Levelling Up Statement The following Statement was made in the
House of Commons on Monday 20 November. “With permission, Mr
Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on levelling up. This
Government are committed to levelling up and creating opportunities
across all regions and nations of the UK. Last year, we set out our
12 levelling-up missions in the levelling up White Paper, all
principally aimed at tackling regional inequality, because we
believe that...Request free trial
Levelling Up
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 20 November.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on
levelling up. This Government are committed to levelling up and
creating opportunities across all regions and nations of the UK.
Last year, we set out our 12 levelling-up missions in the
levelling up White Paper, all principally aimed at tackling
regional inequality, because we believe that people’s
opportunities should be the same wherever they live, be it in a
city or town, on an island, or in a rural or coastal community. I
am proud to say that since 2019 this Conservative Government have
committed over £13 billion of local growth funding to levelling
up. Through the levelling up fund, the town deal, the UK shared
prosperity fund, the future high streets fund and much more, we
are regenerating town centres and high streets, improving local
transport, funding heritage assets and boosting productivity,
jobs and living standards.
Our recently announced long-term plan for towns is providing
long-term investment for 55 towns, and the money is to be spent
on local people’s priorities. We have launched our investment
zone programme: 12 investment zones across the UK will grow key
industries of the future and increase jobs. That includes West
Yorkshire’s investment zone, announced earlier today, which will
focus on life sciences.
We have also made excellent progress on freeports. All freeports
in England are now open for business, and we have announced a
further four in Wales and Scotland. As Levelling Up Minister, I
have been lucky enough to see at first hand how we are using this
transformative funding to unlock the potential of local economies
and improve the everyday life of people across the UK. We
recognise the good that this funding can do, so we have embarked
on an ambitious plan to simplify the funding landscape for local
authorities, led by my right honourable friend the Secretary of
State.
Our simplification plan describes how this Government will
deliver our levelling up White Paper’s commitment to streamlining
funds in three phases of reform. First, there will be an
immediate simplification of existing funds. Secondly, we will
establish a funding simplification doctrine, by which central
government will abide. Finally, we will implement further reforms
at the next spending review. We have already delivered much of
the first phase. For instance, we have given local authorities
greater freedom to adjust their town deal, future high street and
levelling up fund projects. We have also invited 10 local
authorities to become part of the fund simplification pathfinder
pilot, which will give them greater flexibility to move money
between different funds. By increasing local flexibility, we will
reduce bureaucracy and inefficiency within the delivery
process.
The second phase of our funding simplification plan will see the
Government launch a new funding simplification doctrine, which
will change how central government gives funding to local
authorities. It is clear that funding competitions can drive
value for money and help identify the best projects for certain
programmes, so we will continue to deploy competitions where they
make sense, but we also recognise that bidding into multiple
competitions, especially in parallel, can place a
disproportionate burden on local authorities. The new government
doctrine will therefore ensure that we consider fully the impact
on local authorities when designing new funds. Finally, we have
committed to further reforms at the next spending review,
including giving our trail- blazer mayoral combined authorities
in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands single
department-style, multi- year settlements.
Of course, our work to give local authorities the right levers to
spend funding efficiently is only one part of the picture; of
equal importance is the funding itself. As I mentioned earlier,
since 2019 we have made more than £13 billion available to local
places. As part of that, across rounds 1 and 2 of the levelling
up fund we committed £3.8 billion to 216 projects across the
country. We have listened to feedback from the first two rounds
of the fund, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of
State announced in July that we would take a new approach to
round 3. As a result, we decided not to run another competition
for this round. Instead, we have drawn on the impressive pool of
bids that we were not initially able to fund through round 2.
Today, I am delighted to confirm the allocations of the levelling
up fund’s third and final round. We are investing £1 billion in
55 projects across England, Scotland and Wales. Copies of the
successful allocations have been made available in the Vote
Office. The sheer number of high-quality bids is testament to the
enthusiasm for levelling up across our country and the hard work
of so many honourable Members in supporting their local areas to
develop strong plans for renewal. From Chorley, Mr Speaker, to
Elgin, and from Doncaster to Rhyl, these local infrastructure
projects will restore pride in place and improve everyday life
for local people.
We have targeted funding at the places most in need, as
identified through our levelling-up needs metrics. We have also
ensured a fair geographic spread across Great Britain, including
£122 million across six projects in Scotland and £111 million
across seven projects in Wales. That means that across all three
rounds we have invested more than £1 billion in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland, exceeding our original funding commitments.
It also means that across all three rounds of the fund, the
north-east and the north-west will have received more per capita
than any other region in England. They are followed closely by
the east Midlands and by Yorkshire and the Humber.
Our round 3 investments double down on two of our key
levelling-up missions—pride in place and improving transport—but
we also recognise the key role that culture plays in levelling
up. We invested £1 billion on projects with a cultural component
in rounds 1 and 2, and as part of this round we are setting aside
a further £100 million for culture projects to be announced in
due course.
We want to get delivery happening quickly. We will work closely
with local authorities to confirm that their projects remain
viable, and we will provide ongoing support to ensure that local
places are able to deliver. We are committed to giving local
areas the funding and power they need to deliver transformative
change within their communities. We have committed more than £13
billion of local growth funding for communities the length and
breadth of our country. We have invested in pride in place and
reversed decades of decline. We are taking long-term decisions
for a brighter future for our country. I commend this Statement
to the House.”
3.57pm
(Lab)
My Lords, there are 51 cities, 935 towns and 6,000 villages in
the UK, hundreds of which suffer from considerable inequalities.
Although we were delighted for 55 of those places that were
successful in this announcement made on Monday, they have been
singled out, as before, from many other areas that have equal or
more need of funding to support their economic growth, and which
will be wondering whether the Government’s approach to them is
more like giving up than levelling up.
However, we welcome that the Government have recognised that the
Hunger Games approach they were taking to funding has failed. We
believe this approach resulted in millions of pounds being spent
on consultants to put bids together, and that it was actually
perpetuating inequalities between areas by further lining the
pockets of those who spent the most on their bids. What
discussions took place with the sector about the new methodology
of the allocations this time, and what account has been taken of
the inflationary factors that may have impacted on their
viability in the time since the bids were submitted? What does
the funding simplification doctrine, quoted by the Minister in
the other place on Monday, actually mean? Does this new doctrine
apply across government, or just to DLUHC? If the latter, how has
the sector been engaged in its creation? How quickly does the
Minister expect that the pilots taking place in relation to this
will be evaluated?
Compared with the devastating cuts that local authorities have
suffered, these grants to just 55 local authorities feel to the
rest of the sector like crumbs from the table. With authorities
facing the burden of £1.6 billion of increased housing and
homelessness spend and £1.125 billion just for special
educational needs, and with £15 billion of cuts from their
funding already and the LGA estimating that there will be a £3.5
billion shortfall this year—that may have changed slightly today,
but I have not had a chance to look yet—surely, as we asked
during our discussions on the now Levelling-up and Regeneration
Act, it is time for a radical overhaul of local government
funding.
Can the Minister comment on the National Audit Office’s report
last week, which found, as did the Public Accounts Committee,
that no impact assessment had been carried out on levelling-up
funding and that just 7% of the first two rounds had been spent
so far, with 89% still held in Whitehall? Why has DLUHC not been
able to agree the necessary funding arrangements with local
authorities? Can we be assured that this process will be
simplified so that the money gets to where it needs to go and
projects are not held up by departmental delays? What will happen
next for the hundreds of projects that have been submitted and
not yet funded? We believe that this is the last round of this
funding.
I am sure that my noble friend Lady Ritchie will come in on this,
but why have councils and people in Northern Ireland been left
out of this process? Whatever is happening in Stormont, councils
will want their communities held in at least an equal process
with the rest of the UK.
The projects funded through this round of levelling-up funding
will have been thought through, fought for and, I am sure,
welcomed by the successful authorities. However, in the context
of cuts to local government funding of 60p in the pound between
2010 and 2020 and a fall in real-term spending power of 27% up to
this year, they are a drop in the ocean compared with assessed
need. Councillors and their communities watch as their high
streets decline and their budgets are torn away from universal
services that touch everyone, everywhere, all the time, to the
specialist demand-led services that are there only for those with
the most complex needs. Our residents are still reeling from the
cost of living crisis. Surely it is time for a radical devolution
of powers and resources and the flexibility to take the decisions
that they know will be in the best interest of their areas.
Surely it is time for Labour’s plan, which will genuinely enable
that and truly let people take back control.
(LD)
My Lords, this is a sad and disappointing Statement. It is
another signal that levelling up, which was the flagship policy
of the last Prime Minister but one, is on its dying breath. The
Statement was delivered by a junior Minister in the other place.
It rehashes announcements that have already been made. It glosses
over failures of process and delivery, and it trumpets success
when it is in full retreat. It starts with a boast about the £13
billion allocated to the levelling-up task, which is the same £13
billion that had already been announced five times before. But it
overlooks what the National Audit Office said in its report
published this week: much of the money will never be spent
because of the overweening departmental bureaucracy and long
ministerial delays in signing off projects with sponsors.
In fairness, the Statement does contain a sort of “sorry, not
sorry” section about changing the process in the future,
establishing a long-overdue but non-specific “funding
simplification doctrine”, of which the noble Baroness just spoke.
I am sure it will be a belter when it comes, but the benefit of
the new doctrine will be lost by what is perhaps the most
gobsmacking piece of double-speak in the Statement. Apparently
rounds 1 and 2 have gone so well that, after learning from their
successes, round 3 has been cancelled. Usually, back in the real
world, if a project goes really well in its first two stages,
everyone is eager to get on and do the third stage—but not this
time. Instead, the approval threshold for projects is to be
lowered and schemes previously rejected in rounds 1 and 2 will be
reconsidered. There will be no round 3 and no chance for further
bids to be submitted.
The National Audit Office reports that rounds 1 and 2 generated
834 bids, but three-quarters of them were rejected. I have no
doubt that there will be some very good schemes among those
rejected before that fully justify their approval now. Like the
noble Baroness, I welcome the announcements made, but that has
been done by pumping money originally intended for round 3
bidders back into the original pool for round 1 and round 2
bidders. This clearly demonstrates that the contention of these
Benches was exactly right that the overall size of the pot was
always minuscule compared to the need.
That leaves some of the most deprived councils, and the smaller
and less well-resourced ones, stranded. They are the ones who did
not bid in earlier rounds because they could not afford to take
the risk of investing time and money in a bid that had only a 1:4
chance of success. Encouraged by the July announcement that a new
and simpler process was ready to come into play, they have been
ready to step forward and do so, but their chance has now gone.
There will be no round 3, no new bids, and no levelling up for
them.
I have two questions for the Minister. Will she publish the list
of local authority areas that did bid in rounds 1 and 2 but will
still not benefit from any funds from any of their bids, despite
the clawback of round 3 money to help? I will call that list A.
It would give a good map of where the Minister thinks that
levelling up is not really needed. Secondly, will she publish a
list of those local authority areas from which no levelling-up
bids at all have yet been received? I will call that list B.
That, I fear, would give a good map of small, under- resourced
local authorities that have been left stranded by the
cancellation of round 3 and are left out of the picture
altogether. Publishing lists A and B would be a long-overdue
first step to restoring transparency and trust to what, up to
now, has been an opaque and desperately underfunded bureaucratic
disaster. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble
Lord, , for their questions. I start
by challenging a few of the assertions made in their responses to
the Statement, particularly about underfunding and the minuscule
amounts of money that have gone into this project.
Levelling up is at the heart of this Government’s mission: it has
been backed with significant financing through the levelling-up
funds and a number of other initiatives, and we have seen more in
the Autumn Statement today. For those areas that have bid into
the levelling-up fund and have been unsuccessful, it is not the
end of the story: we have an agenda across government, whether
through devolution, investing in skills, investment zones,
freeports, or a whole number of areas where opportunities
continue for areas to receive funding for projects that are
important to them. On Monday, 55 projects were announced, but the
total is 271, which is not an insignificant number of bids. These
were across the country, representing areas that are diverse but
also in need of this funding.
I also address the point around smaller, less well-resourced
councils that felt unable to bid in earlier rounds. Some funding
was made available for those who would struggle to put together
bids to be able to participate in that process, so that is not
the full picture. Also, the feedback that we received on the
competitive process for rounds 1 and 2 informed the approach that
we took for round 3 and informs our approach to the funding
simplification doctrine, which acknowledges the valuable
contribution of competitions for driving value for money and
identifying the best projects for certain programmes. We will
continue to deploy them where they make the most sense, but we
encourage the use of allocative approaches where they can best
achieve specific outcomes while minimising demands on local
authorities. At the heart of that doctrine is our commitment to
value for money, which will drive decision- making on the most
appropriate choice of funding mechanism.
The Government have responded to the feedback they had in earlier
rounds of the levelling up fund in their approach to round 3. I
reject the Liberal Democrats’ proposition that the 55 projects
that received funding in this round are somehow of lesser quality
than projects that received funding in previous rounds. In fact,
we found that a very high number of very high-quality projects
had bid into this system, which allowed us to return to those
projects for round 3 and make great allocations for very
well-deserving projects. To reassure the noble Baroness, we
touched base with local areas to ensure that those projects
continue to be priorities for them and deliverable. However,
having made the formal announcement, we will also recontact every
single one of those successful local authorities to reconfirm
that they are projects that they would like to pursue and, on the
delivery point, meet a delivery timetable that is achievable
given the changing circumstances.
Those changing circumstances were a factor acknowledged in the
National Audit Office report. We have faced a time of high
inflation, particularly for capital projects, and labour
shortages. We also acknowledge some challenges in the way we ran
the process in government too, so we welcome the work that the
NAO has done and have taken significant action to address the
points it made. I point out that the data that the NAO used in
its report was cut off in March 2023 to allow it to analyse
consistently across three different projects that the Government
have been running. Since then, we have released a further £1.5
billion of levelling-up funding through the programme, so
significant progress has been made.
We have also made changes to how the projects are run—for
example, allowing greater decision-making for local authorities
to flex their delivery programmes to meet the new circumstances
they find themselves in. We have also made £65 million available
to ensure that local authorities have the capacity to deliver the
levelling up fund projects that they have successfully bid for.
The Government acknowledge some of the challenges in the National
Audit Office report. We have already taken steps to address some
of those points and seen a significant increase in the amount of
money disbursed.
Finally, on the funding simplification doctrine and what it will
mean, it is a doctrine that will apply from central government to
local government in its approach to levelling up. That is
primarily from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities, but it applies across other departments’ delivery of
and commitment to our levelling-up agenda with local authorities.
We will evaluate the simplification pathfinders as quickly as
possible. In all the work we are doing on these new projects and
programmes, we seek to learn the lessons from them as we go
along, ensuring that we have robust evaluation processes in place
that allow us to continue to make these modifications and
improvements as we deliver our levelling-up agenda across the
whole of the United Kingdom.
(Con)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I ask her some very
quick questions? I am happy to take answers in writing.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Lab)
There is time. I asked questions about Northern Ireland, about
inflation and about impact assessments. May I have a response to
those in writing?
(Con)
My apologies; I think I answered about the impact of inflation
and the fact that we have adjusted the project delivery processes
to help take that into account with local authorities. The
pathfinders are under way and we will assess the outcomes of
those as soon as we can, but I also said that we will seek to
learn the lessons as we are implementing, not just waiting for
the final evaluation at the end of the process.
On Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that
there were no allocations in round 3 of the fund; I reassure
noble Lords that this funding has not been reallocated to other
parts of the UK and will remain reserved for and be provided to
Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with the
projects that have already been awarded the £120 million in the
first two rounds of the fund. We are working towards the
restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and will work with
a restored Northern Ireland Executive to find the best approach
for them going forward.
I am happy to have another look. If there are any points that I
have missed, I will make sure that I write to both noble Lords on
them.
4.16pm
(Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for barracking
her when she quite rightly asked a supplementary question. I
warmly welcome my noble friend to her new responsibilities and
say how much she will be missed at the Treasury. We hope she will
be able to adopt a less restrictive approach to her new portfolio
than the one she was obliged to adopt at the Treasury.
Many of us found the tone of the earlier intervention somewhat
grudging, and I know these funds will be warmly welcomed by the
communities to which they are targeted. Will my noble friend
confirm that it is the Government’s firm policy to streamline all
these different pots of money which go from central to local
government, and really have proper devolution? The Statement
mentions the levelling up fund, town deals, the shared prosperity
fund, the future high streets fund and others. Can we streamline
things without having a fund simplification pathfinder pilot?
Perhaps it could be simpler than doing that.
Finally, the Statement refers to new funds and the principles
that could be applied to them. Do we really need any new funds,
given the ones we already have? The objective should be to reduce
rather than to add.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for his warm welcome to this role. I
reassure him that the department is absolutely committed to
simplifying our funding approach when it comes to levelling up
and local authorities. I reassure noble Lords that the funding
simplification doctrine will be implemented from 1 January next
year. Its aim is to embed our commitment to simplifying the
funding landscape by ensuring that government departments
consider the principles of funding simplification when designing
new funding for local authorities. To the noble Baroness’s point,
the idea is that it extends beyond the reach of my department
alone. The doctrine will cover all new funds that are made
available exclusively to local authorities by central government,
but it excludes funding within the local government finance
settlement and services mandated by statute. That gives a better
idea of the shape of that approach.
However, it is right that where there are specific problems that
may need to be addressed with specific parameters, the concept of
a new fund is not entirely ruled out from that approach. The
pathfinders, which are important in allowing us to make sure we
learn as we go and then apply the approach more generally, are
looking at what flexibilities can be applied across those
different funding streams, and at putting local authorities in
the driving seat in identifying where their priorities are and
using the funding made available from central government more
flexibly.
(CB)
I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register as director
for the Purpose Business Coalition’s levelling-up goals. Are the
Government still committed to the 12 medium-term missions set out
in the levelling up White Paper of February last year? If so,
what is being done across Whitehall to drive those missions? Will
there be the annual update on them that was promised in that
White Paper?
(Con)
I assure the noble Lord that we are absolutely still committed to
those 12 missions. There is a huge amount in today’s Autumn
Statement that shows our commitment to delivering some of
them—for example, through the allocation of further money to
levelling-up partnerships and investment zones and pursuing
greater devolution. We are taking other measures—for example,
legislating to create a smoke-free generation that will help
deliver the health and life expectancy-related missions—so there
is work across government that will continue to deliver on those
12 missions.
(Con)
Is my noble friend aware that, if we go back in time, the concept
of levelling up when I was the leader of the London Borough of
Islington was never even thought about? This is a huge step
forward as a concept. When I first became a Member of Parliament,
I represented a fourth-stage new town. The lessons learned
between the experiences of first-stage new towns right the way
through to the fourth stage were huge. The fourth paragraph of
the Statement states:
“For instance, we have given local authorities greater freedom to
adjust their town deal, future high street and levelling up fund
projects”.
That is central today. Can my noble friend make sure that towns
that have done it well are given huge publicity so that others
can learn from success?
(Con)
My noble friend makes an important point about learning as we go
and understanding what is effective in delivering our mission to
level up. We have put in place comprehensive plans and published
how we will approach evaluating the success of some of these
projects. Of course, as part of that we want to publicise those
projects that have had the biggest impact so that not only do
they get the recognition that they deserve but others can learn
from them.
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Rural
Coalition and a vice-president of the LGA. The 9.6 million people
living in rural areas are glad that there is a mention of rural
in the opening paragraph, but we cannot quite see how that rolls
out. I wonder whether the Minister can help us a little. One of
the crucial things about rural sustainability, improving levels
of employment and offering healthcare in rural areas is digital
connectivity, yet 17% of rural houses are not on superfast
broadband, and nor are 30% of rural commercial premises. How does
this relate to the need across the country to roll out a much
higher level of rural connectivity? It has been done with a
fantastic project in Cornwall and a lot was done in Shropshire at
one stage, so it can be done. How do we get that sort of rural
levelling up in digital connectivity?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point. I know
that the Government have significant ambitions in rolling out
access to superfast broadband and making sure we cover off the
last mile, as it were, to the harder-to-reach places. I am not
familiar with the detail of that programme as it lies in another
department, but I will of course write to the right reverend
Prelate about how we are doing on delivering that digital
connectivity, in particular in rural areas.
(DUP)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little further on the
situation as regards Northern Ireland? The rationale given by the
Government for not announcing allocations to Northern Ireland in
this round is the absence of a fully functioning Northern Ireland
Executive, but that does not hold water for two reasons. First,
these are allocations to local government authorities—I speak as
a former president of the Local Government Association in
Northern Ireland—and in Northern Ireland local councils have been
functioning throughout. That has remained unchanged within
Northern Ireland for decades as they are continually operating.
Secondly, the Government did make allocations to Northern Ireland
in the previous round in 2022 when, similarly, there was no
Northern Ireland Executive functioning. Can the Minister explain
why there has been a change in the position as regards the
funding allocations to Northern Ireland between 2022 and
2023?
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that there was
funding under previous rounds. However, it is right that the UK
Government take a cohesive look at where investment is needed
and, given the budgetary position faced by the Northern Ireland
Executive and the absence of devolved institutions, we need to
look at that very carefully. That relates to his question because
the longer we have an absence of any Executive in place, the more
keenly we feel some of those pressures and the need to be able to
take those decisions in the round. As I have said, this funding
remains there for Northern Ireland; it has not been reallocated
elsewhere. We are extremely keen to work with the Executive as
soon as possible when they return, so that we can address all the
challenges that face public services in Northern Ireland.
(GP)
My Lords, I declare my positions as a vice-president of the Local
Government Association and the National Association of Local
Councils. The Minister has used the phrase “committed to
simplifying” a number of times. Would the simplest thing not be
for Westminster to get out of the road and simply agree a funding
formula to the areas of the country most in need of what has been
identified as levelling up—areas with the lowest healthy life
expectancy or the worst levels of child poverty? Should it not
allocate a multiyear long-term funding stream to those areas to
allow them to decide what projects they want to spend money on to
improve the life of their communities? Is it not wildly
inefficient, not to mention rather curious in light of the number
of Tory-held constituencies that end up with funding—perhaps
currently Tory-held is a better term—not to have a fair and
transparent system, perhaps even one that could be agreed across
all political parties, so that people could be confident that
this would go on for the long term and local communities could
make decisions for themselves and invest consistently?
(Con)
I absolutely reject the noble Baroness’s assertion that this
funding has been allocated in an unfair or untransparent manner.
Alongside the projects that have received funding, we have
published a clear methodology note about how we have approached
the allocations. Although I may have heard worries about the pace
of delivery and the amount of money available, I think that
overall both Front Benches opposite welcomed the announcement
that we made on Monday. On the overall approach to local
government finance, we have a system at the moment that
recognises needs. It means that those councils with the most
deprived households within them get 17% higher funding per
dwelling than those with the fewest. I recognise the calls for
wider reform to local government funding but noble Lords will
know that, in the wake of Covid and other uncertainties, this
Government made a commitment that while we should press ahead
with that, it would not be for now but for the next
Parliament.
(LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her post and I will be quite
parochial. As somebody who was born in Huddersfield and now lives
in Sheffield, I welcome the allocation that has been made to the
Penistone line. But living in Sheffield, which is the
fourth-largest city in England, our eyes roll when there is talk
about levelling up because in the middle of this levelling-up
agenda, our direct train between Sheffield and Manchester Airport
has been taken away. How does it contribute to the levelling-up
scheme when a train from a main airport to the fourth-largest
city is taken away in the middle of that? What pressure will the
Minister now put to bear in her new role to ensure that the train
is reinstated? The reason for taking it away was because of rail
infrastructure issues and it is really important that the train
is reinstated, particularly if levelling up is going to take
place between those two great, dynamic cities.
(Con)
Perhaps, given the strength of feeling that the noble Lord has on
this issue, I could undertake to find out more about the
rationale for that decision and write to him in particular on it.
More broadly, one decision that we have taken recently, which I
know has not been popular across the whole House, has been to not
continue with the further leg of High Speed 2, to enable us to
make sure that we are investing in transport projects that will
provide greater connectivity to more people faster than would
happen under the plans for the next leg of HS2. That shows this
Government’s commitment to levelling up.
(Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I could ask the Minister a bit more about the
costs to the local authorities that have been successful. Of
course, I welcome all that. I have been involved in watching a
very large award from the first round to the Isles of Scilly for
a new ferry, and I am very grateful to the Government. But the
cost of doing a strategic outline business case, an outline
business case and then a proper business case was so high that,
in fact, the Government have very generously allocated some extra
funding to enable the councils to do it. This must apply to many
other small councils in receipt of these bids. If they cannot
afford to prepare the documentation for the next stage, or even
to get there—because they will not get the money until the final
business case hurdle is done—is there any way that the Minister
can simplify the process without, of course, affecting the normal
procurement rules of government?
(Con)
The noble Lord has pointed to one of the solutions in his
question. In some circumstances, it might be appropriate for
government to provide support to those councils or areas that
struggle the most with the process to give them the capacity to
engage with it in the first place. However, there are also things
that we can do to try to simplify the processes that local
authorities go through, while still ensuring that quality is
maintained. We can simplify them—or, for example, in our approach
to monitoring and evaluation of a lot of these projects, we have
taken the decision to remove the local obligation to undertake
that and will provide a central function to do it. So we can
provide central support for local government and we can provide
direct funding to local government to be able to engage and
participate, but we can also simplify the process to try to
remove the costs and drive value for money.
(Lab)
I am so glad to see the noble Baroness in her new place. Do the
Government agree with the analysis of Andrew Haldane, the former
chief economist of the Bank of England and now director-general
of the Royal Society of Arts, that one reason why Britain’s
growth and productivity performance is not as good as it should
be is the widening regional differentials in England between
London and the south-east and the city regions of the north? If
the Minister does agree, what conclusions does she draw about
what kinds of policies are likely to be most effective in closing
that gap?
To speak personally, when I look at quite a lot of the projects
that have been approved, they are smallish-scale projects worth
£10 million to £20 million, a lot of which are designed to
improve town centres. I am in favour of repurposing town centres,
but I do not think that we can ever take them back to where they
were. Should we not be looking for big, transformative projects?
Of course, that is why the cancellation of HS2 was such a big
blow.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with that central point: that is what is
driving the whole mission behind our work to level up. We need to
do both of the things that the noble Lord talked about. We need
to fund projects that restore pride of place to towns where
people live and give a strong sense of local community, but we
also need to fund those larger-scale transformative projects. The
amount of funding, for example, that has gone into transport
projects in mayoral combined authorities and other areas over
recent years is very significant. We also have projects to
develop investment zones and freeports, for example. So we should
not see the levelling-up fund, and the projects that take place
through that, as the only way in which we are delivering our
agenda.
On the point about funding, whether it is for large or small
projects, I will just add that it is also about devolving
power—something that the noble Baroness mentioned at the very
outset. Today, in the Autumn Statement, we have confirmed four
new devolution deals for Greater Lincolnshire, Hull and East
Yorkshire, Cornwall and Lancashire. We are also deepening the
settlements for our existing institutions, because we need both
power and money to flow down to local areas so that they can
level up.
(GP)
My Lords, since we have time, and since the Minister is getting
to grips with her new portfolio, I will raise a somewhat
conceptual point. Has the Minister considered that levelling up
also means that there is a counteracting force, namely the
concentration of power, resources and development in London and
the south-east, which they are struggling to cope with? In
Cambridge, for example, a proposed development of 1,000 homes was
recently turned down because there was not enough water supply
for those homes. Does the Minister see that continuing
overdevelopment—the pushing of money and resources into London
and the south-east—is a countervailing force to attempts to level
up?
(Con)
I do not think that that is the way in which I will be
approaching my new department and role. I think we can both
continue to invest in London and the south-east as great places
to live and work and an important part of our economy and also
invest in levelling up across the rest of the country. I
acknowledge, however, that when you have denser populations and
more competition over resources, it adds pressure. Those are
different forms of problems that big cities, with high
development needs, might need to address versus rural areas, as
was highlighted by the right reverend Prelate. We need the right
approach for the right area, which is part of what devolving
power allows us to do.
|
