Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority changes constitution and policy on filming public meetings after petition started in 2014
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority changes constitution and policy on filming public meetings after petition started in 2014
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.
Electoral Commission confirms that Wirral Council used wrong legislation in candidates’ consent to nomination that was nearly 4 years out of date!
Electoral Commission confirms that Wirral Council used wrong legislation in candidates’ consent to nomination that was nearly 4 years out of date!
The Electoral Commission have confirmed today that Wirral Council issued all candidates in the twenty-two elections of a councillor to Wirral Council nomination papers that contained a flaw.
Are Wirral Council councillors trying to restrict the filming of public meetings again?
Are Wirral Council councillors trying to restrict the filming of public meetings again?
I’ll declare at the outset that I regularly film public meetings of Wirral Council.
Wirral Council’s Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee next meets on the 27th February 2018 starting at 4.00 pm in Committee Room 3 at Wallasey Town Hall.
The planned changes involve each time Wirral Council films the meeting that the Chair states at the start, “I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of repeated viewing.”, as well as signs up inside and outside the meeting room for the public meeting stating,
“WEBCASTING NOTICE
Please note: this meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the internet – at the start of the meeting the Civic Mayor / Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy. Public seating areas will not be filmed by the council. Contact Officer: Civic and Committee Services Manager – 0151 6918559”
The changes proposed to be added to the public filming the meeting include, “A designated area shall be set aside for members of the press/public who wish to film or secure a sound recording of the Council’s public meetings. Any disruptive behaviour or distractions will result in the person(s) being asked to leave the meeting.
So does this mean I can’t clap, smile, frown, sneeze, cough, change batteries, zoom or pan as this may be deemed a “distraction” and I’ll be possibly asked to leave before I even had time to turn off the camera? And if I answer no thank you, would that be used as further evidence of a distraction and then I’d be forced to leave?
If one person filming a meeting is classed as distracting, then councillors and officers need to learn to concentrate better without getting distracted by distractions!
As if to prove my point, here is their sample text for agendas!
“Audio/Visual Recording of meetings – sample text for Agenda Front Sheet
Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non-disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted. Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.“
Wirral Council hasn’t consulted with myself on the proposed changes to its filming policy. The Chair can stop Wirral Council filming if he or she wishes, but if the meeting is open to the public they have no legal powers to stop filming and would just rely on goodwill!
If you ’d like to express your views on this proposed policy before the Standards and Constitutional Committee meets on the 27th February 2018, email contact details for the 9 councillors who are on it are below.
Yesterday, there was a public meeting of Wirral Council”s Local Pension Board scheduled to start at noon. The Local Pension Board is part of the governance of the Merseyside Pension Fund that Wirral Council administer and has hundreds of thousands of people in the pension fund (mainly public sector workers) and a £multi-billion Pension Fund.
I am making an educated guess that either Commerz Real Investmentgesellschaft mbH contract out (or Merseytravel does) the reception staff at the building the public meeting was to be held in, which is done by I think Carlisle Security Services Limited (which is a subsidiary company of Carlisle Support Services Group Limited).
If you are confused by reading that so far, then so am I!
We arrived first at reception at Mann Island and they had been told we were coming to the meeting. So we were issued with visitors passes.
However we were told we couldn’t go in because no-one from Wirral Council was there yet.
Reception told us that we couldn’t go in (although they knew we were there for the meeting) until someone from Wirral Council told them it was ok for reception to allow us into the building to attend a public meeting. So we waited.
First to arrive was Pat Phillips (the Committee Clerk and point of contact for the meeting). Standing in front of reception we asked her to confirm we were there for the meeting. She said she would have to go ask someone (despite nobody else but us being there for the meeting).
So they let her through (and she didn’t come back as there was no-one else but her).
Then Joe Blott arrived, who is at Deputy Chief Executive level at Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and therefore part of the political element of his job such as dealing with people like myself.
Again, Joe Blott insisted he could not tell reception staff at Mann Island that we could come in through the gate as it wasn’t a “Wirral Council building” and he needed to first consult with the Chair of the Local Pensions Board (who actually hadn’t arrived in the building yet).
However, reception staff let Joe Blott through too.
Reception staff then told us they couldn’t let us in because of “terrorism” training and that they had “orders”. They pointed it wasn’t a “public building”.
Apparently now terrorism is used as a reason to avoid legal responsibilities!
The public meeting was scheduled to start at noon and we were still there at reception when more people arrived for the meeting, Peter Wallach, John Raisin, Mike Hornby, Kerry Beirne, Donna Ridland, Pat Maloney and Roger Irvine to name but seven.
I also briefly talked around this time to the Chair of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority Merseytravel Committee Cllr Liam Robinson about the problem.
Reception staff are then busy handing out visitors passes and bizarrely trying to determine when the Local Pensions Board plus myself and Leonora should be allowed through the gate on the ground floor to room GA-25.
Finally (at the third time of asking) we found a Wirral Council employee (Peter Wallach) who was willing to tell reception we were allowed into the building!
Eventually by the time we’re all let in, I come through the door to the meeting room (GA-25 on the ground floor) at about 11:59:30, most of the rest of the people behind me came in late.
Then of course, the room needs to be set up and surprisingly the lights turned on (as neither Joe Blott or Pat Phillips had turned the lights on). One Wirral Council officer introducing one of the reports arrived even later even though there was a delayed start to the meeting (which caused a further delay).
Common sense means letting the press in at least fifteen minutes before so that a safe space to film can be determined, a tripod put up, seating arranged, agendas and reports requested etc.
But I feel that since this legal requirement came into effect in August 2014 various parts of Wirral Council have tried to try my patience over it at various public meetings.
Delayed starts to meetings cost the public sector money in lost time.
Terrorism can not be used as an excuse to delay or prevent democracy happening or the press reporting. The legal right to attend public meetings of local councils has been in its current form since 1972 and in another form since 1960. It’s not new legislation!
Nearly every other meeting of Wirral Council’s committees has one of their solicitors present but this one does not!
This is sadly a recurring problem when attending to report and film public meetings at Mann Island. There have been public meetings that have started before we’re allowed in.
Merseytravel’s own Head of Internal Audit (Merseytravel lease room GA-25) has stated at a public meeting in 2014 that people should not talk to the press about whistleblowing concerns.
However who do the press blow the whistle to when there’s no point in blowing it internally? Write an article about it? Embarrass people into changing? Or does it just end up being like the film Groundhog Day with a public sector seemingly unable to stick to its own policy, the legislation and just full of excuses?
What it has shown me, that is of wider concern is that at Wirral Council some senior managers are frightened to make decisions. The culture of not making a decision, just in case it’s the wrong one or the manager may be criticised can be just as damaging to Wirral Council’s reputation as the myriad of other scandals (on subjects ranging from child protection, complaints about councillors, how requests for information are handled and so on and so on).
So below is footage of the Local Pensions Board which turned out to be an interesting meeting (albeit hard to hear due to the lack of microphones).
I had to skip ten minutes of checks to film it and had no chair to sit on (there was literally no time to get a chair before it started).
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.
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.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority end 15 month information request over Greasby and Saughall Massie fire stations by supplying the information, but ask First-tier Tribunal for costs award in their favour against Mr Brace
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority end 15 month information request over Greasby and Saughall Massie fire stations by supplying the information, but ask First-tier Tribunal for costs award in their favour against Mr Brace
This is a report of a hearing held today of the First-tier Tribunal held in Tribunal Room 3, 3rd Floor (Tribunals Service), Liverpool Civil and Family Court, 35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L2 2BX
At the hearing I was the Appellant and Janet Henshaw represented Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. ICO did not attend. The case number was EA/2016/0054.
The decision at the hearing was to end the matter by consent order.
The Tribunal consisted of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mr. David Farrer QC, First-tier Tribunal Member Mr. Michael Hake and First-tier Tribunal Member Dr. Malcolm Clarke.
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority explained that they had not provided the information covered by decision notice FER0592270, because they had changed it during the course of the EIR request to remove both “Not for publication” and the reason or reasons why under the Local Government Act 1972 it had initially been classed by them as exempt information (although this is a position they reversed during the course of the appeal).
Despite the Appellant informing them by letter in response to what they had sent him on Monday 19th September 2016 (which are the reports below), are not the version he asked for, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority saw it unreasonable to have a hearing today on the withheld information.
During the course of the hearing MFRA supplied extra information to the Appellant Mr. Brace both in written form and verbally.
MFRA asked the Tribunal to make a costs award against Mr Brace, the Appellant.
The Appellant was asked to explain his point of view. He explained that the law stated information that should’ve been in what was supplied, therefore he knew it was the wrong version and he had informed MFRA, the Tribunal and ICO of this by letter.
He had not yet received a response to this letter from MFRA.
MFRA argued that the hearing was pointless, because from their perspective even if the information supplied was two A4 pages shorter than the case management note had required them to supply, in their view, the extra pages contained no information relating to the request in it and referred them to Mr Brace’s letter describing the extra pages.
MFRA were asked during the course of the hearing to supply the version in existence at the time of request to the Appellant Mr Brace.
Janet Henshaw of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority explained that she hadn’t brought it with her to the hearing.
Due to the explanation provided by MFRA as to the withheld pages of information, the Appellant agreed to end the matter by consent order.
Janet Henshaw of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority argued that the Appellant was being unreasonable in bringing the proceedings to a hearing.
The Appellant was given a chance to make representations.
The Tribunal did not agree to make an award of costs at the hearing, but directed Janet Henshaw of MFRA to make a formal application for costs and to serve it on the Appellant and Tribunal by a specified date.
The the Appellant would have a chance to make representations and as he is an individual, supply the Tribunal (and MFRA) with details of financial means (which would have to be considered) when the Tribunal makes a decision.
The First-Tier Tribunal Judge explained that the Tribunal’s rules on costs were different to that of the court.
One of those present also seemed upset at the trees that had been cut down to produce the bundle and the First-Tier Tribunal Judge referred to the cost to the public purse.
Any decision by the Tribunal on costs can be appealed to the County Court.
The information in the two reports relates to MFRA plans for a fire station at Greasby, then Saughall Massie.
Both reports (which were not made public during the two twelve week consultations) show indicative values for selling Upton Fire Station (£350,000) and selling West Kirby fire station (£200,000).
The land value assigned for the abandoned Greasby plans is £300,000 and the notional value assigned for the land at Saughall Massie is £300,000.
The Appellant awaits MFRA’s costs application with interest as at least one of the questions directed towards Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens (pictured below) during one of the two consultation was why this information wasn’t in the public domain.
The First-tier Tribunal Judge stated during the hearing that the reasons given in ICO’s decision notice no longer applied for withholding the information.
MFRA (in line with councillors stating that people should be charged for FOI or EIR requests) despite agreeing to end this by consent order feel that is unfair to pay MFRA’s costs in providing the information, even though the First-Tier Tribunal Judge told them that the reasons for withholding the information in the decision notice didn’t apply.
Janet Henshaw was the person that also refused the information at the internal review stage as she is a senior manager employed by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.