Lack of clarity on Towns Fund fuels bias claims

MPs criticise ‘ vague’ rationale for awards

MPS HAVE criticised a lack of transparency in a multi- billionpound Government scheme aimed at boosting the prospects of towns, saying it has “fuelled accusations of political bias”.

The £ 3.6bn Towns Fund was introduced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( MHCLG) in summer 2019.

In a report published today, the cross- party Public Accounts Committee says it is “not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others”, finding the justification offered by Ministers for selecting individual areas to be “vague and based on sweeping assumptions”.

It also found that the department gave “weak and unconvincing justification for not publishing any information on the process it followed”.

The scheme has come in for criticism after it emerged a number of areas in marginal seats in the last General Election were chosen for investment despite scoring a low rating on criteria set by the MHCLG.

The PAC said that in some cases, towns were chosen by Ministers despite being identified by

officials as the very lowest priority.

In Yorkshire, the areas chosen were Brighouse, Castleford, Dewsbury, Doncaster, Goldthorpe, Goole, Keighley and Shipley, Morley, Rotherham, Scarborough, Scunthorpe, Stainforth, Stocksbridge, Todmorden, Wakefield and Whitby.

Fourteen out of 17 of those towns – taken as wider areas to include the Don Valley’s Nick Fletcher and Rother Valley’s Alexander Stafford – have a Conservative MP. Seven of them swung to being Tory constituencies in the last General Election.

Labour’s Meg Hillier MP, chairwoman of the Committee, yesterday said: “In our programme of work on the Government response to the Covid pandemic, we have begun to see the grim, potentially huge costs of public spending made in haste and without all the usual, legal checks and controls. of billions of taxpayers’ money, and what it expects to deliver.”

All 101 towns selected to work towards a Town Deal were given a funding allocation with proposals submitted to the MCHLG in August. The Government has previously said the funding will help local leaders “focus on improved transport, broadband connectivity, skills and culture”.

But the PAC report claims that MHCLG has “also not been open about the process it followed and would not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns.

“This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and is a risk to the Civil Service’s reputation for integrity and impartiality.”