Tag: Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014

What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?

What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?                                             There is a form of direct accountability during the audit of local councils when for a short period each year local government electors can inspect information about that financial year such as invoices and contracts. Here is … Continue reading “What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?”

What links FOI, ICO decision notice FS50591795, audit, a class A drug, barristers and Liverpool City Council?

                                           

There is a form of direct accountability during the audit of local councils when for a short period each year local government electors can inspect information about that financial year such as invoices and contracts.

Here is a legal reference to that right (Audit Commission Act 1998, s.15) which has been a direct form of democratic accountability that in one form or another has been around since Victorian times.

It’s tied in to rights of local government electors to ask questions of the external auditor (which for Wirral Council is Grant Thornton), to make objections to the accounts, to request public interest reports. After all how can you do all that without seeing the information in the first place?

It’s a form of direct democratic accountability.

Unlike making a freedom of information request (time limit of 18.5 hours) there is strictly very little legal limits on what can be requested (well apart from on the insular peninsula at Wirral Council where they have a habit of deliberately shifting the goalposts and coming up with bizarre interpretations of legislation to suit themselves). Last year I made requests under this audit legislation to Wirral Council, Liverpool City Council, Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority, Merseytravel and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

The Liverpool City Council request was connected to an earlier FOI request and there’s been a recent decision notice issued in that matter on the 1st February 2016 which hasn’t been published yet by ICO.

Ironically ICO seemed to have met a stumbling block with Liverpool City Council on that one as they asked me for the information that I’d been refused under FOI (happy to oblige). This implies Liverpool City Council weren’t being entirely cooperative with ICO.

I’ve been sent a paper copy of the decision notice through the post, but it’s not published on ICO’s website yet. The reference is FS50591795. It’s a mercifully short eight pages and requires both Liverpool City Council to issue a fresh response with 35 days of 1st February 2016 (or appeal to the Tribunal) and states that Liverpool City Council breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If anybody wants me to I can scan a copy in and publish it here.

Basically LCC’s arguments are that I’m being unfair to barristers by requesting invoices they’ve submitted to LCC. Because as we all know, the purpose of a self proclaimed "socialist" Council like Liverpool City Council is to stick up for downtrodden, oppressed groups on the margins of society like barristers!

Cllr Paul Brant (left) speaking at a recent public meeting of Liverpool City Council (11th November 2015)
Cllr Paul Brant (left) speaking at a recent public meeting of Liverpool City Council (11th November 2015)

Let’s take the example of one barrister (pictured above on the left), a barrister I might point out who is not the subject of the invoices I requested, but who is in addition to being a barrister, a Labour Liverpool City Council councillor called Cllr Paul Brant. He resigned as a councillor in 2013 (although has since been re-elected) after receiving a police caution for possession of a class A drug. He was also the subject of a The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service disciplinary tribunal.

Below are the details.

Defendant Paul Brant (Lincoln’s Inn)

Type of hearing 3 Person Disciplinary Tribunal

Panel members
Mr William Rhodri Davies QC (Chair)
Ms Pamela Mansell
Mr Mark West

Finding and sentence Reprimand.

Section of the code 301(a)(i)/901.7

Status Final
Date Friday 12 September 2014

This Tribunal was held in Private.

Here is a link to the outcome of the Paul Brant disciplinary hearing from which I quote,

"Details of Offence

Paul Brant engaged in conduct which was discreditable to a barrister contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) of the Code of Conduct in that on a day between the 1st January 2013 and the 21st September 2013 he committed the criminal offence of being in possession of a controlled drug of class A contrary to The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for which offence on the 20th September 2013 he receive a simple caution."

It would be a conflict of interest for Cllr Paul Brant to do work for Liverpool City Council but according to his Chamber’s website he has been instructed to represent Wirral Council in the past (yes Wirral Leaks I can get trees into a story too!):

“Jayne Spencer v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (2008); LTL 1/10/2008 (Highway liability claim, tree root in Port Sunlight conservation area causing personal injury – whether breach of duty. Mr Brant appeared successfully at first instance and on appeal).”

This is an aside but I do remember one year during the audit, Wirral Council weren’t happy with me requesting the invoices for their legal invoices for these sorts of liability claims. “

However there should be some transparency as to who Liverpool City Council are paying! All Liverpool City Council councillors are responsible for budget matters including Cllr Paul Brant.

One of my arguments rejected by ICO was that there are laws regulating who can give legal advice. You can check whether a barrister has a current practising certificate here.

To give the example of Paul Brant above, it shows he works at Oriel Chambers and was subject to a disciplinary tribunal in September 2014 (the outcome of which is detailed above).

One of my other arguments to the regulator was that Liverpool City Council is under a legal obligation to publish the names of its suppliers for invoices over £500. In fact the guidance they’re required by law to follow specifically states that being self-employed (which is their argument surrounding barristers) doesn’t mean they can keep the suppliers’ name out of the public domain (but Liverpool City Council do).

The page on his Chambers’ website states he is "in a senior position in a large local authority" (meaning Liverpool City Council).

However the above legislation (surrounding rights of inspection, objection etc) during the audit was scrapped by the government. You can’t use it any more to do this after the 2014/15 financial year.

Instead for 2015/16 financial year onwards it’s been completely watered down.

Previously (apart from information about its own staff) local councils during the audit had to get permission from their external auditor if they wanted to withhold from inspection in the category of "personal information" (which was very narrowly defined). This was a safeguard to prevent public bodies abusing their powers.

Bear in mind however that each time the public body contacts their external auditor it increases what they’re charged.

This was a check and balance introduced by the last Labour government.

However this check and balance on misuses of power in local government was repealed (scrapped) by the last Coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem).

Oh but there’s more!

There’s a rather infamous recent case (well infamous in those familiar with "citizen audit") where a local government elector called Shlomo Dowen requested (during this period each year during the audit) a waste management contract between Nottinghamshire County Council and Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd.

The case reference is [2009] EWHC 2382 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 797, [2010] Env LR 12. Anyway interestingly at that stage a High Court Judge said Mr. Shlomo Dowen should be allowed to inspect and receive a copy of the contract (despite Veolia bringing a judicial review about it).

However Veolia weren’t happy at all by this (in fact if you read through the judgements in both cases you’ll find that even if Mr. Dowen was given the contract they wanted restrictions on him sharing it with other people) and brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] PTSR 185, [2010] UKHRR 1317, [2011] Eu LR 172). Veolia claimed that allowing Mr. Dowen to inspect/receive a copy of the contract would infringe that companies’ human rights.

I quote from part of that judgement, “I am not entirely convinced that English common law has always regarded the preservation of confidential information as a fundamental human right”.

Rix LJ, Etherton LJ, Jackson LJ upheld the appeal however.

The irony of all that was that Shlomo Dowen already had access to the information as Veolia’s lawyers did not seek a stay following the earlier judgment.

However the above is why an extra category of "commercial confidentiality" has now been added to s. 26(5) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Interestingly withholding information on grounds of commercial confidentiality, this is a quote from the legislation,

“(5) Information is protected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality if—

(a) its disclosure would prejudice commercial confidentiality, and

(b) there is no overriding public interest in favour of its disclosure.”

is subject to a public interest test.

However there are other changes on the horizon too. Previously the inspection period was 15 days (3 weeks assuming there are no holidays).

When that inspection period was published in a public notice in at least one newspaper in the area and on the public body’s website.

I only have until the end of the 2015/16 local government financial year to get up to speed on these changes as being the Editor here I’ll have to schedule time for responding to the public notices, arranging appointments to inspect, as well as spare capacity for dealing with the moaning of the public sector (example moan last year being, it’s been 7/8 years since someone did this!).

As Wirral Council was somewhat uncooperative last year over the size of my request (only responding to the 10% of it they didn’t deem to be particularly sensitive), I will be having internal discussions here on avenues that can be explored to either embarrass Wirral Council into legal compliance (by censure (not to say that always works) or take more formal action.

Weirdly some of the politician’s expenses that they refused me under the audit legislation and Cllr Adrian Jones refused to make an appointment for me to see, they released in response to a later FOI request.

Which just goes to show that if you ask for the same information three times from Wirral Council (audit rights, a politician, then FOI), you might finally get it! Obviously by the third time, it starts to get embarrassing and seems like they have something to hide. I really don’t like having to ask three times when once should be enough though!

Anyway what was going to be only a short article about local government, barristers, ICO, FOI and audit is now rather on the long side so I’ll draw this to a close and give you an opportunity to comment.

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

Why after Pickle's #righttotweet law will Wirral councillors soon decide on restricting reporting of public meetings?

Why after Pickle’s #righttotweet law will Wirral councillors soon decide on restricting reporting of public meetings?

Why after Pickle’s #righttotweet law will Wirral councillors soon decide on restricting reporting of public meetings?

                                                            

A photo of Councillor Phil Davies at the last Council meeting announcing a council tax freeze, an example of the sort of photo covered by a new draft policy on reporting on Wirral Council's public meetings
A photo of Councillor Phil Davies at the last Council meeting announcing a council tax freeze, an example of the sort of photo covered by a new draft policy on reporting on Wirral Council’s public meetings

Below is an email from myself to those on Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee about a proposed policy on the filming of Wirral Council’s public meetings.

To: Councillor Bill Davies
CC: Councillor Moira McLaughlin
CC: Councillor Robert Gregson
CC: Councillor Denise Roberts
CC: Councillor John Salter
CC: Councillor Les Rowlands
CC: Councillor Gerry Ellis
CC: Councillor John Hale
CC: Councillor Pat Williams
CC: Shirley Hudspeth
CC: Tayo Peters

subject: Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting 3rd March 2015 Agenda item 3 Summary of the Work and Proposals of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Working Group

Dear councillors (and others) on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee,

Attached to this email should be a copy of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations, the explanatory memorandum to the regulations, the report to Tuesday’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee meeting and the appendix to the report which is a draft policy.

I do not have email addresses for the independent members on the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee, so I’m copying this email to Shirley Hudspeth in the hope that they can receive a copy at the meeting itself.

I would also like to speak at Tuesday’s meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee on agenda item 3 as the issues raised here can be rather technical in nature and it is possible that people may wish to ask questions on what I’ve put here.

The report states at 2.10 “The Council’s position with regards to reporting/filming at Council and committee meetings is in essence determined by The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”) which came into force in August 2014. A copy is attached to this report.”

Unfortunately a copy of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 has not been attached to the report as stated in Surjit Tour’s report. Continue reading “Why after Pickle's #righttotweet law will Wirral councillors soon decide on restricting reporting of public meetings?”

So what’s been happening with the filming public meetings law (Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014)?

So what’s been happening with the filming public meetings law (Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 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 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)

So what’s been happening with the filming public meetings law (Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014)?

                           

I’ve written before about the law going through Parliament about filming public meetings. Sadly when it comes to the House of Commons and House of Lords nothing seems to happen quickly! Here’s a quick recap of what’s happened so far. The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 became law on the 30th January 2014. Sadly this issue wasn’t dealt with through primary legislation, but s. 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 gives the Secretary of State (Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP) the power to make regulations about the filming issue. S. 49(2) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 meant that the power given to the Secretary of State to lay regulations came into effect two months after the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 became law (30th March 2014).

Shortly after this date, on the 3rd April the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP (you will need to scroll down to the section marked Appendix for the right point) laid the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations along with a draft Explanatory Memorandum.

S. 43(3) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act required that such regulations “may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”. So the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 don’t have the force of law until a motion to approve them has happened in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Standing orders mean that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (which comprises both Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords) must assess every statutory instrument to check that the draft regulations are in line with the power under an Act of Parliament granted to the Minister to make them. Since the draft regulations were laid, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has met twice.

At its meeting on 7th May 2014 it considered regulations such as the “European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and Protocol thereto on matters specific to Aircraft Equipment) Order 2014”, “Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014”, “Submarine Pipe-lines (Electricity Generating Stations) (Revocation) Regulations 2014”, “Public Gas Transporter Pipe-line Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2014”, “Central African Republic (European Union Financial Sanctions) Regulations 2014” and “Protection of Wrecks (Designation) (England) Order 2014” but sadly not the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014.

At the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ meeting on the 14th May 2014 it considered regulations such as the “Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (Indexation of Annual Chargeable Amounts) Order 2014”, “African Legal Support Facility (Legal Capacities) Order 2014”, “Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment and Consequential Provisions) (England) Order 2014”, “Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2014”, “Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Over the Counter Derivatives, Central Counterparties and Trade Repositories) (Amendment) Regulations 2014”, “Marine Licensing (Application Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2014”, “Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2014” but again not the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014.

Sadly the House of Lords can’t approve the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have met and reported on it. Since the draft regulations the Department for Communities and Local Government have produced a draft Councils and other local bodies – filming and reporting their meetings, knowing what they do: your rights (A guide for local people) guide which the Department for Communities and Local Government asked for comments on by a date shortly after the local election results being announced last month.

On the 7th May the House of Commons agreed that the following MPs (Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor), Mike Crockart (Lib Dem, Edinburgh West), Mr Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South), Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North), Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse), Robert Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent), Mike Freer (Conservative, Finchley & Golders Green), John Healey (Labour, Wentworth & Dearne), Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall), Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South), Brandon Lewis (Conservative, Great Yarmouth), Robert Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst), Claire Perry (Conservative, Devizes), Andy Sawford (Labour, Corby), David Simpson (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann), Mrs Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden), Craig Whittaker (Conservative, Calder Valley) and Simon Wright (Lib Dem, Norwich South) make up the Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee (Draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014).

On the 12th May the makeup of the Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee (Draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014) was changed slightly. Simon Wright (Lib Dem, Norwich South) was discharged from membership of the committee. When the Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee (Draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014) meets, it will vote on the motion “The
Committee has considered the instrument” and ninety minutes will be given to debate it. The Government always votes in favour of these types of motion and as the committee comprises of 8 Conservative MPs, 7 Labour MPs, 1 Lib Dem MP and 1 Democratic Unionist MP such a motion will be agreed.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered the Draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 on the 6th May and made these comments on it and the draft Explanatory Memorandum:

“35. In the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to these draft Regulations, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) says that they give greater rights to report at open meetings of local government bodies, by filming, photographing, audio-recording or any other means. DCLG comments that local people will be able to film, make audio-recordings and provide written commentaries during a meeting and provide oral commentaries outside the meeting, allowing those who are unable to attend the meeting to follow the proceedings. The Regulations also require a written record of certain decisions made by officers of such bodies.

36. DCLG states that it did not undertake formal consultation on the Regulations, but that they were the subject of an informal soundings exercise with the Local Government Association (LGA), Lawyers in Local Government, the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. All but the last-named of these submitted comments, as did a number of other interested organisations, and a member of this House.

37. DCLG’s account of the outcome of the soundings exercise identifies no unequivocal support for the Regulations. For example, the LGA opposed them and commented that “the Government’s approach, as set out in the draft Regulations, appears completely contrary to the principles of Localism and is in fact micro-management of the sector.” While the NALC supported the objective of transparency, it raised concerns (in common with other respondents) that some provisions in the Regulations, such as filming or recording a meeting, and recording and publishing decisions taken by officers, would have significant detrimental, costly and disproportionate effects on local councils.

38. The Department has not been persuaded by these concerns. As is made clear in the EM, it holds to the belief that “localism requires robust local scrutiny and local accountability”, and that “allowing the public to attend and report meetings promotes health democracy and should not be seen as an intrusion [which does not create] burdens on the councils or local government bodies.” We note that much of the EM consists of similar declarations; we would urge the Department to bear in mind that EMs are intended to provide explanation, not exhortation.

39. DCLG proposes to bring the Regulations into force on the day after which they are made. In the EM, the Department refers to Ministerial statements and press notices which have set out the importance of allowing filming and the use of social media in their meetings. While it refers to two specific press notices, we understand that there have been no Ministerial Statements to Parliament about the Regulations. As an instrument subject to affirmative resolution, the Regulations will be debated in the House: this will provide the Department with an opportunity to explain its intentions to Parliament, as well as to the recipients of its press releases.”

So, the draft Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations will probably become law at some point this month, let’s hope it’s sooner rather than later!

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

Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

Wirral Council plan to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper. Will it fall foul of Pickles’ publicity law?

                             
A recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee who will consider proposals to spend £22,500 on a Birkenheadcommunity newspaper
A recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee who will consider proposals to spend £22,500 on a Birkenhead community newspaper

Buried among the appendices published ahead of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee on Thursday are two interesting reports.

The first report is the result of a Surveymonkey survey sent out to all residents that Wirral Council has an email address for in the “CH41, CH42 or CH42 postcode” areas. It seems however this is just a typo and residents in CH43 (which covers Bidston & St. James, Claughton, Oxton and Prenton) were also included as I received an email about the survey with the subject “Would you like to receive a community news update?” on 27th February.

Most people responding to the survey stated that what they liked most about the local free newspapers was local news, however question three revealed that around half responding to that question said that they don’t read the local free newspaper as it isn’t delivered to them any more. This answers concurs with statistics in the other report that states that out of the 39,823 households in Birkenhead, 24,962 receive the Wirral News (62.7%) and 22,091 the Wirral Globe (55.5%).

The survey continues with asking what people want they would want included in a “Birkenhead Constituency Committee news update” and the top answer was “unbiased, relevant local news” closely followed by finding out about local services, events and activities.

Interestingly there were also responses about why people didn’t currently read the newspapers from surveys in public locations where people gave responses such as “Council matters only appear if news editors think that they are controversial” and “fed up of hearing about bad people doing bad things and getting away with it”.

When asked about what information they thought should be included in a Birkenhead Constituency Community Newspaper there were a range of responses such as “find out about positive local news and important council information concerning regeneration and development”, “main council committee decisions – with commentary if necessary”, “planning applications”, “proposed road & transport information” but interestingly and this one seems to be a reference to Labour Rose/Lib Dem Focus “but not of councillors’ photographs at places where council work has been done at their behest”.

Not unsurprisingly not one of the questions asked residents if they thought that spending £22,500 of taxpayer’s money for three editions was a good idea. What is proposed is a pilot of three editions over six months (each edition being bi-monthly) of an eight page publication (whether it would be colour or black and white is not mentioned). It’s stated that “It will be non political and inform people of news they are interested in.” Quite how it will manage to write anything about Wirral Council that people are interested in (which means the more controversial political news), yet remain “non political” remains to be seen. The long term aim is to have advertising from “public sector partners”, grants and “appropriate advertising” cover its costs for future editions.

It will be edited by Lairdside Community Together, who will be recruiting an apprentice to work on it through Wirral Metropolitan College. Interestingly it won’t be delivered by paid deliverers but by volunteers with ward councillors suggesting an organisation in their ward (sports clubs and scout groups are mentioned in the report). These organisations would then receive “an incentive”.

However the future is not looking particularly rosy for such Council run publications. Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP is not as keen on them as the Birkenhead Constituency Committee. In approximately a week (30th March 2014) s.39 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 on the code of practice on local authority publicity comes into force. This section gives Eric Pickles the legal power to tell Councils off who aren’t complying with the “Code of practice on local authority publicity” and force them to comply. This section also allows the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP to create a new law making it a legal duty for all local Councils to comply with the Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

So what is the Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity (which also comes with an explanatory memorandum and how could the proposed Birkenhead Constituency Community Newspaper fall foul of it?

Section 2 of the code makes it quite clear that it applies to such publications “The code therefore applies in relation to all decisions by local authorities relating to paid advertising and leaflet campaigns, publication of free newspapers and newssheets and maintenance of websites – including the hosting of material which is created by third parties.”

Section 4 outlines some principles applying to “publicity by local authorities”. These are that it should be cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate and “be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity”. I think that last bit refers to the period in the lead up to elections.

Going back to what somebody wanted in such a newspaper being “main council committee decisions – with commentary if necessary” section 15 would appear to rule that out “Such publicity may set out the local authority’s views and reasons for holding those views, but should avoid anything likely to be perceived by readers as constituting a political statement, or being a commentary on contentious areas of public policy.”

Section 28 is specifically about such newspapers, restricts their frequency to quarterly and restricts what can be put in it “Local authorities should not publish or incur expenditure in commissioning in hard copy or on any website, newsletters, newssheets or similar communications which seek to emulate commercial newspapers in style or content. Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, newssheets 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. Such communications should not include material other than information for the public about the business, services and amenities of the council or other local service providers.”

Section 34 bans such publications in the lead up to elections “During the period between the notice of an election and the election itself, local authorities should not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views or proposals in such a way that identifies them with any individual members or groups of members. Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published by local authorities during this period unless expressly authorised by or under statute. It is permissible for local authorities to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.”

As it states in the explanatory memorandum “Council newspapers, issued frequently and designed to resemble a local newspaper can mislead members of the public reading them that they are local newspapers covering council events and give communities a biased view of the activities of the council.” There’s also the concern that such publications (as this one is expected to be funded after the first three issues through advertising) will take advertising away from local newspapers and make them less financially viable.

So I’m starting a poll to see what readers think about the community newspaper proposal ahead of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee on Thursday which will consider it.

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

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.