A fortnight ago, Roy Greenslade, the Guardian’s media commentator and professor of journalism at City University, reported here the view of Communities Secretary Eric Pickles that members of the public could film council meetings.
Pickles said:
I want to stand up for the rights of journalists and taxpayers to scrutinise and challenge decisions of the state. Data protection rules or health and safety should not be used to suppress reporting or a healthy dose of criticism.
Modern technology has created a new cadre of bloggers and hyper-local journalists, and councils should open their digital doors and not cling to analogue interpretations of council rules.
Councillors shouldn’t be shy about the public seeing the good work they do in championing local communities and local interests.
His comments came as he issued new guidance on what councils should do to make their meetings more transparent.
Here’s the relevant section from that guide on filming:
Can I film the meeting?
Council meetings are public meetings. Elected representatives and council officers acting in the public sphere should expect to be held to account for their comments and votes in such meetings. The rules require councils to provide reasonable facilities for any member of the public to report on meetings. Councils should thus allow the filming of councillors and officers at meetings that are open to the public.
The Data Protection Act does not prohibit such overt filming of public meetings. Councils may reasonably ask for the filming to be undertaken in such a way that it is not disruptive or distracting to the good order and conduct of the meeting. As a courtesy, attendees should be informed at the start of the meeting that it is being filmed; we recommend that those wanting to film liaise with council staff before the start of the meeting.
The council should consider adopting a policy on the filming of members of the public speaking at a meeting, such as allowing those who actively object to being filmed not to be filmed, without undermining the broader transparency of the meeting.
Just a few hours before its full council meeting tonight, the most senior officer at Tower Hamlets, Stephen Halsey, has just given the minister a two-fingered rebuff.
Here’s a letter he’s just sent to senior councillors:
Dear Mayor Rahman & Group Leaders
Council Meeting 26th June 2013
I thought it would be useful to clarify a couple of points where questions have arisen in relation to Wednesday evening’s Council meeting.
Monitoring Officer advice
Some Members expressed concern at the April Council meeting that no officer was present with delegated powers from the Monitoring Officer to advise on a potential amendment to the Constitution.
The Monitoring Officer is currently on leave and will not be present at Wednesday’s meeting. A senior legal officer will be in attendance with delegated powers to advise on legal matters but this does not include power to agree any changes to the Constitution.
This is in line with the requirement in the Constitution itself, that such changes may only be made by the Council after consideration of the proposal by the Monitoring Officer. Unless the proposed change is considered to be ‘trivial’, some time will be required for this consideration. It would be helpful if Constitutional changes were not the subject of late motions moved with little or no notice. If such changes are moved, it may be necessary for officers to take the proposal away and report back to a subsequent meeting.
Late items
More generally, the submission of late motions or other items without notice to the Council meeting does not promote considered decision making or transparency. The rules around giving notice of proposals are there for a reason, and all proposals put to the Council should be subject to appropriate officer advice.
I would therefore ask all Members to refrain from moving late items on any subject unless it relates to a genuine emergency.
Filming
I am aware that there are comments circulating on the web suggesting that Wednesday’s Council meeting will be filmed, presumably by someone in the public gallery. These follow a statement issued by Eric Pickles MP in which he apparently indicated that the Government has changed the law so that Councils must allow people to blog, tweet and film meetings.
I should clear up a misapprehension in this regard, in relation to the Council meeting nothing has changed and there is no obligation for the Council to allow members of the press or public to film the meeting. The Council’s Constitution provides that ‘No photography or video or audio recording of any kind by Members, guests or members of the public may take place at any Council meeting without the express permission of the Speaker’ (Council Procedure Rule 27.1), and this remains the case.
Where requests have been made to previous Speakers to give such permission, officers have advised that this should not be agreed and this remains my position for a number of reasons. These include possible reputational damage to the authority – or worse, action against individuals – resulting from publication of material that may be a partial record of events, presented out of context or even edited to be misleading; and the potential infringement of individuals’ rights to privacy, including members of the public and officers who have not given their permission to be filmed.
Officers have therefore advised the Speaker that, in their view, she should not agree any request from a third party to film the meeting and I understand that the Speaker has supported that position.
Looking forward it may be possible to agree arrangements for the Council’s own video service to address the above points in a considered way and promote the transparency that we all support. However I do not consider that allowing unregulated and potentially damaging third party filming is the best way to achieve this, particularly as there is, in fact, no requirement to do so.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Halsey
Head of Paid Service & Corporate Director Communities, Localities & Culture
Reputational damage?? To Tower Hamlets council??
So, he’s saying the council’s constitution specifically bars filming. And any change to the council’s constitution would need the consideration of the Monitoring Officer. But because she (Isabella Freeman, who is in the middle of suing her employer, remember) has been allowed to take a holiday on the night of full council meeting, any proposed amendment would not likely see the light of day.
And with that decree (sent, ironically, just a few hours before proceedings), our highly paid officers have ensured darkness remains over the monthly disgrace that is our full council meeting.
Trial by Jeory 
Obvious question is what is Pickles going to do about it?
It strikes me that he has been ‘over-ruled’ by the council in a number of things; free local papers, to name one other. I think it’s time Pickles either grasped the nettle and forced a few of his edicts through, or gave up and admitted to being useless.
Everyone’s looking at you Eric. What’cha gunna do now?
Tim.
The obvious answer to Tim’s question is Pickles appears to be in a pickle. The law states implicitly no filming. That is my reading of it. The department has been asked to clarify its own reading of the law but are taking their time.
Pickles NEVER EVER does the whole job. He’s playing with Local Government despite having been a councillor up North.
The public needs a Regulator of Local Government and an end to the arrogance of the staff who are unelected and unaccountable to the public who pay their vastly inflated wages but who rule the local authority.
I dare any of you to call this fiasco ‘democratic’ or even ‘democracy’.
Curious Cat
Sometimes a joke goes on so long you grow sick of it and just want it to end. This is how I am feeling now with the running of LBTH. Someone needs to stop this joke soon. It ain’t funny anymore.
If we blame Lutfur and his miserable band of stooges for this we risk missing the point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the Council can amend its constitution at a full council meeting? I believe Labour, if they were so inclined, could achieve a majority in favour of such a proposal if tabled. So, come on Labour, if you’re really in favour of transparency etc allow the public to film those meetings. After all, you are public representatives, claiming public expenses from the public… Anyone who is to shy to be filmed should not have stood for election! Let them put up with it or resign their seat!
Grave Maurice is correct. The council, meaning the councillors, can amend the council’s Constitution (rule book and policy procedures etc.) at a full meeting of the council.
A full meeting is a meeting which is not a committee, sub-committee or panel meeting. It is a meeting at which ALL the councillors are invited (or summoned) by the staff to attend.
“transparency” ? Don’t be silly. This is English local government not a properly run system genuinely serving and respecting the local public.
Lets all take our cameras and defy them, I WILL!! What are they frightened of? I thought Lutfur loved a camera.
Your unelected masters, the council staff, will probably dial 112 (the same as 999) to get you removed from the premises or close the meeting and reconvene the meeting in secret with the public excluded.
Abandon all thoughts you may have of Democracy in action. This is English local government.
Back in the 1980’s and 90’s there was a theory that the Conservative Government let “Loony Left” councils such as Hackney stew in their own putrid juice rather than deal with them, in order to use them as examples of what happens when you don’t vote for Conservative Councillors. Ironically the number of Conservative Councillors in Hackney went up and up throughout this period.
I hope and pray this is not the case in Tower Hamlets today. However, it is up to ordinary people to start confronting the Mayor over his Presidential style and persuit of “the Cult of Personality”. We need to get organised.
Ted asked “Reputational damage?? To Tower Hamlets council??”
The staff’s reputation is important when they move to another local authority and demand even higher wages at the public’s expense. That is why all examples of incompetence etc. by staff are always covered-up.
Curious Cat,.
LBTH chief executive and Head of Paid “Service” (yes folks that is an official title: Head of Paid Service) Stephen Halsey wrote:-
“………. it may be possible to agree arrangements for the Council’s own video service to address the above points in a considered way and promote the transparency that we all support ……”
Sounds exactly like a Communist organisation. Who wants a sanitised council controlled video created by the opponents of Open and Accountable and Transparent local government ????
Halsey continues “………. . However I do not consider that allowing unregulated and potentially damaging third party filming is the best way to achieve this, particularly as there is, in fact, no requirement to do so.”
Which means,
(1) The staff won’t let the public film because the public’s video might be more truthful and more representative of the proceedings at the PUBLIC MEETING.
(2) Allowing the public to film means there is absolutely no chance for the staff to approve the video in advance of the public seeing what is happening in their name and with their money. What should council staff be allowed to censor the video ? The public’s own video will be uncensored.
(3) If Pickles and Co. sort-out this mess and change the law to let the public film, then I suspect Halsey, Freeman and others will be petrified that the public will have an honest record of what goes on at the excellent and wonderful London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
If Halsey & Co. can’t stand genuine public scrutiny of these overpaid public servants recorded on PUBLIC video, not the editorially censored version he favours, then its time he reigned without a massive £1/2 million pay-off and gets a job in Russia where they really do love cover-ups and censorship and arrogant bureaucratic control.
Curious Cat.
Well I did it. They were not happy bunnies. Not happy that the meeting had to be adjourned, but I made the point. Will get the vid on YouTube later.
If you really tried it then I am impressed, sir. Well done and thank you.
Yes, please post up the YouTube footage – I’d love to see it.
Tim.
It appears that Fairplayer was the person at last nights Full Council meeting who was stopped from videoing. At the start of the meeting, the Speaker issued directions that filming/recording was not allowed on the basis that members may not want to be filmed/recorded and the law did not apply to Full Council meetings.
When the filming was discovered the meeting was adjourned when the perpetrator refused to stop. The way it was handled was a disgrace (as was the behaviour by councillors generally in the meeting).
When proceedings got underway again, the speaker explained further that the Council was discussing whether to allow filming/recording and a policy statement would be issued in due course. This was slightly different from her earlier statement. One of her concerns was the recording of visual images of members of the public when they are speaking. However, since there is a large pillar in the centre of the chamber that obscures part of the proceedings, that problem is easily solved.
There are CCTV cameras in the Council chamber. If the House of Commons and House of Lords which have been televised for a number of years, can manage it, so can LBTH. Councillors, like the rest of us are constantly filmed as we go about our daily business. If we followed the Speaker’s argument we’d have to find an alternative route where there are no cameras every time we go outside.
It’s just more nonsense by LBTH that distracts from the bigger issues they ought to be dealing with. As William Hague has recently said; ‘if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear.’
Well done Fairplayer!
Suggest people look at my Twitter feed from last night’s council meeting… https://mobile.twitter.com/TedJeory/tweets
Twitter wants to store unspecified material on my hard disk for use off-line.
We need a hundred volunteers with video cameras/smartphones at the next meeting. Could be fun.
If we turned up as one group and recorded to meeting against their wishes, they would simply clear the public gallery and hold the meeting in secret which would be worse.
Eric Pickles has to ‘put his money where his mouth is’ and get involved.
Why do the Council think their constitution ought to prevail over the law?
Jay,
It is unwise to take Government Ministers seriously solely on the basis of their personal, and political of course, utterances. Remember Teresa May’s stupid comment that someone had not been deported because the person had a cat? The judge never mentioned a cat but did mention the person’s right to a private and family life with his wife and child(ren).
Despite Pickles half-baked announcement, the law actually states:-
“Nothing in these Regulations requires a decision-making body to
permit the taking of any photographs of any proceedings or the use
of any means to enable persons not present to see or hear any
proceedings (whether at the time or later), or the making of any
oral report on any proceedings as they take place.”
One may argue the civil servants made an error when drafting the law, actually a Statutory Instrument, and that clause applies not to ALL the law but to one not very well defined part of the law.
The Department of Communities and Local Government were asked to clarify this point on 14 June 2013 but have been silent so far.
Curious Cat.
You’re quoting from the The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 Regulation 20(4) . That statutory instrument doesn’t apply to full Council meetings, only Cabinet meetings (or meetings of the Executive), its subcommittees, or joint committees of Cabinet Members eg City Region Cabinet as its called here or area committees.
There’s nearly identical wording in legislation that applies to full Council meetings in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 s.1 (7) though.
The issue however is not these pieces of legislation, but the Human Rights Act 1998 which grants people an article 10 right to freedom of expression, see here for an explanation. Another bit of the Human Rights Act 1998 says that public authorities (including local Councils) have to make decisions and interpret legislation (such as the above) so they’re compatible with people’s Convention Rights.
The problem local councils face is that they need an explicit legal power granted to them to be able to do something. There isn’t a specific legal power granted to them to ban filming, However until somebody barred from filming, challenges a Council successfully through a judicial review, I doubt Council’s will change from the attitude they currently have in thinking they have powers they don’t actually possess.
Hi John,
Thank you for your considered thoughts. Yes you are correct that it does not include meetings of the Full Council 😦
That SI 2012/2089 does not apply to Unitary Authorities or to Metropolitan Boroughs – just to London Boroughs, County Councils and District Councils.
I was unaware of 1960 c.67 which I shall study this evening.
The Liberty link contains “Article 10 gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.”
That is based on the Council of Europe’s Treaty 5 : Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
“(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. ”
Are you suggesting the non-existent Right to film ALL council meetings might be based on the above text “…… to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority …..” ?
Some council’s minutes, including those of Planning, are devoid of sufficient detail showing how a decision was made. Staff state only the decision is important not the considerations. Declarations of interest at Planning Meetings can fail to show the majority of councillors deciding the issue were long-time political colleagues of the applicant and the applicant’s personal friends.
Conversely public filming would beneficially remedy the council’s many omissions of essential detail and the council’s often sub-standard minutes.
A contemporaneous record of the event, provided by filming, would be superior to sloppy minutes approved as accurate 6 or more weeks after the meeting when memories have faded genuinely or deliberately.
The fundamental questions for me are:-
If local authorities exist to serve the public why do that act as arrogant dictatorial masters of the public they are paid, often excessively, to serve ?
and ….
When is the Government of England (posing as the UK government) going to return power to the people ?
Curious Cat
\tz
On my local authority, one of the Labour councillors is a partner in a firm of architects that submit planning applications, so all his firm’s planning applications get decided by the Planning Committee rather than officers.
Labour councillors on my local Planning Committee aren’t supposed to talk to such applications or propose or second their approval or refusal. Amazingly though they’ve been told they can vote on them and don’t see the need to declare this interest in the meeting.
Here’s a link to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.
In answer to your question, “Are you suggesting the non-existent Right to film ALL council meetings might be based on the above text “…… to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority …..” ?”
It’s more complicated than that and is based on s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which states “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
The actual right to freedom of expression itself is granted by s. 1(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated the Convention Rights into domestic legislation.
Some Councils already webcast their Planning Committee meetings, such as nearby Chester West and Chester Council.
In my local Council, just the decision, number of votes for and against and planning conditions along with a very brief note of what was said is put in the minutes. Usually five minutes of a petitioners objections are put down as “A petitioner addressed the Committee”.
Here the Planning Committee meets every three weeks, so they can usually remember what happened at the last meeting. Nationally, they’re trying to issue guidance, legislation and edicts to drag councils into the 21st century, but facing resistance…
In response to your point about Metropolitan Boroughs not being covered by The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, they are. Metropolitan Boroughs are defined legally as “metropolitan districts” and the regulations define local authority thus “a county council in England, a district council or a London borough council which is operating executive arrangements in accordance with Part 1A of the 2000 Act”. Metropolitan Boroughs fall under the district council part of that definition.
Yet another string of rubbish from Tower Hamlets Council. Honestly – saying that they won’t have filming on site at council meetings because they don’t want all of their mistakes recorded for posterity is unbelievable. Surely if the House Of Commons and the House of Lords can have permenant camera coverage, it must be good enough for Tower Hamlets. There is no surprise that no-one trusts the behaviour and decisions of the Council if they wil go to such lengths to shut out the very people who vote them in office. Times have changed. Cromwell is no more, but Lutfur Rahman is still ruining the borough. Mark Mapstone
Mark wrote:-
“………….. Tower Hamlets Council ………….saying that they won’t have filming on site at council meetings because they don’t want all of their mistakes recorded for posterity …….”
Surely that is an excellent reason to film what is going-on in the public’s name, for the alleged benefit of the public and funded by the public ?
The Arabs had their uprisings for democratic reform. Its time we have a peaceful uprising to restore power to the regularly abused public. Instead of guns, cameras of all descriptions are the people’s choice of weapons.
Curious Cat.
Go John (Wright)!! Don’t know if the commenter ‘fairplayer’ and John Wright are the same – John normally uses his own name on here – but John is the genuine community campaigner who started filming last night’s council meeting. The ELA have reported the story (and you did name John in your Twitter feed Ted):
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/tower_hamlets_council_halts_its_meeting_when_oap_is_spotted_filming_it_1_2253064
We residents should be able to film ANY public council meeting. Expect John would have loved to have been able to film the decision by a recent planning committee who forced, sorry permitted, a(nother) unwanted infill residential development onto Wapping, in a totally inappropriate location, against the wishes of existing residents. John Wright was one of the speakers in objection. He would not have minded being filmed. Members and the Officers making these planning decisions should not mind being recorded in this way either, as they are public servants, making quasi-judicial decisions – and the Officer-recorded Minutes never truly reflect what occurs. Planning and Licensing decisions are the ones that affect residents most profoundly – so let a wider audience see these processes. Open these meetings up to scrutiny. Who will be really worried by the filming of planning meetings? The developers. If the terrified reaction of the ones at the recent build-on-Bow-Wharf and destroy more Tower Hamlets heritage is anything to go by, when there was talk in the public gallery of possible filming. Developers prefer pre-application talks behind closed doors; s106 payments agreed behind closed doors and their obligatory public consultations managed and delivered by slick firms such as Indigo Public Affairs (so many TH residents will know their name – the Skylines consultation probably being the latest): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921344/Councillors-for-hire-who-give-firms-planning-advice.html
So let’s get the one ‘democratic’ and public part of the planning procedure filmed and open this all up.
[…] Tower Hamlets says ‘pah’ to Eric Pickles and that the public can’t film council meetings. […]
One word: Stalinist.
[…] them the Communities Secretary’s opinion appeared to be wrong. In a letter, which I reported here, he said the council’s constitution specifically barred filming of full council meetings. […]
[…] including one incident in Mr Pickles’ own constituency, one in Cambridgeshire and one in Tower Hamlets. Councils are using the excuse that they have to make changes to their constitutions before they […]
Hi all
I wanted to film the meeting happening today (31 July) at the town hall for a university project that I am doing on local democratic facilities and got a response from Matthew in the LBTH democratic services team telling me that:
“the Mayor will not be allowing filming at the meeting this afternoon”.
Is Lutfur Rahman allowed to decide whether filming is allowed at his personal whim?
I have since followed up with a request to ask exactly why but don’t expect to hear back any time soon (As that email took over a week to arrive). I had originally informed them of my intent to film for my uni project in advance as I really don’t want to be caught up in any police business.
I suspect that whether Lutfur is allowed to deny filming and whether he does deny filming are two different things.
Rob, you may find it useful to send a Freedom of information request “to ask exactly why” to foi@towerhamlets.gov.uk They are obliged to answer within 20 working days. Good luck! But I rather like the idea of 100 people turning up together to film, and as one by one they are ejected they can all filmm each other and be on YouTube the next day exposing this farcical council.
Personally, my view is stand your ground and insist the Chair (or whoever is in charge) make that decision at the meeting itself (while you film it). That way you will at least get something (and hopefully the whole meeting if enough councillors on the committee think openness is a good thing).
This may sound strange but don’t email with advance warning, otherwise they just come prearmed with excuses as to why you can’t film, just turn up on the night and see what happens.
As to police, unless you’re disrupting the meeting (which actually requires disorderly conduct) you’re not doing anything criminal. It doesn’t stop the police arresting people in the past though (see #daftarrest). Some police forces have decided however it’s a civil law matter (which it is) therefore outside of their remit. Some forces even have specific policies on filming and public places.