Extending the duty on local authorities to broadcast meetings: summary of responses

Section 46(1) and (2)(a) of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (“the 2021 Act”) places a duty on principal councils (county councils and county borough councils) to put in place arrangements for the broadcasting of full council meetings so that members of the public who are unable to attend in person at the meeting can see and hear proceedings as they happen.

Section 46(2)(b) and (4) of the 2021 Act gives Welsh Ministers the power to require a principal council to broadcast other meetings it holds.

Section 46(8) and (9) of the 2021 Act gives Welsh Ministers the power to require fire and rescue authorities (“FRAs”) and National Park authorities (“NPAs”) to broadcast their meetings.

The consultation paper considered:

• whether the duty on a principal council to broadcast meetings should be extended to include meetings other than that of the full council
• whether there should be a duty imposed upon FRAs and/or NPAs to broadcast their meetings
• whether there should be a retention period for recordings of broadcast meetings

About the consultation process

Views were invited as part of a formal consultation between 14^th July 2025 and 28^th November 2025. The consultation document was published on the Welsh Government’s website. The consultation sought views on a number of issues including: 

• Whether extending mandatory broadcasting to other principal council meetings is required
• What type of meetings should any extension include?
• Should broadcasting of meetings be extended to include those of FRAs and NPAs?
• How long should recordings of minutes be retained?

About the responses

49 responses were submitted either online or by e-mail within the timeframe of the consultation.11 of the respondents did not submit any answers, and one just noted they had read the consultation.   

As part of the consultation process respondents were asked whether they were content for their details to be disclosed. 11 respondents wished to remain anonymous and 12 did not answer the questions. We have therefore not released details of respondents’ identities.

The 49 respondents to the consultation can be grouped as follows:

• 13 principal councils
• 10 town and community councils
• 3 organisations, including societies, panels, associations
• 3 FRAs
• 3 NPAs
• 11 members of the public
• 6 anonymous online submission, grouping unknown 

37 responses were completed online and 12 submitted via e-mail. Partial responses were not considered.

No responses were received in hard copy.

This document is a summary of the responses received. The report does not aim to capture every point raised by respondents, instead it draws out key messages.

9 questions were asked in the consultation document, and a summary of the responses is set out below.

Not all questions were answered by all respondents, and some gave a general response to the consultation rather than answering specific questions. Where a general response has been provided, we have included the response under the most appropriate question or provided a summary of points raised. 

Respondents’ comments have been included in the summary where a respondent has not specifically agreed or disagreed with a question.

Question 1

Do you agree the duty to broadcast meetings live should be extended to additional meetings of a principal council?

If yes, which of the committees and meetings listed above in the consultation should be broadcast live?

Of the 49 consultation responses received, 40 responded to this question. 37 agreed with the proposal, 3 did not agree, 7 did not answer the question and 2 said it was not applicable.

76% (37) of the respondents who agreed with this proposal, many commented that extending the duty to additional meetings of a principal council was logical and ensured consistency, openness and transparency.  

15 of the respondents highlighted the resource implications of extending the live broadcasting duty, including demands on staff, equipment costs, storage capacity. One response asked for Welsh Government to provide dedicated funding to support any extended duty.

One local authority suggested a phased introduction; continue broadcasting full council meetings as is the requirement, then extend the duty to meetings with the highest level of public interest (Cabinet, Planning, Scrutiny) following on with Democratic Services, Audit and Licensing. 

There were conflicting views on ‘live vs recorded’, some responses suggested uploading recorded meetings promptly would achieve the same levels of transparency but would be at a lower cost than streaming live. 

Those who answered and expressed a view on which committee the duty should extend to the majority suggested that Cabinet, Planning, and Scrutiny Committees should be the additional meetings broadcast live.

Of the respondents who disagreed, one noted that the proposal had originally been introduced as a COVID‑19 safety measure. They felt it was no longer necessary and described it as a “waste of time and money”. Others noted the drain on resources and broadcasting too many meetings would detract from those which are the most important. 

Question 2

Are there other committees’ meetings of a principal council you think the duty should be extended.

If yes, then please set out which meetings and the reason(s)you consider it should be broadcast live?

Of the 49 consultation responses received, 40 answered this question. Of these, 25 (63%) respondents agreed that the duty should be extended to cover meetings beyond those identified in question 1. Only a small number offered specific suggestions regarding which additional meetings should be included such as those which generate significant public interest such as Cabinet and certain committees including planning, licensing and scrutiny.

13 respondents did not support extending the duty, 2 said the question was not applicable to them, and 9 did not answer the question.

Some respondents commented extending the duty to broadcast meetings would remove barriers and create a greater understanding of democracy by improving transparency, which in turn would build trust.

13 respondents (33%) did not support extending the duty, 2 said the question was not applicable to them, and nine did not answer the question. Those who did not agree commented the public were not public were not adequately familiar with additional committees and would be less likely to watch these meetings live, cost implications would need to be considered when applying this proposal, extending the duty to all sub-committees would be dis-proportionate due to staffing costs and resource implications.

Question 3

Do you agree the requirement to broadcast meetings should be extended to NPAs and FRAs?

Of the 49 consultation responses received 43 responded to this question. 35 agreed with the requirement 6 did not answer the question.  

81% (35) of the respondents agreed the requirement should be extended to NPAs and FRAs to ensure parity with principal councils and to allow for transparency and public scrutiny. Respondents raised the importance of the public having better access to the mechanisms of decision making and understand how these authorities operate and make decisions.

Views expressed included that broadcasting NPA and FRA meetings would be beneficial for residents living within their area, although if this is a new requirement then some funding should be provided to establish this functionality. A response from an FRA commented that without additional support, there is a genuine risk that resources could be diverted from frontline service delivery, which is the highest priority of an FRA.

Responses from town and community councils stated that NPAs and FRAs make decisions that affect communities served by town and community councils and local authorities. Broadcasting their meetings would support consistency across the local government landscape and provide valuable insight for councils working in partnership with these bodies.

Two respondents said they did not know what NPAs and FRAs did and felt these meetings were less important than council meetings. 

One principal council responded they rarely had people visiting the public gallery to view meetings in person, and viewing figures of live streamed meetings were low, therefore there should be consideration around public interest in placing a requirement on whether meetings of NPAs and FRAs should be broadcast. 

Question 4

Should the broadcasting of NPAs and FRA meetings be extended to meetings of that of the full authority, e.g standards committees? If yes, which meetings?

Of the 49 consultation responses received 42 responded to this question. 27 agreed with the proposal (64%). 15 said no to extending the duty. 7 did not answer the question.

20 of the responses supported some extension of broadcasting beyond full NPA and FRA meetings, but views varied on how far this should go. These respondents felt that broadcasting additional meetings, especially standards committee meetings would strengthen transparency and demonstrate to the public that complaints and investigations are taken seriously. 

The respondents who agreed the proposals should be extended suggested that Planning, and Standards Committees would generate the most public interest.

Those that did not support extending the duty argued that concerns should be taken on a case-by-case basis, whether there was public interest in the meeting, costs and the burden on staff and any decisions to broadcast should be proportionate, resource sensitive and based on public interest rather than a blanket requirement for all meetings.

Those who were not in agreement suggested broadcasting the main meetings of FRAs and NPAS would be beneficial to local authority members and the residents within the boundary area of the NPA or FRA, but it was considered there would be little or no interest in their other committees.

A response from an FRA suggested they don’t have the capacity to extend their broadcasting duty beyond that of full authority meetings, to do so would cause financial and resource pressures.

Question 5

In relation to principal councils, NPAs and FRAs do you agree that recordings of meetings required to be broadcast should be retained?

If yes, should this period be the same as the period for the official minutes i.e 6 years or for a different period of time? 

Of the 49 consultation responses received 45 responded to this question. 40 agreed with the proposal,5 said no and 4 did not answer the question.

89% (40) of the 45 respondents to this question agreed there should be a retention period for recordings of meetings for reasons of transparency, public accessibility and a greater understanding of a broadcast meeting compared with written minutes.

Six years was seen as an acceptable retention period given that it aligns with existing requirements for written minutes, although some responses preferred a shorter more flexible retention period due to storage and cost implications.

One NPA respondent suggested NPAs should be allowed to set their own retention periods reflecting their own priorities.

Question 5a

What do you consider would be the implications of adopting a longer period of retention for recordings of meetings?

Of the 49 consultation responses received 33 responded to this question, 16 did not answer the question. 

78% (26) of the respondents who favoured adopting a longer retention period outlined both benefits and challenges to longer retention periods. 

Potential benefits identified included improved transparency, accountability, and access to Welsh-language material. However, these should be considered against significant costs, legal risks, technological advances, data protection concerns, and limitations in current Welsh language translation.

Question 6

What, in your opinion, would be the likely effects of extending the duty to broadcast meetings on the Welsh language? We are particularly interested in any likely effects on opportunities to use the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English. Do you think that there are opportunities to promote any positive effects? Do you think that there are opportunities to mitigate any adverse effects?

Of the 49 consultation responses received 37 responded to this question. 12 did not answer the question. 

The consensus amongst the respondents was that extending the duty to broadcast meetings has the potential to both support and challenge the use of the Welsh language, depending on how the duty is implemented and resourced.

Many of the respondents noted that broadcasting meetings can increase the visibility and use of Welsh in local decision‑making and where meetings are held bilingually or through the medium of Welsh, webcasting enables the language to be heard more widely and supports equal access for Welsh speakers, including those who cannot attend in person or who live in areas where Welsh is not commonly used.

Respondents felt Welsh translation for meetings avoids treating Welsh less favourably than English, it also allows audiences to access content in their preferred language. It should also encourage greater use of Welsh by elected members and officers and raise the language’s profile within public bodies.

Potential adverse effects and challenges

Those who responded to the question felt that cost was the biggest consideration.

Extending the duty particularly where full bilingual or dual‑stream broadcasting is required is likely to increase financial and staffing pressures. Local authorities who operate predominantly in Welsh may face higher costs, as fully bilingual systems can require duplicate broadcasts, recordings, and technical support.

Respondents also noted that demand for Welsh translation at meetings is low in some local authorities, despite translation being provided and promoted on agendas and the equipment being available. There were also concerns raised that overly formal or academic Welsh used in meetings may reduce accessibility for everyday Welsh speakers, which could limit engagement and understanding.

Some respondents expressed concern that imposing uniform requirements without understanding local demographics or audience size could place unnecessary strain on councils and further work should be done to assess actual and potential Welsh‑language audiences before extending duties more widely.

Question 7

In your opinion, could extending the duty to broadcast meetings be formulated or changed so as to: have positive effects or more positive effects on using the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English; or mitigate any negative effects on using the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English?

Of the 49 consultation responses received 34 responded to this question. 15 skipped the question entirely.

71% (24) of the respondents to this question felt extending the duty to broadcast meetings could have a positive effect on the Welsh language, provided it is designed to support bilingual meetings rather than prioritising one language over the other.

Changes were suggested that would support the Welsh language included broadcasting meetings bilingually, the use of Welsh in meetings without the need to request translation in advance, Welsh and English subtitles used as standard for live and recorded meetings.

In relation to the negative effect the main concerns focused mainly on costs, capacity, and proportionality, particularly for authorities with lower levels of Welsh use. A minority of respondents expressed concern that strengthened Welsh‑language broadcasting duties could place unrealistic burdens on councils, especially in areas with low demand. They emphasised the need to align any extension with clear evidence of local need.

Question 8

Please explain how you think broadcasting of council meetings impacts different social, economic and cultural groups, both positively and negatively and what measures can be undertaken to ensure equitable access and representation.

Of the 49 consultation responses received 33 responded to this question.16 did not answer the questions.

Respondents broadly agreed that broadcasting council meetings enhances transparency and helps the public better understand local decision‑making. Several noted that it can act as a “wake‑up call” for authorities by exposing the quality of debate and behaviour, thereby strengthening accountability and trust.

Broadcasting was also seen as widening access for people unable to attend in person due to mobility or health issues, caring responsibilities, transport barriers or financial constraints. On‑demand recordings were viewed as particularly valuable for shift workers, young people and community groups. Some highlighted that hybrid meeting options further support participation.

However, respondents also felt that public interest in council meetings generally remains low, with viewing figures largely limited to those already engaged in local politics. Digital exclusion was identified as a continuing barrier, especially for older people, low‑income households and rural communities lacking reliable internet, devices or digital skills.

Concerns were also raised about pressures on council resources and the risk of online harassment, particularly directed at councillors from under‑represented groups.

To ensure equitable access, respondents recommended actions such as improving council websites, making broadcasts and transcripts easier to find, and promoting upcoming meetings through social media, mailing lists and community networks. Many emphasised the continued importance of enabling in‑person attendance.

Additional safeguards suggested included clearer policies on online abuse and options for protecting anonymity in sensitive cases. Ensuring younger people understand and engage with local democracy was highlighted as a priority.

Overall, respondents felt that broadcasting has significant potential to improve accessibility and transparency, but only if supported by effective communication, inclusive technology, and continued efforts to address digital and social inequalities.

Question 9

We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related points which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to record them.

Of the 49 consultation responses received 17 responded to this question. 32 skipped the question entirely.

Those that responded to this question generally felt extending the broadcasting requirement to Corporate Joint Committees and their sub‑committees would be beneficial, with some suggesting it should also include other regional bodies such as Enterprise Zones. Several also argued that town and community councils should eventually be included, as broadcasting could help improve standards, behaviour and transparency at that level. Some respondents expressed broader frustrations about local authority culture and a perceived lack of accountability, arguing greater transparency through broadcasting could help rebuild public trust.

However, practical concerns were raised about the feasibility of extending the duty. Many local authorities emphasised the significant staffing resources needed to run a hybrid, bilingual broadcast; often requiring at least 2 dedicated officers to manage procedures, minutes, audio‑visual systems, translation services and technical troubleshooting. Councils outlined that further extending broadcasting requirements would increase pressure on already stretched democratic services teams, who are also responsible for meeting tight statutory deadlines such as publishing decision records within seven days. Licensing costs and general financial pressures were also highlighted, with some respondents stating that extending the requirement to small town and community councils would be disproportionate and unaffordable.

Respondents also commented on the need for clear legislative provisions to deal with technical failures, and suggested exemptions for meetings where the public agenda is minimal or mostly consists of exempt items. A number of authorities requested national guidance from Welsh Government on issues such as how long recordings should be retained, noting that public expectations can be confused when webcasts are mistaken for the official record rather than minutes. Some argued that councils should retain discretion around providing simultaneous translation due to its high cost.

There was consensus that any extension of duties should come with appropriate guidance and potentially additional funding. Several respondents stressed the same broadcasting approach should apply consistently to Corporate Joint Committees and associated scrutiny bodies. 

Overall, the responses reflected broad support for expanding broadcasting duties to improve transparency, alongside strong caution about the resource pressures, technical requirements and financial implications for local authorities if the scope is widened without additional support.

The responses to this consultation will inform the Welsh Government’s approach to the extension of broadcasting council meetings for principal councils. It will also inform decisions about broadcasting meetings of NPAs and FRAs.