HL Deb 28 June 1960 vol 224 cc648-67

2.43 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

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

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

moved, in subsection (4) (b), after "transmission" to insert "and a reasonable charge for the copy". The noble Lord said: This provision of the Bill enables any newspaper to obtain a copy of the agenda for a meeting of a body to which the Bill applies on payment of a charge for postage or other charge for transmission. As the measure stands at the present moment there is no provision requiring a newspaper to pay for the cost of the agenda papers. That might be a perfectly reasonable state of affairs if the provision in the Bill were confined to newspapers published in the area served by the particular local authority; but the right of newspapers to obtain copies of agenda papers is quite unlimited, and dozens of newspapers might, if they pleased, pay 2d. or 4d. a copy for postage and put in a standing order for copies of agenda papers which possibly in the end would never be read.

I do not profess to know how all local authorities conduct their business, but I remember that when I was a member of a relatively small one—and I am not talking, at the present, of the London County Council—that authority used to publish an agenda paper which comprised some 20 closely printed foolscap pages; and the cost of printing is a considerable item. This provision, if it is not amended, might easily involve local authorities in large expenditure which would serve no useful purpose in the end because the agenda papers probably would never be read, being ordered by newspapers on the mere chance that they might have in them some item which was sensational or otherwise provided a little copy for a newspaper. I feel, therefore, that in the interests of the public it is not improper to make provision for a reasonable charge to be paid by newspapers for copies of agenda papers supplied. Therefore I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, after ("transmission") insert ("and a reasonable charge for the copy").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I believe that the Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved would rather defeat the object of this clause, which is that we should get better reporting of business transacted at meetings. Already a great many local authorities supply documents and papers to the Press free, although at the present moment they are not obliged to do so. In 1947 the Association of Municipal Corporations endorsed the report of a committee on publicity in regard to local government which said: The Association are in favour of the advance issue of council agenda and documents to the Press. I believe it would be difficult to ascertain what (in the words of the Amendment) is: a reasonable charge for the copy". These matters are already dealt with by a good many councils and local authorities and I believe it would be a retrograde step to say that a charge ought now to be made. Nor do I think that in many cases there would be an enormous demand from newspapers having no local interest in or association with the area or in matters of either regional or local interest; so that, I think, the demand would not be very great.

Furthermore, I understand from inquiries that no representation against this clause in the Bill has been made by any local authority. In fact, the only query raised has been in the other way: as to whether the words in the Bill might oblige people to charge postage when they do not even do so now. I would beg the noble Lord, if he would, to agree to withdraw the Amendment, for I do not think it would assist the object of the Bill, which is to secure wider and better reporting. I feel there need be no fear about costs incurred by a small authority, in view of the limited scope; and I do not think a large authority would begrudge the 2d. or 3d. required to send out the papers.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I do not want to obstruct the progress of the Bill in any way, and if local authorities are not concerned about this matter, as I gather from what the noble Lady has said, I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.50 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

moved, in subsection (4) (b), to omit all words after "included". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a provision in the Bill which says that a body is to provide such further statements or particulars, if any, as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items included in the agenda papers. Then it goes on: or, if thought fit in the case of any item, with copies of any reports or other documents supplied to members of a e body in connection with the item". First of all, the words "if thought fit" are somewhat ambiguous. They may mean "if the local authority thinks fit". If so, the provision is not objectionable. But if they mean "if the newspaper thinks fit to ask for these matters", then this provision would be very objectionable indeed, because the paragraph is drawn in such a way as to refer not merely to documents which are supplied to every member of the local authority as, so to speak, part of, or annexed to, the agenda paper itself, but also to items supplied to some members of a council in connection with proceedings in committee; and any provision of that kind would be completely embarrassing.

It seems to me that if these words are intended to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authority they are entirely superfluous, and therefore no harm will be done if they are omitted. But if the other interpretation is correct, then they would defeat the secrecy and privilege which is quite properly given to documents which are supplied purely for committee purposes and which are not supplied to the members of the body as a whole in connection with the agenda for a public meeting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 23 to 25.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

In connection with this Amendment, I should like to assure the noble Lord that the words "if thought fit" do refer to the issuing authority; that is to say, it is not a newspaper that decides whether the agenda or papers should be circulated. It is, in fact, the authority that decides whether or not a supply of documents shall be made available for circulation under the Bill. I think that that is already done very widely. Local authorities throughout the country which are already working with the Press—allowing the Press into their meetings and so on—already circulate documents. I think it would be a great mistake to try to stop, or in any way to hamper, the supply of such documents for the work of the authority and all those who are interested in it. If, as might happen, some very important report were under discussion—perhaps the report of some Commission—obviously, if it were a very costly document that could not be distributed widely it would be sufficient under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to say that it would be available in the information room or library, or wherever it might be, for the Press or public who wanted to look at it.

In connection with the ordinary documents that are discussed in local authority meetings, I think that those documents should be circulated, as they very often are at the present time. If it were necessary, and it might be under the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord, that some kind of précis or some special document should be issued, I think that might make things a little more complicated for the local authority. I think the noble Lord can rest assured that, in the first instance, the papers circulated would be circulated to all those people concerned, and issued from the local authority or the operating body whose papers were being circulated, not at the discretion of any other body; and also that those papers being circulated would be reasonable. That is to say, if there were an immensely expensive document being discussed, that would clearly not come within the circulation; it would be available for those who wanted to see it. But the ordinary papers would be circulated. I think—if I might suggest it to the noble Lord—that his points are covered; and, if he would agree, I should be grateful if he would be kind enough also to withdraw this Amendment, as I do not think it really adds to the object of the Bill, that being to provide those people interested and the Press with as much information as possible about the business being dealt with.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Would the noble Lady agree to insert after the words "if thought fit" the words "by the local authority"?—because I myself was puzzled when I read this to know who was going to think fit, and it ought not to be left in doubt. If, in fact, as is obviously right, this meant the local authority, then I suggest that that should be put in. If that is done, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, would agree that his Amendment becomes superfluous, because it would rest entirely with the local authority to decide what they should or should not issue.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I agree that if there is any dubiety it ought to be cleared up, but it would need to be not only "local authority" but also "or by the body concerned", because it applies to a great many other bodies. I think if there were a clarifying statement of that kind which the noble Lord thinks would add to the Bill there would be no objection to putting in some form of words to make it perfectly clear that it is not the newspaper or any outside person but the issuing authority that has the decision to issue the document.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

In view of the noble Lady's undertaking to look at this matter again and, as I understand it, to introduce some clarifying words at the next stage, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

moved, in subsection (4) (c), to leave out all words after the first "report". The noble Lord said: This relates to a provision that, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, it shall provide facilities for telephoning a report to a newspaper at the expense of the newspaper. Surely newspapers are not provided with facilities of this kind for reporting everything they do; and what does this provision in fact involve? Must they have extra telephone extensions, and possibly extra tines, in order to allow newspaper reporters to telephone their reports? There are public call offices in most places which, presumably, newspaper reporters can use. It really seems to be quite ridiculous to impose upon a public body the obligation of providing facilities to be used perhaps upon one day a month or one day a quarter for the purpose of telephoning reports of reporters to newspapers, which presumably, as the noble Lady suggested at an earlier stage in our discussion, would in any event be local newspapers within quite a reasonable distance of the place of meeting, so the reporters could presumably go to the newspaper office and write out their reports there. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("report") to the end of line 34.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I rise again merely to clarify this point. I think there is no intention in the Bill that anyone should be under an obligation to put in a great many telephones, or to go to any very great expense. As the noble Lord has said, if it were a matter of local telephoning and of a local office, then naturally the question would not arise, because the reporter would go back to his local office. This, I think, is not a heavy obligation, but is an obligation of a reasonable character: that the authority should have within reasonable distance, so to speak, facilities for telephoning if the reporters so wish.

It is not anything which would mean adding a great many telephones to any office. If it is a very large authority—such as, shall we say, the Liverpool local authority, or the Bristol local authority—as we all know, they have a great many telephones, and they would have any amount of facilities available there. On the other hand, if it is a small authority, then the facilities would presumably not be required to the same extent. I think it would be perfectly all right for the words to remain part of the Bill, as it is a case of providing only reasonable facilities. As I said at the beginning, the ultimate object is to help the proper reporting of the business of whatever body it is. Access to a telephone might on occasions help that proper reporting, but it is not intended to be something which, as the noble Lord suggests, would entail putting in a number of new telephone booths or exchanges, or anything like that.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I think the noble Baroness has omitted to observe that this is an obligatory provision. It is a duty which is imposed upon a body, to provide facilities for telephoning a report. It is not qualified in any way, as the noble Baroness was, I think, hinting. If it said that facilities had to be afforded for using the authority's telephones so far as they were not required for the authority's business, I should not have the slightest abjection; but the Obligation which is imposed as the clause is worded at the present moment is a great deal more stringent than that. I hope that the noble Lady will be prepared at any rate to clarify this provision, so as to make it clear that the authority is not to be involved in extra expense in order to provide telephone facilities for reporters who wish to report a meeting. If she will look at it from that point of view, I shall be perfectly happy.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

The noble Lord has just said, I think, that if those words were qualified in any way he would be perfectly satisfied. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to line 30 where the words "so far as practicable" appear, and to the fact that the only facilities that are to be afforded are "reasonable" facilities. I suggest to your Lordships that "so far as practicable" and "reasonable facilities" do not mean imposing a burden on the authority: they mean merely that the reporters will be able to go to the telephone, and will be charged for the use of the county council's telephone. The county council will not be surcharged for letting reporters use their telephone.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the words "practicable" and "reasonable" do not apply to the last few words; because, as I read it, paragraph (c) says: …. representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall, so far as practicable, be afforded reasonable facilities for taking their report and, unless the meeting is held in premises not belonging to the body or not on the telephone, for telephoning the report at their own expense". Do the words "reasonable" and "practicable" cover the last part?

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

Yes, I think the noble Baroness is right there: "reasonable" and "practicable" do cover the last part. If there is any doubt about that, then again I think one might look at the phraseology, but that is the intention of the Bill: that there is to be afforded, so far as practicable, reasonable facilities for the Press, either in a local authority office or, let us say, in a Regional Hospital Board office, or wherever the Press may be—the two qualifying phrases to apply to both sets of premises.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I do not want to detain the Committee upon this point, but I think the ambiguity arises out of the word "practicable". It may mean what is practicable with the existing facilities which the local authority has. If so, that is entirely unobjectionable. But if it means practicable in the sense of what can be done—and that would imply adding to the facilities which the local authority possesses—that would be a rather different story. If the noble Baroness will look at the matter again from that point of view, and, if necessary, take some step to clear up that ambiguity, I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I ask the noble Earl whether he would regard it as reasonable if a newspaper reporter were to telephone from, say, Edinburgh or Glasgow to his London office a twenty-minute or half-hour report of a debate, and were to put the charge to the local authority? Would he regard that as reasonable?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

No, I should not—and, anyway, he would also be out of order because of the last four words, "at their own expense". He must do it by reversing the charges or must pay for the call himself.

LORD SHEPHERD

Does that mean at the newspaper's expense or at the local authority's expense?

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

At the newspaper's expense. It is quite clear—at least, it seems to me quite clear—that the facilities must be reasonable and practicable, and not—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord—anything very expensive or requiring a very much greater number of telephones put in. Secondly, any telephoning done by the reporter is done entirely at his own expense. I should have thought the words "for telephoning the report at their own expense" were quite clear.

LORD SHEPHERD

In view of the noble Lady's explanation, I now understand the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.8 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

moved to add to the clause: () Nothing in this Section shall affect the power of the chairman of, or other person presiding over, a meeting of a body to which this Act applies to exclude, or require the withdrawal or removal of, any person or persons in the event of the obstruction of the meeting by a member or members of the public".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really set down for the purpose of removing doubt. It has been accepted up till now that if the mayor or the chairman of the council ordered the removal of persons (members of the public or otherwise) who were present and had become disorderly, he was entitled to do so under Common Law. However, under this Bill Common Law becomes Statute Law; and whilst there is some legal argument as to which comes first, I would say that, as a whole, Statute Law overrides Common Law. The consequence is that the Bill admits the public—and, indeed, compels the admission of the public—to certain meetings and in certain circumstances by giving an unqualified right of admission and presence to both the public and the Press. In these circumstances, doubt is created as to whether, in the case of disorder, the mayor or the chairman of the council would be legally entitled to order the removal of members of the public.

If he was not so entitled and he did it, there would be a risk of his being sued in the courts for damages for assault, or something like that, which would be rather embarrassing. As a consequence of this situation, many local authorities have raised the point as to whether or not the Bill ought to be amended so as to provide protection for the mayor or chairman of the meeting, and I think that that is a reasonable thing for which to ask. This Amendment does not challenge the doctrine of the Bill—the right of the public or the Press to be admitted to certain meetings in certain circumstances—but it does record that the chairman of the meeting may order certain members of the public to withdraw or to be removed because they have been guilty of disorderly conduct; and I think that he is entitled to reasonable safeguards and protection in this respect. These occurrences happen rarely. There was a disturbance at a meeting of St. Pancras' Borough Council recently, which noble Lords will probably remember. I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I feel that it is a sensible one and I hope very much that the noble Lady will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I should like to ask the noble Lord one question on this Amendment. I think it is obvious that an Amendment for this purpose ough to be included in the Bill: it seems entirely proper. But is the wording right? The object of the Amendment is that if somebody causes an obstruction or makes a row, the mayor or chairman should be able to order that person to be removed. But on the words, which are completely general, it looks to me as if the chairman could order the chamber to be cleared, just, as a Judge can say in the High Court, "If I have any more laughter or disturbance in court, I shall order the court to be cleared." Surely that is not the noble Lord's intention? He merely wants to get rid of the people causing the obstruction.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

It depends on the circumstances. If the obstruction is limited in the number of persons causing it and they are easily identifiable, the mayor or chairman would order the removal of those persons, but sometimes the disturbance can be much wider, as I think, speaking from memory, the St. Pancras Borough Council's disturbances were. They arose out of a proposal for differential rents and some political people, whom I know very well and do not approve of, brought a crowd of tenants up to the Town Hall. In those circumstances, I should have thought it reasonable for the Mayor to say that he would clear out the lot, as would be said in a court of law.

The court of law is acting under Common Law practice, as is Parliament. Visitors are allowed in Parliament by courtesy and consent. I forget the practice in your Lordships' House, but in another place, if a Member gets up and "spies strangers", all have to go. I do not think that this would be right vis-à-vis local authorities. I must say that I think it is a little quaint in another place, but it is "an old Spanish custom", so to speak, and they get away with it. The custom is rarely abused, and I should not like to quarrel with it. But I think that a mayor or chairman should have discretion to pick out one or two people creating a disturbance or, if the disturbance is widespread, to clear out the lot. If the disturbance were confined to one or two people, and the chairman did clear the lot out, including the Press, he would be subject to grave criticism, and I do not think that it would be repeated. I do not think that the noble Earl need be apprehensive about the wording of the Amendment.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, but after discussing the matter with the various people concerned, there are one or two points that I should like to make to him, to see whether or not we might not be able to improve the Amendment with further consideration. As the noble Lord has said, under Common Law any body has the right to deal with anyone obstructing its statutory business. I am told that the wording of the Amendment restricts the meaning of the word "obstruction". For instance, if somebody threw a shower of leaflets down upon a meeting, it might obstruct the business but it would not be covered by the Amendment, whereas it would be covered by the words in the Bill as it now stands. In certain respects, the wording of the Bill is wider than the Amendment. There are many ways in which people can obstruct business besides making, a row—for instance, by letting off a squib or doing some other childish thing.

I would ask the noble Lord whether he would agree to this suggestion: that, while accepting his Amendment in principle, we should look at the wording to be sure that it covers all kinds of obstruction. As it is, under Common Law there may be a broader base for the chairman to work on. I understand that there is no doubt that the present wording of the Bill does not remove the power of expulsion by the chairman who is conducting the business. I should like to take the principle of his Amendment, which is supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and see whether we can widen its scope.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Could the noble Lady indicate the words in the Bill which, in her judgment, pare more satisfactory or wider than my Amendment, which she thinks would narrow the wording of the Bill?

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

The Amendment would not cover anything except obstruction.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Where does the Bill cover it?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Perhaps I could help on this point. The Amendment, as drawn, covers obstruction only, and it might help if my right honourable friend could be advised that it would be right to put in some wider words. We do not want to jeopardise this Bill. I can say that the Government are considering this matter and hope to be able to bring forward words which will be acceptable to the noble Lord opposite and to your Lordships. What matters is what the courts would say about Clause 1 (4) (c). If one turns to the first lines there, one sees that the Bill says that a body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting. It is what the courts might say about that phrase that needs considering. We do not intend that it should override the statutory power of the meeting to conduct its business properly. There is sometimes this conflict between law and order. There was a relevant paragraph that I noticed the other day in the Corfield Report. Law is apt to pay no regard to order and sometimes dictators, in their love of order, are apt to pay no regard to law. One must keep a balance here. What I want to warn your Lordships about is that it is quite likely that, when the draftsmen and the legal advisers have been to work on this provision, we may be able to persuade your Lordships that it is better to leave this to Common Law practice than to put extra words into the Bill. But perhaps we might leave the matter until the Report stage, when we will come back to it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

What I could not follow was the noble Lady's argument that this Amendment was rather restricting the power to exclude persons. The words that the noble Earl opposite has quoted make it quite clear that this confers an absolute statutory right on members of the public and the Press to be present. Therefore the problem of getting them out, if there was a disturbance, would be a difficult one. I think the noble Lady was rather badly briefed on an important point, because she cannot find words in the Bill, as drafted, which enable the presiding officer to exclude members of the public who misbehave themselves. We all live and learn. Is not this Amendment the best way out of this? I want to see something done about this, because I think the Bill overrides the Common Law right of the chairman to act.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I am told not. I am told that the Common Law right still remains and that the chairman can take action.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

With great respect, I am not a lawyer, but I have handled a lot of law in my time, and I very much doubt it. I admit that whether Statute Law overrides the Common Law can be subject to argument. But this is a specific right proposed to be conferred by Statute. I cannot see how the chairman can exclude the public under a Common Law right when it is recorded in the Bill that the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting". I do not want them to exclude members of the public from meetings, unless the public, or some of them, misbehave themselves. Surely, if a tomato is thrown at the mayor, or the chairman of the meeting—or the chairman of the housing committee, in the case of St. Pancras—that must be obstructing the business of the council. Even the throwing down of leaflets from the gallery is obstructing the business. Anyway, there are no two views about that in the other place, because directly these chaps try to drop down leaflets the attendants are after them with extraordinary swiftness and efficiency; and out they go. But that is Common Law, apparently. The other place and this House are powerful bodies and can do that as they like; but not so with the local authority.

The noble Baroness brings in this Bill, which says that the public cannot be put out, and she is now arguing that the Common Law says that they can be put out. The truth of this is that this is a clumsily drafted Bill, and somebody has been very wicked in getting two Parliamentary maidens to handle it, one in the House of Commons, in a maiden speech, and the noble Lady in this House, soon after she has become a Member. I think it is disgraceful conduct on the part of someone that he should have landed this questionable Bill on two nice ladies, yet nevertheless, in the Parliamentary sense, maiden and innocent ladies. That is why we have this argument of the noble Lady. I do not blame her; many Ministers might well slip up like this if they were not properly advised. I wonder that the Solicitor General, who I understand had something to do with the drafting, has not put her right on the point. I cannot believe that Common Law rights remain when the Statute Law is [...]o specific.

The noble Earl opposite has been most reasonable, as indeed the noble Lady tried to be; but the trouble is that she has been wrongly briefed. I see that there may be a point in the argument. What I suggest is that the Committee should accept this Amendment, on the understanding that the Government will look at it again and see whether it needs to be further amended on the Report stage or on Third Reading. But I should like to be sure that I am going to get something and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment to-day. In that event I shall not be surprised if, on the Report stage or on Third Reading, the Government or the noble Lady put forward another Amendment to amend the words that I have suggested.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I do not want to prolong this discussion or to be unreasonable, but there are two things I should like to say on what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I rush to the defence (I hope I shall not embarrass her by so doing) of the noble maiden Lady. I should like the noble Lord opposite to remember this: that no rights are being given to the public by this Bill to do more than listen. We are not giving them the right to take part in the proceedings, to obstruct proceedings, to smoke in the gallery or anything else like that, but are giving them merely the right to listen to the proceedings. I think the noble Lord rather overstated the case on the question of their rights. They have rights to attend and listen to what is going on, but the body also has statutory rights to do its business. If anything done by the people who have rights to listen prevents the statutory body from doing its business, which by Statute it must do, then I very much doubt whether any court could possibly hold that that body was not within its rights (I am using a lot of "rights") in getting rid of those people who were disturbing or obstructing the proceedings or causing a nuisance.

I would only add this comment. My right honourable friend and his legal advisers have agreed to look at and consider this point carefully before the Report stage, and to come back. But I do not want to go so far as to say that we think extra words are needed. We may be able to put forward a cogent argument by a legally trained person—and I am not a legally trained person—to explain this difficult matter of Common Law and Statute Law. It may be all right, in fact—I do not know—but we shall have to convince your Lordships that it is all right. Otherwise, if we cannot do that, we will try and produce some words which will make it abundantly clear to everybody. I do not think we can go further than that.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I should have thought that the noble Earl could have agreed to my course of letting this Amendment pass and then amending it on the Report stage or the Third Reading. I follow his argument: that he thinks the right to exclude disturbing members of the public would remain, and he believes that the courts would so rule. But none of us can do more than guess at what the courts might rule, and in this case I find guessing extremely difficult. Sometimes the courts may be influenced by the spirit of a Statute, but on other occasions they may be influenced by the letter of a Statute. I do not criticise the courts, who sometimes have a difficult job, but I should have thought that they would be entitled to say, under the wording of the Bill as it stands, that there is no right to exclude the public, in the sense of turning somebody out who misbehaved himself.

First of all, it is provided in Clause 1 (1) that the meeting shall be open to the public. Then there is a further specific statutory direction that while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting. I should have thought that that was specific and direct, and that the courts would have difficulty in ruling other than that the presiding officer had no right to interfere. Therefore, I should prefer this Amendment to go in. But if the noble Earl (who, I agree, has sought to be reasonable about it) feels deeply that it would embarrass him, perhaps the Government could think up an Amendment to my Amendment. If that is so, then I will seek leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Clerks of the Table take notice that I wish it to be put down for the Report stage, so as to protect me, and also that the noble Earl will do his best to find words which will meet the substantial point I have made and which will be a reasonable protection for the presiding officers of local authorities.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am obliged to the noble Lord, who is always so eminently reasonable. I am advised that it would be far easier for our draftsmen to draft an Amendment than to amend the noble Lord's Amendment. If the noble Lord, with that assurance, would withdraw his Amendment, I undertake either to produce another Amendment or a cogent explanation of why one is not needed.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

On the basis that my Amendment appears on the Order Paper on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD REA

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I make one small point? If I understood him aright, at one point he said he was moving this Amendment on behalf of some body. I think that that was probably a slip of the tongue and he meant with the support of, or at the request of. A Member of this House does not put forward anything on behalf of some body. This is just for the record.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is "a new one on me". The noble Lord has been here longer than I have and, on the assumption that he is right, I will say, "at the request of". I happen to be President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and it was natural that they should approach me in the matter. It is not so bad as I have heard in another place, when I once heard an honourable Member say, "Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the railway company which I represent." I followed him and condemned his phrasing as impudence, whereupon I was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, who said, "Such language must not be used in the House and the honourable Member must withdraw". I nearly fell through the floor; but before doing so I did withdraw the words. So one lives and learns, even at my advanced age.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Application of Act, and consequential provisions

2.— (3) Any body established by or under any Act may be added to the Schedule to this Act, and any body so added may be removed from the Schedule, by order of the appropriate Minister made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and for this purpose the appropriate Minister is, in the case of any body, the Minister of the Crown in charge of the Government department concerned or primarily concerned with the matters dealt with by that body, but an order made under this subsection by any Minister of the Crown shall be effective, whether or not he is the appropriate Minister.

3.33 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes to a point of principle with regard to delegated legislation. I admit straight away that I have handled a great deal of delegated legislation in my time. The Bill provides that a Minister, by administrative order, can extend the Bill to public authorities which are not named in it. I think that that is going rather far. If the Minister wishes to extend the provisions to other statutory authorities, it should be done by legislation, openly, honestly and legitimately, so that Parliament has every chance of considering in what circumstances it would grant that new power. Indeed, the Bill has gone further than that by providing that the order can be upset only by the Negative Resolution procedure; the Minister does not even have to provide Affirmative Resolution procedure. I think this is very had. I should prefer the power to extend it to other public authorities to be different altogether. I think that what is provided in the Bill is unreasonable, and if other public bodies in the future—which I admit may arise—are desired to be brought in, they ought to be brought in by a separate Statutory enactment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

After the delightful remarks of the noble Lord opposite as to my competence, I should like to say that the two Amendments, Nos. 5 and 6, are both on the same subject. The point of making it possible to add any bodies to the Bill is simply that since the 1908 Act, which we are replacing, great numbers of authorities have been set up and one wants to make some provision for the future. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be better if the additions to the Bill were subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, which he suggests in his second Amendment—something which could be debated in both Houses of Parliament and decided perfectly straightforwardly, either Yes or No; it would be recommended on that principle. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be the way to do it. I think it would be a mistake to cut out the opportunity of adding to the Bill any new bodies that may be formed in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. How long this legislation will last I do not know. I agree with the noble Lord that it should not be done except by some straightforward method, such as he suggests in his second Amendment. I should hope that we might consider that as the best method of doing it, and that he might withdraw his first Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I gather from the noble Baroness that the purpose of this provision in the Bill is to provide for bodies which may be set up in the future, pursuant to some new Statute which is passed. That, indeed, I thought, was the object of it, because if one looks at the Schedule to the Bill one finds it is perfectly clear that somebody has gone over all the bodies which now exist and has brought as many as possible of them into the Bill. Surely the right course to adopt is to pass the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend and if in the future some Bill is introduced for the purpose of creating new public bodies, that Bill should be the vehicle for applying the provisions of this Bill if it becomes a Statute. That is the proper method and the proper occasion to deal with the matter, and not by a prospective and hypothetical provision in the present Bill.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

There is a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said. Usually when new public authorities are created a Parliamentary Bill is necessary, and it can then be provided that this Bill will apply to the new public authority. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend said, and I should have preferred the noble Lady to accept my Amendment No. 5, which would have made that necessary. I do not think it is too unreasonable. The noble Lady has been helpful and reasonable about the way out of this difficulty. She does not wish to accept Amendment No. 5 but is, I gather, willing to accept Amendment No. 6, which would make it necessary for the addition of new bodies to be by Affirmative and not Negative Resolution procedure: that is to say, the onus would be on the Government to get the power, and not upon the Opposition or some Back-Bencher to move a Negative Resolution. In all the circumstances—although I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend and a great deal of sympathy with myself in moving this Amendment—I propose to ask the permission of the House to withdraw this Amendment, and then I will formally move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I beg to move this Amendment, and in view of what the noble Lady said I hope and anticipate that she will be able to accept it. In all the circumstances I leave it at that and beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("instrument") to ("House") in line 37 and insert ("but a statutory instrument made by a Minister under this section shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of each").—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment, which I think greatly improves the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Schedule: