Reform accuses Labour of ignoring legal warnings describing the party as “lawless”

Derby City Council headquarters. Image by LDRS.

Reform has criticised Derby City Council’s Labour-led administration after it voted through a controversial motion proposed by former Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner Councillor Hardyal Dhindsa, despite legal warnings during the debate that councils have no power to investigate the private conduct of elected members and that a key provision of the motion could be outside the authority of the person expected to carry it out.

The motion, debated at Full Council on 23rd September, sought to establish a process for obtaining information relating to allegations concerning a councillor’s private conduct.

During the debate, the Council’s Deputy Monitoring Officer made clear that the matter was not a standards issue under the Localism Act framework and explained that local authorities generally have no power to investigate councillors’ private conduct except in limited circumstances involving a criminal conviction.

Despite those warnings, Labour councillors voted to approve the motion by 22 votes to 2.

One of the most significant moments of the debate came when the Cllr Tim Prosser, Chairman of the Standards Committee sought direct clarification on whether he possessed the authority to carry out the action proposed in the motion.

He explained: “Right now there is no criminal conviction and it is not within my power to fulfil this even if it is passed.”

When asked to respond, the Deputy Monitoring Officer stated: “Instructing the Chair of Standards to make the inquiries of the sort which are being proposed takes him outside of the scope of his authority.”

He continued: “On balance, I think there would be a legitimate argument to say he is right about that.”

The Deputy Monitoring Officer then issued a stark warning to councillors. They said: “The net effect of that would be ultimately that the instruction, if that’s what it is, as opposed to a request, the instruction is potentially invalid.”

Earlier in the debate, the Chairman of the Standards Committee asked whether the Council had any lawful mechanism for investigating the private conduct of elected members.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer’s response was unequivocal: “In general terms, no.”

He further confirmed that the principal exception would be where private conduct resulted in a criminal conviction, allowing the matter to enter the statutory standards framework.

Those exchanges formed a central part of the debate and raised serious questions about how the motion can be implemented in practice.

A statement said: “This is not about the guilt or innocence of any individual councillor. It is about a Labour administration voting through a motion after being told by its own legal adviser that councils generally have no power to investigate councillors’ private conduct.

“Councillors were told that this was not a standards matter. They were told that the Chairman of Standards did not believe he had the power to carry out what was being proposed. They were then told by the Deputy Monitoring Officer that there was a legitimate argument that the Chairman was correct and that any instruction requiring him to act could be potentially invalid.

“Despite those warnings, Labour councillors voted it through.

“What makes this even more remarkable is that the motion was proposed by a former Labour Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Cllr Hardyal Dhindsa, a role founded on the principles of lawful process, proper authority and accountability.

“Residents are entitled to ask a simple question: if the Council’s own legal adviser warned that the Council has no power to investigate private conduct and that the proposed action may be outside the authority of the person expected to carry it out, why did Labour proceed anyway?

“The rule of law matters. Legal powers matter. Good governance matters. Councils should not vote for actions that their own officers have warned are not be capable of lawful implementation.

“Derby City Council should now clarify how it intends to implement this motion and whether further independent legal advice will be sought.”

Key points from the Debate
* Youtube Council Cabinet – 23 Sept 2026 1:13:44 motion start
* The motion was proposed by former Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner Councillor Hardyal Dhindsa.
* The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed the matter was not a standards issue.
* The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed councils have no power to investigate councillors’ private conduct, except in limited circumstances involving a criminal conviction.
* The Chairman of the Standards Committee stated that the action proposed was “not within my power to fulfil”.
* The Deputy Monitoring Officer agreed there was “a legitimate argument” that the Chairman was correct.
* The Deputy Monitoring Officer warned that any instruction requiring the Chairman to act could be “(potentially) invalid”.
* Labour councillors nonetheless voted to approve the motion by 22 votes to 2.