HL Deb 11 July 1960 vol 225 cc27-30

3.52 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1 [Admission of public to meetings of local authorities and other bodies]:

EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved to add to the clause: ( ) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords opposite for not moving their Amendments, because I think it will save time. All three Amendments—the one in my name, on which I propose to speak, and the two Amendments set down by the noble Lords opposite—are all designed towards the same end. The problem is well known to your Lordships. The Bill seeks to give the public rights of admission to the meetings of the bodies concerned. It goes about this first by referring in several places, and particularly in Clause 1 (1), to meetings being "open to the public". It then seeks to put the public's rights in more definite terms by using, in Clause 1 (4) (c), the words: …while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting.… Those very definite words which I have just quoted have given rise to the anxiety that they may take away from the body or its chairman the power to control disorder or misbehaviour in the public gallery. As I said during the Committee stage, the Government's advisers have given most careful thought to this, and their conclusion is that these words in the Bill do not have that effect.

The object of the Bill is to enable the public to come in to watch and listen to the proceedings: it is not the object to enable them to frustrate those proceedings by throwing things, by shouting or by otherwise misbehaving. We are confident that if the matter came before the courts—and it would have to be taken to the courts by someone who had been excluded from a meeting—the courts would so interpret the Bill. We are sure that they would not come to the conclusion that Parliament, in giving the public these rights to be present, had thereby intended to make it possible for unruly elements to frustrate the body in carrying out the duties which Parliament had, under other Acts of Parliament, imposed upon it. But, be that as it may, this Bill will have to be interpreted and operated by the chairmen and clerks of the very many local authorities and other public bodies to which it applies. They should not be left in any doubt that it is possible to require the removal of unruly elements from the public gallery or to clear the gallery, if necessary, to prevent disorder—and as it is clearly your Lordships' desire and wish that this should be made clear in the Bill, we have to find the best way of doing it.

Perhaps it would be fair if I explained why we are glad that the two other Amendments have been withdrawn. If I may, I will give what in our view are their shortcomings, and then I will come to my own Amendment. As to the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, the anxiety has arisen around the words in Clause 1 (4) (c), "the body shall not have power to exclude." So it seems at first sight attractive and straightforward to deal with the problem simply by leaving those words out; but I could not have advised that to be done, and I cannot do it myself, because I am advised that, if those words are omitted, the rights of the public will rest solely on the words in Clause 1 (1), that the meeting "shall be open to the public". Now these words are not sufficiently precise and determinate to secure for the public the rights of admission which the Bill seeks to give them. There could be argument about what those words require. Would it, for instance, be sufficient for the body to admit one selected member of the public, and to say that that was sufficient to open the meeting to the public and so comply with the Act? I quote that as the sort of argument that might arise. The words at the beginning of Clause 1 (4) (c) are put in to give the members of the public their definite and specific right of admission, and I have to advise your Lordships that, if those words are omitted, the rights of the public which the Bill seeks to give would become subject to some possible doubt and legal argument.

The alternative course, if those words are to stay, as I have suggested they should, is to include some general saving provision. The Amendments in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, both seek to do this in different words. The difficulty with a saving provision of this kind is to draft it so that it does not itself unintentionally restrict the powers which it seeks to preserve. The situations which have to be dealt with are of various kinds. There is physical obstruction; there is interruption of a meeting by shouting and throwing things; there is the dropping of leaflets from the gallery; there is smoking, playing cards and waving banners—any number of things. For instance, there is the tape recorder, which is dealt with in Clause 1 (7). I am advised that, taking all those things into consideration, the words of the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would have been too restricted, because they refer only to obstruction.

We have examined all possible ways of dealing with this matter, and the words of the Amendment in my name are, we think, the best that can be devised. They are sufficiently wide to preserve the powers to deal with disorder, interruption or other misbehaviour without encroaching on the rights of the members of the public—providing they behave themselves—to attend and listen to the proceedings. I am sorry to have wearied your Lordships with that long explanation, but I thought it only fair, as those other Amendments had been put down, to set out the reasons why we felt they were not in themselves quite sufficient. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection—(Earl Waldegrave.)

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, it would not be profitable to discuss any further whether the Amendment which I put down is a good or a bad one. I simply say that I do not agree with what the noble Earl has said about it. But I was very happy not to move it in view of the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Earl, which adequately safeguards what we are anxious about. I am informed that it is agreeable to the associations of local authorities, and I am therefore sure that it is wise to put this provision in.

LORD TAYLOR

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth asked me to say how sorry he is that he could not be here to-day not to move his Amendment. The Government Amendment fully meets the point he has in mind and covers other kinds of obstruction or difficulty that may arise, and my noble friend has asked me to thank the Government.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Earl for the Amendment which has been drafted. It helps to clarify the situation and does so without any restriction of the Common Law rights under which all public meetings are held. I think it is a good Amendment, and I gladly accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.