Recommendations & Conclusions
6 items
1
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
We are yet to see any evidence of sustained joint working between Departments, and the coordination of the various funding pots they control, which are intended to contribute towards the ambitions of the Levelling Up White Paper. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is responsible for overseeing the …
Read more
We are yet to see any evidence of sustained joint working between Departments, and the coordination of the various funding pots they control, which are intended to contribute towards the ambitions of the Levelling Up White Paper. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the Levelling Up policy, but we have found that it does not appear have a clear understanding of which funds specifically contribute towards the four main objectives in the White Paper and what the totality of funding available is.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's conclusion, stating that Levelling Up is a whole-of-government mission where all spending contributes. It highlights extensive joint working across departments and with local actors through various initiatives, including devolution deals, partnerships, and Investment Zones.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
Local authorities’ revenue funding has reduced significantly since 2010. Levelling up funds generally do not replace grant funding because first they are capital not revenue and; second, because they cover specific projects rather than necessarily covering the priorities of the local authorities.
Read more
Local authorities’ revenue funding has reduced significantly since 2010. Levelling up funds generally do not replace grant funding because first they are capital not revenue and; second, because they cover specific projects rather than necessarily covering the priorities of the local authorities.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the committee's conclusion, stating that local government's Core Spending Power has seen a real terms increase between 2019-20 and 2023-24. It clarifies that Levelling Up funds are not intended to duplicate core funding and cites the UKSPF as a predominantly revenue-based programme …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3
Recommendation
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
If Levelling Up is to remain the Government’s flagship policy, as it has described it, its delivery must involve greater co-ordination and oversight across Government where applicable. The Government must get to grips with setting out which funding streams are materially contributing to the Levelling Up policy. All Government departments …
Read more
If Levelling Up is to remain the Government’s flagship policy, as it has described it, its delivery must involve greater co-ordination and oversight across Government where applicable. The Government must get to grips with setting out which funding streams are materially contributing to the Levelling Up policy. All Government departments must identify and assess those spending allocations which are being used to achieve the objectives set out in the Levelling Up White Paper. DLUHC, as the Department primarily responsible for delivering levelling up must make clear what funding is being provided to achieve which objectives and outcomes so that the progress of the policy can be clearly monitored, and delivery against ambitions accurately assessed.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation for greater co-ordination and oversight and for setting out specific funding streams contributing to levelling up, arguing it's a whole-of-government mission where such categorisation would be misleading. They assert that sustained joint working already exists, citing numerous initiatives and …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
A further concern regarding the distribution of competitive funding was the additional metrics for success applied to once applications had closed in round two of the Levelling Up Fund. This was signally unhelpful for perceptions of trust and transparency and leaves the Government open to criticisms that it has not …
Read more
A further concern regarding the distribution of competitive funding was the additional metrics for success applied to once applications had closed in round two of the Levelling Up Fund. This was signally unhelpful for perceptions of trust and transparency and leaves the Government open to criticisms that it has not clearly explained how funding decisions have been made on the basis of need or merit.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government denies that additional metrics were applied after applications closed in round two, stating the decision-making framework and all five wider considerations were outlined in the published Prospectus and Technical Note prior to submissions. They assert a robust and transparent process was followed.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
The Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD) has for a long time been widely considered to be the most efficient way of determining ‘need’. As such, we do not agree with the DLUHC’s decision to move away from the use of the long established IMD to determine priority areas one to …
Read more
The Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD) has for a long time been widely considered to be the most efficient way of determining ‘need’. As such, we do not agree with the DLUHC’s decision to move away from the use of the long established IMD to determine priority areas one to three. We acknowledge that the DLUHC changed its use of metrics in the second round of the Levelling Up Fund. Nevertheless, it is still not clear what data sets were used for the amended process in round two or why they sought such a complicated process for round one, when local authorities have ample access to data and arguably understand their areas best. (Paragraph 63) Funding for Levelling Up 39
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the premise that IMD is a 'one size fits all' solution, stating their chosen indicators align better with Levelling Up Fund interventions. They clarify that methodology notes and links to data sets for both rounds are publicly available on gov.uk, including a …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23
Conclusion
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Rejected
We have heard from representatives from the Welsh and Scottish Governments, officials from Northern Ireland, and from English local authorities, all of which have said that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was not a sufficient replacement for previous European funding. However, the DLUHC has assured us that the UKSPF …
Read more
We have heard from representatives from the Welsh and Scottish Governments, officials from Northern Ireland, and from English local authorities, all of which have said that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was not a sufficient replacement for previous European funding. However, the DLUHC has assured us that the UKSPF is indeed a sufficient replacement. We have endeavoured to reconcile these differing views and better to understand what the reality of the funding situation is. the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee have also spent time trying to get to the root of the disagreement between recipients and the Government on the sufficiency of these funds. However, all the evidence we have received has said that the UKSPF is not a sufficient replacement.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the conclusion that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund is not a sufficient replacement for EU funding, stating that total UK-wide funding will at least match previous EU structural fund receipts by 2024-25. They explain their calculation methodology and highlight engagement with devolved …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government