What did councillors say about Girtrell Court before the meeting was adjourned?

What did councillors say about Girtrell Court before the meeting was adjourned?                                                        Last week there was a debate at a public meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about whether the decision to close Girtrell Court should be made at a public meeting or behind closed doors. I thought it would be useful (as there … Continue reading “What did councillors say about Girtrell Court before the meeting was adjourned?”

What did councillors say about Girtrell Court before the meeting was adjourned?

                                                      

Last week there was a debate at a public meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about whether the decision to close Girtrell Court should be made at a public meeting or behind closed doors.

I thought it would be useful (as there was uncertainty as to whether it would be discussed at all) to start a transcript of what was said during that debate.

The Conservative notice of motion on Girtrell Court can be read here (page 2 (motion 3)) and the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments to it can be read here.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Council (Wirral Council) 14th March 2016 starting at 22m21s at the start of the debate on the Girtrell Court motion

Cllr Chris Blakeley talking to his notice of motion on Girtrell Court at a meeting of Wirral Council 14th March 2016
Cllr Chris Blakeley talking to his notice of motion on Girtrell Court at a meeting of Wirral Council 14th March 2016

Cllr Chris Blakeley Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I think tonight I’ll just ask a question of the Leader of the Council this evening, he can see the approach that we have on this subject, the people in the public gallery, who have repeatedly attended in the public gallery at meeting after meeting to make their views known.

Mr Mayor, I’m saddened that I have to bring such a notice of motion, in an effort to underpin the democratic rights of both elected Members and of course the public we are here to serve.

Mr Mayor on this particular issue which revolves around Girtrell Court, this matter goes further than that. It goes to the very heart of why we are here and why we are empowered by the electorate to make decisions in an open and transparent way and in the public arena. In committees, in cabinets and most importantly in this Council Chamber.

Last week Mr Mayor, the Labour Members in this Chamber voted to a person to allow a budgetary decision that can only be made by Council, a decision that will have a massive impact on the most vulnerable people in our care, to be made behind closed doors without any means of challenge by this Council or the people it affects.

Mr Mayor, I’ve scoured the constitution and I’ve got a number of pages here with regards to budget procedures and I simply cannot find anywhere where it says budgetary decisions that can only be made by Council can be delegated to a portfolio holder and an officer to be made at a future date in secret behind closed doors.

(shouts of hear, hear and applause)

Mr Mayor, if this is allowed in this case where will it end?

Mr Mayor, I refer to the Council’s constitution and the constitution is divided into sixteen articles which sets out the basic rules governing the Council’s business and it talks of the principles of decision-making which includes references to respect for human rights and a presumption in favour of openness. Article 1 of the constitution states, “The Council will exercise all of its powers and duties, in accordance with the law and this constitution.”

At (ii) in that it says it will, “support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision-making;”

and

section (v) states, “create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to [public] account;”.

Mr Mayor, how can making a decision behind closed doors actively involve citizens and hold them to account?

Mr Mayor, section 2.3 states at (e), “All Councillors will be involved in decision making.”

Well Mr Mayor, if that’s the case, then why is that statement not being adhered to?

Article 4 deals with Council’s budget framework and states at the outset that, “the full Council will decide the Council’s budget and policy framework” . Section 4.2 states, “Only the Council will exercise the following functions:

[(i)] adopting and changing the Articles of the Constitution;

[(ii)] approving or adopting the policy framework, the budget and any application to the Secretary of State in respect of any Council land.”

Mr Mayor, again nowhere does it state that decisions on the Council’s budget can be delegated to individual portfolio holders, even in conjunction or not in conjunction with an officer.

Mr Mayor, I’ve looked at Phil [Davies]’ amendment and I have to say at the risk of destroying my street cred I agree with parts of the first paragraph. Yes, this is about people and it is about choice and Mr Mayor the people have made their choice. That choice Mr Mayor is Girtrell Court.

(applause)

Mr Mayor, it seems people can have a choice as long as they don’t choose Girtrell Court but Mr Mayor that’s not a choice!

The second paragraph tries to justify why a decision has to made behind closed doors. Mr Mayor, this is too important a matter and there is no justification for not making a decision in the public arena.

I’ve looked at the Lib Dem amendment, I have to say it is meaningless. It simply reinforces making the decision behind closed doors and then challenging it. It’s quite clear you know that we can’t really support that.

Mr Mayor, the proposal to close Girtrell Court has caught the attention of the public and in particular the users and loved ones, not just here but around the world Mr Mayor. People have signed the petition from Australia, America, Canada, all over Europe and Mr Mayor while it is one of the smaller savings, this is the issue that is the most devoted and has courted the most publicity in the public budget.

Mr Mayor, if this delegated decision is allowed to take place, then it fully means the Labour Group has changed the constitution without the authority of the Council.

Mr Mayor, the proposal to close Girtrell Court is ill thought out and ill-conceived. However, the very least the hundred and thirty-three families and the forty-five staff can expect is that any decision is made in the public arena and not in secret behind closed doors.

(applause)

Mr Mayor, it’s not too late for the Leader of the Council and his Group to listen to the people, to listen to the ten thousand people who’ve signed petitions, to listen to the hundred and eighty-nine people who had their say on the consultation and to give them that choice, the choice they want Girtrell Court.

(cheering and applause)

Mr Mayor, I urge the Council to support this motion.

(applause)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowlands Cllr Phil Davies, you now have up to five minutes to move your amendment.

Cllr Phil Davies explains the Labour amendment on the Girtrell Court motion at the Wirral Council meeting on the 14th March 2016
Cllr Phil Davies explains the Labour amendment on the Girtrell Court motion at the Wirral Council meeting on the 14th March 2016

Cllr Phil Davies (Leader of the Council) Thank you Mr Mayor.

For this me, the key driver behind this decision is definitely, it’s running in step with more choice

(drowned out by heckling)

(Cllr Phil Davies sits down)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowland Excuse me, excuse me. I want you to be here because I want to see this debated openly, transparently.

It is being debated, excuse me sir. It’s being debated in this Chamber tonight openly and transparently and that’s my job is to make sure that that happens.

I want you to be here, but I also want you to listen and let the debate, let the debate carry on.

I’m sorry sir, if you carry on I’m going to have to ask you to leave. So please listen to what I’m saying. Cllr Davies?

Cllr Phil Davies Thank you Mr Mayor.

So, let’s be very clear at the outset, this issue is about giving disabled people and their carers greater choice in their respite care.

The fundamental issue that we’re facing up to and I believe we have faced up to as the new structure is that our entire budget for respite care, it’s £1.5 million is tied up in twenty beds in a single building.

Now we know that, I’ve seen the evidence that many of our service users and their families do not want a traditional residential type facility for their respite care.

However, because all of the budget for respite care is tied up in this one

(drowned out by heckling)

unable to meet the needs of and the demands I think of all our

(drowned out by heckling)

So I believe Mr Mayor that reproviding this care, which meets people’s needs more effectively, I think is the right way forward.

I’ll just give you a few examples of alternative respite care…

(drowned out by heckling)

and carers are asking for. We’re talking about things like supported living where people have their own tenancy,

(drowned out by louder heckling)

(Cllr Phil Davies sit down)

(loud heckling)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowlands I don’t want to have to clear this gallery. I want you to be here and listen to the debate. You may not actually agree with what has been said, but at least the councillors have the right to debate. Cllr Davies?

Cllr Phil Davies Thank you Mr Mayor.

So, the alternative provision that we’re looking at includes but is not exclusively supported living, shared lives, where people stay with a paid carer in their own home,

(heckling)

(Cllr Phil Davies sits down again)

Cllr Jeff Green Mr Mayor, can I just say? I’ve been on the Council for a long time, I’ve been on the Council for a long time Mr Mayor and I think given the public participation, given what the public want in this

(drowned out by loud cheers)

anyone makes a point anytime, for the Leader of the Council to sit down and refuse to take part is frankly pathetic!

(drowned out by applause)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowlands Cllr Davies.

Cllr Phil Davies Cllr Green, I don’t think he’s aware that

(drowned out by heckling)

So the alternatives we’re looking at include supported living, where people have their own tenancy,

(drowned out by heckling)

shared living, where people stay with a paid carer. Some people are asking for support at home.

(drowned out by heckling)

(Cllr Phil Davies sits down)

Cllr Louise Reece-Jones Mr Mayor, as a deaf Member of the Council, it is very difficult to keep up with the conversation and I’m to make an informed decision on how I would vote on this.

I have two sign language interpreters that find it very difficult to listen to both the Leader of the Council and also to give me the conversation that’s happening on the balcony which everybody else is privy to and I’m not as a deaf Member. So I would ask the Council please so I can take part in this full debate as an elected Member that we have a little bit of respect.

(applause)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowlands Can we please try and have this debate otherwise we’re not going to have the debate and that would be even more of a tragedy. So will you please allow the councillors

(drowned out by heckling)

Cllr Davies?

Cllr Phil Davies So the range of alternatives include all of those I mentioned.

Now I accept that some people or a number of people do want a traditional residential facility, which will we will continue to provide respite care, but that is not the option that everybody wants!

And I think focussing all of our funding in that one site, we are failing those carers that …

(heckling)

(Cllr Phil Davies sits down)

Cllr Jeff Green For heaven’s sake!

(heckling)

Mayor of Wirral Cllr Les Rowlands Excuse me, this is the Council Chamber where a policy is being debated. Now, it’s not, it’s being debate in, excuse me, I’m talking! Yes. I’m talking. Excuse me, leave the Chamber please! Excuse me, I’ve asked this gentleman to leave the Chamber. I’d like you to leave the Chamber! You have to leave the Chamber! I’m sorry, you’ve not listened to what I’ve said. You have to leave the Chamber! This is… excuse me, can you leave this Chamber please? Sorry? I want a five-minute adjournment while this gentleman leaves the Chamber.

(there was then an adjournment)

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

The dark days of Wirral Council and the "bureaucratic machinations" surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

The dark days of Wirral Council and the “bureaucratic machinations” surrounding the Anna Klonowski Associates report

                                                            

Councillor Steve Foulkes answers a question during the public question time section of a Council meeting in December 2011
Councillor Steve Foulkes answers a question during the public question time section of a Council meeting in December 2011

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The public question time element of the Council meeting on 12th December 2011

I thought I would write a blog post today on what was probably one of those nearly forgotten times in Wirral Council’s history (which you can watch above recorded by my wife).

I include a transcript below about what was said at that meeting and well worth watching is another video below which is a clip from when a discussion of the same issue was on the North West News in January 2012. It was around the time of the news clip that Leonora and I decided to leave the Liberal Democrats.

It’s also worth pointing out at this stage that in 2011 the Liberal Democrats (proposed by Cllr Pat Williams, seconded by former Councillor Ann Bridson) suspended me with one of the reasons given was that I had criticised Cllr Foulkes (a Labour councillor).

The rest as they say is history, shortly after Cllr Foulkes was removed as Leader of Wirral Council in a vote of no confidence and the Labour administration was replaced by a short-lived Conservative/Lib Dem one.

I will at this point, point out two of the Nolan principles which all councillors had signed up to as part of the Code of Conduct which are accountability “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” and openness “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

John Brace: There has been much public interest in the (as yet unpublished) AKA (Anna Klonowksi Associates Ltd) report into issues that need to be remedied at Wirral Council.

My personal view is that Wirral Council needs to publish the report, reassure the public what it’s doing differently now and restore its tarnished reputation as a result of the events that led to the report being commissioned.

Please could you answer:

a) what date the report will be published on and whether changes are to be made between the draft version and final version (if so the reasons why) and

b) an update on changes and decisions made since the report, as a result of the report becoming available in draft form, including progress (which includes consultation) already made and how the changes will benefit Wirral Council, its staff, its councillors and the public?

Cllr Steve Foulkes: [sighs] What a surprise seeing you here John! [laughter]

Well, can I just thank you for your question? And, and this is a genuine, genuine answer, errm which will be backed up by a errm official statement which has been circulated to all elected Members and it is a public document so I’m more than happy for you to have a copy of that.

If you haven’t got it yet you’ll receive it very, very shortly.

As long as I’ve been Leader, I’ve been pressing both Anna Klonowski and the officers to [inaudible] of the long awaited report. It’s not in this Council’s interests for this to drag out any longer.

But it is in the Council’s interests is that procedure is done properly and within err natural justice and err you know protection for the Council’s future err prospects and liabilities. Currently err Miss Klonowski and her independent solicitors are conducting a Right to Reply process.

The purpose of this and its current state of progress is fully explained in the Director of Law’s advice note which has been circulated to all councillors.

Like I just said a copy is on its way to you immediately and I cannot you know give a specific date for publication of the final report but I give you my assurance that I will do all I can to make this soon and as and as reasonably possible.

As I say it’s not in this Council’s best interests to drag on.

We want the department to move forward. We want the Council to move forward.

What we have done though in terms of of what reports are available.

We’ve insisted that the corporate governance issues are up and running and they are believed to be at the stem of some of the issues in the other report.

I can’t say any further than that.

So I can’t you know. It would be wrong to me to tell you lies, or or or to pretend I’m, but at this point of time I cannot given that the Director’s advice note.

I believe we’ll say it’s inappropriate to publish that report.

If we are true to our word that you know whistleblowers should be protected and are important within our Council’s processes, then therefore anyone involved in the whistleblower process should have the same rights as the whistleblower and my view is that individuals have the Right to Reply, have the right for natural justice and I don’t believe that we should hurry justice just for the sake of of of of err public you know public clamour.

If the report is correct, and final replies (inaudible) then we in public cannot in full conscience cannot act upon it.

It’s not at that state yet and that’s not through any fault or mine.

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: OK, Mr. Brace, content with that?

John Brace: I have just one small supplementary.

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: Supplementary [inaudible] understand that.

John Brace: Yes, err can you give an approximate timescale, in the Spring of next year or you know something like that?

Mayor Moira McLaughlin: I think he has answered that Mr. Brace to be fair.

Cllr Steve Foulkes: I would would hope, I would hope it’s as soon as possible.

I’ve not been given an exact date.

But I have been informed, and as we’ve all been informed, that progress has been made on the Right to Reply. Err, there are some late Right to Reply issues come in come into the system as I think are detailed in Bill’s report.

Everything around this issue is within the report of the Director of Law and I think that once you will read that you will understand the difficult position he got in in this type of report.

As I say it’s not in the Council’s interests, or my interests or anybody’s interest for that report to be delayed any longer than it need be.

Because I think quite frankly people need to move on, the Authority needs to move on and rights need to err err wrongs need to be put right, and I’m interested in that happening.

But, I can’t give you an exact date and I’m not going to give you out an answer to this supplementary.

John Brace: Ok, thank you.

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

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

Is freedom of the British press over as UK blogging enters the age of George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” (1984)?

                                              

Ministry of Truth George Orwell 1984 comment removed
Ministry of Truth George Orwell 1984 comment removed

As I run a blog, I will declare an interest at the start of this article in that I am the operator of this blog. Before anyone accuses me of bias again (I will point out that much of the below is an opinion piece based on a recent court case, legal changes and experience).

One of the things I enjoy about writing (and reading other blogs) is that people do leave comments (although many others read without leaving a comment). The United Kingdom is however not an ideal place to base a high-tech business, which is part of the reason that in an ideal world doing what I do, I wouldn’t be based at all in the UK but somewhere that doesn’t have such a peculiar regulatory environment.

Previously the UK was well-known for its “libel tourism” because of the way the courts here operated when it came to libel. However from past cases certain things can’t be libelled, such as a political party or a local council. Even on matters published abroad, in the past lawyers had preferred to sue in the UK because of the way the court system was here and how easy it was to win their case (and how disastrous financially for the defendant even if they won!).

A lot of the laws that govern the media in this country were based on print publications and arguments about censorship have raged for centuries. A lot of the laws were written before the internet actually happened and were frankly, well overdue for reform. Eventually reform came.

For an example of what used to happen, I direct you to the case of what happened involving Carmarthenshire County Council. Details of the judgement in Thompson v James & Anor ([2013] EWHC 515 (QB) can be read by following that link.

Please note this next bit is in reference to Wales (a country within the UK that borders the Wirral but has a different set of laws and legal system (as well as political system) to here in England).

A local blogger there, Mrs Thompson sued the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council Mark James, alleging that he had libelled her. This was in reference to a letter written from Mark James that referred to Mrs Thompson that was published on another blog (that is not the blog of Mrs. Thompson) that writes under the nom de plume madaxeman.

When sued, the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council used public funds to pay his legal costs (Carmarthenshire County Council had provided him with an indemnity for his legal costs) and his legal team also counterclaimed against Mrs Thompson for references made about Mr. James on her blog which he took exception to.

The court dismissed Mrs Thompson’s libel claim, but upheld Mr James’ counterclaim.

Although the audit bodies in Wales in relation to Carmarthenshire County Council have questioned the issue of whether using public funds for his employer to pay the Chief Executive’s legal costs in a libel lawsuit is actually lawful, Mark James is now vigorously pursuing enforcement of the court order he was granted against Mrs Thompson through a Land Registry charge on her property in respect of damages awarded to him and the defendant’s legal costs (paid for by the taxpayer).

Partly to prevent the courts getting completely clogged up with libel cases (because let’s face it if everyone who had ever had anything written about them untrue online actually filed a lawsuit with the court that would happen), whereas in the past somebody could sue not only the author of a comment, but the publisher and the editor as well, the law was changed. The UK ended up with a new libel law (Defamation Act 2013), which completely reformed the old libel laws, introduced defences of truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest and also new regulations were introduced that came into force on 2nd December 2013.

The new libel law also introduced a test that had to met. Any statement that was claimed to be defamatory had to have “caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”. The new regulations are referred to as the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 and cover comments left on blogs.

This blog (and comments left on it) fall under the new regulations as I’m the operator of the blog and am based in the UK. In theory if I wasn’t based in the UK but the people leaving the comments were, their comments would probably fall under the new regulations too.

In relation to user generated content (such as comments) on blogs, it means that now the operator of the blog (such as myself) is not liable if the operator of the blog follows the rather strict procedure laid down in the regulations when a complaint is made.

The regulations can be read online, but basically as an operator of a blog if a complaint (that falls within the regulations or even a defective notice) is made about a comment on my blog, I have to within 48 hours (assuming the commenter complained about actually has provided an email address) get in touch with the poster of the comment and they then have 5 days to respond. I also at this stage contact the complainant too.

If no response is received from the person who left the comment within 5 days, the comment is removed, otherwise I’m in breach of the regulations. The person who left the comment has five days to respond and the regulations give them a variety of options which partially determine what happens next. For example they can withdraw their comment in which case it is removed at that point. There are however other options also available to them.

Other larger technology businesses aren’t entirely happy with the current regulatory framework under which they have to operate here in the UK and have published transparency reports as to complaints received and outcomes. I have decided it is high time that I did this too, especially considering the views of the media on censorship.

Out of many thousands of comments currently on the blog since the new regulations came into effect on the 2nd December 2013 there have been complaints so far about two. Detail is provided below.

However, I’d like some feedback from you the reader as to the level of detail provided below and how open and transparent I am being. Are there things you think I should include in future reports, that I am not including currently?

Obviously in the case of complaint #1 I’m not allowed to republish the original comment as that has concluded and the author of the comment has withdrawn it. However there seems to be a general pattern emerging as to the type of stories I get requests for comments to be removed on, doesn’t there?

==============================================================================================================
STATUS: Completed (comment removed 4th July 2014 see here)

Complaint number: Complaint #1

Comment author: John Hardaker

Complainant: Surjit Tour of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (Wirral Council)

Article comment attached to: Graham Burgess invites Wirral Council councillors to 5 days of the Open Golf Championship

Outcome: Comment author (Mr. Hardaker) decided to withdraw comment and text of comment was edited out with details inserted explaining why.

Note: see also partial transcript of BBC Radio Merseyside broadcast at Councillor Walter Smith “I must say I enjoyed lavish hospitality” which discussed this.

===============================================================================================================
STATUS: Completed (comment removed 13th October 2014)

Complaint number: Complaint #2

Comment author: James Griffiths

Complainant: He/she have chosen to remain anonymous

Article comment attached to: Graham Burgess (Chief Executive) announces he will retire from Wirral Council on 31st December 2014

Outcome: Comment author (Mr. Griffiths) sent email wishing to withdraw comment.

Note:

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

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

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

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

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

                     

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

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

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

(DCLG logo)
Department for
Communities and

Local Government

Mr. John Brace

Via email
John.brace [at] gmail.com

Our ref: ER74/00629/74
Your ref:

30 January 2014

Dear Mr. Brace,

Section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Tayo Peters
Democracy and Local Governance

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

Tel 030 3444 0000

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

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

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

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

                               

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

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

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

The Chair:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 134.

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

Government amendment 135.

Brandon Lewis:

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

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

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

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

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

“reputation damage to the authority”.

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

“breach of standing orders”.

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

“not accurately portraying a debate.”

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

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

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

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):

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

Brandon Lewis:

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is good that, as we saw on Second Reading, there is agreement throughout the House on the importance of transparency and how it can be beneficial. It is fair to say that people should not be able to disrupt meetings. At the same time, however, we must get the balance right, as the regulations will, and we shall talk to the LGA about that. We must make sure that an authority does not use disruption as an excuse to stop people filming a meeting in a non-disruptive sense.

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

I do take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board. That is why we will liaise with partners to make sure that the regulations are correct. We want to make sure that meetings are not disrupted, but, equally, that disruption cannot be used as an excuse to block fair and proper transparency. It is the inconsistent and unjustifiable excuses that councils occasionally use to refuse public access that we want the clause to address. Our intention is to make regulations that require local government bodies, including their committees, sub-committees and joint committees, to allow people to film, photograph, tweet and blog at their public meetings.

The regulations may also specify that any persons attending a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings should inform the relevant body of their intention before filming or photographing—the important word there is “inform”. They may also specify that government bodies may reasonably ask for the filming or photographing to be done in such a way that they are not disruptive to the good order and conduct of the meeting.

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

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

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

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

Andy Sawford:

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

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

Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con):

There are some. [Laughter.]

Andy Sawford:

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

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

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

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

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

Brandon Lewis:

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

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

Amendment 130 agreed to.

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