The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Hertfordshire County Council met on Monday, 8 December 2025, to review the proceedings of an Extraordinary Council meeting held on 19 November 2025. The committee discussed the controversial voting process used during the extraordinary meeting concerning the proposed submission of local government reorganisation (LGR) options to the Secretary of State. As a result of the discussions, two key recommendations were made: that the Standards Committee initiate a review of the council's constitution by a politically proportionate working group, with membership agreed by group leaders, and that group leaders' meetings be held in advance of all full council meetings.

Review of the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 19 November 2025

The primary focus of the meeting was to scrutinise the process and voting at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 19 November 2025. Quentin Baker, Director of Law and Governance, provided context, explaining that the extraordinary meeting was highly unusual and not a standard council meeting. Its purpose was to gather an indicative vote on preferences for unitary authority models in response to an invitation from the Secretary of State. He highlighted that the actual decision on submission was an executive function and that the meeting's process was designed with an abundance of caution to avoid judicial review risks, particularly concerning the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government's (MHCLG) requirement for councils to propose only one option. Mr. Baker noted that a none of the above option was advised against by a King's Counsel (KC).

Councillor Alexander Curtis, the lead member for calling the special meeting, expressed strong criticism of the voting process, describing it as a mockery of deliberation and a suppression wearing the mask of consent. He argued that councillors were denied the natural right to oppose the LGR process and that the council failed to meet its constitutional aims of efficient, transparent decision-making and enabling councillors to represent their constituents. Councillor Curtis specifically lamented the inability to vote no or abstain meaningfully, stating that the motion was guaranteed to pass. He called for a cross-party review of standing orders to ensure such a situation does not recur.

Councillor Steve Jarvis, Leader of the Council, acknowledged that there was an inherent problem in any sort of indicative vote and that the council was merely expressing an opinion rather than making a binding decision. He agreed that a review of the council's constitution was a good plan, as it had not been reviewed since 2019. He also conceded that while group leaders' discussions had occurred, a formal meeting in the days leading up to the extraordinary meeting might have been beneficial.

During the question and answer session, several councillors raised concerns about the legal advice provided, the clarity of the process, and the exclusion of a none of the above option. Councillor Ralph Munser questioned whether the legal advice had been shared with group leaders and highlighted that different councils in Hertfordshire had adopted different approaches to the voting process. Councillor Alistair Willoughby, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, noted that North Hertfordshire District Council had included a not to express an opinion option, which had been deemed lawful following KC advice. He also questioned the likelihood of a judicial review on a purely indicative vote.

Councillor Steve Watson observed that the vote didn't add anything extra and that a discussion might have been more effective. He suggested that politics had got in the way of a good debate. Councillor Jarvis agreed, stating that some individuals may have voted for options they did not believe in to cause most trouble for who was running the council.

Councillor Penelope Hill, Vice-Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, defended the actions of the Chair, Councillor Lawrence Brass, stating he acted on KC advice in a very, very unusual situation. She argued that the LGR process was unique and that lessons learned from this specific instance might not be applicable to future council business. She also pointed out that councillors who remained in the meeting had their views recorded in the minutes, even if they did not vote for a particular option.

Recommendations for Future Practice

Following extensive debate, the committee agreed on two key recommendations:

1. Review of the Council's Constitution: The committee recommended that the Standards Committee be asked to initiate a review of the council's constitution. This review would be conducted by a politically proportionate working group, with membership agreed by group leaders, to ensure that the views of all political groupings, including independent members, are considered. The aim is to ensure the constitution accurately reflects the council's current political landscape and operational needs.
2. Group Leaders' Meetings: It was recommended that group leaders' meetings should be held in advance of all full council meetings. This measure is intended to ensure that any housekeeping or procedural matters are agreed upon beforehand, thereby avoiding confusion and potential controversy, as experienced during the extraordinary meeting.

The committee concluded that while the extraordinary meeting was a unique circumstance, the process had highlighted areas for improvement in council procedures and transparency. The recommendations aim to strengthen democratic processes and ensure greater clarity and consensus-building in future council meetings.