Conservative county councillors have been accused of 'filibustering', in order to avoid debating a motion that focussed on SEND tribunals.

The motion expressed concern about the number of SEND appeals that were reaching tribunal in Hertfordshire – where 96 per cent are said to be conceded or allowed.

And it called for resources currently used on those tribunal cases where the council is unlikely to be successful to be used to improve the delivery of services for children with SEND.

It was the fourth of four motions tabled for debate at the latest meeting of Hertfordshire County Council, on Tuesday (October 15).

But with two-hours scheduled for debate, time ran out before the motion – submitted by Liberal Democrat Cllr Mark Watkin – could be debated.

At one point, a procedural move that would have shortened the previous debate – focussing on winter fuel payments – was voted against by Conservative councillors.

And there were accusations from Liberal Democrats, that Conservative councillors had been lining up to speak in order to run down the clock.

The accusation has been strongly denied by Conservative councillors, who have pointed to the importance of winter fuel payments to more than 180,000 pensioners in the county.

At the meeting, Cllr Watkin stressed that the sentiments expressed by Conservative councillors during the debate about winter fuel payments during were "understandable".

But said he said they had denied the voice of thousands of families to be heard at the meeting.

"I found this laudable sentiment being expressed by the Conservatives opposite very understandable – and we will be supporting it," he said.

"What I find really disappointing is in so doing they have denied the voice of thousands of families with SEND to be heard in this chamber

"And I think that is a disgrace and I hope they regret that they made this decision.

"There are many people online listening to this debate today wanting to hear the problems that they have experienced going through the whole tribunal process – and you have denied them that opportunity.

"I think it is a great disappointment and I think it is your disgrace that we have had to listen to this debate being extended just because you are frightened of having an open discussion about it ."

And agreeing with Cllr Watkin, Labour Cllr Ian Albert said: "Whilst this is an important debate it is tragic that we haven't been able to hear the motion in SEND – and I regret that and I really find that disappointing."

Following the meeting, leader of the Liberal Democrat group Cllr Steve Jarvis said he agreed that the winter fuel allowance issue should be debated.

But he said lots of councillors were standing up to say the same thing to avoid a discussion about SEND tribunals.

And he said this was being done deliberately to avoid a discussion they did not want to have.

"There is a serious issue about winter fuel allowances, but there's also a serious issue about SEND tribunals," he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

"We could have dealt with both of these issues"

And Lib Dem Cllr Lawrence Brass – who was expelled from the chamber at one point – said: "There was a filibuster going on.

"They wanted to take up the time to prevent a debate on SEND – which was the most important thing on the agenda. For thousands of school children in Hertfordshire it is the most critical thing there could be.

"The winter fuel allowance isn't a matter that we have any influence over – but SEND is something we have influence over."

However leader of the county council, Conservative Cllr Richard Roberts has strongly denied that there was any deliberate attempt by Conservatives to filibuster during the debate.

Following the meeting he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the winter fuel allowance was a nationally significant issue.

And he said members had drafted their words in advance reflecting the genuine concern about winter fuel allowances across the county.

He said the Liberal Democrats – who had submitted two separate motions – had prioritised their motion on flooding at the meeting, "pushing their second motion to the bottom of the pile".

And he said that generally there would only be time for three motions to be debated during a meeting of the full council – suggesting the Liberal Democrats would know that too.

Meanwhile Conservative Cllr Peter Hebden – among those to speak in the debate – also stressed that there was no attempt to filibuster at the meeting.

As chair of governors of an SEND primary school, he said he would have welcomed the debate on SEND issues.

But he said there were a number of Conservatives would were keen to address the issue of the winter fuel allowance.

And he said that if the Liberal Democrats had wanted to ensure there was time for the SEND debate to go ahead, they could have withdrawn their earlier motion on flooding or taken steps to ensure that debate was shorter.

The flooding debate – which included separate motions submitted by the Liberal Democrat and Labour groups – lasted for around an hour.

And Cllr Hebden says that it was as a result of the length of the first debate that time had been "left short".

"There was definitely no discussion around filibustering," he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

"And I think any suggestion that it was deliberate filibustering is absolutely disgraceful."

According to the Liberal Democrat motion in 2023/24 there were 514 SEND appeals lodged – with 205 relating to statutory processes and 309 to the contents of EHCPs.

It noted that of those appeals that reached th tribunal stage 96 per cent were either conceded or allowed.

And it suggested that a significant cause of so many appeals being made was that 72 per cent of EHCPs issued "fail to be good or better".

It highlighted the emotional and financial impact on parents who go to tribunal.

And it called for the council to better identify tribunal cases where the council is unlikely to be successful – and to divert resources that would have been used on those tribunal cases to improve the delivery of services for children with SEND.