Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Despite the Secretary of State’s bluster, he will be aware that the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has written to him—I have the letter right here—to express her deep concerns about the UK Government’s lack of engagement during the drafting of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and about how it cuts across devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives from the Scottish Parliament specifically to discuss the democratic imperative of respect for the powers of that Parliament? Or does he simply not recognise the democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament?

[Michael Gove]

I love to visit the Scottish Parliament; all sorts of wonderful folk serve in it, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), and others who do such a brilliant job in holding the Scottish Government to account—

[Patricia Gibson]

He’s not here!

[Michael Gove]

Well, he is holding the Scottish Government to account. Nobody else is doing it.

I had the opportunity to appear in front of Mr Ken Gibson a few months ago—what a pleasure it was. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are our partners in making sure that we can make levelling up a success. An example of that is the fact that the Cabinet Secretary whose letter the hon. Lady so elegantly holds has been working with the UK Government to deliver two new freeports in Scotland that would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union. I am glad to see the Scottish Government embracing one of the benefits of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm his willingness to meet me, North Ayrshire Council and key partners to discuss the robust proposals for a fusion energy plant at Ardeer in my constituency? Does he agree that a successful Ardeer bid would provide a step change in local and regional economic prosperity, as well as being a catalyst for long-term sustainable investment in North Ayrshire?

[Michael Gove]

Yes and yes. Even though they are not in my party, I must say that North Ayrshire’s elected representatives in this House and in Holyrood do a fantastic job for their constituents in championing nuclear power.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Second sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

Q This question is mainly for Sacha and Rich. It is about high street rental auctions, which the Bill introduces. As well as being an opportunity to improve our high streets and regenerate the local economy, do you think they are an opportunity for voluntary groups, small businesses and social enterprises to get themselves a place on the high street? How would you like to see community involvement in that high street rental auction process work?

Rich Bell: We were very encouraged by the detail of this proposal. We were very pleased to see that the Bill defines high street use in a way that recognises the use of high street premises as a communal meeting space. It is incredibly important that the legislation recognises that high streets are not just drivers of local economies; they are the sites of the bumping spaces and the meeting places that stitch together our social fabric. It is similarly positive that the Bill’s local benefit condition recognises the social and environmental benefits of high street premises as well as their economic benefits.

We encourage the Government to consider how they can shape accompanying regulations to ensure that local authorities feel that they have permission to work with social enterprises and local community organisations, and to shape their own criteria for high street auctions, so that those community organisations can gain access to high street sites. As I say, we were encouraged by the detail.

Sacha Bedding: High streets are absolutely about pride. There is nothing worse than seeing boarded-up places. The opportunity for local ownership and activity will help. People are full of ideas on how to do that. I will not go on too long; we absolutely agree with what Rich said, and there will be any amount of ideas, not just focused around retail, on how people can help make their high streets thriving places again.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Q I noted your comments, Mr Bell, about the importance of team spirit in levelling up communities. Do you have any thoughts or comments about the fact that the Scottish Government will not be involved at the decision-making stage in the allocation of levelling-up funding? That suggests that there will be implications for duplication, the inefficient use of resources, and lack of strategic overview.

Rich Bell: My only comment would be to say that it seems incredibly important, when taking what is a pretty radical step in promoting sub-regional devolution across England, to do so in a joined-up way which involves dialogue with all the national Governments across the UK. That said, I would say that the problem in the Bill is not the lack of emphasis on sub-regional and national devolution; the problem is the lack of emphasis on devolution at the most local level, as Sacha said, and the complete absence of genuine community leadership.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q The Institute of Economic Affairs has described the missions in the Bill as being of “dubious quality”. Do you have any concerns about whether there are sufficient or robust ways of objectively measuring the progress and impact of levelling up, given that many say that there appears to be a lack of accountability or even ownership for each of the missions? If you do have such concerns, how do you think that the Bill could, or should, be altered to address them?

Rich Bell: I suspect that this is a question that Graeme and Parth will be able to answer slightly better. As a campaign, we certainly see a case for some sort of independent body that would be charged with assessing the suitability of the levelling-up missions and, crucially, the metrics against which they are measured.

Something we are calling for, as part of our proposal for a community power Act, is the creation of a community power commissioner to assess the Government’s performance in upholding the rights of communities. We would say that there is something unique about the Bill in its emphasis on local leadership and on issues of social infrastructure and social capital, and we would like to see particular attention paid to those elements of this agenda when it comes to shaping the metrics and assessing the suitability of the missions.

Dr Patel: On the first part of that question, the mission quality, I think that some of the missions are excellent and some are not. Not every mission is equal. That is the top line. Despite the domains being about right as a package, some of the missions are quite narrow—education and skills, for example. Some of them are quite vague, the living standards one in particular, and some of them are probably just a bit too easy to achieve—even with a do-nothing approach, you would probably end up hitting that mission. Having said that, some of the missions are excellent, like the health one. We could dwell on that a little more.

The second half of your question was about accountability. I strongly welcome the reporting to Parliament. Particularly given recent trends in the use of secondary legislation and in the bypassing of Parliament in the Brexit negotiations and the covid legislation, it is nice to see the parliamentary scrutiny mechanism used. It is great that the Government will be doing that. Having said that, I do not think that that in itself is adequate, or at least it is on the low end of ambition, when accountability frameworks might have been useful.

In addition to the political accountability that Parliament will give by something being brought before Parliament each year, a further step would be independent scrutiny. There is the council here, but it is still at the behest of the Government and it will not have analytical power, capability or policy expertise, or the quantitative expertise, to be able to provide this really rigorous scrutiny that you would want around the missions, akin to what we have for climate progress—we have the Climate Change Committee, and the Office for Budget Responsibility or even the National Infrastructure Commission. If we had an institution like that, if the council—which has no statutory footing for levelling up—were turned into an independent institution with a statutory footing, with that coming some resource to hire the policy experts that you need, that would be excellent.

You would then have the political accountability mechanism, as well as the technocratic accountability mechanism. One might be better placed to do an annual progress report and the other to do an annual delivery plan, but those two mechanisms together would be the gold standard to ensure accountability and progress on the missions.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q Does Professor Atherton want to add anything?

Professor Atherton: Yes. I agree, particularly on the issue of independence and scrutiny. Transparency is important as well, if we are going to construct what is most desirable, which is some form of independent scrutiny. If you look at the Bill, it is weak in that area, with regards to how the missions are scrutinised. That has to be done in a transparent way, whatever approach is taken. We have already seen in the distribution and levelling-up funds some issues regarding transparency and clarity in those areas. I would also say that we would have to consider how the ability is set in the Bill to change the missions. There is something of a contradiction to consider there in that the missions are meant to be long-term challenges.

In the White Paper, there is significant attention placed on the nature of missions—why we have missions and how they will make a significant difference to how we deliver on this agenda. However, in the long-term element, there is at the same time the ability set in the Bill to change the missions, and I think how that is done needs to be transparent. If we consider the time limits, from my understanding of the Bill, they can be changed quite frequently, possibly after only a small period of implementation, which would suggest that we could have a scenario where we move from mission to mission.

That kind of devalues the concept of the missions altogether. We have to consider what the missions are adding to the mix. Overall, they have a possible powerful role to play. The way the policy is constructed is to have lots of other different policies moving towards levelling up. Having a mission is a way of tying that together in some way, so I think that is quite welcome, but for them to work, they have to generally be constructed as different from a policy target—i.e. a mission. Therefore, it implies longevity, scrutiny, transparency as well as clear metrics around progress and, as I said before, consistency across the nature of what the missions are.

[Patricia Gibson]

Chair, perhaps we could let Sacha come in on that if he wants.

[The Chair]

Quickly, because we have a number of people who still want to speak, and we are running a bit short on time. Sacha, do you want to come in on that?

Sacha Bedding: No, it’s fine.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (First sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

Q Thank you. I have just one more question, turning to your work and your previous response on regional growth. You have been part of a really successive triangle of work in Cambridge that brings together business and academia and has had great development success—success that we are seeking to see elsewhere in the country. What are the features of a local economy that really motors like that? What do we need to have elsewhere in order to see that success?

Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: This is a topic of tremendous interest in UKRI: how do you build clusters of activity that create self-sustaining positive feedback cycles that really grow things, anchored in a place? A lot of work has been done examining this over the years, in many places. As usual, it is a combination of factors. In many cases there is a lot of evidence that anchor institutions seed a lot of that activity, be that an excellent university, some kind of prime industrial presence or an excellent research institute—for example, a public sector research establishment or a catapult. Some kind of anchor activity fuels a critical element of the cycle, which could be on the research side or the innovation side, or hopefully a combination of the two. That is one of the key components.

The other absolutely critical element is about people—skills and people. A local environment anchors people there by providing the kind of living and working environment that attracts people to a region. Anchor institutions contribute to that, but so does the skills environment—the skills, training and opportunities that are available. For me, joining all those things up is particularly important. In the context of people, such an environment is one in which people go for a particular reason for a particular job, but the opportunities around that environment are such that there are other jobs that are also exciting.

It is about getting that dynamic mobility of people between, say, the university sector, the SME sector—small and medium-sized enterprises—and the more prime business sector, with people moving around and all the allied activities needed to fuel that, such as the local policy and the investment communities that go with that. Joining all that stuff up in the local ecosystem, through strong leadership locally—a critical element—and those key anchor institutions, provides exciting opportunities for people to build a whole variety of careers, working through that ecosystem.

Those are the key ingredients, and UKRI obviously has a role in supporting several of those, but they can only be successful in the context of that broader alignment between local leadership and the wider attractors needed in a local environment to bring people in and keep them there: transport networks, cultural institutions—those kinds of things.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Q You will be aware of the allegations—the suspicions in certain quarters—about how transparent and impartial the allocation of the towns fund awards were. Given that similar concerns have been expressed by the Public Accounts Committee about the potential for this with levelling-up funds, what measures do you think would be helpful to allay the fears that distribution of levelling-up awards might be open to similar charges of lack of transparency and of impartiality?

Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: I am not sure exactly which funding you are referring to. From the point of view of the funds that are being allocated through UKRI, as I mentioned earlier, the funds that are explicitly placed—targeted—are not a very large proportion of our overall funds. For me, the key goal is to think about it in the context of the capacity-building element that I said is so important. There should be local empowerment and local consideration about what would be the best interventions in those places.

We have run the strength in places programme for a while, and it has run on a fully open competition. One of the advantages of fully open competitions is that they provide an equal opportunity for everybody to begin with, which is good. On the other hand, they are slower and more bureaucratic, in that you have to run the open competition. There is an interesting balance to be struck between that process and the ability more rapidly and fluidly to allocate money to places, so that they can use the money in a way that targets their local priorities.

We are in the process of working out how best to work to deliver the new funds that have come through the recent spending review, which are being targeted specifically at three regions. Those regions were selected based on evidence that that kind of injection of cash could really drive the capacity building that I described. There are very high-quality objective measures of how you can consider that capacity in different places and, therefore, the impact of the funding that goes in. I would absolutely agree with you that it is really important, in the context of a levelling-up agenda, that funding is seen to be allocated fairly with the opportunity for everyone to access the benefits of those funds.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q To follow up on that, there are communities that would really benefit from levelling-up funding, and the indices of multiple deprivation to assess need are not being used here. Do you have any concerns or comments about that?

Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: I am specifically interested and involved in the funds associated with R&D investment, and the important thing about R&D investment is that there has to be the ability to use it effectively locally to drive and build local capacity in R&D activity. That has got to be the governing choice. It is clear that simply transferring money to places that are most in need of levelling-up, with the instruction that it should be spent on R&D, is not an effective way to tackle the specific, targeted issues in every region. As an accounting officer for this money, I have to deliver value for money, and that value for money has to be based on the ability of regions to use that money effectively to drive their capacity building in R&D activity. Wider investments should be made on different criteria, but for R&D investment it has to be R&D criteria.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q On the topic of R&D, do you think there is any merit in involving the devolved Parliaments at the decision-making stage, in terms of a strategic overview of the effective use of resources?

Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser: UKRI is deeply engaged with the devolved Administrations on R&D investment. We have regular meetings and are working very hard to ensure that everything we do right across our investment portfolio, quite independently of the levelling-up agenda, is properly sensitive to the variation in need across the UK. Actually, we in UKRI have a lot to learn in the context of the incredibly successful activity going on in all the devolved Administrations on thoughtful, targeted investment, making use of the multiple streams that are available to drive up local economic growth.

I visited Northern Ireland fairly recently, where they have done a fantastic job of increasing the R&D intensity in a very effective way through this kind of careful, concerted investment in particular areas that are a focus for Northern Ireland. I absolutely agree that deep consideration of the devolved Administrations is very important, both in making sure that what we do supports the whole the UK, and in learning from very successful interventions in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

[The Chair]

I call Tim Farron. Will you bear in mind I have another question after you? Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, professor. We have until 11.25 am for this session. I will start with Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q Thank you and welcome, Professor Spowage. The Public Accounts Committee has expressed concerns that the allocation of levelling-up funds could be at risk of being mired in the same kind of controversy and difficulties as the towns fund. Nobody wants to see that happen. What measures do you think would help to ensure that the allocation of any levelling-up funding is fully transparent and can be accounted for?

Mairi Spowage: We did quite a lot of work last year through the first iteration of the levelling-up fund on the sorts of metrics that were used to determine the highest priority areas. The UK Government made it clear in their criteria for which projects would be funded that that was not be the only thing that would be taken into account and that there were other issues they would look at around the strategic fit. In particular, in the first round there were a lot of criteria about how quickly certain pots of money could be spent. For community renewal, it had to be spent by March 2022; for levelling up, it was over a number of years. There were quite strict criteria that would be applied. In addition, there was the requirement that projects or packages of projects also be supported by local MPs.

I am most familiar with the Scottish projects, but the series of projects across the UK that were funded were not necessarily in the areas that were identified as highest priority using the metrics that had been set out. I suppose it is for the UK Government to say why that is the case and why the particular projects were funded, as I am not familiar with all the projects that did not get funded, for example.

It will be very important throughout this process and in the future, and for the shared prosperity fund as well, to set out clearly why the projects being funded are likely to achieve the outcomes set out in the levelling-up White Paper and broader outcomes around the funds. That will ensure these investments actually lead to the sorts of changes that the UK Government desires. They should then set out why a project will move the metrics they have chosen to measure the success of the fund. It will be very important to have clarity on why the packages of projects that are being funded will actually help achieve the outcomes.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q What might the impact be on the entire levelling-up agenda? The Government have not used indices of multiple deprivation to assess need when distributing levelling-up funding.

Mairi Spowage: It is a really good question. There has been a challenge around indices of multiple deprivation for many years. In general, they are used within the devolved nations to distribute funds, whether looking at how different things are invested in in health or education or what targets are set for universities. They are generally used in the devolved nations.

The issue with the indices of multiple deprivation is that they are not comparable across nations. While they rank areas within each of the nations, they do not say anything about how a particular output area or data zone in Scotland compares to one in England, both because they are just relative ranks within a country and because different metrics are used and different methodologies are adopted.

We said in one of the papers we published last year that perhaps a body like the Office for National Statistics might wish to consider how we can say something sensible about relative need on multiple dimensions of deprivation right across the UK. Given the ambitions of the UK Government, their levelling-up agenda and the way they are choosing to fund that as a replacement for EU funding, there is a clear policy need for that sort of tool now. It is very difficult for the UK Government to use the current indices of multiple deprivation across the UK, because you cannot compare between nations.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q To pursue that point, we know that the UK Government want the devolved Parliaments to be involved at the implementation stage rather than decision-making stage, as happened with the EU funding. What do you think the impact of not involving the devolved Parliaments at the decision-making stage is on the efficient use of resources and strategic overview?

Mairi Spowage: There is a danger, depending on the sorts of the projects that are funded through the levelling-up and shared prosperity funds, that in devolved areas UK Government aims for what these projects might achieve will come into conflict with the aims of the devolved Government. It would make sense for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments, and indeed regional governments in England through combined and mayoral authorities, at the point at which they are making decisions.

It is made clear in the criteria around the shared prosperity fund that the local plans to be set out by areas across the country need to be cognisant of local strategies such as the national strategy for economic transformation in Scotland. They do set that out in the criteria for what the plans are going to fund, but I always think it makes sense for collaboration between different layers of government to ensure that the projects funded do not come into conflict with any ambitions that the Welsh Government, Scottish Government or the Northern Ireland Executive—when it can form—have for economic development in their nation, particularly when talking about spending in devolved areas.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q Do you think it would be helpful or desirable for an independent body to oversee and assess the UK Government’s progress on levelling up?

Mairi Spowage: Through the Bill, my understanding is that the UK Government have to publish regular updates on the progress that they are making towards the missions that it sets out and the metrics chosen to measure success. There is quite a lot of work to do to ensure that those metrics cover the whole of the UK on all the different missions. There is a significant amount of investment—I believe that the ONS is looking to try to do that better, but it is not for me to say whether an independent body should be set up to monitor what is, after all, a UK Government policy agenda that they can legitimately pursue.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Professor Spowage, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us this morning. The Bill creates statutory requirements around the levelling ambitions that we were just discussing. One of those is on digital connectivity. Through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, Scotland is likely to see particularly large increases in connectivity. How do we best drive growth, particularly in more rural parts of Scotland? How do we best measure progress in the roll-out of connectivity? Do you agree that the rise of online working is, potentially, a strong tailwind for the rural Scottish economy?

Mairi Spowage: Yes, if and when digital connectivity is of sufficient quality it will present a lot of opportunities for the rural economy. We still hear in parts of Scotland that it is a barrier to remote working. It would be hugely transformative for lots of areas, particularly of rural Scotland, but I am sure that lots of other rural parts of the UK would say the same. It would be transformative in terms of the connectivity of people working from home, perhaps for businesses in population centres but also for businesses that are operating in these areas, to have a more reliable connection. It could be extremely transformative to those areas.

We have heard from some of our work with businesses that to a certain extent it can also work the other way. Businesses based in remote and rural Scotland are employing people in the big population centres, but sometimes having to pay them more money because they are more likely to command higher wages in those areas, particularly in this very tight labour market that we have at the moment.

Improvements in digital connectivity present huge opportunities for rural Scotland. As much as there is quite a lot of focus on transport connectivity through the levelling-up funds, investment UK-wide—particularly in rural areas—in digital connectivity is one of the areas where we could get the biggest bang for our buck in transforming the economy and reducing regional inequality, particularly when we look at the population outlook if current trends continue in rural areas.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I wish I could say that I was optimistic about the impact of the Bill, but the fact is that this flagship Government agenda will not deliver what it purportedly sets out to do; it is mere smoke and mirrors. We have moved on from the vague so-called missions in the White Paper to a Bill which is doomed to fail. Even the respected Institute of Economic Affairs has concluded that the plans, which are grandly referred to as missions, are “of dubious quality”. The new five-year plans and annual updates just will not be a fix for that dubious quality.

It is not just me, the SNP and, indeed, those in the Institute of Economic Affairs who are unconvinced by the Bill. The Institute for Government has concluded that it

“lacks the ambition needed to deliver”

the Government’s own levelling-up missions.

A real flaw in the Bill is the lack of accountability and ownership of each of the 12 levelling-up missions on the part of individual UK Government Departments. The Government could, of course, fix that if they chose to do so. Instead, they have given themselves the power to move the goalposts and change targets that look as if they will not be met. Rather than merely marking their own homework, the Government are ready to lower the pass mark of the test that they have set themselves if they fail. They tell us how important their levelling-up plans are; they tell us that the plans are a “flagship” commitment. If that is really true, why do they seem to have so little faith in their ability to deliver true levelling up?

The Institute for Public Policy Research has called for an independent body, established in law, to oversee and judge the UK’s progress on levelling up. What Government who had confidence in their ability to deliver true levelling up, as the Government say they do, would resist that kind of scrutiny and accountability? What have they to fear from transparent and objective allocation mechanisms for delivery? The only conclusion that can logically be drawn is that the Government know that there is more bluster here than actual substance. True levelling up requires investment, but the necessary financial backing is absent. Any investment must be delivered in a non-partisan and transparent way. And let us not forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that departmental budgets will actually be lower in 2025 than they were in 2010. How does that support levelling up?

People in Scotland know that this Government cannot be trusted with levelling up. There has been a 5.2% cut in Scotland’s resource budget, and a 9.7% cut in its capital budget. Levelling up, my eye! We only have to look at the Government’s record. Brexit—which it roundly rejected—has cost Scotland billions of pounds, causing exports to plunge, with increasing costs for families and businesses. The Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted a chilling 4% contraction in the economy from Brexit alone. I know that it makes uncomfortable reading for Conservative Members, but Bloomberg’s research shows that under this Prime Minister, many areas that were lagging behind before his election are now further behind than before. In fact, 87% of constituencies are now stagnant or falling even further behind.

Only 38% of the 100 most deprived councils have received any levelling up money. According to the Institute for Government, central Government grants to councils were reduced by 37% in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20—and at this point, only about two fifths of the Brexit damage has been inflicted. We see that all too clearly in Scotland, where exports fell by 25% in the latest year, to June 2021, compared with the equivalent period in the previous year.

How can we truly believe that levelling up really is a “mission” of this Government, when every indicator points to so many being left behind? Families are left to struggle on through a cost of living crisis, with insufficient support or even understanding from the Government. However, there is another aspect to all this. How can it be true levelling up if several Ministers whose seats are prosperous receive priority for levelling-up funding? The 49 councils in England that are considered to be the “most developed” are now priority places for so-called levelling up, and are represented by no fewer than 35 Tory MPs. What a coincidence! How can it be true levelling up if this funding has favoured wealthy Tory areas over deprived areas? Indeed, the constituency of Bromsgrove has done very well out of levelling-up funding, despite being one of the wealthiest areas in England. The Institute for Government has said that for true levelling up to take place, there must be an “incredibly serious, complete re-orientation”, but there is, as yet, no evidence of that.

Per person, per head, Wales and Scotland are getting less levelling up than England. Scotland is receiving a mere 3.5% of all funding, despite having 8.2% of the UK’s population. I know the Minister thinks that pesky Scots should just shut up and be grateful, but we in Scotland are not very fond of tugging our forelocks in gratitude for crumbs from the Westminster table. Moreover, we cannot simply forget that the Public Accounts Committee—with its majority of Tory MPs—concluded in November 2021 that the allocation of the much-trumpeted towns fund was “not impartial”. Yet we are supposed to believe that it will all be different now, with the levelling-up fund, even though we know that certain Tory MPs—I am choosing my words carefully—appeared to tweet about how they had expressed confidence in the Prime Minister, having been told that funding for their constituency would be “looked at again”. So much for levelling up! Many have perceived this to mean that it depends on patronage and favours, as opposed to doing what it says on the tin. No wonder this Government are running scared of setting up an independent body to oversee and judge the UK’s progress on levelling up.

How can the people of Scotland truly believe this rhetoric about levelling up when no one trusts a word that this Prime Minister says any more, and even fewer have confidence in him? It also must be said that levelling up, in all its ill-conceived guises, is a clumsy and pretty obvious attempt to claw back powers from the pesky devolved nations who will not take their medicine and co-operate by voting Tory. Their democratic institutions must be undermined, so that they can be governed by Tories in devolved areas whether they like it or not. They will have to take that medicine.

This ought to come as no surprise to anyone. We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is part of a group of senior Tories who are plotting to undermine devolution with the so-called “muscular Unionism” which has replaced the so-called “respect agenda”, health being the latest devolved competency in their sights. It has been well trailed, not least on the Conservative Home site, that the Secretary of State—not so much Scotland’s man in the Cabinet as the Cabinet’s man in Scotland—is

“dismissive of both the theory and practice of the Scottish Parliament”.

Not to worry; I hear that most of the democratically elected members of that institution feel the same way about him. But this Bill—following on the heels of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the repeated disregard for legislative consent motions, and the petty taking of the Scottish Parliament to court over the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill—shows the Government’s real agenda; and Scotland sees, and her people are not fooled by these attacks on our Parliament.

In this Bill, the Government say that the devolution of power is important to the levelling-up agenda, while at the same time they concentrate all the power for the delivery of funding in Whitehall, imposing a top-down approach on devolved Parliaments and riding roughshod over devolved powers. Levelling-up funding delivered across the UK has already robbed Scotland of £400 million in Barnett consequentials. We are now in a farcical and hugely disrespectful position, as the UK Government seek the Scottish Government’s help in implementing projects selected by the UK Government in devolved areas.

Part 1 of the Bill must be radically reformed so that devolved Governments take the lead in any levelling-up investment in devolved areas, which is what they were elected to do. Just as the Scottish Government took the lead with EU investment, they must also be allowed their legitimate democratic place with levelling-up funding. That will avoid duplication of spending and inefficiency, and will also focus levelling-up priorities and missions on devolved strategies and plans. Setting councils against each other and cutting out the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament will deliver no coherent strategic vision for Scotland and her priorities. The other areas of the Bill that impinge on devolved competences, in parts 3, 5 and 10, also require legislative consent motions from the Scottish Parliament. Consultation is not enough. The Scottish Parliament must have democratic responsibility for devolved matters, as it has been elected to do.

My SNP colleagues and I are not impressed by the Bill, which could be a metaphor for this whole Tory Government. It is mere smoke and mirrors; it will not do what it says on the tin; all attempts to hold it to independent scrutiny and accountability have been rejected; the goalposts can be moved and targets changed when they are missed, suggesting that failure is baked into its very core; and it is a blunt instrument to attack devolved powers. The Government can trumpet this Bill all they like, but it is doomed to deliver nothing of any substance to the areas of Scotland and the rest of the UK that desperately need levelling up. Like this Tory Government, no one trusts it, no one is fooled by it, and it will undoubtedly let people down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Despite the bullish posturing, the Minister knows that households across the UK are suffering terrible hardship because of the cost of living crisis, which has the Tories’ name written all over it. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is that Scotland’s resource budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 5.2%, and the capital budget allocation has been cut by Westminster by 9.7% in real terms. How can he claim to support economic growth across the UK when the Scottish Government’s ability to support business, investment and people through the cost of living crisis can only be severely constrained by these cuts?

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady talks about Scottish public spending. The truth is that the record block grant that Scotland has just received is the biggest settlement since devolution—it is huge. For every £100 of spending elsewhere, there is £126 of public spending in Scotland. The implication in the hon. Lady’s question is just not correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely reject the hon. Member’s assertion. It is not true that the shared prosperity fund is less; it is more. The Opposition are looking at different sources of funding to arrive at their inaccurate figures. If he would like us to explain how it works, I would be very happy to provide him with a letter.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Bloomberg’s devastating forensic analysis of the Government’s progress with their so-called levelling-up agenda has found no overall levelling-up progress in Scotland. On the contrary, the UK Government are levelling down Scotland compared with London, which has had significant levelling-up funding and gains since 2019. Disparities across the UK are widening. To what extent does the Minister agree with Bloomberg’s analysis that the Tories are levelling down Scotland and prioritising the south of England?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid that is not a statement that we accept. I looked at the Bloomberg figures, and I noticed that Bloomberg was using a 2019 baseline, when the whole purpose of levelling up is to ensure that we solve the problems identified. I would like the hon. Lady to look at the metrics that we have included in the “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” White Paper, and at the missions in it; it is through those that we will level up across the country.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As I mentioned earlier, in the context of the Home Secretary’s announcement last week, we want to make sure that anyone who applies, either using a Ukrainian passport or through a visa application centre, goes through basic security checks. As we know, it is a hard and difficult fact that there are malign actors in that part of eastern Europe who may wish to abuse the scheme, so we have to balance security against other considerations. The speed with which we can now turn around applications is a sign that we are prioritising compassion.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State says he hopes that many people will be ready to open their home, but it seems that, due to Home Office guidance, none of the 3,000-plus spare rooms offered to Afghan refugees by hosts across the UK has been used. That does not inspire confidence in the Ukrainian scheme, so what steps will he take to ensure that the Ukraine sponsorship scheme is more successful than the Afghan scheme and that Home Office guidance facilitates rather than blocks Ukrainian refugees from settling here in the UK?

[Michael Gove]

The Home Secretary and I will do everything possible to improve the operation of the scheme, in line with the hon. Lady’s points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Scotland was promised £1.5 billion a year when the UK left the European Union, as part of a so-called Brexit bonanza. In reality, only £172 million has been announced so far. That means that, for every pound promised to Scotland, only 11p has been committed. Can the Secretary of State explain why Scotland is being short-changed by 89%, and will he tell us when that shortfall will be addressed?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that we want to welcome more bids to the levelling up fund from Scotland; indeed, we are in discussion with Scottish local authorities and others about the distribution of the UK shared prosperity fund. However, I hope I can avoid provoking a blush on the hon. Lady’s cheek if I say that her local authority of North Ayrshire, North Ayrshire’s Member of the Scottish Parliament and the hon. Lady herself have been uniquely successful in securing funding from the levelling-up fund. I encourage other Members of the Scottish National party to be as energetic, co-ordinated and effective as she, the MSP for North Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Council have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call SNP spokesperson Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Transparency International recently estimated that more than £1.5 billion-worth of UK property was bought by Russian oligarchs accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin between 2016 and 2021, of which £1 billion is in London. Can the Secretary of State assure that House that the UK will bring forward emergency legislation to repossess Kremlin-linked properties in London, which he reportedly favours, and does he agree that using the proceeds from those properties to offer further support to humanitarian efforts in Ukraine would be entirely appropriate and desirable?

[Michael Gove]

For the second time today, I must praise the hon. Lady for a gift of clairvoyance that few hon. Members enjoy.

Shared Prosperity Fund: Devolved Administrations

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the shared prosperity fund and the devolved Governments, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for bringing it forward and for setting out her case so comprehensively.

The Tory manifesto pledged a fair and equal share of funding that would fully replace EU support, which in Scotland would have been around £183 million per year. However, the Treasury Committee has already indicated, in a report published at the end of January, that the UK shared prosperity fund up to 2024-25 will be worth 40% less than EU support. In addition, all the power over the delivery of the funding is concentrated in Whitehall. There is no doubt that devolved Governments have been ignored. The Scottish Government as yet have no details of how much funding will be allocated to Scotland, nor has there been any consultation with Scottish Ministers, who have had no role in investment proposals or decisions in areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

The UK shared prosperity fund will replace the EU structural funds from next month, and still there has been no meaningful engagement with Scottish Ministers, or indeed those of other devolved nations. In January, the House of Lords Constitution Committee concluded that the UK Government continued to ignore devolution and the devolved Governments’ calls for greater transparency on decisions being taken with regard to levelling-up funding. With the publication of the shared prosperity fund pre-launch guidance this month, the role of devolved Governments and Parliaments is still completely unclear. The UK Government have chosen to work directly with local authorities, as presented in the guidance, and there is no evidence that they respect devolution or consider the Scottish Government, for example, an equal partner. Because the UK Government have also failed to offer any indication of Scotland’s shared prosperity fund allocation, or indeed how levelling up will align with the priorities of the Scottish Government, there is no overarching strategic thinking or planning in accordance with the Scottish Government’s priorities.

It is simply not respectful for the UK Government to seek the Scottish Government’s help in implementing projects after they have been selected by the UK Government. The Scottish Government, and all the devolved Governments, should be consulted at all stages, as was the case with EU funding. What possible objection could there be to that, unless the purpose is to undermine devolution? Although I appreciate that the Minister will tell us of the great munificence of the UK Government, it is also important to remember that in his last Budget, the Chancellor announced several direct funding programmes in Scotland through the levelling-up funding, totalling £172 million in spending. However, the rolling out of the levelling-up fund to communities around the UK short-changed the Scottish Government of expected Barnett consequentials, leaving a £400 million hole in the budget.

Delays to the delivery of post-Brexit funding—a year into Brexit—have already robbed poorer areas of £1.5 billion in funding, with the shared prosperity fund not set to deliver until April. When it is delivered, it will fall far short of previous EU funding. The reality is that Scotland will receive 3.5% of all levelling-up funding, despite having 8.2% of the UK’s population. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. The reality is that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up and the Prime Minister led a Brexit campaign promising £1.5 billion a year for Scottish devolved services when the UK left the EU. Instead, all we have heard is an announcement of £172 million. To put that into context, Scotland has received 11p for every £1 promised. In effect, Scotland has been short-changed by 89% of what was promised. I know the Minister will dispute this, but there is a growing consensus that the devolved Governments have been short-changed. The Treasury Committee says so, the House of Lords Constitution Committee says so, the Scottish Government say so, and the Unionist Welsh Government say so. They all agree that this is the case.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I want to raise the issue of Interreg with my hon. Friend, because the shared prosperity fund is touted as a replacement for EU structural funds, but the levelling-up White Paper makes no mention of Interreg. Interreg was very important to organisations such as the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which works in collaboration with other partners and gets a lot of funding on the back of that in order to tackle really important common challenges in meeting our targets for net zero. Is my hon. Friend aware of that, and does she agree that it is essential that the funding is replaced?

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The fact is that a number of organisations, including the European Marine Energy Centre, are very concerned about funding going forward, given the cuts to funding that I and many other speakers in the debate have talked about today.

Scotland has been short-changed and her Parliament undermined. I know the Minister thinks Scotland should be grateful, but the post-Brexit funding bonanza has not materialised and as a result important projects across Scotland and the devolved nations have been jeopardised. Scotland is the poorer for Brexit in so many ways. I hope the Minister will at least recognise the loss of funding that Scotland and the other devolved nations have suffered as a result and all the other concerns that he has heard about today. I really hope that when he gets to his feet, he will make a genuine attempt to address those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I think that innovation accelerator is terribly exciting, but I can guarantee to the hon. Lady that as part of UKSPF we are engaging at all levels with devolved Governments and other local partners with important expertise. We will also be setting up an inter-ministerial group, with ministerial representation from all the devolved Governments, so that we have a regular forum on the breadth of my Department’s work to discuss these matters and to ensure there is an open dialogue across the whole UK.

The UKSPF has been designed to empower local places in all four nations of the UK. My Department is engaging with local government associations—including the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association—ahead of and following the publication of the pre-launch guidance.

We will continue to engage with the devolved Governments and wider partners on the design and operation of the fund so that we can get the best outcomes across all the UK, because there are so many different priorities. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about fishing communities, and we heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) about important community groups. There are many different partners that we have to engage in shaping this important programme.

We are engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive at an official level regarding the concerns they raised about programmes that are currently running under the European social fund. That dialogue will help to push on arrangements that maximise that fund delivery in Northern Ireland. However, it is worth thinking about the totality of these different funds because, as well as the shared prosperity fund, we also have the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund, which is a one-year fund to transition us on to the UKSPF.

For Northern Ireland alone, if we look at some of those different sources of funding, my Department has provided £49 million via the levelling-up fund, £12 million as part of the community renewal fund, and funding through the community ownership fund, which enables different community groups to take things into community ownership. At the same time, we have made important long-term commitments in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland and Wales, through the city and growth deals. In Northern Ireland, those are worth £670 million—funding that is being matched by the Northern Ireland Executive. That is in addition to Northern Ireland-specific schemes, such as Peace Plus.

One of the challenges on my mind, as a Minister, is how we can all work together to ensure that the schemes work in such a way that they are more than the sum of their parts. I am conscious that there are a number of different schemes there; how do we ensure that the totality of the opportunities in Northern Ireland, which are very exciting, are best served by the confluence of all these different funding streams? It is useful, through t UKSPF, to have some funding that is not challenge-based but formula-based, and therefore, in that sense, a bit more flexible to provide bits of match funding to complement those other, existing funding streams.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister mentioned the importance of his Government working in partnership with the devolved Governments. I am sure we are all pleased to hear that. Would he therefore like to comment on the conclusion of the House of Lords Constitution Committee in its report in January that the UK Government have ignored—and continue to ignore—devolution and the devolved Governments in this process?

[Neil O'Brien]

There will always be a range of views on these questions. As my Secretary of State set out in his evidence to the Scottish Parliament the other day, our strong belief is that all these things will work best if we can engage not just the devolved Governments but local partners across the whole the UK.

It is worth putting these issues in the context of the wider funding settlement, as well as the funds that are specific for regeneration and community renewal. In the spending review, hon. Members will have seen that we have £15 billion for Northern Ireland annually for the next three years—the highest figure since devolution. There will be £41 billion for Scotland—again, the highest figure since devolution—and £18 billion for Wales, which is, again, the largest figure, in real terms, since devolution. So the context is that of a wider public spending settlement, and although we would always like to have more money to do things, that will enable us to do some really important things for some communities, particularly in Northern Ireland, which experienced extremely high levels of deprivation—I think that we would all recognise that.

Hon. Members have raised some of the things that the community renewal fund is doing. I would stress some of the positive things that that funding is doing, which leads into the work of the shared prosperity fund. The hon. Member for Belfast South rightly quoted the wise comment of her former leader that the best peace process is a job.

The hon. Member for North Down stressed the importance of skills—again, quite rightly. The community renewal fund is giving half a million pounds to the NOW Group to support people with disabilities through specialised employment academies and job mentoring. It is also giving nearly half a million pounds to South West College, Southern Regional College and Queen’s University Belfast to upskill construction operatives to fill that skills gap, and there will be just over £500,000 for a hydrogen training academy to deliver training for 180 people, to get a skilled workforce that can take advantage of the exciting opportunities that are opening up in Northern Ireland in hydrogen and clean technology. Those funds are doing a great deal of good. By working together, we will get the most out of these different spending streams.

The hon. Member for North Down asked a specific and very important question about section 75. We understand the importance of respecting the unique equalities considerations in Northern Ireland. We recognise the importance of not only meeting our legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 but giving due regard to the additional equalities considerations that apply in Northern Ireland. I hope it is obvious from the tenor of my comments and from what I have said today that we are always—always—keen to have solutions that are felt to be fair by all communities and that see all communities working together.

I thank hon. Members, who have put forward genuinely important points in today’s debate. Over the coming weeks, we will work with other parts of the Government—represented here today—as well as partners across the UK, to finalise our policy development. Later in the spring, we intend to publish the full UK shared prosperity fund prospectus.

I hope I have got across in my comments the sense that our intent is not to go over the heads of anybody but to enable devolved Governments, local government and other partners to shape what is done in different parts of the UK and where the money goes, and to be involved in generating and contributing ideas at all levels, so that we can make the most of the opportunities that we collectively share. That is the tenor of where we are coming from on this entire agenda.

Once we have done that—we will be doing it, as Members can probably tell from the meetings I have talked about that are under way or that are forthcoming— we will publish the full UK shared prosperity fund prospectus. We want to try to keep the process as simple as we can so that we can give local partners the information they need to begin investment planning. I genuinely look forward to working with hon. Members from across this House; a number of them have already come to me with important suggestions and ideas about things we can do on this agenda. I look forward to working with all Members who are here today to deliver on our shared ambition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, I am sure that he would never accuse a fellow Tory MP of misleading the House. Will he therefore comment on the veracity of the specific remarks made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) about threats made to Tory MPs to withdraw investment from their constituencies and release negative press stories as punishment for supporting a no-confidence vote in the Prime Minister? Will he outline what investigations he intends to undertake to look into the abuse, or possible abuse, of levelling-up funds?

[Michael Gove]

There is no evidence of any abuse of levelling-up funding. If anyone has it, I hope that they will bring it to the House’s attention. As for any suggestion that someone may be on the receiving end of lots of negative press stories for voting against the Government, as someone who is solid, 100%, totally behind the Prime Minister and yet also on the receiving end of a plethora of negative press stories, I can tell the hon. Member that there is no correlation between the two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I can confirm that we have had very fruitful negotiations not just with the Scottish Government, but with the Welsh Government. I want to place on record my thanks to Vaughan Gething and other Ministers in the Welsh Government, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement shortly about the process by which we will allocate freeports in Wales. At the moment the proposal is for one freeport in Wales, but I recognise that both south Wales and north Wales have significant potential for freeports in the future, and there are few better advocates, in particular for Anglesey, than my great hon. Friend.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The current Tory leader in Scotland and two former Tory leaders in Scotland, alongside every single Tory MSP, are calling for the Prime Minister to resign after their Scottish branch office leader was sneered at by the Secretary of State as just a man “in Elgin” and the Leader of the House decried him as a “lightweight”. In view of this, can the Secretary of State clarify how the self-declared Prime Minister of the Union will increase devolution while Scots calling for his resignation believe he is actively harming the Union?

[Michael Gove]

I am terribly sorry but I did not realise or appreciate that saying someone came from Elgin was an insult as far as the SNP is concerned; in my view, it is a compliment.

Building Safety Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee. He and I have spent many happy hours poring over this draft Bill, in the first place, and, going forward, different reports.

Essentially, there are four separate categories on remediation that fit within the Building Safety Bill. The first, as everyone agrees without question, is, for tall buildings of seven storeys and above, removing the cladding and making the building safe. The second is the buildings of six storeys and below for which the Government came up with the forced loan scheme. I am delighted to see the death of that scheme. I could never see how it was going to work, so that is good news. The other two categories are the tall buildings with fire safety defects and the buildings of six storeys and below with fire safety defects. We can all agree that the one set of people who should not have to pay for remedying this are the leaseholders, because they never designed them and they never knew anything about them before they moved in. However, this scandal still goes on. Only last week, a planning application was presented to the planning committee at Tower Hamlets for a building of 52 storeys with only one staircase as a route to escape. The building industry does not show any signs of correcting what has been done, so we have to correct it.

I take my right hon. Friend the Minister’s remarks seriously. I look forward to the amendments that are going to be moved in the other place that I hope we can then debate here. However, these are very complex areas and there are immense questions to be answered. I well remember that when we debated the Bill that became the Fire Safety Act 2021, we were told that protecting leaseholders should not be done then but we should wait for the Building Safety Bill—and here we are, right now. The crunch issue is that leaseholders up and down the country have received enormous bills. Some have made arrangements to pay; some have even paid them. They are told, “Tough—you’ve paid and you won’t be compensated as a result.” If we had moved the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, we would have protected those leaseholders, but we failed to do so.

As I have said to the Secretary of State, I welcome his commitment to resolve this issue, but I trust that when we come to the amendments on remediation, we will do two things. The first is that we will retrospectively put a date on what happens. It will not be acceptable to wait until this Bill becomes law and facilitate the unscrupulous individuals who may bill the leaseholders between now and then, which would be outrageous.

The other issue that is terribly important in this whole process is that at some stage, with regard to all the buildings that we are talking about, someone signed off on their being in accordance with regulations. Insurance covers that particular aspect, so here is an alternative solution. Given that insurance companies insured the people who signed these buildings off, and they were clearly not in accordance with the regulations at the time, let us make claims against the insurance companies that still exist and could be made to pay for this remediation. That would be a much better solution than either the taxpayer paying or robbing the leaseholders. It would at least give us some protection.

I welcome the Government amendments, and I welcome the conversion that has taken place in the Department to what the Select Committee said in the first place. We are making progress. We are almost there. We have only a little a little way to go before every single one of our recommendations has been endorsed. We look forward to that happening, and indeed to having a Bill of which we can all be proud, which protects leaseholders and protects the industry for the future.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Let me begin by echoing the sentiments expressed earlier. We must be mindful of all those who died tragically in the Grenfell fire, which prompted much of the work that we are debating today.

The majority of the Bill relates only to England or to England and Wales, so I will necessarily keep my remarks on behalf to the Scottish National party short. I am sure that that will be music to many ears in the Chamber.

We can all agree on the necessity and the importance of raising the standards of conduct of developers. House buyers need to have confidence in the safety and quality of their homes, which is why the Scottish Government support the principle of the new homes ombudsman scheme proposed in part 5 of the Bill. Housing is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, who could devise their own provisions for a Scottish system, but the benefits of having a single system to operate on a UK-wide basis are self-evident. However, it is also true to say that the scheme must fully meet the needs of Scotland, so this Bill ought to confer greater powers to Scottish Ministers, similar to those of the Secretary of State. It is essential for part 5 to acknowledge and respect the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State and, I am sure, the Minister will understand that SNP co-operation in relation to the new homes ombudsman scheme in no way diminishes our opposition to the form and intention of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

It is fully expected that meaningful consultation will minimise the risk that the ombudsman scheme is contrary to the wishes and aspirations of the Scottish Government, so that homeowners in Scotland can benefit from it. If that turns out not to be the case, the Scottish Government have the option to withdraw from the scheme without contractual penalties and other repercussions. No one would wish to see that happen, and we need to be assured that the Minister and the Department will work, and continue to work, in a collaborative, consultative and collegiate way with the Scottish Government to deliver the scheme for Scotland.

In that spirit, I say to the Minister that given the confusion and delay over issues of cladding, nearly five years since the tragedy of Grenfell, we need a clear commitment that he will work constructively with the Scottish Government to provide clarity about consequential funding, so that the Scottish Government can plan their response appropriately. Will he tell us how much funding there will be, and when it will be delivered to Scotland?

I understand that the Secretary of State has committed himself to working with the Scottish Government on these matters—and no doubt the Minister has done so as well—but certainty is important. I am sure the Minister will understand that, so I am keen to hear what he has to say about the timing, levels and delivery of the funds that Scotland can expect.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to my constituents and the community of north Kensington.

I welcome the Bill, and I welcomed last week’s announcements that leaseholders in intermediate buildings would not have to pay for the remediation of cladding and other fire safety defects. I understand from the Minister that this will be incorporated in legislation in the other place. I want to stress how crucial it is that we get that right: it is critically important that we have robust legal protection for leaseholders. I welcome the statement that those on the Front Bench will listen to all good ideas, but it is important for us to be able to put this into practice quickly and effectively. I ask the Minister, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to ensure that when the Bill comes back to this place, there is the opportunity for full debate and full scrutiny.

A number of Members said that some developers and freeholders have been behaving very badly, and I have such a situation in my constituency. Leaseholders in Collier House have paid for the remediation and the building is eligible for an existing fund, yet the building owner, outrageously, will not apply for those moneys. He does not want to get involved because the leaseholders have already paid. Such situations are clearly wrong in terms of how people should behave. I ask the Minister, as colleagues have, to ensure that we look to remedy situations where leaseholders have paid and take that into consideration. We need to find solutions, because they paid thinking that they were doing the right thing, and they may now be out of pocket as a result.

In conclusion, I very much welcome the direction of travel. However, it will be critically important to get the proposals right in the other place, and I ask that we have the opportunity for full scrutiny of what the other place decides.