Levelling Up- what does the White Paper mean for us!

Levelling Up

Well at long last the government has set out what they mean by levelling up and what they intend to do to deliver it. There is a great deal of analysis and it is well worth reading the main document and all the supporting material. I have seen on social media already individuals and organisations welcoming it as a route to justify more funding but I can’t believe for one minute they have read it and grasped the many implications and opportunities for the sector. It really does deserve a much deeper assessment and a sector wide response over coming weeks.?

Nick Pontefract of Sport England has justifiably tweeted that so many of the ideas in the white paper align with the Sport England strategy and yes they do, but I am not yet convinced that the sector has properly understood and embraced the scale of change required if the Sport England strategy is to have any traction and impact so reacting to the Levelling Up White Paper also needs some careful thought and some powerful sector wide leadership. In this thought piece I have started to summarise and share some of the most interesting themes and some of the challenges they present. These are early thoughts and I hope others will add to them if they are able to find the head space to do so.?

Historical Challenges

The challenges of regional disparities and disparities in opportunities within regions and places has been at the heart of central government and local government policy since I became a planning student in 1971. Every government since then has attempted to reduce these disparities and in the main failed so I won’t bother listing all the initiatives I have been involved in. These failures are with a degree of honesty acknowledge in the report but we need to also acknowledge that it was in the late 1970s when the Sports Council first came up with the Sport For All strap line and we too are still struggling to deliver this ambition. This is a deep seated societal and political?problem that is very complex and there are no simple solutions or quick fixes but it can be fixed if there is the will and willingness to change how we do things and change our priorities.

It is a shame that this latest attempt to examine and tackle the problem has been launched in the midst of the current political turbulence. Releasing it now has already been called out as a political distraction and there is certainly some evidence that the preparation work needed a bit more time. There is a real danger that it will be discredited and ignored for the wrong reasons but notwithstanding this it is a distinctly ‘conservative’ perspective on the problem designed to deliver a manifesto promise.?

It will take too long

The white paper sets out a decade long timescale for achieving ‘the twelve missions’ which has already been criticised as too long, but let’s be honest this is bigger than turning round the proverbial oil tanker.?Sir Michael Marmot in 2010 first reported on the health inequalities across the country and their links with the wider social and economic determinants of health and then in 2020 reported that ten years of austerity had fundamentally made things worse. Just getting back to where we where in 2010 will be an immense challenge in the present financial position.?

The Government were attacked yesterday because the levelling up plan included no new funding only the repositioning of existing treasury commitments and although the white paper talks of better aligning existing departmental spending plans and other spending reviews and budgets?will follow in the next decade this huge policy challenge is coming alongside financial recovery from a pandemic and a major economic realignment after Brexit. I fear this will initially have to be more about doing things differently than doing more things and I also suspect that most of the ‘more’ that does happen will be about infrastructure and one off capital investment not ongoing funding. As a sector we may see capital investment in new plant as a great opportunity but if this continues to lead to exclusion based on price it will level up nothing only make things worse.

Devolved leadership

The other much talked about element in the white paper has been devolved power, more elected mayors and greater local decision making. There is no doubt that greater devolution is trumpeted throughout the document but from what I can see there remains an unresolved political tension between the centralisation and decentralisation of power. Councils have always been the basis of local decision making but they have gradually been stripped of many of their responsibilities particularly for housing and education and over the last decade they have been stripped of up to 50% of their funding leaving many unable to even fund statutory services let alone non statutory ones. At the same time the recent levelling up funding has gone to places and projects directly from Whitehall, often under ministerial powers raising questions about how and why some decisions were being made. Although the proposed new health structures (ICSs) are premised on greater local decision making including councils the same act also transfers more power directly back to the Secretary of State to direct and intervene. Let’s be kind and just call it confused or mixed messaging but you can’t have centralised control of local decision making.?

It’s clear however that whilst the devolution proposed focuses on public service providers including councils and the private sector it ignores the potential of communities themselves. System thinking is showing us that whilst the partnerships between public agencies and the private sector are important without significant engagement with and involvement by the community and the users of services real change cannot be achieved. Whilst sections of white paper focus on better engagement with communities it fails to fully embrace the empowerment of communities to change their own lives and be at the centre of local decision making. There is still a distinct feeling in the text that communities are seen not as partners in the process but as separate entities that change is done too rather than with.?

Devolution and accountability

The white paper sets out a whole range of options for devolving more powers to councils but does not seek to impose structural change on them. Lessons have clearly been learnt.?

“The UK Government will not impose top-down restructuring of local government. Reorganisation will remain a locally-led avenue available where there is broad local support, but will not be a requirement for a devolution deal. The UK Government intends to follow an incremental approach, using existing legislation to work with areas which are seeking to establish reformed local governance structures.”

But it is clear that traditional two tier council arrangements will have access to fewer new devolved powers and I suspect the devolution of power will now become the incentive for and driver of local government reorganisation with changing structures ultimately aligning with the new ICSs.??Given a lot of our infrastructure exists at a district council level and continues to face financial pressures this structural change could be a new threat or opportunity.

“ to access more powers, any future devolution deals should be agreed over a sensible FEA (Functional Economic Areas) and/or a whole county geography, with a single institution in place across that geographic footprint. The involvement of district authorities will be encouraged, but deals will only be agreed with county and unitary local authorities.”?

The white paper is also strong on accountability, measurement and learning as an adjunct to greater devolution and makes great play on not only improving the quality of data but transparency of the data in terms of local people being able to hold local leaders to account. It was interesting that yesterday the head of the National Audit Office was critical of the degree to which government was able to show the impact of their previous policy and spending decisions a point referred to in the white paper itself.?

“The lack of systematic analysis of the geographical impact of policy is compounded by poor institutional memory in central government on what has (and has not) worked in the past. This not only creates inefficiencies through duplication, but reduces transparency about what and why decisions were made in the past that might enable mistakes to be avoided and successes built upon in the future.”

A number of commentators whilst welcoming the format of the missions and the metrics to measure them have also commented on how far they resemble the Public Service Agreements and Local Area Agreements of the Blair years, in fact one commentator suggested some of them were a direct lift. In many ways these public service arrangements were a precursor to the concept of system thinking but they became discredited because of the over dependency on performance indicators and performance targets and the unintended consequences that they created. There are lots of similarities in thinking between the old and new models and clearly the Government is struggling with the tension between letting go and allowing local leaders to decide priorities and deliver them and holding them to account for the use of public money and delivering on national political manifesto commitments. Those involved in system change are already questioning and considering the role of measurement, evaluation and learning so I suspect a tension will emerge round learning based system change and performance based accountability.

The white paper does acknowledge that central government itself has also played a significant role in creating fractured rather than holistic policy. The section on reshaping central government decision making is therefore to be welcomed but can it be delivered within the existing culture of competing ministerial and departmental silos.?

These then are the big strategic issues emerging from the white paper but where is the sector seen and recognised.?

Health and Wellbeing

I’m sure most of us would have hoped to see our role recognised within the health inequality mission with a particular focus on the role activity can play in the tackling of health inequalities. However I fear once again we are being overlooked.?

“The UK Government’s goal is to tackle the stark disparities in health outcomes across the UK, ensuring people have the opportunity to live long, healthy lives wherever they live.

“Better health improves productivity and well-being. People living in the most deprived communities in England have up to 18 years less of their lives in good general health than the least deprived. This is driven by a variety of factors, including smoking rates, alcohol intake and poor diet. It is also heavily affected by differences in factors such as the quality of housing and access to healthier food. Other local factors, such as demographics, also matter – for example, in rural or coastal areas where populations are older. Access to and quality of health services are also important drivers of health outcomes and can vary by area.”

“The UK Government will set out a strategy to tackle the core drivers of inequalities in health outcomes in a new White Paper on Health Disparities in England in 2022. This will set out a bold ambition for reducing the gap in health outcomes, with a strong focus on prevention and disparities by ethnicity, socioeconomic background and geography. DHSC will work with the whole of government to consider health disparities at each stage at which they arise, from the wider determinants of health, to the behavioural factors that influence health, to the health services that people access and receive. It plans to look in more detail at what can be done in communities with higher than average rates of early death, for example from cancer and heart disease. It will do the same for communities with higher rates of behaviours like smoking or poor diet, and where access to some health services can lag behind.”

Inactivity once again has failed to have cut through particularly alongside food, diet and smoking and more influencing work is urgently required ahead of the health disparities white paper alongside local influencing within the ICSs. It’s clear that in terms of positioning we are more likely to be perceived as part of the wellbeing mission.

“ By 2030, well-being will have improved in every area of the UK, with the gap between top performing and other areas closing.”

“People’s lives are shaped by the social and physical fabric of their communities. The local mix of social and physical capital – from universities to good quality green spaces, and from libraries to local football clubs – gives areas their unique character and vibrancy, and makes residents proud to live there.”

“A beautiful built environment, access to leisure and cultural amenities and safe neighbourhoods can also attract businesses to high streets, leading to increased footfall and private sector investment in communities. To make this a reality, communities must have strong civic institutions, assets and relationships that anchor local pride in place.

Improving wellbeing

Within this context there are a number of references in the white paper as to how we are seen in terms of improving wellbeing but most of these references are very traditional and narrow in their understanding and presentation. Clearly the breadth and scale of the sectors contribution to wellbeing needs greater advocacy going forward nationally but more importantly locally in emerging devolved arrangements. We need to quickly learn from places like Greater Manchester and ensure we are positioned as part of local strategies for change.

Supporting young people?

“The UK Government will invest ￡560m of funding over the next three years to deliver a new National Youth Guarantee that reflects young people’s priorities, with a focus on levelling up. This will ensure that, by 2025, every young person in England will have access to regular out of school activities, adventures away from home and opportunities to volunteer.”

Culture and sport

“explore further collaboration between lottery funders for arts, heritage, sport and community projects within the UK to ensure that ￡1.7bn in National Lottery funding every year reaches the people and places that need it most”

“Culture and sport are key determinants of places’ social capital and critical elements of their social infrastructure. But while talent and creativity is spread equally across the UK, the opportunity to enjoy culture and sport is not. Those in less affluent regions are less likely to have visited a heritage site, or to have engaged with the arts, compared to those from more affluent regions. While the majority of Arts Council England (ACE) Grant-in-Aid funding is allocated to institutions outside London, culture outside the capital receives significantly less funding per head. Sporting infrastructure is more evenly distributed geographically, but socioeconomic background and location still affects participation. Nine out of the ten counties with the highest levels of physical inactivity are in the North and Midlands.”

“The UK Government also recognises the central role sport, and football clubs in particular, can play in shaping local identities and strengthening economies. The UK Government is already investing ￡25m across the UK to upgrade and transform grassroots sports facilities this year. ￡21m of this is being delivered by the Football Foundation in England and, alongside partner funding from the English Football Association (FA) and Premier League, this will create or improve up to 65 artificial grass pitches, over 800 grass pitches and over 35 changing rooms in England. These facilities will provide greater opportunities for people to get involved in grassroots sports, especially in the communities most in need. Over 80% of the funding granted by the Football Foundation this year will go to areas outside London and the South East.”

These words represent an important but very limiting view of the contribution we make and can make in the future.?

Our priorities now

This is a very quick snap shot of what is a huge wide ranging white paper which the sector needs to now analyse and respond to in considerable detail. The opportunities are there but they will need some hard work to be grasped. People will see different priorities in the plan but perhaps the key ones are preparing for more structural change in two tier areas and engaging with devolution, influencing how physical activity is represented in the forthcoming health disparities white paper and within the local ICSs and widening, strengthening and demonstrating how the sector is positioned in terms of the wellbeing mission. Other priorities will certainly include the skills agenda, raising education standards, pride of place and crime and the sector will also need to make sure it positions itself in place based data sets and impact monitoring. This is a major opportunity for the sector so let’s not miss it by not investing in properly understanding the levelling up agenda.?

Martyn Allison

Feb 2022