TVCA Threatens

Members of

Oversight

Committees

Scott Hunter

27 October 2023

An induction day for new members of two TVCA Committees took place on 3 October. At another time, or in another place, this would hardly be newsworthy. At the Tees Valley Authority, however, such things can be less than straightforward. And so it was on this day, as the new members of the audit and scrutiny committees, who were mostly local councillors from around the region, naively thought it was all right to ask questions of the TVCA officers. It turns out they were mistaken.



A few days after the induction they received a letter from TVCA Acting Chief Legal Officer, Emma Simson. That letter (seen by Tees Valley Monitor) was a warning. Under the title “re. conduct of elected members” it observed that some committee members had “asked questions of officers on a number of matters, unrelated to the induction”. The letter goes on to say “… as the day progressed, the behaviour of members and the way in which they spoke to officers, became wholly unacceptable”.

A case of plain bad manners, perhaps?

The councillors we spoke to confirmed that some probing questions were asked, but nothing that would warrant the accusation that “the way in which they spoke to officers, became wholly unacceptable.”

The letter also helpfully provided a list of "the ‘Nolan Principals’ also known as the Seven Principals of Public Life” [sic] just in case the new committee members didn’t know how they were supposed to behave and enjoyed being patronised.

So far so bad, but there are a few aspects of this that are odd. One is that the title of the letter addresses elected members only. This would be unremarkable had the event been held exclusively for members of the Scrutiny Committee, as these are all elected councillors. But, in fact, the event was also the induction for new members of the Audit and Governance Committee, half of whom are elected councillors, and half of whom are appointees. We believe that some of the appointees (of whom, more later) were present and the letter therefore implicitly exonerates these from any accusation of causing offence.

Councillors caught on camera

One of the elected members, Redcar councillor, Tristan Learoyd, had asked TVCA CEO, Julie Gilhespie, several questions during the course of the day, and was concerned that he may have been one of those who had caused the upset. He believes that the way he spoke to officers was not disrespectful but felt in need of reassurance. Fortunately, the entire event had been captured on video, so he knew there was material evidence to show that he had conducted himself in an appropriate manner.

Cllr Learoyd therefore wrote to Emma Simson to ask for a copy of the video. Much to his surprise the response was that the video, on account of its length, had proved difficult to edit. A version of it with voice over was in preparation that should be more accessible. He would be sent a copy of this as soon as it was ready. When he asked for the unedited version, he was told that it was not proposed that the unedited version.

Yes, that’s correct. Elected members of two committees were accused of poor conduct and available evidence of their behaviour on the day has been crafted into a new video in which their voices are replaced by a narrator, with the original being put beyond reach.

The consequences of the actions of elected members could be dire, and result in their being charged with misconduct, for which they are now being denied access to the evidence with which to defend themselves. As the letter ends:

“TVCA will not tolerate, in any forum, conduct inappropriate and unbefitting of elected officials, whether between each other of targeted at officers. Further instances of this behaviour will be dealt with pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct and offending members will be asked to leave the meeting.”

On the surface of it, this does not appear to be a threat that the authority could easily act upon. The combination criticism with the withholding of the relevant evidence looks as if the intention was simply to intimidate, rather than clarify procedure in relation to future misconduct. But, on the one hand, this very thin-skinned regime is already under investigation because it has something to hide. On the other, if it were to carry through on its threat, who could stop it?   The Authority, like the mayor, is very much a law unto itself.

How to fix a committee

The Authority has two statutory committees – scrutiny and audit. The problem for any mayor who would rather that no one asks any questions about what they are doing, is that it is common practice for the scrutiny committee to be made up entirely of local councillors who are selected for the role by their own councils, and the mayor of the Combined Authority has no direct control over who is selected.

As for the Audit Committee, the relevant legislation – the Combined Authorities Order, 2017 – stipulates (in paragraph 14) that it must contain at least one independent member (where ‘independent’ is that the member has no vested interest in the authority). The remainder are local councillors. The North of Tyne Combined Authority, for example, has eleven members, two of whom are independent.

The TVCA Audit Committee, by contrast, has ten members, five of whom are ‘independent’. The legislation is vague about how those independent members are to be selected and by whom. And neither does the TVCA Constitution (paragraphs 78 – 83). The legislation also stipulates that it is up to the Authority to decide how long committee members are to serve.

The way the Order is framed provides ample opportunity for a mayor who is shy of scrutiny to game the system. We must emphasize that we make no allegation of improper conduct against any independent committee member, simply that their appointment serves as a means of bringing into the forum for discussion people who are less likely to be suspicious of the motives and actions of the mayor.

Of the five independent committee members, one is the brother-in-law of Redcar MP, Jacob Young. Another is a manager at ADL Developments, favoured building contractor at Teesside Airport. No bio has been provided for a third. Little wonder, perhaps, that these are not the people asking the awkward questions.

Awkward questions? What awkward questions?

Shortly before this induction day, the local press had reported on a ground breaking ceremony at Teesworks to mark the arrival of Net Zero Teesside. The Northern Echo inaccurately stated that the Net Zero consortium had signed a lease agreement. This was one of the issue about which TVCA CEO, Julie Gilhespie, was questioned by councillors. It has been reported to Tees Valley Monitor that, after some obfuscation, she reluctantly admitted that no such agreement had been signed, and that the consortium had taken out an option on the land. Taking out an option is effectively reserving a land parcel to prevent anyone else getting it; it is not a commitment to proceed to taking out a lease. In fact, as Reuters reported in May, the consortium will not make a final investment decision until some time in 2024.

And we have to wonder if this is what lies behind the threats to councillors, that Julie Gilhespie takes umbrage at being challenged when spinning a yarn. But she needs to realise that at some point she will inevitably be held to account, to answer the question why, after all of the millions that the government has poured into the Teesworks site, it has only one confirmed leaseholder to date – SeAH.  And she will also be held accountable for the claim that 750 people will be employed at the factory, a number that she and others at the TVCA constantly reiterate, but which has never been claimed by SeAH itself.  Below is its statement about the Teesworks plant:

Is it any wonder that she’s a little sensitive? 

Postscript

Our report describes one instance of the habit of both Houchen and TVCA officers to exaggerate the significance of developments at Teesworks. While preparing this, we looked back at what we had written about the GE Renewables crisis. In doing so, we came across another example of misinformation/disinformation by Teesworks. Much has been said about the jobs that the project will bring. In March 2022, we published a screenshot of the number of jobs ‘unlocked’ by Teesworks. It looked strangely familiar. So we took another screenshot of that statistic as it appears on their website today:

March 2022

October 2023

We invite you to spot the difference.