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.

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

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

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

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

“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

(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.

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:

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

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

Share this:

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

Share this:

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

Share this: