SCOTTISH Government ministers say they have had “no clear response” from Westminster on how a post-Brexit funding scheme will work – despite asking questions for almost two years.
The Employment Minister, Richard Lochhead, said he was “beyond disappointed” with the UK Government on the issue of how its Shared Prosperity Fund – brought in as a replacement for EU structural funding – would work.
He has written to UK ministers asking a series of “vitally important questions that we need urgent answers to”.
The letter, to housing, communities and local government minister Luke Hall, demands to know how money from the scheme will be distributed.
The Scottish Government believes money due to Scotland under the Shared Prosperity Fund should come to it “in line with existing well-established arrangements”.
And Lochhead (pictured) insisted: “If this is not the case, Scotland’s communities risk being let down by badly informed UK Government spending decisions.”
In the letter to Hall, he stated: “It is not possible for UK ministers to make well informed and sound decisions about spending in devolved areas in Scotland without consultation and agreement with Scottish ministers, to ensure coherence with existing spending plans, value
for money and respect for responsibility and democratic accountability of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.”
Lochhead stressed that “increased public funding for Scotland and Scottish stakeholders is always welcomed”.
But he also used his letter to make clear “funding would be better routed directly through the Scottish Government in line with devolved competence”.
He told ministers in London that Scottish ministers “remain beyond disappointed by the continued refusal of the UK Government to engage the Scottish Government in any meaningful way” about the development of UK Shared Prosperity Fund and other funds, including the Community Renewal Fund and the Levelling Up Fund.
Lochhead added: “The level of engagement stands in sharp contrast to the close working relationship that the Scottish Government had with the European Commission on the development of the Structural Fund Programmes.”
He wants to meet UK Government ministers at the “earliest opportunity” to discuss these “pressing issues”.
Lochhead said: “Since the 1970s, substantial EU funding has supported Scotland’s businesses, infrastructure, environment and communities. We urgently need clarity from UK Government ministers on how they will deliver its long overdue replacement, so it is beyond disappointing that they continue to refuse to engage with us in any meaningful way.
“My letter asks vitally important questions that we need urgent answers to – how devolution will be respected, what geographical criteria will be used when distributing grants, and whether money will be allocated according to need or through competitive bids.
“These are matters that the Scottish Government has been raising for almost two years with no clear response.”
A spokesperson for the UK Government’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We have been clear that the £4.8 billion Levelling Up Fund, the £220 million UK Community Renewal Fund and the £150m Community Ownership Fund will be open to all areas in Scotland and will play a vital role in helping to support and regenerate communities.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel