Remote meeting rules should be drafted "as flexibly as possible”, Lawyers in Local Government says

Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) and the Local Government Association (LGA) have both said that there should be "no limitation placed upon councils" with regard to remote meeting arrangements "up to and including full remote attendance".

Writing in its response to the Government's consultation on reintroducing remote council meetings, which were allowed during the pandemic, LLG also stressed the importance of robust governance and procedural safeguards.

LLG and the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) have campaigned for remote meetings to be reintroduced since 2021 when temporary coronavirus regulations that allowed them to take place expired.  

The Government launched a consultation in October of this year, asking for views on allowing councillors to attend meetings remotely and introducing proxy voting for occasions when an elected member may be unable to attend a meeting. 

The consultation closed on Thursday (19 December).

In its consultation response, LLG said it had been its "consistent opinion" that provisions for remote meetings should be drafted "as flexibly as possible to enable local choice and local decision making to best serve the individual authorities' circumstances".

It said: "LLG agree that there should be no limitations placed upon councils with regard to setting arrangements for remote attendance of council meetings, up to and including full remote attendance save for those pertaining to the procedure required to ensure effective governance and ethical decision making.

"It will be necessary to prescribe a framework of governance together with procedure rules to ensure compliance with ethical decision making and the rule of law."

The response pointed to template rules LLG produced in partnership with ADSO during the pandemic for remote meetings protocol and procedural rules, adding that it would like to work with the Government on an appropriate framework.

The membership body meanwhile warned against a proposal that any formal meeting allowing remote attendance should have at least two-thirds of members in physical attendance.

It said this approach could be more resource-intensive and that such a requirement could have potential implications under the Equality Act 2010.

It noted: "How will the issue of who attends in person and who does not be identified? Any councillor who is relying on a protected characteristic could argue that they need to attend remotely.

"This figure could exceed the two third majority and frustrate the ability to hold the meeting."

The LGA's response meanwhile said that remote meeting provisions could help "reduce the democratic deficit" by enabling councillors to attend meetings in circumstances that would otherwise prevent in-person attendance, such as illness, bereavement, disability, caring responsibilities, work commitments, and severe weather events.

The association argued for councils to have the autonomy to decide when remote attendance should be permitted, given the varied geographies and governance forms across local authorities.

They stated that a "one-size-fits-all approach" at the national level could lead to unintended consequences and that councils should outline the circumstances for remote attendance in their constitutions.

In its own response to the consultation, ADSO also said it believes councils should be able to set their own approach to remote meetings.

It said: "We recognise there will be complexities in ensuring that remote or hybrid meetings meet the standards of good governance and citizen engagement expected by councils.

"But we believe councils are best placed to determine their own approach that reflects their own constitutions, context and needs."

It added that English councils demonstrated during the pandemic that they were able to set up remote and hybrid meetings "in a variety of ways whilst ensuring high standards of governance and decision-making were maintained".

ADSO also said that remote meetings could increase public engagements, boost councillor attendance, save on costs, and bring environmental benefits by reducing travel.

Like LLG, the LGA opposed arbitrary limits on the number of fully remote meetings and a proposal only to allow virtual meetings for unforeseen and exceptional circumstances.

The National Association of Local Councils (NALC) meanwhile said that the flexibility of remote meetings would empower parish and town councils to respond more effectively to their communities' needs.

However, it opposed the introduction of proxy voting at council meetings, which was also proposed in the consultation.

On this point, it said: "Echoing concerns raised by other stakeholders, we warned that proxy voting could lead to confusion, undermine democratic processes, and create potential conflicts of interest, particularly for larger councils with party-political dynamics."

The LGA also said that it did not support the introduction of proxy voting.

LLG said it believed that the 'substitute system' is a preferable alternative.

It said: "We can see that there may be some benefit in allowing proxy voting at meetings of the full council, which all councillors attend, meaning that a substitute system is not possible. 

"At full council proxy voting could help maintain the political balance of the authority. If proxy voting is to be introduced we suggest it is restricted to full council meetings."

Adam Carey