Councillors have voiced their frustration over a failed call-in that unfolded over the summer.
Members of TVCA’s overview and scrutiny committee vented their anger at an error in the constitution (which has now been corrected), along with the general inaccessibility of documents, with Hartlepool Labour Councillor Rachel Creevy highlighting how she isn’t surrounded by a “bank of lawyers”.
In July, it was reported that TVCA had rejected a call-in, made by seven councillors from across the region, which drew attention to Tees Valley Conservative Mayor Ben Houchen’s appointments of the region’s three development corporation chairs.
Image: TVCA
Previously, it was noted that TVCA’s constitution said (at the time of the appointments) that such appointments were to be put forward by the mayor, but cabinet had the final say. In rejecting the call-in request, TVCA argued that the decisions taken by the cabinet and the mayor were lawful and as such the call-in failed to provide a reasonable or valid basis. The rejection letter stated that information in the constitution was incorrect and national legislation took precedence over the wrong position in the constitution.
At the meeting of TVCA’s overview and scrutiny committee, held on Wednesday 10 September, Darlington Labour Councillor Ian Haszeldine asked if the TVCA constitution was legal at that moment, prompting TVCA chief executive Tom Bryant to confirm that is the case, adding: “We’ve committed in our improvement plan to review it and update it but it’s legal.”
This response caused Cllr Haszeldine to follow up by asking why it had been stated during the call-in process that the constitution wasn’t legal. Mr Bryant confirmed that this had been amended, as there had previously been an error in the constitution.
Hartlepool Labour Councillor John Nelson commented on the matter, saying: “In terms of the call-in that we satisfied ourselves as going through the correct protocol and process, we were then dismayed, to say the least, to find that that couldn’t be processed because of what has been termed an error.”
Hugh Grime, deputy monitoring officer interjected, saying: “The call-in was around the difference between the combined authority’s powers and mayoral powers, and the way the constitution was set out at that point, it tried to override what was actually the legal position in statute. So that’s what kind of over-rid the call-in at that point, is because it wasn’t valid at that point because we have to follow national legislation as approved.”
Image: TVCA
Cllr Creevy came back on the matter, saying the frustration is that councillors on the committee are ordinary members of the public, not barristers and as such, members shouldn’t be expected to have to go to overarching legislation beyond the constitution (which in itself is a legal document).
Cllr Creevy said that the constitution needs to be right, highlighting the hours that she had spent on the call-in, working with colleagues, adding: “We’re doing it because we’re doing it for the right reasons, we’re doing it because we’re responsible for the members of the public who elected us into our positions in the first place.”
Mr Bryant responded that he understood the frustration, but this error in the constitution goes back many years. While he set out the aim to get to a point where there are no errors in the constitution, the fact remains that appointment of a chair to a mayoral development corporation is nationally legislated as a mayoral power, and that cannot be overridden by a combined authority constitution.
Cllr Haszeldine made some final comments on the matter, saying: “The response we got to turn down the call-in was done in legal speak, I read it half a dozen times, still couldn’t get my head round it… and I asked for an explanation”, a request which he said was not fulfilled.
