21 Nov 2025
The district council leader has dismissed suggestions that the administration is operating a culture of secrecy.
Cllr Paul de Kort was responding to claims by Labour councillors that the Lib Dems are resisting the rights of members of the public and councillors to question and scrutinise its work.
London Colney Labour Councillor Michael Hobday (pictured) revealed that at last week’s Full Council meeting leading councillors admitted that over the last 18 months:
- 10 questions from members of the public have been rejected from being asked in public at council or committee meetings;
- 15 questions from councillors have been rejected from being asked at council meetings;
- four questions from councillors were not permitted to be asked at council committee meetings;
- five requests from councillors for committees to consider whether to scrutinise specific issues have been kept off the agenda;
- three councillors’ motions for debate at council meetings have been refused debating time.
Labour deputy leader Mike Hobday said: “Requests for questions and scrutiny have been rejected by Liberal Democrat councillors for a wide assortment of reasons, including that they relate to council policy on national issues or that they are ‘operational’. Questions have been turned down for the agenda at council meetings on the basis that they were supposedly ‘frivolous’.”
At the council meeting, he asked the Liberal Democrats to refer this issue to the constitution committee on the basis either that the rules themselves are restrictive, or that current interpretations are too narrow .
He added: “Public and councillor questions are a vital part of openness and democracy. The repeated decisions by Liberal Democrat committee chairs to restrict questions and debate at committee meetings are a sign of unwillingness to be challenged for council decisions.
“Members of the public face a culture of reluctance from leading Liberal Democrat councillors to answer questions or otherwise to be challenged on council decisions. Transparency and scrutiny are vital parts of a healthy democracy. Labour councillors want to expose the current culture and win support to examine how the rules are being applied.
“Just this month at the council’s public realm committee, we were told that four questions from members of the public had been submitted but only one was allowed to be asked.””
But SADC leader Cllr de Kort rejected Cllr Hobday’s allegations as unfounded.
He told the St Albans Times: “It is disappointing that Labour is aping the Reform Party by disseminating unfounded conspiracy theories about the workings of local government.
The accusation that this district council is operating a culture of secrecy is just patently absurd.
“In the past 18 months the two Labour councillors have taken the opportunity to ask 154 questions on notice at our Full Council, with the answers in the public domain.
“They have asked a further 12 questions specifically to me as council leader, using the question time slot that the Liberal Democrats introduced to further open up accountability for the delivery of the council’s services.
“This is just one forum, as they also are able to interrogate lead councillors and officers alike in the other scrutiny committees, as well as via their seat on the independently chaired audit and governance committee.
“They claim that the rejection, by officers, of a much smaller number of submitted questions is evidence of some sort of conspiracy of silence. But the reality is much more prosaic, as the vast majority of these failed to meet simple and common place criteria, such as relevance to the specific committee’s remit or timeliness. All of these are clearly laid out in the publicly available council procedures documentation.
“What is really the issue here is that the Labour group mistake their right to information with their right to influence. The latter is obtained by winning sufficient popular support at elections to garner more seats on committees and Council.
“In this one respect I do understand their frustration as they are so very far away from this essential next step, hindered by the damaging policies of their government and their own, divisive, local campaigning.”
