Teesworks review author responds to Parliamentary committee's questions

In his letter dated 18 March Mr Byrne asked whether Ms Ridgwell would recommend more decisions made in relation to Teesworks be reviewed, given the restrictions on the panel’s time and resources.

“We consistently came to the same conclusion about the decision making processes in respect of the governance and finances of the organisations,” wrote Ms Ridgwell in her response, dated 28 March. “We do not believe that extending the review to include other decisions taken by TVCA/STDC would have led the Panel to reach different conclusions and therefore would not recommend that course of action,” she added.

The Tees Valley Review Report was published in January following a longer-than-anticipated seven-month-long process. Ms Ridgwell and her colleagues made 28 recommendations to improve transparency and governance, having concluded that decisions made by TVCA "do not meet standards expected when managing public funds."

One of the key aims of the review was to consider allegations of corruption, wrongdoing, and illegality in relation to the project. While the panel’s report said it had found “no evidence to support allegations of corruption and illegality,” Prof Robert Barrington, professor of anti-corruption practice at the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex, was critical of the methodology. He told The Yorkshire Post the review was “unlike anything I’d seen before in the world.”

Asked if her panel “had the competence, powers and time to secure evidence of and evaluate any potential evidence of illegality or corruption,” Ms Ridgwell’s reply said she was “satisfied” her panel “had the competence, powers and time to fulfil the terms of reference for the review.”