QUESTIONS have been asked around why a number of bids for government funding for Newport have failed.

In June last year Labour-run Newport City Council bid for £20 million in the second round of the UK Government's Levelling-Up Funding, for a new technology institute – but this was unsuccessful.

The city has also recently missed out on being named the UK's City of Culture, and on being the site of a new freeport.

At an overview and management scrutiny committee on Friday, June 2, leader of the city's Conservative group Cllr Matthew Evans questioned why the bids had failed - saying they could have brought as much as £80 million into the city.

Cllr Evans, who represents Allt-yr-yn, questioned the quality of the council’s bids for funding and pointed out Levelling-Up bids in neighbouring authorities such as Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, and Caerphilly, had been successful.

Calling for a discussion of why the bids failed and how future applications could be improved to be brought before the council committee, he added: “It’s not about the UK Government’s funding, it’s about how the council submits their funding and how we can improve our bids.

"Are we doing plans far enough ahead in our bids, is there any information we can utilise? So it is very much an area where scrutiny can be involved.”

But, the council has said this is “not a relevant topic for scrutiny”.

Green Party councillor Lauren James said: “I think these are reasonable questions to ask, I too would like to know why these keep failing.

“I’m going to stay out of the party politics, there are valid points made on both sides, but at the end of the day it’s our residents that are missing out when these bids fail.

“So if there are changes the council can make to that process, then we should be willing to ask those hard questions and make those changes.”

Labour councillor for Rogerstone East, Bev Davies, said it would be “useful” to have feedback on the failed bids, for future reference.

Labour councillor Gavin Horton, who represents Victoria, said: “There are questions I would like to ask as to the process that we followed. We haven’t seemed to have had any of those, do we need to see every part of it through scrutiny? Probably not, but elements of it could be useful for us to cast our eyes over and make some recommendations on.”

Despite this, the Labour councillors voted against Cllr Evans’ proposal to bring a report on the failed bids to scrutiny. Labour councillor Miqdad Al-Nuaimi, who abstained from the vote, said: “I’m not against members asking for information.”

Prior to the decision, Cllr Evans said: “It’s not a political thing, it’s about how can we as a council achieve our goals.”

Chairman of the committee, Labour councillor Phil Hourahine responded to this and said it was “highly political”.

In the report, Leanne Rowlands, democratic and electoral services manager, said: “The process of bidding is not within the remit of any Newport City Council committee, as this sits with the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

“The grant funding process is very competitive, in round one only 36 per cent of bids were successful, and in round two only 21 per cent were successful. Recommendations from a committee would not have any impact on the bidding and selection process within DLUHC (the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities).”

Responding to Cllr Evans' comments, a council spokesperson said: "Bids submitted to the UK Government are part of a competitive process open to councils across the country and there is no commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive funding."

They added:"Proposed bids are outlined in a publicly available report to cabinet. Only commercially sensitive information is withheld.

"The process of bidding is not within the remit of any council committee as it sits with the relevant government department. The purpose of the council’s scrutiny committees is to focus on the local authority’s policies, plans and strategies that impact on services.

"No doubt the council would be heavily criticised if it did not apply for any available funding that might benefit the city and it will continue to seek funding for schemes it regards as crucial whenever appropriate."