Councillors have slammed Nottinghamshire’s Reform councillors as “anti-democratic” after they attempted to limit the time allowed for questions during meetings.
The claims followed a cross-party effort to change how full council meetings are conducted under the authority’s constitution, which was discussed by the council’s governance and ethics committee last Wednesday 4 March.
After Reform won May 2025’s local elections, a cross-party group was set up to assess the constitution’s effectiveness and see if any changes could help “streamline” decision-making in council meetings.
In Wednesday’s meeting, a set of new proposals for full council meetings was put forward, including reducing the overall time for council questions from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, cutting the 60-minute time for motions in half, and reducing the time council members spend debating an item in a meeting.
These proposals were supported by the Reform committee members, with the committee chair, Councillor Wendy Lukacs (Ref), calling them more “business-like”, helping to get council business done faster and ensuring all meeting topics get discussed.
But a key element of the plans, which drew criticism from opposition members, was to remove the verbal ‘supplementary question’ during question time and replace it with a written response format outside a meeting.
Currently, council members can ask a follow-up ‘supplementary’ question to cabinet members after they ask their original question, to gain clarification or detail on an issue or topic.
As it stands, responses to original questions tend to be written by council officers, which a cabinet member then reads out. ‘Supplementary’ questions allow members to hold the ruling group to account by asking follow-up questions they have not prepared for.
In Wednesday’s meeting, Conservative councillor Jonathan Wheeler tabled an amendment to this part, calling for retaining a short verbal response to follow-up questions in meetings, with written responses where necessary, and a review of the impact of constitution changes after 12 months.
Cllr Wheeler said: “By taking away supplementary questions, you don’t trust people to think on their feet and actually know the answers.”
Cllr James Walker-Gurley (Ref), cabinet member for economic development and asset management, gave his “counter-argument” during the meeting on being asked these follow-up questions himself.
He said: “Being an elected member for only 10 months – so basically I still see myself as a member of the public – I find the political nature very frustrating, and sometimes it gets really ridiculous.
“I was asked a question in full council: ‘Do you believe in best-value duty?’. To ask that type of question… I don’t find that to be conducive to a productive environment.”
He later said some follow-up questions were only asked to make Reform “look silly” so that video clips can be snipped and “put on Facebook”.
Cllr Stuart Matthews (Ref), cabinet member for finance, said he was not “frightened” of being asked questions and would ‘put his hands up’ if he got something wrong.
Cllr Neil Clarke (Con) reminded the committee of “quite a substantial [financial] allowance” cabinet members are given for their roles and said this meant they are “expected” to know their departments well enough to answer questions.
Fellow Conservative councillor Bruce Laughton called the plan “dangerous”, “anti-democratic” and said it “does not allow people to cross-examine” politicians in meetings.
The debate prompted Conservative committee members to ask Reform cabinet members, “What are you so afraid of?”
Cllr Laughton continued: “You won’t create a debating chamber… You’ve got to be extremely careful you don’t become anti-democratic because it will bury you.
“It’s all well and good Councillor Walker-Gurley saying you’re ‘a member of the public’ – well you’re not, you’re a cabinet member paid to do a job.”
Cllr Walker-Gurley responded he was not “afraid of debate” but said the public are not interested in the “posturing” that happens during meetings.
Cllr Wheeler’s amendment to the proposals was voted down, as was the original plan to change the constitution to make full council meeting proceedings quicker, which included removing the supplementary question.
The vote was swayed when Reform member Cllr Hana John chose to vote differently from her fellow Reform councillors on the committee who were supporting the constitution changes. She voted against the amendment and the proposals.
Speaking in the meeting, Cllr John said: “As someone who tends to be quite petrified of talking, when I was a cabinet [member], I still welcomed questions. I was very well supported by my officers.
“When it came to the supplementary questions, I took that as a challenge because I believe that I should be the best and most competent in my department to be able to lead it.
“Reform UK’s party principles are heavily based on the philosophy of Preston Manning. He talks about democratic accountability, integrity, accountability, freedom, equality and tolerance.”
As the original plan to amend the constitution fell through, it now needs to go back to the working group for further deliberation.
In a statement committee chair Cllr Lukacs said: “It is always disappointing when a team member decides to leave their concerns and issues to the last minute, especially when they neither agree with the recommendation nor the amendment proposed.
“It is also disappointing to see seven months of hard work towards an improved constitution, across all parties, dissolve.
“The purpose of the proposed changes to the constitution was to streamline full council meetings, get business done and make full council meetings more effective and efficient.
“In our experience, our residents don’t want to listen to political point-scoring and posturing but want to see results.”
