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Question on this motion will be put at decision time, and there are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Miles Briggs is agreed, then the other amendments will fall. The first question is that amendment 2158.2 in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend motion 2158 in the name of Richard Lochhead on the UK shared prosperity fund and the UK Government's levelling up agenda in Scotland be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.