A councillor branded the decision to reject a proposal to extend a scrutiny session at Hampshire County Council’s full council meeting an “utter disgrace”.

The ‘standing orders’ section of the meeting, which allows councillors to question cabinet members on council matters, lasted around 40 minutes on Thursday, October 1.

However, midway through the session, chair of the council Cllr Pal Hayre, conscious of time constraints, indicated there would not be enough time to answer all of the remaining questions.

These included a question from Lymington councillor Jack Davies about repeated strikes at Ampress railway bridge and a question from Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Keith House about how the council could support the RNLI.

Cllr Hayre proposed extending the session by a further 30 minutes to allow the remaining questions to be addressed.

However, the proposal was rejected after Reform UK councillors, supported by Conservatives, voted against the extension.

Reform UK councillor Terry Norton argued that some of the issues being raised were too local and that full council was not the appropriate forum in which to discuss them.

Cllr Norton also said the ‘standing orders’ section was being used to “politicise” issues and for “grandstanding”.

He said: “Questions have time limits for a reason.

“What we are finding here is that these questions are increasingly minute pieces of casework.

“We represent more than two million people here and we are having questions about individual roads.

“All of those questions could probably be answered through written correspondence with cabinet members.

“I do fear that this is being used as a platform to politicise issues and to grandstand.

“We want to move these meetings forward and get down to business.”

Following the meeting, Cllr Davies criticised the decision on social media, describing it as an “utter disgrace”.

Cllr Davies wrote: “I was unable to challenge Hampshire County Council about vehicles hitting Ampress Bridge today because Reform refused to allow all questions to be heard.

“Because there were still questions left to be asked, the Chair of the Council told councillors she would extend the time limit to allow all questions to be heard.

“Reform’s deputy leader immediately opposed that proposal.

“So a vote was held and all but one Conservative councillor supported the Reform group’s proposal.”

Cllr Davies said he would eventually receive a written response to his question but argued that this removed the opportunity for supplementary questions to be asked during the public meeting.