Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Shared Prosperity Fund

Wednesday 16 December 2020 · 4 questions

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

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Minister had regular discussions with Welsh Government on the UK shared prosperity fund.
  • Prime Minister is committed to standing up for devolved powers at Brussels.
  • Government will work with Welsh and local authorities to ensure proper spending.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

Discussions on the UK shared prosperity fund post-spending review. The Welsh Government has suggested joint appointment of advisers by UK and devolved governments, but there are concerns about centralisation.

Question

With reference to the spending review 2020, what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the UK shared prosperity fund? Given suggestions in the other place for joint adviser appointments, can guarantees be given that the devolved nations will have a cast-iron equal say on governance?

Answer from David Davies

My right hon. Friend has been in regular discussions about the fund before and after the spending review announcement, and further engagement will take place as details are announced.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific guarantees on equal say were not provided

How: Further Engagement Will Take Place

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Context

Concerns about centralisation of power by the UK government, impacting devolution. The Government's handling of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is cited as evidence.

Question

What guarantees can he give to the devolved nations that they will have a cast-iron equal say on governance? This is pertinent given the Government's attempts to railroad through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, showing shocking contempt towards devolution.

Answer from David Davies

The Prime Minister is standing up for devolved powers at Brussels, showing commitment to Scottish and Welsh Governments. The UK Government will work with devolved Administrations to ensure proper spending of the shared prosperity fund.

Not addressed: Specific guarantees were not provided; focus shifted to Prime Minister's actions in Brussels

How: Standing Up For Devolved Powers

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q3 Nia Griffith Lab Llanelli
Context

Wales was due £350 million for projects next year, but only received £220 million. This raises doubts about the Government's promise of no funding loss.

Question

Despite promises that Wales will not lose a single penny, actual figures show otherwise. Wales alone was due £350 million, receiving just £220 million for the whole UK. With millions lost, how can the Government say they have kept their promise?

Answer from David Davies

The Government has kept its promise as some of the funding will still come from the EU post-transition period. The total amount to be spent remains consistent, and funds are committed to better spending and levelling up communities.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific explanation on £220 million allocation was not provided

How: Some Funding Will Still Come From The Eu

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Q4 Nia Griffith Lab Llanelli
Context

After nearly four years post-referendum, clear funding criteria have not been provided. The Welsh Government and local councils agreed on a regional investment framework.

Question

With no clear answers on future funding after three weeks from trading arrangements, the Minister is asked about allocation criteria. Can he confirm support for the devolved regional investment framework?

Answer from David Davies

The Government will not make up spending criteria as they go along. Growth deals funded by UK Government have been successful, and commitment is to work with Welsh and local authorities to ensure proper spending.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific confirmation of supporting the framework was avoided

How: Not Make Up Criteria As We Go Along

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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