**The government’s replacement for the EU structural funds falls short financially and is just as complicated**
It may have come two weeks after the official launch date of the scheme on April 1, but yesterday the government finally published the full prospectus for the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund — the £2.6bn fund which replaces EU structural funds.
The prospectus sets out exactly how much each of the 200-plus lead local authorities in the UK will be allocated in SPF funds, and the broad basis on which the funds can be spent, subject to Michael Gove’s Levelling Up Department signing off individual “investment plans” for each authority.
We looked at some of the concerns that local authorities were raising around UKSPF in March, but now we have the details, it’s fair to ask to what extent those fears have been allayed?
Firstly, on the question of quantum, it’s the same old row. Gove and the government repeatedly insist that they are making good on their manifesto commitment that the UK version would “match” the old EU funds — pretty much no one outside the ruling Conservative party agrees with them.
The problem is that the government wants to count “leftover” money from the last EU fund (20214-2020) that is still being paid out by Brussels to UK projects until 2024 against its promise to “match” EU funds.
If you don’t do that piece of double counting, then the Welsh government estimates they are £1bn worse off, and the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, the lobby group, finds that places like Manchester, Liverpool and Tees Valley are getting one-third less than before.
Still, using the slippery semantics that are now all too common in government press releases, ministers continue to say the UKSPF “will match” the EU funds — which is justified by the fact that the UK fund “will” hit £1.5bn in the third year of its operation, which does (almost) match the EU fund.
Even then, as the FT reported this week based on documents we’ve seen, in England even in 2024-25 when the fund ramps up to EU spending levels, the government’s own sums show a £78mn shortfall in England when adjusted for inflation.
That’s not a lot of cash spread over England, but arguably truth and transparency matters as much as the money.
But what about the administration of the funds itself? The government promises this will be much less bureaucratic and better-targeted than the EU fund, which even fans of the EU admit was tortuously administered at the level of 38 separate Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Lol
To if the U.K. gov really wants to capitalise on Brexit removing red tape where they can makes them most sense.
I really don’t get why the Brits allow themselves to be ruled by these bureaucrats sitting in Westminster.
5 comments
1
**The government’s replacement for the EU structural funds falls short financially and is just as complicated**
It may have come two weeks after the official launch date of the scheme on April 1, but yesterday the government finally published the full prospectus for the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund — the £2.6bn fund which replaces EU structural funds.
The prospectus sets out exactly how much each of the 200-plus lead local authorities in the UK will be allocated in SPF funds, and the broad basis on which the funds can be spent, subject to Michael Gove’s Levelling Up Department signing off individual “investment plans” for each authority.
We looked at some of the concerns that local authorities were raising around UKSPF in March, but now we have the details, it’s fair to ask to what extent those fears have been allayed?
Firstly, on the question of quantum, it’s the same old row. Gove and the government repeatedly insist that they are making good on their manifesto commitment that the UK version would “match” the old EU funds — pretty much no one outside the ruling Conservative party agrees with them.
The problem is that the government wants to count “leftover” money from the last EU fund (20214-2020) that is still being paid out by Brussels to UK projects until 2024 against its promise to “match” EU funds.
If you don’t do that piece of double counting, then the Welsh government estimates they are £1bn worse off, and the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, the lobby group, finds that places like Manchester, Liverpool and Tees Valley are getting one-third less than before.
Still, using the slippery semantics that are now all too common in government press releases, ministers continue to say the UKSPF “will match” the EU funds — which is justified by the fact that the UK fund “will” hit £1.5bn in the third year of its operation, which does (almost) match the EU fund.
Even then, as the FT reported this week based on documents we’ve seen, in England even in 2024-25 when the fund ramps up to EU spending levels, the government’s own sums show a £78mn shortfall in England when adjusted for inflation.
That’s not a lot of cash spread over England, but arguably truth and transparency matters as much as the money.
But what about the administration of the funds itself? The government promises this will be much less bureaucratic and better-targeted than the EU fund, which even fans of the EU admit was tortuously administered at the level of 38 separate Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Lol
To if the U.K. gov really wants to capitalise on Brexit removing red tape where they can makes them most sense.
I really don’t get why the Brits allow themselves to be ruled by these bureaucrats sitting in Westminster.
Previous had heard it