We all do it. In the vacuum of Crimbo Limbo, and a frenzy of self-hate after stacking away three tubs of Quality Street, a 20lb turkey and an entire case of Baileys, we go online and join a gym. But then the hard part comes in January. After just an hour of lung burn, sweat and cramp, the New Year’s resolution is in the bin again.
The best laid plans o’mice and men
Which brings us to the first TVCA meetings of January 2025. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was due to meet on 15 January, followed by the Audit and Governance Committee the next day. This year was going to be different. After the chastening Annus Horribilis of the Tees Valley Review, the TVCA was determined to turn over a new leaf, and there’d be no more of the relentless incompetence and obfuscation that had been the hallmark of the previous seven years. But, just like that singular visit to the gym, all of the good intentions were shattered by the first bump in the road.
The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle
The chaos began as soon as the TVCA governance team battled through their New Year’s hangovers to compile the papers for the two upcoming meetings, then upload them to their website. As soon as they’d managed this on 8 January, an eagle-eyed member of the public noticed that a key document, Appendix 2, was missing. After being contacted, the TVCA gave assurances that this oversight would be rectified immediately, if not before. Eleven hours later, the document appeared. However, in the intervening period it had become apparent that another document, Appendix 3, was also missing. The TVCA was notified, said Appendix 3 would soon be uploaded, but then said that it didn’t exist, and they had been referring to Appendix 2 all along.
Well, so much for the starter, now to the main course…
This was the first Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting that would contain a ‘Mayor’s questions’ session. Councillor David Branson was first out of the blocks with a question about trackless trams. Ben Houchen had recklessly promised these exactly a year previously at the start of his election campaign. 15 tram routes in 5 towns, all funded by the £1bn HS2 cash that Rishi Sunak was never going to give him.
No, not THAT Branson
Branson had heard that Darlington councillors were wondering whether the whole thing was a cynical, empty vote-catching back-of-a-fag-packet gimmick that could never be fulfilled. Heaven forfend! This is Ben Houchen we’re talking about. Houchen said no, the trams would be real, and that they’d go even further than originally promised, this time to an imaginary health centre down by the Tees Barrage. Would the trams be autonomous? Yep, in time for the visit of President Elon Musk and Donald Trump to Teesside Airport.
Anyone for Dennis?
Councillor Dennis Mccabe then made his annual intervention by asking about the loss of an Electric Arc Furnace that was never going to exist. Houchen said that the Sunday Times had been fibbing, and his best friend, Business Secretary ‘Jonny’ Reynolds, had assured him that Teesside was still in with a chance. Although the very next day Reynolds spoiled this beautiful friendship by writing the Teesside Electric Arc Furnace off the page. Houchen then slammed the steel unions for fighting for the jobs of 3,000 of their members in Scunthorpe, instead of using a time machine to protect the 3,000 Redcar steelworkers about to be abandoned by the Teesside Conservatives 10 years ago.
Tees Valley Review
Councillor Rachel Creevy asked the mayor whether he would welcome a visit by the National Audit Office (NAO) to Teesside. No, there was no need for that, there had been a comprehensive review, and no wrongdoing had been found, apart from 28 recommendations to rectify the wrongdoing that had been found. Should the NAO investigate the finances of Teesside Airport? No, the airport hadn’t been investigated by the Tees Valley Review so there was no need to probe the airport’s finances now.
The same old song
Councillor Lynn Hall thought that maybe the Labour government would have an epiphany about the Electric Arc Furnace. Oh, we’re back on that subject, are we? That was a clever seasonal reference by Councillor Hall, to which the reply could have been that all of the gold, frankincense and myrrh had been gifted to Scunthorpe, and Teesside would get the donkey. Councillor Tony Riordan, another Conservative, then chimed in with another worthless, scripted talking point.Then an astonishing moment as the Mayor revealed that he’d attended a meeting in Scunthorpe disguised in a hoodie and scruffs, because the townsfolk of Scunthorpe wouldn’t like the Tees Valley mayor coming to town and stealing their jobs. But as he left town, somebody recognised him because he’s so famous, and he was busted. I very much doubt the veracity of this anecdote. Photos or it didn’t happen, mate.
Tees Valley Review
Ian Blades, the chair, was up next. Was the mayor happy about the outcome of the Tees Valley Review? He was. Was the mayor very happy about the outcome of the Tees Valley Review. Pretty much so. Ben Houchen doesn’t fold under questioning.
Hospital ball
And now on to the champion of Ben Houchen’s false election pledges, a new North Tees Hospital. A year after making a promise that he could never have hoped to fulfil, Houchen referred councillor Ian Blades to a forthcoming statement from Health Secretary Wes Streeting. After Streeting’s statement, Houchen would either take credit for the hospital’s go ahead, or condemn the Labour government for failing to deliver it. Everyone’s a winner if you’re Ben Houchen, even when you lose. Teflon Ben left the meeting after an hour, completely unscathed as ever.
Groundhog day
And so, to the business of the day, Agenda Item 5, the Tees Valley Review. Hadn’t we just?…Oh well. But Rachel Creevy was having a bad day. She wanted to ask about one of the review recommendations, but she couldn’t remember which one it was. Ian Blades helped her out, it was Recommendation number 11, changes to statutory officer roles. The monitoring officer Emma Simson explained that the TVCA had gone on a recruitment spree, hiring only the best people. The slick new operation had already proved its worth in the perfectly executed lead up to the meeting.
Teesworks
David Branson was concerned about the use of public funds at Teesworks, at which point Ian Blades made an observation that confirmed that this man, the chair, albeit pro tem, of the TVCA’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, had no clue about how the main public development body in the Tees Valley was funded. Ian asked Gary MacDonald (the chief finance officer) to confirm that no public money had gone into Teesworks. A bold statement from somebody who clearly hasn’t been paying 100% attention for the past four years. Gary, predictably, went around the houses by agreeing with Ian that no public money had gone directly into Teesworks. You could argue that using public grants and loans to build South Bank Quay, and then effectively giving it to Teesworks Limited for virtually nothing, was a method of publicly funding the company. But it wasn’t direct, Gary, I’ll give you that.
Black hole in a money pit
The reality is that £560mn of public money has been channeled into Teesworks via different methods. Councillor Branson then pushed back against Councillor Blades, asserting that it was obvious that vast amounts of public money had been poured into Teesworks. It didn’t matter which route the cash took, it was indisputably public money. The committee could have saved itself a lot of time if the members had looked at the diagram contained within the Tees Valley Review which clearly explained the flow of that money:
Overview and Scrutiny – we could try it some time
Ian then reminded David that this committee wasn’t the scrutiny body for Teesworks. But David Branson didn’t need reminding. Unlike most people in the Tees Valley, David has been paying attention. He knows, as we all do, that Teesworks, as with similar entities funded by the Teesside public, has been set up deliberately so that they can avoid such scrutiny.
Recommendation 11
The committee went round in another circle and returned to Recommendation 11 of the Tees Valley Review. Oh, alright then, here’s that recommendation in full:
TVCA review the group statutory officer roles and consider, where allowable in law, whether having different officers, perhaps drawn from the Constituent Authorities, would provide a greater degree of checks and balance.
The TVCA’s response to Recommendation 11 has been a fudge ever since. For example, the TVCA ignored the recommendation to draw officers from constituent authorities. Ian Blades noted that all of the recommendations may have been acted upon, but not to the satisfaction of his committee. This was particularly applied to Recommendation 11. So, Ian’s comments will be noted in the minutes. That’s the overview and scrutiny out of the way for the next two months. Who needs the National Audit Office when you’ve got a committee with teeth as sharp as this?
It’s good news week
While reporting on this meeting in the headline of his 20 January 2025 article, the Teesside Gazette enthused that ‘all applicable Tees Valley Review recommendations had been acted upon’. But that wasn’t quite what Ian Blades had said. Yet again, more spin from the TVCA, aided by local media, to give the impression that the root causes of the Tees Valley Review have been dealt with, and that they are moving to new horizons. But the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) doesn’t seem to agree with this analysis. Nearly four months after Ben Houchen did his victory lap on 27 September 2024, the department still hasn’t published a formal response to his proposals.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
