In February 2020, the Industrial Communities Alliance published an important consideration of how the economy of Britain's older communities can be rebuilt. The report offered conclusions affecting over a quarter of the UK's population who lived in these areas, and an even larger proportion of citizens in Wales, with recommendations that would affect 12 of the 22 Welsh council areas. The report prioritised a number of key interventions that were needed—interventions that were important in February 2020, but which are even more critical now as we aim to rebuild from COVID. It called for increased support for manufacturing, investment in skills, improved connectivity and redress of the failure of the property market, and I welcome the fact that many of these priorities have been met by the ambitious programme for government that the Welsh Government published earlier today. But the report also called for a replacement of EU funding, which has been a major tool in promoting jobs and growth in less prosperous parts of the UK, including older industrial areas. In particular, it said Wales should receive the funding required on a need rather than on a population basis. It also called for the active involvement of all relevant parties: local authorities, but also, crucially, devolved national Parliaments. As the motion in the name of the Trefnydd makes clear, the proposals that have been brought forward by the UK Government fail to meet these criteria.

The ICA also published additional reports that expose in a little more depth exactly what was required for many post-EU funding models. In view of the critical importance the ICA ascribed to this for former industrial areas, such as my constituency, it is worth taking a little time to consider their findings. I'm grateful to Professor Steve Fothergill, Joan Dixon and Peter Slater for keeping the cross-party group on industrial communities informed of this research during the last Senedd term.

What were their conclusions? Firstly, it's important to note the UK would have actually qualified for additional funding if we had remained in the EU. A telling reflection on the 2010s as being a wasted decade of needless austerity is that three additional English regions would have qualified as less-developed regions. Secondly, west Wales and the Valleys would have still qualified for this funding, so would have received a higher share of money. Thirdly, to be transformational, any successor scheme would need to offer multi-annual financial allocations of the longest practical duration. Fourthly, and I quote,

'it is important that the management' of post-Brexit funding

'reflects both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlement.'

Indeed, the ICA recommended rebranding the funding bodies to reflect the nations of the UK within which they work. This symbolic commitment would match the practical measure of letting devolved nations decide how money was spent within their jurisdictions.

Fifthly, crucially, funding should be not a penny less than the schemes that it was replacing. Again, set against these criteria, it is clear that the UK Government's proposals are inadequate. They try to circumvent devolution, representing an unwelcome power grab by the UK Government Ministers. As the WLGA's economy spokesperson noted, the amount Wales will likely be receiving does not just fail to meet our need, it fails to match the funding previously provided. Instead of an annual £375 million, Wales will get a measly £30 million to £40 million from the levelling-up fund, and crumbs from the table of the community renewal fund. This represents a clear failure to honour commitments and deliver what was promised. All we will be left with is peanuts rather than prosperity.