Luke Myer
MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland · Labour · United Kingdom
“Teessiders know what it looks like when Governments stand back and fail to protect steel jobs, so on behalf of the British steelworkers in my constituency who work at Special Profiles in Skinningrove and Teesside Beam Mill at Lackenby, I thank the Government for their decision to step in and protect primary steelmaking in this country.”
“Teesside is home to a world-leading maritime industry and an excellent further education landscape. However, one issue that the Tees maritime cluster has identified is a lack of join-up between the two and the fact that there are insufficient qualifications locally for young people to get into the industry.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, and he is absolutely right. This issue was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke about the threat of social media disinformation from hostile states such as Iran and Russia.”
“I wish to push the Minister on the point about social media disinformation. This is one of the biggest issues affecting our democracy, and western democracies around the world, when it comes to the threat from not only Iran but other hostile states.”
“I therefore support clause 11, but I also feel strongly that it ought to apply to all of us as politicians, and I am grateful to the more than 30 Members on both sides of the House who supported my amendments 13 to 18 to that effect.”
“It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). I share his views about the need for action on the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys inquiry.”
The complete record
Every one of 313 lines we hold for Luke Myer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 7.
“T3. Teesside has enormous potential for AI investment. What progress are the Government making on AI growth zones, AI adoption and investment for Teesside?”
“My constituents Phil and Ann have contacted me about the so-called clawback policy, which would see them lose about £2,000 a year from their pensions when they reach state pension age. They, like many former employees, believe that this is an unfair and morally questionable approach. Does the hon. Lady agree that that cannot be the right approach and that it must be reconsidered?”
“Management firms are often faceless companies based miles away—or even abroad, as we have heard today—and they are completely unaccountable. Residents are left powerless, with no control, choice or clarity. There needs to be a clear pathway to the adoption of new developments by local councils, with a timeline for residents. To that end, I support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern); I also take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent engagement. It is time that we ended the postcode lottery in which some homes are served by local councils, and others by firms that one would struggle to get on the phone. It is time we strengthened consumer protections for ordinary working families and put power back where it belongs: in the hands of residents.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship none the less, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. We are at the foothills of a historic era for housebuilding, but the question is: what happens after we build those houses? Residents across my constituency are being hit by the fleecehold stealth tax. They pay for services twice: once in council tax and again in estate charges. I recently heard from residents of the Ladgate Woods development, who were contacted by their property management company with an unexpected bill to cover their neighbours’ unpaid bills, despite already having paid their share in full. It cannot be right for responsible residents to be punished for doing the right thing.”
“2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the potential impact of defence expenditure in Northern Ireland on defence supply chain companies in the rest of the UK.”
“Teesside has strong and enduring ties with Northern Ireland: we remember the contribution of the late Mo Mowlam and her legacy, as well as the economic ties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s historic uplift in defence spending can deepen those ties and ensure jobs and growth across the UK?”
“As my hon. Friend mentioned standard bearers, I want to take a moment to recognise Fergus Osborne of Guisborough RBL. He has carried the standard in Guisborough and the surrounding areas for over 30 years, so I thank him for his work. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who have served across our region deserve that kind of recognition?”
“I just want to inform my hon. Friend of a meeting that I had with my local RBL in Boosbeck last week. As a result of him coming to our constituency for a discussion on veteran mental health, a local developer, who saw the coverage of that visit, is now converting a former disused nursing home into a specialist veterans’ supported-living community in our constituency. Will he take this moment to commend the Castle Court veterans village project? I wonder whether he would like to visit.”
“T7. What discussions are taking place with China about Jingye, the Chinese owner of British Steel, which last week rejected a generous offer from the Government to put the industry on a stable footing? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, given the importance of this strategic industry, Jingye should return to the table and agree a deal, and that if it will not do so, we ought to step in to ensure that British steel is made in Britain?”
“I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their hard graft to secure a deal in the interests of my steelworkers in Teesside and those in Scunthorpe. It is deeply concerning that Jingye has chosen to reject the generous offer that was on the table. I am sure I stand with Members across the House in urging Jingye to come back to the table and secure that deal. Will the Minister reaffirm that all options remain open, including strong national intervention to protect our steel industry and make sure that British steel is made here in Britain?”
“When I speak to my constituents, they accept that the last Government overspent by billions on the asylum system and it fell to this Government to make the difficult decisions to settle the bill. What they cannot accept is that it is fair for taxpayers to continue to be expected to spend £9 million a day on asylum hotels. That was a mark of shame for the last Government, and it may become one for us unless it is resolved. What steps will the Minister take to speed up processing, increase returns and end the use of hotels for good?”
“I welcome the UK’s leadership on this issue. The proposed AQUIND interconnector raises serious concerns about the security of UK undersea infrastructure, particularly given the significant political donations made by its owners to various Conservative politicians. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), will the Minister confirm that protecting domestic security will be a central focus of the SDR?”
“The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the OBR. I wonder whether he has read the report in which it states: “The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL” — resource departmental expenditure limits— “about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down”. I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to apologise for that extraordinary fiscal failure.”
“Friend has noted, reforming the children’s social care market, which has been described as “broken” by the Competition and Markets Authority, would go some way to repairing local government finances and delivering value for taxpayers. The choice is clear: either we keep patching up a system that punishes regions like ours, or we build one that is fair, proportional and fit for the 21st century. Teesside cannot afford to wait another 30 years.”
“Friend said, one solution would be to replace the current system with a proportional property tax, removing the antiquated 1991 bandings and instead asking residents to pay a percentage of their up-to-date property value every year. That would create a more progressive system, preventing those in lower-value homes from paying disproportionately higher rates, while ensuring that wealthier property owners elsewhere in the country contribute a fairer share. As the Institute for Public Policy Research has set out, another method to address the issue would be further increasing council tax premiums on empty and second homes. As my hon.”
“In fact, owner-occupiers in our region can expect to pay a percentage of their property value that is 2.5 times higher than the average London resident. That is another example of an unfair system based on three decade-old valuations, hammering local residents in areas of high deprivation. Over 50% of dwellings in Middlesbrough are designated as band A—a much higher percentage than other local authorities—forcing Middlesbrough council to have the 19th highest council tax rate in the country. One way in which that could be helped is if Valuation Office Agency powers were devolved further to local authorities to allow them to more rigorously assess whether a property is incorrectly banded. That measure would just be tinkering around the edges of a system that needs fundamental reform. As my hon.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing the debate. He is absolutely right that the system is outdated, regressive and in desperate need of change, and our region is disproportionately impacted. My constituency is split between two local authorities: Middlesbrough to the west, and Redcar and Cleveland to the east. They are two distinct areas with their own local challenges, but they face similar issues when it comes to council tax. Loftus in Redcar and Cleveland will have a band D council tax rate of more than £2,500 for the next financial year. That means a multimillion-pound property in East Sussex can attract a lower council tax bill than the average family home in our region. That cannot be fair.”
“Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO 2 market to bring investment and jobs to our region?”
“Britain cannot afford to be at the mercy of volatile global markets when we have the resources, the expertise and the ambition to build a more resilient, productive and sustainable farming sector right here at home. It is clear that polyhalite can play a significant role in supporting the Government’s goal to strengthen British food security. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss the challenges they face and the value of this export. I urge the Government to recognise the potential of polyhalite to support farmers in adopting British-made, British-mined solutions. Doing so would unlock further private investment, safeguard jobs and secure the UK’s position as a global leader in sustainable fertiliser production.”
“That means a clear strategy on fertiliser security, investment in research, and support for innovation that reduces costs for farmers while strengthening our food system. The ICL Boulby facility is currently the only operational polyhalite mine in the world, although a second—the landmark Anglo American Woodsmith project, also in North Yorkshire—is on its way and has a strong future ahead. I have been down both facilities and am struck by their ingenuity. Above, the wild, unbroken heather of the North York moors and the beauty of the North sea coastline are untouched by the operations in the depths of the earth below. I pay tribute to those skilled teams working underground in tough conditions to produce these exports, which are boosting our food security.”
“But deep underground in North Yorkshire, there lies a potential solution. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the ICL Boulby facility in my constituency, which produces the crop nutrient fertiliser, polyhalite, and exports it around the world. Polyhalite contains four essential nutrients—potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur—which are vital for plant growth. Not only that, but it is super low carbon. It requires minimal processing and zero chemical additives, meaning that it leads to healthier, more resilient soils. In fact, studies have shown that it can boost crop yields by 3% to 5% compared with standard fertilisers. If we are serious about supporting British agriculture, we must back British solutions.”
“On Friday, I found myself more than 1,000 metres under the North sea. I will explain why in just a moment, but before I do so, let me acknowledge the hard work that our farmers do across the country and acknowledge a point that hon. Members across the House have made, which is that, in recent years, farmers across Britain have faced a serious squeeze. I have met local farmers and the NFU in my constituency and they put that squeeze down to a range of reasons, ranging from poor trade deals to poor policy. But one factor that I wish to focus on is the soaring cost of fertiliser, which is driven by global supply chain shocks, price volatility and an over-reliance on imports. These pressures are not just hitting farmers in their pockets, but threatening our food security and the resilience of our agricultural sector.”
“I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.”
“My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech about the challenges we face on Teesside. Just today, I heard from James in Easterside, who said that in two hours there was not 15 minutes when an illegal off-road bike, quad or e-scooter did not pass. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to seize such bikes, crush them and make our streets safe again?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for supporting me in my debate last week on Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church of England. Does he agree with me that, alongside the Government implementing those recommendations, it is critical that faith organisations implement them as well?”
“I am delighted that residents in Park End and Ormesby will soon see the state-of-the-art new Southlands Centre sports facility coming to east Middlesbrough. Its delivery has been a team effort from our Labour council, the Middlesbrough Football Club Foundation and Sky Bet English Football League, and has been signed off by the Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a winning performance from a strong Labour team?”
“Every single week, I hear about this issue from constituents in Park End, Easterside and across south Middlesbrough. Will the Minister assure my constituents that passing the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that these bikes are seized and crushed, and that our streets are made safe again?”
“In preparation for this debate, I met members of the group of survivors involved with the independent safeguarding board sample cases—they call themselves the ISB 11. I have heard stories that I will never forget. What struck me most is that they see themselves as survivors not only of the initial abuse they received but of the Church’s safeguarding process—one that has forced these brave and courageous people, who have stood up to power, to re-live, lengthen and even amplify the abuse they have received.”
“This is a sensitive topic, and I know that Members on both sides will want to advance the interests of those who have suffered abuse within the Church. My constituent Dame Jasvinder Sanghera will be known to Members across the House for her campaigning on abuse of many kinds. She served as the survivor advocate on the Church of England’s independent safeguarding board. In this role, she worked closely with survivors, some of whom join us today. My team and I have worked with her since my election last year. Along with her colleague Steve Reeves, she has advocated for survivors by escalating their cases for review, challenging processes and pushing for justice. I commend her and her work.”
“I declare my role as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am grateful that we have been granted this opportunity to discuss a serious matter of importance to our constituents, to the Church of England, and most importantly to the victims and survivors of abuse. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who are here on behalf of their constituents. As a Member of Parliament and a Christian who believes in the Church and the positive, powerful role it plays in our communities, I believe that the stories of survivors and their calls for change must be heard, both here today and by the General Synod of the Church of England. For those in the Chamber, in the Gallery and at home, it is important to note that this debate may include difficult matters. I trust that it will be a measured debate.”
“Another survivor, a woman who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that she now has a heart monitor because of her severe panic attacks. She told me: “The priest that abused me still lives in my area. The community has ostracised me and I am now housebound, I want the truth to come out. Jas and Steve have supported me the best they can, at one point we talked every week. If they had not been there I think I would have taken my life.” Another survivor told me that he feels that previous recommendations have fallen on deaf ears, with steps to protect perpetrators rather than to support victims. Perhaps most harrowingly of all, one of the ISB 11, who is just over 18 years old, having initially suffered abuse at the age of eight, is still fighting for justice. At such a young age, he has already been waiting over half his life to see justice.”
“I could not agree more; that is the crux of my speech. It is essential that the victims and survivors are heard. I am grateful to the Minister and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, both of whom are leaders on these matters, for being here to hear the stories and to respond. The stories include that of Mr X, who was the first and only survivor to have an ISB case review published. Throughout his life, Mr X has sought justice after he was abused by three individuals in the Church. He ended up having his business and livelihood destroyed by civil litigation and he is yet to see justice. Another survivor told me of an ongoing, decades-long fight for justice. West Midlands police commented on the case: “it doesn’t normally take 20 years for a complaint to be investigated”.”
“I absolutely agree. Hearing Mr X’s case and reading the report that was published showed the stark experiences that he went through. He is one of the ISB 11, but there are many others. They all must seek justice.”
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. His point reminds me of a line from the second report by Alexis Jay; I spoke to her at the weekend and she reiterated this to me. It says that that the “Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations”, whether those be local authorities or anything else.”
“Survivors tell me of feeling trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of uncertainty and distress. One told me that they will not feel fully comfortable while this issue is “kept within the walls of the Church.””
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for her constituent and all her constituents. Sadly, the case that she has outlined is all too familiar and like many other cases across the country. We owe it to the survivors and others who have endured physical, emotional and spiritual abuse to highlight the serious shortcomings in the Church’s safeguarding structures. Too often, while instances of abuse may have lasted moments, the Church’s processes for investigating and reviewing these cases have been painfully slow, frustrated and needlessly complex. It cannot be right that the systems intended to support survivors often further traumatised them. I, too, have been told stories of those who tragically have taken their own lives in the view that their perpetrators will never face justice.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who has had a long career holding powerful people to account in many different ways. As she outlined, this is a case of an institution for which it is difficult to get accountability and transparency. I am glad that we have this forum to discuss these issues, but Parliament itself is quite limited in how it can hold the Church to account. I sit on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which has to wait for Measures to come forward from the Synod to be approved. There is some discussion as to whether that Committee ought to have greater powers to hold the Church to account, but the broader point is the same as the one I made earlier, which is that the Church falls below the standards required of other organisations.”
“I also wish to recognise the work of many members of the General Synod, and in particular Clive Billenness, a lay member of the Synod who represented the Diocese in Europe and was a powerful ally of victims and survivors. He sadly passed away just last month, and I know that survivors truly valued his efforts and contribution to their cause. I also recognise the work of my own constituent, Father Adam Gaunt of Loftus, who has helped me to understand the structures of Synod and is working on the abuse redress scheme as well.”
“We touched on one of the main reforms earlier, and I will come to that in a moment, but before I do, let me be clear that I have the utmost respect for local clergy up and down the country who are doing so much work within our communities. I also respect the laity and all the volunteers who are doing good work to keep people safe, including the church wardens and the local parish safeguarding officers. They too are let down by systemic failure and many of them are crying out for change. In fact, it is my understanding that the sample carried out by the Church’s response group to the Jay report finds that not only survivors, but the majority of local clergy support the recommendations.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. Various issues were raised at Synod, and one of them was around the Charity Commission. I have discussed this precise issue with Professor Jay, and it is her view that there is nothing in this that cannot be resolved. I understand that the Charity Commission is taking a direct interest in safeguarding at the moment, and I hope that an arrangement can be made on that, but the point that my hon. Friend makes is right. There are too many blockers, culturally and in terms of technical details, but what the Church needs to do is move forward with pace and make sure that victims and survivors see justice. It is our responsibility in this House to do all we can to urge the Church to act so that these failures are addressed, survivors’ voices are heard and meaningful, sensible and effective reforms are implemented.”
“The test of faith is not in the easy moments but in the hard truths, and the hard truth is this: trust in the Church will only be restored when every survivor who steps forward is met with compassion, justice and meaningful action.”
“As Mr X said to me: “This is a critical point for the Church.” Scripture teaches us to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” The Church ought to be a place of refuge, of grace, of trust. Yet, for far too many, it has been a place of harm. We have seen apologies, report and reviews, yet survivors still tell us that they are unheard, ignored and left to fight alone for basic justice. That must change. The Church’s safeguarding structures must be independent, transparent and accountable. Its days of marking its own homework must end. Survivors must be not just consulted but placed at the heart of reform. Let us be absolutely clear: protecting the reputation of an institution must never, ever come before protecting the safety of a person.”
“I believe that more delay will simply confirm the survivors’ view that the Church is kicking the can down the road. Having spoken to Synod members, I do not think that that is the intention, but the reality is that, as things stand, this patchwork of procedures remains, and the Church effectively continues marking its own homework. That is clearly not acceptable. We will hear from the Minister shortly. It is a welcome step that, earlier this year, the Government agreed to implement Professor Jay’s IICSA recommendations on safeguarding and abuse. That makes it all the more pressing that Professor Jay’s recommendations for the Church be implemented, too.”
“While Synod voted in favour of setting up an external scrutiny body, it only backed the principle of an independent operations body. That is deeply disappointing—a two-stage approach for an issue of such urgency, when survivors have already waited decades, moving from one system to another with no sign of any meaningful resolution. One survivor told me that he first reported his abuse over 40 years ago. Any further delay in delivering justice for survivors is simply unacceptable. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The agreement of the Synod to “affirm its commitment to greater independence” going forward is an important step, but the decision on operations did not follow the recommendation from Professor Jay and many other specialists and professionals, or the preference of many survivors.”
“I pay tribute to the Bishop of Newcastle, whose leadership on the issue has been commendable. I met her last year to discuss these matters, and she has much support in the country and, I am sure, the House. Other dioceses, however, lack such comprehensive systems, often relying on bringing in external consultants. It is simply not acceptable that the experience of survivors should vary depending on where they live. There must be a unified and consistent system that is evenly resourced with the same quality of support, respecting the independent expertise of safeguarding professionals. Professor Jay recommended the “creation of two separate charities, one for independent operational safeguarding and one for independent scrutiny of safeguarding.” It is that issue that went before the General Synod last month.”
“Safeguarding practitioners have said that this limits effective safeguarding. Professor Jay noted in her report: “Church safeguarding service falls below the standards for consistency expected and set in secular organisations.” Lesley-Anne Ryder, the independent co-chair for the response group to Jay, said to Synod that “this level of complexity is incomprehensible. It is counter productive”. She said that it is “One of the ways in which you are losing the trust…of the nation”. The complexity creates a patchwork of different approaches. Some dioceses do implement robust safeguarding practices, and some have independent sexual violence advisers. The diocese of Newcastle has four permanent staff members with key safeguarding roles, including a caseworker and a training lead.”
“I have heard from some of the 11 survivors, who suffered mental distress after the decision. Three landed in emergency mental services, and two developed serious suicidal thoughts. Mr X called it an “obliteration of hope.” The treatment of survivors here is itself a serious safeguarding failure. It is clear that the secretary-general of the Archbishops’ Council has questions to answer. Around the time of the dissolution of the ISB, Professor Jay was invited to provide recommendations on the way forward. Her report said that “the only way” in which safeguarding can be improved is by making it “truly independent of the Church.” The central problem is that the complexity of the Church means that rather than one approach, there are 42 different dioceses, each with different safeguarding systems.”
“By 2022, the ISB had started reviewing cases and making recommendations, with the first published in November that year, but, as Wilkinson found, there was a “lack of trust” between the ISB and the Church’s safeguarding structures concerning “how the recommendations should be implemented.” As issues escalated, ultimately, in June 2023 the board members were sacked and the board disbanded. Wilkinson found that “no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council members about the effect of” this decision “on victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews”. She went on to say that it “showed lamentably little trauma-informed regard for the vulnerability of the individuals with whom the ISB were working”.”
“Survivors have told me that there are complex, hard-to-navigate structures and slow, institutionally defensive responses. Around 2020, calls for an independent structure to oversee safeguarding practices emerged. The Archbishops’ Council debated what that should look like—whether to create a fully independent body or to establish a board for the oversight of safeguarding, which would develop further independence. That board became the ISB, which was established in 2021. There were problems that affected the ISB, as the Wilkinson review explored, but its work was important. It built trust with victims and survivors. In fact, Mr X told me that he was “initially sceptical of the ISB when it was set up” but said that it went on to “provide a ray of hope for the survivor community”.”
“It runs from the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 through the past cases reviews in the 2000s, the Chichester visitation in 2012, the establishment of the national safeguarding panel and national safeguarding team in 2014 and 2015, the Stobart review in 2018, the Social Care Institute for Excellence report in 2019, the Chichester/Peter Ball investigation in 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—by Professor Jay, the Elliott report in 2020, the Wilkinson report in 2023 and the further Alexis Jay report in 2024 to the recent Makin report, among others. We have had plenty of reports, but while some improvements have been made, there remains “systemic underlying vulnerabilities” arising from the Church’s safeguarding structure.”