Concerns remain over leafleting after Scrutiny discussion

Although Labour councillor members of the Call In, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, clearly saw their role last night as to support the Executive and the officers, rather than scrutinise, members of the public did try and hold the Council to account with the able assistance of Cllr Alison Hopkins. At either end of the experience spectrum neither Cllr Joyce Bacchus nor Cllr Krupa Sheth spoke.

Pete Firmin speaking for Brent Trades Union Council and Brent Fightback, and a member of the Labour Party, spoke about the lack of clarity in the leaflet licensing document. He said it left lots of grey areas in terms of  exemptions based on 'political purposes' and gave the example of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group leafleting claimants outside the Kilburn Job Centre about their rights Was that a political purpose? .  He argued that if the scheme was aimed at commercial interests that this would leave small businesses discriminated against. He said that they key question was, 'Who decides whether a leaflet meets the criterion set out in the report?'  He said that here was no evidence from the council that littering caused by leaflets was a problem - in his experience fast food packaging was much more of a problem. He concluded by stating that only 27% of local authorities had introduced such a scheme, the legislation was enabling rather than compulsory and so Brent Council did not have to implement it, and urged the council to abandon the proposals.

Speaking as a local resident, Secretary of Brent Green Party and a committee member of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change, Pete Murry asked that the council to entirely reconsider the necessity for charges for leaflet distribution. He said he doubted that the intention of Brent Council was to restrict freedoms of speech, information and discussion in the borough when it would be under the international Olympic spotlight. However he feared that this could be the case

He said:

I have regularly leafleted in Brent on Party political issues during elections, but also at other times on other issues such as pollution from Waste incineration, the dangers of nuclear waste being transported through the borough and to promote events such as public meetings about Climate Change. Such issues are not always well covered in the media and often people can only be made aware of their possible local impact through leafleting. None of the organisations that I have campaigned for are financially wealthy or represent profit making commercial concerns. Leafleting is often the only way for minorities and minority causes to be brought to public attention. The current proposed charges would place even this method of communication beyond the financial means of some groups, especially groups of unemployed people whose limited income would make leafleting charges unpayable.

Murry also drew attention to the ambiguities  around definitions and concluded that there were surely better ways keeping the borough clean and tidy other than restricting citizens' freedoms.

Alison Hopkins asked about a non-party political campaign such as the Brent Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development leafleting over incinerators and whether that would be exempted. She pointed out that the lack of clarity meant that officers or the council would be making decisions about exemptions and that this may be okay for now in terms of free speech, but officers and councils change and we have to think of the future. Unwritten laws were dangerous so there needed to be detail and clarity based on real cases.

In an intervention that lacked the usual sarcasm and side swipes, Helga Gladbaum said she was relieved that the original focus on the Olympics had changed. She said the council needed to sharpen up enforcement of the rules and asked what was meant by the phrase 'harm to the community's interests'. (This latter phrase was used to illustrate when officers thought they would intervene in the leafleting process'.

Cllr Powney, who seems to be in charge of everything contentious, said that rules on leafleting had been in force since 1994 and that the new proposals represented a liberalisation. For example, the previous rules had exempted 'political parties' not 'political purposes'. He suggested that the wording in the supplementary report was 'not particularly illuminating' unless you are a lawyer. He said the proposals were not lime limited but the Olympics may result in a slightly great amount of leafleting. He said it would be difficult to define all possible cases in advance and it was better to focus on the principles behind enforcement. He said that enforcement has not been a problem in the past.

There followed some detailed officer contributions with assurances from Michael Read that in 18 years Brent Council had never used their powers to stop leafleting for political purposes. He said that there had been no prosecutions since 2006 using the existing powers but there were about 20 seizures of leaflets a year. He said that the council's enforcement record should reassure the public. Leafleting was only an issue if it did real harm, people carrying it out were creating a nuisance (thrusting leaflets at the public on narrow pavements), big corporations carrying out mass leafleting, or leaflets being left unattended or being thrown away on the street.  David Thrales gave examples of nuisance caused by leaflets about new shops opening, mobile cards, buying of gold and pawnbrokers  and these along with examples from Yogini Patel about leafleting by a big betting ship all seemed to focus on Wembley High Road, rather than the other streets designated in the report. She thought that leafleting encouraging gambling did harm. Patel said it was leafleting every day of the week by small businesses that caused the real nuisance and also gave the example of the Cup Final when Liverpool fans distributed 'Don't Buy the Sun' leaflets that were left all over Wembley High Road.

Officers favoured on the spot fines rather than the expense of going to court and also drew attention to problems about seizures where legally the council had to find the original owners and return them. They said that giving a warning or moving people on usually worked and it emerged that Brent Council has only four officers to enforce the rules.

As the discussion progress it seemed to me that the emphasis had changed from discussion about definitions of exempted activities and the dangers inherent in that to the concept of 'harm to the community' or 'nuisance'  which I saw as equally dangerous. David Thrales at one point said that hs own interpretation was that leaflets that broadly wanted to ;'progress the community' were ones that would be approved. That seems to me to be a minefield. Could a pro-academy conversion headteacher complain to enforcement officers that anti-academy campaigners leafleting parents outside her school were 'creating a nuisance' or 'doing harm to the community'?

Winding up Cllr Paul Lorber said that the discussion had justified the Call In showing how confusing the whole issue was. If councillors were confused, what about the public? He asked why,  if the key issue was littering,  was the licensing scheme and fees necessary?  Could the council implement enforcement over nuisance without fees etc? If the target was commercial leafleting then shouldn't that be stated? He said that small business should not be discriminated against by exorbitant fees. Alison Hopkins suggested a sliding scale and Cllr Powney said he would seek advice on whether that would be legal and put it into the consultation if it was.

The Lib Dem Call-in motion was then voted down.

The Consultation will take place from the 22nd May, advertised in the press on 24th May and the results made public on the 14th June. Officers would make the decisions based on the consultation and the new powers would come into effect on July 2nd in time for the Olympics.

Call In on Leaflet Licensing Thursday 17th May

I understand that the meeting of the Call In, Scrutiny and Overview Committee that will hear the Liberal Democrat motion on leaflet licensing will now be held on Thursday 17th May at 7.30pm, Committee Room 3 at Brent Town Hall.

Leaflet Licence Call In motion published

The Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee will now be held at a later date due to a technical issue regarding the timing.

This is the Liberal Democrat motion:

Item heading 11. Control of distribution of free literature on designated land

Reason(s)

(1) The report does not quote the relevant passage of the act, nor explain that interpretation of the act would be a matter for the courts.

(2) The report does not explain the evidence base for the problem. There should be a context paragraph explaining why they think the problem will get so much worse, why existing measures are inadequate and what action other London boroughs are taking.

(3) The report should either time limit these powers or make explicit that they are being requested permanently. At the moment the report implies they are just for the Olympic period from the way it is worded.

(4) The issue of enforcement, in particular the circumstances which would lead to action by council officers, is unclear.

(5) Equalities issues are dealt with inadequately: for example many small businesses in Brent are owned by members of particular ethnic minorities and small non-commercial group which are not charities or political organisations may be disproportionately affected given the level of fees proposed.

(6) The report does not sufficiently make clear whether small organisations which are not charities or political organisations and do not cause litter will be compelled to take out licenses and risk fines. 

Actions the Executive could take:

Clarify how the controls will be enforced and who they will affect.

Consider whether further information is needed about the equalities impacts of the decision

Recommend that if the council goes ahead with the proposal it should consult on and adopt a code of practice for enforcement of the controls, including guidance as to how officers will use their discretion, particularly in the case of small unlicensed distributors (commercial and non-commercial) who are not causing littering.

Lib Dems request Call In of Leaflet Licensing Plans

Alison Hopkins, new elected Liberal Democrat councillor for Dollis Hill and several other Lib Dem councillors have requested a Call In of the proposals to license the distribution of leaflets and flyers in designation streets in the borough.

If successful the Call In would be heard at the Call In, Overview and Scrutiny Committee scheduled for Wednesday May 9th.

Ann John makes a bid to be Brent's Humpty Dumpty

Ann John, the leader of Brent Council is quoted in the Kilburn Times as saying that the report on licensing of free literature is clear and purely about preventing litter.

It wasn't clear to the Council's communication team who issued an apology to the Times for 'issuing an inaccurate statement' on which the Times report was based. Michael Read, Assistant Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services had to write to the Times to 'clarify any confusion' about the 'clear' report.

And of course Brent's own 'Mr Confused', Cllr Powney, accused us of 'inventing a campaign' when in fact the Council had misinformed the public with their original 'inaccurate' statement.

What is clear is that the only reference to exemptions in the document is:

3.4 These powers do not apply to materials promoting charities, for religious purposes or for political purposes.

So now Cllr Ann John throws her own interpretation into the ring by saying , in response to concerns voiced by Tony Antonio chairman of Brent Safer Neighbourhoods, that their literature does not not fall into the exempt category because they are a group of volunteers, not a charity, that 'The exemptions include community safety literature'.

This is just not true if you look at 3.4 above which are the only exemptions listed. Nowhere does the document mention 'community safety literature'.  This illustrates the problem and the weakness  that campaigners have been highlighting. It is not good enough for Ann John, James Powney or any officer to make up exemptions as they go along with nothing in writing. This opens the way to political, social, generational or even ethnic bias and potential legal action.

Ann John puts herself in the position of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:

  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Brent Fightback campaigns for free distribution of literature

Brent Fightback will be meeting on Monday April 30th 7.30pm at the Trades Hall, 375 Willesden High Road, NW1O 2JR (nearest tube Dollis Hill)  Among the items for discussion is the Council's scheme to license the distribution of free literature in designated areas of the borough.

Fightback write:
 

Attached is the report that last Monday's Brent Council Executive rubber stamped. It would require anyone distributing free literature - leaflets or newspapers - to apply for a licence (costing £175 and £75 to renew) 14 days in advance and then pay £65 per distributor per day or either £100 or £110 according to which paragraph you read if leaflets are given out before 8.00 am or after 6.00 pm. Distributors would have to wear an ID badge obtained from the Council and a hi-viz jacket provided by the 'promoter'. There are exemptions for the distribution of printed matter:

(a) by or on behalf of a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993, where the printed matter relates to or is intended for the benefit of the charity

(b) where the distribution is for political purposes or for the purposes of religion or belief

Two Fightback supporters spoke at the executive but the points we raised and the questions we asked were ignored and brushed aside. Councillors insisted that the regulations were purely and simply designed to cut down on litter, but we believe that they could have dangerous implications for free speech and civil rights and that they are far from clear and transparent. This article from the Guardian spells out some of the adverse effects regulations like this have had when imposed by other councils:

See overview of the issue in the Guardian HERE

This pamphlet from the Manifesto Club spells them out in even more detail HERE

We are asking the Council to spell out clearly whom the regulations are intended to target - are they just aimed at commercial firms employing people to give out large numbers of leaflets or free newspapers? If so, that should be made clear in the regulations, if not there will be really harmful effects for small businesses, arts organisations, community groups, jazz and comedy clubs and others who only want to distribute small numbers of leaflets and who could not possibly afford the massive fees proposed in these regulations.

What is included in 'political purposes'? This is the term used in the enabling legislation  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/16/part/3, but it is extremely ambiguous. It probably includes anti-war, anti-cuts and anti-fascist campaigning and certainly includes leaflets given out by political parties, but would it include leaflets supporting the Palestinian cause, campaigns against library closures, privatisation or climate change, for fairtrade, Friends of the Earth, support for striking workers?

The exemptions spelled out in the regulations as passed on Monday would not apply to community groups organising say, coffee mornings, to parent teacher associations advertising school concerts, to someone drawing attention to a plant sale at the farmers' market, to a newly opened restaurant or hairdresser letting people know that they are there, to a window cleaner setting up in business, pop-up shops the organisers of art exhibitions, supplementary schools, comedy clubs, music gigs ....... None of these could afford the licence fees, so they would either be unable to advertise their events or be forced to defy the regulations and risk prosecution. 

It would also be very unfair on the Council officers or police who will be expected to enforce confusing regulations.

There are also inconsistencies and  mistakes in the drafting of these regulations, and an assertion that there are no diversity or equality implications, which is questionable - some minority groups will be prevented from advertising their activities and their free newspapers will be banned.

We believe that unless they are drastically revised and clarified, these regulations should be opposed. We think ALL voluntary small scale literature distribution even if it is not for charities, religious or political purposes, should be exempted from the regulations or they should be dropped altogether. 

If you are among the groups that could be affected by the regulations as they stand PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL COUNCILLORS OR ALL THE COUNCILLORS (their email addresses are on the Council website www.brent.gov.uk/councillors .

The Kilburn and Brent Times alerted us to the dangers posed by these regulations and will continue to carry the story. We are grateful to them, but please spread the word to anyone you know who is involved in groups or activities that could be affected. If they persist in bringing these regulations in unchanged, we need to launch objections but also to take united action to challenge them.

Come to the Fightback meeting to discuss how to continue the fight against these proposals.

Now it's time for James Powney to apologise

The Brent Executive approved plans to licence leafleting in designated areas, along with a hefty overall free and additional charges per leafleter, on Monday evening. Sarah Cox and I both spoke against the proposals pointing out the lack of clarity about exemptions, the impact on small businesses and those organising events, the absence of any substantial research on the success or otherwise of such schemes in the past, and the failure to give any information on how the policy would be enforced. Sarah even pointed out discrepancies within the document on charges.

Sarah Cox, speaking for Brent Fightback,  challenged Cllr James Powney's attack on the Brent and Kilburn Times in his blog LINK which implied that the campaign against the scheme  was an invention.  Sarah quite rightly pointed out that the BKT story was based on the Council's own statement to a journalist and said, 'It is absolutely right that the local press has been vigilant and brought this to the attention of the people of Brent".

However in his response to our speeches, Powney again had a go at the reporter about inaccuracy, despite her waving a copy of the Council's e-mail from her seat.

Now in today's Brent and Kilburn Times there is a letter from Michael Read, Assistant Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services, which seeks to 'clarify any confusion about the powers the council has just agreed' and confirms that the exemption will cover campaigning for political purposes, such as local library campaigners'.

He does not admit that the 'confusion' arose from the council's own e-mail to the reporter, which followed the reporters request for clarification.

There is an Editor's note at the end of Michael Read's letter stating:

Brent Council's communication team has issued an apology to the Times for issuing an inaccurate statement on which our original report was based.

It is obviously up to the BKT to decide what to do but my personal view is that Cllr Powney also owes the paper,  and its senior reporter,  an apology.

Below are notes from the speech I made on Monday:

 Talking to people about these proposals over the weekend I was told both that they were a 'farce' and that they were 'fascist'. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two!


Cllr Powney will say we've got it all wrong - it always was meant to be 'political purposes' and not 'political parties' but the Brent and Kilburn Times reporter stands by her quote from the Council and is circulating the council's e-mail here tonight.

“Licensing will only apply to certain streets in Brent.  Charities would be exempt from these new rules and political parties would be exempt during election times."

This is not semantics. The danger is that the Council's interpretation is so narrow that it will affect campaigns. There needs to be precise definitions in the documentation.

Cllr Powney will also say that this is not new and is merely updating of powers but this is not stated in the report and there is no detail or assessment of effectiveness of previous policy.

Cllr John has said we've got it all wrong and it is only about commercial leafleting but again this is not stated  in the report.

Putting aside the political dimension what about small businesses?

Can you imagine the poor contestants of the Apprentice setting up a small shop on Wembley High Road and trying to drum up business?

Let's give out some leaflets... Oh, we have to give 14 days notice....and apply for  licence....and we have to wear a high visibility vest...oh, we have to have 'Authorised Distributor' printed on it...and a badge with our licence number...and pay £175 upfront plus £75 daily for each distributor...and check whether our distributor has been done for littering in the last year.

The Council is in danger of making itself a laughing stock. The Executive should send this poorly written report back to be properly researched and rewritten - they cannot vote for such an unclear policy.