Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) To ask the Secretary of
State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement
on round 2 of the levelling-up fund. The Minister of State,
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lucy Frazer)
First, Mr Speaker, I apologise; we can always improve on our
communications. I believe letters were sent both to MPs and to
councils last night and the Secretary of State did make a written
statement, but I...Request free trial
(Nottingham North)
(Lab/Co-op)
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities to make a statement on round 2 of the levelling-up
fund.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities ()
First, Mr Speaker, I apologise; we can always improve on our
communications. I believe letters were sent both to MPs and to
councils last night and the Secretary of State did make a written
statement, but I accept that we can improve on this going
forward.
Levelling up is one of the driving missions of this Government as
we look to build a stronger, fairer economy. As the Prime
Minister set out a fortnight ago in his five people’s priorities,
levelling up is how we will grow our economy, spread opportunity
across the country and build stronger communities with safer
streets for people to live on.
The levelling-up fund is essential to how we will develop that
opportunity, which is why we have today set our next wave of
investment for projects up and down the UK. The second wave will
see up to £2.1 billion-worth of funding, awarded to 111 bids that
we know will stimulate growth and benefit communities.
The levelling-up fund is about directing funding where it is
needed most. Local leaders and Members across this House have
seen the impact of the first round of funding, with 105 bids
receiving £1.7 billion to drive regeneration and growth in areas
that have been overlooked and underappreciated for far too long.
That is why we received a tremendous response to the second
round, with more than 500 bids received totalling £8 billion,
which is a significant increase on the 300-odd bids received last
year.
Across the two rounds of the fund, we have allocated nearly £4
billion to more than 200 bids from communities across the UK. I
am pleased that we have been able to work closely with
parliamentarians, local authorities and the devolved
Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom.
The levelling-up fund has a clear and transparent process for
determining how bids are selected. Each bid is assessed by
officials against the published assessment criteria, with the
highest scoring bids shortlisted. To ensure that there is a fair
spread of bids across the UK, funding decisions are then based on
the assessment score and by applying wider considerations such as
geographic spread and past investments. A place’s relative need
is also baked into the process. In this round, 66% of investment
went to category 1 places. As we did for round 1 of the fund, an
explanatory note setting out the details of our assessment and
our decision-making process will be published on gov.uk.
Ministers did not add or remove bids from the funded list, as set
out in the note.
There will be a further round of the levelling-up fund, along
with other investments. I look forward to working with hon.
Members across the House as we protect community assets, grow our
local economies and restore pride of place where people live and
work.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The Government are running scared of Parliament and their own
Back Benchers—judging by the faces behind the Minister, I can
understand why. However, there are serious questions to be
answered. Levelling-up is a failure: the Government are going
backwards on their flagship missions—they cannot even appoint
levelling up directors—and today we see that reach its maximum.
There is a rock-bottom allocation for Yorkshire and the Humber,
nothing for the cities of Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke, and
nothing for Stonehouse in Plymouth, which is a community in the
bottom 0.2% for economic activity, but there is money for the
Prime Minister’s constituency and money for areas in the top
quartile economically. What on earth were the objective criteria
used to make those decisions? How on earth are only half the
successful bidders from the poorest 100 communities?
Over the last decade or so, the cut to local government —in cash
terms rather than real terms—is £15 billion. Today’s announcement
gives back £2.1 billion. The Government have nicked a tenner from
our wallets and expect us to be grateful for getting less than
two quid back. We are pleased for the communities that have been
successful because they have been starved of cash for years, but
in reality even those communities will still get back less than
the Government have taken from their budgets. The Minister must
be honest that, in levelling up, even the winners are losers.
Is not the reality that this “Hunger Games” approach to regional
growth creates a huge amount of waste in time and energy? Why
will the Government not instead adopt our commitment to end these
beauty parades in favour of proper, sustained investment that is
targeted at need?
We are to believe that levelling up is to be rebranded as
stepping up or gauging up. Let me save the Minister the trouble.
It is not levelling up, it is not stepping up and it is not
gauging up. It is time’s up.
I would like to correct what the hon. Gentleman suggested about
which areas got funding across the country. He mentioned
Yorkshire and the Humber, and I would like to clarify that,
across rounds 1 and 2 per capita, every region got more than
London and the south-east. Of course, the figures can be cut in
different ways, but this is funding of £4 billion across the two
funds for areas across the country. Combined with what we are
doing with our Metro Mayors, it is the biggest transfer of power
away from Westminster since world war two. Sixty-five per cent of
the north is now represented by a Metro Mayor and, together with
significant amounts of funding through other pots of money, we
are ensuring that areas such as the north grow and communities
get the delivery that they need.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister’s constituency. I
am proud that we are regenerating a town where there is an
infantry base. I am comfortable that we are supporting our
country and the people who serve in it. He forgot to mention that
the Leader of the Opposition had a successful bid in his
constituency and that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon.
Member for Wigan (), got £20 million. He also
forgot to mention that Nottingham North got £18 million in round
1 and therefore is benefiting from the Government’s levelling-up
programme.
(Worthing West) (Con)
The Department did advise the Labour leader of Worthing Borough
Council that we had been unsuccessful in our “connected cultural
mile” bid. We should not make this issue partisan. Most people
understand that all the bids were worth while.
Will the Minister arrange for departmental officials to talk with
those who put in the bids about how some of these important
projects could be funded in other ways, rather than waiting for
the third round?
My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Local councils
were informed last night that we can improve on that. There were
successful and unsuccessful areas, and that is because this
levelling-up round was so successful. Some £8 billion-worth of
bids were made, so of course there will be unhappy people this
morning. However, £2 billion-worth have been successful.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, we will be providing feedback
because there will be a third round and we want people to
understand why they were not successful in this one.
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
Scotland’s share of the funding is £177 million out of £2
billion—some 8.5%. That proves that the distribution of the
funding is not needs-based at all and therefore, by definition,
not levelling up. Around £1.1 billion of the £1.6 billion total
levelling-up funding in England has been awarded to areas where
there is a Tory MP or a majority of Tory MPs. The Chancellor’s
constituency, one of the most affluent in the UK, has been
successful; my own constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, one
of the most economically challenged constituencies in the UK, has
not been successful in this round.
Let us not forget that the last successful bids, which took place
last October, were based on costings at that time. However,
labour and material costs have soared. Unless the funds are
renewed, the bids cannot be delivered as envisaged and therefore
they cannot level up as anticipated at the time. Is it not the
case that the whole so-called levelling-up pantomime is more
about Tory PR, spin and pork barrel politics than any attempt to
reduce inequality?
The answer to that point is absolutely not. The hon. Member
forgot to mention that Scotland got £177 million—[Interruption.]
The total is £349 million across both funds. The Opposition are
making points about party politics, so I would like to point out
that 45% of investment across both rounds has been allocated to
areas held by Opposition parties.
(West Worcestershire)
(Con)
Culture, drama and theatre are very much among the UK’s great
soft power assets. West Worcestershire is in the heart of the
midlands, which is why I am thrilled that Malvern Theatres has
been awarded nearly £20 million to level up drama opportunities
across that part of the west midlands. I say to colleagues who
were not successful this time around that we were not successful
last time. We took on board the feedback and improved the bid,
and now we have been successful. Keep on asking, is what I say to
the other bids.
I thank my hon. Friend for her wise advice. Culture is very
important and I am very pleased that we are levelling up in her
area.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Committee.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why do we not stop the pretence that this
has anything whatever to do with levelling up? Councils have to
spend a lot of time bidding for one of about 300 pots of money.
There is no real strategy at all and no joining up between the
different bids. They look more like photo opportunities so that
Ministers can go around the country announcing the successful
results. Why will the Minister not listen to the Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities Committee? We called for the bid process
to be dropped for the most part and for Government Departments to
instead consider how they can reposition the totality of their
spending on a strategic basis to help the poorest parts of the
country. The Secretary of State agreed that that is what should
be done, but the permanent secretary said no progress has been
made. Just say it—she wants a photo bid. Come up to Sheffield in
South Yorkshire and stand at a bus stop. She will have a long
time to wait before one comes along, because once again we have
been unsuccessful with the bid we put in.
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been successful.
There is, of course, a round 3. There is co-ordinated action
across Government to ensure that we support and level up. I am
sorry he does not feel that £2 billion for levelling up across
the country in terms of culture, transport and improving the
areas where communities live is not worthwhile. We believe it
is.
Sir (South Swindon) (Con)
While I cannot hide my disappointment about today’s announcement
with regard to Swindon, it is right to say that we have benefited
to the tune of approximately £100 million from previous
announcements, including from the future high streets fund and
the towns fund. Will my right hon. and learned Friend and
officials work closely with me and Swindon Borough Council to
ensure that we are able to be successful in round 3, in
particular with regard to the projects relating to Health Hydro
and the Oasis, which are so important for the future of my
town?
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure it will be
possible to discuss how Swindon can continue to grow. His area
has indeed been successful in previous rounds. He mentioned the
towns deal, which was allocated nearly £20 million. South Swindon
will continue to be well represented—I know he fights for the
area on a day-to-day basis.
(Nottingham East) (Lab)
If we rank the 317 districts in England, we will see that
Nottingham is the 11th most deprived. Despite our clear need, not
one of our three levelling-up bids was successful, yet the Prime
Minister’s own very wealthy constituency was awarded £19 million.
When will the Government end this ridiculous charade of
favouritism and truly level up places such as Nottingham by
restoring the billions in funding that Conservative Governments
have cut since 2010?
I am sorry the hon. Lady was not successful, but the area as a
whole has been successful. As I mentioned, areas outside London
and the south-east have received more per capita. I recommend
that she looks forward to the third round.
(Dover) (Con)
Dover is a priority 1 area and we were unsuccessful in the first
round. We engaged with officials, whom I thank for their
professionalism and guidance in the very transparent and open
round 1 process. That enabled us to put in a different,
successful bid for £18 million for our new creative and digital
hub, bringing jobs and skills to Dover. I would be grateful if my
right hon. and learned Friend could encourage everyone who has
been unsuccessful to take that guidance and keep going.
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s good advice, because
those who were unsuccessful in round 1 have been successful in
round 2. Round 3 is coming up and I look forward to announcing
further funds in due course.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
This has been another kick in the teeth for the people of Leeds
from this Conservative Government. After cuts totalling £2
billion to Leeds City Council’s funding since 2010, a bid to
redevelop Fearnville sports centre in my constituency has been
rejected yet again. All six bids from Leeds were rejected. There
are zero pounds for Leeds, while in the Prime Minister’s wealthy
constituency up the road, there is £19 million for him. Is it not
the case that what this is really about is not levelling up, but
Tory favouritism and the Tories looking after their own? Leeds
deserves far better.
As someone who grew up in Leeds, I think it is a great area. It
has had significant regeneration over the years, which I have
seen at first hand. Of course, further generation would be
welcome. On the point about Opposition parties, I reiterate that
45% of the funding has gone to Opposition areas.
(Cannock Chase) (Con)
I warmly welcome the funding that has been secured for transport
projects in Staffordshire, including in Cannock, which will
support the regeneration of Cannock town centre. May I invite my
right hon. and learned Friend to Cannock to show her what our
plans are and how this is going to make a real difference to my
constituents?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her successful bid, and of
course I would be happy to visit to see progressive work in
action.
(Ogmore) (Lab)
My levelling-up bid for a closure and redevelopment in Pencoed
was rejected, for the reason that the spend could not be in the
2022-23 financial year. That was despite Department for Transport
Ministers saying that this was the only way in which the level
crossing issues could be resolved, and despite the Welsh
Secretary and the Transport Secretary announcing increased
services on this line, which means that the crossing will simply
be closed. Yet in the Conservative neighbouring seat of Bridgend,
funding is granted to the Porthcawl pavilion. The convenience of
this speaks for itself: communities such as mine, which have
large levels of deprivation, are ignored and Conservative seats
are supported. The Minister needs to get a grip. If the phase 3
funding is coming, it needs to be made clearer, officials need to
work better with councils and we must not have the
debacle—because that is what it was—of the phase 2 funding
process.
I wish to clarify that the bidding process was transparent and
clear. It will be published, as was done for round 1. I know that
the hon. Gentleman’s area has had money from the UK shared
prosperity fund in the past, and I am sure that if he makes
further bids, they will be look at according to the criteria.
(Bracknell) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement today and for her
notification to me last night.
Mr Speaker
It was not a statement. Unfortunately, it had to be an urgent
question.
I thank the Minister for her notification last night. Clearly,
the decision not to proceed with Bracknell’s bid was
disappointing. It is a good bid; it regenerates Bracknell’s town
centre and was submitted by a solvent and well-run council. Will
she confirm that in principle more affluent areas in the
south-east will not be precluded from successful bids? Will she
meet me to help Bracknell refine that bid to ensure success in
tranche 3?
The Department is keen to ensure that those areas that have not
received round 1 or round 2 funding understand why that was the
case and how they can improve their prospects in the future. I,
or another Minister, would be happy to have a meeting to discuss
how we can progress any further bids.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Whatever concerns there may be about the process as a whole, I
can only welcome in the warmest possible terms the announcement
of funding for the new Fair Isle ferry. In that announcement, the
Minister has given hope for a future to one of the remotest and
most economically and socially fragile communities in the
country, and I am enormously grateful for that, as are the people
of Fair Isle and Shetland as a whole. Of course, that does come
at the second time of asking, so I pay tribute to the council
officials and officials in the Department, who have worked
together to learn from the experience of the first time of
asking. Will she assure me that if Orkney Islands Council now
comes back for a second time of asking with its also very worthy
project, it will be given the same help and support?
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, because
they show that not only is funding being spread across the
country and across parties, but that serious and considered work
with feedback does make a difference. I cannot give him any
assurances about any future funds, but those will be announced
and dealt with in due course.
(Dudley North) (Con)
Dudley was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, so
industry, heavy industry and manufacturing have been the story of
Dudley over many decades. For the very same reasons, however, for
many decades, it has also been one of the areas of the country
with low investment, with a lot of offshoring and therefore with
those forgotten communities that we have often heard about, so it
is clearly very disappointing that Dudley has not been successful
in its levelling-up fund bid. Can the Minister assure me that her
officials will work with Dudley Council’s officials to ensure
that at least in the third bid Dudley may be successful?
I thank my hon. Friend for those points. Feedback will be given
and I am sure that officials will work in the manner that he
suggests. I would like to point out that Dudley got £25 million
from the towns fund, which I hope he welcomed, but of course we
can do more.
(South Shields) (Lab)
In her letter rejecting our bid, the Under-Secretary of State,
the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (), said that she knew how
much time and effort were spent on our ambitions for South
Shields town centre. With respect, she doesn’t. It is an absolute
insult. Our freeport bid was rejected, our towns fund bid was
rejected and now two levelling-up fund bids have been rejected,
all in favour of wealthier areas. When will this Government stop
using public funds for their own political advantage?
I am sorry that the hon. Member has been unsuccessful. As I
mentioned, there is a third round. I look forward to announcing
any results of that in due course.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
Blackpool’s successful bid for £40 million from the fund will
deliver a new multiversity skills complex, which will help to
deliver skills for the jobs of the future. That takes the total
amount of additional Government investment that Blackpool has
received since I was elected to a staggering £300 million. Does
the Minister agree that it is only under this Government that
towns such as Blackpool, which have been left behind for decades,
can truly be levelled up?
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning work to improve the
area of Blackpool. It is areas like that that we absolutely want
to level up, to improve living standards and the lives of
communities for those people who are living in Blackpool.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
There is bitter disappointment that the really good bid from
Holbeck—one of the most deprived parts of my constituency, which
is the 18th most deprived in the country—has received nothing. As
the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), said, huge efforts were put in
and hopes were raised, only to be dashed when bids were
unsuccessful. Since this is all about control, surely it is now
time to devolve the money to local areas so that they can
determine their own priorities according to their own decisions,
rather than continuing to ask them to jump up and down at the
whim of central Government.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. There was £8
billion in funding and of course not everyone can be successful,
even though a lot of very good bids were made. He makes a very
important point about devolved powers; he will know that this
Government have taken great strides in devolving power to Mayors
across the country. Indeed, we very recently announced a number
of other areas that are gaining devolved authority. We are
continually looking at how we can further devolve powers to
ensure that power and authority are directed to local areas,
driven by local communities.
(Stroud) (Con)
I am extremely disappointed that Stroud was not successful in its
levelling-up fund bid. Stroud District Council chose not to make
an application in the first round, but it worked really hard on
the most recent application. I hear from colleagues today that,
when they lost out initially, they worked with ministerial teams
and the civil service to improve their bid. I want to ensure that
we can get Stroud District Council up to Westminster to meet
whoever is needed to improve our application and that we get our
GFirst local enterprise partnership involved, too. Will the
Minister take that back to her colleagues so that we can arrange
that session?
I know that my hon. Friend campaigns very hard for her
constituency in this and other areas. Of course we can confirm
that we will be able to work with her local authority to ensure
that a successful bid can be put forward.
(Bradford South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the British people have an innate
sense of fair play? Independent analysis of the largest cities
and towns in England identified Bradford as the UK’s No. 1
levelling-up opportunity. None of the four Bradford bids was
successful in this round. Does the Minister believe that the
people of Bradford will think that that is a fair outcome, or
that the process stinks?
As I mentioned earlier, as someone who grew up in Leeds, I
understand how important that area is and how much more we can
do. As I have also mentioned, we had £8 billion and were only
able to allocate £2.1 billion in this round, but further funds
are available, and round 3 will take place in due course.
(Keighley) (Con)
It was extremely disappointing that Keighley was not successful
in its bid for additional levelling-up fund moneys, over and
above the £33.6 million that had already been ringfenced for it
through the towns fund. Following discussions with the
Department, I understand that Bradford Council’s application for
the fund was not detailed enough to meet the standard for a
successful bid. That is reflected in the fact that none of the
four Bradford seats was successful, and, of course, the council
did not make an application in the first round. Will the Minister
meet me to discuss the Keighley bid, and will she also ask her
officials to write to Bradford Council as a matter of urgency to
explain how it can significantly enhance the quality of its bids
so that Keighley does not suffer as a result?
Keighley has already received some feedback and we will of course
provide more. We want to ensure that areas that deserve funding
receive it, and that that is not scuppered by councils’ not
making their bids as strong as possible.
(Coatbridge, Chryston and
Bellshill) (SNP)
In true grubby, greedy fashion, levelling up vastly benefits
Tory-voting areas across the UK. Of the £1.6 billion going to
English councils, £1.1 billion is going to areas represented by
Tory Members, and Scottish councils are receiving only £177
million. There is nothing for Coatbridge, which made a fantastic
bid, and nothing for our neighbours in the city of Glasgow: that
is staggering. Does the Minister not agree that grubby
pork-barrel politics is not levelling up Scotland, but leveraging
us out of this Union?
As I have said, significant funds are going to Scotland. The
Barnett formula applies to every budget, and Scotland overall has
received record sums across the board. I am proud that £20
million will be spent on developing important cultural assets in
Aberdeenshire’s coastal towns.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
Wolverhampton has been incredibly well supported by the
Government, who have made strategic investments in, for instance,
the National Brownfield Institute, the City Learning Quarter and
the modern methods of construction taskforce in order to anchor
an industry in Wolverhampton, change life chances and upskill the
local population. I am very grateful. I am also very proud that
we are home to the second headquarters of the Department for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, although I am disappointed
that our latest bid to regenerate a stretch of canal in my
constituency was not successful. Will the Minister guarantee that
the Department will work with me, and with Wolverhampton City
Council, to ensure that any corners that need to be tidied up
will indeed be tidied up so that our bid—which was acknowledged
as having great merit—will be successful next time?
I am happy to confirm that the Department can provide that
assistance. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Wolverhampton has
received significant Government funds, including £25 million from
the towns deal, but of course we can always do more.
(Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Before Christmas, the Government pulled £41 million out of the
super health hub project in Stonehouse, putting its future at
risk, and now they have turned down Stonehouse’s £20 million
levelling-up bid to create jobs. Given that Stonehouse is in the
bottom 0.2% of areas according to the economic measurements that
the Government produce, how can it be right that, when 99.8% of
areas are richer, it was not deemed suitable for being levelled
up?
The hon. Member’s constituency has not done badly overall—it has
previously been given £4 million through the UK shared prosperity
fund and £12 million through the future high streets fund—but I
understand the points that he has made and, as I have said, a
third round is coming up.
(Gedling) (Con)
As a Gedling resident, I am naturally disappointed that the bid
submitted by the Labour-run borough council was not successful.
According to feedback on its first-round bid, it was disparate
and insufficiently compelling, so I look forward to the prompt
feedback on round 2. However, given that the council has been
unsuccessful in respect of a number of funding pots, will the
Minister meet me, as a matter of urgency, to go through the
history of its funding bids, chapter and verse, so that we can
gain a better understanding of where things are going wrong and
better bids are submitted in future?
I will be happy to do that.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
With rich country areas such as Guisborough and Richmond
successful, what does the Minister have to say to the people of
Billingham? Is it, “You are not deprived enough and you are
undeserving”, “I didn’t have enough money and I needed to put
what I had into the Prime Minister’s constituency and those of
Tories he sacked from his Cabinet”, or, “I’m sorry, we are
Tories, and we have areas where we need to shore up the Tory
vote”? It stinks.
I would not say any of those things to the hon. Gentleman’s
constituents because I have repeatedly said that 45% of the
funding has gone to Opposition areas. There were £8 billion-worth
of bids, which were excellent, and unfortunately the fund was £2
billion. I am pleased that his area got £16 million of future
high streets funding quite recently.
(Don Valley) (Con)
I was pleased that Doncaster was successful in round 1, but I
cannot hide my disappointment that we were unsuccessful in round
2. The bid was for Edlington to have a leisure centre and for the
high street to be made good—it is in a terrible state. However, I
tell the children in our schools that they should never, ever,
ever give in, and nor will I, in my campaign. Will the Minister
meet me so that I can start my next campaign and Edlington will
get its levelling-up fund in the next tranche?
Yes, I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I applaud his
Conservative principles of never giving up and making sure that
every area is covered.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
The round 1 bid for Reddish to refurbish Reddish baths as a new
business hub was rejected. The round 2 bid for Denton town centre
to refurbish the Festival hall as a new community hub and
regenerate Denton town centre was rejected. The Minister says
that councils should waste more money on a round 3 bid, when
clearly the Government have got something against Denton and
Reddish. Why should Tameside or Stockport councils waste officer
time when it is clear that, if at first you don’t succeed, fail,
fail and fail again?
What we have heard across the House this morning is that people
who were unsuccessful in round 1 were successful, after taking on
board feedback, in round 2. The pot was significantly
over-subscribed. Of course we can improve areas and I look
forward to round 3.
(Luton South) (Lab)
Come on. We have heard that an estimated £15 billion has been cut
from council budgets under this Conservative Government since
2010, including £160 million from my council in Luton. The impact
has been that children’s centres have closed, bus routes have
been chopped and social care is squeaking at the pips now to look
after our older people. We are meant to be grateful that councils
have been given back £2.8 billion, when £15 billion has gone.
Does the Minister really think that we are going to believe the
Government?
This morning we have an urgent question on the levelling-up fund,
but that is not the only funding that is coming through the
Government. The hon. Lady mentioned social care, and she will
know that my right hon. Friend the Prime recently announced an
additional £7.5 billion for social care and £27 billion to ensure
that those who are struggling with the cost of living are
supported over the course of this year.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
As someone who, until earlier this month, was a local authority
leader and the place-based regeneration lead for Greater
Manchester, I know better than most just how much time and
resource local authorities up and down the country have invested
in this process. What assessment has the Minister made of the
costs incurred by local authorities in doing so, and does she
agree that they would do better spending that money on frontline
services? Does she agree that this process should be scrapped in
favour of allocating levelling-up funding based on need?
I do not believe the UKSPF funding was allocated like that.
Greater Manchester got £98 million. Of course it is important
that the areas that need it are assessed, which is the basis on
which we assessed the £2 billion-worth of funding we announced
this morning.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
Barnsley East has been rejected for funding again, yet the Prime
Minister’s wealthy constituency received funding in both rounds.
Will the Minister stop pretending that levelling-up funding is
about helping areas that need it most and accept that there are
serious questions to answer about how and where it is
allocated?
The hon. Lady should look at the technical note, which will be
published in due course, to see how the assessments were
made.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
I thank the Minister and her Department for writing to me at
11.30 pm last night, an hour after the information was released
to the press, to tell me that Hull City Council’s transport bid
had been rejected. The bid was about Hull being the third most
congested city in the country, with people waiting, on average,
73 hours a year in traffic jams. Hull has poor air quality and
worse traffic than Bangkok and São Paulo. Will she admit for once
that, having rejected Hull for the towns fund, the Government
have absolutely no interest in levelling up Hull?
The Government are very interested in levelling up Hull. There
were more than 500 bids, more than we had in the first round,
asking for £8 billion to be spent. Unfortunately, we did not have
those funds, so only £2 billion could be allocated.
(Leeds North West)
(Lab/Co-op)
I woke up this morning to the news that the “Rishi Riches” of
Richmond have received funding for a second time—having their
mouths stuffed with gold. The right hon. Member for Richmond
(Yorks) () flew into my constituency in
a private jet and drove in a limousine past cold council houses
and past the Minister’s former school site, which is now
dilapidated. The six bids from the people of Leeds got no money.
In the third round, the money should be devolved to the Mayor of
West Yorkshire, . The people of Leeds have
heard the Government loud and clear, and in the next general
election they will be consigning the Government to the dustbin of
history.
As I mentioned earlier, we are regenerating Catterick, the area
of Richmond where the infantry are based. It is important that
the people who serve our country are looked after. Ukrainian
troops were also based in the area while they were training.
(North Tyneside) (Lab)
The unsuccessful bids of North Shields and Wallsend were capped
at 80% by the Government, who deemed our area not to be a
priority, yet the Prime Minister’s leafy constituency and many
marginal Tory seats were deemed a priority. Will the Government
urgently commit to a review of the levelling-up fund’s allocation
criteria to ensure that money goes to areas where it is really
needed, such as North Tyneside?
As I mentioned, the criteria will be published in due course.
Forty-five per cent. of the funding has been allocated to
Opposition areas.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
Further to your point at the start of proceedings, Mr Speaker, I
am led to believe that Conservative list MSPs were also told well
before the MPs who sponsored the project applications.
Some of the most deprived areas of the country are in my
constituency, which also missed out on its green freeport bid,
which went to the much wealthier east. The fraudulently titled
levelling-up fund is meant to replace EU funding previously
allocated to deprived areas. How is it possible that areas of
multiple deprivation missed out while the Prime Minister’s
constituency, one of the wealthiest in the UK, nabbed £19
million, and while £45 million went to help fix the mess of the
roads in Dover caused by the Government’s kamikaze Brexit? Is the
Minister not utterly ashamed at some of these announcements? If
not, why not?
Well, I hope the hon. Gentleman is very pleased with his very
successful first-round bid of £38 million for improvements
related to the advanced manufacturing innovation district
Scotland.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The promise of levelling-up funding rings hollow in many areas.
The Government’s decision to overlook local projects in Axminster
and Seaton in Devon, where I live, and also in Gloucestershire
and Shropshire reminds people in these counties that they
continue to be taken for granted. I know that Army personnel at
Catterick garrison in the Prime Minister’s constituency would
prefer to have homes fit for heroes rather than funding for a new
glass pavilion in that town. What assurances can the Minister
give the House that the Government’s method for assessing rural
bids was objective?
It is very important that we level up in Devon. We absolutely do
not take it for granted. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s
constituency recently received funding for a new school in
Tiverton and that East Devon secured £15 million through this
fund.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
I am happy for all colleagues who were successful in round 2. I
was disappointed to see that the bid to remediate Shawfield in my
constituency was unsuccessful. The team at Clyde Gateway
delivering the project have worked incredibly hard and have a
proven track record. Can the Minister confirm how detailed the
feedback will be for unsuccessful bids so that it can inform
potential future bids from constituencies and give them the best
chance of success in round 3?
Feedback will be provided. If the hon. Member has further
questions in relation to that feedback, she can raise them, and
they will be answered.
Mr Speaker
Finally, I call .
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her time. I am expressly thankful for
the levelling-up funding received in the last tranche, but I am
concerned that Northern Ireland is not receiving its share in
this round. Can the Minister outline what has been allocated to
Northern Ireland and, particularly, to my constituency of
Strangford, which is in desperate need of levelling-up funding
for shovel-ready projects such as the Whitespots environmental
scheme, which is ready to go and will create jobs and be a real
boost for the Northern Ireland economy?
This was a fund that covered the UK. Northern Ireland got £71
million in this round, which totals £120 million over the two
funds together. I am very pleased that the Ulster branch of the
Irish Rugby Football Union has previously received £5 million.
|
