9
Full Council received report ES/0735 by the Leader of the Council, who firstly stated that there had been a lot of discussion about remote meetings, especially during the last week; he referred to the report before members explaining the various developments around remote meetings, setting out a plan for returning to face-to-face meetings, looking at some of the unknowns and providing some flexibility in decision-making, to take account of them.
The Leader stated that the background to this was that many of the Council’s statutory powers, to hold meetings, for example, came from the Local Government Act 1972 and the accepted view had been that local authority meetings under the 1972 Act had to be held in person, at a “place”, and could not be held remotely. That was why, last April, the Government made some regulations under the Coronavirus Act 2020 which allowed local authorities to meet virtually, rather than in a physical location. The regulations included a deadline of 6 May 2021, after which remote meetings could not be held.
The Leader reminded members that ESC responded quickly and well to the pandemic by organising its meetings remotely with the first remote meeting taking place on 6 May 2020. Since then over 75 meetings had been held remotely and successfully and these had been broadcast live on the Council’s YouTube channel. Meanwhile, the Government’s Roadmap Out of Lockdown was published on 22 February 2021 and it proposed that “organised permitted gatherings” such as indoor meetings would be permitted no earlier than 17 May 2021. It anticipated that all restrictions on indoor gatherings would be lifted by 21 June 2021, subject to certain “steps” being met. This was followed by a letter sent to all local authorities by the Local Government Minister on 25 March which explained that there was no Parliamentary time for legislation to extend the 6 May deadline in the regulations but given the good progress made with the vaccination programme, and the roadmap, there should be a significant reduction in risk for members meeting in person from 7 May 2021. Mr Hall also suggested that councils consider the use of existing powers to delegate decision making to individual officers to minimise the number of meetings; the use of single Member decision-making without the need for Cabinet to meet; bringing forward the annual meeting, which ESC had done; encouraging the use of remote access to minimise physical attendance by the public. Mr Hall also launched a consultation on the use of the current, remote arrangements and this consultation was due to close next month, and the Council would be responding to it. However, the Leader reported, in the face of the deadline of the 6 May 2021, a court case was brought in the High Court against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; its purpose was to obtain a court declaration which would confirm the ability of councils to hold remote meetings under the 1972 Act. This was on the grounds that the 1972 Act did not define the location of the meeting as having to be a physical place. The court case was heard on 21 April 2021. The Government had legal representation at the hearing, and supported the arguments being put forward in favour of remote meetings.
The Leader advised members that the decision in the case was published on 28 April 2021 and he referenced the link to the judgement in the report. The Court dismissed the claim for a declaration. It made clear that once 6 May deadline had passed, Council meetings had to take place at a single, specified geographical location. Attending a meeting at such a location meant physically going to it. Also, that being "present" at such a meeting involved physical presence at that location. The court recognised that there were powerful arguments in favour of permitting remote meetings but new legislation would need to be made for this. In addition, the Court went on to decide, on 5 May, that the public had to join the meeting, physically, too, for it to be “open to the public” etc. This meant that any form of hybrid meeting could not be allowed, as the public had to be physically present at the meeting too and could not join it remotely.
The Leader reported that, at this point, ESC would not be able to hold remote meetings after 6 May, without further legislation being made, and some uncertainties remained which were listed in paragraph 2.8 of the report and were about whether or not restrictions would be lifted, when planned; and what if further restrictions were imposed, later in the year. For this reason, the Leader reported, ESC would need to ensure that it had the flexibility in place to carry out its business safely, and effectively, whatever the Covid circumstances might be.
As the report set out, the Leader stated, some flexibility already existed, if Members wished to use it, for example, some of the Council’s meetings were not committees which had been given delegated authority by Council under the provisions of the 1972 Act; leading Counsel had advised that the Council’s Executive and its committees were not committees of the authority for the purposes of the 1972 Act; leading Counsel had advised that Licensing Sub-Committee hearings to consider applications/reviews etc for licensed premises under the Licensing Act 2003 were not meetings for the purposes of the 1972 Act. So, if necessary, some meetings listed in paragraph 2.9 of the report could continue to be held remotely after 6 May 2021, in the absence of further legislation and despite the recent decision of the High Court. However, the Leader added, the meetings listed in paragraph 2.10 of the report were committees set up for the purposes of the 1972 Act. These could not continue to meet remotely, in the light of the court’s recent decision, and in the absence of further legislation. This was because they were formal, decision-making meetings of the Council, which exercised authority for or on behalf of the Council.
The Leader advised members that whichever meetings were held in person, ESC would need to plan carefully for them; helpfully the Government updated its Guidance on the Safe Use of Council buildings on 29 April 2021. The Guidance emphasised that where local authority meetings took place in person, the Guidance itself must be followed, risk assessments must be carried out, and the full range of options available for decision-making looked at, as set out in the letter of 25 March.
The Leader stated that what was being proposed was in line with Luke Hall’s advice and the latest Guidance and he referred to the schedule of meetings for after 6 May 2021 and before 21 June 2021 suggesting that those meetings could be held either remotely or in person, as shown in the brackets in the list. Due to the uncertainties listed in paragraph 2.8 of the report, it should be noted that depending on the Covid compliant capacity of each of the meeting rooms at Riverside/East Suffolk House, the necessary layout and ICT provision, a decision would have to be made as to where each of the in-person meetings could take place, either at Riverside, East Suffolk House or at a larger, off-site venue. However, if large numbers of the public wished to attend a particular meeting, the Council may have to limit the numbers present to ensure Covid compliance. The Guidance was clear that only those “reasonably necessary” should be present in the room and, therefore, public participation might need to be restricted to a fixed number of seats. The live meeting could also be relayed into the other rooms e.g., the café at Riverside, and the Blyth at East Suffolk House, and broadcast on YouTube.
At the time of writing the report, the Leader advised, an alternative venue to hold a Full Council meeting had not been fixed. The next Full Council meeting was on 28 July 2021 and it may be that by then, all COVID restrictions would have ended, and the meeting could proceed in person, as normal.
Bearing in mind all points, the Leader stated, the Chief Executive Officer and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would need to adjust the lay-out, venue, number of attendees and possibly the date of some of the meetings to take account of the changing circumstances around Covid and the Court case. Also, meetings may be cancelled if there was sickness or insufficient business to warrant the holding of the meeting. One of the uncertainties listed in paragraph 2.8 of the report was about further Covid restrictions being imposed later in the year. Of course, the Government may have made primary legislation by then, to allow for remote meetings to be held once again, under the 1972 Act. However, if face-to-face meetings could not be held due to restrictions, and there was no new legislation to allow them, flexibility would be required to safeguard the Council’s decision-making for its committees etc. In those circumstances only, it would be wise for there to be some contingency arrangements in place and so the proposals set out in paragraph 3.9 of the report were there as a contingency only and they would apply only if in person meetings could not be held for whatever reason on or after 17 May 2021 and the Government had not made any new legislation which would allow remote meetings to be held under the 1972 Act. To cover these circumstances, and in line with the Guidance, Officer delegations needed to be put in place to allow the Council to carry out its business. Therefore, the Leader stated, should the circumstances set out in sub-paragraphs 1) and 2) of 3.9 in the report apply, the Council was asked to agree that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Coastal Management to make decisions which fell within the remit of the Strategic Planning Committee, or the Planning Committee North or the Planning Committee South, having consulted with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Planning Committee North and Planning Committee South; to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to make decisions which fell within the remit of the Licensing Committee, having consulted with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee; to the Chief Executive Officer to make decisions which fell within the remit of the Council, other Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council, in consultation with the relevant Council/Committee Chair and Vice-Chair. These delegated decisions would be made by the relevant Officers and evidenced by an Officer Delegated Decision Notice, which would be published on the Council’s website.
Also, the Leader added, many councils provided powers to their Chief Executive Officer, to enable action to be taken to respond to an emergency, whatever it may be, and whenever it might occur. It was noted that during the pandemic, and particularly in the first lockdown, that these powers to act in an emergency were not available to the Council’s Chief Executive Officer. To tie in with similar provisions which many other local authorities had, and to allow for maximum flexibility in the event of an emergency, it was proposed that a specific delegation be made to the Chief Executive Officer. Therefore, it was suggested that the delegation contained within the report be put in place to cover emergencies generally, of whatever nature, and arising at any time.
Looking to the future, the Leader hoped that councils would have the freedom to make choices as to how they held their meetings, taking account of what would work for them, and their residents, and the local democratic process. The Leader commented that Government was supportive of the continuation of remote meetings; this was a matter of trying to get allocated some Parliamentary time for that to happen and he was confident of that happening.
Councillor Byatt commented how pleased he was that ESC meetings were now being livestreamed to the YouTube channel. Councillor Byatt also suggested that perhaps officers could continue to attend meetings remotely. Councillor Byatt, referring to decision making by members, commented that ESC had the facility to run a quorum Full Council meeting and he asked if perhaps that could be a potential back-up. In response, the Leader was not supportive of this, referencing that all members had been elected by local people, to represent their views and interests at Council meetings, and he believed that democratic representation was important. He referred to the contingency plans with the report, emphasising again that they would only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Councillor Topping gave her thanks to all officers who had been involved in the setting up of remote meetings, commenting on how quickly and efficiently they had acted. Councillor Topping gave her support for the proposals within the report, commenting that she fully trusted the Chief Executive Officer and she was confident that the Leader would keep members apprised.
On the proposition of Councillor Gallant, and seconded by Councillor Rivett, it was by unanimous vote
RESOLVED
1. That the current circumstances around remote meetings and a return to face-to-face meetings, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the report, be noted.
2. That being mindful of the uncertainties listed in paragraph 2.8 of the report, and the need for flexibility in its decision-making, that Full Council agrees to make the delegations set out in paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 of the report.