Tag: Human Rights Act 1998

Wirral Council: It’s time for some answers over Fernbank Farm and filming!

Wirral Council: It’s time for some answers over Fernbank Farm and filming!

Wirral Council: It’s time for some answers over Fernbank Farm and filming!

                                 

Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Particulars of Claim page 1 of 3 thumbnail

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 1 of 3

Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Particulars of Claim page 2 of 3 thumbnail

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 2 of 3

Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Particulars of Claim page 3 of 3 thumbnail

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 3 of 3

Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
9th June 2014

Surjit Tour
Monitoring Officer
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED

Dear Mr. Surjit Tour,

You are designated as the Monitoring Officer for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Section 5(2)(a) and 5(2B) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 state the following about a legal duty of the Monitoring Officer:

Subject to subsection (2B), it shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority are represented constitutes, has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to—

(a) a contravention by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any such joint committee of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment; or

(b) any such maladministration or injustice as is mentioned in Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (Local Commissioners) or Part II of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (which makes corresponding provision for Scotland),to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.

to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.

(2B) Where a relevant authority are operating executive arrangements, the monitoring officer of the relevant authority shall not make a report under subsection (2) in respect of any proposal, decision or omission unless it is a proposal, decision or omission made otherwise than by or on behalf of the relevant authority’s executive.

On Friday 6th June the Chair of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommitee Councillor Steve Niblock insisted that I stop filming a public meeting of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee. The legal adviser to that committee insisted that he was entitled to take this action because of Regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005. This regulation is below:

“Procedure at hearing

25. The authority may require any person attending the hearing who in their opinion is behaving in a disruptive manner to leave the hearing and may—

(a) refuse to permit that person to return, or

(b) permit him to return only on such conditions as the authority may specify,

but such a person may, before the end of the hearing, submit to the authority in writing any information which they would have been entitled to give orally had they not been required to leave.”

“authority” in this context is defined in Regulation 2 as “in relation to a hearing, the relevant licensing authority which has the duty under the Act to hold the hearing which expression includes the licensing committee or licensing sub-committee discharging the function of holding the hearing;”

At no point during the meeting was I asked to leave the room by the Chair or the subcommittee as a whole. Regulation 2 which defines authority makes is clear that persons can only be required to leave if it is the opinion of the whole subcommittee that the person/s are behaving in a disruptive manner. There were two members of the subcommittee Councillor Harry Smith and Councillor John Salter who did not express a view, therefore Regulation 25 was not engaged.

The legal adviser to that committee, Ken Abraham said, “We have rights under the regulations too, which empower them to stop a hearing proceeding if there is an issue about disrupting the meeting and the Chair took the view at that time that because it was clearly indicated that he didn’t want filming that he could have asked you to leave the room but he didn’t.” As you can see from this quote, he refers to the Chair (Councillor Steve Niblock)’s view, not the view of the whole subcommittee. It is unknown whether the other two members of the subcommittee agreed with this view or held a contrary view as they did not state their view during the meeting on this matter.

S. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.” and s.3(1) states “So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.”

The Convention Right in question is article 10 which is below:

“

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Bearing the above in mind and your previous email of the 2nd April 2013 in which you stated “Furthermore, there no ban on filming” I would ask you to exercise your duty as Monitoring Officer to prepare a report about the above matter.

There is also another matter which I wish to draw to your attention, which may place a duty on you to write a further report about a different matter. I am sure you are aware of Wirral Council’s successful attempt to gain a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm in Moreton.

Section 3 of Wirral Council’s Particulars of Claim stated “On 13th July 2012 the First and Second Defendants were served with a notice in the prescribed form persuant to section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act the effect of which notifies them as Tenants of the intention to bring the tenancy to an end on 31st May 2013 but that the Council had no objection in the meantime to creating a new lease on certain terms.” and Section 8 of the Particulars of Claim stated “As a result the tenancy has been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession.”

At the fast track trial on 13th February 2014, Wirral Council’s expert witness David Dickinson stated (under oath) that he had been instructed by a manager not to renew the lease. In answer to District Judge Woodburn’s question to David Dickinson that his instructions were contrary to the terms of the notice, Mr Dickinson answered that his instructions were contrary to the notice. In answer to another question Mr Dickinson answered that he had been told not to engage in discussions with the tenants between November 2012 and May 2013.

Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 prescribe which type of form should be used. Wirral Council used form 1 and the prescribed purpose for form 1 is defined in Schedule 1 as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).”

Based on David Dickinson’s testimony under oath, Wirral Council had decided not to renew the tenancy therefore form 2 should have been used, the prescribed purpose for form 2 is defined in Schedule 1 as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where—

(a)the landlord is opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act); and
(b)the tenant is not entitled under the 1967 Act to buy the freehold or an extended lease..”

Clearly either a number of assertions (as outlined above) made in the particulars of claim are incorrect and Mr. Dickinson was telling the truth about Wirral Council’s decision not to renew the lease or alternatively what was outlined in the particulars of claim was correct and Mr. Dickinson was not telling the truth under oath. I am sure you will understand that the possibility of either scenario is concerning.

Therefore bearing in mind the above I would request that you write a further report on this matter which is your legal duty as Monitoring Officer. In order to aid you in this, I do know that following a complaint made by one of the tenant’s spouses that a long multi-page letter was sent to him about this and other related matters.

If a report (or reports) have already been written by yourself (or others on your behalf) I would appreciate being sent a copy. If a report (or reports) on these matters are in the process of being written by someone either at Wirral Council or an external third party I would appreciate being told who they are and by what date their report is expected to be completed.

If you feel a report (or reports) on the above matters are not necessary, I would appreciate hearing from you your reasons as to why. I intend to publish any such reply I receive either from yourself (or others on your behalf) as I feel that both these matters are of concern to large numbers of citizens on the Wirral and need to be resolved.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

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

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

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

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

                                    

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

Councillor Stuart Kelly writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN BRACE
OK.

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
People can have a look at the minutes.

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

KEN ABRAHAM
but then you could edit the filming.

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

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
The stopping filming?

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

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

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

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

JOHN BRACE
I do want to

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
Maybe if we do that after?

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

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

JOHN BRACE
Yes, which I did.

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

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

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
Well people are entitled to object to that,

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

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

JOHN BRACE
Yes.

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
exactly

JOHN BRACE
and type it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEN ABRAHAM
Regulation 25,

JOHN BRACE
Regulation 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN BRACE
But we’re having one!

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

JOHN BRACE
I’m not!

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

JOHN BRACE
Well actually we disagree on that.

KEN ABRAHAM
Well we’ll agree to disagree then.

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

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

Dear Mr Brace

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

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

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

I await your response.

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

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone

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

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

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

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

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

4 councillors ban filming at Merseyside Police and Crime Panel public meeting but support police filming the public

4 councillors ban filming at Merseyside Police and Crime Panel public meeting but support police filming the public

4 councillors ban filming at Merseyside Police and Crime Panel public meeting but support police filming the public

                        

Police and Crime Panel meet at Birkenhead Town Hall 24th April 2014

Merseyside Police and Crime Panel (Birkenhead Town Hall) 24th April 2014 taken after the meeting had finished Left to Right Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council officer, Councillor Frank Prendergast (Vice-Chair) (Labour, Liverpool City Council), Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council officer, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council officer, Joseph Edwards (Independent Co-opted Member) (Mr. Edwards wasn’t present from the start of the meeting but arrived late), Councillor Moira McLaughlin (Labour, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council), Councillor Doreen Kerrigan (Labour, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council), Councillor Peter Brennan (Labour, Liverpool City Council)

The meeting started with two announcements the Vice-Chair (Councillor Prendergast) wished to make. The first was he asked for the noisy tea urn at the back of the room to be switched off as he said he had hearing problems. The second announcement Councillor Frank Prendergast (Labour, Liverpool City Council) wanted to make was to say that a request was made to film the public meeting of the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel which he had turned down because “confidential” things may be said during the meeting. However he said the public were welcome to stay for the whole meeting.

At this point as the Chair said it was his decision, I asked if he was making that on behalf of the whole Merseyside Police and Crime Panel as their rules of procedure agreed by the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel last July stated that this decision was of the whole Panel:

“21.1 No audio or visual record of proceedings (or part of the proceedings) of a Panel, Sub-Committee or Working Group meeting may be taken without the express permission of the Panel, Sub-Committee or the Working Group concerned.”

He replied that he was. None of the other three Labour councillors present said anything at this point, nor was a vote taken. I asked the Chair at the close of the meeting to provide a quote as to why he’d been against the public meeting being filmed. He told me he was too busy to provide a quote as he had to leave (the meeting was held in Birkenhead) to go to Clatterbridge via Liverpool.

Although the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 which prevent bodies such as the Police and Crime Panel stopping filming of their public meetings have been laid before the House of Commons on the 3rd April 2014 by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, due to Parliament breaking up for Easter a week later a resolution approving the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 hasn’t yet been passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords. So it doesn’t yet have the force of law.

However this is what Labour’s front bench spokesperson, Hilary Benn MP had to say when the issue was debated last year in the House of Commons:

“We will therefore support that change, and also the proposal that councils in England should allow the recording and videoing of council and committee meetings. In this day and age, big changes in technology make recording and videoing readily possible, and I cannot see the difference between sitting in a meeting, listening and writing down what is being said, or—for those who have shorthand—taking a verbatim record, and making one’s own recording.”

                                         
The Merseyside Police and Crime Panel is a joint committee of the councils on Merseyside. The new Labour chaired Liverpool City Region Authority also declined a request to film their first public meeting. The Liverpool City Region Authority’s constitution delegated such matters to the Chief Executive of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council Sheena Ramsey. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council is also the host authority for the Merseyside Police and Crime Panel.

Has the message from Labour’s front bench spokesperson Hilary Benn MP to “support the change” to “allow the recording and videoing of council and committee meetings” fallen on deaf ears? Do the four Labour councillors who made the decision to prevent filming yesterday (Councillor Frank Prendergast, Councillor Doreen Kerrigan, Councillor Peter Brennan and Councillor Moira McLaughlin (who is currently Labour’s candidate in Rock Ferry ward)) realise how strange it seems for their party’s national spokesperson to say one thing yet Labour councillors locally on Merseyside to do the complete opposite?

My comments on what happened are that currently the public (and press) already do have the right to film, blog and tweet at public meetings. This is granted to them by article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42. It is unlawful for any public body to act in a way that is incompatible with article 10 (freedom of expression) due to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In an ironic twist the Merseyside Police and Crime panel during the meeting discussed the wearing of cameras in public by police officers and were supportive of it.

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

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings, a report on the second reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill including quotes from the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP and Hilary Benn MP on the subject of filming Council meetings

Labour U-turn on filming of Wirral Council public meetings

                          

It’s rare I write a blog post on a Sunday but I thought it best to write an update about how the issue of filming of council meetings (at least in England) is progressing as it was discussed in the House of Commons on Monday 28th October as part of the second reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill.

I will quote from what MPs said in that debate along with my own comments on what was said. The quotes are from Hansard, you can also watch video footage of the debate on Parliament TV (the date was Monday 28th October 2013), but as the debate went on for many hours it can be difficult to find the parts about filming.

First to speak on this issue was the Minister for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP who said, “Perhaps our most significant proposal is to give people the right to film, blog or tweet at council meetings. Some councils would prefer meetings to be held behind closed doors, but the public has the right to see decisions being taken and how the money is spent.

A private Member’s Bill promoted by Mrs Thatcher introduced the right to attend council meetings back in 1960, and that in turn built on a law introduced by the Liberal Government of 1908, so this is truly a coalition of minds. It is right that we should now bring her legacy up to date for the digital age. We have previously amended secondary legislation to open up councils’ executive meetings and have encouraged councils to open up their full council and committees. Many have refused, however, citing health and safety, data protection or just standing orders. Tower Hamlets said that such a change would lead to “reputational damage”. Well, yes, it probably will when people see what is going on in their council chambers. There have even been cases of the police being called to threaten bloggers with arrest. We will therefore make the necessary changes to primary legislation to allow full councils and committees to be open as well.

Our argument is that the coalition Government are scrapping the top-down red tape of Whitehall inspection and micro-management. That will save taxpayers’ money and help to devolve power, but it must go hand in hand with local transparency and accountability. We must ensure an independent free press and scrutinise and challenge bad decisions by councils. Individual taxpayers and the new wave of citizen journalists must be let in to conduct their own scrutiny. We are localising audit and scrapping protection, while ensuring that there is protection against the bad old days of municipal corruption. In short, the Bill will deliver greater openness, stronger local democracy, accountability and significant savings for the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.”

My comments on what Eric Pickles said are that currently the public (and press) already have the right to film, blog and tweet at Wirral Council meetings already which is granted to them by article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Human Rights Act 1998 c.42. It is unlawful for any council to act in a way that is incompatible with article 10 (freedom of expression) due to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The legislation introduced by Margaret Thatcher referred to by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 c.67. The secondary legislation referred to by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is the more recent Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (which at Wirral Council only applies to Cabinet meetings and decisions made by individual Cabinet Members).

“Many have refused, however, citing health and safety, data protection” seems to be a reference to Wirral Council, this tweet below of mine from June shows my frustration as both reasons were given in reference to a Planning Committee meeting, the same reasons (although apart from that one Planning Committee meeting not used together at the same meeting) have been given at other Wirral Council meetings in the past twelve months too. Wirral Council have never given standing orders as a reason as there isn’t anything in their current constitution (or past constitution) about it. Personally I’ve never been threatened with arrest or the police for trying to film a meeting, although in other parts of the UK people have.

Hilary Benn MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said on the issue of filming, “We will therefore support that change, and also the proposal that councils in England should allow the recording and videoing of council and committee meetings. In this day and age, big changes in technology make recording and videoing readily possible, and I cannot see the difference between sitting in a meeting, listening and writing down what is being said, or—for those who have shorthand—taking a verbatim record, and making one’s own recording.

As the Secretary of State acknowledged, a new generation of bloggers is relating to politics in a different way, which we should all warmly welcome—frankly, the more people who get to hear what their local council is doing, the better. Who knows? Perhaps this House will one day follow suit and allow those watching us to keep their own records of proceedings—indeed, I may one day be tempted to record the Secretary of State from across the Dispatch Box. I have, however, a sneaking suspicion that Brass Crosby—who, as some Members will know, was committed to the Tower of London in the 1770s for daring as Lord Mayor to release a newspaper editor who had had the audacity to report what was happening in Parliament—and indeed Thomas Hansard, after whom the Official Report is named, would both thoroughly approve of that change.”

The reason why this would only apply to councils in England is because in the other parts of the UK (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that it’s up to the Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they want this sort of change. Hilary Benn is right that at the moment anyone could publish a verbatim account of Council meetings, the main difference between that and an audio recording is that an audio recording also records how something is said.

Video adds an extra element of body language though, not just of the person speaking but of the reaction of other politicians to what’s being said. Hilary Benn also went as far as to tweet about this (his tweet is below):

I welcome Hilary Benn’s tweet and Labour’s support for a change in the law to make things clearer to local councils. I have seen in the past Labour councillors criticise during a Council meeting one of the opposition councillor groups for taking a different policy position to that of their party nationally. I hope Wirral Labour councillors will take heed of the tweet of their frontbench spokesperson Hilary Benn on the matter.

The next stage in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill’s progress through the House of Commons is the Committee stage which was on November 4th at 4pm in Committee Room 13 at the Palace of Westminster (ironically for a bill with accountability in the title this stage is being held in private not public). I’m sure myself and many other bloggers in England will be keen to follow this bill and await the text of the amendments to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill in relation to filming with interest.

The tweet of Labour’s spokesperson nationally on this issue will hopefully prevent any attempts by Wirral Labour councillors at censorship of filming of Wirral Council meetings between now and when the bill becomes law, as if they do try to stop filming they will lay themselves open to the criticism they make of others in saying one thing nationally, but doing another at the local level.

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