Towns Fund

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]]

Before I begin, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who has worked very hard. I wish him well in his new portfolio area.

I am delighted to participate in this debate on the towns fund, which was unveiled to great fanfare in July 2019. This is a fund totalling £3.6 billion that was billed as a means by which towns and cities could be levelled up—a laudable aim indeed, and well done to the towns that have been benefited. However, the towns fund is mired in controversy, and allegations of pork barrel politics simply will not go away. We have heard today from a number of Members about how nearly two thirds of the towns that were awarded funds were target Tory seats in the general election that followed, a mere two months after the awards were made. Of the 100 towns invited to work with the Government on new town deals worth up to £25 million, 61 were in marginal seats.

Are we to believe that that was purely coincidence? What are the public supposed to think when towns in the constituencies of the two Housing Ministers who were involved in the distribution of the fund benefited weeks before an election? The Secretary of State will surely recall how, on the one hand, he denied any involvement in his constituency benefiting from a £25 million grant weeks before the general election, yet on the other hand, took credit during the campaign for that grant. That only feeds allegations and suspicions of pork barrel politics.

What we do know is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government drew up a ranked priority list of towns for the fund based on need and the potential for development, and another 61 medium and low-priority locations where also chosen. The smell is so bad that the Public Accounts Committee, in a damning report, concluded that it was

“not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others”,

with the justifications offered by Ministers for selecting individual towns being

“vague and based on sweeping assumptions”,

and that the system gave

“every appearance of having been politically motivated”.

This damning report is even more astonishing when we consider that the majority of the members of the Public Accounts Committee are Tory MPs. That may seem to members of the public to be what, in common parlance, might be called a fair cop.

That is why there is so much concern about the shared prosperity fund, which is also looking suspiciously like it might be perceived as just another political tool. We still do not know how the shared prosperity fund will work or when it will be made available, but we do know that the Scottish Government consultation on this fund shows a clear majority favouring a Scottish-led fund, reflecting Scottish policy priorities. We remember the grand words of the Communities Minister in 2019, when he said that, as far as the UK prosperity fund was concerned, the devolution settlement would be respected. Let us hope that that will be the case.

There is growing unease about how public funds, as in the case of the towns fund, which are supposed to be for the promotion of the public good, instead are used for political ends. That has been followed by questions about a lack of transparency and accountability in how public money is being spent, with regard to the towns fund and the awarding of contracts generally. This is why my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has brought forward a private Member’s Bill that seeks much greater accountability and transparency for the public purse. If towns funds are truly to help towns, the deployment of cash must be more transparent and based on need.

The stench around the towns fund is pretty strong, and it is deeply concerning if the same questionable criteria are applied to the UK prosperity fund. Public money is just that: it is the public’s money, not a resource to be deployed for political or other purposes. It must be used transparently and in the public’s interest. I say to the Minister that if something smells very bad, it is often because it is very bad. So what assurances can the Minister give this House, following the publication of the Public Accounts Committee report? To address concerns about the administration of the UK prosperity fund, will he commit today to ensuring that it will be administered by the Scottish Government and that the devolution settlement will be respected, as was promised, when this fund eventually sees the light of day?