← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Levelling-up Fund Round 2: Bidding Process
07 February 2023
Lead MP
Anne McLaughlin
Glasgow North East
SNP
Responding Minister
Dehenna Davison
Tags
EconomyEmploymentDemocracy & ElectionsWomen & EqualitiesLocal Government
Word Count: 10910
Other Contributors: 10
At a Glance
Anne McLaughlin raised concerns about levelling-up fund round 2: bidding process in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The lead MP asks the Minister to explain the decision-making process in the final 24 hours before decisions were made, whether there will be a round three of levelling-up fund bidding, and if Glasgow City Council will be reimbursed the estimated £500,000 cost incurred for bids that could not win due to eligibility changes.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Round two of the levelling up fund was a waste of effort and money for Glasgow City Council, as changes to eligibility criteria at the last minute made all of their bids ineligible. The council invested approximately £500,000 in officer time preparing seven bids that would have helped redevelop deprived communities. Anne McLaughlin highlighted that Glasgow's financial flexibility is limited due to austerity measures and additional constraints like settling equal pay disputes with mainly female employees. She argued that the forced competition among local authorities for funding is a poor distribution method.
Alex Norris
Lab Co-op
Nottingham North and Kimberley
The Member criticised the Government's levelling-up policy for failing to address regional inequalities, wasted time in bidding processes, and broken promises on development funding. He highlighted that while some areas were successful in securing funds, they were still worse off due to previous budget cuts. Alex Norris called for a sustained transfer of power and resources from Whitehall to local communities.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Alison Thewliss expressed disappointment over unsuccessful bids in her constituency, criticising the competition-based approach of the fund allocation. She highlighted two specific projects: one for the People's Palace and Winter Gardens, which celebrates its 125th anniversary but faces maintenance issues due to lack of funding; another for transport aimed at greening the city centre. Thewliss questioned why these bids were rejected despite initial suggestions they had a good chance of acceptance, noting that Glasgow City Council lost £500,000 on one bid. She also mentioned a project by Clyde Gateway aimed at removing chromium contamination from Shawfield to support development and job creation.
Alun Cairns
Con
Vale of Glamorgan
Asked why the Scottish Government does not fund an important project considering economic development is a devolved function, and questioned if they have tax-varying powers to support such projects. Alun Cairns expressed disappointment that the Barry Making Waves project was not successful in round 2 and defended the policy's objective to support communities left behind. He questioned why some projects were successful despite similar economic conditions, suggesting a need for clearer explanation from officials on scoring criteria. Alun highlighted the lack of significant economic development in Wales despite substantial European aid investment and called for detailed analysis of successful bids to inform future applications. Asked to give way for an intervention but the content of the intervention was not provided. In an intervention, Alun Cairns requested a brief opportunity for further questioning.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South
Questioned if local authorities had their bids changed at the last minute by ministerial interference because of previous funding in round one. Local authorities were advised at the last minute that they were ineligible for round 2 funding if they received it in round 1, which is scandalous. Chris Stephens questions whether local authorities were told about this eligibility rule before submitting their bids and asks when local authorities will be informed of their scores to understand where they went wrong.
Christchurch
Proposed to start the debate early due to all participants being present, suggesting it continue until 6:30 pm.
Giles Watling
Con
Clacton
Supports levelling up but highlights that Clacton is the most deprived ward in the UK and needs further investment. Emphasises the need for better transport infrastructure to connect Clacton with other areas like Harwich, especially with a new freeport coming up. Suggests £20 million from the levelling-up fund as a start but argues that more funding is needed to avoid coastal decline in Clacton and elsewhere.
Jon Trickett
Lab
Normanton and Hemsworth
The MP expressed strong objections to the levelling-up fund bidding process, stating it was unfair for deprived areas. He highlighted significant disparities in wages and job opportunities between his constituency and London. The MP reported a local bid involving Backstage Academy, which raised £50 million and sought an additional £20 million from the Government, but was unsuccessful despite earlier assurances of support.
Kevin Foster
Con
Torbay and South Devon
Kevin Foster highlighted Torbay's success in securing funding through various Government programmes since 2015, but expressed disappointment over the failure of their levelling-up fund bids. He detailed two unsuccessful bids: one for expanding Brixham fish market which could have created jobs and boosted the local economy, and another for a south Devon cycleway to improve commuter routes and travel options. Foster questioned whether Torbay's approach should be reconsidered based on Government feedback, and raised concerns about the impact of delays in delivering previous projects on future funding success.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Chesterfield
Mike Amesbury highlighted the failure of the levelling-up funding process, citing a lack of need-based distribution and high bid costs for local authorities. He criticised the current system as unfair and politically influenced, affecting essential services like social care and children's services. In his constituency, a bid for a new Winnington bridge and 1,500 brownfield houses was unsuccessful despite its merits.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
Critiqued the levelling-up fund bidding process, arguing for a strategic approach to economic growth rather than funding pet projects. Cited evidence from Professor Philip McCann and others stressing the importance of regional focus, cluster economy development, and partnerships between universities, businesses, and communities. Highlighted specific local initiatives such as rail clusters and bioscience projects in York.
Government Response
Dehenna Davison
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East on securing this debate and assure Members that the levelling-up fund's decision-making process is sound and free from political interference or undue influence. The first round of the fund saw 105 bids receiving £1.7 billion to drive regeneration and growth in overlooked areas, while the second round received over 500 bids worth almost £9 billion but only awarded £2.1 billion due to funding constraints. Each bid was assessed impartially by officials against economic case, deliverability, strategic fit, and characteristics of place criteria, with shortlisted bids scored based on these criteria and further considerations such as geographic spread and previous investments applied to determine final funding allocations. Ministers did not add or remove individual bids from the funded list, ensuring a fair spread of projects across regions. Full feedback will be provided soon despite the time-consuming process. A third round of the levelling-up fund is planned with details being announced shortly.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.