Councils to be allowed to develop own policies on remote attendance
The Government has confirmed it plans to permit local authorities to develop their own locally appropriate policies, if they decide to hold remote meetings.
In its response to a consultation, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) also set out its stance on proxy voting, revealing that it plans to require principal (unitary, upper and second-tier) councils to implement proxy voting schemes for meetings of full council.
The MHCLG said it planned to legislate to support permanent provision in relation to both remote attendance and proxy voting, “when parliamentary time allows”.
The consultation response said: “The government is of the view that in-person authority meetings remain vital for local democracy, but that hybrid and remote attendance, and proxy voting, will enable local authorities in England to develop more modern, accessible, and flexible working practices.”
The Ministry said the proposed requirement for proxy voting schemes for meetings of full councils was “to provide consistency for members who are absent when they become a new parent, or for serious or long-term illness”.
For all meetings other than full council, proxy voting may be used but will not be required, and substitute or pairing schemes may be more appropriate, it added.
The consultation response said: “We plan for other local authorities not listed above to be enabled but not required to implement proxy voting schemes, for any of their meetings, in the context of member absences for serious or long-term illness or becoming a new parent."
The Government added that it would work collaboratively with the sector to develop “clear and supportive” guidance in relation to both remote attendance and proxy voting policies.
Writing in the foreword to the response, Minister for Local Government and English Devolution Jim McMahon said: “In the spirit of resetting our relationship with local government, we want to ensure that local authorities can develop their own remote and hybrid attendance policies, with local knowledge, and to respond to local need.
“Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility, and makeup, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. When elected members cannot attend even remotely, we aim for proxy voting schemes to provide local authorities and members with additional support.”
He added that development of the guidance would help “ensure that local authority schemes are supportive of members and officers”.
Various groups including LLG (Lawyers in Local Government) and the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) in particular have campaigned for remote meetings to be reintroduced since 2021 when temporary coronavirus regulations that allowed them to take place expired.
Responding to the announcement, Cllr Louise Gittins, Chair of the Local Government Association, said: “Giving local government the flexibility to allow councillors to attend council meetings remotely, if they wish to, is a positive step, giving councils the power to create arrangements that work best for them and their communities.
“In-person attendance remains important, but it must be balanced against the advantages remote attendance can provide in removing barriers to participating in the democratic process.
“We’re pleased that the Government recognises that councils should be trusted to set out the arrangements and decide for themselves how best to use this flexibility.”
On the new measures announced on proxy voting, she added: “We are also reviewing the proposed introduction of proxy voting at full council meetings and will work with government to clarify any outstanding questions on how this will be practically implemented.”
The consultation, which ran from 24 October to 19 December 2024, received 5,844 responses. A significant majority (86%) of respondents were in favour of the broad principle of allowing remote attendance at council meetings, with support for remote attendance consistently high across the different respondent categories.
Only 16% of respondents thought that councils should not have the flexibility to meet fully remotely under any circumstances. Other responses were split between preferring that councils could meet fully remotely at up to half of their meetings in a calendar year (38%) and preferring that councils could only meet remotely in unforeseen and exceptional circumstances (46%).
Asked whether there were there any necessary procedural measures that would help to ensure a remote or hybrid attendance policy is workable and efficient, respondents typically supported all three measures put forward in the consultation.
Some 87% of respondents supported the statement that “Councils should be required to ensure that standard constitutional arrangements are followed for hybrid and fully remote meetings”, while 83% supported the statement that “Councils should be required to make arrangements to ensure restricted items (where a council decision is taken in private to protect confidentiality) are managed appropriately and to require remotely attending members to join from a private location”.
Slightly fewer (71%) supported the statement that "Councils should be required to publish a list of attendees joining the meeting remotely and give notice if a meeting is being held with full remote attendance".
