Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Sixth Report - Funding for Levelling Up
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
HC 744
Published 26 May 2023
Recommendations
3
Rejected
Para 18
Require Government departments to identify and DLUHC to clarify Levelling Up funding contributions.
Recommendation
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 …
Read more
Government Response 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 devolution deals.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
View Details →
Conclusions (5)
1
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 16
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 …
Government Response 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.
2
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 17
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.
Government Response 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 that offers local authorities flexibility.
12
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 48
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 …
Government Response 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.
16
Conclusion
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 …
Government Response 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 proprietary commercial vacancy rate made public.
23
Conclusion
Rejected
Para 82
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 …
Government Response 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 administrations on bespoke allocation.