Agenda item

COUNCIL NOTES:

That the current Council Procedure Rules permit Members to submit more than one question to Full Council within a single meeting cycle.

That recent meetings have demonstrated that multiple questions from the same member can extend proceedings, reduce time available for wider debate, and limit opportunities for other members to participate.

That ensuring fair and balanced participation from all elected Members is essential to the effective functioning, transparency and efficiency of Full Council Meetings.

Therefore, Council resolves

1.    To amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2(Questions on Notice at Full Council) to state that a Member of the Council may submit one question only to Full Council per meeting.

2.    That this amendment shall take effect at the conclusion of the Full Council Meeting on 12th January 2026.

3.    That the Monitoring Officer be authorized to update the Constitution and any associated guidance documents accordingly to give effect to the amendment.

Proposer: Councillor Andy Izard

Seconder: Councillor James Cantwell

The following Motion was received:

Amendment to Council Procedure- Limitation of questions to one per member at full council

COUNCIL NOTES:

That the current Council Procedure Rules permit Members to submit more than one question to Full Council within a single meeting cycle.

That recent meetings have demonstrated that multiple questions from the same member can extend proceedings, reduce time available for wider debate, and limit opportunities for other members to participate.

That ensuring fair and balanced participation from all elected Members is essential to the effective functioning, transparency and efficiency of Full Council Meetings.

Therefore, Council resolves

1.     To amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2(Questions on Notice at Full Council) to state that a Member of the Council may submit one question only to Full Council per meeting.

2.     That this amendment shall take effect at the conclusion of the Full Council Meeting on 12th January 2026.

3.     That the Monitoring Officer be authorized to update the Constitution and any associated guidance documents accordingly to give effect to the amendment.

The motion was moved by Councillor Andy Izard and seconded by Councillor James Cantwell.

Councillor Izard introduced the motion by explaining that recent Full Council meetings had seen a trend of multiple questions from the same Members, which he believed had extended proceedings significantly and reduced the time available for meaningful debate on substantive agenda items. He emphasised that the motion sought neither to restrict democratic accountability nor to limit Members’ ability to ask supplementary questions or questions arising from the agenda. He stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to ensure fairness, balance and efficiency, enabling all Members to have the opportunity to participate fully without meetings becoming dominated by lengthy questioning sessions. Councillor Izard argued that a limit of one question per Member would encourage focused and purposeful questioning, contributing to a more effective and professionally run meeting.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Cantwell expressed his view that the proposed amendment represented a fair and proportionate adjustment to the Council’s procedures. He commented that recent meetings had been negatively affected by prolonged sequences of questions on notice, which in his view had overshadowed broader debate and contributed to public criticism of the conduct and efficiency of Full Council meetings. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that all Members, particularly backbenchers, had a genuine opportunity to contribute, noting that where multiple questions were submitted by the same Member, others could feel unable to participate to the same extent.

Councillor Cantwell added that the motion retained all existing routes for scrutiny, including supplementary questions and committee processes, while helping to maintain the professional management and reputation of Full Council. He concluded that the motion would support a more balanced and accessible decision?making environment, improving both the quality of debate and the public perception of the Council’s meetings.

During debate, Members expressed a wide range of views on the proposed amendment to the Council Procedure Rules.

Some Members supported the motion, highlighting a pattern at recent meetings where multiple questions from individual Members had resulted in significant extensions to the “Questions on Notice” item. It was observed that this had, in some cases, left reduced time for discussion of substantive agenda business and had contributed to meetings overrunning their expected duration. Those supportive of the motion felt that introducing a limit of one question per Member would help maintain order, ensure a fairer balance of contributions, and improve the public perception of the Council’s conduct.

Members expressing support also reflected that Full Council was only one of a number of avenues available for Members to raise issues, noting that scrutiny committees, portfolio holder engagement and written questions were all routes that remained unaffected by the proposed change. It was suggested that a structured limit would encourage Members to prioritise their most significant questions and help avoid what were characterised as prolonged sequences of commentary rather than questions.

Other Members raised concerns that the proposal risked narrowing opportunities for scrutiny and could be perceived as restricting Member engagement or reducing transparency. It was argued that Members must retain the ability to question the Executive freely, particularly in an environment of significant organisational and financial change. Some Members highlighted that questioning at Full Council could be the only opportunity for backbench Members to raise issues where alternative scrutiny routes had limited capacity.

Concerns were also voiced that the motion stemmed from frustration at recent political disagreements and that introducing such a procedural limit might restrict legitimate challenge. Some Members suggested that improvements in meeting conduct could be achieved through chairing and adherence to etiquette, rather than through limiting the number of questions that could be asked.

Discussion also touched upon wider governance considerations, including the structure and capacity of the Council’s scrutiny arrangements and the extent to which scrutiny committees were currently able to accommodate detailed Member enquiries. Some Members felt that, in the context of scrutiny reforms implemented earlier in the year, limiting Full Council questions risked further reducing the overall space for Member oversight.

A proposed amendment to allow two questions per Member was put forward but did not receive a seconder and therefore fell.

During the debate, a Point of Order was raised in relation to the constitutional process for amending the Council’s Constitution. It was noted that constitutional amendments should be accompanied by a report from the Monitoring Officer and that no report had been provided in the agenda pack. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, whilst the matter was one which legislatively the Council could choose to resolve, it would be procedurally appropriate  for the matter to be re-presented to the next Full Council Meeting with a report attached from the Monitoring Officer. Following which the Mayor confirmed that the meeting would move onto the next agenda item.