Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what were the criteria for
allocating money from the UK Community Renewal Fund; and what
assessment they have made of the analysis by the Centre for
Inequality and Levelling Up at the University of West London,
published on 4 November, which found that 21 per cent of the
funding went to areas in the bottom 20 per cent of the Index of
Multiple Deprivation, and that two-thirds of the funding went to
areas in the top half of that Index.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling
Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
The Government have confirmed that applications to the UK
community renewal fund were assessed against the criteria set out
in the prospectus and the assessment criteria published on
GOV.UK. The analysis conducted by the University of West London
used indices of multiple deprivation as an indicator for
priority. Indices of multiple deprivation were not used for
prioritising places under the UK community renewal fund. Instead,
an index of economic resilience was used across Great Britain in
identifying the 100 priority places. The prioritisation of place
methodology and model has been published on GOV.UK. The analysis
for Great Britain showed that 77%, or £146,198,866, of funding
was allocated to a priority place.
(LD)
I apologise for the length of the Question, but I am not entirely
sure that I am happy with the Minister’s Answer. Surely this fund
is flawed and something of a sham. The money should be going to
areas with high levels of deprivation, but places such as
Knowsley in Merseyside, Sandwell, Middlesbrough and Hyndburn have
received no moneys at all from this fund. How can the Minister
ensure that they are not further disadvantaged when they bid for
the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022? Will that have different
indices as well?
(Con)
The sham is the analysis conducted by the University of West
London. I have lived in west London all my life and I have never
heard of the University of West London. Its error-strewn report
has made this into something, but it contains error after error
and there is no basis on which its analysis has any merit
whatsoever.
(Con)
My Lords, the Government have stated that they will ensure that
the UK community renewal fund reaches those most in need. In
applying checks and balances to that funding, when must that
money be spent and how will it contribute towards the
Government’s ambition to preserve and enhance the union?
(Con)
With regard to union, it was very clear that we wanted to fund
all four nations. That criterion was set from the outset. In
addition, we wanted to raise all boats and strengthen the
economic resilience of particular areas, which were banded A, B
and C. I have been through this methodology and found it to be
robust. What is more, the previous Secretary of State published
the methodology and the current Secretary of State published the
model. What more transparency could you ask for?
of Ullock (Lab)
The Minister may well think little of the analysis of the Centre
for Inequality and Levelling Up, but surely he thinks it
important that the most deserving communities get the support
that they need for levelling up. The Centre for Inequality and
Levelling Up also asks for close monitoring of who is benefiting
from the current tranche of bids. What monitoring arrangements
have the Government put in place to ensure that the right
communities get the funding that they deserve?
(Con)
As a local authority leader for some of the most deprived parts
of the country, I used to look at the index of multiple
deprivation very carefully. The borough that I led for six years
had some of the most deprived communities, so I understand that,
but the purpose of this fund was not to identify those most
deprived communities. It focused on what was going to lift
economies and therefore provide job opportunities and enable us
to thrive us a nation. That was its purpose.
(CB)
My Lords, while we are talking about levelling up, is it possible
to include the 500,000 people who are behind in their rent and
may well be levelling down? We have spoken about this together
and the Government have not yet come up with a solution for
people who are behind in their rent or mortgage.
(Con)
The noble Lord is a champion and a crusader on this, and quite
rightly. This is something that we take seriously and have taken
particularly seriously during this pandemic, so that we can
provide support for people and do not create the rough sleeping
and homeless crises of the future. We will continue to work with
the noble Lord to come up with practical measures to ensure that
we deliver our ambition to end rough sleeping.
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister saying that there is nothing that the
Government and this fund can do to help councils and areas such
as Knowsley to level up?
(Con)
Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a
methodology and approach and that they are transparent. We have
funded those bids according to that methodology. There is nothing
controversial about that; there is nothing to see here.
(LD)
My Lords, in Wales, additional funding has long been allocated to
support communities that are struggling with high levels of
poverty and deprivation. Could the noble Lord explain what
criteria are being used, as over 60% of so-called levelling-up
funding in Wales is being allocated to the 35% of constituencies
that are Conservative held? Is this not another case of the UK
Government funnelling money into their own back yards?
(Con)
I know that is why the question has been asked, but it is simply
not the case. Levelling up is around infrastructure—digital
infra- structure, heavy infrastructure, transportation systems
and the things that will bind this country together. I have a
briefing today about the community renewal fund, which is the
precursor to the UK shared prosperity fund. This is not about the
politics you saw in Tammany Hall in New York; this is sensible
stuff that aims to level up this country.
(Con)
My Lords, who administers the community renewal fund and how is
it financed?
(Con)
The UK community renewal fund will ultimately be financed by the
taxpayer, although it is the successor to the EU structural
funds. It is important to test things out with the community
renewal fund, so that we get it right when we introduce the
shared prosperity fund, which will be worth over £2.6 billion
over the next three years.
The (CB)
My Lords, I worry that the Government are not addressing what
community renewal means in its wider, profounder sense. This
funding, welcome as it is to those who receive it, is taking
place against the reality of councils, particularly in deprived
areas, that are so starved of money that they are contemplating
selling off important community assets such as theatres and
children’s centres. Will the Government look more carefully at
the meaning of community, rather than seeing it solely as new
build and private enterprise?
(Con)
I should probably declare my commercial interests before I answer
the question. The reality is that local government has had a
pretty generous settlement. The core spending power has
increased.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
Well, given the state of the national finances, increasing the
core spending power to the degree that we have shows a real
commitment to local government. I point out that this particular
fund is all around the skills and what it takes to increase the
economic output of an area. The levelling-up fund is another fund
that is focused on the more capital-intensive digital and road
and rail infrastructure.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the best way to achieve levelling
up is by economic growth and higher productivity, helped by good
local authorities? I agree with my noble friend that the rising
tide raises all boats. We should be seeking to make that a
reality in these difficult times.
(Con)
The reality is that we need local leadership. We need the vision
in local places. We need to understand why a place should be
competitive and then, with that local leadership, backed up by
taxpayer pump-priming, turn places around. We have too few local
leaders who have clear vision at the moment. There are some
examples: we are seeing the success of our mayors, and we have to
back them to ensure that the whole country rises. But the
rhetoric about lifting all boats is precisely right.
(Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good case for the community
renewal fund, but is it not the case that the allocations were
delayed from July to October? Will that mean that the application
and monitoring of those funds will take a longer period? If not,
the funds will be wasted. Levelling up is far too important to be
bungled by this Government.
(Con)
There is always delay. I have been a Minister for 18 months now:
I am not used Whitehall, but I have seen many things delayed and
that is not always as a result of direct ministerial influence.
Things just take time. We have been through a global pandemic
and, yes, this will probably delay things, but the commitment is
there—there is clarity—and this is not a case of double-dealing
or dodginess—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
No, it is not—absolutely not. A clear methodology has been set
out. It will benefit all the regions of the UK pretty much in
equal part.
(LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell me how many different pots there
are for levelling up for councils to bid for? I was told that
there are now over 100. If so, do councils have to spend money
trying to fulfil different sets of criteria for each one?
(Con)
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s first question: there
are probably too many funding pots. We are doing our best to
narrow those down as we move towards the levelling-up fund for
capital and the UK shared prosperity fund. We do not want local
authorities to become grant farmers. We want them to focus on the
vision for their place and then to apply for a limited number of
pots. It is appropriate to have deals as well, on the other side,
but, in terms of central pots, we are broadly going down to two
main ones.
