LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL. (Hansard, 10 March 1908)

§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
in moving the 1434 Second Reading of this Bill said there was general agreement in all sections of the House that in the interest of the public it was desirable that by statutory right the Press should be admitted to the public meetings of local authorities. There might be a little difference of opinion as to the advisability of admitting the Press to some of the committees referred to in the Bill, but the promoters of the measure would be prepared to give serious consideration to any objections that might be urged during the Committee stage. It had been the custom for a good many years for the Press 1435 to be admitted to the ordinary meetings of public authorities, but the decision in a recent case had altered the position of the Press in the eyes of the law. The promoters of the Bill felt that in the interest of all that was good in connection with public affairs, the question ought to be settled by statute. He drew attention to the proviso in the Bill which gave power to the local authoirity by a two-thirds majority to exclude representatives of the Press. He thought this should be sufficient to satisfy the opponents of the measure. He begged to move.

§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
admitted that there was a great deal to be said for the Bill, and if it had been what it appeared to be on the face of it, he did not know that he would have made any objection to it. It was now five minutes to eleven and from the few moments study he had been able to give to the Bill he was convinced that the question was one which ought to be very carefully considered before the House committed itself to the Second Reading. He expressed disapproval of the proposal that a local authority should have power to exclude the Press by a two-thirds majority. It seemed to him that the Press ought to be admitted or they ought not. There were other matters which deserved the serious consideration of the House, because the Bill went very much further than was apparent on the face of it. He called attention to Subsection 2 of Clause 1 placing on the clerk 1436 of the local authority, or other responsible officer, the duty of sending notice to a newspaper of meetings on receiving a written request from the editor. He should have thought that that was outside of the power implied by the title of the Bill.

§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON
May I say that we are prepared to consider that in Committee?

§ SIR F. BANBURY
said his point was that the Bill ought never to have been brought in in this state. The very first essential in a Bill was that all its provisions should conform to the title, and it was a dangerous precedent to allow a Bill to pass the Second Reading which contained provisions which did not conform to the title. If the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading did not attach any importance to Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, why was it put in the Bill? If the hon. Member would withdraw this Bill and bring in another providing for the admission of the Press to meetings of local authorities, he would have his support.