HC Deb 09 May 1946 vol 422 cc1299-319

[by Order]

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

7.00 p.m.

Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)

I beg to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred to exclude from the operation of Clause 4 the sale of newspapers in streets."—

Clause 4 of this Bill empowers the Corporation to make bye-laws for regulating the hawking, selling or offering or exposing for sale in any street of goods or articles of any description.… That obviously includes newspapers. For my part, I have no objection whatever to powers being granted to regulate the sale in the streets of books, toys, small wares, fruits or anything of that nature, but these are something entirely different from newspapers, and their sale involves quite different conditions. I think it is correct to say that no other local authority in the United Kingdom has this power of regulating the sale of newspapers. It is a power which has never hitherto been granted, and to grant it now would be a complete departure from all precedent. The House, I think, will agree that a very important principle is involved. The sale of news is something very special, and the free sale of news is something which is absolutely essential to the continuance of a democratic community. I know perfectly well that the Corporation of Glasgow does not desire to prohibit the sale of newspapers, but it is my opinion that they should not have the power either to limit or restrict the sale of newspapers. I do not think in any case that such a power should be granted to one local authority through a private Bill.

I have taken a little trouble to endeavour to ascertain why the Corporation seek these powers, and it seems to me that they seek them on very flimsy grounds. I understand that occasions have arisen where there have been disputes between various sellers of newspapers as to the right to occupy certain stands, and that there is a suspicion that there is some unauthorised body in the city which allocates stands as between the different newsvendors. It is also said that when special editions come out in the evening or late at night on some special occasion, the newsboys charge more than the stipulated price for the paper. I have endeavoured to ascertain whether there is any record of a prosecution against these newsvendors and as far as I can find, there has been none. It seems to me that, in any case, the present powers of the police are quite sufficient to deal with matters of the nature to which I have referred.

The other Clauses in this Bill have, I understand, received the unanimous approval of the Corporation. This Clause was approved on a majority decision. It is relevant to inquire how that decision may have been arrived at. I am given to understand that at least one of the parties in the Corporation of Glasgow has power to bind its members at a private meeting as to the direction in which they may vote, and that that may be decided on the smallest majority. If the decision to support this Clause was reached on a bare majority, as it may have been for all I know, then it seems to me that the decision might well have been reversed if it had been left free to the members to vote as their inclination directed them. There is one other point on which there will be unanimity in this House, I hope. It is that none of us desires to place the control of the sale of newspapers in the hands of any majority on any local authority, no matter what its political complexion may be. That seems to me something which would be quite wrong. For these reasons—because there is a great principle involved; because I do not think that this matter should be dealt with unilaterally; that it should not be dealt with in a Private Bill; that it is a power which is not possessed by any other local authority; that the granting of it would be a departure from all precedent; and that it would be an interference with the public convenience, an interference with a matter which has gone on for a very long period of years and about which, so far as I am aware, there has been no public complaint whatever—I think it proper that this instruction should be given to the Committee.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

I have noticed since my advent to this House that it is with some diffidence that Members who represent constituencies South of the Border enter into Debates which are regarded as of interest to Scotland, and I want to make it quite clear at the outset of my remarks that I am not opposing the Bill, or opposing Clause 4, to which I want to address myself. I am seeking to obtain certain assurances, which I believe may be forthcoming, and which, I hope, will safeguard the rights of certain of our citizens who earn their living by the vending of newspapers in the streets, not only of Glasgow, but of every town and city in Great Britain. I have a fairly wide and long experience of local authority work, and I fully appreciate that Glasgow not only desires but probably needs to have by-laws which will enable it as a local authority, to control and regulate street trading. I certainly have no quarrel with that objective. I appreciate that often public nuisance, and even a menace to public health, may be caused by the discharge of fruit and vegetable garbage from barrows which often litter and disfigure the streets of all our cities. I appreciate, too, the difficulties which arise, and are ofttimes added to so far as the police are concerned, through the congestion which arises, particularly in main thoroughfares, by any unrestricted or uncontrolled siting of hawkers' barrows. I also fully sympathise with any desires which the Corporation may have to protect their citizens and ratepayers against exploitation and—as was often the case in prewar days—fleecing by the vendors of articles in the streets.

I want some assurances, if I may obtain them, as to the way that these powers are to be applied to a section of our community who earn their living in a very ancient and traditional British calling—the vending of newspapers in the streets of the cities and towns of Great Britain. We Members of Parliament should not hesitate to protect the rights and the interests of these people, whom I regard as public servants in the broadest sense of that term. Invariably they are unable to protect themselves. They often are not organised in any trade organisation; they are certainly not in any trade union which would be able to protect them. Many of them, I think I might say the majority, find it necessary to seek this form of employment for a variety of reasons. Frequently physical disability is responsible for them taking up this kind of employment. Ofttimes reasons of health, the necessity to have an occupation which they can follow in the open air, dictate their following this employment, and also, frankly to our discredit in the past, many widows have had to resort to this form of employment in order to supplement their meagre incomes and to rear their families when they have become the responsible breadwinners of the family.

These people, I submit, deserve and should receive not only our sympathy but our protection. They are not a menace to the public. They retail or they vend an article the price of which is clearly stated and which everyone should know, and more than which they should not pay. Although I understand that across the Border certain people have devised ways and means whereby they might extract more than the regular price for their evening newspaper, there is no reason why any member of the public should pay more for the article than the price which is stated on it. Therefore they are not a menace from that point of view.

I believe, however, from what I hear, that there are sound reasons why some measure of control should be exercised, particularly in Glasgow, and if that be so, I would very much like to think that that measure of control was in the hands of the local authority rather than that it was operated by restrictive or monopoly practices of newspaper proprietors. It would appear that the powers which are now being sought by the Glasgow Corporation in Clause 4 of this Bill are of a permissive character. The first line of Clause 4 reads: The Corporation may make bye-laws for regulating the hawking, selling or offering… of various commodities. I want to ask whether any hon. or right hon. Member of this House, who can speak with some authority, can give us an assurance that it will be only regulation, and that this is not a lead to a gradual reduction, with the ultimate objective of the complete elimination of the street newsvendor.

The only other point I want to make is to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because I find that in Subsection (3) of this Clause he has power to decide whether any bylaw which shall be made shall be brought into operation and be enforceable. Perhaps the Secretary of State would be good enough to tell us what his attitude would be to any suggestion for the complete elimination of newspaper sellers. I am prepared to say that many of us are deeply interested in this matter, not merely from the point of view of Glasgow, but from the point of view if many other of our big cities of this country. We want to feel that this institution in the public life of this country—because such I believe it is—is not to be eliminated from our life either in Scotland, England, or any other part of the British Isles. If we can have some assurances on those two principal points, I think we can all very readily support the powers for which Glasgow are asking in this Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

I think it will be clear from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), as I think it should be clear, that there is only one small aspect of Clause 4 to which we take objection, and that is what seems to us to be an unnecessary control over the sale of newspapers by newsboys. It seems to me that the local authority in Glasgow will have two main lines of criticism directed towards it if, in fact, it insists upon these powers. The first of those lines of criticisms is that it is in itself creating a new patronage which might be used to its own benefit. That, in their own interest, is a thing they want to avoid having said about themselves. For that reason, therefore, unless some very clear case can be made out that these powers are required to correct an evil, a public nuisance, or some other disadvantage to the public, they should themselves abandon this attitude and avoid this possible line of criticism.

The second main direction of criticism in this matter is that we hear a great deal about the freedom of the Press and I think all sides of this House will agree that the freedom of the Press is one of the institutions in this country to which we most strongly and fundamentally adhere. It is quite true that this is a very small assault upon the freedom of the Press, but it is an assault, because given these powers, a discriminating authority might easily use them in one direction or another. I have not the slightest belief that the local authorities in Glasgow do so intend to use these powers, but they lay themselves open to being accused of discrimination, whether that accusation is well or falsely based. So in their own interests I submit that, unless they can abundantly show that they will cure some even minor evil by demanding these powers, they should abandon them and should follow the instruction that is given here.

What have we heard in support of these powers? Merely that a few isolated and not very serious incidents have occurred of undesirable characters becoming involved in this form of traffic. Surely, however, in a well regulated community like the one to which I have the honour to belong and to represent, police powers which have been found sufficient in other cities can look after anything of that kind. If there is obstruction pavements or undesirable characters are engaged in this trade, I feel quite satisfied that powers already exist to deal with it. Then we hear that there is a considerable increase, or tendency towards increase, in street trading or hawking. That may be so in certain other commodities but, alas, it will not have come to the notice, I am sure, of any hon. Member of this House that there has been an over abundance of Press offered to us in the streets. Therefore any claim that this is on the increase, and becoming a nuisance, certainly cannot be substantiated in regard to the sale of newspapers.

We have had instances of other cities asking for these same powers. Another city not far removed from Glasgow asked for them and, when it came to the stage when this matter had to be decided, the powers were granted with the express exclusion of newspapers. The newsboys have been a benefit to those who wish to buy their newspapers in a hurry on the way to their office or business. They are a community singularly ill adapted to be able to defend themselves against an attack of this kind. That is one of the reasons why I feel that the cudgels must be taken up on their behalf. It is not only in the interests of these individuals who have no association to defend them and no particular body to whom they can appeal, but, I believe, in the interests of Glasgow Corporation itself that the Secretary of State should agree to this Motion.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Woods (Mossley)

This is the first time, I think, that I have spoken in a Scottish Debate. I do so now because I think this is not primarily a Scottish issue. I have on occasions spoken on Glasgow Green, and so exercised the right of free speech in Glasgow. I am concerned that others should exercise the same right and that the people should be entitled to hear speakers or read what speakers of international repute say in Glasgow, or elsewhere. It is suggested that there has already been some limitation on this right of free speech. I think that is all the more reason that the House should give the instruction required. Unless we can maintain and exercise to the fullest degree the right of free speech, Milton has lived in vain and all the lives that have been sacrificed for the freedom of expression have been frittered away.

I appeal to the House to take this matter seriously, not as a Scottish issue, nor in the light of a small percentage of men and women condemned to earn a living in this way. To my mind there is a vital principle at stake. If in any way a local authority can limit the dissemination of ideas and news, by whatever means or in whatever degree, we are starting on a slippery slope. I should be sorry to see such a city as Glasgow taking the initiative in a matter of this kind. If there is to be the right of free speech for an individual to occupy a platform or pulpit, he should be able to sell his pamphlets on the same subject, and the same right should be given for the issue and sale of newspapers. The law as it stands at present gives ample powers to the police to preserve not only the general right of free expression, but the right of an individual to earn his livelihood by selling this or that newspaper or pamphlet, in the circulation of which he is interested. Irrespective of party politics, we have a bounden duty to safeguard to the fullest freedom of the Press and freedom of expression.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

No one who knows the difficulties to be found in industrial cities at present will have any doubt as to the granting of powers to any corporation to regulate freedom of speech, because there may be congestion. In the same way the abuses that take place in street trading should be dealt with by the local authorities. But I have never seen or heard of that case being put up as a reason why street trading in newspapers should be eliminated, regulated, or licensed by Glasgow Corporation. I have heard of newsboys and men and women who have charged a certain amount of money for newspapers. But I have bought papers in Glasgow for about 40 years, bought them frequently sometimes morning and evening, and have never come across a newspaper seller who asked more than the price of the newspaper. I have never heard it alleged by the general public that such was the case. If that is being alleged, it is an excuse, and not a reason for taking this action.

There is no doubt that the ordinary shopkeeper who is a newsagent is antagonistic to street trading of all kinds. Newsagents may circularise hon. Members urging them to support this provision, as they have done. But I am not convinced that it is essential or desirable that the local authority should have powers to regulate either by licence, or in any other way, the sale of papers in the streets. If that is to be done it will be done in a way I have seen it done in several other cities, in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, where a vested interest grew up and certain people got stances which were given to privileged people in order that they might have a large interest instead of the competing interest of the street trader as we know him.

Glasgow Corporation can take these powers and license the sale of newspapers and pamphlets and anything that is riot to their liking. It depends on the people who occupy positions of authority at the time. They may refuse to allow people to sell in the streets. We do know that political bias is operating on both sides and sometimes against allowing political organisations unless under licence to have flag days. Political bias has operated in many ways. Free speech on Glasgow Green was taken away by Glasgow Corporation largely with the assent of the Labour Members except under licence. I do not want a licence to speak or sell a pamphlet or newspaper. I want the written and spoken word, whether it is considered wise or not by the authority of the moment, to have freedom of expression and people to be free to disseminate their literature. If the literature is indecent, the police have power to prevent the sale of trash.

The police have ample powers to deal with any difficulties at the moment. We are told that some of these people have fought over stances. That is true, but very occasionally. It may be that a young man or woman has stood at a certain stance over a period of years, and some other person poaches on the ground and tries to force them down the street. I have seen that happen, but that is the ordinary rough and tumble of the street trader. They themselves are not worried about it, and they can regulate it in a fairly effective manner themselves. But if the Glasgow Corporation get power to regulate the sale of, or to license the sale of, newspapers, what guarantee is there that a man who has built up a stance will be allowed to retain it? What guarantee is there that the widow of a man, may be a one-legged man or a tuberculosis patient, will be allowed to continue in his place, and that some favoured person will not be put into a good stance instead of the man who has built it up? The more I look at the Clause the less I like it.

I would place in the hands of Glasgow Corporation complete power to regulate the ordinary sale of goods, to see that the public are not fleeced in any way, and to see that congestion does not take place in certain places, because of barrows and stances of certain kinds, but the ordinary method of street selling of newspapers has operated fairly well for a long time. These newspaper sellers can be cuffed, checked and decried by every person, because they have no organisation or method of expression, but they have been a great convenience all over the world. It is a great convenience to know that one can get a paper when running to one's train, tram or bus. I do not want to see us cutting down little men by regulations and powers to eliminate or control and license people of this kind. This is too small a thing for a large Corporation to indulge in or to interfere with. Let them deal with all the abuses there are and all the things that are essential at the present time. If there is a case for such a power, it should be general to every part of the country, not specific to one area. I have heard no word spoken and seen no written word that would convince me that it is desirable to do this thing. The Glasgow Corporation and their advisers would be well advised to withdraw this part of the Bill and be content with the other.

7.34 P.m.

Mr. John Henderson (Glasgow, Cathcart)

As one who was a member of the Corporation of Glasgow when this Bill was submitted for their approval, I should like to make one or two observations. The remark of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) to the effect that this was not a unanimous decision of the Corporation is correct. Indeed, many members of the majority party, the Labour Party who are in power, abstained from voting, and one of the most eloquent pleas made against the inclusion of Clause 4, relating to the selling of newspapers, was made by a gentleman who is much respected in the Labour ranks, Sir Patrick Dollan. He made out a very good case as to why the Corporation should not proceed in the direction of controlling and regulating the sale of newspapers in the streets of Glasgow. The decision that was made was not unanimous. No one in Glasgow has asked for it or wants it.

As to the observations which might be made that certain abuses may have taken place, I would say that I have had the honour of being a magistrate and police judge of the City of Glasgow for 15 years, and I cannot recall any occasion when a newsvendor has been brought before the bench on account of any disturbance whatever. Indeed, we might well be proud of our newsvendors. They perform an important and very useful duty. It has been indicated by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that when we come off a train in the late hours of the evening, or when we go for one in the early hours of the morning, we inevitably get our paper from a newsman or a newswoman. I do not think there is a shop within 100 yards of the Municipal Buildings of the Corporation of Glasgow where an evening paper can be purchased, but I know that a newsman stands at the corner of the Municipal Buildings and employees of the Corporation get their papers there. These newsvendors indeed perform a useful purpose.

It might be observed that sometimes they create a combine, that one of them acquires a stance for himself and then develops the business, getting people to go to other corners, putting up the necessary money to finance them, and supplying the papers. Socialist members of the Corporation say that that is all wrong, but is it? Many a man who is in a good position in life today started as a newsboy and developed that something within him. He progressed from the selling of newspapers to employing other men and women to do the job for him and paying them. We take off our hats to the fellow who began by selling newspapers, and has climbed the ladder and got on in the world. We salute him and respect him. Are we to stifle this thing, this desire to develop and encourage the business instinct? Surely that is not a sufficient excuse for the Corporation to try to bring under control and direction the newsvendors of the City of Glasgow?

It is an interference with the rights of the public that they should be told by the Corporation to whom they shall go, when they shall go, and where they shall go to buy their paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] One comes away from a football match or cricket match on a Saturday afternoon and buys a paper. One is interested to know how far certain events which have taken place in the afternoon have been fortunate for oneself or otherwise. It would be extremely difficult for a local authority to regulate where the public should go to buy their papers. The Prime Minister spoke at a luncheon yesterday, and, in the course of a remarkable speech, said: Free discussion, free criticism, whether in Parliament or on the platform or in the Press is the lifeblood of democracy. Surely we have had enough of controls and directions. Surely the liberty of the people has been stretched to its utmost. I suggest that the House tonight should refuse to accede to this request from the Corporation of Glasgow to add another control and direction to the already heavy load on the people of this country. The Corporation of Glasgow have many great qualities. It has been said that what they do today other cities do tomorrow. I have been extremely glad to hear the observations of hon. Members representing English constituencies, because as has already been indicated, no other city in this country has this right and I hope it will be resisted. The germ of control and direction seems to have travelled very rapidly from Westminster to my native city of Glasgow. I hope this request will be resisted.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Smith (Hull, South-West)

We have heard this evening what has been a plea, not in defence of the unorganised newsboy but in defence of the rights of the Newspaper Society to use, as and when they like, child labour for the sale of their newspapers. That the Corporation of Glasgow should have this power is right and proper; that the power to control and regulate should be in the hands of the Newspaper Society is wrong and improper. This is a case where the public highway is to be used for the making of profit. Who should have a say as to what part of the public highway should be required if it is not the local authority? Who better could see that the interests of the whole of the citizens are considered, and not the interests of the owners of the papers? Hon. Members opposite have not said one word that would add to the protection of any newsvendor in Glasgow or any other city. A strong point was made that no city has such a power; but many cities have realised that they ought to have it. Why has no city in England or Scotland this power? It is because when they have sought to have authority over their own streets the Newspaper Society have organised all their powers to obstruct.

I know of one local authority in the South of England who thought that it was a disgrace to have multitudes of sellers in an unorganised scramble for sales. They were unorganised, which some hon. Members want to perpetuate, and unregulated, which they desire to see continued. The local authority were ashamed of it and they wished to put their house in order and to behave in a seemly way towards visitors. It was an authority which did not contain a single Labour representative. They were ashamed of exploiting poverty, which ought to be removed in other ways, and they wanted to do something about it. However, the newspaper owners of England let it be known to that authority that if they persisted in their attempt their town would never be mentioned in the Press so far as they could cause its elimination. It is this attempt by the newspaper owning interests to control the sales and to keep them unregulated that is the impetus behind the opposition to the proposal of the Glasgow Corporation.

A picture has been painted suggesting that unless we allow this indiscriminate hawking of newspapers the democratic Press of our country will be in danger. Of course, there should be the right to sell the printed word. No local authority would dream of wanting to limit it beyond what is right and proper. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said there had been disputes about pitches. I want Glasgow to have this power to protect the men who sell the newspapers. A diligent man may build up a stand and the whim or caprice of a publisher in Glasgow may cause somebody else to be placed alongside him so that he loses half his earnings. Precisely the same action has been taken by industrialists. Men may have been on piece work earning a reasonable amount of money, and industrialists have cut their rates and thus their earnings. I speak in these matters with personal knowledge. I can recall selling my bundle of papers throughout the winter months and with the coming of spring, and the Lincoln Handicap, a publisher who thought "Well, trade is going to improve now," would increase the sellers and cut my earnings. It does not follow that 100 men selling newspapers are necessarily going to sell twice as many as 50 men.

Glasgow expressly state that they have no desire or intention to exclude street selling and certainly no desire to exclude the sale of newspapers, but merely to regulate them. A little while ago I read the autobiography of a former Lord Mayor of Manchester who told the story of his lean days as a youth. He borrowed 4½d. to buy a dozen papers. He was entering a market which was already covered, and when it got to late evening he had sold only eight of his 13 papers. He had not got his capital back and he was landed with five returns. Like a resourceful and alert Manchester youth, he said, "How can I get rid of these five papers?" He went down a side street and shouted out, "Horrible murder in Manchester," and doors opened; he sold his five papers, and disappeared.

Mr. McGovern

And he became Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Smith: He created a demand and then met it. Publishers frequently get the idea that they can flood a market by putting on 50, 60 or 100 men. Thus they crowd the streets and cut the earnings of men doing the job regularly. I have visited most of the countries in Europe, and other places, and there is no country I know in which the sale of newspapers is so unregulated and uncontrolled as in this country. A man who has a stand in a prominent position ought to have available for sale all the papers published in that locality. In the mornings he should display all the national papers. The tendency of the Newspaper Society would be to have one man for one paper. If there are half a dozen newspapers in the centre, there would be half a dozen men attempting to do the job. I ask that we should have protection for those who are doing the selling and not the owning.

In the town which I represent the street traders approached the local authority and asked for control. The local authority had no power under its by-laws and the traders agreed with the Hull police authority that they should have a voluntary scheme. They offered to pay £2 a year as a licence fee so that they could be regulated. It was their experience that they worked up a job and then found someone came and beggared the position, with the result that what had been a reasonable livelihood for one man ceased to provide a living when two men were there. Whenever one wants to introduce new conditions one finds those who want to hold on to the bad old conditions. There is no reason on earth why there should not be the fullest distribution of newspapers. Obviously, the people who handle the papers want to ensure that state of affairs. The men will still want to sell as many as they can. To open the floodgates to bring in these armies of sellers, which can be done just at the whim or caprice of the publishers, is a very undesirable thing. The point is that there is regulation of street trading, but it is done by the Newspaper Society in their own interests. I want regulation by the local authorities and the vendors themselves desire that there should be that regulation for their own protection. I hope the Bill goes through.

7.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood)

I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I intervened very briefly at this stage. The normal procedure in connection with a Bill of this kind, having received its Second Reading, is that it should go to a Select Committee, and that that Select Committee should hear evidence for and against it. I do not want to go into the merits or otherwise of all the points in the Clause which we are now discussing, because the direction which is sought is in connection with a particular part of the Clause. Clause 4 has many more points than that dealing with the sale of newspapers.

Commander Galbraith

We admit all that.

Mr. Westwood

I may not be anxious to allow them all, because there may be a point on which, in submitting a report to the Select Committee, I might suggest that, where we are dealing with local by-laws of this kind, it might be better that they should be approved by the Sheriff rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Commander Galbraith

That will still be open.

Mr. Westwood

It certainly would be open, but I am merely pointing out that it is open for me to do that, and I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits this point. Surely, it is not right to rely on an Instruction being given from this House; rather should we allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee and let the pros and cons be argued out there.

Commander Galbraith

Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that a principle of the nature involved here should go to a Committee which, I understand, consists of only four hon. Members of this House? This is a big issue which should be decided by the House, and not merely by a Committee of only four of its Members.

Mr. Westwood

I entirely agree that it is for the House to decide whether it will give the instruction or not. I am not disputing that, but I suggest that it would be wise to allow the Bill, having received its Second Reading, to go to the Select Committee without an Instruction from this House, so that the merits can be argued for or against before that Select Committee. I myself will have a point of view to put from the Scottish Office, and it will have to be submitted to the Select Committee, but I do not want to enter into the merits of the case either way, and I do not want to prejudice the position. I want the Bill, which has already received its Second Reading, to go, without a specific Instruction from this House so far as Clause 4 is concerned. I would advise hon. Members, irrespective of party—because the Government, as such, do not come into this, since it is private legislation—to allow the Bill to go to the Select Committee without a definite Instruction so that it might be possible for the arguments for and against the Bill to be submitted to that Select Committee with a view to the full discussion of the merits or otherwise of the claims of the City of Glasgow.

Commander Galbraith

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Who would he propose should appear before the Committee and give this evidence? Surely, it is right to ask that question in a matter of this nature.

Mr. Westwood

I am not arguing unconstitutionally. I have already said that it is for this House to decide. Clearly, I am entitled to advise the House, but it will be for the House to decide whether to give the Instruction or not. That is all I am asking. I do not mind the hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing as he is doing, but I am simply saying that he will have a minority vote if he takes the question to a Division.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)

The Secretary of State has said most of what I intended to say on the views of the Corporation of Glasgow. It is a most difficult thing to reply to this discussion, because most of the speakers have laboriously built up an effigy and then set it on fire. What right have they to assume that the Glasgow Corporation will frame such bylaws dealing with newspapers? The Minister has suggested that representations should be made to the Select Committee. That is all that the Corporation are asking—that the power to frame regulations given by this Clause should go before the Select Committee, which should hear evidence. What we are hearing tonight is not evidence at all. We have heard much about the discipline of the Labour Party, and not for the first time. The only people we hear about, in connection with discipline and doing what they are told, are the Labour Party. The remarkable thing is that there are no representations from anybody in favour of this Instruction other than those from the newspaper proprietors. One would naturally think that, if their case is so strong, the correct place to go is to the four wise men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said this is a serious matter. Not two months ago, I myself said the same thing in another case of private legislation—the Inverness Water Bill, which involved either the closing down or the diversion of the water supplies of the people, which had been entrusted to four men. Three of them were Tories, and they arrived at a unanimous decision.

I have confidence in a Select Committee of this House dealing with evidence as they get it. irrespective of what their political complexion may be. I do not want to accuse the hon. and gallant Gentleman of speaking on behalf of a vested interest, because, when we start to deal with a matter like this, there are all sorts of vested interests, but they have nothing to do with this. When the Glasgow Corporation proposed to build a new bridge, one of the councillors was going over the bridge which served the city then, and still does—the Jamaica Bridge—when he was stopped, not by a newspaper proprietor, but by a newsboy, who said, "I understand you are going to build another bridge further away?" When he received the answer "Yes," he replied, "You are pinching half of my custom." It is too ludicrous, and I am expressing no view, one way or another. I am not saying anything except that what the Corporation is asking this House to do is that, having given a Second Reading to the Bill without opposition, it should pin its faith and confidence in the Select Committee which will hear the evidence. I am quite satisfied that the newspaper proprietors will give evidence, but it will have to be convincing evidence, and, before the bylaws can be approved, they must receive the sanction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The difficulty in dealing with this is that one is trying to specify the unspecifiable. I do not want to give a long dissertation on what, as a member of a local authority, I have done, although I could tell hon. Members a lot of things in connection with food control. But it has nothing whatever to do with this, All that is sought here is that: The Corporation may make bye-laws for regulating the hawking, selling or offering or exposing for sale in any street of goods or articles of any description in this Section referred to as street trading:… They do not specify anything. Subsection (2, a) says: authorising the Corporation to grant permits to any person to engage or be employed in street trading and regulating the conditions on which such permits may be granted, suspended or revoked. No hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Instruction has even had the courtesy to quote to the House, most of whose Members have not read what the Corporation are after, the Regulations. Subsection (2, b) states: determining the days and hours during which and the streets or parts of streets in which persons may engage or be employed in street trading.… What is all this about the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech? My submission is that 90 per cent. of the speeches have been absolutely irrelevant. Hon. Members opposite have created an effigy which they have then set on fire. If as much heat could be engendered about something which really matters, the Debates in this House would be much more interesting. Subsection (2, c) says: regulating in any other respect the conduct of persons whilst so engaged or employed. Clause 4 (3) reads: Such bye-laws shall before coming into operation be confirmed by the Secretary of State and may be enforced by penalties imposed… My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins) wanted an undertaking from the Corporation that there would be no question of enforcing a prohibition. This is not a Regulation dealing with newspapers; it is a Regulation dealing with trading in the streets. I have not told the House which side of the fence I am on, but, in any case, if there is evidence to be submitted—and the peculiar thing is that there is a whole lot of evidence to be given against the other Clauses by people who had not the courage to give it on the Floor of the House—it will go to the Select Committee. Some Members have more faith in the Select Committee than they have in the House of Commons.

Finally, when the Select Committee have finished their deliberations, I think I am correct in saying that their findings will come back to this House for Report and Third Reading—the verbatim report of the proceedings will be available to hon. Members and they can either confirm or reject the recommendations of that Committee. All that the Glasgow Corporation is asking is that this Instruction should not be sent, and the matter left to the free, unfettered discretion of

Division No. 151. AYES. 8.05 p.m
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hurd, A. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Aitken, Hon. Max Hutchison Lt-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Baldwin, A. E. Keeling, E. H. Smithers Sir W.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Snadder, W. M.
Bennett, Sir P. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Bossom, A. C. Lloyd, Selwyn Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Studholme, H. G.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. McCallum, Maj. D. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W McGovern, J. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Turton, R. H.
Bullock, Capt. M. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Challen, C. Marsden, Capt A. Walker, G. H.
Clarke, Col. R. S Marshall, D (Bodmin) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Cluse, W. S. Mellor, Sir J. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Conant, Maj R. J. E. Molson, A. H E. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Naylor, T. E. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Nutting, Anthony Woods, G. S.
Drayson, G. B. Prescott, Stanley York, C.
Drewe, C. Rayner, Brig. R. Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)
Foster, J. G (Northwich) Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Haughton, S. G. Savory, Prof. D. L. Commander Galbraith and
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Scott, Lord W. Col. J. R. Hutchison
NOES.
Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Colman, Miss G. M. Herbison, Miss M.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Cook, T. F. Hobson, C. R.
Allighan, Garry Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Holman, P.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Crossman, R. H. S. Hoy, J.
Awbery, S. S. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hubbard, T.
Ayles, W. H. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Deer, G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Balfour, A. Delargy, Captain H. J. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Barstow, P. G Diamond, J. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Barton, C. Donovan, T. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Bechervaise, A. E. Douglas, F. C. R. Janner, B.
Berry, H. Dumpleton, C. W. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Blackburn, A. R. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Blyton, W. R. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Bowen, R. Fairhurst, F. Keenan, W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Farthing, W. J. Kenyon, C.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Follick, M. King, E. M.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Foot, M M. Kinley, J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kirby, B. V.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Gallacher, W Kirkwood, D.
Buchanan, G. Gibbins, J. Lavers, S.
Burden, T. W. Gilzean, A. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Champion, A. J. Glanville, J. E (Consett) Leonard, W.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Leslie, J. R.
Cobb, F. A. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Levy, B. W.
Coldrick, W. Hardy, E. A. Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Collick, P. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Lyne, A. W.
Collindridge, F. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) McAdam, W.

the Select Committee to take evidence and to come to a measured judgment on the evidence submitted. I submit to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that he ought to be big enough on this occasion to indicate, on behalf of himself and his hon. Friends, that they will withdraw this Instruction, and allow the matter to go forward without it.

Question put, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred to exclude from the operation of Clause 4 the sale of newspapers in streets.

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 182.

McAllister, G. Perrino, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. La T. Popplewell, E. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Porter, E (Warrington) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
McKinlay, A. S. Porter, G. (Leeds) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Price, M. P. Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
McLeavy, F. Pryde, D. J. Tolley, L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford) Ranger, J. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Mann, Mrs. J. Rankin, J. Usborne, Henry
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Reeves, J. Wadsworth, G.
Marquand, H. A. Reid, T. (Swindon) Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Mathers, G. Scott-Elliot, W. Watson, W. M.
Medland, H. M. Segal, Dr. S. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr E. A. A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Wigg, Col. G. E
Moody, A. S. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Wilkes, Maj L.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Simmons, C. J. Wilkins, W. A.
Morley, R. Skinnard, F. W. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mort, D. L Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Moyle, A Smith, T. (Normanton) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Nally, W. Snow, Capt. J. W. Willis, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Wilson, J. H
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford) Sparks, J. A. Woodburn, A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady Stamford, W. Yates, V. F.
O'Brien, T. Steele, T. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Oldfield, W. H. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Zilliacus, K.
Orbach, M. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)
Paget, R. T. Stross, Dr. B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Pargiter, G. A. Swingler, Capt. S. Mr. Hannon and Mr. Forman
Pearson, A. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)