Recommendation 12

HM Government · verbatim extract Acknowledged

We welcome the Committee’s comments on this crucial delivery issue, which reflect the Government’s own ambitions to have strong, effective and tailored local Government which works for the citizens they represent. The first, and most important, imperative on this agenda is that we have local Government partners who are effective, efficient and able to deliver improvements for their area, both within the levelling up agenda and more broadly in their delivery of day-to-day services. As we have outlined earlier, within the levelling up agenda, the Government has provided support for capacity-building on a local scale in order to support this end. Secondly, we acknowledge that local Government funding is important and that is one of the reasons why this year’s Local Government Finance Settlement saw an increase in Core Spending Power in England from £49 billion in 2020–21 to up to £51.3 billion in 2021–22. It is, of course, for individual authorities to ensure that funding, whether centrally allocated or locally raised, is used in an effective and efficient manner, including through continuously improving the way they work and the way they spend money to ensure the best outputs, as so many authorities already do. The next opportunity to review the funding of local Government will, of course, be the Spending Review and further information will come forward in due course once that has concluded. On the broader point regarding devolution and local authority structures, we accept that there is a need for local partners to be clear in terms of their responsibilities although, we hope, the Committee recognises that the precise delivery mechanisms will vary across the country. The Prime Minister was clear in his speech on 15 July that the Government prioritises the effectiveness of delivery by local partners rather than its homogeneity. The speech highlighted the steps forward through the new Mayors in certain parts of the country and outlined the Government’s openness to discuss the most appropriate way in which this could be replicated elsewhere, through whichever structure is deemed most effective. Further, the Committee makes an important and useful case throughout its report about considering levelling up for the whole of the country. The Committee is right to highlight that disparities within individual regions, even the more prosperous ones, can be stark and that this should be taken into account in the development of future Levelling Up policy. Growth is not a zero sum game. Levelling up should not be about stymying the growth of more prosperous areas, nor addressing challenges which are present within certain parts, but about collectively trying to help every part of the country to reach its productivity potential over the long-term. The recent Town Fund announcements, for example, has recognised the importance of supporting the regeneration of towns such as Bournemouth, Stevenage, Margate, Lowestoft and Crawley as well as those in the North and Midlands and beyond. metrics: