Agenda item

To consider any motions, due notice of which have been given in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12, two motions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

(A) Paternity Leave

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1) Request Officers work with the Executive Member – Resources to explore eligible Council employees to receive further enhanced paternity and adoption provision for second parents, including consideration of an offer of six weeks paid paternity or adoption leave at a minimum of 90% of their salary. A paper will be produced in time for a wider discussion at the January Joint Staff Consultative Committee, as well as a consultation with our staff and trade union.

(2) Requested that the Leader of the Council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade urging the Government to introduce six weeks’ fully paid paternity leave nationally.

(B) Local Government Reorganisation

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1) Requested the Chief Executive of North Hertfordshire District Council to provide a full accounting of the costs already incurred by the Council as a result of LGR, including additional staffing, officer time, consultants’ fees, legal advice, recruitment, training, project management and other transition costs.

(2) Requested the Leader of North Hertfordshire District Council to write to Angela Rayner MP, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:

a) demand publication of the full rationale, evidence, financial assessments and departmental analysis underpinning the decision to select four unitary authorities for Hertfordshire.

b) seek an explanation of how ministers assessed the financial sustainability of the four-unitary model, including the projected £22 million first-year deficit for Central Hertfordshire.

c) seek a commitment that councils will be fully compensated for reasonable and demonstrable costs incurred as a direct consequence of the Government’s LGR programme and its subsequent halt.

d) seek immediate clarity and reassurance for council officers whose employment, structures, reporting arrangements and career prospects have been thrown into uncertainty.

e) seek clarity on the Government’s intentions and timetable for the future of Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire following the cancellation of the May 2027 shadow authority elections; and

f) demand that North Hertfordshire District Council is fully consulted before any further decision is taken, with that consultation involving representatives of all political groups on the Council and not solely the administration.

(3) Called on the Government to ensure that any future proposals for local government in Hertfordshire put financial sustainability, effective public services, community links and the interests of residents, council taxpayers and frontline staff ahead of arbitrary ministerial timetables

(4) Called on the Government to learn the fundamental lesson from this process: councils should never again be required to spend millions of pounds, consume thousands of hours of officer time and destabilise local government before the Government has established that its proposals are financially credible, legally sound and capable of being delivered.

Audio recording – 01 hour 35 minutes 04 seconds

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12, two motions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

(A) Paternity Leave

Councillor Dominic Griffith proposed the motion as follows:

‘This council, like many public sector organisations, faces ongoing challenges with staff recruitment and retention. These challenges can directly affect service delivery and organisational resilience.

The UK offers some of the weakest statutory paternity and second parent adoption leave in Europe: just two weeks at a flat statutory rate of £194.32 per week from 6 April 2026. This is equivalent to around 40% of the national minimum wage. For many households, this level of pay is not financially viable.

According to a 2023 TUC poll, over half (53 per cent) of families struggle financially when fathers and second parents take paternity leave. One in five fathers and second parents (21 per cent) are forced to return to work early because they cannot afford to stay off. Around 1 in 3 fathers take no paternity or adoption leave at all.

Children with more involved fathers have improved outcomes across education, cognitive development, and emotional wellbeing. They are less likely to experience emotional or behavioural problems as teenagers and adults and are better able to regulate stress. Paternity leave plays a crucial role in establishing this early involvement.

Better paternity leaves also benefits mothers. New mothers are currently left without support while recovering from birth, including the 40 per cent of births that end in caesarean section. Research shows that enabling both parents to take leave together reduces maternal postnatal depression by 26 per cent.

Inadequate paternity leave is also damaging to men’s mental health. Research by The Dad Shift and November found that 45 per cent of UK fathers experience multiple symptoms of depression or anxiety in their baby’s first year. Eighty-two per cent of fathers said that improving paternity leave is the single biggest action the government could take to support new dads’ mental health. Poor mental health is a leading driver of absenteeism at work: better paternity leave could reduce this pressure on fathers employed by this council.

A review from the Leeds University Business School found a strong corporate consensus that generous, enhanced parental leave acts as a vehicle for talent management. Employers who invest in these policies reap measurable rewards in long-term staff loyalty and retention rates improve.

This Council believes that offering enhanced paternity and adoption leave for second parents will strengthen this council’s reputation as a modern, family-friendly employer and help address longstanding workforce retention issues.

As one of the largest employers in the area, this Council has an opportunity to lead by example and promote better working standards for second parents.

Therefore, Council resolves:

1. To request that the Cabinet explore, with the aim of introducing enhanced paternity leave and adoption leave for second parents for council employees, offering a minimum of six weeks paid paternity or adoption leave at a minimum 90% of their salary for all eligible fathers and second parents.

2. That the Leader of the Council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade urging the Government to introduce a minimum of six weeks’ paid (at a minimum of 90% of their salary) paternity leave nationally.’

Councillor David Chalmers seconded the motion.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Ian Albert, which had been published in the supplementary paper circulated to Members. Councillor Albert thanked Councillor Griffiths for bringing forward the motion and expressed support for improving Paternity Leave provision. It was noted that recent changes to employment legislation would strengthen parental rights, but that further improvements were needed to reflect modern family life and provide meaningful time for parents to spend with their children.

The amendment sought to strengthen the motion by introducing timescales and requiring Officers to work with the relevant Executive Member to prepare a discussion paper for the Joint Staff Consultative Committee, and consultation with staff and trade unions. The intention was to establish clear expectations for the proposed improvements.

Councillor Dominic Griffith confirmed that he was happy to accept the amendment.

The following Members took part in the debate:

• Councillor David Chalmers

• Councillor Jon Clayden

• Councillor Amy Allen

• Councillor Sadie Billing

• Councillor Tom Tyson

The following points were made as part of the debate:

• The first weeks following the birth of a child were important for parents to develop their parenting skills and establish shared responsibilities for childcare.

• Additional paternity leave would provide practical and emotional support to mothers recovering from childbirth, particularly following caesarean sections, and help both parents adjust to family life.

• Greater support during the early weeks could benefit the mental health and well-being of both parents and help reduce postnatal depression and anxiety.

• Research referred to during the debate suggested that enhanced paternity leave could have longer-term benefits for relationships and the sharing of household responsibilities.

• Members highlighted the financial barriers that could prevent employees from taking parental leave and noted that only two male Council employees had taken parental leave during the previous year.

• Improving paternity leave provision could help the Council recruit and retain staff by demonstrating its commitment to employee welfare and family-friendly employment.

• Other local authorities, including Ealing, Islington and Lewisham, were cited as examples of councils that had introduced enhanced paternity leave provision.

• Members shared personal experiences of the limited paternity leave available to them when their children were born, including circumstances where additional support was required following caesarean sections.

• Members expressed support for extending leave to enable fathers and second parents to play a greater role in caring for their children and supporting their partners.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Council:

1. Request Officers work with the Executive Member – Resources to explore eligible Council employees to receive further enhanced paternity and adoption provision for second parents, including consideration of an offer of six weeks paid paternity or adoption leave at a minimum of 90% of their salary. A paper will be produced in time for a wider discussion at the January Joint Staff Consultative Committee, as well as a consultation with our staff and trade union.

2. Requested that the Leader of the Council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade urging the Government to introduce six weeks’ fully paid paternity leave nationally.

N.B. Following this conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21.29.

(B) Local Government Reorganisation

Councillor Chris Lucas proposed the motion as follows:

‘This Council welcomes the Government’s decision, announced by Angela Rayner MP, on 7 September 2026 to halt implementation of its deeply flawed four-unitary model for Hertfordshire, but condemns the Government’s shambolic handling of Local Government Reorganisation and the substantial waste of public money, officer time and resources caused by the process. Council further calls for full transparency over the costs already incurred and for the Government to ensure that North Hertfordshire taxpayers are not left to pick up the bill for a reorganisation process imposed upon councils and then abruptly halted.

Council notes:

1. That the Government required councils across Hertfordshire to devote substantial political, managerial, financial and officer capacity to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), culminating in its decision on 16 July 2026 to impose a four-unitary model on Hertfordshire, with four new authorities due to take over services from April 2028.

2. That North Hertfordshire District Council established an LGR budget of £2 million across 2026/27 and 2027/28, including provision for county-wide costs, additional staffing, staff backfill and training, with £450,000 allocated to four additional HR and IT posts to deal with LGR workload pressures.

3. That councils, officers and partners were instructed to proceed at pace with preparations for implementation, including transition arrangements and May 2027 shadow authority elections. The Government has now halted this work pending its review, acknowledging the risk of councils undertaking “nugatory work”.

4. That the proposed May 2027 elections to the new shadow unitary authorities will consequently not take place, with elections instead proceeding for the existing councils on their existing boundaries. This represents a major reversal of the implementation timetable and creates further disruption and uncertainty for councils, officers, councillors, prospective candidates and residents.

5. That the halt follows a series of legal challenges to LGR decisions elsewhere in Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Portsmouth. By June, three quarters of the county councils affected by the reorganisation process had signed a letter demanding that the Government disclose the evidence and departmental analysis behind its decisions. Hertfordshire County Council subsequently issued a Pre-Action Protocol letter seeking disclosure of the evidence, analysis and financial assessments underpinning the Government’s decision to impose four unitary authorities in Hertfordshire.

6. That this is particularly significant because published financial modelling indicated that the proposed Central Hertfordshire authority, which would include most of North Hertfordshire, could begin with an estimated £22 million budget deficit in its first year.

7. That Hertfordshire modelling estimated savings of up to £418 million over ten years under the two-unitary model compared with up to £124 million under the four-unitary model.

8. That this Council last year voted against the four-unitary model, which would divide the existing North Hertfordshire district between Central and Eastern Hertfordshire, with Royston and surrounding villages separated from the rest of the district, and removed the Council Leader when he acted against that decision.

Council believes:

3. That the decision to halt implementation of the four-unitary model is welcome, but the Government’s handling of LGR has been chaotic and wasteful, creating unnecessary uncertainty for residents and council staff while diverting significant resources and officer time away from frontline services and other council priorities.

4. That abandoning the planned May 2027 shadow authority elections, after councils had already been instructed to prepare for them, demonstrates the scale of the disruption caused by the Government’s reversal and raises serious questions about the future viability and timetable of the reorganisation process.

5. That the decision to halt the process only weeks after announcing the four-unitary model, raises serious questions about whether the financial, legal and practical implications were adequately considered before councils were instructed to begin implementation.

6. That council officers should not have been expected to design new structures, recruit, train, procure and prepare for transition, while planning their own futures, without confidence that the Government’s decisions were financially sustainable, legally robust and capable of being delivered.

7. That the four-unitary model was the wrong option for North Hertfordshire because of concerns about financial sustainability, the division of existing communities, additional transition costs and the ability of the proposed authorities to protect essential local services.

8. That it is unacceptable for local taxpayers to bear the costs of a process driven forward at speed before the Government had established that its decisions were financially credible, legally robust and deliverable.

Therefore, Council resolves to:

1. Request the Chief Executive of North Hertfordshire District Council to provide a full accounting of the costs already incurred by the Council as a result of LGR, including additional staffing, officer time, consultants’ fees, legal advice, recruitment, training, project management and other transition costs.

2. Request the Leader of North Hertfordshire District Council to write to Angela Rayner MP, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:

a. demand publication of the full rationale, evidence, financial assessments and departmental analysis underpinning the decision to select four unitary authorities for Hertfordshire.

b. seek an explanation of how ministers assessed the financial sustainability of the four-unitary model, including the projected £22 million first-year deficit for Central Hertfordshire.

c. seek a commitment that councils will be fully compensated for reasonable and demonstrable costs incurred as a direct consequence of the Government’s LGR programme and its subsequent halt.

d. seek immediate clarity and reassurance for council officers whose employment, structures, reporting arrangements and career prospects have been thrown into uncertainty.

e. seek clarity on the Government’s intentions and timetable for the future of Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire following the cancellation of the May 2027 shadow authority elections; and

f. demand that North Hertfordshire District Council is fully consulted before any further decision is taken, with that consultation involving representatives of all political groups on the Council and not solely the administration.

3. Call on the Government to ensure that any future proposals for local government in Hertfordshire put financial sustainability, effective public services, community links and the interests of residents, council taxpayers and frontline staff ahead of arbitrary ministerial timetables.

4. Call on the Government to learn the fundamental lesson from this process: councils should never again be required to spend millions of pounds, consume thousands of hours of officer time and destabilise local government before the Government has established that its proposals are financially credible, legally sound and capable of being delivered.

Councillor David Chalmers seconded the motion.

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed an amendment as published in the Supplementary Documents which sought to include consideration of devolution and the proposed strategic authority arrangements for Hertfordshire. The amendment referred to the establishment of a Foundation Strategic Authority and widened the scope of the motion to reflect the relationship between local government reorganisation and devolution.

Councillor Steven Patmore seconded the amendment.

The following members debated on the amendment:

· Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

· Councillor Sean Nolan

· Councillor Val Bryant

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· Questioned the purpose of the amendment and the opposition position on the proposed reorganisation model and the pause to the process.

· Observed that local government reorganisation and devolution should not be rushed.

· Considered that further information would become available following Parliament's return from recess.

· Criticised the Government for reaching a decision on reorganisation before discovering that aspects of it could not legally be implemented.

· Highlighted the financial cost and the diversion of officers' time from delivering services to North Hertfordshire residents.

· Raised concerns about whether the amendment, as drafted, was consistent with the current legislative framework for strategic authorities.

· Supported the four-unitary model for Hertfordshire.

· Questioned the basis for a single-unitary proposal, noting that it had not been modelled or costed in the same way as the existing proposals.

· Referred to the work undertaken by the Hertfordshire Leaders Group in developing the four-unitary proposal.

In response to points made in the debate, Councillor Ralph Muncer replied:

· That his original proposal had been more extensive but had been ruled out of order following advice from the Monitoring Officer.

· His intention was to broaden the amendment to address the relationship between local government reorganisation and devolution.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was LOST.

The following members took part in the debate on the original motion:

· Councillor David Chalmers

· Councillor Laura Williams

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Sean Nolan

· Councillor Sam Collins

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Paul Ward

· Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· Clarified that the Liberal Democrats were not opposed to local government reorganisation in principle but objected to the process followed and the proposed four-unitary model.

· Highlighted the projected £22 million first-year deficit for the proposed Central Hertfordshire authority.

· Raised concerns about the potential division of North Hertfordshire, including Royston and surrounding villages.

· Called for transparency regarding the costs incurred, the Government's decision-making and the potential impact on local taxpayers.

· Stated that any future reorganisation should be financially sustainable, protect public services and take account of local communities.

· Acknowledged the frustration surrounding the process and accepted that some of the concerns raised were reasonable.

· Defended the wider devolution programme and the four-unitary proposal.

· Questioned the criticism of the financial modelling.

· Recognised the potential benefits of unitary authorities, including joining up services and achieving financial savings.

· Raised concerns about the resources and officer time already committed to the process.

· Highlighted the uncertainty experienced by staff and its potential effect on morale.

· Supported the pause and called for the Council to make its concerns about the process clear.

· Questioned whether the financial modelling remained current in light of changes to council funding.

· Observed that updated financial information could affect the assumptions underpinning the earlier proposals.

· Criticised the reorganisation process as poorly managed and costly.

· Highlighted the uncertainty about the total cost to the public purse.

· Supported seeking financial transparency and assurances that North Hertfordshire taxpayers would not be disadvantaged.

· Some support was reiterated for the four-unitary model.

· Argued that the proposed Central Hertfordshire authority would provide a coherent area and help ensure that residents retained access to local facilities.

· Referred to the work undertaken to develop and assess the four-unitary proposal.

· Criticised what was considered to be inconsistencies in the political positions taken on the scale of local government reorganisation.

· Referred to concerns about the proposed electoral boundaries and the potential political implications of the different models.

· Drew attention to the projected difference in savings between the two-unitary and four-unitary models.

· Raised concerns about the implications of lower savings for local services and public expenditure.

· Argued that decisions on reorganisation should be based on the needs of residents and the quality of services, rather than financial modelling alone.

· Supported seeking clarity about costs and staff arrangements but criticised the motion as being used for political purposes.

· Defended the four-unitary proposal.

In response to points raised during the debate, Councillor Chris Lucas advised:

· He was not opposed to local government reorganisation, unitary authorities or devolution, but considered that the issues should not be conflated.

· He called for the Government to publish its rationale and financial modelling, address the costs incurred and ensure that political parties and independent members were consulted before further action was taken.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was TIED.

The Chair exercised their casting vote, and it was: