Tag: filming

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

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 kind of meeting the regulations will cover)

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 kind of meeting the regulations will cover)

Will you comment on the government’s new public meeting filming law before consultation ends on the 12th March?

                                       
Though the mills of DCLG grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience DCLG stands waiting,
With exactness grinds DCLG all.

(with apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

As long-term readers of this blog will know I wrote last month about the government promise to introduce regulations to compel local councils (and some other bodies) to allow filming of their public meetings. This follows a power granted to Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP (by s.40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) to bring forward some regulations (which he can do so at any point after 30th March 2014) to the Houses of Parliament.

Since last month draft regulations have been circulated as part of a consultation. Also part of the consultation is asking for suggestions to what to put in the accompanying plain English guide to the new regulations, which will be along similar lines to the fourteen page Your council’s cabinet: going to its meetings, seeing how it works – a guide for local people. DCLG [Department for Communities and Local Government] have sent copies of the draft regulations to the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), the Local Government Association (LGA) and Lawyers in Local Government (which was formed last year by the merger of Solicitors in Local Government (SLG) and ACSeS (Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors)).

Queries on the draft regulations can be made to Hannah Brook (0303 444 1858 Hannah.brook@communities.gsi.gov.uk) or Eleanor Smyllie (Eleanor.smyllie@communities.gsi.gov.uk). Any comments (as part of the consultation) on the draft regulations are to go to Paul Roswell (Deputy Director – Democracy, Department for Communities and Local Government, 3/J1, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU 0303 444 1858 paul.roswell@communities.gsi.gov.uk) by the 12th March 2014.

The new regulations are expected to be in force at the end of May 2014 or early June.

The draft regulation and an explanatory note are below. I’ve included hyperlinks where legislation is referred to.

Draft Regulations laid before Parliament under section 43 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
================================================================================

DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

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

2014 No.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND

The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014

Made – – – –              ***

Coming into force in accordance with regulation 1

The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred by section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014(a), makes the following Regulations:

Part 1

General

Citation and commencement

  1. These regulations may be cited as the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and come into force on the day after the day on which they are made.

Interpretation

  1. In these Regulations—
    “the 1960 Act” means the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960;
    “the 1972 Act” means the Local Government Act 1972;
    “the 2000 Act” means the Local Government Act 2000;
    “the 2012 Regulations” means the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Part 2

Admission to and Reporting of Meetings of Relevant Local Government Bodies

Amendment of the 1960 Act

  1. The 1960 Act is amended as follows—

(1) Insert after section 1(3)—

“(3A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsection (2) and (3), a relevant local government body are also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(2) Insert after section 1(4)(c)—

“(d) Where a meeting of a relevant local government body is required by this Act to be open to the public during the proceedings or any part of them, any person shall be permitted to attend that meeting or part for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (9).”

(3) In section 1(7) substitute ‘but nothing in this section’ with “but subject to paragraph (7A) nothing in this section”.
(4) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(7A) Any person shall be permitted to attend a meeting of a relevant local government body for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (8).”

(5) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(8) For the purposes of this section–

“relevant local government body” means—

(a) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(b) a parish council; or

(c) a parish meeting.

“reporting” means—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings;

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later; and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available as the meeting takes place or later to persons not present.”

(6) After section 1 insert—

“1A. Publication and dissemination of reports

(1) Any persons who attend meetings of a relevant local government body with the aim of reporting under section 1(7A) may use any communication methods, including the internet to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities.

(2) Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting.”

Amendment of the 1972 Act

4. The 1972 Act is amended as follows—
(1) After section 100A(5) insert—

“(5A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsections (2)-(5), relevant local government bodies are also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(2) In section 100A(6) for (c) substitute—

“(c) while the meeting is open to the public:

(i) duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending the meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report,

(ii) in relation to relevant local government bodies as defined in subsection (9) any person attending a meeting under subsection (7A) shall so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report.”

(3) Insert at the beginning of section 100A(7) “Subject to subsection (7A),”
(4) Insert after subsection (7)—

“(7A) (a) Any person shall be permitted to attend meetings of relevant local government bodies for the purposes of reporting as defined by subsection (10)

(b) Any persons who attend meetings of relevant local government bodies with the aim of reporting may use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities

(c) Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting”

(5) Insert after subsection (8)—

“(9) For the purposes of this section–

“relevant local government bodies” means—

(a) a district council,
(b) a county council in England,
(c) a London borough council,
(d) the London Assembly,
(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
(f) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
(g) Transport for London,
(h) a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
(i) an economic prosperity board,
(j) a combined authority,
(k) a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
(l) a National Park Authority for a National Park in England,
(m) the Broads Authority, or
(n) any committee, joint committee or sub-committee of the above bodies.

(10) Reporting for the purposes of subsection (7A) is defined as—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings,

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later, and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available as the meeting takes place or later to persons not present.”

Amendment of the 2012 Regulations

5. The 2012 Regulations are amended as follows—
(1) In regulation 4 insert after subsection (6)—

“(7) Subject to subsections (2)-(5), a decision-making body is required to permit any person attending a meeting of such a body to report on the proceedings.

(8) For the purposes of this regulation, report on proceedings is defined as—

(a) filming, photographing or audio recording the proceedings of a meeting,

(b) using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later, and

(c) reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing, so that the report or commentary is available to persons not present, as the meeting takes place or later.

(9) Any person who attends a meeting to report on proceedings under subsection (7) may use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities. Publication and dissemination can take place at the time of the meeting or occur after the meeting.”

(2) After regulation 4(5) insert—

“(5A) Where any person is excluded from a meeting under subsections (2)-(5), a decision making body is also permitted to exclude and prevent persons from reporting using methods which can be carried out without that person’s presence.”

(3) In regulation 20 omit paragraph (4).

Part 3

Record of Decisions and Access to Documents

Interpretation of this Part

6. For the purposes of this Part—

“confidential information” means –

(a) Information provided to the local authority by a government department on terms (however expressed) which forbid the disclosure of the information to the public; or
(b) Information the disclosure of which to the public is prohibited by or under any enactment or by order of a court,

and in either case, a reference to the obligation of confidence is to be construed accordingly.

“decision making officer” means an officer of a relevant local government body who makes decisions on behalf of their relevant local government body, with authority to do so.

“exempt information” has the meaning given by section 100I of the 1972 Act (exempt information and power to vary Schedule 12A).

“open meeting” means a meeting of a relevant local government body to which any person who is not a member of that body may also attend.

“proper officer” has the same meaning as in section 270(3) of the 1972 Act (general provisions as to interpretation.

“relevant local government body” means—

(c) a district council,
(d) a county council in England,
(e) a London borough council,
(f) the Greater London Authority,
(g) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
(h) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
(i) Transport for London,
(j) a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
(k) an economic prosperity board,
(l) a combined authority,
(m) a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
(n) a National Park Authority for a National Park in England,
(o) the Broads Authority,
(p) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(q) a parish council, or,
(r) a parish meeting.

Recording of decisions

7.—(1) The decision making officer or other suitable officer within a relevant local government body is required to produce a written record of any decision which falls within paragraph (2).
(2) A decision falls within this paragraph if it would otherwise have been taken by the relevant local government body, or a committee, sub-committee or joint committee of that body but it has been delegated to an officer of that body either—
(a) under a specific express authorisation; or
(b) under a general authorisation to officers to take such decisions and, the effect of the decision is to—
(i) grant permissions or licences;
(ii) affect the rights of individuals;
(iii) award contracts; or
(iv) incur expenditure which materially affects that relevant local government body’s financial position.

(3) The written record should be produced as soon as reasonably practicable after an officer has made a decision of the kind in paragraph (2) and should contain the information specified in paragraph (4).
(4) The record required by paragraph (1) must contain the following information—
(a) the title of the decision making officer;
(b) the date the decision was taken;
(c) a record of the decision taken along with reasons for the decision;
(d) details of alternative options considered and rejected; and
(e) where the decision falls under paragraph 2(a), the names of any member of a relevant local government body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision.

Decisions to be made available to the public

8.—(1) The written records described in regulation 7, along with any connected or supporting documents, must as soon as reasonably practicable be made available to the public—
(a) at the offices of the relevant local government body;
(b) on website of the relevant local government body, if it has one; and,
(c) through any other means thought appropriate by the relevant local government body.

(2) On request and on receipt of payment of postage, copying or other necessary charge for transmission, the relevant body must provide subject to regulation 9—
(a) a copy of the written decision.
(b) a copy of connected and supporting documents.

(3) Any written record required by paragraph (1) to be available for inspection by members of the public, must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of at least 6 years beginning on the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.

(4) Any connected or supporting documents relating to a decision to which a record must be made under regulation 7 which is required to be available for inspection by the public by paragraph (1), must be retained by the relevant local government body and made available for inspection by the public for a period of at least 4 years beginning on the date on which the decision, to which the record relates, was made.

Confidential and Exempt information

9.—(1) Nothing in this Part is to be taken to authorise or require the disclosure of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidence.
(2) Nothing in this Part—
(a) authorises or requires a relevant local government body to disclose to the public or make available for public inspection any document or part of a document if, in the opinions of the proper officer, that document or part of a document contains or may contain confidential information; or
(b) requires a relevant local government body to disclose to the public or make available for public inspection any document or part of a document if, in the opinion of the proper officer, that document or part of a document contains or is likely to contain exempt information.

Offences

10.—(1) A person who has custody of a document which is required by regulation 8 to be available for inspection by members of the public commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person—
(a) intentionally obstructs any person exercising a right conferred under this Part in relation to inspecting written records and connected and supporting documents; or
(b) refuses any request under this Part to provide written records and connected and supporting documents.

(2) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of these Regulations)

DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT OPENNESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES REGULATIONS 2014
The Regulations amend the:

Admission to and reporting of Meetings of Relevant Local Government Bodies
The Regulations:

  • Allow any person to attend a public meeting of a relevant local government body for the purposes of reporting.
  • ‘Reporting’ is defined in the regulations as:
  • Filming, photographing or audio recording of proceedings;
  • Using any other means for enabling persons not present to see or hear proceedings of a meeting as it takes place or later; and
  • Reporting or providing commentary on proceedings of a meeting, orally or in writing.
  • Allow any persons with the aim or reporting to use any communication methods, including the internet, to publish, post or otherwise share the results of their reporting activities, during or after the meeting.
  • Do not affect the current circumstances in which a private meeting may be held or a person may be excluded (for example, where exempt information would be disclosed or in the case of disorderly conduct).

Regulation 3 amends the 1960 Act to apply the policy to:

  • parish councils;
  • parish meetings; and
  • the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Regulation 4 amends the 1972 Act to apply this policy to:

  • a district council,
  • a county council in England,
  • a London borough council,
  • the London Assembly
  • the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority,
  • the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,
  • Transport for London,
  • a joint authority established under Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985,
  • an economic prosperity board,
  • a combined authority,
  • a fire and rescue authority in England constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies,
  • a National Park Authority for a National Park in England
  • the Broads Authority, or
  • any committee, joint committee or sub-committee of the above bodies (this includes Police and Crime Panels and Health and Wellbeing Boards).

Regulation 5 amends the 2012 Regulations to apply the policy to councils operating executive arrangements to ensure a consistent approach.
Record of Decisions and Access to Documents

The Regulations also:

  • Require a written record to be made of any decision that has been delegated to an officer of the relevant local government body under a specific express authorisation, or under a general authorisation where the effect of the decision is to grant permissions or licences, affect the rights of individuals, award contracts or incur expenditure which materially affects the body’s financial position.
  • Require that the written records are made available to the public at the relevant body’s offices, on their website if they have one, by post if requested and on receipt of payment for copying and postage, and through any other means thought appropriate by the local government body.
  • Require the written record to be available for public inspection for at least 6 years, and any supporting documentation for at least 4 years.
  • Provide a criminal penalty for non-compliance. A person who has custody of documents which should be available for inspection, will commit an offence if that person refuses to disclose or intentionally obstructs the disclosure of such documents under these Regulations. The penalty for the offences is a fine not exceeding level 1 – that is £200 – on the standard scale. This replicates the existing penalty for failure to disclose or obstructing the disclosure of documents in the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

This part of the Regulations applies to the same local government bodies as listed above, but will not apply to decisions on executive matters in councils operating executive arrangements as there are already equivalent provisions in the 2012 Regulations to cover these decisions.

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

Government promises regulations to compel councils to allow filming at their public meetings

Government promises regulations to compel councils to allow filming at their public meetings

Government promises regulations to compel councils to allow filming at their public meetings

                     

Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council's Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee
Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee: An example of the kind of public meeting that the new regulations will cover

Following up on my earlier blog post calling for consultation with those actually doing filming of local government meetings on new regulations, I’ve received a response from one of the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP’s spads (special policy advisers).

I made it clear that I’d publish any reply I received. Apart from the news though that the Local Audit and Accountability Bill has since received Royal Assent (which means parts of it are now law and it’s referred to as the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) the letter doesn’t say much more than has already been stated in public on this matter. I’ve changed the @ in my email address to [at] to try to fool bots that collect email addresses to spam them.

(DCLG logo)
Department for
Communities and

Local Government

Mr. John Brace

Via email
John.brace [at] gmail.com

Our ref: ER74/00629/74
Your ref:

30 January 2014

Dear Mr. Brace,

Section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill

Thank you for your email of 23 December to the Secretary of State about the provisions in section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill, which relate to access to local government meetings and information.

I am pleased to inform you that the Bill has now become law as it received Royal Assent today. This means that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations any time after March that may allow local people including citizen journalists to attend public meetings of the local government bodies listed under section 40(6) of the Act and report the proceedings by using various communication methods such as filming, tweeting and blogging. This is a significant change in favour of openness and transparency, as, once secondary legislation is made, councils and other local bodies will be compelled to allow the public to film or tweet at their public meeting.

On your point about consultation, although the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils were mentioned during the debate, no decision has been made on all those who will be consulted. However your point about consulting the people the proposed will affect will be considered when the decision is made.

Also, your points about the circumstances in which persons may not carry out activities such as filming at councils’ meetings and the extension of provisions on offences have been noted. They will be considered when developing the regulations.

Yours sincerely

Tayo Peters
Democracy and Local Governance

Department for Communities and Local Government
3/J1 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

Tel 030 3444 0000

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

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:

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

Cross party support for new legislation on filming Council meetings (in England)

                               

The Local Audit and Accountability Bill progresses through the House of Commons. The Local Audit and Accountability Bill Committee on Thursday 21st November 2013 discussed the new clause to be added to the bill about filming of local Council meetings. New clause 4 is a new clause added to the bill about filming. As there’s quite a bit of interest, both on the Wirral and further afield about this issue, I’m including below (from Parliament’s website) what was said on this issue.

Once the Local Audit and Accountability Bill becomes law, the provisions on filming in it will require a further statutory instrument to be agreed before they become a legal requirement on local Councils (which hopefully will also repeal some of the legislation that’s been used to prevent filming too).

Below is the text of what was said in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill Committee on the 21st November. The text below contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v1.0.

The Chair:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 134.

Government new clause 4—Access to local government meetings and documents.

Government amendment 135.

Brandon Lewis:

The amendments give greater rights to the public to access or report on local government meetings and documents. Before I talk about the details, I want to thank the hon. Member for Corby and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for supporting the instructions to the Committee to allow us to widen the scope of the Bill in order to debate the amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendments. I appreciate our conversations outside the Committee.

New clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the public’s access to the meetings and documents of local government bodies. Transparency and openness can be achieved only when people, including citizens and professional journalists, have adequate rights to attend their local government bodies’ meetings. Public meetings of local government bodies should be fully accessible to those who cannot attend in person, so that the public can hold those bodies to account.

We are introducing this measure because openness is an issue that fundamentally affects the lives of communities. We have already introduced greater transparency and openness to the meetings of the council’s executive, its committees and sub-committees through the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Although the regulations give local people more rights to attend meetings of the council’s executive and to access information relating to decisions made in those meetings, the same rights do not extend to the meetings of full council, its committees, sub-committees and joint committees, parish and town councils, and other local government bodies. On top of this, in recent months, there have been some disgraceful incidents when members of the public have been ejected from meetings simply for trying to film them.

For example, a council we have all talked about a great deal in the past couple of weeks, Tower Hamlets, barred a 71-year-old resident from filming owing to the risk of

“reputation damage to the authority”.

Keighley town council blocked residents from filming, because it would have been a

“breach of standing orders”.

Stamford town council banned journalists from tweeting at meetings owing to the risk of their

“not accurately portraying a debate.”

If we were all banned from tweeting across the Chamber, life would be somewhat less interesting, as we saw yesterday.

When I was a council leader in 2005, I introduced the webcasting of all meetings, and we noticed how the community can really benefit. On a cold winter’s night, if a member of the public is interested in a particular part of what can be a very long council meeting and they do not necessarily know which issues will take longest, instead of having to come along and sit through one hour to five hours of a meeting for an issue that could be at the back end of it, the member of the public can sit at home and watch it at their leisure. Also, in our system, they can send questions and messages if they wish. It opens up democracy to the public in a more accessible way in the modern world.

We now live in a digital world where the use of modern communication methods, such as filming, tweeting and blogging are widely embraced. There is no reason why such communication methods should not be welcomed, particularly for enhancing the openness of local government bodies.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):

Will the Minister outline whether any codes of practice should be adopted? The measure could be used in an unhelpful way. I support the notion of people being allowed to record and film in council meetings. Indeed, when I was leader of Derby city council, I set up the webcasting of our council meetings. It is important to have greater access, but will we have a code of practice to prevent abuse taking place?

Brandon Lewis:

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is good that, as we saw on Second Reading, there is agreement throughout the House on the importance of transparency and how it can be beneficial. 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.

I was shown an example on YouTube. A council somehow managed to “lose” the recording of a council meeting that was webcast on the internet. The council had the embarrassing situation that the chairman of a panel did not like what was going on and decided to leave. However, he had not actually ended the meeting, so somebody else took the chair and carried on. Amazingly, that disappeared from the webcast, but somebody videoed the meeting on their own camera, and they put it on YouTube. Nothing particularly exciting was going on, but the point is that if members of the public are allowed to film—I am not sure anybody knew this person was filming at the time—we can make sure that transparency survives.

I do take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board. 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.

The regulations may also specify that any persons attending a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings should inform the relevant body of their intention before filming or photographing—the important word there is “inform”. 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.

Allowing local people to attend and report on meetings of local government bodies will help them to understand the local decision-making process and empower them to be involved in making decisions that affect our lives.

Amendment 130 requires the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure when amending primary legislation. That will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the regulations before approving them through resolution. Where they amend secondary legislation, the negative procedure will be used.

Amendment 134 specifies that the power to make regulations will come into force two months after the Bill has been passed, as is the usual practice. As I said, the Government intend to work with the LGA and the National Association of Local Councils to cover the detail of the regulations.

Amendment 135 simply updates the Bill’s long title to reflect the inclusion of new clause 4.

Andy Sawford:

We support the clause. We were pleased to support the Government’s extending the scope of the Bill and introducing these provisions.

I read the 1988 debate about televising the House of Commons, and I noted Members’ sincerely held concerns that it could fundamentally change the character of the House of Commons and the way in which debates took place, and concerns that those changes to the way our Parliament functioned could harm our democracy. What Member of the House of Commons today would argue against televising the House of Commons?

Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con):

There are some. [Laughter.]

Andy Sawford:

One Member says there may be some, but I think there would be near-unanimity in the House of Commons that filming is the right thing for our democracy and that it is right for the public to see what we get up to. Even if we do not always give the best account of ourselves in the public’s eye, they can at least see the debates that take place, including in Select Committees and other forums around Parliament.

I have a confession to make, although I hope it will not come as a surprise to this particular group of hon. Members, with their experience of local government—many of them have been local councillors. I have availed myself of the webcasting my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North and the Minister introduced in their local authorities. During my research as a member of the Local Government Information Unit I did that to look at debates in not only my own local authority, but other local authorities around the country. Although I recognise that the viewership of local council webcasts is often quite small, the fact that they are there and that the public can see what is happening in their local council chamber is a source of strength for our system of local democracy and local government around the country. We should note, however, as I did when I was reading the 1988 debate, that there was some difference of view between longer-serving Members of the House of Commons at that time and a newer generation of Members who had more recently entered Parliament. The same could be said of councils around the country, and I note that two of the smaller parish councils were highlighted by the Minister as recent examples of where there had been a problem. We are aware that diversity is increasing in local government, and we would all hope to encourage that, but we are also aware that the generation that is leading the world of blogging and the use of online media is not as well represented in local government as those for whom that new world may be something of a challenge to their way of operating in the local council chamber.

In communicating that to local authorities around the country—I am sure that the Minister will agree with this sentiment—I hope that we would not, in any way, try to beat local councils over the head for not having already embraced the change, but rather that we would communicate with them persuasively about why this is a good thing in their local chambers, and why they should move quickly to ensure that they fully comply with the clause as it is introduced.

I want to add something to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made, and I thought the Minister’s response was welcome. We all want to ensure that the risk of disruption is minimised. For example, concerns have been put to me that a member of the public, because of their view about one particular member of the authority, could focus all their filming on that member even though the member may not be actively speaking or participating in the debate at a given time. That, in itself, may be something that an elected member of a local council might just have to grin and bear, but there is a point about fair and appropriate conduct by members of the public when they are in the council chamber.

However, the Minister struck the right tone, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree, in indicating that the bar would be high on disruption, and that it should not be used as an excuse by a local authority not to open up their proceedings properly. With that welcome assurance from the Minister, and in the knowledge that he will consult on and develop guidance in order to implement the provision, I welcome the clause, which enjoys the Opposition’s support.

Brandon Lewis:

I knew there would come a point in the Committee when I and the hon. Member for Derby North agreed wholeheartedly. It had to happen. We got there eventually, as I shall no doubt tweet later today.

On a more serious note, there is just one other point to make. I agree with everything that has been said, and I appreciate the support. It is important that local government and the public see that there is cross-party support for opening things up and ensuring that there is transparency, which, importantly, local government should embrace. The hon. Member for Corby is right about how we put the message across to local government. What I say to local government and put on the record is that this is not only about ensuring that there is transparency, so that the public can see what is going on and how councils spend money. As important as that is, local government should see this as a chance for great councillors around the country to show the good work that they are doing and how hard they work for their communities. Therefore, it is a positive step for them.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

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

Wirral Council & Filming: Another Chapter in The Long Running Saga

A brief blog post outlining the long running saga regarding filming public meetings of Wirral Council, covering the recent ban by the Chair of the Planning Committee, Eric Pickle’s advice and a brief run down of the history.

Following reporting on the filming ban at Wirral Council’s Planning Committee on this blog last Thursday, the local newspapers have picked up the story (with quotes from Cllr Mooney), Liverpool Echo: Wirral Council defy Government to ban filming and Daily Post: Wirral Council defies government over filming ban. In addition to the local newspaper articles it’s been picked up by Prolific North: Wirral Council defends filming ban on blogger.

So, although the articles are broadly correct I’d like to correct a slight error and make a few clarifications.

Liverpool Echo
“At a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.”

This should read “Shortly before a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.” If it had been at the meeting itself I would’ve posted the footage online, however yes, it has happened before (18th December 2012) on a close 6:5 vote. Back then Cllr Mooney said it would be “just for this meeting” (see video below).

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.

After a ban on filming happened at a Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting (on which Cllr Mooney sat) on the 28th March 2013 to discuss the controversial closure of Moreton Day Centre, I sent a letter before claim to Wirral Council (which is the first stage of a judicial review of a decision). I received this response by email back from Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour (the same Surjit Tour that Cllr Mooney said told her she could stop filming at meetings).

Tour, Surjit
to
stephengerrard, me
Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:08:47 +0100

Dear Mr Brace

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

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

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

I await your response.

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

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

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

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

I was allowed to film meetings until the Planning Committee meeting of 27th June 2013, a further letter before claim (with a proposed reply date of 12th July) was sent to Wirral Council’s legal department and interested parties on the 28th June 2013. At the time of writing I have not received a reply from either Wirral Council or the interested parties.

After I received Surjit Tour’s reply, Eric Pickles issued this press release entitled “Lights, camera, democracy in action” castigating Wirral Council for stopping filming previously on health and safety grounds (a claim that was refuted by the Health and Safety Executive). This led to a wide variety of press coverage (national newspapers (Guardian, Times), various bloggers and others) and this article in the Wirral Globe entitled “Legal review ordered into rules allowing citizens to video Wirral Council committees” (with an unusually high twenty-seven comments).

Last December councillors called for a review. Eight months later I’m still waiting for this review to finish!

I will also make one small response to Cllr Mooney’s comments, I did say that if she as Chair asked a petitioner if they didn’t want to be filmed and they said no I wouldn’t. However she said, “I can’t do that” rejecting what I felt was a reasonable compromise. Despite her assertion that Planning Committee is the only committee where members of the public regularly address it, there are in fact others ranging from the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel, Licensing Act 2003 committee, Licensing, Health and Safety & General Purposes Committee and full Council meetings (public question time). I hope the above sets the record straight somewhat.