Havering council row over scrutiny — Romford 2026

Key Points

• A heated dispute erupted at Havering Council’s Full Council meeting in Romford over Members’ Question Time, with opposition Leader Councillor Gillian Ford accusing the Reform UK administration of curtailing scrutiny.
• Councillor Gillian Ford accused Reform UK of “filibustering” question time, refusing to take supplementary questions, and exhibiting immature behaviour during the meeting.
• Reform UK Havering strongly denied the accusations, saying the meeting followed agreed procedures, unanswered questions will receive written replies, and accusing the previous HRA administration of leaving a difficult financial position.
• Councillor Ford highlighted council finance statements that showed a lower-than-expected 2025/26 budget deficit and claimed those savings resulted from actions by the former HRA administration.
• Tension centred on Reform UK’s approach to economic development, including a reference to the East Havering Data Centre, which Reform UK had previously said it would “stop”.
• Both sides referenced official procedures for raising complaints: the opposition has contacted the monitoring officer about councillor conduct; Reform UK invited the HARA to use the proper complaints process if they believe conduct rules were breached.
• Reform UK framed the opposition’s comments as political point-scoring and pledged to focus on repairing the council’s finances, improving services and delivering on its mandate.

Romford (East London Times) July 24, 2026 – As reported by Councillor Gillian Ford, leader of the Havering Residents Association (HARA), the opposition accused the Reform UK administration of deliberately curtailing democratic scrutiny during Members’ Question Time at Romford Town Hall on Wednesday evening.

Councillor Ford told the chamber and subsequently issued a full statement saying Reform UK “filibustered Councillor question time so they didn’t have to answer the questions,” and that members were not prepared to take any supplementary questions during the allotted time. She said:

“Any unanswered questions are responded to in writing. We are publishing all of the questions we submitted and will share Reform UK’s responses once they have been published,”

adding that the party saw

“the true colours of Reform UK Wednesday evening.”

How did Reform UK respond to allegations of avoiding scrutiny and of immature behaviour?

As reported by a spokesman for the Reform UK Group to the Havering Daily, the group strongly rejected Councillor Ford’s claim and described the accusation as

“a desperate attempt to distract from the mess the HRA administration, under which she was Deputy Leader, left behind.”

The Reform UK spokesman said:

“Members Question Time was conducted in accordance with the Council’s agreed procedures and the time available. Questions that were not reached will receive written answers, ensuring every councillor receives a full and proper response. To describe this as a ‘filibuster’ is simply inaccurate.”

The spokesman further stated that Reform UK was focused on responsible economic development, protecting taxpayers and examining major proposals on merit, and that personal attacks about councillors’ facial expressions were

“beneath the serious debate Havering residents expect.”

What specific council finance claims did the opposition make, and how were they framed?

Councillor Ford highlighted a statement from the Cabinet Member for Finance during the meeting that set out a smaller-than-expected 2025/26 budget deficit — a deficit described in the opposition’s published remarks as a significant improvement from figures at the April close of accounts, with expenditure reduced to a deficit of £38 million.

Councillor Ford argued those savings were “entirely down to the actions taken by the former HRA administration,” and criticised Reform UK for not acknowledging that history during their presentation. She said:

“If they cannot answer simple questions, how can the borough have the confidence they will be able to manage the complexities of running a Council. Schoolboy behaviour is not what Havering residents need.”

Councillor Ford also reminded the chamber that Reform UK has taken credit for policies and projects that, she said, had been started by the HRA — including work on the Local Plan refresh and expanding village greens — saying:

“They can piggy-back off of our successes, but they cannot do that for four years.”

How did members and guests react to the behaviour in the chamber, and what formal steps have been taken?

Councillor Ford’s statement alleged that some Reform UK councillors displayed immature conduct during the meeting, with witnesses describing “childish face pulling” and “sniggering like naughty school boys.” According to that statement, the HARA has contacted the council’s monitoring officer about this conduct.

A Reform UK spokesman responded that if HARA believes there has been a breach of conduct, it is entitled to follow the proper complaints process and that Reform UK would “remain focused on the issues that matter, not petty politics.”

Was the East Havering Data Centre discussed, and what is its relevance to the dispute?

Councillor Ford referenced the East Havering Data Centre in her statement as a point of contention. She said Reform UK’s proposed route to further reduce the budget deficit relies on economic development but that there had been no recent mention of the East Havering Data Centre and Reform UK’s earlier pledge to “stop it.”

The remark signals that the data centre remains a live issue in local debate about development and planning priorities; Reform UK’s written response did not directly address the data centre in the quoted rebuttal, instead reiterating their broader approach to economic development and scrutiny of major proposals.

What procedural issues are at stake regarding Members’ Question Time and written answers?

Both sides referenced the council’s formal procedures for question time. HARA’s criticism focused on the refusal to accept supplementary questions during the allotted Members’ Question Time and the requirement that unanswered questions be answered in writing.

Reform UK defended use of the procedure, saying that time constraints meant some questions were not reached during the meeting and that written answers provide full and proper responses to councillors. Reform UK characterised the opposition’s claim of a “filibuster” as inaccurate and stressed adherence to agreed time limits and rules.

Who made these statements and where were they published?

• Councillor Gillian Ford, leader of the Havering Residents Association (HARA), issued the full opposition statement following the Full Council meeting; extracts were made public by HARA and reported in other local coverage.
• An unnamed spokesman for the Reform UK Group provided a rebuttal to the Havering Daily which was quoted in reporting of the exchange.

What are the political stakes for both parties in Havering?

Reform UK, now the administration, portrayed itself as the party elected with a “clear mandate to change how Havering is run,” promising to focus on repairing council finances, improving services and delivering the changes residents voted for. Reform UK framed its role as inheriting responsibility for turning proposals into results and rejected the claim that it was engaging in petty politics.

The HARA, now in opposition, is emphasising scrutiny of the administration’s conduct and record, asserting credit for earlier policy groundwork and pressing for transparency and answers on key development and finance matters.

What formal remedies exist for complaints about councillor conduct?

Both sides referenced the monitoring officer and the council’s complaints procedures. Councillor Ford’s team has contacted the monitoring officer regarding alleged behaviour in the chamber.

Reform UK advised the HARA to use the proper complaints process if they believe conduct rules were broken, signalling both groups accept the formal mechanisms available to address disputes about behaviour but differ on whether those mechanisms have been or should be invoked.

What immediate actions were promised by each side following the meeting?

• HARA: To publish all the questions they submitted and to share Reform UK’s written responses once published; to pursue formal channels regarding alleged conduct; and to continue to press for scrutiny.
• Reform UK: To continue following council procedures for question time and to respond in writing to unanswered questions; to focus on fiscal repair, service improvement and economic development; and to resist diversion into what it called political point-scoring.

Background of the particular development

Havering has undergone a political shift following local elections that placed Reform UK in administration, replacing the Havering Residents Association as the leading group on the council.

The transition has brought scrutiny of both the new administration’s method of governance and the legacy left by its predecessors.

Key issues in recent months include the council’s financial position — including the reported lower-than-expected 2025/26 budget deficit — and debates over development projects such as the East Havering Data Centre and planning processes including a Local Plan refresh and expansion of village greens.

These policy areas are politically sensitive and provide fertile ground for contention between the administration and opposition.

Prediction: How might this development affect Havering residents and local political dynamics?

• Impact on scrutiny and transparency: If tensions persist and Members’ Question Time remains contested, residents may perceive a reduction in public scrutiny of council decisions. Written answers provide accountability, but fewer live exchanges could limit immediate transparency and public witnessing of direct questioning.
• Effect on council productivity: Ongoing public rows and formal complaints could divert time and resources away from policy delivery, slowing progress on services and regeneration projects that directly affect residents.
• Public confidence and electoral implications: The way both parties handle this dispute may influence public opinion ahead of future elections. Residents concerned about conduct or transparency may be more likely to hold elected members to account at the ballot box.
• Policy delivery and development projects: Contention over projects such as the East Havering Data Centre and the Local Plan could delay decision-making and planning approvals, affecting housing, infrastructure and economic development timelines that matter to businesses and residents.
• Administrative continuity: Reform UK’s emphasis on fiscal repair and scrutiny of major proposals suggests an approach that may re-evaluate or pause certain initiatives inherited from the previous administration. For residents, this could mean changes to expected timelines or modifications to programmes originally advanced by the HARA.