Agenda item

(A report by John Medler, Assistant Director – Governance and Monitoring Officer)

The Committee received a detailed report from the Assistant Director – Governance and Monitoring Officer regarding a motion on notice previously submitted to Full Council on 12^th January 2026. The Monitoring Officer’s report relating to the proposed changes was attached at Appendix 1. Members were reminded that during the meeting, a point of order had been raised concerning procedural requirements under the Constitution. Specifically, any proposal seeking to amend the Council’s Procedure Rules must first be accompanied by a Monitoring Officer report and must be considered by a committee before being debated and determined by Full Council. Because the requirements had not been met the motion had been referred to Overview and Scrutiny for consideration, in accordance with the Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer outlined the purpose of his statutory report, which was to provide Members with legal, procedural and comparative context to assist them in forming a recommendation to Full Council. Attention was drawn to the wide variety of approaches taken by councils nationally. Some authorities imposed no restriction on the number of questions Members could ask at Full Council, while others adopted limits based on time, number of questions, or the length and scope of those questions. The variation demonstrated that councils had broad discretion in how they regulated questioning, provided statutory obligations and constitutional safeguards were observed.

Members were reminded that the motion under consideration sought to amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2 to introduce a limit of one question only per Member per meeting, whilst retaining the right to ask one supplementary question arising directly from the original question or its reply.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that introducing such a limit was lawful and commonplace, noting that many authorities imposed similar constraints to manage meeting length, ensure orderly debate and provide opportunities for wider Member participation.

Members also noted that the motion originally proposed that the change take effect at the conclusion of the 12^th January 2026 meeting; however, as the amendment had not been lawfully approved at that meeting, the implementation date was no longer valid. The Monitoring Officer advised that, should the Committee support the proposal, the effective date must instead be updated to reflect the next Full Council meeting on 2^nd March 2026.

Members undertook a thorough discussion on the merits and implications of amending the procedure for Member questions at Full Council. Differing perspectives were expressed, reflecting varying priorities around democratic engagement, meeting management and the role of scrutiny within the Council’s governance framework.

Some Members observed that recent Council meetings had seen extensive questioning from individual Members, which had the effect of prolonging meetings and limiting time available for wider debate on substantive items of business. They noted that the purpose of introducing a question limit was not to restrict scrutiny, but to ensure that Council meetings could progress efficiently, maintain focus on decision?making, and provide other Members with equitable opportunity to participate. It was suggested that committees, Portfolio Holders and alternative channels already provided suitable routes for raising matters requiring more detailed examination.

Other Members expressed strong reservations about the proposal, arguing that questions at Full Council formed an important part of transparency and democratic accountability. They contended that imposing a numerical restriction could discourage legitimate scrutiny and reduce the public visibility of important issues. It was highlighted that, despite perceptions of lengthy questioning, the actual duration of recent Council meetings had frequently been well within the allotted three?hour limit, and therefore the premise that questioning had impeded the conduct of business was not accepted.

The debate also reflected wider concerns about Member behaviour, political culture, and the need to ensure that Full Council remained a forum for respectful and balanced debate. Members acknowledged that while questioning should be conducted responsibly and in good faith, mechanisms already existed within the Constitution, such as the Mayor’s powers to manage disorderly conduct or irrelevant questioning.

The clarity provided in the Monitoring Officer’s report was welcomed, particularly the comparative benchmarking of other councils’ rules. It was noted that many authorities had introduced limits on written questions to ensure proportionate use of time, and that such measures were not inherently restrictive provided Members retained the ability to ask supplementary questions on the day.

As debate concluded, the Monitoring Officer provided a clear procedural clarification. He reminded members that the role of the Committee was not to determine the matter but to make a recommendation to Full Council

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendation.

The recommendations were proposed by  Councillor Barrie Pierpoint and seconded by  Councillor Stephen Woodliffe.

Resolved:

That the following recommendation be made to Full Council:

1.    That Council Procedure Rule 11.2 be amended so that a member may submit one question only per Full Council meeting;

2.    That the amendment take effect at the conclusion of the 2^nd March 2026 Full Council meeting; and

3.    That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to update the Constitution accordingly.

Councillor Anne Dorrian requested that her vote against the recommendations be recorded.

[Councillor Anne Dorrian left the meeting at 8.15pm and returned at 8.17pm, following consideration of the above item.]