Tag: public

Why are Wirral Council censoring video of a public meeting about Kingdom?

Why are Wirral Council censoring video of a public meeting about Kingdom?

Why are Wirral Council censoring video of a public meeting about Kingdom?

                             

Warning Sign Ban Filming Ban Public Public Meetings
Warning Sign Ban Filming Ban Public Public Meetings

I have requested from Wirral Council to re-use video footage of their recent public meeting of councillors where the subject of Kingdom came up. Despite their policy on filming suggesting that we should allow re-use when filming them, they are concerned about the possibility of “edited extracts” (even though I asked not for edited extracts but to republish footage of the whole meeting) and it appears that the answer to the question about re-use at the moment is no.
Continue reading “Why are Wirral Council censoring video of a public meeting about Kingdom?”

What is a Pensions Board and can it exclude the press and public from its meetings?

What is a Pensions Board and can it exclude the press and public from its meetings?

What is a Pensions Board and can it exclude the press and public from its meetings?

                                                                   

Pensions Board meeting 13th October 2015 Foreground L to R Unknown, Patrick Moloney, Mike Hornby, Paul Wiggins, John Raisin (Chair), Anne Beauchamp Background L to R Unknown, Peter Wallach (Head of Pension Fund), Joe Blott (Strategic Director for Transformation and Resources)
Pensions Board meeting 13th October 2015 Foreground L to R Unknown, Patrick Moloney, Mike Hornby, Paul Wiggins, John Raisin (Chair), Anne Beauchamp Background L to R Unknown, Peter Wallach (Head of Pension Fund), Joe Blott (Strategic Director for Transformation and Resources)

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the Local Pensions Board (Merseyside Pension Fund) meeting on the 12th October 2015

I attended my first meeting of Wirral Council’s Pensions Board today (although this is the second meeting of the Pensions Board). Wirral Council are the Administering Authority for the Merseyside Pension Fund.

Although the venue was listed as: Merseyside Pension Fund, 7th Floor, Castle Chambers, Liverpool L2 9SH, it was in fact held in a board room on the 4th floor at the same address.

This page on the Merseyside Pension Fund’s website states who make up the Pensions Board.

Mike Hornby (a former Wirral Council councillor for Greasby, Frankby & Irby ward) was there as a member of the the Pensions Board. He is one of the employer representatives representing Wirral Council.

Paul Wiggins (one of the Member (meaning Member of the Merseyside Pension Fund) representatives) was there to represent the pensioner members in the Merseyside Pension Fund. Also there was the Independent Chair John Raisin.

The full list of nine people that make up the Pension Board can be found on the Merseyside Pension Fund website, although not all nine were present for the meeting and I haven’t listed everyone who was at the meeting above.

However what does a Pensions Board actually do? Well it’s a relatively recent legal requirement to have one that only started in April 2015. As Wirral Council administer the Merseyside Pension Fund they’re therefore required to have one. The role of the Pensions Board is to help ensure the Merseyside Pension Fund complies with governance and administration requirements.

The terms of reference state its function as follows.

2.1 The purpose of the Board is to assist the Administering Authority in its role as a scheme manager of the Scheme. Such assistance is to:

a. secure compliance with the Regulations, any other legislation relating to the governance and administration of the Scheme and requirements imposed by the Pension Regulator in relation to the Scheme and;

b. ensure the effective and efficient governance and administration of Merseyside Pension Fund.

c. provide the Scheme Manager with such information as it requires ensuring that any member of the Pension Board or person to be appointed to the Board does not have a conflict of interest.

 

It’s now where we get to a rather strange problem. Agenda item 8 of the meeting, as you can read for yourself on Wirral Council’s website attempts to exclude any members of the press and public present for items 9, 9a and 10 which refers to the Local Government Act 1972, s.100A.

Before the meeting started I would’ve liked a chance to point out verbally to someone what I’m going to write about now, but a Wirral Council officer insisted we wait in the kitchen next door instead, oh well.

There is power to exclude the press and public from a public meeting. It comes from the Local Government Act 1972, s.100A(4) and applies to meeting of a principal council and because of Local Government Act 1972, s.100E also committees and subcommittees (as well as joint committees).

The Pensions Board was never set up as a committee (or subcommittee) of Wirral Council though. In fact its terms of reference for the Pensions Board make that extremely clear.

“1.3 The Board is not a committee constituted under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore no general duties, responsibilities or powers assigned to such committees or to any sub-committees or officers under the constitution, standing orders or scheme of delegation of the Administering Authority apply to the Board unless expressly included in this document.”
 

So let me get this straight, a Pensions Board whose purpose is to “secure compliance with legislation”, assigns itself a power in law to exclude press and public from its meetings that it doesn’t have?

At the meeting itself on the 13th October 2015 the Independent Chair John Raisin proposed this resolution to exclude the press and public, it was seconded and agreed by the Pensions Board.

So who do you complain to about the Pensions Board not complying with the legislation? Why the Pension Board of course as its their role to ensure the Merseyside Pension Fund complies with the legislation!

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

First Merseyside Police disciplinary hearing held in public starts today

First Merseyside Police disciplinary hearing held in public starts today

First Merseyside Police disciplinary hearing held in public starts today

                                                 

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)

I read an interesting article in the Liverpool Echo this morning. The article refers to a police disciplinary hearing for four police officers that’s being held in public (starting today) for four days. By the time this blog post is published the hearing will have started.

This is the first one held in Merseyside since the Home Secretary changed the regulations earlier this year that govern police disciplinary hearings so that they’re in public and not in private.

As mentioned in the Liverpool Echo article, there’s a notice linked from this page on Merseyside Police’s website detailing the hearing information for the four-day hearing starting on 21st September 2015. That last link links to a copy of the three page notice on this blog in case Merseyside Police remove it from their website after the hearing has finished.

The government press release about the changes to the regulations issued about six weeks before the 2015 General Election can be read here.

However there were some parts of the Merseyside Police notice about the hearing that I wanted to quote. These are matters not referred to in the Liverpool Echo article.

Pages one to two of the notice about the hearing deal with the reasons why it is being held, but it is last bit that is interesting (which I will quote in full here, then comment on).

There will be limited seating for members of the press and public. To facilitate your attendance, you must apply by emailing the Merseyside Police Professional Standards Department at:
Professional.Standards.Department.PSD@merseyside.pnn.police.uk, with the following details: Name, Date of birth, Address, Email address, Phone number.

When attending a hearing you will be expected to produce photographic ID. These measures are in place to ensure compliance with Health & Safety legislation and security protocols. You are expected to arrive at least 30 minutes before the start of proceedings to enable staff to complete the administrative process and guide you to the seating area.

No recording or filming of these proceedings is allowed and attendees may be searched prior to entry.

Please note there are no parking or refreshment facilities available at the venue.

The premises are wheelchair accessible and a member of Merseyside Police staff will facilitate the signing in process.

This is a ‘No Smoking Building’.

No food or pets are allowed in the building, other than guide dogs.

So in other words, Merseyside Police want to know exactly who is at the hearing (held in public for the first time) and not only that but they want the dates of birth, address, email address and phone number of everyone from the press and public there.

They expect anyone from the press to show photo ID (not hard for the press as the press will have press cards or photo ID from their employer) but also the public too!

Merseyside Police don’t want any recording or filming of the hearing (presumably this won’t stop people sending tweets about the hearing from their mobile phones during the hearing) and to possibly search people attending.

There won’t be "refreshment facilities" (presumably that means no tea/coffee machine) and for a four-day hearing you’re not even allowed to bring a packed lunch.

Plus they want you to email in advance to say you’re coming!

For a public hearing (or to paraphrase what some councillors would say not a "public hearing" but a "hearing held in public") Merseyside Police would seem to be trying to deter people from going and to gather intelligence on the press and public attending.

Sadly, however interesting it sounds, with Wavertree being a ten-mile trip there and ten miles back from the Wirral we can’t spare someone for the four days of the hearing. I do hope the newspapers send someone though, so there is some record of what happens in this new age of openness and transparency.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Wirral Council takes the view that its rights matter more than Wirral citizen’s human rights

Wirral Council takes the view that its rights matter more than Wirral citizen’s human rights

Wirral Council takes the view that its rights matter more than Wirral citizen’s human rights

                                    

Following Friday’s blog post Wirral Council councillors ban filming at public meeting to decide on alcohol licence for Michaels of Moreton shop, there have been some reactions to what happened.

Councillor Stuart Kelly writes:

Indeed they have Councillor Kelly. As long ago as February 2011, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Bob O’Neill MP wrote to all Council Leaders and Monitoring Officers. He states in his letter “It is essential to a healthy democracy that citizens everywhere are able to feel that their council welcomes them to observe local decision-making and through modern media tools keep others informed as to what their council is doing.” and “the mainstream media also needs to be free to provide stronger local accountability by being able to film and record in meetings without obstruction”. He goes on to write “I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wide audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate.”

In the same letter, the Information Commissioner’s Office stated “In the context of photographing or filming meetings, whilst genuine concerns about being filmed should not be dismissed, the nature of the activity being filmed – elected representatives acting in the public sphere – should weigh heavily against personal objections.” Yet at Wirral Council this advice last Friday was not followed!

Former councillor Ian Lewis states on his new blog “We know most councillors have faces made for radio but their bizarre behaviour at this meeting, over a licensing application in Moreton, sets a new (low) standard”.

So why is Councillor Steve Niblock from the Chair making a unilateral decision about filming on behalf of the three person Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee? Regulation 25 referred to by Ken Abraham states “authority” (which is defined in Regulation 2 as meaning the whole subcommittee) expressing an opinion on disruption, not the Chair unilaterally expressing his opinion and expecting Regulation 25 to apply.

After the public were excluded from the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee meeting on Friday, I had a talk with the legal adviser to the committee Ken Abraham about my concerns about it and that the public hadn’t been excluded properly from the meeting. This was a conversation in a corridor at the Town Hall in front of my wife, so I don’t think there can be any expectation of privacy!

KEN ABRAHAM (legal adviser to the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee)
Can I speak to you after?

JOHN BRACE
I’ve had a chance to have a chat to the objector what it was about and he doesn’t have any objections to me filming. Will there be any problems with me filming the decision?

KEN ABRAHAM
Well it would be useful to find out why you’re filming.

JOHN BRACE
OK.

KEN ABRAHAM
because this is obviously you know, it’s a public Council meeting as in a public Council meeting, this is a what’s known as a public hearing, but there are people who attend who are obviously not aware that they’re going to be filmed so and…

JOHN BRACE
My point about filming, I’ll answer your question about why and then talk a bit about filming. The reason why is because there are people that can’t make it to these meetings, whether they’re at work during the day or

KEN ABRAHAM
People can have a look at the minutes.

JOHN BRACE
Yes, but the minutes aren’t published immediately.

KEN ABRAHAM
but then you could edit the filming.

JOHN BRACE
Err, clearly I could but I don’t. Anyway,

KEN ABRAHAM
The issue is that when you were asked to stop filming the other week, you still continued filming.

JOHN BRACE
No, sorry the other week when I was asked to stop filming I did and then we went out and came back in and it wasn’t clear then as to whether that carried on or not.

KEN ABRAHAM
The stopping filming?

JOHN BRACE
Yeah, because if you remember the other week, the meeting started, they were asked the question about objecting to filming. One person said yes, then we were all asked to go out, then we all came back in again and it wasn’t clear as you’ve said it’s not clear when we came back in again.

To be honest I did say things there but he [Councillor Steve Niblock] didn’t want me to speak anyway, so it’s hardly a valid reason.

KEN ABRAHAM
Well it’s not a public meeting, (at this point I link to Regulation 14 (which states it’s to take place in public), link to 100A and 100E of the Local Government Act 1972 which state otherwise to Ken’s assertion that it isn’t a public meeting. In fact earlier in the conversation he stated it was a public meeting.)

KEN ABRAHAM
and you’re not a representative or the, I I I if you want to talk in more detail I can.

JOHN BRACE
I do want to

KEN ABRAHAM
but I just need to, we’re still in the hearing,

JOHN BRACE
I just want to speak to you in more detail.

KEN ABRAHAM
Maybe if we do that after?

JOHN BRACE
The other very brief point I want to make, the first thing is any decision that a public authority makes has, due to the Human Rights Act 1998 to be compatible with the Convention on Human Rights so one of those rights is regarding freedom of expression and regarding the Article 10 right to freedom of expression there has to be a specific power the Council has in law to stop filming and it has to be for one or more of

KEN ABRAHAM
Yes, I hear you. You’re quoting the law, I know the law. We have rights under the regulations too, which empower them to stop a hearing proceeding if there is an issue about disrupting the meeting and the Chair took the view at that time that because it was clearly indicated that he didn’t want filming that he could have asked you to leave the room but he didn’t. As a filming condition to remain, to put the camera off.

JOHN BRACE
Yes, which I did.

KEN ABRAHAM
The licensing regulations are very clear and specific on that point.

JOHN BRACE
Unfortunately the licensing regulations don’t say anything about filming as such.

KEN ABRAHAM
but it talks about, it talks about the, this is why I can’t have a, I can have a discussion but not

JOHN BRACE
The other thing I wanted to say, let me say something. When the public were sent out,

KEN ABRAHAM
Yes.

JOHN BRACE
The law regarding public exclusion, I’m talking about the Local Government Act 1972, states there has to be a resolution and under the terms of [Wirral Council’s] constitution a resolution has to be proposed, seconded and voted on. That didn’t happen.

KEN ABRAHAM
This is a licensing hearing under the hearing regulations,

JOHN BRACE
Yes, but even in the regulations, the licensing regulations, it says they have to consider the public interest in favour of the public [staying] against excluding the public and they didn’t have a discussion about that.

KEN ABRAHAM
There was, there was representations by the Chair, by the individuals attending the meeting and those representations were taken on board. I’ve got to go off.

JOHN BRACE
but you understand my point about the filming issue and the point about the..

KEN ABRAHAM
Well people are entitled to object to that,

JOHN BRACE
and I pointed out I wasn’t filming that side

KEN ABRAHAM
It doesn’t matter, you’re still taking, you’re recording what individuals were saying

JOHN BRACE
Yes.

KEN ABRAHAM
and people can object to that if they’re members of the public.

JOHN BRACE
To be honest, I could just write it down

KEN ABRAHAM
exactly

JOHN BRACE
and type it up

KEN ABRAHAM
exactly, exactly. You could write it up, but at least you know, you know and that’s something that if you’re going to attend regularly, you know, the public needs to be and if it causes disruption at the hearing then we’re quite entitled to say, oh

JOHN BRACE
and can I say there’s also the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations which are going through Parliament and come into effect in a few weeks time.

KEN ABRAHAM
We’re not talking about councillors, we’re talking about members of the public.

JOHN BRACE
but we’re talking about public meetings here, not a public meeting of the full Council. In a few weeks time those regulations will come into effect and they actually prevent the Council from preventing filming at public meetings. They’re in draft form at the moment if you want to look at them.

KEN ABRAHAM
Yeah, well you don’t have to tell me word for word. The regulations are clear on the issue. It gives the Members the leeway to stop if there is a meeting that’s being filmed and the meeting could be disrupted or the hearing could be disrupted, they are entitled to take a view.

JOHN BRACE
Could you show me a copy of the particular regulation or ..

KEN ABRAHAM
Regulation 25,

JOHN BRACE
Regulation 25

KEN ABRAHAM
Licensing [Act 2003] Hearing Regulations [2005], alright and you can actually read the rule, end of story.

JOHN BRACE
OK, but it’s also a public meeting and we have a statutory right to be there.

KEN ABRAHAM
and you have the statutory right to be excluded.

JOHN BRACE
and the thing is right, if I was excluded and asked to leave, I could leave the camera running and leave.

KEN ABRAHAM
No, no, they have the right to exclude you, but the issue has if you’re going to attend these hearings, then members of the public must be aware of that, because they are not aware that you’re doing their filming and we don’t know what’s going to be done when it’s put on the website.

JOHN BRACE
And in fact if I’d answered the question about what the purpose of the filming, but the Chair wouldn’t let me answer it. When I explained it to him he said he had no objection.

KEN ABRAHAM
I said we’d have a discussion, that’s it. We’re not allowing you to have a discussion during

JOHN BRACE
But we’re having one!

KEN ABRAHAM
We’re not having one. Are you aware of the purpose of this discussion? You’re shouting at me!

JOHN BRACE
I’m not!

KEN ABRAHAM
The view that I’m going to take with you isn’t going to change. They tried to make a view on the hearing regulations and you know the people are members of the public and are going to object for whatever reason errm, Members are entitled under the regulations to take a view.

JOHN BRACE
Well actually we disagree on that.

KEN ABRAHAM
Well we’ll agree to disagree then.

Finally I include an email of Surjit Tour sent to me last year.

from: Tour, Surjit
to: john.brace@gmail.com
cc: stephengerrard@wirral.gov.uk
date: 2 April 2013 16:08
subject: RE: filming of public meetings
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Brace

I am on annual leave until 15 April. I am somewhat surprised by your email and letter given that I have asked you a number of times to meet me to discuss this issue.

Furthermore, there no ban on filming as you and another have been filming a number of committee meetings.

I would suggest that no proceedings are issued until I have had the opportunity to respond. I therefore request an extension of time to 30 April.

I await your response.

Please can you also include Stephen Gerrard in any further response.

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

So it seems two of Wirral Council’s legal team have different views on the filming issue.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

Cllr Williams “lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers & councillors”

Cllr Williams “lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers & councillors”

Cllr Williams “lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers & councillors”

                   

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Near the end of the last Council meeting, after most people in the public gallery had left, Council decided to remove the guillotine (had they not done so it would’ve meant going straight to a vote on the motion and amendment without any speeches) for the movers and seconders of the motion on the Improvement Board and the movers and seconders of the amendment on that motion. If you’re not familiar with the conventions of how politicians are referred to in the language of Wirral Council just substitute Members in her speech for councillors.

Cllr Pat Williams (as the seconder of the Lib Dem amendment) made a speech on Wirral Council’s “improvement journey” (a phrase I dislike but couldn’t think of anything better) which can be heard starting at 3:58 on the video clip above.

Cllr Pat Williams (Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group): Thank you Mr. Mayor. I know it’s the spirit of peace and goodwill but in my opinion the Notice of Motion is too congratulatory and ignores the views expressed at the public meeting on the Improvement Board.

Quite clearly there are still unresolved issues of ongoing concern to the public. There is also a lack of personal accountability for the numerous errors of judgement made by officers and councillors during the period which led to the involvement of the Improvement Board.

To be proud of the quickness of the improvement of any Council in the country is seen as a badge of honour. The fact that this Council was in such a dreadful situation that there was a need for the Improvement Board’s involvement seems to be just accepted without any humility or shame.

Of course any improvement is welcome and to be fair to certain people and Members of the Council, particularly newer Members I don’t doubt their sincerity in wishing that Council becomes an outstanding Council.

However some longer established councillors are going to take some time to be convinced that Wirral Council is on the right track and is going to be willing to keep on the right track and that lessons have been learned by those who got us into the mess in the first place.

Labour encouraged Members to fully engage in the policy and performance committees and visioning events. The committees I believe in part are too big, particularly the Family and Wellbeing Committee and have far to wide an area of responsibility to allow full engagement in monitoring what is going on in various service areas.

The scrutiny reviews which are going to be undertaken have been interesting and very worthwhile. Hopefully they will influence future policy making. However to be done properly, they are very time consuming. In the meantime the ongoing work of the Council is not in my opinion being properly monitored.

The need for much more improvement is necessary. It must not be forgotten that Council exists to serve the people of Wirral. It is so easy to get bogged down in policies and procedures, but if they are not in the best interests of the people that they represent they are not worth the paper they are written on.

And of course Mr. Mayor, we must always consider the well being of staff and ensure that they are treated fairly through this period of ongoing change so that we can all work together to everyone’s mutual benefit.

I would say to the Administration “Good try, but could do better” and we’ll look for more improvements for when the Improvement Board come back and see has actually been achieved. Thank you.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: