What we learnt from Reform's Suffolk County Council debut

The mood inside the King Edmund Chamber on Thursday, 21 May, was unlike that of any recent council meeting at Endeavour House.

It was, by any measure, a chaotic start to life in the chamber for the new administration – full of bravado, drama and debate. And for many, it will do nothing to ease fears that, over the next two years, Suffolk will become an increasingly divided county and political plaything.

It started with the appointment of a new chairman and vice chairman.

Councillor Louis Busuttil, who represents Reform in the Mildenhall division and previously served as Deputy Chair of Suffolk County Council before retiring in 2021, was elected Chairman. Councillor Kerrie Turner, the new member for Cornard & Sudbury East, was elected Vice-Chairman. Councillor Busuttil named the Suffolk Accident Rescue Service as his chosen charity, describing them as "an extraordinary group of volunteers."

If yesterday was anything to go by, they will have their work cut out for them.

A new leader

Michael Hadwen, the newly elected councillor for Felixstowe Clifflands, was formally elected as Leader of Suffolk County Council by 38 votes to 27, with two abstentions. Worth noting Reform has 41 seats.

At 28, he becomes the youngest leader in the authority's history and the first from Felixstowe – a point he was keen to land.

In his maiden speech, the self-described "Felixstowe boy" set out six guiding principles for the administration: being transparent with residents, delivering value for taxpayers, protecting frontline services, supporting sustainable growth, reforming how the council operates, and focusing relentlessly on delivery.

"There will be difficult decisions ahead," Councillor Hadwen told the chamber. "There will be moments when we are tested, and moments when we will undoubtedly face criticism. But I give this chamber and the people of Suffolk this commitment today: This administration will always put Suffolk first."

It was a confident speech, and if there were any nerves, they didn't show.

He paid tribute to his predecessor, Councillor Matthew Hicks, acknowledging that he had "led this council during an extraordinarily difficult and uncertain period for local government".

An unpopular appointment

While Busuttil's appointment as chair seemed to go down well in the chamber, Hadwen's was universally condemned by opposition leaders.

A point of order raised by the leader of the opposition forced the Chairman to open a debate on Councillor Hadwen's past social media posts, with challenges coming from across the chamber.

The posts, first reported by Ipswich.co.uk, date from 2016 and 2018. In April 2018, around a month after the Salisbury poisonings, he wrote that "Russia is not my enemy" and that "we should be working with them". In the same month, he stated that "Enoch [Powell] was right, just behind the times" — a reference to the late Conservative MP whose 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech caused major controversy. In 2016, he said that if elected as an MP, he would hire Milo Yiannopoulos, who resigned from Breitbart in 2017 after video clips circulated in which he stated that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adults could be "perfectly consensual", as his PR Manager.

Opposition councillors called on Councillor Hadwen to distance himself from the remarks.

He did not.

Councillor Richard Rout, the new leader of the Suffolk Conservative Group, said afterwards that the silence was "a huge shame".

"This wasn't just a single comment; it is a pattern of behaviour that scares and alienates people across Suffolk," he said. "Not least the Ukrainian residents who now call our county home due to Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine."

"Given these comments were made some time ago, we thought it only fair, in the light of the huge public and staff outcry at these remarks, to give the new leader the opportunity to publicly address his past comments and distance himself from them. That he chose not to do so, and remained silent, is a huge shame as it was a real opportunity for a fresh start with our communities and council staff."

A new-look cabinet

There was much anticipation across the county about who Hadwen would give cabinet positions to.

Former Conservative Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton was named Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. He was keen to publicly state his support for Hadwen, contesting our reporting of his failed bid to become council leader in his maiden speech as Deputy, and making it clear he fully supports Hadwen's appointment.

• Vicky Armstrong takes on Finance, Economic Development and Efficiency.
• Simon Aalders will lead Children's Services.
• Tony Gould will oversee Education and SEND.
• Christopher Hudson, the 14-year council veteran who was passed over for the leadership earlier this month, was given Transport and Highways – a notable and potentially significant appointment given his staunch opposition to a northern bypass.
• Tristan Gale takes on Planning, Devolution and the Fire Service.
• June Mummery, the former MEP who joined the council in March, leads on Coastal Affairs, Communities and Public Health.
• And Morgan Brobyn, who works in the poultry industry, takes Food, Waste and Rural Affairs.

Translation services

If the debate over Hadwen's suitability for the leader role set the tone, the Green's translation services motion crystallised it. Councillor Andrew Stringer, leading the 13-strong Green Group as the new official opposition, used his party's first motion to contest claims by Reform that Suffolk County Council was spending too much on translation services, and that those translation services were for those who "refuse to integrate".

The motion, in full, read: "This council values the translation service work carried out on behalf of Suffolk County Council."

It was defeated, with Hadwen stating that he would not tolerate "political stunts" under his leadership.

"It is deeply concerning that at the first opportunity, the Reform-led county council votes against valuing the translation services that help unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, Homes for Ukraine guests as well as providing sign language for residents with hearing impairment," Councillor Stringer said.

"We were accused of pulling a political stunt for merely trying to hold Reform to account for the divisive language in their election literature. We asked them to stand by their claim that those in receipt of these services are 'refusing to integrate'."

The Green Group has pointed out that the funding largely supports social care services for children and vulnerable adults, those seeking sanctuary from Ukraine, and deaf residents needing British Sign Language support. The decision to vote down the motion produced a united uproar from the opposition benches.

"The statement about the spend on translation services was one of the few items on Reform UK election literature that actually related to services provided by Suffolk County Council," Councillor Stringer added. "It's therefore a fair thing to ask them about."

The Northern Bypass

The day's other flashpoint was Labour's motion on the Ipswich Northern Bypass — and it produced one of the most consequential moments of the meeting.

The motion, proposed by Labour group leader Councillor Martin Cook and seconded by Councillor Colin Kreidewolf, committed the council to reaffirming support for a Northern Bypass, working with district authorities to protect potential route alignments, immediately restarting work on a preferred route, and setting a timetable for submitting a Strategic Outline Business Case to Government by 30 September 2026.

It was substantially amended by Councillor Julia Ewart, the independent for Saxmundham & District, seconded by Reform UK's Councillor Tony Love for Felixstowe Maritime, and further amended by Councillor Mason of the Conservative party, stripping out the route protection commitment, removing the September timetable, and broadening the scope of the review to include a southern or estuarial crossing and a tunnelled Orwell crossing.

The amendment also added requirements that any future assessment consider environmental impact, agricultural land loss, biodiversity, carbon impact, and future electricity transmission demand associated with the Port of Felixstowe.

The brief is now held by Councillor Christopher Hudson, who lives in Framlingham and voted against reviving the Northern Bypass project when the previous Labour-led motion came to the council last summer.

Ipswich MP, Jack Abbott, who has campaigned for the project's revival at local and national level, was scathing, saying: "Labour's proposals to finally get the Ipswich Northern Bypass project moving had clear objectives and timelines, but Reform UK have done a deal with independent councillors to try and make the delivery of this vital infrastructure impossible," he said.

"Residents deserve better than policy being drawn up on the back of a fag packet. Running a council is a serious business, but Reform UK's first act has shown how out of their depth they are."

Councillor Cook said it "beggar's belief that the first act of Reform UK on Suffolk County Council is to sabotage progress on the Ipswich Northern Bypass."

"They have hollowed out a Labour motion in support of the Bypass to strip out protections for route options, remove delivery timelines, and bring back fantasy tunnel schemes. Meanwhile, congestion in Ipswich and Felixstowe keeps making life more difficult for residents and businesses."

The decision all but kills any hope of plans for a northern bypass progressing under this administration in the next two years.

Local government reorganisation

The final other piece of substantive business was the administration's stated intention to challenge the Government's Local Government Reorganisation decision, which will see Suffolk's existing two-tier structure replaced with three unitary authorities from 1 April 2028.

"The proposal to divide Suffolk into three unitary councils risks weakening services, increasing costs and undermining the historic identity of our county," Councillor Hadwen told the chamber. "Most importantly, we believe it poses serious risks to some of the most vital services we provide, particularly children's services, adult care and SEND provision."

"Residents did not ask for this upheaval, and it is our duty to examine every option available to fight for and protect the county we serve."

He, again, claimed that residents do not want LGR, but all conversations we've had on the topic indicate that isn't the case, and that while there is plenty of debate over one versus three unitary councils, there is widespread support for change.

The administration is expected to set out the formal basis of its legal challenge in the coming days. Opposition leaders have already raised concerns about the cost and legal merit of such an action, with Councillor Rout warning that "not liking a decision is not grounds for judicial review" and Councillor Neil MacDonald, Labour Leader of Ipswich Borough Council, describing the proposed challenge as a "waste" of taxpayers' money.

Sources close to the matter have said that the challenge is "very unlikely" to succeed, putting the challenge at odds with Hadwen's commitment to putting Suffolk first, reducing council waste and protecting taxpayers' money.

Hudson's backtrack on councillor training

Among the many moments that drew strong reaction from the chamber was Councillor Hudson's backtrack on remarks he made to the BBC during the leadership contest, when he said councillors would need six months to learn how to do the job.

He played those comments down in the chamber, much to the dismay of opposition councillors who pointed to the remarks as evidence of the administration's inexperience and accountability.

The bottom line

It would be premature to draw any conclusions about Reform's leadership and administration from yesterday's AGM.

Opposition leaders are right to demand visibility on local strategy, but the Reform administration must be given the time to communicate it. The years ahead will be shaped not by the noise of a first meeting, but by what the administration delivers for the residents who voted them in.

For now, both sides know where the battle lines sit. The question is whether the chamber can rise above the politics to deliver the progress Suffolk needs.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

This article cost us ~£324 to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.