BORIS Johnson faces another legal battle after his “levelling up fund” saw cash sent to Conservative constituencies.
The High Court challenge, brought by the Good Law Project, will determine whether the fund unlawfully and systematically gave money to areas which were “of political benefit” to the Tories.
The lawsuit has been filed against Chancellor Rishi Sunak, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, after their areas were among those to benefit from the “levelling up fund”.
Earlier this year, analysis by the Financial Times found there were 14 areas wealthier than average on the list of areas most in need of the levelling-up cash. The Government’s system of ranking had not been based upon the index of deprivation, but focused on measures like commuting distance to work and productivity levels.
Jenrick and Sunak’s constituencies were given top priority while Labour-run deprived areas like Barnsley and Salford came in at a second-tier of need.
The Public Accounts Committee has also warned that the lack of transparency around the allocating method led to concerns of “political bias”.
READ MORE: Covid Scotland: Nicola Sturgeon warns she can't rule out imposing restrictions
The Good Law Project’s Jolyon Maugham (above) said if people felt the situation was a coincidence he has “a fine bridge to sell you”.
“To ensure the Tories don’t use public money for party purposes, the Good Law Project is suing,” he added.
A spokesperson for the housing ministry commented: “The £4.8bn Levelling Up Fund is open to all places in Great Britain and will play a vital role in helping to support and regenerate communities.
READ MORE: Dominic Cummings in Ullapool: Vote Leave chief in three-hour Brexit and indy debate
“The published methodology makes clear the metrics used to identify places judged to be most in need. It would not be appropriate to comment on potential legal action.”
The news of the legal action comes after Business Insider reported that a copy of a Tory spending return suggests the Prime Minister breached the Ministerial Code by using taxpayer funds to campaign in the Hartlepool by-election.
A spokesperson for Number 10 said: “All relevant costs have been correctly accounted for and appropriately proportioned. At all times government rules and electoral requirements were followed.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel