Thank you, and welcome back. The next item is a statement by the Minister for Economy on the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund. I call on the Minister for Economy, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. In June, this Senedd overwhelmingly agreed that the UK Government’s approach to European Union successor funds represented an assault on Welsh devolution. It is clear that these distant and poorly defined plans at present systematically exclude this Senedd on matters that its Members are elected to take decisions upon. We now face a vast reduction in funding this year despite repeated promises that Wales would not be worse off financially after Brexit.

Around £10 million, or an average of £450,000 for each Welsh local authority, is expected this year from the community renewal fund. Some areas, including Bridgend, Caerphilly and Flintshire are excluded from the priority funding list whilst more prosperous English areas are included. Deputy Llywydd, the UK Government cannot maintain the myth that all parts of Wales will benefit and that we are no worse off.

The UK Government continue to point to the availability of remaining funds from the 2014-20 EU programmes, but it is clear that new EU programmes would already have started by now. And removing this overlap matters. It represents an average annual loss to Wales of £375 million at the same time as making the ability to plan impossible. Delivery partners are already looking to dismantle the infrastructure needed to deliver longer term interventions because they need to know now that funding will still be there beyond 2023. 

And by making these funds solely available to competing local authority bids, the UK Government is also wilfully creating sector funding gaps, including among higher and further education, the third sector, and business. These sectors have previously maximised European Union funds to help close disparities in research and innovation, to support vulnerable people in society, and to help boost competitiveness.

We also have real concerns about the threat of UK Government plans on the future scale of EU-funded schemes, including what that means for Business Wales, the Development Bank of Wales, and apprenticeships. Neither does the levelling-up fund currently live up to its name, with each Welsh local authority set to receive around £1.3 million this year. It is clear that these UK funds amount to a levelling down for Wales.

Despite this contradiction and the urgent risks that we now face, there have been no signs of improvement since we last debated these funds in June. Only six months remain of this financial year, and the UK Government has still not announced any successful bids for the community renewal and the levelling-up funds. That is despite the promises previously made to announce bids in July. And partners are right to ask how projects are supposed to deliver by March as required. This is a delay that leaves communities in the dark and badly compromises what can be achieved for people and businesses here in Wales.

Neither have we had any genuine engagement with the bidding assessment exercise, and with our proposed input being restricted to entirely unacceptable terms. This is an opaque and distant process that does not represent devolution to local communities. The UK Government have forced councils to compete and act as administrators, with bids being assessed in Whitehall and funding decisions made by UK Ministers in Westminster.

And plans for the shared prosperity fund are equally concerning. Eighteen months after Brexit, we can still expect no more than a high-level spending framework in next month’s spending review. Yet we remain unclear about what role devolved Governments will have. We are also unsure if the shared prosperity fund will even be open for business next year due to the ongoing delays. In no way can the UK Government’s approach to post-Brexit funding be described as acceptable partnership working, let alone effective inter-governmental relations.

This is disappointing, given the Prime Minister’s commitments following the summit in June that I attended with the First Minister regarding more effective inter-governmental relations across the UK, and the willingness of this Government and our First Minister to collaborate effectively in doing so.

The UK Government’s incoherent and chaotic action have also failed to impress UK cross-party parliamentary groups, the Institute for Government and devolved Parliaments and Governments. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee recently published a report on the levelling-up programme, and I quote:

'The funding available to achieve levelling up is disparate and lacking any overall coherent strategic purpose or focus';

'the apparent absence of any meaningful strategic engagement with the devolved administrations around the levelling up agenda, amplifies the lack of clarity and focus around this major policy.'

And on the shared prosperity fund, the Institute for Government said in July:

'the UK government will be spending on policy functions that are predominantly devolved responsibilities. We have outlined the risk that this will produce unhelpful duplication of functions and fragmentation of service provision.'

The High Court have also agreed to hear a legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project about the UK Government using the levelling-up fund for political benefit, rather than need.

Increasing concerns about the emerging problems and the funding gaps facing sectors have also been raised with me by Welsh partners, including the Welsh Local Government Association, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, Federation of Small Businesses Wales and Universities Wales. Despite such warnings and honest advice, the UK Government has failed to listen, a decision which will cost Wales job opportunities and undermine badly needed projects.

Deputy Llywydd, it is not yet clear what the impact of this approach will be, but I was happy to support the Plaid Cymru amendments during the June debate. I can confirm once more today that we will undertake an impact assessment when practicable, as agreed at that time. The clear majority position in this Senedd should be noted by UK Ministers. Indeed, the people of Wales were offered a manifesto that endorsed the UK Government's plans at this year's Senedd elections, but that did not win the support of the Welsh public, as we know. There is a clear majority for a 'made in Wales' approach that respects devolution.

Our own framework for investing replacement EU funds builds on years of partner engagement. It is based on evidence and agreement, with clear priorities for Wales, and this is what a team Wales approach looks like. Our plans bring power and funding closer to communities by transferring funding and responsibilities to the new corporate joint committees. The framework also recognises that some interventions, like apprenticeships and business support, are most cost-effective and accessible at a national level. We have also commissioned further advice from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to help design the best multilevel governance structures for economic development within Wales. And again, this is what a real partnership approach looks like.

Deputy Llywydd, I have made clear in a letter to the new Secretary of State Michael Gove that we are open to meaningful discussions on how best to work together to make these funds a success. The UK Government has an opportunity to show it has listened and to end an era where it says to Wales, 'You'll get what you're given.' No Welsh Government of any political leadership could or should accept that approach from any UK Government.

Conservative spokesperson, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It may surprise the Minister that I start off on a note of agreement with him regarding the lack of pace in responding to bids that have been submitted to the community renewal fund. We need to see much more progress.

Now, today's statement calls for further information and detail from the UK Government, and, in fairness, if the funds are to be delivered effectively then clearly collaboration is crucial. Whilst I appreciate that a new Secretary of State for housing, communities and local government has been appointed to oversee this funding, local communities across Wales are still waiting for vital information regarding their bids, and it's essential that that information is forthcoming. Now, the Minister has made it clear today that he has written to the new Secretary of State to say that he is open to meaningful engagement. However, given the tone of his statement, perhaps he can confirm whether he has requested an urgent meeting so that he can make these points directly to the Secretary of State.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we all want to see this funding reach communities in Wales and make a big difference. At its core, the community renewal fund empowers local communities by giving local authorities a direct role in delivering that investment. We have just seen how resilient our local authorities have been during the pandemic, and I believe they are perfectly placed to deliver this investment. Devolving the delivery of these funds to local authorities is something the Welsh Government should be supporting. And yet, today's statement shows again that the Welsh Government has used the levelling-up agenda to continue a constitutional conflict with counterparts at Westminster. And so, I want to remind the Minister that the people of Wales are served by two Governments, not one, and it has never been part of the devolution settlement that local government in Wales should become a no-go area for the UK Government. Indeed, rather than the usual 'blame Westminster' rhetoric, perhaps the Minister could tell us what engagement and support the Welsh Government has offered to local authorities to support them through this process.

Now, the Minister has repeatedly said that if the UK Government is serious about future prosperity here in Wales then it must provide Wales with a fair share of UK spending, and he reiterated those comments again today. Well, the UK Government has made it very clear that Wales will not lose out via the shared prosperity fund, and the profile of spending will be set out in the next UK spending review, which is expected this autumn. In the meantime, there are opportunities here for the Welsh Government to support the UK Government by encouraging the continued use of the experience, and indeed expertise, that has been built up during decades of delivering EU funds here in Wales. So, I'd be grateful if the Minister could tell us what he and his officials are doing to promote that expertise and ensure that it's retained under these new funding streams.

Now, I think it's fair to say that the community renewal fund and the wider shared prosperity fund will be judged on their outcomes, and it is very early days to form any serious assessment, but we have to look at where opportunities lie to constructively engage on this agenda, rather than spending time and effort politically point scoring. The Welsh Government could be using its time to tell us its own plans for supporting community renewal and delivering economic prosperity, but instead we're treated to another anti-Westminster lecture. The FSB are right to say this should not stop Welsh Government from outlining its economic development strategy for the future in detail, including where business support sits within it and aligns with its vision, values and principles. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to rebuild Wales's economy, what is being done to drive innovation, to create jobs and to drive lasting economic change.

Today's statement also refers to the FSB's calls, and one of those is for the Welsh Government to use this opportunity to outline its vision through an economic development Bill. As they suggest, this would also set the parameters and principles underpinning all of its institutions, remits and goals, and its approach to business support and its aims. Of course, it's vital that Business Wales is protected under the shared prosperity fund, at least at its current levels, and that there's longer term funding stability for the Development Bank of Wales. I'd be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether he will be introducing an economic development Bill, what internal discussions are taking place to discuss the future of Business Wales, and what action the Welsh Government is taking to support the Development Bank of Wales in the longer term.

In closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, I accept that there are some justified concerns in the Minister's statement today, and I hope that the Welsh Government will push for meaningful engagement to take place so that these funds can be delivered as effectively as possible for us here in Wales.

Thank your for the series of questions. I'm pleased to note that he recognises the very practical concern that, regardless of the policy framework, the lack of decision making is a real handicap for local authorities of any and every political leadership here in Wales. I hope that decisions can be made, but, as I say, that is already compromising the ability to spend that money in time and effectively in any and every part of Wales.

I have also asked to meet Michael Gove ahead of the spending review. I would like to have the urgent meeting that he referred to. I'm not sure whether Michael Gove has people listening, but it's helpful to hear that there's support from the Conservative benches for him to meet me to discuss these issues themselves. I do think that there is a moment of opportunity in having a conversation about what really can be done, because much of what the Member said mattered to him is directly compromised by the current approach.

If you think about what you said about local authorities, actually, we designed a new framework for economic investment with local authorities as one of our key partners. We've built on those relationships and we've worked with them to design a new framework, and local authorities run those corporate joint committees. They would have a significant say in the way in which future funds would be spent and would design local priorities with us as partners. In fact, CJCs are looking to take on responsibilities sooner rather than later, and, in many ways, there are some consistencies there with the growth deals that the UK Government has jointly funded together with us. It learns lessons from previous rounds of European Union funding to try to make sure that we have larger and more strategic interventions to make a real difference.

Splintering that approach into a local-authority-only bidding process doesn't guarantee that areas in need will be successful in a competitive bidding process—that's one challenge. At the current point, we know that we are losing a significant amount of money—more than £300 million short of what we'll get if the small amounts of money in the pilot funds are actually delivered within this year. That's simply a matter of fact; it's unavoidable and undeniable, regardless of how much the Member shakes his head.

When it comes to the challenges of trying to provide lessons from 20 years of making choices here in Wales, that really underscores the point: 20 years of Ministers in this place making choices and being accountable to this institution for those choices is set to end if the current approach that the previous Secretary of State was headed down continues, because we have no meaningful role in the way that the funds are being designed. One of the few choices that has been made was to deliberately carve out Welsh Government Ministers, so, actually, there's no opportunity to share what's happened, because the UK Government are not interested in listening, or at least they weren't with the previous Secretary of State.

I would say that when the Member talks about Business Wales and the value of it, a significant part of Business Wales's funding comes from these funds. With the way that the current approach is designed, that money won't be there. I can tell you there isn't spare cash down the back of the ministerial sofa that my good friend and colleague Rebecca Evans has to simply make good those funds in that area, or the third of funds that would disappear from apprenticeships that can't be spent under the current approach, or, indeed, the funds for supporting jobs in every single constituency across Wales with the development bank as well.

The current approach, as it is, is significantly flawed and will cost jobs and opportunities in every community in Wales. I hope that Michael Gove will take the opportunity to talk with us and to work with us and to look at how we’re going to have a framework that Wales can work properly within and will not compromise the work we have done, learning the lessons from more than 20 years of making choices here in Wales, and for us and everybody to work effectively with partners here in Wales to create jobs and opportunity as we wish to do so.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Luke Fletcher.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As Plaid Cymru made clear in the debate on this topic before recess, Westminster’s levelling-up agenda has so far meant more powers for Westminster, more money for Tory seats, and less democracy, funding and representation for Wales. We deserve better than this, and our amendments, of course, reflected that. During that debate we sought to make explicit points regarding the process behind the selection criteria for these funds, and called for detailed assessments as to the impact these funds will have on Wales. We were, of course, glad that the Government supported those amendments at the time. 

If these funds are not replaced in full and implemented by devolved decision makers, then Wales will be left short changed and worse off. Far from proving the strength of the union, the UK’s pandemic response was in fact one huge subsidy to the south of England. The Centre for Progressive Policy has calculated that the UK Government spent £1,000 more per London resident than in Wales, and £6.9 billion more on London than if each nation and region had been allocated emergency spending equally. The Welsh Government can’t let the same thing happen with these funds. Wales must get its fair share from Westminster.

Turning to your statement, Minister, FSB Cymru have noted that there remains uncertainty around what budgets will look like in 2022-23, meaning that the ability to plan for the long term is hindered. Does the Minister agree that, as a matter of urgency, the UK Government should set out its detailed plan for funding and the design of these funds so that there is clarity and certainly for all stakeholders to plan for the years ahead?

In terms of a timetable for the publication of an impact assessment, in response to a written question submitted over the summer asking when will the Government lay before the Senedd an impact assessment showing the effect of these funding arrangements on the distribution of funding across Wales, you answered saying that

'given the ongoing delays and uncertainties regarding this funding, it is currently not feasible to set a firm timetable on when an effective assessment of the impact of these funding arrangements can be carried out.'

Of course, this position has been reiterated in the statement today. But does the Minister agree that further delays on the Westminster side of things represents yet another affront to our Welsh Parliament’s ability to implement policy and funding solutions that work for Wales?

My colleague Rhys ab Owen also raised with the Minister for the constitution last week the new levelling-up department in Whitehall. As he noted, the UK Government has previously said that when they consider it appropriate, they will seek advice from the Welsh Government on projects in Wales. Has the Minister had any early talks with the Secretary of State for levelling up regarding how both their departments will be working together? How confident is the Minister that this new Whitehall department will genuinely engage with Welsh Ministers?

And finally, over the recess, Cardiff University raised concerns that broken promises from the UK Government on future funding could heavily impact Wales’s research and innovation base. Wales’s research base was critical in supporting the nation’s initial response to COVID-19 and would be vital in preparations for future pandemics, a point recognised, of course, by Wales’s chief medical officer. Whilst Westminster has a clear role to play, it is also imperative that Wales makes better use of its research base to tackle the damage brought by COVID-19, with help from the Welsh Government, to make best use of our expertise and infrastructure. Welsh universities, of course, are vital to the economy, generating over £5 billion and almost 50,000 jobs. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and post-EU agenda mean that we now need to move on the recommendations in both the Diamond and Reid reviews, sooner rather than later, in particular: to maintain quality-related research funding; to preserve academic autonomy; to increase the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales’s innovation and engagement to £25 million—as it currently stands, it’s at £15 million; to create a £30 million future of Wales fund, rewarding institutions that attract investment into Wales; and to establish a £35 million St David’s investment fund, including innovation, competitions and hubs.

The last Senedd’s Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee supported the implementation of these recommendations as a matter of urgency in its legacy report. Does the Minister accept that the Welsh Government have outstanding commitments in this matter that they can resolve without the need for support from Westminster, and what actions are the Welsh Government taking to ensure that the already accepted recommendations are implemented as soon as possible?

Thank you for the questions. I'll deal with your last point first, and that is that I'm afraid that it does matter what happens over the next month with the spending review, about our ability to take forward the commitments we've made. Our commitment to having a forward-looking science strategy and to maximise our opportunities in research, development and innovation is still there. But we need to understand the tools that we'll have to do that. So, it's partly about the levelling-up fund; it's also about what's going to happen in the spending review and the budget. There'll be scrutiny for committees when our own budget is presented, and I'm sure the finance Minister has been listening with interest for yet more bids for money, which is always par for the course when you're a Minister in the Government. But the serious point is that we have a commitment that we will look to meet, as far as we can, with the resources we have, and we'll set out how we're able to do that when we have a clearer picture about resources.

At this point in time, we are heading on a path of having less say over less money. That's not a great place to be, and I don't understand how anyone elected to this place could celebrate the fact that there is a deliberate approach to take away powers and resources from this institution. If people want to have a different approach from the Welsh Government, well, that's what people decide when we have elections. We've had elections with manifestos, people have voted, we have an agenda that we want to get on with, because that's the responsibility the people of Wales have chosen to give us. I can't assess the new funds. I'm committed to assessing the new funds when we're in a position to do so, but, as the Conservative spokesperson acknowledged, none of the new funds have been allocated yet, even in the trial phase. So, we can't even assess the impact of the trial phase, because the decisions haven't been made, let alone any spending decisions being made. When we do have a framework, when we do have more decisions about what that means, we will meet the commitment that we've made to provide an assessment of what we think that will do, as well as what then does happen when choices are made about that broader spend.

I think there is still a point of opportunity, as I said, for the new Secretary of State, and that partly comes back to the points you were making about what do we understand about the implementation, the design and the plan such as it is. The reality is there isn't one. The key points that were made were that decisions would be made by UK Ministers. There were decisions made about not listening to and not working with the Welsh Government, in a way that was pretty staggering, in ignoring the opportunity to work with us in way that could and should be constructive. After all, because of the risks that are being run, who on earth wants to be responsible for making choices that could see the apprenticeship programme being reduced as a direct result of the choices made in a ministerial office in Whitehall? I don't believe that's what Conservative Members in this place or any other would be proud to stand up and say that they have delivered. But the fact that there isn't really a plan, not just for Wales but for the UK—. So, if you were talking with English representatives, they would tell you that they don't understand how this is going to work, because there isn't a plan at present. The opportunity for Michael Gove is to work with us on what a UK framework could look like, in exactly the same way where you've had frameworks across the European Union in the past, but to be really clear about choices being made here in Wales over what we do with the money and being clear about the sums of money that are available, so Ministers here can still be properly held to account for choices that we should be making with the powers that the Welsh public expect us to have and to exercise.

In the letter, in my request to meet Michael Gove—I should say, perhaps, to balance up some of the criticism of the UK Government and Conservative Ministers, that I'm not Michael Gove's biggest fan, and I probably wouldn't go out dancing with him, but when it comes to the way that he has operated between the UK Government and devolved Governments in the pandemic, he's had union responsibilities that he retains, and I hope that means that, perhaps more than other Ministers in the UK Government, he understands the realities of working with devolved Governments, and, actually, that when you work with devolved Governments, you'll get more done more quickly. I should say that, in meetings that he has run, they have always been professionally run and conducted. I would hope that a can-do approach is one that he will take, to want to get things done—for his own objectives, I understand, as well—but, equally, to do so in a way that, from my point of view, would strengthen the case for the union and make sure that we undertake our responsibilities and are properly held to account where we should be, within this national Parliament.

I'm grateful to you, Minister, for the statement. I've found the process of the last few years deeply and profoundly disappointing. When I was first elected to this place, and when I joined the Welsh Government for the first time, we had a good and cordial relationship with the United Kingdom Government. We didn't agree on everything, as you'd expect with different political perspectives, but UK Ministers always sought agreement, included us in conversations, and ensured that all the Governments of the United Kingdom felt that they had the space and the opportunity to debate and discuss policy before agreeing a UK position—and agreeing, rather than imposing. As a Member of this Parliament today, when I try to cross-examine UK Ministers, I find them to be evasive, I find them evading scrutiny, and when they are in front of committee, I find that they evade answering questions. And that is a very, very bad place to be.

I would be grateful, Minister, if you could—yourself, as a Minister, and the Welsh Government more widely; I'm glad the finance Minister is in her place for this—publish figures about what money is being delivered to Wales through these different schemes and compare that with the funds that have been made available over the last decade or so, so we can hold UK Ministers to account and ensure that they learn the lessons of previous rounds. The acting leader of the opposition Paul Davies was absolutely right in what he said about the expertise that exists in this place and in the Welsh Government. From what I can see, the United Kingdom Government is using these funds as a means of delivering a political objective, rather than economic and social development, and from what I can see—

The Member has exceeded his time.

And I'll finish with this, if you'll be kind. What I can see is that they are repeating the mistakes of the past, and not learning the lessons of the past.

Thank you for the comments and the questions. I do recall being a new Member to this institution, and shortly after the Member had been appointed to the Government, talking exactly of that experience—of working in the Council of Ministers, and having an agreed UK line, where Scottish and Welsh Ministers of different political persuasions to the UK Ministers still had a constructive and purposeful discussion before going in to talk as a UK member state to European Union countries at the time. And there is no reason why we can't have those conversations. In fact, during the pandemic, where we have had our best outcomes, I think, in terms of work across the UK, it has been because there has been an openness and a willingness from some UK Ministers to talk with counterparts in Governments here, in Belfast and in Edinburgh as well. I can say that we do take up opportunities to go to select committee appearances, and Welsh Ministers try to be honest and constructive in the way that we answer questions at those committees. I've certainly not heard any of the criticism you make of UK Ministers when it comes to select committees and how they view Welsh Ministers when we appear before them.

I do think, though, that there is some point and purpose to what the Member says, and I think it would be helpful to try to compare and contrast, when we do get choices about how money is going to be spent, how it compares to how they spent money previously, and the facts and figures on what we have done and achieved with previous European Union rounds of money. Because there is a point about the outcomes we achieve and the lessons we've learnt from not having an approach that spreads the money out as thinly as possible, but is more strategic and purposeful in what we are trying to do with that to make a strategic difference to the future of the Welsh economy, and more than that. So, I'd be very happy to see how we can meet the Member's main point there in the future.

Can I remind Members to please keep to your time limit so we can get as many people to speak as have requested? Sam Rowlands.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Minister, for your statement today on these important funds. As you referenced, back in June, we had the Government debate on this topic, and as you'd expect, I focused my attention and time in that debate on the role of local authorities and how they can play their part in drawing down this important money for our communities. And as we've seen, despite perhaps the more dour assessment you put on this, the vast majority of councils have submitted bids through the levelling-up fund, and the community renewal fund has seen bids in the hundreds for that money, which shows the engagement of local communities and local authorities in this process. Many local authorities have also welcomed the opportunity to apply for this funding directly.

One of the things you mentioned in a previous response was the introduction of corporate joint committees as a part of the future structure of delivery here in Wales, but this, of course, does carry the risk of skills and capacity being taken away from local authorities into these more regional structures—

Can we have the question now, please?

And one of the elements that UK Government has provided is funding for this capacity to the tune of £125,000 to these local authorities to enable that capacity, so local authorities can draw down this funding. What sort of support would you be looking to provide to local authorities to expand this capacity to ensure that this funding is made the most of in our communities? Thank you.

We've had a constructive and grown-up conversation with the WLGA, with the varieties of political leadership that it represents, and, actually, one of the key asks of local government has been about the fact that they are significantly unimpressed with the time frame to put bids in, and, actually, the money itself you referred to didn't really make much difference, it was time. But it's also to build up capacity to go into a competitive bidding process rather than looking at a needs-based approach, and when you look at what that then means, you write the best bid, you're more likely to get money. That doesn't mean that people with real needs are going to get access to that money, and that's a big flaw in the way that the process is currently being designed.

And I should say this is not new money; this is significantly less money than would otherwise have been available, and you just can't deny the reality that in this year there will be more than £300 million less coming into Wales, even if the pilot funds pay out at some point within this year and even if local authorities can spend the money before the end of the financial year. If you were still leading a local authority, I think you would be incredibly frustrated at not having a decision made, and you'd be worried about more than extra money for the capacity of your local authority to do this, but also the capacity of the UK department to manage direct relationships with every local authority in the UK. It's an enterprise that is fraught with difficulty, and it just isn't the right way to operate, because you're trying to recreate an entirely new relationship while breaking down those that have worked, delivered funds and learnt lessons in more than two decades. So, we'll continue to talk with local authorities, but we need a plan of some sort from the UK Government that everyone understands and understands the rules of. It's better to have a plan we disagree with than no plan at all, which is where we find ourselves now.

Minister, I know you recently met with the Industrial Communities Alliance to discuss their concerns about the shared prosperity and levelling-up funds, funds that are so important to the economic future of constituencies like mine, the Cynon Valley. The ICA have long argued that any funding from the schemes must be both long term and sustainable if it is to deliver transformative change. Would you agree with me that this is a clear message that needs to be sent from this Senedd and listened to by the UK Ministers? And furthermore, Minister, would you agree with me that it is a very worrying signal that local government has been deleted from the title of the UK Government department that is now responsible for levelling up?

It's odd about how long a departmental title is, and Michael Gove's LUHC department isn't one that I think will be judged on its title, but what it's actually prepared to do. I do know that Welsh local government has felt excluded from the process of even the engagement that took place up to this point in time, and that in itself is not at all helpful. The requests for meetings with Luke Hall when he was the then Minister before being removed at the last UK reshuffle were not ones that any local authority in Wales would say worked well, and also the way that evidence was given to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, which, of course, is led by a Conservative Member of Parliament, with a majority of Conservative MPs—they have recognised an amount of incoherence in the previous approach. So, I am concerned about how the headlines about local authorities having a better deal because they're going to directly engage at this point in time are really trying to hide the fact there's less money, less capacity and less say over what to do.

I do take seriously the Industrial Communities Alliance and what they've had to say to me. Their work with counterparts in England and across Wales is something that I want to keep on engaging with and listening to to try to make sure that we can have a framework that will work for Wales and, indeed, other parts of the UK in making sure we really do see significant benefit spread to communities that really need it.

Minister, would you agree that this is another kind of chumocracy, which is a characteristic of this Conservative Government, where they try and retain wealth among their privileged friends whilst denying the poorest areas of the UK funding that they so badly need? How else can you explain why Gwynedd is at the bottom of level 3 and an area such as the Chancellor's is in the highest level for funding? As a former county councillor, I was part of the local campaign to try to get projects for this funding, and it was incredible to see the mess in terms of finding projects. The levelling-up fund looks at spending on schemes that will allow Tory MPs to be re-elected and get good salaries whilst this cruel Government in London is cutting universal credit to the most vulnerable in society. Westminster isn't levelling up, but rather it is punching down. Minister, would you agree with that analysis?

I think there are significant flaws in the way that the current process has worked, and it's certainly not a process that this Government supports at all. And I recognise what the Member says about where Gwynedd is, and also I see a Member representing the county of Bridgend who will also know about the exclusion of areas of Wales that are objectively less well-off than parts of England that have been put into priority areas. Now, that just isn't levelling up. On any analysis, you can't say that is a levelling-up approach.

And for me the challenge is whether we'll get some unity in this place, not just to support the Government but to support the country and to recognise that, actually, this is about Wales and whether we're going to be treated fairly and properly. And I would say to Conservative Members, there is something here about the mandate you have in this place from people and whether you're prepared to stand up for Wales on something where, transparently, the current approach does not work for Wales, or whether you'll go in to bat for Ministers in Whitehall. And I would ask you to think again about the approach you take and to take a constructive approach with us to try to generate the best possible deal for Wales rather than the significant funding cut we are already receiving within this year. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I declare my interest as a former chair of the regional investment for Wales steering group and as the current chair of the strategic forum for regional investment in Wales, both non-remunerated. That's taken a minute, Chair, to actually say that. 

Could I say, I was actually heartened by Paul Davies's comments about the 20 years of experience of delivering investment? But, of course, that investment is actually delivered not simply by Welsh Government but also by those partners and the Welsh European Funding Office, with their European experience of actually co-ordinating payments as well, and it's these same partners that have actually raised the issues of a lack of strategic planning in this competitive bidding process, the sector funding gaps, the duplication, the service continuity, the dismantling of services that are currently going ahead. It is those people with 20 years' experience of actually delivering on the ground who are saying, 'We've got some issues coming up.' It is those same partners, Minister, and Paul and others, who equally stand ready to help the UK Government, as well as the Welsh Government, to put in place that funding, delivered through a Welsh policy context, delivered through, actually, co-operation and co-ordination on the ground to achieve meeting the needs, rather than a competitive bidding process, and they stand ready to help, they really do.

I stand ready as former chair and now chair of the forum going forward to meet with Michael Gove and to speak with him and to say, 'We can assist you in this.' It's not about badging it—

I've given the Member extra time; ask the question. 

Thank you. My apologies, Dirprwy Lywydd. It isn't about badging it either 'UK' or 'Wales'; it's about delivering for the people who we are sent here to represent, and there is a better way to do it than this. We can help. Would you take that message forward?

That is the message that we have tried to offer on a number of occasions and, to date, we have not had prompt or timely replies from the previous ministerial team. And I do hope that, with a new Secretary of State, there will be an opportunity to reset what we are able to do. And the point the Member makes about other partners is well put and, in many respects, those partners are trying to say, 'Look, we don't want to get involved in disagreements between the two Governments, but we do want to know what the rules are and we want to know we're not going to be excluded.'

For example, higher and further education, in the last six years of European programmes, £405 million, they spent. At present, with the current design, they wouldn't get anything. For the private sector, £272 million in the last six years, and the third sector £113 million. At the moment, there's no route for them to have any access under the current design of the programme, and that just doesn't make sense, as well as the points I made earlier about undermining apprenticeships, Business Wales and the development bank. So, there is an opportunity to reset and to come up with a much better answer and deliver much better outcomes for the people we are here to represent. 

Well, 'Not a penny worse off' is echoing rather emptily around this devolved Chamber. Two months after the UK Government stated that projects that had been approved would be announced, there has been silence. And, as you rightly point out, Minister, the local authority area of Caerphilly is excluded from the priority funding list, in favour—in favour—of richer English areas, even though the communities of Islwyn have some deep areas of deprivation—Objective 1, Objective 2, Objective 3. I could go on on the Welsh index of multiple deprivation indices. Once again, despite devolution, on the outside of Tory Britain looking in. Minister, so far, all that I can see that has been achieved is a Tory rebrand, the renaming of the UK's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to the totally laughable Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and accompanied, as we said, with the sacking of the lead Minister Robert Jenrick, to be replaced with Michael Gove—an interesting choice.

Minister, what representations will the Welsh Government make to the newly empowered UK Minister to get the communities of Islwyn included and not excluded in the UK Government's priority funding list? And will the Minister also invite Michael Gove—in his new clothes, and preferably not invisible—to come to Islwyn and see for himself the very real need that is prevalent in my community and which he now in Whitehall has the power to end?

I really don't think it's helpful to have Janet Finch-Saunders saying, 'Find deprivation, find Labour'. I think many people who live in less well-off communities will find that insulting. People make choices about how to vote and we are here to represent them.

I do think, though, that, when it comes to the challenges that Michael Gove now faces, as I say, I think there is a point of opportunity. I don't shed any tears at the end of Robert Jenrick's political career; there have been choices he's made that I don't think are defensible in the way that some areas have been advantaged. And actually, it is in the interests of Conservative Members to make the case for that as well. I don't think regional representatives or constituency representatives could stand by and say they're happy to see Bridgend, Caerphilly, Flintshire, Gwynedd and other areas and the Vale of Glamorgan excluded in favour of much better-off parts of the rest of the UK, including in England. Now, there are Conservatives representing some of those areas too, so this isn't just about Labour versus Tory; it's actually about what's the right thing to do for people, and that's the conversation I want to have with Michael Gove, and it will directly affect all the areas I've mentioned, but, more than that, the whole country. And actually, as someone who believes the union could and should have a future, I think it would help us to make the case for a reformed and a better union where Wales is a key and integral part of it. Not to do so, I'm afraid, makes that case harder still.

And finally, Mark Isherwood, who I know will keep within the minute.

I'll do my best. Diolch. Wales only continued to be eligible for European structural funding because, despite billions in subsequent rounds, it failed to close the prosperity gap it was intended for, unlike other nations that entered the project at the same time, like Poland, which of course did and excluded themselves. You say Flintshire excluded itself from the priority funding list. Do you therefore recognise that the structural funds programme in Wales was focused on west Wales and the Valleys and prioritised 15 counties, but Flintshire and Wrexham were outside those? And how, finally, do you respond to the charities and community-interest organisations in Flintshire that told me this summer that they contacted Welsh Government officials asking if Flintshire could be added to the levelling-up fund list—your officials made enquiries and came back confirming that they could and, of course, they've now been included in the bids?

I think the Member will find that, if you compare the county of Flintshire to areas of England that are included, you'll find there is a significant disparity in wealth and opportunity, and it does not make sense that Flintshire is not included in the priority areas when more wealthy and prosperous areas of England are. If he wants to make an alternative case and celebrate the fact that Flintshire is excluded, that's a matter for him.

I'd also point out that, when it comes to the outcomes that we've achieved with European funds, there are significant outcomes in terms of the jobs, the outcomes of jobs that have been saved and created, and I'm proud of what we've done and the lessons that we've learned—a point that his colleague Paul Davies made. There are lots of lessons we have learned that are being ignored in the current approach. And it's about learning lessons here, the choices we make in this Government, it's about learning lessons in the previous approach to austerity and the damage that caused in terms of our economic future as well, and trying to do the right thing now for the people that we're here to represent. And I would welcome a constructive approach from the UK Government and indeed from Conservative Members in this institution as well. I look forward of course, Deputy Llywydd, to reporting back on those matters as we make, I hope, some progress for the benefit of the people of Wales.

Thank you, Minister.