Ministers have announced members of a panel to review the Teesworks project as Labour brings a vote on the Government’s decision-making on the inquiry.
Shadow communities secretary Lisa Nandy has been calling for the National Audit Office (NAO) to lead the investigation into allegations of wrongdoing surrounding the major redevelopment programme.
Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove has ordered an independent probe but opposition MPs have demanded an inquiry by the public spending watchdog rather than a panel “handpicked” by ministers.
The Opposition is demanding the release of correspondence relating to the Government’s decision by tabling a motion in the form of a “humble address” – a parliamentary procedure sometimes used to call for papers from Government departments.
Minutes before the debate was due to start in the Commons, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced members of the panel.
Angie Ridgwell, chief executive of Lancashire County Council and previously a director general at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has been appointed as lead reviewer, it said.
She will be supported by Quentin Baker, a solicitor and director of law and governance at Hertfordshire County Council, and Richard Paver, previously first treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
Concerns about the Teesworks scheme were previously raised by Middlesbrough MP Andy McDonald in the Commons, who alleged “truly shocking, industrial-scale corruption” related to funding in Teesside.
Labour is calling for the publication of documents “explaining why NAO was excluded from investigating” the issues surrounding the project.
Ms Nandy said: “The steelworks are part of the civic inheritance for people on Teesside, and those people deserve answers.
“There was cross-party support, including from the Conservative mayor (Ben Houchen), for an NAO investigation into the serious allegations of misuse of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money and assets.
“But for some reason, ministers – who are responsible for the flawed system of accountability that has partly led to this situation – have chosen to set up a review where they will hand-pick the panel and terms.
“Today, MPs can vote with Labour to shed light on why they made this baffling decision, or they can opt to continue to deny answers to people on Teesside.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We have no seen evidence of corruption, wrongdoing or illegality in relation to Teesworks, but these allegations are risking delivery of much-needed jobs and economic growth in Teesside.
“The Government is appointing an independent panel to establish the facts, in line with usual practice for reviewing local government.
“It is not the NAO’s role to audit or examine individual local government bodies and it is not appropriate to so significantly expand the role of the NAO by asking them to lead any review.”
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 here