Asked Lisa Nandy if she would stand with allegations made by Andy McDonald, highlighting the need for serious claims to be substantiated.

Inquired about whether Lisa Nandy would repeat outside this chamber the allegations made by Andy McDonald.

Asked if Lisa Nandy agreed that regions should prosper but things must be done properly, referencing the all-party parliamentary group on devolution.

Suggested Teesside started to grow after Ben Houchen took over and delivered for people when Labour had failed for generations.

Cited the scandal in Woking Council as evidence of inadequate scrutiny of decision making on public money, suggesting a National Audit Office investigation is important.

Asked for evidence backing serious claims made by Lisa Nandy, emphasising transparency and openness.

The Government believe in the people and places that make Teesside special. They have backed them with funding and powers to level up, which was sorely lacking under the previous Labour Government. The debate is about technicalities regarding how a review of the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture should be set up, rather than addressing specific allegations or concerns raised by opposition members.

The Minister's approach to threatening democratic debate could lead to strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which have been used to cover up fraud in the past. The Minister should be careful not to use such tactics.

Critiques the Government for not addressing serious allegations raised in a Financial Times report, urging for an independent investigation by the National Audit Office to ensure value for money and proper management of public funds.

Supports Lee Rowley's argument that the review is conducted under Labour’s own best value regime from 1999, but also notes that Department officials do not believe a formal investigation threshold has been met in this case.

Highlights that the site was heavily contaminated and only became an asset due to actions taken by Ben Houchen's administration, challenging Labour’s portrayal of the situation.

This debate is crucial as it addresses issues of transparency, accountability, economic development, and the well-being of communities in the north-east. The speaker highlights the detrimental effects of austerity policies on the region's economy and criticises the lack of progress in levelling-up initiatives. She also expresses concern over Ben Houchen’s conduct regarding Teesworks and calls for an NAO investigation to restore public confidence.

The Chair emphasises the importance of referring to Members by their constituencies rather than names during debates, except in specific cases like former Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State. The speaker also notes that there are strong feelings in the debate and reminds everyone to maintain temperate language.

The speaker criticises Labour's reluctance to engage directly outside of parliamentary debates, suggesting a lack of transparency from the opposition. She supports the decision not to involve the NAO in local authority matters and advocates for an independent inquiry based on existing legal frameworks. The speaker asserts that Conservative policies aim to bring growth and opportunity to the region while accusing Labour of hindering economic progress.

Clarke defended the Teesworks project, highlighting Government investment of £246 million and the 50:50 split public-private partnership. He criticised opposition members for what he perceived as revisionism and lack of credible evidence.

Efford raised a point of order regarding the rules on declarations of interest, questioning whether Members should refer to their register entries during debates.

Secrecy is a disease threatening an opportunity for thousands of high-quality jobs and a share of taxpayers' money in Teesside. The hon. Member demands openness and comprehensive scrutiny of decisions involving hundreds of millions of pounds, calling for an independent investigation by the National Audit Office. She highlights the need to address the lack of transparency regarding the transfer of ownership at Teesworks and questions the criteria used in selecting partners for the site's development.

Paul Howell, a Conservative MP from the Tees Valley constituency, criticised Labour's choice of motion for the debate, stating it is irrelevant and unhelpful. He highlighted that under Conservative leadership, there has been significant progress in levelling up the north-east, particularly through initiatives like Teesworks which have attracted substantial private sector investment and job creation. Howell emphasised that previous Labour Governments had neglected areas such as the north-east and criticised Labour for not addressing the country's priorities set out by the Prime Minister or discussing their own plans. He noted specific achievements under Conservative leadership, including economic growth predictions from the OECD, reduced national debt according to OBR forecasts, decreases in waiting lists for NHS treatment, and reductions in small boat crossings compared to last year.

Nigel Evans briefly thanked Paul Howell for his speech. Given the context of the debate, it is implied that he supports Howell's stance on levelling up in the north-east and criticises Labour's motion.

McDonald pays tribute to investigative journalists for bringing these issues to light. He details the background of Teesside's steel industry collapse, the establishment of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, and the subsequent development plans under Ben Houchen’s leadership. He raises concerns about the lack of transparency in procurement processes, questioning why Musgrave and Corney were favoured over other interested parties without competition or tendering. McDonald also highlights discrepancies in land valuations and the potential conflict of interest involving family members and associates of Musgrave and Corney. He emphasises the need for a full investigation into these matters to ensure proper use of public funds and uphold accountability.

The Teesside freeport and the larger Teesworks project represent a significant opportunity for economic regeneration, with anticipated job creation and substantial revenue from business rates. He highlighted that Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council alone is set to receive up to £30 million per year in business rates by 2026. He pointed out the cost of maintaining an unused site at around £13 million annually before its redevelopment. The project, costing £246 million in public funding, has already attracted £2 billion in private investment and created over 2,700 jobs, with potential for up to 24,000 more jobs in the future. He criticised opponents of the project, including Labour politicians, for their lack of ambition and baseless criticisms that could deter investment.

Critiqued the Teesworks project, raising concerns about potential impropriety involving private investors Musgrave and Corney. He questioned whether they had invested any of their own money in the site while receiving significant profits from sales of scrap metal. Lavery also asked why there was no public tendering process for finding investors and expressed concern over delays in publicly disclosing increased ownership stakes. He emphasised the need for transparency, clarity, accountability, integrity, and scrutiny to respect the people of Teesside.

Dalton criticises the lack of transparency and accountability in the selection process for joint venture partners in Teesside, highlighting that hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested but there is inadequate transparency. She notes that private sector investment has led to significant financial benefits for a few companies without public tender processes, questioning whether this constitutes value for money.

McDonald intervenes to support Dalton's criticism of the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, stating that Middlesbrough Council opposed the creation of a new development corporation in Middlesbrough, questioning why PD Ports was not included in the consultation process.

Western further criticises the governance issues surrounding Teesworks, citing investigative journalism that exposed the scandal. He emphasises concerns over poor value for money and suggests parallels with the PPE scandal due to a network of donors involved in the project.

Cunningham reflected on the north-east’s potential, which makes the current austerity-driven pain doubly saddening.

Western raised serious questions that must be addressed by a review that everybody can have confidence in.

Lavery spoke about the courage of journalists who have shone a light on the issue despite criticism from those involved.

McDonald set out an extraordinary, deep and detailed case regarding Teesworks, showing incredible courage despite opposition faced.

He emphasised the importance of considering language, tone, and context when making allegations. He stated that there is no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing in the South Tees Development Corporation and Teesworks joint venture but acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations made which could damage public trust. He highlighted the significant potential for job creation and economic growth from the project, supported by the Tees Valley Mayor's initiatives. The speaker also noted that unfounded concerns can deter investment in the region and called for an independent review to address the accusations robustly.