Spending to level up: not how much, but how

COMMENT The debate over the Levelling Up white paper has often centred on the money. Or, to be more precise, the amount of money available. In politics it usually does, with claim and counter claim. I am going to be a heretic on this. I don’t think the sums mentioned matter. What matters is how the money, now and in the future, is spent. For example, instead of ministers launching new national initiatives, the aim must be to empower local leaders to determine their priorities and direct resources accordingly. Equally, it should also mean the end of single issue initiatives and a move towards holistic projects which recognise the link, say, between education, jobs and crime. This place-based approach has been emerging in the hands of regional mayors like Andy Street and it needs to become the default way of improving local economies, transport and development. Change of mindset So there’s a strong case for overhauling the whole funding system, both to simplify it and to transfer decision making to local areas. To be fair, the government has recognised many of the underlying problems. However, that will need to go beyond reducing a dozen Whitehall schemes to one, or shortening the application form. First, Whitehall needs to change its mindset, away from doling out pots of money based on national priorities. We need a shift towards longer term funding streams which can be spent in localities as local need demands. Personally, I think that low-cost, long-term loans are often better in this regard than grant schemes, but I recognise there is also a place for grants. Second, any central government monitoring of such funding needs to be rethought. The focus nationally should be on technical competence once funding has been agreed. The project’s outcomes should be judged locally. However, public accounting rules may need to be adjusted, not least to allow for a longer term consideration of what is value for money. For example, where local public land and buildings are vested in a partnership scheme, the current rules are unhelpful. True accountability Third, local transparency and accountability should be the main political oversight, rather than inspectors from Whitehall. But the local mechanisms for both need overhauling so that schemes are managed openly and local leaders are truly accountable. This is especially the case where one political party is dominant in an area. I think this will also involve the control of some taxes being devolved. Locally elected mayors or governors need to be able to set their priorities in economic development and then be able to raise funds locally to help deliver their goals. It would strengthen local accountability because the communities would be able to compare what’s raised and what’s achieved with their money. Mark Prisk is a former housing minister. He is a strategic adviser to Handley House and chairs Saltaire Housing