United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister won the last election based on the promise to “get Brexit done”. That was his mandate, given to him by the British people—to move on. He said there would be

“no more dither and delay”.

He said, “Let’s get our oven-ready deal through.” He won an 80-seat majority based on that withdrawal agreement, and this Parliament ratified it. We are calling on him to deliver the deal he promised, one that would work for Britain in terms of protecting jobs and the Union, and then we can get on with tackling the coronavirus crisis. So why is he dithering and delaying? Why is he introducing legislation designed to reopen old Brexit wounds? He called the withdrawal agreement a “fantastic” deal for the country, but now he says it never made sense. Was he deliberately misleading the British people then, or is he doing so now?

Not only has the Prime Minister undermined trust here at home, but he is trashing his Government’s reputation as a trustworthy and reliable member of the international community, because it is absolutely clear that this legislation breaks international law. The Brexiteer who signed off this deal as Attorney General described the Bill as “unconscionable” and all five living former Prime Ministers are united in agreement.

Our greatness as a country is built upon our values and the fact that we have long stood up for the rule of law. This Prime Minister wants to throw all that away. The UK needs to be standing up to the Chinese communist party’s breaches of international law and Russia’s foul play, but how can we do that with credibility if we are advocating breaking international law? With one stroke of his pen, this Prime Minister has torpedoed the painstaking work that our diplomats do every day.

This is not just a question of trust or morality; it is also about our commercial and economic interests. We are going out into the world to negotiate new trade deals post Brexit, but how can any other country trust us to keep to those agreements? If this Bill passes into statute, the Prime Minister will be sending his trade negotiators naked into the conference chambers. This Bill is not only dismantling the manifesto pledge and our international reputation, but it is creating a constitutional crisis, trashing the common frameworks that are the basis for our devolved constitutional settlement and creating the conditions for a race to the bottom on standards, opening the door to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef becoming the norm. Trade negotiations are never a walk in the park. Both sides will always defend their interests, and that is fair enough, but the rules are the rules. A commitment is a commitment. Our word is our bond. I therefore urge hon. Members to behave with honour and to join us in the No Lobby this evening.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for her vital work in persuading the Government to U-turn on the vital issue of how many MPs there should be. It is absolutely right that we should remain at 650. Reducing the number to 600 would have reduced MPs’ ability to properly fight our constituents’ causes, particularly at a time when Brexit will increase the amount of legislative work that we do in this place; it would have created a significant and unfair advantage for the Conservative party, given how the new borders would probably have fallen; and it would have driven a coach and horses through the geographical logic of dozens of constituencies. I am proud of my party and our Front Benchers for securing that vital U-turn.

Nevertheless, I have a number of serious concerns about the Bill, which is why I will vote for the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. First, I have grave reservations about the proposal that the variance should be limited to 5% higher or 5% lower than the average constituency size of 72,600. That gives the boundary commissions a ridiculously small amount of leeway, which will inevitably lead to some ludicrous consequences. The unnecessarily narrow margin will split long-established communities from one another, erode local identities and divide neighbourhoods.

Many of our constituencies are built on strong local bonds. If they were not, we might as well name every constituency from one to 650 and be done with it. My constituency is a case in point. The valleys villages are linked to town hubs by local transport routes. For instance, the Afan valley connects directly to Port Talbot, while the Neath valley links with Neath town centre. A boundary change would split either of those pairings, with the geography of the area meaning that a constituent may have to travel miles to see their MP and may not know which of the two local MPs to contact about a particular issue.

This kind of painting by numbers approach to the boundary review would erode trust in our democratic processes. Polling shows that trust in politicians and politics is worryingly low, so breaking our historic communities up along artificial lines would be utterly self-defeating. I therefore urge the Government to increase the electoral tolerance from plus/minus 5% to either 7.5% or 10%. I think this issue needs to be hammered out in Committee—I would like to see detailed proposals on it—but plus/minus 5% is clearly too low.

My second concern is about parliamentary oversight. If we want to protect our democracy, why will the Government not allow the boundary commissions’ changes to be brought back to Parliament for it to scrutinise? This is nothing short of a constitutional outrage, but it should come as no surprise; we have seen how the Prime Minister likes to play fast and loose with democratic principles. We saw his Prorogation of Parliament last year—not once but twice. The first was deemed illegal, and during the second he misled not only Parliament but the Queen. We also saw his reluctance to allow scientific advisers to answer perfectly legitimate questions at the 5 pm press conference last Tuesday.

There is the potential for gerrymandering. The process is too opaque, and there are concerns and scepticism about the possibility of pressure being applied by the Government on the boundary commissions. If the Government have confidence in this process, why will they not allow Parliament to scrutinise the final proposals?

The final point I would like to make is about which electoral register will be used to reshape the constituencies. The Government say that they will use the register as it stands from 1 December 2020, but there is a danger, with the pandemic and the recovery absorbing so much focus, that people may drop off—particularly students—and the lists may not be an accurate representation of numbers. It would make far more sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made clear, to use the electoral register from the 2019 general election, to have more accurate data.

I hope the Government will heed the concerns of myself and others. We cannot allow arbitrary lines to divide our communities. We must complete this process in a truly democratic manner by debating the final changes in both Houses, as is customary, and we must use the most accurate data available.

Transport Infrastructure

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I extend my commiserations to all the people of Calder Valley who have experienced flooding. We all know how traumatic a flood can be. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly allow no delay in pushing ahead with all the branches of the project.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The HS2 project, albeit somewhat shambolically handled, is great news for England, but it shows once again the contempt in which this Government hold the people of Wales. The entire budget for electrifying the main line to Swansea would be less than 1% of the vast sums that are being talked about today. So will the Prime Minister commit today to electrifying the main line to Swansea, or will he continue to hold the people of Wales in contempt?

[The Prime Minister]

As I just said to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), north Wales will benefit from the line to Crewe. We have already electrified the line to Cardiff. I urge the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to get on to his friends in the Welsh Labour Government, who squandered £144 million on a study for the bypass of the M4, which they then decided not to do.

Tata Steelworks: Newport

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and we need that investment to do it.

Attention has been given to electric car battery production —the Prime Minister mentioned the gigafactories needed to produce high volumes of battery products in his conference speech—but electric motors are an equally important part of the supply chain. They are built from the high-quality, non-oriented electrical steels that could be produced at Orb, and the demand for this type of steel is expected to increase tenfold by 2030.

The number of electric cars on our roads will grow and grow over the next decade. The UK Government are providing millions of pounds to support the roll-out of charging infrastructure, and it is imperative that we use UK steel in all this. The Government have awarded Jaguar Land Rover, which is owned by Tata, a £500 million loan guarantee to help the company sell electric vehicles. In this context, with the Government’s stated support for the electric vehicle industry, I ask what the Government can do for all. Electric cars need electric motors. Why should we have to import them? We have a site here in the UK that, with support, could be part of the supply chain.

We need UK steel every step of the way, and electrical steel is part of that. As members of the all-party group and the unions have long said, the industry can be a key part of building the infrastructure we need to green our economy in the future.

At Labour’s conference, we pledged to accelerate the electric vehicle revolution with 2.5 million interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, a new requirement for the Government car fleet to be 100% electric by 2025, and action on a private fleet. Labour is determined to ensure that the right conditions are in place for this revolution, and the Government should be, too. If the Orb works is not kept open, the potential to build a supply chain will be squandered. It is not an overstatement to say that the UK could lose its capacity to be a global leader in electric car manufacturing.

Developing a supply chain for electric vehicles will be hugely important for the national balance of trade. Across the UK, 10,000 workers are making internal combustion engines, and Community has emphasised that a failure to develop the supply chain will result in a loss in the export value of those engines. It will be replaced by the import cost of electric motors, which equates to £1.2 billion for every 1 million electric cars. That is why Community has called Orb a

“strategically important business underpinning this vital industry of the future.”

Tata has publicly confirmed that, with investment, the Orb works can produce the steels required for the future production of electric vehicles. Community’s steel consultant, Syndex, has researched and concluded that with a new strategy and some public support, there could be a sustainable future for the business. So what is the plan? The new strategy for Orb would mean transitioning to a new model and producing non-oriented steels, in addition to grain-oriented steels, based on a new Wales-only supply chain and using coil from Port Talbot. To fund the necessary capex, the profits from the sale of Cogent Power Inc—another part of the business, which is wholly owned by the Orb—would be reinvested into the business, along with the money set aside to finance a closure.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. The Government often criticise us for critiquing their failure to support the steel industry without proposing a constructive plan, but she has just outlined an absolutely compelling and viable plan. One of the vital parts of it is that we would be relocating the supply chain for hot rolled coil from IJmuiden to Port Talbot. Surely if the Government are talking about backing British business, they should back the Syndex plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

This is a commercial decision by the company and the plant has been for sale for two years, but as I have already said, we are more than happy to meet stakeholders to see if the Government can provide some support. That support would have to be based on a sustainable long-term business plan for the future.

We are also providing up to £66 million through the industrial strategy challenge fund to help steel and other foundation industries develop radical new technologies and establish innovation centres of excellence in those sectors. This challenge will create a pilot facility to demonstrate new technologies, and develop a cross-sectoral approach for research, innovation and skills. To date, the UK Government have provided more than £312 million in compensation to the steel sector since 2013 to make energy costs more competitive, including over £53 million during 2018.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister talks about this being a commercial decision, but it is absolutely clear that the underlying conditions for the British steel industry are completely undermined by the energy price disparity. Is he aware of the fact that it costs £50 per MWh in the UK, compared with £31 per MWh in Germany, a disparity of 62%? The disparity with French energy costs is 80%. The Minister cannot claim that this is a purely commercial decision; it is a commercial decision based on the utter failure of the British Government to deal with this energy price disparity.

[Kevin Foster]

As has been mentioned, to make energy costs more competitive, we have made £312 million in compensation available to the steel sector since 2013, including £53 million in 2018 alone.

We have commissioned independent research to identify high-value market opportunities for UK steel producers that will be worth up to £3.8 billion a year by 2030. The UK is a supplier of steel for a range of high-value applications and is a strategic part of the supply chain for the automotive, aerospace, construction, defence and oil and gas sectors. We are successfully working with the steel industry to introduce steel procurement guidance that will ensure that Government and the wider public sector take into account social and environmental benefits when procuring and designing their major projects.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this important debate.

Over a year ago, I set up the all-party group on post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, with the aim of holding the Government to account on their promises regarding the introduction of a shared prosperity fund that would replace EU funding in full. I am afraid to report that in this past year, despite organisations across the country relying on information so that they can plan their 2021 budgets, the Government have done absolutely nothing to make progress on the shape of that new fund.

In November, the all-party group published a report that set out 18 questions that the Government needed to answer. These questions were based on submissions from around 80 organisations from across the country. I will not name all 18, but the most pressing questions that were unanimously agreed on by all stakeholder organisations were the following. First, the UK shared prosperity fund must comprise not a single penny less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces. Westminster must not use Brexit as an opportunity to short-change the poorest parts of the UK. Equally, the UK Government must not prevent local areas from having appropriate control over the funds. Secondly, this is not just about the money. There is a real fear that it will not only be a financial grab but a power grab, and that the Westminster Government will use this opportunity to reduce funding for the areas that need it most and to claw back powers that sit naturally with devolved Administrations and other local areas.

Those are very serious questions that need to be answered. Since November 2018, we have had positive and constructive meetings with the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Wales and the former Business Minister. Disappointingly, the all-party group has not yet been granted a meeting with the Minister who is in his place today. None of those whom we spoke to were able to give us any cast-iron answers to the questions I have just set out. We are therefore continuing to demand that the Government guarantee not a penny less, not a power lost.

A recent worrying development is that the Government are considering rolling the local growth fund for England in with the UK shared prosperity fund. We know this only by rumour and leaks than by any clear or transparent statement, which is of course the modus operandi for this Government. As it stands, our recent report shows that the UK Government must find £1.8 billion per year to replace EU funding for the UK’s poorest regions, but that figure will reach £4 billion per year if the two funds are merged. The possibility of combining existing UK-managed funds with the UK SPF has led to fears of double-counting.

There were already fears that funding for the UK SPF may fall short of the EU’s projected 2021-2026 budget, given that three areas of the UK—Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, and Tees Valley and Durham—have now fallen into a higher priority category. That is a damning indictment of the utter failure of this Government’s economic policies. They have gone into that higher priority category and would therefore receive more money in the next spending round than they each did between 2014 and 2020. That concern has now increased. I urge the Government to reconsider whether merging an England-only fund with a UK-wide fund is a logical step and to recognise that rolling the two funds together would inevitably create serious confusion and raise serious doubts about transparency. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister addressed that in his summing up and specifically answered this question: will the SPF and the local growth fund be rolled into one or not? We need clarity about when the SPF consultation will be published. That is an absolutely priority.

The great advantage of the current system is that it is data-driven and evidence-based, thus guarding against pork-barrel politics. There is a real worry that the SPF will become a politicised slush fund, with a Conservative Government using it to buy votes in marginal seats. I hope that the Minister’s response today will reassure us that our constituencies will not be left short-changed by a sleight of hand in Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes. I thank the Minister for giving way. He just referred to the funding as “European funding”, but I thought he said in his opening remarks that it was not European funding. Will he clarify that point?

[Jake Berry]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is listening closely to my response. What I would say is that if he, like me, is concerned about protecting the British taxpayer’s pound, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that the Bill passed by Opposition parties last night in this Parliament will cost the UK taxpayer £1 billion a month for every additional month we spend in the European Union. That will cost up to £24 billion. Maybe he should be committed, as I am, to leaving on 31 October, as the British people want, if he is concerned about spending money.

Priorities for Government

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do. They are, if I may say, a withering retort to the gloomsters on the Opposition Benches who say there is no solution and who begin the prospect of negotiations by saying that defeat is inevitable. That is not true. As my right hon. Friend has identified, the facilitations and the remedies do exist. What it takes now is the political will to get there.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Conservative party 2017 manifesto says:

“We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union”.

That phrase is repeated eight times in the document. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree with me that he has no mandate to deliver no deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will know, since he is a keen student of the Conservative party manifesto, that the Government were committed both then and since to preparing for a no-deal outcome. Not that we want that. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) who reminds me from a sedentary position that the policy was that no deal was better than a bad deal. We do not want it, but the way to avoid it is to prepare well for it.

European Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is tempting me to do that. There is a reason why the EU Council conclusions did not identify those member states who do not feel able to sign up to net zero for 2050 at this stage. I fully expect, as I indicated in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that those member states, in doing further work on this issue, will be able to accept the 2050 date and that we will be able to have a collective European Union approach on this matter.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Colleagues on the Labour Benches voted against the Prime Minister’s initial attempts to get a deal through because it was essentially a blind Brexit, with very little detail on the future relationship. However, the withdrawal agreement Bill tabled just prior to the European elections was actually full of major concessions to Labour’s positions and of compromises—workers’ rights, environmental issues, customs and even a commitment to a referendum vote in Committee. Does she agree that her successor should re-table that withdrawal agreement Bill? Does she share my hope that, if he does, colleagues on the Labour Benches will vote for it?

[The Prime Minister]

I had hoped that colleagues across the Benches in this House would be able to vote for the deal and that it would have been possible to put that withdrawal agreement Bill to a positive vote. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have seen from the details that I and this Government stand by our word. When we said that we would adopt certain compromises that had been put to us by the Opposition, we actually stood by that.

Leaving the European Union

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say, I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) used that word, he was not intending it to be complimentary about the package that the Government have brought forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is absolutely right: for the Bill to get through, for the treaty to be ratified and for us to be able to leave at the end of July, it is about not only getting Second Reading through but ensuring that the Bill is confirmed on Third Reading. By getting through Second Reading, it is possible to have those debates during the progress of the Bill on the key issues that remain and on which there remains disagreement between Members of this House, such that it will be possible—I believe—to come to an agreement that can see us leave the European Union.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that she does not intend to put a commitment to a second referendum in the Bill on Second Reading. In the spirit of compromise, therefore, will she commit to giving her MPs a free vote in Committee when we debate and vote on that measure?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, what we intend to put in the Bill is the commitment to have a vote on whether to have a second referendum and that the Bill cannot be completed and the treaty ratified until that vote has taken place. I hope that that gives confirmation to Members of the House who are in favour of a second referendum that that issue will be addressed properly within the passage of the Bill. As I said, whipping decisions will be taken closer to the time. I note the keenness of some Opposition Members to determine what the whipping arrangements for Government Members should be, but with no reference to their own whipping arrangements.

Wales: Regional Development Funding

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of regional development funding in Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his place. I have lost count of how many have preceded him. I have not counted how many days he needs to get through to exceed his predecessor, but I am sure that one of my colleagues will work that out as we speak. We wish him well and we wish him good luck—he is going to need it.

Regional development funding has been absolutely critical in boosting less prosperous areas across the United Kingdom, including in Wales. It is crucial in an era in which the divides in terms of wealth and prosperity in British society are so evident for all to see. We are witnessing a growing trend whereby our cities attract investment, create wealth and offer high-quality jobs, whereas our smaller towns are left behind or, worse still, buffeted by the winds of globalisation without any real support from the UK Government.

That has been the story of the last 40 years. UK Governments have stood by and watched the forces of globalisation and new technology destroy our industrial base and decimate our high streets, and they have been intensely relaxed about the impact of those changes on the pride, identity and prosperity of constituencies such as mine and others across Wales and the United Kingdom. First, Margaret Thatcher sold out the miners across south Wales, the English midlands and northern England, offering no state support to those who needed it to retrain in other fields. Then, although new Labour injected much-needed investment into our public services, it did not manage to deliver fundamental structural reform through a bold, radical industrial strategy. Then came Osborne-omics, which inflicted utterly self-defeating austerity on the areas that could handle it least.

As a result of this triple whammy, manufacturing has collapsed, from 30% of UK GDP to just 10%, since the 1970s. In comparison, Germany’s manufacturing base has remained stable, at 23% or above. The vast differences between the UK and German experiences of the last 40 years demonstrate conclusively that globalisation is not an unstoppable force of nature; it is a man-made phenomenon. The repeated failure to harness globalisation and make it work for our communities was caused not by force majeure but by repeated failures of political leadership.

The collapse of our manufacturing base has of course led inexorably to our skills and productivity crises. No recent Prime Minister has come up with any kind of half-decent strategy to support the so-called forgotten 50% who do not go to university or get good jobs and training. For those graduates living in the big cities, the last 40 years have delivered wealth, opportunity, diversity and the excitement of technological change, but non-graduates who live in our towns and villages have simply been ignored and left behind. Younger, diverse cities full of graduates continue to thrive; older, smaller towns with close-knit communities of non-graduates continue to suffer. Wales is a case in point. Despite the efforts of the Welsh Government—I will come to the vital support the Welsh Government have delivered for constituencies such as mine—many parts of our great country have experienced hardship due to inept government at the UK level.

The gap in GDP between Wales and London makes the UK the most unbalanced EU member state in terms of regional economic disparities—a truly shocking statistic that shows the size of the challenge we face if we are to reduce inequality and spread opportunity. In Aberavon, we have had absolutely no regional development support from Westminster. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon would have put south Wales at the forefront of a 21st-century industry, marrying our desperate need to produce more green energy with the creation of genuinely high-quality jobs across the region.

Wales was the cradle of the first industrial revolution, and we could have been the cradle of a new, green revolution, but the Tory Government ran scared, spending £1 billion to buy the votes of each Democratic Unionist party Member but not a single penny for a long-term strategic infrastructure project that could have boosted wealth and opportunity for my constituents and so many across south Wales. I cannot help wondering whether that £1 billion would pass a value for money audit, given the voting behaviour of the DUP over recent months, but I digress.

The tidal lagoon decision followed hot on the heels of another broken promise: to electrify our railway lines. That promise made it only as far as Cardiff, with the line down to Port Talbot and Swansea still firmly embedded in the 20th century. With everything the Transport Secretary has achieved in his quite remarkable tenure, it feels that too little attention has been paid to this kick in the teeth for Welsh commuters and travellers and for the Welsh economy. Maybe handing a £50 million ferry contract to a company with no ferries was in fact a cunning plan to distract us from the fact that the Government he represents were holding Wales in contempt.

Thankfully, where the UK Government have failed, other tiers of governance have stepped in to give the Welsh economy a much-needed boost. The Welsh Government and local councils have combined to deliver so many crucial projects, but many have relied on the funding that we receive from the European Union—the EU structural fund.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Although the Swansea bay campus is in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the £60 million EU investment in it has benefited my constituency incredibly. Does he agree that, given that we have missed out on the tidal lagoon and electrification, we now deserve assurances from the Government that structural funding will come to our region and to our communities?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with every word. As I will come on to, the key point is that we must not receive a penny less; there must not be any sleight of hand in the shift from EU structural funding to the shared prosperity fund.

EU structural funds are distributed to regions throughout the European Union based on their relative GDP. Areas where GDP per capita falls below 75% of EU GDP are placed in the first tier, and therefore receive the maximum funding. The poorer the region, the higher its priority and the more funding it receives. West Wales and the valleys is ranked as a region of the highest priority, and therefore received £2 billion for the 2014-20 cohort. No other area of the UK received more than £750 million, showing the scale of the challenge for the economy in that area of Wales. We are talking about a serious amount of funding here.

Like much of Wales, my Aberavon constituency has benefited hugely from European money, and from the strong vision and partnership working formed between the Welsh Government and our local Neath Port Talbot Council. Take, for instance, the new integrated transport hub—a Neath Port Talbot Council project in partnership with the Welsh Government, using EU money—or the sunken gardens and toddlers’ play area on Aberavon beach, which is a Neath Port Talbot Council project using EU funding granted by the Welsh Government.

There are more, from the bay campus, as my hon. Friend mentioned, to the Croeserw community enterprise centre, to the Cognation mountain bike trails in the Afan valley, to the Port Talbot magistrates court regeneration project. Those projects would not have been possible without European funding and strong political leadership of a type we see consistently from the Welsh Government and our local councils, but too rarely from Westminster. That is why Brexit raises a number of concerns regarding the future of regional development funding.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government have previously guaranteed that every penny from Europe that Wales lost would be matched by Westminster funding. That still has not happened. Has he noticed that, in the meantime, the Government have guaranteed that the British overseas territories will now receive from Westminster every single penny that they received from the European Union? Is it not a bit of an irony that the British Government are prepared to guarantee money to our overseas territories but not to our territories at home?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Indeed. That is a quite shocking example of the failure to prioritise what is happening right on our doorstep. It is absolutely vital that we see the funding in Wales that we need if we are to deliver. We all know how much support is required to deal with the huge changes in our economy over recent decades. We currently have a system that, while not perfect, works relatively well: EU funding is targeted at less prosperous areas and delivered by devolved Administrations who know the needs of their areas better than anyone else.

Now, we can debate Brexit until the cows come home—I am sure that we would love to—but I am sure that we can all agree that it is crucial that Wales does not lose a single penny of the funding that we would have received had the British public voted to remain instead of to leave the EU on 23 June 2016. The UK Government have agreed to replace those European funds, yet nearly everything about the shared prosperity fund is still to be worked out. We still do not know how much funding will be available. We need £1.7 billion per year UK-wide to keep up with what the EU is set to contribute from 2020 to 2026.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

There is an active debate ongoing about how the shared prosperity fund ought to be allocated. Some strongly argue that there should be a huge competitive element. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better to have a needs-based formula, so that resources are allocated where they are desired, not according to which area can put forward the best bids?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree entirely. There are two key points. First, the big advantage of the current system is that it is depoliticised. The European Union works on the basis of data and facts and of a scientific analysis of what is required. There is a huge risk that the shared prosperity fund will be turned into pork barrel politics, where the fund gets used as a slush fund for, dare I say it, a Conservative Government in Westminster. Secondly, competitive bidding does not work. The shared prosperity fund needs to be embedded in an industrial strategy and a regional development strategy that works from a strategic point of view rather than being based on bidding.

The second key question is how this money will be divided across the country. The third question is what activities will be eligible for support. The fourth question is who will take the decisions on how the money is spent. We are still none the wiser on all those key questions.

It really is not just about the money. There is a real fear that this will be not just a financial grab, but a power grab: the Westminster Government will use this opportunity to reduce funding for areas that need it most and claw back powers that sit naturally with the devolved Administrations.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

This week is the 20th anniversary of the first elections to the Welsh Assembly. It is therefore important that, when we have this debate, we respect the role of the Welsh Government and devolution.

[Stephen Kinnock]

One of the key recommendations we in the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas have made in our report on the future of the shared prosperity fund—apologies for the plug, Sir Graham—is that the devolution settlement must be respected. Of course, the Westminster Government, the Assembly in Cardiff Bay and local authorities need to work as a team on this, but, fundamentally, the people on the ground know best how to spend this money and deliver maximum impact. Therefore, it is essential that the devolution settlement is respected in spirit and letter.

As I was saying, there is a fundamental worry that the shared prosperity fund will become a politicised slush fund, with a Conservative Government using it to buy votes in marginal seats. Those deep-seated concerns led to the creation of the all-party group, which I am proud to chair. The wide-ranging review we carried out heard from 80 organisations across the UK, including the Welsh Government, a wide range of local authorities in Wales and the Welsh TUC. Those representations were unanimous: the UK shared prosperity fund must comprise not a single penny less in real terms than the EU and UK funding streams it replaces. Westminster must not use Brexit as an opportunity to short-change the poorest parts of the UK and of our great country of Wales. Equally, the UK Government must not deny devolved Administrations the appropriate control over funds. Local decisions must not be made by an official or Minister sitting at the other end of the M4.

While it is deeply disappointing that the Minister with overall responsibility for the shared prosperity fund, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), has refused to meet with our APPG, I am pleased to report that its officers met with the Secretary of State for Wales last month to make these points to him, and then last week with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Both meetings were conducted in a positive and constructive spirit, but it is shocking that there is still no sign of the public consultation on the SPF being launched any time soon. In fact, in one meeting there was a suggestion that the consultation may even be delayed until the comprehensive spending review in the autumn. Given that the CSR will include information on the funding of the SPF, I am not sure how relevant bodies, such as the Welsh Government and our local authorities, will be able to contribute in a meaningful way to a debate over funding when the horse will have already bolted. However, I can assure the Minister that our APPG will be watching carefully to ensure that there is no sleight of hand from the Government on this point.

Our APPG report contains 19 specific and deliverable recommendations. I hope the Minister has had an opportunity to read it, and we look forward to his response. However, in the limited time available, we would be particularly grateful if he responds to the following requests. Will he guarantee that Wales does not receive a penny less and that the devolution settlement will be fully respected, and will he provide clarity on when the SPF consultation will be published?

Let us be clear, the Welsh are a proud, resilient people. They are not looking for special treatment or anybody’s charity. However, we are looking for a level playing field—an opportunity to compete without having one hand tied behind our backs. This is the essence of the Welsh spirit: an unrelenting commitment to community, fairness and the wellbeing of our future generations. With that spirit, every single Welsh MP on the Labour Benches will keep fighting to ensure that Wales gets the regional investment that it needs to thrive in this city-centric era of globalisation and fast-paced technological change.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister’s speech showed that the Government are truly paralysed by Brexit. We could have a debate about that, but the fact is that that paralysis is having real-world consequences. What is the future of that key infrastructure project? What is the future of that vital skills project in our community? What is the future of that vital railway upgrade? We simply do not know. We do not have answers to those questions, and the clock is ticking. We are talking about 2020 as if it is a decade away. It is not; it is just around the corner. These are multi-annual programmes that have a time lag in them, and the clarity should have been forthcoming months ago.

I and many other Members asked for a guarantee that Wales will not receive a penny less, a guarantee that the devolution settlement will be fully respected, and clarity on when the shared prosperity fund consultation will launch. It is a matter of great regret that answers to those three questions were not forthcoming. We will therefore continue to press the Government for some clarity on those vital points.

European Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I have said—and this is the Government’s intention—is that if the talks with the Opposition fail to find a point of agreement between us that we believe would get a majority across this House, we would work with the Opposition to identify options and votes to be put to this House to find a way of determining a single result. There are a number of ways in which it is possible to do that. I think it would be important to ensure, were we in that position, that whatever system was chosen was genuinely going to come to a proper reflection of the views of this House.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister knows that full membership of the single market is the only way we can guarantee workers’ rights and the integrity of the Union and do something for the services sector, which represents 80% of the economy. A stand-alone customs union simply does not cut it. In the options that will be presented to us if the talks do not work, can she guarantee that full membership of the single market through the European economic area will be on offer?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman. It is not the case that full membership of the single market is the only way to achieve the benefits that he has referred to. He is right that it is particularly important, as we leave the European Union, that we have a care for our services sector, given the significant extent to which it plays a role in our economy. On flexibility, maintaining and recognising the importance of the City of London, particularly in financial services and the risk borne here in the United Kingdom, leads us to want to see that greater flexibility in relation to services.

It is not the case that the only way to ensure that we maintain and enhance workers’ rights in the United Kingdom is through full membership of the single market. This is a Government who are enhancing workers’ rights, because we believe that is what is right in the United Kingdom.