Local Government Finance

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I first put on record my admiration for the fine work of councils, councillors and officers right across the country? That work is often carried out at the most challenging times against a backdrop of real financial pressures on those local authorities, not least the rising demand for adult social care, special educational needs, temporary accommodation and others. I do not think there was ever a time when we appreciated councils more than during the covid crisis—as well as during the cost of living crisis—when we saw the fine work they did and how important it is to have those councils and councillors helping local people.

I welcome the extra money provided in the spending review—a 6.8% increase in core spending power. I welcome the approach that the Minister intends to take with the multi-year settlement. That is a sensible way forward. I also put on record my respect and admiration for the Minister. He always takes a considered and responsible approach and has huge knowledge of the sector. I promise him that we will work across parties wherever we can on the things we agree on to try and make it easier for local councils to do the fine work that they do.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister is generous in giving way. He quite correctly praises councillors. Does he think, as we move forward with the changes, that it would not be a bad idea to start thinking about how we compensate councillors for their efforts? Many of them give up so many hours of their week and do vital work for very little by way of recompense. Does he agree that we should look at that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I can only reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said and what I said earlier: they do fine work and most do not do it for money but because they have the interests of their local communities at heart. That should always be the case, and those are the kind of councillors that we want. Where people have expenses to do their jobs, that needs to be properly compensated for.

Will the Minister accept that the majority of the extra money provided through the settlement is raised through council tax increases, which are effectively taxes on local taxpayers—that is, working people? As he is sensible and considered, does he regret the fact that the Prime Minister stood on a stage in Swindon on 30 March 2023 with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, stating that he would freeze council tax for the first year they were in Government? That has not been the case. The Prime Minister quite clearly promised

“a tax cut for the 99 per cent of working people who are facing a rise in their council tax”.

His words were also that there would be

“not one penny on your council tax”.

We said then that those promises were not worth the paper they were written on. How right we were.

Under Labour, typical council tax bills are to rise by 5% in April 2025, in another increased tax on working people. That means that the average household faces an above-inflation increase of around £100 in their council tax bills in that year. All that will do in many cases is fill the black hole in council finances that Labour is creating due to an increase in national insurance contributions. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Labour is deliberately funding largely Labour-led urban areas at the expense of rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not want to be party political, but it is not us who are changing the formula. The reality is that this Labour Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a zero-sum game. If they move the formula around, some councils will be worse off and some will be better off. I want everybody to be treated fairly, but this is a very difficult situation against the current spending round.

The Labour Government’s approach is particularly worrying given their intention to move to a new fairer funding formula. “Fairer to whom?” we might ask, given the point we have just made. Labour’s broken promises on this are clear and follow similar promises broken on the fully costed and fully funded manifesto: the family farm tax, the family business tax, the winter fuel allowance, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, of course, that statement about “not one penny more on your council tax,”

[Andy McDonald]

We were doing so well. We were talking about fairness across the board and not pitting one against the other—so far, so good. But given the shadow Minister’s comment, may I just remind him of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), in the garden in Tunbridge Wells, where, when talking about his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he mentioned having transferred funds deliberately away from deprived and challenged areas to more affluent ones? Surely we have to call out the record correctly, and if we want a fresh start, let us have a fresh start.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was talking about fairness, which we all believe in. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will have a different perspective on fairness from other people. The reality is that there is a political division here. One thing that we must agree on is that the statutory duties on councils should be properly funded. My concern is that that will not be the case, and lots of those pressures fall differently on rural councils compared with urban councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke about auditors, and we are all aware that auditors are spread pretty thinly, which may, in part, contribute to delays in getting accounts signed off.

Local authorities are complex environments. In my area, we have two unitary authorities with populations of less than 100,000 people, so I commend the Government for looking very seriously at a more sensible local government structure. We are fortunate to have a Local Government Minister with such experience and expertise. It is a real boon, especially as we embark on such an ambitious and radical programme.

I welcome this year’s local government finance settlement. Councils have been subject to steep funding cuts since 2010-11, and these cuts have had a disproportionate impact on the most deprived areas. Many authorities face effective bankruptcy, putting essential services and jobs at risk. By 2025-26, councils in England will have received a 15.9% real-terms cut in their core spending power compared with 2010-11. Councils in the special interest group of municipal authorities, like Middlesbrough, have seen an average cut of 19.9%. Middlesbrough itself has seen cuts worth 22%, which is a real-terms cut of £55 million per year that amounts to around £835 per household, so this year’s settlement of more than £69 billion in overall national funding is welcome. It represents a cash-terms increase of almost 7% and a more than four times real increase on the past year.

The Government are on the right track in redirecting funding to areas that are in the most need and have the greatest demand for services. Those areas are often less able to raise income locally, as much as the Conservatives sought to pass the buck to local council tax increases. In areas like mine, many households pay over £3,000 per annum more in council tax than is paid by Buckingham Palace, so this settlement is fairer for councils and will provide welcome relief to the most deprived areas.

In Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, we very much welcome the settlement announced by the Government and the long overdue reforms to council funding. Middlesbrough council is now in a position to invest more money in key services. I welcome the fact that Mayor Chris Cooke, the Labour council and the new chief executive, Erik Scollay, have established the Middlesbrough priorities fund, worth over £4 million, and initiatives such Middlesbrough’s empty homes strategy, which will use £6 million of Government funding to purchase and refurbish empty homes for emergency accommodation.

While the settlement is under way, many authorities continue to face a shortfall, and the Minister has been very candid that this is not a done deal. We look forward to the three-year settlement later this year, because councils will not be able to rely on the additional funding being repeated. As colleagues from across the House have said, the three-year settlement gives councils the ability to plan much further ahead. I hope we can extend our commitments to wider investment in our services on a longer-term basis, through a fairer funding system that delivers long-term financial stability across all council services.

The position of our wonderful councillors has been raised. They do a terrific job, with very little reward, and they are sometimes on the receiving end of the ire of members of the public—sometimes justly, but sometimes unfairly and unkindly—so we need to address that.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am a serving councillor at Rugby borough council. I agree with my hon. Friend that councillors and council officers go out of their way to serve the public, which is extremely difficult when councils have faced 30% to 40% cumulative cuts. We need to remember that they are often trying to deliver services with one or both hands tied behind their backs, which is why the reforms set out by the Minister are so important.

[Andy McDonald]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is incumbent upon everyone in politics to recognise the work of our local councils and to treat them with the respect that they deserve. Some of the comments that I have heard in recent times run contrary to that. Councillors in my area have been put in harm’s way by careless and irresponsible comments made by people in this House who really ought to know better.

I will finish by talking about not only councillors, but the local government workforce and the issue of pay. The Minister will be aware that local government workers have missed out on the higher wage settlements paid out to workers in other parts of the public sector in the past year. Overall, they have seen 25% wiped from the value of their pay since 2010. In drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I note that Unison, the GMB and Unite have said that a substantial pay award for local government staff is essential. Will the Minister therefore take steps to address those concerns and look to the upcoming spending review to deliver the finances and provide a long-overdue £15 minimum hourly rate for those workers who served us so incredibly well—I think of the covid days of maintaining those public services—so that they are properly compensated for their work?

Planning Committees: Reform

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady’s understanding is not correct. I encourage her to read the working paper. It is a working paper, and we are seeking initial views on a national scheme of delegation. There are three options in the working paper. I look forward to her submitting her views in full, and I will happily consider them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new ambition on homes and note that the stated aim is to ensure that

“skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.”

Unfortunately, that is not the case in Middlesbrough, because the last Tory Government handed over power to the unwanted Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which totally undermined the council’s planning department and instead used a private planning consultancy, at a significantly higher cost to the public purse and with a considerable loss of democratic authority. What assurances can the Minister give me that Middlesbrough will get the trust, the empowerment and, indeed, the affordable housing that it needs, and that local democratic legitimacy will be restored?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of local empowerment and of local communities shaping development in their areas—most importantly, as I have made clear in answer to several questions, through up-to-date local plans.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the development corporation in his area, but on planning officers more generally, the Government want to make sure—this is what we are testing through the proposals in the working paper—that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve select applications more quickly in the service of residents and business. We also want to ensure that planning professionals are fully supported in their roles, and that their experience and skills are put to best use, which will allow members to focus on the most significant and most controversial applications, including those out of line with up-to-date local plans.

Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I am proud to refer the House to my membership of Unite and my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to advise Members that I have run several of my own businesses.

This is a great day, and I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues for introducing this landmark legislation, which will transform the lives of millions of workers for the better. We know why it is needed: just look at the fire and replace at P&O, the fire and rehire of British Gas workers, and the denial of rights at Deliveroo and Hermes. The legislation has long been in development, and I was honoured, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, to work with our trade unions and other stakeholders on the new deal for working people. I place on record my thanks to the Institute of Employment Rights—particularly Lord Hendy KC and Professor Keith Ewing—and to my staff Karl Hansen and Eli Machover for their work on that paper.

I am delighted that Labour will give all workers day one rights on the job, ban zero-hours contracts and outlaw fire and rehire. In the Bill, we establish the day one rights to claim unfair dismissal and to paternity, parental and bereavement leave, we create a right to a guaranteed-hours contract and we tighten unfair dismissal protections. Labour will modernise union balloting, simplify union recognition and improve the right of entry to workplaces. The Bill removes unfair balloting laws on recognition and industrial action, and creates new duties on employers to facilitate unions’ access.

I am proud that that is being done, but much of the Bill is about setting up a framework, and there will be significant further steps, consultations and work to craft the detail. In particular, we cannot finally consign insecure work to history until we have resolved a defined single status of worker. I recognise the Government’s commitment to consulting on that. On zero hours, I trust that Ministers will provide reassurance that employers will not be able to exploit new rights to guaranteed hours by issuing short-hours contracts. There are many other issues arising from that, but I ask Ministers to consider in particular a statutory right to paid kinship leave on a par with adoption leave.

This is truly a landmark Bill, and it is crucial that we make these changes as soon as possible. This historic Bill will help to deliver the well-paid, secure, dignified, skilled and productive jobs and the prosperous economy that we all wish to see. I am delighted to support it this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I remind the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) that across those European countries with the highest union density, people have the best wages and working conditions and the greatest productivity, which somewhat undermines his last argument. I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are calling this the Employment Rights Bill, but it is not about rights as such; it is about power. When trade unions first discovered the concept of solidarity in the early industrial revolution, they discovered that, through unity, they could exert power to influence, to improve working conditions and wages, and to secure a better overall quality of life. Since 1979—I started work a few years before then—successive Conservative Governments have understood the distribution of power, and as a result they have used legislation to undermine trade union rights, so as to reduce the power of workers to defend themselves at work and improve their working conditions. All that the Bill does—I welcome it wholeheartedly—is take a small step to rebalance that power. It will not just improve wages and working conditions, but lead to a better economic situation for all concerned—employers and employees—full stop. That is what it is about.

[Andy McDonald]

Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that the steps outlined in this Bill will help to address insecure work, and will allow people to enjoy decent, secure wages and dignified work, as well as to plan for their future and that of their family?

[John McDonnell]

Yes, and as a result, people will work better, increase their productivity and improve the profitability of companies, which is beneficial to us all. It is as simple as that. However—there is a “but”—there are a few points on which I would press the Government to go a bit further. The first is sectoral collective bargaining and fair pay agreements. In the early 1970s, 86% of our workforce was covered by collective agreements, but that is now down to 20%. Where collective agreements have operated, they improve productivity, wages and conditions, and increase industrial harmony in the economy. We as a Government are starting off by introducing them for adult social care, which I thoroughly welcome, because there is such low pay and exploitation in the sector. However, I would like to see an enabling clause in the Bill, so that we can move on swiftly to other sectors in which we can get agreement across the trade union movement and engage with employers.

The second point is on single worker status, to which my hon. Friend alluded. Consultation is taking place on that, and it is absolutely critical, because we have seen some of the most exploitative practices in parts of the economy where workers have been forced into bogus self-employed status.

The third point is on insourcing. The Government have promised the biggest reform of insourcing in a generation. There is no mention in the Bill of insourcing, but there is mention of reform to procurement, and it is important that through our reforms to procurement, we bring forward insourcing as rapidly as possible. Outsourcing has produced an insecure, low-paid form of employment that is already resulting in industrial strife. Over the next couple of weeks, we could see strikes in virtually every Government Department because of what is happening on outsourcing.

On fire and rehire, the question is what a company has to do to prove that there is financial stress because of the economy. I also have two final points. One is on the seafarers’ charter; it has been mentioned that the second stage of discussions are taking place. That charter is critical if we are to provide basic protections for seafarers. Finally, prison officers have been denied the right to strike since 1994, and even Tony Blair said that he would restore that. I want to see that in this Bill, and I shall table an amendment accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration of interests.

The Employment Rights Bill is most welcome. It has been described by some on the Conservative Benches as a horror show. It is definitely not a horror show. It is described as a trade union Bill. I remind Opposition Members that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, among many other anti-trade union pieces of legislation. One of the best things in this Bill is the repeal of much of what was in the 2016 anti-trade union legislation. This is the first time in my time as a Member of Parliament that there has been any repeal of anti-trade union legislation. I have to say that, like many other trade unionists and many other people in the workplace, I welcome that fact. Labour recognises that the relentless attacks on the trade union movement—the battering of ordinary working people from pillar to post—cannot and should not continue.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 was a deliberate attempt to undermine people in the workplace? It was completely ignorant of the fact that the unions provide minimum service levels throughout some of the most difficult circumstances. Does that not tell us a lot about the previous Conservative Government?

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks for that intervention. Of course it says a lot about the previous Conservative Government. We on the Labour Benches should always remember and never forget what the Conservatives do whenever they are cornered or in difficulty: they revert to type and attack the trade union movement. That is what they do and have always done. You have seen some of the contributions here this evening. [Interruption.] Do you want to intervene? [Interruption.] Oh, so are you just going to continue to chunter? And when I give the opportunity of saying something responsible—

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is genuinely an honour to speak in this debate. There have been some incredible contributions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for the way in which she recalibrated the tone of the debate. It got off to an appalling start, so I congratulate her on her tone and the way in which she has engaged in discussion of this vexed issue.

This is a difficult Bill. It is one of the most freedom-damaging, human rights-destroying pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. It is badly drafted and ill thought-through. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The concept of trying to correct an appalling Bill that cannot be corrected is not one that I share. That said, the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment, which rightly declines to give the Bill a Second Reading, and sets out a compelling case as to why it should be given short shrift. I speak in favour and support of the powerful arguments contained in the amendment.

The Bill will, as we have heard, prevent public bodies from making decisions to procure goods or services, or invest or divest according to their own ethical framework. Local authorities have long played an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights overseas, for example, in opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, as Members have mentioned. The Bill will make the Westminster Government the ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable. As the reasoned amendment sets out, the Bill is a clear and obvious fetter on the principle of devolution and on freedom of speech. By hamstringing the due diligence that public bodies carry out, it will entirely disregard the European convention on human rights.

The Bill will be a disaster for the environment and the drive to net zero, by withdrawing the freedom of public bodies to boycott countries that pollute our environment. As for Palestine, which has been the subject of a lot of attention in this debate, the legal opinion of Richard Hermer KC, commissioned by Labour Front Benchers, states that

“legislation prohibiting local authorities from taking steps to promote Palestinian self-determination within the OPT, taken with the terms of the exclusion in Clause 3(7), would likely place the United Kingdom in breach of international law obligations.”

Labour’s amendment points to the way in which that clause conflates the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights with the state of Israel, undermining the UK’s long-standing cross-party position, and running contrary to UN Security Council resolutions, specifically resolution 2334.

By singling out the territories under Israel’s control in this legislation, the UK will give licence to the continuation of the terrible events that unfolded in Jenin today, without an appropriate, legitimate and peaceful response. No other people should be put in the position of the Palestinians. At this very moment, we are seeing the images from Jenin, where a massive number of Israeli occupation forces are committing what the Palestinian president has called a “war crime” as they storm the city and refugee camp. They have killed at least nine Palestinians, including three children, and injured countless innocent civilians. Over 180 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of 2023—about one a day. At least 34 of those have been children. The destruction of schools, homes and lives is being carried out with total impunity.

How many times have we heard warm and ineffective words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box? One wonders how such an attitude and policy would have played out in respect of South Africa. The Tory Government of the day deemed the South African apartheid regime legal, and Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If that policy had succeeded, he would have been left to rot in jail. What has happened to any sense of a moral compass in our country? Have we forgotten the lessons of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa?

The Bill would make it an offence for someone from a public body to say that, if not for the legislative ban contained in the Bill, they would have chosen to pursue some form of sanction. That has been rightly called a “Minority Report” provision and I know it worries many Members across this House. The Bill is wholly incoherent, given how we have rightly imposed sanctions on Russia following its illegal invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. The Bill is simply wrong—an offence against human decency and international law. I will be exercising one of my human rights, the freedom of expression and of conscience, by voting consistently against it at every stage. It is unworthy of this House and I have no doubt that history will judge it so. I urge Members to support the reasoned amendment, but to reject the Bill in its entirety.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I rise to support this excellent Bill and to oppose the reasoned amendment. It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who made a coherent case for his own view.

I declare my interest as co-chairman since 2018 of the holocaust memorial all-party group. We have sought to obtain progress on the establishment of the holocaust memorial and learning centre, but progress has been too slow.

When we talk about the holocaust, it is hard to comprehend how 6 million men, women and children could systematically be murdered. When I was at school in Wembley, half of my class were Jewish and the rest of various other religions, but never ever were we taught about the holocaust. It was not spoken about. Jewish families in our area did not talk about the holocaust; they chose to try to forget it. It is only relatively recently that we have spoken about the holocaust and its horrors. That is why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in educating our young people, and the not-so-young, about what actually happened is so important.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be full of admiration for the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and for the visits to the sites of terrible atrocities across Europe? Does he also agree that any visit to Auschwitz or another such site does more than bring home to people how devastating this all was? It seems to have happened just yesterday. That is why it is so right of him to reinforce the point that these events must never be forgotten and should be part of the education syllabus.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Like many others, I have been to Auschwitz. I went there with constituents and saw the true horrors—but today is not the day for remembering Auschwitz-Birkenau or any other camp; it is for dealing with the horrors of antisemitism.

My wife’s family fled Germany in the early 20th century; even back then, antisemitism was rife. Also in the early 20th century, way before the great war and before the holocaust started, my family fled France because of antisemitism and programmes in operation in that country. This problem is not confined to one particular country.

Most people would say the holocaust began around 1933, when the Nazis gained power in Germany; although they had a minority of the vote, they were ruthless. The German population were experiencing very tough times, with hyperinflation and severe reparations to pay in the wake of the great war. In such times, they sought a scapegoat, and in “Mein Kampf” we see exactly where the finger was pointed, namely at the Jewish population. Civilians had no qualms about turning their backs on Jewish friends or neighbours, and we should remember that. They isolated them from society. The momentum grew, and Jewish businesses were attacked, books were burnt, and stringent regulations restricted the freedom of Jews in the country. We should also remember, however, that of the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, only 100,000 were German Jews. Most of those who saw this coming got out of Germany as fast as they could.

In 1938, on the awful “night of broken glass”—more commonly referred to as Kristallnacht—Nazi mobs, SS troops and ordinary citizens torched synagogues throughout Germany. They destroyed German homes, schools, businesses, hospitals and cemeteries. When the second world war broke out in 1939, the persecution escalated severely. The antisemitic undertones had now become grave systematic murder. There is no doubt that the holocaust is one of the most tragic events that the world has seen, and the brutal, wicked murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis and their collaborators during the second world war must never be forgotten.

The conditions undergone by Jewish communities during that time are incomprehensible today. The testimonies of survivors paint a grave picture of what happened in the concentration camps: initially forced labour, then starvation, gas chambers and minimal hope of survival. Maria Ossowski, a brave holocaust survivor, described the experience as one

“which will haunt me all my life.”

Even today, those survivors and their families must live with the remnants of their past, to which they were subjected simply because they were Jewish. It is essential that we commemorate the hardships that were undergone, to preserve the extraordinary stories of survival and give our future generations an accurate account of history in order to educate them and prevent such scenarios from ever occurring again. We must do all that we can to prevent genocides in any form and in any part of the world—the killing of innocent people simply because they are the wrong type of people.

The memorial will serve as a national monument to commemorate the men, women and children lost during the holocaust. Alongside it will be an education and learning centre, an accurate and detailed account of this slice of history with testimonies—this is an important element—from a British perspective. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made a key point about what had happened to his family. As he said, there were undercurrents in this country of what was happening in Nazi Germany. Under Mosley and his Blackshirts, a dangerous energy was brewing in this country. They sought out members of Jewish communities, who were fearful to go on the streets—certainly after dark—and who were verbally and physically attacked during the organised rallies that Mosley held.

Many Members who are present will have visited memorials dedicated to the Jewish struggle, such as Yad Vashem in Israel. In 1992 I had the opportunity to visit the original Yad Vashem, which was even more powerful than the Yad Vashem of today, because it was more personal and intense. Today’s Yad Vashem is a much bigger, bolder museum, but loses some of the original, key intentions. However, the powerful audio-visual exhibitions and the stories told by survivors send an exceptionally powerful message to visitors, ensuring that those narratives will live on forever as a stark reminder. It is expected that our site will attract half a million visitors a year, which emphasises how wide the outreach of the project will be.

The holocaust is fast moving from living history to just history. Sadly, holocaust survivors are dying, and far too many have passed on already. It is therefore important that we build the memorial at the earliest possible opportunity to pay tribute to those who have suffered in both the past and the present. The longer we take with this project, the fewer survivors will be left to see the finished memorial. Prime Minister David Cameron began the process in 2014, some eight years ago, and we still have no memorial. Devastatingly, we have lost many survivors in the last eight years, including the iconic Zigi Shipper. We need to press on urgently to ensure that as many as possible can be there to see this important site opened. Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg BEM recently put the situation in perfect perspective, saying:

“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament. Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”

The Prime Minister at the time announced that the holocaust commission was to examine what more should be done in Britain to ensure that the memory of the holocaust is preserved and its lessons are never forgotten. The commission concluded that a national memorial should be built, stating:

“The evidence is clear that there should be a striking new Memorial to serve as the focal point for national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. It would stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of British society.”

I could not have put it better myself. However, eight years on, we have made little or no progress, and with the complex parliamentary process it is predicted that things will take a further four years. That adds up to 12 years and counting—longer than the second world war and longer than the holocaust itself.

There has been much discussion of the proposed location of the memorial. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for her speech about the site. I understand completely her concerns as the local Member. I strongly believe that Victoria Tower Gardens—already home, as has been described, to another memorial—is the perfect location. With its close proximity to Parliament, it will both serve as a reminder to us decision makers to ensure that this never happens again, and attract large numbers of tourists to visit the site and learn the history. We should remember that large numbers of people come to this place already, so many will come to this place and go to the holocaust memorial centre too.

The Bill will permit Victoria Tower Gardens to house the memorial. No place in Britain is more suitable for a holocaust memorial and learning centre than Victoria Tower Gardens—right next to Parliament, the very institution where decisions on Britain’s response were made in the lead-up to the holocaust, during it and in its aftermath. I hope that we will see detail about the decisions that were made, what people knew about what was going on in the holocaust, and what we did as a nation as a result. The memorial will serve as a reminder of the potential for abuse of democratic institutions and its murderous consequences, in stark contrast to the true role of democracy in standing up to and combating racism, hatred and prejudice.

Only Parliament can change the law. It is right that Parliament should consider whether the unique significance of the holocaust justifies seeking an exception to the protections mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, which were put in place by Parliament more than a century ago. I am aware that, for many reasons, several of my colleagues oppose the development. I hope that I can defuse their concerns and persuade them that this significant project should get the backing it deserves and that current plans should be protected.

The proposals for the memorial include sensitive landscaping that will improve Victoria Tower Gardens for all users. More than 90% of the area of the gardens will remain fully open after the memorial is built. Local residents and workers will be able to visit and enjoy the gardens just as they do now. Further, it is important that the relevant section of the unique legislation that we seek to override—the 1900 Act—applies only to Victoria Tower Gardens, meaning that the Bill will not impact any future development rights at other sites.

In response to the many concerns about the environmental impact of the site, I am assured that landscape improvements to Victoria Tower Gardens will ensure that this important and well-used green space is made even more attractive and accessible than ever before. The new development will take only 7.5% of the current area, and all the mature London plane trees will be protected. Additional planting and improved drainage of the grassed area will increase the overall attractiveness of the gardens and reduce any potential risks of flooding. There will still be a clear and unobstructed view of Parliament from all areas of the park.

It is important to note that the holocaust memorial will not be the only memorial on the site. The Buxton memorial, as has been mentioned, was placed in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957 to commemorate the emancipation of slaves in the British empire. For years, this well-placed memorial has attracted visitors and become a loved and popular part of the park.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Much of the debate has been targeted at me and there has been a request for details of allegations. I trust I will be given the opportunity to set those out.

I am grateful to my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench for giving this issue such prominence today. I want to start by paying particular tribute to Richard Brooks of Private Eye. Without his amazing forensic tenacity and persistent investigative journalism over many, many months, we would not be having this debate today. Similarly, Jen Williams of the Financial Times has gone to the trouble of conducting in-depth investigations and has raised many pertinent questions, and The Yorkshire Post so courageously refused to be bullied or silenced. The BBC and many others have taken note of these matters. It is reassuring that investigative journalism is alive and well.

It is a complex web that has been woven and it requires significant attention to try to understand what has gone on. I share the bewilderment of those on my Front Bench that the Secretary of State is determined not to request that the NAO investigate these matters in full.

The core background to this saga is founded in the painful post-privatisation collapse of steelmaking on Teesside, which came to an end in 2015. It has left a massive hole in the local landscape and economy. The Tees Valley Combined Authority was established in 2016 under the Chancellorship of George Osborne, when the Labour Tees Valley local authorities, hamstrung by austerity, agreed to set up the new body, principally to focus on economic development and regeneration, transport and skills, led locally by Councillor Sue Jeffrey, then the leader of Redcar and Cleveland, Dave Budd, then the elected Mayor of Middlesborough, and others. In May 2017, Ben Houchen was elected as Tees Valley Mayor and promised to bring back steelmaking to Teesside. Clearly that has not happened.

The South Tees Development Corporation came into being in August 2017, its principal task to assemble various pieces of land and bring them into public ownership to facilitate development, with the levering in of private investment a key element. People like Sir Alan Cockshaw, a most highly respected figure in the business world, Steve Gibson, the chair of Middlesbrough football club and Bulkhaul, and Paul Booth of Sabic all served on the STDC board and put in many hours of unpaid time—and, indeed, flew to Thailand at their own expense to further the negotiations with SSI’s creditors to free up and secure the land.

The plan of the original board for development of the site was to remediate one parcel of land, develop it, let it, and then utilise that income to fund the next parcel, and so on. In effect, the outcome would have been a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside. All that changed with Ben Houchen’s re-election in 2021. Those hard-working and generous board members were sacked by Ben Houchen and a new team brought in. While the funding was allocated from central Government—from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—to be applied over three years from 2020-21 through to 2022-23, running into hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government made it clear that they were not in favour of sustaining an equitable public-private partnership beyond those committed moneys and that the private sector should take it on. So that was, and still is, the determinant ideology, and the end of any thought of a sovereign wealth fund for Teesside.

In the following rush, these concerning events have unravelled. It would seem that the private developers were very smart and in the right place at the right time. They seized on the opportunity when SSI got into financial difficulties and twigged that SSI was prepared to sell a particular asset in an attempt to assist in addressing its own financial woes. They secured an option to acquire a lease of some 70 acres of what was then SSI land not far from the Redcar bulk terminal. That was sold to Musgrave and Corney by SSI for some half a million pounds. In effect, they became the putative default partner in what was to manifest itself later as Teesworks Ltd.

Other parties were interested in partnering with STDC, but they had no chance. There was no tendering process or proper procurement; there was no competition. Any inquiry will need to explain how these property developers came to acquire this key part of the site when the Tees Valley Combined Authority was pressing for a compulsory purchase order to buy the entire site.

More interesting things then happened in 2019. Mr Musgrave formed DCS Industrial Ltd, which was the vehicle for his Teesworks shareholding, and what we now describe as the SeAH site was acquired by STDC through its subsidiary company, South Tees Developments Ltd, from the former occupant, Tata Steel, for £12 million. This is the site upon which SeAH, the South Korean wind turbine company, will house its factory. The construction of the South Bank quay was made possible with a £107 million loan to STDC from the Government’s UK Infrastructure Bank.

On 29 January 2020, Ben Houchen reported to STDC about the compromise of the compulsory purchase order process. But board papers reveal that in early 2020, STDC recognised the risks of getting into bed with Musgrave and Corney. Its business case for the taxpayer cash 18 months earlier noted the

“joint venture partners lack of experience on size, complexity and hazards associated with the South Tees site”

and the

“differing governance requirements between joint venture partner background and public sector requirement impacting procurement”.

Despite that, in March 2020 STDC formed Teesworks as a 50:50 joint venture with companies controlled by Chris Musgrave, Martin Corney and Corneys’s father-in-law Ian Waller, all of whom paid nothing for their shares. I trust that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) will correct the record as far as Mr Waller is concerned.

STDC stated at the time that the joint venture company, Teesworks, would pay market value for the land it elected to buy. That changed fundamentally a little later. In early 2020, options were given by STDC for Teesworks to acquire freeholds from STDC. In August 2021, Gary Macdonald, the director of finance at STDC, reported to the board that there was now only a five-year window for development, which meant that there had to be a quick use of Government funds and

“a transfer of significant risk and rewards”

to the joint venture partners

“to incentivise the required pace of delivery”.

Those are the very people that STDC had expressed such doubts about just 18 months before.

That all begs the question, what value for money assessments did BEIS, DLUHC or the Treasury perform on this project, into which such vast sums of public money have been sunk? We should be able to see the Green Book calculations for all the different stages, ranging from the initial 50:50 arrangements through to the change to 90:10 in favour of the JV partners. In November 2021, the shareholdings of Musgrave, Corney and others via their various companies were increased from 50% to 90%. Again, they paid nothing for that increase in their equity stakes. Remarkably, they then secured the major options to buy any parcel of land on the site. Presumably, the quid pro quo was that they would stump up when the public cash ran out. As STDC put it, the extra shares were

“in return for Teesworks taking on the future development of the site, together with the net future liabilities in preparing the site for tenants”.

The inquiry will need to see the details of the meetings between Houchen, Musgrave and Corney on all those matters. What did they discuss—and when—about the initial JV and the variation to a 90:10 split and the associated changes, such as options to buy land? Why were the share classes of Teesworks Ltd changed at the same time as the 90:10 split, meaning that no dividends have to be paid to the public sector, and can be paid only at the board’s discretion?

While the split was 50:50, the position was that Teesworks would pay market rates for the land it opted to buy. A freedom of information reply from STDC indicates that once the ratio was changed to 90:10, land acquired from South Tees Developments Ltd could be appropriated at a nominal sum of £1 an acre.

Teesworks did exercise its options to buy the freeholds constituting the SeAH site, but that was not known to the public until Private Eye revealed HM Land Registry’s entries dated 11 October 2022, showing that the river frontage, known as “new quay phase 1”, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the sum of £16.27, and VAT in the sum of £2.71. It also revealed further Land Registry entries dated 16 December, which show that a colossal parcel of industrial land known as “plot b south bank”, excluding the river frontage quay, was transferred from South Tees Developments Ltd to Teesworks Ltd for the stated sum of £96.79, excluding VAT.

Ben Houchen has said that the true consideration paid by Teesworks is actually £15 million, despite those Land Registry records saying otherwise. Apparently, the lower figures were adopted for tax reasons. If that is right, I am sure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have something to say about it, as might His Majesty’s Land Registry. If inaccurate or misleading figures are put on transfer documents, there are usually consequences. I hope the inquiry will examine those matters, as it should.

When will this mysterious £15 million be paid? In one of his many intemperate media rants, Mr Houchen claimed that the lands we are talking about have “never” been in the public sector, and that has been repeated here today. Really? Given the audit trail and what the Land Registry documents say, it is difficult to see how he could possibly sustain such an argument. I confess to feeling somewhat sorry for his officials, who have to sweep up behind him to sort out his inaccurate stories, but it still does not wash.

There then followed a series of transactions. Teesworks retained the freehold, but leased its 90-acre site to a private investor, now known to be Macquarie, the Australia-based global financial services company, for a peppercorn rent, for which Macquarie paid Teesworks a lump sum of £70 million to £80 million. In turn, TVCA, the taxpayer, leased the land from Macquarie, the investor, for an inflation-linked £3.65 million per annum for 40 years. TVCA then sub-let the land to SeAH for £4.3 million per annum. That means 90% of the £70 million to £80 million will be going to Musgrave, Corney, Waller and their associate Chris Harrison, who have 45%, 21%, 19% and 5% shares in Teesworks respectively. That is a staggering £65 million-plus instant payday for the Teesworks joint venture partners.

While Teesworks is the freeholder for both sites, a clause in the transfer agreements ensures that the publicly owned South Tees Developments Ltd retains responsibility for environmental liabilities arising from hazardous substances. So Messrs Musgrave and Corney are not, according to that document, liable for cleaning up the site. The concern is that these property developers, who have never engaged in anything comparable to this undertaking, have become rich beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, all with the benefit of public moneys and opportunities.

Then there is the scrap. There was an agreement between STDC and Teesworks that as the by-product of the clearance and remediation works on the site, the proceeds from the scrap metal would be shared. There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metal on the site—approximately 500,000 tonnes in all. Up to now, a total of £94 million of valuable equipment, metals and other materials have been taken off site, weighed or otherwise. The sale proceeds are shared between STDC and Teesworks, with around £45 million going to Musgrave, Corney et al. Does the Minister believe that that represents good value for the taxpayer, who only three years ago owned all the metal on the site? Can he explain what is happening to the rest of it, which is estimated to be valued at up to £120 million?

What was there by way of a tendering or procurement process? Again, as was revealed by Private Eye, running the scrap operation is a man called Orion Kotrri, who just happens to be married to Martin Corney’s daughter. Any inquiry will need to ask how Mr Kotrri was hired, what his qualifications are for the job, whether that job was advertised and who employs him. Incredibly, we have now seen footage of Ben Houchen on a “trade mission” to meet the Albanian Prime Minister and the Mayor of Tirana, along with Martin Corney and Mr Corney’s Albanian scrap metal dealer son-in-law. We need to understand why they were present, given the visit was billed as a trade mission about international co-operation in travel and education. What did Mr Corney and his son-in-law have to do with that?

And then there is security. There is a fire raging at Teesworks right now. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the injury caused to the man who fell into the river, and let us not forget that two men died in the process of remediating the site. NE Security Ltd got the contract, initially worth £2.4 million, to protect the site, and then, a few months later, a further two-year contract worth £3 million. There are certainly some colourful characters involved, as has been reported by Private Eye, including those with a history of insolvency who owe HMRC £1.5 million, including an estimated £1.4 million to the anti-tax avoidance unit. Let us not overlook the proprietor’s son, who is in charge of health and safety on site, who has been given a prison sentence of 11 years and eight months for his part in running a drugs racket that stretched from Liverpool to Teesside. Both, of course, now have freeports. You could not make this up, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the stuff of the movies.

Much criticism has been levelled at me for speaking up about these issues. I have to say to critics of my use of parliamentary privilege that they really must understand that I will not be bullied, and that the use of privilege in this place is cherished and should not be derided. It is an important part of our democracy, and it is there so that Members of Parliament can raise well-founded concerns—as I have demonstrated today and on previous occasions—without fear or favour. So I ask those critics to grow up. They may or may not be advocates of SLAPPs, but they should be careful about embracing the concept of lawsuits being used to censor and silence critics.

As for the charge of being anti-business or “talking Teesside down”—a charge that is regularly levelled against me and against the Labour party—it is nonsense. Since the day I first set foot in this place I have been advocating the advancement of green industries, along with my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Not only are these industries critical to saving our planet; they are a key factor in bringing good, well-paid, secure, unionised jobs to Teesside, a region that desperately needs those jobs and is ideally placed, both industrially and geologically, to pave the way not only for hydrogen industries, but for carbon capture, utilisation and storage and so much more.

That is why the behaviour of the Tees Valley Mayor is so distressing. While my critics are still obsessing about me, I have to spell it out: businesses can read. Whether I say these things or not, these concerns are widespread, and if anything and anyone is undermining the confidence of investors, it is the reckless conduct of the Tories’ blue- eyed-boy in the north, Ben Houchen. If they really care about how public moneys are spent, and if they are truly as pro-business as they say they are, this Government must abide by their own declared strictures of “integrity, professionalism, and accountability”. They should wake up and smell the coffee, and join me in ensuring that these matters are fully investigated, and corrected, before it is too late, because if they do not, a Labour Government will.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

It seems that quite a few of us believe that we should be looking far more into a wide range of these development corporations.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Is she aware that the position of Middlesbrough Council was to say, “Give us the money, don’t give it to yet another self-appointed board under the tutelage of Ben Houchen”? Is she as amazed as I am that Ben Houchen has deliberately excluded PD Ports, the biggest employer and investor in the territory, from the consultation process? Does she not find that ridiculous?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just before the hon. Lady responds, let me remind her that there is one more speaker to get in before 6.40 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. He represents a new town, as I do—I am very proud to represent the new town of Redditch. We are absolutely committed to building the right houses in the right places, and that includes enabling local communities to have more say over the design and type of housing. We are doing that through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: through design codes, street votes and reforming the planning system. I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend that I have also launched a taskforce for older people’s housing to address the housing needs of older people.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T4. I do not think that the staggering complacency of the Secretary of State in dismissing legitimate, serious complaints and concerns about the use of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money will have passed anybody’s attention. I warn him that that type of response may well come back and bite him. However, if there is to be any possibility of this House and the people of Teesside having any confidence in the findings of the inquiry that he has commissioned, that inquiry must have all the powers it needs to demand and secure whatever evidence and documentation it determines is necessary, and anyone must be able to submit that evidence to the inquiry. Will the Secretary of State give those commitments?

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to say that if the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should please share it. It is the case that Labour in Teesside, including Labour in Middlesbrough, has consistently sought to undermine, thwart and oppose those efforts at economic development and investment that the Mayor of Tees Valley has brought forward. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made a number of allegations in this House that he has been reluctant to repeat outside. We look forward to him putting us right in a way that actually contributes to the welfare of the people of Tees Valley, rather than advancing the agenda of the Labour party.

Middlesbrough Development Corporation

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I will call Andy McDonald to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up; that is the convention for 30-minute debates, as he will no doubt be aware.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Middlesbrough Development Corporation.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley.

On Friday 24 February, Middlesbrough Council held an extraordinary general meeting, convened by the monitoring officer, to determine whether the council supported the proposal to create a Middlesbrough development corporation. The proposal was put to the vote, and 13 councillors voted to approve and 17 voted against. Many councillors from the ruling Tory-independent coalition did not attend, although they were all given proper notice of the meeting. Obviously, not all councillors can be expected to turn up for every single meeting and there will be good reasons for some absences, but, quite frankly, the appallingly low turnout for such an important vote was pathetic.

The council decided not to approve the MDC, but three days after the council had made that decision, 25 councillors, led by the elected Mayor, Andy Preston, wrote to the Government saying that the council decision should be ignored and the Minister should instead accept their letter of acquiescence as being the true position of the council. I do not need to stress just how ridiculous it is that the Government, in their determination to overreach local democracy, are prepared to ignore the formal council decision.

Indeed, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has subsequently written a letter in which he outrageously describes the vote of the local authority as being born of “misinformation and mischief making”. That is incredibly partisan language from the Secretary of State, but perhaps we should not be surprised.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this sets a precedent for Tory Mayors or Tory Governments to ride roughshod over local democracy and local decision making in our local authorities? There could be more land grabs elsewhere in the Tees Valley, such as in Darlington and in Stockton.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a very valid point. That is one of the facets of the debate that I have sought today; I want to stress that that is a danger.

We all want to see good development in our towns, but how that development is done is important. Over the years, Middlesbrough Council has acquired and assembled assets using public money, and it holds those assets on behalf of all of us in Middlesbrough. The proposal is that if the council transfers these assets to the MDC, the MDC will, in turn, use money from central Government for development. Councillors were not elected to give our town away, but we now know that money is available. The bargain proposed is that if—and only if—the council gives up those assets and planning powers to the MDC, £18 million will be released for development.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I am conscious that he has given me his consent to speak momentarily. Does he recognise that the planning powers and funding have been made available precisely because the Government have confidence that the development corporation will be a vehicle for regeneration and renewal of a sort that Middlesbrough Council has, I am afraid, sadly not proved capable of offering for too many years?

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I do not share his confidence, and I will set out the reasons why the structure that has been set out is incredibly dangerous. I share his observations about how Middlesbrough Council has been run of late. I will come back to that, but perhaps it is shared territory for us.

Critically, however, the council will have no say on how any development goes ahead or how decisions are made. That is more akin to a protection racket than to good government. Those decisions about development will be made not by the council, but by an unelected board appointed by Ben Houchen, the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor. He will decide who goes on the board, not the people of Middlesbrough or its elected council.

Much is said about devolution, whereby power and resources should be pushed down and be in the gift of the most local possible form of democratic representation. Here, the opposite is being proposed. This is not devolution; it is gangster politics, taking power and control away from the people, while the elected independent Mayor of Middlesbrough and his Tory deputy will be on the board. It seems—

[Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

Let me finish the point. It seems that they will be there in a personal capacity, whether they remain in office or not; it is not clear. The Mayor of Middlesbrough, Andy Preston, did not attend the vote by which this decision was made. He was advised by the council’s monitoring officer that he could not attend because of his own personal pecuniary interests.

[Jill Mortimer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way now that he has made his point?

[Andy McDonald]

I am only halfway through, but—

[Jill Mortimer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to correct what he has just stated. He has described this as gangster politics. In actual fact, those places on the board will belong to whoever is democratically elected as Mayor and deputy Mayor. If a Labour Mayor and deputy Mayor are democratically elected come May, they will take those places on the board.

[Andy McDonald]

Let us deal with all the rest of them; I am just about to do that very thing.

I was talking about a conflict of interest that the Mayor of Middlesbrough now has. The geographical boundary of the MDC takes in an area called Middlehaven and vast swathes of the town centre, and it includes an area of the town where Mr Preston owns or has owned property. According to the latest Tees Valley Combined Authority register of members’ interests, Mr Preston owns vast swathes of land and properties on both banks of the River Tees—well over 50 properties in total. Clearly, the decisions that the MDC board makes could have a direct bearing on any increase in value of any such interests, and they could potentially directly and financially benefit him.

In local government and in all public institutions, the greatest of care has to be taken regarding such potentially conflicting pecuniary interests. That is why Mr Preston was advised not to attend a vote at the crucial meeting. There is an obvious conflict of interest, and the question arises: if he cannot vote on the creation of such a corporation, how can he possibly lead on a letter to countermand that very vote and then serve on the board? It is utterly farcical; it is almost as though we have gone back to living in medieval times, with wealthy feudal landlords controlling political power over their lowly subjects without any proper democratic processes of accountability.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend clearly shares my concerns about how development corporations are being managed on Teesside, with joint ventures being created and then used as vehicles to transfer hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of public assets to private companies, and all behind doors and in secret. Does he fear, as I do, that the new Middlesbrough and Hartlepool development corporations could see more of the same—deals made in private to transfer public assets to private companies?

[Jill Mortimer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am afraid that that is not how it works; I respond to interventions.

[Jill Mortimer]

I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) because he mentioned my constituency.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has the floor, and he will speak and not be interrupted. If he wishes to give way, he will indicate that he will give way.

[Andy McDonald]

Thank you, Mr Paisley.

Other people have been proposed to serve on this board as well. They include Paul Booth—a former executive of SABIC, the Saudi Arabian petrochemical company—who will be chair. I have known Paul for years. Although he is not a resident of Middlesbrough, he undoubtedly has well-intentioned views about what he thinks is in Middlesbrough’s best interests—but no one has elected him.

Other non-elected appointees include the chief constable of Cleveland, who does not even live in the Cleveland police force area, let alone in Middlesbrough. He is, of course, a senior police officer, but I am not sure what experience he has of urban regeneration. His best contribution to our town would, in my view, be to do his job and make our streets safe for residents and businesses.

Similarly, another board member will be the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Steve Turner—a man who, let us not forget, received a caution from Cleveland police for theft from his employer. Again, he does not reside in Middlesbrough, I am not aware that he has any urban regeneration experience or expertise, and that is not his job.

I have significant concerns about the basis on which the Tees Valley Mayor, Mr Houchen, will select board members. He will have the power to appoint and dismiss them, much as we have seen him do at the South Tees development corporation. That has been evidenced in a raft of investigative articles by Private Eye, which he dismissed as a comic book. Private Eye has unearthed, in great detail, squalid and questionable dealings at the South Tees development corporation, and it has exposed the squandering and misuse of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. That money was primarily deployed to make the private joint venture partners even wealthier beyond imagining. In respect of that, there will one day be a reckoning.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I refer back to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the involvement of the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable. We in Tees Valley understand the challenges and difficulties that antisocial behaviour brings to the regeneration of a town. The hon. Gentleman has significant antisocial behaviour issues in his constituency and, in my view, the involvement of the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable on the board is really important.

Just last week in Darlington, Labour councillors voted against planning permission for investment in Teesside International airport. What is it about the Labour party in Teesside that means it has to oppose and stop every investment?

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Andy McDonald]

On the point the hon. Gentleman made about Darlington, the Labour party often gets the charge that it is somehow anti-growth. That is utter tosh. It is the most pathetic jibe, and Conservative Members would be better served by engaging in intelligent debate.

On his original point, if the hon. Gentleman genuinely wants to talk about crime, disorder and public order on our streets, I suggest that that is what the police should be doing. I do not expect them to be serving on regeneration boards. They should get out, do their job and ensure they have people on our streets looking after our businesses and making sure people are safe. Serving on regeneration boards is not their function, and they should get on and do the job they were put there to do.

There are lots of questions emerging about how the South Tees development corporation and others have operated. My clear preference would be for the much-needed urban regeneration in central Middlesborough to sit with the elected council. In turn, the council can rely on its internal officer expertise, and, where necessary, external expertise from established professional organisations with track records of successful urban regeneration. Dealing with regeneration in that way ought ordinarily to ensure accountability and transparency.

Although I share the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) about how duties have been discharged by the current political leadership of Middlesborough Council, which runs until May of this year, I fear that the likelihood of there being proper scrutiny and accountability of the proposed MDC is very low. Yet again on Teesside, a board made up of hand-picked individuals will be making important decisions about how valuable public funds are used without any meaningful accountability or scrutiny. Indeed, the MDC will acquire planning powers that currently—and rightly—belong to the council, which will now lose valuable fee income and business rates. That will inevitably place more pressure on the council, which could lead to further cuts.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

No; the right hon. Gentleman will get his say. He asked me if he could participate in the debate, and I said yes. I will not give way any further, because I want to give him the opportunity to make his contribution.

Those pressures could lead to further cuts in Middlesbrough. We could be walking into yet another public-private joint venture that will end up transferring assets out of the domain of the MDC and into private hands, as per the recent shenanigans at the South Tees development corporation.

Of course I want investment in Middlesbrough. After 13 years of this Government, almost half the children in our town live in poverty. The town mayor and the executive have just voted through a budget that will turn off the street lights, reduce our libraries and seriously deplete our warden service. I see economic growth and development as one of the key levers to turn that around. In addition, we need a more equitable settlement from central Government, but that is a debate for another day.

We have done some great work in Middlesbrough, despite difficult economic times. Here are some examples of the significant successes. TeesAMP, next to Newport bridge, is a state-of-the-art advanced manufacturing park. It hosts many high-quality businesses at the cutting edge of their respective industries, providing high-quality, high-wage jobs. Boho Digital City is a great success story, with over a decade of starting up and sustaining digital businesses. Centre Square in Middlesbrough brings in the likes of GB Bank and AXA UK, to name but two. The historic quarter around Exchange Square works with Historic England, which has funded some wonderful work. The regeneration and redevelopment of our railway station—a subject very dear to my heart—brings better connections and opportunities for the much-needed economic growth of our town.

All those achievements were begun under previous administrations. The clear evidence is that we already have the systems in place to make this work and to enable Middlesbrough to attract investment. It makes little sense, in my mind, to create another layer of bureaucracy. All those achievements were made by people working together through the various democratic institutions. In particular, they were often in partnership and co-operation with the Tees Valley Combined Authority—from when it was set up before Mr Houchen was elected by what were then five Labour councils across the Tees valley, and continuing subsequent to his election.

There is no reason to suppose that those sorts of arrangements could not work again. We should deploy funds in a way that works, and that holds in our institutions of local democracy. All too often, the rules on good governance, integrity and sound money are undermined, with democratic and accountable control taken away from the people and given to chosen individuals to enable them to use vast quantities of public money as they see fit. I fully anticipate that the Government will plough on regardless, but they need to know that the MDC, despite the absence of transparency and democratic integrity within its structure and architecture, will be held to account by the people of Middlesborough for its decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

In line with protocol, Mr Simon Clarke sought permission from the mover of the motion and myself to make a short speech. I will give you about four minutes to make that speech, Mr Clarke. The Minister is being very flexible with you as well.

Elections Bill (Instruction)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Instruction
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

I find myself in agreement with my fellow Bill Committee member; I hope that the usual channels will find time for extra evidence sessions so that the Committee can be informed on the different types of electoral systems.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On PCC elections, is my hon. Friend as staggered as I am to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who was elected earlier this year, was sacked in the early 2000s for systematic theft of merchandise from his then employer, Safeway supermarket, at its Norton store? Does she agree that it is totally untenable for someone who was engaged in such criminal behaviour to hold the position of PCC and that he must resign from his role with immediate effect?

[Cat Smith]

I am as staggered as my hon. Friend to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland was sacked for theft from a Safeway supermarket. I would certainly agree that it is totally untenable for a criminal to hold the position of PCC, and if what my hon. Friend has shared with the House tonight is true, I would expect a resignation and some kind of by-election for that PCC role with immediate effect.

Turning back to the instruction, the supplementary vote system has been used to elect the Mayor of London since 2000, so it is certainly not a new system of voting. The instruction on the Order Paper suggests that it is somehow something that has come to light since the Bill has been published, but if we have been using this system of voting for the London Mayor for well over two decades, it seems inconsistent for the Government not to have been able to see fit to put this in the Bill before this late stage.

The Minister said that this measure was in his party’s manifesto, and indeed the 2017 manifesto stated:

“We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner…elections.”

However, if he reads his party’s 2019 manifesto, as I have done, he will not see it anywhere there. So this was not in the last manifesto and it has not been in the Bill since the beginning. Is this not just another example of Tory arrogance and some kind of apparent allergy to scrutiny and accountability? This Bill has been utterly chaotic and it seems increasingly likely that we are going to get a new Minister on the Bill Committee, although we do not yet know who it will be, and a new Government Whip mid-Committee. To top it all off, we are now not entirely sure whether the Bill sits within the Cabinet Office or the newly renamed “Department for Levelling Up”. So let me level with the Minister tonight: this instruction motion stinks of gerrymandering and we will vote against it.

Employment Rights

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Government have overseen a crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections at work, and the proposals announced today will do little to address it. There is no plan to legislate for a single enforcement body, so can the Minister explain how and when that will happen, given that the long-promised employment Bill has been ditched?

There is no new money in this announcement. We had a decade of cuts and underfunding that left us woefully unprepared when the pandemic hit. In the past year, just one workplace in 171 has had a safety or workers’ rights inspection, and not a single employer has been prosecuted and fined for putting workers or the public at risk of contracting covid-19. A staggering 2 million people are paid below the national minimum wage, yet there are currently just 18 employment agency standards inspectors responsible for inspecting 40,000 employment agencies.

Without new funding, the Minister is simply proposing to merge several under-resourced agencies into a single under- resourced agency. The hollowness of the Government’s commitment is underlined by the fact that the post of director of labour market enforcement has been left vacant for the past six months. However, the most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices are perfectly legal.

Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic rights and protections, including the national minimum wage, rest breaks and health and safety protections. For those workers it is not a matter of enforcement, because they do not have rights to enforce. They have been totally abandoned by the Government. Will the Minister commit to giving all workers full employment rights to ensure that everyone has dignity and security at work?

On fire and rehire, the Minister says:

“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”

These are empty words. The only clear message would be to outlaw the practice. The Government have hidden behind the ACAS report since February, using it as an excuse to do nothing. Today’s announcement that ACAS will be asked to produce further guidance kicks the can down the road yet again. Almost 3 million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March.

Allowing working people to be bullied on to lower wages and worse terms and conditions is both morally wrong and economically illiterate. The Government claim to oppose fire and rehire while encouraging it through their inaction because they believe that this one-sided flexibility is good for the economy. How many more millions of workers is the Minister prepared to allow to be fired and rehired before he acts to outlaw the practice?

The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member, funded by a levy on trade unions, is an ideological attack on working people. The Minister is proposing to solve a problem that does not exist. The certification officer had a tiny number of cases last year resulting in just one enforcement order. This means that unions will face financial burdens at times when their members are facing hardship, diverting time and resources away from protecting working people to deal with spurious complaints initiated by groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance rather than fighting for members. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about law-breaking, I suggest he looks closer to home. Staff in his Department are balloting for strike action because of repeated breaches of employment law, including unlawful deductions of wages that force staff to rely on food banks, as well as breaching the working time directive and repeated breaches of Health and Safety Executive covid guidelines.

Trade unions are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights, yet the Minister wants to tip the balance of power even further away from them. Compare and contrast this with Joe Biden, who is unshackling and empowering trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards. This Government want to hobble trade unions. The Minister has committed his Government to

“do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights.”

There is a chasm between the reality and the rhetoric. This is another deceit on working people, but I have news for the Minister: he is fooling nobody.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about enforcement issues and funding. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance, which is now over £27 million annually, up from £13.2 million in 2015. There are more than 400 HMRC staff involved in enforcement of the minimum wage. We concluded over 2,700 investigations on the minimum wage and returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers. We are determined that people should get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. As we build back better, we will build back fairer, and it will not be on the backs of the lowest paid. That is why we will continue to increase the national minimum wage and the national living wage and also to enforce action on transgressions in that area.

On the Health and Safety Executive and what has happened with covid, the HSE has received £14.4 million in extra funding and has conducted 274,000 spot checks in the past year.

Worker status is clearly complicated when we have three issues of the worker, the employer and the self-employed, but that allows us to have a flexible, dynamic labour market that enabled us, after the last recession, to build back better by delivering more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.

On fire and rehire, we hear a lot in this place about a binary choice, but in reality the situation is far more complicated. As we build back better, we want to make sure that we can protect people’s jobs as well as their working conditions. That is why we have to get that balance right. Only we on the Government Benches will deal with the economy and with businesses, but most importantly with workers who are subject to transgression of their workers’ rights by irresponsible employers, yet not just painting all employers with the same brush.

The hon. Gentleman talked about changes to the certification officer’s duties being ideological. Actually, it is adhering to the law, as it is what we said we would do in the Trade Union Act. All we are doing is implementing what was debated properly and agreed in this place under that Act.

We will protect workers’ rights, protect jobs, and create more jobs, and it will be through a flexible, dynamic labour market, getting that balance right. Rather than just having a 1970s-style binary debate, we want to work for 21st-century working conditions.