Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the efficacy of the process for bidding to the Levelling Up
Fund.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and in doing so declare an interest as a
vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, across both rounds, the levelling-up fund has awarded
£3.8 billion to 216 successful areas. This will deliver vital
infrastructure projects across the UK. The competitive nature of
the fund plays an important role in driving up the quality of the
bids. Only the strongest bids were shortlisted. In the second
round, we prioritised high-quality bids in places that had not
previously received LUF investment. This has maximised the spread
of the funding, recognising that lots of places are in need of
investment.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, four days ago, , the Conservative Mayor of the
West Midlands, called for an end to the “broken begging bowl
culture”. Can the Minister explain why the begging bowl is one of
the preferred delivery arms when it comes to levelling up?
(Con)
My Lords, it is not a begging bowl culture; it is that we have a
finite amount of money to spend on capital projects across this
country. The only fair and transparent way of finding the best
bids to deliver the most for the United Kingdom has to be through
a bidding process.
(Lab)
My Lords, some councils have spent millions on consultancy fees
to make a bid for levelling-up funding. Some of those councils
were unsuccessful and the consultancy firms were the winners.
Does the Minister believe it is wise to get our communities to
fight each other, where someone must lose?
(Con)
My Lords, no, I do not, and I do not think it is necessary to
employ expensive consultants to do the bidding. Local authorities
know what is important in their areas and they have officers who
can put forward bids. The Government will support them. It is a
very clear and transparent process.
(Con)
Does my noble friend accept that local authorities spend a great
deal of time working out bids right across the board, instead of
seeking to use that money in the way that is needed locally?
Although I agree with her argument, there is widespread
dissatisfaction among local authorities with the way that it
works at the moment. Would it not be a good idea if the
Government looked at whether there was a better way of doing
it?
(Con)
I agree with some of my noble friend’s views. If I remember
rightly, I answered a similar question yesterday from my noble
friend and said that the
Government are committed to reducing the complexities of local
government funding, as set out in the levelling up White
Paper.
(LD)
My Lords, in response to a question earlier, the Minister said
that the assessment was made by excluding those councils that had
already received funding. Were those councils told before they
spent huge sums of money to make bids that they would be excluded
at the first step? Secondly, how many of the Government’s 139
council priority areas have not yet received any money?
(Con)
I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness; I have a list here,
but I could not say how many have not had any funding. What I can
say is that the officials dealing with this funding will discuss
process issues in particular with local authorities before they
put in bids.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government claim that the bidding process is fair.
Can the Minister explain to the House why Knowsley, one of the
most deprived boroughs in the country, received nothing, yet the
Prime Minister’s area received £20 million for a park scheme?
(Con)
My Lords, no, I cannot, except to say that one bid must have been
better than another. I understand that unsuccessful applicants
will be disappointed, but I am pleased to say that we have
confirmed that there will be a third round of the fund. Further
details will be set out in due course.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a bid at this stage to
improve access to our ports would be timely and should almost
speak for itself in obtaining favour?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is probably correct in that. I would
encourage any ports that need better access to make them even
better, particularly if they are freeports, to look at the third
round of bidding.
(Lab)
My Lords, given that the Minister at least expressed some
interest in the possibility of some kind of reconsideration of
the process in response to the question from her noble friend,
might it be in her mind to do so before the third round of
levelling up?
(Con)
No, my Lords. Anybody who knows anything about local government
funding knows that this has been looked at by many Governments
over many years, but we are committed, in the levelling up White
Paper, to look at the complexity of this and to try to make it a
better system.
(PC)
My Lords, I put on record my appreciation of the fact that the
Government have helped the slate quarrying communities of
north-west Wales, but can the Minister clarify whether the fact
that the money allocated to that and other schemes has to be used
within two years means that it has to be committed within two
years or actually has to be spent? If it is the latter, there
could be problems in meeting the timescale because of some of the
constraints on availability and factors within the economy.
(Con)
First, I say congratulations to Wales on getting the highest
amount per capita out of this round. I am sorry; I will have to
get an answer to that. I do not know the detail of the agreement,
but I will make sure I get an answer to the noble Lord.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did not answer one specific question. Were
the no-hopers, those who had received money before, warned in
advance that they had no chance and spared the effort of putting
in a bid?
(Con)
My Lords, I am sure that once they put in an expression of
interest for the bids—because it is in two rounds—they would have
been told the rules for that second round of bidding.
(Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what thinking there has
been in her department about local government finance in the long
term? Has there been any investigation of, for example,
encouraging local authorities in the longer term to raise more of
their own revenue locally, rather than constantly relying on
central government? We have seen centralisation over successive
Governments over the years.
(Con)
My Lords, with some of the devolution deals that have been done,
and will be done in future, that is one of the issues we are
talking to local government about and encouraging it to do.
(Lab)
How many rounds can there be before the next election? It is
unclear to me, local government and those who watch what
government does. The third round popped up after the complaints
about the second round so, for transparency, should we not have a
specific date for the third round to ensure there is no
manipulation of the date, configured to the next general
election? It is a sensible point to raise, because the
allegations will be repeated each time. What is to stop a fourth
found at the very last minute? Can the Minister please explain
the techniques used?
(Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry, but I cannot explain the techniques.
All I am aware of—we have made it very clear—is that there will
be a third round. It is best to note that 45% of all the awards
so far have gone to opposition councils.
(LD)
My Lords, on 21 December last year, the Minister told me in a
Written Answer that the bid on behalf of Marple community hub was
being “assessed”. Well, it failed to make the grade. Will she
undertake to publish the assessments of both the failed and the
successful schemes so that, as she said, a fair and transparent
process can be seen by all?
(Con)
My Lords, no, I cannot agree to do that because I think we would
need to talk to those local authorities before we put anything
like that out in the public domain. It is transparent. You can
see on GOV.UK exactly how decisions are made and the processes
for giving those grants.
