Nottinghamshire County Council’s Reform group has been slammed for its decision to remove a key verbal question during council meetings in an effort to make them more business-like.
A cross-party effort to change how full council meetings are conducted under the authority’s constitution was back up for debate by the council’s governance and ethics committee on Wednesday (April 22).
Rule changes included reducing the overall time for council questions from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, cutting the 60-minute time limit for motions to 45 minutes, and reducing the time council members spend debating a meeting item.
But a key element of the plans, which have drawn “anti-democratic” criticism from opposition members, was to remove the verbal ‘supplementary question’ during question time in full council meetings and replace it with a written question-and-answer-type response.
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.
The issue was previously debated in the committee’s March meeting, where similar proposals were struck down when Reform councillor Hana John voted against her own group’s stance, tipping the vote.
But Cllr John is no longer part of the committee, and Wednesday’s vote on the meeting changes went the other way, meaning verbal supplementary questions would be removed, leaving members to submit a written question within five working days following the meeting and await a response.
Conservative opposition member Cllr Neil Clarke called the changes “cowardly”, but the leading group maintains they will help streamline meetings and allow more councillors to speak on issues.
Cllr Stephen Pearson (Con) said: “For those of us who watch Prime Minister’s Questions will know that the ability to ask supplementary questions is actually a very useful way to get to the level of the problem.
“I’m not really sure why Reform seems to be so frightened of being able to answer those questions… it seems to be a retrograde step in my view.”
The chair of the committee, Wendy Lukacs (Ref), said: “It’s not a case of being afraid; it’s a case of supplementary questions being put forward and getting a full and quality response, freeing up more time for other people to speak and actually getting business done.”
Cllr Clarke added: “What are they scared of? What is the problem? What it says to me is the leader, cabinet members, the chair, and their nominees basically haven’t got the confidence or the knowledge of their brief to be able to give an answer.
“To me, that smacks of being cowardly.”
Cllr James Walker-Gurley (Ref), cabinet member for economic development and asset management, said he thought opposition members ask supplementary questions to “posture” and to post “Facebook clips”.
He said: “This is not entertainment. This is people’s lives and livelihoods. I think undermining the importance of our work with Punch and Judy politics is wasting time and money for your entertainment.”
The move was labelled “anti-democratic” and “anti-accountability” by Conservative councillor Bruce Laughton, saying he is “placed here to ask those questions on [his residents’] behalf”.
Cllr Paul Brill (Ref) said: “If you want to be in the House of Commons and play that kind of [Punch and Judy politics] game, get yourself elected to the House of Commons.
“We’re here to do a job of work. These questions try to tee people up to the ‘gotcha’ moment where you catch somebody out.
“This is an organisation with a budget of £1.6 billion. The people who lead portfolios have other jobs and other lives.”
Cllr Lukacs said in a statement: “Nottinghamshire residents do not want to listen and watch political point-scoring and posturing during meetings; they want to see councillors deliver on their promises to improve their lives.”
