Reform UK councillors stand accused of dodging questions over their running of Warwickshire County Council (WCC) after no department leads attended this week's scrutiny panel.

Opposition councillors were left irate at deputy leader and portfolio holder for finance and property Cllr James Crocker, fire service, community safety and flooding lead Cllr Rob Gisbourne and resources supremo Cllr Mike Bannister not being present at Wednesday's resources, fire and rescue scrutiny meeting.

It is one of four formal and public-facing scrutiny panels made up of councillors based on the political balance of the county.

Meeting five times per year, it reviews and makes suggestions on functions and policies related to Warwickshire Fire & Rescue, budgets, the council plan, finance and property, facilities management, workforce strategy, law and governance, libraries, customer services and communications.

It was said that the no-shows had been put down to illness and one of the portfolio holders being away on council business.

The panel's minutes show that Cllr Bannister has attended eight out of 10 of its meetings – extra gatherings have took place last year to deal with specific issues – since Reform took charge in May 2025. Former deputy leader Cllr Stephen Shaw was present for three out of seven with Cllr Crocker attending one out of three since taking over.

Cllr Dale Bridgwater was at all seven during his time in charge of fire and rescue with Cllr Gisbourne present for both meetings on his watch prior to Wednesday.

However, councillors from across the political spectrum cited an emerging pattern with only one out of three portfolio holders present at last week's communities scrutiny panel and member questions being cancelled due to heavy agendas at the past two full council meetings, while promised written answers do not always arrive.

Cllr David Curtis said: "If portfolio holders persistently refuse to attend, that undermines the democratic process of accountability.

"Portfolio holders should be present so they can be questioned by members in this public forum. Written answers to questions, when they are eventually, or if ever, given, are not an adequate substitute."

It prompted a spiky clash with chair Cllr Andy Crump.

"I would like to see evidence that they have refused to come, I think that's a bit harsh," said Cllr Crump.

Cllr Curtis replied: "Surely the whole point of this committee is to hold the administration to account?

"If that is not a compelling reason I don't know what is. This is a pattern of behaviour that we see consistently and it is not for the chair to make excuses for this administration."

Cllr Crump hit back, denying that he was fighting Reform's corner but that it was wrong to suggest cabinet members had refused to attend.

"Reluctance, maybe. Refusal? Definitely not," he said.

"I have not seen anything where anyone has said they are refusing to come."

Visibly agitated by Cllr Curtis's implication, Cllr Crump added: "We can take this outside afterwards to discuss it further."

Cllr Keith Kondakor stepped in as peacemaker but highlighted his concern that, alongside the lost full council questions, "it is starting to become a pattern".

"Just to diffuse it a bit, one of the troubles was that we were told they weren't coming just before we drove here," he said.

"If we know people aren't coming a day or so ahead, we can send a question and discuss their answer at the meeting."

Support arrived from the other side of the chamber with Councillor Scott Cameron (Restore Britain, Coleshill South & Arley) asking: "How do you scrutinise someone who isn't here?

"They weren't at the communities overview and scrutiny last week. Full council, we had a portfolio holder not there, we didn't have questions, as we didn't back in July.

"Many councillors have asked questions and not had responses. Councillor (Jan) Matecki (communities chair) said last week that he would write to portfolio holders to make sure they know that they should be at meetings but how many times do you write letters?

"Surely it is a prerequisite. When you are a portfolio holder, you should know that."

None of Reform's three panel members – group whip CllrCllr Chris Morris, Cllr Neil Garland and Cllr John Waine - commented with the defence left to Reform-supporting independent Cllr Ed Harris who argued "we should not be turning this into a witch hunt".

"I am not excusing the fact they are not here but there are genuine reasons and I think it is unkind to say they are refusing," he said.

"It is overstretching to say there is a trend emerging on two particular instances. Perhaps there are more that I am not aware of but whenever I did maths, two dots on a chart didn't make a trend."

Alluding to the cabinet generally, he said two portfolio holders were ill, one was on council business and another was on a pre-arranged holiday.

"We are thin on the ground, I agree, but I don't think it is a deliberate attempt in any way to circumvent public scrutiny," he added.

Cllr Cameron warned of the perils of pre-submitting all questions, suggesting it could turn genuine public scrutiny into a "pantomime".