Nottinghamshire County Council’s Reform faction has faced strong criticism after voting to scrap a crucial spoken question at council gatherings, claiming the move would improve efficiency. A cross-party initiative to alter the way full council sessions operate under the authority’s governing document returned for discussion at the governance and ethics committee on Wednesday. The alterations included trimming the duration allocated for council questions from one hour to 45 minutes, reducing the time for motions from one hour to 45 minutes, and shortening the period members spend debating individual agenda items. However, the most contentious aspect of the proposals, which opposition members have labelled anti-democratic, involved eliminating the spoken supplementary question during question time in full council sessions and substituting it with a written question-and-answer format. At present, councillors can pose a follow-up supplementary question to cabinet members after their initial inquiry to obtain further explanation or detail on a matter. Responses to original questions are typically drafted by council officers before being read aloud by a cabinet member. Supplementary questions enable members to hold the administration accountable by posing follow-up queries that have not been pre-prepared. This matter was previously considered at the committee’s March gathering, where comparable suggestions were rejected when Reform councillor Hana John broke ranks with her own group, swinging the vote. However, Councillor John no longer serves on the committee, and Wednesday’s ballot on the meeting alterations went the opposite direction, meaning spoken supplementary questions would be scrapped, with members instead required to submit a written version within five working days after the session and await a response. Conservative opposition member Councillor Neil Clarke described the alterations as cowardly, while the leading group insists the changes will help make gatherings more efficient and permit additional councillors to address issues. Councillor Stephen Pearson stated that those who observe Prime Minister’s Question Time would recognise the value of supplementary questions in exploring problems in greater depth, and expressed puzzlement at why Reform appears so hesitant to respond to such queries, describing it as a step backwards. The committee chair, Wendy Lukacs, responded that this was not about fear but rather about ensuring supplementary questions receive comprehensive and quality answers, freeing up additional time for others to contribute and actually accomplishing work. Councillor Clarke further questioned what they were afraid of and what the actual problem was, suggesting that the leader, cabinet members, the chair, and their appointees essentially lacked the confidence or expertise to provide answers, which he characterised as cowardly. Councillor James Walker-Gurley, the cabinet member responsible for economic development and asset management, suggested that opposition members use supplementary questions to grandstand and share clips on social media, stating that this was not entertainment but involved people’s lives and livelihoods, and that undermining the significance of their work with combative political tactics was wasting time and resources for amusement. The change was characterised as anti-democratic and anti-accountability by Conservative councillor Bruce Laughton, who emphasised that he was elected to raise such questions on behalf of his constituents. Councillor Paul Brill stated that those wishing to engage in such parliamentary-style politics should seek election to the House of Commons, as the council was there to perform actual work, with these questions designed to create gotcha moments, and that this organisation managed a budget of £1.6 billion with portfolio leaders who often held other employment and had other commitments. Councillor Lukacs commented that Nottinghamshire residents did not wish to witness political point-scoring and showboating during meetings but wanted to see councillors fulfil their pledges to enhance residents’ lives, and that these alterations were necessary to modernise the council’s decision-making processes and demonstrate to the public that they were working diligently on their behalf.