How virtual meetings are shaping local democracy

A clear legislative framework in relation to virtual meetings will help ensure clarity and fairness, writes Ed Hammond.

When it became clear in summer 2024 that Government was planning to legislate on local government in the 2024/5 Parliamentary session, many thought it was likely that some provision would be made for councils to be able to convene meetings virtually. It did however seem likely that those arrangements might be limited in scope – focused perhaps on meetings of joint committees, and combined authorities.  

At the LGA Conference in October 2024 the Secretary of State announced that powers would be introduced in a forthcoming Bill – and indicated that those powers would be broadly expressed, permitting councils to convene meetings remotely (and presumably in hybrid form) across the board.  

This paper sets out some of the background to this (including the campaigning work undertaken by ADSO and LLG since 2021) and sets out what the key considerations are likely to be for authorities seeking to put in place local arrangements.  

This paper is subject to the publication of Government’s plans in the White Paper, and subsequently the Bill, whereupon we will produce an update.  

Terminology

Usually ‘remote,’ or ‘wholly remote,’ is a term used to describe a meeting that takes place entirely online, with all participants attending from different venues (including their own homes). ‘Virtual meeting’ is usually treated as a synonym although is less widely used.  

‘Hybrid meeting’ is a term used to describe where a number of participants are present in the same physical location, while others are joining remotely. Hybrid meetings are usually considered those most difficult to effectively convene and manage and are discussed in this paper at some length.  

‘Multi-location meeting’ is a term used in Wales to describe any meeting where attendees are joining from more than one physical location.  

History

In 2008 

The Government’s ‘Communities in control’ White Paper committed to introduce measures in a putative Community Empowerment, Housing and Economic Regeneration Bill, to allow members to attend, and vote in, meetings remotely. This commitment was not followed through.  

In 2011 

The Welsh Government, by way of the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, made provision for Welsh councils to put in place arrangements to allow members to attend meetings remotely. It stated that it was for councils to determine whether they would make remote attendance available for their members and required that at least 30% of participating members must be in physical attendance for the meeting to be quorate.  

In 2016 

The UK Government, in respect of authorities in England, issued a consultation document called ‘Connected town halls.’ This raised the prospect of members of joint committees, and combined authorities, attending meetings of those bodies by video conference. This consultation did not go as far as the arrangements in place in Wales, proposing instead that councillors would still need to attend council premises (and ones that the public could access) to be able to join the meeting. The consultation document stated,  

“This Government does not support councillors being able to take part in their own council’s meetings from their own home, or from some other private premises; the Government believes that such changes would undermine visible democracy scrutiny and public debate.” 

The consultation was framed as exploring a limited, pragmatic measure to benefit those councillors who might have to travel long distances, or be subject to other inconvenience, because they were travelling to attend meetings that they might not reasonably have expected to need to attend when first elected to the authority.  

Although the consultation period ended in 2017, Government did not produce its conclusions until 2019, alongside sector responses to the consultation which revealed that an overwhelming majority of respondents were in favour of the proposed changes. At this point, Government made a formal commitment that it would seek to introduce arrangements to allow for remote attendance – subject to further consultation with the sector – and that it was minded to expand these powers to local authorities.  

In 2020 

The social distancing and movement restrictions imposed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic made in-person meeting impossible. Following the introduction of the first national lockdown in March 2020, Government took steps to bring forward Regulations to allow for all-remote meetings. These came into force in April that year, but the terms of the Coronavirus Act meant that unless extended they would expire the following May. During this period, councils became well used to transacting business remotely. Despite teething difficulties – some technological, some behavioural – councils were quickly able to run a normal cycle of council meetings.  

The need for permanent change

In 2020, a sector partnership, now known as the Digital Democracy Partnership, was established – bringing together representatives of the Local Government Association (LGA) Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO), Lawyers in Local Gov (LLG), Society For Innovation Technology and Modernisation (Socitm), National Association of Local Councils ( NALC) and ourselves (CfGS) to discuss emerging issues, to produce guidance and to carry out research into councils’ experiences.  

As 2020 drew to a close and it became apparent that a third national lockdown of uncertain length was about to be imposed, sector campaigning for an extension to the remote meeting powers began in earnest. 

Along with their members, the Partnership coalesced around making the changes permanent rather than seeking a temporary extension. While there was an immediate need to extend remote meeting powers for public health purposes, the experience of English councils during the period of coronavirus restrictions highlighted broader and significant benefits – particularly in improving accessibility to local government for councillors and the public. Some of the issues involved were described in the [position paper] that we published in early 2021.  

ADSO and LLG commenced legal action (in support of a judicial review brought by Hertfordshire County Council) arguing that a change in the law to allow for remote meetings was not required, and that the existing legislation (specifically the Local Government Act 1972) could be interpreted in such a way as to permit remote meetings. Whilst, the Government’s lawyers supported this position, the judgment of the High Court was that a change in primary legislation would be required.  

In 2021 

The Government issued a “call for evidence” on the subject. However, the result of the call for evidence was not published, and Government subsequently hardened its position, indicating that it had no plans to introduce any changes to the law, now considering them detrimental to local democracy.  

In 2023 

The LGA conducted a survey of English councils to gauge their ongoing appetite for having the right to convene virtual meetings – 95% indicated that they would welcome the re-introduction of this power.  

Meanwhile, the law in Wales was changing

The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 extended the powers in the 2011 Measure, providing for ‘multi-location meetings.’ Under the 2021 Act, all councils would need to put in place provision for such meetings, with remote attendance being available as a matter of right.  This opened up the possibility of councils convening all meetings wholly remotely.  

Refreshed statutory guidance, developed through a collaborative process led by ourselves and other sector partners, was published in February 2022. That process explored and addressed various technical aspects related to the functioning of remote meetings. 

Current practice

Today in 2024 

Councils in England, must convene all formal meetings in person. There are a couple of exceptions to this requirement: 

• Some councils have trialled convening meetings of their Cabinet remotely. Cabinet is not a local government committee for the purposes of the 1972 Act and the argument is that the Local Government Act 2000 confers more flexibility than the previous Act in permitting meetings of Cabinet to be convened remotely; 

• Meetings of licensing panels, where meetings are convened under separate legislation (the Licensing Act 2003) and caselaw confirms that they can be convened remotely.  

Some councils have embraced a degree of flexibility, allowing councillors and others to join meetings remotely when unavoidable. It has become increasingly common for external witnesses and, in some cases, officers to participate in meetings remotely. In certain circumstances, councils also permit committee members to join remotely, recording their “attendance” separately from those present in person. These practices are guided by councils’ own interpretations of the legal framework surrounding such arrangements. 

Going forward

Although we know that the law is changing, the extent to which councils provide for remote meetings are likely to be informed by the various arguments for and against convening meetings remotely. In its consultation published in October 2024, Government has set out some possibilities.

Central to the issue is the question of whether:  

• the possibility of convening (some) meetings remotely will be an option that councils can exercise, having regard to their wider legal duties including the need to deliver Best Value, or 
• Individual councillors will have the right to attend meetings remotely if they wish, thereby requiring that all councils put in place.  

Government’s proposal as set out in the consultation is not wholly clear on these points. It describes the change as involving: 

“…powers for local authority members to apply to the relevant authority for a dispensation to attend formal council meetings remotely and vote by proxy in certain circumstances.”

It goes on to say:  

“The government intends to legislate to give local authorities the flexibility to allow elected members to attend formal council meetings remotely. We believe that this modernising measure of providing broad flexibility to enable remote attendance will have the dual positive impacts of diversifying the representation of those willing and able to stand for elected office and enhance the resilience of local authorities in the face of local or national emergencies. The intent is that this legislative change would give local authorities the flexibility to allow members to attend remotely.” 

The presence of a dispensation suggests that meeting remotely would not be available as a right – that it would be a derogation from the “norm”, which would still be to meet in person. However, some councils might think that legal certainty is best provided for by making the option available to all members – reducing the risk of disputes arising where a dispensation is turned down, especially where a member’s rights (under the Equality Act for example) are in play.   

Because of this uncertainty this paper explores the issues arising in respect of both of these possibilities. Drawing on our work with Wales, we explore what a permanent solution for England might look like and some of the challenges and opportunities it presents.  

Before doing so, we want to set out some of the overall pros and cons of the ability to convene meetings involving remote participation.  

The case for meeting virtually

Increases accessibility and inclusion 

Remote meetings can help reduce barriers which might otherwise prevent/dissuade people from standing for council, and which might prevent existing councillors from being as effective as they might be.

Some key examples include: 

• Travel related challenges – The time, disruption and costs associated with travel, which can be significant for some councillors, particularly for rural authorities, or where council offices are not easily accessible by public transport.  

• Competing responsibilities – Caring duties, professional commitments or other personal responsibilities that make attending meetings at a specific time, in a specific physical location difficult to manage.  

• Inclusion – Personal or protected characteristics, that could make physical attendance challenging or discriminatory.  This includes, but is not limited to, councillors with physical access needs. For instance, individuals with conditions like MS or ME may find physical attendance just as difficult.  

It also can make it easier to convene meetings to meet urgent business need – for example where an executive decision is called in.  

It can increase opportunities for greater inclusion in cross-border working in joint committees, and other regional bodies. Combined authorities, Police and Crime Panels, National Park Authorities and similar organisations are included in the consultation.

Reduces personal risks  

Some councillors may be subject to particular risk or threat from members of the public. In a time of heightened political tension and where councillors have experienced harassment from members of the public, remote attendance could be a useful risk mitigation measure. 

Reduces cost 

Convening meetings remotely will usually be cheaper than doing so physically, although remote meetings do come with their own costs around IT and other support arrangements. 

The case against meeting virtually

Technical skills and confidence 

Remote meetings are more prone to technical issues which can act as a barrier for councillors who lack confidence or proficiency with digital tools.  Despite the increased use of such tools during the pandemic, not all councillors feel fully equipped to engage effectively in virtual settings. 

Hybrid meetings can disadvantage those joining remotely, as they often struggle to fully participate, especially when the majority of attendees are gathered in the same physical location. 

Public participation 

Remote meetings do not provide for the same degree of public participation as those taking place in person (including allowing members of the public to speak directly to councillors before or after the meeting, or to protest). 

Relationship building 

Remote meetings do not provide the opportunity for the important informal, social interactions that in-person meetings naturally provide between members before and after meetings that supports effective collaboration. 

Where risks and drawbacks do exist, however, we think that those could be overcome.

For example:  

• Training and support for councillors and officers on digital tools and platforms to increase confidence and competence, providing coaching for Chairs of hybrid meetings.

• Ensuring that the agenda is designed to ensure all voices are given equitable space and opportunity to contribute regardless of where they are, and that the technology in the room is set up so that remote participants can see, hear and contribute equally.

• Increasing promotion and accessibility of meetings by providing clear instructions on how the public can engage, including livestreaming options with interactive features. Enabling members of the public to participate in meetings remotely, using technology that enables them to make representations, ask questions, or provide feedback through the platform.

Our thoughts

Our view is that councils should have the flexibility to determine their own arrangements for meetings within a legal framework that is permissive to remote attendance. Legislation should empower councils to engage in local dialogue and exercise discretion in choosing the arrangements that best meet their needs (although as we note below, there are potential downsides to this approach).   

Having a clear legislative framework will help ensure clarity and fairness. 

Although Government says that it plans to legislate to allow councillors to apply for a dispensation to attend remotely, a lot hinges on the way that this would work in practice. Councils might – as we have suggested – adopt a position that all councillors will be able to attend meetings remotely on demand, although the presumption is that attendance will be ‘in person’ where possible. We think that this is likely because: 

• It prevents disputes arising from where a dispensation is sought, but not given; 

• It prevents the creation of bureaucracies at local level to judge on whether dispensations should be given – for single meetings, for the meetings of certain bodies but not others, or for a certain period of time (or indefinitely), and what the criteria be for awarding dispensations in each of these cases; 

• It prevents the potential unfairness that might arise where a councillor is forced to reveal a situation of a sensitive, personal or private nature to a decision-maker to justify their request; 

• It prevents (to a degree) uncertainty for prospective councillors. If a prospective councillor’s participation in the work of the authority is contingent on the provision of a dispensation to attend remotely (because of any of the reasons set out above, the uncertainty around whether or not they will receive a dispensation on election might cause them not to stand.  

We think therefore that councils will need to make provision for remote attendance at meetings as a matter of course, even if it remains in practice an exception rather than the norm.  

The presence of an ongoing dispensation for all members would also provide councils with the flexibility, should they wish, to convene all-remote meetings under certain conditions.  

Conclusion

Although we think that there are logistical (and other) challenges associated with remote attendance – especially in respect of hybrid meetings – these are outweighed by the significant benefits. Greater accessibility and inclusivity will enable current and future councillors to balance formal meetings with other responsibilities and remove barriers for those with protected characteristics that make physical attendance more challenging. 

These changes represent a meaningful step forward in modernising local governance and creating opportunities for a more diverse and representative council. 

Ed Hammond is Deputy Chief Executive at Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.