The High Court has granted our request to have our legal challenge to the so-called ‘Levelling Up Fund’ heard on an expedited basis. 

With reports from backbench Tory MPs that access to public funding for local communities hinges on whether or not they toe the Downing Street line and ‘side with the Government’ on votes, the Levelling Up agenda is looking increasingly like a Tory Party parlour game. And, as always, it’s ordinary people from hard-up communities who are being dealt the worst hand. 

Government is certainly not doing anything to dispel the notion that these funds are vehicles to channel money into constituencies that benefit the Conservatives. When asked by journalists to release the advice of impartial civil servants in respect of the much-criticised Towns Fund, they refused. When asked by us to do the same in respect of the Levelling Up Fund, they obfuscated. 

We therefore welcome the Court’s decision to look into this mess quickly.

Put simply, if the Court was to find that the Government’s decision to prioritise places in Ministers’ constituencies like Richmondshire over places like Barnsley was unlawful, it is in the public interest to know that sooner so that the issue can be fixed, and the £4.8bn earmarked for the Levelling Up Fund can reach the communities that need it most.

The High Court has granted permission for our legal challenge to the “Levelling Up Fund”. The huge £4.8bn fund pretends to be the centrepiece of a levelling up agenda – but we think it’s just a way to funnel money into constituencies of political benefit to the Conservative Party. 

This permission decision means the Government will have to defend itself in Court. It’s the latest in a string of permission decisions that have gone in Good Law Project’s favour. Of the 14 cases we have issued since the start of 2020, the Court has granted permission in 11 at the first time of asking. Since 2010, official statistics show that this has only happened in 17% of all judicial reviews. Good Law Project’s success rate on the other hand is a staggering 78%. Judges clearly agree that the Government is acting in ways that deserve closer scrutiny, and they see the importance of the cases we bring.

Building a judicial review that makes it to Court is no easy feat. It takes weeks, often months, of painstaking effort to identify the right legal point and gather evidence and witness statements to build a powerful case. We can only do this work because of monthly donations from people like you. Your contributions help to pay for the salaries of our small team of in-house lawyers and paralegals, our computers, and our office space. They help to keep Good Law Project going.

We want to keep taking on impactful cases and we want to keep making it all the way to Court. With your help, we can. If you’re in a position to set up a regular donation, you can do so by clicking here.

The evidence Government is using public money to meet its own ends is hard to ignore. The latest on the Towns Fund makes for depressing reading, with 22 of 26 places that received funds in the latest tranche being represented by Conservative MPs. This was the very same Towns Fund that led to the Government being criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for its lack of transparency.

But we are taking action to try and hold Government to account. In April, we took the first step in legal proceedings against the Government’s new Levelling Up Fund. This huge £4.8bn fund pretends to be the centrepiece of a levelling up agenda - but we think it is just a way to funnel money into regions and towns of political benefit to the Conservative Party. 

We have now formally launched the claim. Our pre-action letter highlighted the Government’s failure to take account of equalities considerations when designing the Fund and the lack of transparency in the process. We also noted flaws in the methodology used to allocate money to particular places. The claim papers flesh these arguments out, and highlight the disconnect between the fund’s pretended objects and its real world practical effects.

But don’t just take our word for it. 

In sworn evidence, Prof Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at Oxford, has noted that the effect of the methodology is to “give significant priority to areas represented by Conservative MPs or representatives, even in circumstances where those areas are on any objective view affluent, and subject to low levels of need”.

This Government is creating a system where it pits communities against each other to fight for funding, and where winning seems to rest on whether they are of strategic importance in future elections. The losers will be poorer communities that miss out. 

The Government’s response is due on 25 June. We will keep you updated.

We are being represented by Bindmans LLP along with a counsel team of Shaheed Fatima QC (Blackstone Chambers), Joe Barrett and Hannah Slarks (11 KBW). If you are in a position to support our action, you can donate here.