Month: December 2013

Blogger calls for Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to consult public and press on local Council filming law

Blogger calls for Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to consult public and press on local Council filming law

Blogger calls for Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to consult public and press on local Council filming law

                          

Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral
CH43 7PH

Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP
Department for Communities and Local Government,
Eland House,
Bressenden Place,
London,
SW1E 5DU
eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk

23rd December 2013

Dear Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP,

As it is standard protocol to write to one’s own MP if one wants a reply from a Minister, I am also emailing a copy of this letter to my MP (the Rt Hon Frank Field MP). I am also publishing it on my blog and would be happy to publish any replies I receive to this letter.

In June 2013 your department published a press release titled Lights, camera, democracy in action that referred to problems I had earlier this year filming a meeting of Wirral Council’s Pensions Committee where the reason of “health and safety” was given. Your press release also referred to the Health and Safety Executive’s Myth Busters Challenge Panel’s view that the Council was “clearly hiding behind ‘health and safety’ as a convenient excuse rather than giving the real reasons for its concerns about full openness and transparency.”

In October you issued a further press release stating that a new law will give the press and public new rights to film and report council meetings (making specific reference to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill).

Since then a new clause was added to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill called “Access to local government meetings and documents“.

Once the Local Audit and Accountability Bill becomes law, this section will come into force two months later. However this section does not immediately (as was implied in your October press release) “confer new rights to film and report council meetings” as the only power it grants is to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (currently yourself) to come up with further secondary legislation on this issue.

I quote from what was said on the 21st November 2013 when this section was discussed at the Public Bill Committee stage by Brandon Lewis MP (the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government),

“It is fair to say that people should not be able to disrupt meetings. At the same time, however, we must get the balance right, as the regulations will, and we shall talk to the LGA about that. We must make sure that an authority does not use disruption as an excuse to stop people filming a meeting in a non-disruptive sense”, later he also said,

“That is why we will liaise with partners to make sure that the regulations are correct. We want to make sure that meetings are not disrupted, but, equally, that disruption cannot be used as an excuse to block fair and proper transparency. It is the inconsistent and unjustifiable excuses that councils occasionally use to refuse public access that we want the clause to address. Our intention is to make regulations that require local government bodies, including their committees, sub-committees and joint committees, to allow people to film, photograph, tweet and blog at their public meetings.”

In reference to the future regulations he said,”They may also specify that government bodies may reasonably ask for the filming or photographing to be done in such a way that they are not disruptive to the good order and conduct of the meeting.” and also “the Government intend to work with the LGA and the National Association of Local Councils to cover the detail of the regulations.”

I am concerned that as the government has only stated they will consult with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils on the detail of the regulations, that these two bodies will have the opportunity to comment on and suggest amendments to the regulations, when there is no commitment from the government that the people these regulations will affect (such as myself) who are currently filming local government meetings are to be consulted when the regulations are in draft form.

There are those who currently film local government meetings, bloggers who use clips of local government meetings in what they write, other members of the press, the public and other bodies (such as the National Union of Journalists) that may wish to comment on the detail of any draft regulations. Unlike primary legislation when members of the public can make submissions about proposed laws at the Public Bill Committee stage, I am not aware of any similar stage to secondary legislation (also referred to as regulations).

Three aspects worry me as to what could be in the regulations (especially as you have only committed to consult bodies representing local government views). I would appreciate the courtesy of a detailed response to these concerns. These concerning sections are in s.40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill.

“(2)Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision—
…
(c)about the steps to be taken by persons before carrying on such activities;”

I presume this is about informing the body being filming before filming. However if filming is a “right”, why should someone have to tell a body before exercising that right?

My experience of having the courtesy to tell my local Council before filming was that every time I did so they made a concerted effort to prevent me filming. Requiring those filming to tell the body in advance could also give the impression that the body has a non-existent legal power to prevent being filmed. I am against any regulations about there being any prior steps to be followed in advance of filming.

“(2)Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision—
…
(d) about the circumstances in which persons may not carry on such activities, including for enabling a person specified in the regulations to prevent them from doing so in the circumstances specified in the regulations.”

Apart from preventing filming during a part of the meeting where the press and public have been previously excluded I cannot think of any other circumstances in which this would be necessary or desirable (if the aim of these regulations is greater openness and transparency)? If regulations give local Councils any discretionary power to prevent filming (that they currently don’t have) when the meeting is open to the public my concern would be that that would be seen as a regulation that was incompatible with the Article 10 rights to freedom of expression of those wanting to film.

“(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

…
(d) for the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements conferred or imposed by the regulations.”

It is unclear about which rights or requirements this is would cover. Clearly if your intention is to extend the provisions of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 then the offences would be if people block or prevent people from exercising their rights under the regulations.

I would like a reassurance that the creation of offences does not include offences covering people exercising their right to film public bodies. Clearly if the regulations include a discretionary power (see 2(d) above) that the body can exercise to prevent filming, this could create an impasse where the body asks them to stop but they believe they have a right to film and refuse to do so.

Bearing in mind all the above, I would either like reassurance (individually on the above points) that my fears about what will be in the regulations and possible new powers granted to public bodies are either unfounded, or for the government to agree to a wider, public consultation on the principles behind the proposed regulations so that before proposing the regulations that you (and your officials) receive a balance of views on this matter rather than just the viewpoints of two bodies that solely represent local government interests on the draft regulations.

It is important that the press can easily hold local democracy in this country to account. I would not want to see either regulations that either make holding public bodies to account by the press unduly burdensome on those attempting to do so, or for public bodies to be granted new powers preventing their public meetings being recorded and the public knowing what they’re doing with their taxes.

I look forward to reading your response to this letter with interest (as I’m sure will my readers).

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

First response received 23rd December via email at 13:48.

from: EEMA_EPICKLES
to: john.brace@gmail.com
date: 23 December 2013 13:48
subject: Thank you for your email to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP

Thank you for your email to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Our aim is to consider the issues you raise and to respond within 15 working days.

If we feel that the issues raised do not fall within the Department’s responsibilities, we will try to transfer your email to the relevant government department and ask that they reply to you directly.

DCLG Contact Us Team.

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of the Government unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The Department’s computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Correspondents should note that all communications from Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

***********************************************************************************

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

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

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

                               

Halfway through November after having attended (instead of going to one of the fireworks displays across the Borough) a Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee at Wirral Council on Guy Fawkes’ Night I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for the briefing note that officers promised councillors about the effect of Peel’s dredging of the River Mersey on Wirral’s beaches.

The first reply stated I would have it by the 3rd December, then a further one by the 10th December, then on the 12th December they said they didn’t have one (making me think that was an end to it). On the 20th December I received an email telling me that the briefing note had gone out to councillors the day before. A copy of the briefing note was attached.

As it’s in the form of a Word document file, it doesn’t display in HTML correctly on the whatdotheyknow.com website, so I’ve included the briefing note below.

Briefing note requested by Members of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee on 5 November 2013

1 Introduction

At the above meeting Members asked for a briefing note on dredging of the River Mersey and the Liverpool 2 proposals. This information is now provided in the narrative below and by reference to the documents which are available on the Marine Maritime Organisation’s web site. If any further information is required then please do not hesitate to let me know.

2 Dredging and Liverpool 2

In response to formal consultation from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) during September 2012, the Council noted that it’s own Coastal Strategy proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area and went to conclude based on the evidence provided, Wirral Council was satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects (see page 45 at: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/public_register/cases/documents/liverpool2/consultation_responses.pdf). The application to the MMO was approved on 12 December 2012.  

Consequently, the Council has not raised any objection to the arrangements for dealing with the dredging that would arise from the Liverpool 2 project, which have been subject to environmental assessment (see pages 3 and 8 at: http://www.eib.europa.eu/attachments/pipeline/20120101_nts_en.pdf) .

David Ball

Head of Regeneration and Planning

19 December 2013

The first document linked to explains that in order to make the channel deep enough for “post-Panamax container vessels” that the depth of the channel will be increased from 6.9m to 8.0m to “enlarge the tidal window through which vessels will be able to access the quay” and the dredging was expected to “commence in late 2013” lasting six to nine months.

The dredging is being done using the rather wonderfully named “trailer suction hopper dredgers, cutter suction dredgers and backhoes”. Wirral Council’s response to the consultation on this is below.

Wirral Borough Council (WBC)
Further to your email, the following sets out the position in relation to the three questions in your email;

How does the development impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough?
ANSWER The consultation material submitted with the MMO Licence application draws heavily on the Environmental Statement submitted with the original Harbour Revision Order application and Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.

How does the proposed development align with any existing Wirral Borough Council plans or projects
ANSWER There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Council is supportive of the principle of the Seaforth Dock expansion given the strategic importance of the Port of Liverpool for Merseyside and the North West and the need to secure it’s long term competitive position in the face of competition from ports elsewhere in the UK and Europe and support objectives. Wirral Council is preparing a Core Strategy for the Borough and no proposals within the Core Strategy will be adversely impacted by the proposed development. The Strategic importance of the port is also recognised within the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West. The Council is also consulting on a Coastal Strategy that proposes continued maintenance of coastal protection infrastructure in the New Brighton/Egremont area. From the evidence provided and the monitoring strategy proposed, Wirral Council is satisfied that the proposed development will align satisfactorily with its terrestrial and marine plans and projects.
The reports to the Council’s Cabinet/Select Committee previously emailed to you provide further context and detail, if required.

Any other comments on the proposed development
ANSWER Whilst not constituting an objection to the MMO Licence application, Neil Thomas’ email of 2nd November referred to the fact that Wirral Council is not satisfied with the initially proposed location of wave and current monitoring equipment. However, the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences and navigation within the Mersey Estuary.

What’s interesting in Wirral Council’s response to the consultation is that they state both “that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough” but also “the Council is in discussion with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning with regard to re-locating monitoring equipment closer to the coastal defences at New Brighton, within the Mersey Estuary, with the intention of providing a more effective means of monitoring the impact of the development on Wirral’s coastal defences”.

So what does the environmental report state about the likely impact of this dredging on New Brighton? On page 16 it clearly states “The proposed scheme is predicted to have a minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton, MHDC have agreed to place a wave/current meter to monitor any changes in parameters which could affect this frontage. This measure forms part of a Deed of Agreement between MDHC and Natural England.”

All this of course leads to a number of questions (and I hope someone who knows more about this topic will leave a comment in answer to them).

1. Considering the above, was the recent flooding at New Brighton made worse by this dredging considering the “minor adverse impact on tides and waves at New Brighton” in the environmental report?

2. Why when the environmental report was available at the time of the consultation, did Wirral Council state in its response to the consultation “Wirral Council is satisfied that the information provided, and subsequent discussions with Peel Ports/Royal Haskoning on the placement of monitoring equipment, give sufficient comfort to Wirral that the works to be consented under this licence application will have no detrimental impact on existing infrastructure within Wirral Borough.” and that considering what Wirral Council knew about the vulnerability of Marine Point to flooding that “There are no terrestrial projects that would be adversely impacted by the proposed development.”?

3. Was the recent flooding of New Brighton made worse by man-made dredging of the River Mersey?

4. Which reports to Wirral Council’s Cabinet and committees were “previously emailed”?

5. Was the above known when planning consent was given for Marine Point and did the design of Marine Point take the above into account when considering flood risk?

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

Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

Metropolitan Police refuse to answer questions over Wirral care home fraud investigation

                     

Exactly a month ago I made my first Freedom of Information Act request to the Metropolitan Police about the care home fraud of £45,683.86 involving Wirral Council.

Below are the five (perfectly reasonable) questions I asked.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

A report to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee states that a fraud of £45,683.86 and £95.60 against Wirral Council was referred to the Metropolitan Police and that it is being “actively pursued”.

In relation to this investigation could you please answer the following questions.

1) Have the Metropolitan Police concluded their inquiries into the issues raised by Action Fraud/Wirral Council into the alleged fraud?

2) Has anyone been charged with a criminal offence in relation to matter? If so, how many people have been charged?

3) Who is conducting (or if it has concluded conducted) the investigation and what are their contact details? What rank is the investigating officer assigned to the case?

4) If the investigation is currently ongoing when is it likely to reach a conclusion?

5) As the fraud involved a victim in Merseyside, why is the Metropolitan Police and not the local police force (Merseyside Police) investigating the matter?

Yours faithfully,

John Brace

In response (after a reply on the 25th November basically saying they have received my request) yesterday I got this reply (which includes my questions). Certainly it’s one of those cases that’s probably worthy of requesting an internal review of. As to their suggestion that I’d get a different response to my questions if I got in touch with their press office instead, if it’s anything like Merseyside Police’s press office I’m pretty sure I’d just get a “no comment” response from them if I tried anyway! Metropolitan Police’s response to my Freedom of Information Act request is below. I’ve added some line spacing between paragraphs to make it more readable but otherwise it’s verbatim except for correcting a small typographical error where there was a missing space between two words.

Dear Mr Brace

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2013110002125

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 20/11/2013. I note you seek access to the following information:

* A report to Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee states that a fraud of £45,683.86 and £95.60 against Wirral Council was referred to the Metropolitan Police and that it is being “actively pursued”.

In relation to this investigation could you please answer the following questions.

1) Have the Metropolitan Police concluded their inquiries into the issues raised by Action Fraud/Wirral Council into the alleged fraud?

2) Has anyone been charged with a criminal offence in relation to matter? If so, how many people have been charged?

3) Who is conducting (or if it has concluded conducted) the investigation and what are their contact details? What rank is the investigating officer assigned to the case?

4) If the investigation is currently ongoing when is it likely to reach a conclusion?

5) As the fraud involved a victim in Merseyside, why is the Metropolitan Police and not the local police force (Merseyside Police) investigating the matter?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within Specialist Crime and Operations.

RESULT OF SEARCHES
The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Having considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION
The information requested relates to an ongoing investigation and is exempt by the virtue of Section 30(1)(a) of the Act.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred to in this email.

Section 30 Investigations
Under Sections 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.

This exemption can be applied following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT).

The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the ‘Public Interest’ lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

To release this information would disclose MPS practices used in this and similar investigations thereby exposing operational procedures and investigative protocols.

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.

Section 30 being a qualified exemption there is a statutory requirement to carry out a PIT when considering any disclosure and this is detailed below.

Public Interest Test – Investigations.
The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS’s ability to complete any future criminal investigations.

Evidence of Harm – Investigations
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed we have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world.

This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Section 30 Investigations Public Interest considerations favouring disclosure.
The investigation into allegations of fraud at Wirral Council is a high profile matter.
There has already been a significant amount of information placed into the public domain through media articles.
The public therefore have a genuine interest in being informed as to the nature and circumstances of these incidents and who may have been involved.

Sect 30 Investigations Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
During the course of any ongoing investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during the course of this enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations.

It cannot be clear at present what effect disclosures through FOI of investigation material may have upon this case but care must be taken to not compromise any strand of the investigation.

Balance test
Disclosure under the Act is a disclosure to the world not just to the individual making the request.

On balance the disclosure of information relating to an ongoing police investigation cannot be justified.

The public’s interest would not be served in releasing information if its release could compromise this or any current/future policing investigation.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please E-Mail me or contact me on 0207 230 6267 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

LEGAL ANNEX
Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

30(1) Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.

Total Policing is the Met’s commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment – please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE – This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

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

Government publishes privacy (8), freedom of expression and assembly (10&11) human rights arguments on filming public meetings law

Government publishes privacy (8), freedom of expression and assembly (10&11) human rights arguments on filming public meetings law

Government publishes privacy (8), freedom of expression and assembly (10&11) human rights arguments on filming public meetings law

                        

I thought it was about time to give a brief update on the filming issue and how the Local Audit and Accountability Bill is progressing through the Houses of Parliament.

On Tuesday it finished its last stages in the House of Commons (third reading and report stage) and is expected to become law around February 2014. Sadly when it becomes law in February 2014 it doesn’t settle the filming issue as section 40 (entitled access to local government meetings and documents) in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill around filming which you can read for yourself on Parliament’s website merely grants the power to the Minister to make further secondary legislation in this area.

Also in its commencement section (49(2)) which you can also also read in the same document on Parliament’s website the section on filming (as well as the more controversial section on local authority publicity) won’t come into effect until two months after the Local Audit and Accountability Bill becomes law (which if it does become law in February 2014 means it’ll be April 2014 at the earliest before there is secondary legislation on the matter).

As nobody really knows what the wording of the secondary legislation will be yet and section forty is open to a number of interpretations there have been some concerns expressed about what form it will take. I think it’s already been mentioned that the Government want to consult with the Local Government Association on this first.

Published this morning were the explanatory notes on the Commons amendments to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill which include at page 13 a statement on “compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights”.

I will quote from this section here (the quotes are in numbered bold paragraphs with my commentary below them), hopefully it allays some fears people had over what the secondary legislation is about and repeats the article 10 (freedom of expression) arguments I’ve been making to Wirral Council about filming for some time!

60. The amendments to the Bill which would allow residents attending meetings of the full council, its committees and sub-committees to act as citizen journalists potentially engage some rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”).

This is just a statement of fact, written in the ever careful language of lawyers, in my opinion they don’t “potentially engage”, they do engage.

61. The provisions would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which are either free-standing or amend the relevant provisions in Part 5A of and Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and that mirror the following elements of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”):

  • The use of websites for the publication of information such as agendas, minutes and connected reports;
  • The ability of the public to attend meetings to act as ‘citizen journalists’ (facilitating the reporting of meetings by individuals on social media); and
  • Recording the decisions taken by officers.

Basically parts of the laws mentioned could do with being repealed to make the situation on filming clearer for both local Councils and those doing the filming. Otherwise there’ll be (once the secondary legislation is passed) about six different bits of law stating slightly different things about the filming issue which would be a recipe for confusion and misunderstandings (especially as each bit of law can be interpreted in different ways). Two of the acts were written before the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42 came into effect. Had they been drafted after 1998 the clauses about filming would have had to be drafted in such a way to take into account article 10 rights to freedom of expression.

The first bullet point I think refers to the media and bloggers publishing information such as agendas, minutes and reports on their blogs rather than linking to the official version on the website of the organisation they’re reporting on. This is already covered in respect of Cabinet meetings in the 2012 regulations, which also grants qualified privilege to publishers in respect of publication of these documents.

The second bullet point is about widening the definition of media to include those writing and publishing online. The current definition in the legislation of media (apart from Cabinet meetings n the 2012 regulations which already covers new media) covers newspapers, media agencies (those who supply stories to newspapers) and those recording sound or video for news broadcasts (local radio and TV) as well as those classed as programme services under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Curiously that last definition is so broad it covers publishing video footage of Wirral Council meetings online (or any public meeting of a local Council).

62. These changes follow what is already provided for in the 2012 Regulations.

My reading of this is that the secondary legislation resulting from this section of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill (apart from the potential for amending provisions of earlier legislation) will extend the regulations outlined in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”) to all public meetings of local councils, as well as the other bodies specified in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill.

Examples of other bodies referred to in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill would be integrated transport authorities. Locally that would be Merseytravel (which may well be have changed completely and be absorbed into the Merseyside Combined Authority by the time the secondary legislation has effect) and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

63. The Bill as amended would also provide that the Secretary of State has powers to ensure that the public can film, blog, or tweet at all meetings of a full council, its committees and sub-committees; meetings of an executive, its committees and sub-committees; meetings of parish and town councils and Greater London Assembly meetings. This is a new proposal which reflects the changes in technology enabling broader access to information and new methods of reporting and recording council meeting proceedings.

Personally I don’t have a mobile phone so I can’t blog or tweet live at a public meeting. If I remember correctly the guidance previously issued by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP on filming meetings relied on legislation that technically didn’t cover parish and town councils which caused some issues. I don’t know of any parish or town councils in the Wirral and as far as I know Greater London Assembly meetings are already filmed as I’m sure I’ve previously seen Boris Johnson facing questions as the Mayor of London on the BBC Parliament channel.

64. Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR may be engaged in relation to the provisions regarding openness of council meetings. Neither of these rights is absolute and they include in their respective second paragraphs details regarding the basis on which the right may be limited.

65. Article 8 has potential to be engaged but it appears unlikely in these circumstances. The meetings being open to public attendance are unlikely to fall within the definition of “private and family life”. Lord Hope and Lord Nicholls in the case of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 both made clear in their judgements that the first step to consider if the matter falls within the sphere of private and family life. The latter described the approach to take as follows: “the touchstone of private life is whether in respect of the disclosed facts that the person in question had a reasonable expectation of privacy”. The court in HRH Prince of Wales v Associates Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA 1776 highlighted that whilst there was a division over the conclusions in Campbell there was no division regarding the relevant approach in law. Given that the council meetings considered by the Bill would be held in public (unless there was a justifiable reason to exclude the public), it is difficult see a sustainable argument that attendees would have a reasonable expectation of privacy so as to engage Article 8.

Article 8 is a red herring really, as pointed out there can’t be an expectation of privacy at a public meeting open to anyone to attend where there could be over a hundred present (if it’s a particularly controversial planning application) who would hear what was said and see what was going on. From what I remember, even Wirral Council’s councillors have never claimed filming can’t happen on privacy grounds.

66. Whilst it is unlikely that the attendees’ Article 8 rights would be engaged, if a successful argument were to be made, paragraph 2 of Article 8 allows for the limitation of these rights. The Article 8 rights of those who are attending the meetings (cf. to those attending and reporting) can arguably be qualified on the basis that the limitation is:

a. in accordance with the law; as prescribed by the Bill and regulations made using the powers it contains.
b. is necessary in a democratic society. This is on the basis that wide public access to meetings and reporting on meetings increases accountability. The level of scrutiny which the public expect is influenced by the availability and ease of using different reporting methods, and this has increased since the advent of social media including blogging, tweeting etc and is further influenced by the ease of access to this technology. There is an expectation now that the public should have the ability to subject their representatives to closer and more direct scrutiny; an expectation that is shared both by members of the public and their representatives.
c. is for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; namely the Article 10 rights of those reporting the meeting.

As pointed out above, article 8 is a qualified right and the rights of people to report public meetings has to be protected.

67. The provisions which would allow for regulations to be made on the prevention of the public from filming, reporting etc of council meetings may engage Article 10. However, it should be noted that it is envisaged that prevention of filming, reporting etc will largely be in the same circumstances in which the public would also be excluded from the meeting. As such the new provisions regarding prevention of filming, reporting etc would reflect the existing provisions on exclusion, including the common law right to exclude the public from meetings to suppress disorderly conduct. Insofar as there is a limitation on the Article 10 rights of potential attendees, this restriction can be justified on the basis that the prevention of filming, reporting etc and exclusion from meetings provisions are drafted in a manner to ensure those decisions are not arbitrary. For example the existing provisions on exclusion state the grounds on which a council may decide to hold a closed meeting, which include: where confidential or sensitive information is to be disclosed or discussed; or where the public are excluded under the common law right to suppress disorderly conduct. These reasons fall within the exceptions included within paragraph 2 of Article 10. Such reasons would be necessary in a democratic society if by not having the option to exclude public attendance would prevent the council from effectively carrying out its business. Furthermore, the exclusions would be prescribed by law as the justifications for preventing filming will be set out in the regulations and the justifications for exclusion from meetings are set out in primary legislation.

Firstly the issue of the press and public being excluded from a meeting, the suggestion that if the right to film covered the whole meeting meaning that recording equipment could be left behind and record the private part of the meeting is frankly a little ridiculous! However there are people that can stay and observe the private parts of meetings (such as other councillors and officers) that if the secondary legislation was poorly drafted would have a right to film or record these private sessions when the press and public were excluded.

I have no problem (and I don’t think anybody else would) with filming being prevented during parts of the meeting that the press and public are excluded from, however the phrase “largely be in the same circumstances” hints at other reasons to prevent filming which is worrying.

The common law right to suppress disorderly conduct is referred, yet it states “provisions are drafted in a manner to ensure those decisions are not arbitrary”. Last year at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee, a Wirral councillor (Cllr Jerry Williams, Labour) (you can read the minutes for yourself here) went so far as to suggest that filming itself to him is regarded as disorderly conduct (rather embarrassingly six members of the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee then went on to use a piece of legislation that only applies to Cabinet meetings as a rationale to prevent filming).

An opinion as to what or what isn’t disorderly conduct is (as shown in the previous paragraph) entirely arbitrary and I hope the secondary legislation states explicitly that silently filming a meeting can’t be seen as grounds for exclusion from the meeting under the disorderly conduct provisions already in the legislation.

So repeating somewhat what I said above, in my view the justification of preventing filming by excluding the press and public from the meeting is fine, the issue of preventing abuse of the disorderly conduct provision in legislation to prevent filming needs to be explicitly stated and I can’t see there being any other justifications for preventing filming.

68. Article 11, freedom of assembly and association, should also be considered. The right to freedom of assembly includes participation in public meetings. However, Article 11 is a qualified right which can be restricted. The basis of the restrictions include that is in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As such the position in relation justifying qualification of Article 11 is much the same as it is for Article 10 freedom of expression.

The right of the public to be at public meetings is already in legislation and the fact that Article 11 specifically states “peaceful assembly” means that article 11 isn’t engaged if people engage in disorderly conduct. I presume this is referring to the public and press being excluded from private sessions of meetings.

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

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on the Anna Klonowski Associates report redactions

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on the Anna Klonowski Associates report redactions

Response from Cllr Jeff Green on Improvement Board issues

                        

Following the Improvement Board meeting held in public last month, exactly a month ago I emailed Graham Burgess (Chief Executive), Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of the Labour Group), Cllr Jeff Green (Leader of the Conservative Group) and Cllr Phil Gilchrist (Leader of the Lib Dem Group) about the progress on the commitments made at that meeting.

I indicated in that email that I would publish replies (unless the author stated otherwise) so that the public know what’s happening.

Nearly two weeks ago I received a reply from Cllr Jeff Green (which is below). It made sense to wait a little longer for replies from the others so that they could all be published together. As a month has gone by and I haven’t received a reply from another of the other three, below Cllr Jeff Green’s reply I include my original email. I haven’t changed the colour used for text in Cllr Green’s email, as Leader of the Conservative Group I think it would come as no surprise to people that he writes in blue!

from: Green, Jeff E. (Councillor)
to: john.brace@gmail.com
date: 6 December 2013 14:47
subject: RE: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear John

Thanks for your email. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

I think my record is pretty clear on this matter: I have always pushed for an un-redacted copy of the AKA report to be published and have been obstructed at every turn.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the sooner the light is shed on the actions of those responsible, the better.

I trust that sets my position out clearly for you.

Best wishes

Jeff Green signature

Cllr. Jeff Green
Leader of the Conservative Group
Ward Councillor for West Kirby & Thurstaston

Twitter: www.twitter.com/cllrjeffgreen
Phone: 07766725125
You can also find me on Facebook

From: John Brace [mailto:john.brace@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 November 2013 11:15
To: Burgess, Graham
Cc: Davies, Phil L. (Councillor); Green, Jeff E. (Councillor); Gilchrist, Phil N. (Councillor)
Subject: follow up to question and answer session at Friday’s Improvement Board meeting

Dear Graham Burgess, Cllr Phil Davies, Cllr Jeff Green and Cllr Phil Gilchrist,

In order that the public know the progress of the commitments made on Friday’s Improvement Board meeting I am publishing this email and will happily also publish any replies unless you indicate that you do not wish your reply to be put in the public domain.

A brief update on some progress I have made on the appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associates Limited report. Appendix B (the Equality and Human Rights Commission Letter dated 29th December 2010) has been helpfully supplied by Paul Cardin.

Appendices C (the first improvement plan) and D (the Care Quality Commission Inspection Report) I discovered at the weekend had already been published by Wirral Council as part of a Cabinet agenda from over three years ago.

Appendix G (the Standards for England decision notices) have already been published too and I am not asking for appendix L (medical information relating to Martin Morton). This just leaves appendices E, F, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P and Q.

With regards to my supplementary question about appendix P (minutes of the DASS Monitoring and Development Sub Group Meeting), as this was the only meeting minutes referred to in the appendices list I made an error. My question should’ve referred to notes in a different appendix, which contained the notes of the Charging Policy Working Group held on the 22nd August 2005, my apologies for any confusion caused.

I would be interested in receiving an unredacted copy of the notes and accompanying table (unredacted in respect of the three councillors who were there if deleting the redaction of officer names is an insurmountable problem) of the Charging Policy Working Group. The only councillor I am able to ascertain was there so far was Cllr Pat Williams.

With regards to appendix E (charging policy for supported living services) as this was a policy I presume it was agreed by councillors. It therefore can’t be claimed that a policy falls into one of the reasons you gave on Friday for not publishing the appendices. Publishing it would help the public understand the series of events that happened and whether it was an unlawful policy implemented by officers or whether officers acted outside of an agreed policy.

I am sure you (apart from Cllr Gilchrist who couldn’t be there) remember the mood of the public at Friday’s meeting and how although Wirral Council has changed in some ways that convincing the public of that change will be a difficult challenge.

I asked the questions I did on Friday because if the public were informed fully about what actually happened, then knowing what happened and the chain of events that led to it would allow the public to decide for themselves whether the changes made since then would prevent a reoccurence in the future.

Until there is more disclosure of what went happened, despite Wirral Council’s desire to “move on” some members of the public will still want to know and the details of who, what, why, where and when which at the moment are answers that are only filled with speculation.

I hope this sets out my position and I look forward to a more detailed response about the future publication (or the reasons against publication) of the remaining appendices to the Anna Klonowski Associated Limited report and the question about removing the redactions of councillor and officer names (at Head of Service level and above) in the Martin Smith report.

Yours sincerely,
John Brace

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