Lauren Edwards

I absolutely agree, and I will be making the case for that replacement fund later. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. In my constituency, more than 30 local businesses have so far been supported under these UKSPF-funded programmes to reduce their costs, to grow their business and to contribute to helping us reach net zero. We would not be able to do that without this replacement funding for the EU structural funds. I am conscious that in this final funding year the focus of UKSPF spending is on people and skills. It will be important for Ministers and others to assess the impact that these projects have on helping economically inactive people into good-quality training and work. The examples I have given are just a snapshot of how local councils across the UK have used the UKSPF. Overall, I consider that the UKSPF has worked well in my constituency, and I understand that it has worked well in others too, which is great to hear. It has delivered the economic growth and regeneration aims that this new Government are committed to boosting further. Despite those successes, there have been challenges with the UKSPF, and it is appropriate that we consider them now, as the existing funding cycle comes to a close. Broader feedback from local authorities to the Local Government Association has highlighted a number of issues. The first is short timescales from Whitehall. Local authorities were given just three months to develop UKSPF investment plans in collaboration with local stakeholders. We need to give people more time to get the right approach and to put more emphasis on long-term strategic planning. The LGA has proposed that any future version of the UKSPF considered by the Government should adopt a six to eight-year funding cycle, and I would certainly endorse that approach. We also need to reflect on the impact of single-year funding. The annual funding allocation of the UKSPF often led to local authorities commissioning services for just 12 months in order to manage the financial risk. For some projects, that is perfectly appropriate, but for those local areas using the UKSPF for business or skills support, for example, it made it more difficult to address some of the longer-term issues and inequalities in our communities. Another issue is central Government restrictions. The requirement that skills be addressed in year 3 was an unnecessary restriction. We should trust local authorities to collaborate with their local partners in order to address community needs without such restrictions. I also consider that there is scope to improve and streamline the UKSPF reporting process, which some feedback has indicated was overly bureaucratic. It is of course important that the Government receive assurance that funding has been spent appropriately and used effectively. A fine balance will need to be struck in future. Finally, I am aware that there were some delays in getting money out the door to local authorities to fund agreed projects. It is important that that, too, is considered by the new Minister for any future approach to local growth funding. I will return to the immediate challenge that we face: the expiration of funding to support the UKSPF at the end of March 2025. Without continued funding of some sort, the types of initiatives that I have highlighted will struggle to continue or be replicated. I am not aware of any existing funding that would help fill the gap. For longer-term services such as business support and employability programmes that rely on establishing trust and employing staff, the cliff edge is of particular concern. Providers are likely to see staff leave as contracts get closer to their end dates, putting at risk efforts to support businesses and help people get back into work and stay in good, stable employment. For those reasons, I join with the LGA to urge the Minister to work with the Chancellor to include an additional one year of flexible revenue funding for the UKSPF in the forthcoming Budget. The LGA has suggested that such funding should equate to the value of year 3 of the UKSPF programme. I ask the Minister to consider that as part of his discussions with the Chancellor. Doing so would remove the immediate cliff edge and give Ministers time to consider what the new Government’s approach to local growth funds should be. As I have set out, I consider that longer term allocations are needed alongside a more flexible and lighter-touch national framework that supports even greater local decision making. That would also give time to assess the full outputs of the UKSPF and what improvements can be made for a future replacement fund. I am pleased to say that the outcomes achieved by Medway council already exceed those set out in the original UKSPF investment plan submitted to Whitehall some years ago. That data, alongside data from lots of other local authorities, should be available to Ministers and could provide a valuable steer on what approaches proved successful and what did not work. I am really confident that by learning from the past and working in partnership with local government to deliver a more flexible, longer-term funding scheme, the new Government could provide a real boost to local economies and communities that goes beyond far beyond anything that we have seen in the current UKSPF funding cycle.