Safe Labour seats ‘barred’ from cash boost
MINISTERS have been accused of “cherry-picking” towns to receive millions of pounds, in the run-up to last year’s general election.
Many of them were in marginal constituencies that the Conservatives hoped to win – including Bishop Auckland in County Durham. Towns in safe Labour constituencies, such as Gateshead, were barred from bidding for the cash.
Ian Mearns, Labour’s Gateshead MP, said: “This is no surprise to me. The Government are being absolutely ruthlessly partisan in terms of the way they use their discretion to distribute money for their political ends.
“Levels of need are no longer an important criteria for the distribution of funds.”
A new report by the National Audit Office (NAO), the official spending watchdog, has revealed that Ministers led by Robert Jenrick, the Housing and Communities Secretary, personally chose 61 towns that were invited to apply for “Town Deals”. The deals involve towns receiving funding of up to £50m to boost the local economy.
Civil servants identified the towns most in need of support, based on criteria such as low incomes and low skills. A total of 40 towns nationwide were placed in the “high priority” category, and they were all invited to apply for cash. High priority towns in the North East include Redcar, Blyth, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.
The controversy focuses on towns classed as “medium priority” and “low priority” that were also invited to apply. Civil servants identified 561 towns in these categories, and Ministers chose 61 that were allowed to bid for money. The lucky towns were named in September 2019, three months before the general election.
Medium priority areas allowed to take part in the scheme included Bishop Auckland, a marginal constituency that switched hands from Labour to the Conservatives when the election took place. Darlington, another area that switched from Labour to Tory, was also invited to bid.
But North East towns in safe Labour seats, such as South Shields and Gateshead, were barred from bidding for money, even though they were also classed as medium priority areas.
Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, said: “This NAO report shows that some of the most deprived towns in England will be left behind once again.
“Nine out of ten towns were ruled out with no explanation before they even reached the competition’s starting line, while some relatively affluent towns are still in the running.
“Ministers relied on flimsy, cherrypicked evidence to choose the lucky towns. Those that lost out have not yet had the chance to make their case.”
A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokeswoman said: “It is completely untrue to suggest that nine out of 10 towns were ruled out with no explanation. This claim completely ignores the NAOs’ detailed report, which shows that the Government put in place a robust process to identify towns for Town Deals.
“Furthermore, the report shows that the more affluent half of towns were ruled out, and the 40 most deprived towns were rightly favoured, with the remainder selected from a shortlist considering of a wide range of evidence.
“There were many factors to consider in the selection of towns and we are confident the process we took was comprehensive, robust and fair. We will deliver on our commitment to level up this country.”