Following this year’s local elections, Reform UK swept to power at Suffolk County Council, and the new leadership quickly made its intentions known. In a matter of weeks, Michael Hadwen, the leader of the council, approved a pre-action letter contesting the government’s intentions to reorganize local government throughout the county. By June 18, judicial review proceedings had begun, transforming that challenge into something more formal. It’s a daring action. It’s also costly, possibly costing the government up to £500,000.
The main points of contention are fairly simple. The government intends to replace Suffolk’s current county, district, and boro councils with three new unitary authorities that will have more authority. Instead, Hadwen’s administration favored a single unitary authority that would encompass all of Suffolk. The Reform-led administration concluded that the government had overreached its legal authority when ministers supported the three-council model back in March. According to their legal letter, the Secretary of State’s decision deviates from the government’s own stated criteria without providing adequate justification and goes beyond the authority granted by legislation.
In court, that argument might or might not be valid. The way this entire process has been managed within the council itself has become more and more difficult to separate from the legal substance.
The cabinet’s decision to move forward with the judicial review was formally challenged by opposition councilors from various parties. This process, known as a “call-in,” would freeze the decision pending scrutiny committee review if it was approved. After giving those difficulties some thought, the monitoring officer decided to reject them. A 26-page report contained that rejection. The report was designated as confidential. It is not visible to the general public. Councilors claim they have been prohibited from discussing its contents.
Richard Rout, the leader of a conservative group, described this as “frankly disgraceful.” Even if one acknowledges that some legal proceedings necessitate a certain level of confidentiality, it is difficult to dispute the frustration. The public receives nothing despite a twenty-six-page explanation of why democratic challenges to a half-million-pound ruling were rejected. There is a plausible argument that this is precisely the kind of decision that calls for greater, not less, scrutiny.
When the confidential report was obtained by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the plot became even more intricate. That document states that the monitoring officer determined that Hadwen’s initial choice to start legal action on June 18 was compliant with council regulations. But the report also found two instances in which the council failed to properly communicate the decision within the necessary timeframes, which is the part the council hasn’t been eager to publicize. Although these were deemed to be “relatively minor and inadvertent breaches,” they were significant enough to result in a Section 5A report, which is a procedure meant to be used when the monitoring officer thinks a decision might be unlawful or constitute maladministration.
The council’s reaction to the leak was remarkably succinct. A spokesperson cited valid legal justifications for confidentiality while expressing disappointment that someone had decided to give the document to journalists. That might be accurate. However, when their default reaction to scrutiny is to close the blinds, institutions that deal with public funds often face more difficult questions.
This kind of difficulty is not unique to Suffolk. Similar reorganization plans have prompted pre-action letters from Hampshire, Norfolk, and Essex. There is undoubtedly a broader trend of opposition from councils, some of which are Reform-led and some of which are not, who feel that the government is making structural changes too quickly and without due process. It is truly unclear whether any of these legal challenges will be successful. When it comes to overturning such ministerial decisions, courts typically set a high standard.
The internal conflict is what distinguishes the Suffolk situation. There may be a valid legal argument against reorganization. The recurring question is whether the decision to pursue it was made with the transparency required by £500,000 in public spending. Beneath a 26-page report that officials would much rather the public never read, that question is still unanswered as of right now.
