Today we had the first budget of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, and it was undoubtedly a budget of two halves. The first, dealing with the ongoing crisis over coronavirus/covid-19, and the second dealing with the more humdrum affairs of government and starting the implementation of the Conservative election manifesto. Much like the budget itself, our response will come in two parts- today, a brief look at what we consider to be the most interesting consultation story immediately arising from the budget, and on Thursday/Friday a more in depth dive into what the omens are for consultation going forward.

So what was the stand-out consultation story? Curiously for me it wasn’t so much something that was there, as something that was conspicuously not there. Or rather something that was, to borrow a phrase from a past political era (about two years ago- doesn’t time fly?), ‘present but not involved’. One of the (admittedly many) bugbears in Parliament in recent times has been a missing consultation. For over two years the Government in its various incarnations has been promising a consultation on a UK Shared Prosperity Fund, designed to replace the EU structural funds which provided funding for regions and cities to try and tackle disparities and boost regional development. It is an area of intense interest to local authorities, as one of the major areas where EU funding will disappear and a shortfall could emerge. Most recently questions in the Commons have been fielded by the immediate former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, one Rishi Sunak.

With that in mind you might have expected that consultation to be a key part of the budget. It has after all been long promised, has drawn no small interest from MPs on behalf of their constituents, and could provide vital reassurance to councils and regional authorities looking to plug holes in their budget left by the UK’s departure from the EU. So where was it? It was mentioned twice, firstly at 1.156 of the Red Book, under the heading ‘Levelling up and getting Britain building’, and secondly at 2.125 as part of the ‘Budget Policy Decisions’ summary of the same document. Neither of these however represented firm commitments of the nature frequently being demanded in the House, instead deferring it with the delightfully vague ‘The government will set out further plans for the Fund, including at the CSR’ (Comprehensive Spending Review).

The lack of surefire certainty on this I suspect will draw comment in the debate over the next few days. Whether the government is planning to undertake the consultation as a corollary to their local government funding review, another thing notably missing from both the text of the budget document and the Chancellor’s speech, is not clear. Clarity however is certain to be demanded with authorities struggling under financial pressure and local elections coming up.

A brief scan gives us 33 ‘hard’ promises of consultations and engagement scattered throughout the Budget and its accompanying documents. We will have more in depth analysis on the consultation and engagement prospects from the Budget in the next few days as we have the opportunity to digest it more fully, and you should expect an examination of most of those in the next article.