Debate contribution: Local Government (Remote Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Local Government (Remote Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497496
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
I am pleased to bring the statutory rule (SR) to the Assembly for approval today. The draft regulations were laid before the Assembly on 7 June 2024 and are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. The purpose of the draft regulations is to give councils the flexibility to hold meetings by remote or hybrid means. They will be made under the Local Government (Meetings and Performance) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. As Members will be aware, during the pandemic, provision was made under the Coronavirus Act 2020 to allow councils to hold remote or hybrid meetings. The Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 were introduced as a temporary measure under section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and were in operation until 6 March 2024. Councils welcomed the ability to hold remote or hybrid meetings, and the Department has received representations from the local government sector asking that that flexibility be made permanent. The draft regulations that are before the Assembly today will do just that. Whilst there is no statutory requirement to consult on regulations that are made under the 2021 Act and no formal consultation was carried out, my officials have engaged with councils on the draft regulations. An initial draft of the regulations was issued to councils on 12 March for comment, and a revised draft, taking account of comments that were received, was issued to councils on 3 May. Officials also engaged on the draft regulations with council legal officers. I thank councils for their responses on the draft regulations. I also thank the Communities Committee for its scrutiny of the policy and the draft regulations. The proposed regulations are based on and very similar to the regulations that were in operation until 6 March 2024. They apply to council meetings, including committee meetings, subcommittee meetings and joint committee meetings. They will enable councils to hold meetings remotely or by hybrid means by, for example, videoconferencing, telephone conferencing, live webcast or live interactive streaming. The draft regulations also define the conditions that a council member must meet in order to attend a meeting remotely, namely that a member must be able to hear and be heard and, where practicable, to see and be seen by other members or by members of the public who are in attendance. The conditions are the same as those that applied under the 2020 regulations. The draft regulations also provide for hybrid meetings. Regulation 2(1) provides that a reference to a council meeting is not limited to a meeting at which all persons in attendance are present in the same place. The draft regulations contain one provision that was not in the 2020 regulations. A council will be required, for the sake of openness and transparency, to make standing orders about its arrangements for remote meetings, including those:
"setting out the process or basis for considering whether meetings are to be held remotely; governing the arrangements for and conduct of remote meetings; and regulating public access to such meetings and the availability of documents to the public in relation to those meetings."
I understand that allowing each council to decide its arrangements for remote meetings may cause inconsistencies across councils. However, the intention of the regulations is to grant councils the flexibility to conduct their meetings in the way that best allows them to meet the needs of the council, its members and their constituents.
574 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.52 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.