Source · Select Committees · Welsh Affairs Committee
4th Report: Wales and the Shared Prosperity Fund: Priorities for the replacement of EU structural funding
Welsh Affairs Committee
HC 90
Published 2 October 2020
Recommendations
5
Para 46
We recommend that the UK and Welsh Governments use the development of the Shared Prosperity...
Recommendation
We recommend that the UK and Welsh Governments use the development of the Shared Prosperity Fund as an opportunity to jointly reassess their economic development priorities, particularly in light of the economic damage caused by COVID-19. In designing the Shared …
Read more
Wales Office
View Details →
7
Para 60
In the current changing economic circumstances, we are unable to recommend a headline figure for...
Recommendation
In the current changing economic circumstances, we are unable to recommend a headline figure for Wales’ allocation of the Shared Prosperity Fund. However, we call on the Government to honour its commitment to maintain at least the current levels of …
Read more
Wales Office
View Details →
Conclusions (18)
1
Conclusion
Para 16
Despite announcing the Shared Prosperity Fund more than three years ago, the Government appears to have made negligible progress in developing its replacement for European Structural and Investment funding. Its repeated promises of a consultation and of imminent announcements have failed to materialise, demonstrating a lack of priority. Although we …
2
Conclusion
The UK Government must urgently work with the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree priorities for the Shared Prosperity Fund and to co-create the details regarding how the Fund will work. It must provide evidence of progress being made in October ahead of finalising arrangements during …
3
Conclusion
We acknowledge the difficulties in assessing the impact of ESI funds in Wales, particularly in the absence of the counterfactual question of what would have happened without them. However, it is clear that while certain sectors, particularly higher education, the arts and charities have benefitted substantially, these fund have not …
4
Conclusion
The development of the Shared Prosperity Fund represents a unique opportunity to re-evaluate Wales’ economic priorities in light of the economic fallout from the pandemic, to develop a funding system that better reflects Welsh needs, and which includes a broader set of tools to measure the impact of the Fund …
6
Conclusion
Para 59
The UK Government has repeatedly committed to ensuring Wales does not lose out as a result of the switch from European Structural Funds to the Shared Prosperity Fund and the evidence overwhelmingly states that Wales should not end up worse off, particularly in light of COVID-19. A needs-based formula is …
8
Conclusion
Para 67
Despite the positive feedback we have received about the performance of the Welsh European Funding Office in administering ESI funds, it is clear that for many respondents the current system of structural funding has been too centralised and overly bureaucratic. The development of the Shared Prosperity Fund represents an opportunity …
9
Conclusion
Para 68
If the Shared Prosperity Fund is to offer a more open and responsive system of funding, the UK Government and Welsh Governments should learn the lessons from how EU funds have been administered under the ESI schemes, including the criticisms we have heard about the current system’s levels of accessibility …
10
Conclusion
Despite repeated assurances from UK Government that it would respect the devolution settlements of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there are considerable ambiguities about where power will lie in relation to the Shared Prosperity Fund. It is unclear whether, as a result of the provisions in the Internal Market Bill, …
11
Conclusion
Para 74
There are differences of opinion as to where the precise balance of power and responsibility should lie for the oversight and administration of the Shared Prosperity Fund. However, whether the UK Government takes on a commissioning role for, or fully devolves the administration of, the Fund, the Shared Prosperity Fund …
12
Conclusion
Para 75
The UK Government should work with the devolved administrations and local government to develop a memorandum of understanding that will underpin the operation of the Shared Prosperity Fund, this memorandum should be built around a partnership approach and provide a guarantee of genuine joint working and engagement for all stakeholders, …
13
Conclusion
Para 81
Local authorities have played an important role in the delivery of ESI funding with their on-the-ground knowledge and expertise and the UK and Welsh Governments should seek to ensure that the Shared Prosperity Fund utilises their experience. While the full economic benefits of City and Growth Deals are yet to …
14
Conclusion
As part of the Memorandum of Understanding that should underpin the Shared Prosperity Fund, the UK and Welsh Governments ought to give serious consideration to the role that local government in the delivery of the Fund. Both the UK and devolved administrations should seek to learn the lessons of how …
15
Conclusion
Para 83
For the past twenty years, Wales has received more European Structural Funds than any other part of the UK in an attempt to bring the Welsh economy up to the EU average. This funding which is worth hundreds of millions of pounds each year is all the more important at …
16
Conclusion
However, with that funding due to taper off in less than three months’ time, communication from Ministers, and substantive proposals for the Shared Prosperity Fund, have been conspicuous in their absence. For more than three years, we have witnessed a failure to properly engage with stakeholders, or Parliament. As a …
17
Conclusion
Para 85
The impact of EU funding is hard to measure, and it is quite possible that Wales would have been significantly worse off without it. However, this funding has not been a catalyst for a transformation in the fortunes of the Welsh economy.
18
Conclusion
Para 86
The switch to the Shared Prosperity Fund is an opportunity to reset and re-evaluate Wales’ economic priorities post-Brexit and post-COVID-19 and to develop a Shared Prosperity Fund that tackles the root causes of Wales’ economic underperformance. The funding pot should be needs based and maintain at least the current size …
19
Conclusion
Para 87
Given the publication of the UK Government’s Internal Market Bill, it is all the more urgent that clarity and detail is provided about the Shared Prosperity Fund. However designed, the expertise gained in administering structural funds should not be lost, and Ministers must embrace a partnership approach that draws upon …
20
Conclusion
The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic makes this an exceptional time, and opportunity, for the governments of the UK to design a more responsive and adaptable system of structural and regional funding. After three years of delay and lack of detail, it …