It didn't. And now they're facing further accusations of gerrymandering.
A cross-party committee of MPs has accused Robert Jenrick’s department (HCLG) of falsely claiming that a previous report into the ‘towns fund’ scandal vindicated them.
Jenrick has been accused of ‘gerrymandering’ by steering taxpayers’ money towards towns in marginal constituencies and away from those in Labour and Tory safe seats ahead of the 2019 election.
In response to these concerns, the National Audit Office watchdog published a report in July 2020 setting out how the towns were selected.
Left Foot Forward’s analysis shows that towns in seats the Tories were hoping to win were favoured while safe seats like Salford, Blackburn and Barnstaple were overlooked.
The NAO’s report did not draw any conclusions as it was a “factual analysis” and “did not evaluate the selection process”.
Despite this, HCLG told the media that the NAO’s report “shows that the government put in place a robust process to identify towns”.
Now a new report by the cross-party Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has rubbished this claim, accusing HCLG of “misrepresenting” the NAO’s report.
This new report does evaluate the selection process and finds “the selection process was not impartial”. It says: “Ministers chose most of the towns from a large group deemed eligible…the selection process gave Ministers discretion to choose which individual towns would be eligible to bid”.
When questioned on the PAC’s report today, Jenrick told the BBC that the committee’s findings were “political”. The PAC is chaired by Labour MP Meg Hillier but most of its members are Conservative MPs.
In June, Jenrick faced calls to resign after he intervened to help Tory-funding businessman avoid paying tax to a deprived local council.
Joe Lo is a co-editor of Left Foot Forward
As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.
We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.