Healthy debate and debating skills training pack

This pack supports councils to run a 90-minute discussion and training session on healthy debate and debating skills. It is designed to be delivered by a monitoring officer, democratic services officer, member development lead or other relevant officers. 

Local government delivers services people rely on every day, as well as acting as place-shapers and community leaders. The decisions councillors make are serious, impacting people’s day-to-day lives, and require thorough consideration and debate. Healthy debate should serve a good decision and does not simply mean agreement. This pack is about the craft of debate, and the practical skills behind it, that help councils test decisions well.

The session is built around real council dynamics. It uses scenarios based on situations that can arise in council meetings, committees and other formal decision-making or challenge settings across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The aim is to help members develop the practical skills that make debate work better in the room.

The pack is designed to be adaptable. The scenarios are politically neutral by design and are not tied to any political direction. If a scenario does not fit your council’s context, the facilitator notes explain how to adjust it.

This is one of four resources in the Healthy debate and debating skills suite. The resources guide suite explains how the four resources work together and the wider context of healthy debate and effective decision-making.

Who the session works for

The session is designed for mixed groups of councillors and can adapted for a group of chairs. It can be run as a standalone event or as part of a wider induction or member development programme. Some councils find it has most impact when delivered a few months into a new term, once members have experienced a few council and committee meetings.

Preparing for the session

You do not need to be an expert in debate or an experienced facilitator. The notes and scenarios provide what you need. Your job is to set the frame, keep the discussion moving and make sure everyone has the chance to contribute. If a conversation drifts toward live political issues in your council, redirect it to the dynamics in the scenario rather than the substance of what is being debated. Keep the focus on healthy debate and specific skills, wherever possible.

Practical preparation

• Read through the full pack before the session.
• Print the three handouts. Handout 1 supports constructive challenge and the intervention drill. Handout 2 is optional pre-session preparation or a follow-up exercise for contentious items. Handout 3 is a chair quick reference note.
• If your council has adopted healthy debate principles, identify where you can incorporate them into the session and consider having copies available for the opening exercise.
• Make local terminology and example swaps before the session starts. See Adapting this pack above.
• Ask councillors to read the councillor guide before the session. The guide covers the core debating skills in more detail and gives the session a shared starting point.

A note on facilitating across political differences

Mixed political groups can produce the most valuable sessions, and the most testing ones. Set expectations: the session is not about which policies are right or which party is doing better. It is about how debate works, whatever the political context. You can do this practically by establishing ground rules for the session; ask attendees to contribute what ground rules they want and encourage them to own them.

If a contribution starts to become about local politics rather than the scenario, a calm redirect works better than a correction. Something like, “That is a live issue in your council and worth acknowledging. For this session, let us stay with the scenario and what it shows us about debate.”

If you need to run a shorter session, reduce the opening exercise to 5 minutes and trim the core debating skills section to 10 minutes. That gives you an 80-minute version. Do not cut the skills exercise, as it’s an important element in consolidating learning.

Seven dynamics underpin the scenarios and exercises. They are facilitator reference, not content to teach. The notes for each module point to which dynamics are most likely to surface and how to draw them out in discussion.

1. The escalation ratchet. Debate worsens when an inappropriate contribution or single inflammatory comment goes unchallenged. Addressing this early avoids the room recalibrating to a more hostile tone.
2. Performance mode and decision mode. Public meetings can encourage performance over substance, with members torn between their political identity and decision-making.
3. The corridor and chamber gap. Significant movement on a position often happens before the formal meeting, leaving the chamber as the place where positions are presented rather than tested.
4. Structure shapes behaviour. Room layout, level of formality and how the agenda is presented can shape compliance with meeting conventions.
5. The limits of officer intervention. Officer influence is often strongest through briefing, quiet support and helping the chair hold the room, rather than visible intervention during the meeting.
6. Behaviour while not speaking. Eye-rolling, audible quips, sighs and visible reactions while another member is contributing all shape the tone of debate.
7. The personal story trap. Debate often changes from strategic argument to personal anecdote because it is emotionally easier. Personal experience strengthens debate when it supports a clear argument rather than replacing it.

Facilitator wording

Facilitator wording

Facilitator notes

Take brief contributions from around the room, for example, one point per person, or get people to discuss the question in pairs and feed one point back per pair. Capture responses on a live word cloud, polling tool, shared screen or flipchart. You will come back to these at the close.

If your council has adopted healthy debate principles, this is the moment to introduce them. Compare the attendees' suggestions with the local principles, and encourage discussion where they differ. If your council has not yet adopted healthy debate principles, use the model principles as a point of comparison instead. They are designed to be adapted, and this could be a starting point for developing local principles.

Optional: if you have a short clip of constructive debate, you can use it to help participants identify what good debate looks like in practice. Avoid clips from live local controversies. Good options include debates in other councils, in legislatures, in other countries or outside political settings. A clip showing weaker practice can also work as a contrast, if you frame it carefully and ensure it has no local significance for your members.

Facilitator wording

Before working through the scenarios, take councillors briefly through the practical skills that healthy debate relies on. Councillors will ideally already have read the councillor guide, where these skills are set out in more detail, but you can’t assume this. Surface them briefly so the scenarios that follow have a shared starting point.

Optional: if you have more time, consider splitting the attendees into groups and asking them to consider a specific skill in more detail. Spread the skills out between different groups, so they each have something different to speak on.

Making a clear, focused contribution. Focus on the proposal and be clear whether you are asking a question, making a challenge or setting out a position.

Constructively challenge the idea, policy or proposal, not the person. Constructive challenge is part of how councils test proposals, focusing on the evidence, reasoning, options, risk and consequences. Strong challenge is specific, supported and directed at the substance; it critiques for the purposes of improving the outcome, not dismissing the proposal or ridiculing its supporters.

Listening actively before responding. Respond to points that have actually been made and adjust your contribution where the discussion has moved on, rather than delivering a prepared position wherever possible. You can still get your point across by ensuring it remains relevant to the discussion.

Using evidence and experience well. Evidence makes arguments easier to test and less easy to dismiss, creating a more reasonable discussion. Personal experience is most useful when it supports your argument rather than replacing it.

Disagreeing without personalising. Disagreement is normal, but keep disagreements specific to the position, the evidence or the reasoning. Avoid questioning motives, intelligence or character; this can derail the discussion and shift the focus away from the proposal.

Working through the chair. Directing comments and questions through the chair, rather than at the officer or another member, is one of the basic conventions of meeting practice. They are responsible for managing the room; play your part by supporting them in their role.

The scenarios that follow give councillors a chance to apply these skills to real council dynamics.

Skills practised in this module

• Constructive challenge of the proposal, not the person
• Active listening
• Working through the chair
• Using evidence and experience well

Dynamics to look for

• The escalation ratchet
• The limits of officer intervention
• Structure shaping behaviour

This scenario is about a committee discussion, where a member is concerned that all the relevant information has not been provided in the report. Facilitators can adapt the meeting type, service example and role titles so the scenario fits local governance arrangements. The important dynamics are how the third member challenges, how the chair responds, how the officer behaves and what the rest of the room takes as acceptable.

Scenario A

Discussion questions

• What did the third member’s frustration tell you, and how could the same point have been put as constructive challenge of the proposal?
• How could the third member have shown they had heard the previous answers before asking their own question?
• If you were the next member to speak, what would you do?
• What are the chair’s options at this moment, and what are the risks of each?
• What is the role of the officer in this exchange? How does that depend on whether the officer wrote the report or is in the meeting in another capacity?
• How might the exchange affect public confidence among those watching from the gallery or online?

Facilitator points to draw out

Give participants two minutes to read the scenario before opening the discussion. The points below are organised by skill. Use the ones that come up naturally in the room.

Active listening

The third member’s question covers ground the lead member has just been asked about; even though they didn’t respond fully. The frustration is legitimate, but the contribution would land better if it acknowledged what had already been said. A short paraphrase of the previous answer, followed by the specific challenge on the missing evidence, is more effective and ensures that the lead member doesn’t simply respond in the same way again.

Constructive challenge of the proposal, not the person

The third member’s challenge is sound. The previous review of opening hours is a relevant piece of evidence, and asking how it has been considered is a legitimate test of the recommendation. However, challenging the officer rather than through the chair, referring to their “failure” and the general tone shifts the focus to the officer, treating them as the problem rather than the missing evidence. This could undermine the legitimate question and put the officer and the chair on the defensive.

Working through the chair

Directing comments through the chair is a basic convention of meeting practice. A chair that lets that go silently teaches the room different expectations. The chair can ignore it, redirect gently or name it directly. A calm redirect is usually proportionate to the first drift, but the right call depends on the room and the item. In this case, the chair could ask the member to consider their question again and redirect it more appropriately.

The officer role

Officer influence is often strongest when it is not visible. A quiet signal to the chair, a note passed across or a discreet correction at the next break may be more effective than a public response. An officer presenting professional advice on the substance may need to correct a factual misrepresentation that affects the recommendation. An officer in the room as governance support is almost always better off briefing the chair quietly.

Public perception

Recorded and live-streamed meetings are watched by residents. Audiences pick up tone and body language between members and officers, often more than the words.

Skills practised in this module

• Making a clear, focused contribution
• Recognising when speaking adds value and when it does not
• Building on what previous speakers have said
• Using personal experience to support, not replace, an argument
• Preparing as a group so the debate covers different ground

Dynamics to look for

• The personal story trap, in its collective form
• Performance mode and decision mode
• The corridor and chamber gap
• Structure shapes behaviour

This scenario is about a full council meeting debating the closure of a community asset. Facilitators can replace the asset, group language and chairing terminology so the scenario fits local circumstances. The important dynamics are cumulative repetition across multiple speakers, contributions that do not build on each other, the question of when speaking adds value and what the debate is for when the vote feels like it has already been decided.

Scenario B

Discussion questions

• 12 members want to speak. The first speaker has covered most of the substance. What is the case for each of the next 11 speaking? What is the case for some of them not speaking?
• By the fourth speaker, a pattern has set in. What is the pattern, and what does it tell the rest of the chamber about what good looks like?
• None of the contributions respond directly to each other. What would change in this debate if the third speaker had built on the first, rather than starting fresh?
• The newer member has a point that has not yet been raised. What can they do at this stage, given they cannot interrupt? What could they have done before the meeting?
• How would this debate look to residents listening in? What would it tell them about how decisions are made at the council?
• If you were called as the seventh speaker, what would you do differently from speakers two to six?

Facilitator points to draw out

The points below are organised by skill. Use the ones that come up naturally in the room.

Recognising when speaking adds value

The first speaker has done the substantive work. By the fourth or fifth speaker, the meeting is no longer testing the proposal. It is registering allegiance, ward connection and personal investment. A useful question to put to the room is what would have happened if the third speaker had said, “I support the recommendation. The previous speakers have covered the points I would have made. I have no further contribution.” This helps participants discuss the discipline of not speaking when a contribution would only repeat what has already been said.

Building on previous contributions

None of the contributions in this scenario respond to what came before. Each starts fresh from the speaker’s own position. A debate where this is the norm cannot test the recommendation, because no contribution is in dialogue with any other. Active listening here looks like saying, “the previous speaker covered the financial case. I want to add the equality case, which has not yet been raised.” It looks like adding rather than restating.

Group preparation

Where members are working as part of a group, agreeing in advance who will cover which points avoids repetition and helps the debate cover more ground. Groups that prepare well decide who will cover which points and who does not need to speak. Preparation before the meeting can make the chamber debate more useful, examining the proposal from many angles and improving the final decision.

The newer member’s options

At this stage, the newer member’s options are limited. The point may need to be raised before the meeting, with the lead member, the relevant officer, in the group meeting or with the chair as a priority for inclusion. In a packed debate, influence often depends on preparation before the meeting, not only on a place on the speakers’ list.

What is the debate for?

This is the hardest question to put to a councillor group, but may be the most useful. Members may be testing the proposal, putting reasoning on record, explaining their position to residents or showing ward representation. All are legitimate. What matters is that the contributions are designed to do what the debate is for. The risk in this scenario is a debate that looks active but does not properly test the proposal.

Skills practised in this module

• Constructive challenge of the proposal, not the person
• Working through the chair
• Active listening
• Recognising the officer role

Dynamics to look for

• The escalation ratchet
• The limits of officer intervention
• Behaviour while not speaking

In this exercise you will look at the same kind of pressure from three perspectives. The chair, a member and the officer supporting the meeting. The purpose is not to train officers. It is to help councillors understand how the role you are in shapes what good intervention looks like, and how others in the room are working to support healthy debate alongside you.

Facilitator wording

Situation 1, for the chair

A member has just made a comment that edges toward being personal about another member. It is not a serious breach. But there is a risk that if you say nothing, the next member will feel licensed to do the same, and things may escalate.

• Option A. Say nothing and move on. The comment was borderline and you do not want to be seen as heavy-handed.
• Option B. Make a calm redirect that brings things back to the proposal without singling out the member. “I want to keep this focused on the evidence in the report.”
• Option C. Name it directly. “I am going to ask members to keep contributions on the proposal, not on individuals.”

Which do you choose and why? What are the risks of each?

Facilitator points to draw out

Option B is usually the strongest. The discussion about A and C is where the learning sits. The case for A is that overly firm chairing can create its own flashpoints, such as accusations of bias and associated complaints. It could also seem heavy-handed in the case of newer and less experienced members, particularly in such a public forum. The case for C is that sometimes direct clarity is what the room needs. B is usually proportionate to that first moment a contribution becomes personal. The right call depends on the item and the room.

Situation 2, for a member

You want to challenge another member’s contribution. You think the evidence they cited is selective and does not reflect the full picture. You have the data. You also find this person personally frustrating, and you believe they manipulate data deliberately.

• Option A. Challenge the evidence directly and specifically. “The data the member cited covers one year. The three-year picture looks different. I think it’s important that it is taken into account. Can I ask why that was not included?”
• Option B. Challenge in a way that makes your frustration visible. “The member presenting the proposal has a habit of presenting only the numbers that suit their argument.”
• Option C. Say nothing, on the basis that challenging is unlikely to change the outcome of the debate.

Which do you choose and why? What are the risks of each?

Facilitator points to draw out

Option A is the strongest. Name it explicitly so people are clear what good looks like. Option B may feel satisfying, but it is a personal challenge, easier to dismiss and likely to move the focus from the proposal to the motivation of the individual, which does not support proper scrutiny of the proposal. Option C is a common real-world choice. Ask the group when staying silent is the right call and when it is not.

Situation 3, the officer in the room

You are sitting at the side of the room. The meeting is getting difficult. A member has made a comment that you know is factually incorrect, it has not been challenged, and it is influencing the debate. The chair has not corrected it.

• Option A. Signal to the chair that you wish to intervene publicly to correct the record.
• Option B. Pass a note to the chair noting the inaccuracy and suggesting an immediate clarification, before any votes take place
• Option C. Wait for the natural break and brief the chair quietly, with the expectation that the chair will correct the debate when it resumes.

Which would you choose if you were an officer, and why? What does your choice say about the officer’s role in the room?

Facilitator points to draw out

There is no single right answer. It depends on the officer’s role. If the officer is presenting professional advice on the substance, and the factual point matters to that advice, Option A may be right. If the officer is in a governance, democratic services or general support capacity, Options B or C will usually be more effective. A public intervention from a non-presenting officer can create a flashpoint and make the officer part of the political story. The Officers and challenge box in Module 1 sets out the principle. Local procedural conventions affect when and how an officer can correct the record; talk about your local approach to officer advice – can you produce some examples.

The close has two parts:

• Reflect on the opening exercise on what healthy debate is
• Point to the resources that members can take away

Facilitator notes

Refer to the words councillors captured at the opening on the flipchart, word cloud or shared screen.

Facilitator wording

Reflection

Ask councillors to take two minutes individually, then share briefly around the room.

• What is one thing you will try differently in your next council or committee meeting?
• Which skill from today would make the biggest difference in your council if more councillors practised it?

Facilitator wording

The handouts are designed to be used inside or alongside the session. Use them as the moments below suggest, or adapt them to your council.