United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Debate between Ben Lake and Paul Blomfield(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I rise both to reflect on today’s debate and speak to amendments 14, 15 and 16, which are tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. In doing so, I hope to strike a similar tone to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because our amendments, quite contrary to some of the things suggested about them, are intended to strengthen the Bill. That is because we want a successful internal market for all four nations of the UK when we leave the transition on 31 December, just as we want the Prime Minister to deliver the oven-ready deal with the EU that he promised the British people in December, with the promise of tariff-free and barrier-free trade.
For those who have suggested otherwise, we are a party of the Union; we simply think that the best way of protecting the Union is by respecting the devolution settlement. That is what our amendments seek to do, by correcting two fundamental flaws in the Bill as drafted: the way that it gives the Government powers to dish out financial assistance in whatever way they like, with no policy framework to provide accountability; and the way that it gives powers to the centre at the expense of the devolved Administrations, while marginalising local authorities and local communities in England, too.
Clause 46 sets out the powers being given to Ministers for the disbursement of funds in an extraordinary range of areas—economic development; sports and cultural activities, projects, events and infrastructure; education and training activities and infrastructure; capital investment in water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage, railways, roads, transport, health, prisons, courts and housing. These are massive potential spending powers, yet we have no details of how they will be exercised, allowing Ministers to award financial assistance in any way, and to anyone, they like.
These powers go further than replacing EU structural funds, but the need to replace them was the starting point for this part of the Bill. EU structural funds were of huge importance to many parts of the UK, acting as a redistributive mechanism and taking from the rich and giving to the poor, based on the principle of levelling up—long before the Government had ever stumbled across the idea, and forgetting the role of their predecessors in making sure that so many parts of our country were left behind. Structural funds led to real social and economic development, improving opportunities in areas that were previously held back. Crucially, the priorities were set locally: money was drawn down for use within the agreed criteria of the funds, which were primarily focused on need, but set by those engaged in developing the programmes at a local level.
Dame Rosie, you and I both saw the benefits of structural funds in South Yorkshire after our coal and steel industries were decimated by Margaret Thatcher. Objective 1 funding over seven years helped to grow our economy by over 8%, from the advanced manufacturing park to community skills projects, supporting business growth and creating new jobs. Crucially, all those projects were conceived, planned and delivered locally.
How EU structural funding is to be replaced has been an important issue since we took the decision to leave the European Union. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), in the smaller part of his contribution earlier, identified the problem here. Colleagues on both sides of the House have been pressing the Government for answers on how the funds will be disbursed. The response was: “We’re going to have a shared prosperity fund”, but to this day there has been no detail on how it will work. The Government promised a consultation as early as 2017, in the Conservative party manifesto. They proclaimed that they would “consult widely” so that the fund would be
“targeted where it is needed most.”
Nothing happened. Under pressure, there were some engagement events to “seek views”, but they stopped in the middle of last year. There has not been a single engagement event or consultation event since this Prime Minister took office.
The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto says of leaving the EU that
“we can take back control of the money that was being channelled via its Structural Funds.”
But who do they mean by “we”? Ministers, without reference to anyone? It is no surprise that Members have talked about this being an open door to pork barrel politics. Funding for skills training, bus stations, sports events and theatres, directed to meet the political needs of the Conservative party. More contracts, perhaps, to party donors and friends—or perhaps the latest project from Dominic Cummings and his team of what he describes as “weirdos and misfits”.
Amendment 14 should reassure Members on both sides of the House, because it simply proposes what the Government promised: a clear policy framework for the distribution of funds. We are talking about very large sums of money. The UK would have received £13 billion over the next seven years from structural funds. The Government have pledged to match that, but how it is spent matters to everyone in this House and those we represent. Parliament must agree it. Amendment 14 would empower us to do that, and we should do so after comprehensive engagement with the devolved Administrations, local authorities, elected Mayors and those who speak for our communities.
There are other fears about the impact of the Bill on the devolution settlement—fears that amendments 15 and 16 seek to address. As others have explained, the Bill allows for money currently spent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the devolved Administrations to be directed from the centre. Given how this Government operate, there are real fears that existing funds to those Administrations could be top-sliced and redirected for spending in those nations by UK Ministers. The powers handed to Ministers through part 6 of the Bill could be used to serve their political agenda and to undermine the devolved Administrations.
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to take that point, because I would have imagined that the consultation that the Government promised but have failed to deliver would have at its heart real engagement with the devolved Administration, but also with local authorities across the nations of the UK and with our elected Mayors. I would have imagined that all those critical stakeholders would shape the framework, which we as a Parliament could then agree.
Amendments 15 and 16 would provide transparency and protect the decision-making powers of the Senedd, Holyrood and Stormont by making clear that, in relation to all the areas of spending set out in clause 46, funding is allocated to the devolved Administrations, and that all financial assistance related to devolved matters is delivered through the devolved Administrations. That would prevent the Bill from creating a back door through which Ministers could undermine devolution—a power grab in which spending decisions previously made in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast would be made in London, and that would also marginalise local authorities.
We debated on Monday, and next Monday we will debate again, those parts of the Bill that have dominated the headlines and shocked people around the world, but today’s debate has demonstrated that there are other deeply concerning aspects of this Bill. We heard about some yesterday, and they were echoed in the issues raised today. They are concerns about where power lies and how we make the decisions affecting our communities. Labour’s amendments seek to ensure that we hear local voices, spend money where it is needed and protect the Union. I commend them to the House.