PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) (Hansard, 1 August 1956)

§ Mr. J. E. S. Simon (Middlesbrough, West)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of certain bodies exercising public functions. On 8th June this year an important and constructive debate was initiated in the House by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in which there was expressed a general consensus of opinion on the desirability of associating public opinion more closely with the processes of local government. The Bill which I seek to bring in is an attempt to implement what was clearly the sense of the House on that occasion.
It was widely expressed that in a democratic community Government processes should, so far as possible, be carried on subject to the scrutiny of the people. Without publicity there can be no proper control of elected bodies; and it was felt that the local authorities, in particular, should take a proper and wider cognizance of public opinion. But public opinion cannot be expressed in an enlightened way unless it is an informed opinion. An enlightened public opinion is not only a safeguard against corruption, but is also a safeguard against what is probably a much more serious danger than corruption in our public affairs—it is the only proper protection against "bumbledom".
The other important aspect emphasised on the occasion of that debate was the importance of educating public opinion in these matters. It is quite clear that members of the public themselves cannot take complete responsibility for the steps necessary in these matters. They must be provided with eyes and ears, and they rely on the Press for that. In fact, in purchasing a newspaper, a member of the public is really employing a reporter to be his eyes and ears; to go into public meetings, particularly meetings of local authorities, to garner the information needed for him to inform himself and make up his mind.
On the other hand, of course, there is the danger of anybody exercising deliberative and executive functions having a tendency to secrecy, a temptation to mystery- 1410 mongering. There was a time when this House forbade any report of its proceedings, but, happily, those days are long passed. But it was only comparatively recently, in 1908, that an Act was passed which provided similar publicity for meetings of local authorities; an Act which provided that representatives of the Press should be admitted to meetings of local authorities as defined.
Unfortunately, that Act is out of date and there are many gaps to be filled. In the first place, some local authorities deliberately seek to evade it. Only a minority do so, but there are some local authorities which do that. The 1908 Act did not extend to meetings of committees; and, therefore, nothing is easier than for a local authority desiring to derogate from the spirit of the 1908 Act, to meet in committee of the whole council and to come there to all its decisions, and then merely to report them to an open meeting of the council.
Secondly, many public functions formerly exercised by local authorities are now exercised by other public bodies. For example, in 1908 many gas and electricity undertakings were carried on by local authorities. Today, so far as public opinion is concerned, reliance must be placed on the consultative councils of the industries, and the Press has no right, under the Statute, to attend the meetings of such bodies. Then again, in 1908, the appropriate local education authorities were expressly open to the Press. Today, under the 1944 Act, the authorities are not so open. They do not fall within the scope of the 1908 Act. Finally, the Press cannot do its job properly unless it knows in advance what is to be discussed, and is provided with a copy of the minutes and the agenda.
The Association of Municipal Corporations has, in the past, discountenanced, the sort of measures, which I have described, which are taken to evade the Act: but they still continue. There is a considerable variation among local authorities regarding the amount of publicity which they permit. It varies between one authority and an adjacent authority, and the variations run right across party differences.
The aim of the Measure which I seek to bring in, with the support of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, is to restore the position as it was in 1908, 1411 and to extend it. Opinions may differ as to the precise scope, and as to where one should stop. Clearly, for some deliberations it would be undesirable to have publicity. The sort of matters which I have in mind will immediately occur to hon. Gentlemen, such as discussions about children who are in the care of the local authority.

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
And contracts.

§ Mr. Simon
Yes; the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) mentions contracts. This Measure would provide the same safeguards as are to be found in the 1908 Act, to the effect that the Press may be excluded by resolution from the discussion on any particular item.
As I said, the proposed Measure has the support of hon. Members of all parties. It has also received the support of the National Association of Local Government Officers, to which I attach great importance. It seeks to bring about enlightened democratic public opinion, which is an important element in the preservation of civil liberty. As this House is the nursery of much of the civil liberty that exists in the world today, I humbly ask, with confidence, that I may be given leave to bring in this Measure.

§ Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)
I want to express a point of view contrary to that of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). I have spent a lifetime in local government. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has had much experience on the elective side of local government. My authority for speaking is that I have been a member of four local authorities in my time.
It is rather odd that we should be asked to bring this principle into the public sector of government, when I have never seen anything coming from the Government side of this House to suggest that we should pry more into the affairs of private companies. The hon. and learned Gentleman represents a party that never publishes its balance sheet. There have been suggestions in the House that the Tory Party should publish its balance sheet in exactly the same way as does the Labour Party. When I stand for election, the source of my election expenses 1412 is well known, locally and nationally. We can never be sure about the Tory Party.
When the Tory Party came back, in 1951, the first Bill it introduced raised the question of the licences of public houses in the new towns. Questions were asked why the President of the Brewers' Society had taken the place of the President of the Band of Hope Union upstairs. It was suggested that there had been an Election contribution of £100,000 from the Brewers' Society to the Tory Party. That has never been denied in this House. This is the party that now comes forward as the custodian of liberty so that local government shall be decent and everything shall be seemly and open to the public.
It seems to me that the basis of all democracy should be equity. We ought to have a general enabling Bill that would bring the rights of the Press into the company board meeting so as to prevent abuses such as the Dockers. When all is said and done, does the Press deserve to go into public meetings? Read the average local newspaper. Can we find out whether the local Press deals with matters of grave public concern, or whether it does not rather tend to reduce local government to the ridiculous?

§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
It depends upon the type of Press.

§ Mr. Pannell
It depends also upon the local council. There can be no question that there is a case for a reasonable reticence on the part of local government bodies, not only about the protection of children but on staff matters, when discussing the normal relations with the staff, and on questions of discipline within the local authority itself. Very often that sort of thing needs inquiry in committee and in camera. There is a case for publicity, but there is also a case, which is understated at the present time, for reticence.
The public is already very well protected, because local authorities have to go into open council. If there were a Bill limiting the local authorities' public discussion of matters dealt with in camera in committee that would be one thing, but this Measure lays emphasis on all committees of the council being open to the public. It is rather strange that this House, which is the master of its own 1413 procedure and is very careful, on occasions, to protect by privilege its own Select Committees, should be asked to bring forward a Bill to lay an obligation on local authorities to open their affairs to the public.
This all springs from the curious air of condescension which comes from this House towards local government. I have protested against it before. The assumption is that somehow local councils are the junior partner in government while this House is the senior partner, that men who come to this House are cast in a different mould from councillors, and that councillors are not quite so good as we are and are not moved by the same standards or the same consideration of the public well-being. We had that atmosphere the other evening on a transport Bill, when it was suggested that nothing should be done in a great city like Leeds or London without the consent of the Minister, which really means a middle-placed official in the Civil Service. I object to that attitude towards local government.
I say to the Press, in relation to its treatment of this House, "I am not so sure that the Press deserves well of local government." What does the Press think of this House? Look at the average newspaper. Does it give a balanced summation of the political affairs of this House? It will give a fairly good report of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, not only because it is a good speech but because it is generally in the interests of the Press. Look at the average organ of the Press today; is it really catering for an intelligent democracy? I am not blaming the gentlemen who look after our affairs in this House—the Lobby correspondents and the reporters—but the editors who may have to consider what is fit for 1414 publication, and the newspaper proprietors generally.
I hope that Government supporters will not forget what I have often said before, that it is sometimes a good thing for us that the tripe that goes into the Press today wraps up the fish and chips tomorrow. I take a strong view of these things and that remark is not entirely derisory.
It may be said that the party system is responsible for the news treatment of what we put out and in the treatment of back bench speeches. Back benchers get no show in this House. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is belatedly coming out as a champion of the back benchers.
I condemn the proposed Measure as an expression of intolerance towards local government. Because I want local government to be an equal partner with Parliament, because I fundamentally believe that private activities of companies should be equally open to scrutiny with public activities and so should the accounts of the Tory Party, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Bill.