1. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Finance to outline what discussions she has had with the UK Government regarding the UK Shared Prosperity Fund beyond March 2025. . (AQO 780/22-27)

The future of the Shared Prosperity Fund beyond March 2025 is of immediate concern and is something that I have been pressing the British Government for progress on. I wrote to Angela Rayner MP as soon as she was appointed Secretary of State, highlighting the lack of information on a successor programme and the impact that this uncertainty is having on our community and voluntary sector. I asked that she deliver on the Labour Party manifesto commitment for greater devolved decision-making. I have also written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to raise my concerns on this issue.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting Minister Alex Norris, who is responsible for future funding in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I will use this opportunity to once again press for urgent clarity on future funding, asking that sufficient funding is provided and that there is a meaningful decision-making role for the Executive.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, what is your assessment of the funding shortfall that has arisen as a result of the loss of EU funds?

From memory, the European regional development fund (ERDF) and the European social fund (ESF) jointly provided the Executive with about £65 million per year. In comparison with that, the Shared Prosperity Fund provides an annual average of about £35 million. That leaves a real funding gap of about £30 million annually, and that is before inflation or anything else is taken into account. In my meetings with the British Government, as in all the representation that we have made previously, we will seek full replacement of funding that we used to get from EU sources, including an inflationary increase.

Minister, when future funding is being discussed and developed with your Department, will that include collaboration with the community and voluntary sector as well as local government?

Collaboration is absolutely key to ensuring that any funding we get and the delivery of programmes with that funding aligns with our local priorities, learns the lessons of previous funding programmes, does not duplicate anything that we are already doing or any existing provision and ensures best value for money. In my view, the best way to do that is meaningful collaboration with the people who are delivering the programmes: the community and voluntary sector and other partners, including local government. Also, in preparation for the successor fund, my Department has already begun working on a cross-departmental basis and has been engaging with the community and voluntary sector to understand the lessons from the Shared Prosperity Fund and to be prepared for moving forward.

Minister, obviously, with the Shared Prosperity Fund and the events of last week, there is a degree of, let us say, scepticism about the approach of the UK Government to the funding. Has the Minister had any opportunity to reach out to her Welsh or Scottish counterparts to have a combined approach to make sure there is an equitable Division of future UK shared prosperity money?

The Member will be aware from his role in the Finance Committee that we do regular engagement through the Fiscal Council with the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers. Just last week, I had a conversation with the Scottish Finance Minister around the financial challenges facing us collectively at the minute. We have collaborated in the past and, I am sure, will collaborate again and have joint positions and jointly make the case on the replacement of EU funds and the post-2025 funding. It is really important that, where we can have a shared position — often we come from a similar perspective — we make those joint representations.

The original Shared Prosperity Fund was clearly not designed with the North in mind, and these institutions had little control over what decisions were made or how they were made. What conversations has the Minister or her officials had with the new British Government to address those problems, and what commitments has she sought or got?

I agree with the Member's assessment of the Shared Prosperity Fund: it was not designed with the North in mind and certainly did not take on board the criticism or feedback that was provided on its structure, one of the most important aspects of which was that there was no section 75 consideration in the delivery of funds. We have continuously made the representation that there needs to be a more joined-up approach. We have consistently said that we should have control of the delivery of the funding streams, because we could then align them with our priorities and ensure that they fit with other Executive priorities and that we do not duplicate funding streams. We have made and I will continue to make that point. As I mentioned to Connie, I will meet the Minister responsible tomorrow.

There is a growing call for a 1% tax on the wealthiest 1% in Britain to bring in £25 billion to plug the gap in public services. Did you or your officials raise such a point when you met the Treasury last week?

I have been consistent in highlighting the underinvestment in our public services and the fact that, with the new Government in place, after 14 years of austerity and chaos under the previous Tory Government, we need a change of approach. We need the prioritisation of investment in public services and in ordinary workers and families. Those who have the broadest shoulders — those who can afford the most — should pay the most. I have consistently put that message across to the British Government, and I did so to the Chancellor last week.