Government shuts door on virtual attendance at council meetings as amendments fail to make final version of Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill
The prospect of councils being able to hold virtual meetings has receded after amendments that would have enabled this were removed from the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB).
This came during the ‘ping pong’ stage of the legislation’s progress, where amendments to Bills pass between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
A first amendment to LURB, amendment 22, was a wide-ranging one that would have allowed local authorities to meet virtually (see full text below)
When this was rejected by the House of Commons on 23 October “because local authorities should continue to meet in person to ensure good governance”, a second amendment, amendment 22B, was backed by the House of Lords which suggested that a Government minister would be able “by regulations to establish arrangements whereby, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom are present in the same place”.
This was rejected by the House of Commons for the same reason as the original amendment was rejected, however, and a motion put forward by Earl Howe, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, to the effect that the Lords would no longer insist on the amendment, was passed yesterday (25 October).
Earl Howe told peers that the Government’s position on the matter had not changed.
“Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have not wavered from their clear, strong and principled view that preserving in-person debate is important for maintaining the integrity of local democracy.”
He said that the amendment (22B) was “quite clearly at odds with that position, as it provides the power to any future Government to potentially make regulations that go so far as allowing all local authorities to always meet remotely, without any limitations”.
Earl Howe continued: “Local authorities need councillors to be physically present, to actively take part in democratic decision-making affecting the citizens they represent, and to interact with their fellow councillors at every opportunity to develop a sound understanding of local needs and priorities. That understanding is clearly vital for ensuring the strong local leadership that councils depend on to deliver for the electorate.
“Perhaps most importantly, councillors need to be physically present to interact with citizens in a way that builds meaningful relationships with their community and ensures that they are, in the fullest sense, accountable to their electorate.”
In response, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, the Conservative peer who had put forward the amendment, argued that the revised amendment 22B was “very modest in its remit”.
She said: “I accept my noble friend’s premise that local councils should primarily meet physically, but we went on to state that limited circumstances specified in regulations passed by the Government would permit a normally wholly physical meeting to be attended virtually. I am a little baffled and bewildered by the Government’s unwillingness to move a little more along these lines.
“The reason I say this is that we experienced during Covid the situation whereby all council meetings were virtual to permit local government business to continue. That was deemed to work extremely well and kept the wheels of local government moving at a particularly challenging time. To move from completely virtual attendance during Covid to a situation where no virtual or remote attendance is allowed seems baffling.”
Baroness Pickering added: “Also, I think it is fair to say that, if we in the Lords are permitted to serve on a committee and to meet either in hybrid form, which is what we are seeking in this amendment, or remotely, it seems incumbent on us to extend the same ability to local councils to meet in these circumstances.”
She said there was “a slight irony” that the Government were devolving powers in the Bill to local authorities but not the power to decide to permit certain councillors to attend when they have certain difficulties.
Baroness Pickering said: “It seems to me a sensible, common-sense approach.... to permit local government to meet primarily physically and to permit virtual attendance in case of, for example, short-notice difficulties in obtaining childcare provision—which does happen and has led a number of councillors to leave local government—or because of the distance to travel and the lack of public transport, especially in the evening when councils normally meet, and on those occasions, which we have seen in the past two weeks, of inclement weather such as snowstorms, floods and high winds.”
She also promised that she would revert to this issue. “If there is any possibility in any of the legislation in the King’s Speech, I will latch on to it. I give him early warning of that," she told the minister.
A date for Royal Assent to the LURB remains to be announced.
The Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government (LLG), the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO), the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and others had all previously backed the ability of councils to hold remote meetings.
Earlier this week, after amendment 22 was rejected in the Commons, Helen McGrath, Executive Director of Policy & Governance at LLG said: “LLG, ADSO and numerous other bodies such as NALC and SLCC simply could not have done more to bring about the vital change required. As deflating as recent events are, we will not stop lobbying to give councils the right to choose how they conduct their meetings based on local considerations. In the meantime, councils will have to continue to operate in a fragmented way, with some meetings capable of utilising remote provision whilst others are not.”
John Austin, Chair of ADSO, added at the time: “We are at a loss to understand why the Government refuses to give local councils the right to choose how they conduct their meetings when the rest of the world has moved with the times. Previously it argued a lack of legislative opportunity. It now has that opportunity to effect positive change.”
The Government is meanwhile yet to publish the outcome of its call for evidence on remote meetings, which was held from March to June 2021.
The Information Commissioner recently upheld a decision by DLUHC that a freedom of information request byLLG and ADSO asking for all information received with the responses to the Government’s call for evidence was “vexatious”.
Text of LURB amendments
Amendment 22:
“Local authorities to be allowed to meet virtually
(1) A reference in any enactment to a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.
(2) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a “member in remote attendance”) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied.
(3) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—
(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by the other members in attendance, Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill 5
(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and
(c) to be heard and, where practicable, seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.
(4) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.
(5) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or otherrestriction contained in the standing orders or any otherrules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.
(6) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—
(a) voting,
(b) member and public access to documents, and
(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.”
Amendment 22B
“Local authorities: hybrid meetings
(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations establish arrangements whereby, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom are present in the same place.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
