a) Councillor Birch
This Council notes:
· The recent response of the Committee for Standards in Public Life (CSPL) to the Government’s consultation on reforms to the Local Government standards regime.
· That the CSPL has recommended a mandatory minimum Code of Conduct, greater clarity on expected behaviours (including bullying and harassment), and new powers to suspend or, in the most serious cases, disqualify Councillors.
· The CSPL has further supported requiring all principal authorities to have a properly constituted Standards Committee, with Independent Persons and lay members playing a stronger role, and the creation of a fair and proportionate national or regional appeals process.
This Council believes:
· Public confidence in local democracy depends upon high standards of integrity, accountability, and transparency from elected members.
· Current sanctions available to local authorities are insufficient to deal with the most egregious breaches of the Code of Conduct.
· Councillors, complainants, and the public are all best served by a clear, consistent, and enforceable standards regime with an accessible right of appeal.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Formally support the CSPL’s recommendations for a mandatory minimum Code of Conduct, a laddered scale of sanctions (including suspension and disqualification where necessary), and an independent appeals mechanism.
2. Request that the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to communicate this Council’s support for these reforms.
3. Commit to reviewing this Council’s own Code of Conduct and Standards Committee arrangements in response to any legislative changes, ensuring that they are robust, transparent, and in line with best practice.
b) Cllr J Walker
Council notes that:
· The current Leader and Cabinet system limits opportunities for non-executive members to contribute to policy development prior to Cabinet deliberations.
· Engagement and participation from minority group leaders in Cabinet discussions have declined, with responses to member inquiries often being procedural rather than participatory.
· Many local authorities have successfully introduced Policy Panels to strengthen cross-party involvement in strategy formulation and improve transparency in decision-making.
· While Overview and Scrutiny Groups serve to retrospectively review and challenge decisions, Policy Panels would involve all Councillors in the Council's decision-making process from a much earlier stage.
Council believes that:
· Early, cross-party engagement in policy design enhances democratic legitimacy, improves policy quality, and builds trust between Councillors, Cabinet, and residents.
· Councillors’ ward-level knowledge and community insight are valuable assets in shaping effective and responsive policies.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Approve the establishment of Councillor Policy Panels on a pilot basis to strengthen member engagement in policy development.
2. Authorise the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services to finalise detailed operating procedures for the Panels, including membership, scope, and reporting arrangements.
3. Request that two pilot Panels (for example, on a West Bridgford Town Council and a Participatory Budget) be launched between January and June 2026.
4. Request that Overview and Scrutiny review the pilot outcomes after 12 months and report findings to Cabinet in Autumn 2026.
5. Commit to considering full implementation of Panels from 2027 onwards, subject to the pilot’s evaluation and considerations around Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
Minutes:
The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.
This Council resolves to:
1. Formally support the Committee on Standards for Public Life (CPSL) recommendations for a mandatory minimum Code of Conduct, a laddered scale of sanctions (including suspension and disqualification where necessary), and an independent appeals mechanism.
2. Request that the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to communicate this Council’s support for these reforms.
3. Commit to reviewing this Council’s own Code of Conduct and Standards Committee arrangements in response to any legislative changes, ensuring that they are robust, transparent, and in line with best practice.
In moving the motion, Councillor Birch felt that these were sensible actions, and in respect of potential concerns regarding sanctions, which he shared, particularly around suspensions, the report stated that this would only be for the most egregious cases, and he hoped that everyone would endorse this.
Councillor Chewings seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor J Wheeler confirmed that he was happy to accept the motion and advised that the Government had responded to the consultations and it seemed that they would not be going forward with all of the recommendations, and the Council would be happy to write to the Government to ask it to reconsider. Councillor Wheeler referred to point 3. and stated that if national legislation changed, that would be implemented, and the Code of Conduct reviewed as a result of that.
The Leader reiterated that this was likely to be become law, and as and when that happened, Rushcliffe would adhere to that, as part of its Code of Conduct.
Councillor Way supported the motion and stated that Rushcliffe already had a comprehensive Code of Conduct, which it was good to review, and to remind everyone of their responsibilities, in particular in relation to showing respect to each other, officers and the public.
Councillor Parekh referred to the seven Nolan Principles of Public Life and stated that since becoming a Councillor and being in this Chamber, she felt that not everyone was adhering to the Code of Conduct and she hoped that those standards would be adhered to not just in Rushcliffe but everywhere.
Councillor Birch thanked everyone for supporting the motion and he agreed with Councillor Way. He stated that he had been shocked at some of the behaviour that had been levelled at him and his family during the 2023 election by a member of Cabinet and the lack of action taken by the Conservative Association. He stated that this was why the Code of Conduct needed to be followed and that the current standards system was not fit for purpose.
The motion was put to the vote and carried.
The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor J Walker and seconded by Councillor Billin.
Council resolves to:
1. Approve the establishment of Councillor Policy Panels on a pilot basis to strengthen member engagement in policy development.
2. Authorise the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services to finalise detailed operating procedures for the Panels, including membership, scope, and reporting arrangements.
3. Request that at least two pilot Panels (for example, on a West Bridgford Town Council and a Participatory Budget) be launched between January and June 2026.
4. Request that Overview and Scrutiny review the pilot outcomes after 12 months and report findings to Cabinet in Autumn 2026.
5. Commit to considering full implementation of Panels from 2027 onwards, subject to the pilot’s evaluation and considerations around Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
In moving the motion, Councillor J Walker stated that she was bringing forward this proposal to strengthen governance, broaden democratic participation and improve policy development, by providing a new mechanism to give Councillors a meaningful role in shaping policy at an early stage. She stated that under the current Cabinet system, executive authority rested with Cabinet, with the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny groups reviewing decisions; however, over recent years she felt that participation for minority Group Leaders had declined, with Members having little input until late in the process. The current structures did not allow Councillors to explore ideas and bring forward their community knowledge and Councillor Walker believed that Policy Panels would broaden Member engagement at the earliest stage of policy development, increase transparency and trust and build cross party collaboration. The Panels would complement the current system, giving Councillors space to look at matters in more depth and propose solutions, reviewing issues of interest and producing a report to Cabinet. Councillor Wlaker stated that this process would increase democratic engagement, draw in diverse perspectives and strengthen collaboration across political groups. She believed that costs would be modest and largely absorbed within existing resources and suggested two pilot Panels be held next year, with a report to Cabinet in the Autumn and full rollout from 2027.
Councillor Billin seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Virdi agreed with the need for robust governance but stated that this motion was unnecessary, uncosted and completely out of step with both the demands of the Council and the direction of national policy. He said that it would create unnecessary bureaucracy, additional costs and would not survive for more than two years, with the Council already having a scrutiny system in place, that worked. He referred to the various major items coming through the scrutiny process next year and said that the framework and structures for policy review already existed. He noted the lack of reference to resource implications and estimated that costs could be up to £70,000 and questioned the timing given impending Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). He questioned which other local authorities in Nottinghamshire had Policy Panels and thought that they would bring additional responsibilities for already busy Councillors and create unrealistic resource demands for officers. Recent feedback from Councillors was that the current system worked and Councillor Virdi noted that the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny had confirmed that new unitary authorities would need to adopt the Cabinet system and he felt that the Panels would create cost without having any value or a future.
Councillor Polenta thought that democracy could not be monetized and that this motion would amplify scrutiny and allow Members from across the Chamber to shape policy before decisions were made, rather than only examining them afterwards. Minority groups had become spectators rather than participants and Policy Panels would provide opportunity for meaningful participation and collective deliberation, drawing on the knowledge of residents and strengthening relationships. She referred to a number of local authorities and countries offering participatory systems and said that this motion offered a chance to shape the future.
Councillor Williams highlighted the importance of the scrutiny process, which not only reviewed policies and decisions but looked at policy development going forward. He said that many strategies and policies had been through the scrutiny process and provided input into wider Nottinghamshire strategies. He referred to existing scrutiny cross-party membership and that Councillors had recently been asked to consider a potential review of the scrutiny process, with little response and felt that this motion would create a duplicate of existing processes.
Councillor Gaunt stated that he did not think that the proposed panels would create additional work and stated that they would provide an opportunity for people to meet, including members from the community, stakeholders and experts to help shape policy early in their formation, rather than scrutinise existing policies. He noted reference to the mechanism for those panels already existing within the Constitution and asked how they could be actioned.
It was proposed by Councillor Gowland and RESOLVED by Councillors that the meeting be extended and would finish no later than 10.30pm.
Councillor Gowland stated that she did not agree with Government getting rid of committees, as they provided an effective way of working through detailed problems and she found the current scrutiny process to be extremely negative.
Councillor Parekh recognised the intentions behind the motion and supported strong engagement and a collaborative council but thought that creating more complexity and bureaucracy would cause more confusion and deliver little meaningful improvement. She stated that any Councillor could propose items for scrutiny or policy development and thought this proposal would increase costs and require more officer resources, taking them away from delivering frontline services. She did not think that the proposed timeframe for evaluation was realistic and it might be scrapped under LGR. She stated that the Cabinet system provided clarity and accountability and suggested stronger and better use of existing scrutiny structures, with a more open culture of collaboration.
Councillor Grocock clarified that the motion was not requesting an entirely new structure, just two pilot panels, noted that many Councillors had only just learned that there was an existing mechanism for Policy Panels within the current scrutiny process and referred to a previous panel that he had been a member of that had worked very effectively.
Councillor Simms stated that he was here to represent the people of his ward and to develop policies and procedures on their views. He questioned the amount of time required for the proposal and said that the mechanisms were already in place within this organisation and that better communication was required.
Councillor Chewings referred to LGR, which had been debated by Full Council several times and suggested that it would have been preferable to have set up a Policy Panel to work through options prior to a Cabinet position being put forward. He did not support having a Panel regarding a West Bridgford Town Council and thought this should be instigated through a petition. He supported having Policy Panels as a positive proposal.
Councillor S Mallender stated that the motion would not result in a committee system and as the Council already had facility to create panels she did not see why it would result in significant cost and supported the motion in the interests of democracy, collaboration, and cooperation. She also agreed that West Bridgford should have a Town Council and that with LGR looming it would be an appropriate time to discuss that.
Councillor J Wheeler emphasised that there was an existing scrutiny process, which worked, through which all Councillors could influence policy. He referred to LGR and officers’ considerable input into that, and the additional costs this proposal would create and suggested that Councillors used the current system more effectively.
Councillor Combellack felt that this motion would create more layers and result in less efficiency, could delay policy development and stated that enormous changes would be taking place with LGR, which would require focus and resources, and it would be inappropriate to change things now. Councillor Combellack also questioned the suggested proposed timescales in the motion.
Councillor Birch proposed that Council moved to vote on the motion and this was seconded by Councillor Chewings. The vote was lost.
The Leader believed that the proposal would be a duplication of current scrutiny functions, which included both review and policy development, and a facility to set up Policy Panels within it. He said it which would create a new system of administration and bureaucracy with additional costs incurred to administer it. The Leader stated that it was incumbent on Councillors to bring forward items for scrutiny and noted that they could submit scrutiny requests. He referred to the continued work required for LGR and stated that this would be likely to bring forward many changes.
Councillor Billin supported the motion as he believed it to be at the heart of democracy, it was not about duplication, it was about informed decision making. He stated that it would not replace the Cabinet’s role in approving policies, it would be informing the policy decision making process. He requested that a recorded vote be taken, which was agreed by four Councillors.
In accordance with Standing Order Paragraph 4.23, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:
FOR: Councillors J Billin, T Birch, R Bird, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, S Dellar, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, A Phillips, L Plant, D Polenta, D Soloman, C Thomas, J Walker and L Way
AGAINST: Councillors M Barney, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, N Regan, D Simms, R Upton, D Virdi, T Wells, J Wheeler, and G Williams
The motion was not carried.