Martins (389 Upton Road) ask for an alcohol licence;the @MerseyPolice Sgt insists video of a public meeting is erased
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee (Wirral Council) (Wallasey Town Hall, Committee Room 3) 8th May 2014 Martins, 389 Upton Road, Noctorum (Martin McColl Limited) Councillor Mike Sullivan (Labour), Councillor Steve Niblock (Chair, Labour), Councillor Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Martins (389 Upton Road) ask for an alcohol licence; the Merseyside Police Sergeant insists video of a public meeting is erased
Sometimes public meetings take such a bizarre turn, I couldn’t do justice to what happened at them without providing a transcript. However you first need to know a little about this “public meeting”. As detailed in the published report a application for a licence (from Martin McColl Limited) to sell alcohol at a newsagents at Martins, 389 Upton Road, Noctorum (which is in Claughton ward although it is across the road from Bidston & St James ward and very near Upton ward) had been received by Wirral Council. Martins don’t currently sell alcohol and the shop is run as a newsagents/grocery store.
The application was to sell alcohol from 6am to 11pm (seven days a week) for consumption off the premises. There had been a representation from a local business and a petition signed by ninety-four people against the application being granted. Both the petition and representation related to existing problems with youths in the area of the newsagents.
Merseyside Police were also objecting to the application on the basis of a current problem with antisocial behaviour in the area of the newsagents and the likelihood that this would increase if the licence was granted. Another ground of objection from Merseyside Police was that they didn’t feel that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated how crime and disorder would be prevented at the premises in the future should the licence be granted.
Unusually a representation had also been received from Wirral Council’s Environmental Health department which related to the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.
The meeting was supposed to start at 2pm, although it didn’t. The councillors and council officers were in the room at 2pm, but they seem to insist on having a long talk with each other before the meeting officially starts. For some peculiar reason (which is different to all other public meetings held at Wallasey Town Hall) they insist everybody comes in at once and won’t even allow you in the room five minutes a few minutes before the meeting starts (which is necessary to set up a tripod and turn a camera on in time for the meeting to start). I’ve asked a Wirral Council officer why, they just state because of the regulations. There’s nothing in the regulations that states everyone has to go into a public meeting at once, in fact the regulations just state the hearing has to be held in public (subject to Regulation 14(2)).
Anyway after what was a long time of waiting of about fifteen minutes everyone was asked to come in (which takes a few minutes in itself as there was me, Leonora, two petitioners, Sgt Barrigan (Merseyside Police), the applicant’s representative, the “area manager” and a Wirral Council officer working in Environmental Health). The meeting started and here is a transcript. Officially the first two items are appointment of Chair and declarations of interest.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
I’m Councillor Steve Niblock and I’m the Chair of the Subcommittee this afternoon as are my councillor colleagues who will be determining the application. Could I first ask that all mobile phones are switched off or turned to silent please? Thank you and also before we open it’s not the planned fire drill so if the alarm does go off go out of those doors, turn right immediately and assemble in the car park over the road, ok?
There is an issue that has been raised a number of times within the Council with regards to filming of committee meetings and therefore I need to ask all those present if they consent to being filmed and if not errm, the reasons where they do not wish to be filmed and then it’s up to the Committee to make a decision with regards to that particular recommendation.
So, the issue being round if we could introduce ourselves, and then we could deal with that ..
MARGARET O’DONNELL
Chair, sorry to interrupt, just I think the film is running now, so that might defeat the purpose.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, is it possible to pause that film?
JOHN BRACE
OK.
END OF TRANSCRIPT OF PART ONE
The applicant’s representative raised an objection to the meeting being filmed and said he was at the meeting with the Area Manager. He said he had not been told about the filming issue before the meeting and had not received instructions on this from his client.
Sergeant Barrigan of Merseyside Police said he had no objections to the meeting being filmed. The Wirral Council officer from environmental health said he had no objections to being filmed. The petitioners said they had no objection to being filmed.
The Chair asked Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public to leave whilst the councillors received advice from their legal adviser on the filming issue.
=======================================================================================================
Everyone waited outside in the corridor. Margaret O’Donnell came out and spoke with the applicant’s representative out of earshot. After talking with Margaret O’Donnell the applicant’s representative talked with Sergeant Barrigan about police officers wearing cameras. Sergeant Barrigan said in the corridor that he didn’t wear a camera or body armour as both pieces of kit would slow him down if he was chasing after a suspect and put him at a disadvantage.
Eventually after a long period of time Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public were invited back in to Committee Room 3.
=======================================================================================================
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
Once the errm the Committee has decided whether or not to make this meeting in camera.
EITHER APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE OR AREA MANAGER
There are two issues that cause me concern in relation to the errm, to the errm, to the errm, filming, not knowing what would happen to the film afterwards. Personally there is a matter which is referred to in two of the representations, more than one, errm, which is, errm, in two of the representations, which is currently I think it’s a matter before the courts in relation to those two issues affecting business. I’m not sure what questions you want to ask, in relation to that, but it’s not a matter that I have confidence on. Others the potential for prejudice if widely reported it could prejudice of that matter.
The second errm, is that, one, arising from that I have assumed that on were there any questions regarding security at this, these particular premises err as a result of that other issue which we believe err will address some of the concerns that were expressed, hopefully all those concerns that were expressed by Environmental Health and again that going into the public domain it would potentially defeat the the the security element so on that basis you will adjudicate the matter based on our concern that that could leak into the wider public domain. So for those two reasons around, I would prefer not to do it. Obviously it’s a determination for the Committee to decide on the regulations on what would be the overall regulation that would cover the matter. I would prefer that the matter wasn’t recorded and reported externally.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, Sergeant Barrigan, do you have any other objections or a view errm with regard to this matter being an exempt item?
SERGEANT BARRIGAN (Merseyside Police)
I think the point Mr Grant makes in relation to the potential sub judice issue is valid, although it’s not a prosecution errm that is being conducted by Merseyside Police. Errm, the other issue in relation to security I think is more valid. The enforcement action that is being conducted by Environmental Health resulted out from some issues in relation to security that is not subject to the representations and some proposals from Mr. Grant and his guys and I don’t think it’s appropriate that that information goes into the public domain because it could muck things up in the future errm and on reflection taking that into consideration I would request that the Committee hold it in camera.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK?
Mr ???? (Environmental Health)
We’ve established that.
COUNCILLOR STEVE NIBLOCK (Chair)
OK, that’s closed, now there there’s no one else objecting? I’m going to ask for another adjournment now.
Merseyside Police, the petitioners, the Wirral Council officer from Environmental Health and the public left to the corridor leaving the three councillors with some Wirral Council officers. After a long wait, people were invited back in (for the third time!).
=======================================================================================================
When everyone returned, the Chair Councillor Steve Niblock said that they had heard representations from the applicant and Merseyside Police and were excluding the public (see regulation 14(2) from the rest of the subcommittee meeting due to court proceedings.
For the purposes of this decision (see regulation 14(3) Sergeant Barrigan, the petitioners, the applicant’s representative and the area manager are all classed as “members of the public” and should have left. However they didn’t. Leonora and I proceeded to the door only to find my way blocked by Sergeant Barrigan insisting that before I left (since the redesign of Wallasey Town Hall Committee Room 3 has only one way in and out) that I delete the video footage on my camera of the public meeting! I deleted the second clip but refused to delete the first. Sergeant Barrigan wouldn’t let us leave until he got the ok from Councillor Steve Niblock that this was alright! I wonder if after we left Sergeant Barrigan (as is recommended) made a note of this conversation (conducted loud enough that everyone in the room could hear) in his notebook and if so what he put in these notes! A transcript of the second deleted video clip is above. This is a letter from 2010 Andrew Trotter, Chief Constable of the ACPO Advisory Group. I will quote from the relevant parts:
“There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer’s) guidance is as follows:
There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.
If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.”
I know this ACPO guidance was agreed at a national level, but does anybody know of any locally agreed policy of Merseyside Police that applies to the situation of being instructed by a police officer to delete video footage from a camera without a court order? Should I keep a copy of Andrew Trotter’s letter on me for future meetings and will politicians just use the reason of excluding the public from a public meeting to circumvent the regulations in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (which will have the force of law at some point in the next few weeks) which place a legal requirement on local councils to permit filming at their public meetings?
I am reminded of rule 1 of the National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct which states “A journalist:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Government gives Wirral Council 6 months to publish information on contracts, land, grants, trade unions & parking
Government gives Wirral Council 6 months to publish information on contracts, land, grants, trade unions & parking
The government on the 1st May published the Local Government Transparency Code 2014. The aim of it is to make local councils more transparent. The code’s published using a legal power the government has by s.2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and applies to county councils, district councils (such as Wirral Council), some parish councils, fire authorities (such as Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority), joint waste authorities (such as Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority), combined authorities (such as the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority) and other types of public bodies. However it doesn’t apply to Police and Crime Commissioners.
The transparency code lists at page 9 information that must be published by these bodies starting with expenditure of over £500 (which is already published monthly on Wirral Council’s website). The main difference the transparency code introduces in this area is a need to publish for each transaction VAT that can’t be recovered.
Details of invitations to tender for contracts of a value of £5,000 or more will in future be published by Wirral Council because of the transparency code. Details of any “contract, commissioned activity, purchase order, framework agreement and any other legally enforceable agreement with a value that exceeds £5,000” will also need to be published. This will include descriptions of the goods/services provided, amounts paid or estimated annual spend, supplier details, start/end/review dates and whether the supplier is a small to medium-sized enterprise or voluntary or community organisation. The topic of the public knowing what they’re getting from suppliers to Wirral Council was discussed at a previous Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting.
In addition to the invoices and contracts information the following information will need to be published annually:
local authority land,
grants to voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations,
organisation chart,
trade union facility time,
parking revenues,
controlled parking spaces,
senior salaries,
constitution and
the pay multiple.
For example on land, Wirral Council will have to publish details of all its freeholds, leaseholds, properties occupied or run under Private Finance Initiative contracts, other properties they own or use, surplus or vacant properties, undeveloped land, lease agreements and information on some other land related categories.
Information on grants (such as the Love Wirral scheme) to voluntary, community or social enterprise organisations will also have to be published such as a description of what the grant is for and the amount. The organisation chart showing the top three levels of management will mean that for each member of staff that this covers that their grade, job title, department and team, contact details, salary in £5,000 brackets and salary ceiling will have to be published.
The information required to be published on trade union facility time will include the trade unions involved, total number of staff who are union representatives, total number of staff that devote at least 50% of their time to union duties and an estimate of the spending on trade union duties as a percentage of the total pay bill.
Parking revenue data will be how much Wirral Council collects from on street parking, off street parking and parking enforcement notices. Wirral Council will need to publish the numbers of on and off street parking spaces.
The requirement on senior salary details goes further than the current requirements and includes bonus and payments in kind details for senior employees earning £50,000 or more and publishing a list of responsibilities for senior staff. The list of responsibilities means the services and functions that they are responsible for, budget held and number of staff.
The requirement to publish Wirral Council’s constitution on their website is already met by Wirral Council. The requirement to publish the pay multiple is the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median salary of the whole workforce.
The transparency code also includes details of recommended items that local councils should publish such as transactions over £250, transactions on corporate credit cards, numbers of free parking spaces, details of their counter fraud work and other matters. Councils and other public bodies have six months to publish the mandatory information required by the new transparency code.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall
Wirral Schools Forum hears of U-turn on schools funding school crossing patrols
Andrew Roberts talks at the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of 30th April 2014 about school crossing patrol funding
The Chair of the Wirral Schools Forum Richard Longster said that there were a couple of matters arising, the first being school crossing patrols.
Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager – School Funding and Resources) said, “The delivery of the saving of the school crossing patrols savings option was withdrawn at Council but the rest is part of the budget for 2014-15.”
However this was what was in the Schools Budget report when it was agreed at Budget Council on the 25th February 2014:
“There are a number of budget savings options for 2014-15 arising from working in partnership with schools. These have been progressed in discussions with schools and as part of this budget as follows:
…
– School Crossing Patrols £415,000
This option has been discussed with Headteacher groups with a view to it being funded by schools from their delegated budgets. The crossings would continue to be managed and staffed by Streetscene, but schools individually would meet the costs of the service.”
Cabinet believes the safety of children is paramount. In December Cabinet agreed to ask schools to take over the funding of school crossing patrols. Given the concerns expressed by a minority of schools, officers are instructed to continue discussions with schools with a guarantee that no funding is removed where agreement cannot be reached.”
So I wonder why an officer now states the savings option for school crossing patrols has been “withdrawn”?
So what happened behind the scenes over school crossing patrols to force such a U-turn? Did the headteachers refuse to fund it from their school’s budgets? Did Wirral Council’s legal department change their advice? Or did something else happen?
The Chair referred to the other matter arising relating to the minimum funding guarantee application to the Education Funding Agency to be exempt from the minimum funding guarantee.
Andrew Roberts replied, “OK, this is just to update the application for the LEA’s exemption was withdrawn to the EFA after the meeting on the 27th.”
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
