Public questions to Brighton and Hove City Council can now be submitted up to four working days before meetings of the full council after the deadline was changed.
Until now, people have had to submit questions eight working days before full council meetings – before the agenda has even been published.
There was cross-party support for the change at a meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 23 July).
Questions at full council meetings are not confined to items on the agenda. They can be about any matter that Brighton and Hove City Council can act upon.
Labour councillor Theresa Mackey said that residents had called for the move and added that the administration should remove rather than defend barriers to democracy.
Councillor Mackey said: “The amendment will support better informed public questions, encourage more meaningful engagement and improve transparency.
“It removes an unnecessary procedural barrier that may currently discourage people from taking part and being involved in local democracy.”
Green councillor Ollie Sykes called for a tidying up of the council’s constitution and clarification on whether questions would be on a first-come, first-served basis, but did not oppose the proposed changes.
He recognised that the 30 minutes set aside for public questions had been extended to ensure that the 12 questions on the agenda could be heard.
But Councillor Sykes called for an end to filibustering during questions from councillors at full council meetings.
He said that the Greens would put an end to councillors from the ruling party asking questions of their own political colleagues.
Councillor Sykes said: “We will not allow members of the administration to ask oral questions at full council of their own administration. It wastes time and it shuts other people out.”
He also called for the return of a cross-party working group on the constitution.
Conservative leader Alistair McNair said: “We certainly support making it easier for residents to submit questions, giving them lots of time makes sense. It could have happened years ago.”
The change brings the deadline in line with meetings of the council’s cabinet although questions to cabinet members must relate to items of the agenda of that particular meeting.
It will remain the case that the mayor can refuse to take questions at meetings of the full council for various reasons.
These include questions that are similar to one asked in the previous six months, those considered defamatory, frivolous or offensive or questions seeking the disclosure of confidential information.
The next Brighton and Hove City Council meeting is due to take place on Thursday 23 September.
I think Cllr Sykes suggestion around filibustering is well-intentioned, and I get what he’s saying, but could it be argued that all councillors are entitled to ask questions, regardless of the party they represent? Councillors all get written answers to their questions anyway, even if there’s not time to speak it, so nobody loses out.
From looking back over the last few meetings there are actually relatively few questions from Labour Councillors, particularly given their relative numbers.
I personally think it would be positive to see more challenging questions directed to the administration from Labour councillors. My understanding is that this lack of challenge in both the main council and cabinet is because the internal Labour group settles its position with private discussions and votes before it ever gets to the council chamber. So the public never gets the transparency of seeing those debates and trade-offs happening.
I’d like to see the local Labour group follow the approach that the new PM has promised to take in Parliament – letting MPs be authentic representatives and not using the whip system to create fear or close down debate.
I would assume that Cllr Sykes position is based on these questions being one of the few opportunities opposition parties have to hold the administration to account and ask follow-ups. Written questions are not the same.
I agree with you, being challenged is healthy.
I’m glad to hear that the Council have taken this positive step after being questioned about it by a member of the public earlier this year. The previous approach, with questions needing to be submitted before papers were published, was nonsensical.
There could be some further amendments to improve the transparency of process. For instance, the Council could.change who formally approves which questions from a function of the Mayor to one of a senior council officer based on rules agreed by the council. It could also publish all questions with reasons why they were not selected. This is the approach Lewes takes.
It was me who asked the question in March which led to the change; it is good to see it implemented as the old rules were nonsensical. I also agree with your point re taking decisions about which questions are approved out of politician’s hands and into the remit of neutral paid officers, and to publish the ones rejected with rationale. It is tricky as the gaps between meetings can be a good number of months (eg the last full council was 4 months ago – the ones in the interim didn’t have capacity to ask questions). Sometimes there can be 20+ questions put on matters that the public feel are important to them – it’s a lot, but important that the local community are heard.
**Public Question from a Concerned Father**
As a concerned father, I would like to ask the council what action it is taking to ensure that the rights, welfare and best interests of children are protected, while also ensuring that fathers are treated fairly when raising concerns.
Why are there still repeated reports of serious failings in maternity and neonatal care resulting in preventable harm or deaths of babies? What lessons are local authorities and partner organisations learning to ensure these tragedies are prevented?
There have also been reports of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and immigrant children going missing after entering local authority care. What safeguarding measures are in place to protect these vulnerable children and ensure they are not exploited?
Why does the complaints process require parents to go through three stages before serious concerns are fully investigated? If a complaint relates to the safety or welfare of a baby or child, shouldn’t it be treated as an urgent safeguarding matter from the outset rather than allowing delays that may cause irreversible harm?
If a father is wrongly informed that he is not the biological parent of his child, but a court-ordered DNA test later confirms that he is, what support or accountability exists to address the emotional harm, lost time and damage to the parent-child relationship? Those lost months or years can never be returned.
Can the council comment on concerns that children are still more likely to live primarily with their mothers following family separation? What is being done to ensure that decisions affecting children are based solely on evidence, safeguarding and the child’s best interests, without bias towards either parent?
Has the council reviewed research into the impact of father absence on children’s emotional wellbeing, educational outcomes and involvement in crime? If so, how is that evidence being used to support children and encourage the safe involvement of both parents wherever appropriate?
There are also claims in the public domain regarding DNA testing, the number of fathers who later discover they are not the biological parent, waiting times for supervised contact centres, and concerns about honesty and accountability in family court proceedings. Has the council considered this evidence, and if so, what steps is it taking to ensure children maintain safe relationships with both parents and that family justice processes operate fairly?
Ultimately, my question is this: **What is Brighton & Hove City Council doing to ensure that children’s welfare comes first, that safeguarding concerns are acted on immediately, and that fathers who raise legitimate concerns are listened to rather than dismissed?**
This version focuses on issues that are within the council’s remit while avoiding disputed statistics. It is therefore more likely to be accepted as a valid public question and receive a meaningful response.
Giving one tiny element of what they have taken away. They even tried to dock supplementary questions until a fuss was made. Council Leader Sankey is no respecter of democracy. A petition of over 1,250 signatures was rejected from the full council meeting of yesterday. Meanwhile four were on the agenda with significantly fewer than 1,250 signatures! And one resulted in a council promise of a new consultation for North Hollingdean CPZ! Not that anyone begrudges the petitioners that. Just that all petitions should be treated fairly and should result in meaningful action if the council claims to be listening to residents.
Conversely a separate 3,800 signature petition against the Western Road Red Route was completely disregarded so no listening to residents there.