error Not started

Brexit and Europe Brexit and Europe

Consult widely on the design of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Last updated: 04:28pm 19 January 2019

We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies.

Conservative Party Manifesto 2017, p.35

Our verdict

The “fund” that the manifesto wording refers to is the UK Shared Prosperity Fund – the government’s replacement for the European Structural Investment Funds after we leave the EU. The European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) can be allocated to any region across the EU, but are designed to promote social and economic development in the areas that need them most.

It is estimated that the UK was allocated €16 billion (about £14 billion) for the period 2014-2020. So this is a big deal for many areas of the UK.

Although there has been some discussion on this policy, it’s been from local government bodies like the Local Government Association and the Greater London Authority who are understandably keen to ensure they are ready when the government’s consultation on the Shared Prosperity Fund starts.

The fund itself, however, is being developed by the Department for Communities and Local Government. So far they have only promised that the consultation process would launch in 2018, but that didn’t happen.

The policy we’re tracking here isn’t about creating the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (that’s this policy), it’s about ensuring they “consult widely on the design of the fund” when they create it. Given the consultation hasn’t been launched yet, we’re marking this policy ‘not started’. When it does launch, we’ll be assessing the consultation process and including feedback from organisations and bodies with an interest in the how the fund is developed. Follow this policy for updates.

Love the detail?

Related policies

There's always room for debate

We’re serious about providing clear, up-to-date, non-partisan information. We focus on being consistent and fair in how we reach our verdicts, and always explain our reasoning. But there is always room for debate. So if you see it differently, we’d love you to tell us why. Or even better, submit an edit.