HL Deb 24 July 1978 vol 395 cc730-7

80 Schedule 11, page 75, line 29, at end insert—

("THE PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO

MEETINGS) ACT 1960 (c. 67)

21B. After paragraph 1(h) of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 there shall be inserted— (i) the Welsh Assembly "")

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:

81 Because the admission of the public to proceedings of the Assembly should be a matter for the Assembly.

6.36 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Swansea, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 80 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Page 7, line 18, at end insert— ("( )The standing orders shall include provision for the admission of the public to meetings of the Assembly and of its committees."). I think noble Lords—and, I hope, the Welsh people as well—will be aware of the great anxiety we have that the Welsh Assembly shall deliver to the Welsh fair and open government. We have managed to secure for them, with some difficulty, that the proceedings of the main Assembly shall be published. When the Welsh people notice that, I hope that they will also notice that the Government are determined that the proceedings of the committees, in particular the proceedings of the Executive Committee, shall not be published. We have debated that question already this afternoon. I do not believe that that is good, and I do not believe that the Welsh people will think that it is good, but that is what this Government have decided.

During the original passage of the Bill through this House we attacked this dangerous tendency to secrecy in the committee room on two fronts: first by seeking to secure the publication of the minutes— and in this, as I have said, we have failed—and, secondly, by requiring the Assembly to observe the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. That attempt is embodied in our Amendment No. 80.

The Government's arguments against accepting this Amendment verge so closely on the farcical that it is positively alarming —alarming not because of the element of farce, to which one can quite easily become accustomed, but because if the Government are determined to resist the Amendment, even at the expense of resorting to such fragile and ineffectual ammunition, it must indicate a very considerable anxiety to allow the Assembly to sit in private as a matter of course, if it so wishes.

The argument to which I refer was that the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act was aimed at the parish council. Its application to the Welsh Assembly would be to treat that august and powerful body insultingly—as if it itself were no better than a parish council. When one considers that the Welsh Assembly is responsible for a population of some 2½ million and that the Greater London Council is responsible for a population of over three times that number and has submitted itself without complaint to the very reasonable requirements of the Act, your Lordships will see what a laughable posture Her Majesty's Government have adopted in that context. They also trotted out, like the oldest and mangiest nag in an old and mangey riding stable, their argument that we should not insult the Welsh; we should trust them. And by "the Welsh"—as always, in this argument—they do not mean the Welsh people; they mean the Welsh Assemblymen, and that is a different matter. Very well; we have taken away that horse, and, I hope, shot it as it has long deserved.

The Amendment that we propose in substitution does trust the Welsh Assembly. We require it merely to provide in its own standing orders for the admission of the public to its various meetings, and those standing orders can, of course, contain such waivers and provisions as the Assembly sees fit. It is difficult to conceive upon what grounds the Government may resist this proposed Amendment, but I await the revelation with interest. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 80 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81, but propose the said Amendment in lieu thereof. —(Lord Elton.)

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am always attracted by speeches from the noble Lord when he says that he is looking forward to my contribution. It is very kind of him to say that. If he will forgive me for saying so, I thought he was being a little abrasive when he moved this particular Amendment. It was most uncharacteristic of him. All his other speeches this afternoon have been constructed with a high degree of elegance, but somehow I think it must have been one or two o'clock in the morning when the noble Lord brought his labours to an end on this particular one, choosing therefore, as I said, some remarkably abrasive language on a proposition which I am bound to say does not seem to justify it in any way, for a reason which I will now come to.

As the noble Lord has said, we have gone round this course on a number of occasions, if I may use a racing metaphor. We discussed this at Report stage when this proposal concerning the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 was before us, and I then argued that it would be wholly inappropriate to treat the Welsh Assembly like a backward local authority of about 20 years ago, and I am afraid that remains our position. The other place apparently agreed with this approach and rejected this Amendment by the remarkably comfortable majority (in these days) of 23. Therefore, I welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in so far as it refers to not insisting on Amendment No. 80 but I am afraid that after that I part company with him.

We now have a rather different proposition before us about the admission of the public. This is more akin to the proposal which was advanced in this House during the Committee stage but withdrawn after it had been criticised as being impracticable. I shall seek to persuade the House that this revised proposal is either misconceived or, at best, unnecessary. But first I must reiterate what I have said on previous occasions, that the Government are opposed in principle to any provision of the sort proposed, but not because they want or expect the Welsh Assembly to operate behind closed doors. On the contrary, we are certain that the Welsh Assembly will be eager to admit both Press and public whenever possible to the full Assembly and to its committees. However, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the Assembly is also the executive and circumstances can be envisaged when from time to time discussions will have to be confidential. An example might be discussions about the letting of a particular contract or a discussion about a particular individual.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why the standing orders might not provide for those particular meetings to be held in confidence?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, if the noble Lord will contain his impatience he will find that I shall come to that point. The Government's position on this is fairly straightforward. All these circumstances cannot be precisely envisaged and provided for in advance. It must be left to the Assembly to settle these matters for itself and in our judgment there is no need for a statutory provision in the Wales Act either to obstruct or to prod the Assembly in the required direction.

I am afraid that the thinking of noble Lords opposite seems to be founded on the proposition that if left to itself the Welsh Assembly will conduct as much of its activities as possible behind closed doors, out of sight of both Press and public, and, to quote that phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in a previous debate, there will be a great deal of "whispering behind closed doors" I believe that thinking of this sort flies in the face of political reality. We have no doubt whatever that the Members of the Assembly will be just as eager to have their words recorded by the media and to admit the public as are Parliamentarians at Westminster. I see no reason to assume that totally different standards will apply in Wales from those which apply here in or another place. I have heard no justification for that view put forward by noble Lords opposite. Who knows?—they might indeed decide to make arrangements, or to try to make arrangements, to get the television cameras into their proceedings. I repeat, the sort of proposal put forward in this Amendment flies in the face of political reality and were there to be any Members of that Assembly who attempted to move in this particularly reactionary direction I have not the slightest doubt that the pressure of Welsh public opinion and the media would ensure that they changed their position very briskly indeed.

Coming to the details of this proposal, prima facie it appears to require standing orders to be made for admitting the public in all circumstances to all meetings of the Assembly and its committees. This would be going a great deal further than we think proper or practicable at Westminster and, for the reasons I have already explained, an Amendment to this effect would be wholly misconceived. I have indicated that there might well be circumstances in which the Assembly would have to discuss particular items of business in private. Again, I have heard nobody on the other side of the House at any stage challenge that statement.

Therefore, we come to the second leg of the argument. If it is argued—and I quote the terms of the Amendment—that the admission of the public will not debar the Assembly from including in their standing orders provisions for excluding the public in certain circumstances such as I have described a few moments ago, what on earth is the point of the Amendment? I cannot see the point of it at all. If it is said that the Assembly can make provision for these exclusions in standing orders, why are we trying to put forward a statutory provision of this sort, which so far as I can see in those circumstances would have no signficant effect whatever.

I think we should also remind ourselves of another point. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the very pungent speech which he delivered when moving this Amendment, did not seek to explain to us why, if the Opposition was in favour of liberty and freedom on this matter, they did not take the same view on the Scotland Bill. It seems a little surprising that it is necessary to have Amendments of this sort for Wales whereas it is not necessary for Scotland.

With respect, I am perfectly sure that, for the reasons I have given, an Amendment of this sort, carried today, would not have the effect that noble Lords opposite imagine. I repeat, if it is intended that this should be tightly drawn and the Press and public would have to attend everything, in my view there are substantial reasons why that is not justified. If on the other hand, it is argued that in their standing orders they can exclude almost anybody in almost any circumstances it seems to me that the Amendment is quite pointless.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this occasion. It seems to me that the Amendment as drafted is widely drawn but not exclusive in any sense of the word. It is widely drawn to the extent that standing orders shall contain provision—that can be partial provision, total provision, negative provision, as he likes. There is also the point that standing orders can be changed almost at will. It happens in this House day after day that we are asked to vote on a Motion temporarily to ignore Standing Order No. so-and-so for the purpose of, for example, taking two stages of a Bill on one day, and there is no earthly reason under this Amendment, or, so far as I can see in the Bill, why this should not apply equally to the Welsh Assembly.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his support. I am not in the least convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. To start with, he has not taken note of the way in which we have made this a much more gentle Amendment by bringing it into standing orders and not into Statute. Secondly, I do not follow his argument that prima facie this order requires all meetings to be open to the public. Thirdly, I am again very puzzled by the Government's preparedness to resist even this modest proposal, and it leads one really to one of two conclusions; either they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth up her ear and will not listen to any reasons however sound, or they really intend that the committees and especially the executive committee of the Welsh Assembly shall be possessed of all the paraphernalia of secrecy upon which all really bad government depends.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Lord to help us with one particular matter which troubles us. If all this is true, why was such an Amendment not pressed so far as the Scotland Bill was concerned?

Lord ELTON

My Lords, the principal reason was that I took no part in the Scotland Bill. If either of the conclusions I have just adumbrated is correct, and I have a chilling suspicion that both of them will be, then Cymru byddwch yn ofalus— Wales look out! I think the Welsh people want to have the right to listen to their Assemblymen debating. I think they have the right to listen to their Assemblymen debating. If their Assemblymen are so keen on publicity, they, too, would wish them to listen to them debating. To argue as strenuously as the Government have that this should not be the case to us is suspicious. I think that another place may take a different view when they see the new approach to the problem that my noble friend Lord Swansea has moved. I beg to press the Amendment.

6.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 80 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81 but propose the said Amendment in lieu thereof?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Non-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS
Alport, L. Emmet of Amberley, B. Penrhyn, L.
Amory, V. Faithfull, B. Porritt, L.
Atholl, D. Fortescue, E. Rankeillour, L.
Auckland, L. Gainford, L. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Avon, E. Glenkinglas, L. Reigate, L.
Balerno, L. Gridley, L. Romney, E.
Barnby, L. Hatherton, L. St. Davids, V.
Boston, L. Henley, L. Sandys, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Selkirk, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Killearn, L. Sharples, B.
Carr of Hadley, L. Kinnaird, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Carrington, L. Kintore, E. Stamp, L.
Cathcart, E. Lauderdale, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cockfield, L. Long, V. Strathcarron, L.
Cottesloe, L. Lyell, L. Strathclyde, L.
Craigavon, V. Mancroft, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Croft, L. Marley, L. Sudeley, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Merrivale, L. Trefgarne, L.
de Clifford, L. Middleton, L. Trenchard, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Monk Bretton, L. Tweeddale, M.
Digby, L. Monson, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Mottistone, L. Vernon, L.
Dundee, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] Vickers, B.
Eccles, V. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Elles, B. Newall, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Northchurch, B. Young, B.
Elton, L. O'Hagan, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Hall, V. Paget of Northampton, L.
Aylestone, L. Harris of Greenwich, L. Parry, L.
Banks, L. Hatch of Lusby, L. Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Birk, B. Henderson, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Boothby, L. Hood, V. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Howie of Troon, L. Redcliffe-Maud, L.
Brockway, L. Hughes, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Jacques, L. Seear, B.
Castle, L. Janner, L. Segal, L.
Collison, L. Kirkhill, L. Shackleton, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Stedman,
Davies of Penrhys, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Denington, B. Lovell-Davis, L. Stone, L.
Diamond, L. McCarthy, L. Strabolgi, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) McCluskey, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. McGregor of Durris, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Foot, L. McNair, L. Whaddon, L.
Gaitskell, B. Milner of Leeds, L. White, B.
Gladwyn, L. Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. Wigoder, L.
Gordon-Walker, L. Morris of Grasmere, L. Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Murray of Gravesend, L. Wise, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Oram, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Hale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.