Tag: Department of Communities and Local Government

“Malicious editing” & “inaccurate, offensive or biased” in responses to new public meetings filming law

“Malicious editing” & “inaccurate, offensive or biased” in responses to new public meetings filming law

“Malicious editing” & “inaccurate, offensive or biased” in responses to new public meetings filming law

                            

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014) (an example of the sort of public meeting covered by the new regulations)

Last week I detailed some of the responses to a consultation by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (the law preventing local government bodies from stopping filming of their public meetings). There were a number of responses I didn’t mention which are summarised below (along with some comments of my own). For the whole response from each body you can follow the link to the Department of Communities and Local Government’s response to my Freedom of Information Act request on the whatdotheyknow.com website.

Association of Democratic Services Officers

The Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) is a professional body that represents staff working in democratic services in local authorities covering staff that do councillor support and support the running of local authority committees. ADSO wrote that “In general ADSO welcomes the draft regulations which we feel are a positive step towards the openness and transparency of local authority meetings” and then went on to raise the following interesting question and point.

“1. The regulations contain provisions relating to providing reasonable facilities for recording decisions/proceedings – we understand that the Secretary of State has the power to direct what “reasonable facilities” means and it would be helpful to know if this is likely to happen – for instance will local authorities be expected to provide internet facilities for attendees?

2. There might be difficulties in establishing a common set of requirements – not to mention the cost and security implications if authorities are told they have to provide free public WiFi in meeting rooms and they do not already have the infrastructure in place.”

Wirral Council does already have wireless internet access at Wallasey Town Hall (which is where most of their meetings are held). However these are for use by councillors and officers, are password protected and members of the media would need to know the password in order to use them (or the requirement to enter a password would have to be removed from one of the wireless networks by a settings change).

If the password to this network was made available to the media it could be used for live broadcasting of meetings as they were filmed rather than the way I do it at the moment which is to compress the video clips overnight and upload them the next day. For those providing a live Twitter feed of public meetings on a mobile phone, I would guess that using a wireless network instead of sending it over a mobile phone provider’s network would use less battery. At least one journalist brings multiple mobile phones to Council meetings that last for hours to write on Twitter about the meeting. Using a wireless network would be less expensive on data charges. It will be interesting to know how “reasonable facilities” is interpreted.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council

The Borough Solicitor of Bracknell Forest Borough Council only wrote this about the filming issue “2. There should be provision in the regulations to allow Councils to establish procedures to ensure that the right to record or film meetings should not be exercised in such a way as to disrupt the conduct of the meeting.”

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority

The clerk to the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority wrote a three page response (also copied to Carolyn Downs of the Local Government Association). The response stated that the issue had been discussed at the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority meeting of the 24th February 2012. Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority had what could be described as a lukewarm response with the clerk writing things like “While as a general principle the move towards greater transparency is to be welcomed, it is suggested that this needs to be tempered with what is reasonable and practicable”.

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority referred to a hypothetical future public meeting “whereby a particular decision to be taken could generate significant media and public interest”. They went on to state “While endeavours might be taken to accommodate this as far as possible, there could come a point whereby it might not be possible to accommodate all who might wish to attend.”

Their point was that the existing legislation stated that public meetings “shall be open to the public” whereas the regulations modified that to “grant a carte blanche permission for any and all persons to attend meetings” which meant that whereas the existing legislation meant they felt that they could turn people away from public meetings on grounds of capacity or fire safety, once it was modified they didn’t feel they would be able to do this. As with many responses to the consultation they were against the idea of a right to live commentary as this would be “somewhat disruptive and not conducive to concentration or effective decision making”. This was also stated in their response “There is also a risk of inaccurate or misleading reporting taking place if commentary (orally or in writing) in made before the debate is concluded and any final decision made or vote taken.

Essex County Fire and Rescue Service

Essex County Fire and Rescue Service’s Head of Law and Corporate Administration responded to state “in my view that, save for the use of recording equipment in public meetings, the governance of decisions in the Essex Fire Authority and indeed its subordinated Service is carried out in a way not dissimilar to the provisions of the draft regulations and appears to be very open and transparent for the public to secure clear insight into the use and discharge of EFA powers.”

Greater London Authority

The Greater London Authority (GLA) and Greater London Authority Group were supportive of the principles behind the regulations and stated “At the outset, we wish to express our general support for the principles which the Draft Regulations seek to implement. The GLA has done a great deal to improve its transparency and public access to decision-making, of our own volition and in support of the Government’s wide transparency agenda for local government bodies. We recognise the benefits that this brings to our customers and stakeholders but also to ourselves.”

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority

The Chairman of Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority responded by stating that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority “welcomes the opportunity for greater transparency and openness to local governance body meetings by allowing any persons to attend the meeting for the purposes of reporting.” and “A positive impact of the draft Regulations would be that members of the public would become better informed on the business of HFRA and as a result, the business of HFRA would be promoted to a wider audience.”

However their response wasn’t all positive as the Chairman also went on to state, “However, it is possible that persons may attempt or distort or edit the broadcast in some way to create a misleading impression.” and “HFRA considers the draft Regulations do not make any reference to ‘disturbances’ that could be caused at meetings by persons reporting and the impact that the disturbance could have on the meeting. HFRA recommends the ‘Plain English Guide’ to include guidance on disturbances and to the removal of a person from a meeting if their reporting renders the proceedings at the meeting impossible.”

Kent Fire and Rescue Service

The Chief Executive of Kent Fire and Rescue Service, Ann Millington gave the following response to the filming and social media issue:

“The Authority is committed to openness and transparency and has already drafted a policy on filming and the use of social media at its meetings. The Authority therefore has no objection in principle to giving the public a legal right to film or use social media for reporting on local authority meetings. However, the Authority does have serious concerns about some of the more detailed proposals contained in the draft regulations.

First, the Authority would question the need for the proposed amendment to section 100A(6)(c) of the Local Government Act 1972 requiring local authorities to provide “reasonable facilities” for members of the public to report meetings. This amendment is unnecessary given that the proposed new subsection 7A gives members of the public the right to attend meetings for the purposes of reporting. It is undesirable because it would put members of the public who wish to report on a meeting (or who just claim that they wish to do so) on a par with professional journalists representing newspapers. It is wrong to equate ‘citizen reporters’ with professional journalists because the latter are (as the Act itself says) “duly accredited” and work to professional standards. Local authorities have a reasonable expectation that professional journalists will report local authority meetings accurately and objectively. If these expectations are not met, then there are clear procedures by which local authorities (and others) can complain and have inaccuracies corrected. In contrast ‘citizen reporters’ can be as inaccurate, offensive or biased as they wish, and it is very difficult for local authorities to counter this.

In practice, the only ‘reasonable facilities’ that local authorities provide for professional journalists is reserved seating. There is a danger that giving ‘citizen journalists’ the same rights to ‘reasonable facilities’ as professional journalists would result in members of the public wishing to report on meetings, or claiming they wish to do so, demanding priority for the available seating over other members of the public. This could be very unfair where a meeting generates so much local interest that not all the members of the public wishing to attend can be accommodated.

The Authority’s second concern is that the draft regulations appear to give members of the public wishing to report on local authority meetings an absolute right to do so. However the regulations need to incorporate a provision that the public’s right to report is subject to any reasonable conditions which the local authority may feel appropriate. These conditions may include a requirement to advise the Chairman of the meeting before the meeting starts of any intention to film or record (so that the Chairman can advise all attendees, including other members of the public, of this) as well as a prohibition on covert filming or recording; and a requirement not to cause any disruption to the meeting. Although subsection (8) already covers ‘disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour’, it does not cover the sort of disruption that would be caused if a member of the public exercising their right to film (under subsection (10)(a)) chose to wander around the meeting room while doing so, or if a member of the public exercising their right to provide commentary on proceedings of a meeting orally (under subsection (10)(c)) did so loudly enough to interfere with the formal debate.”

Lawyers in Local Government (LLG)

Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) responded as follows on the filming issue, “There is a strong view that there needs to be a power for Council to allow subject to limits on what can be filmed – e.g. speaker notes, listeners notes, etc.? What about the recording of members not participating in the debate? Should there be a sanction for concealment? (There is a cadre of opinion that the Chair of a meeting should have the power to prevent councillors from tweeting/blogging during meetings as some chairs take the view that this is at best not participating as they should and at worst disrespectful to the meeting.)

Has there been consultation with NALC? The extension of the provisions to all parish council’s and parish meetings seems to be ‘over the top’ – perhaps it should be linked to the criteria for Quality Council status, the majority of parish councils (and effectively all parish meetings) simply not being resourced for the additional administration?

What is the Department’s view on what a Council could do if a recording were made and then published, particularly in an edited format which misrepresented what had actually happened at the meeting?”

Nottinghamshire County Council

The Corporate Director for Policy Planning and Corporate Services at Nottinghamshire County Council had this to write about the filming issue, “The County Council supports public access to meetings, and the right of the press and public to report and record them. However, the legislation should take account of practical implications; recording should not disrupt the smooth running of meetings, and authorities should be able to request reasonable notice, limit numbers and so on where appropriate.”

National Association of Local Councils

NALC (the National Association of Local Councils) represents around 9,000 parish councils in England. On the filming issue their policy and improvement officer wrote the following, “While NALC supports the objective of transparent and accountable local government, we are deeply concerned some key sections of the draft regulations will have a significant effect on the operation of parish councils, leading to an increase in red tape and bureaucracy and adding unnecessary new costs.”

NALC’s comments and recommendations on the filming issue were:

“

  • any person seeking to film or record a meeting of a local council be required to announce their intention to the council or council staff prior to the commencement of the meeting;
  • in the interests of openness and transparency, the names of any person(s) seeking to film or record a meeting of a council required to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting in question;
  • regulations should reflect the need for permission to be sought from members of the public to be filmed or recorded during the public participation element of the meeting;
  • where filming or recording does take place, any running verbal commentary by a person(s) should not disrupt the meeting, with the Chairman of the meeting able to ask the person(s) to stop any verbal commentary on the grounds of disruption, should disruption continue as a last resort be able to ask them to leave the meeting;

    • ”

    NALC consulted with their member councils and highlighted these issues from the responses that they received:

    “The majority of our councils are extremely concerned that the regulations which seek to amend the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to allow a member of the public to film or record public meetings could be used to provide biased or inaccurate coverage of those meetings, to the detriment of the council or individual councillors.”

    “Councils clearly feel that the intention of the filming and recording regulations in particular would have a different effect on the local (parish and town) council tier rather than on the larger, and better resourced, local authorities.”

    “Clear guidance, drafted specifically for the local council sector, could alleviate many councils’ fears, particularly in relation to the expected resourcing of regulations relating to reporting delegated decisions and filming, as well as clearly articulating sector expectations.”

    NALC’s comments and concerns on the proposed regulations were set out in more detail in various sections (which you can read below).

    “Regulations requiring parish and town councils to allow any persons including professional journalists to attend, film, audio record, take photographs or provide commentary on the proceedings at public meetings

    As noted above, this proposed regulation drew the most comment from our sector.

    Generally, parish councils are supportive of the Government’s intention and policy objective, but remain concerned that vexatious recordings could be made that create an inaccurate impression of council decision making and which are distributed to a large public audience.

    It was for this reason that a significant proportion of our councils are against the implementation of this regulation. Further detail is provided below.

  • Councils making their own recordings

Many councils have expressed a view this regulation would require them to record and upload their own web recordings, in order to ensure a true record of proceedings was maintained in video format (in addition to the minutes of the meeting). It was felt that this would be necessary to protect against any modified film or video recordings that could give a public misrepresentation of proceedings. Smaller councils in particular were concerned that they do not have the resources to make their own recordings with which to protect themselves from the consequences of this regulation. For example, Didcot Town Council (although a large local council) outlined the resources required:

‘[Council’s] would need to provide audio-visual recording equipment in their meeting rooms to provide a corporate record of all meetings and this would need to be staffed and archived…. Media and legal training would need to be provided to councillors and staff which would take time and finance.’

  • Filming councillors

As the tier of Government closest to the community they represent, a number of parish councillors felt intimidated by the thought of being filmed and/or recorded in their capacity as councillors. They argued that the idea of being filmed surreptitiously was a significant deterrent to current and even potential parish councillors, thus serving to weaken rather than strengthen democracy. Great Baddow Parish Council wrote:

‘Finally, as we know, it is difficult enough already to get people to stand as parish councillors. It seems to be forgotten that they are unpaid public officials, volunteering their time, providing a community service. … Having what they say in council meetings … broadcast around the village, if not the world and possibly held to ridicule by the Daily Mail is not calculated to increase the number of people willing to become councillors. Or perhaps the younger generation, brought up on Facebook, will not care?’

  • Filming members of the public

The sector also expressed concern that members of the public might be deterred from participating in open discussion on contentious issues if they were aware they were being filmed. The Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils provided an example of the concern they heard from their members:

‘We accept constructive and responsible use of all forms of technology – blogging, tweeting, filming and recording. However, we recognise that some councils feel that allowing filming, in particular, could be intrusive and inhibit free speech, deterring people from speaking out on contentious issues such as planning applications. This is very relevant in small communities where members of the public, as well as councillors, may feel intimidated from expressing their views. It is accepted that councillors by standing for election to public office have, by default, acknowledged some degree of exposure but members of the public need some measure of reassurance that their views will not be misrepresented by malicious editing.’

  • Announcement of intention to film or record

In order to address this concern, a significant number of councils proposed that people intending to film or record a public council meeting make their intention known to council staff, who could then inform councillors and members of the public attending the meeting. It was felt that this would go some way to ensuring that the recording was not used maliciously and that it would not be disruptive to the conduct of council business. Some councils suggested that prior written consent should be obtained before filming or recording could take place.

The National Association, on behalf of our members, supports this amendment. We would like to see the regulation amended to require that any person seeking to film or record a meeting of a local council announce that intention to the council or council staff prior to the commencement of the meeting and have this intention recorded in the minutes of the meeting. This would allow councillors to raise this intention with any participating members of the public that are present and assuage ongoing concern around filming with malicious intent, without inhibiting the desire for transparent and participative local governance.

In addition, we recommend that the regulations should require permission from members of the public to be filmed or recorded be sought prior to the commencement of filming.”

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

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” Council Chamber and the LGA

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” council chamber and the LGA

Responses to filming law; public meetings in a pub, Lord True & a “frequently intimate” Council Chamber and the LGA

                         

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014) (an example of the sort of public meeting covered by the new regulations)

The Department of Communities and Local Government have today responded to the Freedom of Information Act request I made a month ago about consultation responses (although DCLG refers to it as a “sounding exercise” and not a consultation) about the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (this is the proposed law about filming of public meetings) which is now in draft form but expected to move from draft form to having the force of law in the next month or two. Once it becomes law I’ll be able to film public meetings of the Combined Authority or its Merseytravel Committee without facing resistance to such requests from the bureaucracy.

Some of the responses raise interesting points. My comments centre on the filming aspects of this, however these draft regulations cover filming and some other matters.

Alton Town Council
My first thought was where’s Alton? It’s about ten miles east of Newcastle. Alton Town Council were against the requirement to allow oral commentary during public meetings (something I must admit I was against too as I had visions of filming a meeting with journalists either side talking into tape recorders and completely drowning out what was being said). This requirement has since been dropped in the version of the draft legislation laid before Parliament as many of the responses were against it.

Alton Town Council describe their opposition to such a requirement thus “One person trying to speak over another person is rarely helpful in a debate, as I’m sure members of the House of Commons are aware.” However they also state in their response “As a general principle I don’t have an issue with the idea of filming or recording meetings, or tweeting or posting comments during meetings.”

Unknown Parish Council
Unfortunately DCLG have redacted this response so I don’t know which parish council this was from. They state that they hire a room in the local public house for their meetings that “lighting is far from perfect at present and I doubt if it would be adequate for recording (filming) purposes”. They further point out that “electrical sockets are limited”.

Their response goes on to state that they have between seven and fifteen members of the public at their meetings (I wonder if this is partly because they’re held in the local pub). The last point they raise is about privacy, not about councillors or officers but of members of the public. They pose the point of if somebody objected to the filming, given the recording would not be the responsibility of or in the control of the council, what would the position be?

Personally I think the concept of privacy at a public meeting (and I’ve been to at least one recently at Wirral Council where there have been over a hundred people there at least) doesn’t really exist. You’re in a public building at a public meeting in a public place, there should be no expectation of privacy in such situations.

Transport for London
Although not on the subject of filming, Transport for London insist that compliance with the new regulations will require hiring seven to ten extra full-time employees and that they don’t have time to do this before the new regulations will come into effect. Good news though if you want a job working for Transport for London!

Lord True CBE (Leader, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames)
Lord True’s response sent on House of Lords stationery thinks that the regulations are disproportionate, intrusive and will lead to “additional unnecessary costs” for local government.

He states that at his Council they already stream live over the internet meetings of all their councillors and Planning Committee meetings and other meetings if there is “a specific expression of public interest”. However they don’t stream all meetings “in view of the costs involved”.

Lord True however is however concerned about the “need not to disrupt” (in fact so concerned that he underlines the phrase in his letter. He sees no reason why anyone should be prevented from filming, photographing (preferably without flash) or filming but is against the idea of “oral commentary” which he deems to be “unnecessary and potentially disruptive”. He describes a council chamber as being “frequently intimate” and states that their gallery is so close that you can “touch those on the front row”.

He goes on to state that construction of a “sound proof box” (which is what happened to the public gallery in the House of Commons and House of Lords since the “flour bomb” incident) would be expensive and he asks that the oral commentary requirement in the regulations be removed.

His views go on to include the rather worrying phrase that shows perhaps the rather unhealthy desire at times that politicians have to control the press “I think it is absolutely essential in the interests of democracy and fair debate that Councils are not able to obstruct access, but are able to control the way in which recording is done”. He states that filming from the public gallery would give an advantage to the councillors nearer to it, that the Council does its own filming from behind the Mayor which gives equal treatment to councillors on both sides. He goes on to state that he thinks it would be better to just have the Council filming meetings, with the recording made available to anyone who wanted it as opposed to separate recordings of the same meeting.

Lord True goes on to state that he thinks that requests to film or record should be made in advance. This seems to ignore the point that when the new regulations come into effect such a request couldn’t be turned down therefore what is the point of making it? He states “I think in the interests of fairness and good order requests to film or record should be made in advance, or at least subject to control by the Chair, on advice from the proper officer.”

His last point is that the new regulations won’t include Neighbourhood Forums and states that these bodies will have “extensive planning responsibilities”. On the Wirral this would be bodies such as Hoylake Life, Devonshire Park Residents Association and Unity in the Community. Perhaps someone who has a greater knowledge of these bodies or connection to these three could leave a comment about the filming issue, but from memory Devonshire Park Residents Association still has to have a referendum before it formally becomes a Neighbourhood Forum and I would guess that the other two are also at the early stages of development too. Lord True’s view is that these bodies should be opened up to filming in the same way that “Council planning committee now are (or will be)”.

Local Government Association
The Local Government Association also responded stating that they are “committed to the principles of transparency and openness in local government and to continuous improvement”. They state that most of the proposals in the draft regulations are already taking place in the vast majority of councils, either on a voluntary basis or in compliance with existing legislation.

They even accept that there is “room for improvement”, however refer to the regulations as “completely contrary to the principles of localism” and of being “micro-management of the sector”. The LGA states that instead of a legal requirement on all councils to comply they’d prefer government issue guidance to councils instead. The Local Government Association states that they would “welcome a meeting with you to discuss” “concerns relating to the areas covered by the draft regulations”.

The response from the Local Government Association (sent in the name of Carolyn Downs its Chief Executive) finishes by stating “Finally and separately it would be helpful to have a conversation about “soundings” as opposed to consultation.

If we read what was said by by Baroness Stowell who was at the time Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government after referring to how the filming issue had been dealt with in other parts of the country said on the 21st November last year “Noble Lords raised important points about risks, and the measures necessary to mitigate those risks, to ensure that proper conduct is able to continue. I re-emphasise that we will carry out a process of consultation on these regulations and ensure that we take account of the points that have been made. We will not lay the regulations until we have completed that consultation. However, we are talking about a matter of months in terms of bringing those regulations forward. We do not want delay on this.”

Generally people would think that a “process of consultation” means a consultation, yet the Department of Communities and Local Government doesn’t regard this as a “consultation” but instead as “soundings”. However whether it was a consultation or soundings is about as worthwhile as discussing the answer to the question, “How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?”. The draft regulations will become law in a matter of weeks.

I’ll continue at a later date going through some more of the responses. The regulations place a legal responsibility on councils to provide “reasonable facilities”. In the days of newspaper journalists needing a table to sit on that was generally what was interpreted as reasonable facilities. However some of the responses I’ll go through in detail tomorrow ask if “reasonable facilities” could be interpreted as providing free wireless internet access to those wanting to film, tweet, blog etc. It’s an interesting idea, I know in another part of the country a blogger used the public wireless internet access there provided to the press to stream a Council meeting on Youtube earlier this year.

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

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

Does Pickles think that Wirral Council’s £22,500 newspaper plan “pours taxpayers’ money down the drain”?

                         

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.

The point in the video above of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting where the “community newspaper” proposals starts is at 21:28

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (10th April 2014) Birkenhead Town Hall
Left to Right Surjit Tour (Head of Legal and Member Services), Councillor George Davies, Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Chair), Dawn Tolcher (Birkenhead Constituency Manager)

Prior to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting held on the 10th April that decided to go ahead with the “community newspaper” idea, Graham Burgess (Wirral Council’s Chief Executive) would have received this letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government about council’s compliance with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

I won’t include the letter here as you can click on the link and read it in its entirety yourself, but I will quote some sections “The background to the new power is that whilst the majority of local authorities comply fully with the Publicity Code’s provisions, it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature or continuing to publish newspapers more frequently than stated in the Code’s provisions. The Secretary of State being able to direct compliance with the Publicity Code is a means whereby these concerns can be addressed” and “The Secretary of State intends to adopt the following approach to this consideration. Where on the basis of any material or information currently available to him, the Secretary of State considers that there is some evidence of non-compliance since the Publicity Code was issued in March 2011, and there is no current unambiguous evidence available to him that the non-compliance has ceased and that there is no risk of future non compliance, he will be minded to give a direction to the authority concerned.”

So what does the code state on frequency?

Section 28 quite clearly states “Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, news-sheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly.”

So what frequency was approved by the Birkenhead Constituency Committee? I quote from the report on it, “It was proposed to produce a monthly publication to include information residents want to read about.” and later on it describes the frequency of the issues as “The pilot would be to produce an 8 page publication, bi-monthly for 6 months (3 editions) working in partnership with Lairdside Communities Together.”

Moving to the bit in the letter that states “it is a matter of concern to the Government that there are still cases where this is not so, for example, local authorities issuing publicity that is political in nature” the report to the Birkenhead Constituency Committee states “The content of the publication would be devised from the committee and community requests.” Everyone on the Birkenhead Constituency Committee is a politician (whether councillor or MP), does the public expect their requests for what goes in it not to be political. As there won’t be any advertising in the first three editions personally I don’t think there will be enough “community requests” for three eight page editions so the majority of the content is likely to be suggested by politicians.

Here was what was said at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting on this item which starts at 21:28 in the video above.

=======================================================================================================DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
The second item on this Councillor Doughty talked to last time was around a local publication, so we’ve done some further thinking around this and just to clarify what this will be, it will be a community focussed publication supporting people with what’s on in the community. The data shows that the feedback that a lot of Members get is not all our residents get the local newspaper currently.

It will be a focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.

What we’re asking from the Committee is a pilot of three editions to see if it works and to monitor that pilot there will be two subgroups and one will look at it will be an editorial board that will ensure the content is non political and it’s what people want to read on the feedback we’re getting.

It’ll aim to recruit an apprentice for nine to twelve months and involve the community around the community news and how that’s developed. So we’re talking as people have been appearing through this there’s been a really positive feedback from some, from a lot of people saying we’ve had for example a few of have been today at a conference around food planning and how people are struggling accessing food and what, there’s massive support out there with people saying I don’t know where it is around initiatives such as somebody wrote to Councillor Kenny saying that we’ve got an initiative around supporting to access free bikes and that’s the sort of information to go in there. Any questions?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Questions on that? Yes please, yep?

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
Did you find out about whether the Council actually paid additional money to have the newspapers circulated everywhere? Did that actually happen?

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
My understanding was that it used to happen, it doesn’t happen now.

MEMBER OF PUBLIC
So it’s too late to have any redress for it?

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Phillip I think we should actually follow that up, it’s a serious point. Can we actually have that in the minutes please and follow it up? What happened to that?

COUNCILLOR CHRIS MEADEN
As I understand it, that’s what we used to do.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.

DAWN TOLCHER (BIRKENHEAD CONSTITUENCY MANAGER)
What we have got since the last meeting is a breakdown of where it is going and where it isn’t going so we can help with that.

RT HON FRANK FIELD MP (CHAIR)
So what we’re going to be doing, again it comes back to this whole point what does the contract say and is it actually being fulfilled, if not what do we do about it? (At this point he looks at officers to his left and says sotto voce “answer this evening”)? Really, thanks.

=======================================================================================================

What’s interesting is Dawn Tolcher states that the community newspaper will have a “focus on work with other public sector organisations and we’ve got a group together called of the Birkenhead public services. What I’ve asked from them is what they currently do around their communication, what spend, what tools they use and I’m collating that together to look at across us all what we use and what we’re spending, what are we doing and is there any way we can pull that together.”

There’s something called the Wirral Public Service Board. Last year I made a Freedom of Information request to Wirral Council for the agendas and minutes of their meetings over the previous year. That request was refused by Surjit Tour under s.36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act stating that releasing the agendas and minutes would (or would be likely to) inhibit “the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.” and have a “chilling effect” on their discussions. He also refused it on the basis that the minutes would contain the names of people (data protection grounds).

So just to recap, Wirral Council won’t release the agendas and minutes of meetings held with other public sector organisations at which the decisions and discussion about joint working are made. However they plan to write articles about the decisions made at these meetings and the joint work that Wirral Council is doing in a publication they plan to send out to 39,823 properties in Birkenhead? Oh and after the third edition Wirral Council will charge these other public sector organisations to include details about these projects in their “community newspaper”?

I don’t believe there is as much support for this community newspaper idea as was claimed at the Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting. I previously wrote about this proposal and included a poll. The poll’s question was “Do you think Wirral Council should spend £22,500 to start a community newspaper in Birkenhead?” with the three following answers to choose from yes, no and don’t know. At the time of writing nineteen people had answered the question. The results were clear, eighteen said no and one answered don’t know.

So did Wirral Council’s Chief Legal Eagle Surjit Tour point out Eric Pickle’s new legal power (which has been in force since the 30th March 2014) to direct Wirral Council to comply with the code (which as outlined above the proposal as it stands doesn’t)? No Mr. Tour didn’t (but then he wasn’t asked for any legal advice on this item). The taxpayer pays him a salary of £73,352 a year. His role (according to Wirral Council’s constitution at 2.3 of Wirral Council’s financial regulations) is defined as follows “The Monitoring Officer is responsible for reporting any actual or potential breaches of the law or maladministration to the Council and/or to the Executive”.

No councillor or MP asked Surjit Tour during the meeting whether aspects of the proposal for a community newspaper were lawful and for his advice. Surjit Tour didn’t say anything during this item and the letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government went to Graham Burgess (so it seems likely that Surjit Tour hasn’t seen it).

The letter from DCLG finishes with “If you have any questions about the new powers, please contact ConductCode@communities.gsi.gov.uk. You can also contact the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly at eric.pickles@communities.gsi.gov.uk.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said about the very issue of Council newspapers “The spread of the town hall ‘Pravda’ is manifestly unfair because they offer cut price local news, but mixed in with council propaganda that pours taxpayers money down the drain.

These free-sheets are often confused for the real thing by residents. I want our news to be told and sold under the masthead of an independent and free press, not through a knock-off Rolex imitation.”

The press release goes on to state “Where a council ignores the statutory code, the government or a concerned member of the public could seek a court order to enforce it. Disregard for that would result in contempt of court.”

So is Wirral Council going to change its plans or run the risk of a showdown with the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP over their newspaper plans? The Liverpool Echo also ran a story about this on the 26th March using the headline FURY OVER TOWN HALL PAPER PLAN; Town could see launch of newsletter.

I’d be interested to read your thoughts on this issue which you can leave as a comment (even anonymously if you wish) or contact the Department for Communities and Local Government or the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP directly yourself to let them know your views on what Wirral Council is proposing to do.

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

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

Extra £7 million announced by government in funding for councils to help with flood costs: Will Wirral apply?

                      

At a recent Cabinet meeting I heard Cllr Phil Davies talking about how some (£250,000) of the projected underspend for this year’s Budget was set aside to pay for the clean up and repairs to infrastructure after the floods in December. He said that although there was a government fund that local councils could apply to for emergency financial help following such events (called the Bellwin scheme), Wirral Council didn’t qualify as it hadn’t spent more than 0.2% of its annual budget which for Wirral is £930,432.

However the government has since announced a further £7 million of funding to councils for this kind of expenditure in what they call a severe weather recovery scheme. Half of it is for repairing roads damaged by flooding and the other half for expenditure incurred through supporting communities.

Applications for this money have to be made by February 19th February at 5pm and ministers have stated that all local authorities in England who apply and are eligible will receive the money. To qualify for the community element of the grant Wirral Council will need to show that “at least ten residential and/or commercial properties had been reported as flooded (water having entered the property)” in Wirral and that Wirral Council had “incurred expenditure on supporting their communities during the recovery phase”.

To qualify for the highways element Wirral Council would have to prove that the floods caused damage to parts of the highway of more than one and a half metres that they were responsible for. Whether Wirral Council qualify for this element I’m not sure. However as some of their expenditure on the community element side would seem to be eligible, here’s a link to the application form. After all if Wirral Council is entitled to the money why don’t they apply for it?

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

Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee Wirral Council 27th September 2011 Part 5 Budget Projections 2012/2015

Ian Coleman referred Cllr Brighouse to paragraph 4.5.1 on IT Services. He said that Cabinet had agreed to savings of £500,000 then £400,000 a year which by year 4 comes to £1.7 million. He said that each year the efficiency investment fund was used, mainly for staffing and needed to be replaced. Cllr Alan Brighouse asked a further question. Ian Coleman gave the example of a Director could need three staff costing £100,000. However these three staff costing £100,000 could lead to a £300,000 saving.

Cllr Brighouse asked about Early Voluntary Redundancy (£3 million)? Ian Coleman said till 2017 and referred to 5 years of pension contributions. Cllr Gilchrist pointed out that Early Voluntary Redundancies can be capitalised. Ian Coleman said they had applied for capitalisation of statutory redundancy pay which was used in 2010/2011. Also people were going in 2011/12. In May they had applied for 2011/12, they had applied for £4 million. There had been an outline agreement, with a detailed proposal going to the Department of Communities and Local Government. There would be a report to Cabinet.

Cllr Ron Abbey asked about the Public Works Board. Ian Coleman said the Treasury had increased the interest rate charged by the Public Works Board by 1%. This meant the cost of borrowing went up. There was a substantial amount of money at a reduced rate, but this was for councils which were housing authorities which doesn’t apply to Wirral as it transferred its housing stock.

Cllr Gilchrist said the report was noted.