Skip to content
Politicians trade blows as government blocks release of Teesworks investigation correspondence
Politicians traded blows before the government blocked the release of documents linked to the Teesworks investigation.
Labour attempted to force the government to release all correspondence detailing why the National Audit Office was not chosen to lead the inquiry into the UK’s largest freeport. However, the move was voted down 272 votes to 166 – not a single Conservative voted to reveal the documents.
During the debate in Parliament, Labour Stockton North MP Alex Cunningham called for an “end to secrecy”, while Conservative Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland MP Simon Clarke accused Labour of a “cynical, shameless and seedy attempt to talk down Teesside.”
READ MORE: Man ‘seriously injured’ following incident at Teesworks site during work to demolish Redcar Power Station
The investigation was announced after concerns were raised about governance at the freeport. Labour Middlesbrough MP Andy McDonald has claimed there is “industrial-scale corruption”, however, a government spokesperson said they had not seen any evidence of corruption, wrongdoing, or illegality.
On Wednesday, shortly before the debate started, the government named the panel that would be conducting an investigation into Teesworks. The chief executive of Lancashire County Council Angie Ridgwell has been appointed as the lead reviewer.
She was previously a director general at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Ms Ridgwell will be supported by Quentin Baker, who is a qualified solicitor and the director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council and Richard Paver, who was the first treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
Last month, Mr Gove stated he would be selecting a panel for the review despite the NAO saying it was “willing and able” to carry out the investigation. This led Labour to question the independence of the probe with Shadow Levelling Up Secretary Lisa Nandy questioning how a review could be viewed as fair when the panel was “handpicked” by the government.
In response, the party, as part of its opposition day debate – where it gets to choose the topic debated in Parliament – tabled a vote to demand the government release all of the correspondence linked to its decision not to allow the NAO to investigate.
During the Teesworks debate, politicians traded blows over the freeport – a topic that has become increasingly divisive in the region. Ms Nandy said Labour wanted to know why the government had blocked an NAO investigation which would help get to the bottom of the use of public funds “in the wake of some of the most serious allegations I have ever seen in my time in Parliament.”
Speaking after the debate, she said: “Tory MPs have voted to cover up why the government made the astonishing decision to block a fully independent investigation into the serious allegations that have been made, and instead chose to hand-pick the terms for their own review.”
In response to Ms Nandy in the House of Commons, Local Government Minister Lee Rowley said the panel will have “independent experts” and will look at matters “in-depth.” He added that the “facts will be established.” Mr Rowley said Labour had made a “strange choice” deciding to hold a “three-hour debate about the process by which a decision was made to have a review which is led by one group of people instead of another group of people”.
Mr Rowley also added that the review was being set up similarly to previous investigations. Conservative Hartlepool MP Jill Mortimer, who sits on the Public Accounts Committee, said she could understand why the NAO was not chosen to lead the investigation and increasing its jurisdiction could set a “regrettable precedent.”
Mr Clarke stated there had been no “credible suggestion that wrongdoing has occurred” at Teesworks and that the process undertaken by Mr Gove to set up the probe was “normal and straightforward.”
Mr Clarke said: “It’s not just public confidence but it is investor confidence that is being undermined by the party opposite [Labour].” He went on to add: “This is a cynical, shameless and seedy attempt to talk down Teesside, to imply wrongdoing and to damage the interests of the very deprived communities I am very proud to represent.”
However, Mr Cunningham believes it’s a lack of transparency that is putting the venture at risk. He said: “Secrecy is a disease which is threatening a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the people of Teesside. An opportunity of thousands of high-quality jobs and a share of the dividend for hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.”
He called for answers and a need for “openness and transparency.”
Mr McDonald also waded into the debate with a lengthy speech. He spoke about his concerns that the developers behind Teesworks – Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney – have become “rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams all with the benefit of public monies and opportunities.”
The Labour MP was widely criticised by Conservative MPs for refusing to repeat his corruption claims outside of Parliament, where he would be able to be sued for libel (politicians cannot be sued for comments made during parliamentary debates). In response, Mr McDonald said he wouldn’t be “bullied.”
He went on to add: “These concerns are widespread and if anyone and anything is undermining the confidence of investors then it’s the reckless behaviour and conduct of the Tories’ blue-eyed boy in the North, Ben Houchen.”
Conservative Stockton South MP Matt Vickers slammed Labour for its comments about Teesworks. He said: “What we have seen is politically motivated, baseless smears, insinuation, tin foil hats and mud-throwing with allegations of impropriety that people are unwilling to state outside of parliamentary privilege.”
He added that the investigation would provide an opportunity for politicians to put forward evidence “if they have any.”
Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen has previously said he welcomes the review. He added: “I look forward to the outcome, in due course, and will be making no further comment until the independent review has been completed, so to allow the independent body to carry out their work without influence or favour. My officers stand ready to provide any and all information requested by the independent review.”
READ NEXT:
