LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.

HC Deb 26 June 1908 vol 191 cc233-78

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)

moved a new clause (Application to Scotland). He said that in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for South Aberdeen proposed that the Bill should apply to Scotland, and that was unanimously agreed to; but it was found impossible there and then to frame words, which were very complicated in detail, applying the Bill to Scotland. The new clause had now been drafted, and as he understood the Scottish Office had approved of it, he hoped the House would accept it. He bogged to move.

MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)

seconded the new clause. He hoped that no objection would be raised to the application of the Bill to Scotland. What was good enough for England was good enough for Scotland.

New clause— In the application of this Act to Scotland —(1) the expression 'local authority' means—(a) a county council, a town council, a parish council, a school board, and a district committee constituted under the Local Government (Scotland) Acts; (b) a central body and a distress committee under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; (c) a joint committee or joint board or any other body constituted under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, and any Act amending the same, the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1856 to 1900, or any other Act of Parliament or Provisional Order, and administering or entitled to administer funds derived from any rate; (2) the expression 'Local Government Board' means the Local Government Board for Scotland; (3) the definition of the expression ' local authority,' in Section 2 of this Act, shall not apply to Scotland,"—(Mr. Gulland,)—

Brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be road a second time."

MR. CARLILE

opposed the clause on the ground that he did not wish the measure to be introduced into Scotland, because he did not wish to see the Bill brought in for England.

MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was not entitled to discuss that as the principle of the Bill had already been agreed to, and this Amendment was merely to explain the powers of the Bill in Scotland.

MR. CARLILE

contended that it was not necessary to extend the powers of this Bill to Scotland, and its only effect would be largely to increase Scottish oratory in all sub-committees of local authorities in that country. The House had an illustration on the previous day of how a comparatively small group of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies could occupy the whole of a sitting in discussing a small matter, and the Bill would result in the amount of verbosity and eloquence being increased tenfold. Everybody familiar with local bodies in Scotland knew that very often where the Press was present there was the maximum of oratory and the minimum of work.

MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was not discussing this clause at all, but the Bill at large. The Bill applied to Scotland already and this was the interpretation clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

SIR F. BANBURY

moved to insert at the end of line 7, in Clause 1, the words "as often as may be desirable at any meeting." It might be that at the beginning of a meeting there was no business which in the opinion of the council or committee it was best to keep private, but something might happen subsequently in regard to which it might be thought that the Press ought to be excluded from the discussion. The meeting might have forgotten to move the resolution, and when the second order came on it might be held that it was impossible to exclude the Press because the motion had not been made before the first order was discussed. Probably the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment which it was quite clear only carried out the intention of the Bill. He desired only to make perfectly clear what was intended so that the Press and the local authority might work amicably together.

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire. W.R., Barkston Ash)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 7, to insert the words 'as often as may be desirable at any meeting.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In his opinion it was altogether unnecessary. Local authorities already had the power of exclusion, and he objected to the words of the Amendment because they would form a standing invitation to local authorities to exclude the representatives of the Press from their meetings. The object of the measure was to guard the rights of the public by enabling the fullest information to be obtained for them in regard to the actions of their representatives upon local authorities.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTEKMAN)) West Ham, N.

said the Government thought the Amendment useful. In its present form the Bill seemed to imply that once the representatives of the Press were excluded they would be excluded during the whole of the time that a particular meeting lasted. Therefore the Government had no objection to this Amendment, which he thought might be accepted by the hon. Member.

MR. YOUNGER

suggested that the point was met by the use of the word "temporarily" in the clause.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

inclined to the opinion that the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down to insert the word "temporarily" would cover the whole point raised by the hon. Member opposite.

MR. CARLILE

said he did not think the word "temporarily" would be sufficient to meet the case, nor did he think it would have the same effect as the words of the Amendment, which suggested that the Press might be excluded at various short intervals during the one sitting.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

did not think it mattered very much, and was inclined to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds)

proposed to omit "two-thirds" and insert "a majority," in order that a bare majority of the members of a local authority might be able to pass a resolution excluding the representatives of the Press from a meeting when such exclusion was advisable in the public interest in view of the special nature of the business to be dealt with. In the case of the London County Council there was a standing order that the public and the Press should be admitted, and that standing order could be changed by the will of a bare majority. If the vote of a majority of two-thirds of the members of an authority were insisted upon, party feeling might induce a minority not representing the view of a majority of the ratepayers, to vote against the exclusion of the Press, and in that way to defeat the public interest and the views of the majority of the council. He thought private sittings of a local authority when exercising judicial functions were desirable. The manner in which a county council acting as the licensing authority for music-halls carried on its work at present was almost a scandal, for after evidence had been heard party speeches were made and party recriminations indulged in, and in such a case as that it was highly desirable that the Press should not be admitted.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words 'two-thirds,' and to insert the words 'a majority.' "—(Mr. Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'two-thirds' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GODFREY BARING (Isle of Wight)

, in supporting the Amendment, said it was almost essential that discussions as to the purchase of property by local authorities should not be carried on in the presence of representatives of the Press; but if only a small majority of the members of an authority were in favour of a particular purchase, the Press could not be excluded under the Bill in its present form.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

considered there was a great deal of force in the arguments with which the Amendment had been supported, and expressed willingness to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR F. BANBURY

moved to insert the following proviso: "Provided also that it shall be lawful for such local authority to determine by a like majority that any matters discussed thereat shall not be published, and to provide by standing order, regulation, or otherwise, as may be approved by the Local Government Board, that any infringement of such resolution may be punished by exclusion of the person offending from future proceedings of the local authority for a period not exceeding three months." It might well be that there was a rather delicate matter under discussion, but that the local authority did not think it was desirable to exclude the Press. Some dispute might arise between members of local authorities and some unseemly discussion take place, and he did not think anything was to be gained by washing dirty linen in public. He therefore thought there should be power given to the local authority to point out that that particular matter should not be published. He thought the Amendment really was in the interests of everybody, although he admitted it was not of very great importance. They knew very well that the fifth-rate Press was inclined to take to small personal matters and publish them, and he did not think any hon. Member wanted that to be done.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided also that it shall be lawful for such local authority to determine by a like majority that any matters discussed thereat shall not be published, and to provide by Standing Order, regulation, or otherwise, as may be approved by the Local Government Board, that any infringement of such resolution may be punished by exclusion of the person offending from future proceedings of the local authority for a period not exceeding three months.' "—(Sir F Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said he did not think the Amendment would do as it stood, because it did not take account of the Amendment last put in. But apart from that it would be unreasonable to put it in, because there was no advantage in the representatives of the Press being present at all unless they published the proceedings.

SIR F. BANBURY

said there was another point. Supposing the representatives of the Press had been excluded and individual members of the authority published what took place, he thought that ought to be prevented, and his Amendment, he took it, would provide for that. What was the good of excluding the Press if they left the power with any single member of the local authority to publish the proceedings? He was naturally desirous of giving every consideration to the opinion of his noble friend, but he thought he had overlooked that point.

LORD R. CECIL

said that if that was the meaning of the Amendment he thought it was quite out of order, because it would be an attempt, not to regulate the presence of representatives of the Press at meetings of local authorities, but to regulate the rights of members of local authorities themselves.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

thought the Amendment was in order, the object of it being to prevent representatives of the Press, when they had been excluded by a majority of the local authority, from publishing what occurred in their absence by getting their information from members or by other means.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

said he was rather disposed against the Amendment before it was moved, but since it had been moved and explained he must say, on behalf of the promoters, that they were most strenuously opposed to it. They had no right in their Bill to curtail the rights and privileges of members of the various local authorities, and on that account he hoped the House would negative the Amendment.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. EMMOTT,) Oldham

I do not think the words are really out of order.

MR. GUINNESS

hoped the House would accept the Amendment, because it appeared to him that it was impossible for any local authority to know what would be brought out in a debate beforehand, and confidential documents might be quoted by members of the council which, in the public interest, should not be published in the Press. Only the other day, on the London County Council, an extremely confidential document was sent to a certain paper and published, against the interests of the Council. If the Amendment was not accepted they would have no redress in a case of that sort. He thought they could not expect the Press to respect the confidence of these councils unless they could be punished in some way if they neglected to do so.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that if every document submitted to a local authority must be published, were they quite sure that that authority would be supplied with information of a confidential character? It was sometimes not agreeable to tell the whole truth, and it might incur an amount of unpopularity. He had had some experience of these matters, and he knew the great difficulty there was to obtain a full disclosure of the facts which it was necessary to consider before they could arrive at a proper conclusion.

MR. WATT

thought the Amendment would complicate the machinery of the Bill. The offender would not be a person but a newspaper, and the difficulty of tracing the connection between the newspaper and the person present at the meeting who had communicated the confidential matter would be very great.

MR. MASTERMAN

hoped, the hon. Baronet, would see his way to withdraw the Amendment. It was perfectly true that it was within the scope of the Bill, but in its application it would go far beyond the scope of the Bill. As far as he could judge it would allow a town council to exclude one of its own members if he communicated confidential statements to the Press. He had no objection to that; it might be a good thing. Such things had been done, he regretted to say, even in connection with Committees of the House of Commons, but he did not think it ought to be brought within the Bill, which dealt entirely with the Press. Confidential documents might be a difficulty, but the Press were at the present time present at the great majority of town council discussions, and it was his experience that they habitually responded to that kind of appeal; whereas if they passed this Amendment it would not only exclude confidential documents but give the local authority the right to prevent the Press reporting things, even verbal indecencies—using indecencies as a mild expression, such as scenes in the council, which were certainly scandals but which ought to be reported.

MR. CURRAN (Durham, Jarrow)

strongly opposed the Amendment. Committees of local authorities conducted many of the affairs of the local authorities, and it was often desirable that their transactions should be reported in the Press. The Amendment, however would tend towards shutting out from the ratepayers any information as to the transactions of such committees. On those grounds he strongly opposed the Amendment. He believed that the transactions of popularly elected men in these committees ought to be open to the public Press, and if that had been the case up to now there would not have been any scandals such as those which had been revealed in recent times in regard to the business transacted by certain boards of guardians.

MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said he wanted to ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment. If it applied only to the Press it was not wanted, for when an appeal was made to the Press not to publish any matter on the ground that it was not for the public interest that it should be published, it was his experience that they always responded and did not publish the matter in question. But if the Amendment applied to the members of the local authorities he could not for a moment support it. No doubt members of local authorities sometimes did publish what had better not be made public; but if a member so offending were to be excluded for three months, it was not he who would be punished but those who sent him to the authority, and he did not think it was in the public interest that such a power of exclusion should be given to any public body whatever.

SIR F. BANBURY

thought that on the whole the opinion of the House was against the Amendment, and although he thought it would act well, he did not intend to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^*MR. CAVE moved to insert after "regulations," the words "as to the evidence to be furnished of the appointment of representatives of the Press, and." The effect of it would be that any person claiming to be a representative of the Press might be required to produce some credentials. He thought the local authority ought not to be put in the position that a person whom they did not know might claim to be admitted as representing the Press. There might be cases where someone with no credentials desired to enter the Press gallery, and the authority might have to admit somebody who had no right to admission, or if they excluded him they might under the Bill, as it stood, be proceeded against. He did not think any elaborate evidence of authority should be required, but that there should be power to make a regulation requiring that the representative should produce a pass or card to show the officials that he really represented a paper.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 16, after the word 'regulations,' to insert the words 'as to the evidence to be furnished of the appointment of representatives of the Press and.' "—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

thought there was a good deal in the point that the local authority should be satisfied that a Press representative was really acting officially on behalf of his paper, and he was going to accept an Amendment later on inserting the words "duly accredited representative." He did not know whether that would meet the point of his hon. and learned friend. If, however, it did not he was prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S.W.) moved to insert in line 19, after "representatives," the words "direct or indirect." His object, he said, was to cover news agency correspondents and so forth. He thought his proposal would be accepted by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle.

MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 19, after the word 'representatives,' to insert the words 'direct or indirect.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

thought it was really necessary to accept some such words in order to safeguard the representatives of Press associations.

MR. MASTERMAN

said the words "direct or indirect" would really not strengthen the clause. He would submit that the proper place to discuss the question of Press agencies was at the end of Clause 2, where the hon. Gentleman had some Amendments which he thought both the promoters of the Bill and the Government were prepared to accept.

MR. CAVE

thought the words "indirect representatives of the Press" very value, and he hoped they would not be inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ME. WINFREY moved to insert at the end of line 20, after "opinions" the words "or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper." He thought it was obvious that these words would very much improve the clause on the ground that sometimes newspapers might be excluded because of comments published editorially.

MR. CLOUGH

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 20, after the word 'opinions,' to insert the words 'or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

thought the words introduced a very great improvement, and he accepted them.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green) moved to insert in line 20, after "newspaper," the words "or through the agency of such representatives.'' An agency might give offence in some way to a local authority, and he thought it would strengthen the clause and safeguard the public if the representative of a news agency was also not debarred from exercising his calling in that way.

MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 20, after the word 'newspaper,' to insert the words 'or through the agency of such representatives.'"—(Mr. Nan-netti.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

said, having regard to the fact that they had not inserted "direct or indirect" he was disposed to accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that they would require some words to cover the case of the representatives of various Press associations. If this was the right place to insert the words he accepted them.

MR. MASTERMAN

said that this was a penal clause, and as agencies were admitted in the last section of Clause 2, he thought it might be desirable, if not altogether essential, to insert the words in this place.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*MR. GUINNESS moved the insertion of the following words: "Nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion of the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of confidential documents." He felt that it was necessary to move this Amendment in view of the fact that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City had withdrawn his Amendment. The Amendment which he now proposed was to deal with a difficulty which might very often arise. There was a case only last week in the London County Council where a document marked "private and confidential," a report officially to the council, and intended only for the use of members, had been obtained by a certain newspaper and published by them, although they stated in their columns that it was marked "private and confidential." He thought in a case like that the local authority ought to be in a position, to protect themselves.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 1, line 20, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion of the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of confidential documents.' "—(Mr. Guinness.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was taking the opportunity afforded by this Bill to drag in a local question pertaining to the London County Council. When opportunity offered, there would be a full and adequate reply to the suggestion which the hon. Member had made. If the Amendment were adopted, it would give a great power to the local authority. What would be the position? A local authority would only need to call everyone of their documents "private and confidential" to keep all information from the public. Who was to decide what was "private and confidential"? The very case to which the hon. Member alluded was the strongest argument that could be put forward against the Amendment. He understood that the document referred to was of an entirely public character, and surely it was open to the Press to doubt the wisdom of a committee or of a local authority who might be disposed to mark any and every document "private and confidential." He thought that in this instance it was the chairman of the committee who had described it as "private and confidential." But whether it was or not it did not alter his objection to the Amendment. He thought that the Bill without it would be strong enough, and to insert the words proposed would encourage local authorities to mark too many of their documents "private and confidential," and to keep important facts entirely from the public.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. In the first place, this subsection was really drafted by those for whom the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment was really acting. In Committee upstairs he had promised that he would meet the hon. Member's point, and he had met it by accepting this subsection. Having done so, he thought it was just a little unfair on the Report stage to ask him to accept such a drastic Amendment as was now proposed. For that reason and for other reasons which he could state, he must decline to accept the Amendment.

MR. MASTERMAN

hoped the hon. Member for Bury would see his way to withdraw the Amendment, especially as they had given way on the point of a two-thirds majority, and an absolute majority. The Amendment did not really deal with the Bill. This clause was a special clause against newspapers. There had been a long debate in that House in reference to The Times newspaper's publishing confidential documents of Committees, and if the Amendment were adopted, they might have the town council of Orkney and Shetland, if Orkney and Shetland had a town council, excluding The Times reporter because The Times in London had published a confidential report or document of that House. That was an impossible position so far as this Bill was concerned, and they held that, if there was any discussion on a confidential document, it was for the local authority by a majority to declare that it was inexpedient in the public interest that the Press should be admitted. If, however, representatives of the Press were admitted, they should have a right to publish the document, but the Press should not be held responsible or penalised if they obtained it through another source.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said that the Bill was now in the House of Commons, and not upstairs in Committee, and they had their rights in that House, irrespective of arrangements come to between parties upstairs. He had no knowledge of the quarrel that had taken place in the London County Council in regard to the publication in the Press of a confidential document. He did not know in that particular case on which side the rights were. But it was quite obvious, looking at it from a general point of view, that in the London County Council there must be some documents of a confidential character, and who was to be the authority to decide that a document was confidential, and treat it as such? Was it to be the local body which was entrusted with the duty of administering local affairs, or was it to be the Press? Were the Press to be the judge of whether a document ought to be confidential? Anyone could imagine quite easily that there were a great many things in local government which it was desirable to keep confidential, at any rate, for a time. There were now under the Education Act a great many matters affecting the discipline of teachers in the schools, in which delicate inquiries had to be made, and it might be most prejudicial to justice if they were made public before they were completed, and whilst the papers were still private, and ought to be private. During the holding of such inquiries it would be most undesirable that the proceedings should be published broadcast in the Press. Anybody could easily understand that in such a case as the purchase of lands and sites it would be most prejudicial to the interests of the public that there should be reports published in regard to the estimates of cost, while the documents were still confidential. There ought to be some means of dealing with a newspaper which wilfully disregarded these private and confidential matters, and which, judging for themselves, were a law to themselves and published things which ought to be regarded as private. For that reason he supported the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment because it seemed to him that the penalty was a very mild one for what might be a very serious offence.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

said he did not see how a document which was read in a public local authority with seventy or eighty representatives could be confidential. The noble Lord had suggested cases whore negotiations were going on for the acquisition of land, and it was very undesirable that the public should know the intermediate processes in the transaction. No doubt it was very undesirable indeed, but no public authority would be foolish enough to read such a document while negotiations of that kind were in progress, and if they did, although the reporters were absolutely forbidden under penalty to publish it, with eighty representatives it would be out directly, and very likely some of these representatives would go and secure the property for themselves. It was of the last importance that all transactions affecting the public and local public resources should be watched by the public or the Press which represented the public. Another objection which he had to the Amendment was that it proposed to punish a newspaper, which published one of these confidential documents, even inadvertently, or by an error of judgment, for ever. That was to say, if a document had appeared in the leading local paper which had been criticising rather smartly the doings of a local authority, they would for ever after that be excluded from the public body.

MR. NANNETTI

hoped the House would not accept the Amendment. It was admitted that the Press would be excluded, and if a document marked "private and confidential" was circulated in the Press it was proposed to punish the newspaper. Why should they punish the newspaper for the action of an individual who was on his honour asked to keep a document confidential and strictly private? That was a matter for the corporation or the local body that had to deal with it. If a member abused the privilege or gave a copy to a newspaper, he could not for the life of him see why the newspaper should be compelled not to publish that document if they so desired. It might even be in the public interest. It might happen that a document of vital interest to the public might be marked "private and confidential" arid then no newspaper would dare to publish because of the penalty that the Bill would impose. Any of the members present at the meeting might give a copy of a document and it would be an interference with the liberty of the Press to prohibit its publication under such circumstances. They were the best judges as to whether a document marked "private and confidential" should be published or not, and he thought in that democratic House they were not going to attempt to bring in restrictions on the Press and on responsible editors who knew what they were doing and would not publish a document dealing, for instance, with the sale of land. With regard to the document relating to London County Council finance, the universal opinion was that it should have been published. He was not going to find fault with the paper that published it. It was quite justified in publishing it. Having had the document given them it would be a mistake if the Press did not use their judgment and publish it if they so desired. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Dr. MACNAMARA,) Camberwell, N.

did not deny that this was not at all an easy matter. On the face of it it would almost appear that they wanted some punitive power over a Press representative who misused the right which this Bill conferred on him. At the instance of the hon. Baronet they had said that by a bare majority they could exclude Press representatives as often as they pleased during the course of a meeting. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were afraid lest, notwithstanding these precautions, they might get into their hands a confidential document and make an improper use of it. The noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham was particularly anxious about that and spoke of the early publication of matters affecting the purchase of land and the disciplinary treatment of teachers. He was a little surprised to hear it from him because the noble Lord was for a number of years Chairman of the School Accommodation Committee of the London School Board, and he should say never under any circumstances had he to complain of any misuse at any time in these very important matters by the Press of any private and confidential information which might possibly have come into their hands.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

I have no personal complaint, nor do I know personally any instance of a grievance, but I want to guard against cases that might arise.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that was what he thought. But a local authority might mark all it s papers "private and confidential" and defeat the whole object of the Bill, which was to confer on the Press a right which it did not at present possess. Then under the terms of the Amendment, because of the misuse of a document—and he did not understand how it could come into his hands, because he could be turned out as often as was desired during one meeting whenever a matter of a confidential character turned up—but if it came into the reporter's hands by some mysterious means he could be turned out for ever. He was sure the mover would not go quite so far. Then there was the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board that if a member of the local authority for reasons best known to himself, having access to all private and confidential documents, handed them to the Press, the result would be that the unfortunate Press representative would be turned out. Although he admitted the difficulty and could not but admit the reasonableness of having some punitive power for misuse, this was not a form in which they could in any practical way apply it, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. RAWLINSON

said the hon. Gentleman had failed to appreciate the position of those who were pressing the Amendment. It had a much wider scope than he had realised. There was a document which the local authority were of opinion was confidential. A newspaper got hold of it by some means or other. It was absolutely impossible for the local authority to prove who was the person who had given it up. At present the local authority had full power to deal with newspapers. This Bill was going to take that power away; therefore he asked the House to pause before they did that and left no power to deal with what might be a very serious matter. The hon. Gentleman appealed to his noble friend whether or not he ever had any trouble with the Press when at the school board. But they were taking away the power which the local authority had now of dealing with the Press. One obvious reason why they had had no trouble was that they had the means of dealing with it if trouble occurred. But further than that, they knew that confidential documents had been disclosed from time to time. By whom? That was exactly the difficulty they were invariably met by, and suspicion was thrown on clerks and others who had had possession of the document.

MR. DALZIEL

The reporter may have the contents summarised and sent to him.

MR. RAWLINSON

said in that case, the local authority whom they were trusting with such very great powers in other matters would never think of dealing unfairly with a newspaper which did such a thing as that. They must trust the local authority not to do such a grave act of injustice as to treat a newspaper unfairly in that way. They must assume that the local authority knew the tremendous importance of the power which resided in them, and some part of which should be kept in their hands, and that they would only deal with newspapers who had got hold of documents which were really furnished by a breach of trust on the part of somebody, it was impossible to say whom, and therefore were making money out of the publication of a confidential document, and so increasing their circulation to the exclusion of other papers who had run perfectly straight. He had had a great deal to do with confidential documents, and he knew the temptation to which clerks in receipt of small salaries were exposed. It was idle to tell him he had to prove who had broken his trust before the newspaper published the document, because it could not be proved. But local authority ought to have some power in its hands. It had it now, and the Bill ought not to take away such a power to deal with a newspaper which had in their opinion published a document contrary to the express wish of the local authority. The hon. Member for Dublin asked who was the best judge. Surely the local authority must be made the judge in the matter. In this very Bill they had given the power to exclude the Press as often as they liked. If they excluded them whilst a confidential document was being read and it was published directly afterwards the exclusion was worse than a farce, because they simply hit the pressman who had played the game and not published the confidential document, and it would be to the benefit of the particular paper which had managed to get the document. For that reason this should be supported as an important Amendment. It was of the last importance that many documents should not be made common property. As they were taking away a power, some sort of restriction of the kind should be left in the Bill. It could do no harm to the Press, and he was sure local authorities could be entrusted with power to deal with the Press who had knowingly published a confidential document.

LORD R. CECIL

said the Government did not really quite appreciate the basis on which the Bill rested. Everybody knew it rested on the celebrated case in which a local authority unfairly excluded representatives, not of the Press at large, but of a particular newspaper. That was the grievance they had to meet, and the whole point of the Bill was to prevent such a thing being done, and the first clause, which gave power to exclude in the public interest, said specifically that one newspaper must not be excluded and another admitted. The Amendment as drafted would undoubtedly destroy the whole Bill. There could not be any question about that. A local authority would merely have to mark every single document "confidential," or afterwards decide that it was, and proceed to exclude the newspaper in the future. Then it did not say "knowingly published." If the newspaper accidentally published they would have the power to do it. Lastly, the exclusion would be quite indefinite, and it would not be effective because the newspaper would be able to make arrangements with other newspapers if it was unscrupulous, and go on doing what it had done before. The Amendment would not be successful. It went much too far as far as drafting was concerned, and if there was anything in the danger—for he was not disposed to say there was nothing—it would have to be dealt with by a very different kind of Amendment, and could only be considered, if at all, in another place when they had time to consider exactly what could be done and what could not. He hoped the hon. Member would see his way to withdraw the Amendment without prejudice to his being able to raise the matter on another occasion.

MR. GUINNESS

said he quite realised that the House was in rather a difficulty in discussing the Amendment because of necessity he had only put it down at the last moment, and he also realised that there were strong objections to the present form of wording, but he thought that could be dealt with so as to meet points that had been raised. The point that the Amendment involved the permanent exclusion of the Press could easily be met by putting in the words "pending satisfactory explanation," and if the newspaper showed that it did not do it wilfully, the exclusion could of course immediately be cancelled. There was another point which also had a good deal of force, that the newspaper might not know that the documents were private and confidential. That could easily be met by omitting the words "confidential documents" at the end and penalising newspapers from the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and confidential. The particular point which he had in his mind was that newspapers could now boast of issuing these private and confidential documents, and he thought in the interests of local government it was most necessary that officials of local authorities should be protected from this undesirable publication. It was most necessary that the officials should be free from any suspicion of party bias, and if their private recommendations to a committee could be published by a newspaper, he thought they made the position of the permanent officials of these authorities practically impossible. He did not think there was any danger of newspapers being excluded without just cause if they made it an essential that these documents should have been issued and marked "private and confidential." If they did not agree with this Amendment they would put a great advantage in the hands of those newspapers who were unscrupulous enough to publish an official document with a view to improving their circulation. The Secretary to the Admiralty asked the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham whether, when he was on the London School Board, he ever met any case of misuse of privilege by the Press, and his hon. friend said he did not; but in those days the Press could be very easily penalised, and there was nothing to prevent the London School Board, if the Press had published a confidential document, saying: "We will keep out the representative of that particular newspaper." But if the Bill passed in its present form that deterrent would be taken away from the Press, and they would be able to publish confidential documents with absolute inpunity. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted in the form which he now proposed, limiting the period until there was a satisfactory explanation, and the documents to those issued as private and confidential.

MR. MASTERMAN

said the course the hon. Member was adopting was an impossible way of doing business. The hon. Member confessed that this idea had never occurred to him until the hon. Baronet spoke. Surely this was a question of a penal clause quite apart from the Bill. He was not satisfied with these alterations. It might conceivably be desirable that it should be made possible to prosecute the Press in certain circumstances under due safeguards; but that was a totally different matter from excluding Press representatives. If the Press wished to publish confidential documents, it had no difficulty in getting those documents from other sources. It might be desirable that a Bill penalising the Press should be introduced, but he submitted that this was not the proper place to do it.

MR. A. ALLEN (Christchurch)

hoped the House would not accept the Amendment in one form or the other. During the ten years he had been a member of the London County Council he never remembered the public interest being seriously injured by publications in the Press, though great inconvenience had sometimes been caused to parties. A public authority could call any document "private and confidential." Indeed, practically every document of the London County Council except the Council agenda paper and one or two papers circulated with it was already so marked. It was ridiculous to give a local authority power to mark all its documents confidential, and then take action against the Press.

SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs),

referring to the obligation imposed by the words "private and confidential" upon a letter, recalled a case in which the Duke of Wellington, when Prime Minister, received a letter so marked, and sent it the following morning to the Press. The Duke's argument was, first, that the writer had no justification for marking the letter "private"; and, secondly, that the right of so treating it or not was in the receiver and not in the writer of the document. He could not support the Amendment to the Amendment.

SIR F. BANBURY

agreed that this was a very difficult matter. No one wanted to prevent the Press from publishing what ought to be published, but there was a possibility that they might publish some document, as they thought in the interest of the public, which ought not to be published. Therefore he thought that, on the whole, some safeguard was necessary, and he should vote with his hon. friend. The reason given for passing the Bill was that in an isolated case one newspaper had been excluded, but it should not be overlooked that they were now dealing with all newspapers. He confessed that he was not much enamoured of local self-government, but it was a little hard to allow the Press to be judges as to whether a document was confidential or not, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin.

MR. NANNETTI

said that what he suggested was that the Press should be allowed to use their discretion as to whether they published them or not.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that what would happen under this proposal was that the Press would be excluded altogether.

MR. GUINNESS

asked leave to withdraw his original Amendment, and to substitute the improved form of words he had suggested to the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 20, after the words last inserted to insert the words 'Provided also that nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion pending satisfactory explanation of representatives of any newspaper on the "ground of the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and confidential' "—(Mr. Guinness).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH

said he could not see that the hon. Member had in any way improved a wholly impracticable proposal. If documents could be marked in such a way that every man would know they were private and confidential it might be useful to have some legislation on the point; but the difficulty was that the Press had no means of knowing whether a document was private and confidential or not. He held that if punishment was to be meted out it should be meted out to the proper person, that was, the person who circulated the private and confidential document. He had never known a case of a private document being brought to a newspaper, except by a person to whom it had been confided. Where a document was known to be private and confidential, and when it was not to the public interest to publish it, the practice was to suppress it. He would like to sec some steps taken to punish the actual offender. He did not think the hon. Member had improved his Amendment by the alteration he had suggested, and he hoped it would be rejected unanimously by the House.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL moved to strike out from the Amendment the words "pending a satisfactory explanation" in order to insert the words "for a period not exceeding three months." He said they did not wish to put any penalty on the Press, and if a satisfactory explanation were forthcoming the exclusion would probably not exceed a week.

MR. CARLILE

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill— To leave out the words 'pending satisfactory explanation,' and to insert the word 'for a period not exceeding three months,"— (Mr. Staveley-Hill.)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'pending satisfactory explanation' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill."

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

asked if it was in order upon this Bill to deal with matters that might never arise as part of the business of those local authorities. The Amendment referred to documents which might be sent privately to the members of the authority, and might never come before the actual meeting.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

suggested that the provision should be exclusion for having violated confidence.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

said he thought the Amendment was quite in order. The exclusion proposed was within the scope of the Bill.

MR. DALZ1EL

said that this Amendment was asking the council to declare some offender guilty, expel him, and then ask him to furnish a satisfactory explanation. Surely the proper course to take would be to write and ask for this explanation before penalising the offending person. The suggestion in the Amendment seemed to him absurd. According to the Bill if a newspaper published a document which was regarded as confidential the clerk would be instructed to make a representation to the newspaper and then the Committee would decide whether there was any ground for action. By this Amendment they were proposing to expel the newspaper without any opportunity of being heard. ["No."] They must leave a certain amount of discretion to the local authority. Were

they going to penalise the reporter and say that for three months he was not to be admitted? In that case the editor could easily send another member of his staff, or he could obtain a report from other sources. Whatever clause of this kind they introduced with the object of limiting the Press they could easily find ways of getting round it.

MR. GUINNESS

said his Amendment would not prevent the clerk to a local authority communicating with the newspaper before taking action.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Question put, "That the words 'Provided also that nothing in this Act shall prevent the exclusion for a period not exceeding three months of representatives of any newspaper on the ground of the publication of documents issued by the local authority to its members as private and confidential' be inserted after the last Amendment made to the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 164. (Division List No. 139.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir. Alex. F	Courthope, G. Loyd	Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Dalrymple, Viscount	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Doughty, Sir George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Ashley, W. W.	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Thornton, Percy M.
Balcarres, Lord	Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham	Valentia, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Haddock, George B.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Banner, John S. Harmood.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Younger, George
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Carlile, E. Hildred	Morrison-Bell, Captain	Mr. Guinness and Viscount
Cave George	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	Morpeth.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
NOES.
Agnew, George William	Branch, James	Cooper, G. J.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Bright, J. A.	Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bryce, J. Annan	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Byles, William Pollard	Crean, Eugene
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Cameron, Robert	Crooks, William
Beale, W. P.	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Curran, Peter Francis
Beck, A. Cecil	Chance, Frederick William	Dalziel, James Henry
Bellairs, Carlyon	Cheetham, John Frederick	Davies, David (Montgomery Co)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Cleland, J. W.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Clough, William	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Brace, William	Collins. Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Scott, A. H. (A'ht'n-under-Lyne
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J	Seaverns, J. H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Macpherson, J. T.	Seddon, J.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	M'Callum, John M.	Shackleton, David James
Essex, R. W.	M'Crae, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Mallet, Charles E.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Everett, R. Lacey	Masterman, C. F. G.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Ferens, T. R.	Meagher, Michael	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Flynn, James Christopher	Menzies, Walter	Snowden, P.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Micklem, Nathaniel	Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N. W.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Molteno, Percy Alport	Steadman, W. C.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mooney, J. J.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Gulland, John W.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Summerbell, T.
Halpin, J.	Muldoon, John	Sutherland, J. E.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	Murray, Capt. Hn AC.(Kincard.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Hart-Davies, T.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Napier, T. B.	Verney, F. W.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Nicholson, CharlesN, (Doncast)	Vivian, Henry
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Nolan, Joseph	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Walsh, Stephen
Henry, Charies S.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wardle, George J.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	O'Dowd, John	Waring, Walter
Hodge, John	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Hogan, Michael	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Holt, Richard Durning	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Waterlow, D. S.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Watt, Henry A.
Hudson, Walter	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford,E.)	Weir, James Galloway
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Radford, G. H.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Jardine, Sir J.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Jowett, F. W.	Rees, J. D.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Joyce, Michael	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Kekewich, Sir George	Ridsdale, E. A.	Williamson, A.
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lamont, Norman	Roche, John (Galway, East)	Winfrey, R.
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Lundon, W.	Rowlands, J.
Lupton, Arnold	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Master of Elibank and Captain Norton.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'any newspaper,' and to insert the words 'the Press.'"—(Mr. Winfreyy.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, to leave out the word 'it,' and to insert the word 'they.'"—(Mr. Masterman.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MASTERMAN

said subsection (3) of Clause 1 gave the representative of any newspaper the right of appeal to the Local Government Board if he felt aggrieved by the regulations made by a local authority for the accommodation of the representatives of the Press. The subsection gave the Local Government

Board power to vary or alter such regulations, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the local authority from going back next day to the old regulations. He moved to amend the subsection by adding words which would prevent the local authority from taking such action.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, at end, to add the words 'and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board.'''—(Mr. Masterman.)

MR. LAMONT (Buteshire)

moved an Amendment to provide that notice of meetings of the local authority should be sent by the clerk not only to the editor as proposed, but to the local representative of any newspaper circulating in the district of the local authority. As illustrating the necessity for this Amendment, lie stated that one of the papers which circulated most largely in his constituency was published at Largs. Great delay would be caused if notice had to be sent to the editor at Largs instead of to the local representative at Millport. As he understood from the hon. Member for Barnard Castle that he would accept this Amendment, he would not further detain the House by argument in its favour.

MR. WATT

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 1, after the word 'editor, to insert the words' or the local representative.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CARLILE

said that, while he had all sympathy with the Press, he thought this Amendment was an undue extension of the subsection. Was the correspondent in every little village to be recognised as the local representative of a newspaper to whom the clerk of the local authority was to be obliged to send notice of meetings? The Amendment would make the subsection far too wide, and he hoped the obligation placed upon the clerk would be confined to sending notice to the editor who was the responsible person on the staff of a newspaper.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. If these words were inserted, the clerk of the local authority would be liable to be charged with a breach of duty because he did not comply with a written request to be furnished with notices of meetings from one who described himself as the local representative of a newspaper. The editor was not inaccessible, and he was surely enough for all practical purposes. He objected to so peremptory a duty as the Amendment required being placed on the clerk of the local authority.

MR. BYLES

said he did not think the hon. Baronet understood the position. The Amendment appeared to be perfectly reasonable. It was reasonable that the local representative in a small country town should be the recipient of the notices of meetings. The editor might be in a city a considerable distance away. If a newspaper had a branch office in a town fifty miles away from the place of publication, it would be absurd to require that the notice should be sent to the editor to be re-transmitted to the representative on the spot who was responsible for the reports of the meetings of that particular local authority.

MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

said he wished cordially to support the Amendment. He thought hon. Members opposite who had opposed the Amendment did not realise the situation. The local representatives of newspapers were often separated by long distances from the editor, and unless the subsection were amended, the newspapers concerned would be under great disabilities. He would take the case of a newspaper with a circulation in a group of boroughs edited at one borough, and with a competing paper at another borough. The editor could not personally conduct all the business or make all applications to the local authority, while on the other hand the local representative of such a newspaper would be a perfectly well-known and trustworthy person, and he submitted that there was very good reason in scattered constituencies for adopting the Amendment, of which he cordially approved.

MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON

said that if they did not accept some such Amendment they were going to alter what had been the custom, especially in rural districts, for very many years. He could give a concrete illustration. In his own constituency there were two leading morning newspapers circulated. They had representatives who were in constant touch with the local authorities, and they got notices of meetings. If the notices in future were to be sent to the editors twenty miles away, the existing arrangements would be disturbed. He was prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY WILSON

opposed the the Amendment on the ground that it went a great deal too far. He thought every one of the villages in his own constituency had representatives of the Tory or Radical Press of Hull. Were these local representatives to be in a position to request the clerk of the local authority to send them notices of meetings? He thought the hon. Member might be content with having notice sent to the editor or sub-editor.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that this was a matter of mutual local convenience, purely administrative, and not a very serious one. The Bill was rather a useful little Bill, containing one or two important matters of principle which he hoped they might be allowed to come to. With regard to the Amendment, he reminded the House that the promoter of the Bill had undertaken in the definition of newspaper representative to add "duly accredited." If this was added a great part of the difficulty would disappear.

SIR F. BANBURY

moved to leave out the words "circulating in the district of the local authority." He did not see why the subsection should be restricted by these words. What was good for one was good for all.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words 'circulating in the district of the local authority.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.

MR. LAMONT

moved an Amendment providing that the notice of a meeting sent to the editor should be accompanied "with the agenda of business." In order to carry out this Amendment it would only be necessary to print a few more copies of the agenda, and he did not think that would involve much additional cost.

MR. WATT

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 3, after the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'with agenda of the business.'"—(Mr. Lamont.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GUINNESS

hoped the House would not accept this Amendment. He believed it would involve large additional expense to the local authorities. The mover of the Amendment thought it would only mean the printing of a few extra agendas. He himself thought it would mean the printing of a few hundred extra agendas. Perhaps the mover did not realise that in many cases the agenda contained a great deal of interesting information, and to supply it to a large number of newspapers would be to provide them with cheap and economical "copy." It seemed to him it was enough that the agenda paper should be sent to the reporters who actually attended the meetings. If it was sent to every newspaper in the kingdom it would entail great additional expense from which they would get no advantage in return.

MR. REES

said that if the words "circulating in the district" were thrown out, as he understood they had been, it was absolutely necessary to reject the Amendment, because there would be no limit to the trouble and expense caused by it. There was enough printing done now a days which nobody read. One of the greatest troubles of the age was the growth of printed matter, and even the throwing of it into the waste-basket occupied a great deal of valuable time.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that the hon. Gentleman had not considered the extremely ponderous character of these agenda papers, the distribution of which would lay an inconvenient burden and. expense on the local authorities. All that was wanted was covered by the words "due notice."

MR. LAMONT

said that it seemed to him that if the editor had a copy of the agenda paper it would enable him to decide whether it was necessary to send a reporter to the meeting or not. However, after the expression of opinion which had been given, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 4, at end, to add the words 'and wilful neglect to do so on the part of such clerk or other officer shall be an offence punishable at summary jurisdiction by fine not exceeding five pounds.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MASTERMAN

said he had an Amendment to propose which was rather important and which he hoped the House would accept unanimously. It was to omit subsection (b), which provided that an education committee, established by a council under the Education Act, 1902, should, for the purposes of this Act, be a "local authority," so far as regarded its proceedings which did not have to be reported to the council for confirmation. Representations had been made that an education committee, acting as an executive authority, was in exactly the same position as many other committees, and therefore the Government asked the House to omit the subsection making it a general rule that that publicity should be given. Then, if this Motion to omit were carried, when he came to propose the amended clause he would move it in a somewhat different fashion. Representations had been made that, from the nature of the business transacted, it would be exceedingly inexpedient to throw all these committees open generally to the Press. They did not insist upon throwing open a watch committee, the committee dealing with the discipline of the police force, and the visiting committee under the Lunacy Act. These were considered private and confidential. But in the case of other committees with delegated powers, for instance, of an out-relief committee of a board of guardians, when they discussed delicate details and took no action except to report to the board, their proceedings would be private; but when the committee, instead of reporting to the central body, dealt with cases themselves, then it was desirable the Press should be admitted.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, to leave out subsection (b)."—(Mr. Masterman.)

Question proposed, "That the words an education committee' stand part of the Bill."

SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said he knew how extremely confidential the matters were which were discussed by the relief committees of boards of guardians, and with that reservation he thought the Amendment might stand.

MR. GUINNESS

thought that it was most undesirable that this suggestion should be accepted. It would be perfectly impossible to distinguish between the business of the committee to which the Press should be admitted under the new subsection and the business from which they ought to be excluded. He had spoken to the clerk of the London County Council, who had had large experience, and who told him that in his opinion it would be practically impossible to distinguish those items on the agenda paper which were dealt with under powers which devolved on the committee and those upon which the committee had to report to the council. Moreover, it would be impossible without an enormous amount of inconvenience to have the Press representatives present at one moment, and not at another. He quite agreed with what had been said as to the relief committees. He thought that the wording of the new clause was very ambiguous. There were many subjects remitted to the committees on which they took no action. That was in the discretion of the committees themselves. There was the structural question also. There was no room for the Press representatives in the committee rooms. It might be suggested that the committees should meet in the council chamber; but that would be impracticable, for a number of the committees met at the same time on the same day. The great advantage of the committee system in local government was, that it got rid of the party bias which so often cramped business at the meetings of the whole local body. They all knew that many members frequently discussed business more with an eye to the effect which it would have upon their subsequent re-election than in the interests of the ratepayers; and if the representatives of the Press were allowed at every committee meeting the same vicious principle would be introduced there. At the present time a great deal of work was done in committee in the most expeditious manner possible, because the Press were not present and there was no inducement to members to make speeches. Another advantage of the absence of the Press representatives was that in the administrative work of the committee the officials could come in and speak their minds freely. If the reporters were present, the words of these officials might be twisted to serve party purposes, and efficient local government would no longer be possible. Municipal officials, like Civil Service officials, should be free from party bias. At present it was difficult enough to obtain business men of sufficient leisure to undertake the duties of local government and to attend committee meetings; but if the Press were admitted to these meetings the proceedings would be spun out from two or three to six or even seven hours, which a busy man could not afford to give up. It had been said that the presence of the Press at committee meetings checked corruption; but he thought that corruption could perfectly well be prevented by any honest member of the committee, if he chose, bringing the whole question before the council. Freedom of the Press did not mean that the committee rooms should be thrown open to the Press to report confidential matters which in the interests of the community should not be made public

MR. BYLES

said he felt there was a good deal in the arguments pressed by the hon. Member. He himself spoke from considerable experience when he said that the newspapers did not desire their representatives to attend all Committee meetings, nor did they make constant inquiry into confidential details. As he understood from the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, where-ever a public body had the power of levying a rate on the public that was a meeting at which the Press were entitled to be present. He was disposed to accept the Amendment with the view of lightening the Bill and making progress.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he should very much regret if by omitting subsection (b) the House lost altogether the results of a discussion on the later clauses. He was aware that when the Education Act of 1902 came into force the exclusion of the public from committee meetings was not an advantage. It was exceedingly important that the public should know what took place at these committee meetings. On the other hand, anyone who had taken part in the deliberations of municipal bodies and their committees knew very well that the presence of reporters destroyed discussion of important questions when an election was drawing near. The committees worked with unimpaired energies and always did their duty fairly when there was no election impending.

MR. MASTERMAN

said that he had only dealt with committees with delegated powers.

SIR WILLIAM ANSON

said he understood that whenever a committee had executive powers, whether statutory or delegated, the reporters might be present. But in all cases where matters came up to the local authority itself for approval that approval might be merely formal, so that very considerable affairs of public interest might be discussed and really settled in committees from which the reporters would be excluded. He was sorry that the whole question had been delayed to this late stage.

MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.)

said he was sorry that the representative of the Local Government Board proposed to omit subsection (b). The promoters of the Bill had done quite right to insert in their definition clause the education committee as a committee at the meetings of which the Press ought to be represented. There was a good deal of plausibility in the suggestion that all committees should be treated alike and there should not be any differentiation, but Parliament had recognised that the functions of an education committee were so large and so important that it was desirable to treat it in a different manner. Ever since the passing of the Education Act of 1902 there had been a conflict among the local authorities as to whether the Press should be admitted or not. He believed that now the Press was admitted to all the Education committees of the various county councils. The London County Council was the last to submit, and they had now fallen into line. But in order to justify the exclusion of the Press they had invented a theory that where there was delegation of powers to the committee there should be publicity, but where there was no delegation the Press should be excluded. He was sorry that the virus of the London County Council had been inoculated into the Local Government Board. He thought the House in deciding that point should not deal with the larger question raised by the Local Government Board as to whether the Press was to be admitted to all committees. The hon. Members' theory broke down in practice. They could not sit down in committee and distinguish in a moment when the Press should be excluded and when not. The Press came in and stayed all the time. It had been found in practice that the differentiation between the delegated and the other functions of a committee was impracticable, and the distinction, if embodied in an Act of Parliament, would be futile. He hoped the Amendment proposed from the Treasury Bench would not be persisted in.

LORD R. CECIL

said the promoters of the Bill did not really care very much how the House decided this point. They felt there was a distinction between the education and other committees because as a matter of fact people took more interest in education than in other controversial matters. There was also a great deal of force in what was stated by the hon. Member. If the House thought fit to accept the Amendment proposed by the Government it would not interfere with the views of the promoters so far as this Bill was concerned, but he suggested that it might be desirable, in order to save time, to allow the Bill to stand as it was.

MR. MASTERMAN

said the noble Lord had anticipated what he thought of suggesting. If the House approved he would withdraw the Amendment to omit the sub section, reserving his right to move a new sub section upon which the question of an education committee could be considered on its merits.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WINFREY

moved to add after "committee," the words "and a joint education committee." This was specially provided for in the Act of 1902. There were certain county councils who had a joint education committee and he suggested that the words were necessary to make the definition complete.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, after the word 'Committee,' to insert the words 'and a joint education committee.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD R. CECIL

agreed that, as a matter of drafting, the words should be inserted.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

thought there should be some further information as to what the joint committee was. There were many different kinds of joint committees, some of which had very great and others very limited powers conferred upon them. It could not be too often impressed upon this House that to admit the Press to committee meetings was very often to waste time, to introduce party politics, and to lead to the introduction of speeches to the hindrance of the work for which these committees were appointed—purely administrative work. He welcomed the statement by the hon. Member for Salford who had urged upon the House on every occasion that they should, allow the Press access to meetings of local authorities, but that he did not claim and did not desire that they should be admitted to committee meetings, because he recognised that by so doing the work of the committee might be made slower.

LORD R. CECIL

pointed out that the Amendment was limited by the words of the subsection and did not extend beyond those cases in which the committees were not required to submit their decision to the county council for approval. The point was of great importance, but he thought it would be better raised later on.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 140.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Henry, Charles S.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Agnew, Geo ge William	Higham, John Sharp	Power, Patrick Joseph
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Price, C. E. (Edinb' gh, Central)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Hodge, John	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Hogan, Michael	Radford, G. H.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Horniman, Emslie John	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rees, J. D.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hudson, Walter	Richards, T. F.(Wolverh' mpt' n
Beale, W. P.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Beck, A. Cecil	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln).
Bellairs, Carlyon	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)	Jowett, F. W.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Bowerman, C. W.	Joyce, Michael	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brace, William	Kekewich, Sir George	Rowlands, J.
Branch, James	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bryce, J. Annan	Laidlaw, Robert	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Byles, William Pollard	Lambert, George	Scott, A. M. (Ashton under Lyne
Cameron, Robert	Lamont, Norman	Seaverns, J. H.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Seddon, J.
Chance, Frederick William	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.	Shackleton, David James
Cheetham, John Frederick	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Lewis, John Herbert	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cleland, J. W.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Clough, William	London, W.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Lupton, Arnold	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Cooper, G. J.	Luttrell. Hugh Fownes	Snowden, P.
Corbett, CH Sussex, E. Grindst'd	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Crean, Eugene	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B' ghs	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Maclean, Donald	Steadman, W. C.
Crooks, William	Macpherson, J. T.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Curran, Peter Francis	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Summerbell, T.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Sutherland, J. E.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	M' Callum, John M.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	M' Crae, George	Tennant. H. J. (Berwickshire)
Devlin, Joseph	M' Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Mallet, Charles E.	Tomkinson, James
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Masterman, C. F. G.	Verney, F. W.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Meagher, Michael	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Menzies, Walter	Walsh, Stephen
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Elibank, Master of	Molteno, Percy Alport	Wardle, George J.
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Waring, Walter
Everett, R. Lacey	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ferens, T. R.	Muldoon, John	Waterlow, D. S.
Flynn, James Christopher	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Watt, Henry A.
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)	Weir, James Galloway
Fuller, John Michael F.	Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Napier, T. B.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast' r	Whitehead, Rowland
Guinness, Walter Edward	Nolan, Joseph	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Gulland, John W.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Halpin, J.	O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wood, T. M 'Kinnon
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	O'Dowd, John
Hart-Davies, T.	O'Malley, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Winfrey and Mr. Holt.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Du Cros, Arthur Philip	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Faber, George Denison (York)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff' sh.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gretton, John	Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Haddock, George B.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thornton, Percy M.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Valentia, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Carlile, K. Hildred	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Courthope, G. Loyd	Morrison-Bell, Captain	Viscount Morpeth and Mr.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Ashley.
Cross, Alexander	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WINFREY

said the next Amendment was consequential.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 16, to leave out the words 'by a council.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WINFREY

said his next Amendment was to leave out all the words after "1902." It had already been pointed out during the discussion that it was practically impossible for the Press to distinguish between matters that were and were not to be submitted by a committee to a council, and it would be better to leave out the words and trust to the discretion of the Press from time to time.

MR. HOLT (Northumberland, Hexham)

seconded.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word '1902,' to end of line 20."—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

DR. MACNAMARA

expressed the hope that the words would be allowed to remain in the Bill. It was one of the original objects of the promoters and, therefore, the Bill as amended upstairs took the form that when the education committees dealt with matters that they were competent to carry into effect without reporting to the council the

Press should be present. Wherever the education committee was dealing as a committee, discussing questions upon which they would have to report to the parent committee, the Press were not to be admitted. This Amendment would result in ensuring that the Press was present on every occasion. He, therefore, suggested that it should not be accepted as it would carry the Bill further than desirable.

MR. GUINNESS

hoped the hon. Member would stick to his Amendment. It was much better to leave these words out and so simplify the Bill in that way.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

also asked the hon. Member to adhere to his Amendment. The education committee set up by the Act of 1902 was a different committee from other committees. It was a statutory committee. He was in favour of the Press being admitted to the proceedings of the education committee, and submitted that it was not possible to draw the distinction, which the Secretary to the Admiralty had tried to draw, between that business of the committee which required the approval of the county council and that which did not.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

hoped the Bill would be allowed to stand as it, was at present. Evil results might follow if all discussions in committees took place in the presence of the Press. For instance, there were such questions as the acquisition of land for school purposes and teachers' salaries and other subjects at the discussions upon which the local Press would no doubt like to be present. He had some experience of these meetings and so far as he knew the Press came in, and after certain matters had been discussed they were told there was nothing more of any public interest to be discussed and they then left. If the Press were always allowed to remain, he did not think it would be in the public interest; therefore, he hoped that the clause would stand as at present.

LORD R. CECIL

also expressed the hope that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. The Bill did not compel the attendance of the Press, but only gave them a right to be present. He hoped, under these circumstances, as the promoters were very anxious to get the Bill through the House, they might now pass from this matter.

Amendment negatived.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that, as the Bill under certain circumstances applied to Ireland, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

CAPTAIN J. CRAIG (Down, E.)

seconded the Amendment as he considered that in this respect it should be extended to Ireland.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 32, at end, to insert the words '(g) In the application of the Act to Ireland there shall be included boards of guardians, asylum committees, school attendance committees, and boards of any hospitals or infirmaries in receipt of a grant from public funds.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)

LORD R. CECIL

trusted that this Amendment would not be persisted in. The promoters of the Bill were desirous that it should extend to Ireland, but provision already existed for certain representation in Ireland, and if this Amendment were passed without serious consideration it might lead to serious difficulty.

MR. CARLILE

thought that in the interest of the newspaper Press itself the Amendment should be withdrawn. He contended that if one newspaper with a larger capital and more leisure than its contemporaries chose to attend all these meetings its competitors would be compelled also to attend them, and that might involve an intolerable burden being placed upon the Press.

SIR F. BANBURY

failed to see why Ireland should be put into a different position from England in this matter. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He, however, quite agreed with his noble friend that there was a possibility of a difficulty arising, that a number of authorities not included in this Amendment might, upon consideration, be included in it, and, therefore, if his noble friend gave him an assurance that an Amendment having these objects in view would be moved n another place he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said he was willing to give that undertaking and do his best to meet his right hon. friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 1, after the word 'means,' to insert the words' duly accredited.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. P. NANNETTI

said that the Amendment he now proposed to move should be taken in conjunction with an Amendment lower down on the Paper. What he desired to do was to insure that accredited representatives of other papers should have this right. The case he had in his mind was this. Supposing an editor of a London newspaper desired to send down a reporter to a particular meeting in the public interest he might under this clause be excluded. He had been advised that unless this Amendment was accepted it would lead to a good deal of hardship. A great scandal might arise at one of these meetings where it might be to the interests of the public that this right should not be confined to the local Press. He moved.

Amendment proposed— ''In page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word 'means,' to the end of the clause, and to insert the word 'persons.' "—(Mr. Nannetti.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'representatives of newspapers' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GUINNESS

hoped the House would not accept this Amendment. The Bill was wide enough to enable the whole of the Press to be present and this Amendment if carried would enable people to come in who thought the Press gallery was more comfortable than the public gallery. If all these people were allowed to come in it would be quite impossible for those who ought to be present to do their work under comfortable conditions.

MR. MASTERMAN

suggested that this Amendment should be withdrawn and that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London should move his Amendment moving out the words "circulating in the district of the local authority" and that the hon. Member for Norfolk should move in the words "and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers." The Government were of opinion that those two Amendments would cover this point.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

SIR F. BANBURY

said his next Amendment was in the interests of the Press He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'circulating in the district of the local authority.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 3, after the word 'newspaper,' to insert the words 'and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers.' "—(Mr. Winfrey.)

Amendment agreed to.