HL Deb 29 October 1908 vol 195 cc405-26

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

LORD BELPER said the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper raised a question of some importance. This Bill was the first that he knew of that dealt with the Press quite apart from the public. As far as he was aware, the Press, wherever they were admitted, were admitted in the name of the public, and if for any reason it was desirable during any part of the proceedings of a local authority to clear the room where the meeting was held so that the proceedings should not be public, the public was excluded and with the public also the Press. In the same way, when a Court was cleared the public and the Press went out; the Press did not remain when the public was excluded. That being the case, he thought it was worthy of consideration whether it was wise in a Bill of this sort to ignore the question of the public altogether. In this particular clause only representatives of the Press were referred to, and he believed it was generally recognised that where one particular class of people was mentioned in an Act, other classes were excluded from its provisions. Therefore, if the Press was mentioned in the Bill without any reference to the public the position of the public as having rights to be present at the meetings in question with the Press would be considerably altered. He fully recognised that it was desirable that the Press should have adequate accommodation, representing as they did that portion of the public who could not be present; but there was no reason why the rest of the public should not be admitted as well. He had called attention to this matter on the Second Reading, and the more he considered the question the more undesirable it seemed to him to be that the public should be ignored in the Bill. He moved an Amendment to secure the object he had in view which would make the clause read— The public, including representatives of the Press, shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority. Amendment moved— In page 1, line 5, at the beginning of sub-section (1) to insert the words 'The public including.'"—(Lord Belper.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said there was no intention whatever, on the part of anybody interested in the Bill, to interfere in any way with the privileges at present enjoyed by the public. If the noble Lord really thought the public would be injured by not being mentioned in the clause, he would be perfectly willing at a later stage to put in a proviso to the effect that— Nothing in this Act shall in any way prejudice the rights of the public to admission. It would not be practicable in all cases to carry out the noble Lord's Amendment, seeing that the great majority of local authorities had no room for the public. The county councils and other important municipal authorities possessed large meeting halls in which they were able to accommodate the Press and the public, but this did not apply to many of the smaller authorities. The Bill, he was told, would affect some 7,000 parish councils throughout the country.

LORD BELPER

asked how many of them the Press would attend.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said it was extremely desirable that the Press should have power to attend all of them, and it was with that desire that the Bill had been drawn in its present form. It was not always advisable to allow the public to be present when it was advisable that the Press should be. Recent events in the London County Council made it necessary that the gallery should be cleared, but there was no reason to remove the members of the Press who knew perfectly well how to behave themselves. It was found necessary, he understood, the previous night to clear certain galleries in the House of Commons, but it was not found necessary to clear the Reporters' Gallery. He suggested to the noble Lord that if the Amendment were carried inconveniences might arise of this kind. If the noble Lord would be satisfied with some such proviso as he had adumbrated, he would be glad to arrange the matter with him before the next stage.

*LORD ALLENDALE

, on behalf of the Government, said he wished to support the noble Earl in what he had said. There was no intention of excluding the public, but the Amendment of Lord Belper, which he understood was being moved on behalf of the County Councils Association, entirely altered the scope of the Bill. He believed all county councils admitted both the Press and the public, but it was almost impossible to arrange for the public, to be present at meetings of the smaller bodies. He hoped Lord Belper would accept some such proviso as that suggested by Lord Donoughmore.

LORD BELPER

could not conceive that there would be any difficulty at all in admitting the public as well as the Press even to the meetings of the smaller authorities. What was proposed by the Bill, but what he did not propose with regard to the general public, was that special accommodation should be set aside for the Press. The Press would have that special accommodation, and if there was any available room afterwards the public would be able to come in. The number of people desirous of attending parish council meetings was not likely to be very large. There did not seem to him to be any reason why a Bill which said that the Press should be admitted should not also say that the public should be admitted. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government had said that this Amendment was being moved on behalf of the County Councils Association. That was not so. The point struck him as requiring attention during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore he had put down the Amendment on his own initiative. The other Amendments standing in his name on the Paper, however, were being proposed on behalf of the County Councils Association. As to the proviso which the noble Earl had suggested, it was rather difficult to withdraw an Amendment in favour of something the exact form of which was not before them.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

explained that the proviso which he suggested would, subject to legal revision, read— Nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the rights enjoyed by the public of attending meetings of local authorities.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said there was this objection to that proposal, that it gave the Press an independent status of its own quite apart from the public, and that was taken exception to in their Lordships' House on the Second Reading.

LORD BURGHCLERE

did not think Lord Belper's Amendment would carry out what the noble Lord himself desired. The noble Lord had said that the Press would necessarily be admitted to the meetings of the smaller bodies, and that if there was any room left the public might come in. But the Amendment would provide that the public as well as the representatives of the Press should be admitted to the meetings of every local authority. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried the public would have an equal right with the representatives of the Press.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My noble friend on my left pointed out a moment ago that, unless some Amendment of this kind were inserted, the clause would give to the Press a special privilege as distinguished from other classes of society. I think that is true; but, on the other hand, what we have to remember is that this is a Bill which does not purport to deal with the right of access of the public to those meetings, but especially with the right of the Press. Therefore, there does seem to me to be something to be said for dealing with the Press in a special manner. I understand that Lord Donoughmore is quite ready to insert words at another stage of the Bill which would safeguard any rights which the public now habitually exercise, and that, I venture to think, is the more appropriate way of dealing with the point.

LORD BELPER

said that, after the discussion that had taken place, he would withdraw his Amendment for the present and wait to see the form which Lord Donoughmore's Amendment would take. His object was that both the Press and the public should have equal rights of entry, but he did not desire that the public should be allowed to take the seats set apart for the Press.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

moved to omit the first part of the sub- section declaring that the representatives of the Press should be admitted, in order to insert: "Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority." He said that his Amendments on the Paper appeared rather lengthy, but the first Amendment raised the whole question, the others being simply consequential. He thought he could claim Lord Donoughmore as a supporter of his Amendment, because the noble Earl had said that he aimed at the proceedings of every parish council throughout the country being reported. He was perfectly certain that if the noble Earl expected that, he would not get it. He did not much believe in the reporting in the local Press, because he knew what happened. The facts—that was to say, the bare agenda—was no doubt given. It was not necessary to have a Bill of this sort to secure that. Parliament might enact, if it were necessary, that every local authority should allow its agenda to be seen by the public, and then the newspapers could make what extracts they pleased. At present, discussions which took half-an-hour were reported in half-a-dozen lines, and the only discussions which was really reported at length were those of a personal character. If publicity were desirable—and he did not know that it was in the case of the proceedings of every little local authority—it must be secured in another way altogether, namely, by an official report. Official reporting, as they knew, had been a great success wherever it had been tried. The official reporting for Hansard in their Lordships' House he believed all their Lordships would agree was admirably done, and the reporting of Committees upstairs was first-rate. If they desired really adequate reporting of the proceedings of local authorities for the purposes of publicity they must have official reports. He did not himself think that this publicity was at all necessary. Indeed, he was not very much enamoured of his own Amendment, but he took it that the House, by passing the Second Reading of this Bill, had, provisionally, at any rate, expressed the opinion that publicity was desirable, and he had placed his Amendment on the Paper in order to take the view of the House as to whether the method he suggested was not the proper one of securing that object. But there was another great objection to the Bill as it stood. It placed the Press in a position it had never held before in this country. The Press, at present, had no official position, so far as he was aware, in England, although he was told it had in Ireland. By this Bill they were proposing to give gentlemen of the Press a status and a right which they had never had before. The Bill did not appear to meet with the approval of the Institute of Journalists. The Institute of Journalists objected to it very much, and the grounds of their objection were so curious that he would ask their Lordships' leave to read a few lines from a Memorandum which had been sent to him by that body— If the measure be placed upon the Statute-book with this title it will be made to appear to judicial, public, and other authorities, and to all whom it will concern, as if there had been no previous provision 'for the admission' of the Press to the meetings in question. Whereas, to present common knowledge, there is, in long-established fact, very effectual provision. It is probably not necessary, in this connection, to inquire into the nature of the forces by which this provision is maintained—whether they include any element of the sanction or support of law, or whether they rest entirely upon the support of public opinion. Therefore the Institute of Journalists were already claiming a legal right for Press representatives to be present at the meetings of local authorities. He did not think that assumption should be supported or justified. Why was the Press to be placed in a position in which no other member of the public was placed? It seemed to him that the Press should have exactly the same facilities as the rest of the public—neither more nor less. He objected very much to giving an official status to a set of gentlemen who lived by their excessive inquisitiveness, who were continually forcing themselves into everybody's affairs, who wanted to know what their Lordships took for breakfast, all about their houses, gardens, pictures, and everything else. He actually remembered an instance, not very long ago, where a friend of his had the management of the funeral of a near relative, and, desiring that it should be of a very private character, was made the subject of comment in the local newspaper because of the enormity that no provision for the Press had been made at the funeral, and that, therefore, they had been unable to give an adequate account of the proceedings. The tone of those gentlemen was that they had a right to go everywhere and see everything. He was not in favour of giving legal sanction to a class of persons in that temper and frame of mind. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated, during the Second Reading discussion, that the decision in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason was to the effect that the Press attended all meetings of local authorities practically on sufferance. He thought that was precisely the position in which the Press should remain. He had yet to learn that there had been experienced any difficulty on the part of the Press in attending the meetings of local authorities, except in this very exceptional instance, where there appeared to have been one newspaper which was distasteful to a number of the members. The method proposed in the Bill was not the right one for securing publicity, and, though not pretending that he was anxious for the appointment of an official reporter in the case of all these local bodies because he thought it was very unnecessary, he had placed his Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of indicating what, in his opinion, was the only proper method of securing that which it had been said was desired.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) to the word 'Provided' in line 6, and to insert the words 'Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said the noble Duke had a considerable advantage over him, and one which he did not anticipate that he would have. It appeared that the Institute of Journalists had sent round a Memorandum on the subject of this Bill. He presumed that many of their Lordships had received a copy, but the Institute had been careful not to send him one. He had not, therefore, had an opportunity of perusing it. But he might mention that the Institute of Journalists had nothing whatever to do with this Bill. They had no hand in drafting it, and the Bill was not being promoted on their behalf. In the document from which the noble Duke had quoted, it was apparently claimed by the Institute of Journalists that the Press had already a perfect right to attend all meetings of local authorities, but, as the noble Duke had pointed out, the judgment in Tenby Corporation v. Mason supplied a complete answer to that claim. He was told that the Institute of Journalists was a body of 2,500 members, of whom very few had much to do with reporting, and therefore were only a small percentage of the tens of thousands of journalists throughout the country who were intimately interested in the proposals of the Bill. His objection to the noble Duke's Amendment was that it amounted practically to the rejection of the Bill and the substitution of an entirely different measure in its place. The Bill did very little more than regularise and confirm the practice of admitting representatives of the Press to the meetings of local authorities, which was now general throughout the country. The noble Duke would exclude the ordinary Press representatives, and set up a system of official reports. These official reports would, in fact, operate against publicity, for they would not be ready until two or three days after the meeting. The public desired their news quick and consequently these reports would be of no use to the Press at all. It would also be a costly system, and no provision was made in the noble Duke's Amendments for defraying that cost. It would mean the appointment of an official reporter to every one of the 7,000 local authorities in the country.

LORD FABER

said it did not follow that if the newspapers were supplied with long official reports of speeches they would publish them. Noble Lords were mistaken if they thought that the mere fact of an official reporter being present and taking down the discussions at the meetings of small parish councils all over the country would mean publicity, unless the Press were heavily paid to insert the reports.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the noble Duke might have somewhat inconvenient results if the Committee were to adopt it. My noble friend suggests that throughout the length and breadth of the country we should introduce a system of official reporting, even at the meetings of the smallest local authorities. Now there seems to me to be all the difference in the world between saying to the local Press, "You may be present at these meetings, you may report as much or as little as you please in the interests of publicity," and appointing all over the country reporters upon whom would be imposed the duty of compiling an official record of the proceedings. The noble Duke referred to the manner in which the proceedings in this House are reported, and I am sure we all agree with him that nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which that duty is performed. But does the noble Duke suppose that it would be possible to discover all over the United Kingdom reporters as competent to reproduce faithfully the local discussions which take place as the gentleman who reproduces our Parliamentary debates? I am afraid the result of the change would be this, that you would have all over the country a small army of third or fourth-rate reporters, whose reports, in spite of the absence of skill of those who made them, would be invested with a kind of artificial authority to which they really would not be at all entitled. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend's Amendment.

*LORD ALLENDALE

intimated that the Government were opposed to the Amendment, as they considered it entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It was very doubtful, to his mind, whether the noble Duke's proposal was in order. The Bill might be a good Bill or a bad Bill, but the Amendment had really nothing to do with it. As Lord Donoughmore had pointed out, there were 7,000 parish councils in England and Wales, and he thought it rather absurd that one or more reporters should be appointed solemnly to record their debates at a very considerable expense.

LORD BELPER

hoped the noble Duke Would not press his Amendment. It would really be impracticable in practice, and would involve very heavy expense. Moreover, it was quite unnecessary that the discussions at the meetings of small local authorities should be reported at length.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said he would withdraw his Amendment with the greatest pleasure. He did not very much believe in it himself. To set up a system of official reporting would be a waste of time and money; but the fact remained that it was the only way of having the proceedings of local authorities properly reported.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to delete from subsection (1) the words "But nothing in this proviso shall empower a local authority to discriminate against the representative of any particular newspaper." He explained that these words were in the Bill before subsections (2) and (3) were added in the House of Commons, and, through an oversight, were not struck out. Sub-section (2) was the really protective provision.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'interest' to the end of the subsection."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to amend subsection (3) which ran— (3) If any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by any such regulations made as aforesaid, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Board may order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations in such a manner as they may think fit, 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, by omitting the words "feels aggrieved by," and inserting the words "is excluded under." It had been pointed out by Lord Wenlock on the Second Reading that the subsection as at present drafted might give any representative of the Press a right to appeal to the Local Government Board on the ground that he was not comfortable or that the accommodation with which he had been provided was not adequate, and endless trouble and confusion would be caused. It was never intended that that should be the effect of the subsection, and the object of his Amendment was to make the point clear.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'feels aggrieved by,' and to insert the words 'is excluded under.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

EARL RUSSELL

asked whether the noble Earl was quite sure that the subsection was not intended to refer to the accommodation provided. He had read it as referring exclusively to that. Without it the object of the Bill might be defeated by the provision of accommodation in some distant part of the building in which the reporters could neither write nor hear. In that case they would have no remedy under the Amendment although they would feel aggrieved.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

was afraid that in such a case the reporters would have no remedy except what they could possibly secure as electors.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit subsection (3) altogether, said that, although the Amendment to which the Committee had just agreed made the subsection rather more practicable, it did not remove his objection, which was that it was perfectly impossible, in a matter of this kind, for the Local Government Board to supervise the arrangements made, not only by county councils, but by all the smaller local authorities throughout the country. It was impossible for this duty to be performed at a distance, and the Local Government Board staff had quite enough to do without being sent round the country to see whether reporters might not be provided with better accommodation. He understood that this subsection was inserted at the suggestion of the London County Council. He could quite understand that body desiring in this matter to have an arbitrator on the spot, and in that case there would be no difficulty. But it was quite impossible for the Local Government Board to exercise effective control over the accommodation provided throughout the country. He hoped the subsection would not be pressed, as it seemed to him totally unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 23, to page 2, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Belper.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

defended the subsection. It was necessary to have some safeguard against unfair exclusion. There was a recent case at Tenby where a reporter was excluded on account of his personal opinions. This subsection had been introduced at the desire of the London County Council, their reason being that more reporters might wish to attend the meetings of the Council than accommodation could be provided for. The mere existence of such a safeguard would very often make its actual use in practice unnecessary. The fact that the appeal existed would make local authorities careful to give no cause for appeal. The effect of the subsection would be more indirect than direct, and he did not think there was any fear that the Local Government Board would be overworked as a result of its insertion.

*LORD ALLENDALE

said the Local Government Board had no particular desire to undertake the rather ungrateful task of arbitrating between the local authority and the aggrieved Press representative; but, on the other hand, they thought there ought to be some right of appeal. The Local Government Board were, therefore, prepared to accept the position of being the authority to be appealed to. If, however, the noble Lord would prefer some other authority, perhaps he would suggest one, and no doubt his suggestion would receive consideration.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

asked if local authorities were to find accommodation for any number of Press men who attended?

LORD BELPER

Yes.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said it seemed so to him. In that case, it would in many instances mean building.

*LORD FABER

thought the noble Duke need not be alarmed. There was not the least likelihood of twenty, thirty, or more reporters rushing to attend a parish council meeting. Reporters only attended the meetings of local authorities when the business was of vital public interest. In the belief that there was no likelihood of there being any such rush as had been referred to, he would vote against the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said the county council over which he presided would find extreme difficulty in accommodating twenty reporters. If it really was the case that the Bill meant that local authorities were to find accommodation, at whatever inconvenience or expense to themselves, for any number of reporters who chose to attend, the provision should be amended in some way.

EARL RUSSELL

said he spoke only from memory, but he was under the impression that by the existing law every ratepayer or parish elector already had the right to attend parish council meetings. Therefore, as far as the provision of accommodation was concerned, the existing law enforced that on even the smallest bodies.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH

asked what was the use of the Bill if that were so. If every inhabitant could attend the meetings, where was the necessity for reporting them? His county council had sufficient accommodation for the representatives of the Press who attended; but if they were to have a great rush under this Bill were they to go to a large expense in structural alterations? He hoped Lord Belper would divide the Committee on the Amendment.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

pointed out that the subsection only referred to the exclusion by regulation. The point was that if a local authority made a regulation, excluding any individual journalist, he should have a right to appeal. A certain authority recently did make a regulation excluding a certain individual, and there had been other instances.

LORD BELPER

said it had come to a pass when Parliament was asked to enact a provision of this kind because one or two authorities had done something exceptional. By this subsection the discretion of county councils with regard to their own buildings was to be placed in the hands of a central authority. Really, grandmotherly legislation was being carried in this way to a ridiculous extreme, and, in order to enter a protest, he would certainly divide the Committee on the Amendment. The noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board had suggested that if he (Lord Belper) did not like the Local Government Board to be the authority to be appealed to, some other authority should be named. That was not his business. But he did contend that people returned by the county to sit upon the county council were fully qualified to make the necessary arrangements in regard to their own council chamber.

EARL RUSSELL

referred the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the language of the subsection. Lord Donoughmore had said that what might be appealed against was a regulation excluding the reporter or his newspaper. But the words in the subsection were that the regulations which might be appealed against were "regulations made as aforesaid." Those were the regulations contained in subsection 2, and no regulation made under that subsection could possibly exclude the representatives of any newspaper.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said that the manner in which the accommodation, referred to in subsection 2, was allotted could easily exclude certain individuals.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

doubted whether, even if the subsection remained as it stood, an increased number of reporters would wish to attend the meetings If they did, they would only ask for reasonable accommodation.

*LORD ALLENDALE

, replying to Lord Belper's contention that the Local Government Board could not know the local circumstances, said that if there was an appeal the Board would, of course, send someone down to hold an inquiry and report. They would not capriciously make an order without ascertaining the circumstances.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I confess that what I have heard said in reference to this subsection does not increase my affection for it. It appears to me to involve a great deal of what looks like superfluous legislation, and the question I should like to ask some Member of your Lordships' House who can speak with authority on the legal point is this. We have, in subsection (1), given representatives of the Press the right of being admitted to all these meetings. Suppose you say nothing more after that, and one of these local bodies endeavours to exclude a Press representative, would it not be the case that he would have a remedy at common law without the elaborate precautions proposed to be taken under this subsection? If that is so, then I say leave the sub-section out.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said that if he accepted this Amendment now it was only in order that he might consult the London County Council on the subject. He might desire to reintroduce it, confining its operation to London.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)

said he did not presume to address their Lordships on the legal point raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition; but he wished to insist upon this, that what the Committee were now discussing could not apply to anything that occurred under subsection (1). The only point before the Committee at the moment was the regulations which could be made under sub-section (2).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to amend the fourth subsection, which ran— (4) On receiving a written request from the editor or the local representative of any newspaper, the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of the meetings of the local authority to the office of such newspaper or to such local representative, by leaving out the words "or the local representative." This subsection had, he said, met with a great deal of criticism during the Second Reading discussion, and it was to meet that criticism that he had placed on the Paper the Amendments standing in his name to the subsection. The words as they stood were originally inserted because it was felt that the local representative was on the spot and that it would be more convenient that he should be communicated with. It had, however, been suggested that difficulties might arise, and therefore he now proposed to confine the provision to the editor of any newspaper.

Amendment moved— In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'or the local representative.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to insert in subsection (4), after the word "newspaper," the words "ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority." He explained that these words were in the Bill as originally drafted, but were accidentally omitted.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 7, after the word 'newspaper' to insert the words 'ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER

then moved the omission of subsection (4). He explained that this Amendment was put down on behalf of the County Councils Association, but he felt that the Amendment to which the Committee had just agreed considerably modified the subsection as it had previously stood. In its old form the subsection enabled any representative of any newspaper throughout the country to call upon the clerk to send him due notice of the meetings of the local authority. The custom of the county council with which he was connected was to send not only notices of the meetings but also the agendas to those newspapers which were habitually represented at the council meetings. He believed that was the practice in the case of county councils throughout the country, and therefore, so far as those bodies were concerned, the provision in the Bill would not alter the present procedure, but would make what was a practice by courtesy a law by statute. He was not competent to say whether the proposal would be met by other local authorities in the same spirit; but, as far as county councils were concerned, he would not be inclined, if those with whom he generally acted and who represented county councils took the same view, to press his Amendment for the entire omission of subsection (4) now that, it had been amended.

Amendment moved— In page 2, lines 6 to 10, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

hoped this Amendment would be insisted upon. The present practice had been explained by Lord Belper. The county clerk was one of those maids-of-all-work on whom everybody, the Treasury included, thought they had a right to impose duties. The more they heard of this Bill the more absurd its enactments seemed, and on the Third Reading he did not know whether he should not move its rejection.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

alluded to the case of certain councils in Ireland in which the majority continually arranged their meetings at about half-an-hour's notice, in order that important business might be got through without being discussed, and without anybody-knowing anything about it. That was an example of what might happen if this Amendment were carried.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

said that, with all due respect to the noble Earl, he objected to legislation for England being proposed for the benefit of Ireland. If the provision was to be effective it would prevent meetings being held unless, forsooth, the Press had received sufficient notice. That would seriously interfere with the business of local government.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

explained that the subsection did little more than give a statutory authority to what was already a common practice.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

moved an Amendment to include within the definition of the phrase "representatives of the Press," "any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists." He said he had no active connection with the society in question, but had had the honour some ten or twelve years ago of being elected an hon. Fellow with a late Lord Chief Justice of England and an eminent and universally known French novelist and journalist who was also deceased. By the Bill, so far as their Lordships had approved of it, access was secured to accredited representatives of particular newspapers. As he construed the Bill, no Pressman had a title to admission unless he attended as the appointed representative of some particular newspaper. As a matter of fact there were persons, especially in large towns, who were not accredited representatives of a particular newspaper, but carried on journalistic work. They attended the meetings of local authorities and picked up what was of public interest, and this they sent to various newspapers. These journalists were doing useful work, but at present they did not come within the scope of the Bill. Referring to the Institute of Journalists, he said it came into existence some eighteen years ago and possessed the unique distinction of a Charter from the Crown. No other body of journalists had that distinction, and the Institute secured that journalists who were admitted to membership should possess the necessary advantages of training and ability to enable them to discharge their work. No doubt other associations might put in a claim for recognition, but they were purely voluntary associations not recognised in the way that the Institute of Journalists was recognised. The body promoting this Bill was organised simply as a trade union, whereas the Institute of Journalists, as he had said, enjoyed a recognised status through the possession of a Royal Charter. He understood that the membership far exceeded the figure stated by the noble Earl; it had about 5,000 members, and no other society of journalists had a membership much above 2,000. He was informed that the society promoting this Bill had only a membership of 1,500. He submitted that the Institute of Journalists had a full claim to recognition in the way proposed.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 10, after the word 'newspapers,' to insert the words 'and shall include any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

hoped the noble Lord would not consider it necessary to press the Amendment. The clause as it stood provided that— The expression 'representatives of the Press' means duly accredited representatives of newspapers and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers. He regretted that he had been misinformed as to the membership of the Institute of Journalists; 2,500 was the number given to him, but he was sure the noble Lord's figure would be correct. But, even with a membership of 5,000, the Institute of Journalists could not claim to include a majority of the journalists who had been carrying on such work as the Committee were considering. He was told that the Institute comprised a great many owners and managers of newspapers, persons interested in literary work and so on, who would not really be concerned in the matter at all. He fully admitted that the Institute of Journalists was the largest, the most important, and the oldest journalistic organisation; but he did not see any sufficient ground for giving the Institute a position as a privileged body.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

said he was convinced that the practice of the past would continue, and that the journalists in question would be able to secure admission, notwithstanding anything in the Bill. He, therefore, withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved an Amendment substituting for the last of the paragraphs defining the expression "local authority" the following:—"Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has, or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority." He explained that county councils in Scotland considered that it was not only unnecessary but undesirable that this power should extend to all meetings of committees and sub-committees and small bodies. They were also afraid that as the clause stood an absolute right would be given to the Press to be present at the meetings of standing joint committees. The substantial intentions of the Bill would not be interfered with by the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 3, lines 27 to 31, to leave out Paragraph (c), and to insert the following new paragraph: (c) Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

did not object to the change if it was satisfactory to the Scottish Office. He was not competent to judge whether in the case of Scotland the noble Earl's words were calculated to attain what he desired; but he had never known the noble Earl wrong on Scottish matters, and therefore would accept the Amendment.

LORD HERSCHELL

signified the assent of the Scottish Office to the Amendment, but said the expression "impose a rate" would be more in accordance with Scottish phraseology than "make a rate."

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

accepted this verbal alteration.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

called attention to subsection (2), which provided that the Act should not extend to Ireland. He could not help remarking upon this subsection. The Bill was Hibernian from beginning to end. It was proposed by an eminent Hibernian, who was most anxious that there should be the fullest publicity in connection with every hole and corner meeting except in Ireland. Why in the world was publicity so desirable everywhere else except in Ireland?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

Because we have got it.

Clause agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 217.]