After a councillor was mildly told off for making a personal remark about another member of Worcestershire County Council, a third councillor says that robust debate should not be 'controlled'.

The authority’s standards and ethics committee met to discuss a report from the council’s head of legal services Simon Mallinson about official complaints about councillors’ behaviour.

One was a complaint made about a personal remark made in a meeting which Mr Mallinson; the ethics committee chairman Councillor Peter Tomlinson and an independent member felt was ‘below the belt.’ As the incident didn’t breach the council’s code of conduct, no further details were available – but earlier this year Labour group leader Councillor Peter McDonald was criticised in the chamber for a remark he made about the council’s Conservative deputy leader Adrian Hardman’s conviction for drink driving two years ago.

At the ethics committee meeting Labour councillor Richard Udall said: “There is no excuse for being needlessly insulting – but if mention is made of something that is true, and which may even have already been in the public domain, then I’m concerned about attempts to control what’s said. This is a council chamber not a debating society, and people feel things strongly.”

The committee discussed whether it should have more ‘teeth’ if councillors do misbehave. Councillor Ken Pollock felt that its current sole sanction of ‘naming and shaming’ an errant councillor was enough. He said: “We should rely on the power of the press and publicity”.

Others felt that more power was needed. Some councillors felt they should be able to suspend members, while others that they should be able to require either a written or verbal apology and to make a councillor attend extra training.