Companies: Online AGMs

Lord Livingston of Parkhead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

If my noble friend is referring to Section 172 of the Companies Act, which already requires directors to have regard in their decision-making to employee interests and

“the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment”,

that is a very important principle.

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have been a director, and not a cowardly one, at more than 50 AGMs over the last 30 years. Some AGMs have one attendee or none, some have a few tens, some have hundreds. The costs can often be thousands of pounds per attending shareholder. Given that shareholders can vote and ask questions remotely, should it not be up to the companies to decide—which shareholders can vote on—whether they wish to have in-person AGMs or to do it completely remotely, depending on the companies’ circumstances?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord sets out the rationale for why this will form part of the modernising corporate governance consultation. It will be in the hands of the shareholders and the businesses to decide. In fact, 85% of OECD Factbook countries, including the US, Germany and Japan, already allow virtual AGMs. So this is a proposal to bring the UK into line with other comparable countries, and to clarify the legal situation.