Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Shared Prosperity Fund

Monday 20 July 2020 · 5 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 5 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed to matching the size of EU structural funds in each nation.
  • It is important to provide clarity on the shared prosperity fund after the cross-government spending review in the autumn.
  • Officials meet fortnightly with Scottish Government officials to maintain dialogue on the shared prosperity fund.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Neale Hanvey Lab Fife North East
Economy Scotland
Context

The UK has received over €10 billion in structural funding since 2014 as an EU member, and now faces economic uncertainty post-Brexit.

Question

What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund? This vague waffle on timelines and content just will not cut it. The UK is staring at economic disaster with no information on what will replace EU structural funds. Will the Minister guarantee that areas like Fife will not see any reduction in funding?

Answer from Simon Clarke (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government)

The 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed at a minimum to matching the size of EU structural funds in each nation. It is very important that we get these decisions right. This is, after all, an enormous sum of money—our money—sent formally to the EU and then top-sliced and sent back to us with conditions. I very much look forward to controlling it for ourselves.

Answered

Not addressed: Minister did not provide a specific guarantee about avoiding funding reductions in Fife or other areas post-Brexit.

How: Vague Waffle, Did Not Address Economic Concerns

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Alyn Smith SNP Stirling
Economy Scotland
Context

The Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report four years after the Brexit vote, highlighting that it is “high time” we had clarity on Government schemes.

Question

What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund? The IFS reported that it is high time we had some idea of where the Government are going. Does the Minister agree with Alyn Smith, the Scottish Government, and other devolved Governments that it is high time to have clarity on these schemes?

Answer from Simon Clarke (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government)

It is obviously importantly that we provide that clarity—I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman—and we are going to provide that clarity after the cross-government spending review in the autumn.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Stephen Flynn SNP Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale
Economy Scotland
Context

The IFS report suggested that it was disconcerting that the shared prosperity fund had still not been finalised.

Question

What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund? The IFS said it is disconcerting that the shared prosperity fund is still not finalised. Will the Minister commit to continuing existing EU funding allocations for one more year?

Answer from Simon Clarke (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government)

Obviously, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the Government. We are working very hard to ensure that we deliver on the decision to leave the European Union. We will be in a position to give full details on the UK shared prosperity fund after the cross-government spending review.

Answered

How: Did Not Accept Criticism, Promised Clarity Post-Spending Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 David Linden SNP Aberdeen South
Scotland
Context

Communities and local governments need clarity on future funding arrangements before the transition period ends.

Question

What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund? Five months before the transition period ends, there is still lots of talk about future funding but no details. Last month, the Minister promised inquiries but only more promises. Does he appreciate that communities cannot afford to wait and need clarity now?

Answer from Simon Clarke (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government)

My officials meet fortnightly with those of the Scottish Government, and it is obviously very important that we maintain that dialogue. As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), we are clear that we are prepared to have talks at ministerial level with our Scottish counterparts.

Answered

How: Promised More Meetings, Offered Minister-Level Talks

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 David Linden SNP Aberdeen South
Economy Scotland Local Government
Context

There is much talk but little detail on the stronger towns fund, which is important for levelling up economic imbalances.

Question

What recent discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government on the shared prosperity fund? Endless meetings do not give answers to communities and local governments who need clarity. Will the Minister advise us today when Scotland will receive details and a timeline for the stronger towns fund?

Answer from Simon Clarke (Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government)

The stronger towns fund is a vital part of our levelling-up work. I make no apologies whatsoever for saying that it is a really important tool to rectify long-standing economic imbalances in the country. The Barnett formula will be applied to investment for England in the normal way at the spending review.

Answered

How: Promised Clarity Post-Spending Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)